20110610 JCTR What Drives People to Travel Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms

8/3/2019 20110610 JCTR What Drives People to Travel Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms

1/18

This article was downloaded by: [Hong Kong Polytechnic University]On: 09 July 2011, At: 06:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of China Tourism ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wctr20

What Drives People to Travel: Integrating

the Tourist Motivation ParadigmsYong Chen

a, Barry Mak

a& Bob McKercher

a

aSchool of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic

University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Available online: 10 Jun 2011

To cite this article: Yong Chen, Barry Mak & Bob McKercher (2011): What Drives People to Travel:

Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms, Journal of China Tourism Research, 7:2, 120-136

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2011.576927

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary

sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2011.576927http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wctr20


2/18

What Drives People to Travel: Integrating the TouristMotivation Paradigms

YONG CHEN

BARRY MAK

BOB MCKERCHER

Peoples motivation to travel has long been discussed on a multidisciplinary basischaracterized by three distinct motivation paradigms, namely, Plogs (1974) travel

personality, P. L. Pearces (1988) travel career ladder, and Cohens (1972)concept ofstrangenessfamiliarity. This study uncovers the underlying consistenceof these paradigms by proposing an integrated motivation framework and justifies it byapplying this framework to tourist behavior research. This study concludes by arguingthat a comprehensive perspective should be taken for conceiving a more accurate

pattern or image of tourists, in the sense that tourist behavior patterns can beinterpreted on an individual level by applying the travel personality, in a diachronicdimension by the travel career ladder, and from a holistic perspective by the concept ofstrangenessfamiliarity.

KEYWORDS. Tourist motivation, travel personality, travel career ladder,strangenessfamiliarity

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

: -

Introduction

Peoples motivation to travel has been discussed on a multidisciplinary basis since the

aftermath of the Second World War, when mass tourism began to thrive. It is not only a

matter of explaining, from a psychological perspective, why some people travel and

Journal of China Tourism Research, 7: 120136, 2011

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1938-8160 print / 1937-8179 online

DOI: 10.1080/19388160.2011.576927

Yong Chen is a Ph.D. candidate of the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at TheHong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: [email protected]).

Barry Mak is Assistant Professor of the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at TheHong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: [email protected]).

Bob McKercher is Professor of the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at TheHong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China (E-mail: [email protected]).

120


3/18

others do not (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977; Plog, 1974) and how motivation changes

over time (P. L. Pearce, 1988; P. L. Pearce & Stringer, 1991) but also of exploring the

symbolic meaning of tourism in anthropology and sociology (Boorstin, 1964; Cohen,

1972, 1979a, 1979b; MacCannell, 1973). The past nearly four decades have witnessed

remarkable progress in interpreting and modeling tourist motivation (Moscardo &

Pearce, 2004; P. L. Pearce, 1993, 2005; Plog, 1994; Prentice, 2004). Among a number

of tourist motivation frameworks and models is the pushpull framework that has

prevailed in this line of research. This framework assumes that motivation arises to

meet individuals needs, including alleviating psychological disequilibrium and obtain-

ing social recognitions (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977; Fodness, 1994). It thus follows a

functional approach to modeling tourist motivation by distinguishing between push

factors, which are inherent with individuals, and pull factors, which are destination

specific. Examples of this kind include a number of benchmark studies such as Danns

(1977) push factors of anomie and ego enhancement, Cromptons (1979) pushpull

framework, and Mannell and Iso-Aholas (1987) escapingseeking dichotomy.

Empirical studies on tourist motivation have largely followed this approach andapplied the pushpull framework to various tourism contexts (e.g., Crompton &

McKay, 1997; Gnoth, 1997; Goossens, 2000; Jang & Cai, 2002; Jang & Wu, 2006;

Josiam et al., 2009; Kim, Lee, & Klenosky, 2003; Wolfe & Hsu, 2004; Wu, Xu, &

Erdogan, 2009). This makes the pushpull framework an approximately orthodox

approach whereby tourist motivation is interpreted, either theoretically or empirically.

Nevertheless, skepticism arises as to whether this approach is valid across different

contexts and whether it can fully explain the complex of tourist motivation as a whole

(Crompton & McKay, 1997; Dann, 1981; Jamal & Lee, 2003). First, tourists may not

behave as the orthodox approach assumes, being driven by both their intrinsic attri-

butes and destination-specific characteristics (see P. L. Pearce, 1988; Plog, 1974); and

second, what tourists want may go beyond satisfying their needs upon which the push

pull framework rests (see Cohen, 1972, 1979a, 1979b; MacCannell, 1973). Addressing

these issues requires a new theoretical perspective as well as different tourist motivation

paradigms, which the present study follows.

Overview of the Tourist Motivation Paradigms

This study is concerned with somewhat different theoretical frameworks, including

Plogs (1974) travel personality, P. L. Pearces (1988) travel career ladder (TCL),

and Cohens (1972) concept of strangenessfamiliarity, which are appealing toexplanations of tourist motivation but have unfortunately been muted in empirical

studies. These three frameworks depart dramatically from those based on the func-

tional approach in terms of their theoretical underpinnings. In particular, Plog (1974)

constructed his motivation model by enquiring why some people do not travel

instead of the common one why do people travel as stated in Dann (1981), for

example. This implies a distinct theoretical setting in which nontravelers are of a

major concern relative to travelers. Plog (1974) concluded that nontravelers are indeed

nonadventuresome and proposed the notion of travel personality in this sense. Cohen

(1972, 1979a, 1979b) contended that what tourists want is not merely to satisfy their

psychological needs but authenticity of the destination. P. L. Pearce (1988) argued that

motivation changes over time in a travel career ladder, whereas the pushpull frame-

work fails to capture such dynamics.

