This article was downloaded by: [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] On: 09 July 2011, At: 06:54 Publisher:

Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of China Tourism Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wctr20

What Drives People to Travel: Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms

Yong Chen , Barry Mak & Bob McKercher
a a a a

School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China Available online: 10 Jun 2011

To cite this article: Yong Chen, Barry Mak & Bob McKercher (2011): What Drives People to Travel: Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms, Journal of China Tourism Research, 7:2, 120-136 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2011.576927

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, 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.

Journal of China Tourism Research, 7: 120136, 2011 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1938-8160 print / 1937-8179 online DOI: 10.1080/19388160.2011.576927

What Drives People to Travel: Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

YONG CHEN BARRY MAK BOB MCKERCHER

Peoples motivation to travel has long been discussed on a multidisciplinary basis characterized by three distinct motivation paradigms, namely, Plogs (1974) travel personality, P. L. Pearces (1988) travel career ladder, and Cohens (1972) concept of strangenessfamiliarity. This study uncovers the underlying consistence of these paradigms by proposing an integrated motivation framework and justifies it by applying this framework to tourist behavior research. This study concludes by arguing that a comprehensive perspective should be taken for conceiving a more accurate pattern or image of tourists, in the sense that tourist behavior patterns can be interpreted on an individual level by applying the travel personality, in a diachronic dimension by the travel career ladder, and from a holistic perspective by the concept of strangenessfamiliarity. KEYWORDS. Tourist motivation, travel personality, travel career ladder, strangenessfamiliarity

(Plog, 1974) L. Pearce, 1988) (P. - (Cohen, 1972) -

: -

Introduction
Peoples motivation to travel has been discussed on a multidisciplinary basis since the aftermath of the Second World War, when mass tourism began to thrive. It is not only a matter of explaining, from a psychological perspective, why some people travel and
Yong Chen is a Ph.D. candidate of the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: chen.yong@polyu. edu.hk). Barry Mak is Assistant Professor of the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: hmbarry@polyu.edu.hk). Bob McKercher is Professor of the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: hmbob@polyu. edu.hk).

120

Journal of China Tourism Research

121

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

others do not (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977; Plog, 1974) and how motivation changes over time (P. L. Pearce, 1988; P. L. Pearce & Stringer, 1991) but also of exploring the symbolic meaning of tourism in anthropology and sociology (Boorstin, 1964; Cohen, 1972, 1979a, 1979b; MacCannell, 1973). The past nearly four decades have witnessed remarkable progress in interpreting and modeling tourist motivation (Moscardo & Pearce, 2004; P. L. Pearce, 1993, 2005; Plog, 1994; Prentice, 2004). Among a number of tourist motivation frameworks and models is the pushpull framework that has prevailed in this line of research. This framework assumes that motivation arises to meet individuals needs, including alleviating psychological disequilibrium and obtaining social recognitions (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977; Fodness, 1994). It thus follows a functional approach to modeling tourist motivation by distinguishing between push factors, which are inherent with individuals, and pull factors, which are destination specific. Examples of this kind include a number of benchmark studies such as Danns (1977) push factors of anomie and ego enhancement, Cromptons (1979) pushpull framework, and Mannell and Iso-Aholas (1987) escapingseeking dichotomy. Empirical studies on tourist motivation have largely followed this approach and applied the pushpull framework to various tourism contexts (e.g., Crompton & McKay, 1997; Gnoth, 1997; Goossens, 2000; Jang & Cai, 2002; Jang & Wu, 2006; Josiam et al., 2009; Kim, Lee, & Klenosky, 2003; Wolfe & Hsu, 2004; Wu, Xu, & Erdogan, 2009). This makes the pushpull framework an approximately orthodox approach whereby tourist motivation is interpreted, either theoretically or empirically. Nevertheless, skepticism arises as to whether this approach is valid across different contexts and whether it can fully explain the complex of tourist motivation as a whole (Crompton & McKay, 1997; Dann, 1981; Jamal & Lee, 2003). First, tourists may not behave as the orthodox approach assumes, being driven by both their intrinsic attributes and destination-specific characteristics (see P. L. Pearce, 1988; Plog, 1974); and second, what tourists want may go beyond satisfying their needs upon which the push pull framework rests (see Cohen, 1972, 1979a, 1979b; MacCannell, 1973). Addressing these issues requires a new theoretical perspective as well as different tourist motivation paradigms, which the present study follows.

Overview of the Tourist Motivation Paradigms This study is concerned with somewhat different theoretical frameworks, including Plogs (1974) travel personality, P. L. Pearces (1988) travel career ladder (TCL), and Cohens (1972) concept of strangenessfamiliarity, which are appealing to explanations of tourist motivation but have unfortunately been muted in empirical studies. These three frameworks depart dramatically from those based on the functional approach in terms of their theoretical underpinnings. In particular, Plog (1974) constructed his motivation model by enquiring why some people do not travel instead of the common one why do people travel as stated in Dann (1981), for example. This implies a distinct theoretical setting in which nontravelers are of a major concern relative to travelers. Plog (1974) concluded that nontravelers are indeed nonadventuresome and proposed the notion of travel personality in this sense. Cohen (1972, 1979a, 1979b) contended that what tourists want is not merely to satisfy their psychological needs but authenticity of the destination. P. L. Pearce (1988) argued that motivation changes over time in a travel career ladder, whereas the pushpull framework fails to capture such dynamics.

