Transformative Travel Experience Scale (TTES)

Abstract

The Transformative Travel Experience Scale (TTES) is a multidimensional psychometric instrument developed by Jannelle Soulard, Nancy Gard McGehee, and Whitney Knollenberg (2021) to conceptualize and measure both the operational processes and post-trip psychological outcomes of transformative travel. Grounded in Mezirow's transformative learning theory and the transformative tourism framework formulated by Wolf, Ainsworth, and Crowley (2017), the scale operationalizes the cognitive, emotional, and existential shifts that occur when travelers encounter cultural alterity and navigate unfamiliar environments. The instrument comprises 24 items distributed across four distinct dimensions: Local Residents and Culture (9 items), which evaluates critical reflection regarding cross-cultural encounters, intercultural empathy, and shifts in perspective concerning host communities; Self-Assurance (5 items), which quantifies post-journey self-efficacy, personal growth, empowerment, and inner strength; Disorienting Dilemma (6 items), which measures psychological friction, existential unease, and reverse culture shock experienced upon returning to one's home environment; and Joy (4 items), which captures heightened positive affective states, awe, and mindful immersion during the journey. Developed via an 11-step protocol integrating recommendations from DeVellis (2016) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2016), the scale demonstrated robust construct validity, high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha values ranging from .87 to .93 across subscales), and structural stability across pilot (n = 242), exploratory factor analysis (n = 402), and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 400) independent samples. The TTES offers a validated measurement framework for researchers in cross-cultural psychology, tourism studies, and adult education, while providing applied practitioners with a standardized index to evaluate sustainable, transformative tourism initiatives.

Keywords

Transformative Travel Experience Scale, transformative learning theory, disorienting dilemma, cross-cultural psychology, self-assurance, reverse culture shock, intercultural empathy, psychometrics, scale validation, travel psychology

Authors

The Transformative Travel Experience Scale was conceived, developed, and empirically validated by a team of hospitality and tourism social scientists:

• Jannelle Soulard, Ph.D. — Assistant Professor of Sustainable Tourism, Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Appalachian State University (now at North Carolina State University / University of Florida research network). Research specialization: transformative tourism, community-based tourism, resident empowerment, and social justice.
• Nancy Gard McGehee, Ph.D. — Professor of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Howard Feiertag Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech. Research specialization: sustainable tourism development, social movement theory in tourism, and rural tourism.
• Whitney Knollenberg, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, College of Natural Resources, North Carolina State University. Research specialization: tourism leadership, policy, sustainable community development, and transformative educational travel.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Transformative Travel Experience Scale (TTES) is to provide an empirical instrument capable of measuring the cognitive transformations, psychological realignments, and affective outcomes associated with transformative travel. Prior to the construction of the TTES, the literature on transformational tourism relied heavily on qualitative methodologies, such as narrative inquiries, phenomenological interviews, and autoethnographies. While these qualitative accounts offered rich idiographic insights into how travel alters self-concept and worldview, they prevented comparative empirical research, structural equation modeling, and longitudinal evaluations of travel-induced personal transformation.

From a theoretical perspective, the TTES addresses the challenge of capturing both the process (in situ and post-trip cognitive restructuring) and the outcome (enduring existential and psychological changes) of travel experiences. Tourism is frequently categorized as an industry centered on escapism, hedonic consumption, and transient leisure. However, an increasing demographic of travelers seeks eudaimonic outcomes—personal fulfillment, self-actualization, existential authenticity, and deeper intercultural understanding. The TTES operationalizes these complex phenomena into quantifiable psychometric indicators, bridging Jack Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory with contemporary travel psychology.

In applied and empirical contexts, the TTES serves several functions:

• Cross-Cultural Psychology and Sojourner Adaptation: Enables researchers to quantify the degree of cognitive flexibility, ethnocentrism reduction, and global-mindedness resulting from international travel, study-abroad programs, and humanitarian missions.
• Educational Travel and Experiential Learning: Provides academic institutions, immersion program directors, and exchange coordinators with an objective pre- and post-test measurement tool to assess whether structured experiential education curricula foster genuine transformative learning versus superficial recreational engagement.
• Ecotourism, Regenerative Tourism, and Destination Management: Offers destination management organizations (DMOs) and tour operators a psychometrically sound metric to evaluate the emotional resonance and transformative impact of their itineraries, moving beyond standard customer satisfaction and Net Promoter Scores.
• Clinical and Well-Being Applications: Serves as an analytical tool for mental health professionals and life coaches studying the therapeutic dimensions of travel, such as the restoration of self-assurance, cultivation of mindfulness, and resolution of existential dilemmas through geographical and mental separation from domestic stressors.

