Rethinking tourist transformation: from reflection to developmental narratives Open Access

Recent studies highlight transformative experiences in tourism as key to tourists’ post-travel well-being (Huang et al., 2023), self-fulfillment (Chhabra, 2021) and overall personal development (Sheldon, 2020). From a managerial perspective, the focus on personal meaning makes managing transformative experiences a priority for tourism providers (Soulard et al., 2021a), who design experiences to facilitate life-changing transformations (Soulard et al., 2019). This perspective challenges the passive, commercialized status of tourist experiences, calling for tourism providers to cultivate experiences that introduce new viewpoints and integrate them into destination-based co-creation, thereby enhancing tourists’ well-being and fulfillment (Kirillova et al., 2016a, b).

On an individual level, transformation is defined as an irreversible moment leading to lasting changes in lifestyles, behaviors and reactions to events (Smith, 2013). This profound change occurs during and after travel, especially when individuals actively engage with the unknown (Soulard et al., 2021b). According to Amaro et al. (2023, p. 5), transformative experiences involve tourists interpreting “unexpected moments,” reflecting a pursuit of profound and meaningful experiences. These experiences often lead to developing physical skills (Walter, 2013), acquiring knowledge about local lifestyles (Brown, 2009) and forming meaningful social connections (Pung et al., 2020), etc. Following this, Tasci and Godovykh (2021, p. 2) view transformation as “the ultimate goal of tourist endeavors,” underscoring its importance for tourists.

In tourism research, transformation is generally treated as context-specific, triggered by special tourist experiences such as “extraordinary experience,” “authenticity” and “peak experience” (Fu et al., 2015; Kirillova et al., 2016a, 2017; Tasci and Godovykh, 2021; Zhao and Agyeiwaah, 2023; Amaro et al., 2023). Broadly, transformation is seen as a dynamic, individualized process of expanding consciousness, from non-existence to existence (Holland-Wade, 1998; Coghlan and Weiler, 2018; Magrizos et al., 2020) or as the outcome of critically recognizing new and old self-definitions (Brown, 2009; Zhao and Agyeiwaah, 2023). However, this tendency reveals two questions and gaps: either an overemphasis on unique tourist experiences, neglecting the influence of daily routines and supporting experiences (Quan and Wang, 2004), thus remaining confined to a basic narrative of “travel-(special) experience-reflection-transformation” (Kirillova et al., 2016a, 2017; Coghlan and Weiler, 2018; Teoh et al., 2021) or an over-simplification of transformation, which is seen merely as the result of a variety of factors, without accounting for its temporal dimension (Fu et al., 2015; Ulusoy, 2016; Tasci and Godovykh, 2021). These issues are often attributed to a lack of a longitudinal perspective (Crossley, 2016).

According to Pung et al. (2020), existing literature on transformative tourism primarily adopts either an educational (Mezirow) or existential (Kirillova et al.) perspective, both of which reflect the limitations addressed above. Mezirow’s framework posits that “a disorienting dilemma” is essential for developing a more inclusive mindset through social learning, which is followed by self-critique and adaptation to others’ frameworks, ultimately leading to a redefined sense of self (Mezirow, 1994). However, as Xu et al. (2021) note, transformative learning theory is designed for formal educational settings. Replicating its conditions in a tourism context is not only challenging but also risks oversimplifying the process by prioritizing environmental factors over the tourist’s agency.

The existential perspective, on the other hand, highlights transformation through reflection on existential authenticity (Kirillova et al., 2016a, 2017). Nonetheless, its focus on anxiety in transformation raises doubts about the validity of its findings, overlooking the potential for transformation without existential anxiety. Additionally, although earlier work situated the existential vacation cycle within a longitudinal framework (Kirillova and Lehto, 2015), subsequent studies disregard this dimension, focusing instead on on-site experiences and post-return reflections (Kirillova et al., 2016a, 2017). This overemphasis on personal reflection equates cognitive change with overall transformation. As Mezirow (2002) states, while reflection may initiate change, transformation occurs only when a new cognitive framework is established and responses become instinctive.

Hence, this article advocates for an alternative perspective, proposing that tourist transformation arises from gradual changes in personal habits rather than sudden shifts dictated by various tourism milieus. In terms of applications to tourism practice, this underscores the importance of fostering long-term relationships with a stable customer base and leveraging unique and inimitable destination experiences to influence tourists, rather than relying on short-term, spectacle-driven attractions. For tourism scholars, it calls for a research agenda focused on how destinations can be optimized to create lasting impacts on tourists. More specifically, this article aims to provide a theoretical foundation for future tourism research on longitudinal transformation by addressing two key gaps. It firstly challenges the “travel-(special) experience-reflection-transformation” narrative, which overemphasizes special experiences while neglecting tourists’ long-term meaning-making process. Second, it suggests that this meaning-making process should not be reduced to tourist reflections, as research indicates that reflection is not necessarily essential for transformation (Lean, 2012).

