This chapter consists of three parts. First is introduction, next is literature reviews that review the critical points of previous researches including substantive finding as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to this similar topic. Lastly, a conclusion to this chapter.
Research in the area of travel motives is important in understanding and predicting the factors that influence travel decision-making (Cha, S., McCleary, K.W. and Uysal, M., 1995). Motivation is theoretically viewed as ‘a state of need, a condition that serves as a driving force to display different kinds of behavior toward certain types of activities, developing preferences, arriving at some expected satisfactory outcome. (Backman, K.F. Backman, S.J., Uysal, M. and Sunshine, K.M.,1995)’ In particular, an understanding of motivation assist marketers’ efforts to achieve and satisfy individuals’ diverse desires and needs, key elements that influence the process of travelers’ decision-making (Crompton,J.L. and McKay S.L.,1997). Studies of motivation thus provide to predict traveler’s personal needs, expectations, achievements, or benefits sought (Formica,S. and Uysal, M.,1998).
Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
A brief review of travel motivation research (Table 1) published in three major tourism journals – Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, and Journal of Travel Research – revealed that existing studies have covered a wide range of the spectrum, there are included the sociology of travel motivation as a stimulator of actual behavior (Dann 1977; Mansfeld 1992); travel motivation of different niche markets (Clift and Forrest 1999; Dunn Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991; Hsu, Cai, and Wong 2007; Maoz 2007; Qu and Ping 1999; Rittichainuwat 2008); the development or empirical test of travel motivation measurements (Crompton 1979; Dann 1981; Fodness 1994; Ryan and Glendon 1998); differences in motivation among tourists with varied nationality and cultural backgrounds (Kim and Prideaux 2005; Maoz 2007), number of visits (Lau and McKercher 2004), destinations and origins (Kozak 2002), sociodemographic characteristic (Jang and Wu 2006; Fleischer and Pizam 2002), or environmental attitude (Luo and Deng 2008).
Authors
Study
Dann 1977
A sociological study of travel motivation, with a focus on the push dimension of motivation.
Crompton 1979
The motivation for pleasure vacation. Seven motivation factors were identified through interviews.
Dann 1981
Based on a literature review on travel motivation, seven approaches of motivation study were identified. The utilization of different terminologies was also discussed
Dunn Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991
Motivation of sightseeing tourists in relation to their satisfaction
Mansfeld 1992
The role of motivation in travel behavior and its complex nature
Paul 1992
Travel motivation of Canadian ecotourists
Parrinello 1993
Relationship between anticipation and motivation in postindustrial societies in the context of Western Europe
Fodness 1994
A measurement scale was developed for leisure travel with 20 items.
Lieux, weaver; and McCleary 1994
Benefit segmentation of senior tourists from the United States
Gnoth 1997
Development of theoretical model on motivation and expectation formation
Formica and Uysal 1998
Benefit segmentation of visitors to a cultural-historical event in Italy
Ryan and Glendon 1998
The Leisure Motivation Scale was applied to tourism with British holidaymakers. An abbreviated version of holiday motivation scale with 14 items was developed.
Waller and Lea 1998
Relationship between authenticity seeking and enjoyment. The knowledge dimension of motivation was found to mediate this relationship.
Clift and Forrest 1999
The motivation of gay men in relation to the type of destinations they preferred in the context of the United Kingdom
Qu and Ping 1999
Motivation of cruise selection in the context of Hong Kong
Goossens 2000
The role of emotional component of travel motivation in stimulating actual travel behavior
Fleischer and Pizam 2002
Relationship between motivation and Israeli senior travelers’ income and health
Kozak 2002
Differences of motivation among tourists visiting different destinations and tourist from different countries visiting same destination with respondents from the United Kingdom and Germany
Sirakaya, Uysal, and Yoshioka 2003
Benefits segmentation of Japanese tourists to Turkey
Lau and McKercher
Differences of travel motivation between first-time and repeat visitors to Hong Kong
Kim and Prideaux 2005
A cross-cultural analysis on travel motivation to South Korea among five national tourist groups
Pearce and Lee 2005
Further development of the Travel Career Ladder by introducing Travel Career Pattern (TCP). The relationship between previous experience and motivation was explored by TCP.
