http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/47/1/72The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0047287507312422

2008 47: 72 originally published online 14 January 2008Journal of Travel ResearchMi-Hea Cho and SooCheong (Shawn) Jang

Information Value Structure for Vacation Travel  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Travel and Tourism Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for    

  http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/47/1/72.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 14, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record 

- Jul 15, 2008Version of Record >>

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Information Value Structure for Vacation TravelMI-HEA CHO AND SOOCHEONG (SHAWN) JANG

little research has been done on perceived information valuefor travel (Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998). It may be necessaryto comprehend the overall picture of tourists’ perceivedinformation value to identify a framework for an informa-tion value system.

A psychological and motivational approach to unveilinginformation value could extend the framework of informa-tional cues to communicate to individuals in fundamentaland attentional states (Baloglu 1999; Cees 2000; Hoffmanand Novak 1996; McGuire 1976; Nishimura, Waryszak, andKing 2007; Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998). A traditionalapproach to measuring the role of travel information value isto make predictions about tourists’ information searchbehavior (Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998). Such an approachassumes that information value may have a multidimen-sional structure for tourist choices. Thus, we examinedwhich information value vacationers might need beforetravel and identified the overall structure for tourists’ infor-mation value by applying previous theoretical and empiricalexplanations to the vacation setting. Therefore, this studyintends to identify vacationers’ perceived information valuedimensions and to empirically examine the vacation infor-mation value structure in the pretrip stage. To achieve thisgoal, this study reviews a wide range of literature, explorespotential dimensions of information value, and proposesalternative value structure models. Subsequently, it usesconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to check how well theproposed models fit vacation travelers’ pretrip stage data.The results of the CFA will provide information on the ten-ability of the models for information value structure.

The results of this study contribute to upgrading thedegree of understanding about travel information value thathas been documented by previous studies, including Vogt

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47, August 2008, 72-83DOI: 10.1177/0047287507312422© 2008 Sage Publications

This study explores vacation information value structurerelating to resort guests. To delineate structures for the pre-trip information value, five information value dimensions(utilitarian, risk avoidance, hedonic, sensation seeking, andsocial) are identified through an extensive review of the liter-ature. Using the five value dimensions, the authors proposefour models for pretrip information value structure and testthem with confirmatory factor analyses. The first-order cor-related factor model appears as the most valid framework forvacation travel-related information value structure, suggest-ing that the five dimensions of information value coexist andinfluence each other. The results indicate that a multidimen-sional vacation information value also exists.

Keywords: tourism marketing; vacation informationvalue; value structure; functional; experi-ential; utilitarian; risk avoidance; hedonic;sensation seeking; social

An information search is the act of fulfilling a variety ofvalues that an individual pursues in seeking available alterna-tives of a given product or service (Filiatrault and Ritchie1980; Fodness and Murray 1998, Gursoy and Chen 2000;Hoffman and Novak 1996; James and Vanden Berg 1990;Jenkins 1978; Kristin and Zauberman 2005; Nishimura,Waryszak, and King 2007; Perdue 1985; Snepenger et al.1990; Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998). If information leads to thedesired value, information acceptance may be high and, as aresult, increase the subjective probability of purchasing theproduct or service (Cees 2000; Diehl and Zauberman 2005;James and Vanden Berg, 1990; Kristin and Zauberman2005). According to Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998), tourists aremore receptive to information value at an early stage of thedecision-making process when searching for informationthrough varied sources. If a consumer does recognize thevalue of information, he or she may keep searching for fur-ther information to assist in his or her decision.

Understanding vacation-related information value in thetourism situation is also crucial to efficiently delivering rel-evant information to potential tourists. From the travel mar-keters’ perspective, knowing what value of informationtourists need to make a decision is of practical importance inpromoting a destination and improving familiarity with adestination through information. To date, most studies oninformation value have explored a few purchase situationssuch as retail and manufactured goods (see Diehl andZauberman 2005; James and Vanden Bergh 1990; Ross andCreyer 1992; Sawyer, Lynch, and Brinberg 1995), whereas

Mi-Hea Cho, PhD, is an associate professor in the College ofHospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, Seoul,Korea. Her research interests include travel behavior and market-ing. Her current research focuses on tourism information searchbehavior. SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, PhD, is an assistant professorin the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management,Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. His research interestsare threefold: hospitality and tourism marketing, hospitalityfinance, and strategic management. His recent research focuses onservice quality management, financing behaviors, and businessdiversification.

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and Fesenmaier (1998). This study also provides a guide asto how alternative structures of multidimensional informa-tion are verified based on a cohesive conceptual framework.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Information Value

Although “the notion of value in Western thought hasproved to be a difficult one, and scholars from a variety ofdisciplines have attempted to explicate it” (Richins 1994, p.504), scholars agree that value has a central position andhence directs attitudes about specific objects or situationsand subsequent behavior (Kamakura and Novak 1992).Consumer behavior studies often adhere to Rokeach’s(1973) definition of value as “an enduring belief that a spe-cific mode of conduct (i.e., instrumental value) or end-state(i.e., terminal value) is personally or socially preferable toan opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state” (p. 5).This means that individuals’ desired value may influencetheir lifestyles and further affect their attitudes toward an objectperceived as valuable.

Consumers’ perceived value is most involved in a choiceprocess when they purchase or consume the product, whilevalue from an economic perspective is relevant to con-sumers’ willingness to pay (Richins 1994; Zeithaml 1988).Consumers’ attention and selectivity appear to be involun-tarily influenced by perceived values as well as goal-drivenfactors. According to Holbrook (1994), “customer valueinheres in an interactive relativistic preference experience ofwhich the essence involves a process wherein all consumerproducts perform services that potentially provide value-creating experiences” (p. 22).

Values are fundamentally embedded in individuals’needs and wants (Rokeach 1973); hence, individuals pur-sue their desired value through information, reflectingtheir generic sense in the preconsumption experience aswell as the comparative valuation of the evaluative criteriaof alternatives. That is, information gathering usuallyshifts along a process of different stages. Several stagesaimed at reaching the alternatives have been discussed inthe literature (Bieger and Laesser 2004; Correia, Santos,and Barros 2007; Crompton 1992). As for getting into theactual process of a travel decision, individuals tend to do amore thorough active search and seek affluent informationvalues to elaborate their decisions (Jun, Vogt, and MacKay2007; Um and Crompton 1990). In this vein, potentialvacationers may experience consumptional value in advanceduring the information processing for prepurchase (Holbrookand Hirschman 1982; Nishimura, Waryszak, and King 2007;Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998).

Although there may exist different degrees of informa-tion need or criteria of information before and after the tripdecision, information value is often represented by the mixof reality principles and psychological traits in persuasiveappeals (Aaker and Williams 1998; Bieger and Laesser2004; Holbrook and Batra 1987; Willams and Aaker 2002).Furthermore, the criteria of information value have the sub-tleties of descriptive meaning, not only because the role ofinformation may be more extensive in the domain of emo-tions relative to cognition but also because affective experi-ence may occur beyond conscious awareness. Individuals

are inclined to perceive affective and emotional stimuli moresensitively than rational properties of task environment inthe choice process (Yeung and Wyer 2004).

Logically, the fundamental role of evaluating informa-tion value is to maximize positive rewards and minimizenegative outcomes, thereby signifying better decisions(Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard 1995; Peter and Olson1999). Punj and Staelin (1983) state that the eventual goal ofinformation searching through external sources is to findreadily tangible benefits, such as more monetary worth ofutilities and gratification for consumption value. Infor-mation on utility-based factors such as economic value,product attributes, and security is helpful in coping withuncertain situations at the destination as well as facilitatingthe purchase decision (Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994;Hirschman 1986; Money and Crotts 2003; Olney, Holbrook,and Batra 1991). That is, the cognitive function of informa-tion is part of the risk-avoiding disposition of human beingsas well as a search for utilitarian benefits.

