See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333343532 Optimizing website quality: The case of two superstar museum websites Article  in  International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research · May 2019 DOI: 10.1108/IJCTHR-06-2018-0074 CITATIONS 25 READS 250 4 authors: Jesus Garcia-Madariaga Complutense University of Madrid 150 PUBLICATIONS   1,892 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE Nuria Recuero-Virto Complutense University of Madrid 89 PUBLICATIONS   483 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE Francis Blasco López Complutense University of Madrid 55 PUBLICATIONS   569 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE Joaquín Aldás-Manzano University of Valencia 89 PUBLICATIONS   3,677 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Nuria Recuero-Virto on 17 September 2023. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333343532_Optimizing_website_quality_The_case_of_two_superstar_museum_websites?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333343532_Optimizing_website_quality_The_case_of_two_superstar_museum_websites?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jesus-Garcia-Madariaga?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jesus-Garcia-Madariaga?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Complutense_University_of_Madrid?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jesus-Garcia-Madariaga?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nuria-Recuero-Virto-2?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nuria-Recuero-Virto-2?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Complutense_University_of_Madrid?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nuria-Recuero-Virto-2?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francis-Lopez-4?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francis-Lopez-4?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Complutense_University_of_Madrid?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francis-Lopez-4?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joaquin-Aldas-Manzano?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joaquin-Aldas-Manzano?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Valencia?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joaquin-Aldas-Manzano?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nuria-Recuero-Virto-2?enrichId=rgreq-8c5ebac4804dc9d876fca02c8b1a4723-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzMzM0MzUzMjtBUzoxMTQzMTI4MTE4OTI2MzMyN0AxNjk0OTgzNDA1MjY0&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Optimizing website quality. The case of two superstar museum websites Journal: International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research Manuscript ID IJCTHR-06-2018-0074.R2 Manuscript Type: Research Paper Keywords: multi-group analysis, museums, website quality, trust, perceived control, e-loyalty International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research ID: IJCTHR-06-2018-0074 1 Optimizing website quality. The case of two superstar museum websites Answer to Editor Comments PLEASE ADDRESS THE COMMENTS OF THE REVIEWERS AND: - CHECK your STRUCTURED Abstract in terms of clarity of the language and ist appeal to the potential readers We really appreciate this suggestion. We have changed the abstract, adding more clarity of the language and being more appealing. We really appreciate your support, because we think it has given us a huge improvement. Thank you. - PERFORM a thorough proofreading . English is rather poor in many sentences (see last line of page 6, for instance), and there are still typos, for ex. page 9 line 14 Table, not Tables page 9 line 45 key, not kay page 16 line 25 related TO two of the most visited museums Finally, Figure 1 has lost its title in the new version The new version has been edited and revised by a native English speaker. We have also changed the mistakes pointed out by the Editor (and reviewers). We have revised all the manuscript and have amended several mistakes, which are now in red font so you can check all our improvements in this regard. Thank you. IF YOU MANAGE TO COMPLETE THESE minor revisions and those suggested by the reviewers WITHIN THE NEXT FOUR/FIVE DAYS, we can include your paper in the next issue. We would highly appreciate if you reconsider the publication of our study as we have tried to do our best, address all your suggestions and the contributions of the study. Page 1 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research ID: IJCTHR-06-2018-0074 2 Reviewer 1. Comments: Dear authors, my evaluation of your effort in improving the paper according to the suggestions by the reviewers is: sufficient. However, proofreading is necessary before publication We have done our best to improve this submission and believe we have satisfied your comments. The new version has been edited and revised by a native English speaker. We have revised all the manuscript and have amended several mistakes, which are now in red font so you can check all our improvements in this regard. In the next paragraphs, we provide responses to each reviewer’s specific comments. Additional Questions: 1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication? See previous review. Thank you. ---------- 2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Inclusion of two references done - Camarero et al (2011) in a not completely convincing way. In the second paragraph of the introduction a reference to Camarero et al. (2015) paper is introduced regarding how museums achieve the status of “superstars” due their stable attendance indicators. In the last sentence of the manuscript, we highlight the importance of completing our research avenue with the findings of Camarero et al (2015) regarding size, innovation and performance. Thank you very much. ---------- 3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate? The issues raised in my previous review (file) have been more or less addressed We have tried to make our best by addressing all your recommendations. ---------- 4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Yes. Thank you. Page 2 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research ID: IJCTHR-06-2018-0074 3 ---------- 5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper? Yes, Thank you. ---------- 6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Needs proofreading. The new version has been edited and revised by a native English speaker. ------------------------------ We thank you for the constructive insights and valuable help. We have carefully revised the comments and we are confident this new manuscript addresses all the issues. Page 3 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research ID: IJCTHR-06-2018-0074 4 Optimizing website quality. The case of two superstar museum websites Reviewer 2. Comments: Thanks for your job. In my opinion, it is an improved paper. Thank you very much for your interesting comments. All your recommendations have helped us improve the manuscript. We have tried to do our best to respond all the observations you have done. In reply to your comments, we are sending you the revised manuscript that includes all your suggestions in red font. Additional Questions: 1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication? ------------------------- Thank you. ---------- 2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? The main construct of the model, website quality, is not enough described after the revision yet. The theoretical framework underlines that “scholars… not reaching a unanimous consensus….” However, the authors only explain the Pallud and Straub’s (2014) proposal, which is the one they use for the model. Of course, it is a future line of research (pag 16, lines 15 to 23). But, why they don’t expand the discussion of the theoretical framework?. In my opinion, there is no debate in this part of the article. So, a researcher does not have a global perspective of the approach of the construct study in the literature review and he/she could not understand why Pallud and Straub’s (2014) proposal is the most adequate for this research. Thank you. Pallud and Straub (2014) proposal has been chosen as the most adequate for this research because it is focused precisely in superstar museums (The Atlanta History Center and Musée du Quai Branly). Hence, we thought it was rather revealing to extend their findings by addressing a multi-group comparison with two Spanish superstar museums (Prado Museum and Thyssen Bornemisza Museum) and analysing additional relationships (i.e. the effects of website quality on trust, e-loyalty and perceived control, the impact of trust on e-loyalty and the influence of perceived control on trust). In such a basis, we were making our best efforts to expand the existing findings of the actual literature framework regarding this topic. ---------- 3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Methodology are much better described now. Page 4 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research ID: IJCTHR-06-2018-0074 5 Thank you. ---------- 4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? ------------------------- Thank you. ---------- 5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: ------------------------- Thank you. ---------- 6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Only check: 1) Pag 9, line 45: kay 2) Pag 16, line 36: adittionally Thank you. We have now corrected these mistakes. ------------------------------ Thank you very much for comments. All your advices have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. Thus, we would greatly appreciate if you reconsider the publication of our manuscript. Besides, other changes to the mentioned above have also been incorporated in the manuscript following the proposals made by other reviewer. Page 5 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research ID: IJCTHR-06-2018-0074 6 Page 6 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Optimizing website quality. The case of two superstar museum websites ABSTRACT Purpose: Few studies examine users’ perceptions of the quality of museum websites. We conduct a multi-group comparison of two superstar museums to examine the variables that are important for the quality of museum websites in terms of achieving e- loyalty, trust and perceived control. Design/methodology/approach: The comparison was between the Prado and Thyssen- Bornemisza museum websites. The sample comprised 305 valid online questionnaires, collected