Yoon and Uysal 2005
Causal relationship between push-pull motivations, satisfaction, and destination loyalty. Pull factors were found to negatively influence satisfaction.
Jang and Wu 2006
Influences of sociodemographic factors, economic status, health status, and positive and negative effects on travel motivation among Taiwanese seniors
Chang, wall, and Chu 2006
Benefits segmentation using the novelty seeking scale in the context of Taiwanese tourists to aboriginal attractions
Nicolau and Mas 2006
Influences of travel distance and price on destination selection, with travel motivation as a moderator in the context of Spain
Poria, Reichel, and Biran 2006
Relationship between perception of heritage as it is related to the tourists’ own heritage and motivation explored before the trip
Snerpenger et al. 2006
Tourists and recreationist were comparing using Iso-Ahola’s motivation theory. The relationship between motivation and previous vacations was investigated.
Swanson and Horridge 2006
Causal relationship between souvenir shopping and four motivational factors in the context of Southwestern United States
Beh and Bruyere 2007
Benefits segmentation in the context of Kenya
Hsu, Cai, and Wong 2007
A theoretical model of senior travel motivation in the context of China
Maoz 2007
Travel motivation of Israeli backpackers, investigated in relation to national and cultural characteristics
Luo and Deng 2008
Relationship between environmental attitude and nature-based tourism motivation
Rittichainuwat 2008
Travel motivation to a tourism destination, using the disaster-hit beach resort in Phuket as an example. Comparison was made between domestic and inbound tourists, and between tourists of different ages and genders.
Park and Yoon 2009
Benefit segmentation of rural tourism in the context of South Korea
Table1. Brief Summary of Studies on Travel Motivation
(Adopted from Cathy H.C. Hsu, Liping A. Cai and Mimi Li, 2009)
Many researchers from different fields such as from sociology, anthropology, and psychology have investigated travel motivation since many years ago (Cohen, 1972; Dann, 1977; Crompton, 1979; Gnoth, 1997). Maslow’s hierarchical theory of motivation was one of the most applied in tourism literature (1970) and it was model as a pyramid whose base consists of the physiological needs, followed by higher levels of psychological needs and the need for self-actualization. Numerous tourism scholars have attempted to modify the model empirically, with the notable success by Pearce (1982), who projected a tourism motivation model that mirrors the model of Maslow, but free of prepotency assumption.
Fulfilling Prestige
Push Seeking Relaxation
Factors Sightseeing Variety
Gaining Knowledge
Events and Activities
Pull Adventure
Factors History and Culture
Easy Access and Affordable
A review of past researches on tourist motivation indicates that the analysis of motivations based on the two dimensions of push and pull factors have been generally accepted (Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). The concept behind push and pull dimension is that people travel because they are pushed by their own inner forces and pulled by the outer forces of destination attributes. Most of the push factors that are origin-related are intangible or intrinsic desires of the individual travelers. Pull factors, vice versa, are those that emerge because of the attractiveness of that particular destination, as the travelers perceive it. They include tangible resources and travelers’ perception and expectation such as benefit expectation, novelty and marketed image of the destination. A research model is then developing based on this theory at below diagram (adapted from Baloglu & Uysal, 1996).
Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our academic writing services
Travel Motivation
Crompton (1979) first sought to draw seven socio-psychological, or push motives such as escape, self-exploratory, relaxation, prestige, regression, kinship-enhancement, and social interaction) and two cultural, or pull motives that are novelty and education. The conceptual framework that he developed would giving impact the selection of a destination, and this approach implies that the destination can have some degree of influence on vacation behavior in meeting an aroused need.
