Literature Review In The Area Of Travel Motives
This chapter consists of three parts. First is introduction, next is literature reviews that review the critical points of previous researches including substantive finding as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to this similar topic. Lastly, a conclusion to this chapter.
2.2 Literature Review
Research in the area of travel motives is important in understanding and predicting the factors that influence travel decision-making (Cha, S., McCleary, K.W. and Uysal, M., 1995). Motivation is theoretically viewed as ‘a state of need, a condition that serves as a driving force to display different kinds of behavior toward certain types of activities, developing preferences, arriving at some expected satisfactory outcome. (Backman, K.F. Backman, S.J., Uysal, M. and Sunshine, K.M.,1995)’ In particular, an understanding of motivation assist marketers’ efforts to achieve and satisfy individuals’ diverse desires and needs, key elements that influence the process of travelers’ decision-making (Crompton,J.L. and McKay S.L.,1997). Studies of motivation thus provide to predict traveler’s personal needs, expectations, achievements, or benefits sought (Formica,S. and Uysal, M.,1998).
A brief review of travel motivation research (Table 1) published in three major tourism journals – Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management, and Journal of Travel Research – revealed that existing studies have covered a wide range of the spectrum, there are included the sociology of travel motivation as a stimulator of actual behavior (Dann 1977; Mansfeld 1992); travel motivation of different niche markets (Clift and Forrest 1999; Dunn Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991; Hsu, Cai, and Wong 2007; Maoz 2007; Qu and Ping 1999; Rittichainuwat 2008); the development or empirical test of travel motivation measurements (Crompton 1979; Dann 1981; Fodness 1994; Ryan and Glendon 1998); differences in motivation among tourists with varied nationality and cultural backgrounds (Kim and Prideaux 2005; Maoz 2007), number of visits (Lau and McKercher 2004), destinations and origins (Kozak 2002), sociodemographic characteristic (Jang and Wu 2006; Fleischer and Pizam 2002), or environmental attitude (Luo and Deng 2008).
A sociological study of travel motivation, with a focus on the push dimension of motivation.
The motivation for pleasure vacation. Seven motivation factors were identified through interviews.
Based on a literature review on travel motivation, seven approaches of motivation study were identified. The utilization of different terminologies was also discussed
Dunn Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991
Motivation of sightseeing tourists in relation to their satisfaction
The role of motivation in travel behavior and its complex nature
Travel motivation of Canadian ecotourists
Relationship between anticipation and motivation in postindustrial societies in the context of Western Europe
A measurement scale was developed for leisure travel with 20 items.
Lieux, weaver; and McCleary 1994
Benefit segmentation of senior tourists from the United States
Development of theoretical model on motivation and expectation formation
Formica and Uysal 1998
Benefit segmentation of visitors to a cultural-historical event in Italy
Ryan and Glendon 1998
The Leisure Motivation Scale was applied to tourism with British holidaymakers. An abbreviated version of holiday motivation scale with 14 items was developed.
Waller and Lea 1998
Relationship between authenticity seeking and enjoyment. The knowledge dimension of motivation was found to mediate this relationship.
Clift and Forrest 1999
The motivation of gay men in relation to the type of destinations they preferred in the context of the United Kingdom
Qu and Ping 1999
Motivation of cruise selection in the context of Hong Kong
The role of emotional component of travel motivation in stimulating actual travel behavior
Fleischer and Pizam 2002
Relationship between motivation and Israeli senior travelers’ income and health
Differences of motivation among tourists visiting different destinations and tourist from different countries visiting same destination with respondents from the United Kingdom and Germany
Sirakaya, Uysal, and Yoshioka 2003
Benefits segmentation of Japanese tourists to Turkey
Lau and McKercher
Differences of travel motivation between first-time and repeat visitors to Hong Kong
Kim and Prideaux 2005
A cross-cultural analysis on travel motivation to South Korea among five national tourist groups
Pearce and Lee 2005
Further development of the Travel Career Ladder by introducing Travel Career Pattern (TCP). The relationship between previous experience and motivation was explored by TCP.
