Measuring tourist motivation

Pergamon

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 555-581, 1994 Copyright © 1994r Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

0160-7383/94 $6.00 + .00

0 1 6 0 - 7 3 8 3 ( 9 3 ) E 0 0 3 3 - A

M E A S U R I N G T O U R I S T M O T I V A T I O N

Dale Fodness University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

Abstract: The development of a self-report scale to measure leisure travel motivation is described. Under increasingly competitive conditions, effective tourism marketing is impossible without an understanding of consumers' motivations. Unfortunately, motivation is one of the least researched areas of tourism, both conceptually and empirically. A series of three studies describes the development and evaluation of a 20-item, self-report scale that relates leisure travel to specific, generalizable motivators that resemble the taxonomies of functional theorists. Results are dis- cussed in terms of the potential that a functional approach holds for understanding, predicting, and influencing the relationship between tourist motivation and behavior. Keywords: tourist, leisure travel, motivation, tourist needs, functional theory, methodology.

R~sum~: L'6valuation de la motivation des touristes. On d6crit le d6veloppement d'une 6cheile auto-administr6e pour 6valuer la motivation des voyages d'agr6ment. Sous les conditions comp6ti- rives actuelles, le marketing du tourisme a peu d'effet sans tenir compte des motivations des consommateurs. Malheureusement, la motivation est un domaine tr~s peu 6tudid, soit empirique- ment soit conceptuellement. Une s6rie de trois 6tudes d6crit le ddveloppement et l'6valuation d'une 6cbelle auto-administr6e de vingt questions qui 6tablit un rapport entre les voyages d'agr6- ment et des facteurs de motivation, sp6cifiques et g6n6ralisables, qui ressemblent aux taxonomies des th6oriciens fonctionnels. On discute les r6sultats en fonction des possibilitds d'une approche fonctionnelle pour comprendre, pr6voir et influencer le rapport entre la motivation et le com- portement du touriste. Mots-clds: touriste, voyage d'agrdment, motivation, besoins des touristes, th6orie fonctionnelle, mdthodologie.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

To market tourism services and destinations well, marketers must understand the motivating factors that lead to travel decisions and consumption behavior (Gee, Choy and Makens 1984). While motivation is only one of many variables (e.g., perceptions, cultural condi- tioning, and learning) that may contribute to explaining tourist behavior, it is nevertheless a critical variable because it is the driving force behind all behavior. Basic motivation theory describes a dynamic process of internal psychological factors (needs, wants, and goals) that generate an uncomfortable level of tension within individuals' minds and bodies. These inner needs and the resulting tension lead to actions designed to release tension, which thereby satisfy the needs. From a marketing perspective, tourism products can be designed and mar- keted as solutions to consumer's needs.

Dale Fodness is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Tourism Management Program, College of Business, University of Texas (San Antonio T X 78249, USA). He teaches courses in principles of marketing, tourism marketing, tourism research, and destination marketing. Pre- viously he taught at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and the Florida State University.

555

556 TOURIST MOTIVATION

Researchers interested in tourist motivation wish to measure motivation so that they can identify types of tourists (McIntosh and Goeld- ner 1990) and subdivide or segment those traveling for pleasure so that their travel patterns can be better understood and systematically analyzed (Crompton 1979). In addition to market segmentation, tourism marketers could also use further insights into tourist motivation for the purposes of product development, service quality evaluation, image development, and promotional activities, such as positioning. Unfortunately, there is little empirical research that reveals the reasons people travel and vacation (Lundburg 1990). Indeed, the whole area of motivation and demand has been one of the least researched areas of tourism to date (Pearce 1988). Crompton (1979) notes that it is possible to describe the who, when, where, and how of tourism, together with the social and economic characteristics of tourists, but not to answer the question "why," the most interesting question of all tourist behavior. The purpose of this study is to present a questionnaire designed to measure tourist motivation. This short, easy to administer scale was based on a functional approach to the study of tourist motivation and has been subjected to a variety of tests to demonstrate its reliability and validity.

Scale development must be preceded by, and rooted in, a sound conceptual specification of the construct being scaled (Churchill 1979). Accordingly, first the foundation for the tourist motivation scale is derived from the conceptual and empirical works of the handful of tourism researchers who have examined the reasons why individuals travel.

T O U R I S T M O T I V A T I O N

Research into why individuals travel has been hampered by the lack of a universally agreed-upon conceptualization of the tourist motivation construct. For a detailed conceptual treatment of the tourist motivation literature, readers are directed to Dann (1981), Iso-Ahola (1980), Jafari (1989) or to any of a number of tourism textbooks that express opinions on the topic (e.g., Burkart and Medlik 1990; Coltman 1989; Gee, Choy and Makens 1984; Lundberg 1990; McIntosh and Goeldner 1990; Middleton 1990; Pearce 1988). Researchers attempt- ing to define tourist motivation typically develop a list of the reasons for travel. While there are similarities among the lists and each list has its theoretical strengths and weaknesses, most lack a means of operationalization and empirical support. A limited amount of empirical research on tourist motivation does, however, exist.

The works of Dann (1977), Crompton (1979), and Pearce and Cal- tabiano (1983) are typical of the few empirical studies reported in the tourist motivation literature. The study by Dann (1977) used survey data on visitors' attitudes toward Barbados to identify two basic motivations: anomie and ego-enhancement. Both of these proposed tourist motivations were seen by the author as "push" factors (i.e., internal factors predisposing the individual to travel). Anomie, according to Dann, represented the desire to transcend the feeling of isolation inher- ent in everyday life and to simply "get away from it all." Ego-enhance-

DALE FODNESS 557

ment, on the other hand, derived from the need for recognition, which is obtained through the status conferred by travel.

The studies of Crompton (1979) and Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) both used unstructured interviews to collect qualitative data. The data was then analyzed for insights into the reasons underlying leisure travel. Crompton sought to identify those motives of pleasure vacation- ers that serve to "guide the tourist toward the selection of a particular type of vacation or destination" and to develop a conceptual framework (a "cultural-socio-psychological disequilibrium continuum") capable of encompassing such motives. Using a qualitative methodology, nine motives were identified from 39 person-to-person unstructured interviews with a convenience sample of adults in Texas and Massachusetts, USA. Seven motives were classified as socio-psychological. They were escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement of kinship relationships, and facilitation of social interaction. The two remaining motives, novelty and education, formed an "alternate cultural" category.

Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) used Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a framework to infer travel motivations from travelers' experiences. Data was collected via a self-report survey consisting of open-ended questions. Responses were coded according to the dominant theme within each response. The findings fit neatly within Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

In practice, the lists of theoretical reasons for travel have occasion- ally been operationalized and used to measure the benefits that the individual seeks from the leisure travel experience. Typical examples include a project conducted by the Canadian Government Office of Tourism to segment the US travel market and the ongoing Florida Domestic Tourism Exit Survey Program. In the Florida study, for example, respondents are asked the reason for their visit (to vacation, to visit friends and relatives, to conduct business, to attend a conven- tion, conference, or trade show) and to evaluate the importance of 18 benefits of a Florida vacation: to rest and relax, to visit a beach, to enjoy the climate, to take part in water sports, to play golf, to play tennis, to go fishing, to go boating, to visit Florida attractions, to gamble, to go camping or hiking, to enjoy the night life, to attend cultural events, to visit historical sights, to take part in educational programs, to shop, to dine out, and to enjoy pool activities.

To Middleton (1990), lists such as these are not motivations for individuals in the sense that psychologists and behavioral marketers would understand them; motivation m u s t be related to needs and personal goals. A further clue that these lists do not represent real motivations is that, while both the purpose of trip and the benefit-seeking approaches can be used as measurement tools, their level of reduction is problematic. That is, within any group of leisure travelers who state that they are seeking the same benefit from their vacations (e.g., to rest and relax), detailed probing uncovers another level of motivation. Some individuals who travel to rest and relax, for example, state that they do so in order to escape the routine and predictability of their day-to-day lives. Others traveling to rest and relax are clearly reward-


ing themselves by maximizing their enjoyment of all that life has to offer. While the reasons given for travel and the benefits sought from the travel experience may represent strategies for meeting individual goals and personal needs, it is unlikely that they represent basic travel motivations (Dann 1981; Pearce and Caltabiano 1983).

In short, hypothesized reasons for travel exist and the benefits sought from the leisure travel experience are commonly measured. A widely-accepted integrated theory of the needs and personal goals driving these reasons given for travel and the benefits sought from it is, however, lacking. It would be desirable to have a simple, easily administered scale to measure tourist motivation. At least two things are required, an established motivation theory and more research. While the work of Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) is certainly a step in the right direction, the motivational theory upon which they focus -- Maslow's hierarchy of needs--has thus far proven resistant to valid and reliable operationalization.

Three separate studies were performed to develop the scale, to evaluate its psychometric properties, and to assess its utility. Study One describes a qualitative exploration of the vacation experience designed to clarify basic concepts, to identify variables, and to generate hypotheses. Study Two describes the development of the self-report sale. Study Three evaluated the scale's reliability, validity, and dimensionality on a separate sample as prescribed by Churchill's (1979) paradigm for the development of self-report scales. Study Three also assessed the applicability and utility of a functional approach to tourist motivation.

