649055

research-article2016
CQXXXX10.1177/1938965516649055Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyKhan and Rahman

Article
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly

Brand Experience Anatomy in Hotels: An

1­–14
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1938965516649055
cqx.sagepub.com

Imran Khan1 and Zillur Rahman1

Abstract
Identification of the factors of hotel brand experience (HBE) and the interrelationships shared by them are of interest to
both practitioners and academics, as such an understanding would enable hoteliers to deliver superior HBE. However, very
few studies have concentrated on brand experience in hotels. This study identifies the factors of HBE and determines the
interrelationships among them through the development of a reliable and robust hierarchy-based model using interpretive
structural modeling (ISM) approach. Results show that particular factors (hotel location, attractive and informative hotel
website, and active exposure on social media) have a high degree of influence on the development of HBE and exhibit low
dependence. The present work has significant implications for hoteliers who could use the findings of the study to provide
superior HBE.

Keywords
brand experience; hotel; hotel brand experience; hoteliers; ISM

Introduction service itself (Gilmore, 2003; Morrison & Crane, 2007).

An essential strategy among marketers is to provide unique
and pleasurable brand experiences to customers (Schmitt,
1999; Schmitt & Rogers, 2008). As an area of research,
brand experience has gained significant attention in recent
years (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Khan &
Rahman, 2015; Pine & Gilmore, 1998). Duncan and
Moriarty (2006) stated that “a brand touch point is created
when a customer, prospect, or other stakeholder is expressed,
in some manner, to a brand and consequently has a brand
experience” (p. 237). Brakus et al. (2009) defined brand
experience as “subjective internal consumer responses (sen-
sations, feelings, cognitions and behavioral) evoked by
brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and
identity, packaging, communications, and environments”
(p. 53). Brand experience includes the entire range of expe-
riences evoked at each point of interaction with the brand,
which affects consumers’ behavioral outcomes such as cus-
tomer satisfaction and brand loyalty (Khan & Rahman,
2015). According to Chang and Chieng (2006), brand expe-
rience is vital to strengthening the consumer–brand
relationship.
Literature confirms that consumers are no longer inter-
ested in simply buying products and services; they look to
fulfill their emotional needs through pleasurable experiences
from purchases of goods and services (Pine & Gilmore,
1998; Schmitt, 1999). This is especially true for service
brands, where experience is considered as important as the
Pine and Gilmore (1998) advocated experience economy
over service economy and emphasized that companies need
to focus on selling experiences rather than products or ser-
vices per se. Studies in service literature have stressed on the
need for managing clues that influence a customer’s overall
perception of an experience because the value customers
associate with the experience can lead them to loyalty (e.g.,
Berry, Wall, & Carbone, 2006). Moreover, creating and
managing superior customer experience with a service brand
requires a high degree of integration and coordination among
organizational efforts so that at every touch point, customers
not only feel satisfied but also receive pleasurable brand
experiences. These pleasurable brand experiences can lead
to service brand differentiation, positive word of mouth,
increase in sales, customer satisfaction, and repeat purchases
(Otto & Ritchie, 1996).
Existing literature states that the hotel industry is one
service sector where providing superior brand experience to
customers is particularly important (see Barsky & Nash,
2002; Gilmore & Pine, 2002; Schwartz, 1990). However,
although brand experience has been investigated in several
1
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
Corresponding Author:
Imran Khan, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, India.
Email: imrankaifi@gmail.com