122 Travel Personality

Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Plogs (1974) travel personality model is developed on a basis of an individuals psychological characteristics. Individuals in the population are assumed normally distributed along a spectrum of personality, from allocentric through near allocentric, mid-centric, near psychocentric, to psychocentric (Plog, 1974, p. 56). The two extremes (allocentric and psychocentric) are rare, with most of the population falling somewhere in between. This model is proposed as an attempt to answer a question raised in the business contextwhy some people do not flythe concern that prevailed in the airline sector of the United States in the late 1960s. At that time, only 27% of the population had flown in a commercial airplane, and seat capacity was growing more than 20% against 8% passenger growth per year (Plog, 1974). It was taken for granted by Plog (1974) that this question could not be answered without first understanding the psychology of people who travel. Plog (1974, 2001) applied individuals travel personalities to examine destinations evolution with respect to popularity. This is the life cycle model of the destination, suggesting that a destination may emerge or decline as travel personality changes. Travel Career Ladder The idea of a travel career ladder is proposed to interpret tourist motivation that changes over time (P. L. Pearce, 1988, 1993, 1996; P. L. Pearce & Caltabiano, 1983). Drawing upon the theory of Maslows hierarchy of needs, P. L. Pearce (1988, 1993) classified tourist motivation into five hierarchical levels, or a ladder, with relaxation needs at the lowest level, followed in sequence by stimulation, relationship, and self-esteem and development needs and self-actualization/fulfillment at the highest level. The logic of this idea lies in ones recognition that different motivations are the result of different travel experiences, which are determined by an individuals life span. In this sense, people might be said to have a travel career, by analogy to a working career. This travel career follows that people commence their travel with a relatively low goal such as relaxation and pursue higher goals as they become more experienced travelers, until they reach the highest level of self-actualization/fulfillment. This model has been subsequently modified slightly as the travel career pattern (TCP) in response to criticism of the term ladder as used in the original formulation (Ryan, 1998). The TCP thus emphasizes the pattern of, rather than steps of, a ladder or hierarchy of travel motivation (P. L. Pearce & Lee, 2005). In contrast to Plogs (1974) travel personality, the TCL/TCP attempts to capture the dynamics of tourist motivation. Strangeness Versus Familiarity Cohen (1972, 1979a, 1979b, 1984), from a sociological perspective, set his model in a broader social context, arguing that tourism is essentially a social phenomenon. Tourists therefore should be analyzed by underscoring their relationships with both business establishments such as tour operators and the destination (Cohen, 1972). Highlighting social relationships in the tourism system remains the most remarkable distinction of Cohens (1972) model, which is represented by the concept of strangenessfamiliarity. This concept is constructed by breaking down Boorstins (1964) holistic image of the tourist into more specific and empirically identifiable types, namely, the organized mass tourist, individual mass tourist, explorer, and

Journal of China Tourism Research

123

drifter (Cohen, 1972). Cohen (1972) agreed partially with Boorstin that tourists seek to observe the strangeness of the destination, but he speculated that such observations are affected by tourists familiar native culture. The continuum of possible combinations of tourists strangeness to the destination and familiarity with their own environment leads to the typology of modern tourists mentioned above. Research Questions These three motivation models are distinguished by their epistemologies on what drives people to travel. Plog (1974, 2001) regarded tourist motivation as a purely psychological impetus, empirical studies on which can be found in Plog (2002); P. L. Pearce (1988, 1993) took a combination of both psychological and cognitive approaches to tracking the dynamics of tourist motivation, which, for example, is followed by P. L. Pearce and Lee (2005) and Filep and Greenacre (2007). Cohen (1972, 1979a) contended that tourist motivation is constructed within, as well as by social structures and relationships, which is tested by a couple of studies (e.g., Basala & Klenosky, 2001; Keng & Cheng, 1999; Mo, Havitz, & Howard, 1994; Snepenger, 1987; Waller & Lea, 1998). However, two typical concerns remain when these models are treated separately for empirical investigations. First, it might be insufficient to interpret tourist motivation as well as to explain tourist behavior by resting on a single theoretical paradigm (Dann, 1981; Harrill & Potts, 2002; Jamal & Lee, 2003). This concern that has been articulated over the pushpull framework equally applies to these three motivation paradigms. Second, despite adopting a multidisciplinary approach, are these models interrelated and consistent in explaining tourist motivation and travel behavior? There has long been an advocate for integrating different tourist motivation models not only to provide solutions to theoretical dilemmas but also, empirically, for reconciling the conflicting interpretations of motivation (e.g., Dann, 1981). Efforts have been devoted in this direction to synthesizing as well as testing these models in a way that uncovers the multidisciplinary nature of tourism studies (Harrill & Potts, 2002; Jamal & Lee, 2003; Lam & Vong, 2009). For instance, Jamal and Lee (2003) sketched a so-called micromacro framework of tourist motivation that integrates a number of social psychological and sociological motivation models, including those by P. L. Pearce (1988), MacCannell (1973), and Cohen (1972, 1979a, 1979b). Nevertheless, previous research in this regard, including Jamal and Lees (2003) framework, is descriptive in nature, failing to penetrate into the fundamental logic that may underlie these models, namely, the mechanism by which tourist motivation derives and evolves. In fact, these three models are not only competing due to their distinct theoretical underpinnings but also are complementary, which remains largely unexplored both theoretically and empirically. This study proceeds as follows. The following section presents an integrated motivation framework aiming at drawing linkages among these three motivation models with respect to their explanations of tourist behavior. The next section applies the integrated motivation framework to two typical and distinct contexts in which tourist behavior is commonly interpreted. The first context delineates tourist flows from the origin to the destination, a situation within which these three motivation models are developed. The second one portrays tourist behavior within a destination, a prominent example of which is the case of city destinations. This context is meaningful yet largely ignored in these motivation models. We apply the integrated framework to both, aiming to examine to what extent tourist motivation and behavior can be accounted by the integrated framework. The final section concludes.

