A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Travel Push and Pull Factors

This article was downloaded by: [Auckland University of Technology] On: 19 December 2011, At: 12:11 Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjht20
A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Travel Push and Pull Factors

Xinran You , Joseph O'leary , Alastair Morrison & Gong-Soog Hong
a d a b c
Department of Forestry & National Resources, 1200 FPRD Building, Purdue University, West Layfayette, IN, 47907, USA
b
Department of Forestry & Natural Resources, FPRD Building, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
c
Department of Restaurant, Hotel, Institutional, and Tourism Management, Stone Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
d
Department of Consumer Sciences and Retailing, Matthews Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA Available online: 12 Oct 2008
To cite this article: Xinran You, Joseph O'leary, Alastair Morrison & Gong-Soog Hong (2000): A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Travel Push and Pull Factors, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 1:2, 1-26 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J149v01n02_01
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Auckland University of Technology] at 12:11 19 December 2011
A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Travel Push and Pull Factors: United Kingdom vs. Japan
Xinran You Joseph OLeary Alastair Morrison Gong-Soog Hong
ABSTRACT. Tourism marketers are confronted with the dilemma of whether standardization or the tailoring of services, products and marketing programs for specific markets is more effective and efficient. It remains to be addressed in tourism research whether travelers from varying cultural backgrounds seek different travel benefits and have different preferences for travel products and services, and to what extent they are similar in their travel behaviors. This research study used national household travel surveys conducted by the Canadian Tourism Commission and U.S. Tourism Industries for a cross-cultural compariXinran You is a doctoral student, specializing in International Tourism Marketing, Department of Forestry & National Resources, 1200 FPRD Building, Purdue University, West Layfayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: xinran@fnr.purdue.edu). Joseph T. OLeary is Professor, specializing in Tourism and Recreation, Department of Forestry & Natural Resources, FPRD Building, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: jto@fnr.purdue.edu). Alastair M. Morrison is Professor, specializing in Tourism Marketing, Department of Restaurant, Hotel, Institutional, and Tourism Management, Stone Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: alastair@cfs.purdue.edu). Gong-Soog Hong is Associate Professor, Department of Consumer Sciences and Retailing, Matthews Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: honggs@purdue.edu). The data utilized in this study were made available by the Canadian Tourism Commission. The data for Japan (1995) and the United Kingdom (1996) Pleasure Travel Market Survey was originally prepared by Coopers and Lybrand Consulting. Neither the preparer of the original data nor the Canadian Tourism Commission bear any responsibility for the analysis or interpretations presented here. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 1(2) 2000 1 E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.haworthpressinc.com>]
son of two different countries, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and Japan. Results showed that travelers from these two countries had different travel motives and benefit-seeking patterns. From a marketing perspective, the branding and positioning of a destination for U.K. and Japanese long-haul travel markets will be more effective if the destination marketing organization (DMO) projects different images within its advertising campaigns. These images should reflect the different travel motivations and benefits desired by the two groups of travelers. [Article copies available for a fee from
KEYWORDS. Travel motivation, travel benefit, travel behavior, cross-cultural comparison, Japan, United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION Tourism has become a global phenomenon as international travel has emerged as a major revenue generating industry for many countries. According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1999), in the ten years from 1989 to 1998, arrivals worldwide grew at an average annual rate of 4.3 percent while international tourism receipts increased by 8.1 percent annually over the last ten years. As international travel markets increase in importance to destination countries, understanding international travelers preferences and behaviors has become a prerequisite for successful destination marketing programs. Tourism marketers are confronted with the dilemma of whether the standardization or the tailoring of services, products and marketing programs for specific markets is more effective and efficient. However, as has been noted by a number of researchers (Dimanche, 1994; Pizam & Reichel, 1995), there is a paucity of cross-cultural research, particularly in the context of international tourist behavior and marketing. According to Dimanche, there are four factors that impede cross-cultural study: (1) misunderstanding of the value and benefits of cross-cultural research; (2) ethnocentrism and ignorance about other cultures; (3) lack of resources; and (4) language and cultural differences and their effects. Two of the key questions that need to be addressed in tourism research are whether travelers from varying cultural backgrounds seek different travel benefits and have different preferences for travel products and services, and to what extent they are similar and dissimilar in
You et al.
