Tourism Recreation Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20

Can tourist engagement enhance tourist

behavioural intentions? A combination of PLS-SEM
and fsQCA approaches

Siamak Seyfi, S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, Ali Vafaei-Zadeh & Kourosh

Esfandiar

To cite this article: Siamak Seyfi, S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, Ali Vafaei-Zadeh & Kourosh
Esfandiar (2021): Can tourist engagement enhance tourist behavioural intentions? A
combination of PLS-SEM and fsQCA approaches, Tourism Recreation Research, DOI:
10.1080/02508281.2021.1981092

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1981092

Published online: 21 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 223

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrr20
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1981092

Can tourist engagement enhance tourist behavioural intentions? A combination

of PLS-SEM and fsQCA approaches
a b
Siamak Seyfi , S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh , Ali Vafaei-Zadehc and Kourosh Esfandiar d

a
Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; bCentre for Research and Innovation in Tourism (CRiT), Taylor’s University,
Subang Jaya, Malaysia; cGraduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia; dSchool of Business and Law, Edith Cowan
University, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aims to investigate the effects of tourist engagement dimensions on revisit and Word of Received 5 February 2021
Mouth (WOM) intentions of heritage tourists. The data were collected from domestic tourists in the Accepted 3 September 2021
heritage city of Kashan, Iran. To analyse the collected data, this study applies Partial Least Squares –
KEYWORDS
Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) as a symmetric analysis technique, as well as fuzzy-set Tourist engagement; revisit
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) as an asymmetric analysis approach to strengthen the intention; WOM intention;
findings. The findings of PLS-SEM showed the significant effect of the absorption dimension on heritage tourism;
revisit intention, whereas these results demonstrated the significant effects of the dimensions of behavioural intentions
interaction, and identification on WOM intention. However, the results of fsQCA identified more
heterogeneous combinations of dimensions of visitor engagement to predict revisit and WOM
intentions. Overall, this study contributes to the extant literature on tourist engagement by
constructing a composite picture of tourist engagement dimensions on the behavioural
intentions of heritage tourists. The study’s theoretical contributions, its restrictions and practical
implications for heritage site operators are further discussed.

Introduction
2020). The studies of Rasoolimanesh et al. (2019) and
Consumer engagement in the creation and production Alrawadieh et al. (2019) reveal that tourist engagement
of new goods and services has proactively been has a positive relationship with destination loyalty and
pursued by firms as a key element for securing a sustain- revisit intentions. Furthermore, several studies also
able competitive advantage in the growing fierce mar- suggested a positive relationship between the visitor
ketplace (Hollebeek, 2011). The concept of consumer engagement during the visit and the enhanced memor-
engagement has been examined and conceptualised able experiences (Bapiri et al., 2021; Chen & Rahman,
in several disciplines such as psychology, sociology, 2018; Seyfi et al., 2020).
organisational behaviour, marketing (e.g. Brodie et al., While such studies highlight the significant role of
2011; Verhoef et al., 2010) and tourism (e.g. Rasoolima- engagement in shaping tourist experience and sub-
nesh et al., 2019; Teng, 2020). sequently tourism development in a destination, the
In tourism, the concept of tourist engagement effects of tourism engagement dimensions on behavioural
towards a tourism destination has been viewed as a intentions of heritage tourists have not adequately been
key influential element in relation to tourist loyalty and addressed in the extant literature. This emphasises the
subsequent behavioural intentions (Brodie et al., 2011; need for further inquiry to gain a better and broader
Harrigan et al., 2017). Thus, creating tourist engagement understanding of heritage tourists’ experiences and to
is an essential part of establishing sustainable relations advance understanding of engagement in a heritage
with tourists and fostering a long-term business per- tourism setting. Therefore, to fill this gap, the current
formance. Brodie et al. (2011) argue that higher levels study aims to investigate the effects of different dimen-
of tourist engagement with a destination positively sions of visitor engagement on behavioural intentions
affects tourist attitude and thereby increasing their including revisit and Word of Mouth (WOM) intentions
behavioural intentions towards a destination. The role using both symmetric and asymmetric approaches to
of tourist engagement in tourism experiences and get deeper insights. This study therefore contributes to
behaviour has also been acknowledged by several the extant literature on tourist engagement by construct-
studies (Chen & Rahman, 2018; Rather, 2019; Teng, ing a composite picture of tourist engagement dimensions

CONTACT S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh [email protected], [email protected]

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. SEYFI ET AL.