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

124

Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher

Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms

Though different approaches have been adopted to model tourist motivation, classifying tourists in a number of typologies can be found in these three motivation models. Cohens (1972) work, among others, is apparent in this regard, suggesting four types based on degrees of familiarity and strangeness that tourists experienced. They are the organized mass tourist, individual mass tourist, explorer, and drifter, with the highest level of familiarity and of strangeness experienced by the organized mass tourist and the drifter, respectively. Plog (1974, 2001) identified five types through a spectrum of individual personality, including the venturer (allocentric), near venturer (near allocentric), mid-centric, near dependable (near psychocentric), and dependable (psychocentric). P. L. Pearce (1988) did not intend to classify tourists, though we can infer from his work a need-oriented tourist typology that consists of five types of tourists, respectively seeking relaxation, stimulation, relationship, self-esteem/development, and fulfillment.

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Rationale for the Model These typologies set a fundamental basis on which these motivation paradigms can be integrated. Specifically, we expect to detect some common behavior patterns shared by, for example, the venturer, fulfillment, and the drifter, respectively, in the models of Plog (1974), P. L. Pearce (1988), and Cohen (1972). In particular, the inclusion of personality in tourist motivation by Plog (1974, 2001) opened up an opportunity to explain tourist behavior from its ultimate impetus and lay a basis for this integration as well. What drives individuals to travel is not because travel is a means to satisfy a need but because of travel per se. Because personality is relatively stable, tourist motivation is more fundamental in Plogs (1974, 2001) model than in a number of models associated with the pushpull framework. In this sense, the present study constructs a link to bridge the disciplinary gaps among these three motivation paradigms by starting with travel personality (Figure 1). This link follows that personality determines motivation, which in turn determines tourist behavior. Specifically, travel personality is modeled as a fundamental force by which travel career and the interactions between tourists and the destination are determined.

Interpreting the Model The interrelationships among these three motivation paradigms are constructed by starting from Plogs (1974) travel personality (Figure 1). This can be justified by referring to Plogs (1974, 2001) view that travel personality seems to be a meta-motivation or a premise by which other motivation paradigms and tourist behavior patterns can be discussed. Travel personality can be applied to other forms of consumption, such as media choosing (Plog, 1974), and importantly can be viewed as a fundamental force in determining holistic consumer behavior patterns from motivation through to decision. Thus, travel personality goes beyond the tourism field, and an attempt can be made to generalize it to all types of human behavior. As Plog (2001, p. 14) put it, we explored their [the respondents being researched] life histories from childhood to the present to determine common patterns or psychological characteristics. This model, however, does not take account of the life stage of individualsthe central concern of P. L. Pearce

Journal of China Tourism Research

125

Venturer

Fulfillment

Near venturer

Self-esteem/Development

Strangeness

Mid-centric

Relationship

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Near dependable

Stimulation Familiarity

Dependable

Relaxation

Travel Personality

Travel Career Ladder

StrangenessFamiliarity

Figure 1. Integrated motivation framework.

(1988, 1993)and the social context and relationshipswhich Cohen (1972, 1979a) considered. Clearly, P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) and Cohens (1972) typologies of tourists can be thought to fit, at least roughly, into the spectrum of Plogs (1974) travel personality. P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) relaxation, stimulation, relationship, self-esteem and development, and fulfillment tourists correspond to Plogs (2001) dependable, near dependable, mid-centric, near venturer, and venturer types. So do Cohens (1972) organized mass tourist, individual mass tourist, explorer, and drifter. A similar relationship can also be drawn between P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) and Cohens (1972) typologies. Notably, Cohens (1972) individual mass tourist and explorer can be represented by Plogs (1974) mid-centric or P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) relationship tourist, because Cohen (1972) did not propose the mid-role; instead he argued that the typology is flexible, which can be determined by both an individuals preferences and the institutional setting of his trip. In this sense, Cohens (1972) tourist typology can be partially traced back to Plogs (1974) travel personality in its concern with the individuals psychology as well as being determined by the institutional and social context of, for instance, whether an organized package tour is taken.

What Drives People to Travel: Implications From the Integrated Motivation Framework
Implications for Tourist Motivation Studies The integrated motivation framework indicates that tourist motivation can be investigated in a dynamic and comprehensive fashion. Researchers can simultaneously