their travel behaviors. The objective of this research study was to use national household surveys conducted by the Canadian Tourism Commission and U.S. Tourism Industries for a cross-cultural comparative study on two quite different countries, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and Japan. The focus was to test whether travelers from these two countries had different travel motives and benefit-seeking patterns. Japan and the U.K. rank number three and four in terms international tourism expenditure (WTO, 1999). Both countries are among the worlds top tourist generating countries that many destination marketing organizations are trying hard to target effectively. Cross-Cultural Perspectives Culture refers to the norms, beliefs, and customs that are learned from society and lead to common behavior patterns (Assael, 1987). Cross-cultural psychology theories suggest that national cultural values and characteristics shape and affect human thought and behavior and that culture is a major, if not the major, factor contributing to individual differences in behavior (Berry, Poortinga & Pandey, 1997). Whiting and Whiting (1975) in their six-culture project sought to uncover causal connections between cultural phenomena and the behavior of members of those cultures. They suggested that any culture, with its specific environment and historical background, can be understood as a maintenance system that is an antecedent to child-training practices that match the specific needs of each culture. These practices, in turn, lead to the development of certain observable national personality types for such things as music, art, recreation, play behavior, crime and suicide rates, etc. There is also a growing debate over whether civilization is converging or diverging. Although crosscultural psychology has produced theories on subjective cultural issues, little empirical research has been completed and studies have generally been of a preliminary and speculative character. Culture is a major influence in consumption decision making. Buying patterns and motives often differ among nations. In the tourism literature, cross-cultural tourism research has been dealt with by only a handful of researchers. Dimanche (1994) did a qualitative review and assessment of cross-cultural studies and advocated that more tourism researchers should adopt a cross-cultural perspective. There is a growing body of evidence that tourism behavior and vacation patterns are culture-specific. Despite this, destination market-
ers often have little information on the cultural differences among international visitors. Shields (1992) pointed out that although the number of international visitors to the U.S. had grown in recent years and many cities and states were now targeting foreign visitors, very little was known about international travelers. OHalloran and Hensarling (1991) indicated that U.S. hospitality and tourism organizations were putting little effort into exploring the cultures and the work ethics of the visitor generating countries. In particular, the differences among international visitors in terms of behavior, attitudes towards destinations, spending patterns, motivations, and satisfaction levels were not well understood. Several recent studies have highlighted the variations in the travel characteristics and behaviors of visitors from different countries. Pizam has completed a number of studies (1989, 1995, 1996) in the cross-cultural or cross-national tourist behavior area. He and his co-authors studied the tourist behavior differences using various approaches such as from the perceptions of tour guides or perceptions of residents from host communities. In 1989, Pizam and Reichel explored cross-national behavior differences based on opinions and impressions of the host communities in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom, the United States and Yugoslavia. It was found that in communities where the majority of tourists were foreigners, the residents tended to perceive the tourists to be very different from themselves on a variety of travel characteristics. However, in communities where the majority of tourists were domestic travelers, the residents identified few differences between themselves and the tourists. Pizam and Reichel (1995, 1996) again conducted a series of studies on the effects of nationality on tourist behavior. In one of the studies, they surveyed sixty-three Dutch tour guides soliciting opinions on twenty behavioral characteristics of Japanese, French, Italian, and U.S. tourists on guided tours in the Netherlands. They found that in eighteen of twenty behavioral characteristics, there were significant perceived differences among the four nationalities. The greatest behavioral difference by nationality was found to be for socializing with other tourists. For instance, they found out that Japanese travelers tended to stay mostly with their own group and avoid socializing with other tourists. The French behaved in a similar way as the Japanese while Italian tourists and American tourists had higher levels of interaction and socializing with others. In another study of Israeli tour guides perceptions of U.S.,
You et al.
British, German and French tourists behavior characteristics on guided tours, they again found significant differences attributed to different nationalities in eighteen of the twenty behavioral characteristics among the four nations. In another study of cross-cultural tourist behavior through the perceptions of Korean tour-guides, Pizam and Jeong (1996) found out that in 18 out of the 20 behavioral characteristics there was a significant perceived difference between Korean, Japanese and American travelers. Pair-comparison indicated that the Korean-Japanese pair had the most similarity followed by Japanese-American. Tourists from different countries have always shown evidence of differences in destination behavior patterns such as trip arrangement, recreation activities, expenditures, etc. The English travelers have been described as stiff, socially conscious, honest and dependable by Pi-Sunyer (1977). Japanese travelers were stereotyped as group travelers, short duration trip takers, heavy spenders and indefatigable photographers and risk avoiders (Hofstede, 1980; Ritter, 1987; Cho, 1991). Hofstede also found that Japanese, French, and Italians were high in uncertainty avoidance, while Americans were low on this dimension. In terms of activity participation, researchers such as Groetzbach (1988) and Barham (1989) found out that the oriental style of travel is less active than found for Europeans. Chiang, Hsieh, Bahniuk, and Liu (1997) did a comparison of pleasure travelers from the Netherlands and Taiwan based on descriptive variables including socio-demographics, travel characteristics, and travel activities. Similarities and differences were identified between the two groups and some of these differences were explained by the differences in the cultures of the two countries. Other researchers such as Richardson and Crompton (1988), and Sheldon and Fox (1988) also identified variations in tourist behaviors, perceptions and preferences. Research has also attempted to study the cross-cultural differences in tourism from the supply (the tourism services providers) side or incorporating both the demand side (the tourists) and the supply side. Reisinger and Turner (1998) identified cultural differences between Korean tourists and Australian service providers. Key dimensions of differences between the Australian hosts and the Korean tourists were evident in communication, display of feelings, interaction and idealism. The article emphasized the importance of understanding cultural differences for developing positive tourist-host contact and enhancing tourist holiday satisfaction and repeat visitation. Pizam et al. (1997)
also did a study on the effect of nationality versus industry cultures on managerial behavior. They found more differences than similarities between the managerial practices of hotel managers from Hong Kong, Japan and Korea and concluded that the effect of nationality cultures have a stronger effect on managerial behavior than industry culture. One approach to comprehending cultural differences is the theory of individualism versus collectivism (Triandis, 1995). Individualism is an intrinsic aspect of Western culture, a culture that emphasizes an individual rather than an interdependent construct of self. Individualism affects peoples values as well as their behavior. Individualistic cultures view personal goals as being more important than group goals. People are expected to look after themselves and their immediate family only (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). Countries like the U.K. and the United States are representative of this individualistic orientation. Collectivism, as represented by the Japanese and Chinese cultures, emphasizes conformity, belonging, empathy, and dependence (IshiiKuntz, 1989). In collectivistic cultures, people belong to in-groups and collectivities which are supposed to look after them in exchange for loyalty (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). Graburn (1983) argued that, since Japanese tourists tend to travel in larger groups rather than in smaller groups or as individuals, this reflects the group-oriented structure of the Japanese society. Compared with Europeans and North Americans, the Japanese have a low sense of cultural self-confidence (Graburn, 1983; Ohnuki-Tierney, 1990), and they usually choose to visit well-known culture approved attractions. In Japan, the evolution from package tours to individual travel arrangement has lagged behind the West. According to U.S. Tourism Industries (1998), about 47% of Japanese travelers that visited the U.S. in 1997 used package tours compared at 15.4% of the U.S. bound U.K. travelers. A further indication of the importance of the group to the Japanese tourist is in the relationship between the traveler and the kinship group at home, which is cemented with a variety of gifts (known as omiyage). However, there is growing evidence that Japanese society is adopting some of the trends of the Western world and moving toward a mixture of collectivism and individualism. This brief research overview points out that few cross-cultural studies have been done on how people from varying cultural backgrounds differ in their travel motivations and the benefits sought from travel experiences. Therefore, it is important to identify similarities and dif-
You et al.
