a cross-cultural comparison of travel push and pull factors
DESCRIPTION
Culture and Differences in Decision Making ProcessTRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Auckland University of Technology]On: 19 December 2011, At: 12:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
International Journal ofHospitality & TourismAdministrationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjht20
A Cross-Cultural Comparison ofTravel Push and Pull FactorsXinran You a , Joseph O'leary b , Alastair Morrison c &Gong-Soog Hong da Department of Forestry & National Resources, 1200FPRD Building, Purdue University, West Layfayette,IN, 47907, USAb Department of Forestry & Natural Resources, FPRDBuilding, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,47907, USAc Department of Restaurant, Hotel, Institutional,and Tourism Management, Stone Hall, PurdueUniversity, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USAd 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, InternationalJournal 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/terms-and-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 isexpressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
A Cross-Cultural Comparisonof Travel Push and Pull Factors:
United Kingdom vs. JapanXinran You
Joseph O’LearyAlastair MorrisonGong-Soog Hong
ABSTRACT. Tourism marketers are confronted with the dilemma ofwhether standardization or the tailoring of services, products and mar-keting programs for specific markets is more effective and efficient. Itremains to be addressed in tourism research whether travelers fromvarying cultural backgrounds seek different travel benefits and havedifferent preferences for travel products and services, and to what ex-tent they are similar in their travel behaviors. This research study usednational household travel surveys conducted by the Canadian TourismCommission and U.S. Tourism Industries for a cross-cultural compari-
Xinran You is a doctoral student, specializing in International Tourism Marketing,Department of Forestry & National Resources, 1200 FPRD Building, Purdue Uni-versity, West Layfayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Joseph T. O’Leary is Professor, specializing in Tourism and Recreation, Depart-ment of Forestry & Natural Resources, FPRD Building, Purdue University, WestLafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Alastair M. Morrison is Professor, specializing in Tourism Marketing, Depart-ment of Restaurant, Hotel, Institutional, and Tourism Management, Stone Hall,Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Gong-Soog Hong is Associate Professor, Department of Consumer Sciences and Re-tailing, Matthews Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail:[email protected]).
The data utilized in this study were made available by the Canadian TourismCommission. The data for Japan (1995) and the United Kingdom (1996) PleasureTravel Market Survey was originally prepared by Coopers and Lybrand Consulting.Neither the preparer of the original data nor the Canadian Tourism Commission bearany responsibility for the analysis or interpretations presented here.
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 1(2) 2000E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration2
son of two different countries, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and Japan.Results showed that travelers from these two countries had different travelmotives and benefit-seeking patterns. From a marketing perspective, thebranding and positioning of a destination for U.K. and Japanese long-haultravel markets will be more effective if the destination marketing organiza-tion (DMO) projects different images within its advertising campaigns.These images should reflect the different travel motivations and benefitsdesired by the two groups of travelers. [Article copies available for a fee fromThe Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.haworthpressinc.com>]
KEYWORDS. Travel motivation, travel benefit, travel behavior,cross-cultural comparison, Japan, United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION
Tourism has become a global phenomenon as international travelhas emerged as a major revenue generating industry for many coun-tries. According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1999), inthe ten years from 1989 to 1998, arrivals worldwide grew at an aver-age annual rate of 4.3 percent while international tourism receiptsincreased by 8.1 percent annually over the last ten years. As interna-tional travel markets increase in importance to destination countries,understanding international travelers’ preferences and behaviors hasbecome a prerequisite for successful destination marketing programs.Tourism marketers are confronted with the dilemma of whether thestandardization or the tailoring of services, products and marketingprograms for specific markets is more effective and efficient. Howev-er, 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-cul-tural study: (1) misunderstanding of the value and benefits of cross-cul-tural research; (2) ethnocentrism and ignorance about other cultures;(3) lack of resources; and (4) language and cultural differences andtheir effects.
Two of the key questions that need to be addressed in tourismresearch are whether travelers from varying cultural backgrounds seekdifferent travel benefits and have different preferences for travel prod-ucts and services, and to what extent they are similar and dissimilar in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 3
their travel behaviors. The objective of this research study was to usenational household surveys conducted by the Canadian Tourism Com-mission and U.S. Tourism Industries for a cross-cultural comparativestudy on two quite different countries, the United Kingdom (U.K.) andJapan. The focus was to test whether travelers from these two coun-tries had different travel motives and benefit-seeking patterns. Japanand the U.K. rank number three and four in terms international tour-ism expenditure (WTO, 1999). Both countries are among the world’stop tourist generating countries that many destination marketing orga-nizations are trying hard to target effectively.
Cross-Cultural Perspectives
Culture refers to the norms, beliefs, and customs that are learnedfrom society and lead to common behavior patterns (Assael, 1987).Cross-cultural psychology theories suggest that national cultural val-ues and characteristics shape and affect human thought and behaviorand that culture is a major, if not the major, factor contributing toindividual differences in behavior (Berry, Poortinga & Pandey, 1997).Whiting and Whiting (1975) in their six-culture project sought touncover causal connections between cultural phenomena and the be-havior of members of those cultures. They suggested that any culture,with its specific environment and historical background, can be under-stood as a maintenance system that is an antecedent to child-trainingpractices that match the specific needs of each culture. These practic-es, in turn, lead to the development of certain observable nationalpersonality ‘‘types’’ for such things as music, art, recreation, playbehavior, crime and suicide rates, etc. There is also a growing debateover whether civilization is converging or diverging. Although cross-cultural psychology has produced theories on subjective cultural is-sues, little empirical research has been completed and studies havegenerally 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 tour-ism literature, cross-cultural tourism research has been dealt with byonly a handful of researchers. Dimanche (1994) did a qualitative re-view and assessment of cross-cultural studies and advocated that moretourism researchers should adopt a cross-cultural perspective.