Journal of China Tourism Research 121


4/18

Travel Personality

Plogs (1974) travel personality model is developed on a basis of an individuals

psychological characteristics. Individuals in the population are assumed normally

distributed along a spectrum of personality, from allocentric through near allo-

centric, mid-centric, near psychocentric, to psychocentric (Plog, 1974, p. 56).The two extremes (allocentric and psychocentric) are rare, with most of the population

falling somewhere in between. This model is proposed as an attempt to answer a

question raised in the business contextwhy some people do not flythe concern

that prevailed in the airline sector of the United States in the late 1960s. At that time,

only 27% of the population had flown in a commercial airplane, and seat capacity was

growing more than 20% against 8% passenger growth per year (Plog, 1974). It was

taken for granted by Plog (1974) that this question could not be answered without first

understanding the psychology of people who travel. Plog (1974, 2001) applied indivi-

duals travel personalities to examine destinations evolution with respect to popularity.

This is the life cycle model of the destination, suggesting that a destination may emerge

or decline as travel personality changes.

Travel Career Ladder

The idea of a travel career ladder is proposed to interpret tourist motivation that

changes over time (P. L. Pearce, 1988, 1993, 1996; P. L. Pearce & Caltabiano, 1983).

Drawing upon the theory of Maslows hierarchy of needs, P. L. Pearce (1988, 1993)

classified tourist motivation into five hierarchical levels, or a ladder, with relaxa-

tion needs at the lowest level, followed in sequence by stimulation, relationship,

and self-esteem and development needs and self-actualization/fulfillment at the

highest level. The logic of this idea lies in ones recognition that different motivationsare the result of different travel experiences, which are determined by an individuals life

span. In this sense, people might be said to have a travel career, by analogy to a working

career. This travel career follows that people commence their travel with a relatively

low goal such as relaxation and pursue higher goals as they become more experienced

travelers, until they reach the highest level of self-actualization/fulfillment. This model

has been subsequently modified slightly as the travel career pattern (TCP) in response to

criticism of the term ladder as used in the original formulation (Ryan, 1998). The TCP

thus emphasizes the pattern of, rather than steps of, a ladder or hierarchy of travel

motivation (P. L. Pearce & Lee, 2005). In contrast to Plog s (1974) travel personality,

the TCL/TCP attempts to capture the dynamics of tourist motivation.

Strangeness Versus Familiarity

Cohen (1972, 1979a, 1979b, 1984), from a sociological perspective, set his model in a

broader social context, arguing that tourism is essentially a social phenomenon.

Tourists therefore should be analyzed by underscoring their relationships with both

business establishments such as tour operators and the destination (Cohen, 1972).

Highlighting social relationships in the tourism system remains the most remarkable

distinction of Cohens (1972) model, which is represented by the concept of strange-

nessfamiliarity. This concept is constructed by breaking down Boorstins (1964)

holistic image of the tourist into more specific and empirically identifiable types,

namely, the organized mass tourist, individual mass tourist, explorer, and

122 Yong Chen, Barry Mak, and Bob McKercher


5/18

drifter (Cohen, 1972). Cohen (1972) agreed partially with Boorstin that tourists seek

to observe the strangeness of the destination, but he speculated that such observations

are affected by tourists familiar native culture. The continuum of possible combina-

tions of tourists strangeness to the destination and familiarity with their own environ-

ment leads to the typology of modern tourists mentioned above.

Research Questions

These three motivation models are distinguished by their epistemologies on what drives

people to travel. Plog (1974, 2001) regarded tourist motivation as a purely psychologi-

cal impetus, empirical studies on which can be found in Plog (2002); P. L. Pearce (1988,

1993) took a combination of both psychological and cognitive approaches to tracking

the dynamics of tourist motivation, which, for example, is followed by P. L. Pearce and

Lee (2005) and Filep and Greenacre (2007). Cohen (1972, 1979a) contended that tourist

motivation is constructed within, as well as by social structures and relationships, which

is tested by a couple of studies (e.g., Basala & Klenosky, 2001; Keng & Cheng, 1999;Mo, Havitz, & Howard, 1994; Snepenger, 1987; Waller & Lea, 1998). However, two

typical concerns remain when these models are treated separately for empirical inves-

tigations. First, it might be insufficient to interpret tourist motivation as well as to

explain tourist behavior by resting on a single theoretical paradigm (Dann, 1981;

Harrill & Potts, 2002; Jamal & Lee, 2003). This concern that has been articulated

over the pushpull framework equally applies to these three motivation paradigms.

Second, despite adopting a multidisciplinary approach, are these models interrelated

and consistent in explaining tourist motivation and travel behavior?

There has long been an advocate for integrating different tourist motivation models

not only to provide solutions to theoretical dilemmas but also, empirically, for reconciling

the conflicting interpretations of motivation (e.g., Dann, 1981). Efforts have been

devoted in this direction to synthesizing as well as testing these models in a way that

uncovers the multidisciplinary nature of tourism studies (Harrill & Potts, 2002; Jamal &

Lee, 2003; Lam & Vong, 2009). For instance, Jamal and Lee (2003) sketched a so-called

micromacro framework of tourist motivation that integrates a number of social psy-

chological and sociological motivation models, including those by P. L. Pearce (1988),

MacCannell (1973), and Cohen (1972, 1979a, 1979b). Nevertheless, previous research in

this regard, including Jamal and Lees (2003) framework, is descriptive in nature, failing

to penetrate into the fundamental logic that may underlie these models, namely, the

mechanism by which tourist motivation derives and evolves. In fact, these three models

are not only competing due to their distinct theoretical underpinnings but also arecomplementary, which remains largely unexplored both theoretically and empirically.

