563986

research-article2014
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287514563986Journal of Travel ResearchChen and Petrick

Empirical Research Articles

Journal of Travel Research

The Roles of Perceived Travel Benefits,

1­–14
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Importance, and Constraints in Predicting sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287514563986

Travel Behavior jtr.sagepub.com

Chun-Chu Chen1 and James F. Petrick2

Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated the experiential, health, and relaxation benefits of leisure travel. Building on the model
of attitude importance, this research further examined how Americans perceive travel benefits and how their perceptions
influence their travel behavior. The results showed that the three factors of travel benefits—experiential, health, and relaxation
benefits, had positive effects on frequency of travel through perceived importance of traveling. These findings suggest that the
tourism industry can encourage the public to purchase more tourism services by showing them tourism provides benefits
beyond satisfaction and enjoyment. However, it was also found that perceived travel constraints had negative effects on
travel behavior through perceived travel benefits and importance of traveling, which suggests that it is crucial for employers
to understand the benefits of travel and encourage their employees to use their vacation days.

Keywords
benefits of travel, benefits of tourism, importance of traveling, travel constraints, health benefits, tourism and quality of life

Introduction important attitudes might instigate the process of knowledge

As tourism is recognized as an essential element of modern
life for many people in the developed world, scholars from
different disciplines have frequently investigated the contri-
butions of tourism to psychological wellness (Gilbert and
Abdullah 2004; Pols and Kroon 2007), life satisfaction
(Sirgy et al. 2011; Lounsbury and Hoopes 1986), emotion
(Nawijn et al. 2013), health (Tarumi, Hagihara, and Morimoto
1998; Toda et al. 2004), family and relationships (Durko and
Petrick 2013), and recovery from stress experienced at work
(Chen, Petrick, and Shahvali 2014). These studies have dem-
onstrated that people often feel happier, healthier, and more
relaxed after a pleasure trip.
Even though travel benefits have been generally sup-
ported by previous studies, it remains unclear how people
perceive travel benefits and how these perceptions influence
their travel behavior. Thus, this research intended to examine
whether and how the amount of tourism services purchased
by an individual is influenced by his or her perceived travel
benefits. This investigation would help determine whether
the tourism industry can encourage individuals to purchase
more tourism services if they can show them that having a
pleasure trip is beneficial.
The present inquiry is based on Boninger, Krosnick, and
Berent’s (1995) model of attitude importance. Attitude
importance refers to the extent to which an individual
ascribes psychological significance to an attitude (Boninger,
Krosnick, and Berent 1995). It has been demonstrated that
accumulation, and subsequently influence thinking and
action (Holbrook et al. 2005). These studies have also shown
that people are more likely to attach personal importance to
an issue when they feel their own well-being may be directly
influenced by the issue (Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent
1995; Holbrook et al. 2005). Therefore, it is believed the
model of attitude importance can help to provide a linkage
between perceived travel benefits and travel behavior.
This research attempted to investigate the effect of per-
ceived travel benefits and importance of traveling on travel
behavior, while travel constraints have also shown to be a
predictor of travel behavior (Nyaupane, Morais, and Graefe
2004). In particular, cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger
1957) suggests that when people have conflict with beliefs
(such as I have no time for a vacation and taking a vacation
is beneficial), they will change one of these beliefs to regain
a state of consonance. It was thus hypothesized that travel
constraints should have negative effects on travel behavior
through perceived travel benefits and importance of
traveling.
1
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA
2
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Chun-Chu Chen, Department of Movement Sciences, University of Idaho,
812 Ford Building, Moscow, ID 83844, USA.
Email: bchen@uidaho.edu
2 Journal of Travel Research 
Literature Review
Benefits of Tourism
Given that more people have recognized tourism as a neces-
sity of human life rather than just a luxury of the privileged,
the topic of travel benefits has drawn increasing attention in
several fields of study, including organizational behavior
(Etzion 2003; Kühnel and Sonnentag 2011; Westman, Etzion,
and Gattenio 2008), health science (de Bloom et al. 2009;
Fritz and Sonnentag 2006; Strauss-Blasche et al. 2004), and
tourism (Gilbert and Abdullah 2004; Sirgy et al. 2011).
Scholars in the field of organizational behavior have fre-
quently examined whether and how taking a pleasure trip or
vacation can help individuals reduce job-related stress
(Etzion 2003; Kühnel and Sonnentag 2011; Westman and
Eden 1997). It has been demonstrated that taking a vacation
can reduce: burnout (Etzion 2003; Fritz and Sonnentag 2006;
Westman and Eden 1997), job-related stress (de Bloom et al.
2009; Etzion 2003), and absenteeism (Westman and Etzion
2001). These findings indicate that taking a vacation is ben-
eficial for employees. Further, several studies have found
that taking a vacation can contribute to recuperation (Strauss-
Blasche, Ekmekcioglu, and Marktl 2002; Strauss-Blasche et
al. 2004) and job performance (Fritz and Sonnentag 2006;
Lounsbury and Hoopes 1986), which suggests that employ-
ers should encourage their employees to take vacations.
In health science, Gump and Matthews (2000) examined
the association between vacation frequency and health risks
among 12,388 middle-aged men at high risk of coronary
heart disease in the United States. Their results showed that
people who took more vacations during the nine-year
research period had fewer nonfatal cardiovascular events and
lower risk factors for coronary heart disease. Other health
scientists have adopted physiological measures to examine
the health benefits of travel (Tarumi, Hagihara, and Morimoto
1998; Toda et al. 2004). For example, Toda et al. (2004) used
salivary cortisol (a biomarker of stress) to test whether peo-
ple can relieve stress on a three-day trip. Their results indi-
cated that even a short trip could contribute to stress relief.
In the tourism literature, the association between vacation
experience and perceived psychological wellness after a
vacation has been demonstrated by a number of studies
(Neal, Sirgy, and Uysal 1999; Neal, Uysal, and Sirgy 2007;
Sirgy et al. 2011). Neal, Sirgy, and Uysal (1999) were among
the first in tourism to investigate the effects of vacation-tak-
ing as a life event on individuals’ psychological wellness. In
their subsequent work, Neal, Uysal, and Sirgy (2007) further
demonstrated that positive trip reflections, such as challeng-
ing experiences and perceived control, might contribute to
psychological wellness.
In summary, it has been demonstrated that taking a vaca-
tion can potentially relieve an individual’s job-related stress
and contribute to his or her health and wellness. Even though
these travel benefits have typically been found to last for less
than one month after a vacation (Etzion 2003; Kühnel and
Sonnentag 2011; Westman and Eden 1997), most people
have been found to be happier, healthier, and more relaxed
during and soon after a vacation. Therefore, it is believed to
be of interest to examine whether the general public is aware
of these travel benefits.
Attitude Importance
This research attempted to examine the effects of perceived
travel benefits on travel behavior based on the model of atti-
tude importance (Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent 1995). The
development of the attitude importance construct originated
from the empirical observations that some social and politi-
cal activists routinely engage in dramatic acts expressing
their attitudes that they consider extremely important, while
other people are seemingly unmoved by the same issues
(Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent 1995). As argued by
Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent (1995), such variability of
personal attachment to an issue seems as to be true of atti-
tudes toward political and social issues as well as attitudes
toward consumer products, aspects of self, and places.
Despite its absence in the tourism literature, the concept
of attitude importance has been shown as an important factor
influencing social perceptions and behavior (Boninger,