There is a growing body of evidence that tourism behavior andvacation patterns are culture-specific. Despite this, destination market-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration4
ers often have little information on the cultural differences amonginternational visitors. Shields (1992) pointed out that although thenumber of international visitors to the U.S. had grown in recent yearsand many cities and states were now targeting foreign visitors, verylittle was known about international travelers. O’Halloran and Hen-sarling (1991) indicated that U.S. hospitality and tourism organiza-tions were putting little effort into exploring the cultures and the workethics of the visitor generating countries. In particular, the differencesamong international visitors in terms of behavior, attitudes towardsdestinations, spending patterns, motivations, and satisfaction levelswere not well understood.
Several recent studies have highlighted the variations in the travelcharacteristics and behaviors of visitors from different countries. Pi-zam has completed a number of studies (1989, 1995, 1996) in thecross-cultural or cross-national tourist behavior area. He and his co-au-thors studied the tourist behavior differences using various approachessuch as from the perceptions of tour guides or perceptions of residentsfrom host communities. In 1989, Pizam and Reichel explored cross-na-tional behavior differences based on opinions and impressions of thehost communities in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Spain, United King-dom, the United States and Yugoslavia. It was found that in communi-ties where the majority of tourists were foreigners, the residents tend-ed to perceive the tourists to be very different from themselves on avariety of travel characteristics. However, in communities where themajority of tourists were domestic travelers, the residents identifiedfew differences between themselves and the tourists. Pizam and Re-ichel (1995, 1996) again conducted a series of studies on the effects ofnationality on tourist behavior. In one of the studies, they surveyedsixty-three Dutch tour guides soliciting opinions on twenty behavioralcharacteristics of Japanese, French, Italian, and U.S. tourists on guidedtours in the Netherlands. They found that in eighteen of twenty beha-vioral characteristics, there were significant perceived differences amongthe four nationalities. The greatest behavioral difference by nationalitywas found to be for ‘‘socializing with other tourists.’’ For instance,they found out that Japanese travelers tended to stay mostly with theirown group and avoid socializing with other tourists. The French be-haved in a similar way as the Japanese while Italian tourists andAmerican tourists had higher levels of interaction and socializing withothers. In another study of Israeli tour guides’ perceptions of U.S.,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 5
British, German and French tourists’ behavior characteristics onguided tours, they again found significant differences attributed todifferent nationalities in eighteen of the twenty behavioral characteris-tics among the four nations. In another study of cross-cultural touristbehavior through the perceptions of Korean tour-guides, Pizam and Jeong(1996) found out that in 18 out of the 20 behavioral characteristics therewas a significant perceived difference between Korean, Japanese andAmerican travelers. Pair-comparison indicated that the Korean-Japanesepair had the most similarity followed by Japanese-American.
Tourists from different countries have always shown evidence ofdifferences in destination behavior patterns such as trip arrangement,recreation activities, expenditures, etc. The English travelers havebeen described as stiff, socially conscious, honest and dependable byPi-Sunyer (1977). Japanese travelers were stereotyped as group tra-velers, short duration trip takers, heavy spenders and indefatigablephotographers and risk avoiders (Hofstede, 1980; Ritter, 1987; Cho,1991). Hofstede also found that Japanese, French, and Italians werehigh in ‘‘uncertainty avoidance,’’ while Americans were low on thisdimension. In terms of activity participation, researchers such asGroetzbach (1988) and Barham (1989) found out that the oriental styleof travel is less active than found for Europeans. Chiang, Hsieh, Bah-niuk, and Liu (1997) did a comparison of pleasure travelers from theNetherlands and Taiwan based on descriptive variables including so-cio-demographics, travel characteristics, and travel activities. Similar-ities and differences were identified between the two groups and someof these differences were explained by the differences in the culturesof the two countries. Other researchers such as Richardson andCrompton (1988), and Sheldon and Fox (1988) also identified varia-tions in tourist behaviors, perceptions and preferences.
Research has also attempted to study the cross-cultural differencesin tourism from the supply (the tourism services providers) side orincorporating both the demand side (the tourists) and the supply side.Reisinger and Turner (1998) identified cultural differences betweenKorean tourists and Australian service providers. Key dimensions ofdifferences between the Australian hosts and the Korean tourists wereevident in communication, display of feelings, interaction and ideal-ism. The article emphasized the importance of understanding culturaldifferences for developing positive tourist-host contact and enhancingtourist holiday satisfaction and repeat visitation. Pizam et al. (1997)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration6
also did a study on the effect of nationality versus industry cultures onmanagerial behavior. They found more differences than similaritiesbetween the managerial practices of hotel managers from Hong Kong,Japan and Korea and concluded that the effect of nationality cultureshave a stronger effect on managerial behavior than industry culture.
One approach to comprehending cultural differences is the theoryof individualism versus collectivism (Triandis, 1995). Individualism isan intrinsic aspect of Western culture, a culture that emphasizes anindividual rather than an interdependent construct of self. Individual-ism affects people’s values as well as their behavior. Individualisticcultures view personal goals as being more important than groupgoals. People are expected to look after themselves and their immedi-ate family only (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). Countries like the U.K. andthe United States are representative of this individualistic orientation.Collectivism, as represented by the Japanese and Chinese cultures,emphasizes conformity, belonging, empathy, and dependence (Ishii-Kuntz, 1989). In collectivistic cultures, ‘‘people belong to in-groupsand collectivities which are supposed to look after them in exchangefor loyalty’’ (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). Graburn (1983) argued that,since Japanese tourists tend to travel in larger groups rather than insmaller groups or as individuals, this reflects the group-oriented struc-ture of the Japanese society. Compared with Europeans and NorthAmericans, the Japanese have a low sense of cultural self-confidence(Graburn, 1983; Ohnuki-Tierney, 1990), and they usually choose tovisit well-known ‘‘culture approved’’ attractions. In Japan, the evolu-tion from package tours to individual travel arrangement has laggedbehind the West. According to U.S. Tourism Industries (1998), about47% of Japanese travelers that visited the U.S. in 1997 used packagetours compared at 15.4% of the U.S. bound U.K. travelers. A furtherindication of the importance of the group to the Japanese tourist is inthe 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 adoptingsome of the trends of the Western world and moving toward a mixtureof collectivism and individualism.