Yoon and Uysal 2005
Causal relationship between push-pull motivations, satisfaction, and destination loyalty. Pull factors were found to negatively influence satisfaction.
Jang and Wu 2006
Influences of sociodemographic factors, economic status, health status, and positive and negative effects on travel motivation among Taiwanese seniors
Chang, wall, and Chu 2006
Benefits segmentation using the novelty seeking scale in the context of Taiwanese tourists to aboriginal attractions
Nicolau and Mas 2006
Influences of travel distance and price on destination selection, with travel motivation as a moderator in the context of Spain
Poria, Reichel, and Biran 2006
Relationship between perception of heritage as it is related to the tourists’ own heritage and motivation explored before the trip
Snerpenger et al. 2006
Tourists and recreationist were comparing using Iso-Ahola’s motivation theory. The relationship between motivation and previous vacations was investigated.
Swanson and Horridge 2006
Causal relationship between souvenir shopping and four motivational factors in the context of Southwestern United States
Beh and Bruyere 2007
Benefits segmentation in the context of Kenya
Hsu, Cai, and Wong 2007
A theoretical model of senior travel motivation in the context of China
Travel motivation of Israeli backpackers, investigated in relation to national and cultural characteristics
Luo and Deng 2008
Relationship between environmental attitude and nature-based tourism motivation
Travel motivation to a tourism destination, using the disaster-hit beach resort in Phuket as an example. Comparison was made between domestic and inbound tourists, and between tourists of different ages and genders.
Park and Yoon 2009
Benefit segmentation of rural tourism in the context of South Korea
Table1. Brief Summary of Studies on Travel Motivation
(Adopted from Cathy H.C. Hsu, Liping A. Cai and Mimi Li, 2009)
Many researchers from different fields such as from sociology, anthropology, and psychology have investigated travel motivation since many years ago (Cohen, 1972; Dann, 1977; Crompton, 1979; Gnoth, 1997). Maslow’s hierarchical theory of motivation was one of the most applied in tourism literature (1970) and it was model as a pyramid whose base consists of the physiological needs, followed by higher levels of psychological needs and the need for self-actualization. Numerous tourism scholars have attempted to modify the model empirically, with the notable success by Pearce (1982), who projected a tourism motivation model that mirrors the model of Maslow, but free of prepotency assumption.
Push Seeking Relaxation
Factors Sightseeing Variety
Events and Activities
Factors History and Culture
Easy Access and Affordable
A review of past researches on tourist motivation indicates that the analysis of motivations based on the two dimensions of push and pull factors have been generally accepted (Yuan & McDonald, 1990; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). The concept behind push and pull dimension is that people travel because they are pushed by their own inner forces and pulled by the outer forces of destination attributes. Most of the push factors that are origin-related are intangible or intrinsic desires of the individual travelers. Pull factors, vice versa, are those that emerge because of the attractiveness of that particular destination, as the travelers perceive it. They include tangible resources and travelers’ perception and expectation such as benefit expectation, novelty and marketed image of the destination. A research model is then developing based on this theory at below diagram (adapted from Baloglu & Uysal, 1996).
Crompton (1979) first sought to draw seven socio-psychological, or push motives such as escape, self-exploratory, relaxation, prestige, regression, kinship-enhancement, and social interaction) and two cultural, or pull motives that are novelty and education. The conceptual framework that he developed would giving impact the selection of a destination, and this approach implies that the destination can have some degree of influence on vacation behavior in meeting an aroused need.
As Crompton’s initial empirical effort, many studies have attempted to recognize push and pull motivational factors in different settings such as nationalities, destinations and events (Jang and Wu, 2006). Example incorporated Yuan and McDonald’s (1990) study on motivations for overseas travel from four countries: Japan, France, West Germany and UK. While Uysal and Jurowski (1993) studied, the nature and extent of the reciprocal relationship between push and pull factors of motivations for pleasure travel with using data from the Canadian Tourism Attribute and Motivation Survey. Another study in Australia examined the nature and usefulness of the relationship between these two factors of motivation by utilizing canonical correlation analysis (Oh, H., M., & Uysal, P. Weaver, 1995).