This study proceeds as follows. The following section presents an integrated

motivation framework aiming at drawing linkages among these three motivation

models with respect to their explanations of tourist behavior. The next section applies

the integrated motivation framework to two typical and distinct contexts in which

tourist behavior is commonly interpreted. The first context delineates tourist flows from

the origin to the destination, a situation within which these three motivation models are

developed. The second one portrays tourist behavior within a destination, a prominent

example of which is the case of city destinations. This context is meaningful yet largely

ignored in these motivation models. We apply the integrated framework to both,

aiming to examine to what extent tourist motivation and behavior can be accounted

by the integrated framework. The final section concludes.



6/18

Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms

Though different approaches have been adopted to model tourist motivation, classify-

ing tourists in a number of typologies can be found in these three motivation models.

Cohens (1972) work, among others, is apparent in this regard, suggesting four types

based on degrees of familiarity and strangeness that tourists experienced. They are theorganized mass tourist, individual mass tourist, explorer, and drifter, with the highest

level of familiarity and of strangeness experienced by the organized mass tourist and the

drifter, respectively. Plog (1974, 2001) identified five types through a spectrum of

individual personality, including the venturer (allocentric), near venturer (near

allocentric), mid-centric, near dependable (near psychocentric), and dependable

(psychocentric). P. L. Pearce (1988) did not intend to classify tourists, though we can

infer from his work a need-oriented tourist typology that consists of five types of

tourists, respectively seeking relaxation, stimulation, relationship, self-esteem/develop-

ment, and fulfillment.

Rationale for the Model

These typologies set a fundamental basis on which these motivation paradigms can be

integrated. Specifically, we expect to detect some common behavior patterns shared by,

for example, the venturer, fulfillment, and the drifter, respectively, in the models of Plog

(1974), P. L. Pearce (1988), and Cohen (1972). In particular, the inclusion of person-

ality in tourist motivation by Plog (1974, 2001) opened up an opportunity to explain

tourist behavior from its ultimate impetus and lay a basis for this integration as well.

What drives individuals to travel is not because travel is a means to satisfy a need but

because of travel per se. Because personality is relatively stable, tourist motivation ismore fundamental in Plogs (1974, 2001) model than in a number of models associated

with the pushpull framework. In this sense, the present study constructs a link to

bridge the disciplinary gaps among these three motivation paradigms by starting with

travel personality (Figure 1). This link follows that personality determines motivation,

which in turn determines tourist behavior. Specifically, travel personality is modeled as

a fundamental force by which travel career and the interactions between tourists and

the destination are determined.

Interpreting the Model

The interrelationships among these three motivation paradigms are constructed by

starting from Plogs (1974) travel personality (Figure 1). This can be justified by referring

to Plogs (1974, 2001) view that travel personality seems to be a meta-motivation or a

premise by which other motivation paradigms and tourist behavior patterns can be

discussed. Travel personality can be applied to other forms of consumption, such as

media choosing (Plog, 1974), and importantly can be viewed as a fundamental force in

determining holistic consumer behavior patterns from motivation through to decision.

Thus, travel personality goes beyond the tourism field, and an attempt can be made to

generalize it to all types of human behavior. As Plog (2001, p. 14) put it, we explored

their [the respondents being researched] life histories from childhood to the present to

determine common patterns or psychological characteristics. This model, however, does

not take account of the life stage of individualsthe central concern of P. L. Pearce



7/18

(1988, 1993)and the social context and relationshipswhich Cohen (1972, 1979a)

considered.

Clearly, P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) and Cohen

s (1972) typologies of tourists can bethought to fit, at least roughly, into the spectrum of Plogs (1974) travel personality.

P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) relaxation, stimulation, relationship, self-esteem and devel-

opment, and fulfillment tourists correspond to Plogs (2001) dependable, near depend-

able, mid-centric, near venturer, and venturer types. So do Cohens (1972) organized

mass tourist, individual mass tourist, explorer, and drifter. A similar relationship can

also be drawn between P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) and Cohens (1972) typologies.

Notably, Cohens (1972) individual mass tourist and explorer can be represented by

Plogs (1974) mid-centric or P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) relationship tourist, because

Cohen (1972) did not propose the mid-role; instead he argued that the typology is

flexible, which can be determined by both an individuals preferences and the institu-

tional setting of his trip. In this sense, Cohens (1972) tourist typology can be partially

traced back to Plogs (1974) travel personality in its concern with the individuals

psychology as well as being determined by the institutional and social context of, for

instance, whether an organized package tour is taken.

What Drives People to Travel: Implications From the Integrated MotivationFramework

Implications for Tourist Motivation Studies

The integrated motivation framework indicates that tourist motivation can be investi-

gated in a dynamic and comprehensive fashion. Researchers can simultaneously

Relaxation

Fulfillment

Stimulation

Relationship

Self-esteem/Development

Travel Personality

Familiarity

Strangeness

Travel Career Ladder Strangeness-

Familiarity

Venturer

Dependable

Near dependable

Mid-centric

Near venturer

Figure 1. Integrated motivation framework.



8/18

investigate a number of psychological, cognitive, and sociological factors that may

affect tourist motivation and behavior. This is perhaps unavailable in previous motiva-

tion models. For instance, interpreting tourist motivation from a psychological per-

spective such as in the pushpull framework requires controlling for the effect of

sociological factors, such as whether individuals are mass tourists or not. This implicit

assumption of controlling one dimension of motivation to underscore another can be

found in a number of empirical studies. For example, Waller and Lea (1998) ruled out

the effects of personality and travel experience when examining authenticity in tourist

motivation; Filep and Greenacre (2007) ignored the difference between mass tourists

and the drifter in discussing travel experience. The integrated framework contributes to

relaxing this assumption and allows researchers to examine the interplay of these

motivation paradigms simultaneously.

