Literature Review: Motives for Travelling

Literature Review Motives for exitling2.1 IntroductionThis chapter consists of three parts. First is introduction, next is literature reviews that review the critical points of previous searches including substantive purpose as comfortably as theoretical and methodological contributions to this similar topic. Lastly, a conclusion to this chapter.2.2 Literature ReviewResearch in the atomic number 18a of expire motives is definitive in understanding and predicting the factors that influence conk decision-making (Cha, S., McCleary, K.W. and Uysal, M., 1995). Motivation is theoretically viewed as a state of need, a condition that serves as a driving long suit to display unlike kinds of behavior toward certain types of activities, developing preferences, arriving at some expected satisfactory outcome. (Backman, K.F. Backman, S.J., Uysal, M. and Sunshine, K.M.,1995) In extra, an understanding of pauperization assist marters efforts to achieve and come across individuals diver s(a) desires and take, key elements that influence the process of travelers decision-making (Crompton,J.L. and McKay S.L.,1997). Studies of motivating thus show to predict travelers private needs, expectations, achievements, or benefits sought (Formica,S. and Uysal, M.,1998).A brief review of travel want research (Table 1) published in three major touristry journals Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, and Journal of Travel Research revealed that existing studies conduct covered a encompassing range of the spectrum, there are included the sociology of travel motivation as a stimulator of actual behavior (Dann 1977 Mansfeld 1992) travel motivation of distinguishable niche markets (Clift and Forrest 1999 Dunn Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991 Hsu, Cai, and Wong 2007 Maoz 2007 Qu and Ping 1999 Rittichainuwat 2008) the development or empirical test of travel motivation measurings (Crompton 1979 Dann 1981 Fodness 1994 Ryan and Glendon 1998) differences in motivation among holidaymakers with varied nationality and cultural backgrounds (Kim and Prideaux 2005 Maoz 2007), fig of visits (Lau and McKercher 2004), destinations and airs (Kozak 2002), sociodemographic attribute (Jang and Wu 2006 Fleischer and Pizam 2002), or environmental spatial relation (Luo and Deng 2008).AuthorsStudyDann 1977A sociological meditate of travel motivation, with a centralize on the upgrade belongings of motivation.Crompton 1979The motivation for joy holiday. Seven motivation factors were identified through interviews.Dann 1981Based on a literature review on travel motivation, seven-spot approaches of motivation study were identified. The physical exercise of unalike terminologies was also discussedDunn Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991Motivation of sightseeing tourists in relation to their satisfactionMansfeld 1992The role of motivation in travel behavior and its complex naturecapital of Minnesota 1992Travel motivation of Canadian ecotouristsParrinello 1993Relationship m ingled with anticipation and motivation in postindustrial societies in the context of Western EuropeFodness 1994A measurement scale was developed for leisure travel with 20 items.Lieux, weaver and McCleary 1994Benefit segmentation of senior tourists from the United StatesG nonh 1997Development of theoretical model on motivation and expectation formationFormica and Uysal 1998Benefit segmentation of visitors to a cultural- diachronic event in ItalyRyan and Glendon 1998The Leisure Motivation Scale was applied to tourism with British holidaymakers. An truncate version of holiday motivation scale with 14 items was developed.Waller and Lea 1998Relationship between authenticity seeking and enjoyment. The knowledge dimension of motivation was found to intermediate this relationship.Clift and Forrest 1999The motivation of gay men in relation to the type of destinations they preferred in the context of the United KingdomQu and Ping 1999Motivation of cruise cream in the context of Hong Kong Goossens 2000The role of emotional component of travel motivation in affect actual travel behaviorFleischer and Pizam 2002Relationship between motivation and Israeli senior travelers income and healthKozak 2002Differences of motivation among tourists visiting different destinations and tourist from different countries visiting same destination with respondents from the United Kingdom and Ger umpteenSirakaya, Uysal, and Yoshioka 2003Benefits segmentation of Nipponese tourists to TurkeyLau and McKercherDifferences of travel motivation between first-time and repeat visitors to Hong KongKim and Prideaux 2005A cross-cultural analysis on travel motivation to South Korea among five national tourist groupsPearce and Lee 2005Further development of the Travel Career Ladder by introducing Travel Career Pattern (TCP). The relationship between previous experience and motivation was explored by TCP.Yoon and Uysal 2005Causal relationship between press-pull motivations, satisfaction, and destina tion loyalty. Pull factors were found to negatively influence satisfaction.Jang and Wu 2006Influences of sociodemographic factors, scotch status, health status, and positive and negative effects on travel motivation among