Study One: A Functional Approach

The theoretical basis for leisure traveler motivation tested in this study is an extension of the functional approach to the study of attitudes (Katz 1960; Smith, Bruner and White 1956). The functional approach posits that the reason individuals hold certain attitudes is that these attitudes serve psychological needs. Recall the basic motivational process: internal psychological factors (the needs) generate an uncomfortable level of tension within individuals' minds and bodies. From a functional perspective, these inner needs and the resulting tension precipitate attitudes and, ultimately, actions based on those attitudes designed to release tension, thereby satisfying the needs. Recent research (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Prentice 1987) has extended the functional approach to the study of possessions; that is, individuals possess or seek to possess tangible and intangible "objects" (e.g., cars, vacations) because these objects serve (satisfy) psychological needs.

Functional Theory Several ways by which attitudes serve or satisfy needs have been

proposed. Katz's (1960) typology is the most familiar, and is comprised of four general categories. Attitudes that individuals hold to protect themselves from unflattering or threatening truths are said to satisfy ego-defensive needs. For example, "I would visit my parents more often if

DALE FODNESS 559

they didn't live so far away." A knowledge function is served by attitudes held to help individuals organize what they know and to help them understand the world. For example, "It is easy to understand why airline food is so bad: big companies just don't care about the customer anymore." Attitudes that simplify decision-making have been labeled utilitarian. For example, "We vacation in Florida every summer; it's a tradition in our family." Finally, Katz proposed a value-expressive function served by attitudes that enable an individual to express an important value to others. For example, "I wouldn't dream of staying anywhere but the Breakers." Another function commonly cited in the literature was Smith, Bruner and White's (1956) social-adjustivefunction, said to be served by attitudes that help the individual maintain important interpersonal relationships. For example, "Vacations are a great oppor- tunity to bring the family closer together."

The extension of functional theory to tourist motivation is straight- forward: The reasons people give for their leisure travel behavior represent the psychological functions (the needs) the vacation serves (satis- fies) for the individual. This approach has intuitive appeal. It directly addresses the question of why tourists behave as they do. The functional approach has also been the focus of operational research in both social psychology and consumer behavior (Herek 1986, 1987; Locander and Spivey 1978; Lutz 1978, 1981). A functional approach also has important implications for not only understanding, but perhaps for influencing consumer behavior as well. In the general consumer behavior literature, Lutz (1981) has stated that a functional approach is a potentially powerful tool for market segmentation. Crompton (1979), in his study of tourist behavior, concluded that a motivational basis for tourist segmentation could provide cues and insights around which destinations could develop and promote their product to target markets.

The Exploratory Study Qualitative techniques were used to explore the reasons individuals

travel. This study was designed to develop rather than to test hypotheses because the tourist motivation literature lacks established theory suggesting formal relationships among variables. Instead, the study sought insights by collecting and analyzing observations about personal travel motivations from leisure travelers, in the tradition of Dann (1977), Crompton (1979), and Pearce and Caltabiano (1983). Obser- vations were collected and analyzed in three research stages.

In the first stage, 16 focus group interviews consisting of open-ended questions were conducted with a total of 128 individuals across the United States. The individuals who participated in these interviews had all taken a leisure trip (to various destinations) in the preceding three years. These individuals were interviewed about their motivations and attitudes related to vacation travel in general, as well as their attitudes toward and their experiences with various destinations.

Using audio transcripts, the researcher recorded vacation themes verbatim from the focus group interviews. In accordance with Herek's (1987) definition, a theme was defined as "any idea or complete


thought somehow related to the respondent's reason for or motive behind" leisure travel. Themes from each of the focus groups were compiled to create a master list of vacation themes. Multiple mentions of the same theme were eliminated. The final list of 65 vacation themes appears in Table 1.

The second stage of the exploratory study involved the use of independent "judges" who were instructed to sort the themes into groups based on similarity. The judges were 50 upper-division college students at a major southeastern university. Judges were provided with the master list of vacation themes printed on mailing labels, one theme per label, and a large sheet of paper upon which to affix the labels bearing the themes. The order of presentation of the themes was randomized for each subject. Judges were instructed to sort the themes into groups based on similarity. On average, they completed the task in approximately 30 minutes and generated a mean of seven thematically-similar groups.

In the third stage of the exploratory study, following the sorting task, the researcher coded the data to create an overall similarity matrix for the vacation themes. First, an incidence matrix consisting of all 65 themes on both the horizontal and vertical axes was coded for each subject as follows: each theme on the vertical axis was paired with each theme on the horizontal axis, a "1" indicated that two themes had been placed in the same cluster by the subject, and a "0" signified the subject placed each of the pair of themes in separate clusters. Next, these incidence matrices were aggregated across subjects to yield an overall similarity matrix.

The similarity matrix was then analyzed using the alternating least square scaling algorithm (ALSCAL) for multidimensional scaling (SAS Institute 1985). Multidimensional scaling (MDS) solutions were obtained for six dimensions down to two, with resulting variances accounted for (R-squares)of 0.96, 0.95, 0.91, 0.83, and 0.68, respec- tively. In the analysis, the number of dimensions in the MDS solution were selected in order to maximize the amount of variance accounted for and preserve the interpretability of the dimensions. Since no sharp break in the R-squares occurred before four dimensions, the four- dimensional model was selected for further exploration.

Functional Dimensionality The four MDS dimensions were interpreted by examining the

makeup of the points projecting at the extremes of the configuration (Prentice 1987). Table 2 shows the vacation themes with extreme values on each of the four dimensions.

The knowledge function of leisure travel. In general, the first dimension appears to be composed of themes relating to the idea of escaping from everyday life. A subtle difference, however, exists between themes at the positive and negative poles. The themes at the positive pole describe an escape from the daily routine toward some well-defined goal or state, for example, "to see monuments and works of art," "[to gain] a better understanding of current events," and "to see how other people live." While the overall interpretation of the first dimension was escap-

DALE F O D N E S S 561

Table 1. Vacation Themes

1. Going on vacation with someone is always more fun than going by yourself. 2. I like to talk about my vacation when I get back home, you know, relive it. 3. The p lanning leading up to a vacation is a lot of fun. 4. W h e n I 'm on vacation, I don' t want to spend my t ime worrying about where I

need to be. 5. Jus t to curl up with a good book in the shade sounds like a wonderful vacation to

m e .

6. The perfect vacation would include all of my family. 7. A vacation a round people is very enjoyable. 8. Most everybody wants a change of pace from what they do. 9. W h e n I go home, I tell everybody about my vacation.

10. I want to see things while on vacation that I don' t normally see. 11. Travel gives me a bet ter unders tand ing of current events. 12. Sometimes vacation travel is the only way to see monumen t s and works of art. 13. While on vacation, I want luxury, nice food, and a comfortable place to stay. 14. I never vacation at the same place twice. 15. It's impor tan t for me to show that I can afford a vacation. 16. It's impor tan t for me to experience different cultures and ways of life. 17. Jus t resting and relaxing is vacation enough for me. 18. O n vacation, I try to get back to nature. 19. A vacation is a t ime to move out of your daily routine into a more pleasant routine. 20. O n vacation, I like to meet other people who are interested in the same things I

a m .

21. Who you're with can make or break a vacation. 22. There are some places I have always wanted to visit. 23. Historical sites are very impor tan t to my vacation plans. 24. I like to be able to talk about the places I've visited and the things I've seen on

vacation. 25. Hav ing fun, being entertained; that 's what a vacat ion is all about. 26. The availability of good restaurants and good food is impor tan t in choosing a

vacation spot. 27. I travel to keep active. 28. To me, a vacation means seeing and doing lots of things. 29. I guess I 'm just always looking for new experiences. 30. Jus t na ture and me, that 's my idea of a perfect vacation. 31. O n vacation the family gets to know each other better. 32. I would ra ther go on vacation less frequently and do something exciting than to go

often and have to cut back. 33. It's not a real vacation unless you don' t have to do the laundry. 34. I think that the kind of accommodat ions that you get on vacation are real impor-

tant . 35. O n vacation I don' t worry about time. 36. I don't like to vacation where there are lots of people. 37. A vacation is relaxing, being able to do nothing, without having any deadlines. 38. I jus t like to travel, to go somewhere and to do something. 39. The yearly vacation is a t ime when the family can be together. 40. While on vacation, I a t tend cultural events that I don' t have access to at home. 41. A vacation clears your mind. 42. I like to visit foreign cultures. 43. It's fun to sit a round and r emember past vacations. 44. No housework, no cooking, no washing dishes, no laundry, that 's what a vacation

is all about. '~5. The best vacations I've ever had were spontaneous.

(continued)


Table 1. Continued

46. I like traveling with good friends. It's important for me to share my vacations. 47. A vacation means getting away. 48. Usually, we visit relatives or someone we know on our vacations. 49. Vacation time is a recovery period. 50. I vacation in the country when I can, because I like a rural environment. 51. I usually will visit a place related to my personal interests. 52. A vacation means fun, doing things I haven't done before. 53. It's important for me to go someplace fashionable on vacation. 54. Now and then I just need to get away from pressure and stress. 55. I always think that I'll have some sort of romantic experience while on vacation. 56. I like to see how other people live. 57. A vacation means being able to do nothing. 58. There should be no deadlines while on vacation. 59. On vacation, I like to do the same things that the people who live there do, you

know, "When in Rome, . . . " 60. I would be happy taking a vacation anywhere away from home. 61. The main thing for me on vacation is just to slow down. 62. I like to try to tie my vacations in with festivals and celebrations. 63. It's important for me to get away from the kids now and then. 64. I like lots of activities on vacation, like shopping. 65. I vacation for a break from my daily routine, to get refreshed, and to have a

different outlook.

i sm, v a c a t i o n t h e m e s c lus te red at the pos i t ive po le s e e m e d to re la te to the vaca t i one r ' s sea rch for k n o w l e d g e , o r g a n i z a t i o n , a n d cons i s t ency in the wor ld . See ing h o w o the rs live, e x p e r i e n c i n g d i f fe ren t cu l tures , a n d vis i t ing sites o f c u r r e n t a n d his tor ica l s ign i f icance w o u l d all seem to r ep resen t an in teres t in u n d e r s t a n d i n g the b r o a d e r ou t l ines o f life. T h u s , the pos i t ive pole o f the first d i m e n s i o n r e sembles the k n o w l e d g e func t ion o f K a t z (1960).