Though this framework may reconcile theoretical disputes among distinct disciplines

such as those between psychology and sociology, it may cause inconsistencies when

different empirical contexts are considered. We apply this framework to examine tourist

behavior with respect to tourist flows from the origin to the destination and touristmovements within a destination or, specifically, a city. The first context is dominant in

developing tourist motivation models exemplified by the pushpull framework. It is

taken for granted in this framework that the destination represents the pull factors of

tourist motivation, whereas characteristics of individual tourists represent the push

factors (Crompton, 1979). However, at a destination such as in a city with a complex

of economic, cultural, and historical attractions and heritages, tourist behavior may

demonstrate a pattern other than those indicated by, for example, the distance decaying

effect from the origin to the destination. Tourist behavior might be determined by the

complex of a city, and this deserves a shift of attention from tourist flows between two

geographical locations to tourist movements within a destination, in particular, a city.

Tourist Flows From the Origin to the Destination

The integrated motivation framework suggests somewhat theoretical consistence in

explaining tourist motivation irrespective of what disciplinary perspective is taken. This

consistence can be reaffirmed by applying this framework to explain various tourist

behavior patterns, including tourists destination choices, travel experiences, and reac-

tions to distance (distance decaying effects). These tourist behavior patterns are of great

relevance to travel personality, the travel career ladder, and distance decaying effects,

respectively, and can be accounted for by the integrated motivation framework

(Figure 2). Analysis of these tourist behavior patterns proceeds by operationalizingdestination choice, travel experience, and distance decaying effects as follows.

Destinations are classified by referring to Plogs (1974, 2001) destination life cycle

model into the dependable, near dependable, mid-centric, near venturer, and venturer

destinations; travel experience is simply represented by first-time visitors and repeat

visitors who differ in this regard; and distance decaying effects are operationalized as to

whether tourists take a long- or short-haul, culturally different or similar trips (Figure 2).

Destination Choice

Travel personality is most closely related to destination choice (Figure 2), because a

destination, at each stage in its development, attracts particular types of travelers whose

personalities are identical. In other words, the destination evolves over time as the



9/18

profiles of its travelers change with respect to personality. In his latest paper, Plog

(2001) placed 79 destinations on a psychographic curve based on the types of peoplewho visit them the most, giving each a psychographic position with respect to person-

ality. This psychographic position represents the personality of the destination.

Destination choice thus turns out to be simple and straightforward within Plogs

(1974, 2001) framework: The venturer is always keen to discover a new place and in

doing so turns it into a destination, followed by the visit of the near venturer, mid-

centric, near dependable, and dependable. Thus, the destination is given birth by the

venturer, matures when the mid-centric type comes, and finally ages to decline once

overrun by the dependables. This indicates that destination choice is virtually a process

by which tourists automatically sort themselves into a variety of homogenous person-

ality groups that match well with destinations

psychographic positions.P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) tourist typology also follows a similar destination choice

pattern, though for different reasons. Because the TCL is used to capture the dynamics

of an individuals motivation and needs throughout his life span, he tends to choose a

familiar or short-haul destination (the dependable destination in Plog s [1974, 2001]

framework) when commencing his travel career and then switches, in sequence, to

the near dependable, mid-centric, near venturer, and venturer destinations (Figure 2).

At his highest travel career level (fulfillment) he becomes eager to explore any new

place, most likely the venturer destination. This inference seems theoretically sound

but cannot yet be empirically supported. Even worse, a number of studies have showed

that rest and relaxation, which best represents young peoples motivation in

P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) model, is indeed the dominant motivation for

seniors (e.g., Fleischer & Pizam, 2002; Horneman, Carter, Wei, & Ruys, 2002;

Travel experienceDestination choice Distance decay

TravelPersonality

Travel Career Ladder Strangeness-

FamiliarityTourist Behavior Patterns

Venturer

Dependable

Near dependable

Mid-centric

Near venturer

Relaxation

Fulfillment

Familiarity

Strangeness

Stimulation

Relationship

Self-esteem/Development

Venturer Repeat Long-haul/

culturallydifferent

Dependable First-time

Short-haul/

culturallysimilar

Figure 2. Integrated motivation framework and tourist behavior patterns.



10/18

Huang & Tsai, 2003). This indicates that taking a short-haul trip or choosing a

dependable destination can satisfy individuals needs as well even if they have been at

the highest travel career level.

Cohen (1972) went further. In his framework, the drifter, explorer, individual mass

tourist, and organized mass tourist roughly attach to Plogs (1974, 2001) destination life

cycle from venturer through to dependable, but the two types of institutionalized tourist

may occasionally choose near venturer or venturer destinations; similarly, the nonin-

stitutionalized may occasionally choose near dependable or dependable destinations

(Figure 2). This is plausible because Cohen (1972) emphasized the relationships

between tourists and both business establishments and the destination rather than

merely on the destination itself. Tourists therefore can get close, geographically, to a

venturer destination by utilizing various tourist establishments, for example, taking a

package holiday (in the case of mass tourists), or approach the authenticity of a

dependable destination by abandoning all tourist establishments (in the case of the

drifter). This suggests that what matters to Cohens (1972) tourist typology in destina-

tion choice is not the geographical proximity of the destination but tourists relation-ships with the destination.

Travel Experience

P. L. Pearce (1988) pointed out that travel experience is the fundamental force that

drives tourists to ascend the travel career ladder to achieve self-actualization. Thus, the

relaxation tourist might be a first-time visitor, whereas the fulfillment seeker might be

the most frequent repeat visitor, with those who seek stimulation, relationships, and

self-esteem and development sitting in between depending on the amount of travel

experience they have accumulated (Figure 2). This is undoubtedly true when Plog s(1974, 2001) and Cohens (1972) typologies are examined. The dependable tends to be

the first-time visitor, and the venturer is possibly the repeat visitor who has accumulated

plenty of travel experiences through discovering one destination after another

(Figure 2). In Cohens (1972) work, the organized mass tourist tends to be a first-time

visitor, because he is fearful of travel and strangeness, remaining largely confined to his

own culture throughout his trip (Figure 2). The drifter differs significantly from the

mass tourist and even the explorer, in being the visitor with substantial experiences

especially in regard to authenticity.

