Next Article in Journal
Quality of Work Life as a Precursor to Work–Life Balance: Collegiality and Job Security as Moderators and Job Satisfaction as a Mediator
Previous Article in Journal
Feasibility Study of Managed Aquifer Recharge Deployment on the Island of Vis (Croatia)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su15139935
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Structural Relationship between Theme Park Servicescape, Instagramability, Brand Attitude and Intention to Revisit

by
Jun Heo
1,
Wonseok Lee
2 and
Joonho Moon
3,*
1
Global MICE Major, Dongduk Women’s University, Seoul 02748, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Tourism and Recreation, Kyonggi University, Suwon 443760, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Tourism Administration, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 9935; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139935
Submission received: 12 May 2023 / Revised: 13 June 2023 / Accepted: 20 June 2023 / Published: 21 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this research was to identify the sub-dimensions of servicescape and investigate the structural relationship among servicescape, Instagramability, brand attitude, and intention to revisit. For data collection, Amazon Mechanical Turk was employed. The number of valid observations for data analysis was 422. A structural equation model was the main instrument used to test the research hypotheses. It was revealed that servicescape positively affects Instagramability and brand attitude. The results also revealed that servicescape exerts a positive impact on intention to revisit. Additionally, the results showed that brand attitude is positively associated with Instagramability. Last, it was found that intention to revisit is positively influenced by Instagramability. This study sheds light on the literature by exhibiting the structural relationship among servicescape, Instagramability, brand attitude, and intention to revisit.

1. Introduction

Tourists visiting special places take photos to memorize important moments [1,2]. Theme park visitors also tend to show similar features because there are various facilities and decorations in theme parks that are adequate for photographing. Despite the characteristics of theme park visitors, extant works have scarcely investigated theme park visitors regarding parks’ facilities and taking pictures with them. Regarding this aspect, this research uses servicescape and Instagramability as the main attributes. Servicescape refers to atmosphere of a service place, which causes customers to perceive a certain psychological reaction [3,4,5]. Servicescape is a widely used notion for understanding the effect of service conditions on customer reactions in many prior papers [6,7,8]. Moreover, servicescape has been defined differently depending on the domain of business because customers’ interests are varied depending on the type of business [9,10,11]. This fact implies that inspection for the definition of servicescape for theme park businesses is a worthwhile topic. However, insufficient works on the definition of servicescape in cases of theme parks have been implemented. Regarding prior studies, Lugosi et al. [12] documented that layout and ambient conditions are imperative elements in servicescapes, and Lee et al. [13] claimed that the style of décor is a critical element of a servicescape. Additionally, the extant literature has stated that rides are important attractions from the viewpoint of theme park users [14,15]. Integrating the claims of previous research, this research thus was conducted to examine the definition of servicescape using four sub-dimensions (e.g., ambient conditions, layout, rides, and style of décor) in cases of theme park businesses.
Instagramability is related to the desire to take a picture and post it to the public as a sort of self-journalism, and it could become a trend influenced by the desire to display important personal moments [16,17,18]. Although two elements are critical in tourists using theme parks, scholars in the tourism field have insufficiently studied the relationship between two elements. Thus, the purpose of this research is to explore the link between servicescape and Instagramability in the theme park sector to close this research gap. Theme park businesses also depend on brand management because brands allow tourists to speculate on service products, which are intangible [19,20,21]. Scholars have also argued that consumers’ assessments of a certain brand are likely to affect their decision making and intention [21,22,23]. Moreover, prior studies have contended that brand attitude is a key attribute in exploring market reactions [24,25]. Regarding the reasoning of previous research, we selected brand attitude as a main point of this research. Additionally, theme park businesses use brands to overcome the invisible characteristics of service business [19,26]. Indeed, theme parks manage their businesses using brands such as Disney and Universal Studios [19,21].
The last attribute of this research is intention to revisit as a sort of loyalty behavior. Intention to revisit is associated with greater profits of service businesses by retaining current customers, which could be applied to the theme park business [22,27,28]. Indeed, numerous scholars have adopted intention to revisit as an outcome variables [27,28,29,30,31,32]. The fertile research on intention to revisit indicates that it is worthwhile to explore the antecedents of intention to revisit. Because this research employed three attributes, namely servicescape, Instagramability, and brand attitude, we aim to examine the determinants of intention to use using these three variables.
Together, this research was conducted to analyze the structural relationship among servicescape, Instagramability, brand attitude, and intention to revisit by studying theme park service users. This study could shed light on the literature by clarifying the link among these variables, as well as defining the servicescape of theme park business areas. Therefore, this study is worthwhile in that it seeks to understand the characteristics of theme park users further. Additionally, this study produces managerial implications based on the results of its analysis, which could become the guidelines for businesses to achieve business sustainability, ultimately by offering information to customers.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Servicescape