on the behavioural intentions of heritage tourists. The Tourist engagement

results derived from the current study can also assist heri- The concept of tourist engagement originated from that
tage site marketers and operators in designing successful of customer engagement (Huang & Choi, 2019), which
marketing strategies for tourism destinations by establish- involves customers’ commitment and interactions. The
ing or improving a tourist engagement which motivates engagement concept was introduced by psychological
subsequent behavioural intentions. research and has been the focus of extensive research
in several disciplines including psychology, sociology,
marketing and organisational behaviour (Brodie et al.,
Conceptual framework and hypotheses 2011), communication (Campbell & Kwak, 2010), and
development educational science (Fredricks et al., 2004).
Theoretical framework Marketing Science Institute has defined consumer
engagement as ‘customers’ behavioural manifestation
This research focuses on the relationship between cogni- toward a brand or firm beyond purchase, which results
tive factors (i.e. tourist engagement) (Bryce et al., 2015; from motivational drivers including WOM activity, rec-
Harrigan et al., 2017; Taheri et al., 2019) and conative ommendations, customer-to-customer interactions,
factors such as WOM and revisit intention (Agapito blogging, writing reviews, and other similar activities’
et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2018; Simpson & Siguaw, (So et al., 2014, p. 306).
2008). The framework of this study is conceptualised Engagement is a critical instrument in environments
based on the cognitive–affective–conative model for with high degrees of tourists interactions, where
explaining attitude proposed by Fishbein (1967). This greater levels of engagement may improve the entire
model has been utilised in many previous studies to tourist experiences (Chen & Rahman, 2018; Taheri
investigate user engagement (Bryce et al., 2015; Harri- et al., 2014). Tourist engagement has recently been
gan et al., 2017; Su et al., 2020), behavioural intention under increasing academic scrutiny in hospitality and
(Han et al., 2011) and WOM communications (Harrigan tourism-related literature within the context of festivals
et al., 2017; Simpson & Siguaw, 2008). (Organ et al., 2015), tourist destinations (Chen &
The hierarchical nature of the relationship between Rahman, 2018), tourism brands (So et al., 2014, 2016),
cognitive, affective and conative dimensions in the and cultural heritage sites (Alrawadieh et al., 2019).
context of destination image was tested and confirmed The definition of engagement varies in different disci-
by Agapito et al. (2013) validating that conative image plines. In some studies, engagement has been con-
is the consequence of cognitive image. Fu (2019) investi- sidered as a unidimensional variable whereas in some
gated the effect of cognitive loyalty on conative loyalty in other studies it has been evaluated as a multidimen-
heritage tourism. Similarly, Yuksel et al. (2010) hypoth- sional variable (Brodie et al., 2011). However, based on
esised that cognitive loyalty influences conative loyalty. the subject and context of a study, engagement can
Besides of cognitive–affective–conative model, in their be measured and adapted differently. Nevertheless,
conceptual model, So et al. (2014) argue that behavioural despite the overarching attention to tourist engage-
intention is the outcome variable of customer engage- ment, the conceptualisation of engagement has been
ment including identification, enthusiasm, attention, subjected to varying interpretations (Rasoolimanesh
absorption, and interaction. This argument is confirmed et al., 2019; So et al., 2014; So et al., 2016; Taheri et al.,
by another study conducted by Harrigan et al. (2017). 2014). Amid these growing studies on the conceptualis-
Moreover, based on the same concept, Koenig-Lewis ation of tourist engagement, the multidimensional con-
et al. (2021) argued that behavioural intention is an ceptualisation of visitor engagement proposed by So
outcome of visitor engagement in cultural festivals. et al. (2014) has been the widely used scale (e.g. Rasoo-
limanesh et al., 2019; So et al., 2016). This multidimen-
sional tourist engagement scale comprises five
Hypothesis development
dimensions: identification, enthusiasm, attention,
Based on the above discussion, we conceptualised the absorption, and interaction. This study has therefore
effect of tourist engagement on behavioural intentions adopted this scale. According to So et al. (2014), enthu-
such as revisit and WOM intentions which are the siasm dimension reflects the high level of excitement
focus of this study or as illustrated in Figure 1. As such, and interest of a person with regard to the focus of
the following subsections of the paper provide the engagement. Therefore, tourists who are engaged with
descriptions and justifications of the constructs and a travel destination have an enthusiastic and passionate
their propositions included in the model. attitude about the destination (Rasoolimanesh et al.,
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 3

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

2019), whereas attention dimension is defined as the studies indicated that visitor’s engagement with the
attentiveness of a tourist to the destination (So et al., events held at the tourism locations will enhance their
2016). The absorption dimension is referred to the intention to revisit (Scarpi et al., 2019). A study con-
concept that a tourist is totally absorbed in their destina- ducted by Bryce et al. (2015) highlighted the positive
tion experience; consequently, the engaged tourist can effect of tourist engagement on revisit intention. There-
simply do not remember how much time he or she fore, if tourists are highly engaged with destinations,
spends at a destination (So et al., 2014). Also, it is they are most likely to return to the same location in
deemed possible to consider tourist engagement from the future (Chen & Chen, 2010; Huang & Choi, 2019;
an interactive viewpoint, which mainly includes dimen- Prayag et al., 2013). Organ et al. (2015) argued that a
sions of interaction and identification. Interactions higher level of tourist engagement is positively associ-
between tourists and other stakeholders, such as local ated with tourist intention to revisit and recommend
people, are explained in the interaction dimension as local food. Moreover, So et al. (2016) highlighted the
advocated by Rasoolimanesh et al., 2019. Finally, identifi- same report; high engagement of tourists will result in
cation is the perceived oneness of a person to the desti- their revisit intention. Vittersø et al. (2017) has presented
nation or belonging to it. Sometimes, a tourist might an empirical study to support the impact of tourist
highly identify him/herself with a destination so that it engagement on revisit intention. Besides, Pan et al.
is difficult to separate it from their sense of self (Rasooli- (2020) indicated that tourist engagement might result
manesh et al., 2019; So et al., 2016). in revisit intentions. People who expressed a stronger
level of identification with the destination as a brand
Tourist engagement and revisit intention were more likely to visit and/or revisit the location in
Studies on tourist intention to revisit or recommend a the future (Stokburger-Sauer, 2010). In addition, Rather
destination is gaining more attention (Rasoolimanesh (2020) highlighted that visitor engagement with
et al., 2020; Vittersø et al., 2017). Intentions of revisit tourism destinations positively influences behavioural
refer to a visitor’s desire to return to a location (Brodie intention such as revisit intention and WOM. Therefore,
et al., 2011). Many studies have focused on revisit inten- this study argues that tourists who are highly engaged
tion to assure the success of tourism destinations (Kumar with destinations are most likely to revisit the same
& Kaushik, 2020; Sharifi-Tehrani & Esfandiar, 2018). Prior location . Hence, we proposed the following hypotheses.
4 S. SEYFI ET AL.

