lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists

Hyelin Kim, Eunju Woo*, Muzaffer UysalDepartment of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

� The study examines travel behaviors of elderly tourists.� The level of involvement and perceived value increases satisfaction.� Travel experience plays an important role affecting leisure and overall quality of life.� Leisure life satisfaction and overall quality of life are the predictors of revisit intention.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 8 November 2013Accepted 4 August 2014Available online 24 August 2014

Keywords:Elderly touristInvolvementPerceived valueSatisfaction with trip experienceLeisure life satisfactionOverall quality of lifeRevisit intention

* Corresponding author. 342 Wallace Hall (0429),Tel.: þ1 540 838 5289; fax: þ1 540 231 8313.

E-mail addresses: linakim@vt.edu (H. Kim), eunjuwedu (M. Uysal).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.0020261-5177/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

The main purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between the travel behavior of elderlytourists and overall quality of life. Specifically, the study examines the interrelationships between sixmain constructs: involvement, perceived value, satisfaction with trip experience, leisure life satisfaction,overall quality of life, and revisit intention. Using a sample drawn from elderly tourists in South Korea,the research model investigates nine hypotheses using a structural equation modeling approach. Theresults show that all nine of the hypotheses are supported.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Forecasts estimate that the number of people over 65 will morethan double, consisting 26% of the world's population by 2050(Haub, 2011). This means that the percentage of elderly tourists,who already make up a significant segment of the hospitality andtourism market (with their substantial population portion as wellas their purchasing power), will increase (Bai, Jang, Cai, & O'Leary,2001; Lohmann & Danielsson, 2001; Schr€oder & Widmann, 2007).The size of the elderly tourists has great market potential andeconomic significance for the hospitality and tourism industry (Baiet al., 2001). The tourism industry has recognized this market po-tential for a number of years, and tourism policy makers as well asindustry practitioners have been focusing on developing competi-tive business andmarketing strategies to target elderly tourists (Baiet al., 2001; Sedgley, Pritchard, & Morgan, 2011).

Blacksburg, Virginia, 24061.

3@vt.edu (E. Woo), samil@vt.

Accordingly, the scholarly literature has examined elderlytourists and their travel behavior, especially travel-related activ-ities, socio-demographic characteristics, preferences, and touristmotivation (e.g., Anderson & Langmeyer, 1982; Bai et al., 2001;Guinn, 1980; Jang, Bai, Hu, & Wu, 2009; Javalgi, Thomas, & Rao,1992; Norman, Daniels, McGuire, & Norman, 2001; Shoemaker,1989). For instance, Hsu, Cai, and Wong (2007) examined elderlytourist motivation from Beijing and Shanghai. Based on a qualita-tive survey and review of motivation theories, the study proposed aconceptual model of tourism motivation for China's elderly tourist.Another example is a study conducted by Shoemaker (1989), whoexplored the segmentation of the elderly tourist pleasure travelmarket. The study found that the elderly tourist market is not onelarge homogenous group but rather that it can be segmented intosmaller homogenous groups based on reasons for pleasure travel.

In order to understand the elderly's behavior, major psychoso-cial theories such as disengagement theory, activity theory, andgerotranscendence theory have been developed and applied.Cumming and Henry (1961) proposed disengagement theory. Theymentioned that since a reduction in activity is a consequence of theaging process, elderly tourists gradually choose to withdraw from

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476466

active life and focus on inner fulfillment. That is, ceasing partici-pation in leisure activities and social roles lead to more life satis-faction in older adulthood (e.g., Ananian & Janke, 2010). On theother hand, activity theory was introduced in response to thecritique of the disengagement theory, and has played a central rolein gerontology (Nimrod, 2007). Activity theory explains that theincreased discretionary or free time available to retired individualsprovides the opportunity for maintaining high activity levels orroles that are essential for life satisfaction and enrichment(Lefrancois, Leclerc, & Polin, 1997). That is, engagement in mean-ingful activity is linked to life satisfaction. Based on this theory, wehypothesized that “vacation experience” itself can contribute toelderly people's overall quality of life. In this study “vacationexperience” is considered a classificatory term used by elderlypeople to describe their (re)construction of a recent vacationexperience, which may include one or several types of activities. Inother words, “vacation experience” may be a culmination of anumber of activities, types of activities, and strength of thoseactivities.

In the leisure industry, many studies have supported activitytheory and demonstrated that elderly people's high level ofinvolvement and activity contributes to their quality of life(Fernandez-Ballesteros, Zamarron, & Ruiz, 2001; Iso-Ahola, Jack-son, & Dunn, 1994; Menec & Chipperfield, 1997; Palmore, 1979;Riddick & Stewart, 1994; Silverstein & Parker, 2002). For instance,Silverstein and Parker (2002) examined whether changes in leisureactivities were related to quality of life among elderly in Sweden.The results suggested that those people increasing their partici-pation across different activities tended to perceive an improve-ment in their life satisfaction. Another example conducted byMenec and Chipperfield (1997) examined the potential mediatingrole of participation in leisure activities between perceived controland well-being in the elderly. They found that an internal locus ofcontrol was related to participation in leisure activities, which inturn affected the elderly's increased life satisfaction.

However, the effects may not apply in all contexts to all sub-groups and all activities (Iwasaki& Smale, 1998; Nimrod, 2007). Forinstance, Nimrod (2007) examined the structure of leisure activ-ities, benefits of leisure, andwell-being of old people, revealing thatnot all types of activities had a positive impact on retirees' well-being. Only a few types of activities, such as cultural activitiesand enrichment activities, affect retiree's well-being; TV and radio,meanwhile, had a negative impact on their well-being.

In the tourism industry, limited studies have focused on howthe elderly's travel experiences or activities affect their overallquality of life or well-being (Lee & Tideswell, 2005; Milman, 1998;Wei & Milman, 2002). Wei and Milman (2002), for example,investigated the interrelationships between elderly tourist partic-ipation in activities, overall satisfaction with travel experiences,and quality of life. The results showed that elderly tourists' activitylevels are significantly related to their quality of life. A study con-ducted by Lee and Tideswell (2005) also tried to understand thespecific travel behavior of elderly Koreans. They found that vaca-tion experiences improve their quality of life and creates new in-terests in their lives.

Even though several studies have investigated how tourismexperiences of elderly affect their quality of life, there is still limitedresearch on the link between tourism experience and the overallquality of life of elderly tourists, especially the relationship be-tween the level of travel involvement and quality of life. Milman(1998) examined how tourism activity affects elderly tourists'quality of life. The study found that travel by itself may not be achange agent for level of happiness, but there might be otherintervening variables, such as level of the travel activity, that couldcontribute to changes in travelers' quality of life.

Therefore, the main purpose of this research is to understandelderly tourists' travel behavior and its relationship to their qualityof life. Specifically, the current study investigates the in-terrelationships between six major constructs: level of involve-ment, perceived value, satisfaction with trip experience, leisure lifesatisfaction, Quality of Life (QOL), and revisit intention. Thefollowing sections attempt to establish the theoretical in-terrelationships between the constructs.

Also, the term ‘elderly’ has to be clearly defined. The elderly agegroup has included a range of different ages, from 50 to 55 to 60e65years, depending on the specific tourism study (Patterson, 2006).However, literature in gerontology has been reasonably consistentin defining the ‘elderly’ according to their retirement age of 65 andolder. Thus, our study defines ‘the elderly’ as individuals aged 65 orover.

2. Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1. Involvement

Researchers and marketers are interested in understanding andpredicting the complex behavior of consumers. Involvement is awidely used concept in consumer behavior and one of the impor-tant psychographic constructs because of its potential effect onboth people's attitudes towards an activity and their behavior withrespect to decision making (Arora, 1985; Josiam, Smeaton, &Clements, 1999).