Baloglu and Uysal (1996) claimed that the concept of product bundles is used to refer to the perceived significance of the interaction between push and pull items of motivation. This implies that certain reasons for travel may correspond to certain benefits that are to be valued and obtained at the destination spot. Based on the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, as discussed above, the individual tourist builds their perceptions, and the perceptions can be differ from the true attributes of the product depending on how the individual receives and process information (Gartner, 1993; Dann, 1996; Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). A general conclusion can be drawn that the personal motives or called push motives and the view of the characteristics of the tourism destination (pull motives) determine perceptions. These motives interact in dynamic and evolving context (Correia, 2000), and the tourist motivation is seen as a multidimensional concept that indicates tourist decision (McCabe, 2000).
As tourism paradigm is related to human beings and human nature, it is always a complex proposition to study why people travel and what they want to enjoy (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). In most studies, it is generally accepted that push and pull motivations have been primarily utilized in studies of tourist behavior. The discoveries and issues undoubtedly play a use role in attempting to understand a wide different of needs and wants that can drive and influence tourist behavior. Nevertheless, Yoon and Uysal (2005) said that the results and effects of the motivation studies of tourist behavior need more than an understanding of their needs and wants.
In tourism destination management, it was generally agree that maximizing travel satisfaction is crucial for a successful business. The evaluation of the physical products of destination as well as the psychological interpretation of a destination product are important for human actions (Swan and Comb, 1976; Uysal and Noe, 2003), which could be further represented as a travel satisfaction and destination faithfulness. Both concepts can be examined within the context of a tourism system representing two major components of the market place, namely, demand (tourist) and supply (tourism attractions) which demand refers to motives (push factors) that sustain tourists’ desire while supple relates to destination’s characteristics (pull factors) (Jurowski et al., 1996).
Push and pull factors have generally been characterized to two separate decisions made at two separate period in time – one focusing on whether to go, the other on where to go. For instance, Dann (1981) noted that ‘once the trip has been decided upon, where to go, what to see or what to do (relating to the specific destinations) can be tackled and this make a conclude that, analytically, both logically and temporally, push factors precede pull factor’.
Although these two factors has been viewed as relating to two distinct decisions, several researchers have distinguished that they should not be viewed as operating entirely independent of each other’s. For example, it has suggested that people travel because they are pushed by their own intrinsic forces and simultaneously pulled by the extrinsic forces such as the destination and its attributes (Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995; Uysal and Jurowskil, 1994). However, Crompton (1979) argued, push factors ‘may be useful not only in explaining the initial arousal, energizing, or ‘push; to take a vacation, but may also have directive potential to direct the tourist toward a particular destination’ (p.412).
Several empirical examinations of push and pull factors had been reported in the travel and tourism literature. Of the prior research that examined the students and/or spring break travel market (Butts, F.B., J. Salazar, K. Sapio, and D. Thomas, 1996; Field, 1999; Hobson and Josiam, 1992,1996; Hsu and Sung, 1996,1997; Sirakaya and McLellan, 1997), there have been no investigations of push forces and only a handful of attempts to study the pull factors influencing students’ destination choice decision. In another study, conducted by Hobson and Josiam (1992), students were asked to list their primary reason for choosing a spring break destination and most responses referred to the influence of friends and/or family living near or going to the destination, other reasons referred to destination-related attributes such as the destination having s spring break party reputation, warm weather, affordable pricing, quiet environment, good skiing, or good beaches.