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016

2 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 
contexts, for instance, website-based brand experience (Ha
& Perks, 2005), brand experience in telecommunication
(Nysveen, Pedersen, & Skard, 2013), online brand experi-
ence (S. A. Lee & Jeong, 2014; Morgan-Thomas &
Veloutsou, 2013), corporate brand experience (Hamzah,
Alwi, & Othman, 2014), destination brand experience
(Barnes, Mattsson, & Sørensen, 2014), retail brand experi-
ence (Khan & Rahman, 2015), and brand experience in air-
line (Y. H. Lin, 2015), it remains relatively unexplored in
the context of the hotel industry (hotel brand experience
[HBE]). Prior studies also lay emphasis on the need for
investigating and establishing relationships among the fac-
tors that constitute HBE (Alcántara-Alcover, Artacho-
Ramírez, Martínez-Guillamón, & Campos-Soriano, 2013;
Walls, 2013; Walls, Okumus, Wang, & Kwun, 2011). The
present study seeks to fill this gap by identifying the key
enablers of HBE and establishing the relationships that
exist among them.
As mentioned earlier, HBE is an area that has not been
studied much and, as a construct, remains relatively under-
developed. Thus, interpretive structural modeling (ISM) is
an approach that is deemed suitable to apply in the present
context (Bolanos, Fontela, Nenclares, & Pastor, 2005).
Warfield (1974a, 1974b) and Sage (1977) asserted that ISM
is a significant qualitative tool for establishing relationships
among particular variables of a complex system. ISM pro-
vides a diagram of the hierarchical structure of variables,
which enables the comprehension of both direct and indi-
rect relationships among them (Farris & Sage, 1975; Ravi,
Shankar, & Tiwari, 2005). The same approach has been
adopted for investigating the hierarchical relationships
existing among variables that facilitate HBE in the luxury
hotel brands in India. The objectives of this study can be
stated as follows: (a) to identify the variables that facilitate
HBE and (b) to establish relationships among variables that
facilitate HBE.
Brand Experience Research in Hotel
Industry: A Theoretical Background
Brand experience is somewhat related to but different from
affective, evaluative, and associative branding constructs
such as brand involvement, brand attitudes, brand attach-
ment, brand personality, and customer delight. For instance,
brand attitudes are general assessments, whereas brand
experiences involve particular sensations, feelings, cogni-
tions, and behavioral responses that are the results of par-
ticular brand-related stimuli (Brakus et al., 2009). Brand
experience is associated with a broader sense of experience
because it incorporates both customer and noncustomer
experiences (Nysveen et al., 2013). Brakus et al. (2009)
referred to multiple disciplines, namely, cognitive science,
marketing, and philosophy, to explain the meaning of brand
experience, and asserted that brand experience included the
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016
integration of consumption, product, shopping, and service
experiences. They also criticized existing branding con-
structs and stressed upon brand experience as a holistic
evaluator of a brand.
Although existing literature on hotel industry has focused
on constructs such as consumer/guest experience (Huang,
Liu, & Hsu, 2014; Knutson, Beck, Kim, & Cha, 2009; Miao
& Mattila, 2013; Walls, 2013; Walls et al., 2011; Weiler &
Walker, 2014), online experience (Akincilar & Dagdeviren,
2014; S. A. Lee & Jeong, 2014), experiential value (Wu &
Liang, 2009), pricing of experience products (Adhikari,
Basu, & Raj, 2013), experience economy (Loureiro, 2014;
Scott, Laws, & Boksberger, 2009), quality of experience (Xu
& Chan, 2010), hotel experience of people with disabilities
(Poria, Reichel, & Brandt, 2011), and dining experience
(Lord, Putrevu, & Parsa, 2004; Wijaya, King, Nguyen, &
Morrison, 2013), HBE has received little research attention.
Increased competition among hotel brands has forced
marketers to look for new ways to differentiate their brands
from those of their competitors (Athiyaman & Go, 2003).
Literature suggests that visitors generally select a hotel on
the basis of brand (Yesawich, 1996). Both academics and
marketers agree that providing superior brand experience is
essential to differentiate a hotel brand from competitor hotel
brands (S. A. Lee & Jeong, 2014; Miao & Mattila, 2013;
O’Neill & Mattila, 2010), as it is the unique and memorable
HBE that becomes the distinguishing feature of a hotel
brand (Gilmore & Pine, 2002; Rahman, 2014; Scott et al.,
2009). HBE comprises experiences that may be evoked
from warm and welcoming color themes, fresh smell, a
properly designed environment that is visually appealing,
and a socially engaging environment that includes employee
behavior, right body posture, wearing sharp uniforms, mak-
ing eye contact, friendliness, and professionalism (Torres,
Fu, & Lehto, 2014; Walls et al., 2011). The aforementioned
elements may result in unique HBE, which in turn might
lead to pleasurable outcomes (Walls, 2013; Wu & Liang,
2009). In fact, consumers derive major utility from HBE
components and are ready to buy these components at a
considerably higher price when they view those experi-
ences to be more than just a service (Adhikari et al., 2013).
ISM Methodology
Several studies have advocated the use of the ISM approach
to simplify complex systems and develop a graphical repre-
sentation of interactions among system elements (Farris &
Sage, 1975; Sage, 1977; Warfield, 1974b). According to
Warfield (1974b), ISM is a technique that enables an indi-
vidual or group to deal with complex problems or issues
and expresses those complex issues as a multilevel struc-
tural model. ISM has the ability to transform ambiguous
and inadequate mental models of systems into precise and
visible models (Sage, 1977), which is why it has been used
Khan and Rahman 3
in several contexts. For instance, Hawthorne and Sage
(1975) utilized ISM in the planning of higher education pro-
grams; Khan and Rahman (2015) applied this methodology
in retailing to develop interrelationships among the enablers
of retail brand experience.
The Context of Using ISM
Many management studies have used ISM as an effective
analytical tool for developing an initial model by using
qualitative approaches like brainstorming sessions with
industry experts (Ravi et al., 2005; Thakkar, Kanda, &
Deshmukh, 2008). The ability of ISM to simplify vague and
inadequate mental models and complex systems with large
number of elements into a visualized hierarchical structure
is pronounced (Thakkar et al., 2008; Warfield, 1974b). ISM
incorporates expert opinion in a more systematic manner
that ascertains its application in marketing contexts (Alam,
2005; Gummesson, 2005; Healy & Perry, 2000). For
instance, studies in tourism have used ISM in planning the
sequence of marketing strategies for improving tour value
(T. R. Lee, Kuo, & Muhos, 2015; L. Z. Lin & Yeh, 2013).
Therefore, a qualitative ISM-based approach is deemed rel-
evant for the present research (Bolanos et al., 2005).
An extensive use of quantitative methods in an area that
has not gained maturity “. . . is not likely to produce com-
pelling field research” (Edmondson & McManus, 2007, p.
1168). Also, qualitative assessment of an emerging area
enables statistical analysis for conducting further studies
(Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Prior literature also con-
firms the use of qualitative methods in understanding the
concept of brand experience at the initial levels (Khan &
Rahman, 2015). Thus, HBE being a relatively new and
unexplored area (Alcántara-Alcover et al., 2013), ISM
forms an ideal tool to explore the concept.
To establish reliability (which refers to the extent of
obtaining identical results through repetition of operations)
of ISM approach, the present study uses multiple sources to
gather information, such as review of literature, semi-struc-
tured interviews, and brainstorming sessions with industry
expert (suggested by Gummesson, 2005; Kirk & Miller,
1986; Thakkar et al., 2008; Yin, 2003). ISM approach is able
to inspect the cognitive experience of individuals involved
in complex situations (Bolanos et al., 2005). Hence, we
believe that by developing an interpretive hierarchy-based
model for HBE, this study can create a strong basis for
assessing experiential value because the ISM-based model
identifies relationships of dependent, driving, linkage, and
autonomous variables.
Application of ISM
On the basis of hotel categories defined by Federation of
Hotel and Restaurant Association of India (FHRAI), this
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016
study used specific examples of four-star (first class) and
five-star hotel (luxury) brands in India, considering one star
to be the lowest and five star to be the highest luxury classes.
Because luxury hotel brands face stringent competition and
customers have high expectations regarding the quality of
services and experiences provided from such brands, they
form a sample worth studying in the context of HBE. The
present study endeavors to model the key enablers of HBE
by using ISM.
ISM process commences with the transformation of a
complex system into several variables through expert
knowledge and available literature pertinent to the problem.
Subsequently, a context-based relevant relationship is
established among chosen variables. Following this, the set
of identified variables and developed contextual relation-
ships are used to form a binary matrix known as structural
self-interaction matrix (SSIM), which is tested for transitiv-
ity and results into reachability matrix (RM). The last step
is to establish the level partition and conical matrix that pro-
vide a structural model known as ISM. The steps for prepar-
ing ISM are depicted in Exhibit 1.
Identifying the Critical Factors of HBE
Several HBE factors have been identified in this study
through a review of relevant literature, brainstorming ses-
sions with industry experts, and open-ended survey of real
consumers (hotel guests). Thus, one list from each (total
three lists) of HBE factors was obtained from literature
review, industry experts, and open-ended survey. Next, the
three lists were presented to another panel of hotel industry
and academic experts to come up with one final list of HBE
factors on the basis of the three lists given to them. The
involvement of real consumers, academics, and industry
experts in the process of identifying relevant HBE factors
lends greater credibility to findings. Details related to litera-
ture review, brainstorming sessions, and open-ended survey
are presented below.
Literature review (Stage 1, List 1).  Authors performed a review
of extant literature on brand experience and experiential
concepts in the context of hospitality industry. Following the
advice of one marketing professor and two research scholars
(pursuing their research in the domain of experiential mar-
keting), keywords such as hotel consumer experience, hotel
experience, brand experience in hotels, and so on were used
to find relevant literature on HBE. Subsequently, 43 articles
were finalized and distributed to six academic experts (two
senior and four middle-level marketing professors; all of
them had more than 5 years of experience in their respective
subjects) to identify HBE variables. After 1 week of article
distribution, a brainstorming session (of 2 hr) with all six
academic experts was conducted to finalize HBE variables
and consensus was reached on 34 HBE variables.
4 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 