At the preconsumption stage, vicarious consumption canresult from browsing information and in generating experi-ential pleasures (Bloch, Sherrell, and Ridgway 1986;Hirschman 1980a). Information can provide an experientialbenefit, evoking emotional responses and arousing affectivereactions such as aesthetics feelings or enjoyment during aninformation search on the Internet. Experiential informationis either sought along with desired values and an imperativeelement of preconsumption or as an end in itself (Holbrooket al. 1984).

Considering the nature of vacation travel, whichinvolves sightseeing, rest, and other leisure activities,information on tourist products may not just be functionalor practical (i.e., utilitarian). In fact, in a discussion of theexperiential aspects of the consumption experience (e.g.,fun, fantasy, arousal, sensory stimulation, and enjoyment),Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) suggest that “abandoningthe [traditional] information processing approach is unde-sirable, but supplementing and enriching it with an admix-ture of the experiential perspective could be extremelyfruitful [for researchers]” (p. 138).

In summary, there could be different approaches to dif-ferentiating information dimensions. Based on a carefulreview of the literature, we pay attention to the functionaland experiential aspects of information value in this study.Functional information value is actually involved whentourists process cognitive attribute-based evaluations. Inaddition to functional information, the more touristsappraise the experiential value of information, the moreexpressive the intangible attributes and the more evocativethe sensory experiences of travel (Baloglu 1999; Cees2000). That is, the multidimensional vacation informationvalue can theoretically be categorized into experiential traits(e.g., hedonic, aesthetic, sensation seeking, and social infor-mation) as well as functional roles (e.g., utilitarian and risk-avoidance information). A brief summary of the conceptualdifferences between functional and experiential values ispresented in table 1.

The criteria for information value not only reflect task-specific functions but are also consistent with the overallcontext of individuals’ preconsumption states as theyattempt to place themselves in preferred states of being.That is, information value is internally predisposed to anindividual’s preference for information as well as externally

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 73

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

74 AUGUST 2008

compensated for informational functions. Hence, perceivedinformation value is often conceived in a multidimensionalfashion. The multidimensionality of value has been noted byprevious researchers (Baloglu 1999; Bojanic 1996; Cees2000; Grewal, Monroe, and Krishnan 1998; Parasuramanand Grewal 2000; Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis 1986;Petrick 2002; Richins 1994; Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998),who have classified a variety of value dimensions based onempirical and conceptual analyses in different ways. Basedon a review of these studies, we have identified and summa-rized information value into five dimensions (see table 2).

Utilitarian Value

Utilitarian functions may serve “to reach the desired goal[i.e., task completion] or avoid the undesirable one [i.e.,problem solving]” (Katz 1960, p. 170). That is, people mayexpect a better decision outcome and benefit after an infor-mation search (Van Raaij 1986). Utilitarian information is“[factual], logical, objectively verifiable descriptions andevaluation of tangible product features [and utility]”(Holbrook 1978, p. 547). Utilitarian value results from anindividual’s cognitive need for consequences adaptively ori-ented to an intended environment (Babin, Darden, andGriffin 1994; McGuire 1976). As McGuire (1974) explains,utilitarian information encourages an individual to acquireuseful information that will be helpful in coping with chal-lenging or uncertain situations. This sort of information isappropriate to specific situations relating to particular goals.People use utilitarian information to solve some of their pur-chasing problems and to help achieve desired outcomes.Thus, in the literature, utilitarian value is defined as usefuland beneficial with relevant detail (Babin, Darden, and Griffin1994; Batra and Ahtola 1990; Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard1995; Hirschman 1986; Nishimura, Waryszak, and King 2007;Olney, Holbrook, and Batra 1991; Sherry 1990).

Risk-avoidance Value

People often search for information as a means to reduceperceived risk as well as to justify their choices (Dowlingand Staelin 1994; Duncan and Olshavsky 1982; Locanderand Hermann 1979; Newman and Staelin 1972). If a choiceis associated with risks, the result may be an anxiety-producing situation (Locander and Hermann 1979). A deci-sion regarding one’s vacation is considered risky because

unexpected crimes and accidents are frequent contingenciesof the travel experience (Money and Crotts 2003; Sönmezand Graefe 1998a). Individuals may reduce their anxiety bysearching for information and then making a confident deci-sion. It may be that an information search is a risk-handlingstrategy (Dowling and Staelin 1994; Howard and Sheth1969; Roehl and Fesenmaier 1992). A number of studieshave developed risk dimensions (e.g., situational risk, finan-cial risk, physical risk, performance risk) to measure howconsumers perceive and evaluate risks (Brooker 1984;Cheron and Ritchie 1982; Kaplan, Szybillo, and Jacoby1974; Roehl and Fesenmaier 1992; Sönmez and Graefe1998b; Stone and Mason 1995).

Hedonic Value

Hedonic value, studied by consumer behaviorists, ismade up of multisensory experiences, fantasy imagery, andemotive responses and is linked to consumption focused onthe entertainment value of products (Hirschman 1983b;Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Holbrook and Huber 1979;Levy and Czepiel 1974; Nishimura, Waryszak, and King2007). Multisensory imaginative sequences are possiblewithout real experiences through fantasy fulfillment or theemotional arousal that hedonic value can bring (Hirschmanand Holbrook 1982). Specifically, multisensory imagery isactivated through the stimulation of multiple sensory organs(Hirschman 1984). An example of sensory images intourism is destination sightseeing, which is essentially aes-thetic and hinges on appreciation through visual stimuli(Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). Accordingly, the featuresof hedonic vacation travel-related information are generallydescribed as abstract, subjectively and uniquely experi-enced, nonutilitarian, emotional, and holistic, along with theevocation stage such as an appreciation of ineffable beauty(Hirschman 1983a).

Vacation travel is “an escape from the monotony andsameness of everyday surroundings and the chance to feedthe senses on new sights, sounds, and experiences”(Zuckerman 1979, p. 213), so fantasies or daydreams basednot on what is real but on what is desired drive hedonic con-sumption (Hirschman 1984; Singer 1966). Hedonic valuealso results partly from a motivation to escape the ordinaryor the unpleasant (Hirschman 1983b). Those possessingstrong hedonic desire will search for ways to satisfy theirneeds and elicit pleasure and excitement while searching for

TABLE 1

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL AND EXPERIENTIAL VALUES

Previous Researchers Functional Value Experiential Value

Batra and Ahtola (1990); Hirschman (1984); Rational EmotionalHirschman and Holbrook (1982); Hirschman and Cognitive AffectiveSoloman (1984); Holbrook (1978); Nonsensory Multisensory

Batra and Ahtola (1990); Bond (1983); Extrinsic value Intrinsic valueHirschman (1983b); Von Wright (1963) (e.g., economic benefits) (e.g., fun, self-indulgence)

Holbrook (1999) Objectivism Subjectivism

Golden and Johnson (1983); Hirschman (1985); Thinking in association with logical, Feeling in association with Holbrook (1978); Mano and Oliver (1993); formal, and abstract knowledge personal value judgmentsVaughn (1980, 1986)

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 75

and processing information (Bloch, Sherrell, and Ridgway1986; Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998; Yeung and Wyer 2004).

Sensation Seeking Value

In the context of pleasure travel, people tend to seek des-tinations depending on their preferred arousal level(Mehrabian and Russell 1974; Pizam, Reichel, and Uriely2002). Sensation seeking is defined as the need for “varied,novel, and complex sensations and experiences . . .”(Zuckerman 1979, p. 10) and the willingness to take physi-cal, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such an

experience (Arnett 1994, 1996; Cronin 1995; McCourt,Guerra, and Cutter 1993; Vodanovich and Kass 1990;Zuckerman 1979, 1983; Zuckerman, Eysenck, and Eysenck1978). People may seek sensation during travel to havearousal experiences that rarely happen in their everydaylives (Mehrabian and Russell 1974; Pizam, Reichel, andUriely 2002). Theoretically, sensation seeking is placedopposite to the risk-avoidance value. It is generally acceptedthat people usually avoid physical and financial risks whiletraveling. That is, the need for sensation seeking is con-trasted with the use of risk-avoidance information, whichhinges on an instrumental task (Galloway 2002). It is widely

TABLE 2

MEASUREMENT ITEMS FOR INFORMATION VALUE

Modified Statementsin the Questionnaire

Previous Researchers How important is it that theInformation Value Who Studied the Concept Original Concepts information you review . . . ?