Servicescape is an artificial physical area for providing customers with service [6,7,8,33]. It is an essential element of service domains because service user require visible evidence to determine the products that they are supposed to purchase [3,9,34,35]. Scholars have presented diverse servicescape elements: ambient conditions, layout, and style of decor [3,4,5,9]. Additionally, the extant literature has asserted that rides could become a type of imperative physical evidence in the theme park sector because they help users to speculate about services that are invisible [10,11,36]. Indeed, servicescape attributes have been studied in diverse domains. For instance, Hank and Line [4] researched the restaurant servicescape; Lockwood and Pyun [5] explored the hotel servicescape. In addition, Han et al. [37] documented the effect of servicescape in the health care service domain, and Lee and Jeong [38] expanded the area of servicescape to cyberspace. Furthermore, scholars have employed servicescape as a theoretical underpinning of the areas of service [39] and hospital business domains [12]. Given the review of the literature, it is ensured that servicescape has been commonly examined in various domains.

2.2. Brand Attitude

Brand attitude is defined as how consumers evaluate a certain brand; it can be expressed either positively or negatively [40,41,42]. Many studies have inspected brand attitude as a central topic. Percy and Rossiter [43] explored the effect of advertising on brand attitude. Foroudi [44] employed brand attitude as the core variable to understand hotel consumer behavior. Dolbec and Chebat [45] showed that brand attitude functions as both an antecedent and a consequence of certain attributes. In a similar vein, Zarantonello and Schmitt [46] reported that brand attitude was a mediator in determining the effect of event marketing. Hwang et al. [47] additionally explored coffee shop customer characteristics using brand attitude as a main factor. Zanger et al. [48] researched consumer behaviors of augmented reality marketing by employing brand attitude as the main variable. It is thus implied that numerous studies have examined various antecedents and consequences of brand attitude.

2.3. Instagramability

Instagram is a form of self-journalism in which individuals share their daily lives with others [16,17,18]. For Instagram, a picture of a memorable moment is important for posting. Therefore, attaining interesting photos is essential for Instagram to post on this social media service [49,50,51]. Individuals place great value on showing off their special moments using Instagram, offering information to other consumers and accomplishing popularity as a marketing tool [17,52,53]. Additionally, scholars have stated that Instagram is an important instrument for psychological motivation, and it is useful for marketing purposes [54,55,56]. To achieve such positive effects, individuals need to visit famous places to take picture worthy of sharing, so the visual aspect of tourism destinations plays a significant role in photographing [50,51]. It can be inferred that the visual aspect of servicescape is likely to stimulate the desire for Instagramability.

2.4. Intention to Revisit

Intention to revisit indicates an individual’s desire to visit a certain service area, such as restaurants, hotels, resorts, and tourism destinations [27,28,29]. Visiting more is linked to the sales growth of businesses because consumers spend their money purchasing products when they visit service areas [30,31,32]. Hence, numerous scholars have chosen intention to revisit as an outcome variable to examine the behavioral characteristics of customers in service domains. For instance, Stylos et al. [28] explored the determinants of intention to revisit in the area of destination marketing. Wicker et al. [57] performed research using intention to revisit as the dependent variable in the area of marathon events. Akbari et al. [32] researched influential factors on intention to revisit in the lodging industry context. Hallmann et al. [30] documented antecedents of intention to revisit by investigating sports event participants. Hence, it can be inferred that intention to revisit has been commonly examined by numerous scholars.