ferences in motivations and benefits between travelers from different countries, e.g., one Eastern and one Western nation. With this information, marketers might have a better idea of what different markets are looking for and be in a better position to more accurately target each market. By providing the travelers information that illustrates a destination has what they want (motivations and activities), the tourists might be more likely to make the decision to visit that destination. Once they reach the destination, if products and services are offered or provided in a fashion the travelers desire, their experience can be heightened, thus improving the satisfaction with the experience, hopefully motivating them to travel back again. Travel Push and Pull Theory Many researchers have used motivational theories to try to understand the travel decision making process. Maslows needs hierarchy is the one of the early theories of motivation that has been applied in the tourism context (Pearce, 1982). Most attempts to account for tourist motivation take a content theory approach. Mill and Morrison (1998) saw travel as a need or want satisfier. Burkart and Medlik (1981) classified travel motivation into two major categories: wanderlust (the desire to know the unknown, to see different places, people and culture or heritage) and sunlust (the desire to travel for better amenities for a specific purpose such as sports). However, concentrating attention on the wide variety of different needs that motivate travel behavior seems to be insufficient. Besides understanding why people travel, we also need to understand what affects the travelers vacation destination choices. It appears that there are actually two major forces at work here. First, there is what the traveler needs and desires and, second what the travel destination has to offer to satisfy these needs and desires. Driven by inner travel desires, what factors affect the decision of where to go? Certainly one of the most important factors is the extent to which a destinations attributes meet and satisfy the travelers inner desires. Therefore, it would be meaningful to identify which destination attributes are important to the traveler. Dann (1977) made a significant contribution in suggesting a two-tiered scheme of factors that motivate travelers to travel and to go to certain destinations. Dann described two stages or factors in the travel decision making process, push and pull. The push factors are those that make a person want to travel and they are
mainly social-psychological motives. The pull factors are external factors that affect where a person travels to fulfill needs or desires. Dann suggested that anomie and ego-enhancement were the basic underlining reasons for travel. Crompton (1979) agreed with Danns basic idea of push and pull motives but went further to identify nine motives for travel. They were the escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement of kinship relationships, facilitation of social interaction, novelty and education. He classified the first seven motives as push factors, and the last two as pull factors. Mayo and Jarvis (1981) suggested that travel motivations could be divided into four categories, physical motivations such as rest, cultural motivations such as the desire for knowledge, interpersonal motivations such as the desire to meet people, and status and prestige motivations such as the desire for recognition. Jamrozy and Uysal (1994) did an empirical study on the travel motivations of overseas German visitors. They adopted Danns push and pull theory and classified travel motivational factors into two groupings, the motivational push factors and the motivational pull factors. Motivational push factors were the inner needs and desires within the travelers that generated the demand for travel. The motivational pull factors, which Jamrozy and Uysal called the secondary motives, were considered to be the pull forces of the destination or the destination attribute factors. This classification further elaborated upon the push and pull theory by actually linking motivation with destination attributes. Although Danns framework has been translated into marketing applications (Mill & Morrison, 1998) and developed in a few research studies, there appears to be no research done that explores the theory in a cross-cultural context. As Jamrozy and Uysal (1994:157) pointed out: In a competitive global tourist industry it is important to understand the travelers and their behavior. This implies that it is even more important for comparison between and across countries. Conceptual Framework and Research Objectives Many researchers have focused on the push factors that motivate people to travel. However, few have attempted to show the linkage between why people desire to travel and where they choose to go.
You et al.
While the inner motives and desires for travel explain why people travel, the pull forces (what the destination can offer to satisfy the travelers needs and desires) may actually better explain where people travel, i.e., their destination choices. The matching of internal motives with destination attributes may prompt a traveler to select one destination over another. Therefore, the overall purpose of the current research study was to further apply Jamrozy and Uysals push and pull force classification by carrying it to the level of cross-cultural comparative analysis. More specifically, this study compared U.K. and Japanese long-haul travelers with a particular focus on how destination attributes related to the benefits these people sought from travel. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework for this study. The specific objectives of this study were: (1) to identify similarities and differences between U.K. and Japanese travelers in terms of their responses to travel push forces; (2) to show how destination attributes function as pull forces in travelers destination selection processes and how they function differently across the two cultures; and (3) to see if there is a linkage between the push and pull factors (the relationship between inner travel needs/desires and destination attributes that are intended to satisfy these needs and desires). METHOD Data Source In this study, two survey datasets, namely the Pleasure Travel Market Survey for Japan (1995) and the Pleasure Travel Market Survey for United Kingdom (1996), were used. The two datasets are part of the series of studies on international pleasure travel markets to North America undertaken jointly by the Canadian Tourism Commission and the Tourism Industries unit of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Pleasure Travel Market Survey for Japan which was conducted in 1995 consisted of an in-person survey of 1,200 potential Japanese long-haul pleasure travelers. Respondents included individuals who were 18 years and older and who had taken a pleasure trip of four nights or more by plane outside Japan in the past three years or those planning such a trip in the next two years. The Pleasure Travel Market Survey for United Kingdom conducted in 1996, had a sample size of
10
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model
VACATION DESTINATION CHOICE
Internal motivational driving forces
Destination attributes
Why travel?