Krosnick, and Berent 1995). In particular, since people who
attach personal importance to an issue are more likely to
accumulate knowledge about the object of the attitude
through processes of selective exposure and elaboration
(Bizer and Krosnick 2001; Holbrook et al. 2005), importance
attitudes are often resistant to change, stable over time, and
can have a powerful effect on thoughts and on behaviors
(Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent 1995).
The concept of attitude importance was chosen in this
study because attitude importance is more likely to be appar-
ent in situations of deliberative processing (Boninger,
Krosnick, and Berent 1995). As suggested by Fazio (1990),
people often perform behaviors without actively considering
relevant attitudes via spontaneous processing, while in other
occasions, people have to deliberately plan out their thoughts
and behaviors in order to make a decision (Boninger,
Krosnick, and Berent 1995). Given that tourism products are
intangible, purchasing a tourism service often involves delib-
erative processing of both internal and external information
(Gursoy and McCleary 2004; Kerstetter and Cho 2004).
Therefore, it is argued that attitude importance should be an
important concept to understand the dynamics behind the
purchase of tourism services.
Origins and Consequences of Attitude Importance
Previous studies have also identified the origins and conse-
quences of attitude importance (Boninger, Krosnick, and
Berent 1995; Holbrook et al. 2005; Lau, Brown, and Sears
1978). For example, it has been demonstrated that an attitude
seems to be more important when individuals perceive the
Chen and Petrick
Figure 1. Proposed model.
attitude object to be connected to their self-interests
(Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent 1995; Lau, Brown, and
Sears 1978). Specifically, in an introspection study, Boninger,
Krosnick, and Berent (1995) asked their respondents why
they believed that several political attitudes were important
or unimportant to them. The results of content analysis
revealed that a majority of responses (59%) were related to
their self-interests. The correlation between self-interest and
attitude importance has also been supported by empirical
studies. For example, Lau, Brown, and Sears (1978) found
that people who had relatives or friends serving in Vietnam
were more personally concerned about the war. Further,
Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent (1995) conducted a series of
five correlational studies. Self-interest was found to be a
strong and consistent predictor of attitude importance across
different issues, including racial integration, defense spend-
ing, marijuana, pollution, and abortion (Boninger, Krosnick,
and Berent 1995). It was thus hypothesized (please see
Figure 1 for the proposed model):
Hypothesis 1: Perceived travel benefits will have positive
effects on perceived importance of traveling.
Moreover, it has been demonstrated that important attitudes
have a strong impact on motivation to process relevant infor-
mation, and subsequently influence thinking and action
(Holbrook et al. 2005; Krosnick and Petty 1995). Specifically,
a number of studies in social psychology have shown that peo-
ple tend to expose themselves to information relevant to impor-
tant attitudes (Holbrook et al. 2005; Visser, Krosnick, and
Simmons 2003) and tend to more carefully elaborate informa-
tion relevant to important attitudes ( Holbrook et al. 2005).
For example, Holbrook et al. (2005) asked a total of 63
respondents to watch the presidential debate between George
H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in 1988. After the debate,
each respondent was asked to recall the statements made by
two candidates on the issues of taxes, capital punishment, and
defense spending. The results showed that respondents were
more likely to recall the statements on the issues that they cared
3
more about, and their recollection on personally important
issues were found to be more accurate (Holbrook et al. 2005).
Further, Visser, Krosnick, and Simmons (2003) found that
college students who cared more about legalized abortion
paid more attention to this topic and discussed more about
this topic in their daily life. In the same study (Visser,
Krosnick, and Simmons 2003), students were asked to evalu-
ate 12 political candidates, while they could choose to learn
more about each candidate’s position on three of six possible
issues; it was found that students who cared more about
legalized abortion were more likely to choose to learn about
a candidate’s position on legalized abortion. Similar results
have been reported by Holbrook et al. (2005). In their experi-
mental study, a total of 202 college students were asked to
evaluate 12 political candidates, while they were able to
learn each candidate’s stands on 12 issues. Holbrook et al.
(2005) found that participants were more likely to select the
issues that they personally cared more about across the 12
candidates. The following hypotheses were thus proposed:
Hypothesis 2a: Perceived importance of traveling will
have a positive effect on attention to information about
future vacations.
Hypothesis 2b: Perceived importance of traveling will
have a positive effect on frequency of discussion about
future vacations.
Hypothesis 3a: Attention to information about future
vacations will have a positive effect on travel behavior.
Hypothesis 3b: Frequency of discussion with others about
future vacations will have positive effects on travel
behavior.
Travel Constraints
As hypothesized above, people who tend to believe traveling
is important for their life should travel more, while previous
studies have shown that tourism purchase decision should be
influenced by travel constraints as well (Chen, Chen, and
Okumus 2013; Nyaupane, Morais, and Graefe 2004). The
4 Journal of Travel Research 
concept of travel constraints, which is originated from the
field of leisure studies, has been frequently applied in vari-
ous contexts of tourism purchase behavior, including cruise
tourism (Hung and Petrick 2012), nature-based tourism
(Nyaupane, Morais, and Graefe 2004), ski tourism (Gilbert
and Hudson 2000), and destination choice (Chen, Chen, and
Okumus 2013).
Given its complex nature, travel constraints have been
conceptualized as a three-dimensional concept, including (1)
structural constraints (such as lack of time or financial
resources, work schedule, or family commitment), (2) intra-
personal constraints (such as stress or physical conditions),
and (3) interpersonal constraints (such as finding a travel
partner) (Chen, Chen, and Okumus 2013; Crawford, Jackson,
and Godbey 1991; Hung and Petrick 2012; Nyaupane,
Morais, and Graefe 2004). Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey
(1991) proposed a hierarchical model of family leisure con-
straints that suggests potential tourists should encounter
intrapersonal constraints first, followed by intrapersonal
constraints, and finally structural constraints.
Research has also shown that leisure and travel constraints
can be overcome or negotiated (Crawford, Jackson, and
Godbey 1991; Hubbard and Mannell 2001). For example,
according to Crawford’s hierarchical model of leisure con-
straints, people will usually encounter intrapersonal con-
straints first and must overcome them, and then they will
reach the next level in the hierarchy. Hubbard and Mannell
(2001) have further identified several negotiation strategies,
such as time management, financial management, and inter-
personal coordination. However, it is worth noting that these
studies were conducted in the context of leisure and recre-
ation rather than tourism.
Previous studies have demonstrated that leisure con-
straints can be negotiated (Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey
1991; Hubbard and Mannell 2001), but taking a leisure
travel will usually cost more time and money. Therefore,
the current study proposed that travel constraints should
have negative effects on perceived travel benefits and
importance of traveling. Specifically, cognitive dissonance
theory (Festinger 1957) suggests that holding inconsistent
beliefs (such as I have no time and no money to go traveling
and taking a vacation is beneficial) often produces negative
feelings. People usually adopt several strategies to avoid
cognitive dissonance, such as changing their beliefs or
avoiding receiving information that would create cognitive
dissonance (Sawicki et al. 2013). Based on cognitive dis-
sonance theory, people with high travel constraints should
be less likely to believe that taking a pleasure trip is benefi-
cial and that traveling is important to their life. It is thus
hypothesized that,
Hypothesis 4: Perceived travel constraints will have nega-
tive effects on perceived travel benefits.
Hypothesis 5: Perceived travel constraints will have nega-
tive effects on perceived importance of traveling.
Methodology
Scale Development
Before examining the effects of perceived benefits, a reliable
and valid scale of perceived travel benefits was needed.