2.5. Hypothesis Development

The determinants of Instagramability have been rarely explored by scholars in the area of the tourism sector. Mendes [53] examined influential variables regarding the Instagramability in the context of the fashion and textile business domains using visually appealing aspects; the results implied that visually appealing aspects in events led participants to take more pictures for their Instagram. Tarigan et al. [58] also explored café customers, and interior design positively influenced Instagramability. Nevertheless, the effect of servicescape on Instagramability has been only rarely examined in the theme park domain. This study thus proposes the following research hypothesis.
H1:
Servicescape positively affects Instagramability.
Previous studies have documented an empirical relationship between brand and servicescape. For example, McAlexander and Schouten [59] showed that servicescape plays an essential role in the positive appraisal of a brand. Jang [60] revealed that servicescape positively impacted brand communication in the area of café businesses. Ben Haobin et al. [61] additionally investigated the impact of servicescape on the brand attitudes of hotel service users, and the study found a significant association between the two attributes. Hence, this research proposes the following research hypothesis.
H2:
Servicescape positively affects brand attitude.
The next area of Instagramability is brand attitude. Djafarova and Bowes [62] argued that individuals depend on brand power to attain credibility for posted pictures on Instagram. Beall et al. [63] also claimed that tourists value more destination branding for posting to their Instagram because they want to be respected by the public who subscribe to their content. Velar [64] also suggested that branding is a substantial element in Instagram marketing because a starting point of storytelling is branding, which results in posts on Instagram. Given the review of the literature, the following research hypothesis is proposed.
H3:
Brand attitude positively affects Instagramability.
The extant literature exposed a link regarding intention to revisit, which could be regarded as a sort of loyalty behavior. For instance, according to Tarigan et al. [58], Instagramable interiors are important to build customer loyalty in the coffee shop context. Indirectly, Liu et al. [65] revealed that Instagramability perceptions of restaurants result in higher levels of purchase intention. Considering the findings of prior studies, it can be inferred that Instagramability might exert a positive impact on revisit intention, which is a sort of positive customer reaction. With regard to the evidence, this work proposes the following research hypothesis.
H4:
Instagramability positively affects intention to revisit.
Prior studies have reported a positive association between brand attitude and intention to revisit in various business domains: online transactions [22], chain coffee shops [66], and restaurants (Foroudi et al., 2021). In addition, Hwang et al. [24] demonstrated the positive effect of brand attitudes on the loyalty behaviors of restaurant customers. Machi et al. [67] also found a positive impact of brand attitude on loyalty by exploring online shoppers. Similarly, Kainde and Mandagi [68] disclosed a positive effect of brand attitude on loyalty by exploring education service users. Thus, this research proposes the following research hypothesis.
H5:
Brand attitude positively affects intention to revisit.
Social media stimulates users using media and photo. Indeed, prior studies have provided evidence for this point. Laroche et al. [69] revealed that social media played a significant role in building customer loyalty. Erdoğmuş and Cicek [70] revealed the positive effect of media on loyalty behavior. Leung and Bai [71] additionally documented positive effects of destination images through social media on intention to revisit. Hooker and Cooper [72] also demonstrated the significant and positive association between Instagram content and intention to travel. Additionally, Park and Namkung [73] disclosed the positive impact of Instagram marketing on customer decision making processes in the area of café businesses. Regarding the literature, review, it can be inferred that Instagramability could become an essential attribute for consumer decision making. Based on the review of the literature, this research proposes the following hypothesis.
H6:
Instagramability positively affects intention to revisit.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Model and Data Collection

Figure 1 depicts the research model. Sub-dimensions of servicescape include ambient condition, layout, ride, and style of décor. Servicescape exerts positive effects on Instagramability and brand attitude. Brand attitude is also positively related to Instagramability. Additionally, intention to revisit is positively influenced by servicescape, Instagramability, and brand attitude. Therefore, this research proposes six research hypotheses.
To recruit survey participants, this research chose Amazon Mechanical Turk, which enables researchers to collect responses by offering monetary compensation to survey participants. Amazon Mechanical Turk was useful in collecting the data of a United States-based sample, indicating that most participants were American. The survey also was randomly implemented. The data collection period was between 18 February and 21 February 2022. This research asked participants whether they were experienced with branded theme parks. Then, we asked the brand names of theme parks. Survey participants who has no experience in theme parks or branded theme park experiences were omitted from the data analysis. At the beginning, 500 participants were recruited, and 78 observations were omitted by the screening process. Consequently, 422 observations were used for the data analysis.

3.2. Measurement Items

For the measurements, this study mainly adopted a Likert five-point scale (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree). The prior literature was researched to develop survey questions. Prior studies were used for references to servicescape sub-dimensions: ambient conditions, layout, rides, and style of decor [3,4,5,9]. Instagramability was searched in the prior research, and the derived items were reviewed by three academics who are experts in tourist behavior domains [53]. The measurement items for brand attitude [44,45,46] and intention to revisit [28,31,32] were derived from previous studies, and the items were adjusted to fit the aims of the current work. Table 1 illustrates the items for measurement. All constructs except for brand attitude were composed of four items. Brand attitude consisted of five items, and a five-point scale (1: bad, 5: good) was employed.

3.3. Data Analysis

This research performed frequency analysis to derive demographic information. We then implemented confirmatory factor analysis, correlation matrix, and structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses. For convergent validity, the factor loading used a cut-off value of 0.5, and construct reliability used a cut-off value if 0.7 [74,75,76]. Next, this work set the condition that the square root of average variance extracted should be greater than the correlation coefficient to assess discriminant validity [74,75,76]. That is, this research employed both confirmatory factor analysis and correlation matrices to ensure the validity and reliability of the measurements. Structural equation modeling was performed to test the hypotheses. Scholars have alleged that the goodness of fit of structural equation models can be evaluated using multiple indices, including Q (CMIN/degree of freedom) < 3, RMR (root mean-square residual) < 0.05, RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) < 0.05, GFI (goodness of fit index) > 0.8, NFI (normed fit index) > 0.8, RFI (relative fit index) > 0.8, IFI (incremental fit index) > 0.8, TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index) > 0.8, and CFI (comparative fit index) > 0.8 [74,75,76].

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Information

Table 2 depicts the demographic information of the survey participants. Men and women numbered 201 and 221, respectively. The number of employed participants was 360. Table 2 also provide information about age and monthly household income. Regarding annual visiting frequency, the frequency of less than 1 time was 130, that of 1–2 times was 224, that of 3–5 times was 52, and that more than 5 times was 16. Information about visited theme parks is also provided in Table 2 (Disneyworld: 241, Disneyland 101, and Universal Studios: 80).