However, the validity of these arguments might be questioned because travel

experience is an ambiguous concept across these three frameworks and lacks a rigorousdefinition even in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) work. In spite of its critical importance to

P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) TCL, travel experience is simplified as a proxy of a person s

life span or age, measured in empirical studies by three variables of domestic, interna-

tional travel experience, and age (P. L. Pearce, 2005). Filep and Greenacre (2007)

extended the travel career patterns model by redefining travel experience to encompass

travel frequency, the number of destinations visited, and the amount of time spent at the

destination. Another dimension of travel experience that is captured neither by

P. L. Pearce (1988, 2005) nor by Filep and Greenacre (2007) is authenticity. This

dimension stands out when it comes to Cohens (1972, 1979a, 1979b) works, because

he followed Boorstin (1964) and MacCannell (1973) in discussing tourism in relation to

social structures. What tourists have experienced is exclusively either illusoriness or

authenticity. Cohen (1972) dissolved this paradox by decomposing the holistic image of



11/18

tourists into different types, each of which may experience some degree of illusoriness or

authenticity.

Travel experience thus can vary by tourist types. For example, the mass tourist

might confront more illusoriness, whereas the drifter might experience more authenti-

city. Travel experience, in this sense, is not a matter of where tourists are in their life

cycle or how frequently they travel; instead, it is really concerned with the depth of

travel and their contact with and involvement in the destination. It is plausible that a

repeat visitor may have superficial travel experience, whereas a first-time visitor may

have plenty of travel experience in terms of authenticity. The former can be exemplified

by mass tourists, who may travel a lot but are isolated from authenticity of the

destination, whereas the latter can be represented by the drifter, who may travel less

but is completely exposed to the destination and experiences authenticity as a result.

This argument is supported by Waller and Lea (1998), who reported that package

tourists (mass tourists) experienced little authenticity relative to those in a noninstitu-

tionalized setting such as in an independent tour. The general pattern that repeat

visitors resemble the drifter and first-time visitors resemble mass tourists still holds(Figure 2).

Distance Decaying Effects

Distance decay is a core concept in geography, examining the role of distance in the

interactions of origins and destinations (Gaile & Willmott, 1984). Distance, which is

initially defined with respect to its geographical dimension, is represented in tourism as

a composite variable of time plus financial constraints (Bull, 1995). Cohen (1988)

redefined distance beyond these tangible constraints to include tourists own values,

customs, and lifestyles that may separate tourists from the destination. This dimensionof distance is what Cohen (1988, p. 31) referred to as the environmental bubble,

which may impede tourists, especially the drifter, from breaking through their familiar

environment to experience novelty and authenticity; on the other hand, the environ-

mental bubble can protect tourists, such as mass tourists, from being completely

exposed to a strange destination that indicates potential risks. The role of the environ-

mental bubble was verified by Changs (2009) study in which tourists tend to seek

novelty and simultaneously avoid risks, the degree of which may vary from organized

tourists to explorers.

Though physical distance is of little importance to Cohens (1972) framework, it

does affect the spatial distribution of Cohens (1972) tourist typologies. Physical

distance can sort tourists with respect to their types into different destinations, leading

to an uneven distribution of tourist arrivals from the near destination to the distant

(McKercher, 1998; McKercher, Chan, & Lam, 2008; McKercher & Lew, 2004).

Specifically, the mass tourist will normally travel less as distance increases, because

the farther he is away from his familiar environment, the more threats and risks he will

encounter (Figure 2). The drifter behaves oppositely: The farther the destination is

away from the origin, the more likely he is to visit there, because distance results in

novelty (Figure 2). However, the drifter may occasionally visit short-haul destinations

as long as in doing so he can immerse himself in the destination and experience

authenticity. Consequently, tourists tend to accumulate disproportionately more at

short-haul destinations, including not only mass tourists but also the explorer and the

drifter, and less at long-haul destinations with exclusively the drifter. This represents the



12/18

notion of distance decay in tourism, namely that tourist arrivals decline exponentially

as distance increases (McKercher, Chan, & Lam, 2008).

This is also true for Plogs (1974, 2001) tourist typology. The dependable tends to

confine himself to short-haul destinations, whereas the venturer takes relatively long

trips (Figure 2). The rest of the types (the near dependable, mid-centric, and near

venturer) fall somewhere between the short- and long-haul destinations as distance

increases (Figure 2). The rationale for Plogs (1974, 2001) framework that reconciles to

the theory of distance decay is that travel personality is assumed to be normally

distributed in the tourist population, with a slight skew toward venturesomeness.

Thus, a huge number of tourists, represented by the in-between personalities, will

accumulate at destinations between short- and long-haul, whereas quite a small number

will distribute themselves at the short- and long-haul destinations. The latter group

comprises the dependable and the venturer, who, according to Plog (2001), account for

2.5% and 4% of the population, respectively.

The concept of distance decay seems inappropriate to extend to the travel career

ladder. This is because the TCL is essentially a diachronic approach, failing to capture,synchronically, the distribution of the relaxation, stimulation, relationship, self-esteem

and development, and fulfillment levels as distance increases. However, if the life span

of an individual is taken into account, the distance decaying effect can be reinterpreted

as follows: short-haul tourists might be young and first-time visitors with little travel

experience, whereas long-haul tourists are more likely to be the elderly and repeat

visitors (Figure 2). The reason is that the distant destination best serves the fulfillment

goal of the elderly and the experienced, whereas the surrounding destination allows

young people to relax and be stimulated. Despite slightly offending against common

sense that the elderly may travel less, this contention is supported by Bao and

McKerchers (2008) study, which examined Hong Kong inbound tourists and found

that the short-haul tourists (Taiwanese, Thai, and Koreans) were substantially younger

(10 years) than the long-haul tourists (Australians and Americans).