from a panel survey using a quota-sampling technique. The proposed model was tested using a partial least squares analysis multi-group comparison. Findings: Website quality plays a determinant role in users’ behavioural outcomes. Our results show, for first time in a museum setting, that website quality has the potential to influence e-loyalty, trust and perceived control. In addition, trust has a positive influence on e-loyalty, and perceived control on trust. The multi-group comparison shows no significant differences between the two superstar museums, and provides very useful insights for website design. Originality/value: This research undertakes a multi-group comparison using partial least squares, a very recently developed technique. We contribute to knowledge about museum website management and the literature by proposing website quality as a dimension that includes content, ease of understanding, emotion, informational fit-to- task, promotion, visual appeal and by showing the significant effects of the relationships in the proposed model. Museum managers are provided with valuable inputs to aid them to design websites so that their users will be willing to repeat their navigation experiences. Keywords: Multi-group analysis, museums, website quality, e-loyalty, trust, perceived control. Page 7 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research 1. Introduction Museums face the challenge of adopting the most appropriate Information and Communication Technology (ICT) channels to fulfil their users’ needs and expectations. The rapid growth of high tech also affects museum management; their websites are cornerstones for developing long-term relationships with potential visitors (Escobar- Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo, 2013; Marty, 2007). Museums have had to transform their websites from being simply shop windows providing opening hours, location and prices to forums which allow visitors to plan, co-create and share their experiences (Capriotti et al., 2016; Padilla-Melendez and del Águila-Obra, 2013; Yoo and Gretzel, 2017). Websites have changed how potential visitors make decisions and a new key objective of museum digital platforms is to retain the users that visit their websites (Choi and Kim, 2016; Pallud and Straub, 2014). Although there are many new digital features in museums that appeal to their visitors’ emotional senses, such as beacons, bots, virtual and augmented reality, websites are still the start point of the museumgoer’s customer journey (Muskat et al., 2013; Yoo and Gretzel, 2017). In the current “experience economy” (Camarero et al., 2015), museums that achieve the status of “superstars” due to their visitor numbers (Frey, 1998; Mencarelli et al., 2010), continuously re-design their websites to highlight their service differentiation and, hence, increase the loyalty of their users (Capriotti et al., 2016; Evans and Rentschler, 2012, Lin et al., 2012; López et al., 2010; Pallud, 2017; Pallud and Straub, 2014, Recuero et al., 2017). Most of the academic research focusses on the functional attributes of museum websites and does not fully analyse users’ behaviours after their navigation experiences (Lepkowska-White and Imboden, 2013; López et al., 2010; Marty, 2007; 2008; 2011). This study aims to determine if superstar museum website quality features (content, ease of understanding, emotion, informational fit-to-task, promotion and visual appeal) influence users’ e-loyalty, trust and perceived control. Furthermore, we analyse the effects of trust on e-loyalty and perceived control on trust. The Prado and Thyssen- Bornemisza museum websites were analysed. The huge popularity of their websites makes them the reference points for the development of other museum platforms, which emphasizes the need to address their impact on users’ e-loyalty. 2. Theoretical framework Page 8 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research 2.1 Dimensions of museum website quality Website quality dimensions have been a topic of interest for researchers and professionals in different sectors over the last two decades (Ecer, 2014; Kim and Stoel, 2004). In the online retail context, it is stated that users recognise the quality of these websites when they provide information, entertainment, enjoyment, usability, transaction options and design aesthetics (Jones and Kim, 2010). Scholars have examined website quality from the perspective of different multiple dimensions (Kim and Niehm, 2009), but have not reached a consensus as to the amount of features this concept should include (López-Miguens and Vazquez, 2017). In this research, we evaluate website quality based on the attributes of content, ease of understanding, emotion, informational fit-to-task, promotion and visual appeal, which in essence are the same categories analysed in the museum context by Pallud and Straub (2014), and these are considered to be the main aspects of museum websites that users value (Kabassi, 2017). 2.2 E-loyalty, trust and perceived control Museum managers are keenly interested in users’ behaviours arising as a result of their online experiences (Lazarinis, 2011; Lepkowska-White and Imboden, 2013; Pallud and Straub, 2014; Marty, 2007; 2008; 2011). As in other contexts, customer loyalty is a popular topic given the advance of ICTs and e-services (e.g. Deng and Chen, 2015; Ding et al., 2011). It is referred to as an ongoing commitment due to the persisting desire of users to continue in their relationship with the organization (Janita and Miranda, 2013). Loyalty is considered one of the most significant effects of service quality models, as it reflects users’ psychological and attitudinal attachment towards the service provider (Janita and Miranda, 2013; Orel and Kara, 2014). Prior research emphasizes that websites with effective design features attract more traffic than those with poor design elements (Hasan, 2016; Kim and Niehm, 2009; López- Miguens and Vazquez, 2017; Tsai, 2017). When users have a pleasurable navigation experience their willingness to revisit a site is increased (Hu and Chuang, 2012). It has also been proved that users’ perceptions regarding their interactions with the website influence their intentions of revisiting the website (Huang et al., 2014; Van Noort et al., 2012). Page 9 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research As stated above, while many people use these websites to find information to organize their in-person visits to the museums, they also refer to the sites when they are not able to visit physically (Marty, 2007). A study of museum websites identifies a positive and significant effect of website quality on attitudes, and attitudes on behavioural intentions (Pallud and Straub, 2014). Thus, it is quite reasonable to expect that, if a museum website is well designed, this will increase users’ e-loyalty. Although some scholars state that website attributes make visitors repeat their online visits (Marty, 2011; Pallud and Straub, 2014), there is, as yet, scant research into what website elements are best for achieving the quality that will attract loyal users. Trust is especially important in the online context, as it is a reflection of users’ confidence in the provider (Han and Hyun, 2015; Li et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2015). This confidence is based more on the perceived usefulness of the website interface, due to the lack of personal interaction between users and employees and, consequently, the evidence is inconclusive (Gregg and Walczak, 2010; Rahimnia and Hassanzadeh, 2013). Trust is an indispensable factor in the creation of long-term client relationships because it reduces uncertainty, raises confidence in the organization’s reliability and integrity and boosts the users’ concentration on enjoying the experience (Li et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2010; Wu and Chang, 2005). Rahimnia and Hassanzadeh (2013) argue that well designed website attributes are very effective in building users’ trust. Gregg and Walczak (2010) find that website quality positively impacts on trust in the e-retail environment. In the tourism sector, it has been demonstrated that navigation functionality has a positive effect on trust (Kim et al., 2011). It has also been proved that information quality has a positive impact on trust (Bonsón Ponte et al., 2015; Escobar-Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014). Filieri et al. (2015) identify a positive relationship between website quality and trust in consumer- generated media on TripAdvisor. Wang et al. (2015) conclude that hotel website quality has a positive and significant effect on trust. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that website quality has a positive influence on trust, but this has not yet been examined in the museum sector, where user expectations differ. However, it is reasonable to suggest that museum website quality will positively influence users’ perceived trust. Perceived control has been described as a determinant variable as it permits users to feel that they manage their actions while visiting a website (Manganari et al., 2014; Rose et al., 2012). In the online dimension, users normally want to feel they have control of Page 10 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research their actions during the process (Smith and Bolton, 2002). Perceived control has also been shown to reduce user anxiety and to help them achieve more positive outcomes (Hui and Bateson, 1991). Hoffman and Novak (1996) determined that users that surf websites that contain a high number of interactive attributes perceive a superior level of control. Rose et al. (2012) confirm that customization and ease of use have a positive and significant impact on control. Manganari et al. (2014) suggest that websites should be designed to take into account the users’ need to control their navigation experience. Hence, website quality is likely to influence users’ perceived control. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1. Museum website quality has a positive and significant influence on e-loyalty (a), trust (b) and perceived control (c). 