H1: Enthusiasm has a positive effect on revisit intention. country having three UNESCO-listed elements along
H2: Attention has a positive effect on revisit intention. with some tentatively listed entities and splendid histori-
H3: Absorption has a positive effect on revisit intention.
cal buildings and traditional architectural works of art
H4: Interaction has a positive effect on revisit intention.
H5: Identification has a positive effect on revisit intention. (UNESCO, 2020). There are more than 300 heritage
elements including historical houses, mosques, bazaar,
Tourist engagement and WOM intention and a garden among others (Rasoolimanesh et al.,
Derived from marketing discipline, WOM is described as 2019). Kashan is a major holiday destination for domestic
verbal, one-on-one communication about a product or and international tourists (Gannon et al., 2021). Before
service (Lai et al., 2020; Simpson & Siguaw, 2008). In a COVID-19, the city attracted over one million domestic
similar vein, Jalilvand et al. (2017) defined WOM as infor- visitors per year and over 200,000 foreign tourists
mal communication between the consumers and those (Gannon et al., 2021). For these reasons, Kashan was
interested in the products or services. WOM communi- chosen as the study location for this research.
cation has increasingly become a significant concept in
contemporary marketing (Kankhuni & Ngwira, 2021) as Data collection
consumers’ behaviour is becoming progressively resist-
ant to conventional advertising and other marketing The quantitative method using a self-administered ques-
communications. Not only does positive WOM publicity tionnaire was applied to conduct this study and to
creates a positive image of the destination but also raise collect data. The items to measure dimensions of
awareness of the destination among people who may visitor engagement (VE) (i.e. Enthusiasm, Attention,
not be familiar with the area. Positive WOM indicates Absorption, Interaction, and Identification) were
the customer’s loyalty and increases the likelihood of a adapted from So et al. (2014, 2016). The items to
customer purchasing the firm’s products. measure revisit intention were adapted from Bonn
Prior literature posits that WOM influences tourists’ et al., (2017) and Chen and Chen (2010), and the items
behaviour and consumption decisions (e.g. Correia & to measure WOM intention were adapted from Pandey
Kozak, 2016; Jalilvand et al., 2017). WOM concept relies and Sahu (2020) and Yen and Tang (2015). The question-
on cognitive, emotive, and interactionist viewpoints naire was administered in Persian, the respondents’
(Taheri et al., 2021). Consumer engagement has long native language. To ensure the equivalence of the
been thought to indicate the likelihood of repurchase items in Persian from English, the researcher was
or WOM intention in the marketing literature (Chen assisted by two bilingual translators (i.e. researchers of
et al., 2021; Hollebeek, 2011). Therefore, this study this study) to apply a translation-back-translation
aims to investigate WOM as an outcome of visitor method to the questionnaire (Sharifi-Tehrani & Esfan-
engagement. Previous studies in tourism demonstrated diar, 2018). The questionnaire was then pre-tested by
that higher level of visitor engagement impacts WOM interviewing five experts and pilot tested with a
intention positively (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021b). sample of 30 tourists. This led to some minor paraphras-
Engagement has been proven to result in revisit inten- ing for those items that provided low internal consist-
tions and positive WOM (So et al., 2014). However, ency to ensure the reliability and validity of the
study on tourist engagement and WOM behaviour is questionnaire.
growing as an important topic in tourism and hospitality The data for this study were collected from May to
studies, although insight in this field remains limited. August 2019. Purposive sampling technique was
Therefore, based on these arguments, this study posits: employed to collect data from domestic tourists in
some selected heritage sites in Kashan, Iran. A total
H6: Enthusiasm has a positive effect on WOM intention. number of 350 questionnaires were completed. Among
H7: Attention has a positive effect on WOM intention.
the total number of 350 completed questionnaires, 204
H8: Absorption has a positive effect on WOM intention.
H9: Interaction has a positive effect on WOM intention. respondents were male, whereas 146 females partici-
H10: Identification has a positive effect on WOM pated in this survey. The majority of respondents (222)
intention. were 18–38 years old, and only 128 respondents were
older than 38 years old. Most of respondents (194) had
Methodology been graduated either from college or university, and
156 respondents had lower levels of education.
Study context
Because of collecting data from one single source, the
Empirical data were collected from domestic tourists who Common Method Variance (CMV) was tested using two
were visiting heritage sites of historic city of Kashan, Iran. recommended approaches for PLS-SEM namely the full
The city of Kashan is a significant heritage city in the collinearity (Kock, 2015), and the correlation matrix
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 5

procedure. In order to ensure that the model is free of Table 1. Assessment of reflective and composite measurement
CMV, the full collinearity using Variance Inflation Factor models.
(VIF) should be lower than 3.3 (Kock, 2015; Kock & Lynn, Factor
Construct Items Loadings CR rho_A AVE
2012), and the correlation between constructs should be
VE_Enthusiasm (VEN) 0.878 0.813 0.707
lower than 0.9 (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021b). Using VEN1 0.817
these two approaches showed satisfactory results for VEN2 0.877
VEN3 0.826
both the full collinearity VIF and the correlation for all con- VE_Attention (VAT) 0.865 0.791 0.682
structs which were lower than 3.3 and 0.9, respectively. VAT1 0.771
VAT2 0.852
This indicates that the results were not biased by CMV. VAT3 0.852
To analyse the data and to test the hypotheses, this VE_Absorption (VAB) 0.886 0.808 0.721
study applied Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation VAB1 0.875
VAB2 0.843
Modelling (PLS-SEM) and fuzzy-set Qualitative Compara- VAB3 0.829
tive Analysis (fsQCA). The PLS-SEM is applied, because of VE_Interaction (VIN) 0.923 0.879 0.800
VIN1 0.902
the prediction nature of the current study (Hair et al., VIN2 0.899
2019). Moreover, because this study aims to apply fsQCA VIN3 0.881
VE_Identification (VID) 0.948 0.920 0.858
to obtain deeper insights, only PLS-SEM can provide a VID1 0.912
unique construct score as the input of fsQCA (Rasoolima- VID2 0.936
VID3 0.931
nesh et al., 2021a). Several previous studies in tourism Revisit Intention (RINT) 0.926 0.885 0.807
have applied fsQCA (Fotiadis, 2018; Fotiadis et al., 2016; INT1 0.921
Olya & Gavilyan, 2017), or combination of PLS-SEM and INT2 0.890
INT3 0.884
fsQCA (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021c; Taheri et al., 2020; Word of Mouth intention 0.858 0.773 0.604
Tran et al., 2019). By application of fsQCA, we identified (WOM)
WOM1 0.789
sufficient causal combinations (i.e. configurations, WOM 2 0.824
recipes) to generate revisit and WOM intentions (Olya & WOM 3 0.826
WOM 4 0.656
Gavilyan, 2017; Pappas & Woodside, 2021; Woodside,
Note: See Appendix 1 for the names of the items.
2013). In terms of statistical software, this study employed
the SmartPLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015) to perform PLS-SEM
Moreover, using two approaches called the Fornell-
and the fsQCA 3.0 to identify the sufficient configurations
Larcker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT)
of antecedents to generate outcomes (Rasoolimanesh
ratio, the discriminant validity has been assessed (Hense-
et al., 2020). The consistency and coverage for each
ler et al., 2015; Rasoolimanesh & Ali, 2018). Tables 2 and 3
configuration should be greater than 0.8 and 0.2 respect-
show the results of discriminant validity assessment. The
ively to consider a configuration sufficient to generate
square root of AVE of all constructs are higher than the
outcome (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2020).
correlation of a construct with all other constructs in
the model (Table 2), and the HTMT values are lower
Results and findings than 0.9 (Table 3), demonstrate the establishment of dis-
criminant validity for this study (Ali et al., 2018; Henseler
Results of assessment of model using PLS-SEM
et al., 2015).
In order to assess the model using PLS-SEM, we need Figure 2 and Table 4 show the results of structural
to check the measurement model including reliability model assessment and hypothesis testing for the
and validity, and structural model (Hair et al., 2019). effects of dimensions of visitor engagement on revisit
The Composite Reliability (CR), rho_A, and Average Var- and WOM intentions in heritage sites. The results show
iance Extracted (AVE), should be greater than 0.7, 0.7, the values of 0.164 and 0.224 for the R2 of revisit and
and 0.5 respectively to establish reliability and conver- WOM intentions respectively. The values of R2 can be
gent validity of reflective constructs involved in the fra- considered acceptable for behavioural studies (Hair
mework of this study (Ali et al., 2018; Hair et al., 2019). et al., 2017; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). The results of
Table 1 shows the results of the assessment of hypothesis testing using PLS-SEM show that other
measurement model indicating the establishment than the significant effect of VE_Absorption (VAB) on
reliability and convergent validity for all reflective con- revisit intention (H3), the effects of other dimensions
structs including VE_Enthusiasm (VEN), VE_Attention of visitor engagement on revisit intention are not signifi-
(VAT), VE_Absorption (VAB), VE_Interaction (VIN), VE_I- cant (i.e. H1, H2, H4, and H5). As for the effects of dimen-
dentification (VID), Revisit Intention (RINT), and WOM sions of visitor engagement on WOM intention, the
intention. results show the significant effects of VE_Interaction
6 S. SEYFI ET AL.