126

Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

investigate a number of psychological, cognitive, and sociological factors that may affect tourist motivation and behavior. This is perhaps unavailable in previous motivation models. For instance, interpreting tourist motivation from a psychological perspective such as in the pushpull framework requires controlling for the effect of sociological factors, such as whether individuals are mass tourists or not. This implicit assumption of controlling one dimension of motivation to underscore another can be found in a number of empirical studies. For example, Waller and Lea (1998) ruled out the effects of personality and travel experience when examining authenticity in tourist motivation; Filep and Greenacre (2007) ignored the difference between mass tourists and the drifter in discussing travel experience. The integrated framework contributes to relaxing this assumption and allows researchers to examine the interplay of these motivation paradigms simultaneously. Though this framework may reconcile theoretical disputes among distinct disciplines such as those between psychology and sociology, it may cause inconsistencies when different empirical contexts are considered. We apply this framework to examine tourist behavior with respect to tourist flows from the origin to the destination and tourist movements within a destination or, specifically, a city. The first context is dominant in developing tourist motivation models exemplified by the pushpull framework. It is taken for granted in this framework that the destination represents the pull factors of tourist motivation, whereas characteristics of individual tourists represent the push factors (Crompton, 1979). However, at a destination such as in a city with a complex of economic, cultural, and historical attractions and heritages, tourist behavior may demonstrate a pattern other than those indicated by, for example, the distance decaying effect from the origin to the destination. Tourist behavior might be determined by the complex of a city, and this deserves a shift of attention from tourist flows between two geographical locations to tourist movements within a destination, in particular, a city. Tourist Flows From the Origin to the Destination The integrated motivation framework suggests somewhat theoretical consistence in explaining tourist motivation irrespective of what disciplinary perspective is taken. This consistence can be reaffirmed by applying this framework to explain various tourist behavior patterns, including tourists destination choices, travel experiences, and reactions to distance (distance decaying effects). These tourist behavior patterns are of great relevance to travel personality, the travel career ladder, and distance decaying effects, respectively, and can be accounted for by the integrated motivation framework (Figure 2). Analysis of these tourist behavior patterns proceeds by operationalizing destination choice, travel experience, and distance decaying effects as follows. Destinations are classified by referring to Plogs (1974, 2001) destination life cycle model into the dependable, near dependable, mid-centric, near venturer, and venturer destinations; travel experience is simply represented by first-time visitors and repeat visitors who differ in this regard; and distance decaying effects are operationalized as to whether tourists take a long- or short-haul, culturally different or similar trips (Figure 2). Destination Choice Travel personality is most closely related to destination choice (Figure 2), because a destination, at each stage in its development, attracts particular types of travelers whose personalities are identical. In other words, the destination evolves over time as the

Journal of China Tourism Research

127

Venturer

Fulfillment

Venturer

Repeat

Longhaul/ culturally different

Near venturer

Self-esteem/ Development

Strangeness

Mid-centric

Relationship

Near dependable

Stimulation Familiarity
Shorthaul/ culturally similar

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Dependable

Relaxation

Dependable

First-time

Travel Personality

Travel Career Ladder

StrangenessFamiliarity Travel experience

Tourist Behavior Patterns

Destination choice

Distance decay

Figure 2. Integrated motivation framework and tourist behavior patterns.

profiles of its travelers change with respect to personality. In his latest paper, Plog (2001) placed 79 destinations on a psychographic curve based on the types of people who visit them the most, giving each a psychographic position with respect to personality. This psychographic position represents the personality of the destination. Destination choice thus turns out to be simple and straightforward within Plogs (1974, 2001) framework: The venturer is always keen to discover a new place and in doing so turns it into a destination, followed by the visit of the near venturer, midcentric, near dependable, and dependable. Thus, the destination is given birth by the venturer, matures when the mid-centric type comes, and finally ages to decline once overrun by the dependables. This indicates that destination choice is virtually a process by which tourists automatically sort themselves into a variety of homogenous personality groups that match well with destinations psychographic positions. P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) tourist typology also follows a similar destination choice pattern, though for different reasons. Because the TCL is used to capture the dynamics of an individuals motivation and needs throughout his life span, he tends to choose a familiar or short-haul destination (the dependable destination in Plogs [1974, 2001] framework) when commencing his travel career and then switches, in sequence, to the near dependable, mid-centric, near venturer, and venturer destinations (Figure 2). At his highest travel career level (fulfillment) he becomes eager to explore any new place, most likely the venturer destination. This inference seems theoretically sound but cannot yet be empirically supported. Even worse, a number of studies have showed that rest and relaxation, which best represents young peoples motivation in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) model, is indeed the dominant motivation for seniors (e.g., Fleischer & Pizam, 2002; Horneman, Carter, Wei, & Ruys, 2002;

128

Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Huang & Tsai, 2003). This indicates that taking a short-haul trip or choosing a dependable destination can satisfy individuals needs as well even if they have been at the highest travel career level. Cohen (1972) went further. In his framework, the drifter, explorer, individual mass tourist, and organized mass tourist roughly attach to Plogs (1974, 2001) destination life cycle from venturer through to dependable, but the two types of institutionalized tourist may occasionally choose near venturer or venturer destinations; similarly, the noninstitutionalized may occasionally choose near dependable or dependable destinations (Figure 2). This is plausible because Cohen (1972) emphasized the relationships between tourists and both business establishments and the destination rather than merely on the destination itself. Tourists therefore can get close, geographically, to a venturer destination by utilizing various tourist establishments, for example, taking a package holiday (in the case of mass tourists), or approach the authenticity of a dependable destination by abandoning all tourist establishments (in the case of the drifter). This suggests that what matters to Cohens (1972) tourist typology in destination choice is not the geographical proximity of the destination but tourists relationships with the destination.