Many researchers have attempted to define involvement;however, there is lack of consistent definition. One definition ofinvolvement is “a person's perceived relevance of the object basedon inherent needs, values, and interests” (Zaichkowsky, 1985,p.342). Also, involvement is defined as an individual's level of in-terest, the importance of an object to an individual, or the centralityof an object to an individuals' ego structure (Zaichkowsky, 1994).Selin and Howard (1988) defined involvement as “the state ofidentification existing between an individual and a recreationalactivity, at one point in time, characterized by some level ofenjoyment and self-expression being achieved through the activ-ity” (p. 237). In this study, involvement is defined as the degree ofinterest in an activity and the affective response associated withthat interest (Manfredo, 1989).

Clements and Josiam (1995) examined the role of involvementin travel decision-making. They tried to assess respondents' levelsof involvement in their decision to travel over spring break not onlyto assess the ability of the involvement construct to predict thedecision to travel, but also to analyze involvement and destinationselection. The research findings indicated both that individualswith high levels of involvement are more likely to travel than thosewith low involvement and those respondents with high levels ofinvolvement are more likely to travel abroad. Moreover, involve-ment is a significant predictor of some aspects of the decision totravel.

The study by Prebensen,Woo, and Uysal (2013) indicated that intourist experience, involvement is a core antecedent since thetourist has already decided to go on holiday and to participate incertain tourism activities while staying at the destination. That is,the level of involvement affects the level of participation in co-creating experience value positively. Similarly, Chen and Tsai(2008) examined the interrelationship between perceived value,satisfaction, and loyalty of TV travel product shopping, whileconsidering the moderator effect of involvement. The resultsshowed that perceived value has positive influences on satisfactionand loyalty. Moreover, the moderating effects of involvementsignificantly affect the perceived levels of value, satisfaction, andloyalty models. Specifically, the higher the level of involvement, the

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476 467

larger the likelihood that perceived value will lead to greatercustomer loyalty. Another study, undertaken by Lee and Beeler(2009), investigated the relationships between motivation,involvement, service quality, demographics, satisfaction, and futureintention. The findings showed that motivation, service quality, andinvolvement are significant predictors of satisfaction and futureintention. That is, when tourists were highly involved in the pro-grams and activities in the festival, they were more likely to besatisfied.

A significant number of leisure studies have examined howincreased involvement in leisure activities such as traveling mightenhance elderly people's life satisfaction while improving their lifeexpectancy and health condition (e.g., Hendricks& Cutler, 2003; Lu,2011; Teaff, 1985). Van der Meer (2008), for instance, reported thatelderly people involved in leisure activities take part in society,which positively influences their life satisfaction. Moreover, a fewtheories on aging attempt to address the leisure involvement ofelderly and how this influences their overall life satisfaction. Theactivity theory proposes that the way to achieve greater life satis-faction in older adulthood is through one's ability to maintain orincrease involvement in leisure activity. Accordingly, the presentwork puts forward the following hypotheses:

H1. Involvement has a positive influence on perceived valueamong the elderly.

H2. Involvement has a positive influence on satisfaction with tripexperience among the elderly.

2.2. Perceived value

Perceived value has received growing attention in recent years(Prebensen et al., 2013). Marketing practitioners and researchershave identified that the construct of perceived value is one of themost influential measures of customer satisfaction and loyalty (e.g.,Cronin, Brady,&Hult, 2000; Sweeney, Soutar,& Johnson,1999). Thereasons are that perceived value not only directly affects futurebehavior such as repurchase intention and word of mouth referrals(Brady & Cronin, 2001), but it also increases destination competi-tiveness (e.g., Pechlaner, Smeral, & Matzier, 2002; Petrick, 2003).

Although perceived value has been receiving more attention inresearch, there is no clear definition of the perceived valueconstruct (Woodruff, 1997; Zeithaml, 1988). Cravens, Holland,Lamb, and Moncrieff (1988) argued that consumers' valueperception is the ration or trade-off between quality and price.Holbrook (1999) defined value as an “interactive relativistic pref-erence experience” (p. 5). The most commonly accepted definitionof perceived value was given by Zeithaml (1988), who defined fourtypes of values (low price; whatever I want in a product; the qualityI get for the price I pay; what I get for what I give) and synthesizedthe four dimensions in one overall concept. Zeithaml defined valueas “consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product basedon perception of what is received and what it given” (p. 4).

In this study, perceived value is defined tourists' value percep-tion as “the process by which a tourist receives, selects, organizes,and interprets information based on the various experiences at thedestination, to create a meaningful picture of the value of desti-nation experience” (Prebensen et al., 2013, p. 245).

In much of the previous research, perceived value has beenoperationalized with a single-item scale such as “value for money”(Prebensen et al., 2013); however, Bolton and Drew (1991) pointedout that perceived value should not be considered as the outcomeof a trade-off between overall quality and sacrifice becauseperceived value is complex. Moreover, a single item does notaddress the whole concept of perceived value (Gallarza & Saura,2006; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Therefore, measuring multiple

components of perceived value has been suggested by many re-searchers (e.g., Gallarza & Saura, 2006; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Abroader theoretical framework of perceived value was developedby Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991). Based on the their founda-tion, perceived value items were developed for use in a retail pur-chase situations in order to determine what consumption valuesdrive purchase attitude and behavior (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Inorder to measure the perceived value, the researchers developedfour distinct dimensions: emotional, social, quality/performance,and price/value for money. The results revealed that multiple valuedimensions performed better than a single value item such as“value for money.”

A significant number of previous studies have suggested thatperceived value directly leads to favorable outcomes (Chen & Chen,2010) such as satisfaction and intentions or loyalty in behavior (e.g.,Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal,& Voss, 2002; Chen & Chen, 2010; Lee, Yoon, & Lee, 2007;Williams & Soutar, 2009). Williams and Soutar (2009), forinstance, investigated the relationship between value, satisfaction,and behavior intention in an adventure tourism setting. The resultsindicated that value had strong positive effects on overall satis-faction and future intention. Another study conducted byPrebensen et al. (2013) examined the effects of antecedents andconsequences of the perceived value of an on-site trip experience.Based on the previous literature review, they developed a frame-work of perceived value experience and its antecedents (such asmotivation, involvement, and knowledge) and consequences (suchas satisfaction and future intention). The results showed thatperceived value has a positive effect on satisfaction and loyalty.

A review of previous research suggests a strong link betweenperceived value and satisfaction. Consequently, the following hy-pothesis is provided:

H3. Perceived value of trip experience has a positive influence onsatisfaction with trip experience among elderly.

The hypotheses under involvement and perceived value are ofconfirmatory in nature has been substantiated in different settingswith respect to vacation and trip experience. However, there is, ifany, very limited empirical evidence that links such constructs tosatisfaction with life or subjective well-being which is under thedomain of quality of life (QOL) research. The proceeding section isintended to delineate this connection.

2.3. Quality of life (QOL)

Many different disciplines, including psychology, sociology, andgerontology considers quality of life in slightly different terms, suchas happiness, psychological well-being, subjective well-being, lifesatisfaction, quality of life (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004). Those termshave been used interchangeably. Furthermore, quality of life hasbeen defined in many different ways (Sirgy, 2002); there are, forinstance, more than 100 definitions of QOL and models (Andereck& Nyaupane, 2011) because it is clearly difficult to distinguish be-tween such terms as “well-being”, “welfare”, and “happiness”(Puczk�o & Smith, 2011).

QOL can be defined in either a uni-dimensional or multidi-mensional nature. There are many examples of uni-dimensionaldefinitions for the concept of quality of life, but the uni-dimensional concept has been criticized on a number of grounds.The major reason is that it is impossible to obtain estimates of in-ternal consistency. Further, using one single question has limitedutility for smaller group comparisons (Cummins, 1997). Therefore,the majority of QOL definitions stress the multidimensional natureof the concept, which typically manifests itself in the specificationof a number of QOL domains. In this study, QOL is examined from a

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476468

multidimensional perspective. It refers to satisfaction within in-dividual's life domains and overall quality of life.