Taiwanese seniorsChang, wall, and Chu 2006Benefits segmentation using the novelty seeking scale in the context of Taiwanese tourists to aboriginal attractionsNicolau and Mas 2006Influences of travel distance and damage on destination selection, with travel motivation as a moderator in the context of SpainPoria, Reichel, and Biran 2006Relationship between perceptual experience of heritage as it is relate to the tourists bear heritage and motivation explored before the tripSnerpenger et al. 2006Tourists and recreationist were comparing using Iso-Aholas motivation surmise. The relationship between motivation and previous vacations was investigated.Swanson and Horridge 2006Causal relationship between memento shopping and four motivational factors in the context of Southwestern United StatesBeh and Bruyere 2007Benefits segmentation in the context of KenyaHsu, Cai, and Wong 2007A theoretical model of senior travel motivation in the context of ChinaMaoz 2007Travel motivation of Israeli backpackers, investigated in relation to national and cultural characteristicsLuo and Deng 2008Relationship between environmental attitude and nature-based tourism motivationRittichainuwat 2008Travel motivation to a tourism destination, using the disaster-hit beach resort in Phuket as an example. Comparison was made between home(prenominal) and inbound tourists, and between tourists of different ages and genders.Park and Yoon 2009Benefit segmentation of rural tourism in the context of South KoreaTable1. Brief Summary of Studies on Travel Motivation(Adopted from Cathy H.C. Hsu, Liping A. Cai and Mimi Li, 2009)Many researchers from different fields such as from sociology, anthropology, and psychology have investigated travel motivation since many years ago (Cohe n, 1972 Dann, 1977 Crompton, 1979 Gnoth, 1997). Maslows hierarchical theory of motivation was one of the most applied in tourism literature (1970) and it was model as a pyramid whose base consists of the physiological needs, followed by high levels of psychological needs and the need for self-actualization. Numerous tourism scholars have attempted to modify the model empirically, with the notable success by Pearce (1982), who projected a tourism motivation model that mirrors the model of Maslow, but free of prepotency assumption.Fulfilling PrestigePush Seeking RelaxationFactors Sightseeing VarietyGaining KnowledgeEvents and ActivitiesPull AdventureFactors account and CultureEasy Access and AffordableA review of past researches on tourist motivation indicates that the analysis of motivations based on the cardinal dimensions of push and pull factors have been oecumenicly accepted (Yuan McDonald, 1990 Uysal Hagan, 1993). The concept behind push and pull dimension is that pot tra vel because they are pushed by their own midland forces and pulled by the outer forces of destination attributes. Most of the push factors that are origin-related are intangible or intrinsic desires of the individual travelers. Pull factors, vice versa, are those that bulge out because of the attr sprightlyness of that particular destination, as the travelers perceive it. They include tangible resources and travelers perception and expectation such as benefit expectation, novelty and marketed image of the destination. A research model is then developing based on this theory at below diagram (adapted from Baloglu Uysal, 1996).Travel MotivationCrompton (1979) first sought to draw seven socio-psychological, or push motives such as escape, self-exploratory, relaxation, prestige, regression, kinship-enhancement, and social interaction) and deuce cultural, or pull motives that are novelty and education. The conceptual framework that he developed would free impact the selection of a d estination, and this approach implies that the destination can have some degree of influence on vacation behavior in collision an aroused need.As Cromptons initial empirical effort, many studies have attempted to recognize push and pull motivational factors in different settings such as nationalities, destinations and events (Jang and Wu, 2006). Example incorporated Yuan and McDonalds (1990) study on motivations for overseas travel from four countries Japan, France, West Germany and UK. While Uysal and Jurowski (1993) studied, the nature and extent of the reciprocal relationship between push and pull factors of motivations for pleasure travel with using data from the Canadian Tourism Attribute and Motivation Survey. An separate study in Australia examined the nature and value of the relationship between these two factors of motivation by utilizing canonical correlation analysis (Oh, H., M., Uysal, P. Weaver, 1995).Baloglu and Uysal (1996) claimed that the concept of product bundl es is used to refer to the perceived significance of the interaction between push and pull items of motivation. This implies that certain reasons for travel may correspond to certain benefits that are to be valued and obtained at the destination spot. Based on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, as discussed above, the individual tourist builds their perceptions, and the perceptions can be differ from the true attributes of the product depending on how the individual receives and process information (Gartner, 1993 