The utilitarian function of leisure travel. At the nega t ive pole o f the first d i m e n s i o n , v a c a t i o n t h e m e s express a m o r e u n d i r e c t e d f o r m o f escap- i sm w i t h o u t a n y p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n to "just rest a n d re lax," "to j u s t get a w a y f r o m p res su re a n d stress," a n d "[to clear] y o u r m i n d ou t . " T h e e m p h a s i s on ge t t i ng a w a y f r o m p re s su re s a n d responsibi l i t ies sugges ts a dr ive to escape f r o m s o m e pa in fu l o r u n c o m f o r t a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t , s imi lar to the a n o m i e c o n c e p t de sc r ibed b y D a n n (1977). A c c o r d i n g to K a t z (1970) , a t t i tudes tha t he lp to m a x i m i z e r e w a r d s o r to m i n i m i z e p u n i s h m e n t s f r o m the e n v i r o n m e n t serve a u t i l i t a r i an func t ion . T h u s , the nega t ive pole o f the first d i m e n s i o n was i n t e r p r e t e d as r e p r e s e n t i n g the m i n i m i z a t i o n o f p u n i s h m e n t e l e m e n t o f Ka t z ' s u t i l i t a r ian func t ion .

The social-adjustive function of leisure travel. T h e u n i p o l a r s econd d i m e n - sion c lear ly descr ibes the social aspects o f the v a c a t i o n exper ience . Social i n t e rac t ions can invo lve b o t h fami ly (e .g . , " the yea r ly v a c a t i o n is a t ime w h e n the fami ly can be toge ther" ) a n d o the r s ( e .g . , " I like g o i n g on v a c a t i o n wi th g o o d fr iends") . I t was to be expec ted tha t a d i m e n s i o n re la ted to social needs w o u l d be f o u n d in a F lo r ida v a c a t i o n con tex t . V i s i t i ng f r iends a n d re la t ives a n d sha red fami ly exper i ences

DALE FODNESS 563

Table 2. Vacation Theme MDS Solution

Themes Weight

Dimension 1. (Positive Polarity)--Knowledge Function I like to see how other people live. 1.45 Travel gives you a better understanding of current events. 1.53 To me, vacation time means seeing and doing lots of things. 1.17 I like to meet people who are interested in the same things. 1.39 Historical sites are very important to my vacation plans. 1.51 There are just some places that you have always wanted to visit. 1.43 I guess I 'm just always looking for new experiences. 1.13 It's important to experience different cultures and ways. 1.47 Sometimes a vacation trip is the only way to see monuments and works of art. 1.48 I like to visit foreign cultures. 1.45 On vacation I attend cultural events that I don't have access to at home. 1.41 I like to visit historical sites. 1.41 I try to tie my vacations in with festivals and celebrations. 1.42 On vacation, I like to do the things that the people there do. 1.49 (Negative Polarity)-- Utilitarian Function: Minimization of Punishment Now and then, I need to just get away from pressure and stress. - 1.83 Vacation time is a recovery period for us. - 1.71 Jus t resting and relaxing is enough of a vacation for me. - 1.82 When I 'm on vacation, I don't want to spend my time worrying about where I - 1.84

need to be. No housework, no cooking, no washing dishes, no laundry, none of that on - 1.72

vacation! It's relaxing, being able to do nothing, without having any deadlines. - 1.82 Most everybody wants a change of pace from what they usually do. - 1.38 Jus t to curl up with a good book in the shade sounds like a wonderful - 1.81

vacation. A vacation clears your mind out. - 1.72 A vacation means to move out of your daily routine into a more pleasant - 1.67

routine. Jus t nature and me, that's my idea of a perfect vacation. - 1.67 It's not a real vacation unless you don't have to do the laundry. - 1.74 I need a break from my daily routine, to get refreshed, and to have a different

outlook, A vacation means getting away. - 1.60 It's important for me to get away from the kids now and then. - 1.78 On vacation I don't like to worry about the time element. - 1.84 I like getting out into the country, into a rural environment. - 1.01 Jus t getting away from work, away from the daily routine, that's a high - 1.71

priority for me. I would be happy taking a vacation anywhere away from home. - 1.36 I don't like to vacation where there are people. - 1.66 The main thing for me on vacation is just to slow down. - 1.79 Dimension 2. Social Adjustive Function The yearly vacation is a time when the family can be together. - 1.83 Usually, we visit relatives or someone we know on our trip. - 1.68 Who you're with can make or break a vacation. - 1.81 A vacation around people is very enjoyable. - 1.29 The perfect vacation would include all of our family. - 1.82 On vacation the family gets to know each other again. - 1.85 Going on vacation with someone is always more fun than going alone. - ! .88 I like going on vacation with good friends. - 1.87

(continued)


Table 2. Continued

Themes Weight

Dimension 3. Value-Expressive Function I like to be able to talk about the places I've visited and the things I've seen. 1.43 It's important to show the people at work that you can afford a vacation. 1.84 It's important to go someplace fashionable on vacation. 1.76 It's fun to sit around and remember past vacations. 1.40 When I get home from my vacation, I tell everyone about it. 1.83 I want luxury, nice food, and a comfortable place to stay while on vacation. 1.59 An availability of good restaurants and good food is important in a vacation 1.92

destination. I like to talk about my vacation when I get back, you know, relive it. 1.58 I think that the kind of accommodations you get are real important. 1.93 Dimension 4. Utilitarlan Function: Reward Maximizat ion Having fun, being entertained, that's what a vacation is all about. 1.49 I travel to keep active. 1.64 I always think that I'll have some sort of romantic experience while on 1.51

vacation. For our family, a vacation is always a new adventure. We never go to the 1.88

same place twice. The best vacations I've ever had have been spontaneous. 1.88 A vacation means fun; doing thing that you haven't done before. 1.27 I just like to travel, to go someplace and do something. 1.45 I would rather go less frequently and do something more exciting than to go 1.68

often. I like lots of activities, like shopping. 1.40

are r e c o g n i z e d in the l i t e ra tu re as p o w e r f u l m o t i v a t o r s for t rave l ( C r o m p t o n 1979; C o l t m a n 1989; H u d m a n 1980; M c I n t o s h a n d Goe ld - ne r 1990; M o u t i n h o 1987; Sc hm ol l 1977). D i m e n s i o n two o f the M D S solut ion, the re fore , a p p e a r s to c o r r e s p o n d to Smi th , B r u n e r a n d Whi t e ' s (1956) soc ia l -ad jus t ive func t ion .

The value-expressive function of leisure travel. T h e th i rd M D S d i m e n s i o n c o m b i n e s e l emen t s o f b o t h s y m b o l i s m a n d sel f -express ion. V a c a t i o n s at fash ionable , l u x u r i o u s des t i na t ions m a y r ep re sen t the type o f p e r s o n the t r ave le r is w h e n , fo l lowing the v a c a t i o n exper ience , he o r she "talk[s] to e v e r y o n e a b o u t it." T h e th i rd d i m e n s i o n , chief ly c o m p o s e d o f t h e m e s c e n t e r i n g a r o u n d the expres s ion o f pe r sona l va lues , cor res- p o n d e d to Ka t z ' s va lue -expres s ive func t ion .

The utilitarian function of leisure travel. T h e fou r th d i m e n s i o n is s imi lar to the first d i m e n s i o n in tha t an escape m o t i f is also p resen t . A g a i n , escape wi th some c lear goal in m i n d , like the posi t ive pole o f the first d i m e n s i o n , is a r e c u r r e n t p a t t e r n . H o w e v e r , for the fou r th d i m e n s i o n , an escape to r ec rea t iona l o r "fun" act ivi t ies is s tressed. Reca l l tha t in the first d i m e n s i o n , the goals o f escape f ea tu red o p p o r t u n i t i e s for l ea rn- ing o r b r o a d e n i n g one 's perspec t ive . B e i n g en t e r t a ined , h a v i n g fun, a n d e n j o y i n g a r o m a n t i c a d v e n t u r e , v a c a t i o n t h e m e s tha t a p p e a r e d in the fou r th M D S d i m e n s i o n , c lear ly re la ted to l iv ing life to its fullest

DALE FODNESS 565

(i.e., maximizing rewards). From this perspective, the fourth dimension resembles the reward maximization component of Katz's utilitarian function.

The interpretations of these dimensions are subjective, based on properties of the vacation themes with extreme values on each dimension. The MDS solution generated is, however, amenable to interpretation in terms of functional theory. The fact that the four-dimension solution was interpreted in terms of five functions is not a problem. Although one interpretation for each dimension of an MDS solution is common practice, "dimensionality is not necessarily the number of relevant characteristics involved" (Kruskal and Wish 1977).

In addition to clarifying concepts and identifying variables for further study, the qualitative sequence of studies also laid the groundwork for development of a specific, empirically testable hypothesis regarding the nature of the functions served by the vacation experience.