This brief research overview points out that few cross-cultural stud-ies have been done on how people from varying cultural backgroundsdiffer in their travel motivations and the benefits sought from travelexperiences. Therefore, it is important to identify similarities and dif-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 7
ferences in motivations and benefits between travelers from differentcountries, e.g., one Eastern and one Western nation. With this informa-tion, marketers might have a better idea of what different markets arelooking for and be in a better position to more accurately target eachmarket. By providing the travelers information that illustrates a des-tination has what they want (motivations and activities), the touristsmight be more likely to make the decision to visit that destination.Once they reach the destination, if products and services are offered orprovided in a fashion the travelers desire, their experience can beheightened, thus improving the satisfaction with the experience, hope-fully motivating them to travel back again.
Travel Push and Pull Theory
Many researchers have used motivational theories to try to under-stand the travel decision making process. Maslow’s needs hierarchy isthe one of the early theories of motivation that has been applied in thetourism context (Pearce, 1982). Most attempts to account for touristmotivation 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 andculture or heritage) and ‘‘sunlust’’ (the desire to travel for better amen-ities for a specific purpose such as sports).
However, concentrating attention on the wide variety of differentneeds that motivate travel behavior seems to be insufficient. Besidesunderstanding why people travel, we also need to understand whataffects the traveler’s vacation destination choices. It appears that thereare actually two major forces at work here. First, there is what thetraveler needs and desires and, second what the travel destination hasto offer to satisfy these needs and desires. Driven by inner traveldesires, what factors affect the decision of where to go? Certainly oneof the most important factors is the extent to which a destination’sattributes meet and satisfy the traveler’s inner desires. Therefore, itwould be meaningful to identify which destination attributes are im-portant to the traveler. Dann (1977) made a significant contribution insuggesting a two-tiered scheme of factors that motivate travelers totravel and to go to certain destinations. Dann described two stages orfactors in the travel decision making process, ‘‘push’’ and ‘‘pull.’’ Thepush factors are those that make a person want to travel and they are
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration8
mainly social-psychological motives. The pull factors are externalfactors that affect where a person travels to fulfill needs or desires.Dann suggested that anomie and ego-enhancement were the basicunderlining reasons for travel.
Crompton (1979) agreed with Dann’s basic idea of push and pullmotives but went further to identify nine motives for travel. They werethe escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration andevaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement ofkinship relationships, facilitation of social interaction, novelty andeducation. He classified the first seven motives as push factors, andthe last two as pull factors. Mayo and Jarvis (1981) suggested thattravel motivations could be divided into four categories, physical mo-tivations such as rest, cultural motivations such as the desire forknowledge, interpersonal motivations such as the desire to meetpeople, and status and prestige motivations such as the desire forrecognition.
Jamrozy and Uysal (1994) did an empirical study on the travelmotivations of overseas German visitors. They adopted Dann’s pushand pull theory and classified travel motivational factors into twogroupings, the motivational push factors and the motivational pullfactors. Motivational push factors were the inner needs and desireswithin the travelers that generated the demand for travel. The motiva-tional pull factors, which Jamrozy and Uysal called the secondarymotives, were considered to be the pull forces of the destination or thedestination attribute factors. This classification further elaboratedupon the push and pull theory by actually linking motivation withdestination attributes.
Although Dann’s framework has been translated into marketingapplications (Mill & Morrison, 1998) and developed in a few researchstudies, there appears to be no research done that explores the theoryin a cross-cultural context. As Jamrozy and Uysal (1994:157) pointedout: ‘‘In a competitive global tourist industry it is important to under-stand the travelers and their behavior.’’ This implies that it is evenmore important for comparison between and across countries.
Conceptual Framework and Research Objectives
Many researchers have focused on the push factors that motivatepeople to travel. However, few have attempted to show the linkagebetween why people desire to travel and where they choose to go.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 9
While the inner motives and desires for travel explain why peopletravel, the pull forces (what the destination can offer to satisfy thetraveler’s needs and desires) may actually better explain where peopletravel, i.e., their destination choices. The matching of internal motiveswith destination attributes may prompt a traveler to select one destina-tion over another. Therefore, the overall purpose of the current re-search study was to further apply Jamrozy and Uysal’s push and pullforce classification by carrying it to the level of cross-cultural compar-ative analysis. More specifically, this study compared U.K. and Japa-nese long-haul travelers with a particular focus on how destinationattributes related to the benefits these people sought from travel. Fig-ure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework for this study.
The specific objectives of this study were: (1) to identify similari-ties and differences between U.K. and Japanese travelers in terms oftheir responses to travel push forces; (2) to show how destinationattributes function as pull forces in travelers’ destination selectionprocesses 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 destinationattributes that are intended to satisfy these needs and desires).
