Why ‘not designing for meaning’ might be just as meaningful

 

  

 

    Wim Strijbosch is a researcher and lecturer of Experience Lab and the Attractions and Theme Parks Management track at Breda University of Applied Sciences. 

Experience typology

When looking at experience impact, it is good to place the different terminologies within an overarching framework to see how they relate to each other. In 2018, Duerden and colleagues introduced a framework categorising experiences based on their impact (Duerden et al., 2018). This framework first distinguishes between ordinary experiences and extraordinary experiences. Ordinary experiences attract attention but evoke weak emotional responses. Extraordinary experiences attract attention and evoke strong emotional responses, discovery, change, or a combination of these. Extraordinary experiences are further classified into memorable, meaningful and transformative experiences. Memorable experiences evoke strong emotions, meaningful experiences evoke emotions and discovery, and transformative experiences evoke emotions, discovery and change. This hierarchy suggests that memorable experiences are less impactful than meaningful ones, which are less impactful than transformative experiences in turn. The hierarchy of this framework has been empirically validated in existing scientific literature (see e.g. Duerden et al., 2025) and in unpublished work by our BUas Experience Lab.

The underlying dynamics of experience impacts

The relationship between emotions and memorability is well-documented in the literature. The consensus is that strong emotional responses during experiences are more likely to make those experiences memorable. Recent contributions from our very own BUas Experience Lab have nuanced this thesis, demonstrating that more is not always better. They suggest that moments evoking strong emotions should be alternated with less emotionally intense moments.

The conceptual exploration of higher-level impact types has only recently begun. In a recent paper, Bastiaansen and Duerden (2025) discuss how experiences become meaningful. They emphasise that an experience must first be remembered to become meaningful. This is because reflection, which involves intentional cognitive processing of the experience, is the key working principle of making experiences meaningful. Naturally, one cannot reflect on something that is not remembered. If this reflection process results in insights related to different sources of meaning (Bastiaansen and Duerden (2025) outline social connection, fulfilment, contribution and growth), the experience moves up another rung on the experience impact ladder to become meaningful. If these insights are integrated into one’s autobiographical memory or identity, the experience can reach the highest level by becoming transformative.

Based on their conceptual framework of the process underlying the come-into-being of meaningful experiences, Bastiaansen and Duerden (2025) suggest several experience design strategies that facilitate reflection before, during and after an experience. These tools help leisure and tourism providers embed objective design elements that might be pre-determinants of reflection processes, making the experiences they provide more likely to become meaningful (for detailed information, see Bastiaansen & Duerden, 2025). They also present an empirical research agenda to intentionally examine specific strategies, contexts and participants to begin building a body of evidence-based best practices. Given the complexity of the matters, it is commendable how Bastiaansen and Duerden (2025) couple fundamental scientific research to practical tools and strategies.

Facilitating meaningfulness in all experiences?

An important question is whether all experiences in tourism and leisure should be designed to facilitate meaningfulness. In their original paper, Duerden and colleagues (2018) caution against making every experience extraordinary. They note that "the terms ordinary and extraordinary relate to frequency rather than perceived importance of these experience types” (p. 201). They assert that ordinary experiences matter and deserve intentional attention, partly to ensure that they do not detract from desired ordinary experiences. Although both meaningful and transformational experiences are extraordinary, the same can be said of these as compared to memorable experiences.

Emotions, the key component of memorable experiences, are spontaneous cognitive processes. Reflection, the key component of meaningful and transformative experiences further downstream, requires intentional cognitive processing (Bastiaansen & Duerden, 2025). Some leisure and tourism activities are particularly valued because there is no need for intentional cognitive processing. In our increasingly fast-paced and cognitively demanding world - both in and outside of leisure - the value of leisure experiences that do not require intentional cognitive processing should not be underestimated. I would like to offer three different perspectives on this thesis.

First, in one of the early yet seminal works in the tourism literature, Cohen (1979) sets out that besides more meaningful ‘tourism modes’, there are also less meaningful ones where meaning is neither required nor desired. While the latter have been looked down upon by early tourism scholars, Cohen (1979) argues that it is exactly the lack of meaning that allows tourists to rejuvenate and better function in daily life. A second take on how the lack of minimal intentional cognitive processing during an experience can be found in the concept of flow. Flow, consistently linked to subjective well-being, was famously conceptualised by the Csíkszentmihályis (1992) as a state of complete absorption and focus on an activity that is challenging yet within your skill level, where you lose track of time and everything else around you. A key characteristic of flow is the merging of action and awareness, where activities are performed spontaneously without conscious thought. Here too, minimal cognitive processing is therefore not necessarily unbeneficial. A third perspective on these matters comes from a concrete example from my own research on dark ride attractions in theme parks. In a recent study that I did with Pieter Cornelis on these attraction types (Cornelis & Strijbosch, 2024), we found that dark ride attendees particularly value dark ride attractions because they allow them to temporarily switch off their thoughts and be present in the sensory here and now. Prompting participants to engage in intentional cognitive processes that facilitate reflection might take away from their ostensibly valued here-and-now experience.

How a lack of meaning might be meaningful nevertheless

At the same time, the pursuit of meaning in leisure and tourism experiences does not always require intentional cognitive processing during the experience. A lack of immediate meaning during an experience does not imply the absence of meaning at the end of the line. On the contrary, experiences initially valued for their lack of immediate meaningfulness can become meaningful upon reflection later - especially considering the fast-paced and cognitively demanding times that are currently ours. The experiences that I cherish most are those impulsive moments with my extended family, making me realise afterward how lucky I am to have them in my life. I doubt I am alone in this. Examples like this suggest the importance of allowing space for spontaneous, unstructured experiences. By not imposing a sense of the extraordinary by design, we can perhaps enable individuals to derive personal significance from their experiences in their own time and at their own convenience. It might then even turn out that spontaneous reflection could make experiences more meaningful than when triggered by design.