Another study, conducted by Butts et al. (1996), found that the reasons that most attractive students referred to s sunny climate, nature, a wide choice of accommodations, price of accommodations, the destination’s nightlife reputation, and recommendations from others. In Sirakaya and McLellan (1997) study, they asked students to rate the importance of 56 attributes involved in selecting a spring break destination. Factor analysis was then used to reduce the 56 attributes to a set of 9 factors that labeled ‘local hospitality and services,’ ‘trip cost and convenience,’ ‘perceptions of a safe/secure environment,’ ‘change in daily life environment,’ ‘recreation and sporting activities,’ ‘entertainment and drinking opportunities,’ ‘personal and historical link,’ ‘cultural an shopping services,’ and ‘unusual and distant vacation spot.’
The most rated factor is local hospitality and services. However, this factor was made up of seven rather diverse attributes: climate, availability of beaches, good accommodations, large hotels, feeling welcomed, friendly residents, and good food. While these attributes may all be highly vital to visitors (thus explaining why they would load together on the same factor), one would expect that the basis of their importance would diverse considerably. It means each attribute may derive its importance or meaning from very different sources and the importance of a particular attribute may well be a function of multiple motivational forces. For example, beaches may be important to respondents because they manage to pay for opportunities for water-based recreation, getting a tan, and socializing with other tourists. Simple said, people may have multiple and possibly very diverse reasons for valuing the same attribute or pull factor.
Psychographics have been recognized as being very meaningful and relevant (Shih, 1986) and very vital means to provide extra information beyond the demographic characteristics (Abbey, 1997). Abbey claimed that psychographic variables produce significant differences between groups of consumers, and these differences are larger than the differences produced by the demographic profiles, thus, psychographics are more useful (Mayo, 1975) than demographics in describing consumers because they better differentiate between them (Ryel & Grasse, 1991).
Various researchers have utilized psychographic data in their studies such as Shih (1986) used values, attitudes, and lifestyles (VALS) to assess whether personal values affect the selection of Pennsylvania as a holiday destination. Pizam and Calantone (1987) used abundant value scales and reported that travel behavior was determined by a person’s general and vacation-specific lifestyle. Menzes and Chandra (1989) used the personality trait descriptors to profile the U.S. tourists visiting far-away destinations in the Far East and compared them with other overseas destination segments. Kassarjian (1971) used the personality concept to clarify consumer product and media choice, risk taken, and persuasibility.
Rokeach (1979) give a definition to values as ‘beliefs about desirable goals and modes of conduct’(p.41). Values are criteria that people use to direct their behavior, evaluate, and judge themselves and others, come to a decision what is worth believing in and doing and it also determine social behavior (Rokeach, 1979). Rokeach (1973) argued that the differences in peoples’ cultural values determine differences in their behavior because values determine cultural differences in thinking, activities, attitudes, motivations, and human needs.
It said that values control behavioral variables that interact with and influence each other. For example, values of visitors provide an indication of the visitors’ personality (Pitts & Woodside, 1986), values represent a alternate for personality traits (Dhalla & Mahatto, 1976; Howard, 1977). Values manipulate peoples’ motivations (Bailey, 1991). Values are mainly useful in the assessment of the customer’s motivation (Dichter, 1984; Munson, 1984). They are a means to better understand consumer motivations (Henry, 1976; Kahle, 91984; Leesig, 1976; Vinson, Scott, & Lamont, 1977) because it allow marketers to better understand the individual’s motives in making travel decisions (Pitts & Woodside, 1986). Pitts and Woodside (1986) claimed that travel motivation is directly influence by peoples’ values. For example, the motivation to travel to New Zealand to experience challenge and adventure or to spend a quiet vacation close to origin places is determine by travelers’ values.
Values also symbolize the preferences for actions (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1951). Value profiles allow for differentiating between those who participate in particular travel-related activity behavior (Pitts & Woodside, 1986). It also appears to determine people’s lifestyle (Dhalla & Mahatto, 1976; Howard, 1977). Mitchell (1983) used a VALS (value-lifestyle) typology to separate Americans into nine different lifestyle types, which were further group in four categories based on their values, each of these groups with different travel habits.