Study Two: Measuring Tourist Motivation

Method and Data Collection The purpose of this quantitative sequence of studies was to design,

implement, and test an objective approach to measuring the functions that the vacation experience serves for the leisure traveler. All 65 vacation themes generated by the qualitative study were rewritten as questionnaire items to form an original scale that was used to collect data from a sample of recent leisure travelers. An iterative scale purification procedure was used to develop a reduced, more parsimonious scale.

The item pool for initial scale construction was composed of the themes obtained from the focus group interviews described in the qualitative sequence of studies. Each vacation theme was paired with a 7-point scale ranging from "Strongly Agree" (7) to "Strongly Disagree" (1).

Data for purification of the multiple-item functional measurement scale were collected from a sample of individuals who had recently requested a Florida Visitor's Guide. One thousand self-administered surveys were mailed to a random sample of individuals who requested the vacation guide in the period April through June 1990. Five hun- dred and twenty-three surveys were returned, and of those, 402 were usable for the purposes of scale purification. A common heuristic in marketing research is to use at least five cases per item in factor analysis. The use of 402 cases to purify a 65-item scale fell well within this parameter.

Data Analysis The 65-item instrument was purified and reduced using a four-step

iterative procedure: Factor analysis to verify the dimensionality of the scale; computation of coefficient alpha and item-to-total correlations for each dimension; factor analysis to verify the dimensionality of the reduced scale; and computation of coefficient alpha and item-to-total correlations for each dimension.

Principal components factoring with varimax rotation was used and the initial analysis was unconstrained. Principal component factor analysis is oriented toward explaining the total variation in the original


measures (Dunteman 1984). Rotation of the factors serves the purpose of finding simpler and more easily interpretable results, while keeping the number of factors and communalities of each variable fixed (Kim and Mueller 1978). Rotation brings most of the loadings of a variable close to zero so that it is highly correlated with only one or two factors. Therefore, it is easier to interpret each factor as an effect of a particular subset of variables (Agresti and Finlay 1986). Varimax rotation simpli- fies each column of the factor matrix by maximizing the variance of squared loadings for each factor (Kim and Mueller 1978).

The factor analysis resulted in a number of factors, seven of which were initially retained based on whether the individual factor had an eigenvalue greater than or equal to one. This retention criterion is widely accepted in marketing research. The seven-factor solution was subjected to varimax rotation for the purpose of finding simpler and more easily interpretable results. While the varimax rotation produced factor loadings that were, for the most part, interpretable, several items had high loadings on more than one factor. The normal procedure is to select for the final scale only those items that load on a single factor (Churchill 1979). Other items failed to load on any factor at the 0.6 level or higher, a conservative measure. When these items were re- moved and the factor analysis was re-run, two factors failed to correlate meaningfully with the remaining items, reducing the dimensionality of the functional measurement scale to five factors.

Computat ion of coefficient alpha and item-to-total correlations were performed on the five-dimensional factor solution. The values of coefficient alpha suggested that further deletion of certain items would im- prove the alpha value. The recomputation of alphas and item-to-total correlations and the reexamination of the factor structure were re- peated several times and resulted in a final set of 20 items representing five distinct dimensions, all with eigenvalues greater than one. The eigenvalues, factor loadings, and alpha values as well as the amount of variance accounted for by the factors are summarized in Table 3.

Results and Discussion Like the M D S procedure, the factor analysis identified a knowledge

function and two components of a utilitarian function: minimization of punishment and maximization of reward. The factor analysis failed to produce an underlying construct resembling the social-adjustive function, and two factors were generated that seemed to relate to the value- expressive function, rather than one.

At first, it seems odd that the factor analysis would not produce a factor suggesting a social-adjustive function. Such a function was clearly supported by the MDS solution and, as previously noted, visiting friends and relatives has long been recognized as an important travel motivator. This omission may lie in the nature of the factor analysis procedure. That is, the factoring procedure is designed to uncover unique underlying constructs that distinguish subjects from one another. Based on experience with this market and this data, it is likely that the visit friends and relatives motivation is so ubiquitous in the sample used for this study that, from a factor analysis perspective, it fails to distinguish one group of travelers from another.

DALE FODNESS 567

Table 3. Study Two Factor Loadings

Themes

Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Utili tarian Value Value Utili tarian

Factor 1 Function: Expressive: Expressive: Function: Knowledge Punishment Self- Ego- Reward

Function Minimizat ion Esteem Enhancement Maximizat ion

It 's important for me to experience different cultures and different ways of life. 0 .71452 -0 .01033 0.09873 0.12358 0.23312

While on vacation, I attend cultural events that I don't have access to at home. 0.75655 - 0.03211 0.08448 0.12982 - 0.04457

I like to visit foreign cultures. 0 .79587 0.00599 - 0.10834 - 0.13150 0.16128 I like to see how other people live. 0 .62320 - 0.05703 - 0.08754 0.05518 0.45131 O n vacation, I like to do the same things

that the people there do, yon know, "When in Rome . . . " 0 .72917 0.10123 0.07507 - 0.07386 - 0.03741

Jus t to cuff up with a good book in the shade sounds like a wonderful vacation t o m e . 0.17902 0.71255 -0 .18097 - 0 . 1 3 0 0 6 -0 .14643

Jus t resting and relaxing is vacation enough for me. - 0.05848 0.78983 0.02870 - 0.02552 - 0.12622

A vacation means being able to do nothing. -0 .01607 0.77118 0.04036 0,05039 0.15183

There should be no deadlines while on vacation. 0.03262 0.62354 0.33304 - 0.05366 0.25820

The main thing for me on vacation is just to slow down. - 0 .04352 0 . 6 4 0 8 5 0.17116 0.04346 0.07324

While on vacation, I want luxury, nice food, and a comfortable place to stay, - 0.09420 0.06037 0.79745 0.08789 0.14098

The availability of good restaurant and good food is important in choosing a vacation spot. 0.12380 0.12866 0.78383 0.02643 -0 .07161

I think that the kind of accommodations that you get on vacation are real important. -0 .08913 0.09557 0.73737 0.09401 0.12839

It's important for me to go someplace fashionable on vacation. 0.27861 -0 .04173 0.60651 0.19471 -0 .18764

I like to talk about my vacation when I get home, you know, relive it. 0.00472 - 0.05569 0.03371 0.89047 - 0.08626

When I go home, I talk to everybody about my vacation. 0.04412 0.01560 0.13182 0.83572 0.13412

I like to be able to talk about the places I 've visited and the things I 've seen on vacation. 0.01328 -0 .01857 0.17235 0.83829 0.21764

I want to see things while on vacation that I don't normally see. 0.09960 - 0.00934 0,03696 0.26519 0 . 6 4 8 8 0

There are some places I have always wanted to visit, 0.01580 0.05710 -0 .00384 - 0.02506 0 . 7 7 6 8 5

I just like to travel, to go somewhere and to do something. 0.23538 0.07439 0.06189 0.03346 0 . 7 2 8 2 8

Reliability coefficient (alphas) 0.80 0.80 0.74 0.80 0.58 Eigenvalue 3.69 2.80 2.64 1.78 1.48 % of variance explained 18.5 14.0 13.2 9.0 7.4 Cumulat ive % of variance explained 18.5 32.5 45.7 54.7 62.1

Regarding the value-expressive function identified in the MDS solution, the factor analysis split the constituent items into two underlying constructs, rather than one. One construct has been labeled "value- expressive: self-esteem" as it relates to an expression of personal stan- dards for fashionable luxurious vacation surroundings. The other construct includes the vacation themes that related to the desire to talk about one's vacation upon returning. This was described by Dann


(1977) as "ego-enhancement" and, thus, is labeled "value-expressive: ego-enhancement."

The interpretation of the factor structure yielded approximately the same dimensions, i.e., functions, of the vacation experience as were identified via the multidimensional scaling method. It is important to stress that the labeling of factors, as with the labeling of M D S dimensions, is highly subjective. However, the fact that two separate sam- ples, two separate data collection methods, and two different analytical techniques revealed basically the same patterns suggests more confi- dence in the overall results.

&udy Three: Market Segmentation Study Three consists of two stages. In the first stage, the scale's

reliability and dimensionality were evaluated on another separate sample as prescribed by Churchill (1979). A sample of "real tourists" was used to confirm that the scale was valid and reliable in the field. In the second stage, in order to assess the applicability and utility of a functional approach to tourist motivation, a segmentation study was performed wherein a functional segmentation base was created using the scale developed in Study Two and compared against traditional tourism segmentation bases.

First Stage The sampling frame consisted of auto travelers who stopped at

official Florida welcome centers and completed a short, self-administered questionnaire designed to assess the utility of the welcome center to travelers. They returned this questionnaire with their name and address in order to receive an incentive item. One thousand surveys were mailed to a random sample of the approximately 1,800 visitors who returned cards in January through June 1990; 716 surveys were returned, of which 585 were usable for the purposes of this study.

The 20 items comprising the functional measurement instrument were formatted along with demographic, socioeconomic, and product use questions into a self-administered questionnaire in the form of a pre-addressed, postage paid mailback survey.

The 20 functional statements were factor analyzed as in Study Two (principal components, varimax rotation) in an effort to uncover relationships between correlated variables in terms of a few conceptually meaningful independent factors. The analysis produced the same results as those generated by the last stage of the scale purification procedure described earlier. That is, five factors were retained with eigenvalues greater than or equal to one. The eigenvalues, factor loadings, and alpha values as well as the amount of variance accounted for by the factors are summarized in Table 4.