This study has two objectives. First, it examines transformation as both an experience and a process situated in a longitudinal framework. Specifically, it responds to Pearce’s (2020) research, which highlights the role of tourists’ habitual behaviors, that is, facets of their personal identity, sense of security and way of ordering the world, in shaping tourism experiences. Understanding how these habits evolve through tourism and culminate in the realization of “I have changed” is pivotal for advancing tourism research. Second, drawing on Deleuze’s principle of becoming, which emphasizes the fluid and ongoing nature of existence, the article posits that tourist transformation is a gradual, cumulative process marked by subtle, repeated engagements with destinations. These changes, often unconscious at first, become apparent as individuals renegotiate their identities, diverging from the stimulus-driven transformations commonly described in existing literature (Pung et al., 2020). This process, which is referred to as developmental transformation, underscores the significance of daily predictable and repetitive activities alongside extraordinary experiences. This perspective enriches our understanding of how tourists’ experiences shape their lifeworld within a longitudinal framework.

The article begins by reviewing literature on conceptualizing tourist experiences and examining relevant studies that may challenge the “travel-(special) experience-reflection-transformation” narrative. A critical analysis of discussions on experience and identity formation provides a point of departure for the integration of Deleuze’s perspectives on the unconscious and temporality to form a multidimensional framework. Finally, the article extends this framework, emphasizing its role in fostering self-development-oriented transformation in tourism and presenting conclusions and implications.

This article employs a methodology of theory synthesis guided by Jaakkola (2020), a conceptual integration approach that generates new perspectives on a concept or phenomenon by consolidating seemingly incompatible elements in novel ways. This approach identifies underexplored focal phenomena and reconceptualizes them by integrating complementary concepts from various disciplines, offering an alternative to established theories. Given that the longitudinal theoretical perspective on transformation is still emerging and largely overlooked in existing research, this article argues that a conceptual approach – raising questions and constructing theory through conceptual integration – is appropriate. This approach consists of two steps (Jaakkola, 2020). First, summarizing involves systematically reviewing literature across disciplines to identify conceptual commonalities and inconsistencies. Second, integration addresses these inconsistencies by incorporating additional concepts, synthesizing diverse elements into a coherent framework and generating a new perspective on the phenomenon.

However, this approach risks confusing readers by blurring the distinction between theories serving as “data” and those forming the analytical framework. Lukka and Vinnari (2014) offer valuable insights by distinguishing between domain theory and method theory in a conceptual paper. The former entails “a particular set of knowledge on a substantive topic area situated in a field or domain,” while the latter is “a meta-level conceptual system for studying the substantive issue(s) of the domain theory at hand” (Lukka and Vinnari, 2014, p. 1309). In this article, the domain theory centers on a conceptual and theoretical analysis of transformation within the framework of tourist experiences. The method theory draws from Deleuze’s theoretical framework to complement the existing emphasis on the narrative of (special) experiences-reflection in transformation theories. Defining these terms facilitates a more logical and systematic organization of literatures in the subsequent sections.

Before taking up the proposed conceptual framework, it is important to clarify definitions of key terms, especially the “(special) experience” mentioned earlier. This definition underscores the academic shift in tourist experience research, which has progressed from peak to flow to memorable experiences and more recently, to transformative experiences which have become a target of focus (cf. Amaro et al., 2023). Understanding the reasons behind this transition is crucial for comprehending transformation, as it reveals potential trends in emerging research and aligns with the goals of the proposed conceptual framework.

The term “experience” encompasses both “moment-by-moment lived experience” and “evaluated experience” (Cutler and Carmichael, 2010). The former refers to immediate engagement with specific situations, while the latter reflects cumulative experiences over time or across an individual’s life span (Larsen, 2007). Numerous conceptual studies have interpreted these dimensions of tourist experiences. Earlier studies examine key phases of the tourist experience. Cutler and Carmichael (2010) expanded Clawson and Knetsch’s (1966) five phases – anticipation, travel to site, on-site activity, return travel and recollection – by incorporating both influential and personal realms. Similarly, Aho (2001) proposed stages including orientation, attachment, visiting, evaluation, storing, reflection and enrichment, which shapes future orientations, emphasizing the interconnectedness of experiences over time. At this stage, the tourist experience is viewed as discrete, with each phase being distinct. Although Aho (2001) suggests that past travel experiences influence future decisions, their impact remains speculative and lacks meaningful discussions. This management-driven approach accounts for the focus on peak experiences, which prioritize intense emotional responses (Carù and Cova, 2007).