The importance of the personality characteristics of the individual, in combination with other psychographic factors was stressed (Plog, 1974). Plog (1991) reported that personality determines destination travel patterns and also travelers’ motivation as well as activities. Allocentric travelers tend to travel to unfamiliar and unique destination such as China and Africa; they are active, independent, motivated by novelty, discovery, and meeting with new people, and focus on varied activities. Psychocentric travelers tend to visit familiar and well-established locations such as Hawaii; they are less active, prefer to travel in groups, and participate in common activities (Plog, 1972).
Leisure-oriented traveler were more intrinsically motivated (e.g., by doing things for their own sake, obtaining purely internal rewards only) than those who were extrinsically motivated (e.g., by money or social approval) (Ingham, 1986). Intrinsically motivated individual also could cope better with stressful life events and activities (Maddi & Kobasa, 1981).
Personality found to be a major determinant of preferences for activities as well. In a study of high school student activity participation, Howard (1976) acknowledged a high correlation between personality measures and preferences for leisure activities. Eysenck (1976, 1981) found that extroverts and introverts engaged in different activities. Extroverts is those who needed to have people around them, easygoing, liked socializing and preferred highly social activities such as parties while introverts who tended to be shy and cautions preferred a well-ordered lifestyle, avoided social activities and excitement. Besides, it was noted that individuals who sought sensation spent more time engaged in highly stimulating and risky activities than those who did not seek sensation (Zuckerman, 1979). Plog (1991) reported that the energy (high energy) and lethargy (low energy) level determines various activities levels between tourists
Iso-Ahola (1980) argued that the relationship between motivation and activities was affected by different social environment as well as social influences. For example, low correlations between motivation and the degree and extent of activity were found. This might be due to a number of problems such as the lack of specifications of the distinct activities in surveys, the respondents’ lack of time or finance to participate in activities, lack of the facilities available (Ruskin & Shamir, 1984), information about activities, perceived incompetence, or sociocultural constraints (Iso-Ahola & Mannell, 1985).
An individual’s lifestyle is made up of a pattern of daily routine activities (Roberts, 1978). Some lifestyles are characterized by a numerous of activities; others are specialized and limited to a few favored activities. Person lifestyles were represented by the most popular activities (Glyptis, 1981). A number of contrasting lifestyles based on people’s activities patterns had been notable (Glyptis, 1981). Differences in lifestyle were found between foreign and domestic travelers (Woodside & Pitts, 1976), visitors and non-visitors to national parks (Mayo, 1975), tourists to Massachusetts (Schewe & Calantone, 1978) and in history-oriented and non-history-oriented travelers (Solomon & George, 1977). Every segment had different travel motivations and preferences for vacation activities.
Distinct vacation styles were identifying for various groups of vacationers such as Goodrich (1978) identified different vacation lifestyles for four groups of holidaymakers. For example, passive entertainment, active sports, outdoor types, and historical and cultural interests – each of it with different interests and preferences for vacation activities. Crask (1981) identified differences in five vacation segments such as rest and relaxation vacationers, sightseers, cost conscious/ attraction-oriented, sports enthusiasts, and campers which all with distinct vacation interests, motivation, and preferences for activities. Shih (1986) who reported different lifestyles for three major segments such as belongers, achievers, and societal conscious – each with different interests and criteria when selecting vacation destination. Another study is Zins (1999) which identified nine different vacation styles for distinct psychographic profiles of travelers (sightseeing tourist, family escapist, carefree wellness tourist, comfort seeker, demanding pleasure traveler, cultural interactionist, ambience seeker, relax-in-safety tourist, and nature-loving vacationer) with each of them obtained different preferences for vacation activities.
Gonzalez and Bell (2002) explained that lifestyle permitted greater knowledge of variables in influencing travel behavior. The study conducted in Spain manage to identify five tourist lifestyle – ‘Home Loving’, ‘Idealistic’, ‘Autonomous’, ‘Hedonistic’, and ‘Conservative’. ‘Home Loving’ generally focused on family life, they preferred to have a vacation accompanied by their families, and domestic destinations are the most frequent for a vacation destination. ‘Idealistic’ is the group who enjoy music, sport, theatre or outdoor activities and they does not spend much money on accommodation and is fond of country villages.