Second Stage Three related hypotheses were tested in the following series of analy-

ses. In substantive terms, the first hypothesis sought to prove that differences in this sample of Florida auto visitors existed such that homogeneous clusters could be formed based on the functions served

DALE FODNESS 569

Table 4. Study Three Factor Loadings

Themes

Factor 1 Value

Expressive: Ego-

Enhancement

Factor 3 Utili tarian Factor 4 Factor 5 Function: Value Utili tarian

Factor 2 Punishment Expressive: Function: Knowledge Minimiza- Self- Reward

Function tion Esteem Maximizat ion

I like to talk about my vacation when I get back home, you know, relive it. 0.869 0.065 - 0.082 O. 122 0.112

When I go home, I tell everybody about my vacation. 0.864 0.028 0.107 0.173 0.097

I like to be able to talk about the places I 've visited and the things I 've seen on vacation. 0.867 0.094 - 0 . 0 1 5 0.126 0.140

It's important for me to experience different cultures and ways of life. - 0.023 0.782 - 0.126 0.047 0.135

While on vacation, I attend cultural events that I don't have access to at home. 0.094 0.611 - 0 . 0 4 2 0.152 0.011

I like to visit foreign cultures. - 0.043 0.740 - 0.043 0.059 0.041 I like to see how other people live. 0.089 0.715 - 0.036 - 0.005 0.283 O n vacation, I like to do the same things

that the people there do, you know, "When in R o m e . . . " 0.247 0.413 0.161 0.040 0.005

Jus t to curl up with a good book in the shade sounds like a wonderful vacation to me. - 0.065 0.207 0.691 - 0.060 - 0.121

,Just resting and relaxing is vacation enough for me. 0.018 - 0.094 0.835 0.045 - 0.089

A vacation means being able to do nothing. 0.010 - 0 . 1 4 0 0.797 0.110 0.026

The main thing for me on vacation is just to slow down. 0.049 - 0.096 0.706 0.165 0.198

There should be no deadlines while on vacation. - 0.052 - 0.069 0.745 0.077 0.280

While on vacation, I want luxury, nice food, and a comfortable place to stay. 0,065 - 0.024 0.031 0.807 0.134

The availability of good restaurants and good food is important in choosing a vacation spot. 0.050 0.168 0.045 0.794 - 0.887

I think that the kind of accommodations that you get on vacation are real important. 0.123 0.008 0.076 0.743 0.226

It 's important for me to go someplace fashionable on vacation. 0.253 0.203 0.117 0.532 - 0.126

I want to see things on vacation that I don't normally see. 0.274 0.319 - 0.238 0.042 0.483

There are some places I have always wanted to visit. 0.325 0.235 - 0 . 0 8 6 0.008 0.454

I just like to travel, to go somewhere and to do something. 0.151 0.198 - 0 . 0 8 5 0.048 0.688

Reliability Coefficient (oc) .76 .80 .76 .84 .65 Eigenvalue 4.08 2.86 1.94 1.62 1.27 % of variance explained 20.4 14.3 9.7 8.1 6.4 Cumulat ive % of variance explained 20.4 34.7 44.4 52.5 58.9

by the vacation experience, as measured by the functional measurement scale. The second substantive hypothesis concerned whether or not the functional dusters generated in the test of the first hypothesis could be considered viable market segments. The third substantive hypothesis addressed the value of the functional approach to market segmentation relative to the traditional segmentation bases used in the tourism industry.

570 T O U R I S T M O T I V A T I O N

Table 5. Percent of Variance Explained by Functional Clusters

N u m b e r of C l u s t e r s Pe r c e n t V a r i a n c e E x p l a i n e d

2 2 7 . 1 % 3 36.8 4 44.9

5 52.0

6 55.0 7 57.3

Test of the First Hypothesis Using the S C O R E procedure in SAS, each subject's factor scores on

each functional theme were generated. These factor scores were used to cluster respondents into groups. The F A S T C L U S procedure in the SAS program was appropriate as the sample exceeded 100 subjects. F A S T C L U S performs a disjoint analysis that places each observation into one and only one cluster, as opposed to the more common hierar- chical clustering procedure, in which one cluster may be entirely contained within another (SAS Institute 1985).

While it is a relatively subjective decision as to how many clusters to retain, one criterion commonly used is to look at the increase in the percent of variance explained by each cluster and note where the mag- nitude of this increase drops off sharply. Table 5 indicates that the sharpest drop in the percent of variance explained by the alternative cluster solutions occurred between four and five clusters. A five-cluster solution was judged to provide the most interpretable and useful results. The five clusters and their factor scores are presented in Table 6.

Interestingly, clusters were not found to contain single functions. Rather, each cluster represents a combination of two functions. Cluster One had the highest positive scores on the punishment minimization component of the utilitarian function and the self-esteem component of the value expressive function. The two highest positive scores for Clus- ter Two fell on the self-esteem component of the value expressive function and the reward maximization component of the utilitarian function. Cluster Three has positive scores on the ego-enhancement component of the value expressive function and the knowledge func-

Table 6. Summary of Functional Cluster Analysis Results (Average Factor Score on Each Functional Cluster)

Factor ! Factor 3 Factor 5 Value- Utilitarian Factor 4 Utilitarian

Expressive: Factor 2 Function: Value- Function: Functional Ego- Knowledge Punishment Expressive: Maximize Segment Enhancement Function Minimization Self-Esteem Reward

Segment 1 0.322 0.378 0.739 0.606 0.124 Segment II - 1.555 0.104 - 0.281 0.287 0.266 Segment III 0.080 0.088 - 0.203 - 0.296 - 1.480 Segment IV 0.596 - 0.602 - 0.911 0.248 0.496 Segment V 0.034 - 0 . 0 1 7 0.518 - 1.410 0.535

DALE FODNESS 571

tion. Cluster Four also has high positive scores on the ego-enhancement component of the value expressive function and this is combined with a high positive score on the reward maximization component of the utilitarian function. The final cluster, Cluster Five, combines aspects of both the reward maximization and the punishment minimization components of the utilitarian function.

As the results of the functional factor and cluster analyses produced an overall R-square of 52%, Hypothesis One, which stated that the auto travelers surveyed can be grouped together on the basis of their rating of the importance of the functional themes, is supported. Can these resulting functional clusters be differentiated from one another on selected dependent variables?

Test of the Second Hyothesis The dependent variable framework used to develop and compare

the profiles of the functional segments included demographic characteristics, traveling party characteristics, trip characteristics, trip planning characteristics, trip behavior characteristics, and expenditure patterns. Descriptor variables were selected on the basis of managerial relevance, as suggested by the tourism literature. That is, descriptor variables were chosen which either would seem to contribute to a manager's understanding of his or her product or which conceivably could be influenced by the manipulation of the marketing mix.

To test the second hypothesis, the functional segments were used as levels of the independent variable and were compared to one another on the basis of the dependent variable framework (Table 7). Discrete dependent variables were compared across segments using Chi-Square distribution tables to determine if any statistical dependencies existed. Analysis of Variance using Duncan Multiple Range tests on means was used to compare continuous dependent variables across segments. Those variables for which the null hypothesis of no differences could be rejected are footnoted in Table 7. Cluster profiles are outlined in Table 8.

While not all variables produced significant differences across functional segments, the results of the preceding analyses permit the rejec- tion of the null hypothesis of no differences. In other words, the functional segmentation approach developed in this study is capable of producing ostensibly viable market segments that can be differentiated from one another on managerially-relevant variables.

Test of the Third Hypothesis In order to test the third hypothesis, that the functional segmenta-

tion mode would compare favorably to the modes commonly used in tourism segmentation, it was necessary to first create the more traditional segmentation basis against which to compare the functional segmentation approach. A review of the literature revealed that benefit, geographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral bases are all commonly used in tourism segmentation research. Table 9 summarizes the operationalization of these bases as they were used in this study.

This study developed five alternative segmentation bases that in- eluded a total of 23 different market segments. Individual segments have been compared across each base on 40 different managerially-

572 T O U R I S T M O T I V A T I O N

Table 7. C o m p a r i s o n of Charac ter i s t ics Across Func t iona l Segments

SEG1 SEG2 SEG3 SEG4 SEG5 Demographic Variables n = 164 n = 92 n = 107 n = 132 n = 90

Life Cycle (X 2 = 39.1)" • Single adult living alone 9.2% 15.2% 5.6% 6.8% 11.1 % • Married without children 11.0 12.0 8.4 8.3 17.8 • Family with young children 14.6 5.4 14.0 11.4 6.7 • Family with teenagers 11.6 3.3 11.2 13.6 13.3 • Family with at least one child grown

up and moved out 4.9 5.4 9.4 8.3 1.1 • Middle-aged parents, all children

grown and moved out 11.0 7.6 8.4 11.4 10.0 • Married couple with at least one

retired spouse 37.8 51.1 43.0 40.2 40.0 Educa t ion (X 2 = 29.9) c • High school graduate or less 62.8% 48.9% 50.5% 77.3% 65.5% • Some college, college graduate, or

vocational-technical 22.6 28.3 22.4 12.1 20.0 • Post-graduate work or advanced

degree 14.6 22.8 27.1 10.6 14.4 Income (X 2 = 10.6) • Less than $29,000 35.4% 32.6% 34.6% 36.4% 44.4% • From $30k to $49k 51.8 48.9 47.7 50.0 50.0 • Greater than $50k 12.8 18.5 17.8 13.6 5.6 Traveling Party Variables: Traveling Party Composition

(X 2 = 26.0) • Family 74.4% 79.4% 78.5% 81.8% 76.7% Size of Traveling Party (F = 2.4)" • Number in Party 3.1 2.6 3.0 2.9 2.9 Children in Traveling Party