Exhibit 1:
Flow Diagram for Preparing ISM Model.

Source. Adapted from Kannan, Pokharel, and Kumar (2009).

Note. ISM = interpretive structural modeling; HBE = hotel brand experience; SSIM = structural self-interaction matrix; RM = reachability matrix.

Industry experts (Stage 2, List 2).  Appointments were taken
from industry experts via e-mail or phone, and a date was
fixed for conducting the brainstorming session. On the pre-
decided date, a 45-min session was conducted with five
hotel industry experts (two senior managers, two middle-
level managers, and one frontline staff) and two tourism
industry experts (one travel agent and one tour operator).
All experts had more than 3 years of experience and were
given complete freedom to suggest HBE variables. After a
discussion, a list of 19 HBE variables was prepared.
Real consumers (Stage 3, List 3). Real consumers (hotel
guests) were asked to describe their experiences with hotel
brands. The participants were chosen on the basis of certain
criteria. These criteria were as follows: (a) participants must
have stayed at least 4 times at a luxury or first-class hotel
and (b) their last visit should not be more than 3 months old.
Participants (n = 27; age ranged from 23 to 54 years old)
were randomly chosen from hotel databases on the basis of
above-mentioned criteria. Participation of respondents was
voluntary, and responses were kept confidential. It was
revealed that out of 27 participants, 14 participants stayed
for leisure/vacation purposes, eight participants stayed for
business purposes, whereas the remaining five did not pro-
vide any information regarding their purpose of stay. There
were 18 local and nine foreign visitors in the sample of 27.
In the beginning of the discussion, researchers gave a
15-min presentation (MS PowerPoint slides) on selected
hotel brands as stimuli to respondents. Hamzah et al. (2014)
also used MS PowerPoint slides for the same purpose in

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016

Khan and Rahman 5
Exhibit 2:
Variables Used for the HBE Model.
AAD: Attractive architectural design
CD: Cleanliness and decor
DE: Dining experience
ETS: Efficiency and timeliness of services
EF: Exotic food
GG: Guest-to-guest experience
HQC: High-quality chef
HL: Hotel location
HSP: Hotel staff professionalism
HWOD: Hotel website and online disclosure
HIE: Human interaction experience
IA: Individual attention
PEE: Physical environment experience
PN: Pleasant noise level and indoor temperature
P: Privacy
PRMR: Public relations and media reports
SM: Social media
Note. HBE = hotel brand experience.
their research. The objective of the presentation was to
bring out participants’ sentimental responses toward hotel
brands. We instructed participants to select a hotel brand
and describe their experiences on a sheet of paper (follow-
ing Brakus et al., 2009). The whole session lasted 1 hr and
15 min, where the initial 15 min were allocated to explain-
ing the purpose and theme of the study, 15 min were allo-
cated to PowerPoint slide presentation, and 45 min were
assigned for writing activity. A content analysis of the
responses indicated that consumers attached importance to
a variety of experiences while staying in a luxury hotel
brand, highlighting the fact that brand experience played a
vital role in the hotel industry. On the basis of customer
responses, 26 HBE variables were identified.
The three lists thus obtained were forwarded to a panel
of seven experts (two hotel managers, two marketing pro-
fessors, and three marketing research scholars) to reach a
consensus on HBE variables through a brainstorming ses-
sion. None of the experts were repeated from the above pan-
els. All the experts had more than two-and-a-half years of
work experience in their respective fields. We arranged for
a facilitator to conduct the brainstorming session. The facil-
itator wrote on a whiteboard the variables that the panel
unanimously agreed upon. The session lasted one-and-a-
half hour and resulted into 17 finalized HBE variables (see
Exhibit 2). ISM was applied on these 17 variables.
SSIM and RM
The study performed pairwise comparison among the 17
identified HBE variables and one HBE itself. We chose the
phrase leads to to identify relationships for each pair. This
phrase means that one variable facilitates or develops
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016
another. Advice of eight experts (four hotel managers, two
tourism industry experts, and two professors in the area of
hospitality marketing and management) was sought regard-
ing the ways in which a particular variable leads to (or facil-
itates) another variable. This generated a contextually
relevant relationship-based diagram. These eight experts
were different from those (industry experts) contacted dur-
ing the identification of HBE variables in Stage 2. After 15
days, the established relationships were sent back to these
eight experts for further improvement, and some modifica-
tions were received (as suggested by Kannan, Pokharel, &
Kumar, 2009; Ravi et al., 2005). The relationships were
indicated using V for the relation from i to j but not in both
directions; A shows the relation from j to i, but the relation-
ship is not bidirectional; X shows that there is a bidirec-
tional relationship between variables i and j; and O shows
that both the variables i and j are unrelated. The above-men-
tioned process made it feasible to produce a matrix known
as SSIM. Next, we substituted V, X, A, and O by 1 and 0,
which presents the relationship in a binary form. The substi-
tution rules of 1 and 0 are summarized as follows:
Notations for leads to relationship (i, j) V A X O
Entry in binary matrix (i, j) 1 0 1 0
Entry in binary matrix (j, i) 0 1 1 0
Substitution of V, X, A, and O by 1 and 0 provides a
binary matrix, which has been tested for transitivity.
Transitivity is a basic assumption of ISM, which means that
if variable A leads to variable B and variable B leads to vari-
able C, then A is inevitably leading to C. Incorporation of
transitivities generates an RM (see Exhibit 3) in which hori-
zontal entries point to driving power and vertical entries
point to the dependence power of enablers. For instance, the
driving and dependence power of variable guest-to-guest
experience (GG) are 9 and 13, respectively.
Level Partitions and Conical Matrix
The generated RM provides a reachability set and an ante-
cedent set for each variable (Warfield, 1974b). The reach-
ability set includes the element itself and other elements to
which it may facilitate, whereas the antecedent set com-
prises the element itself and other elements that may help in
achieving it. Thereafter, an intersection set is derived that
consists of elements common in both reachability and ante-
cedent sets. The variable whose reachability and intersec-
tion sets become same occupies the top-level position
within the ISM hierarchy and does not have any other ele-
ment above it to which it may facilitate. The identified top-
level elements are discriminated from other elements. In
Exhibit 4, we can see that HBE is at the top level (Level I).
Thus, HBE would occupy top position in the ISM model.
The same process is repeated until the level of each element
6 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 

Exhibit 3:
RM.