Table 2. Discriminant validity using Fornell-Larcker criterion.

Constructs VEN VAT VAB VIN VID RINT WOM
VEN 0.841
VAT 0.717 0.826
VAB 0.475 0.391 0.849
VIN 0.301 0.277 0.483 0.894
VID 0.197 0.220 0.408 0.630 0.926
RINT 0.256 0.264 0.349 0.305 0.260 0.898
WOM 0.285 0.265 0.292 0.367 0.362 0.690 0.777
Note: VEN = VE_Enthusiasm, VAT = VE_Attention, VAB = VE_Absorption, VIN = VE_Interaction, VID = VE_Identification, RINT = Revisit Intention, WOM = Word
of Mouth intention.

(VIN) and VE_Identification (VID) on WOM intention (H9 recommended in the literature (Olya, 2020; Rasoolima-
and H10). However, the effects of VE_Enthusiasm (VEN), nesh et al., 2021a), and for this study, the intermediate
VE_Attention (VAT) and VE_Absorption (VAB)on WOM outputs were chosen.
intention are not significant (i.e. H6, H7, and H8). The results of fsQCA have been presented in Table 5
(outcome: revisit intention), and Table 6 (outcome: WOM
intention). The results of fsQCA show more hetero-
Results of fsQCA geneous combinations of dimensions of visitor engage-
In order to perform the fsQCA, the standardised scores of ment as sufficient configurations to generate a high level
constructs from PLS-SEM results were used as the inputs of revisit and WOM intentions. The results of fsQCA
of fsQCA, and the construct scores were calibrated to identified similar sufficient configurations to generate
[0–1] (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021a). Using construct revisit and WOM intentions. Tables 5 and 6 show three
scores from the PLS-SEM results, minus three was set to configurations (e.g. configuration 1: VAT*VEN*∼VIN;
zero (no set membership), zero to 0.5 (crossover point), configuration 2, ∼VEN*VID*VIN; configuration 3: VAB*-
and three to 1 (full set membership) (Rasoolimanesh VAT*VEN) to generate high levels of revisit and WOM
et al., 2021a). To determine which combinations of con- intentions. The configuration 1 shows the importance
ditions or configurations are adequate to produce the of VE_Enthusiasm (VEN), and VE_Attention (VAT), even
outcome under investigation, truth table was created when the VE_Interaction (VIN) is low, whereas, configur-
(Rubinson, 2019). Setting the consistency threshold to ation 2 shows combination of a high level of VE_Interac-
3.00 as recommended for samples larger than 150, the tion (VIN), VE_Identification (VID), and low level of
rows with two cases and lower were deleted (Fiss, 2011). VE_Enthusiasm (VEN) as a sufficient configuration. The
In the next step, consistency and coverage for all configur- configuration 3 identified the high levels of VE_Atten-
ations were calculated, and sufficient configurations with tion (VAT), VE_Absorption (VAB), and VE_Enthusiasm
coverage greater than 0.2 and consistency higher than 0.8 (VEN), as a sufficient configuration to predict a higher
were identified (Pappas & Woodside, 2021; Ragin, 2009). level of visitor engagement and WOM intention.
The fsQCA computes three types of outputs with Based on the above results, we can identify more het-
sufficient configurations known as solutions, namely erogeneous combinations of dimensions of visitor
complex solution, intermediate solution, and parsimo- engagement to generate a high level of revisit and
nious solution. ‘solution refers to a combination of WOM intentions compared to the results of PLS-SEM.
configurations that is supported by a high number of
cases, where the rule ‘the combination leads to the Discussion and conclusions
outcome’ is consistent (Pappas & Woodside, 2021,
p. 11). The intermediate set is the solution which is This study investigates the effects of dimensions of
visitor engagement (e.g. enthusiasm, attention, absorp-
tion, interaction, and identification) on revisit and
Table 3. Discriminant validity using HTMT ratio.
WOM intentions. The results of PLS-SEM only showed
Constructs VEN VAT VAB VIN VID RINT WOM
the significant effect of absorption on the revisit inten-
VEN
VAT 0.895 tion of domestic heritage tourists in Kashan, and the
VAB 0.596 0.484 effects of other dimensions on revisit intention were
VIN 0.354 0.332 0.563
VID 0.228 0.257 0.475 0.700 not significant. One possible explanation for this could
RINT 0.307 0.318 0.406 0.345 0.285 be the pleasant state of absorption in which the
WOM 0.358 0.325 0.315 0.429 0.330 0.848
tourist is in achieving a state of deep relaxation allowing
Note: VEN = VE_Enthusiasm, VAT = VE_Attention, VAB = VE_Absorption,
VIN = VE_Interaction, VID = VE_Identification, RINT = Revisit Intention, him/her to be deeply engrossed/engaged while visiting
WOM = Word of Mouth intention. attractions.
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 7