METHOD
Data Source
In this study, two survey datasets, namely the Pleasure Travel Mar-ket Survey for Japan (1995) and the Pleasure Travel Market Surveyfor United Kingdom (1996), were used. The two datasets are part ofthe series of studies on international pleasure travel markets to NorthAmerica undertaken jointly by the Canadian Tourism Commissionand the Tourism Industries unit of the U.S. Department of Commerce.The Pleasure Travel Market Survey for Japan which was conducted in1995 consisted of an in-person survey of 1,200 potential Japaneselong-haul pleasure travelers. Respondents included individuals whowere 18 years and older and who had taken a pleasure trip of fournights or more by plane outside Japan in the past three years or thoseplanning such a trip in the next two years. The Pleasure Travel MarketSurvey for United Kingdom conducted in 1996, had a sample size of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration10
FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model
VACATIONDESTINATION
CHOICE
Internalmotivational
driving forces
Destinationattributes
Why travel? Where to go?
Push factors Pull factors
Country of origin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 11
1,208. The survey was conducted in a similar manner as the JapanesePleasure Travel survey. The respondents were 18 years of age or olderand had traveled outside Europe and the Mediterranean by plane in thepast three years and stayed at least four nights.
The aim of these survey studies is to provide practical and strategicmarketing information on potential international long-haul travel markets.These studies provide information on the potential long-haul pleasuretravel markets from major long-haul travel markets such as Japan, U.K.,and Germany. The studies include data on basic travel motivations, travelcharacteristics, expenditures, attitudes and awareness levels, socio-demo-graphics, and vacation styles. The data provide excellent opportunities forcross-national or cross-cultural comparative studies. Although there aresome differences in the questionnaires as a result of tailoring to country-specific situations, most variables are comparable.
Statistical Procedures and Analyses
To facilitate comparison, the two datasets were merged by means ofadding cases. Variables that were not identical were eliminated. A newvariable called country identity (U.K. versus Japan) was constructed andwas used as the dependent variable for further statistical analysis. Theindependent variables included fifty-three destination attribute vari-ables (the pull factors, Table 5) and seventeen travel motivation vari-ables (the push factors, Table 2). The respondents were asked to ratehow important each motivational variable was in planning their mostrecent long-haul trip and how important each destination attribute wasin planning long-haul holidays in general. The two sets of variableswere measured in the survey questionnaires on a four-point Likert scalewith 1 being not at all important, 2 being not very important, 3 beingsomewhat important and 4 being very important.
One-way ANOVA tests were employed to determine whether therewere differences between Japan and U.K. in travel motives and traveldestination decision criteria. A factor analysis was performed to re-duce the fifty-three destination attributes to a more manageable size.Using country identity as the group membership variable, two dis-criminant analyses were then conducted to identify (1) important des-tination attribute variables and their relative importance and (2) impor-tant motivational variables and their relative strength in discriminatingU.K. and Japanese travelers. A discriminant function was developed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration12
for each model which showed the linear combination of independentvariables that statistically maximized the differences between the twogroups. Two classification functions, which provided an optimal clas-sification rule to minimize the probability of misclassification, werealso obtained for each analysis.
RESULTS
When the general demographic variables were compared, long haultravelers 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% ofU.K. travelers were 55 years and older compared to 10% of Japanesetravelers. There was a higher percentage of Japanese long haul travel-ers who were single (38.9% compared to 22.8% of U.K.). More Japa-nese females (64.3%) pursued long haul travel than females from theU.K. (50.2%). In terms of occupation, Japan had a higher percentage ofuniversity or college student travelers (13.1%) than the U.K. (6.4%),while more U.K. blue-collar workers (13.6%) traveled compared tothe same category of travelers from Japan (4.0%).
Push Factors (Why Travel?)
The results of a test of equality of group means showed significantdifferences (α = 0.01) between the U.K. and Japanese travelers forthirteen of seventeen travel motivation variables (Table 2). U.K. trav-elers viewed knowledge enhancement about places, people and thingsas being more important than Japanese travelers (MeanU.K. = 3.27,
TABLE 1. Chi-Square Analysis of Demographic Background of U.K. and JapanTravelers
Variables Categories 2 P-value
Age 18-24/25-34/35-44/45-54/55-64/65 & above 123.48 0.000Marital Single/Married/Others 262.79 0.000StatusGender Male/Female 40.71 0.000Occupation University/College Student/White-collar 206.13 0.000
worker/ Blue-collar worker/Administrator or Manager/Specialist or Freelancer/ Self-employed/Unemployed/non-working housewife/retired
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 13
TABLE 2. Test of Equality of Group Means of Push Factors
Push Variables Mean F Statistics Sig.
U.K. Japan
Visiting a place l can talk aboutwhen l get home 2.8978 2.656 29.821 0.000Going places l have not visited before 3.425 3.013 98.918 0.000Going places my friends have notvisited before 2.1641 2.120 0.951 0.329Increase one’s knowledgeabout places, people and things 3.263 2.939 68.024 0.000Getting a change from a busy job 2.8228 2.924 4.510 0.034Getting away from demands of home 2.9598 2.302 199.699 0.000Escaping from the ordinary 3.1 2.654 103.923 0.000Finding thrills and excitement 2.7554 2.333 92.366 0.000Having fun, being entertained 3.0641 3.114 1.550 0.213Indulging in luxury 2.5326 2.607 2.521 0.113Being together as a family 3.0707 2.125 329.952 0.000VFR 2.6761 1.721 331.605 0.000Experiencing a simpler life 2.2391 2.098 12.765 0.000Experiencing a new and different lifestyle 2.9011 2.273 242.380 0.000Meeting new and different people 3.0902 2.221 492.921 0.000Meeting people with similar interest 2.5793 1.964 252.052 0.000Just relaxing 2.8261 2.970 11.369 0.000
MeanJapan = 2.93). The U.K. travelers also rated getting away fromdemands of home as being more important than Japanese travelers(MeanU.K. = 2.94, MeanJapan = 2.30). Being together as a family wasanother important motivation for U.K. travelers, but was far less so forthe Japanese travelers (MeanU.K. = 3.07, MeanJapan = 2.12). Otherdifferences 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 intheir importance ratings of ‘‘going to places my friends have notvisited before,’’ ‘‘having fun, being entertained,’’ or ‘‘indulging inluxury.’’