Driver
Variables HQC EF PN AAD CD P GG IA HSP ETS SM PRMR DE HIE PEE HWOD HL HBE Power Ranks

HQC 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 13 IV
EF 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 11 VI
PN 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 11 VII
AAD 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 8 VIII
CD 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 10 VII
P 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 8 VIII
GG 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 9 VIII
IA 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 12 V
HSP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 14 III
ETS 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 12 V
SM 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 16 II
PRMR 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 13 IV
DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 IX
HIE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 IX
PEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 IX
HWOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 17 I
HL 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 I
HBE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 X
Dependence 5 6 12 11 12 11 13 13 11 9 4 4 17 17 17 3 1 18  
Ranks IX VIII IV V V VI III III III VII X X II II II XI XII I  

Note. See Exhibit 2 for variable names. RM = reachability matrix; HBE = hotel brand experience.

is identified. The process of identification of the level of
each element provides support in the development of the
final ISM model. Results of the Iterations 2 to 8 are pre-
sented in Exhibit 5.
The identified levels of variables from the reachability
and the antecedent sets can be used to generate a conical
matrix or lower triangle matrix, which gives a clearer under-
standing of each element’s position in the hierarchy.
Proceeding from the Level I element to its subsequent ele-
ments provides a binary matrix, which is termed conical
matrix (see Exhibit 6). The developed conical matrix com-
prises HBE at the top level, followed by the elements dining
experience (DE), physical environment experience (PEE),
and human interaction experience (HIE), and the rest.
Formation of ISM-Based Model
To make the application of ISM successful in context of the
hotel industry, it is necessary that the relevant stakeholders
interpret ISM correctly. Although the conical matrix is very
common in mathematics, hotel managers or policymakers
may not be familiar with its representation. Hence, to make
the results more understandable, a structural model was
generated with the help of vertices or nodes and lines of
edges known as digraph or directed graph on the basis of
level partitions (see Exhibits 4 and 5) and conical matrix
(see Exhibit 6). This digraph is finally transformed into an
ISM model (see Exhibit 7) with the assistance of variable
description.
In our study, the ISM approach yielded an interpretive
hierarchy-based model of HBE variables. In Exhibit 7, hotel
location (HL) occupies the base in the model signifying its
importance in providing superior HBE. A good HL helps in
attracting visitors and develops social interaction among
them in virtual communities through social media (SM;
threads, postings, and experiences of real consumers on
social websites like Twitter, Facebook, etc.). A favorable
HL also assists in developing an attractive hotel website and
making online disclosure (HWOD) more appealing through
display of pictures of pleasurable surroundings and beauti-
ful landscape around the hotel on the website. The responses
that HL evokes via SM (a highly interactive medium),
attractive and informative websites, and online disclosures
draw the attention of media (travel channels, news chan-
nels, etc.). This leads to increased media reporting and col-
laborative public relation initiatives (public relations and
media reports [PRMR]).
The information and positive comments displayed on
hotel websites regarding the good quality of chefs (high-
quality chef [HQC]) increases the possibility of customers

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016

Khan and Rahman 7

Exhibit 4:
Iteration 1.

Variable Reachability Set Antecedent Set Intersection Set Level

HQC HQC, EF, PN, AAD, CD, GG, IA, HQC, EF, HSP, HWOD, HL HQC  
HSP, ETS, DE, HIE, PEE, HBE
EF EF, HQC, HSP, CD, P, GG, IA, DE, EF, HQC, HSP, SM, HWOD, IA EF, HQC  
HIE, PEE, HBE
PN PN, HSP, ETS, P, CD, GG, AAD, DE, PN, HQC, AAD, CD, P, GG, HSP, ETS, SM, PN, CD, HSP, ETS  
HIE, PEE, HBE PRMR, HWOD, HL
AAD AAD, PN, CD, IA, DE, HIE, PEE, HBE AAD, PN, HQC, CD, IA, HSP, ETS, SM, AAD, PN, CD, P,  
PRMR, HWOD, HL GG, IA
CD CD, AAD, GG, PN, P, HSP, DE, HIE, CD, HSP, ETS, GG, SM, HWOD, HL, CD, HQC, PN, AAD,  
PEE, HBE HQC, EF, AAD, IA P, GG, HSP, ETS,
SM, DE
P P, PN, GG, IA, DE, HIE, PEE, HBE P, EF, PN, IA, HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, P, PN, GG, IA  
HWOD, HL
GG GG, P, PN, IA, CD, DE, HIE, PEE, GG, EF, P, HQC, PN, CD, IA, HSP, ETS, GG, P, PN, IA,  
HBE SM, PRMR, HWOD, HL
IA IA, EF, ETS, HSP, CD, AAD, P, GG, IA, HQC, EF, AAD, P, CD, GG, HSP, ETS, IA, EF, HSP, ETS, CD  
DE, HIE, PEE, HBE SM, PRMR, HWOD, HL
HSP HSP, HQC, EF, PN, AAD, CD, P, HSP, HQC, EF, PN, CD, IA, ETS, SM, HSP, ETS  
GG, IA, ETS, DE, HIE, PEE, HBE PRMR, HWOD, HL
ETS ETS, PN, AAD, CD, P, GG, IA, HSP, ETS, HQC, HSP, HL, PRMR, PN, IA, SM, ETS, HSP  
DE, HIE, PEE, HBE HWOD
SM SM, PN, AAD, CD, HSP, ETS, EF, SM, PRMR, HWOD, HL SM, HWOD  
P, GG, IA, PRMR, DE, HIE, PEE,
HWOD, HBE
PRMR PRMR, PN, AAD, GG, IA, HSP, P, PRMR, SM, HWOD, HL PRMR, SM  
ETS, SM, DE, HIE, PEE, HBE
DE DE, HIE, PEE, HBE DE, HQC, EF, PN, AAD, CD, P, GG, IA, DE, HIE, PEE  
HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, HIE, PEE, HWOD,
HL
HIE HIE, DE, PEE, HBE HIE, HQC, EF, PN, AAD, CD, P, GG, IA, HIE, DE, PEE  
HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, DE, PEE, HWOD,
HL
PEE PEE, DE, HIE, HBE PEE, HQC, EF, PN, AAD, CD, P, GG, IA, PEE, DE, HIE  
HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, DE, HIE, HWOD,
HL
HWOD HWOD, HQC, EF, PN, AAD, CD, P, HWOD, SM, HL HWOD, SM  
GG, IA, HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, DE,
HIE, PEE, HBE
HL HL, PN, AAD, CD, P, GG, IA, HQC, HL HL  
HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, DE, HIE, PEE,
HWOD, HBE
HBE HBE HBE, HQC, EF, PN, AAD, CD, P, GG, HBE Level I
IA, HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, DE, HIE, PEE,
HWOD, HL