2.3 Trust as a precondition of e-loyalty Researchers have proved that when users perceive a website as trustworthy they appreciate their navigation experience more (Zhou et al., 2010; Wu and Chang, 2005). Trust has been fully explained through the notions of reliability, integrity and competence (Wang et al., 2014). Hence, trust is regarded as a necessary pre-condition to improve behavioural outcomes, such as online shopping (Harris and Goode, 2004; Tran et al., 2014). Consumers rely on the same providers because they feel satisfied and believe these suppliers will continue to meet their needs, which, in consequence, increases the provider’s retention rates (Goode and Harris, 2007; Tsiotsou, 2016). Although some scholars affirm that trust increases users’ e-loyalty because it reduces their uncertainty (Fang et al., 2014; Wen et al., 2011), few studies evaluate this relationship (Kim et al., 2011; Chen and Chou, 2012; Harris and Goode, 2010; Tran et al., 2014). Several tourism studies conclude that those places that are perceived as trustworthy are more likely to be visited or to receive repeated visits (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Roodurmun and Juwaheer, 2010). Specifically, this was determined as an important antecedent of tourists’ destination choices (Sannassee and Seetanah, 2015). Based on these arguments, we posit that trust raises users’ e-loyalty in the museum website context: H2. Trust has a positive and significant influence on e-loyalty. 2.4 Perceived control impact on trust Page 11 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Perceived control affects the development of trust in the off-line environment due to the risks inherent in client/employee interactions: services are especially susceptible to this risk as they are intrinsically intangible (Namasivayam and Guchait, 2013). In the online context, users’ perceptions of an organization’s trustworthiness depends on their navigation experiences (Smith and Bolton, 2002). If the interaction with the website is straightforward and/or the surfers are highly experienced with online platforms, the greater is the individual’s sensation of control (Hampton-Sosa and Koufaris, 2005). Several studies prove that trust influences perceived risk and behavioural attitudes (Amaro and Duarte, 2015). Moreover, it is shown that when users feel in control of their online actions their levels of perceived vulnerability reduce (Hampton-Sosa and Koufaris, 2005) and this leads to positive emotional and behavioural responses (Yang et al., 2015). Although this relationship has not been exhaustively examined in tourism services, several scholars have proved that perceived control has a positive and significant effect on trust. For instance, Namasivayam and Guchait (2013) demonstrate this positive impact in a restaurant setting. Manganari et al. (2014) showed this linkage to be statistically significant and positive in travel websites. Therefore, we conclude that perceived control has a positive and significant effect on trust in museum websites. Thus, we hypothesize: H3. Perceived control has a positive and significant influence on trust. 3. Methodology 3.1 Data collection procedure and empirical context The theoretical model proposed in Figure 1 was tested through a free simulation experiment, as used in prior, related studies (Lu et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2017). We decided to use this technique as it encourages respondents to answer freely, as the researchers are considered to have less control, and the atmosphere outside the laboratory setting tends to be closer to the real world. We selected the Prado and Thyssen- Bornemisza museum websites on the basis of the similarities of their collections. They are two of the Spanish superstar museums; and their websites meet Pallud and Straub’s (2014) criteria for museum website design (Table A). [Figure 1. Theoretical model and hypotheses] 3.2 Measures and instrument design As the samples were potential museum visitors, we based our empirical method on Page 12 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Kabassi (2017). An online questionnaire was developed; the first page gave instructions for participation in the experiment and hyperlinks to the museum websites. The scope of the study was ensured as we employed official and public census data provided by the museums to compute an appropriate number of visitors by age and gender categories. A panel based on these sampling frames was conducted November 23 - 25, 2016, by Netquest, a respectable market research company working with online panels. It has a database of more than 726,210 consumers in 21 countries. The measurement model items were rated on seven-point Likert scales. Website quality was measured as a second-order reflective-reflective hierarchical component model (Type I), following Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle and Gudergan (2017). We used the first order dimensions of content, ease of understanding, emotion, informational fit-to-task, promotion and visual appeal from Kim and Stoel (2004) and Pallud and Straub (2014). Website quality has been defined as a second order dimension that includes the six aforementioned categories. We used them to gain knowledge of users’ overall evaluation of museum websites. In this vein, scholars have analysed website quality through technical and service elements, namely, information, and service and system quality, which are closely related to the six dimensions analysed in this study (Chen et al., 2016). Specifically, information quality has been measured through the written and visual quality of the content presented (Law et al., 2011). Ease of understanding is described as the perceived ease of navigation, of finding information and of accessing desired material (Aladwani, 2017; Demangeot and Broderick, 2010; Chen et al., 2014). Emotion is related to users’ enjoyment and reactions when surfing websites (Lepkowska-White and Imboden, 2013; Lin and Cassidy, 2008). Promotion is all the advertising actions aimed at attracting traffic to the website (Stewart and Marcketti, 2012). Informational fit-to-task is conceptualised as effective adaptation to users’ needs (Loiacono et al., 2007). Visual appeal is the perception of attractiveness and aesthetics of a website (Hanh et al., 2017; Hasan, 2016; Liu et al., 2017; Pengnate and Sarathy, 2017; Skulmowski et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017). Perceived control, e-loyalty and trust were adapted from Hsu et al. (2012), Ding et al. (2011) and Kim et al. (2011) and Agag and El-Masry (2016), respectively. 3.3 Sample Page 13 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Table I shows the profiles of the two groups of respondents. Respondents were initially asked if they had previously physically visited the museum. It transpired that 27.1% had previously visited the Prado museum and 24% had visited the Thyssen-Bornemisza museum. The participants were also asked if they had previously visited the museum’s website. Only 29.7% had visited the Prado Museum website and 15.3% the Thyssen- Bornemisza website. Table II presents the measurement model and a descriptive analysis of the answers. In summary, the mean values of both samples indicate that the Prado museum website is valued slightly higher than the Thyssen-Bornemisza museum website. Trust seems to be one of the most valued factors in both cases. [Tables I and II] 3.4 Data analysis SmartPLS (version 3.2.7; Ringle et al., 2015) was used to perform Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) and multigroup (MGA) analyses. We selected this technique as it is nonparametric SEM method suitable for MGA and is particularly recommended when the measurement model entails a combination of first and second order constructs (Hair et al., 2014; Henseler et al., 2016; Sarstedt et al., 2011). Moreover, this technique is very useful when the proposed model aims to test a theory, predict a key target construct and to use the latent variables scores in future analyses (Hair et al., 2017; Sarstedt et al., 2017; Rigdon et al., 2017). Power analysis was calculated with G*Power 3 which gave a statistical power for R2 deviation from zero to 92% in both samples, above the recommended minimum level of 80% (Faul et al., 2007). Thus, both sample sizes (155 and 150) for the two groups are acceptable. 4. Results 4.1 Evaluation of the measurement model and invariance measurement across groups Second order constructs were operationalized using the repeated indicators approach (Hair et al., 2016). Table III shows the results of the measurement model’s reliability and convergent validity for both samples. All loading factors were higher than 0.7, except one (EMO1), that we retained as the Cronbach alpha and AVE values were not affected, following Hair et al.’s (2014) recommendations. As to the construct reliability determining the internal consistency of the study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were higher than 0.60. Similarly, the composite reliability values were above the recommended Page 14 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research coefficient of 0.60, indicating the shared variance among a set of observed items measuring each construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The evaluation of convergent validity and discriminant validity allows us to confirm the validity of the results (Hair et al., 2011). Convergent validity was proved as the average variance extracted (AVE) coefficient for each construct was higher than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). [Table III] Discriminant validity determines the extent to which each construct is different from other latent variables in the measurement model (Hair et al., 2016). This was confirmed by examining the shared variance between pairs of constructs and verifying it as lower than the corresponding AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Tables IV and V). Also, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio method (Henseler et al., 2015) was used to assess discriminant validity, and all ratios were less than 0.90 (Teo et al., 2008). Reliability and convergent validity were verified both at the first and second order level for the second order construct of the analysed model. Several scholars suggest verifying the acceptability of measurements models and measurement invariance before undertaking an MGA (Hair et al., 2016; Henseler et al., 2016; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2016; 2017; Sarstedt et al., 2011). Following Henseler et al.’s (2016) advice we evaluated the measurement invariance of composites (MICOM) to examine measurement invariance to compare and interpret the MGA’s group-specific differences among the PLS-SEM findings. MICOM involves a three-step process: (1) the invariance assessment, (2) compositional invariance assessment and (3) an estimation of equal means and variances (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017). Table VI presents these results. [Tables IV, V and VI] 4.2 Structural model and multi group evaluation We firstly evaluated the R2 to measure the model’s explanatory power (Hair et al., 2014). All dependent constructs had a R2 higher than 0.10 (Falk and Miller, 1992). Similarly, we obtained positive Stone-Geisser’s Q2 through blindfolding (Henseler et al., 2009). The predictive relevance of the model for both samples was confirmed (Table VII). [Table VII] Table VIII shows the results of the structural model and hypotheses’ analyses (5,000 bootstrap resamples and 5,000 permutations). Table VIII also shows the results of Page 15 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Henseler’s MGA (Henseler et al., 2009) and the permutation test (Chin and Dibbern, 2010). Henseler’s MGA compares group bootstrap estimates from each bootstrap sample, where p values lower than 0.05 or higher than 0.95 show significant differences between specific path coefficients across the two groups at the 5% level (Henseler et al., 2009; Sarstedt et al., 2011). The permutation test shows differences at the 5% level of significance if the p value is lower than 0.05. The findings show that website quality has a positive and significant influence on e- loyalty for both museum websites (H1a; Prado Museum website β=0.524 p<0.01; Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website β=0.631 p<0.01). Moreover, the results show a positive and significant influence of website quality on trust in both samples (H1b; Prado Museum website β=0.623 p<0.01; Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website β=0.610 p<0.01). Finally, the findings reveal a positive and significant influence of website quality on perceived control in both samples (H1c; Prado Museum website β=0.815 p<0.01; Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website β=0.726 p<0.01). We also examine the influence of trust on e-loyalty, and of perceived control on trust. The influence of trust on e-loyalty is positive and significant in both cases (H2; Prado Museum website β=0.322 p<0.01; Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website β=0.289 p<0.1). The positive and significant influence of perceived control on trust was supported in both samples (H3; Prado Museum website β=0.189 p<0.10; Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website β=0.251 p<0.05). Henseler's MGA and the permutation method results reveal that there are no significant differences between the Prado Museum and Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum websites in terms of the influence of website quality on e-loyalty and trust (H1a and H1b), trust on e-loyalty (H2) and perceived control on trust (H3). Henseler’s MGA shows a minor difference between website quality and perceived control (H1c). Henseler's MGA and the permutation method endorse the significance and non-significance of the differences, providing a multi-method confirmation of the findings. [Table VIII] 5. Discussion In this study we examine the influence of website quality on e-loyalty, trust and perceived control, the effect of trust on e-loyalty and the impact of perceived control on trust. In addition, we compare these relationships in a comparison of Prado and Thyssen- Page 16 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Bornemisza museum websites. Permutation test results reveal no significant differences among the relationships of the Prado Museum and Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum websites, and the MGA results identify a minor difference between the websites in website quality and perceived control (H1c). Thus, the results highlight the importance of website quality as a driver of e-loyalty and trust in museum websites. The results corroborate the conclusions of other scholars that well designed website features influence users’ e-loyalty (Hasan, 2016; Hu and Chuang, 2012; Huang et al., 2014; López-Miguens and Vazquez, 2017; Tsai, 2017; Van Noort et al., 2012). Consequently, the results of the MGA confirm there are no significant differences between the two superstar museum websites, as in both cases website quality significantly and positively influences users’ e-loyalty with the same effect size. The research also proves that the direct effect of website quality and trust are positive and significant, which is in line with other tourism studies (Filieri et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015). Moreover, this study demonstrates that website quality, as a dimension that includes different attributes, has a direct, significant and positive impact on perceived control. This finding is revealing as prior research has concluded that certain website features positively influence perceived control (Rose et al., 2012) and other scholars suggest that interactive attributes help users feel they are in control of the navigation experience (Hoffman and Novak, 1996; Manganari et al., 2014). However, the Henseler’s MGA results show a slight difference in the linkage between website quality and perceived control between the two museum websites. Although the effect sizes of both relationships are significant, the Prado Museum website shows that website quality has more influence on perceived control. Prado Museum website users perceive a greater sense of control than Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website users. The features of the two museum websites are different regarding content, ease of understanding, emotion, informational fit-to-task, promotion and visual appeal (Table A). Although the content of the Prado Museum website seems more complex, as it has seven collections against the four big collections of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website, the ease of understanding of the Prado Museum website may be higher as its style is more traditional than that of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website. Moreover, the emotion characteristics of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum website are more complex than the Prado Museum website; this may mean that the users of the Prado Museum website Page 17 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research perceive more control than do the users of the Thyssen Bornemisza Museum website. In addition, the Prado Museum website informational fit-to-task feature helps users to plan and organize their visits by allowing them to create their own itineraries, which is not offered by the Thyssen Bornemisza Museum. Furthermore, the promotional schedule and the visual appeal of the Prado Museum website are more effective than in the Thyssen Bornemisza Museum website. Thus, it is quite reasonable that we find that Henseler’s MGA shows a slight difference between website quality and perceived control in favour of the Prado Museum website. This study identifies trust as an antecedent of e-loyalty in both samples, as is the case in other tourism works (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Roodurmun and Juwaheer, 2010; Sannassee and Seetanah, 2015). In addition, we confirm that perceived control has a positive effect on trust, as other scholars have previously concluded (Namasivayam and Guchai, 2013). However, this relationship shows the lowest effect size of all the links analysed in our study into both museum websites. This could be explained by the fact that users’ trust levels in the museums have been previously established by their past experiences (So et al., 2016). In this respect, Chen and Chou (2012) conclude that image positively and significantly influences trust regarding destinations. In any case, the influence of perceived control on trust could be more important for users who are repeating their navigation experience than for first-time users. 6. Conclusions 6.1 Theoretical and managerial contributions Research into museum websites has started to gain the attention of scholars and practitioners as the number of online museum visitors continuously increases. These studies have mainly focused on the usability aspects of museum websites, neglecting important aspects such as adaptivity, which is covered in this research by the informational fit-to-task dimension (Kabassi, 2017). We present new evidence showing that website quality is a dimension that includes related concepts. This research extends museum website literature in a number of ways. First, there is as yet little research into the most suitable website quality elements for attracting loyal users, although some scholars have studied the website attributes that make clients repeat their visits (Marty, 2011; Pallud and Straub, 2014). We also prove, for first time in the museum online context, that website quality has a positive and Page 18 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research significant effect on trust and perceived control, as other website studies have suggested (Filieri et al., 2015; Hoffman and Novak, 1996; Manganari et al., 2014; Rose et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2015). In addition, the proposed model assesses the relationships between trust and e-loyalty and perceived control and trust, which are shown to be positive and significant. These findings are revealing as these linkages are, for first time, examined in this context (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Namasivayam and Guchai, 2013; Roodurmun and Juwaheer, 2010; Sannassee and Seetanah, 2015). Second, the MGA demonstrated that there are no significant differences between the relationships among the two superstar museum websites. This analysis contributes to the understanding of the hierarchical, latent variable website quality and examines Henseler’s MGA and permutation test to extend the results to include one second order dimension. Third, this paper contributes to museum management research, and to tourism and ecommerce literature in general, as it examines the effects of website quality on e-loyalty, trust and perceived control, and adds value to the literature related to two different relationships: trust and e-loyalty; and perceived control and trust. With regard to managerial implications, the identification of website quality criteria and the empirical findings of our study into the two superstar museums allows their managements, digital experts and website designers to improve their decision making processes. The stiff competition in the edutainment industry, where museums compete with each other and high-tech options such as Candy Crush and Netflix, highlights the need to foster e-loyalty and to take immediate and urgent actions to improve users’ experiences to boost ROE (Return of Engagement). Museum managers should improve website quality features to increase users’ e-loyalty, trust and perceived control levels and to avoid scenarios where visitors suffer from boredom, anxiety or stress. Superstar museums are highly appropriate scenarios for the introduction of best practices designed to stimulate users. Hence, museum managers should consult Table A to determine how to design effective website features for their users. Moreover, other scholars suggest that it is important to offer interactive and eLearning tools in the physical museum, so that visitors do not feel that all of the actual artworks are displayed on the website (Capriotti et al., 2016; Kabassi, 2017; Pallud, 2017). 