Figure 2. Results of assessment of structural model.

The engagement literature indicates that a deep level So et al., 2014). However, for WOM intention, the
of concentration and total immersion in one’s role while results showed the significant effects of interaction,
visiting a place signifies a strong level of intention to and identification among the dimensions of visitor
revisit the place in future (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2019; engagement, while the effects of other dimensions
(e.g. enthusiasm, attention, and absorption) were not
significant. These results of PLS-SEM for both revisit
Table 4. Results of hypothesis testing. and WOM intentions are contradictory with previous
CI0.95
Hypothesis Direct effect Bias Corrected Supported
Table 5. Sufficient causal configurations for revisit intention.
H1 VEN → RINT 0.025 [–0.123, 0.175] NO
Raw Unique
H2 VAT → RINT 0.117 [–0.017, 0.259] NO
H3 VAB → RINT 0.204 [0.053, 0.334] YES Configurations coverage coverage Consistency
H4 VIN → RINT 0.123 [–0.020, 0.285] NO Configurations for high Revisit Intention Revisit Intention = f (VEN; VAT; VAB;
H5 VID → RINT 0.069 [−0.041, 0.185] NO VIN; VID)
H6 VEN → WOM 0.131 [−0.002, 0.269] NO VAT*VEN*∼VIN 0.645 0.025 0.893
H7 VAT → WOM 0.048 [−0.087, 0.179] NO ∼VEN*VID*VIN 0.616 0.016 0.882
H8 VAB → WOM −0.088 [−0.205, 0.027] NO VAB*VAT*VEN 0.708 0.071 0.886
H9 VIN → WOM 0.323 [0.209, 0.442] YES solution coverage: 0.899
H10 VID → WOM 0.161 [0.043, 0.274] YES solution consistency:
Note: VEN = VE_Enthusiasm, VAT = VE_Attention, VAB = VE_Absorption, 0.740
VIN = VE_Interaction, VID = VE_Identification, RINT = Revisit Intention, Note: VEN = VE_Enthusiasm, VAT = VE_Attention, VAB = VE_Absorption,
WOM = Word of Mouth intention. VIN = VE_Interaction, VID = VE_Identification.
8 S. SEYFI ET AL.

Table 6. Sufficient causal configurations for word of mouth the growing research on tourist engagement by inves-
intention. tigating the tourist engagement dimensions on behav-
Raw Unique ioural intent. Previous studies have not investigated the
Configurations coverage coverage Consistency
effects of single dimensions of engagement on behav-
Configurations for high Word of Mouth intention Word of Mouth intention
= f (VEN; VAT; VAB; VIN; VID) ioural intentions and have largely focused on tourist
VAT*VEN*∼VIN 0.620 0.014 0.872 engagement as a concept rather than a multidimen-
∼VEN*VID*VIN 0.625 0.021 0.907
VAB*VAT*VEN 0.700 0.70 0.888 sional concept. Previous studies highlighted further
solution coverage: 0.885 inquiry into the role of tourist engagement dimensions
solution consistency:
0.739
on behavioural intentions for future research (e.g. So
Note: VEN = VE_Enthusiasm, VAT = VE_Attention, VAB = VE_Absorption, et al., 2014, 2016).
VIN = VE_Interaction, VID = VE_Identification. Given the lack of theoretical unanimity among
researchers regarding the components of tourist engage-
studies (e.g. Chen & Rahman, 2018; Rasoolimanesh et al., ment and the complex nature of engagement, previous
2019). This could be explained by the fact that inter- research suggested further exploration of engagement
actions of tourists with the local community and other in other contexts. This study, therefore, responded to
tourists in a destination potentially shape their positive the aforementioned suggestions and revealed that
memory of a destination which in turn motivates them enhanced tourist engagement further strengthened the
to participate in WOM communications through online behavioural intentions of tourists. This study empirically
platforms (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021b; So et al., 2014). validated findings in heritage tourism literature by inves-
Overall, a higher level of engagement with strong inter- tigating the association between tourist engagement
action and identification translates into greater loyalty to dimensions and behavioural intentions.
a destination thereby increasing the likelihood of revisit By testing the visitor engagement scale in a heritage
intention (So et al., 2016). tourism context, this research contributes to the
Due to case-based nature of fsQCA, Its results were growing research on visitor engagement. Overall, the
found more heterogeneous. In PLS-SEM, we can test the results of this study provide important theoretical evi-
main (net) effects of antecedents on outcomes; whereas dence for capturing tourist engagement and associated
in fsQCA, various sufficient combinations of antecedents behavioural intention more accurately.
can be identified. Thus, we could assume that the
results of these two methods are complementary.
Practical implications
According to the results of fsQCA, we can observe
three sufficient combinations of dimensions of visitor The findings provide a useful guiding framework for des-
engagement to predict revisit and WOM intentions of tinations to establish or improve a tourist engagement
domestic heritage tourists in Kashan. (1) Existence and and to emphasise the role of engagement in shaping
high level of enthusiasm and attention is a sufficient destination loyalty which in turn has significant impli-
configuration for both revisit and WOM intentions cations for destination marketing and development.
even when the level of interaction is low. (2) High level For instance, higher interactions between the tourist
of interaction and identification, and low level of enthu- and the local community and providing opportunities
siasm, as well as (3) high levels of attention, absorption, for tourists to engage actively in destination-related
and enthusiasm together predict high levels of revisit activities can potentially trigger their revisit intention
and WOM intention. Therefore, based on fsQCA results, and WOM communications. As the findings attest, the
all dimensions can influence revisit and WOM intentions absorption dimension of engagement significantly
of domestic tourists visiting heritage sites of Kashan, but affects revisit intention. DMOs need to place an emphasis
in different circumstances and combinations with other on this dimension of engagement as the repeat visitors
dimensions. This explains the context-based nature of are often easier and cheaper to keep rather than new visi-
tourists engagement. tors. This reflects the observation of several studies that
show tourists who are highly engaged with destinations
are most likely to revisit the same location (Pan et al.,
Theoretical implications
2020; So et al., 2016; Vittersø et al., 2017).
The main theoretical implications of the present Furthermore, the findings of this study revealed that
findings are as follows. First, the study bridges the the interaction and identification dimensions of visitor
research gap concerning the associations between engagement positively influence WOM intention. Thus,
tourist engagement and behavioural intentions within DMOs need to improve these two dimensions of
heritage tourism context. This study contributes to tourist engagement while the tourists are visiting a
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 9