Unfortunately, existing scales of perceived travel benefits
seemingly failed to incorporate some of the fundamentally
important items or factors related to travel benefits, particu-
larly health benefits. Therefore, this research followed the pro-
cedures of scale development as suggested by Churchill
(1979) to develop a new scale to measure the benefits of travel.
In the first step, an initial pool of 26 benefit items was
generated based on previous literature (Frochot and Morrison
2001; Jang, Morrison, and O’Leary 2002; Prentice 1998).
Subsequently, a total of three online panel surveys were
implemented. The first study (n = 566) was conducted in
February 2012 to elicit new benefit items by asking respon-
dents to openly list the benefits they believe they can receive
from taking a vacation. As a result, a total of 13 new items
were elicited, while ten existing items were deleted because
they were not mentioned by any panelists participating in the
preliminary study.
In the next step, a pilot study (n = 434) was conducted in
May 2012 to reduce the number of items and initially assess
scale reliability and validity. Based on the results of an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA), a total of three factors
were identified, including relaxation, health, and experiential
benefits. A total of nine items were deleted in this stage
because these items had either low factor loadings in all three
factors or high factor loadings in more than one factor.
Finally, a main survey (n = 559) was conducted in August
2012 to finalize the scale as well as to test the above-men-
tioned research hypotheses.
The participants in these three surveys were randomly
selected from a list of online panelists from a survey com-
pany’s database, which were representative of the U.S. popu-
lation. Approximately 2,000 panelists were invited in each
survey, so the response rates of three panel surveys were
ranged from 21.7% to 28.3%, which was consistent with pre-
vious online panel studies (Huang and Hsu 2010; Hung and
Petrick 2011). Survey respondents were rewarded with non-
cash incentives to prevent respondents rushing through sur-
veys for the reward.Research Instruments
The research questionnaire in the main survey included
six theoretical constructs, including perceived travel bene-
fits, importance of traveling, travel behavior, travel con-
straints, attention to travel-related information, and frequency
of discussion about future vacations. In this research, per-
ceived travel benefits were defined as the desirable conse-
quences sought from taking a pleasure trip outside an
individual’s usual environment. The respondents were asked
to rate the level of agreement or disagreement to a list of 20
items associated with travel benefits (1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree). The concept of perceived importance of
traveling was defined as a subjective sense of concern,
Chen and Petrick
caring, and significance he or she attaches to traveling. This
was measured with three questions adopted from previous
studies (Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent 1995; Holbrook et
al. 2005) asking people how important an attitude object is to
them personally, how deeply they care about the object, and
how important the object is to them relative to other issues in
their life.
The scale measuring travel behavior was adopted from
Kerstetter, Confer, and Graefe (2001), which includes the
following three items: What is the total number of pleasure
trips or vacations you have made in the past 12 months? How
many pleasure trips or vacations have you made in the past
12 months that were more than 75 miles away from home?
and How many pleasure trips or vacations have you made in
the past 12 months that were overnight trips?
The concept of travel constraints was defined as factors
that inhibit or prohibit participation in pleasure travel. The
scale measuring travel constraints were adopted from
Nyaupane, Morais, and Graefe (2004). However, since it has
been documented that some people are reluctant to take
vacations because of job commitments (Gilbert and Abdullah
2004) and some people often feel sick or unable to relax
themselves on a vacation (Van Heck and Vingerhoets 2007),
three more items were added to the scale. Items measuring
attention to travel-related information and frequency of dis-
cussion about future vacations were adopted from two 3-item
scales developed by Visser, Krosnick, and Simmons (2003).
Data Analysis
The analysis of research data involved four steps. In the first
step, in order to test the normality assumptions, the skewness
and kurtosis values for each item were examined. Skewness
and kurtosis values between –1 and 1 suggested univariate
normality (Hair et al. 1998), as a skew index greater than 3.0
and a kurtosis index greater than 8.0 have been suggested as
having a significant departure from normality (Kline 2010).
In the second step, in order to assess the validity of scales
measuring two multidimensional concepts—perceived travel
benefits and travel constraints—two separate measurement
models were established using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). Subsequently, a measurement model with all six con-
structs (perceived travel benefits, travel constraints, impor-
tance of traveling, frequency of discussion with others about
future vacations, attention to information about future vaca-
tions, and travel behavior) were established to assess the
overall validity of the measures. Finally, in order to test the
research hypotheses, a path model was established using
structural equation modeling (SEM). In this research, model
fits were evaluated by a number of fit indices, including the
comparative fit index (CFI), the normed fit index (NFI), and
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Based on Byrne’s (1998) and Bollen’s (1989) suggestions, a
model would be regarded as acceptable if CFI and NFI
exceed .90 and RMSEA was less than .90.
5
Results
Profile of Respondents
Demographic information of the survey participants is shown
in Table 1. As can be seen, there were nearly equal numbers of
female (286 or 51.2%) and male respondents (273 or 48.8%).
According to the 2010 census data, male and female accounted
for 49.2% and 50.8 of the U.S. population. These two numbers
were the expected percentages for male and female respon-
dents. Then, the expected values for male and female respon-
dents were calculated by multiplying each expected percentage
by the sample size; the expected values for male and female
were 276 and 283. The results of chi-square test indicated that
the research sample and the U.S. population were homoge-
nous in gender (chi-square = 0.06; df = 1; p = .80).
Table 1 also reveals that most survey participants were
aged between 20 and 70 years (81.9%). Only 30 respondents
were younger than 20 years (5.4%) and 71 respondents were
older than 70 years (12.7%). The mean age was 46.8 with a
standard deviation of 17.9. According to the 2010 census
data, the percentage for each age group was 18.9 (20-29
years old), 17.8 (30-39 years old), 19.3 (40-49 years old),
18.6 (50-59 years old), 13.0 (60-69 years old), and 12.3 (70
years or older). The results of the chi-square test indicated
that the research sample and the U.S. population were not
homogenous in age (chi-square = 12.81; df = 5; p < .05). In
general, the survey sample had more than expected respon-
dents in age group 30-39 and 40-49, and fewer than expected
respondents in age group 20-29, 50-59, and 60-69.
In terms of education, only one-fourth of the respondents
had high school or less education (138 or 24.7%), while a
majority of respondents pursued higher education (college:
265 or 47.4%; graduate school: 156 or 27.9%). According to
the 2010 census data, the percentage for each education
group was 44.1 (high school), 45.3 (college), and 10.5 (grad-
uate school). The results of the chi-square test indicated that
the research sample and the U.S. population were not homog-
enous in education (chi-square = 227.21; df = 2; p < .001). In
general, the survey sample had more than expected respon-
dents who had attended graduate school.
Moreover, nearly 70% of the respondents reported that
their household incomes were between $25,000 and $100,000
($25,000 to $49,999: 169 or 30.2%; $50,000 to $74,999: 110
or 19.7%; $75,000 to $99,999: 95 or 17.0%), while only 96
respondents had household incomes lower than $25,000
(17.2%) and 89 respondents had household incomes greater
than $100,000 (15.9%). According to 2010 census data, the
expected percentage in each group was 17.8 (under $25,000),
23.8 ($25,000-49,999), 19.4 ($50,000-74,999), 13.5
($75,000-99,999), and 15.9 (more than $100,000). The
results of the chi-square test indicated that the research sam-
ple and the U.S. population were not homogenous in house-
hold income (Chi-square = 33.80; df = 5; p < .001). In
general, the survey sample as compared to the U.S popula-
tion had lower household incomes.
6 Journal of Travel Research 