Travel Experience P. L. Pearce (1988) pointed out that travel experience is the fundamental force that drives tourists to ascend the travel career ladder to achieve self-actualization. Thus, the relaxation tourist might be a first-time visitor, whereas the fulfillment seeker might be the most frequent repeat visitor, with those who seek stimulation, relationships, and self-esteem and development sitting in between depending on the amount of travel experience they have accumulated (Figure 2). This is undoubtedly true when Plogs (1974, 2001) and Cohens (1972) typologies are examined. The dependable tends to be the first-time visitor, and the venturer is possibly the repeat visitor who has accumulated plenty of travel experiences through discovering one destination after another (Figure 2). In Cohens (1972) work, the organized mass tourist tends to be a first-time visitor, because he is fearful of travel and strangeness, remaining largely confined to his own culture throughout his trip (Figure 2). The drifter differs significantly from the mass tourist and even the explorer, in being the visitor with substantial experiences especially in regard to authenticity. However, the validity of these arguments might be questioned because travel experience is an ambiguous concept across these three frameworks and lacks a rigorous definition even in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) work. In spite of its critical importance to P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) TCL, travel experience is simplified as a proxy of a persons life span or age, measured in empirical studies by three variables of domestic, international travel experience, and age (P. L. Pearce, 2005). Filep and Greenacre (2007) extended the travel career patterns model by redefining travel experience to encompass travel frequency, the number of destinations visited, and the amount of time spent at the destination. Another dimension of travel experience that is captured neither by P. L. Pearce (1988, 2005) nor by Filep and Greenacre (2007) is authenticity. This dimension stands out when it comes to Cohens (1972, 1979a, 1979b) works, because he followed Boorstin (1964) and MacCannell (1973) in discussing tourism in relation to social structures. What tourists have experienced is exclusively either illusoriness or authenticity. Cohen (1972) dissolved this paradox by decomposing the holistic image of

Journal of China Tourism Research

129

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

tourists into different types, each of which may experience some degree of illusoriness or authenticity. Travel experience thus can vary by tourist types. For example, the mass tourist might confront more illusoriness, whereas the drifter might experience more authenticity. Travel experience, in this sense, is not a matter of where tourists are in their life cycle or how frequently they travel; instead, it is really concerned with the depth of travel and their contact with and involvement in the destination. It is plausible that a repeat visitor may have superficial travel experience, whereas a first-time visitor may have plenty of travel experience in terms of authenticity. The former can be exemplified by mass tourists, who may travel a lot but are isolated from authenticity of the destination, whereas the latter can be represented by the drifter, who may travel less but is completely exposed to the destination and experiences authenticity as a result. This argument is supported by Waller and Lea (1998), who reported that package tourists (mass tourists) experienced little authenticity relative to those in a noninstitutionalized setting such as in an independent tour. The general pattern that repeat visitors resemble the drifter and first-time visitors resemble mass tourists still holds (Figure 2).

Distance Decaying Effects Distance decay is a core concept in geography, examining the role of distance in the interactions of origins and destinations (Gaile & Willmott, 1984). Distance, which is initially defined with respect to its geographical dimension, is represented in tourism as a composite variable of time plus financial constraints (Bull, 1995). Cohen (1988) redefined distance beyond these tangible constraints to include tourists own values, customs, and lifestyles that may separate tourists from the destination. This dimension of distance is what Cohen (1988, p. 31) referred to as the environmental bubble, which may impede tourists, especially the drifter, from breaking through their familiar environment to experience novelty and authenticity; on the other hand, the environmental bubble can protect tourists, such as mass tourists, from being completely exposed to a strange destination that indicates potential risks. The role of the environmental bubble was verified by Changs (2009) study in which tourists tend to seek novelty and simultaneously avoid risks, the degree of which may vary from organized tourists to explorers. Though physical distance is of little importance to Cohens (1972) framework, it does affect the spatial distribution of Cohens (1972) tourist typologies. Physical distance can sort tourists with respect to their types into different destinations, leading to an uneven distribution of tourist arrivals from the near destination to the distant (McKercher, 1998; McKercher, Chan, & Lam, 2008; McKercher & Lew, 2004). Specifically, the mass tourist will normally travel less as distance increases, because the farther he is away from his familiar environment, the more threats and risks he will encounter (Figure 2). The drifter behaves oppositely: The farther the destination is away from the origin, the more likely he is to visit there, because distance results in novelty (Figure 2). However, the drifter may occasionally visit short-haul destinations as long as in doing so he can immerse himself in the destination and experience authenticity. Consequently, tourists tend to accumulate disproportionately more at short-haul destinations, including not only mass tourists but also the explorer and the drifter, and less at long-haul destinations with exclusively the drifter. This represents the