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Correlation Matrix

Table 3 displays the results of confirmatory factor analysis. The goodness of fit indices indicate that the model is quite sound (χ2 = 874.513, df = 367, Q(χ2/df) = 2.383, RMR = 0.046, GFI = 0.872, NFI = 0.900, RFI = 0.889, IFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.932, CFI = 0.939, and RMSEA = 0.057). For AVE, the values were greater than the criterion of 0.5. All factor loading values and construct reliability values were greater than the cut-off values (factor loading: 0.5; and construct reliability: 0.7). The range of mean values is presented in Table 3 (Ambient condition: 4.36–4.38, Layout: 4.21–4.35, Ride: 4.36–4.41, Style of décor: 4.04–4.39, Instagramability: 3.76–4.29, Brand attitude: 4.18–4.43, and Intention to revisit: 4.14–4.24). All things considered, the convergent validity of the measurement items was ensured. Most constructs were composed of four items, while brand attitude consisted of five measurement items. Four sub-dimensions of servicescape were confirmed by the results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 4 is the correlation matrix. Servicescape positively correlates with Instagramability (r = 0.680), brand attitude (r = 0.795), and intention to revisit (r = 0.623). Instagramability positively correlates with brand attitude (r = 0.626) and intention to revisit (r = 0.585). Brand attitude positively correlates with intention to revisit (r = 0.567). Additionally, most of the square roots of the diagonal values are greater than the correlation coefficients other than that of brand attitude (r = 0.795), indicating that the discriminant validity of the constructs is generally acceptable.

4.3. Results of Hypotheses Testing

Table 5 reports the results of structural equation modeling. The model is statistically significant with regard to the goodness of fit indices (χ2 = 874.513, df = 367, Q(χ2/df) = 2.383, RMR = 0.046, GFI = 0.872, NFI = 0.900, RFI = 0.889, IFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.932, CFI = 0.939, and RMSEA = 0.057). Servicescape positively affects Instagramability (β = 0.746, p < 0.05), brand attitude (β = 0.921, p < 0.05), and intention to use (β = 0.569, p < 0.05). Brand attitude also positively impacts Instagramability (β = 0.302, p < 0.05). Last, Instagramability (β = 0.339, p < 0.05) exerts positive effects on intention to revisit. In sum, all hypotheses other than H5 are supported.

5. Discussion

The aim of this research was to identify sub-dimensions of servicescapes in the domain of theme parks. Regarding the characteristics of theme park businesses, this research investigated four sub-dimensions (e.g., ambient, layout, ride, and style of deco) of the theme park servicescape. The proposed attributes appeared as valid manners based on the results of confirmatory factor analysis. The analysis suggested that ambience, layout, rides, and style of décor are the main elements for building a better service atmosphere for users in theme park businesses. Indeed, the overall mean values of all four constructs were greater than 4. Moreover, theme park visitors’ evaluations of brands were quite positive considering their mean values because most of the survey participants were experienced with theme parks with high brand values, such as Disney and Universal Studios. Moreover, the overall mean values (around four) of Instagramability indicated that theme park users regard taking picture for posting as a very important aspect. Next, this research examined the structural relationship among servicescape, Instagramability, brand attitude, and intention to revisit. The results presented the significant link among these attributes. In detail, the servicescapes of theme parks led theme park users to take more pictures in these places to post on their social networking services. In addition, the results indicated that authentic servicescapes of theme parks play a pivotal role in establishing better brand attitudes. Additionally, it is found that theme park users with more positive brand attitudes were more likely to take pictures for their Instagram. It can be inferred that Instagramability could be influenced by the assessment of certain brands in the service area. Last, the results implied that more Instagramable conditions and better perceptions of the servicescape of theme parks encouraged visitors’ intention to visit the place again, which in turn resulted in the sales growth of theme park businesses. However, it was found that the impact of brand attitude is not significantly related to intention to use. It could be explained by the magnitude. Compared to other attributes, namely Instagramability and servicescape, the impact of brand attitude is relatively weak from the viewpoint of users. In detail, servicescape and Instagramability might be able to provide a higher level of utility to the users of theme parks, while effect of brand attitude was limited as the only indirect attribute.

6. Conclusions and Implications

6.1. Theoretical Implication

This research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, this research scrutinized the sub-dimensions of servicescape in the theme park sector, and we reported four valid sub-elements: ambient conditions, layout, rides, and style of decor. The study sheds light on the literature by elaborating more on the theme park servicescape. Moreover, the extant literature has rarely explored the antecedents and consequences of Instagramability in the theme park area. To close this research gap, this research proposed several attributes: servicescape, brand attitude, and intention to revisit. The results are significant. They imply that Instagramability is an essential element in the context of theme park business user behaviors. In particular, this research is worthwhile in demonstrating the imperative effect of Instagramability in the area of theme park businesses. Furthermore, this research externally validated the outcomes of previous research by ensuring the structural relationship among servicescape, brand attitude, and intention to revisit [21,23,60,61]. In detail, the finding of the positive impact of servicescape on brand attitude is aligned with the findings of Ben Haobin et al. [61] and Jang [60].