Table 1. Profile of Respondents.

Variables Observed Value Observed % Expected %a Expected Value

Gender
Male 273 48.8 49.2 276
Female 286 51.2 50.8 283
Age (years)
20–29 76 14.4 18.9 99
30–39 101 19.1 17.8 95
40–49 115 21.7 19.3 103
50–59 83 15.7 18.6 98
60–69 83 15.7 13.0 69
≥70 71 13.4 12.3 65
Education
High school 138 24.7 44.1 216
College 265 47.4 45.3 222
Graduate school 156 27.9 10.5 52
Income ($)
<25,000 96 17.2 17.8 99
25,000–49,999 169 30.2 23.8 134
50,000–74,999 110 19.7 19.4 108
75,000–99,999 95 17.0 13.5 76
>100,000 89 15.9 25.6 142
No. of pleasure trips in the past 12 months
0 158 28.3 N/A N/A
1 142 25.4 N/A N/A
2 113 20.2 N/A N/A
3 57 10.2 N/A N/A
4 34 6.1 N/A N/A
≥5 55 9.8 N/A N/A

a. Expected percentages were drawn from 2010 Census Data (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data).

Further, a majority of respondents had at least one plea- Normality Test

sure trip within the past 12 months; 142 respondents had
only one (25.4%), 113 had two (20.2%), 57 had three
(10.2%), 34 had four (6.1%), and 55 had 5 trips or more
(9.8%). Only 158 respondents did not travel for pleasure
within the past 12 months (28.3%).
Descriptive Statistics
In order to understand how survey respondents perceived
travel benefits, the descriptive statistics of each benefit item
were examined. As shown in Table 2, the construct of per-
ceived travel benefits were identified as three factors, includ-
ing relaxation benefits (5 items), health benefits (6 items),
and experiential benefits (9 items). Among these 20 items,
the mean value of 15 items was larger than 3.5, which indi-
cates that survey respondents generally believed that taking
vacations is beneficial. It is worth noting that several items
associated with health benefits of tourism had lower mean
values, such as sleep better (M = 3.18), to live longer (M =
3.32), to bring down my blood pressure (M = 3.12), and to be
healthier (M = 3.30). These items also had higher standard
deviations (all larger than 1).
Subsequently, the skewness and kurtosis values for each item
were then examined. As can be seen in Table 2, the skew and
kurtosis indices for most benefit items fell within the sug-
gested range of –1 to 1. A total of nine items had a skewness
value lower than –1, which indicates an uneven distribution
with more observations higher than normal, while the abso-
lute values of all 9 items were smaller than the threshold of
3. Similarly, nine benefit items had a kurtosis value larger
than 1, which suggested that more observations were con-
centrated around the mean. Since the absolute values of all 9
items were smaller than the threshold of 8, it is believed that
the assumption of univariate normality was not extremely
violated by the benefit items. Further, the skew and kurtosis
indices for all three items measuring perceived importance of
vacationing fell between –1 and 1, which suggests no evi-
dence that normality assumptions were violated.
The skewness and kurtosis indices of the three items mea-
suring travel behavior were also examined. All three variables
had a kurtosis value larger than 10, which indicated a depar-
ture from normality. In order to minimize normality problems,
the three items measuring travel behavior were recoded.
Chen and Petrick 7

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Benefit Items.

Items Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

a
Relaxation benefits
1. To relax 4.20 0.856 –1.304 2.281
2. To become refreshed 4.19 0.854 –1.164 1.706
3. To release tensions/ stress 4.13 0.838 –0.866 0.783
4. To get away from everyday life/ routine 4.41 0.766 –1.419 2.595
5. To renew energies/ recharge 4.01 0.911 –0.924 1.000
Health benefits
1. To be healthier 3.30 1.052 –0.253 –0.286
2. To bring down my blood pressure 3.12 1.106 –0.103 –0.451
3. To live longer 3.32 1.033 –0.158 –0.267
4. To sleep better 3.18 1.052 –0.081 –0.313
5. To reflect the priorities of my life 3.47 1.060 –0.361 –0.302
6. To have better mental outlook/ clarity 3.72 0.976 –0.458 –0.127
Experiential Benefits
1. To experience something new 4.13 0.859 –1.006 1.254
2. To do exciting things 4.02 0.911 –0.789 0.494
3. To develop my knowledge/learn new things 3.95 0.907 –0.712 0.422
4. For the adventure 4.05 0.944 –0.865 0.468
5. To experience new cultures/places 3.99 0.944 –0.797 0.323
6. To do something that I normally wouldn’t do 4.06 0.890 –0.808 0.505
7. To observe scenic beauty 4.21 0.884 –1.168 1.396
8. To have fun 4.36 0.761 –1.178 1.582
9. To be outdoors/in nature 3.89 0.955 –0.606 –0.092

a. All items were measured with a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Specifically, old values smaller than 4 were copied to three
new variables, while old values larger than 5 were recoded as
5 in the three new variables. Thus, the three new variables only
had six different values, including 0 (none), 1 (one trip), 2 (two
trips), 3 (3 trips), 4 (four trips), and 5 (five trips or more). After
recoding, the skew and kurtosis indices for all 3 recoded items
fell within the suggested range of –1 to 1, which indicated that
the problem of univariate normality was minimized.
Scale Validity
In the next step, two separate measurement models were
established to assess the validity of the scales measuring two
multidimensional concepts—perceived travel benefits and
constraints. Results from CFA on perceived travel benefits
revealed that the initial measurement model consisting of
one 5-item factor (relaxation), one 6-item factor (health), and
one 9-item factor (experience) had low fit indices (χ2 =
1236.89, df = 167, CFI = .87, NFI = .85, and RMSEA =
.107). Since all regression weights were significant (p <
.001), the measurement model was further refined by delet-
ing items associated with large residuals and large modifica-
tion indices. As a result, one item measuring health benefits
(to have better mental outlook/clarity) and one item measur-
ing experiential benefits (to do exciting things) were deleted.
The resultant model, consisted of one 8-item factor (experi-
ence) and two 5-item factors (heath and relaxation) had
overall good fit indices (χ2 = 797.90, df = 132, CFI = .90, NFI =
.90, and RMSEA = .095).
The convergent validity of the items measuring perceived
benefits was further assessed by composite reliability (CR) and
average variance extracted estimate (AVE). As shown in
Table 3, the CR values for relaxation, health, and experiential
benefits were .91, .88, and .91, respectively. All values exceeded
the suggested threshold of .80 (Netemeyer, Bearden, and
Sharma 2003). The AVEs for relaxation, health, and experien-
tial benefits were .57, .60, and .57, respectively. All three val-
ues also exceeded the suggested threshold of .50 (Netemeyer,
Bearden, and Sharma 2003). Therefore, the convergent validity
of the scale was considered as high. Furthermore, the discrimi-
nant validity of three benefit factors was assessed by compar-
ing the square of the correlation between each pair of factors
and their AVEs (Fornell and Larcker 1981 ). The correlation
coefficients between benefits factors were ranged from .20 to
.48. Since the AVEs for all three benefit factors were higher
than the squares of all correlation coefficients, the discriminant
validity was considered as high.
Moreover, results from CFA on perceived travel con-
straints showed that the initial measurement model consist-
ing of one 2-item factor (interpersonal constraints), one
6-item factor (intrapersonal constraints), and one 5-item
factor (structural constraints) had low fit indices (χ2 =
475.15, df = 62, CFI = .89, NFI = .88, and RMSEA = .109).
As all 13 regression weights were significant (p < .001), the
8 Journal of Travel Research 

Table 3. The Convergent Validity of the Scale Measuring Perceived Travel Benefits.