6.2 Limitations and future research lines Page 19 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Researchers might extend our findings by considering the limitations of the study. First, it would be interesting to examine if the prior knowledge and familiarity of repeat users have an influence on the overall image gap (Beerli-Palacio and Martín-Santana, 2017; Moreno-Gil and Ritchie, 2017). In addition, we encourage other scholars to corroborate if positioning museums as emotional experiences has a positive influence on behavioural attitudes in the museum online context (Del Chiappa et al., 2014). Specifically, it would be interesting for future researchers to examine the influence of user-generated content, as an emotional involvement tool (Irimiás and Volo, 2018), on users’ willingness to repeat the navigation experience or even visit the physical museum. Second, the model comprises the second order construct of website quality, that includes related concepts, to increase parsimony and examine links with other dimensions. Nevertheless, scholars should examine the separate influences of each variable. We also recommend that future research follow Rossiter’s (2002) procedure for scale development by adding the maximum dimensions to fully explain website quality in a formative measurement model. For instance, other dimensions that could be used to explain website quality are system quality, information quality and service quality (Kumar et al., 2014), made for the medium, ease of use, aesthetics (Pallud and Straub, 2014), among others. Third, the samples are taken from visitors to two of the most popular museums in Spain, which may have led to bias. Although the MGA comparison presents similar results that allow the generalization of the findings, it would be interesting to replicate the research with other museums, or even other tourism services. Moreover, it would be interesting to address empirical support and to use a larger sample of museums, to prove if private ownership provides higher website effectiveness and, consequently, to extend the findings of Bertacchini, Dalle Nogare and Scuderi (2018) into the digital sphere. In addition, this research line could be complemented with Camarero, Garrido and Vicente’s (2015) findings regarding size, innovation and performance. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the the Autonomous Community of Madrid for their support in funding of this study, obtained from the Social Sciences and Humanities (PTRTIJR-CM) R&D programme. References Page 20 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Agag, G. and El-Masry, A. (2016), “Understanding the determinants of hotel booking intentions and moderating role of habit”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 54, pp. 52-67. Aladwani, A. M. (2017), “Compatible quality of social media content: conceptualization, measurement, and affordances”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37, pp. 576-582. Amaro, S. and Duarte, P. (2015), “An integrative model of consumers' intentions to purchase travel online”, Tourism Management, Vol. 46, pp. 64-79. Beerli-Palacio, A. and Martín-Santana, J. D. (2017), “How does confirmation of motivations influence on the pre- and post-visit change of image of a destination?”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp.238-251. Bertacchini, E., Dalle Nogare, C. and Scuderi, R, (2018), “Ownership, organization structure and public service provision and service quality: the case of museums”, Journal of Cultural Economics, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10824-018-9321-9 Bonsón Ponte, E., Carvajal-Trujillo, E. and Escobar-Rodriguez, T. (2015), “Influence of trust and perceived value on the intention to purchase travel online: integrating the effects of assurance on trust antecedents”, Tourism Management, Vol. 47, pp. 286-302. Camarero, C., Garrido, M. J. and Vicente, E. (2015), “Achieving effective visitor orientation in European museums. Innovation versus custodial”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 16, pp. 228-235. Capriotti, P., Carretón, C. and Castillo, A. (2016), “Testing the level of interactivity of institutional websites: from museums 1.0 to museums 2.0”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36, pp. 97-104. Chen, Y.-T. and Chou, T.-Y. (2012), “Exploring the continuance intentions of consumers for B2C online shopping: perspectives of fairness and trust”, Online Information Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp.104-125. Chen, J. V., Su, B.C. and Widjaja, A. E. (2014), “Facebook C2C social commerce: a study of online impulse buying”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 83, pp. 57-69. Chen, X., Huang, Q. and Davison, R. M. (2016), “The role of website quality and social capital in building buyers ‘loyalty”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1563-1574. Chin, W. W. and Dibbern, J. (2010), “A permutation based procedure for multi-group PLS analysis: results of tests of differences on simulated data and a cross cultural analysis of the sourcing of information system services between Germany and the USA”, in Vinzi, E.V., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of partial least Squares: concepts, methods and applications, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 171-193. Choi, H. and Kim, S. (2016), “A content service deployment plan for metaverse museum exhibitions. Centering on the combination of beacons and HMDs”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1519-1527. Page 21 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Del Chiappa, G., Andreu, L. and Gallarza, M.G. (2014), “Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp.420-431. Demangeot, C. and Broderick, A. J. (2010), “Consumer perceptions of online shopping environments: a gestalt approach”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 117-140. Deng, Y. L. S. and Chen, D. F. H. X. (2015), “The impacts of unique service resources and habit on e-service loyalty in a highly competitive market”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 336-350. Ding, D. X., Hu, P. J.-H. and Liu, O. R. (2011), “E-selfqual: a scale for measuring online self-service quality”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64, pp. 508-515. Ecer, F. (2014), “A hybrid banking websites quality evaluation model using AHP and COPRAS-G: A Turkey case”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 20 , No. 4, pp. 758-782. Ekinci, Y.and Hosany, S. (2006), “Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tourism destination”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, pp. 127- 139. Escobar-Rodíguez, T. and Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2014), “Online purchasing tickets for low cost carriers: an application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model, Tourism Management, Vol. 43, pp. 70-88. Escobar-Rodríguez, T. and Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2013), “An evaluation of Spanish hotel websites: informational vs. relational strategies”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 33, pp. 228-239. Evans, J. and Rentschler, K. B. R (2012), “Drivers, impediments and manifestations of brand orientation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 11/12, pp. 1457- 1475. Hanh, S.-E., Sparks, B. , Wilkins, H. and Jin, X. (2017), “E-service quality management of a hotel website: a scale and implications for management”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 26 , No. 7, pp. 694-716. Falk, R. F. and Miller, N. B. (1992), A primer for soft modelling, University of Akron Press, Akron, OH. Fang, B., Ye, Q. and Law, R. (2015), “Effect of sharing economy on tourism industry employment”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 57, pp. 264-267. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G. and Buchner, A. (2007), “G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences”, Behaviour Research Methods, Vol. 39, pp. 175-191. Filieri, R. (2015), “Why do travellers trust TripAdvisor? Antecedents of trust towards consumer-generated media and its influence on recommendation adoption and word of mouth”, Tourism Management, Vol. 51, pp. 174-185. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50. Frey, B. S. (1998), “Superstar museums: an economic analysis”, Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 23 No.2/2, pp. 113-125. Page 22 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Goode, M. and Harris, L.C. (2007), “Online behavioral intentions: an empirical investigation of antecedents and moderators”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 512-36. Gregg, D. G. and Walczak, S. (2010), “The relationship between website quality, trust and price premiums at online auctions”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-25. Hair, J. F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Los Angeles, CA. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. and Thiele, K.O. (2017), “Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No.5, pp. 616-632. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2011). “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-52. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. and Ringle, C. M. (2016), “Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I – method”, European Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 63-76. Hampton-Sosa, W. and Koufaris, M. (2005), “The effect of web site perceptions on initial trust in the owner company”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 55-81. Harris, L.C. and Goode, M.M.H. (2004), “The four levels loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of online loyalty, trust, satisfaction, value, and service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp.139-58. Harris, L.C. and Goode, M.M.H. (2010), “Online servicescapes, trust, and purchase intentions”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp.230-43. Hasan, B. (2016), “Perceived irritation in online shopping: the impact of website design characteristics”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 224-230. Han, H. and Hyun, S. S. (2015), “Customer retention in the medical tourism industry: impact of quality, satisfaction, trust, and price reasonableness”, Tourism Management, Vol. 46, pp. 20-29. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), “Testing measurement invariance of composites using Partial Least Squares”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 405-31. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modelling in international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 277-320. Hoffman, D. L. and Novak, T. P. (1996), “Mediated environments: conceptual foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp.50-68. Hsu, M.-H., Chang, C.-M., Chu, K.-K. and Lee, Y.-J. (2014), “Determinants of repurchase intention in online group-buying: the perspectives of DeLone & Page 23 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research McLean IS success model and trust”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 234-245. Hu, F.L and Chuang, C.C. (2012), “A study of the relationship between the value perception and loyalty intention toward an e-retailer website”, Journal of Internet Banking & Commerce, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-18. Hui, M. K. and Bateson, J. E. G. (1991), “Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the service experience”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 174-84. Huang, L. Y., Hsieh, Y. J. and Wu, Y. C. J. (2014), “Gratifications and social network service usage: the mediating role of online experience”, Information & Management, Vol. 51, pp. 774-782. Irimiás, A. and Volo, S. (2018), “A netnography of war heritage sites’ online narratives: user-generated content and destination marketing organizations communication at comparison”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp.159-172. Janita, M. S. and Miranda, F. J. (2013), “The antecedents of client loyalty in business-to- business (B2B) electronic marketplaces”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42, pp. 814-823. Jones, C. and Kim, S. (2010), “Influences of retail brand trust, off-line patronage, clothing involvement and website quality on online apparel shopping intention”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 627-637. Kabassi, K. (2017), “Evaluating websites of museums: state of the art”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 24, pp. 184-196. Kim, M.J., Chung, N. and Lee, C.K. (2011), “The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce: shopping online for tourism products and services in South Korea”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 256-265. Kim, H. and Niehm, L. S. (2009), “The impact of website quality on information quality, value, and loyalty intentions in apparel retailing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23, pp. 221-233. Kim, S. and Stoel, L. (2004), “Dimensional hierarchy of retail website quality”, Information & Management, Vol. 41, pp.619-633. Kumar, R. S., Lassae, W. M. and Butaney, G. (2014), “The mediating impact of stickiness and loyalty on word-of-mouth promotion of retail websites”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 9/10, pp.1828-1849. Law, R., Buhalis, D. and Cobanoglu, C. (2011), “Progress on information and communication technologies in hospitality and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 727-750. Lazarinis, F. (2011), “Exploring the effectiveness of information searching tools on Greek museum websites”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 391-408 Lepkowska-White, E. and Imboden, K. (2013), “Effective design for usability and interaction: the case of art museum websites”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 284-305. Li, L., Peng, M., Jiang, N. and Law, R. (2017), “An empirical study on the influence of Page 24 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research economy hotel website quality on online booking intentions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 6, pp. 1-10. Lin, A. C. H., Fernandez, W. D. and Gregor, S. (2012), “Understanding web enjoyment experiences and informal learning: a study in a museum context”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 53, pp. 846-858. Lin, F. S. and Cassidy, T. (2008), “Affective textile and costume museum website design”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 23-33. Liu, F., Xiao, B., Lim, E. T. K. and Tan, C.-W. (2017), “The art of appeal in electronic commerce: understanding the impact of product and website quality on online purchases”, Internet Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp.752-771. Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T. and Goodhue, D. T. (2007), “WebQual: an instrument for consumer evaluation of web sites”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 11, No. 3, 51-87 López, X., Margapoti, I., Maragliano, R. and Bove, G. (2010), “The presence of Web 2.0 tools on museum websites: a comparative study between England, France, Spain, Italy, and the USA”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 235-249. López-Miguens, M. J. and González, E. (2017), “An integral model of e-loyalty from the consumer’s perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 73, pp. 397-411. Lu, B., Fan, W. and Zhou, M. (2016), “Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: an empirical research”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 56, pp. 225-237. Manganari, E. E., Siomkos, G. J. and Vrechopoulos, A. P. (2014), “Perceived consumer navigational control in travel websites”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 3-22. Marty, P. (2007), “Museum websites and museum visitors: before and after the museum visit”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 337-360. Marty, P. F. (2008), “Museum websites and museum visitors: digital museum resources and their use”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 81-99. Marty, P. F. (2011), “My lost museum: user expectations and motivations for creating personal digital collections on museum websites”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 33, pp. 211-219. Mencarelli, R., Marteaux, S. and Pulh, M. (2010), “Museums, consumers, and on‐site experiences”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp.330-348. Moreno-Gil, S. and Ritchie, B.J.R. (2017), “Research based guidelines for effective visitation management of museums’ image”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp.534-550. Muskat, M., Muskat, B., Zehrer, A. and Johns, R. (2013), “Generation Y: evaluating services experiences through mobile ethnography”, Tourism Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 55-71. Namasivayam, K. and Guchait, P. (2013), “The role of contingent self-esteem and trust in consumer satisfaction: examining perceived control and fairness as predictors”, Page 25 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 33, pp. 184-195. Orel, F. D. and Kara, A. (2014), “Supermarket self-checkout service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty: empirical evidence from an emerging market”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 118-129. Padilla-Meléndez, A. and Del Águila-Obra, A. R. (2013), “Web and social media usage by museums: online value creation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33, pp. 892-898. Pallud, J. (2017), “Impact of interactive technologies on stimulating learning experiences in a museum”, Information & Management, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp.465-478. Pallud, J. and Straub, D.W. (2014), “Effective website design for experience-influenced environments: the case of high culture museums”, Information & Management, Vol. 51, pp. 359-373. Pengnate, S. and Sarathy, R. (2017), “An experimental investigation of the influence of website emotional design features on trust in unfamiliar online vendors”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.67, pp. 49-60. Rahimnia, F. and Hassanzadeh, J.F. (2013), “The impact of website content dimension and e-trust on e-marketing effectiveness: the case of Iranian commercial saffron corporations”, Information & Management, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 240-247. Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Ringle, C., Jaafar, M. and Ramayah, T. (2017), “Urban vs. rural destinations: residents’ perceptions, community participation and support for tourism development”, Tourism Management, Vol. 60, pp. 147-158. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Roldán, J. L., Jaafar, M. and Ramayah, T. (2016), “Factors influencing residents’ perceptions toward tourism development: differences across rural and urban world heritage sites”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 760-775. Recuero, N. Blasco, F. and San-Martin, S. (2017), “How can European museums reach sustainability”, Tourism Review, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 303-318. Rigdon, E. E., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C. M. (2017), “On comparing results from CB- SEM and PLS-SEM: Five perspectives and five recommendations”, Journal of Research and Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 4-16. Ringle, C., Wende, S. and Becker, J. (2015), SmartPLS 3 (Version 3.2.7), SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. Roodurmun, J. and Juwaheer, T. D. (2010), “Influence of trust on destination loyalty an empirical analysis the discussion of the research approach”, International Research Symposium in Service Management, pp. 1- 23. Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P. and Hair. N. (2012), “Online customer experience in e- retailing: an empirical model of antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 308-322. Rossiter, J. R. (2002), “The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 1-31. Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J. and Ringle, C. (2011), “Multigroup analysis in Partial Least Squares (PLS) path modelling: alternative methods and empirical results”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 195-218. Page 26 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2017). Partial least squares. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market research, Springer, Berlin. Skulmowski, A., Augustin, Y., Pradel, S., Nebel, S., Schneider, S. and Rey. G. D. (2016), “The negative impact of saturation on website trustworthiness and appeal: a temporal model of aesthetic website perception”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 386-393. Smith, A.K. and Bolton, R.N. (2002), “The effect of customer’s emotional responses to service failures on their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgment”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, pp. 5-23. So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A. and Wang, Y. (2014), “The role of customer engagement in building consumer loyalty to tourism brands”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 64-78. Stewart, T. S. and Marcketti, S. B. (2012), “Textiles, dress, and fashion museum website development: strategies and practices”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp.523-538. Teo, T. S. H., Srivastava, S. C. and Jiang, L. (2008), “Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 99-132. Tran, G. A., Strutton, D. and Taylor, D. G. (2012), “Do microblog postings influence consumer perceptions of retailers' e‐servicescapes?”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp.818-836. Tsai, S. (2017), “ E-loyalty driven by website quality: the case of destination marketing organization websites”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 262-279. Tsiotsou , R. H. (2016), “The social aspects of consumption as predictors of consumer loyalty: online vs. offline services”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 91-116. Van Noort, G., Voorveld, H. A. M. and Reijmersdal, E. A. V. (2012), “Interactivity in Brand web sites: cognitive, affective, and behavioural responses explained by consumers' online flow experience”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 224-234. Wang, L., Law, R., Hung, K. and Guillet, B. D. (2014), “Consumer trust in tourism and hospitality: a review of the literature”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp.1-9. Wang, L., Law, R., Guillet, B. D., Hung, K., Ka, D. and Fong, C. (2015), “Impact of hotel website quality on online booking intentions: etrust as a mediator”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 47, pp. 108-115. Wen, C., Prybutok, V.R. and Xu, C. (2011), “ An integrated model for customer online repurchase intention”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 14-23. Wei, J., Seedorf, S., Lowry, P.B. , Thum, C. and Schulze, T. (2017), “How increased social presence through co-browsing influences user engagement in collaborative online shopping”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 24, pp. 84-99. Page 27 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Yang, Q., Pang, C., Liu, L., Yen, D. C. and Tarn, J. M. (2015), “Exploring consumer perceived risk and trust for online payments: an empirical study in China’s younger generation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 9-24. Yoo, K. H. and Gretzel, U. (2017), “The role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in marketing tourism experiences”, In The Handbook of Managing and Marketing Tourism Experiences, pp. 409-428. Zhang, H., Gordon, S., Buhalis, D. and Ding, X. (2017), “Experience value co-creation on destination online platforms”, Journal of Travel Research, In Press, https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517733557. Zhou, T., Li, H. and Liu, Y. (2010), “The effect of flow experience on mobile SNS users' loyalty”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 6, pp. 930- 946. Page 28 of 42International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch Fi gu re 1 . T he or et ic al m od el a nd h yp ot he se s. Pe rc ei ve d C on tro l Tr us t E- lo ya lty H 2 Ea se o f un de rs ta nd in g Em ot io n In fo rm at io na l fit -to -ta sk V is ua l a pp ea l Pr om ot io n C on te nt W eb si te q ua lit y H 1a H 1b H 1c H 3 Pa ge 2 9 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch Pa ge 3 0 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 International Journal of Culture, Tourism , and Hospitality Research Table I. Profile of respondents Frequency Percentage (%) Characteristics Prado Museum website Thyssen- Bornemisza Museum website Prado Museum website Thyssen- Bornemisza Museum website Gender Female 77 72 49.7 48.0 Male 78 78 50.3 52.0 Age 155 150 18–24 19 16 12.3 10.7 25–30 13 13 8.4 8.7 31–34 14 13 9.0 8.7 35–40 23 22 14.8 14.7 41–44 15 13 9.7 8.7 45–50 20 20 12.9 13.3 51–54 9 10 5.8 6.7 55–60 25 25 16.1 16.7 61–65 10 11 6.5 7.3 66–69 3 4 1.9 2.7 70 and above 4 3 2.6 2.0 Education Primary 5 5 3.2 3.3 Secondary 32 36 20.6 24.0 Undergraduate 24 36 15.5 24.0 Graduate 73 55 47.1 36.7 Postgraduate 21 18 13.5 12.0 Occupation Student 15 17 9.7 11.3 Employee 81 75 52.3 50.0 Housewife 6 9 3.9 6.0 Unemployed 16 18 10.3 12.0 Retired 17 15 11.0 10.0 Others 20 16 12.9 10.7 Home monthly income (in euros) 1500€ and below 55 54 35.5 36.0 1500€–2500€ 48 33 31.0 22.0 Above 2500€ 8 9 5.2 6.0 I don't know/ I prefer not to answer 44 54 28.4 36.0 Nationality National 150 147 96.8 98.0 Other 5 3 3.2 2.0 Country of residence National 154 150 99.4 100.0 Other 1 0.6 Page 31 of 42 International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch T ab le II . D es cr ip tiv e A na ly si s. Pr ad o M us eu m w eb si te Th ys se n- B or ne m is za M us eu m w eb si te C on st ru ct /A ss oc ia te d Ite m s M ea n St an da rd D ev ia tio n M ea n St an da rd D ev ia tio n C on te nt (C O N ) 1. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te o ff er s c on te nt th at is re le va nt to th e co re au di en ce . 6. 01 9 1. 15 5 5. 10 0 1. 42 7 2. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te u se s m ed ia a pp ro pr ia te ly a nd e ff ec tiv el y to co m m un ic at e th e co nt en t. 5. 94 2 1. 03 6 5. 04 0 1. 43 2 3. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te p ro vi de s t he a pp ro pr ia te b re ad th a nd d ep th o f co nt en t. 5. 98 1 1. 18 8 4. 84 0 1. 59 6 4. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te p ro vi de s c ur re nt a nd ti m el y in fo rm at io n. 6. 14 8 1. 06 4 4. 88 0 1. 64 9 Ea se o f u nd er st an di ng (E O U ) 1. T he d is pl ay p ag es w ith in th e w eb si te a re e as y to re ad . 6. 11 6 1. 01 6 5. 48 7 1. 50 4 2. T he w eb si te la be ls a re e as y to u nd er st an d 6. 03 2 1. 06 2 5. 49 3 1. 41 8 Em ot io n (E M O ) 1. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te o ff er s y ou a n el em en t o f c ha lle ng e. 3. 98 7 1. 78 2 3. 42 0 1. 69 4 2. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te p ro vi de s a n in te re st in g st or y lin e. 5. 49 7 1. 19 9 4. 35 3 1. 79 3 3. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te ti es to in di vi du al s, w ith in a nd o ut si de th e or ga ni za tio n, w ho h av e cr ed ib ili ty . 5. 07 7 1. 32 2 4. 14 7 1. 68 7 4. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te a llo w s y ou to c on tro l t he p ac e at w hi ch y ou c an in te ra ct w ith th e pr es en te d in fo rm at io n. 5. 52 9 1. 30 7 4. 48 0 1. 68 0 In fo rm at io na l f it- to -ta sk (I FT ) 1. T he in fo rm at io n on th e w eb si te is p re tty m uc h w ha t I n ee d to c ar ry o ut m y ta sk s. 5. 25 2 1. 67 2 4. 30 7 1. 80 7 2. T he w eb si te a de qu at el y m ee ts m y in fo rm at io n ne ed s. 5. 68 4 1. 47 6 4. 47 3 1. 88 9 3. T he in fo rm at io n on th e w eb si te is e ff ec tiv e. 5. 89 7 1. 18 7 4. 77 3 1. 71 7 Pa ge 3 2 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch Pr om ot io n (P R O ) 1. I f I sa w a n ad ve rti se m en t o f t hi s w eb si te o n th e In te rn et o r o th er re la te d m ed ia (e .g ., ne w sp ap er , T V ), I w ou ld b e st im ul at ed to g o to th is w eb si te . 5. 27 1 1. 50 8 4. 46 7 1. 91 0 2. I f I sa w a p ro m ot io n of th is w eb si te o n th e In te rn et o r o th er re la te d m ed ia (e .g ., ne w sp ap er , T V ), I w ou ld b e m ot iv at ed to g o to th is w eb si te . 5. 32 3 1. 50 7 4. 52 0 1. 89 6 V is ua l a pp ea l ( V A P) 1. T he w eb si te d is pl ay s v is ua lly p le as in g de si gn . 6. 09 0 1. 16 6 5. 32 0 1. 50 7 2. T he w eb si te is v is ua lly a pp ea lin g. 6. 05 8 1. 16 5 5. 23 3 1. 55 1 Pe rc ei ve d co nt ro l ( PC O ) 1. I fe el in c on tro l o f w ha t I a m d oi ng w he n I n av ig at e in th is m us eu m w eb si te . 5. 50 3 1. 23 1 4. 72 7 1. 66 1 2. I c an e as ily c on tro l t he in fo rm at io n th at is p ro vi de d on th is m us eu m w eb si te . 5. 46 5 1. 28 2 4. 81 3 1. 55 1 3. I fe el I ca n co nt ro l m y us e of in fo rm at io n on th is m us eu m w eb si te . 5. 58 7 1. 22 8 4. 69 3 1. 67 7 4. T he le ve l o f i nf or m at io n pr ov id ed b y th is m us eu m w eb si te m ak es m e fe el in c on tro l. 5. 20 0 1. 40 2 4. 50 0 1. 71 9 Tr us t ( TR U ) 1. I b el ie ve th at th is m us eu m w eb si te is tr us tw or th y. 6. 11 6 1. 07 7 5. 06 7 1. 61 1 2. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te is re lia bl e. 6. 09 7 1. 14 0 5. 10 7 1. 60 9 3. T hi s m us eu m w eb si te h as in te gr ity . 5. 96 1 1. 21 2 5. 00 7 1. 57 3 E- lo ya lty (L O Y ) 1. I w ill e nc ou ra ge fr ie nd s t o vi si t t hi s m us eu m 's w eb si te . 5. 15 5 1. 60 7 4. 15 3 2. 16 6 2. I w ill sa y po si tiv e th in gs a bo ut th is m us eu m 's w eb si te . 5. 73 5 1. 26 5 4. 50 7 2. 00 2 3. I w ill v is it th is m us eu m 's w eb si te in th e ne xt fe w m on th s. 5. 23 9 1. 77 5 4. 23 3 2. 20 1 Pa ge 3 3 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch 4. I w ou ld re co m m en d th is m us eu m 's w eb si te to s om eo ne e ls e. 5. 78 7 1. 35 8 4. 43 3 2. 14 6 Pa ge 3 4 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch Ta bl e II I. R el ia bi lit y an d C on ve rg en t V al id ity o f t he F in al M ea su re m en t M od el Fa ct or In di ca to r Pr ad o M us eu m w eb si te Th ys se n- B or ne m is za M us eu m w eb si te St an da rd iz ed Lo ad in g t-V al ue (b oo ts tra p) C A rh o_ A C R A V E St an da rd iz ed Lo ad in g t-V al ue (b oo ts tra p) C A rh o_ A C R A V E C on te nt C O N 1 0. 86 8 29 ,8 89 0. 91 9 0. 92 1 0. 94 3 0. 80 5 0. 85 7 22 ,9 34 0. 93 0 0. 93 7 0. 95 0 0. 82 8 C O N 2 0. 88 2 26 ,7 41 0. 89 7 39 ,1 91 C O N 3 0. 90 7 58 ,1 93 0. 94 4 89 ,2 04 C O N 4 0. 93 1 63 ,5 59 0. 93 8 81 ,1 29 Ea se o f un de rs ta nd in g EO U 1 0. 