6.2. Practical Implications

This study has practical implications for theme park managers. Managers might be able to consider the percentage of their budgets into the servicescape, such as building facilities harmonizing with natural environments, lighting, layout, constructing new rides, assuring the quality of rides, and the decor of theme park facilities and the natural resources of the places. Such efforts could bring about better brand reputations and beneficial Instagram marketing, which in turn could result in effective marketing. Additionally, managers need not only consider offering more Instagramable places, such as photo zones for theme park users, but they should also install lighting devices for better photos. Moreover, theme park managers could consider investing more in Instagram marketing to derive more consumer desire because tourists want to attain interesting pictures during their travel experiences, and influencers’ messages are likely to encourage potential travelers to make decisions to travel to theme parks. Theme park managers also might be able to allocate resources to brand management because it can render the place a more Instagramable location. Brand management might result in resource allocation to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) implementation because ESG plays a significant role in building a better brand reputation from the market. In doing so, theme parks might be able to attain more repeat guests. As a result, businesses could accomplish more sales by elevating intention to revisit for theme parks, and they in turn could become an avenue for achieving sustainability of businesses.

6.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study has limitations. It considered two elements to account for Instagramability. Future research might be able to find more diverse determinants of Instagramability. Using more varying brand dimensions (e.g., brand trust, brand loyalty, and brand love) could be a way to do so. Moreover, this study mainly depended on survey items. Future research might consider more diverse methods, such as an experimental design, to determine tourist behaviors in the theme park service sector. Furthermore, this study was limited to theme parks to examine the characteristics of Instagramability. Future research might include a more diverse context to inspect Instagramability because tourism attractions have varying Instagramable servicescapes. Additionally, future research might consider moderating variables to account for the characteristics of users. Moderating variables could consist of both psychological constructs and demographic variables.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, J.H.; writing—original draft, J.M.; writing—review and editing, W.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Garrod, B. Understanding the relationship between tourism destination imagery and tourist photography. J. Travel Res. 2009, 47, 346–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lo, I.S.; McKercher, B.; Lo, A.; Cheung, C.; Law, R. Tourism and online photography. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 725–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mari, M.; Poggesi, S. Servicescape cues and customer behavior: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Serv. Ind. J. 2013, 33, 171–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hanks, L.; Line, N. The restaurant social servicescape: Establishing a nomological framework. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 74, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lockwood, A.; Pyun, K. How do customers respond to the hotel servicescape. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 82, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Reimer, A.; Kuehn, R. The impact of servicescape on quality perception. Euro. J. Market. 2005, 39, 785–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Johnstone, M. The servicescape: The social dimensions of place. J. Market. Manag. 2012, 28, 1399–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M. The servicescape as an antecedent to service quality and behavioral intentions. J. Serv. Market. 2013, 27, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Rosenbaum, M.; Massiah, C. An expanded servicescape perspective. J. Serv. Manag. 2011, 22, 471–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Torres, E.N.; Milman, A.; Park, S. Delighted or outraged? Uncovering key drivers of exceedingly positive and negative theme park guest experiences. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2018, 1, 65–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Waysdorf, A.; Reijnders, S. Immersion, authenticity and the theme park as social space: Experiencing the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Int. J. Cult. Stud. 2018, 21, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Lugosi, P.; O’Brien, C.; Olya, H.; Pink, R.C.; Lavender, V. Evaluating impacts of the physical servicescape on satisfaction in cancer care waiting experiences. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 112, 103386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lee, C.J.; Wang, Y.C.; Cai, D.C. Physical factors to evaluate the servicescape of theme restaurants. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2015, 14, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Zheng, Y.; Wei, W.; Line, N.; Zhang, L. Integrating the tourist gaze with the social servicescape: Implications for creating memorable theme park experiences. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 93, 102782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bonfanti, A.; Vigolo, V.; Gonzo, E.; Genuardi, I. Customer experience management in themed amusement parks: The impact of safety measuRes. on the physical, social and digital servicescape of Gardaland Park. Consum. Behav. Tour. Hosp. 2023. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Barbosa, C.; Magalhães, M.; Nunes, M. Travel Instagramability: A Way of Choosing a Destination? In Impact of New Media in Tourism; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hosie, R. Instagrammability’: Most important factor for Millennials on choosing holiday destination. Independent 2017, 24. [Google Scholar]