Factor Error Composite Average Variance

Factors/Items Loadings Variance Reliability Extracted
Relaxation Benefitsa .91 .57
1. To relax .86b .26
2. To become refreshed .90 .20
3. To release tensions/stress .84 .29
4. To get away from everyday life/routine .75 .43
5. To renew energies/recharge .74 .46
Health benefits .88 .60
1. To be healthier .85 .28
2. To bring down my blood pressure .79 .37
3. To live longer .81 .34
4. To sleep better .74 .45
5. To reflect the priorities of my life .68 .54
Experiential benefits .91 .57
1. To experience something new .88 .22
2. To develop my knowledge/learn new things .77 .41
3. For the adventure .74 .46
4. To experience new cultures/places .81 .35
5. To do something that I normally wouldn’t do .70 .51
6. To observe scenic beauty .72 .48
7. To be outdoors/in nature .62 .61

a. All items were measured with a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
b. All regression weights were significant at the .001 level.

measurement model was further refined. After deleting one
item of structural constraints (there are no places to visit near
me), the final measurement model had overall acceptable fit
indices (χ2 = 282.50, df = 51, CFI = .93, NFI = .92, and
RMSEA = .090).
The convergent validity of the items measuring travel con-
straints was further assessed by CR and AVE. As shown in
Table 4, the CR values for interpersonal, intrapersonal con-
straints, and structural constraints were .83, .89, and .78 respec-
tively. Two of them (interpersonal and intrapersonal constraints)
exceeded the suggested threshold of .80 (Netemeyer, Bearden,
and Sharma 2003), and the CR value of structural constraints
was close to the suggested threshold. The AVEs for interper-
sonal, intrapersonal constraints, and structural constraints were
.71, .58, and .49 respectively. All of them were larger than or
close to the suggested threshold of .50 (Netemeyer, Bearden,
and Sharma 2003). Therefore, the convergent validity of the
scale was considered as acceptable.
Moreover, the square of the correlation between intraper-
sonal and interpersonal constraints was .49, which was
smaller than the AVEs of intrapersonal (.58) and interper-
sonal constraints (.71). The AVEs of interpersonal and struc-
tural constraint were .71 and .49, respectively. Both were
higher than the square of the correlation between these two
factors (.24). Finally, the square of the correlation between
intrapersonal and structural constraints was .35, which was
also smaller than the AVEs of intrapersonal (.58) and struc-
tural constraints (.49). Therefore, the discriminant validity
for three constraint factors was considered as high.
Subsequently, a measurement model with all six con-
structs was established to assess the overall fit of the scales.
As the factor scores of three benefit factors and three con-
straint factors were used, the measurement model included
six 3-item factors. Results from CFA showed that the mea-
surement model had good fit indices (χ2 = 360.42, df = 120,
CFI = .97, NFI = .95, and RMSEA = .060). Since all 18
regression weights were significant (p < .001), no further
modification was made.
As can be seen from Table 5, the CR values for perceived
travel benefits, travel constraints, importance of traveling,
attention to travel-related information, frequency of discus-
sion about future vacations, and travel behavior were .77,
.76, .91, .91, .92, and .87, respectively. All values were higher
than or close to the suggested threshold of .80 (Netemeyer,
Bearden, and Sharma 2003). The AVEs for perceived travel
benefits, travel constraints, importance of traveling, attention
to travel-related information, frequency of discussion about
future vacations, and travel behavior were .54, .53, .78, .77,
.79, and .70, respectively. All values exceeded the suggested
threshold of .50 (Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003).
Therefore, the convergent validity of the scales was consid-
ered as high.
Furthermore, a total of 12 correlation coefficients in the
model were all significant (p < .001). As expected, the cor-
relation coefficients between travel constraints and the other
five constructs in the model were all negative. The absolute
values of 12 correlation coefficients ranged from .21 to .81.
The AVEs for all six constructs were higher than the squares
Chen and Petrick 9

Table 4. The Convergent Validity of the Scale Measuring Perceived Travel Constraints.

Factor Error Composite Average Variance

Factors/Items Loadings Variance Reliability Extracted
Interpersonal constraintsa .83 .71
1. I have no one to go on vacation with. .81b .34
2. My family and friends are not interested in taking a vacation. .87 .24
Intrapersonal constraints .89 .58
1. I feel sick when I am on a vacation. .81 .35
2. I am unable to relax on a vacation. .83 .31
3. I don’t know what to expect about potential vacations. .72 .48
4. I don’t like to take vacations. .82 .33
5. Taking a vacation involves too much risk. .72 .49
6. Taking a vacation is too physically demanding. .65 .58
Structural constraints .78 .49
1. Taking a vacation is too costly. .49 .76
2. I have no time for a vacation. .86 .27
3. Family commitment keeps me from taking a vacation. .64 .59
4. Job commitment keeps me from taking a vacation. .75 .43

a. All items were measured with a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
b. All regression weights were significant at the .001 level.

of all correlation coefficients except for the correlation
between attention and discussion (r = .81). However, since
the AVEs for attention (AVE = .77) and discussion (AVE =
.79) are both larger than the square of .81, the discriminant
validity of the scales was considered as high.
Path Modeling
In the final step, all five research hypotheses were tested by
establishing a structural model, which had acceptable fit
indices (χ2 = 589.87, df = 128, CFI = .93, NFI = .92, and
RMSEA = .080). As shown in Figure 2, all six proposed
direct effects were significant (p < .05). As predicted, a
total of five direct effects were found to be positive, includ-
ing the effect of perceived travel benefits on perceived
importance of traveling (β = .50; p < .001), the effect of
perceived importance of traveling on attention to travel-
related information (β = .77; p < .001), the effect of per-
ceived importance of traveling on frequency of discussion
about future vacations (β = .70; p < .001), the effect of
attention on travel behavior (β = .24; p < .001), and the
effect of frequency on travel behavior (β = .17; p < .05),
which suggests that hypotheses 1, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3c were
all supported. It was also hypothesized that travel con-
straints should have negative effects on perceived travel
benefits and importance of traveling. As can be seen from
Figure 2, the effects of travel constraints on travel benefits
(β = –.49; p < .001) and importance of traveling (β = –.19;
p < .001) were both negative, which suggests that hypoth-
eses 4 and 5 were supported.
Furthermore, the standardized total effect of perceived
travel benefits on perceived importance of traveling and
travel behavior was .50 and .15, while the factor of relaxation
benefits had the highest strength (β = .83; p < .001), followed
by experiential benefits (β = .79; p < .001), and then health
benefits (β = .56; p < .001). The standardized total effects of
perceived travel constraints on perceived importance of trav-
eling and travel behavior were –.44 and –.13. Among three
factors of travel constraints, intrapersonal constraints had the
highest strength (β = .92; p < .001), followed by interpersonal
constraints (β = .65; p < .001) and structural constraints (β =
.57; p < .001). The variance explained in each of the endoge-
nous variables in the structural model was as follows: travel
benefits, 24.4%; importance of traveling, 19.0%; attention to
travel-related information, 11.2%; frequency of discussion
about future vacations, 9.4%; and travel behavior, 1.8%.
Conclusions and Implications
Given that previous studies have demonstrated the health,
wellness, and stress relief benefits of travel (Gilbert and
Abdullah 2004; Sirgy et al. 2011; Nawijn et al. 2013), this
research proposed to examine how people perceive the ben-
efits of travel. However, existing scales of travel benefits
failed to incorporate the health element of travel benefits.
Thus, this research involved a total of three online panel sur-
veys to develop a reliable and valid scale of travel benefits.
In the process, several items associated with health benefits
were elicited. Subsequently, a total of three factors of travel
benefits were identified, including health benefits, relaxation
benefits, and experiential benefits. The results showed that
respondents generally agreed that travel is beneficial, while
they agreed more on relaxation and experiential benefits than
health benefits.
10 Journal of Travel Research 

Table 5. The Convergent Validity of the Scales.