95 2 84 ,0 77 0. 90 2 0. 90 3 0. 95 3 0. 91 1 0. 96 2 58 ,4 65 0. 92 1 0. 92 1 0. 96 2 0. 92 7 EO U 2 0. 95 6 92 ,9 26 0. 96 3 67 ,1 37 Em ot io n EM O 1 0. 53 9 6, 33 9 0. 80 3 0. 86 0 0. 87 1 0. 63 6 0. 76 3 15 ,1 30 0. 86 6 0. 88 6 0. 90 9 0. 71 5 EM O 2 0. 88 8 49 ,7 72 0. 90 7 44 ,1 19 EM O 3 0. 85 1 32 ,6 30 0. 90 0 45 ,6 70 EM O 4 0. 86 0 31 ,8 12 0. 80 4 20 ,6 09 In fo rm at io na l f it- to - ta sk IF T1 0. 84 1 23 ,0 29 0. 86 5 0. 87 7 0. 91 8 0. 78 8 0. 95 2 98 ,8 83 0. 95 3 0. 95 4 0. 97 0 0. 91 5 IF T2 0. 93 2 55 ,4 51 0. 97 3 18 7, 54 3 IF T3 0. 88 8 34 ,3 22 0. 94 3 75 ,0 08 Pr om ot io n PR O 1 0. 96 9 11 7, 67 8 0. 94 0 0. 94 4 0. 97 1 0. 94 3 0. 98 8 38 4, 46 4 0. 97 7 0. 97 7 0. 98 8 0. 97 7 PR O 2 0. 97 4 16 3, 22 4 0. 98 9 41 7, 91 2 V isu al a pp ea l V A P1 0. 97 6 12 8, 83 0 0. 94 9 0. 94 9 0. 97 5 0. 95 2 0. 98 3 26 6, 01 0 0. 96 6 0. 96 6 0. 98 3 0. 96 7 V A P2 0. 97 5 97 ,8 55 0. 98 4 29 1, 55 0 Pe rc ei ve d co nt ro l PC O 1 0. 90 7 40 ,7 74 0. 92 7 0. 92 9 0. 94 8 0. 82 1 0. 94 9 73 ,9 01 0. 96 8 0. 96 8 0. 97 6 0. 91 2 PC O 2 0. 93 6 69 ,4 30 0. 95 1 75 ,5 52 PC O 3 0. 91 7 32 ,9 70 0. 97 0 17 5, 18 0 PC O 4 0. 86 4 28 ,6 19 0. 94 9 95 ,5 84 Tr us t TR U 1 0. 94 7 52 ,7 47 0. 94 1 0. 94 2 0. 96 2 0. 89 4 0. 97 4 15 3, 77 0 0. 97 1 0. 97 1 0. 98 1 0. 94 6 Pa ge 3 5 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch TR U 2 0. 95 5 67 ,6 02 0. 98 3 26 4, 70 0 TR U 3 0. 93 4 53 ,8 48 0. 96 0 10 1, 03 6 E- lo ya lty LO Y 1 0. 90 9 60 ,0 72 0. 92 5 0. 92 6 0. 94 7 0. 81 6 0. 96 9 15 7, 40 2 0. 97 9 0. 97 9 0. 98 4 0. 94 0 LO Y 2 0. 88 1 36 ,2 46 0. 96 9 16 1, 58 1 LO Y 3 0. 90 2 53 ,3 84 0. 96 3 83 ,4 67 LO Y 4 0. 92 0 62 ,5 03 0. 97 6 14 4, 34 4 W eb si te q ua lit y C on te nt 0. 87 0 32 ,8 10 0. 88 2 0. 88 9 0. 91 1 0. 63 1 0. 87 5 40 ,8 76 0. 91 0 0. 91 7 0. 93 1 0. 69 1 Ea se o f un de rs ta n di ng 0. 76 2 15 ,9 30 0. 72 5 16 ,3 95 Em ot io n 0. 84 4 29 ,9 09 0. 87 8 38 ,0 72 In fo rm at i on al fi t- to -ta sk 0. 81 9 21 ,9 77 0. 87 0 38 ,1 78 Pr om ot io n 0. 72 2 13 ,3 34 0. 82 0 20 ,0 21 V isu al ap pe al 0. 73 8 12 ,0 04 0. 81 2 23 ,2 72 N ot e: A ll lo ad in gs a re si gn ifi ca nt a t p < .0 1 le ve l. C A = C ro nb ac h’ s a lp ha ; C R = c om po si te re lia bi lit y; A V E = av er ag e va ria nc e ex tra ct ed . Pa ge 3 6 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch T ab le IV . M ea su re m en t M od el D is cr im in an t V al id ity fo r H ig he r- O rd er C on st ru ct s. Pr ad o M us eu m w eb si te . Fa ct or 1 2 3 4 1 E- lo ya lty 0. 90 3 0. 71 8 0. 77 4 0. 85 2 2 Pe rc ei ve d co nt ro l 0. 67 0 0. 90 6 0. 74 6 0. 89 9 3 Tr us t 0. 73 0 0. 69 7 0. 94 6 0. 84 6 4 W eb si te q ua lit y 0. 77 5 0. 81 5 0. 77 7 0. 79 4 N ot e: D ia go na l v al ue s a re A V E sq ua re ro ot , v al ue s b el ow th e di ag on al ar e la te nt v ar ia bl e co rr el at io ns v al ue s a nd a bo ve th e di ag on al a re H TM T ra tio s. T ab le V . M ea su re m en t M od el D is cr im in an t V al id ity fo r H ig he r- O rd er C on st ru ct s. Th ys se n- B or ne m is za M us eu m w eb si te . Fa ct or 1 2 3 4 1 E- lo ya lty 0. 96 9 0. 65 4 0. 79 4 0. 88 0 2 Pe rc ei ve d co nt ro l 0. 63 7 0. 95 5 0. 71 5 0. 77 5 3 Tr us t 0. 77 5 0. 69 3 0. 97 2 0. 83 9 4 W eb si te q ua lit y 0. 84 2 0. 72 6 0. 79 2 0. 83 2 N ot e: D ia go na l v al ue s a re A V E sq ua re ro ot , v al ue s b el ow th e di ag on al ar e la te nt v ar ia bl e co rr el at io ns v al ue s a nd a bo ve th e di ag on al a re H TM T ra tio s. Pa ge 3 7 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch Ta bl e V I. Re su lts o f i nv ar ia nc e m ea su re m en t t es tin g us in g pe rm ut at io n C on st ru ct s C on fig ur a l in va ria nc e (S am e al go rit hm s fo r b ot h gr ou ps ) C om po si tio na l i nv ar ia nc e (C or re la tio n = 1) Pa rti al m ea su re m en t i nv ar ia nc e es ta bl is he d Eq ua l m ea n as se ss m en t Eq ua l v ar ia nc e as se ss m en t C= 1 5% q ua nt ile D iff er en ce s C on fid en ce in te rv al Eq ua l D iff er en ce s C on fid en ce in te rv al Eq ua l E- lo ya lty Y es 1. 00 0 1. 00 0 Y es 0. 63 5 -0 .2 32 0. 20 8 N o -0 .8 60 -0 .2 94 0. 27 7 N o Pe rc ei ve d co nt ro l Y es 1. 00 0 1. 00 0 Y es 0. 52 8 -0 .2 23 0. 20 9 N o -0 .6 08 -0 .3 48 0. 34 4 N o Tr us t Y es 1. 00 0 1. 00 0 Y es 0. 70 1 -0 .2 23 0. 21 9 N o -0 .7 27 -0 .3 85 0. 35 3 N o W eb si te q ua lit y Y es 1. 00 0 0. 99 9 Y es 0. 74 7 -0 .2 32 0. 20 3 N o -0 .7 04 -0 .3 74 0. 38 7 N o Pa ge 3 8 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch T ab le V II . E va lu at io n of th e es tim at ed m od el s C on ce pt Pr ad o M us eu m w eb si te Th ys se n- B or ne m is za M us eu m w eb is te R 2 Q 2 R 2 Q 2 E- lo ya lty 0. 64 1 0. 48 4 0. 74 0 0. 65 1 Pe rc ei ve d co nt ro l 0. 66 5 0. 51 2 0. 52 7 0. 45 0 Tr us t 0. 61 6 0. 51 6 0. 65 7 0. 57 9 Pa ge 3 9 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch Ta bl e V II I. H yp ot he se s T es tin g H yp ot he si s Re la tio ns hi p Pa th c oe ff ic ie nt s C on fid en ce In te rv al (9 5% ) Pa th co ef fic ie nt di ff er en ce P- V al ue d iff er en ce (o ne - ta ile d) Pr ad o M us eu m w eb si te Th ys se n- B or ne m is za M us eu m w eb si te Pr ad o M us eu m w eb si te Th ys se n- B or ne m isz a M us eu m w eb sit e H en se le r's M G A Pe rm ut at io n Te st H 1a W eb si te q ua lit y -> E -lo ya lty 0. 52 4 ** * 0. 61 3 ** * 0. 35 2 0. 69 0 0. 46 0 0. 74 8 -0 .0 01 0. 78 2 0. 47 6 H 1b W eb si te q ua lit y -> T ru st 0. 62 3 ** * 0. 61 0 ** * 0. 43 1 0. 83 9 0. 42 0 0. 77 8 -0 .0 05 0. 47 0 0. 94 3 H 1c W eb si te q ua lit y -> P er ce iv ed co nt ro l 0. 81 5 ** * 0. 72 6 ** * 0. 73 6 0. 87 4 0. 61 6 0. 80 1 0. 00 2 0. 06 3 * 0. 19 2 H 2 Tr us t - > E- lo ya lty 0. 32 2 ** * 0. 28 9 ** * 0. 14 4 0. 51 1 0. 14 8 0. 46 0 0. 00 1 0. 39 5 0. 80 7 H 3 Pe rc ei ve d co nt ro l - > Tr us t 0. 18 9 * 0. 25 1 ** -0 .0 41 0. 40 9 0. 06 2 0. 44 5 0. 00 3 0. 65 5 0. 75 9 N ot e: In H en sl er 's M G A m et ho d, th e p va lu e lo w er th an 0 .0 5 or h ig he r t ha n 0. 95 in di ca te s a t t he 5 % le ve l s ig ni fic an t d iff er en ce s b et w ee n sp ec ifi c pa th c oe ff ic ie nt s a cr os s gr ou ps ** *p <0 .0 1; * *p <0 .0 5; * p< 0. 10 Pa ge 4 0 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch Ta bl e A . E xa m in at io n of th e tw o w eb si te s u nd er st ud y M us eu m w eb si te C on te nt Ea se o f u nd er sta nd in g Em ot io n In fo rm at io na l f it- to -ta sk Pr om ot io n V is ua l a pp ea l Pr ad o M us eu m – Pr ac tic al in fo rm at io n: op en in g ho ur s, lo ca tio n an d pr ic es . – Pr og ra m m in g: c al en da r o f ev en ts . – Av ai la bl e re so ur ce s: re se ar ch an d ed uc at iv e ite m s. – D es cr ip tio ns : d et ai le d in fo rm at io n of th e co lle ct io ns ' ite m s. – D ow nl oa d op tio ns : p er so na l an d co m m er ci al . – Te ch no lo gi ca l s er vi ce s: 36 0º v irt ua l t ou r ( G oo gl e A rts & C ul tu re P ro je ct ). – La ng ua ge s: Sp an is h an d En gl is h. – C ol le ct io ns : s ev en co lle ct io ns . – W eb sit e' s s tr uc tu re : 7 se ct io ns . – M en us ' l ay ou t: ho riz on ta l an d ve rti ca l. – W eb si te 's st yl e: c ol ou rf ul a nd tra di tio na l. – Im m ed ia cy : s ho rt do w nl oa d de la y. – In te ra ct iv ity : em po w er ed en ga ge m en t t hr ou gh on lin e ga m es , vi de os , e tc . – Ex pe ri en tia l m ar ke tin g: ri ch ite m s t ha t a pp ea l t o th e se ns es . – Vi sit p la nn in g: us er s c an c re at e th ei r o w n iti ne ra ry an d sh ar e it w ith ot he r u se rs . – Se gm en ta tio n of th e ta rg et m ar ke t: in 1 1 ca te go rie s. – C on ta ct in fo rm at io n. – N ew sl et te r. – Pr om ot io na l sc he du le : w ha t's - on se ct io n. – So ci al m ed ia ch an ne ls: Fa ce bo ok , T w itt er , In st ag ra m , G oo gl e+ , P in te re st , Y ou Tu be , S to rif y, Sp ot ify , A pp le M us ic . – C ol ou rs : ha rm on ic w ith a w hi te a nd g re y ba ck gr ou nd ). – Ph ot os : p ic tu re s of c ul tu ra l a ss et s an d ro om s o f t he m us eu m . – O pt io ns : zo om in g, do w nl oa di ng a nd Y ou Tu be c ha nn el w ith v id eo s as so ci at ed to e ac h of th e ro om s o f t he co lle ct io ns . Pa ge 4 1 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 In te rn at ional Jo urn al of C ultu re , T ouris m , a nd H osp ita lit y R es ea rch Th ys se n- B or ne m is za M us eu m – Pr ac tic al in fo rm at io n: op en in g ho ur s, lo ca tio n an d pr ic es . – Pr og ra m m in g: c al en da r o f ev en ts . – Av ai la bl e re so ur ce s: re se ar ch an d ed uc at iv e ite m s. – D es cr ip tio ns : d et ai le d in fo rm at io n of th e co lle ct io ns ' ite m s. – D ow nl oa d op tio ns : pe rs on al , e du ca tiv e an d co m m er ci al . – Te ch no lo gi ca l s er vi ce s: 36 0º v irt ua l t ou r ( G oo gl e A rts & C ul tu re P ro je ct ). – La ng ua ge s: S pa ni sh , En gl is h an d C hi ne se . – C ol le ct io ns : d iv id ed in to 4 bi g co lle ct io ns . – W eb sit e' s s tr uc tu re : 7 se ct io ns . – M en us ' l ay ou t: ho riz on ta l an d ve rti ca l. – W eb si te 's st yl e: c ol ou rf ul a nd m in im al is t. – Im m ed ia cy : s ho rt do w nl oa d de la y. – In te ra ct iv ity : em po w er ed en ga ge m en t t hr ou gh Ed uc aT hy ss en . H ow ev er , Ed uc aT hy ss en pl at fo rm is o nl y av ai la bl e in S pa ni sh . – Ex pe ri en tia l m ar ke tin g: a ct iv iti es th at a im to e ng ag e fa m ili es (s uc h as fa m ily w or ks ho ps , Fa m ily T hy ss en - th e ci ty fo r tra ve lli ng fa m ili es , th e m us eu m a t C hr is tm as , e tc .) an d qu ot es in Ed uc aT hy ss en pl at fo rm th at a ro us e em ot io na l f ee lin gs . – Vi sit p la nn in g: th em at ic to ur s, m us eu m fl oo r p la n, di ff er en t t yp es o f to ur s. – Se gm en ta tio n of th e ta rg et m ar ke t: in 1 1 ca te go rie s. – C on ta ct in fo rm at io n. – N ew sl et te r. – Pr om ot io na l sc he du le : ac tiv iti es . – So ci al m ed ia ch an ne ls: Fa ce bo ok , T w itt er , In st ag ra m , Pi nt er es t, Y ou Tu be , V im eo . – C ol ou rs : ha rm on ic w ith a w hi te a nd g re y ba ck gr ou nd ). – Ph ot os : p ic tu re s of c ul tu ra l a ss et s an d ro om s o f t he m us eu m . – O pt io ns : z oo m in g an d do w nl oa di ng . Pa ge 4 2 of 4 2 In te rn at io na l J ou rn al o f C ul tu re , T ou ris m , a nd H os pi ta lit y Re se ar ch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 View publication stats https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333343532