Where to go?
Push factors
Pull factors
Country of origin
You et al.
11
1,208. The survey was conducted in a similar manner as the Japanese Pleasure Travel survey. The respondents were 18 years of age or older and had traveled outside Europe and the Mediterranean by plane in the past three years and stayed at least four nights. The aim of these survey studies is to provide practical and strategic marketing information on potential international long-haul travel markets. These studies provide information on the potential long-haul pleasure travel markets from major long-haul travel markets such as Japan, U.K., and Germany. The studies include data on basic travel motivations, travel characteristics, expenditures, attitudes and awareness levels, socio-demographics, and vacation styles. The data provide excellent opportunities for cross-national or cross-cultural comparative studies. Although there are some differences in the questionnaires as a result of tailoring to countryspecific situations, most variables are comparable. Statistical Procedures and Analyses To facilitate comparison, the two datasets were merged by means of adding cases. Variables that were not identical were eliminated. A new variable called country identity (U.K. versus Japan) was constructed and was used as the dependent variable for further statistical analysis. The independent variables included fifty-three destination attribute variables (the pull factors, Table 5) and seventeen travel motivation variables (the push factors, Table 2). The respondents were asked to rate how important each motivational variable was in planning their most recent long-haul trip and how important each destination attribute was in planning long-haul holidays in general. The two sets of variables were measured in the survey questionnaires on a four-point Likert scale with 1 being not at all important, 2 being not very important, 3 being somewhat important and 4 being very important. One-way ANOVA tests were employed to determine whether there were differences between Japan and U.K. in travel motives and travel destination decision criteria. A factor analysis was performed to reduce the fifty-three destination attributes to a more manageable size. Using country identity as the group membership variable, two discriminant analyses were then conducted to identify (1) important destination attribute variables and their relative importance and (2) important motivational variables and their relative strength in discriminating U.K. and Japanese travelers. A discriminant function was developed
12
for each model which showed the linear combination of independent variables that statistically maximized the differences between the two groups. Two classification functions, which provided an optimal classification rule to minimize the probability of misclassification, were also obtained for each analysis. RESULTS When the general demographic variables were compared, long haul travelers from the two countries appear to be different in a few ways. (Table 1). U.K. long haul travelers tended to be older. About 28.9% of U.K. travelers were 55 years and older compared to 10% of Japanese travelers. There was a higher percentage of Japanese long haul travelers who were single (38.9% compared to 22.8% of U.K.). More Japanese females (64.3%) pursued long haul travel than females from the U.K. (50.2%). In terms of occupation, Japan had a higher percentage of university or college student travelers (13.1%) than the U.K. (6.4%), while more U.K. blue-collar workers (13.6%) traveled compared to the same category of travelers from Japan (4.0%). Push Factors (Why Travel?) The results of a test of equality of group means showed significant differences ( = 0.01) between the U.K. and Japanese travelers for thirteen of seventeen travel motivation variables (Table 2). U.K. travelers viewed knowledge enhancement about places, people and things as being more important than Japanese travelers (MeanU.K. = 3.27,
TABLE 1. Chi-Square Analysis of Demographic Background of U.K. and Japan Travelers
Variables Age Marital Status Gender Occupation Categories 18-24/25-34/35-44/45-54/55-64/65 & above Single/Married/Others Male/Female University/College Student/White-collar worker/ Blue-collar worker/Administrator or Manager/ Specialist or Freelancer/ Self-employed/Unemployed/ non-working housewife/retired
2
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
123.48 262.79 40.71 206.13
You et al.
13
TABLE 2. Test of Equality of Group Means of Push Factors

Push Variables U.K. Visiting a place l can talk about when l get home Going places l have not visited before Going places my friends have not visited before Increase ones knowledge about places, people and things Getting a change from a busy job Getting away from demands of home Escaping from the ordinary Finding thrills and excitement Having fun, being entertained Indulging in luxury Being together as a family VFR Experiencing a simpler life Experiencing a new and different lifestyle Meeting new and different people Meeting people with similar interest Just relaxing 2.8978 3.425 2.1641 3.263 2.8228 2.9598 3.1 2.7554 3.0641 2.5326 3.0707 2.6761 2.2391 2.9011 3.0902 2.5793 2.8261 Mean Japan 2.656 3.013 2.120 2.939 2.924 2.302 2.654 2.333 3.114 2.607 2.125 1.721 2.098 2.273 2.221 1.964 2.970 29.821 98.918 0.951 68.024 4.510 199.699 103.923 92.366 1.550 2.521 329.952 331.605 12.765 242.380 492.921 252.052 11.369 0.000 0.000 0.329 0.000 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.213 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 F Statistics Sig.
MeanJapan = 2.93). The U.K. travelers also rated getting away from demands of home as being more important than Japanese travelers (MeanU.K. = 2.94, MeanJapan = 2.30). Being together as a family was another important motivation for U.K. travelers, but was far less so for the Japanese travelers (MeanU.K. = 3.07, MeanJapan = 2.12). Other differences were found for escaping from the ordinary (MeanU.K. = 3.1, MeanJapan = 2.65), finding thrills and excitement (MeanU.K. = 2.76, MeanJapan = 2.33), visiting friends and relatives (MeanU.K. = 2.68, MeanJapan = 1.72), experiencing a simpler life (MeanU.K. = 2.25, MeanJapan = 2.09), experiencing a new and different lifestyle (MeanU.K. = 2.91, MeanJapan = 2.27), meeting new and different people (MeanU.K. = 3.09, MeanJapan = 2.22), meeting people with similar interests (MeanU.K. = 2.58, MeanJapan = 1.96), and just relaxing (MeanU.K. = 2.82, MeanJapan = 2.96). U.K. and Japanese travelers did not differ in their importance ratings of going to places my friends have not visited before, having fun, being entertained, or indulging in luxury.