  18. Litvin, S.; Goldsmith, R.; Pan, B. A retrospective view of electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Cheng, Q.; Du, R.; Ma, Y. Factors influencing theme park visitor brand-switching behaviour as based on visitor perception. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 1425–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fu, X.; Kang, J.; Tasci, A. Self-congruity and flow as antecedents of attitude and loyalty towards a theme park brand. J. Travel. Tour. Market. 2017, 34, 1261–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, J.; Choe, Y.; Song, H. Brand behavioral intentions of a theme park in China: An application of brand experience. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jung, N.; Kim, S.; Kim, S. Influence of consumer attitude toward online brand community on revisit intention and brand trust. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2014, 21, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Foroudi, P. Influence of brand signature, brand awareness, brand attitude, brand reputation on hotel industry’s brand performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 76, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Hwang, J.; Abbas, J.; Joo, K.; Choo, S.W.; Hyun, S.S. The effects of types of service providers on experience economy, brand attitude, and brand loyalty in the restaurant industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kao, G.H.Y.; Wang, S.W.; Farquhar, J.D. Modeling airline crisis management capability: Brand attitude, brand credibility and intention. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2020, 89, 101894. [Google Scholar]
  26. Cornelis, P.C. Effects of co-branding in the theme park industry: A preliminary study. Int. J. Cont Hosp. Manag. 2010, 22, 775–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ranjbarian, B.; Pool, J. The impact of perceived quality and value on tourists’ satisfaction and intention to revisit Nowshahr city of Iran. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2015, 16, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Stylos, N.; Vassiliadis, C.; Bellou, V.; Andronikidis, A. Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination. Tour. Manag. 2016, 53, 40–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kim, K.; Hallab, Z.; Kim, J. The moderating effect of travel experience in a destination on the relationship between the destination image and the intention to revisit. J. Hosp. Market. Manag. 2012, 21, 486–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hallmann, K.; Zehrer, A.; Müller, S. Perceived destination image: An image model for a winter sports destination and its effect on intention to revisit. J. Travel. Res. 2015, 54, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abbasi, G.; Kumaravelu, J.; Goh, Y.; Dara Singh, K. Understanding the intention to revisit a destination by expanding the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Span. J. Market. 2021, 25, 282–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Akbari, M.; Nazarian, A.; Foroudi, P.; Seyyed Amiri, N.; Ezatabadipoor, E. How corporate social responsibility contributes to strengthening brand loyalty, hotel positioning and intention to revisit? Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 1897–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tombs, A.; McColl-Kennedy, J. Social-servicescape conceptual model. Market. Theory 2003, 3, 447–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Harris, L.; Ezeh, C. Servicescape and loyalty intentions: An empirical investigation. Euro. J. Market. 2008, 42, 390–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Parish, J.; Berry, L.; Lam, S. The effect of the servicescape on service workers. J. Serv. Res. 2008, 10, 220–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Lillestol, T.; Timothy, D.; Goodman, R. Competitive strategies in the US theme park industry: A popular media perspective. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2015, 9, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Han, J.; Kang, H.; Kwon, G. A systematic underpinning and framing of the servicescape: Reflections on future challenges in healthcare services. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Lee, S.; Jeong, M. Effects of e-servicescape on consumers’ flow experiences. J. Hosp. Tour. Tech. 2012, 3, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kandampully, J.; Bilgihan, A.; Amer, S.M. Linking servicescape and experiencescape: Creating a collective focus for the service industry. J. Serv. Manag. 2023, 34, 316–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gardner, M. Does attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude under a brand evaluation set? J. Market. Res. 1985, 22, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Faircloth, J.; Capella, L.; Alford, B. The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. J. Market. Theory Pract. 2001, 9, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Park, C.; MacInnis, D.; Priester, J.; Eisingerich, A.; Iacobucci, D. Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Market. 2010, 74, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Percy, L.; Rossiter, J. A model of brand awareness and brand attitude advertising strategies. Psychol. Market. 1992, 9, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Foroudi, P.; Palazzo, M.; Sultana, A. Linking brand attitude to word-of-mouth and revisit intentions in the restaurant sector. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 221–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dolbec, P.; Chebat, J.C. The impact of a flagship vs. a brand store on brand attitude, brand attachment and brand equity. J. Ret. 2013, 89, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zarantonello, L.; Schmitt, B. The impact of event marketing on brand equity: The mediating roles of brand experience and brand attitude. Int. J. Adv. 2013, 32, 255–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Hwang, J.; Choe, J.Y.J.; Kim, H.M.; Kim, J.J. Human baristas and robot baristas: How does brand experience affect brand satisfaction, brand attitude, brand attachment, and brand loyalty? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 99, 103050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zanger, V.; Meißner, M.; Rauschnabel, P.A. Beyond the gimmick: How affective responses drive brand attitudes and intentions in augmented reality marketing. Psychol. Market. 2022, 39, 1285–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Munoz, C.; Towner, T. The image is the message: Instagram marketing and the 2016 presidential primary season. J. Political Market. 2017, 16, 290–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Khan, S. Instagram as a marketing tool for luxury brands. Int. J. Manag. Bus. Res. 2018, 8, 126. [Google Scholar]
  51. Huang, J.; Obracht-Prondzynska, H.; Kamrowska-Zaluska, D.; Sun, Y.; Li, L. The image of the city on social media: A comparative study using “big data” and “small data” methods in the Tri-City region in Poland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 206, 103977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Breithut, J.; Hebermehl, W.; Bethmann, S.; Wirth, K. Understanding forest pictures on social media–A method to grasp nonverbal dimensions of human–nature relationships. Environ. Soc. 2021, 7, 338–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mendes, S. The Instagrammability of the runway: Architecture, scenography, and the spatial turn in fashion communications. Fash. Theory 2021, 25, 311–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rejeb, A.; Rejeb, K.; Abdollahi, A.; Treiblmaier, H. The big picture on Instagram research: Insights from a bibliometric analysis. Telemat. Inform. 2022, 73, 101876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Staniewski, M.; Awruk, K. The influence of Instagram on mental well-being and purchasing decisions in a pandemic. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 174, 121287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Herzallah, D.; Muñoz-Leiva, F.; Liebana-Cabanillas, F. Drivers of purchase intention in Instagram Commerce. Span. J. Market. 2022. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wicker, P.; Hallmann, K.; Zhang, J. What is influencing consumer expenditure and intention to revisit? An investigation of marathon events. J. Sport Tour. 2012, 17, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tarigan, E.; Wijaya, M.; Marbun, P. The influence of lifestyle, physical environment, and menu variety on customer loyalty through customer satisfaction in the coffee shop. Int. J. Res. Rev. 2020, 7, 102–111. [Google Scholar]
  59. McAlexander, J.H.; Schouten, J.W. Brandfests: Servicescapes for the cultivation of brand equity. In Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets; NTC Publishing Group: Chicago, IL, USA, 1998; pp. 377–402. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jang, Y.J. The role of customer familiarity in evaluating green servicescape: An investigation in the coffee shop context. Int. J. Cont Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 693–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ben Haobin, Y.; Huiyue, Y.; Peng, L.; Fong, L. The impact of hotel servicescape on customer mindfulness and brand experience: The moderating role of length of stay. J. Hosp. Market. Manag. 2021, 30, 592–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Djafarova, E.; Bowes, T. Instagram made Me buy it’: Generation Z impulse purchases in fashion industry. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 59, 102345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Beall, J.; Boley, B.; Landon, A.; Woosnam, K. What drives ecotourism: Environmental values or symbolic conspicuous consumption? J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1215–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Velar, M. Luxury Fashion Storytelling: Branding Performance on Instagram. In Fashion Communication; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  65. Liu, H.; Feng, S.; Hu, X.S. Process vs. outcome: Effects of food photo types in online restaurant reviews on consumers’ purchase intention. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 102, 103179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ko, W.H.; Chiu, C.P. The relationships between brand attitude, customers’ satisfaction and revisiting intentions of the uni-versity students–a case study of coffee chain stores in Taiwan. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2008, 11, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Machi, L.; Nemavhidi, P.; Chuchu, T.; Nyagadza, B.; de Villiers, M.V. Exploring the impact of brand awareness, brand loyalty and brand attitude on purchase intention in online shopping. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kainde, S.J.; Mandagi, D.W. From likes to loyalty: The interplay of social media marketing in shaping education institution brand attitude and loyalty. J. Ekon. 2023, 12, 465–475. [Google Scholar]
