Figure 1 Biophilic leisure engagement model Source: Authors’ own work A conceptual model links biophilic mall characteristics, emotional responses, place dependence, and biophilic leisure engagement. The model begins with Biophilic Mall Characteristics, containing Visual Naturalness, Spatia... More about this image found in Biophilic leisure engagement model Source: Authors’ own work A concep...

Figure 2 Result of partial least squares ( PLS ) analysis Note: p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001 Source: Authors’ own work A path model links 3 mall characteristics with emotional pleasure, emotional arousal, place dependence, and biophilic leisure engagement. The model contains Visual Naturalness, Spatial Aesthetics, and Natural Soundscape Quality. Their paths to Emotional Pleasure are 0.210 with 3 asterisks, 0.260 with 3 asterisks, and 0.173 with 3 asterisks, respectively. Their paths to Emotional Arousal are 0.122 with 1 asterisk, 0.231 with 3 asterisks, and 0.184 with 3 asterisks, respectively. Their direct paths to Biophilic Leisure Engagement are 0.168 with 3 asterisks, 0.133 with 2 asterisks, and 0.141 with 3 asterisks, respectively. Emotional Pleasure has an R squared value of 0.237. Its path to Place Dependence is 0.170 with 3 asterisks. Its path to Biophilic Leisure Engagement is 0.119 with 1 asterisk. Emotional Arousal has an R squared value of 0.167. Its path to Place Dependence is 0.247 with 3 asterisks. Its path to Biophilic Leisure Engagement is 0.125 with 2 asterisks. Place Dependence has an R squared value of 0.114. Its path to Biophilic Leisure Engagement is 0.149 with 2 asterisks. Biophilic Leisure Engagement has an R squared value of 0.301. More about this image found in Result of partial least squares ( PLS ) analysis Note: p...

Figure 1 Research model Source: Authors’ own work A conceptual model links utilitarian and hedonic value cues, perceived destination uncertainty, customer satisfaction, controls, and repurchase intention. The value-based evaluation process includes utilitarian value cues with monetary savin... More about this image found in Research model Source: Authors’ own work A conceptual model links uti...

Figure 2 Structural model results for direct and moderating effects Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ns: not significant Source: Authors’ own work A conceptual model links value cues, perceived destination uncertainty, customer satisfaction, controls, and repurchase intention. The model groups monetary savings and choice efficiency under utilitarian value, and perceived surprise, perceived enjoyment, and social interaction under hedonic value. Monetary savings connects to customer satisfaction at 0.229 with 3 asterisks. Choice efficiency connects to customer satisfaction at 0.101 with 1 asterisk. Perceived surprise connects to customer satisfaction at 0.145 with 1 asterisk. Perceived enjoyment connects to customer satisfaction at 0.315 with 3 asterisks. Social interaction connects to customer satisfaction at 0.245 with 3 asterisks. Perceived destination uncertainty connects to the cue paths at negative 0.111 with 1 asterisk, negative 0.099 with 1 asterisk, negative 0.050 with n s, 0.137 with 1 asterisk, and 0.143 with 1 asterisk. Customer satisfaction has R squared 0.619 and connects to repurchase intention at 0.625 with 3 asterisks. Repurchase intention has R squared 0.430. Control paths to repurchase intention include age at negative 0.054 with n s, gender at 0.038 with n s, education at 0.032 with n s, and prior purchase experience at 0.140 with 2 asterisks. More about this image found in Structural model results for direct and moderating effects Note(s): *...

Figure 3 Moderating effect of perceived destination uncertainty between monetary savings and satisfaction Source: Authors’ own work A line graph compares customer satisfaction by monetary savings and perceived destination uncertainty. The vertical axis marks customer satisfaction from 2 to ... More about this image found in Moderating effect of perceived destination uncertainty between monetary sav...

Figure 4 Moderating effect of perceived destination uncertainty between choice efficiency and satisfaction Source: Authors’ own work A line graph compares customer satisfaction by choice efficiency and perceived destination uncertainty. The vertical axis marks customer satisfaction from 2 t... More about this image found in Moderating effect of perceived destination uncertainty between choice effic...