Utilitarian

Risk avoidance

Hedonic

Sensation seeking

Social

Crowley, Spangenberg, andHughes (1992); Hirschmanand Solomon (1984); Mittaland Lee (1989); Olney,Holbrook, and Batra (1991);Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998)

Batra and Ahtola (1990); Grewal,Gotlieb, and Marmorstein(1994); Roehl and Fesenmaier(1992); Stone and Mason(1995); Sönmez and Graefe(1998a); Vogt and Fesenmaier(1998)

Babin, Darden, and Griffin(1994); Batra and Ahtola(1990); Crowley, Spangenberg,and Hughes (1992);Hirschman (1983b, 1986);Mano and Oliver (1993); Mittaland Lee (1989); Olney,Holbrook, and Batra (1991);Titz, Miller, and Andrus (1998);Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998)

Arnett (1994); Hirschman (1984);Raju (1980); Titz, Miller, andAndrus (1998); Vogt andFesenmaier (1998);Zuckerman, Eysenck, andEysenck (1978)

Botha, Crompton, and Kim(1999); Dimanche, Havitz, andHoward (1991); Mittal and Lee(1989); Raju (1980); Vogt andFesenmaier (1998)

Efficient, useful, helpful,informative, beneficial,necessary, valuable,relevant, significant

Equipment/functional risk,financial risk, healthrisk, performance risk,physical risk, psycho-logical risk, politicalinstability risk, satisfac-tion risk, social risk,terrorism risk, time risk

Exciting, fantastic,pleasant, creating adaydream,entertaining, enjoyable,escapism seeking

Boredom susceptible,disinhibitive, innovativeexperience seeking,thrill and adventureseeking, noveltyseeking, risk taking,sensation seeking

Advertising my trip toothers on vacationmatters, interactingwith friends/family,being with people whoenjoy what I do

X1: provides relevant details about yourdestination?

X2: is beneficial in making choices (e.g.,dining, accommodation, activities,etc.) about the destination?

X3: is useful in helping you plan yourvacation?

X4: provides facts about performancerisks (e.g., accident, reservation,schedule)?

X5: provides facts about situational risks(e.g., crime, environmental danger)?

X6: provides facts about physical risks(e.g., sickness, injury)?

X7: provides facts about financial risks(e.g., wasting money)?

X8: enhances your excitement abouttraveling?

X9: provides facts about the beauty ofthe surroundings at the destination?

X10: contributes to your fantasies aboutyour vacation travel?

X11: provides facts about new adventuresyou can experience at the destina-tion?

X12: provides facts about risk-takingactivities at the destination?

X13: provides facts about unfamiliar ornovel experiences at the destina-tion?

X14: provides facts about sensationalactivities that you might not partici-pate in at home?

X15: helps you discuss your vacationtravel with other people?

X16: helps you exchange opinions withyour friends or family membersabout your planned vacation?

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

76 AUGUST 2008

known that the dimensions of sensation seeking implyinevitable or contingent risks on performance, which shouldbe avoided during rational cognition. Arnett (1994, 1996)argues that individual pursuit of novel and intense sensa-tions correlates with involvement in highly stimulatingactivities such as sexual behavior and drug use. YetCrompton (1979), Cronin (1995), and McCourt, Guerra, andCutter (1993) suggest that sensation seeking may quite sim-ply be the search for novelty or harm tolerance as well as theavoidance of repetition or routine.

Social Value

Social value, which may imply information throughsocial interaction, does affect individuals’ decisions to pur-chase leisure-based products and services (Brown 1992;Dimanche, Havitz, and Howard 1991; Noble and Walker1997; Samdahl 1988; Stokowski 1990). Inferentially, peopleare social creatures (Mick 1986) and desire to communicatehighly valued images to others by social comparison(Richins 1999). That is, people may modify their behavior togarner the interaction they seek from their reference groupsand their families (Howard 1963a), all of whom have a strongimpact on their decision processes, including the informationsearch (Gitelson and Crompton 1983; Gitelson and Kerstetter1994; Howard 1963b; Nolan 1976; Rao, Tomas, and Javalgi1992; Stokowski 1990). Hence, individuals within the socialcontext are more likely to rely on information from opinionleaders or personal sources rather than commercial commu-nication channels or mass media (Hirschman and Wallendorf1982; Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998). The need for social-basedinformation can be partly explained by “signs,” which con-tribute to the inclination to seek experiences to enhance one’sidentification or to self-construct through social interactions(Dimanche and Samdahl 1994).

Functional and Experiential Values

Together with the five information value dimensions, asnoted in table 1, functional and experiential values are alsoimportant in accounting for the information value structure.As explained earlier, functional information requires rationaland useful information for extrinsic value as a means of prob-lem solving, and experiential information stimulates andenhances positive emotions to reach “higher intrinsic levels offun and self-indulgence” (Batra and Ahtola 1990, p. 169).Hence, the functional value of information may be based oncognitive criteria such as utility and security and is utilitarianand risk avoiding, whereas experiential information value ishedonic, sensation seeking, and social, explored via “deeplyself-reflective subjective personal introspection” (Holbrook1995, p. 194), and emphasizes sensory aspects. Logically, thefive value dimensions are capturing the same underlying con-struct, and the two value schemes (i.e., functional and experi-ential) may be interrelated.

As reviewed above, we have thus far identified vacationtravel-related value dimensions through an extensive reviewof the literature. Nevertheless, the boundaries of the afore-mentioned dimensions seem to overlap. Thus, it is a validquestion whether multidimensional information could beclassified into more than one structure that might be mutuallyexclusive. Accordingly, we seek to explore the structure of themultidimensional information values by proposing possible

models with the identified dimensions and by testing themodels with CFAs. The details of the proposed models andanalyses are discussed in the methodology section.

METHODOLOGY

Instrumentation

We first proposed five dimensions, based on a perusal ofthe literature, to define a structure for vacation travel-relatedinformation value: utilitarian, risk avoidance, hedonic, sen-sation seeking, and social. The literature on which eachdimension has been developed was analyzed to develop atheoretical base and to provide the evidence of content validity(see table 2). A questionnaire was accordingly developed. Themeasurement of information value dimensions consisted of16 items (X1 to X16) following the statement “How impor-tant is it that the information you review . . . ?” (see table 2).Individuals ranked the importance of the information thatthey reviewed on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = notat all important to 7 = very important.

Pretests were conducted using convenience samples of108 individuals. Data were collected in two phases. Duringthe first phase, 30 individuals were asked to complete thequestionnaire. The group consisted of faculty members in theleisure and tourism field who were familiar with the theoret-ical concepts used in the instrument. They first completed thequestionnaire and then judged the appropriateness of themeasurement items to check the content validity of the scale.Each question was presented using a write-then-talk format(Templeton 1987). The wording of a few questions wasmodified slightly based on the comments to ensure betterreader understanding. In the second step, data were collectedfrom 78 additional individuals, residents of a community inPennsylvania, to check whether the measurement itemsshowed internal consistency in reflecting the a priori fiveinformation value dimensions. Cronbach’s alpha values ofthe five dimensions ranged from .70 to .87, which indicateinternal consistency.