Even though there is a general agreement that overallperceived quality of life is a composite of satisfaction through thespillover effects of a number of life domains, there is littleagreement on the key domains that need to be included to coverthe construct of overall quality of life. Identifying robust QOL do-mains and indicators remain problematic (Dolnicar,Yanamandram, & Cliff, 2012; Sirgy, 2002). Among the manydifferent life domains, the importance of the leisure life domain tooverall quality of life has been extensively researched and shows apositive relationship between leisure life satisfaction and overallquality of life (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004; London, Crandall, & Seals,1977; Silverstein & Parker, 2002; Spiers & Walker, 2009). Londonet al. (1977), for instance, examined the influence of leisuresatisfaction (compared to job satisfaction) on overall life satisfac-tion. They found that both leisure and job satisfaction accountedfor meaningful variation in life satisfaction. Moreover, they foundthat job satisfaction and leisure satisfaction contributed relativelylittle to overall quality of life of minorities and other often“disadvantaged”. Similarly, Spiers and Walker (2009) examinedhow ethnicity and leisure satisfaction affected people's happiness,peacefulness, and overall quality of life and found that overallleisure satisfaction significantly affected happiness, peacefulness,and quality of life.

The first examination on the significance of vacation experienceto overall QOL was conducted by Neal, Sirgy, and Uysal (1999). Theyinvestigated the significance of vacation experience on leisure lifeand overall quality of life. Their study results showed that satis-faction with tourism services contributes to satisfaction in leisurelife, which in turn affects overall quality of life. Neal, Uysal, andSirgy (2007) conducted a follow-up study to examine the moder-ating effect of length of stay. The results revealed that satisfactionwith tourism services affects satisfaction in leisure life. Moreover,overall quality of life is more evident for tourists with extendedstays compared to tourists with shorter stays. Several other studiesalso examined the direct effect of tourism experience on overallquality of life (e.g., Dolnicar et al., 2012; Gilbert & Abdullah, 2004;Sirgy, Kruger, Lee, & Grace, 2011). A study by Sirgy et al. (2011) alsofound that both positive and negative effects on tourists' overallsense of well-being were associated with specific experiences of atrip. The findings of the study demonstrated that positive andnegative effects generated from trip experiences do affect overallsatisfaction in the 13 different life domains. For instance, positiveevent experience affects overall satisfaction with leisure and travellife domain, which in turn affects overall life satisfaction. Gilbertand Abdullah (2004) compared the sense of well-being experi-enced by a group taking a holiday with a group not on a holiday.They found that people who have recently taken a vacation expe-rience a higher overall quality of life both before and after thevacation. In other words, vacation experiences affect the level ofquality of life.

In order to measure quality of life, several different theorieshave been used, including telic theories, pleasure and pain, activitytheories, associationistic theories, judgment theory, and bottom-upspillover theory. Bottom-up spillover theory is the most popularlyused theory among these (e.g., Diener, 1984; Diener, Suh, Lucas, &Smith, 1999; Sirgy, 2002; Sirgy & Lee, 2006). The basic premise ofthe bottom-up spillover theory is that overall quality of life isaffected by satisfaction with all life domains and sub-domains.Overall life satisfaction is considered to be on the top of a satis-faction hierarchy. For instance, overall life satisfaction is influencedby satisfaction with family, social, leisure and recreation, health,work, finances, and travel. Satisfactionwith a particular life domainwill be influenced by lower levels of life concerns within that

domain (Kruger, 2012). The bottom-up spillover theory is alsoimbedded in this particular study.

In the elderly market segment, pleasure trip experience andleisure activities are an important issue affecting the overall qualityof life (e.g., Javalgi et al., 1992; Lee & Tideswell, 2005; McGuire,Boyd, & Tedrick, 1996). The reason is that travel experience canhelp elderly people's physical andmental fitness and lead to greaterlife satisfaction.

With this regard, overall QOL is defined as elderly's globalevaluations of their life satisfaction while leisure life satisfaction isregarded as evaluation of specific sub-life domain (leisure life)satisfaction in this study.

A review of previous research and theory suggest strong in-terrelationships among satisfactionwith trip experience, leisure lifesatisfaction, and overall quality of life. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H4. Satisfaction with trip experience has a positive influence onleisure life satisfaction among the elderly.

H5. Leisure life satisfaction has a positive influence on overallquality of life among the elderly.

H6. Satisfaction with trip experience has a positive influence onoverall quality of life among the elderly.

2.4. Revisit intention

There are many practical reasons for studying tourists' satis-faction levels. The major reason is that tourists' satisfaction is asignificant determinant of behavior intention (e.g., Hutchinson, Lai,& Wang, 2009; Kozak, 2001; Um, Chon, & Ro, 2006). According tothe model presented by Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996),behavior intentions can be captured by such measures asrepurchase intentions, word of mouth, loyalty, complainingbehavior, and price sensitivity. A number of studies have used oneor more of these five proposed constructs to examine the outcomesof satisfaction in the retail and tourism fields.

Among these five constructs, revisit intention is viewed as theresults of the tourists' evaluation of the travel experience (Burton,Sheather, & Roberts, 2003). When tourists have more enjoyableexperience than expected, they are more likely to have plans toreturn in the future (Hui, Wan, & Ho, 2007; Ross, 1993).

Satisfaction is one of the most preferred evaluation constructs inexplaining revisit intention (e.g., Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001;Bowen, 2001; Kozak, 2001; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Oh, 1999).Several studies investigated the impact of satisfaction with tripexperience on tourists' intention to return in the future(Hutchinson et al., 2009; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Ross, 1993).Kozak and Rimmington (2000), for instance, found that the moresatisfied the tourists were with their visits, the more likely theywere to return and recommend the destination to others. Similarly,Hutchinson et al. (2009) examined the relationships between golf-travelers' perception of quality, value, and satisfaction on theirbehavior intentions and identified that satisfaction had significantinfluences on the intention to revisit in the future. Previousresearch has confirmed that the level of overall satisfaction withholiday experiences has the greatest impact on the intention torevisit the same destination.

Leisure life satisfaction is also a predictor of leisure participationin the future (e.g., Losier, Bourque, & Vallerand, 1993; Walker,Halpenny, Spiers, & Deng, 2011). Leisure life satisfaction resultsfrom the gratification of psychological needs (Tinsley & Tinsley,1986), but the potential for satisfaction of psychological needsmotivates individuals to enjoy and reengage in the activity (Losieret al., 1993). In fact, a number of studies have found that enjoy-ment of an activity led to subsequent behavior involvement (Losier

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476 469

et al., 1993). For instance, Losier et al. (1993) developed a motiva-tional model of leisure participation to examine the factors thatmay encourage involvement by the elderly in leisure activities. Theresults indicated that leisure motivation affects leisure satisfaction,which in turn affect leisure participation. That is, higher levels ofleisure satisfaction led to greater levels of leisure participation inelderly.

QOL also has an impact on future behavior (Mannell & Kleiber,1997). The effect of QOL on activity participation has been stud-ied intensively in leisure research (Mannell& Kleiber,1997). Leisurestudies have found that QOL affects leisure participation. Mannell(1993) indicated that, among the elderly, those with a higherlevel of life satisfaction are more willing to freely choose andcontinuously engage in recreational activities than those with alower level of life satisfaction. In tourism research, Lin (2012) foundthat cuisine experience and QOL influenced hot springs tourists'revisit intentions. Specifically, the study found that QOL is posi-tively related to revisit intention.

Consequently, the following hypotheses are presented:

H7. Satisfaction with trip experience has a positive influence onrevisit intention among the elderly.

H8. Leisure life satisfaction has a positive influence on revisitintention among the elderly.

H9. Overall quality of life has a positive influence on revisitintention among the elderly.

A review of literature suggested positive interrelationships be-tween the six constructs: involvement, perceived value, satisfactionwith trip experience, leisure life satisfaction, QOL, and revisitintention. Based on the previous literature review, the theoreticalmodel and 9 hypotheses can be depicted as seen Fig. 1.