Dann, 1996 Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). A general conclusion can be drawn that the personal motives or called push motives and the view of the characteristics of the tourism destination (pull motives) insure perceptions. These motives interact in can-do and evolving context (Correia, 2000), and the tourist motivation is seen as a multidimensional concept that indicates tourist decision (McCabe, 2000).As tourism paradigm is related to valet beings and human nature, it is always a complex proposition to study why people travel and what they want to enjoy (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). In most studies, it is generally accepted that push and pull motivations have been primarily utilized in studies of tourist behavior. The discoveries and issues undoubtedly play a use role in attempting to understand a wide different of needs and wants that can drive and influence tourist behavior. Nevertheless, Yoon and Uysal (2005) said that the results and effects of the motivation studies of tourist behavior need more than an understanding of their needs and wants.In tourism destination management, it was generally agree that maximizing travel satisfaction is crucial for a successful business. The evaluation of the physical products of destination as well as the psychological interpretation of a destination product are important for human actions (Swan and Comb, 1976 Uysal and Noe, 2003), which could be further represented as a travel satisfaction and destination fai thfulness. Both concepts can be examined within the context of a tourism system representing two major components of the market place, namely, beseech (tourist) and supply (tourism attractions) which demand refers to motives (push factors) that sustain tourists desire while supple relates to destinations characteristics (pull factors) (Jurowski et al., 1996).Push and pull factors have generally been characterized to two separate decisions made at two separate period in time one focusing on whether to go, the other on where to go. For instance, Dann (1981) noted that once the trip has been decided upon, where to go, what to see or what to do (relating to the particular proposition destinations) can be tackled and this make a conclude that, analytically, both logically and temporally, push factors precede pull factor.Although these two factors has been viewed as relating to two distinct decisions, several researchers have distinguished that they should not be viewed as operating ent irely independent of each others. For example, it has suggested that people travel because they are pushed by their own intrinsic forces and simultaneously pulled by the extrinsic forces such as the destination and its attributes (Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995 Uysal and Jurowskil, 1994). However, Crompton (1979) argued, push factors may be useful not only in explaining the initial arousal, energizing, or push to take a vacation, but may also have directive potential to direct the tourist toward a particular destination (p.412).Several empirical examinations of push and pull factors had been reported in the travel and tourism literature. Of the prior research that examined the students and/or spring break travel market (Butts, F.B., J. Salazar, K. Sapio, and D. Thomas, 1996 Field, 1999 Hobson and Josiam, 1992,1996 Hsu and Sung, 1996,1997 Sirakaya and McLellan, 1997), there have been no investigations of push forces and only a handful of attempts to study the pull factors influencing students destination choice decision. In another study, conducted by Hobson and Josiam (1992), students were asked to list their primary reason for choosing a spring break destination and most responses referred to the influence of friends and/or family living near or going to the destination, other reasons referred to destination-related attributes such as the destination having s spring break party reputation, warm weather, affordable pricing, quiet environment, good skiing, or good beaches.Another study, conducted by Butts et al. (1996), found that the reasons that most attractive students referred to s sunny climate, nature, a wide choice of accommodations, price of accommodations, the destinations night conduct reputation, and recommendations from others. In Sirakaya and McLellan (1997) study, they asked students to rate the importance of 56 attributes involved in selecting a spring break destination. Factor analysis was then used to reduce the 56 attributes to a set of 9 facto rs that labeled local cordial reception and services, trip toll and convenience, perceptions of a safe/secure environment, lurch in daily life environment, recreation and sporting activities, entertainment and drinking opportunities, personal and historical link, cultural an shopping services, and unusual and distant vacation spot.The most rated factor is local hospitality and services. However, this factor was made up of seven rather various(a) attributes climate, availability of beaches, good accommodations, large hotels, feeling welcomed, friendly residents, and good food. While these attributes may all be highly vital to visitors (thus explaining why they would load unneurotic on the same factor), one would expect that the