14
An interesting observation in the mean values of push variables was that, with the exception of just relaxing to which Japanese travelers attached a higher importance rating, the U.K. travelers had significantly higher mean importance ratings for all other items. By plotting the distribution of the response values separately for the U.K. and Japanese travelers, it was found that there was a general tendency for Japanese travelers to give middle value ratings (in this study, 2 and 3 were the middle values). The U.K. travelers were more inclined to express strong opinions (of 1 or 4). This pattern was consistent across all the push variables. The top five travel push factors for the U.K. and Japan, reflected by the proportions of the two groups that rated each factor as being very important (a rating of 4), provided some interesting information on what motivated travelers from the two countries. For the U.K., the top five were: (1) Going places I have not visited before (48.5%); (2) Being together as a family (42.5%); (3) Increase ones knowledge about places, people and things (37.1%); (4) Visit friends and relatives (32.5%), and (5) Escaping from the ordinary (32.5%). For Japan, the top five were: (1) Going places I have not visited before (33.0%); (2) Having fun, being entertained (30.8%); (3) Getting a change from a busy job (28.3%); (4) Just relaxing (28.3%), and (5) Increase ones knowledge about places, people and things (26.8%). The similarity between U.K. and Japan travelers appeared to be in the two areas of novelty seeking and knowledge enhancement. However, for the U.K. travelers, socialization with other people (being together as a family and VFR) was a very important motivation for travel. For the Japanese, physical motivators of getting physical rest, relaxing from work, and having fun and being entertained, were of greater relative importance. No significant differences (at = 0.01) were found for the following four factors: (1) Getting a change from a busy job; (2) Having fun, being entertained; (3) Indulging in luxury; and (4) Going to places my friends have not visited before. Having fun (MeanU.K. = 3.06, MeanJapan = 3.11) and getting a change from a busy job (MeanU.K. = 2.82, MeanJapan = 2.93) appeared to be important motivators for the travelers from both countries going to places that friends have been (MeanU.K. = 2.18, MeanJapan = 2.11) and indulging in luxury (MeanU.K. = 2.54, MeanJapan = 2.6) seem to be less important motivators.
You et al.
15
Pull Factors (Where to Go?) Table 3 presents the ten top-rated destination attributes for the U.K. and Japanese travelers. Outstanding scenery, pre-trip information, destination infrastructure (convenience of transportation), and environmental quality (safety and hygiene) were of primary importance for the travelers from both countries. Consistent with the push factors (inner motivational drives), the opportunities for socializing and interacting with people, such as seeing people from a number of ethnic backgrounds or nationalities were of greater importance to the U.K. travelers. The Japanese travelers attached greater relative importance to historical or archaeological buildings and places. The factor analysis reduced the fifty-six destination attribute variables to ten factors that accounted for 58% of the total variance (Table 4). The ten factors were labeled according to the variables that carried higher factor loadings on a certain factor (Table 5). The factors were named as: (1) nature-based activities ( = 0.84), (2) outdoor sports activities ( = 0.85), (3) culture and heritage activities ( = 0.83), (4) city sightseeing and shopping ( = 0.66), (5) safety and hygiene ( = 0.51), (6) people-interactive activities ( = 0.76), (7) prices of restaurants and hotels ( = 0.76), (8) guided tours ( = 0.70), (9) exotic atmosphere and weather ( = 0.44), and (10) camping ( = 0.69). In order to test the internal consistency of the factors, reliability analysis
TABLE 3. Most Important Travel Pull Factors for U.K. and Japanese Travelers
RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U.K. Personal safety, even when travelling alone (66.9%) See people from a number of ethnic backgrounds or nationalities (66.5%) Standards of hygiene and cleanliness (59.9%) Nice weather (51.6%) Good public transportation (airlines, local transit) (46.8%) Outstanding scenery (39.9%) Outdoor activities such as hiking, climbing (37.4%) Availability of pre-trip tourist information (37.3%) Ease of driving on my own (34.9%) Interesting and friendly local people (34.7%) JAPAN Outstanding scenery (67.6%) Historical or archaeological buildings and places (66.3%) Nice weather (54.4%) Standards of hygiene and cleanliness (51.8%) Availability of pre-trip tourist information (49.0%) Personal safety, even when travelling alone (48.8%) Environmental quality of area (48.7%) Shopping (46%) Good public transportation (airlines, local transit) (43.5%) Inexpensive restaurants (34.1%)
16
TABLE 4: Variance Explained by Rotated Sum of Squared Loading from Pull Factor Model
FACTORS TOTAL VARIANCE Nature-based activities Outdoor sports activities Culture and heritage activities City sightseeing and shopping Safety and hygiene People-interactive activities Prices of restaurants and hotels Guiding services Exotic atmosphere and nice weather Camping 18.65 28.13 35.64 40.03 44.11 47.55 50.73 53.48 55.97 58.04 VARIANCE % EXPLAINED 10.00 9.52 6.41 5.93 5.81 4.69 4.42 4.41 4.15 2.69 CUMULATIVE % EXPLAINED 10.00 19.52 25.92 31.85 37.66 42.36 46.78 51.19 55.34 58.04
was conducted for each factor based on the average inter-item correlation and the Cronbach alpha values indicated above showed that the internal consistency level for all factors are reasonably high and acceptable. Table 4 shows how much variance each factor explained. All factors had eigenvalues greater than one. These ten factors suggested three major dimensions of destination attributes (destination attractions and travel-related services) (Figure 2). The first group emphasized destination activities including peopleinteraction (socialization with people), nature-based sightseeing, outdoor sports, culture and heritage, city sightseeing and shopping, and touring. The second dimension comprised travel facilities and infrastructure such as food, lodging, transportation, and tour guiding. The third dimension was aspects of environmental quality such as hygiene and the quality of water and air, and safety. The results of a test of equality of group means showed that seven out of ten factors were significantly different (at = 0.01) between the two groups (Table 6). U.K. and Japanese travelers did not differ in their importance ratings of nature-based activities, camping, and availability of guiding services. The lack of a difference found in how important guiding service was when planning travel was not consistent with the results found by other researchers that Japanese travelers tended to prefer guided tours while U.K. travelers preferred more independent travel. Other pull factors such as people-interactive activities, prices of restaurants and hotels, culture and heritage activities and outdoor activities were all found to be significantly different between the two countries.