3. Research design

3.1. Study population and data collection

The questionnaire was distributed to the elderly (aged over 65)residing in Jeju Island, South Korea. The target destination wasselected because the population of the elderly there has steadilygrown, and it is on the verge of being an aged society (14% of thepopulation is over age 65). The questionnaire was originally

Fig. 1. Theoretical mod

developed in English and then translated into Korean. SeveralKorean professors with language proficiency in both English andKorean checked the correspondence of meaning between the twoversions. After checking the equivalence of the translation, elderlywelfare centers, education centers, gathering clubs, and elderlyassociations in Jeju were contacted from February to April in 2013and asked to distribute the questionnaire to residents over the ageof 65 who had been retired over three months. In order to reduceerrors or misunderstanding in reading questions, several well-trained assistants were employed in each place to help theelderly to fill out the questionnaire completely. Despite of the as-sistants' efforts, respondents with aged between 55 and 64 wereincluded. The contextualized target would consist of those that areretirees in the study; most of the ones that did not fall into 65þcategories (55e64) with some missing values were excluded in thesubsequent analysis. Thus, of the total 290 surveys, 208 surveyswere used for the analysis in this study.

3.2. Questionnaire design and measurement of construct

The study is designed to measure elderly tourists' perceptionstoward involvement, perceived value, satisfaction with trip expe-rience, leisure life satisfaction, overall quality of life, and revisitintention in relation to travel behavior. Each construct has multiplequestions measured with 5-point Likert scales based on previousliterature.

Ten involvement items were used to measure involvement assuggested by Kyle and Chick (2004), and Prebensen, Woo, Chen,and Uysal (2012). Those 10 items were categorized into twodifferent categories based on previous research: Risk probabilityand Self-Identify. The pre-determined two involvement di-mensions were confirmed with their reliability. Two compositevariables were used as observed indicators to test the construct ofinvolvement (Appendix A).

To measure satisfaction with trip experience, four items wereused based on existing literature (e.g., Neal, Usyal, & Sirgy, 2007;Yoon & Uysal, 2005), including: (1) “My overall evaluation of mymost recent destination experience is positive”; (2) “My overallevaluation of my most recent tourism experience is favorable”; (3)“I am satisfied with my most recent”.

Leisure life satisfaction was measured by three items: satisfac-tion with their “leisure life,” “leisure time,” and “spare time

el and hypotheses.

Table 1Respondents profile (N ¼ 208).

Variables Frequency (%)

GenderMale 98 (47.1)Female 110 (52.9)

Age65e70 96 (46.2)71e75 81 (38.9)76e80 29 (13.9)81e85 2 (1.0)

EducationHigh school or less 41 (19.7)Some college/Associate degree 61 (29.3)College degree (bachelor) 59 (28.4)Graduate degree (master) 29 (13.9)Graduate degree (doctoral) 18 (8.7)

Income sourcePension 75 (36.1)Own saving 63 (30.3)Children's donation 25 (12.0)Relatives or friends' donation 4 (1.9)Social benefit 28 (13.5)Salary (if you are working) 9 (4.3)Others 4 (2.0)

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476470

activities” (e.g., Grzeskowiak, Sirgy, Lee, & Claiborne, 2006; Nealet al., 2007; Sirgy, Kruger, Lee, & Yu, 2011).

In order to measure elderly tourist quality of life (subjectivewell-being), six observed indicators were adopted from previousgerontology and tourism literature (e.g., Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &Griffin, 1985; Diener, Horwitz, & Emmons, 1985; Sirgy, 2002) suchas “Overall, I felt happy uponmy return from that trip”, “Overall, myexperience with this trip was memorable, having enriched myquality of life”, “After the trip, I felt that I led a meaningful andfulfilling life” and so forth.

Revisit intention was measured by four items adopted fromprevious research (Huang & Hsu, 2009; Um et al., 2006) such as “Iwould like to recommend others to visit the destination”,“Revisiting the destination would be worthwhile”, “I will revisitthe destination”, “I would like to stay more days in thedestination”.

It is important to mention that in this present study, taking avacation trip is linked to outcomes by asking the respondent if, as aresult of this particular trip, he/she may think that the tripenhanced or added to his/her well-being. In this regard, the tripwas a cause of the outcome variables (sense of well-being andrevisit intention) as measured in the study. The line of research inquality of life has support for this type of causality establishment(Gilbert& Abdullah, 2004; Neal et al., 2007). This also assumes thatthe way in which study questions are anchored would not lead to alevel of discourse, meaning respondents are directed to answer theoutcome variable(s) in relation to the vacation trip in mind, thusascertaining implicitly “causality” of the trip taken in relation toperceived importance to well-being and or revisit behavior. How-ever, one can also easily argue that certain lifestyles could also leadto more satisfying life/improved sense of well-being, thus satis-faction with life in general. Naturally, such lifestyles can havepositive outcomes and consequences. The study implies a one tripthus basing the study on a one trip phenomenon regardless of itsnature or type.

4. Data analysis and results

Since Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is an appropriatestatistical tool to measure the relationships among unobservedconstructs based on prior empirical research or theory (Hair, Black,Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010), this study employed SEM pro-cedure by using AMOS 20.0 with the Maximum Likelihood esti-mation. One exogenous variabled involvementdand fiveendogenous variablesdperceived values, satisfaction with tripexperience, leisure life satisfaction, quality of life, and revisitintentiondwere tested in the proposed model.

Firstly, data was screened using SPSS version 20.0 to see if thereis any violation of assumptions. As a result, no missing values andoutliers were detected and the observed variables are normallydistributed (less than two of absolute values of univariate skew-ness, less than three of the absolute values of univariate kurtosis).Further, the data do not violate multivariate normality assumption.Therefore, the data were appropriate for further analysis by SEManalysis.

A total 290 respondents were asked to participate in this study.Of these, data from 208 was used in this analysis. The descriptiveanalysis showed that female respondents (53.0%) marginally out-numbered their male counterparts (47.0%). In terms of age varia-tion, it ranged from 65 to 81 with an average age of 71, In addition,approximately 36.0% of respondents' income comes from theirpensions, 30.0% of respondents relied on their own saving, and12.0% comes from help from their children. The detailed de-mographic information is summarized in Table 1. Moreover, re-spondents' recent vacation trip behaviors have been asked.

Regarding the actual length of the trip, the average 4.2 nights awayfrom home. Moreover, 23.1% of the respondents traveled withspouse, 19.6% with social gathering, and 18.3% with relatives andfriends respectively.

Respondents were asked to rate items according to theperceived importance of each indicator of construct. The meanscores of the composite indicators of involvement show that themean of ‘Risk probability’ is 3.59 and ‘Self-Identify’ is 3.33. Themean score and standard deviation of indicators of perceivedvalues, satisfaction with travel experience, leisure life domain,quality of life, and revisit intention are presented in Appendix B.

4.1. Measurement model testing

Each construct was analyzed with Confirmatory Factor Analysis(CFA) to confirm the measurement scale property in the model.J€oreskog (1993) suggested that an item having a coefficient alphabelow 0.30 should not be included in the analysis. A series ofconfirmatory factor analyses were performed. As a result, eachconstruct is confirmed by specifying the relationship between thelatent constructs and their indicators, exceeding a coefficientalpha .70, and thereby no indicator in each construct wasremoved.

Next, the overall measurement model fit was tested. CFA wasperformed to test whether collected data fit proposed model(Byrne, 1998; Hair et al., 2010). A total of two indicators of exoge-nous variable (involvement) and 23 indicators of endogenous var-iables (six from perceived value, four from satisfaction with travelexperience, three from leisure life domain, six from quality of life,and four from revisit intention) were used in the measurementmodel. The results of the estimation of CFA of the overall modelwere acceptable in terms of the range of goodness-of-fit indices.The Chi-square value was 416.242 with 255 degrees of freedom(p < .000), which showed that the model was not good enough.However, the sample size is likely to inflate the sensitiveness of Chi-square statistics in structural equation modeling analysis (Bollen &Long, 1993; Byrne, 1998). The RMSEA value was .05, which met therequirement of good fit of less than .08 (Byrne, 1998). Other fitindices also show that the specified model was acceptable(NFI ¼ .89, CFI ¼ .954, RMR ¼ .021). Therefore, the model was notmodified.

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476 471

In order to check construct reliability, discriminant validity,and convergent validity, the study examined the completelystandardized loading, the construct reliability, the error varianceextracted, and the average variance extracted (AVE) of eachconstruct. Table 2 presents the summary of the results. First, allmeasurement items were significantly loaded exceeding thecritical level of the t value (p < .05; Hatcher, 1994). The averagevariance extracted (AVE) of five constructs (perceived value,satisfactionwith travel experience, leisure life satisfaction, qualityof life, and revisit intention) exceeded the minimum criterion of .5(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). However, the AVE for involvement ismarginally below the .5 cutoff. Composite reliability of eachconstruct ranged from .59 to .90, confirming the internal consis-tency of each construct. Therefore, all six constructs in this studywere considered to be reliable and valid; thus, we proceeded totest the structural model.

4.2. Structural model testing

The main purpose of the study is to examine an integratedmodel of elderly tourists' quality of life by examining the rela-tionship between their travel involvement, perceived value, satis-faction, leisure life domain satisfaction, quality of life, and revisitintention. Hence, the relationships among six constructs in thismodel were tested using a structural equation model with themaximum likelihood method. The review of the structural modelshowed that the Chi-square value was 485.835 with 262 degrees offreedom (p ¼ .00). Reflecting other goodness-of-fit statistics, thestructural model had adequate fit [RMSEA ¼ .064, CFI ¼ .936,NFI ¼ .87, RMR ¼ 0.04]. The results revealed that the collected datawere consistent with the theory-driven model.

Table 2Results of the overall measurement model (N ¼ 208).

Constructs and indicators

InvolvementRisk probabilitySelf-IdentifyPerceived valueCompared to the price I paid, I think I have received good valueCompared to the effort I spent, I think I have received good valueCompared to the time I spent, I think I have received good valueOverall my last vacation trip was a good buyI value my last vacation trip because it met my needs and expectations for a reasonabOverall, I think my experience was a good value for the money, time and effort I spenLeisure lifeleisure life in generalLeisure timeSpare time activitiesSatisfaction with trip experienceMy overall evaluation on the most recent destination experience is positiveMy overall evaluation on the most recent tourism experience is favorable.I am satisfied with the most recent tourism experience.I am pleased with the most recent tourism experience.Overall quality of lifeOverall, I felt happy upon my return from that tripMy satisfaction with life in general was increase shortly after the tripSo far I have gotten the important things I want in lifeAlthough I have my ups and downs, in general, I felt good about my life shortly after tOverall, my experience with this trip was memorable having enriched my quality of liAfter the trip I felt that I lead a meaningful and fulfilling lifeRevisit intentionI would like to recommend others to visit the destinationRevisiting the destination would be worthwhileI will revisit the destinationI would like to stay more days in the destination

The results of SEM analysis were performed to examine hy-pothesized path. The results are summarized in Table 3, indicatingall nine hypotheses were supported. Hypothesis 1 predicted thatelderly tourists' involvement has a significant effect on perceivedvalue (t ¼ 3.88, p < .001), supporting H1. Hypothesis 2 was alsosupported by showing the significant relationship betweeninvolvement and satisfaction with travel experience (t ¼ 2.86,p < .05). Moreover, the results revealed that perceived value has apositive effect on satisfaction with travel experience (t ¼ 6.15,p < .001), supporting H3. Further, Hypothesis 4 indicated thattourists' satisfaction with travel experience does affect leisure lifesatisfaction (t ¼ 7.03, p < .001). Hypotheses 5 and 6 were sup-ported by showing that leisure life satisfaction and satisfactionwith travel experience are significant predictors of quality of life.In addition, leisure life satisfaction and satisfaction with travelexperience did significantly affect revisit intention, supporting H7and H8. Lastly, and the study supports the conjecture that satis-faction with overall quality of life is a significant antecedent ofrevisit intention, supporting H8 (t ¼ 2.05 p < .05). Fig. 2 repre-sents a model of elderly tourist behavior with hypothesis testingresults.

5. Conclusion and discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine elderly tourists'travel behavior, especially their quality of life, and attempt toextend theoretical and empirical evidence about the interrela-tionship between level of involvement, perceived value, satisfac-tion with trip experience, leisure life satisfaction, quality of life,and revisit intention. Thus, the finding of this study enriches our

Standardizedloading (Li)

Compositereliability/Reliability (Li2)

AVE/Errorvariance

.59 .43.47 .22 .78.80 .64 .36

.88 .56.80 .64 .36.79 .62 .38.82 .67 .33.78 .61 .39

le price .63 .40 .60t .64 .41 .59

.94 .85.94 .88 .12.94 .88 .12.89 .80 .20

.92 .74.84 .71 .29.87 .76 .24.90 .81 .19.82 .67 .33

.90 .73.73 .53 .47.81 .66 .34.79 .62 .38

he trip .83 .69 .31fe. .78 .61 .39

.73 .53 .47.87 .62

.71 .50 .40

.83 .69 .31

.87 .76 .24

.73 .53 .47

Table 3Results of the proposed model.

Hypothesized path Standardizedcoefficients

t-value

H1: Involvement / Perceived value .44 3.88**H2: Involvement / / Satisfaction

with travel experience.27 2.86*

H3: Perceived value / Satisfactionwith travel experience

.53 6.15**

H4: Satisfaction with travelexperience / Leisure life satisfaction

.49 7.03**

H5: Leisure life satisfaction / Overall QOL .33 4.30**H6: Satisfaction with travel

experience / Overall QOL.40 4.97**

H7: Satisfaction with travelexperience / Revisit Intention

.27 3.13*

H8: Leisure life satisfaction / Revisit Intention .27 2.67*H9: Overall QOL / Revisit Intention .18 2.05*

Note: **p < .001, *p < .05.

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476472

knowledge of the elderly tourist market by looking at elderlytourist behaviors.

A measurement model for six constructs was developed andtested. The results indicated that all of the relationships are posi-tively supported. Most of previous studies used the construct ofsatisfaction with experience and relate it to possible outcomevariables such as loyalty or revisit/purchase intention. And, verylimited studies, however, have explored if other possible outcomevariables such quality of life or subjective well-being may also beused since there seems to be an increasing interest in moreintangible benefits of consumption. In order to accomplish this,our study has brought into the model the concept of one type oflife domains, namely leisure life domain since leisure life domainby definition would indicate the degree to which individualswould be happy with their overall life as a result of theirinvolvement in leisure activities as they may also derive overall lifesatisfaction (as suggested by quality of life researchers). Given this,we hypothesized that satisfaction with trip experience wouldaffect leisure life satisfaction, and leisure life satisfaction wouldthen influence one's sense of well-being (their quality of life) or

Fig. 2. Results of testing

revisit intention. So, the uniqueness of this study lies in themanner in which the constructs of both satisfactions with tripexperience and leisure life domain would influence one's sense ofwell-being and or revisit intention.

Specifically, this study contributes to the theoretical ad-vancements in the field of tourism by proving the usefulness ofactivity theory and bottom-up spillover theory in explainingelderly tourists' behavior. In order to understand the elderly'sleisure behavior, activity theory has been applied in the recrea-tion and leisure field; however, activity theory has not beenapplied much in tourism industry. The study confirmed the ac-tivity theory that the level of involvement in elderly touristspositively affects their overall quality of life. The results providedempirical support for Nimrod (2007) and Lefrancois et al. (1997)on the role of activity. In addition, the study supported thebottom-up spillover theory. That is, overall life satisfaction isdetermined by satisfaction with leisure life satisfaction, and lei-sure life domain is also affected by subdomains such as tourismexperience.

Furthermore, this study provides an integrated approach tounderstanding the relationship between the travel experienceand overall quality of life of elderly tourists. First, the study foundthat involvement has a positive influence on perceived values andsatisfaction with trip experience. The results provide support forPrebensen et al. (2013) and Chen and Tsai (2008)'s studyregarding the importance of understanding involvement andperceived values of travel experience. Specifically, we found thatthe higher the level of involvement, the larger the likelihood thatperceived value and satisfaction will be increased. Also, the studytested the relationship between perceived customer values andsatisfaction of travel experience (Chen & Chen, 2010; Lee et al.,2007; Williams & Soutar, 2009). The results of the structuralanalysis confirmed that perceived values is an underlying deter-minant of satisfaction of travel experience among the elderlysegment.

Additionally, elderly quality of life was examined in relation tosatisfaction with trip experience and leisure life satisfaction. Theresults showed that travel experience plays an important roleaffecting leisure life satisfaction and overall quality of life. This

hypothetical model.

Mean and Standard deviation of each indicator

Constructs and indicators Mean Standarddeviation

InvolvementRisk probability 3.59 .54Self-Identify 3.33 .56Perceived valueCompared to the price I paid, I think I have

received good value3.50 .74

Compared to the effort I spent, I think I havereceived good value

3.62 .87

Compared to the time I spent, I think I havereceived good value

3.57 .71

Overall my last vacation trip was a good buy 3.50 .76I value my last vacation trip because it met my

needs and expectations for a reasonable price3.52 .72

Overall, I think my experience was a good valuefor the money, time and effort I spent

3.56 .71

Leisure life satisfaction 3.52 .74leisure life in general 3.53 .76Leisure time 3.61 .75Spare time activitiesSatisfaction with trip experienceMy overall evaluation on the most recent

destination experience is positive3.75 .62

My overall evaluation on the most recenttourism experience is favorable.

3.82 .57

I am satisfied with the most recenttourism experience.

3.76 .62

I am pleased with the most recenttourism experience.

3.82 .63

Overall quality of lifeOverall, I felt happy upon my return

from that trip3.62 .71

My satisfaction with life in general wasincrease shortly after the trip

3.60 .70

So far I have gotten the important thingsI want in life

3.60 .64

Although I have my ups and downs, in general,I felt good about my life shortly after the trip

3.54 .66

Overall, my experience with this trip was memorablehaving enriched my quality of life.

3.63 .66

After the trip I felt that I lead a meaningfuland fulfilling life

3.58 .71

Revisit intentionI would like to recommend others to

visit the destination3.65 .70

Revisiting the destination would beworthwhile

3.72 .60

I will revisit the destination 3.63 .74I would like to stay more days in

the destination3.50 .81

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476 473

implies that travel experience improves elderly people's physicaland mental health and lead to greater life satisfaction (Gilbert &Abdullah, 2004; Sirgy et al., 2011; Sirgy & Lee, 2006). Lastly, thestudy examined the relation of revisit intention with satisfactionwith trip experience, leisure life satisfaction, and overall quality oflife. In previous literatures, travel satisfaction, service quality, andmotivation were significant predictors of revisit intention (Umet al., 2006; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). However, this study foundthat leisure life satisfaction and QOL can be effective predictors ofrevisit intention.

The significant relationships between the six main constructsalso have marketing and managerial implications. When elderlytourists are satisfied with their trip experience, their overall qualityof life improves. The makers of tourism development strategiesneed to consider the strength of these relationships and preserveelderly tourists' quality of life, in part derived from leisure lifedomain satisfaction and their tourism experience. In order to in-crease elderly tourists' quality of life, tourism developers and in-dustry practitioners need to increase elderly tourists' level ofinvolvement in tourism activity and provide valuable tourism ex-periences. Moreover products and services offered to elderly tour-ists should be priced competitively and appropriately to increasetheir perceived value. This implies that those elderly tourists whohave met their perceived net value for their purchase are morelikely to be satisfied with their travel experiences, which in returnmay affect their leisure and overall life satisfaction positively.

Even though the research provides practical and theoreticalimplications, there are some limitations. First, since the pro-posed hypothetical SEM model of elderly tourists' quality of lifewas tested with samples of residents who lived in Jeju, SouthKorea, results may not be generalized to other populations.Therefore, replications of this study targeting other populationsshould be made in order to validate a more solid relationshipamong the constructs. Second, no information was provided onthe potential moderating effect of demographics on the re-lationships between the six main constructs. Although thesample is homogeneous, the levels of involvement, perceivedvalue, satisfaction with trip experience, and QOL are differentdepending on a sample's personality and demographic infor-mation. Therefore, in future research, respondent's characteris-tics should be considered.

In addition, the study simply focuses on general vacationbehavior of individuals with respect to the perceived importanceof the included constructs. Therefore, we do not know what typevacation/leisure experience respondents may have had in mindas they evaluated the subsequent related questions. Neverthe-less, the vacation/trip questions on the most recent one shouldreflect general travel behavior. Further research should alsoconsider different types of leisure trips and decision making.Also, the current study asked how one's leisure life satisfactionand overall life satisfaction was changed as a result of the mostrecent trip. The model is an approximation of reality with onelife domain, namely leisure life domain. However, other life do-mains such as social, health, work, material, and family andlifestyles can also be introduced appropriate for the contextu-alization of the study. Future research need to consider otherpossible life domains and lifestyles that can influence overallquality of life.

Appendix A

Involvement (10 items)

Dimension 1 (Risk probability) e Cronbach's alpha ¼ .77It is really annoying to purchase a vacation that is not suitable.

Buying a vacation is rather complicated.Whenever one buys a vacation, he/she never really knows for

sure whether it is the one that should have been bought.When I purchase a vacation, it is not a big deal if I make a

mistake.If, after I buy a vacation, my choice proves to be poor, I would be

really upset.

Dimension 2 (Self-Identify) e Cronbach's alpha ¼ .70I attach great importance to a vacation.The vacation I buy tells something about me.It gives me pleasure to purchase a vacation.A vacation is somewhat of a pleasure to me.A vacation interests me a great deal.

Appendix B

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476474

Appendix C

Covariance matrix

Inv1 Inv2 PV1 PV2 PV3 PV4 PV5 PV6 LS1 LS2 LS3 ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 RV1 RV2 RV3

Inv1 .296 .114 .085 .163 .099 .101 .115 .119 .055 .055 .062 .105 .102 .102 .118 .161 .114 .130 .144 .160 .124 .115 .096Inv 2 .114 .319 .098 .127 .045 .061 .063 .073 .037 .069 .075 .074 .049 .068 .059 .064 .105 .106 .084 .096 .087 .098 .108PV1 .085 .098 .551 .410 .292 .304 .237 .258 .171 .173 .173 .139 .122 .168 .194 .156 .125 .096 .142 .169 .159 .141 .142PV2 .163 .127 .410 .749 .390 .339 .287 .300 .162 .182 .174 .191 .157 .166 .201 .181 .176 .149 .200 .193 .214 .164 .185PV3 .099 .045 .292 .390 .498 .351 .300 .305 .161 .196 .176 .193 .157 .173 .186 .156 .160 .140 .161 .176 .132 .115 .127PV4 .101 .061 .304 .339 .351 .570 .353 .341 .215 .223 .228 .214 .188 .204 .202 .191 .184 .164 .191 .208 .146 .153 .191PV5 .115 .063 .237 .287 .300 .353 .511 .344 .165 .199 .181 .182 .169 .153 .183 .197 .157 .187 .164 .191 .180 .176 .193PV6 .119 .073 .258 .300 .305 .341 .344 .509 .176 .154 .158 .220 .185 .190 .194 .186 .156 .154 .152 .172 .158 .176 .210LS1 .055 .037 .171 .162 .161 .215 .165 .176 .771 .614 .599 .044 .097 .097 .136 .137 .062 .038 .108 .199 .159 .163 .171LS2 .055 .069 .173 .182 .196 .223 .199 .154 .614 .704 .627 .076 .133 .128 .172 .162 .118 .070 .138 .174 .134 .189 .200LS3 .062 .075 .173 .174 .176 .228 .181 .158 .599 .627 .769 .062 .113 .119 .147 .159 .090 .087 .150 .145 .176 .168 .179ST1 .105 .074 .139 .191 .193 .214 .182 .220 .044 .076 .062 .389 .269 .290 .250 .193 .158 .168 .135 .134 .141 .120 .139ST2 .102 .049 .122 .157 .157 .188 .169 .185 .097 .133 .113 .269 .324 .271 .247 .168 .139 .143 .134 .126 .129 .128 .124ST3 .102 .068 .168 .166 .173 .204 .153 .190 .097 .128 .119 .290 .271 .384 .295 .167 .142 .143 .109 .138 .125 .137 .162ST4 .118 .059 .194 .201 .186 .202 .183 .194 .136 .172 .147 .250 .247 .295 .392 .197 .125 .119 .134 .170 .143 .128 .129Q1 .161 .064 .156 .181 .156 .191 .197 .186 .137 .162 .159 .193 .168 .167 .197 .506 .275 .268 .274 .268 .158 .136 .115Q2 .114 .105 .125 .176 .160 .184 .157 .156 .062 .118 .090 .158 .139 .142 .125 .275 .405 .276 .255 .248 .130 .110 .135Q3 .130 .106 .096 .149 .140 .164 .187 .154 .038 .070 .087 .168 .143 .143 .119 .268 .276 .433 .296 .291 .138 .094 .118Q4 .144 .084 .142 .200 .161 .191 .164 .152 .108 .138 .150 .135 .134 .109 .134 .274 .255 .296 .429 .321 .148 .132 .158Q5 .160 .096 .169 .193 .176 .208 .191 .172 .199 .174 .145 .134 .126 .138 .170 .268 .248 .291 .321 .505 .195 .134 .137RV1 .124 .087 .159 .214 .132 .146 .180 .158 .159 .134 .176 .141 .129 .125 .143 .158 .130 .138 .148 .195 .480 .254 .211RV2 .115 .098 .141 .164 .115 .153 .176 .176 .163 .189 .168 .120 .128 .137 .128 .136 .110 .094 .132 .134 .254 .357 .310RV3 .096 .108 .142 .185 .127 .191 .193 .210 .171 .200 .179 .139 .124 .162 .129 .115 .135 .118 .158 .137 .211 .310 .545

Inv: Involvement, PV: Perceived value, LS: Leisure life satisfaction, ST: Satisfaction with travel experience, Q: Quality of life RV: Revisit Intention.

References

Ananian, C. D., & Janke, M. (2010). Leisure life later life. In L. Payne, B. Ainsworth, &G. Godbey (Eds.), Leisure, health, and wellness (pp. 249e261). State College, PA:Venture Publishing, Inc.

Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism andquality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3),248e260.

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, marketshare, and profitability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(July),53e66.

Anderson, B., & Langmeyer, L. (1982). The under 50 and over 50 travelers: A profileof similarities and differences. Journal of Travel Research, 20, 20e24.

Arora, R. (1985). Consumer involvement: what it offers to advertising strategies.International Journal of Advertising, 4(2), 119e130.

Bai, B., Jang, S. S., Cai, L. A., & O'Leary, J. T. (2001). Determinants of travel modechoice of senior travelers to the United States. Journal of Hospitality and LeisureMarketing, 8(3/4), 147e168.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B. (2002). The influence of multiplestore environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage in-tentions. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 120e141.

Bigne, J., Sanchez, M., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables andafter purchase behaviour: inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6),607e616.

Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers' assessments ofservice quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375e384.

Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Bowen, D. (2001). Antecedents of consumer satisfaction and dis-satisfaction (CS/D)on long-haul inclusive tours: a reality check on theoretical considerations.Tourism Management, 22, 49e61.

Brady, M., & Cronin, J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceivedservice quality: a hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34e49.

Burton, S., Sheather, S., & Roberts, J. (2003). The effect of actual and perceivedperformance on satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of ServiceResearch, 5(4), 292e302.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Chen, C., & Chen, F. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction andbehavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29e35.

Chen, C., & Tsai, M. (2008). Perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty of TV travelproduct shopping: involvement as a moderator. Tourism Management, 29,1166e1171.

Clements, C. J., & Josiam, B. M. (1995). Role of involvement in the travel decision.Journal of Vacation Marketing, 1(4), 337e348.

Cravens, D. W., Holland, C. W., Lamb, C. W., Jr., & Moncrieff, W. C., III (1988). Mar-keting's role in product and service quality. Industrial Marketing Management,17(4), 285e304.

Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality,value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in serviceenvironments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193e218.

Cummins, R. A. (1997). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos.In Citation classics from social indicators research (pp. 559e584).

Cumming, E., & Henry, W. E. (1961). Growing old: The process of disengagement. NewYork: Basic Books.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542e575.Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71e75.Diener, D., Horwitz, J., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Happiness of the very wealthy. Social

Indicators Research, 16(3), 263e274.Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three

decades of progress. Psychological bulletin, 125(2), 276.Dolnicar, S., Yanamandram, V., & Cliff, K. (2012). The contribution of vacations to

quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 59e83.Fernandez-Ballesteros, R., Zamarron,M., & Ruiz,M. (2001). The contribution of socio-

demographic and psychosocial factors to life satisfaction. Ageing and Society,21(1), 25e43.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39e50.

Gallarza, M. G., & Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfactionand loyalty: an investigation of university students' travel behavior. TourismManagement, 27(3), 437e452.

Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the sense of well-being. Annalsof Tourism Research, 31(1), 103e121.

Grzeskowiak, S., Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Claiborne, C. B. (2006). Housing well-being:developing and validating a measure. Social Indicators Research, 79(3), 503e541.

Guinn, R. (1980). Elderly recreational vehicle tourists: motivation for leisure. Journalof Travel Research, 19, 9e12.

Hair, J., Jr., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate dataanalysis. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS(R) system for factoranalysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Haub, C. (2011). World population aging: Clocks illustrate growth in population underage 5 and over age 65. Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved November 1,2013, from http://www.prb.org.

Hendricks, J., & Cutler, S. J. (2003). Leisure in life-course perspective. InR. A. Settersten (Ed.), Invitation to the life course: Toward new understandings oflater life (pp. 107e134). New York: Baywood.

Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value. A framework for analysis and research.London: Routledge.

Hsu, C. H. C., Cai, L. A., & Wong, K. K. F. (2007). A model of senior tourism moti-vations - anecdotes from Beijing and Shanghai. Tourism Management, 28(5),1262e1273.

Huang, S., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2009). Travel motivation: linking theory to practice. In-ternational Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(4), 287e295.

Hui, T., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists' satisfaction, recommendation andrevisiting Singapore. Tourism Management, 28(4), 965e975.

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476 475

Hutchinson, J., Lai, F., & Wang, Y. (2009). Understanding the relationships of quality,value, equity, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions among golf travelers.Tourism Management, 30(2), 298e308.

Iso-Ahola, S. E., Jackson, E., & Dunn, E. (1994). Starting, ceasing and replacing leisureactivities over the life-span. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(3), 227e249.

Iwasaki, Y., & Smale, B. J. A. (1998). Longitudinal analyses of the relationships amonglife transitions, chronic health problems, leisure, and psychological well-being.Leisure Sciences, 201(1), 25e52.

Jang, S., Bai, B., Hu, C., &Wu, C.M. (2009). Affect, travelmotivation, and travel intention:a senior market. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33(1), 51e73.

Javalgi, R. G., Thomas, E. G., & Rao, S. R. (1992). Consumer behavior in the U.S.pleasure travel marketplace: an analysis of senior and non-senior travelers.Journal of Travel Research, 31(2), 14e19.

Josiam, B. M., Smeaton, G., & Clements, C. J. (1999). Involvement: travel motivationand destination selection. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2), 167e175.

J€oreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long(Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publishing.

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters' behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of TourismResearch, 28(3), 784e807.

Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as anoff-season holiday destination. Journal of travel research, 38(3).

Kruger, P. S. (2012). Perceptions of tourism impacts and satisfaction with particularlife domains. In Handbook of tourism and quality-of-life research (pp. 279e292).

Kyle, G., & Chick, G. E. (2004). Enduring leisure involvement: The importance ofrelationships. Leisure Studies, 23, 243e266.

Lee, J., & Beeler, C. (2009). An investigation of predictors of satisfaction and futureintention: links to motivation, involvement, and service quality in a localfestival. Event Management, 13(1), 17e29.

Lee, S. H., & Tideswell, C. (2005). Understanding attitudes towards leisuretravel and the constraints faced by senior Koreans. Journal of VacationMarketing, 11(3).

Lee, C. K., Yoon, Y. S., & Lee, S. K. (2007). Investigating the relationships amongperceived value, satisfaction, and recommendations: the case of the KoreanDMZ. Tourism Management, 28(1), 204e214.

Lefrancois, R., Leclerc, G., & Polin, N. (1997). Predictors of activity involvementamong older adults, activities. Adaptation & Aging, 22(4), 15e29.

Lin, C. (2012). Effects of cuisine experience, psychological well-being, and self-health perception on the revisit intention of hot springs tourists. Journal ofHospitality & Tourism Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348012451460.

Lohmann, M., & Danielsson, J. (2001). Predicting travel patterns of senior citizens.How the past may hold the key to the future. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7,357e366.

London, M., Crandall, R., & Seals, G. (1977). The contribution of job and leisuresatisfaction to quality of life. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(3), 328e334.

Losier, G. F., Bourque, P. E., & Vallerand, R. J. (1993). A motivational model of leisureparticipation in the elderly. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary andapplied, 127(2), 153e170.

Lu, L. (2011). Leisure experiences and depressive symptoms among Chinese olderpeople: a national survey in Taiwan. Educational Gerontology, 37(9), 753e771.

Manfredo, M. J. (1989). An investigation of the basis for external information searchin recreation and tourism. Leisure Sciences, 11(1), 29e45.

Mannell, R. C. (1993). High-investment activity and life satisfaction among olderadults: committed, serious leisure, and flow activities. In I. R. Kelly (Ed.), Activityand aging: Staying involved in later life (pp. 125e145). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Mannell, R. C., & Kleiber, D. A. (1997). A social psychology of leisure. State College, PA:Venture.

McGuire, F., Boyd, R., & Tedrick, R. (1996). Leisure and aging: Ulyssean living in laterlife. Champaign,IL: Sagamore Pub.

Menec, V. H., & Chipperfield, G. C. (1997). Remaining active in later life, the role oflocus of control in seniors' leisure activity participation, health, and life satis-faction. Journal of Aging and Health, 9, 105e125.

Milman, A. (1998). The impact of tourism and travel experience on senior travelers'psychological well-being. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 166e170.

Neal, J., Sirgy, M., & Uysal, M. (1999). The role of satisfaction with leisure travel/tourism services and experience in satisfaction with leisure life and overall life.Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 153e163.

Neal, J., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2007). The effect of tourism services on travelers'quality of life. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 154e163.

Nimrod, G. (2007). Expanding, reducing, concentrating and diffusing: post retire-ment leisure behavior and life satisfaction. Leisure Sciences, 29, 91e111.

Norman, W. C., Daniels, M. J., McGuire, F., & Norman, C. A. (2001). Whither themature market: an empirical examination of the travel motivations of neo-mature and veteran mature markets. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Market-ing, 8(3), 113e130.

Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holisticperspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67e82.

Palmore, E. (1979). Predictors of successful aging. The Gerontologist, 19, 427e431.Patterson, I. R. (2006). Growing older: Tourism and leisure behaviour of older adults.

MA, USA: CABI International.Pechlaner, H., Smeral, E., & Matzier, K. (2002). Customer value management as a

determinant of the competitive position of tourism destinations. Tourism Re-view, 57(4), 15e22.

Petrick, J. F. (2003). Measuring cruise passengers' perceived value. Tourism Analysis,7(3), 251e258.

Prebensen, N., Woo, E., Chen, J., & Uysal, M. (2012). Motivation and involvement asantecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal ofTravel Research, 52(2), 253e264.

Prebensen, N., Woo, E., & Uysal, M. (2013). Experience value: antecedents andconsequences. Current Issues in Tourism. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.770451.

Puczk�o, L., & Smith, M. (2011). Tourism-Specific Quality-of-Life Index: The BudapestModel. Quality-of-Life Community Indicators for Parks (pp. 163e183). Recreationand Tourism Management.

Riddick, C. C., & Stewart, D. G. (1994). An examination of the life satisfaction andimportance of leisure in the lives of older female retirees: a comparison ofblacks to whites. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1), 75e87.

Ross, G. F. (1993). Destination evaluation and vacation preferences. Annals ofTourism Research, 20(3), 477e489.

Schr€oder, A., & Widmann, T. (2007). Demographic change and its impact on thetravel industry: oldies d nothing but goldies? In R. Conrady, & M. Buck (Eds.),Trends and issues in global tourism 2007 (pp. 3e17) Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

Sedgley, D., Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (2011). Tourism and aging: a transformativeresearch agenda. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 422e436.

Selin, S. W., & Howard, D. R. (1988). Ego involvement and leisure behavior: a con-ceptual specification. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(3), 237e244.

Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Consumption values and marketchoice: Theory and Applications. Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing.

Shoemaker, S. (1989). Segmentation of the senior pleasure travel market. Journal ofTravel Research, 27(3), 14e21.

Silverstein, M., & Parker, M. G. (2002). Leisure activities and quality of life amongthe oldest old in Sweden. Research on Aging, 24(5), 528e547.

Sirgy, M. J. (2002). The psychology of quality of life. Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerAcademic.

Sirgy, M. J., Kruger, P. S., Lee, D. J., & Grace, B. Y. (2011). How does a travel trip affecttourists' life satisfaction? Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261e275.

Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, D. J. (2006). Macro measures of consumer well-being (CWB): acritical analysis and a research agenda. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(1), 27e44.

Spiers, A., & Walker, G. J. (2009). The effects of ethnicity and leisure satisfaction onhappiness, peacefulness, and quality of life. Leisure Science, 31, 84e99.

Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of amultiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203e207.

Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). The role of perceived risk in thequality value relationship: a study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing,75(1), 77e105.

Teaff, J. D. (1985). Leisure services with the elderly. xvi±360pp.Tinsley, H. E., & Tinsley, D. J. (1986). A theory of the attributes, benefits and causes of

leisure experience. Leisure Sciences, 8, 1e45.Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism

Research, 33(4), 1141e1158.Van der Meer, M. J. (2008). The sociospatial diversity in the leisure activities of older

people in the Netherlands. Journal of Aging Studies, 22(1), 1e12.Walker, G. J., Halpenny, E., Spiers, A., & Deng, J. (2011). A prospective panel study of

Chinese-Canadian immigrant's leisure participation and leisure satisfaction.Leisure Sciences, 33, 349e365.

Wei, S., & Milman, A. (2002). The impact of participation in activities while onvacation on seniors' psychological well-being: a path model application. Journalof Hospitality and Tourism Research, 26(2), 175e185.

Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction and behavioural intentions inan adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 413e438.

Woodruff, B. R. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139e153.

Yoon,Y.,&Uysal,M. (2005).Anexaminationof the effects ofmotivation and satisfactionon destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 45e56.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12(December), 341e352.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). Research note: the personal involvement inventory: reduc-tion, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59e70.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2e22.

Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences ofservice quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31e46.

Dr. Eunju Woo is a post-doctoral research fellow in theDepartment of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vir-

ginia Tech. She completed her Ph.D. degree at Virginia Techin 2013. Her research interests include destination market-ing, tourist behavior, and Quality-of-Life (QOL).

H. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 46 (2015) 465e476476

Hyelin Kim is a research associate in the Department ofHospitality and Tourism Management, Virginia Tech. Shereceived her M.S. in Convention Management from KyungHee University, South Korea. Her research mainly focusedon elderly tourist behavior, Quality-of-Life (QOL) researchin tourism, and convention marketing

Dr. Muzaffer Uysal is a professor of tourism in theDepartment of Hospitality and Tourism Management,Virginia Tech. He is a member of International Academy forthe Study of Tourism, the Academy of Leisure Sciences, andserves as co-editor of Tourism Analysis: An Interdisci-plinary Journal. In addition, he sits on the editorial boardsof several journals. He also received a number of awardsfor Research, Excellence in International Education, andTeaching Excellence. His current research interests centeron tourism demand/supply interaction, Tourism develop-ment and QOL research in tourism.