Tourists Behave Within a Destination: The Case of City Destinations

This integrated framework can be generalized to any specific contexts, including urban

tourism and city destinations. The validity of this framework, though, might be ques-

tioned when it comes to a city destination. This is because these three motivation

paradigms that underlie the integrated framework are developed in a context in

which tourist flows from the origin to the destination are highlighted. This is also the

context within which the pushpull framework is developed. Crompton (1979) arguedthat the destination simply represents the pull factors of tourist motivation compared to

the push factors that arise on an individual level. We apply the integrated framework to

city destinations because they are more a cultural complex encompassing museums,

historical heritages, and modern lifestyles (e.g., D. G. Pearce, 2001; Roche, 1992) than a

geographical location away from the origin (e.g., Leiper, 1979). In this sense, the city

destination matters to tourists not because of distance, which provides novelty, but

because of its cultural agglomeration, which satisfies a variety of tourist needs.

Destination as a Cultural Complex

A city as a destination is more complex than it is in Leiper s (1979) tourism system

model, in which tourism is simply a two-way exchange. In this regard, travel is



13/18

portrayed as a journey departing from the origin and returning from the destination,

within which the destination signifies a geographical location compared to the origin.

That is, the destination is a dimension to measure the distance that a tourist travels from

the origin, a setting where the concept of distance decay best applies. D. G. Pearce

(2001) advanced this line of research and proposed a scale for the destination, which is

classified into four levels, namely, regional/national/international, city, district, and site

level. According to D. G. Pearce (2001), cities as a complex commonly include four

qualities, which are social and cultural heterogeneity, economic multifunction, physical

centrality, and high physical densities of structures, people, and functions. This allows

researchers to examine how tourists behave within a city with respect to different

cultural attractions, historical heritages, and modern tourism facilities.

According to Cohens (1972) tourist typology, mass tourists are more likely to

travel to a city than a rural destination because their travel activities rely much upon

travel-related facilities such as hotels, restaurants, and transportation. These facilities

can be provided by a city, especially where tourism is the major economy. In contrast,

explorers or drifters intentionally deviate from cities to travel to some places withouttourist facilities provided. However, an exception might be that drifters probably travel

to a city to be involved in the life of local people and experience different cultures.

P. L. Pearce (1988, 1993) argued that tourists accumulate travel experience and thereby

change motivations by visiting a variety of destinations during their life spans, which is,

however, impossible within a particular destination. If we take a synchronic perspec-

tive, a city destination can accommodate all tourist types that P. L. Pearce s (1988,

1993) framework suggests because a city is a multifunctional entity that provides

relaxation activities as well as the fulfillment amenities such as museums and concerts.

In Plogs (1974, 2001) framework, the dependable may explore the destination by

circling around his hotel, whereas the venturer may take a longer trip, deviating fromthe hotel as far as possible, resembling the concentric exploration pattern suggested by

Lew and McKercher (2006).

Hierarchical Travel Experience

Travel experience is the core concept in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) motivation frame-

work, which results in hierarchical motivations. The assumption that underlies

P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) framework is that tourists need to accumulate their travel

experiences over time before stepping from the lower ladder (level) to the higher one.

Because the destination in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) framework is largely a geogra-

phical location that distinguishes from others with respect to distance, tourists have to

travel to a number of destinations to make a change in their motivation. However,

tourists may fulfill their hierarchical motivations within a city because cities in their

own right are multifunctional. D. G. Pearce (2001) argued in this regard that the

demand for urban tourism is not represented by tourist flows from the origin to the

destination but, specifically, is in relation to different functions of a city and therefore is

multipurpose in nature. It may follow that the relaxation tourists find the most interest,

for instance, in shopping venues and night clubs, whereas fulfillment is found in

museums and cultural activities. Evidence of this argument can be found in Jansen-

Verbeke and van Rekom (1996), in which tourist motivation is hierarchical for visiting

a museum; the core motivationfood for thoughtis analogous to self-actualiza-

tion/fulfillment in P. L. Pearces (1993, p. 127) framework.



14/18

It is possible that in Plogs (1974, 2001) framework the venturer may acquire more

travel experience than the dependable because the movements of the venturer are more

diverse than those of the dependable. This also means that the venturer will visit a large

number of attractions available in a city. In contrast, the dependable may take a guided

tour or a tour package in a city destination, which may facilitate travel but, of course,

impede contacts with the city and local people. This type of travel results in what

Boorstin (1964) regarded as the illusoriness of travel experience. This is also true when

taking into account Cohens (1972) framework, in which mass tourists can increase

their travel experience in terms of quantity by visiting one attraction after another

within a city, but the quality or the depth of travel is relatively shallow; the drifter,

however, may selectively visit a couple of attractions such as cultural heritages and local

communities from which he believes he can obtain authenticity.

Tourist Spatial Pattern Within a City

Distance accounts for tourist flows from the origin to the destination as well as betweentwo destinations. Nevertheless, it has little influence on tourist behavior within a destina-

tion in terms of both transportation cost and time budget. Thus, we may not detect a

distance decaying pattern for tourist movements within a destination or a city. What

determines the spatial distribution of tourists in city destinations is the density and

distribution of attractions. Leiper (1990) proposed an idea of attraction system to illus-

trate the role of attractions, suggesting that a city may encompass both principal attrac-

tions and surrounding attractions. Principal attractions can exert a great influence on

tourists and therefore result in disproportionately larger tourist arrivals than surrounding

ones. Principal attractions of this kind may include the major museums and cultural and

historical heritage sites that best represent a citys identity and image (Dadgostar &

Isotalo, 1996; Jansen-Verbeke & van Rekom, 1996; Mommaas, 2004). Therefore, tourists

probably cluster around the location of principal attractions regardless of their types.