Factor Error Composite Average Variance

Factors/Items Loadings Variance Reliability Extracted
Perceived travel benefitsa .77 .54
1. Relaxation benefits .82b .37
2. Health benefits .56 .69
3. Experiential benefits .80 .32
Perceived travel constraints .76 .53
1. Interpersonal constraints .66 .57
2. Intrapersonal constraints .91 .17
3. Structural constraints .57 .68
Perceived importance of traveling .91 .78
IMP1: How important is taking vacations to your life? .92 .15
IMP2: How important is taking vacations to you relative to other issues in .80 .36
your life?
IMP3: How much do you personally care about taking vacations? .92 .15
Attention to Information .91 .77
ATT1: How much attention do you generally pay to information you came .91 .18
across regarding potential vacations?
ATT2: How much attention do you pay to potential vacations relative to .90 .19
other issues?
ATT3: How much attention do you pay to news articles and televised new .82 .33
stories about potential vacations?
Frequency of discussion .92 .79
DIS1: How frequently do you discuss potential vacations with other people? .86 .25
DIS2: How often do potential vacations come up in your conversations with .93 .14
others?
DIS3: How much time do you spend talking about potential vacations .87 .25
relative to other issues?
Travel behavior .87 .70
BEH1: Total number of pleasure trips .93 .14
BEH2: Number of pleasure trips that were overnight .69 .52
BEH3: Number of pleasure trips that were more than 75 miles .88 .23

a. All items were measured with a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
b. All regression weights were significant at the .001 level.

