4.5 Review

A review and extension of the flow experience concept. Insights and directions for Tourism research

期刊

TOURISM MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100802

关键词

Tourism experience; Customer experience; Experience flow; Systematic literature review; Experience flow gaps

资金

  1. FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology [UIDB/04020/2020]
  2. Multiannual Funding Programme of R&D Centres of FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (Foundation for Science and Technology) [UIDB/04630/2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper systematically reviews 185 articles to examine the concept of Flow in the field of tourism psychology, providing insights into its core elements and suggesting recommendations to enhance tourist experiences. It highlights the relevance of considering tourist characteristics and the positive and negative outcomes of the Flow experience, while also proposing the use of physiology instruments for future research in this area.
The flourishing positive psychology field has Flow as a core construct. This systematic review of 185 articles examines Flow's concept, to analyse it theoretically, methodologically, empirically, and to provide an agenda for Tourism research. This paper adds to the knowledge in tourism psychology by exploring the Flow framework's core elements, incorporating its drivers, processes and outcomes, as an instrument to improve tourists' experiences. The study suggests the relevance of considering the tourist's characteristics and both the positive and negative outcomes of the Flow experience and other concepts, such as immersion or cognitive stimulation. Extant studies often use the Flow state scale as a measurement tool, but new opportunities are offered by using physiology instruments. Several propositions are put forth to foster the investigation on Flow in the tourism field, and to further the understanding of the tourists' behaviour and experience.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据