130

Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

notion of distance decay in tourism, namely that tourist arrivals decline exponentially as distance increases (McKercher, Chan, & Lam, 2008). This is also true for Plogs (1974, 2001) tourist typology. The dependable tends to confine himself to short-haul destinations, whereas the venturer takes relatively long trips (Figure 2). The rest of the types (the near dependable, mid-centric, and near venturer) fall somewhere between the short- and long-haul destinations as distance increases (Figure 2). The rationale for Plogs (1974, 2001) framework that reconciles to the theory of distance decay is that travel personality is assumed to be normally distributed in the tourist population, with a slight skew toward venturesomeness. Thus, a huge number of tourists, represented by the in-between personalities, will accumulate at destinations between short- and long-haul, whereas quite a small number will distribute themselves at the short- and long-haul destinations. The latter group comprises the dependable and the venturer, who, according to Plog (2001), account for 2.5% and 4% of the population, respectively. The concept of distance decay seems inappropriate to extend to the travel career ladder. This is because the TCL is essentially a diachronic approach, failing to capture, synchronically, the distribution of the relaxation, stimulation, relationship, self-esteem and development, and fulfillment levels as distance increases. However, if the life span of an individual is taken into account, the distance decaying effect can be reinterpreted as follows: short-haul tourists might be young and first-time visitors with little travel experience, whereas long-haul tourists are more likely to be the elderly and repeat visitors (Figure 2). The reason is that the distant destination best serves the fulfillment goal of the elderly and the experienced, whereas the surrounding destination allows young people to relax and be stimulated. Despite slightly offending against common sense that the elderly may travel less, this contention is supported by Bao and McKerchers (2008) study, which examined Hong Kong inbound tourists and found that the short-haul tourists (Taiwanese, Thai, and Koreans) were substantially younger (10 years) than the long-haul tourists (Australians and Americans). Tourists Behave Within a Destination: The Case of City Destinations This integrated framework can be generalized to any specific contexts, including urban tourism and city destinations. The validity of this framework, though, might be questioned when it comes to a city destination. This is because these three motivation paradigms that underlie the integrated framework are developed in a context in which tourist flows from the origin to the destination are highlighted. This is also the context within which the pushpull framework is developed. Crompton (1979) argued that the destination simply represents the pull factors of tourist motivation compared to the push factors that arise on an individual level. We apply the integrated framework to city destinations because they are more a cultural complex encompassing museums, historical heritages, and modern lifestyles (e.g., D. G. Pearce, 2001; Roche, 1992) than a geographical location away from the origin (e.g., Leiper, 1979). In this sense, the city destination matters to tourists not because of distance, which provides novelty, but because of its cultural agglomeration, which satisfies a variety of tourist needs. Destination as a Cultural Complex A city as a destination is more complex than it is in Leipers (1979) tourism system model, in which tourism is simply a two-way exchange. In this regard, travel is

Journal of China Tourism Research

131

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

portrayed as a journey departing from the origin and returning from the destination, within which the destination signifies a geographical location compared to the origin. That is, the destination is a dimension to measure the distance that a tourist travels from the origin, a setting where the concept of distance decay best applies. D. G. Pearce (2001) advanced this line of research and proposed a scale for the destination, which is classified into four levels, namely, regional/national/international, city, district, and site level. According to D. G. Pearce (2001), cities as a complex commonly include four qualities, which are social and cultural heterogeneity, economic multifunction, physical centrality, and high physical densities of structures, people, and functions. This allows researchers to examine how tourists behave within a city with respect to different cultural attractions, historical heritages, and modern tourism facilities. According to Cohens (1972) tourist typology, mass tourists are more likely to travel to a city than a rural destination because their travel activities rely much upon travel-related facilities such as hotels, restaurants, and transportation. These facilities can be provided by a city, especially where tourism is the major economy. In contrast, explorers or drifters intentionally deviate from cities to travel to some places without tourist facilities provided. However, an exception might be that drifters probably travel to a city to be involved in the life of local people and experience different cultures. P. L. Pearce (1988, 1993) argued that tourists accumulate travel experience and thereby change motivations by visiting a variety of destinations during their life spans, which is, however, impossible within a particular destination. If we take a synchronic perspective, a city destination can accommodate all tourist types that P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) framework suggests because a city is a multifunctional entity that provides relaxation activities as well as the fulfillment amenities such as museums and concerts. In Plogs (1974, 2001) framework, the dependable may explore the destination by circling around his hotel, whereas the venturer may take a longer trip, deviating from the hotel as far as possible, resembling the concentric exploration pattern suggested by Lew and McKercher (2006).

Hierarchical Travel Experience Travel experience is the core concept in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) motivation framework, which results in hierarchical motivations. The assumption that underlies P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) framework is that tourists need to accumulate their travel experiences over time before stepping from the lower ladder (level) to the higher one. Because the destination in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) framework is largely a geographical location that distinguishes from others with respect to distance, tourists have to travel to a number of destinations to make a change in their motivation. However, tourists may fulfill their hierarchical motivations within a city because cities in their own right are multifunctional. D. G. Pearce (2001) argued in this regard that the demand for urban tourism is not represented by tourist flows from the origin to the destination but, specifically, is in relation to different functions of a city and therefore is multipurpose in nature. It may follow that the relaxation tourists find the most interest, for instance, in shopping venues and night clubs, whereas fulfillment is found in museums and cultural activities. Evidence of this argument can be found in JansenVerbeke and van Rekom (1996), in which tourist motivation is hierarchical for visiting a museum; the core motivationfood for thoughtis analogous to self-actualization/fulfillment in P. L. Pearces (1993, p. 127) framework.

132

Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher

It is possible that in Plogs (1974, 2001) framework the venturer may acquire more travel experience than the dependable because the movements of the venturer are more diverse than those of the dependable. This also means that the venturer will visit a large number of attractions available in a city. In contrast, the dependable may take a guided tour or a tour package in a city destination, which may facilitate travel but, of course, impede contacts with the city and local people. This type of travel results in what Boorstin (1964) regarded as the illusoriness of travel experience. This is also true when taking into account Cohens (1972) framework, in which mass tourists can increase their travel experience in terms of quantity by visiting one attraction after another within a city, but the quality or the depth of travel is relatively shallow; the drifter, however, may selectively visit a couple of attractions such as cultural heritages and local communities from which he believes he can obtain authenticity.