Meanwhile, for ‘Autonomous’, they view success as fundamentally linked with individual freedom and independence and places great emphasis on enjoying life and are not attracted to cultural activities. They spend their holiday time using low-priced accommodation and favor city destinations. The ‘Hedonistic’ segment consists of individual that attracted to pleasure and tends to travel in the company of friends and they are those people attracted to newly arrived products or services on the market. Lastly, ‘Conservative’ is a home-loving segment, they focuses on the wellbeing of their family. They are attracted to traditional domestic seaside destinations.
Hawes (1988) conducted a study of travel-related lifestyle that was base on an age-specific (demography) study. It was focusing on older women. Factor analysis result, showed three major underlying dimension within this group travel, which were labeled as ‘traveler’, ‘laid back’ and ‘dreamer’. The traveler focus on vacation travel orientation and is generally associated with singleness or small household size, activeness, acceptance or liking of excitement and uncertainty, higher income and education. The ‘laid back’ indicates an acceptance of vacation travel but essentially of the domestic, unexciting, unhurried, quite and relaxing, more concerned with indebtedness and less affluent. The ‘dreamer’ reflects an orientation in vicarious thrills and wishing or dreaming substitute for the real thing and television was found to be their main resource of information for travel decision.
Nicolau and Mas (2004) find that personal characteristics such as personal restrictions and socio-demographic and psychographic characteristics relate to the holiday decisions of going on holiday, chosen destination, foreign holidays and multi-destination holidays. A number of studies investigate constraints on travel behavior that arguably differ from general leisure behavior in many ways, such as cost, commitment and durations. It was said that constraints and facilitators operate differently in influencing travel intention and choice. Age is an extremely important travel constraint and Romsa and Blenman (1989) study the vacation patterns of elderly Germans, and Teaff and Turpin (1996) study the older Americans travel behavior. They both agreed that the taking of vacations declines with age.
Socio-economic, physical, psychological, and physiological (age related) constraints play an important position in the underlying processes related to the behavior of elderly vacationer (Romsa et al., 1989). The choices of vacation destination and holiday activities are constrained by the physical situation of seniors. Intergenerational effects also probable operate to impact on the travel of these older persons. Nevertheless, Teaff and Turpin (1996) find that older Americans travel more frequently and longer distances, stay away longer, and rely more on travel agents than other segments of the people. Some evidence, though, shows that travelers take longer vacations after age of retirement. Retirees are significantly more likely to be constrained by disability, perception of age, physical energy, and health conditions.
The family cycle is also a important constraint to travel choice behavior. In a study of the family life cycle (FLC) of German travelers, Opperman (1995) argued that FLC affects travel patterns considerably. There are many aspects of the tourists’ travel pattern relate to the stages of their family life cycle. Destination choice, transportation and usage of accommodation relate to differences in economic status and in discretionary income available for travelling. Lifetime experience, choices of accommodation and destination differ according to age stage. Travel purpose and especially the travel season were influenced by the family life cycle. Children have been traveled as an influence on family travel decision such as in Nickerson and Jurowski (2001) study the influences of children on vacation travel patterns that provide a perspective about planning and development with a view to increasing child satisfaction at the destination.
Gilber and Hudson (2000) see life cycle as a useful conceptual and analytical framework to investigate the experience of leisure constraints. Many life cycle issues contribute to personal ecology research and researchers concluded that different people do not experience constraints in the similar way. McGehee, N., Loker-Murphy,L. and Uysal, M. (1996) investigate the Australian international pleasure market with used gender and other demographic factors such as marital status, age, education, occupation and income to analyze travel motivation and travel patterns, finding that Australia women and men are motivated differently in their pleasure travel experience. Meric and Hunt (1998) find eco-tourists tend to be middle-aged and have higher education and income levels to reveals the general and specific activity preferences of them. It is likely that selected demographics can act as a determinant of travel preferences, possibly influencing preferred activities and their demographics can act as a constraint on travel intention and behavior.