( x 2 _- 5 . 1 ) a • Yes 31.1% 19.6% 29.0% 25.0% 23.3% Tr ip Variables: Mode of Trave l (X 2 = 31.2) c • Car 72.0% 79.4% 72.9% 64.4% 56.7% • Recreational Vehicle 6.7 9.8 12.2 12.9 27.8 • Truck or Van 20.7 10.9 15.0 22.7 15.6 T i m e of T r ip (X 2 = 6.8) • First Quar ter 37.8% 52.2% 46.7% 45.5% 51.1% • Second Quarter 62.2 47.8 53.3 54.5 48.9 T r ip Planning Variables: Planning T i m e (X 2 -- 36.1) b • < 2 weeks prior to trip 11.6% 10.9% 6.5% 9.1% 13.3% • 2 weeks to 1 month prior 16.5 6.5 10.3 9.1 11.1 • >1 month but < 3 months 21.3 37.0 41.1 36.3 33.3 • > 3 months but < 6 months 24.4 16.3 18.7 18.2 13.3 • > 6 m o n t h s b u t <1 year 25.0 27.2 18.7 22.7 28.9 • >1 year prior to trip 1.2 2.2 4.7 4.6 0.0 Information Sources Used • Automobile clubs A" 27.4% 42.4% 30.8% 41.2% 32.2% • Brochures from hotels, attractions,

etc. A a 23.8 12.0 23.4 26.7 20.0

(continued)

DALE FODNESS 573

Table 7. Continued

SEG1 SEG2 SEG3 SEG4 SEG5 Demographic Variables n = 164 n = 92 n = 107 n = 132 n = 90

• Commercial guide books A 11.6 12.0 12.2 13.7 10.0 • Friends or relatives A 51.2 38.0 48.6 48.1 52.2 • Highway welcome centers A 45.1 46.7 40.2 43.5 51.1 • Local tourist offices A 9.2 5.4 11.2 9.9 14.4 • Magazines A a 12.8 19.6 13.1 19.9 7.8 • Newspapers A 7.9 6.5 9.4 11.5 11.1 • Past experience A 24.4 15.2 16.8 13.7 13.3 • State travel guide A 11.0 18.5 13.1 18.3 13.3 • Travel agency A 9.2 6.5 10.3 9.9 3.3 • Video travel guide A 0.6 3.3 0.9 2.3 0.0 • Number of information sources

used B 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.5 Trip Behavior Variables: Mobi l i ty (F = 1,9) • Number of destinations visited 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.4 Regions Visited (X 2 = 31.0) • Northwest 27.8% 15.2% 21.5% 19.7% 16.7% • Northeast 1.8 2.2 4.7 5.3 4.4 • Central East 14.0 8.7 11.2 7,6 15.6 • Central 22.0 25.0 24.3 35.6 17.9 • Central West 18.3 22.8 18.7 16.7 23.3 • Southwest 7.9 13.0 6.5 3,0 12.2 • Southeast 12.2 13.0 13.1 12.1 10.0 Attraction Visitation • Percent visiting attractions A 67.1% 64.1% 66.4% 70.5% 64.4% • Number of attractions visited B 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 Lodging Type ~Percent) • Hote l /motelB 42.9% 41.3% 35.5% 42.8% 23.6% • Friends or relatives B 19.6 21.8 26.8 24.6 32.2 • Campgrounds or R V park B" 10.4 13.8 12.7 14.2 28.8 • Timeshare unit B 7.2 4.5 6.3 2.8 4.6 • Owned or rented condominium,

apartment, or home B 17.8 17.5 16.9 14.0 9.7 • Other B 2.2 1.0 1.9 1.7 1.2 • Number of lodging types used B 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 Expenditure Variables: Expenditures Per Person Per Day $ $ $ $ $ • Lodging B 13.95 16.24 14.90 14.34 10,05 • Gasoline B a 4.65 4.73 5.15 5.53 6.84 • Restaurant B ~ 9.25 11.15 7.96 10.53 7.13 • Entertainment B a 5.46 5.71 4.13 6.15 3.58 • Gifts B 3.12 2.84 2.61 3.69 2.09 • Groceries B 3.12 2.81 3.48 2.89 3.70 • Personal souvenirs B b 2.12 1.13 1.51 2.17 0.94 • Total expenses B 41.69 43.95 39.38 45.29 34.33

"Significant at alpha = .05. bSignificant at alpha = .01. ~Significant at alpha = .001. A = chi-square test of dependency. B = A N O V A F-test of differences.


Table 8. Functional Cluster Profiles

Segment 1. This segment was the least likely to contain retiree households (37.8%) and contained few families with grown children relative to the other functional segments. About one-third of the members of this segment had education beyond a high school diploma. Segment 1 traveling parties were large and the most likely to contain children. Members of this segment were the least likely to travel via recreational vehicle. They indicated relatively long (6 months to 1 year) trip planning periods and were the most likely to lodge in hotels and motels.

Segment 2. This segment is distinguished by its high percentage of single adult households (15.2 %) and high percentage of retiree households (51.1%). This segment contains the fewest households with children of any of the functional segments. In addition, those in Segment 2 are among the most highly educated of the functional segments. They reported the smallest traveling parties and were the least likely to have children present in their traveling party. They were the most likely to use auto clubs (42,2 %) and the least likely to use brochures as an information source, although highly likely to use magazines. Members of this segment spent the most in restaurants.

Segment 3. This segment contained the lowest percentage of single adult households (5.6 % ) and a relatively high percentage of households with children, in addition to the highest percentage of families with grown children. Segment members were well- educated, with the highest percentage of members having attained post-graduate status or advanced degrees. They had the shortest average planning period and were among the least likely to stay in hotels and motels, campgrounds and RV parks.

Segment 4. This segment contains the highest percentage of empty nesters (11.9%) in addition to a high percentage of households with children (25.0 %). This is the segment reporting the least education, with only 22.7 % of its members reporting any education beyond high school. Segment 4 had the highest percentage of members traveling via truck or van and they spent the most on entertainment and on personal souvenirs.

Segment 5. Members of this segment were the most likely to have come from households consisting of married couples without children. While they reported few households with young children, a relatively large percentage of this segment came from households with teenagers (13.3%). This segment also contained a relatively high percentage of single adults (11.1%) compared to the other segments. About one-third of this segment had education beyond high school. They were by far the most likely to travel via RV (27.8%), to stay in campgrounds and RV parks, and they spent the most on gas.

r e l evan t var iab les . Sta t is t ical ly s igni f icant d i f fe rences a m o n g s e g m e n t s have b e e n f o u n d for each s e g m e n t a t i o n base. ( T a b l e 10).

W h i l e an abi l i ty to d i s c r i m i n a t e is a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n for a val id s e g m e n t a t i o n base , it does no t , h o w e v e r , seem sufficient . C l a n c y a n d R o b e r t s (1984) sugges t a f u r t h e r eva lua t ive p r o c e d u r e for assess ing the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f c o m p e t i n g s e g m e n t a t i o n m o d e s . A d o p t i n g C l a n c y a n d R o b e r t s ' s (1984) sugges t ion , the five s e g m e n t a t i o n bases will be c o m p a r e d on h o w well t hey m e e t th ree cr i ter ia : first, w h e t h e r the s e g m e n t a t i o n m o d e show la rge d i s c r i m i n a t i o n across the total s ample on the m a j o r i t y o f the de sc r ip to r var iab les ; second , w h e t h e r the seg- m e n t s c r ea t ed o f a suff icient base size for re l iable analys is o f the d a t a a n d la rge e n o u g h to be o f use as po ten t i a l t a rge t m a r k e t s ; a n d th i rd , w h e t h e r the s e g m e n t s m a k e " g o o d m a r k e t i n g sense" ( tha t is, w h e t h e r t hey p r o v i d e ins ights in to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the m a r k e t as it is t o d a y a n d

DALE FODNESS 575

Table 9. Segmentation Bases

Geographic Base (GEO): Census Region

• Midwest • Northeast • South

Socioeconomic Base (SES): Socioeconomic Status

• High school education or less, lower income range • More than high school education, higher income range • High school education or less, higher income range • More than high school education, lower income range

Behavioral Base (BEH): Purpose of Trip

• Vacation only • Primary purpose to vacation, secondary purpose to visit friends or relatives • Primary purpose to visit friends and relatives, secondary purpose to vacation • Other reasons for visit with vacation as either primary or secondary purpose

Benefit Segmentation Base (BEN): Benefit segments were derived from a clustering-based segmentation technique simi-

lar to that used to derive the functional segments. Three benefit segments were identified. Segment 1 loaded heaviest on relaxing, relatively passive activities. Segment 2 loaded heaviest on more active, personally demanding activities. Segment 3 loaded on activities with a sports theme, e.g., golf, tennis, and fishing.

whether they could provide the basis for developing strategies in bo th the short and the long term).

This first cr i ter ion is measurab le and permi ts compar i son of al terna- tive segmenta t ion strategies on an objective basis. Accord ing to the informat ion presented on Tab le 10, the behaviora l segmenta t ion mode showed the greatest ability to discr iminate across the total sample, generat ing statistically significant differences on 26 of the 40 descr iptor variables, or 65% of the variables. Following the behaviora l mode were the funct ional mode , which discr iminated 38% of the variables; the geographic mode , which discr iminated 35% of the variables; the benefi t mode, which discr iminated 28% of the descr iptor variables; and the socioeconomic mode, which discr iminated 23% of the descriptor variables. F r o m this perspect ive, the funct ional m o d e ou tpe r fo rmed all bu t one of the more common ly used modes , including the benefi t segmenta t ion mode.