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Tourist Spatial Pattern Within a City Distance accounts for tourist flows from the origin to the destination as well as between two destinations. Nevertheless, it has little influence on tourist behavior within a destination in terms of both transportation cost and time budget. Thus, we may not detect a distance decaying pattern for tourist movements within a destination or a city. What determines the spatial distribution of tourists in city destinations is the density and distribution of attractions. Leiper (1990) proposed an idea of attraction system to illustrate the role of attractions, suggesting that a city may encompass both principal attractions and surrounding attractions. Principal attractions can exert a great influence on tourists and therefore result in disproportionately larger tourist arrivals than surrounding ones. Principal attractions of this kind may include the major museums and cultural and historical heritage sites that best represent a citys identity and image (Dadgostar & Isotalo, 1996; Jansen-Verbeke & van Rekom, 1996; Mommaas, 2004). Therefore, tourists probably cluster around the location of principal attractions regardless of their types. Though physical distance does not matter to the distribution of tourists within a city, cultural distance does. Cultural distance may be represented by social and cultural heterogeneities within a city, suggesting the multicultural nature of a city. In this sense, the venturer in Plogs (1974, 2001) framework may approach distinct cultures to experience novelty, whereas the dependable may approach those cultures that are similar to his own to reduce cultural conflicts. In P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) framework, relaxation tourists are more likely to experience similar cultures than fulfillment tourists. In Cohens (1972) framework, mass tourists, in principle, can experience a variety of cultures that are available in a city, but such experience is relatively shallow. This is because mass tourists are protected by their own cultures on the one hand, and, on the other, are impeded by tourist establishments from being completely involved in the local community. The drifter, in contrast, exclusively explores distinct cultures by which he can uncover the significance of his own culture. This suggests that the spatial distribution of tourists can be determined by the heterogeneity of cultures in a city, which reaffirms that a city as a destination goes beyond the scope of its geographical location with respect to the origin.

Conclusion
Insofar as tourism has been discussed extensively on a multidisciplinary basis (Jafari & Ritchie, 1981), from an indisciplinary perspective (Tribe, 1997), or even as a chaotic

Journal of China Tourism Research

133

system (McKercher, 1999), these three works have defined, from their own standpoints, the limits and scope within which we can talk about tourism as it currently stands. Plogs (1974, 2001) work highlights the aspects of personality that drive people to travel and thereby determine the life cycle of a destination. The inclusion of travel personality in explaining tourist behavior differs from the conventional interpretations in which individuals are assumed homogenous with respect to personality. Relaxing this assumption allows researchers to simultaneously investigate the interactions between individuals psychological attributes and cognitive patterns within a social context. The integrated motivation framework is expected to serve this purpose. Plog (1974, 2001) went too far to make his model realistic, because he presumed that personality determines not only tourist behavior but the evolution of destinations. Destination personality might be an analogy for the destination image that we talk of today or the concept of brand personality proposed in marketing, but the development, evolution, or life cycle of a destination is too complex to be accommodated within a personality framework. P. L. Pearce (1988, 1993) contended that tourist motivation is driven by a learning process by which tourists accumulate experience that simulates higher levels of motivation. Thus, individuals life stages determine their travel experiences and motivations. The definition of travel experience in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) work is quite ambiguous and simplified, making his theory far from robust. Even in P. L. Pearce and Lee (2005), the most important motivationsnovelty, escape/relax, and relationship cannot be explained by travel experience. P. L. Pearce and Lee (2005, p. 235) concluded by saying that these three dimensions of motivation function as the core factors in all travel motivation patterns regardless of travel experience level. What Cohen (1972, 1979a, 1979b, 1984) attempted to interpret is tourism as a modern social phenomenon. In his framework, tourists, consumption, and the tourism industry as a whole represent social relationships and interactions in modern society. In light of this, his model is perhaps of little relevance to tourist behavior as we normally discuss it. The validity of the integrated framework lies in the fact that tourist behavior with respect to destination choices, travel experience, and distance decay is of theoretical consistence, especially in the context that addresses tourist flows from the origin to the destination. City destinations as a cultural complex provide a unique scenario to test the integrated framework with respect to tourist movements within a destination. Findings in this regard suggest that tourists have demonstrated behavior patterns other than those identified regarding tourist flows. This theoretical exercise commences as a response to the unilateral stance in interpreting tourist motivation by relying on a single piece of theory. This concern has been clearly expressed by Dann (1981), who claimed that we may deviate from truly understanding how tourists act and how the tourism system works because a stereotype of view is forming in defending ones own theories. It would be appropriate to take a comprehensive perspective on this, in the sense that tourist behavior can be interpreted on an individual level by applying travel personality, in a diachronic dimension by the TCL, and from a holistic perspective by the strangenessfamiliarity and environmental bubble ideas.

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments. We are grateful to participants at the 8th Asia Pacific Forum for Graduate Students Research in Tourism for their insightful discussion and comments. Financial assistance from the

134

Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher

School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University is acknowledged.

References
Bao, Y. F., & McKercher, B. (2008). The effect of distance on tourism in Hong Kong: A comparison of short haul and long haul visitors. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(2), 101111. Basala, S. L., & Klenosky, D. B. (2001). Travel-style preferences for visiting a novel destination: A conjoint investigation across the novelty-familiarity continuum. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 172182. Boorstin, D. J. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York, NY: Harper. Bull, A. (1995). The economics of travel and tourism. South Melbourne, Australia: Longman. Chang, S. (2009). Australians holiday decisions in China: A study combining novelty-seeking and risk-perception behaviors. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(4), 364387. Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39(1), 164182. Cohen, E. (1979a). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179201. Cohen, E. (1979b). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1), 1835. Cohen, E. (1984). The sociology of tourism: Approaches, issues, and findings. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 373392. Cohen, E. (1988). Traditions in the qualitative sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(1), 2946. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408424. Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425439. Dadgostar, B., & Isotalo, R. M. (1996). Content of city destination image for near-home tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 3(2), 2534. Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4), 184194. Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 187219. Filep, S., & Greenacre, L. (2007). Evaluating and extending the travel career patterns model. Original Scientific Paper, 55(1), 2338. Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (2002). Tourism constraints among Israeli seniors. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 106123. Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 555581. Gaile, G. L., & Willmott, C. J. (1984). Spatial statistics and models. Hong Kong SAR, China: Springer. Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283304. Goossens, C. (2000). Tourism information and pleasure motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 301321. Harrill, R., & Potts, T. D. (2002). Social psychological theories of tourist motivation: Exploration, debate, and transition. Tourism Analysis, 7, 105114. Horneman, L., Carter, R. W., Wei, S., & Ruys, H. (2002). Profiling the senior traveler: An Australian perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 2337. Huang, L., & Tsai, H. (2003). The study of senior traveler behavior in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 24(5), 561574. Jafari, J., & Ritchie, B. (1981). Toward a framework for tourism education: Problems and prospects. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(1), 1334. Jamal, T., & Lee, J. (2003). Integrating micro and macro approaches to tourist motivations: Toward an interdisciplinary theory. Tourism Analysis, 8(1), 4759.

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Journal of China Tourism Research

135

Jang, S., & Cai, L. A. (2002). Travel motivations and destination choice: A study of British outbound market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 13(3), 111132. Jang, S., & Wu, C. E. (2006). Seniors travel motivation and the influential factors: An examination of Taiwanese seniors. Tourism Management, 27(2), 306316. Jansen-Verbeke, M., & van Rekom, J. (1996). Scanning museum visitors: Urban tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 364375. Josiam, B. M., Huang, T., Spears, D. L., Kennon, L., & Bahulkar, G. A. (2009). Understanding ethnic Chinese travelers on North American cruise tours: Motivations, perceptions, and satisfaction of cruisers. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(1), 77101. Keng, K. A., & Cheng, J. L. L. (1999). Determining tourist role typologies: An exploratory study of Singapore vacationers. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), 382390. Kim, S. S., Lee, C., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors at Korean national parks. Tourism Management, 24(2), 169180. Lam, C., & Vong, T. (2009). Macao: The gambling paradiseProfiling the roles and motives of customers. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(4), 388400. Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourist industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 390407. Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist attraction systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 367384. Lew, A., & McKercher, B. (2006). Modeling tourist movements: A local destination analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 403423. MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589603. Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314331. McKercher, B. (1998). The effect of market access on destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 37(1), 3947. McKercher, B. (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Management, 20(4), 425434. McKercher, B., Chan, A., & Lam, C. (2008). The impact of distance on international tourist movements. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 208224. McKercher, B., & Lew, A. A. (2004). Tourist flows and the spatial distribution of tourists. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 3648). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Mo, C., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Segmenting travel markets with the international tourism role (ITR) scale. Journal of Travel Research, 33(1), 2431. Mommaas, H. (2004). Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: Towards the remapping of urban cultural policy. Urban Studies, 41(3), 507532. Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. L. (2004). Life cycle, tourist motivation and transport: Some consequences for the tourist experience. In L. Lumsdon & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism and transport: Issues and agenda for the new millennium (pp. 2943). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Pearce, D. G. (2001). An integrative framework for urban tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 926946. Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist settings. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Pearce, P. L. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In D. G. Pearce & R. W. Butler (Eds.), Tourism research: Critiques and challenges (pp. 113134). London, UK: Routledge. Pearce, P. L. (1996). Recent research in tourist behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1), 717. Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist behaviour: Themes and conceptual schemes. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications. Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travelers experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 1620. Pearce, P. L., & Lee, U. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 226237.

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

136

Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 06:54 09 July 2011

Pearce, P. L., & Stringer, P. F. (1991). Psychology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(1), 136154. Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14(4), 5558. Plog, S. C. (1994). Developing and using psychographics in tourism research. In J. R. B. Ritchie & C. R. Goeldner (Eds.), Travel, tourism, and hospitality research: A handbook for managers and researchers (pp. 209218). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Plog, S. C. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: An update of a Cornell Quarterly classic. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 1324. Plog, S. C. (2002). The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 244251. Plog, S. C. (2006). One mo, once: A commentary on the Litvin paper on the Plog psychographic system. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 254259. Prentice, R. (2004). Tourist motivation and typologies. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 261279). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Roche, M. (1992). Mega-events and micro-modernization: On the sociology of the new urban tourism. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(4), 563600. Ryan, C. (1998). The travel career ladder: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 936957. Snepenger, D. J. (1987). Segmenting the vacation market by novelty-seeking role. Journal of Travel Research, 26(2), 814. Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638657. Waller, J., & Lea, S. E. G. (1998). Seeking the real Spain? Authenticity in motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(1), 110129. Wolfe, K., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2004). An application of the social psychological model of tourism motivation. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 5(1), 2947. Wu, J., Xu, J., & Erdogan, E. H. (2009). Investigating the push and pull motivation of visiting domestic destinations in China: A meansend approach. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(3), 287315.