Psychological Construct

The overarching construct of the Transformative Travel Experience is defined as a profound, multidimensional transition during which an individual's underlying assumptions, worldview, self-concept, and social habits undergo critical reassessment and enduring modification through geographic displacement and cultural immersion. Rather than treating transformation as a single homogeneous variable, the TTES models it as a second-order or correlated four-factor latent construct comprising four distinct, mutually reinforcing dimensions:

1. Local Residents and Culture (9 items)

This subscale captures the socio-cognitive dimension of transformative travel. It measures the extent to which engaging with host community members stimulates deep critical reflection regarding the traveler's own cultural biases, assumptions, and domestic lifestyle. Rooted in perspective-taking and social constructivism, high scores on this dimension indicate that the traveler did not merely observe the destination as a consumer, but actively questioned societal norms, acknowledged systemic inequities, recognized the wisdom within host cultural traditions, and cultivated genuine intercultural empathy. This critical reflection aligns directly with Mezirow's concept of premising reflection, where individuals re-examine the historical, epistemic, and socio-cultural foundations of their prior beliefs.

2. Self-Assurance (5 items)

This dimension operationalizes the psychological empowerment, self-efficacy, and internal locus of control fostered by navigating unfamiliar, challenging, or resource-constrained foreign environments. It reflects the individual's realization of personal resilience, autonomy, and emotional maturity following the journey. Overcoming navigational barriers, language limitations, and unfamiliar social codes requires rapid problem-solving, which reinforces positive self-evaluation. Travelers with high self-assurance return home with a reconstituted self-identity characterized by confidence, fortitude, and a readiness to apply newly acquired capabilities to their personal and professional domains.

3. Disorienting Dilemma (6 items)

Grounded in the foundational phase of transformative learning, this dimension measures the cognitive dissonance, psychological friction, and existential disruption precipitated by the travel experience. Soulard et al. (2021) identified that while some disorientation occurs in-destination due to cultural incongruity, the most profound disorienting dilemma frequently manifests after returning home in the form of reverse culture shock, alienation from domestic routines, and moral unease with consumerist domestic norms. This subscale measures the uncomfortable recognition that one's previous worldview is no longer adequate to interpret reality, creating an internal crisis that serves as the catalyst for lasting cognitive transformation.

4. Joy (4 items)

The fourth dimension captures the heightened positive affective state, emotional awe, and deep psychological flow experienced during immersive moments of the journey. Drawing on Fredrickson's broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, this dimension emphasizes that transformation is not solely driven by cognitive friction and disorientation; it is also facilitated by experiences of sublime beauty, emotional liberation, and uninhibited happiness. Experiencing profound joy broadens the individual's momentary thought-action repertoire, dismantles defensive cognitive architectures, and prepares the traveler to integrate new ways of being.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework of the Transformative Travel Experience Scale synthesizes two primary paradigms: Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory (TLT) and the Transformative Tourism Conceptual Model proposed by Wolf, Ainsworth, and Crowley (2017).

Jack Mezirow's Transformative Learning Theory

Originally formulated in 1978 and refined throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, Jack Mezirow conceptualized transformative learning as the process through which individuals transform their uncritically assimilated frames of reference—including habits of mind, sociocultural expectations, and psychological orientations—into perspectives that are more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally capable of change. Mezirow delineated a ten-phase trajectory through which transformation occurs:

1. A disorienting dilemma;
2. Self-examination with feelings of guilt or shame;
3. A critical assessment of epistemic, sociocultural, or psychic assumptions;
4. Recognition that one's discontent and the process of transformation are shared;
5. Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions;
6. Planning a course of action;
7. Acquiring knowledge and skills for implementing one's plans;
8. Provisional tryout of new roles;
9. Building competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships; and
10. A reintegration into one's life on the basis of conditions dictated by one's new perspective.

The TTES operationalizes several of these phases into its four dimensions. The initial catalyst—the disorienting dilemma—is captured directly in Subscale 3. The critical assessment of epistemic assumptions is mapped onto Subscale 1 (Local Residents and Culture), while the acquisition of confidence, competence, and new behavioral capabilities is reflected in Subscale 2 (Self-Assurance).