Note. See Exhibit 2 for variable names. HBE = hotel brand experience.

coming in search of exotic food (EF) and indicates that the
hotel has a professionally trained hotel staff (hotel staff pro-
fessionalism [HSP]). This in turn results in positive word of
mouth for the hotel brand, which is also supported by many
studies revealing that most tourists use travel websites for
travel planning, and share their travel and stay experiences
on websites (Ip, Lee, & Law, 2012; H. Lee, Reid, & Kim,
2014). Furthermore, a professionally trained hotel staff
(HSP) is more likely to deliver efficient and timely services
(ETS), maintain cleanliness and decor (CD), pleasant noise
and indoor temperature levels (PN), and take better care of
hotel guests by providing individual attention (IA) to each

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016

8 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 

Exhibit 5:
Iteration 2 to 8.

Variable Reachability Set Antecedent Set Intersection Set Level

HQC HQC, EF, HSP HQC, EF, HL, HSP, HWOD HQC, EF, HSP VI
EF EF, HQC, HSP EF, HQC, HSP, HWOD, SM EF, HQC, HSP V
PN PN, CD, ETS, HSP PN, HQC, CD, HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, HWOD, PN, CD, ETS, HSP IV
HL
AAD AAD, CD, IA, PN AAD, CD, ETS, HL, HQC, HSP, HWOD, IA, PN, AAD, CD, IA, PN III
PRMR, SM
CD CD, HSP, PN CD, EF, ETS, HL, HQC, HSP, HWOD, IA, PN, CD, HSP, PN IV
SM
P P, GG, IA, PN P, EF, PN, IA, HSP, ETS, SM, PRMR, HWOD, HL P, GG, IA, PN III
GG GG, IA, P, PN GG, CD, EF, ETS, HL, HQC, HSP, HWOD, IA, P, GG, IA, P, PN III
PN, PRMR, SM
IA IA, CD, EF, ETS, IA, CD, EF, ETS, HL, HQC, HSP, HWOD, PRMR, IA, CD, EF, ETS, HSP IV
HSP SM
HSP HSP, HQC, EF, ETS HSP, HQC, EF, ETS, SM, PRMR, HWOD, HL HSP, ETS, HQC, EF V
ETS ETS, HSP ETS, HL, HQC, HSP, HWOD, SM, PRMR ETS, HSP V
SM SM, HWOD SM, HWOD, HL SM, HWOD VII
PRMR PRMR, SM PRMR, SM, HWOD, HL PRMR, SM VI
DE DE, HIE, PEE DE, AAD, CD, EF, ETS, GG, HIE, HL, HQC, HSP, DE, HIE, PEE II
HWOD, IA, P, PEE, PN, PRMR, SM
HIE HIE, DE, PEE HIE, AAD, CD, DE, EF, ETS, GG, HL, HQC, HSP, HIE, DE, PEE II
HWOD, IA, P, PEE, PN, PRMR, SM
PEE PEE, DE, HIE PEE, AAD, CD, DE, EF, ETS, GG, HIE, HL, HQC, PEE, DE, HIE II
HSP, HWOD, IA, P, PN, PRMR, SM
HWOD HWOD, SM HWOD, HL, SM HWOD, SM VII
HL HL HL HL VIII

Note. See Exhibit 2 for variable names.

Exhibit 6:
Conical Matrix.

Variables HBE DE HIE PEE AAD P GG CD PN IA EF HSP ETS HQC PRMR SM HWOD HL
HBE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DE 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HIE 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEE 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AAD 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GG 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
PN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
IA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
EF 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
HSP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
ETS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
HQC 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
PRMR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
SM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
HWOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
HL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Note. See Exhibit 2 for variable names. HBE = hotel brand experience.

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016

Khan and Rahman 9

Exhibit 7:
ISM-Based Model of HBE.

Note. ISM = interpretive structural modeling; HBE = hotel brand experience.

and every guest. CD, PN, and IA lead to the next level of
variables, namely, attractive architectural design (AAD),
Guest-to-guest experiences (GG), and privacy (P).
Managing the above-discussed enablers would further lead
to improvement in DE, PEE, and HIE.
In summary, selecting best hotel location, managing
online disclosure and content on hotel websites, and sharing
hotel experiences on social media would form the basis for
HBE. These initiatives are in sync with other variables,
namely, HQC, PRMR, HSP, ETS, EF, CD, PN, AAD, IA,
GG, and P that would facilitate pleasurable DE, PEE, and
HIE, which in turn would improve the overall HBE.
MICMAC Analysis
In this study, Matrix Impact Cross-Reference Multiplication
Applied to a Classification (MICMAC) was used to analyze
the driving and dependence power (Mandal & Deshmukh,
1994) of the variables that influence HBE. The “driving
variables” influence other variables, whereas the “depen-
dent variables” are influenced by others. For instance,
Exhibit 3 indicates that the GG variable has a driving power
of 9 and dependence of 13. Therefore, GG derives or influ-
ences nine variables and depends on 13 variables in the
identified hierarchical model.

Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016

10 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 
Exhibit 8:
Driving and Dependence Power of HBE Variables.
Note. See Exhibit 2 for variable names. HBE = hotel brand experience.
All the variables after being positioned according to their
driving and dependence power were grouped into four clus-
ters (see Exhibit 8). The first cluster consists of “autono-
mous variables” that hold weak driving and dependence
power. These variables have hardly any links with the sys-
tem and are comparatively disconnected. The second clus-
ter includes “dependent variables” that hold weak driving
power but strong dependence power. The third cluster com-
prises variables with strong driving and dependence power,
and are termed “linkage variables.” In fact, these variables
influence others and also get influenced by others, which
brings instability to their nature. The fourth cluster contains
the “independent variables” that hold strong driving power
but weak dependence power. Hence, variables with strong
driving power belong either to the “independent” or “link-
age” variables category and are termed as key variables.
Variables such as HL, HWOD, SM, PRMR, HQC, ETS,
and EF fall under Cluster IV (i.e., independent variables).
Variables such as AAD, GG, P, DE, PEE, HIE, and HBE fall
under Cluster II (i.e., dependent variables). Variables such
as HSP, IA, CD, and PN are assigned to Cluster III (i.e.,
linkage variables). There is no variable that falls under
Cluster I (i.e., autonomous variable), which signifies that all
the identified variables are connected to HBE and there is
no disconnected variable.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016
Results and Discussion
The results of the study reveal that HBE depends on 17
identified variables. Three top-level variables, namely,
physical environment, dining, and human interaction expe-
rience were found to be strongly dependent on other vari-
ables, and have weak driving power. Walls (2013) reported
that the physical environment and human interaction ele-
ments have a significant and positive influence on HBE. It
has been stated that environmental and internal responses
(emotional, cognitive, and physiological) affect consumer
experience (Bitner, 1992). As such, information generated
through sensory (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste)
responses influences customer experiences (Berry et al.,
2006). Dining experience (comfort, variety of food, etc.)
also acts as a driving force to engage customers and leaves
a long-lasting impression in addition to providing economic
value (Lord et al., 2004). In fact, customers are willing to
pay a premium price for “experience as a separate product”
(Adhikari et al., 2013).
A hotel brand with attractive architectural design, pleasant
noise levels and indoor air temperature, and cleanliness and
décor influences the experiences related to physical environ-
ment. Likewise, professional abilities of the hotel staff include
providing individual attention and privacy to hotel guests, and
maintaining the internal noise level, which facilitate the
Khan and Rahman 11
overall human interaction experience. Furthermore, proper
behavior of a guest with other guests enhances guest-to-guest
experiences, which creates human interaction experiences.
The development of physical environment, human interac-
tion, and dining experiences depends much on the discussed
variables, and policymakers of the hotel would do well to
effectively manage them to improve overall HBE. The signifi-
cance of these variables in developing pleasurable HBE is
well supported in many studies (Adhikari et al., 2013;
Alcántara-Alcover et al., 2013; Torres et al., 2014; Walls,
2013; Walls et al., 2011; Wu & Liang, 2009).
In the ISM model of our study, the bottom-level vari-
ables are HL, HWOD, and SM. These variables are identi-
fied as strong drivers of HBE, and assist in promoting media
reports and cooperative public relations while encouraging
interactive discussions (through online posts or messages).
As prospective customers visit hotel websites, see online
disclosures, and utilize virtual platforms like social media
to inquire about the hotel brand (Ip et al., 2012; Lord et al.,
2004), they try to establish a self-image congruity in rela-
tion with the hotel brand (S. A. Lee & Jeong, 2014).
The mid-level variables in the model are HSP, ETS, and
EF. These variables depend on the performance of the bot-
tom-level variables. For instance, experience with a hotel
brand is based on preparation of exotic food which is reflec-
tive of the chef’s ability to prepare a recipe as desired by the
customer. Strengthening these mid-level variables can assist
development of top-level variables, which in turn enhance
overall HBE. Therefore, hoteliers should focus on strength-
ening the relationship linkages established in this study.
Similar action plans could appear from the findings of
MICMAC analysis, which has categorized the considered
variables into four groups. This analysis enables the identi-
fication of driving, autonomous, dependent, and linkage
variables (see Exhibit 8). Such identification would help
practitioners decide which variables to develop in their
hotels that would lead to pleasurable HBE. It was found that
no variable was autonomous, implying that all the variables
are relevant. HSP, IA, CD, and PN variables act as links
between dependent and independent variables (i.e., linkage
variables) because they show medium-level dependence
and driving power. A slight disturbance in these variables
can affect other variables because they themselves are likely
to be altered and influenced. Variables such as P, AAD, GG,
DE, PEE, HIE, and HBE are dependent variables that are
immensely dependent on HL, HWOD, SM, PRMR, HQC,
ETS, and EF variables, which are grouped as driving vari-
ables and are termed key enablers as they exhibit strong
driving power toward HBE.
Conclusion and Implications
The purpose of the study was to identify the factors that
influenced HBE and establish what interrelationships
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016
existed among them. To this end, relevant information was
gathered from literature, industry experts, and real consum-
ers (hotel guests). ISM approach was used to determine the
interrelationships among the identified factors. The method
revealed the interrelationships through a hierarchical repre-
sentation of HBE variables. This approach offers a deeper
understanding of the different touch points at which provid-
ing superior HBE to hotel guests assumes prominence from
the point of view of hoteliers. Exhibit 7 shows that the most
critical enabler of HBE is HL, which indicates that the sur-
roundings of a hotel should be attractive as well as free from
disturbing noises. The role of hotel websites and online dis-
closure, along with social media, is vital in displaying the
scenic location and background of the hotel brand.
Dissemination of such information regarding the hotel
brand through virtual communities can arouse visitors’
interest in the hotel brand.
This study has several implications for hoteliers also.
First, hoteliers could use hotel website and social media
(e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) platforms to dis-
play the natural scenic surroundings of the hotel brand, and
to communicate the expertise of their hotel chefs and other
staff. Furthermore, well-narrated hotel brand stories through
social networking websites could be supportive in strength-
ening consumer–brand relationship.
Second, the preparation of recipes to the desire and
description of guests, organization of events, cleanliness
and deécor, levels of noise and indoor temperature, effi-
ciency and timeliness of services, attractive architectural
design, and nearby tourist places add to the overall HBE.
Thus, hoteliers may pay greater attention to the quality of
chefs and staff they hire, and training of staff. Also, a well-
trained and efficient staff is a great asset, so hoteliers might
consider incorporating practices that may help in retention
of staff. In addition, the individual variables mentioned
above can be used as criteria to enhance the level of HBE
provided and be treated as key focus areas.
Third, high-quality guest-to-guest experience and pri-
vacy emerged as crucial enablers of HBE in the ISM model
and warrant significant managerial attention. Hoteliers