Sample

A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 900individuals drawn systematically from lists of 5,853 peoplewho already had booked one of the three resorts in Floridafor their vacations. In collecting data about the vacationers’information search, there is an issue regarding when to collectthe information. Vacationers’ sensitivity to the acquisition ofincoming information is related to how inclined they are toneed information and to take a vacation. Therefore, the deci-sion to collect data about tourists’ information search priorto their vacations was considered appropriate (Snepengerand Snepenger 1993; Vogt 1993). A list of the sample wasprovided by a firm managing the three resorts in Florida.Three hundred respondents were selected for each of thethree resorts. The initial mailing of 900 survey packets con-sisted of a cover letter, a questionnaire, an incentive card toparticipate in a drawing worth $100 in gifts, and a postage-paid return envelope. One week after the initial mailing, apostcard was mailed to the whole sample, reminding nonre-spondents and thanking respondents. Two weeks after thepostcard, a second copy of the questionnaire was mailed tononrespondents. Out of 900 individuals, 410 responses were

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 77

received, resulting in an effective response rate of 46.2%.Among the respondents, the 189 respondents indicating thatthey had not searched for information when booking theresort were asked to skip to the questions about informationvalue. Those who did not begin searching for information inrelation to their vacations were not included in this study.Thus, the remaining 221 that actually used an informationsearch in the process of booking the resort were included inthe data analyses of this study.

Proposed Models and Analyses

This study proposed and verified the structure of multi-dimensional information values for vacation travel and,based on a cohesive conceptual framework, derived a senseof what individuals chose to learn in gleaning information(Hirschman 1984, 1986; Hirschman and Solomon 1984;Mittal and Lee 1989; Richins 1994; Sönmez and Graefe1998a; Vogt and Fesenmaier 1998; Zuckerman 1979). Thus,this study contributes to the better understanding of distinc-tive value dimensions as well as the integrated perception ofvacation information value.

The research question of this study is, How are travelinformation value dimensions structured? To answer theresearch question, we propose four possible models of thetravel information value structure and label each model as(1) first-order correlated factor model, (2) first-order uncor-related factor model, (3) second-order two-factor model,and (4) second-order single-factor model. The first modelhypothesizes that the five first-order factors correlate to eachother (figure 1), which may indicate that the five dimensions

of information value coexist by influencing each other. Thesecond model hypothesizes that the same five factors existindependently (figure 2). The third model is developedbased on the notion that the five value dimensions are relatedto functional value and experiential value. Thus, hypotheti-cally, the five first-order factors can be grouped with a link toone of two second-order values: functional or experiential(figure 3). The fourth model hypothesizes that the five factorsexist under the sole influence of a single second-order factornamed information value (figure 4). The fourth model alsoassumes that the second-order factor (information value)exists but cannot be directly measured and can only beinferred from the first-order value factors.

To verify the proposed four structures, CFAs were con-ducted using the covariance matrix and maximum likelihoodestimation, as implemented in LISREL 8.0 (Byrne 1998;Joreskog and Sorbom 1998).

RESULTS

The sample profile is presented in table 3. More than halfof the respondents were female (61.5%), 30 to 49 years of

TABLE 3SAMPLE PROFILE

Variables N %

Gender (n = 221)Female 136 61.5Male 85 38.5

Age (n = 219)20-29 years 3 1.430-39 years 55 25.140-49 years 82 37.450-59 years 47 21.560-69 years 27 12.370-89 years 5 2.3

Education (n = 218)High school degree 13 6.0Vocational/technical school 10 4.6Attended college 28 12.8Graduated from college 95 43.6Completed graduate work 72 33.0

Income (n = 172)Less than $40,000 4 2.3$40,000-$79,999 26 15.2$80,000-$119,999 47 27.4$120,000-$159,999 21 12.2$160,000-$199,999 18 10.5$200,000 or more 56 32.6

Note: The overall percentage may not add up to 100% due torounding.

FIGURE 1FIRST-ORDER CORRELATED FACTOR MODEL (MODEL 1)

Utilitarian

Risk avoidance

X1

X2

X3

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

X9

X10

X8

X4

X5

X6

X7

Hedonic

Sensationseeking

Social

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

78 AUGUST 2008

age (62.5%), and well educated. Most respondents had grad-uated from college or completed graduate work (76.6%),and most (82.7%) had an annual household income ofUS$80,000 or more.

Information Value Structure

The four proposed models for information value struc-ture, as presented in figures 1 through 4, were tested withCFA, in which each of the value measurement items wasloaded on its a priori factor. The models were evaluated onthe basis of reliability alpha to ensure the homogeneity ofthe measurement items within each information valuedimension, and the subsequent model-fit indices were exam-ined to check overall model fit with the collected data.Convergent validity and discriminant validity were alsoinvestigated for the validity of the proposed value structure.

The first proposed model is the first-order correlated fac-tor model (figure 1). Cronbach’s alphas, the most widelyused measure for reliability coefficient, were calculated (seetable 4). All alphas exceed the minimum of .7, as recom-mended by Nunnally (1978). The results indicate that thevalue measurement items are reliable in measuring eachvalue dimension.

For the model-fit indices, the chi-square test of the mea-surement model was statistically significant (χ2

(94) = 114.0,p < .05), meaning a not-appropriate-fit model. However, it iswell documented that χ2 statistics are sensitive to samplesizes and usually significant, indicating that the hypothe-sized model does not show an adequate fit to the sample data(Byrne 1998; Maruyama 1998). Therefore, we used other

model-fit indices. As shown in table 5, all the other indicesindicated an adequate degree of model fit (χ2 / df = 1.21,normed fit index (NFI) = .919, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) =.941, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .901, and rootmean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .045). Theχ2 /df ratio and RMSEA were below their acceptable thresh-olds, 2 to 3 and .08, respectively. The NFI, GFI, and AGFIwere all above the desired .90 (Hair et al. 1998). Overall, themodel appeared to fit the data well.

Convergent validity was first evaluated in the CFAmodel by checking for factor loading (λ) significance. Aspresented in table 4, all the loadings were more than .61 andsignificant at an alpha level of .01. In addition, average vari-ances extracted (AVEs) were calculated. The AVEs of allfive dimensions exceeded the .5 threshold required to ensurethat variance extracted by the selected measurement itemswas greater than that due to measurement error (Fornell andLarcker 1981), suggesting evidence of acceptable conver-gent validity.

Discriminant validity among the proposed factors wasexamined using two methods. First, the AVE of each factorwas compared to the square of the highest estimated corre-lation among each possible pair of dimensions. For example,the lowest AVE was .510 at the hedonic factor. The highestestimated correlation between the hedonic factor and anyother factors (e.g., sensation seeking) was .602. The squareof the correlation was .362, which was lower than the AVEof the hedonic factor. This suggested that variance extractedby measurement items within the hedonic dimension wasgreater than the variance shared or explained by any otherproposed dimensions. All the AVEs were greater than any

TABLE 4

FACTOR LOADINGS

Factor ReliabilityInformation Value Factors Loading Alpha AVE

UtilitarianRelevant detailed information on a destination .84 .74 .531Beneficial information in making choices for attributes .71Useful information in helping plan vacation .62

Risk avoidanceInformation on performance risks .84 .85 .567Information on situational risk .78Information on physical risks .73Information on financial risk .65

HedonicInformation enhancing excitement at a destination .80 .76 .510Information on the beauty of the surrounding at a destination .72Information contributing to fantasies about a vacation .61

Sensation seekingInformation on new adventures for experiences .83 .71 .535Information about risk-taking activities .77Information about unfamiliar or novel experiences at the destination .66Information about sensational activities that you might not participate in at home .65

SocialInformation contributing to discussion on vacation experiences with others .82 .72 .547Information to exchange opinions with friends or family .65

Note: All the factor loadings are significant at an alpha level of .01. AVE = average variance extracted.