Scholars soon identified the limitations to this approach. Quan and Wang (2004) propose viewing the tourist experience as an integrated whole, encompassing peak experiences, supporting experiences and daily routine experiences. They argue that even mundane experiences, often overlooked in tourism management, significantly shape the overall experience. Larsen (2007) divides tourist experiences into expectations, events and memories, corresponding to the pre-travel, during-travel and post-travel phases, defining the tourist experience as “a past personal travel-related event strong enough to have entered long-term memory” (p. 15). This highlights the cumulative and memorable aspects of experiences. Kirillova and Lehto (2015), adopting an existential psychology perspective, conceptualize the vacation cycle as a multimodal process involving existential anxiety, as an extension of Wang’s (1999) conceptualization of existential authenticity in travel. The conceptualization of tourist experiences is moving toward an emphasis on meaning and subjectivity rather than merely intense emotional responses, as exemplified in the characterization of flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).

The same transition process applies to research on transformation and transformative experiences. Particularly recent studies on transformation have shifted from highlighting emotionally intense experiences such as peak experiences to memorable ones (Godovykh and Tasci, 2020; Teoh et al., 2021; Stone et al., 2022; Hosany et al., 2022; Hosseini et al., 2021). This shift highlights the pivotal role of memorable experiences in shaping an individual’s narrative identity. It also challenges the “academic myth” (McKercher and Prideaux, 2014, p. 18) of a binary divide between ordinary and extraordinary experiences, redirecting attention from material attributes to the subjective significance of phenomena.

However, despite recognizing that individual attitudes and conation take precedence over physical environmental stimuli in transformation, the overarching narrative of the process remains unchanged. Research continues to focus on the narrative of “(special) experiences-reflection,” perpetuating the myth of external control within a dualistic framework. To address this, Goldstein’s (2015, cited in Moscardo, 2020, p. 4) three propositions on narrative identity are considered: “(1) knowledge is constructed through stories; (2) new experiences are interpreted through old stories and (3) stories are retold, shaping individual memory and identity.” These ideas are explored to uncover their potential for understanding transformation below.

As a hallmark of postmodernist understandings of tourist experiences (Uriely, 2005), narrative identity offers a dynamic approach to examining tourist experiences across time and narrative structures, challenging the rigid categorizations of tourism phases (Noy, 2004a, b; Lindberg and Østergaard, 2015). Ricoeur (1991, p. 73) defines narrative identity as “the sort of identity to which a human being has access thanks to the mediation of the narrative function,” emphasizing that individual identity blends historical and fictional components of life experiences. Ricoeur further posits that identity comprises an interplay between identity-as-sameness and identity-as-self, asserting the following statement:

This perspective challenges the notion of a stable, pre-existing self, suggesting instead that identity is continually shaped through narrative interpretation. Both lived and evaluated experiences coexist, blending into a unified understanding of the self (Ricoeur, 1991). Thus, the existing temporal narrative of transformation – travel-(special) experience-reflection-transformation – warrants reevaluation. As Ricoeur (2016) contends, individuals interpret their experiences through a triad of “situation-understanding-interpretation,” constantly refining their self-perceptions. This raises the question: Is transformation merely a refinement of self-understanding or does it involve a complete negation of prior self-conceptions? Both interpretations align with existing definitions of transformation.

Moreover, Coghlan and Weiler (2018, p. 580) observe that “transformation may be strong at an internal level but it may or may not manifest in behavior that the individual tourist him or herself is even aware of, let alone observable behavior that researchers can quantify.” Becker and Jaakkola (2020, p. 637, original emphasis) also view tourist experiences as “non-deliberate, spontaneous responses and reactions to particular stimuli.” These perspectives suggest that transformations are most legitimate when occurring unconsciously, manifesting as habitual changes in behavior, thought patterns or moral habits. This diminishes the prevalence of reflection in the transformation process without denying that some transformations indeed arise from conscious encounters with new knowledge, cultures or systemic inequalities.

However, mere recognition of such challenges is insufficient; genuine transformation requires integrating these realizations into daily practices, which are ultimately reflected in unconscious behaviors. In essence, transformation is less about cognitive shifts and more about altering the lifeworld, as reflected in mundane actions. The term lifeworld was originally introduced by Husserl, but we adopt Schütz and Luckmann’s (1973) interpretation, which offers a clearer structure. In short, lifeworld constitutes the foundational horizon that guides individuals in daily life and enables “reasonable” behaviors. It reflects a subject’s taken-for-granted and pre-predicative natural attitude toward their surroundings. Cognitive changes and reflection may signal the arrival of transformation, but do not confirm its occurrence. In fact, Mezirow (2002) similarly argues that a “habit of mind” primarily shapes thoughts and behaviors, which requires sustained effort beyond mere reflection.