TABLE 5. Rotated Component Matrix (Factor Loading)

Factor 1 0.795 0.774 0.653 0.556 0.806 0.778 0.836 0.859 0.722 0.604 0.483 0.642 0.865 0.700 0.320 0.655 0.617 0.549 0.667 0.561 0.715 0.540 0.721 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8 Factor 9 Factor 10
Destination Attributes
0.5939568 0.7269847 0.7084933
-0.552 0.728 -0.541 0.596
0.704 0.777
Visits to appreciate natural ecological sites Lakes, rivers and mountainous areas Visiting remote coastal attractions Wilderness adventures National, state or provincial parks and forests Doing sports Alpine skiing Other winter sports Water sports Golf/tennis Primitive outdoor camping Historical or archaeological buildings and places Arts & cultural attractions Museums and art galleries Local crafts and handiwork/festivals Shopping Theme parks or amusement parks Casinos and other gambling Big modern cities Good public transportation (airlines, local transit) Personal safety, even when traveling alone Environmental quality of area Standards of hygiene and cleanliness Interesting and friendly local people See people from a number of ethnic backgrounds Unique or different aboriginal or indigenous peoples First class hotel Budget accommodation High quality restaurants Inexpensive restaurants Excursions/tours Package trips and all inclusive trips Exotic atmosphere Nice weather Campgrounds and hotel trailer parks Primitive outdoor camping
0.633684 0.5909588
0.426 0.316
17
18
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration TABLE 6. Test of Equality of Group Means of Pull Factors
PULL FACTORS Nature-based activities Outdoor sports activities Culture and heritage activities City sightseeing and shopping Safety and hygiene People-interactive activities Price of restaurants and hotels Guiding services Exotic atmosphere and nice weather Camping
F-VALUE 5.08 180.45 213.58 26.61 17.55 530.38 143.32 0.39 133.31 1.78
P-VALUE 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.534 0.000 0.182
FIGURE 2. Three Dimensions of Destination Attributes
2. Travel Facilities and Infrastructures
DESTINATION ATTRIBUTES
3. Enviromental Quality and Safety
People-interactive activities
1. Activities available
Touring
Nature-based activities
Outdoor sports
Culture and heritage
City sightseeing and shopping
Discriminant Analyses A discriminant analysis was prepared with country as the group membership variable and the ten destination attribute factor groupings as the independent variables. A linear combination of the independent
You et al.
19
variables was formed and served as the basis for assigning cases to groups (U.K. or Japan). The weight for each independent variable was estimated so that they resulted in the optimal separation between the groups. The linear discriminant equation was: D = B 0 + B 1 X1 + B 2 X2 + B 3 X3 + B 4 X4 + B 5 X5 + B 6 X6 + B 7 X7 + B 8 X8 + B9X9 + B10X10 Where X1 = importance rating of nature-based activities X2 = importance rating of outdoor sports activities X3 = importance rating of culture and heritage activities X4 = importance rating of city sightseeing and shopping X5 = importance rating of safety and hygiene X6 = importance rating of people-interactive activities X7 = importance rating of prices of restaurants and hotels X8 = importance rating of guiding services X9 = importance rating of exotic atmosphere and weather X10 = importance rating of camping The method used to determine the contribution of each variable was to examine their standard function coefficients after a Varimax rotation to make the function as discrete as possible. Table 7 shows the magnitudes of the coefficients as indicators of the relative importance of each of the variables. People-interactive activities, culture and heritage activities, and outdoor sports activities had the largest coefficients. These three destination attributes contributed most to discriminating between the U.K. and Japanese travelers. The Wilks lambda,
TABLE 7. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients from Pull Factor Model
PULL FACTORS Nature-based activities Outdoor sports activities Culture and heritage activities City sightseeing and shopping Safety and hygiene People-interactive activities Prices of restaurants and hotels Availability of guiding service Exotic atmosphere and nice weather Camping Wilks lambda for the model: 0.477 COEFFICIENTS 0.098 0.541 0.581 0.223 0.182 0.804 0.491 0.027 0.475 0.058
20
which is the ratio of the within-groups sum of squares to the total sum of squares for the model, was 0.477. This value indicated that the means of the two groups did appear to be very different. The discriminant function was then used to classify the two groups of survey respondents. The U.K. sample for the classification comprised 921 respondents and the Japanese sample was comprised of 1,172 respondents. Eighty one percent of U.K. travelers were correctly classified into the U.K. group, while 89.7% of Japanese travelers were correctly classified into the Japanese group. A total of 85.9 percent of the respondents were correctly classified by the models. Table 8 shows the classification coefficients that were used. A second discriminant analysis was conducted with country identity as the group membership variable and the motivational variables (push factors) as the independent variables. Since the 17 variables contained rich information on various aspects of inner travel motivations and in order to keep as much variance as possible, factor analysis was not used with this group of variables as had been the case for the destination attribute measures. Instead, all 17 variables were used as independent variables in the discriminant analysis. A linear combination of the independent variables was formed and served as the basis for assigning cases to groups (U.K. or Japan). The weight for each independent variable was estimated so that they resulted in the optimal separation between the groups. The linear discriminant equation was: D = B 0 + B 1 X1 + B 2 X2 + B 3 X3 + B 4 X4 + B 5 X5 + B 6 X6 + B 7 X7 + B8X8 + B9X9 + B10X10 + B11X11 + B12X12 + B13X13 + B14X14 + B15X15 + B16X16 + B17X17 Where X1 = Visiting a place I can talk about when I get home X2 = Going places I have not visited before X3 = Going places my friends have not visited before X4 = Increase ones knowledge about places, people and things X5 = Getting a change from a busy job X6 = Getting away from demands of home X7 = Escaping from the ordinary X8 = Finding thrills and excitement X9 = Having fun, being entertained X10 = Indulging in luxury X11 = Being together as a family
You et al.