As to the second cr i ter ion, all of the segments across all of the modes conformed to c ommon ly used marke t ing research s tandards in terms of size. T h e extent to which the findings here m a y or m ay not general- ize to a larger popula t ion of leisure travelers is unknown. I f the results were readily general izable, and if the percentages obta ined for each segment were found in the popula t ion of interest , each mode would have genera ted segments large enough for use as potent ia l target markets.

In respect to the third cri ter ion, one way to answer this proposi t ion is to look at exactly which descr iptor variables the different modes were able to differentiate. In terms of demographics , all of the modes were

5 7 6 T O U R I S T M O T I V A T I O N

T a b l e 10. S e g m e n t a t i o n M o d e C o m p a r i s o n

G E O S E S B E H B E N F U N

D e m o g r a p h i c Variables: L i f e c y c l e . . . .

E d u c a t i o n a N A - - - - c

I n c o m e - - N A - - - - -- Travel ing Party Variables:

T r a v e l i n g p a r t y c o m p o s i t i o n _ _ _ b _

S i z e o f t r a v e l i n g p a r t y b ~ b c a

P r e s e n c e o f c h i l d r e n _ c b c .

T r i p Variables: M o d e o f t r a v e l - - - - a - -

T i m e o f t r i p c _ b a _ Trip Planning Variables:

P l a n n i n g t i m e b _ ,: _ b

I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s u s e d

• A u t o m o b i l e c l u b s c b _ _ .

• B r o c h u r e s f r o m h o t e l s , a t t r a c t i o n s , e t c . - - - - c _

• C o m m e r c i a l g u i d e b o o k s - - ~ - - -

• F r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s - - - - c - - - -

• H i g h w a y w e l c o m e c e n t e r s - - - - " - - - -

• L o c a l t o u r i s t o f f i c e s . . . . .

• M a g a z i n e s . . . . a

• N e w s p a p e r s . . . . .

• P a s t e x p e r i e n c e ~ - - a - - - -

• S t a t e t r a v e l g u i d e _ _ b _ _

• T r a v e l a g e n c y . . . . .

• V i d e o t r a v e l g u i d e . . . . .

• N u m b e r o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s u s e d - - - - b _ _

T r i p Behavior Variables: M o b i l i t y _ _ c ~ _

R e g i o n s v i s i t e d c _ c c _

A t t r a c t i o n v i s i t a t i o n b _ c c _

L o d g i n g T y p e

• H o t e l / m o t e l b _ c _

• F r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s b _ c a _

• C a m p g r o u n d s o r R V p a r k . b _ _

• T i m e s h a r e U n i t - - - - ~ - - - -

• O w n e d o r r e n t e d c o n d o m i n i u m ,

a p a r t m e n t , o r h o m e - - - - ~ c - -

• O t h e r . . . . .

• N u m b e r o f l o d g i n g t y p e s u s e d ~ - - ~ - - -

E x p e n d i t u r e Variables: E x p e n d i t u r e s P e r P e r s o n P e r D a y

• L o d g i n g - - - - c - - - -

• G a s o l i n e - - - - - - a "

• R e s t a u r a n t _ b _ _ a

• E n t e r t a i n m e n t _ b c _

• G i f t s - - - - ~ - - - -

• G r o c e r i e s a a - - __ __

• P e r s o n a l s o u v e n i r s _ - - a - - b

• T o t a l e x p e n s e s _ . c _ _

G E O = g e o g r a p h i c s e g m e n t a t i o n b a s e ; S E S = s o c i o e c o n o m i c s e g m e n t a t i o n b a s e ; B E H =

b e h a v i o r a l s e g m e n t a t i o n b a s e ; B E N = b e n e f i t s e g m e n t a t i o n b a s e ; F U N = f u n c t i o n a l s e g m e n -

t a t i o n b a s e .

a S i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a = . 0 5 .

b S i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a . 0 1 .

C S i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a = . 0 0 1 .

A = c h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f d e p e n d e n c y .

B = A N O V A F - t e s t o f d i f f e r e n c e s .

DALE FODNESS 577

relatively capable of discriminating among stages of the family life cycle and, in addition, the geographic and functional modes were capable of distinguishing among income levels of the respondents. Is this good marketing information? Clearly it is, since an understanding of the demographics of a market segment holds implications for a number of market targeting activities. It appears that all five modes are roughly equivalent in their ability to discriminate on demographic variables.

With regard to traveling party variables, benefit segmentation was the mode most capable of differentiation among segments. Does this information have any marketing value? Obviously, tourism industry members whose businesses are driven by customer volume would pre- fer to attract larger traveling parties, although the exact composition of the party might be of greater consequence. In this case, all of the modes were able to differentiate among segments in terms of traveling party size.

The trip variables, mode of travel and time of trip, are probably the least useful variables in this study. One reason is that the possible modes of travel used in this study are relatively homogeneous. If, on the other hand, the air travel mode had been included, this variable would have been much more meaningful. Similarly, the time of trip is restricted by the data collection constraints to two of the more similar quarters of the year. A full year of data would make seasonality consid- erations more important.

In terms of marketing value, the trip planning variables would seem to be near the top of the list in importance. Clearly, these variables offer the marketer the most vital information in terms of when and where to pursue promotional opportunities. Here, the behavioral segmentation mode was clearly superior. Not only was the behavioral mode able to discriminate among trip planning times across the segments, it was able to differentiate among 50% of the information sources. The functional approach was the second most useful mode in this respect, it too was able to discriminate among trip planning times, but it was able to differentiate only 25 % of the information sources. At the bottom of the list, the benefit segmentation mode was unable to detect any statistically significant differences among segments.

Trip behavior variables might prove most useful as indicators of potential profitability. From a state destination board's point of view, it would be preferable to target highly mobile visitors who visited a number of destinations in the state, who visited attractions, and who frequented paid lodging types. Here, the behavioral and benefit modes provide the largest discrimination across descriptor variables.

Expenditure variables are also important profitability indicators and are commonly used as such in tourism research. Only the behavioral and socioeconomic modes were able to discriminate in terms of overall expenditures. The functional mode was able to differentiate nearly 60 % of the discrete expenditure categories and the benefit modes and geographic mode differentiated only one category.

Overall, in terms of "good marketing sense" and providing insights into understanding the market as it is today, the behavioral segmentation mode seemed to be the best performer of the five alternative modes in this study. The functional mode follows the behavioral mode and outperformed the geographic, socioeconomic, and benefit modes.


C O N C L U S I O N S This study developed a self-report measure of tourist motivation that

relates leisure travel to the functional models of Katz (1960) and Smith, Bruner and White (1956). In practice, many researchers have previously relied on ad hoc self-reports of reasons for leisure travel or benefits sought from the leisure travel experience. By contrast, this study focused on the conceptual and behavioral nature of the tourist motivation to develop a scale that more directly taps the latent construct itself, rather than some secondary, more superficial variable. Such an approach extends beyond a simple classification to begin to explain motivations for individuals in the sense that psychologists and authors of behavioral marketing texts would understand them (i.e., individual motivation related to needs and personal goals). The self- report scale developed in this study will make it easier and more precise for researchers to measure tourist motivation so that they can identify types of tourists and subdivide or segment those traveling for pleasure so that their travel patterns can be better understood and systematically analyzed.

The results of this study lend tentative support to a functional expla- nation of tourist motivation. But what of the explanations of tourist motivation found in the literature? Are the findings of this research contradicted or sustained by previous conceptual and empirical work in the field of tourist motivation? Table 11 demonstrates that it is easy to integrate the existing tourist motivation literature into the functional framework suggested by the results of this study. How important is this insight?

The value of a functional approach to tourist motivation is, first, that it has intuitive appeal. That is, it makes sense to try to understand why tourists behave as they do, as well as what they do. Middleton (1990) has noted that "an understanding of the motivations affecting (tourist) behavior will usually be more important than measuring the determinants because marketers are directly concerned with choices buyers make between competitive products." Second, a functional approach has important implications for not only understanding, but perhaps for influencing consumer behavior as well. In the general consumer behavior literature, Lutz (1981) has stated that a functional approach is a potentially powerful tool for market segmentation. Crompton (1979), in his study of tourist behavior, concluded that a motivational basis for tourist segmentation could provide cues and insights around which destinations could develop and promote their product to target markets.

The specific research setting for this study was the Florida tourism market. The limitations of this setting are clear. The segment of the total tourism market that chooses to visit Florida might be so homogeneous that a representative sampling of vacation motivations could not be obtained. Data on purpose of trip to Florida and vacation behaviors in Florida has been collected by the Florida Division of Tourism since the 1950s however, and suggests that a wide range of consumer motivations underlie the decision to vacation in Florida. In general, these motivations are similar to those reported for other major tourist destinations.