would do well to focus on the behavioral aspects of one
guest toward the other(s) in the hotel and also ensure pri-
vacy of all guests. It is noteworthy that experience is highly
individual in nature and one experience may not necessar-
ily be perceived the same way by two individuals, as per-
ception of an experience depends on situational factors and
individual characteristics such as sensitivity toward the
environment and ability or willingness of an individual to
recognize the experiential components. This implies that
although hoteliers strive toward providing the best HBE
possible to all guests, they must still pay attention to indi-
vidual customers to make sure that the customer is having
the experience the way it was intended in the first place.
The hotel staff would play a crucial role here in
12 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 
maintaining increased human touch with customers and
genuinely caring for them, thereby generating a holistic
HBE for customers.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Like any other study, this study is not without limitations.
First, this study examines contextual relationships among
HBE variables based on the knowledge and understanding
of hotel industry experts. Any sort of judgment bias in the
leads to relationship between variables might affect the
results. Thus, other qualitative methods like netnography
can be used to get a better understanding of the variables.
Second, ISM does not impart any weight to the linked
variables, as it is a qualitative approach for developing an
initial model based on existing literature and brainstorm-
ing sessions with experts. This study suggests that future
research investigating the strength of interrelationships
among HBE variables be conducted using structural equa-
tion modeling to quantitatively indicate the strength of the
relationships.
Also, future studies could examine the interrelationships
when one or more variables fail to provide superior HBE.
For instance, what happens to human interaction experience
when there is less or no guest-to-guest experience? Other
possible drivers and behavioral outcomes of HBE may also
be investigated. In particular, studies could examine whether
HBE influences customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.
Also, enablers relevant to other services industries such as
airlines, banking, etc. could be identified and their interrela-
tionships established. It would also be worthwhile to inves-
tigate the enablers of HBE for national and international
hotel brands separately.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, or publication of this article.
References
Adhikari, A., Basu, A., & Raj, S. P. (2013). Pricing of experi-
ence products under consumer heterogeneity. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 6-18. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2013.01.002
Akincilar, A., & Dagdeviren, M. (2014). A hybrid multi-cri-
teria decision making model to evaluate hotel websites.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 263-
271. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.10.002
Alam, I. (2005). Fieldwork and data collection in qualitative market-
ing research. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 8, 97-112. doi:10.1108/13522750510575462
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016
Alcántara-Alcover, E., Artacho-Ramírez, M. Á., Martínez-
Guillamón, N., & Campos-Soriano, N. (2013). Purpose of stay
and willingness to stay as dimensions to identify and evalu-
ate hotel experiences. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 33, 357-365. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.10.006
Athiyaman, A., & Go, F. (2003). Strategic choices in the interna-
tional hospitality industry. In B. Brotherton (Ed.), The inter-
national hospitality industry: Structure, characteristics and
issues (pp. 142-159). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Barnes, S. J., Mattsson, J., & Sørensen, F. (2014). Destination
brand experience and visitor behavior: Testing a scale in the
tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 121-139.
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2014.06.002
Barsky, J., & Nash, L. (2002). Evoking emotion: Affective
keys to hotel loyalty. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 43, 39-46. doi:10.1016/S0010-
8804(02)80007-6
Berry, L. L., Wall, E. A., & Carbone, L. P. (2006). Service clues
and customer assessment of the service experience: Lessons
from marketing. The Academy of Management Perspectives,
20, 43-57. doi:10.5465/AMP.2006.20591004
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical sur-
roundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing,
56, 57-71. doi:10.2307/1252042
Bolanos, R., Fontela, E., Nenclares, A., & Pastor, P. (2005).
Using interpretive structural modelling in strategic deci-
sion-making groups. Management Decision, 43, 877-895.
doi:10.1108/00251740510603619
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand
experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect
loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52-68. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.73.3.52
Chang, P. L., & Chieng, M. H. (2006). Building consumer–brand
relationship: A cross-cultural experiential view. Psychology
& Marketing, 23, 927-959. doi:10.1002/mar.20140
Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. (2006). How integrated marketing
communication’s “touchpoints” can operationalize the ser-
vice dominant logic. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.),
The service-dominant logic of marketing (pp. 236-244). New
York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological
fit in management field research. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 1246-1264. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586086
Farris, D. R., & Sage, A. P. (1975). On the use of interpre-
tive structural modeling for worth assessment. Computers
and Electrical Engineering, 2, 149-174. doi:10.1016/0
045-7906(75)90004-X.
Gilmore, J. H. (2003, Autumn). Frontiers of the experience econ-
omy. Batten Briefings, 2003, 1-7.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2002). Differentiating hospital-
ity operations via experiences: Why selling services is not
enough. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 43, 87-96. doi:10.1016/S0010-8804(02)80022-2
Gummesson, E. (2005). Qualitative research in marketing:
Road-map for a wilderness of complexity and unpredict-
ability. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 309-327.
doi:10.1108/03090560510581791
Ha, H. Y., & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of
brand experience on the web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction
Khan and Rahman 13
and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4, 438-452.
doi:10.1002/cb.29
Hamzah, Z. L., Alwi, S. F. S., & Othman, M. N. (2014). Designing
corporate brand experience in an online context: A qualita-
tive insight. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2299-2310.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.018
Hawthorne, R. W., & Sage, A. P. (1975). On applications of
interpretive structural modeling to higher education pro-
gram planning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 9, 31-43.
doi:10.1016/0038-0121(75)90039-7
Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge
validity and reliability of qualitative research within the real-
ism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 3, 118-126. doi:10.1108/13522750010333861
Huang, S., Liu, Z., & Hsu, C. H. (2014). Customer experiences
with economy hotels in china: Evidence from mystery guests.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23, 266-
293. doi:10.1080/19368623.2013.787919
Ip, C., Lee, H., & Law, R. (2012). Profiling the users of travel
websites for planning and online experience sharing.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36, 418-426.
doi:10.1177/1096348010388663
Kannan, G., Pokharel, S., & Kumar, P. S. (2009). A hybrid
approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection
of reverse logistics provider. Resources, Conservation &
Recycling, 54, 28-36. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.06.004
Khan, I., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Brand experience anatomy in