This research further examined how respondents’ percep-
tions of travel benefits influenced their travel behavior.
Building on the model of attitude importance (Boninger,
Krosnick, and Berent 1995), it was hypothesized that indi-
viduals who tend to believe that taking a pleasure trip is ben-
eficial are more likely to attach personal importance to
leisure travel; moreover, individuals who attach personal
importance to leisure travel are more likely to actively and
passively process travel-related information, and these indi-
viduals are more likely to travel more frequently. All of the
above hypotheses (hypotheses 1, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b) were
supported by the research data.
The study also examined the effects of travel constraints
on perceived travel benefits and importance of traveling.
Previous studies in the tourism literature have demonstrated
negative effects of travel constraints on travel behavior
(Chen, Chen, and Okumus 2013; Nyaupane, Morais, and
Graefe 2004). Based on cognitive dissonance theory
(Festinger 1957), it was further hypothesized that travel
constraints should have negative effects on travel behavior
through perceived travel benefits and importance of travel-
ing. The proposed negative effects of travel constraints were
supported by the research data (hypotheses 4 and 5).
These research findings have theoretical and practical
implications. From a theoretical perspective, this research
applied the concept of attitude importance to examine the
effects of perceived travel benefits on travel behavior. As
mentioned before, purchasing a tourism service often
involves deliberative processing, a situation in which the
concept of attitude importance is more likely to be apparent
(Boninger, Krosnick, and Berent 1995). Even though tour-
ism scholars have paid less attention to the concept of atti-
tude importance, this research demonstrated the applicability
of attitude importance concept in tourism. Given that attitude
importance has been shown to be an important predictor of
social perceptions and behavior (Boninger, Krosnick, and
Berent 1995), attitude importance is arguably a valid and
important concept for tourism studies.
Chen and Petrick
Figure 2. Results of structural modeling.
Further, multiple studies have demonstrated the effects of
perceived benefits or motivations on purchase intentions of a
particular tourism service, such as holiday destinations (Jang,
Morrison, and O’Leary 2002), rural destinations (Frochot
2005), and heritage sites (Prentice 1998). This research dem-
onstrated that perceived experiential, health, and relaxation
benefits of tourism services in general had positive effects on
travel behavior. Given that perceived health benefits have
been mostly neglected and that purchase intention rather
than purchase behavior has typically been measured by pre-
vious studies, this is arguably an important finding.
Moreover, previous studies have demonstrated the nega-
tive effects of travel constraints on travel behavior (Chen,
Chen, and Okumus 2013; Nyaupane, Morais, and Graefe
2004). This study further identified a plausible explanation
of the negative effects—individuals with high constraints
tend to believe that participation in leisure travel is not ben-
eficial as well as leisure travel is not important for their life.
As suggested by cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger
1957), individuals would avoid the mental stress or discom-
fort caused by holding contradictory or conflicting beliefs. In
other words, when people believe they have no time and/or
money to participate in leisure travel, one possible negotia-
tion strategy is to negate the benefits and importance of lei-
sure travel. Therefore, perceived travel constraints can not
only inhibit or prohibit participation in leisure travel, but also
influence each individual in a deeper way—people might
persuade themselves that they do not need a vacation.
This research also has practical implications. First,
previous studies have demonstrated that people can receive
three kinds of benefits from taking vacations: (1) experien-
tial benefits: the opportunities for new experiences and
11
self-development (Sirgy et al. 2011); (2) health benefits: the
opportunities for mental and physical health improvement
(Tarumi, Hagihara, and Morimoto 1998); and (3) relaxation
benefits: the opportunities for release from work and family
commitment (Chen, Petrick, and Shahvali 2014). This
research further demonstrated that people are more likely to
travel when they believe they can receive benefits from tak-
ing vacations. Therefore, the tourism industry should encour-
age people to travel more by helping to understand the
various benefits that tourism provides. This could be done by
using the results of tourism benefits studies (i.e., health, edu-
cative, and relationship benefits) in advertising, so that tour-
ism provides benefits beyond satisfaction and enjoyment.
While different members of the tourism industry—such
as tourist destinations, hotels, travel agencies, or amusement
parks—are promoting their own products right now, it is rec-
ommended that the tourism industry should thus work coop-
eratively to communicate with the general public about the
experiential, health, and relaxation benefits of tourism. If the
general public were to have a better awareness of the tourism
benefits, they would likely travel more, which means they
would have more opportunities to experience something
new, to relax themselves, and to feel and become healthier.
Thus, all members of the tourism industry could benefit from
the increased awareness in that people would purchase more
tourism services in general, and the purchasers of these expe-
riences would further receive more benefits.
In fact, health or wellness tourists—those who are inter-
ested in certain tourism products that are believed to contrib-
ute to health and wellness (such as spa tourism)—have been
identified as a unique market segment (Kelly 2010; Mueller
and Kaufmann 2001). However, it has been shown that all
12
pleasure trips have the potential to contribute to our health
and wellness in that staying away from our usual environ-
ment can help us to feel relaxed and detach from work and
family strain (Fritz and Sonnentag 2006). Thus, health or
wellness tourism should not be narrowly defined as a spe-
cific form of travel. Instead, the tourism industry should
actively communicate with the general public about the
experiential, relaxation, and health benefits of tourism,
which are supported by scientific findings, because people
are more likely to travel more when they believe they can
receive benefits from taking a vacation. Further, the study
results showed that respondents tended to agree more on
experiential and relaxation benefits of travel than health ben-
efits. More efforts should be made to raise awareness of
health benefits.
However, this research also found that travel constraints
have negative effects on perceived travel benefits and impor-
tance of traveling, which suggests that people with high
travel constraints might persuade themselves that they do not
need a vacation. Therefore, it is crucial that employers under-
stand the benefits of travel. In particular, according to
Expedia Vacation Deprivation Study (Expedia 2013), people
in several European countries (including Germany, Sweden,
Denmark, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom) earned
more than 25 vacation days on average in 2012, while
Americans earned only 14 vacation days on average in the
same year. The study (Expedia 2013) also found that
Americans left two days unused on average in 2012. Given
that previous studies have found that taking a vacation can
lead to a decrease in work stress, burnout, exhaustion, and
absenteeism (Chen and Petrick 2013), employers in the
United States should encourage their employees to use their
vacation days.
It is also worth noting that tourism has been generally
regarded as a necessity of human life for many people in
developed countries, while many low-income families and
other marginalized groups usually experience barriers to
tourism participation (McCabe 2009), which has led several
tourism scholars to examine the topic of social tourism
(Diekmann and McCabe 2011; McCabe 2009; Minnaert
2012). Moreover, this research examined the effects of per-
ceived travel benefits and constraints on travel behavior,
intending to understand how the tourism industry can better
advertise tourism products and services to boost tourism
demand. It is argued the surging demand of tourism com-
modities in the United States might bring more environmen-
tal and social impacts, while these topics are beyond the
scope of this study.
Finally, this research is subject to several limitations.
First, the study population was defined as American resi-
dents aged 18 years or older. A series of three online surveys
were thus conducted in order to obtain a national representa-
tive sample in each survey. However, this study is limited to
those who were included in an online panel survey compa-
ny’s database at the time of data collection. Therefore, the
Journal of Travel Research 
results of this study might be generalizable only to individu-
als who were included in the panel, or to those who have
computer access.
Second, this research adopted a self-reported measure of
travel behavior by asking respondents how frequently they
traveled last year. This is arguably an appropriate way of
measuring travel behavior, yet it inevitably involved some
measurement errors. In some large-scale tourist surveys,
respondents are required to provide details of each trip. This
method of measurement might help to reduce measurement
errors, but it might also lead to excessive survey length. This
measurement was thus considered as not feasible for the cur-
rent study, though it is recommended for future research.
Further, this research operationalized travel behavior as
frequency of travel, while other dimensions of behavior—
such as the amount of travel days or travel spending, were
not included in the analysis. In particular, previous studies
have suggested that the relationships between travel con-
straints and travel behavior are fairly complicated (Fleischer
and Pizam 2002). For example, people in managerial posi-
tions generally have little time for vacations, so they tend to
travel less frequently but spend more. In this example, time
(or work commitment) as a travel constraint can negatively
influence frequency of travel, yet positively influence travel
spending. Therefore, operationalizing travel behavior as fre-
quency of travel is a limitation of this research, which might
also contribute to low variance explained in travel behavior.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Bizer, George Y., and Jon A. Krosnick. (2001). “Exploring the
Structure of Strength-Related Attitude Features: The Relation
Between Attitude Importance and Attitude Accessibility.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (4):
566-86.
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent
Variables. New York: John Wiley.
Boninger, David S., Jon A. Krosnick, and Matthew K. Berent.
(1995). “Origins of Attitude Importance: Self-interest, Social
Identification, and Value Relevance.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68 (1): 61-80.