The unconscious nature of tourism-related transformation is naturally not a new concern. Ryan (2010) traces its roots to Pearce’s (1988) discussion of habitual tourist behavior. By incorporating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Pearce (1988, 2005) developed the travel career ladder and subsequent travel career pattern, which underscores the dynamic evolution of tourists’ motivational patterns over their life stages and travel experiences. Pearce (2005, p. 66) referred to this as a “view of self-development.” While criticized for its static analysis of tourist behaviors and motivations, the term travel career illustrates how tourist (evaluated) experiences accumulate over time, leading to unconscious and holistic transformations. This concept, shaped by tourists’ continuous planning, experience and evaluation of their itineraries, dynamically reflects their evolving perceptions toward the significance of travel and provides insights for future tourism development.

Notably, conscious self-reflection and unconscious transformation are not mutually exclusive. As stated by Goldstein (2015), identity is formed through conscious reflective narratives, yet behaviors and thoughts often function unconsciously until external triggers evoke insights, leading to realizations like, “this is how my mindset works.” Such moments of clarity emerge from the interplay between unconscious drivers and conscious recognition, with reflection bridging the gap to integrate new insights and shape identity. This aligns with Ricoeur’s (2016) idea that individuals continually engage in self-understanding.

Contrary to research framing tourists as “questing animals” seeking meaning and purpose (Willson et al., 2013), this perspective underscores the unconscious as central to personal development and transformation. Supporting Larsen’s (2007, p. 8) call that “individual experiences […] are one, but only one, viable focus for tourism research,” it advocates for understanding tourist experiences as a process encompassing gradual career-like development. Shifting beyond conscious reflection, this study explores how unconscious, habitual and embodied behaviors lead to the realization of transformation. Deleuze’s concept of the unconscious further provides a foundation for this framework.

The dynamic interplay between repetition and difference is central to Deleuze’s philosophy. For Deleuze, difference is not derived from comparison but emerges as variation itself, shaping our sensations and impressions. These variations, through repeated interactions, create the perception of stability. This entails observing the continuous flow of experiences and events rather than uncovering timeless or universal truths, focusing instead on the conditions that generate new and unstable phenomena (Guia and Jamal, 2020).

Deleuze introduces three “passive syntheses” representing forms of repetition and unconscious processes that shape our perception of temporality. These syntheses explain “how subjects come into being” (Somers-Hall, 2013, p. 57), that is, how individuals construct a sense of self through the repetition and variation of experiences. From this standpoint, the subject is not Kant’s rational individual but resembles a traveler:

The unconscious does not signify a lack of agency but reflects the spontaneous interplay of sensory experiences for Deleuze. It highlights the subject’s passive state, where “the sensual and ideational variations that bestow living significance upon actualities for our perception” (Williams, 2013, p. 7). This aligns with the nature of tourists’ subjectivity, where “much of the time tourists are simply having satisfying hedonic moments and encoding less profound but memorable social episodes” (Pearce, 2020, p. 4).

Furthermore, how to understand passive synthesis? Moran (2000) defines passive synthesis as the way objects and experiences unfold over time, shaping consciousness through pre-existing experiential structures rather than active construction. In this process, perception is shaped passively – structures are not created by the mind but recognized as they are presented. Hughes illustrates this concept using an example from Merleau-Ponty:

Passive synthesis thus serves as the foundation for the emergence of subjective faculties. It is particularly relevant to understanding developmental transformation, which arises from the continuous flow of repeated yet varied tourist experiences. As Williams (2013, p. 91) states, “[t]hings […] always emerge through an unconscious repetition,” highlighting that transformation is not a singular conscious event but a gradual process shaped by accumulated experiences. The article examines the role of Deleuze’s three passive syntheses through the proposed framework.