basis of their importance would diverse considerably. It means each attribute may derive its importance or significance from very different sources and the importance of a particular attribute may well be a function of multiple motivational forces. For e xample, beaches may be important to respondents because they manage to pay for opportunities for water-based recreation, getting a tan, and socializing with other tourists. Simple said, people may have multiple and possibly very diverse reasons for valuing the same attribute or pull factor.Psychographics have been recognized as being very meaningful and relevant (Shih, 1986) and very vital means to hand over extra information beyond the demographic characteristics (Abbey, 1997). Abbey claimed that psychographic variables produce significant differences between groups of consumers, and these differences are larger than the differences produced by the demographic profiles, thus, psychographics are more useful (Mayo, 1975) than demographics in describing consumers because they better differentiate between them (Ryel Grasse, 1991).Various researchers have utilized psychographic data in their studies such as Shih (1986) used values, attitudes, and lifestyles (VALS) to assess whether pe rsonal values demand the selection of Pennsylvania as a holiday destination. Pizam and Calantone (1987) used abundant value scales and reported that travel behavior was determined by a persons general and vacation-specific lifestyle. Menzes and Chandra (1989) used the personality trait descriptors to profile the U.S. tourists visiting far-away destinations in the Far East and compared them with other overseas destination segments. Kassarjian (1971) used the personality concept to mop up consumer product and media choice, risk taken, and persuasibility.Rokeach (1979) give a definition to values as beliefs about desirable goals and modes of conduct(p.41). Values are criteria that people use to direct their behavior, evaluate, and label themselves and others, come to a decision what is worth believing in and doing and it also determine social behavior (Rokeach, 1979). Rokeach (1973) argued that the differences in peoples cultural values determine differences in their behavior becaus e values determine cultural differences in thinking, activities, attitudes, motivations, and human needs.It said that values control behavioral variables that interact with and influence each other. For example, values of visitors provide an indication of the visitors personality (Pitts Woodside, 1986), values represent a alternate for personality traits (Dhalla Mahatto, 1976 Howard, 1977). Values manipulate peoples motivations (Bailey, 1991). Values are mainly useful in the estimate of the customers motivation (Dichter, 1984 Munson, 1984). They are a means to better understand consumer motivations (Henry, 1976 Kahle, 91984 Leesig, 1976 Vinson, Scott, Lamont, 1977) because it allow marketers to better understand the individuals motives in making travel decisions (Pitts Woodside, 1986). Pitts and Woodside (1986) claimed that travel motivation is presently influence by peoples values. For example, the motivation to travel to New Zealand to experience challenge and adventure or t o spend a quiet vacation close to origin places is determine by travelers values.Values also symbolize the preferences for actions (Kluckhohn Strodtbeck, 1951). Value profiles allow for differentiating between those who participate in particular travel-related activity behavior (Pitts Woodside, 1986). It also appears to determine peoples lifestyle (Dhalla Mahatto, 1976 Howard, 1977). Mitchell (1983) used a VALS (value-lifestyle) typology to separate Americans into nine different lifestyle types, which were further group in four categories based on their values, each of these groups with different travel habits.The importance of the personality characteristics of the individual, in combination with other psychographic factors was stressed (Plog, 1974). Plog (1991) reported that personality determines destination travel patterns and also travelers motivation as well as activities. Allocentric travelers tend to travel to unfamiliar and unique destination such as China and Africa the y are active, independent, motivated by novelty, discovery, and meeting with new people, and focus on varied activities. Psychocentric travelers tend to visit familiar and well-established locations such as Hawaii they are less active, prefer to travel in groups, and participate in common activities (Plog, 1972).Leisure-oriented traveler were more intrinsically motivated (e.g., by doing things for their own sake, obtaining purely internal rewards only) than those who were extrinsically motivated (e.g., by money or social approval) (Ingham, 1986). per se motivated individual also could cope better with stressful life events and activities (Maddi Kobasa, 1981).Personality found to be a major determinant of preferences for activities as well. In a study of high school student activity participation, Howard (1976) acknowledged a high correlation between personality measures and preferences for leisure activities. Eysenck (1976, 1981) found that extroverts and introverts engage in dif ferent activities. Extroverts is those who needed