Though physical distance does not matter to the distribution of tourists within a

city, cultural distance does. Cultural distance may be represented by social and cultural

heterogeneities within a city, suggesting the multicultural nature of a city. In this sense,

the venturer in Plogs (1974, 2001) framework may approach distinct cultures to

experience novelty, whereas the dependable may approach those cultures that are

similar to his own to reduce cultural conflicts. In P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) framework,

relaxation tourists are more likely to experience similar cultures than fulfillment tour-

ists. In Cohens (1972) framework, mass tourists, in principle, can experience a variety

of cultures that are available in a city, but such experience is relatively shallow. This isbecause mass tourists are protected by their own cultures on the one hand, and, on the

other, are impeded by tourist establishments from being completely involved in the

local community. The drifter, in contrast, exclusively explores distinct cultures by

which he can uncover the significance of his own culture. This suggests that the spatial

distribution of tourists can be determined by the heterogeneity of cultures in a city,

which reaffirms that a city as a destination goes beyond the scope of its geographical

location with respect to the origin.

Conclusion

Insofar as tourism has been discussed extensively on a multidisciplinary basis (Jafari &

Ritchie, 1981), from an indisciplinary perspective (Tribe, 1997), or even as a chaotic



15/18

system (McKercher, 1999), these three works have defined, from their own standpoints,

the limits and scope within which we can talk about tourism as it currently stands.

Plogs (1974, 2001) work highlights the aspects of personality that drive people to travel

and thereby determine the life cycle of a destination. The inclusion of travel personality

in explaining tourist behavior differs from the conventional interpretations in which

individuals are assumed homogenous with respect to personality. Relaxing this

assumption allows researchers to simultaneously investigate the interactions between

individuals psychological attributes and cognitive patterns within a social context. The

integrated motivation framework is expected to serve this purpose. Plog (1974, 2001)

went too far to make his model realistic, because he presumed that personality deter-

mines not only tourist behavior but the evolution of destinations. Destination person-

ality might be an analogy for the destination image that we talk of today or the concept

of brand personality proposed in marketing, but the development, evolution, or life

cycle of a destination is too complex to be accommodated within a personality

framework.

P. L. Pearce (1988, 1993) contended that tourist motivation is driven by a learningprocess by which tourists accumulate experience that simulates higher levels of motiva-

tion. Thus, individuals life stages determine their travel experiences and motivations.

The definition of travel experience in P. L. Pearces (1988, 1993) work is quite ambig-

uous and simplified, making his theory far from robust. Even in P. L. Pearce and Lee

(2005), the most important motivationsnovelty, escape/relax, and relationship

cannot be explained by travel experience. P. L. Pearce and Lee (2005, p. 235) concluded

by saying that these three dimensions of motivation function as the core factors in all

travel motivation patterns regardless of travel experience level. What Cohen (1972,

1979a, 1979b, 1984) attempted to interpret is tourism as a modern social phenomenon.

In his framework, tourists, consumption, and the tourism industry as a whole represent

social relationships and interactions in modern society. In light of this, his model is

perhaps of little relevance to tourist behavior as we normally discuss it.

The validity of the integrated framework lies in the fact that tourist behavior with

respect to destination choices, travel experience, and distance decay is of theoretical

consistence, especially in the context that addresses tourist flows from the origin to the

destination. City destinations as a cultural complex provide a unique scenario to test the

integrated framework with respect to tourist movements within a destination. Findings

in this regard suggest that tourists have demonstrated behavior patterns other than

those identified regarding tourist flows. This theoretical exercise commences as a

response to the unilateral stance in interpreting tourist motivation by relying on a single

piece of theory. This concern has been clearly expressed by Dann (1981), who claimedthat we may deviate from truly understanding how tourists act and how the tourism

system works because a stereotype of view is forming in defending ones own theories. It

would be appropriate to take a comprehensive perspective on this, in the sense that

tourist behavior can be interpreted on an individual level by applying travel personality,

in a diachronic dimension by the TCL, and from a holistic perspective by the strange-

nessfamiliarity and environmental bubble ideas.

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments. We are grateful to

participants at the 8th Asia Pacific Forum for Graduate Students Research in

Tourism for their insightful discussion and comments. Financial assistance from the



16/18

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

is acknowledged.

References

Bao, Y. F., & McKercher, B. (2008). The effect of distance on tourism in Hong Kong: A

comparison of short haul and long haul visitors. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,

13(2), 101111.

Basala, S. L., & Klenosky, D. B. (2001). Travel-style preferences for visiting a novel destination:

A conjoint investigation across the novelty-familiarity continuum. Journal of Travel Research,

40(2), 172182.

Boorstin, D. J. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York, NY: Harper.

Bull, A. (1995). The economics of travel and tourism. South Melbourne, Australia: Longman.

Chang, S. (2009). Australians holiday decisions in China: A study combining novelty-seeking

and risk-perception behaviors. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(4), 364387.

Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39(1), 164

182.Cohen, E. (1979a). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13(2), 179201.

Cohen, E. (1979b). Rethinking the sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1), 1835.

Cohen, E. (1984). The sociology of tourism: Approaches, issues, and findings. Annual Review of

Sociology, 10, 373392.

Cohen, E. (1988). Traditions in the qualitative sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,

15(1), 2946.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4),

408424.

Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of

Tourism Research, 24(2), 425439.

Dadgostar, B., & Isotalo, R. M. (1996). Content of city destination image for near-home tourists.

Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 3(2), 2534.Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,

4(4), 184194.

Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 187219.

Filep, S., & Greenacre, L. (2007). Evaluating and extending the travel career patterns model.

Original Scientific Paper, 55(1), 2338.

Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (2002). Tourism constraints among Israeli seniors. Annals of Tourism

Research, 29(1), 106123.

Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 555581.

Gaile, G. L., & Willmott, C. J. (1984). Spatial statistics and models. Hong Kong SAR, China:

Springer.

Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research,24(2), 283304.

Goossens, C. (2000). Tourism information and pleasure motivation. Annals of Tourism Research,

27(2), 301321.

Harrill, R., & Potts, T. D. (2002). Social psychological theories of tourist motivation:

Exploration, debate, and transition. Tourism Analysis, 7, 105114.

Horneman, L., Carter, R. W., Wei, S., & Ruys, H. (2002). Profiling the senior traveler: An

Australian perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 2337.

Huang, L., & Tsai, H. (2003). The study of senior traveler behavior in Taiwan. Tourism

Management, 24(5), 561574.

Jafari, J., & Ritchie, B. (1981). Toward a framework for tourism education: Problems and

prospects. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(1), 1334.

Jamal, T., & Lee, J. (2003). Integrating micro and macro approaches to tourist motivations:Toward an interdisciplinary theory. Tourism Analysis, 8(1), 4759.



17/18

Jang, S., & Cai, L. A. (2002). Travel motivations and destination choice: A study of British

outbound market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 13(3), 111132.

Jang, S., & Wu, C. E. (2006). Seniors travel motivation and the influential factors: An examina-

tion of Taiwanese seniors. Tourism Management, 27(2), 306316.

Jansen-Verbeke, M., & van Rekom, J. (1996). Scanning museum visitors: Urban tourism market-

ing. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 364375.Josiam, B. M., Huang, T., Spears, D. L., Kennon, L., & Bahulkar, G. A. (2009). Understanding

ethnic Chinese travelers on North American cruise tours: Motivations, perceptions, and

satisfaction of cruisers. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(1), 77101.

Keng, K. A., & Cheng, J. L. L. (1999). Determining tourist role typologies: An exploratory study

of Singapore vacationers. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), 382390.

Kim, S. S., Lee, C., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors at Korean

national parks. Tourism Management, 24(2), 169180.

Lam, C., & Vong, T. (2009). Macao: The gambling paradiseProfiling the roles and motives of

customers. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5(4), 388400.

Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the

tourist industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 390

407.Leiper, N. (1990). Tourist attraction systems. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 367384.

Lew, A., & McKercher, B. (2006). Modeling tourist movements: A local destination analysis.

Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 403423.

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings.

American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589603.

Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experi-

ence. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314331.

McKercher, B. (1998). The effect of market access on destination choice. Journal of Travel

Research, 37(1), 3947.

McKercher, B. (1999). A chaos approach to tourism. Tourism Management, 20(4), 425434.

McKercher, B., Chan, A., & Lam, C. (2008). The impact of distance on international tourist

movements. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 208224.McKercher, B., & Lew, A. A. (2004). Tourist flows and the spatial distribution of tourists. In

A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 3648). Oxford,

UK: Blackwell.

Mo, C., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Segmenting travel markets with the interna-

tional tourism role (ITR) scale. Journal of Travel Research, 33(1), 2431.

Mommaas, H. (2004). Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: Towards the remapping of

urban cultural policy. Urban Studies, 41(3), 507532.

Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. L. (2004). Life cycle, tourist motivation and transport: Some con-

sequences for the tourist experience. In L. Lumsdon & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism and transport:

Issues and agenda for the new millennium (pp. 2943). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Pearce, D. G. (2001). An integrative framework for urban tourism research. Annals of TourismResearch, 28(4), 926946.

Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist settings. New York, NY:

Springer-Verlag.

Pearce, P. L. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In D. G. Pearce & R. W. Butler (Eds.),

Tourism research: Critiques and challenges (pp. 113134). London, UK: Routledge.

Pearce, P. L. (1996). Recent research in tourist behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism

Research, 1(1), 717.

Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist behaviour: Themes and conceptual schemes. Bristol, UK: Channel

View Publications.

Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travelers experiences.

Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 1620.

Pearce, P. L., & Lee, U. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation.Journal of Travel Research, 43(3), 226237.



18/18

Pearce, P. L., & Stringer, P. F. (1991). Psychology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,

18(1), 136154.

Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly, 14(4), 5558.

Plog, S. C. (1994). Developing and using psychographics in tourism research. In J. R. B. Ritchie

& C. R. Goeldner (Eds.), Travel, tourism, and hospitality research: A handbook for managersand researchers (pp. 209218). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Plog, S. C. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: An update of a Cornell

Quarterly classic. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 1324.

Plog, S. C. (2002). The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness. Journal of

Travel Research, 40(3), 244251.

Plog, S. C. (2006). One mo, once: A commentary on the Litvin paper on the Plog psycho-

graphic system. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 254259.

Prentice, R. (2004). Tourist motivation and typologies. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, &

A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 261279). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Roche, M. (1992). Mega-events and micro-modernization: On the sociology of the new urban

tourism. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(4), 563

600.Ryan, C. (1998). The travel career ladder: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research,25(4), 936957.

Snepenger, D. J. (1987). Segmenting the vacation market by novelty-seeking role. Journal of

Travel Research, 26(2), 814.

Tribe, J. (1997). The indiscipline of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 638657.

Waller, J., & Lea, S. E. G. (1998). Seeking the real Spain? Authenticity in motivation. Annals of

Tourism Research, 26(1), 110129.

Wolfe, K., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2004). An application of the social psychological model of tourism

motivation. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 5(1), 2947.

Wu, J., Xu, J., & Erdogan, E. H. (2009). Investigating the push and pull motivation of visiting

domestic destinations in China: A meansend approach. Journal of China Tourism Research,

5(3), 287315.


Documents

20110610 JCTR What Drives People to Travel Integrating the Tourist Motivation Paradigms