21
X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17
= VFR = Experiencing a simpler life = Experiencing a new and different lifestyle = Meeting new and different people = Meeting people with similar interest = Just relaxing
Table 9 shows the magnitudes of the coefficients as indicators of the relative importance or strength of each of the variables. Being together as a family, getting away from demands of home, meeting new and different and getting a change from a busy job had the largest coefficients and demonstrated relatively higher importance in discriminating between U.K. and Japan travelers. The Wilks lambda value for the model was 0.527, which indicated that group means do appear to be very different. The discriminant function was then used to classify the two groups of survey respondents. The U.K. sample for the classification was comprised of 921 respondents. The discriminant function classified 823 cases correctly to the U.K. group, an accuracy rate of 68.1%. The Japanese sample was comprised of 1,172 respondents. The discriminant weights classified 1,051 Japanese respondents correctly to the Japanese group an accuracy rate of 87.6%. Table 10 shows the classification coefficients that were used. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This is the first study that has compared the motivations and travel benefits sought by international travelers from two different countries
TABLE 8. Classification Coefficients for Pull Factors
PULL FACTORS Nature-based activities Outdoor sports activities Culture and heritage activities City sightseeing and shopping Safety and hygiene People-interactive activities Prices of restaurants and hotels Guiding services Exotic atmosphere and nice weather Camping U.K. 0.116 0.666 0.719 0.265 0.216 1.063 0.598 0.032 0.578 0.068 JAPAN 0.091 0.523 0.565 0.208 1.169 0.835 0.470 0.025 0.455 0.054
22
TABLE 9. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients from Push Factor Model

Push Variables Visiting a place l can talk about when l get home Going places l have not visited before Going places my friends have not visited before Increase ones knowledge about places, people and things Getting a change from a busy job Getting away from demands of home Escaping from the ordinary Finding thrills and excitement Having fun, being entertained Indulging in luxury Being together as a family VFR Experiencing a simpler life Experiencing a new and different lifestyle Meeting new and different people Meeting people with similar interest Just relaxing Wilks Lambda for model: 0.527805389 P-value: 0.000 Coefficients 0.046 0.238 0.253 0.098 0.325 0.398 0.130 0.226 0.291 0.094 0.473 0.322 0.290 0.282 0.391 0.142 0.208
TABLE 10. Classification Function Coefficients for Push Factors

Variables U.K. Visiting a place l can talk about when l get home Going places l have not visited before Going places my friends have not visited before Increase ones knowledge about places, people and things Getting a change from a busy job Getting away from demands of home Escaping from the ordinary Finding thrills and excitement Having fun, being entertained Indulging in luxury Being together as a family VFR Experiencing a simpler life Experiencing a new and different lifestyle Meeting new and different people Meeting people with similar interest Just relaxing (Constant) 0.205797 2.374868 1.13564 2.080497 0.394996 0.265311 0.59276 0.203241 1.134157 1.037468 1.337195 1.619064 0.207931 0.604536 1.436224 0.916175 1.141846 22.8058 Coefficients Japan 0.115838 1.876886 0.65219 2.295466 0.982734 0.47587 0.335887 0.24092 1.764808 1.21224 0.550355 1.087115 0.84242 0.00138 0.571559 0.599162 1.563629 17.6475
You et al.