destination or an attraction. This will help increase the Ali Vafaei-Zadeh is currently working as a senior lecturer at the
likelihood of tourists revisit intention and tourists’ invol- Graduate School of Business (GSB), Universiti Sains Malaysia
(USM). He holds a Ph.D. in Operation Management, MBA in pro-
vement in WOM communications. The latter is of para-
duction and materials management, and a bachelor’s in indus-
mount significance in the COVID-19 travel trial management. He is a professional technologist recognized
environment because probably people have a negative by the Malaysia board of technologists. He is actively involved
image of destinations having tourist attractions. DMOs in research projects regarding technology management and
should seek to enable more effective engagement of innovation.
visitors in the destination as well as on-site in order to Kourosh Esfandiar (PhD) is a researcher in the School of
improve tourist experiences, destination image and Business and Law at Edith Cowan University, Australia. His
revisit intention. research interests focus on the socio-psychological concept
of ‘human behaviour’ particularly in relation to sustainability
in the context of travel, tourism and recreation.
Limitations and future research
Despite the contributions made, the results of this study ORCID
are not without limitations. Perhaps, as the majority of Siamak Seyfi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2427-7958
cross-sectional studies (Alonso-Vazquez et al., 2019; Esfan- S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7138-
diar et al., 2021), the main limitation of this study pertains 0280
Kourosh Esfandiar http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6242-2899
to the generalisability of the sample as well as the tem-
poral aspect of the study. In addition, in this study, the
scale of visitor engagement has been assessed within a References
heritage tourism context with a focus on domestic tourists.
Agapito, D., Oom do Valle, P., & da Costa Mendes, J. (2013). The
One direction for future research could be the comparative cognitive-affective-conative model of destination image: A
study between domestic and international visitors which confirmatory analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism
might have interesting implications for the DMOs in Marketing, 30(5), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Kashan which is visited by both domestic and international 10548408.2013.803393
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Ryu, K.
visitors. Moreover, further studies need to repeat this study
(2018). An assessment of the use of partial least squares struc-
in different contexts. One further line of inquiry for further tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research.
research could be a comparison between visitor engage- International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
ment in heritage tourism and other tourism contexts. Management, 30(1), 514–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-
Finally, we have suggested that visitor engagement will 10-2016-0568
also influence revisit intentions in a COVID-19 tourism Alonso-Vazquez, M., Packer, J., Fairley, S., & Hughes, K. (2019).
The role of place attachment and festival attachment
environment. Further research is required to assess the
in influencing attendees’ environmentally responsible beha-
extent of this relationship and its connections to behav- viours at music festivals. Tourism Recreation Research, 44(1),
ioural intention of tourists. 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2018.1545393
Alrawadieh, Z., Prayag, G., Alrawadieh, Z., & Alsalameen, M.
(2019). Self-identification with a heritage tourism site, visi-
Disclosure statement tors’ engagement and destination loyalty: The mediating
effects of overall satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal,
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 39(7–8), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.
1564284
Bapiri, J., Esfandiar, K., & Seyfi, S. (2021). A photo-elicitation
Notes on contributors study of the meanings of a cultural heritage site experience:
A means-end chain approach. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 16
Siamak Seyfi, PhD is an Assistant Professor at the Geography (1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2020.1756833
Research Unit of the University of Oulu, Finland. Using an inter- Bonn, M. A., Line, N. D., & Cho, M. (2017). Low gasoline prices:
disciplinary and multidisciplinary approach, his research inter- The effects upon auto visitor spending, numbers of activities,
ests focus on tourism mobilities, tourist experience, ethical and satisfaction, and return intention. Journal of Travel Research,
political consumerism as well as qualitative sociological/ethno- 56(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287515626306
graphic research methods in tourism. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, PhD is an Associate Professor and engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions,
Director of Centre for Research and Innovation in Tourism and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14
(CRiT), Taylor’s University, Malaysia. His research interest (3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703
areas contain sustainable tourism, heritage tourism, residents’ Bryce, D., Curran, R., O’Gorman, K., & Taheri, B. (2015). Visitors’
perceptions, and tourism experiences. He has published widely engagement and authenticity: Japanese heritage consump-
in top tier tourism journals. He is an editorial board member of tion. Tourism Management, 46, 571–581. https://doi.org/10.
several reputed tourism and hospitality journals. 1016/j.tourman.2014.08.012
10 S. SEYFI ET AL.

Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2010). Mobile communication and Han, H., Kim, Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Cognitive, affective, conative,
civic life: Linking patterns of use to civic and political and action loyalty: Testing the impact of inertia. International
engagement. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 536–555. Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 1008–1019.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01496.x Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., & Daly, T. (2017). Customer
Chen, C.-F., & Chen, F.-S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived engagement with tourism social media brands. Tourism
value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage Management, 59, 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29–35. https://doi. tourman.2016.09.015
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion
Chen, H., & Rahman, I. (2018). Cultural tourism: An analysis of for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based struc-
engagement, cultural contact, memorable tourism experience tural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
and destination loyalty. Tourism Management Perspectives, 26, Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.10.006 Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement:
Chen, N. C., Dwyer, L., & Firth, T. (2018). Residents’ place attach- Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7),
ment and word-of-mouth behaviours: A tale of two cities. 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 36, 1–11. Huang, S., & Choi, H.-S. C. (2019). Developing and validating a
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.05.001 multidimensional tourist engagement scale (TES). The
Chen, S., Han, X., Bilgihan, A., & Okumus, F. (2021). Customer Service Industries Journal, 39(7–8), 469–497. https://doi.org/
engagement research in hospitality and tourism: A systema- 10.1080/02642069.2019.1576641
tic review. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Jalilvand, M. R., Salimipour, S., Elyasi, M., & Mohammadi, M.
1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2021.1903644 (2017). Factors influencing word of mouth behaviour in
Correia, A., & Kozak, M. (2016). Tourists’ shopping experiences the restaurant industry. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
at street markets: Cross-country research. Tourism 35(1), 81–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-02-2016-0024
Management, 56, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman. Kankhuni, Z., & Ngwira, C. (2021). Overland tourists’ natural
2016.03.026 soundscape perceptions: Influences on experience, satisfaction,
Esfandiar, K., Dowling, R., Pearce, J., & Goh, E. (2021). What a and electronic word-of-mouth. Tourism Recreation Research,
load of rubbish! The efficacy of theory of planned behaviour 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2021.1878653
and norm activation model in predicting visitors’ binning Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full colli-
behaviour in national parks. Journal of Hospitality and nearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-
Tourism Management, 46, 304–315. https://doi.org/10. Collaboration (Ijec), 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.
1016/j.jhtm.2021.01.001 2015100101
Fishbein, M. (1967). Readings in attitude theory and measure- Kock, N., & Lynn, G. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading
ment. John Wiley & Sons. results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and rec-
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set ommendations. Journal of the Association for Information
approach to typologies in organization research. Academy Systems, 13(7), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00302
of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., & Asaad, Y. (2021). Linking
Fotiadis, A. (2018). Modelling wedding marketing strategies: engagement at cultural festivals to legacy impacts. Journal
An fsQCA analysis. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services of Sustainable Tourism, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Marketing, 4(1), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 09669582.2020.1855434
1247540 Kumar, V., & Kaushik, A. K. (2020). Does experience affect
Fotiadis, A., Xie, L., Li, Y., & Huan, T.-C. T. C. (2016). Attracting engagement? Role of destination brand engagement in
athletes to small-scale sports events using motivational developing brand advocacy and revisit intentions. Journal
decision-making factors. Journal of Business Research, 69 of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(3), 332–346. https://doi.
(11), 5467–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.157 org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1757562
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School Lai, M.-Y., Fotiadis, A. K., Abu-ElSamen, A., & Beede, P. (2020).
engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Analysing the effect of membership and perceived trust
Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi. on sport events electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) inten-
org/10.3102/00346543074001059 tion. Tourism Recreation Research, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.
Fu, X. (2019). Existential authenticity and destination loyalty: 1080/02508281.2020.1823780
Evidence from heritage tourists. Journal of Destination Olya, H. G. (2020). Towards advancing theory and methods on
Marketing & Management, 12, 84–94. https://doi.org/10. tourism development from residents’ perspectives:
1016/j.jdmm.2019.03.008 Developing a framework on the pathway to impact.
Gannon, M., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Taheri, B. (2021). Assessing Journal of Sustainable Tourism, forthcoming. https://doi.
the mediating role of residents’ perceptions toward tourism org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1843046
development. Journal of Travel Research, 60(1), 149–171. Olya, H. G. T., & Gavilyan, Y. (2017). Configurational models to
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519890926 predict residents’ support for tourism development.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Journal of Travel Research, 56(7), 893–912. https://doi.org/
primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling 10.1177/0047287516667850
(PLS-SEM). Sage publications. Organ, K., Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., & Probert, J. (2015).
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019), When Festivals as agents for behaviour change: A study of food
to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European festival engagement and subsequent food choices.
Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR- Tourism Management, 48, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
11-2018-0203 tourman.2014.10.021
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 11

Pan, Y. T., Yang, K. K., Wilson, K., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2020). Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3.
The impact of museum interpretation tour on visitors’ SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.com
engagement and post-visit conservation intentions and Rubinson, C. (2019). Presenting qualitative comparative analy-
behaviours. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(5), sis: Notation, tabular layout, and visualization.
593–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2358 Methodological Innovations, 12(2), 2059799119862110.
Pandey, A., & Sahu, R. (2020). Modeling the relationship Scarpi, D., Mason, M., & Raggiotto, F. (2019). To Rome with love:
between service quality, destination attachment and A moderated mediation model in roman heritage consump-
eWOM intention in heritage tourism. International Journal tion. Tourism Management, 71, 389–401. https://doi.org/10.
of Tourism Cities, 6(4), 769–784. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 1016/j.tourman.2018.10.030
IJTC-08-2019-0125 Seyfi, S., Hall, C. M., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2020). Exploring
Pappas, I. O., & Woodside, A. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set Qualitative memorable cultural tourism experiences. Journal of
Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): guidelines for research prac- Heritage Tourism, 15(3), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/
tice in Information Systems and marketing. International 1743873X.2019.1639717
Journal of Information Management, 58, 102310. https:// Sharifi-Tehrani, M., & Esfandiar, K. (2018). Risk perception and
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310 tourism experiences among pilgrims. In L. A. Cai & P.
Prayag, G., Hosany, S., & Odeh, K. (2013). The role of tourists’ Alaedini (Eds.), Quality services and experiences in hospitality
emotional experiences and satisfaction in understanding and tourism (pp. 41–57). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://
behavioral intentions. Journal of Destination Marketing & doi.org/10.1108/S2042-144320180000009004
Management, 2(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Simpson, P. M., & Siguaw, J. A. (2008). Destination word of
jdmm.2013.05.001 mouth. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 167–182. https://
Ragin, C. C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and doi.org/10.1177/0047287508321198
beyond. University of Chicago Press. So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2014). Customer
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., & Ali, F. (2018). Partial least squares- engagement with tourism brands: Scale development
structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism. and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 9(3), 238– (3), 304–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348012451456
248. So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2016). The role of
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N., & Ahmad, A. G. customer engagement in building consumer loyalty to
(2017). The effects of community factors on residents’ per- tourism brands. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 64–78.
ceptions toward World Heritage site inscription and sus- https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514541008
tainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010). Brand community: Drivers and
Tourism, 25(2), 198–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582. outcomes. Psychology & Marketing, 27(4), 347–368. https://
2016.1195836 doi.org/10.1002/mar.20335
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Khoo-Lattimore, C., Md Noor, S., Jaafar, Su, D. N., Nguyen, N. A. N., Nguyen, Q. N. T., & Tran, T. P. (2020).
M., & Konar, R. (2020). Tourist engagement and loyalty: The link between travel motivation and satisfaction towards
Gender matters? Current Issues in Tourism, 1–15. https:// a heritage destination: The role of visitor engagement,
doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1765321 visitor experience and heritage destination image. Tourism
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Md Noor, S., Schuberth, F., & Jaafar, M. Management Perspectives, 34, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.
(2019). Investigating the effects of tourist engagement on 1016/j.tmp.2020.100634
satisfaction and loyalty. The Service Industries Journal, 39 Taheri, B., Chalmers, D., Wilson, J., & Arshed, N. (2021). Would
(7–8), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019. you really recommend it? Antecedents of word-of-mouth
1570152 in medical tourism. Tourism Management, 83, 1–18. https://
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Olya, H. (2021a). doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104209
The combined use of symmetric and asymmetric approaches: Taheri, B., Hosany, S., & Altinay, L. (2019). Consumer engage-
Partial least squares-structural equation modeling and fuzzy- ment in the tourism industry: New trends and implications
set qualitative comparative analysis. International Journal of for research. The Service Industries Journal, 39(7–8), 463–
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 1571–1592. 468. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1595374
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2020-1164 Taheri, B., Jafari, A., & O’Gorman, K. (2014). Keeping your audi-
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Seyfi, S., Hall, C. M., & Hatamifar, P. ence: Presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tourism
(2021b). Understanding memorable tourism experiences Management, 42, 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and behavioural intentions of heritage tourists. Journal of tourman.2013.12.011
Destination Marketing & Management, 21, 100621. https:// Taheri, B., Olya, H., Ali, F., & Gannon, M. J. (2020). Understanding
doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100621 the influence of airport servicescape on traveler dissatisfac-
Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Seyfi, S., Rather, R. A., & Hall, C. M. tion and misbehavior. Journal of Travel Research, 59(6),
(2021c). Investigating the mediating role of visitor satisfac- 1008–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519877257
tion in the relationship between memorable tourism experi- Teng, H. Y. (2020). Can film tourism experience enhance tourist
ences and behavioral intentions in heritage tourism behavioural intentions? The role of tourist engagement.
context. Tourism Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02- Current Issues in Tourism, 24(18), 2588–2601. https://doi.
2021-0086 org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1852196
Rather, R. A. (2020). Customer experience and engagement in Tran, L. T. T., Pham, L. M. T., & Le, L. T. (2019). E-satisfaction and
tourism destinations: The experiential marketing perspec- continuance intention: The moderator role of online ratings.
tive. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(1), 15–32. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 311–
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1686101 322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.07.011
12 S. SEYFI ET AL.

UNESCO. (2020). Iran (Islamic Republic of) - UNESCO World Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression
Heritage Centre. Retrieved August 5, 2021, from https:// analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm
whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/IR. shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis
Verhoef, P. C., Reinartz, W. J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–
engagement as a new perspective in customer manage- 472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021
ment. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 247–252. https:// Yen, C. L. A., & Tang, C. H. H. (2015). Hotel attribute perform-
doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375461 ance, eWOM motivations, and media choice. International
Vittersø, J., Prebensen, N. K., Hetland, A., & Dahl, T. (2017). The Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 79–88.
emotional traveler: Happiness and engagement as predic- Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment:
tors of behavioral intentions among tourists in northern Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and
Norway. Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, 13, 3–16. conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31(2), 274–284.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1745-354220170000013001 doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.007

Appendix 1.

Adapted items.

VE_Enthusiasm (VEN)
I am heavily into this tourism site in Kashan.
I am passionate about this tourism site in Kashan.
I am enthusiastic about this tourism site in Kashan.
VE_Attention (VAT)
I pay a lot of attention to anything about this tourism site.
Anything related to this tourism site grabs my attention.
I focus all my attention on my visit at this tourism site.
VE_Absorption (VAB)
When I am interacting with the tourism site, I forget everything else around me.
Time flies when I am interacting with the tourism site.
When interacting with the tourism site, it is difficult to detach myself.
VE_Interaction (VIN)
I am someone who enjoys interacting with like-minded community in the tourism site.
I am someone who likes to actively participate in the conversation with the locals and tourists in this tourism site .
In general, I thoroughly enjoy exchanging ideas with other people in the tourism site community.
VE_Identification (VID)
When someone criticises this tourism site, it feels like a personal insult to me.
When I talk about this tourism site, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’ because the identity of the site suites me.
When someone praises this tourism site, it feels like a personal compliment to me.
Revisit Intention (VIN)
I will revisit this place in the future.
If given the opportunity, I will return to this place.
The likelihood of my return to this heritage site is high for my another heritage trip.
Word of Mouth intention (WOM)
I will recommend this place to my friends and relatives.
When I talk about my visit to this city, I will say good things about it.
I will encourage friends and relatives to visit this place.
I will share good things about the heritage sites of Kashan in social media.