More tests of the scale are needed to explore its psychographic prop-

Tab

le 1

1. I

nte

grat

ion

of

To

uri

st M

oti

vat

ion

Lit

erat

ure

in

to F

un

ctio

nal

Fra

mew

ork

Rea

sons

for

Tra

vel

Uti

lita

rian

Fun

ctio

n:

Uti

lita

rian

Fun

ctio

n:

Aut

hor

Ego

-Def

ensi

ve F

unct

ion

Kno

wle

dge

Func

tion

R

ewar

d M

axim

izat

ion

Pun

ishm

ent

Avo

idan

ce

Val

ue-E

xpre

ssio

n Fu

ncti

on

Soci

al A

djus

tive

Fun

ctio

n O

ther

¢j1

Gra

y (1

970)

D

ann

(197

7)

Schm

oll

(197

7)

Cro

mpt

on (

1979

)

Hud

man

(19

80)

Iso-

Aho

la (

1982

)

Epp

erso

n (1

983)

Mou

tinh

o (i

987)

Col

tman

(19

89)

Mcl

ntos

h an

d G

oeld

ner

(199

0)

Wan

derl

ust;

Sun

lust

A

nom

ie

Ego

-enh

ance

men

t E

duca

tion

al a

nd c

ultu

ral

Rel

axat

ion,

adv

entu

re,

&

Soci

al a

nd c

ompe

titi

ve

Eth

nic

and

fam

ily

plea

sure

; H

ealt

h an

d (i

nclu

ding

pre

stig

e)

recr

eati

on (

incl

udin

g sp

ort)

E

xplo

rati

on a

nd e

valu

atio

n E

duca

tion

; no

velt

y R

egre

ssio

n (l

ess

Esc

ape

from

a p

erce

ived

Pr

esti

ge

Enh

ance

men

t of

kin

ship

of

sel

f co

nstr

aine

d be

havi

or)

mun

dane

env

iron

men

t;

rela

tion

ship

s an

d so

cial

R

elax

atio

n in

tera

ctio

n Se

lf-e

stee

m

Cur

iosi

ty;

Rel

igio

n H

ealt

h; S

port

s; P

leas

ure

Vis

itin

g fr

iend

s an

d re

lati

ves;

Pur

suit

of

~roo

ts ~

D

esir

e to

obt

ain

To

esca

pe o

ne's

per

sona

l ps

ycho

logi

cal

or i

ntri

nsic

en

viro

nmen

t-pe

rson

al

awar

ds

trou

bles

, pr

oble

ms,

etc

. Se

lf-d

isco

very

-pus

h fa

ctor

H

isto

rica

l ar

eas

and

Cha

llen

ge a

nd

Esc

ape,

res

t, &

Pr

esti

ge-p

ush

fact

or

cult

ural

eve

nts-

pull

ad

vent

ure-

push

fac

tors

; re

lati

on-p

ush

fact

ors

fact

ors

Spor

ts-p

ull

fact

or

Edu

cati

onal

and

cul

tura

l;

Rec

reat

ion-

spor

ts;

To

have

R

elax

atio

n; T

o ge

t aw

ay

To

gain

a b

ette

r a

good

tim

e, f

un,

or to

fr

om e

very

day

rout

ine

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

cur

rent

ha

ve s

ome

sort

of

and

obli

gati

ons;

To

seek

ev

ents

ro

man

tic

sexu

al

new

exp

erie

nces

; ex

peri

ence

H

ealt

h-to

res

t an

d re

cove

r fr

om w

ork

Self

-est

eem

C

urio

sity

abo

ut o

ther

T

he r

oman

ce o

f tra

vel;

T

he u

se o

f le

isur

e ti

me

to

cult

ures

, pl

aces

, pe

ople

, Sp

orts

and

es

cape

; T

he d

esir

e fo

r re

ligi

ons,

and

pol

itic

al

ente

rtai

nmen

t ch

ange

of

rout

ine,

or

syst

ems,

as

wel

l as

the

mer

ely

the

wis

h to

hav

e de

sire

to

see

attr

acti

ons

a ne

w e

xper

ienc

e or

to

do n

othi

ng

Self

-est

eem

C

ultu

ral-

to g

ain

know

ledg

e Ph

ysic

al-s

port

s, r

ecre

atio

n Ph

ysic

al-r

est,

hea

lth;

ab

out

othe

r co

untr

ies

Inte

rper

sona

l-ge

t aw

ay

from

rou

tine

Soci

al a

nd c

ompe

titi

ve;

To

be

Eth

nic

and

fam

ily;

To

visi

t ab

le to

tal

k ab

out

plac

es

plac

es o

ne's

fam

ily

cam

e vi

site

d; B

ecau

se i

t is

from

; T

o vi

sit f

rien

ds

fash

iona

ble;

To

show

tha

t on

e an

d re

lati

ves;

to

spen

d ca

n af

ford

it

tim

e w

ith

the

fam

ily

To

be a

ble

to t

alk

to o

ther

s ab

out

The

nee

d fo

r so

cial

a

trip

for

rea

sons

of

cont

act;

eg

o-en

hanc

emen

t; T

o fo

llow

a

tren

d to

a p

arti

cula

r de

stin

atio

n; T

o be

one

of t

he

firs

t to

visi

t a n

ew d

esti

nati

on

Stat

us a

nd p

rivi

lege

In

terp

erso

nal-

to m

eet

new

pe

ople

, vi

sit f

rien

ds o

r re

lati

ves

Prof

essi

onal

and

B

usin

ess


er t i e s , a n d m o r e r e s e a r c h in to the f o u n d a t i o n s o f t o u r i s t m o t i v a t i o n is n e e d e d as wel l . A s K r i p p e n d o r f no t e s ,

• . . motives, and the phenomenon of travel in general , can be interpre ted in many ways, little of which, however , can be conclusively proved. The l i tera ture on tour ism is full of different explanat ions and interpreta t ions . The t ruth will not p robab ly lie in one or the other of these theories, but in a mix ture of different in terpreta t ions . Which does not make the th ing any s impler (1987:67).

F u t u r e r e s e a r c h in r e s p e c t to t hese i s sues a n d t h e i r a c c o m p a n y i n g m e t h o d s wil l c e r t a i n l y e n l a r g e p r e s e n t t h e o r e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k s o n t o u r - i sm m o t i v a t i o n a n d a d v a n c e t h e i r e v e n t u a l a p p l i c a t i o n s to t o u r i s m p l a n n i n g a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . [ ] [ ]

R E F E R E N C E S

Agresti, Alan, and B. Finlay 1986 Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Dellen.

Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. 1979 A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal

of Marketing Research 16:64-73. Clancy, KevinJ. , and Mary Lou Roberts

1984 Toward an Optimal Market Segment: A Strategy for Market Segmentation. Journal of Consumer Marketing 39:64-73.

Coltman, Michael M. 1989 Introduction to Travel and Tourism: An International Approach. New York:

Van Nostrand Reinhold. Crompton, John L.

1979 Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6:408-424. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi, and E. Rochberg-Halton

1981 The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. New York: Cam- bridge University Press.

Dann, Graham M. S. 1977 Anomie, Ego-Enhancement, and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4:

184-194. 1981 Tourist Motivation: An Appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8:187-219.

Dunteman, George 1984 Introduction to Multivariate Analysis. Sage: Beverly Hills.

Epperson, Arlin 1983 Why People Travel. Leisure Today (April):54.

Gee, Chuck Y., D . J . L . Choy, and J. C. Makens 1984 The Travel Industry. Westport: AVI.

Gray, H. P. 1970 International Travel-International Trade. Lexington: Heath Lexington.

Herek, Gregory M. 1987 Can Functions Be Measured? A New Perspective on the Functional Approach

to Attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly 50:285-303. 1986 The Instrumentality of Attitudes: Toward a Neo-Functional Theory. Journal

of Social Issues 42:99-114. Hudman, L. E.

1980 Tourism: A Shrinking World. Columbus: Grid. Iso-Ahola, S.

1980 The Social Psychology of Leisure and Tourism. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Company.

Jafari, j . 1989 Sociocultural Dimensions of Tourism: An English Language Literature Re-

view. In Tourism as a Factor of Change, J. Bystrzanowski, ed., pp. 26-30.

DALE FODNESS 581

Vienna: European Coordination Center for Research and Documentation on Social Sciences.

Katz, Daniel 1960 The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly

24:163-204. Kim, Jae On, and C. Mueller

1978 Factor Analysis-Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Beverly Hills: Sage. Krippendorf, Jost

1987 The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Ox- ford: Heinemann.

Kruskal, J . B., and M. Wish 1978 Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Locander, William B., and W. Austin Spivey 1973 A Functional Approach to Attitude Measurement. Journal of Marketing Re-

search 15:576-587. Lundberg, Donald E.

1990 The Tourist Business. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lutz, Richard J.

1978 A Functional Approach to Consumer Attitude Research. In Advances in Con- sumer Research, H. K. Hunt, ed., Volume V:360-369. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.

1981 A Reconceptualization of the Functional Approach to Attitudes. Research in Marketing 5:165-210.

McIntosh, Robert W., and C. R. Goeldner 1990 Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. New York: Wiley.

Middleton, Victor T. C. 1990 Marketing in Travel and Tourism. Oxford: Heinemann.

Moutinho, Luiz 1987 Consumer Behavior in Tourism. European Journal of Marketing 21(10):5-

44. Pearce, Douglas G.

1988 Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis. Essex: Longman. Pearce, Philip L., and Marie L. Caltabiano

1983 Inferring Travel Motivation from Travelers' Experiences. Journal of Travel Research 12(2): 16-20.

Prentice, Deborah A. 1987 Psychological Correspondence of Possessions, Attitudes, and Values. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 53:993-1003. SAS Institute

1985 SAS User's Guide: Statistics (Version 5 ed.). North Carolina: SAS Institute, Inc.

Schmoll, G. A. 1977 Tourism Promotion. London: Tourism International Press.

Smith, M. Brewster, J. S. Bruner, and R. W. White 1956 Opinions and Personality. New York: Wiley.

Submitted 19 November 1992 Resubmitted 30 March 1993 Accepted 12 June 1993 Refereed anonymously Coordinating Editor: Graham M. S. Dann

Measuring tourist motivation

Documents

Transcript of Measuring tourist motivation