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 79

squared correlations, providing evidence of discriminantvalidity. Second, as Gerbing and Anderson (1988) recom-mended, we tested to see if the correlations among informa-tion value dimensions (table 6) were significantly differentfrom 1 by looking at whether the confidence intervals of thecorrelations, calculated as correlation ±1.96 × standard errorof estimate, contained 1. If the confidence intervals do notinclude 1, it is accepted as reasonable evidence that eachfactor measures a unique dimension of information value.The results revealed that no correlation had 1 in the 95%confidence interval, satisfying discriminant validity of thefactors. Thus, the two methods supported discriminantvalidity of the five proposed dimensions.

Overall, the analyses showed that model 1 (the first-order correlated factor model) was acceptable. The resultindicated that the hypothesized five information valuedimensions were robust and the correlated structure of thefive dimensions was valid.

As shown in figure 2, the difference between model 1and model 2 was in the orthogonal nature of the proposedvalue dimensions. Model 2 hypothesized that the 16 mea-surement items formed five orthogonal or uncorrelated first-order dimensions, which meant that the five informationvalue dimensions existed in a separate or independent form.The model was tested with CFA as well. The chi-square forthe model was 401.8 (df = 105, p < .01), and the RMSEAwas .125. The NFI, GFI, and AGFI were .713, .789, and.682, respectively. As shown by the changes in the indices,model 2 showed substantial deterioration when compared tomodel 1, providing unsatisfactory solutions. In addition, wecompared models 1 and 2 by examining the difference inchi-square values (table 7). The difference was significantlylarge (Δχ2

(11) = 287.8, p < .01). Thus, it was determined thatmodel 2 was unacceptable.

Model 3 (figure 3) hypothesized that the five first-orderfactors loaded on one of the two correlated second-orderfactors (functional and experiential values) and was alsotested by CFA. Even though all first-order factors loadedsignificantly on the second-order factor (p < .01), the modelindices associated with model 3 were unsatisfactory (χ2

(98) =204.7, NFI = .854, GFI = .893, AGFI = .825, RMSEA =.082), suggesting a not-good-fit model. Additionally, a com-parison of the fit statistics for models 3 and 1 showed thatmodel 3 had significant deterioration in model fit overmodel 1. The chi-square difference was quite significant(Δχ2

(4) = 90.7, p < .01), and thus, model 3 was rejected.Although discriminant validity was verified, table 6

shows that significantly positive correlations existed amongall five factors, suggesting a high degree of empirical over-lap. That is, respondents who held high perceptions of anyone dimension of information value also tended to perceivethe other dimensions as high. Thus, we tested the possibilitythat the five dimensions formed a second-order single factor,as presented in figure 4. CFA results suggested that mostindices were satisfactory (χ2

(95) = 121.9, NFI = .913, GFI =.936, RMSEA = .047), except for AGFI (.896), so model 4was deemed reasonably acceptable. However, when com-pared to model 1 using chi-square values, the difference wassignificant (Δχ2

(1) = 7.9, p < .01), indicating that model 1was a substantial improvement over model 4. In sum, model4 was acceptable, but model 1 was the better model.Therefore, considering the results of all the analyses, wedetermined that of the four proposed models, model 1 bestrepresented information value structure for vacation travel.

CONCLUSION

The primary purpose of this study was to identify vaca-tioners’ perceived information value structure in the pretrip

TABLE 5

GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR ALTERNATIVE MODELS

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4(First-order (First-order (Second-order (Second-ordercorrelated uncorrelated two-factor single-factor

Goodness-of-Fit Indices factor model) factor model) model) model)

Chi-square (df) 114.0 (94) 401.8 (105) 204.7 (98) 121.9 (95)Chi-square/df 1.21 3.83 2.09 1.28Normed fit index (NFI) .919 .713 .854 .913Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) .941 .789 .893 .936Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) .901 .682 .825 .896Root mean square error of .045 .125 .082 .047

approximation (RMSEA)

Note: df = degrees of freedom.

TABLE 6

FACTOR INTERCORRELATIONS

Risk SensationFactors Utilitarian Avoidance Hedonic Seeking Social

Utilitarian 1Risk avoidance .443 1Hedonic .570 .499 1Sensation seeking .686 .572 .602 1Social .235 .328 .460 .452 1

Note: All correlations are significant at an alpha level of .05.

TABLE 7

MODEL COMPARISONS

Model Comparison Δχ2 (Δdf) p Value

Model 2—Model 1 287.8 (11) <.01Model 3—Model 1 90.7 (4) <.01Model 4—Model 1 7.9 (1) <.01

Note: df = degrees of freedom.

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

stage. Five dimensions for information value were extractedfrom an extensive review of the literature. Four plausiblealternative models for information value structures were pro-posed and tested using CFAs. The results indicated thatmodel 1 (the first-order correlated factor model) representedthe most valid framework for vacation travel informationvalue. In other words, information value was better conceptu-alized as a five-dimensional interrelated model than as a five-dimensional uncorrelated model (model 2) or a second-ordertwo-factor model (model 3). Therefore, one should not assumethat information value is a single general dimension and thatinformation value can be grouped into two values (i.e., func-tional and experiential); assessing travel information valuerequires differentiating among different dimensions.

Given the significant correlation among the five factors, wealso tested a second-order single-factor model (model 4), andthe outcome showed that the second-order information valuestructure adequately accounted for the covariances among thefive first-order factors. This indicated that there was anotherunderlying dimension behind the proposed five dimensions—information value. Although the information value structure

was best represented by model 1, model 4 should not berejected, suggesting that information value could collectivelyrepresent the five identified value dimensions.

It was also worth noting the meaning of high correlationsamong the five value dimensions. For example, the strongestcorrelation was found between sensation seeking and utili-tarian (Φ = .686), meaning that tourists’ perceptions of sen-sation seeking value should be associated with theirperceptions of how utilitarian the information value was fortheir vacation booking decisions. Another possible explana-tion was that utilitarian information might be used as ameans of problem solving to enhance sensation seekers’ per-formance or experience (Hirschman 1980b). Sensation seek-ing value may be associated with instrumental alternativesthat are functionally equivalent in some respects. Thus, itmight be expected that vacationers who sought sensationalexperiences would search for utilitarian value of informa-tion. Also, sensation seeking was closely correlated withhedonic value (Φ = .602), with its imagery and projectiveconsumption (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Zuckerman1979), although sensation seeking dealt with more danger-ous or unusual activities, novelty, and intense stimulation(Arnett 1996; Zuckerman 1979).

It seems that the interactivity of information valuesmight be more effective in the overall evaluation of travelproducts than the sole information value. The results formodel 1 (the first-order correlated factor model) are sup-ported by Holbrook’s (1994) claim that customer value isinteractive for value-creating experiences. This interactivityof information value dimensions could also be explained bythe elaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo 1986;Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). Because individualsunder high elaboration are able to process the message, they

80 AUGUST 2008

FIGURE 2FIRST-ORDER UNCORRELATED FACTOR MODEL

(MODEL 2)

X2

X1

Utilitarian

X3

X7

X6

X5

X4

Risk avoidance

X9

X8

Hedonic

X10

X14

X13

X12

X11

Sensationseeking

X16

X15Social

FIGURE 3SECOND-ORDER TWO-FACTOR MODEL (MODEL 3)

Utilitarian

Risk avoidance

X1

X2

X3

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

X9

X10

X8

X4

X5

X6

X7

Hedonic

Sensationseeking

Social

Functional

Experiential

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 81

may scrutinize all information and judge the merits of mes-sages assisting their choice processes (Schlosser 2003).Concomitantly, individuals in a state of high elaboration(i.e., planning a vacation) might not focus separately on spe-cific information value but harmonize and interact using avariety of information values.