Deleuze’s first synthesis outlines the dimension of time known as “the living present” (Williams, 2013, p. 93), which he interprets as a form of habit. Drawing from Hume’s thesis – “repetition changes nothing in the object repeated, but does change something in the mind which contemplates it” (Deleuze, 1994, p. 70) – Deleuze illustrates how unconscious repetition shapes our fundamental views of the world. For example, consider the sequence AB AB AB A …; the repetition of AB is not a result of any inherent properties of the sequence itself, nor does it imply causality. Instead, the first occurrence of AB becomes a contraction of the subsequent AB. When A reappears, we naturally expect B to follow, forming a qualitative expectation of a pair. Deleuze describes this as a “habit,” which “is the property of passively acquiring an unconscious relation to the future” (Williams, 2013, p. 94). Thus, the “living present” is not merely the current moment but a contraction of the past that manifests as unconscious behavior directed toward the future. Each realization of expectancy further reinforces a habit or qualitative impression, making the subject an organization of these habits. As Williams further explains in the following statement:

This habit reflects future expectations and is influenced by judgmental tendencies that are shaped by accumulated experiences. As mentioned, transformation arises from the interpretations of “unexpected moments” in travel (Amaro et al., 2023), shaping both positive and negative tourist motivations (Pearce, 2005) while reinforcing self-perception through differentiation from others. Prebensen et al. (2003) suggest that most tourists seek to avoid being labeled as “typical” by making distinctive travel-related decisions and expecting recognition of this uniqueness. These decisions are primarily reflected in their reactions to experiences tied to daily routines. Quan and Wang (2004) further suggest that tourists’ self-perception of daily life influences their consumer behavior, willingness to engage in tourism and evaluation of the overall experience – even after peak experiences. Interestingly, this counters the current “experience-reflection-transformation” narrative, which prioritizes external factors in a dualistic framework over internal changes. As a result, building on Deleuze’s notion of habit as “the living present,” this article argues that unconscious relationships with the future shaped by the past underpins the proposed framework. It further contends that transformation fundamentally involves the evolution of this habit.

Williams (2013, p. 103) characterizes Deleuze’s first synthesis as “a contraction of a series of distinct elements,” while the second synthesis involves “the contraction of the whole past.” This distinction is often misinterpreted as implying that the second synthesis causes the first – suggesting that memories of the past create the corresponding habits through which people understand the world. To clarify this misunderstanding, Deleuze distinguishes between the first and second syntheses using a physical analogy. The first synthesis is a “coupling,” linking non-continuous moments by highlighting their differences and creating a series of excitations. The second synthesis, described as “resonance,” builds on the first by synthesizing its differences and relating them to new ones. Instead of serving as a cause, it advances the process by further developing the outcomes of the first synthesis. Memory does not determine habitual actions; rather, it appropriates habit, functioning as the “mediation of presents” (Deleuze, 1994, p. 80) and representing a pure past distinct from actual events. Each recollection (repetition of memory) is shaped by the present, introducing a difference with every interpretation.

Williams (2013) further elaborates on this understanding of memory, suggesting that the “past elements of all presents” within habitual patterns do not depend on past experiences but constitute the conditions that make such experiences possible. Thus, Deleuze disrupts the continuity between past and present, constructing a pure past generated by the present, where past aspects are used to interpret the individual’s current actions. This resonates with Pearce’s (2020) evaluation of “flagship moments” in past experiences, where we essentially assess “a cluster of moments into a short block of time that prompts vivid recall” (p. 4) and connect them together in the present.

From this perspective, the relationship between the moment-by-moment lived experience and the evaluated experience entails the latter being gradually archived as the former fades away. Evaluated experience can influence an individual’s current perception of the lived experience emotionally, either passively or actively. Active recollection is guided by present habits, where individuals evaluate memories based on their current situation. For example, after several consecutive days of work, even unpleasant events at a travel destination may be remembered as relaxing. In contrast, passive recollection refers to the sudden emergence of a strong emotion from the past, interrupting the current task. For instance, revisiting a destination may evoke memories of previous visits, triggering feelings of nostalgia and disrupting the planned itinerary. Therefore, Larsen’s (2007) definition of tourist experience as personal travel-related memory is reasonable, but overlooks the role of memory in supporting the present and orienting the future.

In the proposed framework, unconscious transformation entails a profound alteration of ingrained daily habits, achieved through the repetitive enactment of behaviors beyond mere conscious shifts. This process aggregates motivational forces across various life experiences (i.e. memories), requiring comprehension of the consequences post-conscious transformation. Such understanding provides a contextual framework for the individual, questioning the temporal (when and where) and purposeful (why) dimensions of their actions. It involves reassessing short-term reactions, with motives evolving through diverse perspectives and iterative adjustments, ultimately leading to new behavioral patterns.

A definitional issue arises with the concept of an evaluated experience, often seen as having a distinct beginning and end (Kirillova and Lehto, 2015; Zhao and Agyeiwaah, 2023). However, the preceding discussion on memory challenges this view. For Deleuze, the boundaries of experiences are not always clear-cut; individuals instead “draw off” (Hughes, 2009, p. 107) differences within the temporal flow rather than grasping the experience as a whole. Consequently, what is accumulated and evaluated is not the full experience, but the “expectations” and “fractures” within each segment, aligning with Deleuze’s third synthesis.