Wolf, Ainsworth, and Crowley's (2017) Transformative Travel Model

While Mezirow formulated TLT primarily within adult classroom and educational environments, Wolf et al. (2017) adapted the framework specifically for travel contexts. They proposed that transformative travel occurs across three temporal-spatial phases: separation (the detachment from one's familiar social environment), liminality (the in-between phase characterized by exposure to cultural alterity, intense emotional states, and existential ambiguity), and reintegration (the return to the home environment with an altered identity). Wolf et al. argued that tourism adds an intense affective component—specifically awe, wonder, and joy—that catalyzes cognitive processing, a nuance underemphasized in classical rationalist formulations of TLT. Soulard et al. (2021) directly incorporated this affective dimension through the inclusion of the Joy subscale, establishing a balanced cognitive-affective instrument.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the TTES followed a rigorous, multi-stage protocol adhering to the scale development guidelines established by DeVellis (2016) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2016). Validity evidence was gathered across three independent empirical samples recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), applying strict pre-qualification criteria (U.S. residents who had traveled internationally or extensively domestically within the past 12 months for non-business purposes):

Content and Face Validity

An initial pool of 78 items was generated from an exhaustive review of transformative learning, cross-cultural adaptation, and tourism literature, complemented by qualitative findings from transformative travel studies. A panel of eight expert judges in tourism management, adult education, and psychological measurement assessed each item for conceptual clarity, construct representativeness, and wording ambiguity. Items with low content validity ratios (CVR < .75) were eliminated or revised, yielding a 45-item preliminary instrument for empirical piloting (n = 242).

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the final confirmatory factor analysis sample (n = 400), convergent validity was confirmed using the following psychometric criteria:

• Standardized Factor Loadings: All 24 items exhibited high, statistically significant (p < .001) factor loadings on their designated latent constructs, ranging from .64 to .90, exceeding the recommended .50 baseline.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): The AVE estimates for all four dimensions exceeded the conventional .50 threshold established by Fornell and Larcker (1981): Local Residents and Culture (AVE = .58), Self-Assurance (AVE = .67), Disorienting Dilemma (AVE = .55), and Joy (AVE = .75). These values demonstrate that the latent factors account for a majority of the variance in their respective indicator items.
• Composite Reliability (CR): The CR values for all constructs ranged between .88 and .93, confirming construct stability and variance coverage.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established through two analytical approaches:

1. Fornell-Larcker Criterion: The square root of the AVE for each latent factor was compared against the bivariate correlations between that factor and all other latent constructs in the measurement model. In every instance, the square root of the AVE (ranging from .74 to .87) exceeded the corresponding inter-factor correlations (which ranged from r = .12 to r = .58), demonstrating that each factor captures unique variance not shared by the others.
2. Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT): All calculated HTMT ratios fell below the conservative .85 threshold, ruling out multi-collinearity or construct redundancy among the four latent subscales.

Nomological and Predictive Validity

Nomological validity was verified by testing structural paths between the four TTES dimensions and theoretically associated external constructs, such as post-trip subjective well-being, behavioral changes (e.g., civic engagement, environmentally responsible behavior), and future travel intention. As hypothesized by TLT, the Local Residents and Culture and Self-Assurance dimensions significantly predicted sustained lifestyle and behavioral modifications, whereas Joy was a primary predictor of destination loyalty and hedonic well-being. Furthermore, Disorienting Dilemma positively predicted shifts in worldview and critical reflection upon return home.

Reliability

The Transformative Travel Experience Scale exhibits high internal consistency reliability across varied empirical samples. During the instrument purification and validation phases conducted by Soulard et al. (2021), multiple reliability coefficients were estimated:

Internal Consistency Coefficients

• Local Residents and Culture (9 items): Cronbach's alpha (α) = .92; Composite Reliability (CR) = .93. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .63 to .78, with no single item removal improving the overall alpha value.
• Self-Assurance (5 items): Cronbach's alpha (α) = .90; Composite Reliability (CR) = .91. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .70 to .81.
• Disorienting Dilemma (6 items): Cronbach's alpha (α) = .87; Composite Reliability (CR) = .88. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .58 to .73.
• Joy (4 items): Cronbach's alpha (α) = .91; Composite Reliability (CR) = .92. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .75 to .84.

Scale Stability and Replicability

Across the exploratory (n = 402) and confirmatory (n = 400) independent splits, the alpha coefficients exhibited stability, deviating by no more than ±.02 across datasets. Split-half reliability analyses conducted via Spearman-Brown prophecy formulas yielded coefficients exceeding .85 across all subscales. These metrics confirm that the TTES is free from excessive measurement error and provides dependable assessment across heterogeneous traveler cohorts.