to have people around them, easygoing, liked socializing and preferred highly social activities such as parties while introverts who tended to be shy and cautions preferred a well-ordered lifestyle, avoided social activities and excitement. Besides, it was noted that individuals who sought sensation spent more time engaged in highly stimulating and risky activities than those who did not seek sensation (Zuckerman, 1979). Plog (1991) reported that the energy (high energy) and lethargy (low energy) level determines various activities levels between touristsIso-Ahola (1980) argued that the relationship between motivation and activities was affected by different social environment as well as social influences. For example, low correlations between motivation and the degree and extent of activity were found. This might be repayable to a number of problems such as the lack of specifications of the distinct activities in surveys, the respo ndents lack of time or finance to participate in activities, lack of the facilities purchasable (Ruskin Shamir, 1984), information about activities, perceived incompetence, or sociocultural restraints (Iso-Ahola Mannell, 1985).An individuals lifestyle is made up of a pattern of daily routine activities (Roberts, 1978). Some lifestyles are characterized by a numerous of activities others are specialized and limited to a few favored activities. Person lifestyles were represented by the most popular activities (Glyptis, 1981). A number of contrasting lifestyles based on peoples activities patterns had been notable (Glyptis, 1981). Differences in lifestyle were found between foreign and internal travelers (Woodside Pitts, 1976), visitors and non-visitors to national parks (Mayo, 1975), tourists to Massachusetts (Schewe Calantone, 1978) and in history-oriented and non-history-oriented travelers (Solomon George, 1977). every segment had different travel motivations and preferences for vacation activities.Distinct vacation styles were identifying for various groups of vacationers such as Goodrich (1978) identified different vacation lifestyles for four groups of holidaymakers. For example, passive entertainment, active sports, outdoor types, and historical and cultural interests each of it with different interests and preferences for vacation activities. Crask (1981) identified differences in five vacation segments such as rest and relaxation vacationers, sightseers, cost conscious/ attraction-oriented, sports enthusiasts, and campers which all with distinct vacation interests, motivation, and preferences for activities. Shih (1986) who reported different lifestyles for three major segments such as belongers, achievers, and societal conscious each with different interests and criteria when selecting vacation destination. Another study is Zins (1999) which identified nine different vacation styles for distinct psychographic profiles of travelers (sightseeing tourist, family escapist, carefree wellness tourist, comfort seeker, demanding pleasure traveler, cultural interactionist, ambience seeker, relax-in-safety tourist, and nature-loving vacationer) with each of them obtained different preferences for vacation activities.Gonzalez and Bell (2002) explained that lifestyle permitted greater knowledge of variables in influencing travel behavior. The study conducted in Spain manage to identify five tourist lifestyle place Loving, Idealistic, Autonomous, Hedonistic, and Conservative. Home Loving generally focused on family life, they preferred to have a vacation accompanied by their families, and domestic destinations are the most give away for a vacation destination. Idealistic is the group who enjoy music, sport, theatre or outdoor activities and they does not spend much money on accommodation and is partial(p) of country villages.Meanwhile, for Autonomous, they view success as fundamentally linked with individual freedom and independen ce and places great emphasis on enjoying life and are not attracted to cultural activities. They spend their holiday time using low-priced accommodation and favor city destinations. The Hedonistic segment consists of individual that attracted to pleasure and tends to travel in the company of friends and they are those people attracted to newly arrived products or services on the market. Lastly, Conservative is a home-loving segment, they focuses on the wellbeing of their family. They are attracted to traditional domestic seaside destinations.Hawes (1988) conducted a study of travel-related lifestyle that was base on an age-specific (demography) study. It was focusing on older women. Factor analysis result, showed three major underlying dimension within this group travel, which were labeled as traveler, laid back and dreamer. The traveler focus on vacation travel orientation and is generally associated with singleness or small household size, activeness, acceptance or liking of excit ement and uncertainty, higher income and education. The laid back indicates an acceptance of vacation travel but essentially of the domestic, unexciting, unhurried, instead and relaxing, more concerned with indebtedness and less affluent. The dreamer reflects an orientation in vicarious thrills and wishing or dreaming substitute for the real thing and