“The third passive synthesis of time is the condition for actions that drive towards the new” (Williams, 2013, p. 110). For Deleuze, individuals are continually shaped by sensual and conceptual variations, which reinterpret the meaning of things. Without a temporal dimension linking to the future, new phenomena would fail to emerge, leading to a closed, nihilistic loop. Deleuze employs “fracture” to illustrate moments when habitual interpretations falter in the face of unforeseen events or no longer suffice for current circumstances. Otherwise put, fractures occur when expectations within habitual behavior patterns fail.

This understanding of fractures diverges from Mezirow’s concept of a “disorienting dilemma.” While Mezirow suggests that such dilemmas mark distinct life stages, fractures in this context are embedded within unexpected experiences encountered during travel. These experiences do not immediately lead to substantial changes; rather, they remain dormant in memory, awaiting interpretation – representing development, not transformation. In contrast, Mezirow’s framework assumes that encountering foreign cultures or shocks during travel directly transforms self-perception, a view that oversimplifies the reality. These encounters may plant seeds for change, but they do not instantly generate a new identity. This highlights how individuals passively and autonomously respond to new experiences.

On the other hand, when addressing the relatively clearer phenomenon of individuals segmenting their life stages, Deleuze references the protagonist’s fate in Hamlet through the line “time is out of joint.” In the play’s first half, the protagonist’s need for revenge is overshadowed by powerlessness and entrapment in the past, resulting in a disconnection between past and present actions. The first synthesis is subordinated to the second. When the protagonist attempts action, he realizes that the past’s subjectivity has become obsolete and his habitual self sees the inconsistency between memory and future projection. At this point, the first and second syntheses link as equal forces – the present resists the past, propelling the individual’s becoming. This implies that, after transformation, individuals recognize that their recollection and interpretation of past events differ from before. Otherwise put, transformation occurs prior to our realization and the creation of a new narrative about ourselves.

Overall, Deleuze’s elaboration of the three passive syntheses reinforces the passive formation of a subject over time, organized around the living present. Habit synthesizes time by systematizing the succession of impressions, retaining some while anticipating others, thus creating a temporal field that bridges past and future through the present. Viewing tourist experiences through this lens, we recognize how travel habits and memories shape a tourist’s perceptions of a destination, influencing expectations and culminating in a lived experience. Transformation emerges from fractures within this process, where habitual patterns are disrupted and new anticipations are formed.

As shown in Figure 1, each tourist experience subtly triggers changes, reinforcing or reshaping habitual impressions or prompting a reassessment of current circumstances without necessarily leading to full transformation. Zhang et al.’s (2025) research on forest-based tourism preliminarily proves this by showing that tourists’ personality changes are driven by the long-term dynamic interaction between everyday life and on-site experiences. While many studies suggest that travel induces dynamic changes (Kirillova et al., 2016a, b, 2017; Coghlan and Weiler, 2018; Sheldon, 2020; Teoh et al., 2021; Zhao and Agyeiwaah, 2023), others argue that these impacts diminish once individuals return to their daily lives, which does not guarantee significant transformation (Lean, 2012; Xue et al., 2014; Yu and Liu, 2023). This contradiction highlights the notion that subtle changes are stored in memory as virtuality.

As Deleuze suggests, consciousness emerges from the gradual accumulation of unconscious fractures and habit changes, while subjectivity only arises when the self seeks meaning. Transformation results from the accumulation of subtle changes through repeated participation in tourism activities, leading to a shift in self-orientation over time (Pearce, 2005), with tourist experiences serving as triggers. These experiences create a “cut in time” that separates the illusion of subjectivity in memory from the present self and future projections and reconfiguring past impressions. Transformation occurs before it is consciously recognized, akin to a car that continues moving after the engine stops, with the passenger unaware until reminded. While previous studies focus on these “moments of reminder,” they overlook the cessation of the “engine” itself. This metaphor addresses the issue proposed by Zhao and Agyeiwaah (2023), concerning whether transformative experiences require tourists’ reflection.

This article further redefines these “moments of reminder” as transformative experiences, emphasizing that individuals become aware of their own changes in these moments. The word “transformative” primarily captures the individual’s sense of change. Previous research conceptualizes transformative experiences as life-changing actualizations staged induced by staged events during travel, potentially extending to the return home (Zhao and Agyeiwaah, 2023; Teoh et al., 2021). This assumes that transformation, whether or not motivated by a desire for change, depends entirely on these events, adhering to the “travel-(special) experience-reflection-transformation” narrative. Nevertheless, as Noy indicates,

From this standpoint, transformative experiences in tourism are often restricted to categories such as extraordinary experiences, authenticity, peak experiences and more recently, memorable experiences. While the concept of memorable experiences represents progress, its research paradigm remains confined to tourism contexts (Stone et al., 2022; Hosany et al., 2022; Hosseini et al., 2021), overlooking routine daily experiences (Quan and Wang, 2004) and tourists’ broader travel-related self-development (Pearce, 2005).

This article critiques the prevailing methodology in tourism research, which overemphasizes the role of special experiences and reflection in tourists’ transformation, while overlooking the significance of their lifeworld and the cumulative impact of experiences. Given that the scope of personal meaning extends seem to beyond tourism research, this may seem paradoxical but the interplay between the lifeworld and the “tourism world” (Xie, 2013) warrants closer attention. Without this focus, destination place-making risks becoming mere spectacle creation (Debord, 1977), undermining the essence of place-based experiences as recent Anthropocene studies show (Huijbens, 2023). This reorients studies toward a tourist-centered approach, where tourist experiences contribute to the growth of the “self,” rather than the growth of the “self” being dependent on the tourist experience. This section elaborates the theoretical and practical implications of the results, explores potential research directions for studying tourist experiences and acknowledges the study’s limitations.

The results advocate for reframing transformative experiences within a temporal and narrative dimension, arising from the inconsistency between habitual impressions and the present lived experience. It advances and contributes to existing literature on transformation. First, it deepens the understanding of tourism as a means of breaking the stagnation of individuals’ “everyday lives.” Noy (2004b) uses backpacker tourism to illustrate how authentic travel experiences that diverge from everyday life shape lasting changes in narrative identity from a sociocultural perspective. This partly supports this article’s argument regarding the delayed nature of transformation in relation to narrative identity. However, unlike Noy (2004b), who linked tourists’ narratives to their narrative capital, suggesting an element of self-construction in their transformation accounts, this article takes a different approach. As shown in Figure 1, by emphasizing unnoticed behavioral changes and their associated narratives, it seeks to bypass the constraints of grand narratives, offering a complementary perspective to Noy’s conclusions.

Moreover, although Pung et al. (2020) acknowledge that transformation necessitates lasting behavioral changes, they emphasize the “special experience-reflection” narrative, implying that tourists must first experience dissonance with the host culture, which they term “fragmentation.” This pivotal moment leads tourists to adopt new behavioral habits. However, this study finds that while pivotal moments are important, they are not the primary catalyst for transformation. Instead, subtle changes including pivotal moments during travel gradually seep into personal habits. These moments merely highlight changes that have already occurred, rather than initiating transformation. This result suggests that understanding how differing and/or overlapping worldviews drive personal growth can offer insights into tourists’ pursuit of self-development, thus advancing postmodernist tourism research (Uriely, 2005; Melo et al., 2021).

The results seek to revive awareness in the tourism industry of the need to develop tourist subjectivity and recognize the foundational role of their daily experiences. While Teoh et al. (2021) describe transformation as a spectrum of changes or gains, this framework refines their ambiguous conclusion by clarifying the mechanisms that differentiate minor from substantial changes. It suggests that tourism providers need not deliberately invest substantial effort in creating “materialistic” peak experiences. Instead, developing products that are meaningful to tourists’ daily lives and possess resonant experiential value might be more valuable. As Wassler and Kirillova (2019) argue, meticulously designing and marketing “authentic” experiences to meet tourists’ expectations is impractical, especially when destinations are treated as consumer products. Instead of “exclusive experiences” that separate tourists from local communities, incorporating local daily life into tourism fosters more meaningful engagement. So-called “backstage tourism” and opportunities to explore the “real” destination tend to be more appealing to tourists and more effective for facilitating inner transformation.

Additionally, the results align with Kirillova et al. (2016a, 2017), who view transformative experiences as occurring by chance. However, unlike their view, transformation is not necessarily linked to existential anxiety, but to challenges faced in self-orientation throughout life stages. A transformative experience does not rely on unexpected travel surprises but emerges from the realization that accumulated travel experiences have led to profound personal change – a surprise in itself. A series of fractures during travel creates the conditions for transformative experiences. Thus, instead of offering a “big” revolution, the results support Bettencourt et al.’s (2022) detailed three-step framework, demonstrating its value: (1) identifying the goals that tourists aim to achieve; (2) understanding and defining what constitutes success for tourists at each stage of their transformation journey; (3) recognizing the barriers faced by tourists and determining strategies to help them overcome these challenges. This naturally does not suggest transforming tourism management into a series of highly customized “psychotherapies.” Building on this framework, what follows explores how tourists might better perceive fractures within the tourism realm, advocating for a narrative approach in future research that emphasizes storytelling to foster greater responsibility and engagement with described attractions (Hughes and Moscardo, 2023).