In another approach to understanding information valuestructure, information searching may be instrumental, pur-posive, task-specific, or recreational behavior. Individualsare therefore motivated to acquire information value toenhance the experience of browsing itself or to assist in theirchoices (Schlosser 2003). No matter which informationvalue is salient, identifying the dimension of informationvalue could be construed as a conglomerate of multidimen-sional information values, as model 4 shows.

In practical terms, the findings of this study can be usefulto marketers in creating promotional campaigns, providingthem with a greater understanding of what information appealsto their markets. Indeed, this study reveals that assessinginformation value should involve vacationers’ perceptions offive different dimensions. This multidimensional approachshould allow vacation and resort marketers to identify spe-cific areas of information value that could improve tourists’information search and facilitate their subsequent decisionmaking. Marketers should have a deeper insight into recog-nizing vacationers’ perceived values and provide externalinformation sources that can meet vacationers’ needs forinformation. For example, marketers who target to attractvacationers with sensation and hedonic needs should designtheir advertising to focus on novelty pursuits and sensory

experiences. People are often exposed to too much informa-tion during their daily lives (Lurie 2004). Thus, providinginformation that satisfies tourists’ needs from a value per-spective is crucial in inducing a purchase decision as well asin promoting sales. Since tourists may be quite selective intheir information acquisition, providing information on thebasis of multidimensional value might play a vital role andevoke vacationers’ perceived attributes of travel destinations.The dimension of information value may vary in its rele-vancy to the attributes of travel-related products. Thus, it ismore likely that the resulting information value might havean effect on the consideration set of alternative destinations.

This study has some limitations. First, this study used aspecific context of domestic resort vacationers in the pretripstage who had booked their vacations. Thus, the scope ofthis study is somewhat narrow. There could be differenttypes of information values sought by those tourists whopursue a variety of experiences. That is, the destination envi-ronment elements (e.g., domestic/international, urban/ruraltourism) as well as travel characteristics (e.g., travel pur-pose, transportation mode, travel party) may influence theperceived value of information. Thus, a replication of thisstudy with different types of destinations or travel purposescould validate the results of this study. Second, this studydealt with only part of the entire process in using informa-tion value because our survey targeted those who hadalready completed their reservations at resorts but had notleft for vacation (i.e., pretrip vacation bookers). Informationvalue, which is activated during the information searchprocess, might not be sustained in the purchase. The valuethat an individual perceives in an information search can beuseless in the overall evaluation of alternatives or may not becontextual in the eventual purchase choice (Jun, Vogt, andMackay 2007; Peter and Olson 1999, p. 161). This studyidentifies information value structure without the investiga-tion of specific information search behavior. Although thefindings provide a basis for undertaking segmentation basedon the need for information, it is necessary to considerexplanatory variables that influence information searchbehavior to make appropriate predictions about the conse-quences of information, such as the type of a particularsource of information.

A few directions for future research emerge from thisstudy. First, some of the reliabilities and AVEs in this studyare only marginally acceptable, so future research needs toimprove the alphas and AVEs by continuously developingadditional measurement items or designing new scales tocapture information value. Second, the identification oftravel information value dimensions should be investigatedin the overall or hierarchical choice sets because individualsare inclined to evaluate choices by weighing the benefits orsalient beliefs about product performance consequences.Accordingly, future studies should include the eventual pur-chase choices to help shed further light on the impact ofinformation value on all acts of consumption (i.e., travelexperience) at a destination. When a choice process containsa variety of information values, it would also be worthwhileto explore the factors that influence individuals’ perceptionof information value in their information acquisition.Additionally, because information and advertising are fastchanging, tourist information values may change rapidly aswell. Thus, continuous research to catch up with the changesin information values should be a focus for future research.

FIGURE 4SECOND-ORDER SINGLE-FACTOR MODEL (MODEL 4)

Utilitarian

Risk avoidance

X1

X2

X3

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

X9

X10

X8

X4

X5

X6

X7

Hedonic

Sensationseeking

Social

InformationValue

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

82 AUGUST 2008

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L., and P. Williams (1998). “Empathy versus Pride; The Influenceof Emotional Appeals across Cultures.” Journal of Consumer Research,25: 241-61.

Arnett, J. (1994). “Sensation Seeking: A New Conceptualization and a NewScale.” Personality and Individual Differences, 16: 289-96.

——— (1996). “Sensation Seeking, Aggressiveness, and AdolescentReckless Behavior.” Personality and Individual Differences, 20: 693-702.

Babin, B. J., W. R. Darden, and M. Griffin (1994). “Work and/or Fun:Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value.” Journal ofConsumer Research, 20: 644-56.

Baloglu, S. (1999). “A Path Analytic Model of Visitation IntentionInvolving Information Sources, Socio-psychological Motivations, andDestination Images.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 8 (3): 81-90.

Batra, R., and D. Ahtola (1990). “Measuring the Hedonic and UtilitarianSources of Consumer Attitudes.” Marketing Letters, 2 (2): 159-70.

Bieger, T., and C. Laesser (2004). “Information Sources for TravelDecisions: Toward a Source Process Model.” Journal of Travel Research,42: 357-71.

Bloch, P. H., D. L. Sherrell, and N. M. Ridgway (1986). “Consumer Search:An Extended Framework.” Journal of Consumer Research, 13: 119-26.

Bojanic, D. C. (1996). “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Value andSatisfaction in the Hotel Industry: An Exploratory Study.” Journal ofHospitality and Leisure Marketing, 4 (1): 5-22.

Bond, E. J. (1983). Reason and Value. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Botha, C., J. L. Crompton, and S. Kim (1999). “Developing a RevisedCompetitive Position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa.” Journal ofTravel Research, 37: 341-52.

Brooker, G. (1984). “An Assessment of an Expanded Measure of PerceivedRisk.” In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, edited by T. C.Kinnear. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 439-41.

Brown, G. (1992). “Tourism and Symbolic Consumption.” In Choice andDemand in Tourism, edited by P. Johnson and T. Barry. London:Mansell, pp. 57-71.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS,and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cees, G. (2000). “Tourism Information and Pleasure Motivation.” Annals ofTourism Research, 27: 301-21.

Cheron, E. J., and J. R. B. Ritchie (1982). “Leisure Activities and PerceivedRisk.” Journal of Leisure Research, 14: 139-54.

Correia, A., C. M. Santos, and C. P. Barros (2007). “Tourism in LatinAmerica: A Choice Analysis.” Annals of Tourism Research, 34: 610-29.

Crompton, J. (1979). “Motivations for Pleasure Vacations.” Annals ofTourism Research, 6: 408-24.

Crompton, J. (1992). “Structure of Vacation Destination Choice Sets.”Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 420-34.

Cronin, C. (1995). “Construct Validation of the Strong Interest InventoryAdventure Scale among Female College Students.” Measurement andEvaluation in Counseling and Development, 28: 3-8.

Crowley, A. E., E. R. Spangenberg, and K. R. Hughes (1992). “Measuringthe Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Attitudes toward ProductCategories.” Marketing Letters, 3 (3): 239-49.

Diehl, K., and G. Zauberman (2005). “Searching Ordered Sets: Evaluationsfrom Sequences under Search.” Journal of Consumer Research, 31: 824-32.

Dimanche, F., M. E. Havitz, and D. R. Howard (1991). “Testing theInvolvement Profile (IP) Scale in the Context of Selected Recreationaland Touristic Activities.” Journal of Leisure Research, 23: 51-66.

Dimanche, F., and D. Samdahl (1994). “Leisure as Symbolic Consumption:A Conceptualization and Prospectus for Future Research.” LeisureSciences, 6: 119-29.

Dowling, G. R., and R. Staelin (1994). “A Model of Perceived Risk and IntendedRisk-Handling Activity.” Journal of Consumer Research, 21: 119-34.

Duncan, C. P., and R. W. Olshavsky (1982). “External Search: The Role ofConsumer Beliefs.” Journal of Marketing Research, 19: 32-43.

Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. Miniard (1995). Consumer Behavior,8th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

Filiatrault, P., and J. R. B. Ritchie (1980). “Joint Purchasing Decisions: AComparison of Influence Structure in Family and Couple Decision-Making Units.” Journal of Consumer Research, 7: 131-40.

Fodness D., and B. Murray (1998). “A Typology of Tourism InformationSearch Strategies.” Journal of Travel Research, 37: 108-19.

Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker (1981). “Evaluating Structural Equation Modelswith Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal ofMarketing Research, 18 (2): 39-50.

Galloway, G. (2002). “Psychographic Segmentation of Park Visitor Markets:Evidence for the Utility of Sensation Seeking.” Tourism Management,23: 581-96.

Gerbing, D. W., and J. C. Anderson (1988). “An Updated Paradigm forScale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment.”Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2): 186-92.

Gitelson, R. J., and J. L. Crompton (1983). “The Planning Horizons andSources of Information Used by Pleasure Vacationers.” Journal of TravelResearch, 21 (3): 2-7.

Gitelson, R. J., and D. Kerstetter (1994). “The Influence of Friends andRelatives in Travel Decision-making.” Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 3 (3): 59-68.

Golden, L. L., and K. A. Johnson (1983). “The Impact of SensoryPreference and Thinking versus Feeling Appeals on AdvertisingEffectiveness.” In Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 10, edited byR. P. Bagozzi and A. M. Tybout. Ann Arbor, MI: Association forConsumer Research, pp. 203-8.

Grewal, D., J. Gotlieb, and H. Marmorstein (1994). “The ModeratingEffects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on the Price-perceived Risk Relationship.” Journal of Consumer Research, 21: 145-53.

Grewal, D., K. B. Monroe, and R. Krishnan (1998). “The Effects of Price-comparison Advertising on Buyers’ Perceptions of Acquisition Value,Transaction Value and Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Marketing,62 (April): 46-59.

Gursoy, D., and J. Chen (2000). “Competitive Analysis of Cross CulturalInformation Search Behavior.” Tourism Management, 21: 583-90.

Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black (1998).Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hirschman, E. C. (1980a). “Concept Formation, Product Conceptualizationand Cognitive Development.” In Advances in Consumer Research,vol. 7, edited by J. C. Olson. Ann Arbor, MI: Association forConsumer Research, pp. 405-10.

——— (1980b). “Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and ConsumerCreativity.” Journal of Consumer Research, 7: 283-95.

——— (1983a). “Aesthetics, Ideologies, and the Limits of the MarketingConcept.” Journal of Marketing, 47 (3): 45-55.

——— (1983b). “Predictors of Self-projection, Fantasy Fulfillment, andEscapism.” The Journal of Social Psychology, 120: 63-76.

——— (1984). “Experience Seeking: A Subjectivist Perspective ofConsumption.” Journal of Business Research, 12: 115-36.

——— (1985). “Scientific Style and the Conduct of Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research, 12: 225-39.

——— (1986). “The Effect of Verbal and Pictorial Advertising Stimuli onAesthetic, Utilitarian and Familiarity Receptions.” Journal ofAdvertising, 15 (2): 27-34.

Hirschman, E. C., and M. B. Holbrook (1982). “Hedonic Consumption:Emerging Concepts, Methods, and Propositions.” Journal of Marketing,46 (3): 92-101.

Hirschman, E. C., and M. R. Soloman (1984). “Utilitarian, Aesthetic, andFamiliarity Responses to Verbal versus Visual Advertisements.” InAdvanced Consumer Research, vol. 11, edited by T. C. Kinnear.Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 426-31.

Hirschman, E. C., and M. Wallendorf (1982). “Characteristics of theCultural Continuum.” Journal of Retailing, 58 (1): 5-21.

Hoffman, D. L., and T. P. Novak (1996). “Marketing in HypermediaComputer-mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations.” Journalof Marketing, 60 (July): 50-68.

Holbrook, M. B. (1978). “Beyond Attitude Structure: Toward theInformational Determinants of Attitudes.” Journal of Marketing Research,15: 545-56.

——— (1994). “The Nature of Customer Value.” In Service Quality: NewDirections in Theory and Practice, edited by R. T. Rust and R. L.Oliver. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 21-71.

——— (1995). Consumer Research: Introspective Essays on the Study ofConsumption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

——— (1999). “Introduction to Consumer Value.” In Consumer Value: AFramework for Analysis and Research, edited by M. B. Holbrook.New York: Routledge, pp. 1-28.

Holbrook, M. B., and R. Batra (1987). “Assessing the Role of Emotions asMediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising.” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 14: 404-20.

Holbrook, M. B., R. W. Chestnut, T. A. Oliva, and E. A. Greenleaf (1984).“Play as a Consumption Experience: The Roles of Emotions,Performance, and Personality in the Enjoyment of Games.” Journal ofConsumer Research, 11: 728-39.

Holbrook, M. B., and E. C. Hirschman (1982). “The Experiential Aspectsof Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun.” Journal ofConsumer Research, 9: 132-40.

Holbrook, M. B., and J. Huber (1979). “Separating Perceptual Dimensionsfrom Affective Overtones: An Application to Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research, 5: 272-83.

Howard, J. A. (1963a). Marketing: Executive and Buyer Behavior. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

——— (1963b). Marketing Management: Analysis and Planning. Homewood,IL: Irwin.

Howard, J. A., and J. N. Sheth (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behavior. NewYork: John Wiley.

James, E. L., and B. G. Vanden Berg (1990). “An Information ContentComparison of Magazine Ads across a Response Continuum fromDirect Response to Institutional Advertising.” Journal of Advertising,19 (2): 23-29.

Jenkins, R. L. (1978). “Family Vacation Decision-making.” Journal ofTravel Research, 16 (4): 2-7.

Joreskog, K. G., and D. Sorbom (1998). LISREL 8: Structural EquationModeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International.

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 83

Jun, S. H., C. A. Vogt, and K. J. MacKay (2007). “Search and Travel ProductPurchase in Pretrip Contexts.” Journal of Travel Research, 45: 266-74.

Kamakura, W. A., and T. P. Novak (1992). “Value System Segmentation:Exploring the Meaning of LOV.” Journal of Consumer Research, 19:119-32.

Kaplan, L. B., G. J. Szybillo, and J. Jacoby (1974). “Components ofPerceived Risk in Product Purchase: A Cross-validation.” Journal ofApplied Psychology, 59: 287-91.

Katz, D. (1960). “The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes.”Public Opinion Quarterly, 24: 163-204.

Kristin, D., and G. Zauberman (2005). “Searching Ordered Sets: Evaluationsfrom Sequences under Search.” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4):824-32.

Levy, S. J., and J. Czepiel (1974). “Marketing and Aesthetics.” InProceedings of the American Marketing Association Educator’sConference, edited by R. C. Curhan. Portland, OR: AmericanMarketing Association, pp. 386-91.

Locander, W. B., and P. W. Hermann (1979). “The Effect of Self-confidenceand Anxiety on Information Seeking in Consumer Risk Reduction.”Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 268-74.

Lurie, N. H. (2004). “Decision Making in Information-rich Environments:The Role of Information Structure.” Journal of Consumer Research,30: 473-86.

Mano, H., and R. L. Oliver (1993). “Assessing the Dimensionality andStructure of the Consumption Experience: Evaluation, Feeling, andSatisfaction.” Journal of Consumer Research, 20: 451-66.

Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of Structural Equation Modeling.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCourt, W., R. Guerra, and H. Cutter (1993). “Sensation Seeking andNovelty Seeking: Are They the Same?” Journal of Nervous andMental Disease, 181: 309-12.

McGuire, W. J. (1974). “Psychological Motives and CommunicationGratification.” In The Uses of Mass Communications: CurrentPerspectives on Gratifications Research, edited by J. G. Blumler andE. Kartz. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 167-96.