Mayo and Jarvis (1981) claimed out that, ‘a common denominator that probably underlies all forms of leisure travel is the need for variety. Well-adjusted individuals need a balance of consistency and complexity in their lives by seeking consistency in certain domains of experience and complexity in others, consistency theory explains that ‘people, expecting a particular thing to happen, do not want to be confronted by something unexpected’(Mayo and Jarvis, 1981). On the other hand, complexity theory states that ‘novelty, unexpectedness, change, and unpredictability are pursued because they are inherently satisfying’ (Mayo and Jarvis, 1981). They also stated that travel allows people to escape from the boredom of ‘consistency’ and tension allows us to experience ‘complexity’ of novelty, change, and unpredictability.
Correspondingly, Iso-Ahola (1980) noted that people search for different levels of stimulation; they avoid either over stimulation (mental and physical fatigue) or boredom (too little stimulation. He claimed that leisure needs change during the life span and across place and social company and that, individuals do not have numerous leisure needs in mind and do not rationalize specific cause of participation if their involvement is intrinsically motivated. Besides, it is important of participants’ feelings of self-determination and competence to ensure satisfaction (Iso-Ahola, 1980).
Two types of motivations are: 1) physiological motivations stemming from biological needs, such as food, waste elimination and water, and 2) psychological, motivations stemming from needs created by an individual’s social environment (Mayo and Jarvis, 1981). The latter motivations are learned needs which are influenced by social institutions, such as a need to succeed and attain a reputable place in society. Mayo and Jarvis (1981) noted that ‘in rare cases, some psychological motives become strong enough to overcome physiological survival needs’.
Needs and personal goals are related to individual motivation. Fondness (1994) suggested five travel motivation: knowledge or cultural and educational motives’, ‘punishment minimization or the need to escape or stimulus-avoidance’, ‘reward maximization or pleasure and sensation seeking’, ‘self-esteem’, and ‘ego-enhancement or social prestige’. In addition, Loker and Perdue (1992) identified six tourist segments whose travel motivation related to benefit seeking. The six segments are those : 1) emphasize excitement and escape, 2) are pure adrenaline/excitement seekers, 3) are family- and friends-oriented, 4) are naturalists who enjoy natural surroundings, 5) value escape for itself, an 6) enjoy all benefits.
Leiper (2004) identified eight types of tourist’s motivations that are contrary and do not usually occur at the same time in the same individual on one trip. The motivations are stimulation and relaxation, luxury versus ‘roughing it’, adventure versus low-key break, and seeing versus doing. Tourists are somewhere between the two extremes, seeking a balance of the two components. Other types of needs and motivations which motivate people to travel are: need for escape from perceived mundane environment, need for rest and relaxation, need for sunlight, need for regressive behavior, need for self-evaluation, need for self-esteem, prestige and confidence, need for social interaction, need to spend time with relatives and friends, need to indulge in nostalgia, need for novelty, need underlying tourists’ shopping, and need for education, to indulge in curiosity.
There are many researchers have been done before about the relationship between several dimensions with the travel behavior such as psychological, sociological and demographic. Some of them agree that the travel decisions are derive from multidimensional motivation but not only one single factor. One of the most famous theory is push and pull factors which use mostly by other researches to investigate the travel motivation to in-depth understand on this issue. After a brief review to previous journals, the next chapter will discuss about the methodology, which consist of which method will be using to conduct in this research and how to conduct it.
Research objective: (is these objective suitable??)
To understand the relationship between Sightseeing Variety with travel behavior among Malaysia young adult traveler.
To investigate the Gaining Knowledge factor in influencing young adult traveler.
To examine Events and Activities impact towards travel behavior in Malaysia young adult.
To identify the factor of Easy Access and Affordable related to travel behavior.