retailing: An interpretive structural modeling approach.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 24, 60-69.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.02.003
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualita-
tive research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Knutson, B. J., Beck, J. A., Kim, S., & Cha, J. (2009). Identifying the
dimensions of the guest’s hotel experience. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 50, 44-55. doi:10.1177/1938965508326305
Lee, H., Reid, E., & Kim, W. G. (2014). Understanding knowledge
sharing in online travel communities: Antecedents and the mod-
erating effects of interaction modes. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 38, 222-242. doi:10.1177/1096348012451454
Lee, S. A., & Jeong, M. (2014). Enhancing online brand expe-
riences: An application of congruity theory. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 49-58. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2014.03.008
Lee, T. R., Kuo, Y. H., & Muhos, M. (2015). Applying interpre-
tive structural modeling to the planning of a sequence of mar-
keting strategies: A case study of the architectural tourism in
Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20, 1132-
1150. doi:10.1080/10941665.2014.958090
Lin, L. Z., & Yeh, H. R. (2013). Analysis of tour values to develop
enablers using an interpretive hierarchy-based model in
Taiwan. Tourism Management, 34, 133-144. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2012.04.004
Lin, Y. H. (2015). Innovative brand experience’s influence on
brand equity and brand satisfaction. Journal of Business
Research, 68, 2254-2259. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.007
Lord, K. R., Putrevu, S., & Parsa, H. G. (2004). The cross-border
consumer: Investigation of motivators and inhibitors in dining
experiences. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28,
209-229. doi:10.1177/1096348003256604
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016
Loureiro, S. M. C. (2014). The role of the rural tourism experi-
ence economy in place attachment and behavioral intentions.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 1-9.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.010
Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (1994). Vendor selection using
interpretive structural modelling (ISM). International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14, 52-59.
doi:10.1108/01443579410062086
Miao, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2013). The Impact of other customers
on customer experiences: A psychological distance perspec-
tive. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37, 77-99.
doi:10.1177/1096348011425498
Morgan-Thomas, A., & Veloutsou, C. (2013). Beyond technol-
ogy acceptance: Brand relationships and online brand experi-
ence. Journal of Business Research, 66, 21-27. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2011.07.019
Morrison, S., & Crane, F. G. (2007). Building the service brand
by creating and managing an emotional brand experience.
Journal of Brand Management, 14, 410-421. doi:10.1057/
palgrave.bm.2550080
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P. E., & Skard, S. (2013). Brand expe-
riences in service organizations: Exploring the individual
effects of brand experience dimensions. Journal of Brand
Management, 20, 404-423. doi:10.1057/bm.2012.31
O’Neill, J. W., & Mattila, A. S. (2010). Hotel brand strategy.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51, 27-34. doi:10.1177/
1938965509352286
Otto, J. E., & Ritchie, J. B. (1996). The service experience in tour-
ism. Tourism Management, 17, 165-174. doi:10.1016/0261-
5177(96)00003-9
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience
economy. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 97-105.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Brandt, Y. (2011). Dimensions of
hotel experience of people with disabilities: An exploratory
study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 23, 571-591. doi:10.1108/09596111111143340
Rahman, M. (2014). Differentiated brand experience in brand par-
ity through branded branding strategy. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 22, 603-615. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2014.914061
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2005). Productivity improve-
ment of a computer hardware supply chain. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54,
239-255. doi:10.1108/17410400510593802
Sage, A. P. (1977). Interpretive structural modeling: Methodology
for large-scale systems. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing
Management, 15, 53-67. doi:10.1362/026725799784870496
Schmitt, B., & Rogers, D. L. (2008). Handbook on brand and
experience management. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Schwartz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and
motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins &
R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cog-
nition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 527-561). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Scott, N., Laws, E., & Boksberger, P. (2009). The marketing of hospi-
tality and leisure experiences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
& Management, 18, 99-110. doi:10.1080/19368620802590126
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2008). Interpretive
structural modeling (ISM) of IT-enablers for Indian
14 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 
manufacturing SMEs. Information Management & Computer
Security, 16, 113-136. doi:10.1108/09685220810879609
Torres, E. N., Fu, X., & Lehto, X. (2014). Examining key drivers
of customer delight in a hotel experience: A cross-cultural per-
spective. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
36, 255-262. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.007
Walls, A. R. (2013). A cross-sectional examination of hotel con-
sumer experience and relative effects on consumer values.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 179-
192. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.009
Walls, A. R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y. R., & Kwun, D. J. W.
(2011). An epistemological view of consumer experiences.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 10-21.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.03.008
Warfield, J. N. (1974a). Developing interconnected matrices in
structural modeling. IEEE Transcript on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, 4, 51-81. doi:10.1109/TSMC.1974.5408524
Warfield, J. N. (1974b). Toward interpretation of complex struc-
tural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, 4, 405-417. doi:10.1109/TSMC.1974.4309336
Weiler, B., & Walker, K. (2014). Enhancing the visitor experi-
ence: Reconceptualising the tour guide’s communicative role.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 21, 90-99.
doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.08.001
Wijaya, S., King, B., Nguyen, T. H., & Morrison, A. (2013).
International visitor dining experiences: A conceptual framework.
Downloaded from cqx.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on June 5, 2016
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 20, 34-42.
doi:10.1016/j.jhtm.2013.07.001
Wu, C. H. J., & Liang, R. D. (2009). Effect of experiential value
on customer satisfaction with service encounters in lux-
ury-hotel restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28, 586-593. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.03.008
Xu, J. B., & Chan, A. (2010). A conceptual framework of
hotel experience and customer-based brand equity: Some
research questions and implications. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22, 174-193.
doi:10.1108/09596111011018179
Yesawich, P. C. (1996). So many brand so little time. Lodging
Hospitality, 52(9), 16.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Author Biographies
Imran Khan is pursuing PhD from Department of Management
Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India, in the area
of brand experience. His research interests are brand management,
hospitality and marketing research.
Zillur Rahman is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Management Studies, at Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
India. His areas of interest are Marketing, Sustainability, and
Strategic Management.