Figure 5 Moderating effect of perceived destination uncertainty between perceived enjoyment and satisfaction Source: Authors’ own work A line graph compares customer satisfaction by perceived enjoyment and perceived destination uncertainty. The vertical axis marks customer satisfaction from... More about this image found in Moderating effect of perceived destination uncertainty between perceived en...

Figure 6 Moderating effect of perceived destination uncertainty between social interaction and satisfaction Source: Authors’ own work A line graph compares customer satisfaction by social interaction and perceived destination uncertainty. The vertical axis marks customer satisfaction from 2... More about this image found in Moderating effect of perceived destination uncertainty between social inter...

Figure 7 Research model of the experimental study Source: Authors’ own work A flowchart links destination uncertainty level and attribute focus to purchase intention. The flow begins with destination uncertainty level, low versus high, multiplied by attribute focus, utilitarian versus hedon... More about this image found in Research model of the experimental study Source: Authors’ own work A ...

Figure 8 The interaction effect of destination uncertainty and attribute focus Source: Authors’ own work A bar chart compares purchase intention across utilitarian and hedonic attributes by destination uncertainty. The vertical axis marks purchase intention from 0 to 8. The horizontal axis ... More about this image found in The interaction effect of destination uncertainty and attribute focus Sou...

Figure A1 Illustrations of experimental materials (left: low-utilitarian, right: high-utilitarian) Two app screens show utilitarian ticket blind boxes for a coastal city and a random domestic city. The first screen presents a destination blind box offer for a 198 yuan domestic one-way air tick... More about this image found in Illustrations of experimental materials (left: low-utilitarian, right: high...

Figure A2 Illustrations of experimental materials (left: low-hedonic, right: high-hedonic) Two app screens show hedonic ticket blind boxes for a coastal city and a random domestic city. The first screen presents a destination blind box offer for a 198 yuan domestic one-way air ticket. The tick... More about this image found in Illustrations of experimental materials (left: low-hedonic, right: high-hed...

Figure 1 Changing perceptions of brand hate and fairness Source: Authors’ own work A conceptual graph shows changes in perceived fairness and brand hate during service recovery. The conceptual graph plots intensity against time across a service failure episode and recovery phases. Perceived... More about this image found in Changing perceptions of brand hate and fairness Source: Authors’ own wor...

Figure 2 Conceptual model Note: The direct lines indicate temporal effects, and the dotted lines represent carryover effects Source: Authors’ own work A path diagram shows relationships among perceived fairness, customer forgiveness, brand betrayal, and brand hate. The path diagram conta... More about this image found in Conceptual model Note: The direct lines indicate temporal effects, and t...

Figure 3 Modified graph of the mean change in perceived fairness and brand betrayal over time Source: Authors’ own work A line graph shows mean perceived fairness and brand betrayal values across three time points. The graph plots mean value against time for T 1, T 2, and T 3. Perceived fai... More about this image found in Modified graph of the mean change in perceived fairness and brand betrayal ...

Figure 4 Path estimates Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 Source: Authors’ own work A path diagram shows longitudinal relationships among perceived fairness, customer forgiveness, brand betrayal, and brand hate. The path diagram contains perceived fairness, customer forgiveness, brand betrayal, and brand hate at T 1, T 2, and T 3, together with path coefficients. Perceived fairness at T 1 connects to perceived fairness at T 2 with 0.81 double asterisk, and perceived fairness at T 2 connects to perceived fairness at T 3 with 0.93 double asterisk. Brand hate at T 1 connects to brand hate at T 2 with 0.02 not significant, and brand hate at T 2 connects to brand hate at T 3 with 0.43 double asterisk. Perceived fairness connects to customer forgiveness, brand betrayal, and brand hate within each time period. Customer forgiveness and brand betrayal connect to brand hate within the corresponding time periods. Additional dashed paths connect variables across adjacent time periods, with coefficients including 0.07 not significant, 0.01 not significant, 0.05 not significant, 0.06 not significant, negative 0.03 not significant, negative 0.05 not significant, and other labelled values shown along the paths. More about this image found in Path estimates Note: *p < 0.05; **p...