As Crompton’s initial empirical effort, many studies have attempted to recognize push and pull motivational factors in different settings such as nationalities, destinations and events (Jang and Wu, 2006). Example incorporated Yuan and McDonald’s (1990) study on motivations for overseas travel from four countries: Japan, France, West Germany and UK. While Uysal and Jurowski (1993) studied, the nature and extent of the reciprocal relationship between push and pull factors of motivations for pleasure travel with using data from the Canadian Tourism Attribute and Motivation Survey. Another study in Australia examined the nature and usefulness of the relationship between these two factors of motivation by utilizing canonical correlation analysis (Oh, H., M., & Uysal, P. Weaver, 1995).
Baloglu and Uysal (1996) claimed that the concept of product bundles is used to refer to the perceived significance of the interaction between push and pull items of motivation. This implies that certain reasons for travel may correspond to certain benefits that are to be valued and obtained at the destination spot. Based on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, as discussed above, the individual tourist builds their perceptions, and the perceptions can be differ from the true attributes of the product depending on how the individual receives and process information (Gartner, 1993; Dann, 1996; Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). A general conclusion can be drawn that the personal motives or called push motives and the view of the characteristics of the tourism destination (pull motives) determine perceptions. These motives interact in dynamic and evolving context (Correia, 2000), and the tourist motivation is seen as a multidimensional concept that indicates tourist decision (McCabe, 2000).
As tourism paradigm is related to human beings and human nature, it is always a complex proposition to study why people travel and what they want to enjoy (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). In most studies, it is generally accepted that push and pull motivations have been primarily utilized in studies of tourist behavior. The discoveries and issues undoubtedly play a use role in attempting to understand a wide different of needs and wants that can drive and influence tourist behavior. Nevertheless, Yoon and Uysal (2005) said that the results and effects of the motivation studies of tourist behavior need more than an understanding of their needs and wants.
In tourism destination management, it was generally agree that maximizing travel satisfaction is crucial for a successful business. The evaluation of the physical products of destination as well as the psychological interpretation of a destination product are important for human actions (Swan and Comb, 1976; Uysal and Noe, 2003), which could be further represented as a travel satisfaction and destination faithfulness. Both concepts can be examined within the context of a tourism system representing two major components of the market place, namely, demand (tourist) and supply (tourism attractions) which demand refers to motives (push factors) that sustain tourists’ desire while supple relates to destination’s characteristics (pull factors) (Jurowski et al., 1996).
Push and pull factors have generally been characterized to two separate decisions made at two separate period in time – one focusing on whether to go, the other on where to go. For instance, Dann (1981) noted that ‘once the trip has been decided upon, where to go, what to see or what to do (relating to the specific destinations) can be tackled and this make a conclude that, analytically, both logically and temporally, push factors precede pull factor’.
Although these two factors has been viewed as relating to two distinct decisions, several researchers have distinguished that they should not be viewed as operating entirely independent of each other’s. For example, it has suggested that people travel because they are pushed by their own intrinsic forces and simultaneously pulled by the extrinsic forces such as the destination and its attributes (Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995; Uysal and Jurowskil, 1994). However, Crompton (1979) argued, push factors ‘may be useful not only in explaining the initial arousal, energizing, or ‘push; to take a vacation, but may also have directive potential to direct the tourist toward a particular destination’ (p.412).
Several empirical examinations of push and pull factors had been reported in the travel and tourism literature. Of the prior research that examined the students and/or spring break travel market (Butts, F.B., J. Salazar, K. Sapio, and D. Thomas, 1996; Field, 1999; Hobson and Josiam, 1992,1996; Hsu and Sung, 1996,1997; Sirakaya and McLellan, 1997), there have been no investigations of push forces and only a handful of attempts to study the pull factors influencing students’ destination choice decision. In another study, conducted by Hobson and Josiam (1992), students were asked to list their primary reason for choosing a spring break destination and most responses referred to the influence of friends and/or family living near or going to the destination, other reasons referred to destination-related attributes such as the destination having s spring break party reputation, warm weather, affordable pricing, quiet environment, good skiing, or good beaches.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