Byrne, Babara M. (1998). Structural Equation Modecg with
LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications,
and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chen, Chun-Chu, and James F. Petrick. (2013). “Health and
Wellenss Benefits of Travel Experiences: A Literature
Review.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (6): 709-19.
Chen, Chun-Chu, James F. Petrick, and Moji Shahvali. (2014).
“Tourism Experiences as a Stress Reliever: Examining the
Chen and Petrick
Effects of Tourism Recovery Experiences on life satisfaction.”
Journal of Travel Research, Published online before print, doi:
10.1177/0047287514546223.
Chen, Huei-Ju, Po-Ju Chen, and Frezi Okumus. (2013). “The
Relationship between Travel Constraints and Destination
Image: A Case Study of Brunei.” Tourism Management,
35:198-208.
Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979). “A Paradigm for Developing Better
Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing
Research, 16 (1): 64-73.
Crawford, Duane W., Edgar L. Jackson, and Geoffrey Godbey.
(1991). “A Hierarchichal Model of Leisure Constraints.”
Leisure Sciences, 13 (4): 309-20.
de Bloom, Jessica, Michiel Kompier, Sabine Geurts, Carolina de
Weerth, Toon Taris, and Sabine Sonnentag. (2009). “Do We
Recover from Vacation? Meta-analysis of Vacation Effects on
Health and Well-being.” Journal of Occupational Health, 51
(1): 13-25.
Diekmann, Anya, and Scott McCabe. (2011). “Systems of Social
Tourism in the European Union: A Critical Review.” Current
Issues in Tourism, 14 (5): 417-30.
Durko, Angela M., and James F. Petrick. (2013). “Family and
Relationships Benefits of Travel Experiences: A Literature
Review.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (6): 720-30.
Expedia. (2013). Expeida Vacation Deprivation Study. http://
images.trvl-media.com/media/content/expus/graphics/
other/pdf/Expedia-VacationDeprivation2012.pdf (accessed
Novemer 1, 2015).
Etzion, Dalia. (2003). “Annual Vacation: Duration of Relief from
Job Stessors and Burnout.” Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An
International Journal, 16 (2): 213-26.
Fazio, Russ H. (1990). “Multiple Processes by Which Attitudes
Guide Behavior: The MODE Model as an Integrative
Framework.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
23:75-109.
Festinger, Leon. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fleischer, Aliza, and Abraham Pizam. (2002). “Tourism Constraints
among Israeli Seniors.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1):
106-23.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. (1981). "Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50.
Fritz, Charlotte, and Sabine Sonnentag. (2006). “Recovery, Well-
Being, and Performance-Related Outcomes: The Role of
Workload and Vacation Experiences.” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91 (4): 936-45.
Frochot, Isabelle. (2005). “A Benefit Segmentation of Tourists in
Rural Areas: A Scottish Perspective.” Tourism Management,
26 (3): 335-46.
Frochot, Isabelle, and Alastair M. Morrison. (2001). “Benefit
Segmentation: A Review of Its Applications to Travel and
Tourism Research.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
9 (4): 21-45.
Gilbert, David, and Junaida Abdullah. (2004). “Holidaytaking and
the Sense of Well-being.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (1):
103-21.
Gilbert, David, and Simon Hudson. (2000). “Tourism Demand
Constraints: A Skiing Participation.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 27 (4): 906-25.
13
Gump, Brooks B., and Karen A. Matthews. (2000). “Are Vacations
Good for Your Health? The 9-Year Mortality Experience after
the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.” Psychosomatic
Medicine, 62 (5): 608-12.
Gursoy, Dogan, and Ken W. McCleary. (2004). “An Integrative
Model of Tourists’ Information Search Behavior.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 31 (2): 353-73.
Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and
William C. Black. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holbrook, Allyson L., Matthew K. Berent, Jon A. Krosnick, Penny S.
Visser, and David S. Boninger. (2005). “Attitude Importance and
the Accumulation of Attitude-Relevant Knowledge in Memory.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (5): 749-69.
Huang, Jue, and Cathy H. C. Hsu. (2010). “The Impact of Customer-
to-Customer Interaction on Cruise Experience and Vacation
Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel Research, 49 (1): 79-92.
Hubbard, Jennifer, and Roger C. Mannell. (2001). “Testing
Competing Models of the Leisure Constraint Negotaiton
Process in a Corporate Employee Recreation Setting.” Leisure
Sciences, 23 (3): 145-63.
Hung, Kam, and James F. Petrick. (2011). “Why Do You Cruise?
Exploring the Motivations for Taking Cruise Holidays, and
the Construction of a Cruising Motivation Scale.” Tourism
Management, 32 (2): 386-93.
Hung, Kam, and James F. Petrick. (2012). “Testing the Effects of
Congruity, Travel Constraints, and Self-Efficacy on Travel
Intention: An Alternative Decsion-Making Model.” Tourism
Management, 33 (4): 855-67.
Jang, Soo Cheong, Alastair M. Morrison, and Joseph T. O’Leary.
(2002). “Benefit Segmentation of Japanese Pleasure Travelers
to the USA and Canada: Selecting Target Markets Based on
the Profitability and Risk of Individual Market Segments.”
Tourism Management, 23 (4): 367-78.
Kelly, Catherine. (2010). “Analysing Wellness Tourism Provision:
A Retreat Operators’ Study.” Journal of Hospitlaity and
Tourism Management, 17 (1): 108-16.
Kerstetter, Deborah L., and Mi-Hea Cho. (2004). “Prior Knowledge,
Credibility and Information Search.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 31 (4): 961-85.
Kerstetter, Deborah L., Jonh J. Confer, and Alan R. Graefe. (2001).
“An Exploration of the Specialization Concept within the
Context of Heritage Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research, 39
(3): 267-74.
Kline, Rex B. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford.
Krosnick, Jon A., and Richard E. Petty. (1995). “Attitude Strength:
An Overview.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and
Consequences, edited by Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 1-24.
Kühnel, Jana, and Sabine Sonnentag. (2011). “How Long Do You
Benefit from Vacation? A Closer Look at the Fade-Out of
Vacation Effects.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32 (1):
125-43.
Lau, Richard R., Thad A. Brown, and David O. Sears. (1978).
“Self-Interest and Civilians’ Attitudes toward the Vietnam
War.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 42 (4): 464-82.
Lounsbury, John W., and Linda L. Hoopes. (1986). “A Vacation
from Work: Changes in Work and Nonwork Outcomes.”
Journal of Applied Psychology,71 (3): 392-401.
14
McCabe, Scott. (2009). “Who Needs a Holiday? Evaluating Social
Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (4): 667-88.
Minnaert, Lynn. (2012). Social Tourism as Opportunity for
Unplanned Learning and Behavior Change. Journal of Travel
Research, 51 (5): 607-16.
Mueller, Hansruedi, and Eveline L. Kaufmann. (2001). “Wellness
Tourism: Market Analysis of a Speical Health Tourism
Segment and Implications for the Hotel Industry.” Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 7 (1): 5-17.
Nawijn, Jeroen, Ondrej Mitas, Yeqiang Lin, and Debroah Kerstetter.
(2013). “How Do We Feel on Vacation? A Closer Look at
Emotions Change over the Course of a Trip.” Journal of Travel
Research, 52 (2): 265-74.
Neal, Janet D., M. Joseph Sirggy, and Muzaffer Uysal. (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): 153-63.
Neal, Janet D., Muzaffer Uysal, and M. Joseph Sirgy. (2007). “The
Effect of Tourism Services on Travelers’ Quality of Life.”
Journal of Travel Research, 46 (2): 154-63.
Netemeyer, Richard G., William O. Bearden, and Subhash Sharma.
(2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nyaupane, Gyan P., Duarte B. Morais, and Alan R. Graefe. (2004).
“Nature Tourism Constraints: A Cross-Activity Comparison.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (3): 540-55.
Pols, Jeannette, and Hans Kroon. (2007). “The Importance
of Holiday Trips for People with Chronic Mental Health
Problems.” Psychiatric Services, 58 (2): 262-65.
Prentice, Richard C. (1998). “Tourism as Experience: The Case of
Heritage Parks.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1): 1-24.
Sawicki, Vanessa, Duane T. Wegener, Jason K. Clark, Leandre
R. Fabrigar, Steven M. Smith, and Geoffrey R. O. Durso.
(2013). “Feeling Conflicted and Seeking Information When
Ambivalence Enhances and Diminishes Selective Exposure
to Attitude-Consistent Information.” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 39 (6): 735-47.
Sirgy, M. Joseph, P. Stephanes Kruger, Dong-Jin Lee, and Grace
B. Yu. (2011). “How Does a Travel Trip Affect Tourists’
Life Satisfaction?” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (3):
261-75.
Strauss-Blasche, Gerhard, Cem Ekmekcioglu, and Wolfgang
Marktl. (2002). “Moderating Effects of Vacation on Reactions
to Work and Domestic Stress.” Leisure Sciences, 24 (2):
237-49.
Journal of Travel Research 
Strauss-Blasche, Gerhard, Franziska Muhry, Michael Lehofer,
Maximillian Moser, and Wolfgang Marktl. (2004). “Time
Course of Well-Being after a Three-Week Resort-Based
Respite from Occupational and Domestic Demands: Carry-
over, Contrast and Situation Effects.” Journal of Leisure
Research, 36 (3): 293-309.
Tarumi, Kimio, Akihito Hagihara, and Kanehisa Morimoto. (1998).
“An Investigation into the Effects of Vacations on the Health
Status in Male White-Collar Workers.” Environmental Health
And Preventive Medicine, 3 (1): 23-30.
Toda, Masahiro, Hiroaki Makino, Hidetoshi Kobayashi, Shingo
Nagasawa, Kazuyuki Kitamura, and Kanehisa Morimoto.
(2004). “Medical Assessment of the Health Effects of Short
Leisure Trips.” Archives of Environmental Health, 59 (12):
717-24.
Van Heck, Guus L., and Ad J. J. M. Vingerhoets. (2007). “Leisure
Sickness: A Biopsychosocial Perspective.” Psihologijske
Teme, 16 (2): 187-200.
Visser, Penny S., Jon A. Krosnick, and Joseph P. Simmons. (2003).
“Distinguishing the Cognitive and Behavioral Consequences of
Attitude Importance and Certainty: A New Approach to Testing
the Common-Factor Hypothesis.” Journal of Experimental
Social Psycholog, 39 (2): 118-41.
Westman, Mina, and Dov Eden. (1997). “Effects of a Respite from
Work on Burnout: Vacation Relief and Fade-out.” Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82 (4): 516-27.
Westman, Mina, and Dalia Etzion. (2001). “The Impact of Vacation
and Job Stress on Burnout and Absenteeism.” Psychology &
Health, 16 (5): 595-606.
Westman, Mina, Dalia Etzion, and Etty Gattenio. (2008).
“International Business Travels and the Work-Family
Interface: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 81 (3): 459-80.
Author Biographies
Chun-Chu Chen is an assistant professor in the Department of
Movement Sciences at the University of Idaho. His research inter-
ests include psychological and physiological benefits of tourism
experiences and tourism marketing.
James F. Petrick is a full professor, research fellow, and the chai-
rof graduate studies in the Department of Recreation, Park
&Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University. His research inter-
est focuses on exploring the applicability of marketing and psychol-
ogy principles in the context of leisure/tourism services.