From a developmental perspective, transformative experiences arise when a discrepancy exists between one’s current impressions of life and their narrative identity, which reflects their understanding of lived experiences. Such inconsistencies, when tied to self-oriented challenges, prompt proactive actions like self-reflection. The author suggests that incorporating a co-created storytelling framework in tourism can amplify this tension, facilitating personal transformation. This aligns with the view that tourist experiences possess narrative qualities, serving as “a whole world built around the central story or character” (Moscardo, 2020, p. 2) and guiding tourists through events, reactions and resolutions. Storytelling shapes how tourists structure and share their travel experiences, indicating it may be an overlooked aspect of tourism (Moscardo, 2020).

Researchers suggest that stories, by presenting crises or challenges and their resolutions, help tourists reassess their values, leading to epiphanies that shape their knowledge and contribute to personal development. In this context, Soulard et al. (2021a) explore how symbolic narratives derived from tourists’ social interactions facilitate transformative experiences. This aligns with Willson et al.’s (2013) argument that the tourism industry can guide tourists toward self-enlightenment and help them find spiritual meaning and purpose in life through narrative experiences. Hence, in designing immersive tourist experiences (storyworld), it is important to prioritize the moments of protagonists’ fate turning points, the reasons behind them and their consequences. This approach is particularly valuable for facilitating tourists’ self-exploration.

Additionally, immersion is central to embodied, nature-based travel, such as forest bathing (Clifford, 2018), mountaineering (Pomfret, 2006), etc. Zhang and Ueda (2023) highlight the broadness of immersion, noting that what are now considered extraordinary experiences in tourism, such as peak experiences (Maslow, 1970) and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988), are merely forms of immersion (Carù and Cova, 2007; Løvoll, 2019). They explain that immersion is not constant but holistic, emphasizing its dynamic relationship with factors such as the environment, personal unconscious states and individual activities. As Lindberg and Østergaard (2015) contend, immersion alone is not an extraordinary experience, especially for skilled tourists. This implies that tourists at different stages of their travel careers require distinct narrative objectives for immersion, specifically narratives aligned with their developmental expectations. Future studies on outdoor recreation emphasizing personal immersion should focus on tourists’ growth experiences. Narratives of transformation from non-engagers to novices to beginners and then to experts may provide valuable insights for expanding this market and refining experiential design.

This similarly creates a point of intersection between this vein and tourists’ cultural immersion in tourism where they pursue profound, meaningful narratives that transcend superficial engagement, aiming for personal development and perspective expansion. Creative tourism, for example, fosters discussions on lifestyle, culture and creativity across locales, encouraging tourists to engage in activities that blend basic materials with imaginative thought, resulting in “creative experiences” (Richards and Wilson, 2006). By integrating into local life, tourists actualize their creative potential and blur the roles of “hosts” and “guests,” leading to unplanned learning opportunities that bridge expectations and reality (Richards, 2013). Similar outcomes emerge in gastronomic tourism (Dixit, 2020), heritage tourism (Ivanova and Buda, 2020) and volunteer tourism (Coghlan and Weiler, 2018). Tourists seek to create new “facets” in their personal narratives, arising from “fractures” in their understanding and engagement with novelty. Future research on experience co-creation across cultures from a narrative perspective appears to be important, as it holds the potential to contribute to how tourism providers select, develop and construct tourism routes at destinations.

Tourists seek interpretations that align their personal narratives from the unique stories of specific destinations (Woodside, 2010), emphasizing the role of destination branding in highlighting a locale’s distinct attributes (Cai, 2002). Adopting an emic narrative perspective allows tourism developers to conduct anthropological studies of tourists to better understand their motivations and identify key attractions (Konu, 2015). Integrating storytelling into tourism products, as Moscardo (2020) suggests, allows developers to explore the narratives and cultural fabric of local residents. This situates tourism products at the heart of the destination’s foundational stories, creating a narrative-rich experience that engages tourists and catalyzes creative experiences. It fosters a collaborative management model, where locals craft narratives, developers refine presentations and tourists exchange stories, encouraging innovation and continual refinement of tourism products.

The author would like to thank Ksenia Kirillova, Ph.D., whose insightful suggestions were instrumental in shaping this paper. This work was supported by JST SPRING, Grant Number JPMJSP2119.