——— (1976). “Some Internal Psychological Factors InfluencingConsumer Choice.” Journal of Consumer Research, 2: 302-19.

Mehrabian, A., and J. A. Russell (1974). An Approach to EnvironmentalPsychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mick, D. G. (1986). “Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring theMorphology of Signs, Symbols, and Significance.” Journal ofConsumer Research, 13, 196-213.

Mittal, B., and M. Lee (1989). “A Causal Model of ConsumerInvolvement.” Journal of Economic Psychology, 10: 363-89.

Money, R. B., and J. C. Crotts (2003). “The Effect of Uncertainty Avoidanceon Information Search, Planning, and Purchases of International TravelVacations.” Tourism Management, 24: 191-202.

Newman, J. W., and R. Staelin (1972). “Prepurchase Information Seekingfor New Cars and Major Household Appliances.” Journal ofMarketing Research, 9: 249-57.

Nishimura, S., R. Waryszak, and B. King (2007). “The Use of Guidebooksby Japanese Overseas Tourists: A Quantitative Approach.” Journal ofTravel Research, 45: 275-84.

Noble, C. H., and B. A. Walker (1997). “Exploring the Relationships amongLiminal Transitions, Symbolic Consumption, and the Extended Self.”Psychology & Marketing, 14: 29-47.

Nolan, S. D. (1976). “Tourists’ Use and Evaluation of Travel InformationSources: Summary and Conclusions.” Journal of Travel Research, 14(3): 6-8.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Olney, T. J., M. B. Holbrook, and R. Batra (1991). “Consumer Responses

to Advertising: The Effects of Ad Content, Emotions, and Attitudetoward the Ad on Viewing Time.” Journal of Consumer Research, 17:440-53.

Parasuraman, A., and D. Grewal (2000). “The Impact of Technology on theQuality-Value-loyalty Chain: A Research Agenda.” Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 28 (1): 168-74.

Park, C. W., B. J. Jaworski, and D. J. MacInnis (1986). “Strategic BrandConcept-image Management.” Journal of Marketing, 50 (October):135-45.

Perdue, R. R. (1985). “Segmenting State Information Inquirers by Timingof Destination Decision and Previous Experience.” Journal of TravelResearch, 23 (3): 6-11.

Peter, J. P., and J. C. Olson (1999). Consumer Behavior and MarketingStrategy, 5th ed. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Petrick, J. F. (2002). “Development of a Multi-dimensional Scale forMeasuring the Perceived Value of a Service.” Journal of LeisureResearch, 34 (2): 119-34.

Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo (1986). Communication and Persuasion:Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.

Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann (1983). “Central andPeripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Roleof Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Research, 10: 135-46.

Pizam, A., A. Reichel, and N. Uriely (2002). “Sensation Seeking and TouristBehavior.” Journal of Hospitality Leisure Marketing, 9 (3/4): 17-33.

Punj, G. N., and R. Staelin (1983). “A Model of Consumer InformationSearch Behavior for New Automobiles.” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15: 253-64.

Raju, P. S. (1980). “Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship toPersonality, Demographics, and Exploratory Behavior.” Journal ofConsumer Research, 7: 272-82.

Rao, S. R., E. G. Tomas, and R. G. Javalgi (1992). “Activity Preferencesand Trip-Planning Behavior of the U.S. Outbound Pleasure TravelMarket.” Journal of Travel Research, 30 (3): 3-12.

Richins, M. L. (1994). “Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meaningsof Possessions.” Journal of Consumer Research, 21: 504-21.

——— (1999). “Possession, Materialism, and Other-directedness in theExpression of Self.” In Consumer Value, edited by M. B. Holbrook.New York: Routledge, pp. 85-104.

Roehl, W. S., and D. R. Fesenmaier (1992). “Risk Perceptions and PleasureTravel: An Exploratory Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research, 30 (4):17-26.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.Ross, W. T., and E. H. Creyer (1992). “Making Inferences about Missing

Information: The Effects of Existing Information.” Journal ofConsumer Research, 19: 14-25.

Samdahl, D. M. (1988). “A Symbolic Interactionist Model of Leisure:Theory and Empirical Support.” Leisure Sciences, 10 (1): 19-32.

Sawyer, A. G., J. G. Lynch, and D. L. Brinberg (1995). “A BayesianAnalysis of the Information Value of Manipulation and ConfoundingChecks.” Journal of Consumer Research, 21: 581-95.

Schlosser, A. E. (2003). “Experiencing Products in the Virtual World: TheRole of Goal and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus PurchaseIntentions.” Journal of Consumer Research, 30: 184-98.

Sherry, J. F., Jr. (1990). “Dealers and Dealing in a Periodic Market:Informal Retailing in Ethnographic Perspective.” Journal of Retailing,66: 174-200.

Singer, J. L. (1966). Daydreaming: An Introduction to the ExperimentalStudy of Inner Experience. New York: Random House.

Snepenger, D., K. Meged, M. Snelling, and K. Worrall (1990).“Information Search Strategies by Destination-native Tourists.”Journal of Travel Research, 29 (1): 13-16.

Snepenger, D., and M. Snepenger (1993). “Information Search by PleasureTravelers.” In Encyclopedia of Hospitality and Tourism, edited byM. Kahn, M. Olsen, and T. Var. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,pp. 830-5.

Sönmez, S. F., and A. R. Graefe (1998a). “Determining Future TravelBehavior from Past Travel Experience and Perceptions of Risk andSafety.” Journal of Travel Research, 37: 171-7.

——— (1998b). “Influence of Terrorism Risk on Foreign TourismDecisions.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25: 112-44.

Stokowski, P. A. (1990). “Extending the Social Groups Model: SocialNetwork Analysis in Recreation Research.” Leisure Sciences, 12: 251-63.

Stone, R., and J. B. Mason (1995). “Attitude and Risk: Exploring theRelationship.” Psychology & Marketing, 12: 135-53.

Templeton, J. F. (1987). Focus Groups: A Guide for Marketing andAdvertising Professionals. Chicago: Probus.

Titz, K., J. L. Miller, and D. M. Andrus (1998). “Hedonic Scales Used in aLogit Model to Explore Casino Game Choice.” Journal of Hospitality& Tourism Research, 22 (2): 129-41.

Um, S., and J. Crompton (1990). “Attitude Determinants in TourismDestination Choice.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 432-48.

Van Raaij, W. F. (1986). “Consumer Research on Tourism: Mental andBehavioral Constructs.” Annals of Tourism Research, 13: 1-9.

Vaughn, R. (1980). “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model.” Journalof Advertising Research, 20 (5): 27-33.

——— (1986). “How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited.”Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (1): 57-66.

Vodanovich, S., and S. Kass (1990). “Age and Differences in BoredomProneness.” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5 (4): 297-307.

Vogt, C. A. (1993). “The Role of Touristic Information: The Pre-tripExperience.” PhD diss., Indiana University, Bloomington.

Vogt, C. A., and D. R. Fesenmaier (1998). “Expanding the FunctionalInformation Search Model.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25: 551-78.

Von Wright, G. H. (1963). The Varieties of Goodness. New York:Humanities Press.

Willams, P., and J. L. Aaker (2002). “Can Mixed Emotions PeacefullyCoexist? Journal of Consumer Research, 28: 636-49.

Yeung, C. Y. M., and R. S. Wyer, Jr. (2004). “Affect, Appraisal, andConsumer Judgment.” Journal of Consumer Research, 31: 412-24.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, andValue: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal ofMarketing, 52: 2-22.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level ofArousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

——— (1983). “Sensation Seeking and Sports.” Journal of Personality andIndividual Differences, 4: 285-93.

Zuckerman, M., S. Eysenck, and H. Eysenck (1978). “Sensation Seeking inEngland and America: Cross-cultural, Age, and Sex Comparisons.”Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46 (1): 139-49.

at OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on May 30, 2014jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from