video was found to be their main resource of information for travel decision.Nicolau and Mas (2004) find that personal characteristics such as personal restrictions and socio-demographic and psychographic characteristics relate to the holiday decisions of going on holiday, chosen destination, foreign holidays and multi-destination holidays. A number of studies investigate constraints on travel behavior that arguably differ from general leisure behavior in many ways, such as cost, commitment and durations. It was said that constraints and facilitators solve differently in influencing travel intention and choice. Age is an extremely i mportant travel constraint and Romsa and Blenman (1989) study the vacation patterns of elderly Germans, and Teaff and Turpin (1996) study the older Americans travel behavior. They both agreed that the taking of vacations declines with age.Socio-economic, physical, psychological, and physiological (age related) constraints play an important position in the underlying processes related to the behavior of elderly vacationer (Romsa et al., 1989). The choices of vacation destination and holiday activities are constrained by the physical situation of seniors. Intergenerational effects also probable operate to impact on the travel of these older persons. Nevertheless, Teaff and Turpin (1996) find that older Americans travel more frequently and longer distances, stay away longer, and rely more on travel agents than other segments of the people. Some evidence, though, shows that travelers take longer vacations after age of retirement. Retirees are significantly more likely to be constrained by disability, perception of age, physical energy, and health conditions.The family cycle is also a important constraint to travel choice behavior. In a study of the family life cycle (FLC) of German travelers, Opperman (1995) argued that FLC affects travel patterns considerably. There are many aspects of the tourists travel pattern relate to the stages of their family life cycle. Destination choice, transportation and usage of accommodation relate to differences in economic status and in discretionary income available for travelling. Lifetime experience, choices of accommodation and destination differ according to age stage. Travel purpose and especially the travel gruntle were influenced by the family life cycle. Children have been traveled as an influence on family travel decision such as in Nickerson and Jurowski (2001) study the influences of children on vacation travel patterns that provide a perspective about planning and development with a view to increasing child satisfact ion at the destination.Gilber and Hudson (2000) see life cycle as a useful conceptual and analytical framework to investigate the experience of leisure constraints. Many life cycle issues contribute to personal ecology research and researchers concluded that different people do not experience constraints in the similar way. McGehee, N., Loker-Murphy,L. and Uysal, M. (1996) investigate the Australian international pleasure market with used gender and other demographic factors such as marital status, age, education, occupation and income to analyze travel motivation and travel patterns, finding that Australia women and men are motivated differently in their pleasure travel experience. Meric and Hunt (1998) find eco-tourists tend to be middle-aged and have higher education and income levels to reveals the general and specific activity preferences of them. It is likely that selected demographics can act as a determinant of travel preferences, possibly influencing preferred activities an d their demographics can act as a constraint on travel intention and behavior.Mayo and Jarvis (1981) claimed out that, a common denominator that probably underlies all forms of leisure travel is the need for variety. Well-adjusted individuals need a balance of consistency and complexity in their lives by seeking consistency in certain domains of experience and complexity in others, consistency theory explains that people, expecting a particular thing to happen, do not want to be confronted by something unexpected(Mayo and Jarvis, 1981). On the other hand, complexity theory states that novelty, unexpectedness, change, and unpredictability are pursued because they are inherently satisfying (Mayo and Jarvis, 1981). They also stated that travel allows people to escape from the boredom of consistency and tension allows us to experience complexity of novelty, change, and unpredictability.Correspondingly, Iso-Ahola (1980) noted that people search for different levels of stimulation they av oid either over stimulation (mental and physical fatigue) or boredom (too little stimulation. He claimed that leisure needs change during the life span and across place and social company and that, individuals do not have numerous leisure needs in mind and do not rationalize specific cause of participation if their involvement is intrinsically motivated. Besides, it is important of participants feelings of self-determination and competence to ensure satisfaction (Iso-Ahola, 1980).Two types of motivations are 1) physiological motivations stemming from biological needs, such as food, waste elimination and water, and 2) psychological, motivations