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration14
An interesting observation in the mean values of push variables wasthat, with the exception of ‘‘just relaxing’’ to which Japanese travelersattached a higher importance rating, the U.K. travelers had significant-ly higher mean importance ratings for all other items. By plotting thedistribution of the response values separately for the U.K. and Japa-nese travelers, it was found that there was a general tendency forJapanese travelers to give middle value ratings (in this study, 2 and 3were the middle values). The U.K. travelers were more inclined toexpress strong opinions (of 1 or 4). This pattern was consistent acrossall the push variables.
The top five travel push factors for the U.K. and Japan, reflected bythe proportions of the two groups that rated each factor as being veryimportant (a rating of 4), provided some interesting information onwhat motivated travelers from the two countries. For the U.K., the topfive were: (1) Going places I have not visited before (48.5%); (2) Beingtogether as a family (42.5%); (3) Increase one’s knowledge aboutplaces, people and things (37.1%); (4) Visit friends and relatives(32.5%), and (5) Escaping from the ordinary (32.5%). For Japan, the topfive were: (1) Going places I have not visited before (33.0%); (2) Havingfun, being entertained (30.8%); (3) Getting a change from a busy job(28.3%); (4) Just relaxing (28.3%), and (5) Increase one’s knowledgeabout places, people and things (26.8%).
The similarity between U.K. and Japan travelers appeared to be inthe two areas of novelty seeking and knowledge enhancement. How-ever, for the U.K. travelers, socialization with other people (beingtogether as a family and VFR) was a very important motivation fortravel. For the Japanese, physical motivators of getting physical rest,relaxing from work, and having fun and being entertained, were ofgreater relative importance.
No significant differences (at = 0.01) were found for the followingfour factors: (1) Getting a change from a busy job; (2) Having fun, beingentertained; (3) Indulging in luxury; and (4) Going to places my friendshave 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 travelersfrom 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.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
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, des-tination infrastructure (convenience of transportation), and environ-mental quality (safety and hygiene) were of primary importance forthe travelers from both countries. Consistent with the push factors(inner motivational drives), the opportunities for socializing and inter-acting with people, such as ‘‘seeing people from a number of ethnicbackgrounds or nationalities’’ were of greater importance to the U.K.travelers. The Japanese travelers attached greater relative importanceto historical or archaeological buildings and places.
The factor analysis reduced the fifty-six destination attribute vari-ables to ten factors that accounted for 58% of the total variance (Table4). The ten factors were labeled according to the variables that carriedhigher factor loadings on a certain factor (Table 5). The factorswere named as: (1) nature-based activities (∂ = 0.84), (2) outdoorsports 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 restau-rants and hotels (∂ = 0.76), (8) guided tours (∂ = 0.70), (9) exoticatmosphere and weather (∂ = 0.44), and (10) camping (∂ = 0.69). Inorder to test the internal consistency of the factors, reliability analysis
TABLE 3. Most Important Travel Pull Factors for U.K. and Japanese Travelers
RANK U.K. JAPAN
1 Personal safety, even when travelling alone Outstanding scenery (67.6%)(66.9%)
2 See people from a number of ethnic Historical or archaeological buildings andbackgrounds or nationalities (66.5%) places (66.3%)
3 Standards of hygiene and cleanliness Nice weather (54.4%)(59.9%)
4 Nice weather (51.6%) Standards of hygiene and cleanliness(51.8%)
5 Good public transportation (airlines, local Availability of pre-trip tourist informationtransit) (46.8%) (49.0%)
6 Outstanding scenery (39.9%) Personal safety, even when travellingalone (48.8%)
7 Outdoor activities such as hiking, climbing Environmental quality of area (48.7%)(37.4%)
8 Availability of pre-trip tourist information Shopping (46%)(37.3%)
9 Ease of driving on my own (34.9%) Good public transportation (airlines, localtransit) (43.5%)
10 Interesting and friendly local people Inexpensive restaurants (34.1%)(34.7%)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration16
TABLE 4: Variance Explained by Rotated Sum of Squared Loading from PullFactor Model
FACTORS TOTAL VARIANCE % CUMULATIVE %
VARIANCE EXPLAINED EXPLAINED
Nature-based activities 18.65 10.00 10.00Outdoor sports activities 28.13 9.52 19.52Culture and heritage activities 35.64 6.41 25.92City sightseeing and shopping 40.03 5.93 31.85Safety and hygiene 44.11 5.81 37.66People-interactive activities 47.55 4.69 42.36Prices of restaurants and hotels 50.73 4.42 46.78Guiding services 53.48 4.41 51.19Exotic atmosphere and nice weather 55.97 4.15 55.34Camping 58.04 2.69 58.04
was conducted for each factor based on the average inter-item correla-tion and the Cronbach alpha values indicated above showed that theinternal consistency level for all factors are reasonably high and ac-ceptable. Table 4 shows how much variance each factor explained. Allfactors had eigenvalues greater than one.
These ten factors suggested three major dimensions of destinationattributes (destination attractions and travel-related services) (Figure2). The first group emphasized destination activities including people-interaction (socialization with people), nature-based sightseeing, out-door sports, culture and heritage, city sightseeing and shopping, andtouring. The second dimension comprised travel facilities and infra-structure such as food, lodging, transportation, and tour guiding. Thethird dimension was aspects of environmental quality such as hygieneand the quality of water and air, and safety.
The results of a test of equality of group means showed that sevenout of ten factors were significantly different (at = 0.01) between thetwo groups (Table 6). U.K. and Japanese travelers did not differ intheir importance ratings of nature-based activities, camping, and avail-ability of guiding services. The lack of a difference found in howimportant guiding service was when planning travel was not consis-tent with the results found by other researchers that Japanese travelerstended to prefer guided tours while U.K. travelers preferred moreindependent travel. Other pull factors such as people-interactive activ-ities, prices of restaurants and hotels, culture and heritage activitiesand outdoor activities were all found to be significantly different be-tween the two countries.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
17
TABL
E5.
Rot
ated
Com
pone
ntM
atrix
(Fac
torL
oadi
ng)
Des
tinat
ion
Attri
bute
sFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7Fa
ctor
8Fa
ctor
9Fa
ctor
10
Visi
tsto
appr
ecia
tena
tura
leco
logi
cals
ites
0.79
5La
kes,
river
san
dm
ount
aino
usar
eas
0.77
4Vi
sitin
gre
mot
eco
asta
lattr
actio
ns0.
653
Wild
erne
ssad
vent
ures
0.55
6N
atio
nal,
stat
eor
prov
inci
alpa
rks
and
0.80
6fo
rest
sD
oing
spor
ts0.
778
Alpi
nesk
iing
0.83
6O
ther
win
ters
ports
0.85
9W
ater
spor
ts0.
722
Gol
f/ten
nis
0.60
4Pr
imiti
veou
tdoo
rcam
ping
0.48
3H
isto
rical
orar
chae
olog
ical
build
ings
and
plac
es0.
642
Arts
&cu
ltura
lattr
actio
ns0.
865
Mus
eum
san
dar
tgal
lerie
s0.
700
Loca
lcra
ftsan
dha
ndiw
ork/
fest
ival
s0.
320
Shop
ping
0.65
5Th
eme
park
sor
amus
emen
tpar
ks0.
617
Cas
inos
and
othe
rgam
blin
g0.
549
Big
mod
ern
citie
s0.
667
Goo
dpu
blic
trans
porta
tion
(airl
ines
,lo
calt
rans
it)0.
561
Pers
onal
safe
ty,e
ven
whe
ntra
velin
gal
one
0.71
5En
viro
nmen
talq
ualit
yof
area
0.54
0St
anda
rds
ofhy
gien
ean
dcl
eanl
ines
s0.
721
Inte
rest
ing
and
frien
dly
loca
lpeo
ple
0.59
3956
8Se
epe
ople
from
anu
mbe
rofe
thni
cba
ckgr
ound
s0.
7269
847
Uni
que
ordi
ffere
ntab
orig
inal
orin
dige
nous
peop
les
0.70
8493
3Fi
rstc
lass
hote
l--0
.552
Budg
etac
com
mod
atio
n0.
728
Hig
hqu
ality
rest
aura
nts
--0.5
41In
expe
nsiv
ere
stau
rant
s0.
596
Excu
rsio
ns/to
urs
0.70
4Pa
ckag
etri
psan
dal
linc
lusi
vetri
ps0.
777
Exot
icat
mos
pher
e0.
6336
84N
ice
wea
ther
0.59
0958
8C
ampg
roun
dsan
dho
telt
raile
rpar
ks0.
426
Prim
itive
outd
oorc
ampi
ng0.
316
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration18
TABLE 6. Test of Equality of Group Means of Pull Factors
PULL FACTORS F-VALUE P-VALUE
Nature-based activities 5.08 0.024Outdoor sports activities 180.45 0.000Culture and heritage activities 213.58 0.000City sightseeing and shopping 26.61 0.000Safety and hygiene 17.55 0.000People-interactive activities 530.38 0.000Price of restaurants and hotels 143.32 0.000Guiding services 0.39 0.534Exotic atmosphere and nice weather 133.31 0.000Camping 1.78 0.182
DESTINATIONATTRIBUTES
3. EnviromentalQuality and Safety
People-interactiveactivities
1. Activitiesavailable Touring
Nature-basedactivities
Outdoor sportsCulture and
heritage
Citysightseeing
and shopping
FIGURE 2. Three Dimensions of Destination Attributes
2. TravelFacilities and
Infrastructures
Discriminant Analyses
A discriminant analysis was prepared with country as the groupmembership variable and the ten destination attribute factor groupingsas the independent variables. A linear combination of the independent
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 19
variables was formed and served as the basis for assigning cases togroups (U.K. or Japan). The weight for each independent variable wasestimated so that they resulted in the optimal separation between thegroups. The linear discriminant equation was:
D = B0 + B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 + B4X4 + B5X5 + B6X6 + B7X7 + B8X8 + B9X9 + B10X10
Where X1 = importance rating of nature-based activitiesX2 = importance rating of outdoor sports activitiesX3 = importance rating of culture and heritage activitiesX4 = importance rating of city sightseeing and shoppingX5 = importance rating of safety and hygieneX6 = importance rating of people-interactive activitiesX7 = importance rating of prices of restaurants and hotelsX8 = importance rating of guiding servicesX9 = importance rating of exotic atmosphere and weatherX10 = importance rating of camping
The method used to determine the contribution of each variable wasto examine their standard function coefficients after a Varimax rota-tion to make the function as discrete as possible. Table 7 shows themagnitudes of the coefficients as indicators of the relative importanceof each of the variables. People-interactive activities, culture and heri-tage activities, and outdoor sports activities had the largest coeffi-cients. These three destination attributes contributed most to discrimi-nating between the U.K. and Japanese travelers. The Wilk’s lambda,
TABLE 7. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients from Pull FactorModel
PULL FACTORS COEFFICIENTS
Nature-based activities 0.098Outdoor sports activities 0.541Culture and heritage activities 0.581City sightseeing and shopping 0.223Safety and hygiene � 0.182People-interactive activities � 0.804Prices of restaurants and hotels 0.491Availability of guiding service 0.027Exotic atmosphere and nice weather 0.475Camping � 0.058
Wilks’ lambda for the model: 0.477
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration20
which is the ratio of the within-groups sum of squares to the total sumof squares for the model, was 0.477. This value indicated that themeans of the two groups did appear to be very different.
The discriminant function was then used to classify the two groupsof survey respondents. The U.K. sample for the classification com-prised 921 respondents and the Japanese sample was comprised of1,172 respondents. Eighty one percent of U.K. travelers were correctlyclassified into the U.K. group, while 89.7% of Japanese travelers werecorrectly classified into the Japanese group. A total of 85.9 percent ofthe respondents were correctly classified by the models. Table 8 showsthe classification coefficients that were used.
A second discriminant analysis was conducted with country identityas the group membership variable and the motivational variables(push factors) as the independent variables. Since the 17 variablescontained rich information on various aspects of inner travel motiva-tions and in order to keep as much variance as possible, factor analysiswas not used with this group of variables as had been the case for thedestination attribute measures. Instead, all 17 variables were used asindependent variables in the discriminant analysis. A linear combina-tion of the independent variables was formed and served as the basisfor assigning cases to groups (U.K. or Japan). The weight for eachindependent variable was estimated so that they resulted in the optimalseparation between the groups. The linear discriminant equation was:
D = B0 + B1X1 + B2X2 + B3X3 + B4X4 + B5X5 + B6X6 + B7X7 +B8X8 + B9X9 + B10X10 + B11X11 + B12X12 + B13X13 + B14X14 +B15X15 + B16X16 + B17X17
Where X1 = Visiting a place I can talk about when I get homeX2 = Going places I have not visited beforeX3 = Going places my friends have not visited beforeX4 = Increase one’s knowledge about places, people and thingsX5 = Getting a change from a busy jobX6 = Getting away from demands of homeX7 = Escaping from the ordinaryX8 = Finding thrills and excitementX9 = Having fun, being entertainedX10 = Indulging in luxuryX11 = Being together as a family
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 21
X12 = VFRX13 = Experiencing a simpler lifeX14 = Experiencing a new and different lifestyleX15 = Meeting new and different peopleX16 = Meeting people with similar interestX17 = Just relaxing
Table 9 shows the magnitudes of the coefficients as indicators ofthe relative importance or strength of each of the variables. ‘‘Beingtogether as a family,’’ ‘‘getting away from demands of home,’’ ‘‘meet-ing new and different’’ and ‘‘getting a change from a busy job’’ hadthe largest coefficients and demonstrated relatively higher importancein discriminating between U.K. and Japan travelers. The Wilks’ lamb-da value for the model was 0.527, which indicated that group meansdo appear to be very different.
The discriminant function was then used to classify the two groupsof survey respondents. The U.K. sample for the classification wascomprised of 921 respondents. The discriminant function classified823 cases correctly to the U.K. group, an accuracy rate of 68.1%. TheJapanese sample was comprised of 1,172 respondents. The discrimi-nant weights classified 1,051 Japanese respondents correctly to theJapanese group an accuracy rate of 87.6%. Table 10 shows the classifi-cation coefficients that were used.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This is the first study that has compared the motivations and travelbenefits sought by international travelers from two different countries
TABLE 8. Classification Coefficients for Pull Factors
PULL FACTORS U.K. JAPAN
Nature-based activities � 0.116 0.091Outdoor sports activities � 0.666 0.523Culture and heritage activities � 0.719 0.565City sightseeing and shopping � 0.265 0.208Safety and hygiene 0.216 � 1.169People-interactive activities 1.063 � 0.835Prices of restaurants and hotels � 0.598 0.470Guiding services 0.032 0.025Exotic atmosphere and nice weather � 0.578 0.455Camping 0.068 � 0.054
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration22
TABLE 9. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients from Push FactorModelPush Variables Coefficients
Visiting a place l can talk about when l get home 0.046
Going places l have not visited before 0.238
Going places my friends have not visited before � 0.253
Increase one’s knowledge about places, people and things � 0.098
Getting a change from a busy job � 0.325
Getting away from demands of home 0.398
Escaping from the ordinary 0.130
Finding thrills and excitement 0.226
Having fun, being entertained � 0.291
Indulging in luxury � 0.094
Being together as a family 0.473
VFR 0.322
Experiencing a simpler life � 0.290
Experiencing a new and different lifestyle 0.282
Meeting new and different people 0.391
Meeting people with similar interest 0.142
Just relaxing � 0.208
Wilks’ Lambda for model: 0.527805389 P-value: 0.000
TABLE 10. Classification Function Coefficients for Push Factors
Variables Coefficients
U.K. Japan
Visiting a place l can talk about when l get home 0.205797 0.115838Going places l have not visited before 2.374868 1.876886Going places my friends have not visited before � 1.13564 � 0.65219Increase one’s knowledge about places, peopleand things 2.080497 2.295466Getting a change from a busy job 0.394996 0.982734Getting away from demands of home 0.265311 � 0.47587Escaping from the ordinary 0.59276 0.335887Finding thrills and excitement 0.203241 � 0.24092Having fun, being entertained 1.134157 1.764808Indulging in luxury 1.037468 1.21224Being together as a family 1.337195 0.550355VFR 1.619064 1.087115Experiencing a simpler life 0.207931 0.84242Experiencing a new and different lifestyle 0.604536 � 0.00138Meeting new and different people 1.436224 0.571559Meeting people with similar interest 0.916175 0.599162Just relaxing 1.141846 1.563629(Constant) � 22.8058 � 17.6475
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 23
using Dann’s ‘‘push and pull theory’’ as a conceptual framework. Themajor finding was that U.K. and Japanese long-haul travelers differsignificantly on both the push (internal needs and desires) and pullforces (destination attributes). Clearly, this suggests that the applica-tion of Dann’s ‘‘push and pull theory’’ must be culture-sensitive since,by generalization, the importance of specific push and pull factors willvary from country to country. The motives (push factors) that causepeople from one country to make long haul pleasure travel trips maybe quite different from those of other nationalities. At the same time,international travelers from different countries are likely to vary sig-nificantly in the importance they attach to specific destination attrib-utes (pull factors).
The discriminant function developed in this study provides a veryclear 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 mod-erately accurate in the classification of travelers to each of the twogroups.
Comparing the findings of the research on German travelers doneby Jamrozy and Uysal (1994) with the results of this study, the Ger-man travelers in some respects were more similar to the U.K. travelersthan Japanese travelers. For instance, like the U.K. travelers, ‘‘family,friends being together’’ appeared to be a very important motivationpush factor for the German travelers. The German travelers, however,also demonstrated unique national personalities. For instance, sports ac-tivities appeared to be very important for German travelers, but this wasnot the case for both U.K. and Japanese travelers. More comparativeanalysis can be done in the future to explore the differences further.
This study on actual travelers from two countries also complementsPizam and his co-authors’ research. In their work, they used tour guideobservations as a proxy to help identify differences between travelersfrom different nationalities. This research takes the conceptual frame-work developed by Dann and uses it to compare travelers who werepersonally interviewed and specifically pinpoints the similarities anddifferences in motivations and destination attribute preferences be-tween two countries.
From a marketing perspective, the branding and positioning of adestination for U.K. and Japanese long-haul travel markets will bemore effective if the destination marketing organization (DMO) pro-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration24
jects different images within its advertising campaigns. These imagesshould reflect the different travel motivations and benefits desired bythe two groups of travelers. With Japan, the motivational arousaltheme could be ‘‘to learn and to relax.’’ For the U.K., the theme couldbe developed as ‘‘to learn and to socialize.’’ Another approach thatDMOs should follow is to tie the motivational drives with the activi-ties that the destination has to offer and then package these activities tobetter satisfy the travelers’ needs.
This study has shown that what the travelers from these two coun-tries consider as the most important destination attributes differ signif-icantly. DMOs should definitely take these differences into consider-ation when promoting their destinations and packaging their travelproducts. From the product planning perspective, providing excellentopportunities for socialization and interaction with people and activi-ties for the entire family would aid a destination to attract the U.K.market. Opportunities and facilities for physical relaxation wouldseem to be of the greatest appeal to the Japanese market.
Both groups seem to value long-haul travel as a good learningexperience. Offering excellent knowledge enhancement opportunitieswould appeal to both markets. Good infrastructure and facilities are ofsimilar importance for both markets.
Destination attributes that tourists are looking for are a reflection oftheir values and beliefs and a good predictor of destination decisionmaking. This study suggested that the importance levels ascribed todestination 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 totake into account the cultural differences that exist. DMOs need to besensitive to the tastes and benefits sought by travelers from individualcountries. Although travelers ultimately determine at which destina-tions they wish to take holidays, destination marketers can exert apowerful influence through promoting particular forms of holidays orparticular packages of travel activities. In order to pull travelers to acertain destination, it is essential to understand people’s destinationselection processes, in which they discriminate and choose a singledestination from a larger initial choice set. Clearly, marketers shouldrecognize the differences among countries in the relative importanceof push and pull factors as a basis for designing effective marketingprograms.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
You et al. 25
REFERENCESAssael, H. (1987). Consumer behavior and marketing action. Boston, MA: PWS-
Kent 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 Re-
search 4, 184-194.Dimanche, F. (1994). Cross-cultural tourism marketing research: An assessment and
recommendations for future study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing6 (3), 123-134.
Graburn, N.H.H. (1983). The anthropology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research10, 9-34.
Groetzbach, E. (1988). Erholungsverhalten und tourismusstile am biespiel orentalis-cher lander. In: Ritter, W. und G. Milelitz, eds. Berchte und Materialien. Berlin:Institut fur Tourismus, Freie Universitat.
Hofstede, G. H., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independentvalidation using Rokeach’s value theory.’’ Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,15, 417-433.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1989). Collectivism or individualism? Riverside, CA: University ofCalifornia.
Jamrozy, U. & Uysal, M. (1994). Travel motivation variations of overseas Germanvisitors. 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.O’Halloran, 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. Cul-
tural 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: Israelitour-guides’ perceptions. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 4 (1), 23-49.
Pizam, A., & Reichel, A. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behavior? Annals ofTourism Research 22 (4), 901-916.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration26
Pizam, A. & Jeong, G. (1996). Cross-cultural tourist behavior Perceptions of Koreantour-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 ofHospitality Management 16 (2). 127-145.
Reisinger, Y. & Turner, L. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in tourism: a strategyfor tourism marketers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 7 (4), 79-106.
Richardson, S.L. and Crompton, J. (1988). Vacation patterns of French and EnglishCanadians. Annals of Tourism Research 15 (4), 430-448.
Ritter, W. (1987). Styles of tourism in the modern world. Tourism Recreation Re-search 12 (1). 3-8.
Sheldon, P. and Fox, M. (1988). The role of food services in vacation choice andexperience: a cross-cultural Analysis. Journal of Travel Research 27 (3), 9-15.
Shields, H.M. (1992). Outlook for international travel. 1992 outlook for travel andtourism. Proceedings of the U.S. Travel Data Center’s Seventeenth Annual TravelOutlook 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--Tour-
ism Industries (1998). In-Flight Survey of International Air Travelers.Whiting, B.B., & Whiting, J.W.M. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-cultur-
al analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.World Tourism Organization (1999). Tourism Hightlights 1999.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
2:11
19
Dec
embe
r 20
11