  69. Laroche, M.; Habibi, M.R.; Richard, M.O. To be or not to be in social media: How brand loyalty is affected by social media? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Erdoğmuş, İ.E.; Cicek, M. The impact of social media marketing on brand loyalty. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 58, 1353–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Leung, X.Y.; Bai, B. How motivation, opportunity, and ability impact travelers’ social media involvement and revisit intention. J. Travel. Tour. Market. 2013, 30, 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hooker, A.M.; Cooper, K.E. Insta-spiration Sweeping the Nation: The Influence of Instagram on Intention to Travel to Yellowstone National Park. Rev. Socionetwork Strateg. 2022, 16, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Park, C.I.; Namkung, Y. The effects of instagram marketing activities on customer-based brand equity in the coffee industry. Sustability 2022, 14, 1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Babin, B.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hoyle, R. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Sage: Newcastle, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 09935 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 09935 g001
Table
Table 1. Measurement items.
Table 1. Measurement items.
ConstructCodeItem
Ambient conditionAM1The theme park had adequate lighting and natural views.
AM2The ambient condition of the theme park was appropriate.
AM3There was a suitable ambient condition at the theme park.
AM4The lighting and natural atmosphere of the theme park were sufficient for playing.
LayoutLO1The layout of the theme park was appealing.
LO2The composition of the theme park facilities was well organized.
LO3There was a fascinating layout of the theme park.
LO4The theme park offered an attractive layout.
RideRD1The theme park had charming rides.
RD2The theme park offered appealing rides.
RD3There were nice-looking rides in the theme park.
RD4The theme park offered exciting rides.
Style of décorDE1The theme park had fascinating decorations.
DE2The decor of the theme park was lucrative.
DE3The design of the theme park looked interesting.
DE4The design of the theme park was attractive.
InstagramabilityIN1The theme park was good for taking picture for Instagram.
IN2The theme park was adequate for taking picture for Instagram.
IN3I attained pictures worthy of Instagram at the theme park.
IN4From the theme park, I obtained pictures for Instagram.
Brand attitudeBA1The brand of the theme park was (negative-positive).
BA2The brand of the theme park was (unattractive-attractive).
BA3The brand of the theme park was (unfavorable-favorable).
BA4The brand of the theme park was (bad-good).
BA5The brand of the theme park was (unimportant-important).
Intention to revisitIR1I intend to revisit the theme park.
IR2I want to visit the theme park again.
IR3I have a revisit intention for the theme park.
IR4I will visit the theme park again.
Table
Table 2. Profile of survey participants (n = 422).
Table 2. Profile of survey participants (n = 422).
ItemFrequencyPercentage
Male20147.6
Female22152.4
20s or younger10224.2
30s17741.9
40s831297
50s 389.0
60 or older225.2
Employed36085.3
Unemployed6214.7
Monthly household income
Less than $20007116.8
$2000–$399910925.8
$4000–$599910023.7
$6000–$79996214.7
$8000–$9999266.2
More than $10,000 5412.8
Annual visiting frequency
Less than 1 time13030.8
1–2 times22453.1
3–5 times5212.3
More than 5 times163.8
Visited theme park
Disneyworld24157.1
Disneyland10123.9
Universal Studios8019.0
Table
Table 3. Illustration of measurement items.
Table 3. Illustration of measurement items.
Construct
(AVE)		Sub-DimensionCodeMeanSDLoadingCR
Servicescape
(0.613)		Ambient conditionAM14.370.750.7860.946
AM24.360.810.840
AM34.370.770.778
AM44.380.760.788
LayoutLO14.350.830.751
LO24.300.820.745
LO34.210.920.759
LO44.280.810.794
RideRD14.370.800.780
RD24.360.810.806
RD34.410.750.781
RD44.380.830.780
Style of décor DE14.360.820.727
DE24.040.980.625
DE34.420.750.752
DE44.390.800.798
Instagramability
(0.551)		IN1 4.290.920.8530.828
IN24.260.920.778
IN33.981.200.728
IN43.761.350.585
Brand attitude
(0.644)		BA1 4.410.740.8160.900
BA24.400.770.813
BA34.430.760.855
BA44.410.780.854
BA54.180.950.658
Intention to revisit
(0.743)		IR1 4.190.990.8990.920
IR24.240.970.850
IR34.141.070.840
IR44.181.000.857
Note: AVE denotes average value extracted, CR stands for construct reliability, and SD denotes standard deviation. χ2 = 874.513 df = 367 Q(χ2/df) = 2.383 RMR = 0.046 GFI = 0.872 NFI = 0.900 RFI = 0.889 IFI = 0.939 TLI = 0.932 CFI = 0.939 RMSEA = 0.057.
Table
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
Table 4. Correlation matrix.
1234
1. Servicescape0.783
2. Instagramability0.680 *0.742
3. Brand attitude0.795 *0.626 *0.802
4. Intention to revisit0.623 *0.585 *0.567 *0.862
Note: * p < 0.05, Diagonal is square root of AVE.
Table
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.
Table 5. Results of hypothesis testing.
PathCoefficient βt-Value Results
Servicescape → Instagramability0.7465.79 *Supported
Servicescape → Brand attitude0.92113.34 *Supported
Servicescape → Intention to revisit0.5693.77 *Supported
Brand attitude → Instagramability0.3022.84 *Supported
Instagramability → Intention to revisit0.3195.79 *Supported
Brand attitude → Intention to revisit0.1941.68Not supported
Note: * p < 0.05, goodness of fit indices: χ2 = 874.513 df = 367 Q(χ2/df) = 2.383 RMR = 0.046 GFI = 0.872 NFI = 0.900 RFI = 0.889 IFI = 0.939 TLI = 0.932 CFI = 0.939 RMSEA = 0.057.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Heo, J.; Lee, W.; Moon, J. Structural Relationship between Theme Park Servicescape, Instagramability, Brand Attitude and Intention to Revisit. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139935

AMA Style

Heo J, Lee W, Moon J. Structural Relationship between Theme Park Servicescape, Instagramability, Brand Attitude and Intention to Revisit. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):9935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139935

Chicago/Turabian Style

Heo, Jun, Wonseok Lee, and Joonho Moon. 2023. "Structural Relationship between Theme Park Servicescape, Instagramability, Brand Attitude and Intention to Revisit" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 9935. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139935

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop