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

com/

Developing the Travel Career Approach to Tourist Motivation

Philip L. Pearce and Uk-Il Lee
Journal of Travel Research 2005 43: 226
DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272020

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/43/3/226

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

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

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/43/3/226.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 5, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014

FEBRUARY
10.1177/0047287504272020
JOURNAL OF2005
TRAVEL RESEARCH
Developing the Travel Career
Approach to Tourist Motivation
PHILIP L. PEARCE AND UK-IL LEE
The purpose of this study lies in the conceptual adjust-
ment of the travel career ladder (TCL) approach to travel
motivation. In this context, the study examined the relation-
ship between patterns of travel motivation and travel experi-
ence. This research was conducted through two studies: an
interview phase to guide the further conceptual development
of the travel career approach and a major survey phase for
further empirical exploration of the ideas. Overall results
suggested that host-site-involvement motivation (e.g., expe-
riencing different cultures) and nature-related motivation
(e.g., being close to nature) were more important factors to
the more experienced travelers, whereas motivations such as
stimulation, personal development, relationship (security),
self-actualization, nostalgia, romance, and recognition had
a higher priority for the less experienced ones. Importantly,
a core of travel motivation factors including escape, relax-
ation, relationship enhancement, and self-development seem
to comprise the central backbone of motivation for all travelers.
Keywords: tourist motivation; travel careers; life-cycle;
patterns; segmentation
Motivation has been an important topic in the leisure and
tourism literature since the inception of these fields of study
(Crompton 1979; Dann 1981; Galloway 1998; Veal 1997).
Wahab (1975) argued that the whole area of travel motiva-
tion is basic and indispensable in tourism studies and funda-
mental to tourism development itself. Crompton (1979)
noted that it is possible to describe the who, when, where,
and how of tourism but more difficult to answer the question
Why?—a critical factor underlying all tourist behavior.
Motivation is commonly seen as the driving force behind all
actions (Crompton 1979; Iso-Ahola 1982; Fodness 1994). It
is therefore a starting point for studying tourist behavior and,
beyond that, for understanding systems of tourism (Gunn
1988; Mill and Morrison 1985). Although there is some
agreement about the fundamental importance of motivation,
in 1987 Jafari noted that no common theoretical understand-
ing had emerged at that time (Jafari 1987). Although there
has been substantial progress in this area of study, Jafari’s
view still seems appropriate because, despite multiple efforts,
no widely agreed-on theoretical or conceptual framework
has emerged (World Tourism Organization 1999).
Although the importance of this area has been acknowl-
edged, the difficulties in studying the topic are considerable.
Unlike the frequently measured purpose of travel (e.g., “for
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
business” or “for pleasure”), which is considered to be overt,
the motivations or underlying reasons for travel are covert in
that they reflect an individual’s needs and wants (Gee, Choy,
and Makens 1984). French, Craig-Smith, and Collier (1995)
noted that travel motivation research is challenging because
of both the wide range of human needs and methodological
difficulties. Furthermore, the universality of the topic poten-
tially poses problems in constructing theories that apply
across cultures (Smith 1995). Despite the difficulties, the
value of pursuing travel motivation studies can be described
as extensive. It has been widely suggested that various tourist
visitation patterns are the result of a destination choice pro-
cess that, in turn, is influenced powerfully by tourists’
motives and backgrounds (Um and Crompton 1990; Lue,
Crompton, and Fesenmaier 1993). Mansfeld (1992) sug-
gested that both travel choice and travel behavior will be
understood better if travel motivation theory and measure-
ment are improved. Similarly, Moscardo et al. (1995) pro-
posed that motivation could be linked to activities and, in
turn, to destination choice. In this kind of scheme, travel
motivation becomes a topic of central interest to tourism
marketers and managers.
Although there has been an awareness of the need to
develop motivation theories, existing approaches only par-
tially meet all the requirements of a good theory (Pearce
1993). The present research concentrates on the develop-
ment, modification, and potential enhancement of one of the
existing theories of tourist motivation—the travel career lad-
der (TCL; Pearce 1988, 1991, 1993). The potential exists of
course, for other research on travel motivation to advance
parallel theoretical endeavors such as Plog’s (1974)
allocentric-psychocentric theory, Iso-Ahola’s (1982) opti-
mal arousal theory, and Beard and Ragheb’s (1983) leisure
motivation approach. The explicit value of pursuing the
travel career approach lies in the fact that the work has been
developed and sustained throughout some period of time, has
Philip L. Pearce is foundation professor of tourism and head of
the tourism program at James Cook University in Townsville, Aus-
tralia; phone: +61 7 4781 5134; fax: +61 7 4781 4019; e-mail:
Philip.Pearce@jcu.edu.au. He has interests in tourist behavior and
tourism and community development. Uk-Il Lee is a doctoral stu-
dent in tourism at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. He
has interests in cross-cultural research and tourist behavior.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, February 2005, 226-237
DOI: 10.1177/0047287504272020
© 2005 Sage Publications

been used in both academic and applied studies, and has
attracted some detailed commentary suggesting the need to
improve the approach (Blamey 1998; Ryan 1998; Todd
1999).
TRAVEL CAREER LADDER
Pearce (1988, 1991, 1993), Pearce and Caltabiano (1983),
and Moscardo and Pearce (1986) developed the travel moti-
vation theory labeled the TCL, based in part on Maslow’s
(1970) needs hierarchy theory of motivation. TCL describes
tourist motivation as consisting of five different levels:
relaxation needs, safety/security needs, relationship needs,
self-esteem and development needs, and self-actualization/
fulfilment needs. Following Maslow, the needs of travelers
were seen as organized into a hierarchy or ladder with the
relaxation needs being at the lowest level, followed in order
by safety/security needs, relationships needs, self-esteem
and development needs, and finally, at the highest level, ful-
filment needs. Nevertheless, travelers were not considered to
have only one level of travel motivation, but it was suggested
that one set of needs in the ladder levels may be dominant.
The ideas of Maslow represented only part of the genesis of
the TCL. The concept of a career in leisure or tourism was
equally important in shaping the TCL approach (Hughes
1937; Goffman 1961). The core ideas in this line of inquiry
were that people’s motivation changes with their travel expe-
rience. From this approach, people may be said to have a
travel career, that is, a pattern of travel motives that change
according to their life span and/or accumulated travel
experiences.
The applicability of the career concept in tourist motiva-
tion research has received initial but not sustained attention.
The idea of a career, however, has been recognized in the lei-
sure research area with the concept of specialization. The
specialization notion, originally developed by Bryan (1977),
suggests that there are distinct classes of participants who
exhibit unique styles of involvement for a given recreational
activity. He argued that for a given activity, the participants
exhibit a continuum of behavior from general interest to a
very focused involvement. Previous experience, knowledge
about the activity, and the level of investment in the activity
are all important in classifying a person as having a specialist
interest. This specialization concept has been endorsed in
various leisure studies and can be seen as reinforcing the
value of the “career” and experience approach to tourism
study (Chipman and Helfrich 1988; Kuentzel and McDonald
1992; McFarlane 1994).
In the TCL framework, the term career had some further
specific implications. It was suggested that many people sys-
tematically move through a series of stages or have predict-
able travel motivational patterns. Some may predominantly
“ascend” the TCL, whereas others may remain at a particular
level, depending on contingency or limiting factors such as
health and financial considerations. Broadly, the TCL theory
proposed that people progress upward through the levels of
motivation when accumulating travel experiences.
Previous empirical studies demonstrated that this
research model was an acceptable initial tool in understand-
ing travel motivation (Mills 1985; Kim 1997; Lee 1998;
Loker-Murphy 1995). Furthermore, it has been proposed that
the TCL can be used as a blueprint to design motivational
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 227
studies for special markets such as for ecotourists and for
theme park patrons (Blamey 1998; Pearce and Rutledge
1994).
Although there is some promise with this travel motiva-
tion theory and its emerging applications, issues for further
development have been identified. Ryan (1998), for exam-
ple, questioned the empirical validity of the approach and
considered the number of the items used to assess the ladder
levels to be inadequate. Some of the criticism of and com-
mentary on the TCL theory has focused on the explicit use of
the term ladder in the formulation (Ryan 1998; Kim et al.
1996). As Pearce (1993) observed, the power of an effective
theory lies partly in its ability to be clearly understood by its
target audiences. In this context, the term ladder has perhaps
drawn too much attention to an analogy with a physical lad-
der with a concentration on ascending the steps and being on
one step at a time. Accordingly, the present research will
deemphasize the hierarchical elements in the TCL theory and
propose a travel career pattern (TCP) approach in which it is
the dynamic, multilevel motivational structure that is seen as
critical in understanding travel motivation, and it is these pat-
terns that reflect and define careers. In these conceptual
reformulations, the concept of a travel career remains impor-
tant, as does the view that travelers will exhibit changing
motivational patterns over their life stages and/or with travel
experience. Table 1 provides some conceptual definitions
regarding key terms pertinent to this discussion.
The conceptual adjustment to the TCL theory answers
only some of the challenges in developing travel motivation
theory. It is thus desirable to unite empirical data analysis of
traveler motivation with conceptual arguments. Therefore,
the purpose of this present research lies in providing compre-
hensive, research-based information regarding travel moti-
vation patterns and their development.
Research Objectives
The primary goal of this research is to obtain comprehen-
sive information on pleasure travel motivation patterns and
conceptualize it in relation to the travel career concept. Be-
cause this research is an initial approach in refining the TCL
theory, it was focused on understanding pleasure travel moti-
vation generically rather than on trip motivations for a spe-
cific trip. Therefore, the core aims of this study are as
follows:
1. Identify a broad range of travel motive items for plea-
sure travel in general.
2. Chart the underlying factors defining travel motiva-
tions.
3. Measure travel experiences.
4. Relate travel motivation patterns to travel experience.
5. Theoretically readjust the TCL theory into a more
comprehensive travel motivation theory.
To achieve these aims, this research approached travel
motivation through a 2-phased process—interviews and a
major survey study. The value of combining different study
techniques was to enhance validity and decrease possible
bias from relying on one-dimensional sources of informa-
tion. Furthermore, the advantage of using multiple methods
lies in combining the insights from the different approaches.
This article reports the current progress of the research.
228 FEBRUARY 2005

TABLE 1
KEY TERMS INVOLVING TRAVEL CAREER PATTERN

Key Terms Conceptual Definitions

Travel needs/motives The biological and sociocultural forces that drive travel behavior.
Motivation pattern Travel motivation occurs in a pattern of multiple motives rather than in a single domi-
nant force.
Travel career A dynamic concept arguing that tourists have identifiable phases or stages in their
holiday taking. A pattern of travel motives characterizes or reflects one’s travel ca-
reer. The state of one’s travel career, like a career at work, is influenced by previ-
ous travel experiences and life stage or contingency factors.
Travel career ladder (TCL) A theoretical model describing travel motivation through five hierarchical levels of
needs and motives in relation to travel career levels.
Travel career pattern (TCP) This approach is a modification of the earlier TCL work. It emphasizes the pattern of
motivations and their structure rather than steps on a ladder or hierarchy.

INTERVIEW PHASE
Methodology
The main objective of the interview procedure was to
generally explore and obtain a broad overview regarding the
TCP approach. It was also used to assist in constructing stra-
tegic directions for the survey study. An individual,
semistructured interview was conducted with 12 Australian
subjects using a snowballing sampling method. The selec-
tion criterion of the interviewees was based on their number
of previous international holiday experiences in their life.
The individual subjects’ total amount of overseas holiday
experience ranged from 0 to 15 times of previous interna-
tional travel. The limited number in the sample followed sug-
gestions for eliciting ideas from diverse subgroups as
reported in the concept of ‘theoretical saturation’ for focus
and intimate group literatures (Krueger 1994; Strauss and
Corbin 1990). As proposed by grounded theory, theoretical
saturation is described as a situation that occurs when further
sampling is meaningless due to each category of investiga-
tion being saturated, and no new or relevant data seem to
emerge. In this form of study, the suggested number of inter-
viewed subgroups is three to four. Therefore, following the
suggestion, four subjects were selected for each three levels
of the international holiday experience. In the interviews,
subjects were asked about their motivation for previous and
future international holiday travels. Then, to overcome limi-
tations with the interview method and obtain further infor-
mation that would aid the interpretation of the interview
results, after each interview, 2-paged structured question-
naires containing 38 travel motive items were handed out to
the interviewees who were asked to rate their importance
using a 9-point scale (1 = not important at all; 9 = very
important) for each travel motivation to their future experi-
ences. The motive items were obtained from the existing
tourism and leisure literature (Beard and Ragheb 1983;
Crandall 1980; Crompton 1979; Dann 1981; Driver and
Manfredo 1996; Fisher and Price 1991; Gitelson and
Kerstetter 1990; Hollender 1977; Iso-Ahola 1982; Iso-Ahola
and Allen 1982; Krippendorf 1987; Lee and Crompton 1992;
Loker and Perdue 1992; McIntosh and Goeldner 1986;
Pearce 1988, 1991; Shoemaker 1989; Tinsley, Rarrett, and
Kass 1977; Uysal and Jurowski 1994). The questionnaire
approach was incorporated with the interview process to
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
further identify the important motives that are latent and
hence were not mentioned in the interview. When interpret-
ing the questionnaire result, instead of using statistical analy-
sis, the overall motivation pattern was presented using a grid
with different shades indicating the different ratings of the
importance of the travel motives. Cross-referring the overall
motivation pattern from the grid to the obtained information
from the subjects’ interview statements enabled one to
distinguish which of the motives are more important than the
others within the overall motivation pattern.
Interview Study Results
Overall, from both approaches, the dominant motives for
overseas holidays were novelty, self-development including
cultural experience, relationship, and escape. Apart from
these clear categories, other travel motives were either men-
tioned less or were difficult to identify due to subjects’
uncertainty about their travel needs. These four types of
motivations have also been identified from the early key
travel motivation literature that contributed to shaping con-
temporary travel motivation research (Dann 1977, 1981;
Crompton 1979; Iso-Ahola 1982; Mill and Morrison 1985;
Pearce 1988, 1991, 1993).
Interestingly, the overall interview results suggested that
experienced subjects in international travel tended to start
their initial travel experiences from Western countries, such
as those in Europe and North America, then traveled to Asian
countries or so-called exotic destinations, which are cultur-
ally and environmentally different from their first visited
destinations. One repeated theme from the interviews was
that the main reasons for visiting Asian countries were to
learn their cultures and engage in different experiences.
McIntosh, Goeldner, and Ritchie (1995), suggested that cul-
tural motivation can be identified as the desire to see, know
more, and find out about other cultures such as the inhabit-
ants of other places, their lifestyle, and their food. In relation
to the travel career concept, both from interviews and the
questionnaire approach, it can be suggested that seeking cul-
tural experiences is one of the key motivation factors regard-
less of one’s travel career level, and the motive grows stron-
ger as people accumulate travel experiences. From the
interviews, most subjects with more overseas travel experi-
ence indicated that their preferred overseas destinations for
future holidays were countries in Asia or Europe. For the
subjects who indicated their wish to visit European
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 229

destinations, they originally started their travel experience in TABLE 2

those countries with main travel motives of enjoying and
seeking novelty. These respondents noted, however, that
their key motivations had changed into visiting cultural and
historical sites and were closely related to learning, self-
education, and developing themselves.
Apart from these motivations, however, other travel
motives were difficult to identify due to the subjects’ uncer-
tainty about their travel needs. In many cases, when the sub-
jects were asked to describe the reasons for traveling to the
particular country, they simply provided their image of the
destination from their memory rather than expressing them-
selves with motivational statements. The researcher often
needed to elicit more detailed responses through probing.
Dann (1981) classified the people’s lack of awareness of
their travel motives under four headings; tourists may not
wish to reflect on real travel motives, may be unable to
reflect on real travel motives, may not wish to express real
travel motives, and may not be able to express real travel
motives. Because the difficulty of obtaining detailed infor-
mation of motivation patterns was anticipated, question-
naires with structured motive questions were used in con-
junction with the interviews to overcome this issue.
Although a structured questionnaire was used as a secondary
apparatus, by interpreting the results in a nonquantitative
way, some important insight was gained into the overall
motivation patterns. Interpretation of the grid suggested that
motives relating to novelty and self-development, relation-
ship, and relaxation and escape were generally the most
important travel motives. Although four subjects indicated
that generally all of the listed motives were important as their
travel motives, others indicated that these four types of moti-
vations were the most important ones in relation to the travel
career concept. The questionnaire approach with this select
sample did not, however, provide results of any further value
than the method obtained by interviews in terms of explain-
ing the dynamics of the motivation patterns and further iden-
tifying critical motives driving the subjects to engage in
overseas holidays. Nevertheless, being congruent with the
interview results, the interpretation of the questionnaires
suggested that the four types of motivation might serve as the
main streams of overseas holiday motivation that may not
change regardless of progress through travel career levels.
SURVEY PHASE
Methodology
The data were collected by using 4-paged self-administered
questionnaires designed mainly to gather information on
subjects’ general motivations for travel (see Table 2). In the
questionnaire, the subjects were specifically asked to express
how important are the provided 74 motives when generally
thinking about the travel they take for pleasure. A Likert-
type scale (from not important at all to very important) was
provided for subjects to indicate the importance of each of
the 74 general travel motivational statements. All data were
collected in Townsville and Cairns in North Queensland,
Australia, during a 4-week period between November and
December 2000. Target samples were people from a Western
cultural background. The data were obtained at major shop-
ping centers, express coach terminals, and the boarding gate
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Statistical Methods Objectives
Descriptive analysis To explore the overall profile of the
samples and identify which mo-
tive items were regarded as most
important or unimportant
Principal component To discover the underlying motive
analysis dimensions of 74 motive items
K-means cluster To classify the samples according
analysis to their travel experience level
Discriminant analysis To identify the travel experience
parameters that best discriminate
the experience groups
Cross-tabulation To investigate the profiles of the
identified travel experience
groups
Independent t-test To examine the difference in the
identified motivational patterns
among travel experience groups
areas of domestic and international airports. In total, 1,012
valid responses were collected (97% of the total
respondents).
Descriptive statistics analysis was applied to the col-
lected data to explore the overall sample profile. Principal
component analysis (PCA) was next used to identify the
underlying motive dimensions. Then, K-means cluster anal-
ysis was used to classify the samples according to their travel
experience levels. Following this, to identify the travel expe-
rience parameters that best discriminate the identified travel-
experience-level groups, discriminant analysis was per-
formed. The profiles of the identified travel experience
groups were then studied through cross-tabulation. Finally,
the factor scores from the PCA analysis results were com-
puted, and an independent t-test was used to examine differ-
ence in the motivation factors between the identified travel-
experience-level groups.
Results
Sample profiles. Within the sample of 1,012 respondents,
nearly half were Australian (57%), 22% were from the
United Kingdom, and the rest (21%) were from other West-
ern countries. The percentage of male (47%) and female
(53%) respondents was quite closely balanced. Slightly more
than half (53%) were relatively younger respondents (i.e.,
younger than 36 years of age). Nearly one-quarter (23%) of
the sample’s occupation were professional or technical, and
more than half (56%) had completed their tertiary education.
When examining the respondents’ previously experienced
pleasure travel in their life, nearly half the sample (47%)
were quite experienced in their domestic travel because they
had traveled at least 26 times, whereas more than half (53%)
had traveled overseas 5 times or more.
Travel motivation analysis. Travel motivation was
viewed in this study as a multidimensional construct com-
prising numerous motives. Therefore, a pool of 143 initial
motive items was obtained from the same tourism and leisure
literature (Beard and Ragheb 1983; Crandall 1980;
230 FEBRUARY 2005
Crompton 1979; Dann 1981; Driver and Manfredo 1996;
Fisher and Price 1991; Gitelson and Kerstetter 1990;
Hollender 1977; Iso-Ahola 1982; Iso-Ahola and Allen 1982;
Krippendorf 1987; Lee and Crompton 1992; Loker and
Perdue 1992; McIntosh and Goeldner 1986; Pearce 1988,
1991; Shoemaker 1989; Tinsley and Kass 1978, 1979; Uysal
and Jurowski 1994), which was used as a reference source in
the interview study. Because the previous interview study
suggested that motivations related to escape/relax, novelty/
stimulation, relationship, and self-development needed em-
phasis, motive items that were believed to be associated with
these four main motivations were particularly further sought
and included as a part of the full profile of items. Next, the
initial motive items were reviewed for content validity
through a focus group panel. The focus group for this study
consisted of six people studying master’s and Ph.D. degrees
in tourism at James Cook University, Australia. Because the
nature of many of the questions contained in the question-
naire involved psychologically and socioculturally oriented
content, a focus group panel was considered to be appropri-
ate for assessing the questionnaire content, including the mo-
tive items list. Master’s and Ph.D. students who are experi-
enced and familiar in the motivation research area were
deliberately selected due to their awareness of the signifi-
cance that each of the motive items possesses within the en-
tire research process. In this process, any unclear or inappro-
priate terms in the questionnaire that could confuse or cause
the respondents to respond in an inappropriate way were cor-
rected, and motive items that were regarded as duplicates of
other items were discarded. Through this stage of research,
the list of initially constructed motive items was reduced to
74 items, with each detailing a specific motivation for travel.
This list was then used in the questionnaire for quantitative
data collection.
Because the core aim of this study is focused on under-
standing travel motivation, the overall characteristics of 74
motive items were explored. This procedure gathered infor-
mation on the important and unimportant travel motivations.
The most important travel motives were mainly the ones
reflecting the novelty, escape/relax, self-development, and
relationship aspects of motivation such as having fun
(mean = 8.22), experiencing something different (7.62), rest-
ing and relaxing (7.29), learning new things (7.26), and
doing something with my family/friends. The less important
travel motive items represented the recognition needs of
travel motivation such as showing others I can do it (4.25),
being recognized by other people (4.16), and having others
know that I have been there (4.00). Within the 74 motive
items, 2 items including experiencing fashionable/trendy
places (3.82) and getting away from my family (3.16),
resulted with mean score lower than 4.00. Because the objec-
tive of this study was to identify the major travel motiva-
tional dimensions, it was regarded that these 2 motive items
were considered to be unimportant by the respondents in
their total pattern of motivation. Therefore, these 2 items
were discarded in the further analysis process.
Prior to any further analysis, the adequacy of sample size
was verified using the Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Mea-
surement of sampling adequacy. Expressed in a value rang-
ing from 0 to 1, this statistical measurement is based on com-
paring the sum of squared correlation coefficients and the
sum of partial correlation coefficients. Scores closer to 1
indicate better sampling adequacy. It is generally considered
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
that if scores are less than .70, then factor analysis should not
be undertaken (Ryan and Glendon 1998). The KMO score in
this study resulted in .95, indicating a satisfactory sample
size.
Following this, to identify the underlying dimensions of
the 72 selected motive items, PCA was applied, and through
verification of the statistical validity from the produced
results, varimax rotation was followed (West 1991). By con-
sidering eigenvalues greater than 1, the procedure produced
14 factors. Items with factor loadings greater than 0.40 were
used to explain the factor (Child 1972). The percentage of
variance explained by this solution was 67.9%. Internal con-
sistency between the items in the factors was measured using
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. According to Baloglu and
McCleary (1999), this is the most generally used reliability
measure to estimate the degree to which the items on a mea-
sure are representative of the domain of the construct being
measured. A coefficient alpha of at least .70 is usually con-
sidered reliable (Ryan 1995; Veal 1997). Apart from the nov-
elty factor (.70), all factors resulted in a Cronbach’s coeffi-
cient alpha score greater than .80, which indicated strong
consistency among the items in each factor. The results are
shown in Table 3.
The 14 resulted motivation factors, in the order of impor-
tance, were labeled as (1) novelty, (2) escape/relax, (3) rela-
tionship (strengthen), (4) autonomy, (5) nature, (6) self-
development (host-site involvement), (7) stimulation, (8)
self-development (personal development), (9) relationship
(security), (10) self-actualization, (11) isolation, (12) nostal-
gia, (13) romance, and (14) recognition. The results indi-
cated that novelty, escape/relax, and relationship motiva-
tions are the most important factors in forming travel
motivation, and recognition, romance, and nostalgia the
least important ones. Interestingly the four common and
main travel motivations (escape/relax, novelty/stimulation,
relationship, and self-development) examined in the previ-
ous qualitative study were able to be further understood into
two types of motivations. Escape/relax was further classified
into escape/relax and isolation, novelty/stimulation into nov-
elty and stimulation, relationship into relationship
(strengthen) and relationship (security), and self-develop-
ment into personal development and host-site involvement.
Because factors are independent, they can be interpreted
as defining a multidimensional space. Therefore, although
difficult to visualize, 14 motivation factors represent a 14-
dimensional space of travel motivation. Therefore, for fur-
ther analyses and to locate individuals within the 14-dimen-
sional space, factor scores were calculated. First, the loading
of each variable on a factor was multiplied by the individual
sample’s original value for that variable. Next, this was
repeated for all variables in the factor for that individual.
These were then summed to give a preliminary score. The
process was repeated for all factors for that same individual
and then repeated for all other individuals. Finally, all scores
were standardized to a mean of 0.0 with a standard deviation
of 1.0.
Travel experience levels analysis. Prior to evaluating
which travel motivation factors are influenced by different
levels of travel experience, a scale was developed to measure
the individual’s travel experience level. As argued earlier, it
is hypothesized that various types of travel experience and
life-stage factors work in conjunction to influence an indi-
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 231

TABLE 3
PCA RESULTS RANKED BY FACTOR MEAN SCORES

Factors Motive Items Means Loadings

Novelty Having fun 8.23 0.48
(7.62)a Experiencing something different 7.61 0.53
(1.7%)b Feeling the special atmosphere of the vacation destination 7.45 0.52
(α = 0.70)c Visiting places related to my personal interests 7.20 0.45

Escape/relax Resting and relaxing 7.34 0.43

(6.92) Getting away from everyday psychological stress/pressure 7.33 0.80
(5.8%) Being away from daily routine 7.30 0.66
(α = 0.82) Getting away from the usual demands of life 7.23 0.80
Giving my mind a rest 6.57 0.65
Not worrying about time 6.44 0.52
Getting away from everyday physical stress/pressure 6.24 0.68

Relationship Doing things with my companion(s) 7.00 0.70

(Strengthen) Doing something with my family/friend(s) 6.83 0.83
(6.69) Being with others who enjoy the same things as I do 6.83 0.43
(2.2%) Strengthening relationships with my companion(s) 6.58 0.60
(α = 0.83) Strengthening relationships with my family/friend(s) 6.54 0.82
Contacting with family/friend(s) who live elsewhere 6.34 0.54

Autonomy (6.57) Being independent 6.92 0.78

(1.8%) Being obligated to no one 6.42 0.85
(α = 0.85) Doing things my own way 6.38 0.77

Nature Viewing the scenery 7.11 0.65

(6.44) Being close to nature 6.42 0.84
(2.4%) Getting a better appreciation of nature 6.29 0.84
(α = 0.92) Being harmonious with nature 5.94 0.80

Self-development Learning new things 7.24 0.43

(Host-site involvement) Experiencing different cultures 6.82 0.65
(6.20) Meeting new and varied people 6.53 0.56
(2.9%) Developing my knowledge of the area 6.48 0.72
(α = 0.84) Meeting the locals 6.29 0.73
Observing other people in the area 5.61 0.77
Following current events 4.42 0.40

Stimulation Exploring the unknown 7.05 0.53

(6.19) Feeling excitement 6.59 0.74
(28.8%) Having unpredictable experiences 6.46 0.69
(α = 0.89) Being spontaneous 6.38 0.50
Having daring/adventuresome experience 5.92 0.86
Experiencing thrills 5.78 0.85
Experiencing the risk involved 5.15 0.79

Self-development Develop my personal interests 6.43 0.74

(Personal development) Knowing what I am capable of 6.20 0.68
(6.16) Gaining a sense of accomplishment 6.19 0.64
(7.0%) Gaining a sense of self-confidence 6.11 0.69
(α = 0.92) Developing my skills and abilities 6.09 0.77
Using my skills and talents 5.93 0.69

Relationship Feeling personally safe and secure 6.36 0.53

(Security) Being with respectful people 6.23 0.73
(5.86) Meeting people with similar values/interests 5.99 0.69
(4.1%) Being near considerate people 5.95 0.73
(α = 0.87) Being with others if I need them 5.45 0.47
Feeling that I belong 5.16 0.58

Self-actualize Gaining a new perspective on life 6.52 0.50

(5.78) Feeling inner harmony/peace 6.15 0.58
(2.1%) Understanding more about myself 5.53 0.68
(α = 0.89) Being creative 5.39 0.55
Working on my personal/spiritual values 5.32 0.76

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014 (continued)
232 FEBRUARY 2005
TABLE 3 (continued)
Factors Motive Items
Isolation Experiencing the peace and calm
(5.72) Avoiding interpersonal stress and pressure
(1.9%) Experiencing the open space
(α = 0.81) Being away from the crowds of people
Enjoying isolation
Nostalgia (5.43) Thinking about good times I’ve had in the past
(1.5%) (α = 0.92) Reflecting on past memories
Romance (5.10) Having romantic relationships
(1.5%) (α = 0.78) Being with people of the opposite sex
Recognition Sharing skill and knowledge with others
(4.27) Showing others I can do it
(4.4%) Being recognized by other people
(α = 0.87) Leading others
Having others know that I have been there
Note: 67.9% of variance explained, and motive items with factor loading < 0.40 is discarded. Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) mea-
surement of sampling adequacy: 0.95.
a. Mean score of the factor. b. Variance explained. c. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient.
vidual’s travel experience and thus contribute to forming
travel motive patterns. Therefore, in this stage of the study,
three variables, domestic travel experience, international
travel experience, and age, were taken into account in mea-
suring travel experience level. As a first step in the measure-
ment, the three variables were each classified into groups
with each group consisting of an approximately equal num-
ber of samples. Domestic travel experience and international
travel experience were each classified into four groups, and
age was classified into five groups. The four groups of both
travel experience variables were then given values from 1 to
4 (from inexperienced to experienced) and values from 1 to 5
(from younger to older) for the classified five groups of age.
Following this, the variables were standardized. Variables
subject to cluster analysis are required to be measured in a
standardized way; otherwise, variables with large values
contribute more to the calculations of distance measures than
those with small values (SPSS 1999). Therefore, one way to
avoid this problem was to reexpress the variables on the
same scale, specifically a scale ranging from 0 to 1 (Coakes
and Steed 1999; SPSS 1999).
Then, cluster analysis was applied to the three rescaled
variables to classify the collected samples into identifiable
travel-experience-level groups. Cluster analysis is a statisti-
cal method that analyzes numerical indices of proximity (sim-
ilarity) among elements to distinguish relatively discrete,
homogeneous groups of clusters of elements (Walpole 1990).
In this procedure, K-means cluster analysis was used because
it is useful when analyzing 200 or more cases (SPSS 1999).
The distances between the clusters were measured using
analysis of variance. The procedure resulted in a solution
involving 2 clusters. The first cluster consisted of 462 people
(49.1%); the second one, 478 (50.9%). As shown in Table 4,
the clusters were labeled as high-travel-experience level and
low-travel-experience level. The high-travel-experience group
consisted of older people with a higher level of domestic and
international travel experience and contrasted with the low-
travel-experience group, which comprised younger people
with less experience in both types of travels.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
Means Loadings
6.71 0.52
5.84 0.52
5.79 0.55
5.15 0.73
5.10 0.79
5.51 0.79
5.35 0.81
5.32 0.71
4.87 0.68
4.90 0.63
4.23 0.74
4.14 0.72
4.07 0.70
4.00 0.72
To determine the predictor variables that contribute most
to the distinction between the two travel experience levels,
discriminant analysis was performed on the two identified
groups with age, domestic travel level, and international
travel level as discriminant variables. Discriminant analysis
is a statistical technique that enables researchers to investi-
gate and simultaneously describe the significant differences
between two or more mutually exclusive groups on several
dependent variables (Brown and Tinsley 1983; Diekhoff
1992). The basic assumption for conducting a discriminant
analysis is that the predictor variables, termed discriminant
variables, are low in multicollinearity to achieve optimum
results (Diekhoff 1992). Therefore, with respect to this
requirement, Pearson correlation was used to test for
intercorrelations among the three travel experience variables
prior to their use as discriminant variables. The calculation
resulted with relatively low correlations with all of the R val-
ues ranging between .19 and .33, thus enabling their use as
predictor variables in the discriminant analysis.
Within the various methods of discriminant analysis, the
direct method was chosen for this study. This approach
involves estimating the discriminant function so that all the
predictors are included simultaneously in the analysis. This
method is appropriate when there are relatively few predic-
tors and when the researcher wants the discrimination based
on all predictors (Diekhoff 1992). Table 5 contains the
results for the discriminant function. With an eigenvalue of
2.42, the function accounted for 100% of the explained vari-
ance. The canonical correlation associated with the function
was 0.84, showing that the function is strongly related to
group difference. The square of this correlation, (0.84)2 =
0.71, indicated that 71% of the variance in the dependent
variable, travel-experience-level group, is explained. The
very small value of Wilk’s Lambda (0.29) indicated excel-
lent separation of the groups. The chi-square test of Wilk’s
Lambda (1150.90) showed that the overall separation of
groups achieved using the discriminant function is highly
significant at the level of 0.00.
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 233

TABLE 4
CLUSTER ANALYSIS RESULTS

High Travel Low Travel ANOVA

Experience Experience Significance
Travel Experience Parameters Level (N = 462 (49.1%)) Level (N = 478 (50.9%)) Level
International travel experience 0.86 0.46 0.00
Domestic travel experience 0.79 0.46 0.00
Age 0.71 0.45 0.00

TABLE 5
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS LEVEL

Canonical Wilk’s Significance

Function Eigenvalue Variance (%) Correlation Lambda Chi-Square Level
1 2.42 100 0.84 0.29 1150.90 0.00

TABLE 6
CANONICAL DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION COEFFICIENTS AND LOADINGS

Unstandardized Standardized Discriminant

Variables Coefficients Coefficients Loadings
International travel experience 3.98 0.82 0.62
Domestic travel experience 2.85 0.63 0.48
Age Group 2.21 0.56 0.34
(Constant) –5.69 NA NA

In determining which predictor variable contributes the
most to the function, discriminant function coefficients and
loadings were examined. These are listed in Table 6 in order
of magnitude. Given the low intercorrelation among the pre-
dictors, an examination of the magnitudes of the standard-
ized discriminant function coefficients for the study suggests
that international travel experience level is the most impor-
tant predictor in discriminating between the groups, fol-
lowed by domestic travel experience level and age. The same
observation could be obtained from examination of the
discriminant loadings. The unstandardized discrimination
function coefficients are also provided, which were applied
to the raw values of the variables for classification purpose.
The group centroids, giving the value of the discriminant
function evaluated at the group means, are also identified.
High-travel-experience group has a positive value of (1.58),
whereas low-travel-experience group has a nearly equal neg-
ative value (–1.53). From the fact that the signs of the coeffi-
cients associated with all the predictors are positive (Table
6), this suggests that higher levels of international travel
experience, domestic travel experience, and age are more
likely to result in a higher travel experience level. To deter-
mine whether the function is a valid predictor, the classifica-
tion matrix was examined. Cases were assigned to groups on
the basis of their discriminant function scores, and the pat-
tern of correct classifications and misclassifications was
assessed. With all cases correctly classified with no
misclassifications, high-travel-experience group was classi-
fied with 462 cases and low-travel-experience group with
478 cases. The hit ratio of the analysis sample was excellent
with 96.2% of correctly classified cases.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
Then, using cross-tabulation analysis, a profile of the two
travel-experience-level groups was identified. The chi-
square statistic was used to determine if any statistically sig-
nificant differences among the groups existed (Table 7). The
analysis resulted with significant differences between the
two groups for all investigation categories at a level of 0.00
except for gender, which resulted with a 0.01 level of signifi-
cance. The high-travel-experience-level group consisted of
slightly more male respondents (51%) who have achieved
higher educational level with 76% tertiary attendance. The
major occupations for this group were professional/technical
(30%), self-employed/business owner (11%), others (11%),
and middle management (9%). Sixty-two percent of the
respondents in this group had more than 10 international
travel events, and more than 46% had more than 50 domestic
travel events. Fifty-four percent were older than 40 years old,
and the majority of the respondents were from the United
Kingdom (37%) and Australia (36%). The low-travel-expe-
rience group consisted of more female respondents (57%)
and a somewhat lower educational level compared to the
high-travel-experience group. Forty-five percent of the
respondents had high-school-level qualifications, and 55%
have completed tertiary education. The major occupations
for this group were students (18%), followed by profes-
sional/technical (17%), others (17%), and clerical or service
(11%). Forty-one percent of the respondents never had any
international travel experiences, and 40% had less than 10
domestic travel experiences. Most of the respondents from
this group were young people, with 39% younger than 26,
and most (75%) were from Australia.
234 FEBRUARY 2005

TABLE 7
CROSS-TABULATION-PROFILES OF TRAVEL EXPERIENCE LEVEL GROUPS

Travel Experience Levels

Profiles Categories High (%)a Low (%)a
Gender* Male 236 (51.3) 203 (42.6)
Female 224 (48.7) 273 (57.4)

Educational level** High school 108 (23.6) 216 (45.4)

Technical/trade qualification 105 (23.0) 79 (16.6)
University degree 125 (27.4) 114 (23.9)
Postgraduate degree 72 (15.8) 35 (7.4)
Others 47 (10.3) 32 (6.7)

Occupational category** Homemaker 25 (5.4) 38 (8.0)

Professional/technical 139 (30.2) 82 (17.3)
Executive administrator 16 (3.5) 10 (2.1)
Laborer 3 (0.7) 20 (4.2)
Middle management 42 (9.1) 12 (2.5)
Trade/machine operator 17 (3.7) 22 (4.6)
Retired 33 (7.2) 9 (1.9)
Sales/marketing 31 (6.7) 29 (6.1)
Self-employed/business owner 51 (11.1) 38 (8.0)
Student 26 (5.7) 85 (17.9)
Clerical or service 28 (6.1) 50 (10.5)
Others 49 (10.7) 80 (16.8)

International travel experience** Inexperienced (0) 9 (1.9) 196 (41.0)

Somewhat experienced (14) 59 (12.8) 180 (37.7)
Experienced (510) 110 (23.8) 79 (16.5)
Very experienced (10) 284 (61.5) 23 (4.8)

Domestic travel experience** Inexperienced (09) 20 (4.3) 189 (39.5)

Somewhat experienced (1025) 98 (21.2) 194 (40.6)
Experienced (2650) 132 (28.6) 69 (14.4)
Very experienced (> 50) 212 (45.9) 26 (5.4)

Age ** Younger (2 26) 28 (6.1) 188 (39.3)

Somewhat young (2530) 78 (16.9) 109 (22.8)
Intermediate (3140) 100 (21.6) 91 (19.0)
Somewhat old (4150) 115 (24.9) 59 (12.3)
Older (> 51) 141 (30.5) 31 (6.5)

Nationality ** Australian 167 (36.1) 350 (75.4)

United Kingdom 170 (36.8) 39 (8.4)
Other Western countries 125 (27.1) 75 (16.2)
a. % within travel experience level group.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.001.

Travel motivation and travel experience level. In order to
identify which motivation factors were influenced by differ-
ent levels of travel experience, independent t-tests were used
with travel experience level as the independent variable and
motivation factors as dependent variables (see Table 8).
In general, between the two levels of travel experience,
nature, self-development (host-site involvement), stimula-
tion, self-development (personal development), relationship
(security), self-actualize, romance, and recognition motiva-
tion factors resulted in significant differences, whereas other
motivation factors such as novelty, escape/relax, relation-
ship (strengthen), autonomy, isolation, and nostalgia
resulted in nonsignificant differences. According to the
results, nature and host-site involvement motivation factors
were generally more important to people with higher travel
experience levels (0.11; 0.25) compared to those with lower
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
travel experience levels (–0.12; –0.22). By way of contrast,
the stimulation factor was not as important to the respondents
with higher travel experience levels (–0.06) compared to
those with lower levels (0.09). Personal development and
self-actualization, which comprise the upper levels of TCL
theory, turned out to be emphasized more as a travel motiva-
tional factor by the people within the lower travel experience
stage (0.10; 0.10). The relationship (security) factor was also
emphasized more by the lower travel experience level group
(0.10) than the higher one (–0.11). Romance and recogni-
tion, the least important motivations, were also a more
important factor in the group with lower-level travel experi-
ence. Interestingly, the three most important motivation fac-
tors, novelty, escape/relax, and relationship (strengthen),
resulted in no statistically significant difference in their
importance as motivation between the two levels of travel
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 235

TABLE 8
INDEPENDENT T-TEST: MOTIVATION FACTORS BY TRAVEL-EXPERIENCE-LEVEL GROUPS

High Travel Low Travel

Experience Level Experience Level
Factor Factor
Score Mean Score Mean T-Score Significance
Novelty 0.03 7.66 0.00 7.64 0.46 0.65
Escape/relax 0.02 6.89 –0.02 6.98 0.57 0.57
Relationship (strengthen) –0.06 6.44 0.04 6.89 –1.55 0.12
Autonomy –0.07 6.36 0.05 6.78 –1.78 0.07
Nature 0.11 6.60 –0.12 6.31 3.39 0.00
Self-development (host-site involvement) 0.25 6.41 –0.22 6.04 7.13 0.00
Stimulation –0.06 6.10 0.09 6.33 –2.20 0.03
Self-development (personal development) –0.12 5.86 0.10 6.50 –3.25 0.00
Relationship (security) –0.11 5.56 0.10 6.15 –3.10 0.00
Self-actualize –0.11 5.54 0.10 6.06 –3.05 0.00
Isolation –0.02 5.65 0.02 5.84 –0.63 0.53
Nostalgia –0.05 5.08 0.05 5.80 –1.38 0.17
Romance –0.15 4.50 0.14 5.66 –4.29 0.00
Recognition –0.15 3.82 0.12 4.67 –3.93 0.00

experience. This may imply that these three dimensions of
motivation function as the core factors in all travel motiva-
tion patterns regardless of travel experience level. In other
words, it could be suggested that although people travel for
various reasons, these three factors could nevertheless be the
main and common motivations for most kinds of travel.
DISCUSSION
Through the two phases of the study, it was demonstrated
that travel motivation could be identified as patterns and
combinations of multiple motives that are influenced by pre-
vious travel experience and age. Pearce and Caltabiano
(1983) and Woodside and Jacobs (1985) argued that previ-
ous travel experience would provide insights when studying
travel motivation. With respect to the relationship between
travel motivation and travel experience level, escape/relax,
novelty, relationship, and self-development were the most
important and core to all travelers. Within the identified 14
travel motivational factors, people with high-travel-experi-
ence levels gave more emphasis to motivations regarding
self-development through host-site involvement and nature
seeking. Low-travel-experience-level people stressed more
on other motivation factors such as stimulation, personal
development, self-actualization, security, nostalgia, romance,
and recognition. These results show notable similarity with
the work of Shoemaker (1989) on the senior travel market.
Although the study did not directly measure previous travel
experience, the majority of the respondents (62%) indicated
that they traveled more than twice a year. Visiting new places
and experiencing new things, escaping and relaxing, spend-
ing time with family, and visiting museums and historical
sites were considered to be more important as travel reasons,
whereas being with the opposite sex, engaging in physical
activities, seeking spiritual enrichment, and telling friends
about the trip were less important. The emphasis on motiva-
tion in Shoemaker’s study is in close accord with the present
findings.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
In relation to both phases of the present study, the out-
comes point to several common and notable findings. First,
the results from both studies indicated that the motivational
dimensions of escape/relax, novelty, relationship, and self-
development within the TCP theory are the most important
factors in forming travel reasons. Regarding these four key
motivations, a number of studies have endorsed and rein-
forced this kind of result. Since its introduction to the tourism
literature by Cohen (1972), the novelty-seeking motive has
received considerable attention in tourism research as one of
the main forces behind all travel behavior and has been
explored in a number of empirical studies (Bello and Etzel
1985; Cohen 1972; Crompton 1979; Dann 1977, 1981;
Leiper 1995). If novelty seeking is a need to pursue stimula-
tion, the escape-seeking motive has been understood as a
need to get away from overstimulation (Iso-Ahola 1982).
Mannell and Iso-Ahola (1987) theorized that escape from
routine responsibilities and stress is a major motivation for
recreational travel and has been identified by various
researchers (Crompton 1979; Hollender 1977; Lounsbury
and Hoopes 1985; Woodside and Jacobs 1985). The self-
development motive, too, has been understood and defined
as seeking personal growth and/or a desire to learn and inter-
act with a host culture and its community (Crompton 1979;
Calantone and Johar 1984; Dann 1981; Etzel and Woodside
1982; Woodside and Jacobs 1985). The relationship-seeking
motive has been viewed as determining the desire to affiliate
and socially interact through vacation travel (Tinsley,
Rarrett, and Kass 1977). Research here, too, has been consid-
erable, noting the need to establish permanent or temporary
relationships as well as enhance kinship relations (Crompton
1979; Lounsbury and Hoopes 1985; Woodside and Jacobs
1985).
Second, travel motives reflecting self-development
through host-site involvement, such as experiencing differ-
ent cultures and meeting the locals, were considered more
important in the higher levels of travel experience than in the
lower ones. As reported in the interview phase of this study,
through the interview process it was identified that subjects
tended to start their initial travel experiences from Western-
236 FEBRUARY 2005
culture-based countries such as Europe and then travel to
Asia or so-called exotic destinations as they proceeded
through their travel experiences. For example, in the inter-
view process, a 37-year-old female respondent with 13 inter-
national travel trips indicated, “I became so used to travelling
that I couldn’t settle and I was interested in learning more
about Asia, their cultures.”
Third, contradicting the original TCL theory, higher levels
of motivation such as self-actualization and self-development,
for example, were emphasized more by the lower-travel-
experience group. When the lower-travel-experience-level
group is concerned, the results indicated that most travel
motivational factors received greater emphasis. Seven out of
the nine motivational factors, which were identified to be
significantly different in importance, were emphasized more
by the people with lower travel experience. This finding
shows consistency with the qualitative results, where travel
motivations were simply compared using frequency of inter-
national travel. Although there were no statistical compari-
sons made between the two experience groups, interviewees
with lower international travel experience placed more
importance generally on all types of travel motivations com-
pared to people with higher levels of experience.
Furthermore, as far as the quantitative results are con-
cerned, when exploring the relationship between the identi-
fied motivation dimensions and travel experience levels, the
three most important motivational factors, which were nov-
elty, escape/relax, and relationship, showed no significant
difference in their importance between levels of travel expe-
rience. Similarly, interview results also suggested that these
three factors, along with self-development, are the main psy-
chological forces driving people to travel. There is a strong
possibility that people may have certain dominant and con-
stant travel motivations that act as a core force to travel
regardless of their travel experience level.
Although the present research continues to explore the
patterns of travel motivation, some initial conceptual possi-
bilities to shape further thinking on this topic may be empha-
sized at this stage. The outcomes from these studies strongly
suggest that travel motivation patterns can be described as
having motives related to novelty, escape/relax, and rela-
tionship, and self-development as a foundation regardless of
one’s travel experience. Therefore, these four central moti-
vation factors could be understood as the “backbone” or
“skeleton” of all travel motivation and travel career patterns.
Self-development motives can, however, be classified into
two categories of personal development and host-site
involvement. Personal development motives are emphasized
more by lower-travel-experience people, and host-site
involvement motives become more evident as their travel
experience develops. Using this approach may explain why
the subjects in the interview study were not sure about their
travel motivation apart from the core motivation factors. Fur-
thermore, in terms of changes in motive patterns with travel
experience, these core motivations may not change to any
great degree. Change in or alteration of other, less dominant
motives could, however, thus bring a transformation in the
overall travel motivation patterns. Similar to a human body
undergoing maturation, the physical appearance may change
but the skeleton inside the body will not.
Several achievements from this study can be noted. A list
of travel motivation items that provided a broad coverage of
possible motives of travel was constructed, and, using the
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
list, underlying motivation factors were identified. Along
with this, many of the motives were shown to be influenced
by the levels of travel experience. Furthermore, the identifi-
cation of four important motivation factors persistent
through two contrasting levels of experience led to the theo-
retical possibility that there is a “mainframe” or backbone of
travel career patterns.
To verify the proposed possibilities, some hurdles must
be overcome in further studies. It would be desirable to con-
tinue to refine the measure of travel experience and to cata-
logue the most common patterns of motivation for different
samples. More work exploring different levels of travel
experience is particularly important and will be a focus for
our own future efforts. Importantly, cross-cultural studies of
travel motivation patterns will be needed to supplement and
verify the work reported here. The ideas raised from this
study will, it is hoped, serve as a guideline for the
development of the TCP approach.
REFERENCES
Baloglu, S., and K. W. McCleary (1999). “A Model of Destination Image
Formation.” Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (4): 868-97.
Beard, J., and M. Ragheb (1983). “Measuring Leisure Motivation.” Journal
of Leisure Research, 15 (3): 219-28.
Bello, D. C., and M. J. Etzel (1985). “The Role of Novelty in Pleasure Travel
Experience.” Journal of Travel Research, 24 (Summer): 20-26.
Blamey, R. (1998). Ecotourists in Australia. Occasional Paper. Canberra,
Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research.
Brown, M. T., and H. E. A. Tinsley (1983). “Discriminant Analysis.” Jour-
nal of Leisure Research, 15 (4): 290-310.
Bryan, H. (1977). “Leisure Value System and Recreational Specialization:
The Case of Trout Fishermen.” Journal of Leisure Research, 9: 174-
87.
Calantone, R. J., and J. S. Johar (1984). “Seasonal Segmentation Using Ben-
efit Segmentation Framework.” Journal of Travel Research, 23 (2):
14-24.
Child, D. (1972). The Essentials of Factor Analysis. London: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Chipman, B., and L. Helfrich (1988). “Recreation Specializations and Moti-
vations of Virginia River Anglers.” North American Journal of Fisher-
ies Management, 8: 390-98.
Coakes, S. J., and L. G. Steed (1999). SPSS: Analysis without Anguish. Bris-
bane, Australia: John Wiley.
Cohen, E. (1972). “Toward a Sociology of International Tourism.” Social
Research, 39 (1): 164-82.
Crandall, R. (1980). “Motivations for Leisure.” Journal of Leisure Research,
12 (1): 45-54.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). “Motivations for Pleasure Vacation.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 6 (1): 408-24.
Dann, G. M. S. (1977). “Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism.” Annals
of Tourism Research, 4 (4): 184-94.
——— (1981). “Tourist Motivation: An Appraisal.” Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 8 (2): 187-219.
Diekhoff, G. (1992). Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences:
Univariated, Bivariate, Multivariate. Dubuque, IA: William C.
Brown.
Driver, B. L., and M. J. Manfredo (1996). “Measuring Leisure Motivation: A
Meta Analysis of the Recreation Experience Preference Scales.” Jour-
nal of Leisure Research, 28 (3), 188-213.
Etzel, M. J., and A. G. Woodside (1982). “Segmenting Vacation Markets:
The Case of the Distant and Near-Home Travelers.” Journal of Travel
Research, 21 (Spring): 10-24.
Fisher, R. J., and L. L. Price (1991). “International Pleasure Travel Motiva-
tions and Post Vacation Cultural Attitude Change.” Journal of Leisure
Research, 23 (3): 193-208.
Fodness, D. (1994). “Measuring Tourist Motivation.” Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 21 (3): 555-81.
French, C. N., S. J. Craig-Smith, and A. Collier (1995). Principles of Tour-
ism. Melbourne, Australia: Longman.
Galloway, G. (1998). “Motivations for Leisure Travel: A Critical Examina-
tion.” In Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, proceedings
of the Eighth Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Confer-
ence, edited by B. Faulkner, C. Tideswell, and D. Weaver. Canberra,
Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research, pp. 99-108.
Gee, C. Y., D. J. L. Choy, and J. C. Makens (1984). The Travel Industry.
Westport, CT: AVI.

Gitelson, R. J., and D. L. Kerstetter (1990). “The Relationship between
Sociodemographic Variables, Benefits Sought and Subsequent Vaca-
tion Behavior: A Case Study.” Journal of Travel Research, 29 (Win-
ter): 24-29.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Pa-
tients and Other Inmates. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Gunn, C. A. (1988). Tourism Planning. 2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Fran-
cis.
Hollender, J. W. (1977). “Motivational Dimensions of the Camping Experi-
ence.” Journal of Leisure Research, 9 (2): 111-41.
Hughes, E. C. (1937). “Institutional Office and the Person.” American Jour-
nal of Sociology, 43: 404-13.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). “Towards a Social Psychological Theory of Tour-
ism Motivation: A Rejoinder.” Annals of Tourism Research, 9 (2):
256-62.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., and J. Allen (1982). “The Dynamics of Leisure Motivation:
The Effects of Outcome on Leisure Needs.” Research Quarterly for
Exercise & Sport, 53: 141-49.
Jafari, J. (1987). “Tourism Models: The Sociocultural Aspects.” Tourism
Management, 8 (2): 151-59.
Kim, Y. J. (1997). Korean Inbound Tourism in Australia. Master’s thesis,
James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
Kim, Y. J., P. L. Pearce, A. M. Morrison, and J. T. O’Leary (1996). “Mature
versus Youth Travellers: The Korean Market.” Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 1 (1), 102-12.
Krippendorf, J. (1987). The Holiday Makers. London: Heinemann.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Re-
search. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Kuentzel, W., and C. McDonald (1992). “Differential Effects of Past Experi-
ence, Commitment, and Lifestyle Dimensions on River Use Special-
ization.” Journal of Leisure Research, 24 (3): 269-87.
Lee, T., and J. Crompton (1992). “Measuring Novelty Seeking in Tourism.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (4): 732-52.
Lee, U. I. (1998). International Tourist Behaviour: A Comparative Study of
Japanese and United Kingdom Tourists in Cairns. Master’s thesis,
James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
Leiper, N. (1995). Tourism Management. Melbourne, Australia: TAFE Pub-
lications.
Loker, L. E., and R. R. Perdue (1992). “A Benefit-Based Segmentation of a
Non-Resident Summer Travel Market.” Journal of Travel Research,
31 (Summer): 30-35.
Loker-Murphy, L. E. (1995). “Backpackers in Australia: A Motivation-
Based Segmentation Study.” In Proceedings from the Tourism Re-
search and Education Conference. Canberra, Australia: Bureau of
Tourism Research, pp. 115-28.
Lounsbury, J. W., and L. L. Hoopes (1985). “An Investigation of Factors As-
sociated with Vacation Satisfaction.” Journal of Leisure Research, 17
(1): 1-13.
Lue, C., J. L. Crompton, and D. Fesenmaier (1993). “Conceptualisation of
Multi-Destination Pleasure Trips.” Annals of Tourism Analysis. 20 (2):
289-301.
Mannell, R. C., and S. E. Iso-Ahola (1987). “Psychological Nature of Lei-
sure and Tourism Experience.” Annals of Tourism Research, 14: 314-
31.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992). “From Motivation to Actual Travel.” Annals of Tour-
ism Studies, 19 (3): 399-419.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper &
Row.
McFarlane, B. (1994). “Specialization and Motivations of Birdwatchers.”
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 22: 361-70.
McIntosh, R. W., and C. R. Goeldner (1986). Tourism: Principles, Prac-
tices, Philosophies. 5th ed. New York: John Wiley.
McIntosh, R. W., C. R. Goeldner, and J. R. B. Ritchie (1995). Tourism: Prin-
ciples, Practices and Philosophies. 7th ed. New York: John Wiley.
Mill, R. C., and A. M. Morrison (1985). The Tourism System: An Introduc-
tory Text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at University of Waikato Library on June 29, 2014
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 237
Mills, A. S. (1985). “Participation Motivation for Outdoor Recreation: A
Test of Maslow’s Theory.” Journal of Leisure Research, 17: 184-99.
Moscardo, G. M., A. M. Morrison, P. L. Pearce, C. Lang, and J. T. O’Leary
(1995). “Understanding Vacation Destination Choice through Travel
Motivation and Activities.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2: 109-22.
Moscardo, G. M., and P. L. Pearce (1986). “Historical Theme Parks: An
Australian Experience in Authenticity.” Annals of Tourism Research,
13 (3): 467-79.4
Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Set-
tings. New York: Springer-Verlag.
——— (1991). “Dreamworld: A Report on Public Reactions to Dreamworld
and Proposed Developments at Dreamworld.” In A Report to Ernst and
Young on Behalf of the IOOF in Conjunction with Brian Dermott and
Associates. Townsville, Australia: Department of Tourism, James
Cook University.
——— (1993). “Fundamentals of Tourist Motivation.” In Tourism Re-
search: Critiques and Challenges, edited by D. Pearce and R. Butler.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 85-105.
Pearce, P. L., and M. L. Caltabiano (1983). “Inferring Travel Motivation
from Travellers’ Experiences.” Journal of Travel Research, 22 (2): 16-
20.
Pearce, P. L., and J. L. Rutledge (1994). “Architectural Design and Planning
of Tourist Facilities: Theme Park Planning and Design.” In Proceed-
ings of the Environments for Tourism Conference, edited by W. S.
Roehl. Las Vegas: William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, pp. 320-50.
Plog, S. C. (1974). “Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity.”
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly, 14 (4): 55-58.
Ryan, C. (1995). Researching Tourist Satisfaction: Issues, Concepts, Prob-
lems. New York: Routledge.
——— (1998). “The Travel Career Ladder: An Appraisal.” Annals of Tour-
ism Research, 25 (1): 936-57.
Ryan, C., and I. Glendon (1998). “Application of Leisure Motivation Scale
to Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1): 169-84.
Shoemaker, S. (1989). “Segmenting the U.S. Travel Market According to
Benefits Realized.” Journal of Travel Research, 28 (Winter): 8-21.
Smith, S. L. J. (1995). Tourism Analysis: A Handbook. Harlow, Essex, UK:
Longman.
SPSS. (1999). SPSS 10.0 User’s Guide. New York: SPSS.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory and Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tinsley, H. E. A., and R. A. Kass (1978). “Leisure Activities and Need Satis-
faction: A Replication and Extension.” Journal of Leisure Research,
10:191-202.
——— (1979). “The Latent Structure of the Need Satisfying Properties of
Leisure Activities.” Journal of Leisure Research, 11,278-91.
Tinsley, H., T. Rarrett, and R. Kass (1977). “Leisure Activities and Need
Satisfaction.” Journal of Leisure Research, 9: 110-20.
Todd, S. (1999). “Examining Tourist Motivation Methodologies.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 26 (4): 1022-24.
Um, S., and K. Crompton (1990). “Attitude Determinants in Tourism Desti-
nation Choice.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 432-48.
Uysal, M., and C. Jurowski (1994). “Testing the Push and Pull Factors.” An-
nals of Tourism Research, 21: 844-46.
Veal, A. J. (1997). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism. 2nd ed. Lon-
don: Financial Times, Prentice Hall.
Wahab, S. E. (1975). Tourism Management. London: Tourism International.
Walpole, R. E. (1990). Introduction to Statistics. Singapore: Maxwell
Macmillan.
West, R. (1991). Computing for Psychologists: Statistical Analysis Using
SPSS and Minitab. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic.
Woodside, A. J., and L. W. Jacobs (1985). “Step Two in Benefit Segmenta-
tion: Learning the Benefits Realised by Major Travel Markets.” Jour-
nal of Travel Research 24 (Summer): 7-13.
World Tourism Organization (1999). International Tourism: A Global Per-
spective. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.