Factor Analysis

The factorial architecture of the TTES was evaluated using a split-sample structural equation modeling approach combining Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

EFA was conducted on Sample 2 (n = 402) using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with Promax (oblique) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that dimensions of transformative travel are naturally correlated. The suitability of the data for factor extraction was supported by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = .941, well above the .80 benchmark) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (χ²(276) = 5418.32, p < .001). Scree plot analysis, parallel analysis, and eigenvalues greater than 1.0 supported a four-factor solution accounting for 64.8% of the total cumulative variance. The extracted factors aligned with the proposed conceptual dimensions:

• Factor 1 (Local Residents and Culture): Initial eigenvalue = 9.84 (41.0% variance explained).
• Factor 2 (Self-Assurance): Initial eigenvalue = 2.45 (10.2% variance explained).
• Factor 3 (Disorienting Dilemma): Initial eigenvalue = 1.83 (7.6% variance explained).
• Factor 4 (Joy): Initial eigenvalue = 1.43 (6.0% variance explained).

Items were retained based on strict criteria: factor loadings ≥ .55 on their primary construct and cross-loadings ≤ .30 on all alternative factors.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the four-factor structural model, CFA was conducted on an independent sample (n = 400) using Maximum Likelihood estimation in AMOS/Mplus. The hypothesized four-factor correlated model demonstrated good fit to the empirical data:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio: χ²/df = 2.14 (χ² = 517.88, df = 242, p < .001), comfortably below the recommended 3.0 upper bound.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .954 (exceeding the standard .95 benchmark).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .948 (exceeding the recommended .90 benchmark).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .053 (90% Confidence Interval: [.047, .060]), well below the .06 cutoff denoting close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .044 (below the .08 threshold).

Alternative model configurations, including a single-factor unidimensional model (χ²/df = 8.74, CFI = .621, RMSEA = .139) and a series of three-factor merged models, were evaluated. The four-factor specification exhibited superior fit indices across all comparative statistical tests (Δχ² testing, p < .001), substantiating the multidimensional structure of the construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Transformative Travel Experience Scale (TTES)
• Developers: Jannelle Soulard, Nancy Gard McGehee, and Whitney Knollenberg (2021)
• Psychological Domains Assessed: Cognitive shifts, critical intercultural reflection, reverse culture shock, psychological empowerment, and travel-induced positive affect.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, online survey engine (Qualtrics, REDCap), or mobile survey interface.
• Target Population: Adult travelers (aged 18 and older) who have completed an international or domestic journey involving cultural immersion.
• Administration Time: Approximately 7 to 10 minutes to complete all 24 items.
• Total Item Count: 24 items across 4 subscales:
  • Local Residents and Culture: 9 items
  • Self-Assurance: 5 items
  • Disorienting Dilemma: 6 items
  • Joy: 4 items
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale ranging from:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (Neutral)
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale scores are calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean of the items comprising each subscale. Higher mean scores indicate greater levels of the respective dimension.
  • Because the four dimensions capture qualitatively distinct facets of the transformative journey (e.g., negative cognitive friction in Disorienting Dilemma versus positive affect in Joy), the authors recommend reporting individual subscale profile scores rather than collapsing the instrument into a single grand mean score.
  • Item 6 of the Disorienting Dilemma dimension evaluates in-destination confusion, whereas Items 1 through 5 assess post-return disorientation and reverse culture shock.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Transformative Travel Experience Scale (TTES) was developed and published in 2021 in the Journal of Travel Research. The instrument, its structural configuration, and its psychometric validation are copyrighted by SAGE Publications and the authoring research team.

For non-commercial academic research, pedagogical use, and student theses, researchers may typically utilize the scale under academic fair-use guidelines, provided full formal citation is credited to the original authors and the publishing journal. Tour operators, commercial consultancy firms, enterprise wellbeing platforms, and corporate entities intending to use the TTES for proprietary diagnostic or commercial purposes must obtain formal licensing permission via SAGE Publications or the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). Correspondence regarding adaptation, international translation, or collaborative research initiatives should be addressed to Dr. Jannelle Soulard.

References

• DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education Quarterly, 28(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171367802800202
• Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
• Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115624965
• Soulard, J., McGehee, N., & Knollenberg, W. (2021). Developing and testing the Transformative Travel Experience Scale (TTES). Journal of Travel Research, 60(5), 923–946. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519890926
• Wolf, I. D., Ainsworth, G. B., & Crowley, J. (2017). Transformative travel as a sustainable market niche for protected areas: A new development, needs analysis and the way forward. Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.08.006

Items of the Scale