23
using Danns push and pull theory as a conceptual framework. The major finding was that U.K. and Japanese long-haul travelers differ significantly on both the push (internal needs and desires) and pull forces (destination attributes). Clearly, this suggests that the application of Danns push and pull theory must be culture-sensitive since, by generalization, the importance of specific push and pull factors will vary from country to country. The motives (push factors) that cause people from one country to make long haul pleasure travel trips may be quite different from those of other nationalities. At the same time, international travelers from different countries are likely to vary significantly in the importance they attach to specific destination attributes (pull factors). The discriminant function developed in this study provides a very clear indication of the relative importance of specific motivational (push) forces and destination attributes (pull) in differentiating U.K. and Japanese travelers. In addition, the functions were strong to moderately accurate in the classification of travelers to each of the two groups. Comparing the findings of the research on German travelers done by Jamrozy and Uysal (1994) with the results of this study, the German travelers in some respects were more similar to the U.K. travelers than Japanese travelers. For instance, like the U.K. travelers, family, friends being together appeared to be a very important motivation push factor for the German travelers. The German travelers, however, also demonstrated unique national personalities. For instance, sports activities appeared to be very important for German travelers, but this was not the case for both U.K. and Japanese travelers. More comparative analysis can be done in the future to explore the differences further. This study on actual travelers from two countries also complements Pizam and his co-authors research. In their work, they used tour guide observations as a proxy to help identify differences between travelers from different nationalities. This research takes the conceptual framework developed by Dann and uses it to compare travelers who were personally interviewed and specifically pinpoints the similarities and differences in motivations and destination attribute preferences between two countries. From a marketing perspective, the branding and positioning of a destination for U.K. and Japanese long-haul travel markets will be more effective if the destination marketing organization (DMO) pro-
24
jects different images within its advertising campaigns. These images should reflect the different travel motivations and benefits desired by the two groups of travelers. With Japan, the motivational arousal theme could be to learn and to relax. For the U.K., the theme could be developed as to learn and to socialize. Another approach that DMOs should follow is to tie the motivational drives with the activities that the destination has to offer and then package these activities to better satisfy the travelers needs. This study has shown that what the travelers from these two countries consider as the most important destination attributes differ significantly. DMOs should definitely take these differences into consideration when promoting their destinations and packaging their travel products. From the product planning perspective, providing excellent opportunities for socialization and interaction with people and activities for the entire family would aid a destination to attract the U.K. market. Opportunities and facilities for physical relaxation would seem to be of the greatest appeal to the Japanese market. Both groups seem to value long-haul travel as a good learning experience. Offering excellent knowledge enhancement opportunities would appeal to both markets. Good infrastructure and facilities are of similar importance for both markets. Destination attributes that tourists are looking for are a reflection of their values and beliefs and a good predictor of destination decision making. This study suggested that the importance levels ascribed to destination characteristics vary among tourist-generating countries. Therefore, no one set of push or pull factors can be used holistically. One must view each country differently and adjust the variables to take into account the cultural differences that exist. DMOs need to be sensitive to the tastes and benefits sought by travelers from individual countries. Although travelers ultimately determine at which destinations they wish to take holidays, destination marketers can exert a powerful influence through promoting particular forms of holidays or particular packages of travel activities. In order to pull travelers to a certain destination, it is essential to understand peoples destination selection processes, in which they discriminate and choose a single destination from a larger initial choice set. Clearly, marketers should recognize the differences among countries in the relative importance of push and pull factors as a basis for designing effective marketing programs.
You et al.
25
REFERENCES
Assael, H. (1987). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Boston, MA: PWSKent Publishing Company. Berry, J.W., Poortinga Y.H., & Pandey, J. (1997). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Burkart, A.J. & Medlik, S. (1981). Tourism: Past, present and future. London: Heinemann. Chiang, D.T., Hsieh, S., Bahniuk, M.H., & Liu, F. (1997) A comparison of pleasure travelers from the Netherlands and Taiwan. Journal of International Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism Management 1 (2), 67-96. Cho Sun-Young (1991). The ugly Koreans are coming? Business Korean 9 (2). 25-31. Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6, 408-424. Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4, 184-194. Dimanche, F. (1994). Cross-cultural tourism marketing research: An assessment and recommendations for future study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 6 (3), 123-134. Graburn, N.H.H. (1983). The anthropology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 10, 9-34. Groetzbach, E. (1988). Erholungsverhalten und tourismusstile am biespiel orentalischer lander. In: Ritter, W. und G. Milelitz, eds. Berchte und Materialien. Berlin: Institut fur Tourismus, Freie Universitat. Hofstede, G. H., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstedes culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeachs value theory. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture Consequences: International Differences in Workrelated Values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1989). Collectivism or individualism? Riverside, CA: University of California. Jamrozy, U. & Uysal, M. (1994). Travel motivation variations of overseas German visitors. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 6(3/4), 135-160. Mayo, E. & Jarvis, L.P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel. Boston: CBI Publishing. Mill, R.C. & Morrison, A.M. (1998). The tourism system: An introductory text (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. OHalloran, R.M., & Hensarling, D.M. (1991) Catering to foreign visitors: What is service anyway? International Journal of Hospitality Management 10 (2), 169-171. Ohnuki-Tierney, E. (1990). The ambivalent self of the contemporary Japanese. Cultural Anthropology 5, 197-216. Pearce, P.L. (1982). The social psychology of tourist behavior. Oxford: Pergamon. Pi-Sunyer, O. (1977). Through native eyes: tourists and tourism in Catalan Maritime Community. In Smith, V., ed. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pizam, A. & Reichel, A. (1996). The effect of nationality on tourist behavior: Israeli tour-guides perceptions. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 4 (1), 23-49. Pizam, A., & Reichel, A. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behavior? Annals of Tourism Research 22 (4), 901-916.
26
Pizam, A. & Jeong, G. (1996). Cross-cultural tourist behavior Perceptions of Korean tour-guides. Tourism Management 17 (4), 277-286. Pizam, A., Pine, R., Mok, C. & Shin, J.Y. (1997). Nationality vs industry cultures: which has a greater effect on managerial behavior? International Journal of Hospitality Management 16 (2). 127-145. Reisinger, Y. & Turner, L. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in tourism: a strategy for tourism marketers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 7 (4), 79-106. Richardson, S.L. and Crompton, J. (1988). Vacation patterns of French and English Canadians. Annals of Tourism Research 15 (4), 430-448. Ritter, W. (1987). Styles of tourism in the modern world. Tourism Recreation Research 12 (1). 3-8. Sheldon, P. and Fox, M. (1988). The role of food services in vacation choice and experience: a cross-cultural Analysis. Journal of Travel Research 27 (3), 9-15. Shields, H.M. (1992). Outlook for international travel. 1992 outlook for travel and tourism. Proceedings of the U.S. Travel Data Centers Seventeenth Annual Travel Outlook Forum. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Travel Data Center. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Greeley, CO: Westview Press. United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration- Tourism Industries (1998). In-Flight Survey of International Air Travelers. Whiting, B.B., & Whiting, J.W.M. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. World Tourism Organization (1999). Tourism Hightlights 1999.

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Travel Push and Pull Factors

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Travel Push and Pull Factors

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [Auckland University of Technology] On: 19 December 2011, At: 12:11 Publisher: Routledge

International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration