Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 16 November 2014, At: 00:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Hospitality & LeisureMarketingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19
Importance and Dimensionalityof Senior Motorcoach TravelerChoice AttributesCathy H. C. Hsu PhD aa Kansas State University, Department of HRIMD ,103 Justin Hall, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USAPublished online: 20 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Cathy H. C. Hsu PhD (2001) Importance and Dimensionalityof Senior Motorcoach Traveler Choice Attributes, Journal of Hospitality & LeisureMarketing, 8:3-4, 51-70, DOI: 10.1300/J150v08n03_04
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v08n03_04
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Importance and Dimensionalityof Senior Motorcoach Traveler
Choice AttributesCathy H. C. Hsu
ABSTRACT. This study provided practical information on seniors’motorcoach tour choice behavior and explored the dimensionality oftheir choice attributes. Data were collected from 817 seniors who hadtraveled on a motorcoach tour during the previous 12 months. Tour oper-ator reputation and their health and safety concerns were the most impor-tant choice factors when selecting a motorcoach tour. Respondents wererandomly split into two halves, with one half as the calibration sampleand the other half as the validation sample. An exploratory factor analy-sis of 55 choice attributes was conducted using the calibration data to re-duce the dimensionality of the instrument, with a six-factor solutionderived. The six-factor structure was validated with a confirmatory fac-tor analysis using the validation data. Implications for tour operators andresearchers were provided. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2001by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Seniors, motorcoach, tour, choice attributes, confirma-tory factor analysis
The United Nations recognized the fact that the older generation isgrowing rapidly with the declaration of 1999 as the International Year
Cathy H. C. Hsu, PhD, is Associate Professor, Kansas State University, 103 JustinHall, Department of HRIMD, Manhattan, KS 66506 (E-mail: [email protected]).
The author wishes to thank the National Tourism Foundation and Kansas State Uni-versity for their funding of this research project.
Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 8(3/4) 2001� 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
of Older Persons (Goggin, 1999). There are approximately 55 millionpeople in the United States (US) aged 55 and older, and approximately33 million aged 65 and older. The US older population is expected todouble by the year 2030. Another indication of the significance of thismarket is that the percentage of the US population, which was 55 yearsold or older, was 21.1% in 1998. This percentage is projected to be25.2% by the year 2010 (US Bureau of the Census, 2000). In addition,people over the age of 55 control more than half of the US’s assets andmore than half of the discretionary income (Moschis, Lee, & Mathur,1997).
Households with heads 55 years or older made approximately 31%of the 572 million household trips in 1999 in the US (Travel IndustryAssociation of America, 2000). The Travel Industry Association ofAmerica also stated as the baby boomers enter the senior age bracket,this segment of the traveling public will increase demand for airlines,hotels, travel agents, and tour operators dramatically (Backman,Backman, & Silverberg, 1999). Household economics theory suggeststhat as a result of time and income constraints, individuals allocate theiravailable time among market work, household work, and leisure pur-suits (Bryant, 1995). As individuals age, they become less and less in-volved with market and household work, designating more time andeconomic resources available to leisure and travel (You & O’Leary,1999). Therefore, there is considerable economic incentive for market-ers to sharpen their focus on older people (Cleaver, Muller, Ruys, &Wei, 1999).
Seniors seem to prefer touring vacations and package trips in greaterpercentages than non-seniors (Javalgi, Thomas, & Rao, 1992). Chackoand Nebel (1993) found that over 50% of motorcoach tour patrons weresenior citizens. Marshall (1997) also reported that older travelers ac-counted for 70% of all bus trips. The senior markets have been viableoptions for tour operators in part because they are willing and able totravel during off-peak seasons to many destinations (National Tour As-sociation, 1997). However, little research on group tours, in general,and with a focus on senior participants, in particular, has been con-ducted (Hsu, 2000). Of the available literature on group tours, almost allstudies (e.g., Duke & Persia, 1996; Hsu, 2000; Mossberg, 1995; Ross &Iso-Ahola, 1991; and Wang, Hsieh, & Huan, 2000; Whipple & Thach,1988) focused on tour participants’ satisfaction and its determinants.Participants’ tour selection factors received limited attention from tour-ism researchers.
52 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
The purposes of this study were twofold. First, this study aimed atproviding practical information concerning seniors’ motorcoach tourselection behavior. Enhancing the understanding of seniors’ prefer-ences when selecting a motorcoach tour package and tour operatorcould assist tour providers in developing appropriate marketing strate-gies to capture this important market. Second, this study was an attemptto explore the dimensionality of senior motorcoach tour choice attributemeasurement. The introduction of a valid, reliable, and useful measure-ment scale is the first step toward future theory development onmotorcoach tour selection and decision making. A standardized mea-surement scale could also provide a basis for adequate comparativeanalyses among population groups, and types of motorcoach and otherpackage tours. Results of the comparisons could offer further insight forpractitioners on specific market preferences.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Senior Travelers
In tourism, the interest in aging is a recent phenomenon and researchfocusing on age as a major variable is usually driven by a desire to de-velop more targeted marketing activities (Moscardo & Green, 1999).Much of the research on senior travel that has been reported in scholarlyjournals in travel and tourism, gerontology, and leisure science has fo-cused on the motivation, constraints, and behaviors of those seniorswho travel for pleasure and other non-business purposes (Zimmer,Brayley, & Searle, 1995).
Psychographic characteristics of senior nature-based travelers havebeen studied by Backman et al. (1999) and Moisey and Bichis (1999).Backman et al. investigated the differences and similarities in the seniornature-based traveler market and found distinct segments within thismarket. Moisey and Bichis focused on the differences between senior(50+) and non-senior tourists on travel motivation, visitation patterns,and recreation activities. Seniors were found to focus more on healthand personal enrichment than non-seniors. Milman (1998) examinedthe impact of travel experience on seniors’ psychological well-being.The results showed that travel by itself did not change the level of se-niors’ happiness. However, other associated variables could contributeto a change in a traveler’s psychological well-being.
Cathy H. C. Hsu 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Cleaver et al. (1999) studied seniors’ travel motives and values. Theseven categories of motives found were nostalgics, friendlies, learners,escapists, thinkers, status-seekers, and physicals. Seniors’ decision onwhether to travel and where to travel was examined by Zimmer et al.(1995). Factors, such as demographics, health status, and predisposi-tion-attitudes, had significant impact on seniors’ travel behavior. Hong,Kim, and Lee (1999) studied demographic characteristics’ impact on el-derly’s travel expenditure. Results indicated that race, education, mari-tal status, home ownership, income, assets, and age were all related toseniors’ travel spending patterns.
Lodging preferences were investigated by Lieux, Weaver, andMcCleary (1994) and Wuest, Tas, and Emenheiser (1996). Lieux et al.(1994) found three groups of seniors with significantly different usagefor all types of lodging properties. Wuest et al. (1996) assessed the im-portance of services provided by hotels/motels as perceived by maturetravelers. Results indicated customer service related to assurance andreliability were considered highly important.
Although previous studies have provided some descriptive charac-teristics of the senior market, further understanding of this age group’sparticular preferences as travelers will benefit marketers who cater tothe senior market. Vincent and de los Santos (1990) noted that becauseof the growth in number and wealth of America’s senior population,continuing research is needed on effective marketing strategies for thisimportant segment.
Choice Attributes
Tourist behavior is a critical subject affecting marketing strategy de-velopment and product delivery. Tourism scholars have extensively in-vestigated various behavioral issues in the past few decades. Amongtourism behavioral studies, tourist choice attributes received much at-tention in the literature. Most tourism studies on choice attributes havefocused on destination evaluation and selection. Fesenmaier (1988)evaluated the extent to which one’s recreation activity choice affectspreferences for travel destination among Oklahoma state parks. Resultsindicated that distance to the facility and participation in specific recre-ation activities determined to a large degree park selection. Haider andEwing (1990) tested a tourist choice model containing various attrib-utes of Caribbean destinations. Of all attributes considered, price anddistance to beach constituted the most important variables.
54 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Um and Crompton (1990) attempted to identify the role of attitudesin an individual’s pleasure travel destination choice process. Items re-lated to need satisfaction, social agreement, and “travelability” wereused to assess travelers’ attitudes. Results suggested that attitudes wereinfluential in determining whether a potential destination was selectedas part of the evoked set and in selecting a final destination.
Klenosky, Gengler, and Mulvey (1993) applied the means-end the-ory to enhance the understanding of ski destination choice factors. Acontent analysis of interview responses and a structural analysis of con-cepts identified in the content analysis revealed the complex patterns ofinterrelationships among the abstract concepts, such as belonging, funand excitement, achievement, and safety, and more concrete attributes,such as friendly people and snow condition. The results illustrated thecomplexity of tourist destination choice decisions. Woodside andLysonski (1989) proposed and tested a general model of traveler desti-nation choice. The model indicated that consumers’ final destinationchoice was influenced by a variety of factors, including traveler vari-ables, marketing variables, destination awareness, affective associa-tions, traveler destination preferences, intentions to visit, and situationalvariables.
Tourist choice attributes have also been studied in the contexts ofboating, outdoor recreation, lodging, and riverboat gambling. Siderelis,Brothers, and Rea (1995) applied a discrete choice method in predictinghow individuals choose among the different lakes in North and SouthCarolina for boating activities. Travel costs and miles of wetlands werefound to have negative influence on the likelihood of choosing a partic-ular lake. The miles of shoreline with public access areas and privateland, on the other hand, were positive determinants of lake choice.Vining and Fishwick (1991) employed a process-tracking methodologyto examine the outdoor recreation site choice procedure. The results il-lustrated the importance of personal values and experiences as well assite features and activities in the site choice process.
Richard and Sundaram (1994) developed and tested a model of lodg-ing guests’ repeat choice intentions. Four dimensions (i.e., reception,accommodations, building, and bathroom) were found to be significantin predicting repeat choice intentions. Turco and Riley (1996) identifiedthe choice factors involved in consumers’ decisions to visit a particularriverboat casino in Illinois. Among frequent gamblers, overall servicequality was the most important factor in their decision to gamble at thechosen riverboat casino. Recommendations by friends and relativeswere most influential among occasional gamblers. For infrequent gam-
Cathy H. C. Hsu 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
blers, the novelty of the riverboat experience was the most importantchoice factor.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
A review of literature indicated that consumer choice studies related topackage tour or tour operator have been scarce and descriptive in nature.Quiroga (1990) indicated that people’s choice of package was influencedby the itinerary offered, price, friends’ recommendations, and conve-nience of departure dates. Heung and Chu (2000) identified six factors(i.e., interactive agent quality, formal communication, overall conve-nience, pricing, product features, and image) affecting Hong Kong con-sumers’ choice of a travel agency for all-inclusive package tours.
To advance the comprehension of consumer package tour choice be-havior, the present study proposed to provide practical information con-cerning seniors’ motorcoach tour choice behavior and to explore thedimensionality of typical measures of their choice attributes. Due to thelack of previous effort in package tour behavior theory and instrumentdevelopment, an attempt to develop a standardized measurement scaleis the first step toward instrument and future theory development in thisimportant area. Although it is unlikely that this analysis will result in aconsensus about appropriate measures of senior choice attributes, itmay help identify an underlying structure among indicators of motorcoachchoice attributes.
The specific research objectives were to (1) examine the relative im-portance of choice attributes to senior motorcoach travelers when theyselect tour operators and tour packages and (2) identify underlying di-mensions that can represent measures of senior motorcoach tour choiceattributes. Results of the study can not only provide practical marketingimplications for tour operators, but also contribute to the limited bodyof knowledge on package tour choice behaviors.
METHODOLOGY
Research Instrument and Data Collection
A list of 55 choice attributes, related to tour package and tour opera-tor selection, was obtained from a review of literature on choice behav-iors (Duke & Persia, 1994; Klenosky et al., 1993; Lieux et al., 1994;Pitts & Woodside, 1986; Shoemaker, 1994) and a focus group of senior
56 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
motorcoach travelers. The focus group was served as a brainstormingsession to generate an extensive list of attributes that seniors may con-sider as important tour selection criteria. A five-point Likert type scale(5 = extremely important, 1 = extremely unimportant) was used to iden-tify the importance of each attribute when selecting a motorcoach tourpackage or tour operator. Demographic questions were also included inthe instrument to gather basic respondent profile data. The question-naire was pilot tested with eight seniors who had participated in amotorcoach tour during the previous year. Pilot test respondents indi-cated that the choice attribute list was comprehensive; therefore no newattributes were added. Some wordings were revised based on results ofthe pilot test.
All Kansas tour operators (n = 45) listed in a CD-ROM yellow pageswere contacted to provide a list of their customers who had used theirservice during the previous 12 months. Of the 29 operators who werereached by mail initially and by phone later, 10 did not conductmotorcoach tours and 11 did not wish to share names of their customers.As a result, 5,629 names and addresses were obtained from 8 tour pro-viders. A copy of the questionnaire was mailed to 2,000 randomly se-lected individuals, of whom 63 had incorrect or undeliverable addresses.A second copy of the survey was sent to all non-respondents threeweeks after the initial mailing. A total of 932 questionnaires were re-turned, of which 87 respondents indicated that they had not taken a tourin the past 12 months and 28 were younger than 55 years old at the timeof the survey. Therefore, 817 (42.2%) respondents were included in thedata analysis.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for all survey items to provide ademographic profile of the respondents and to identify the relative im-portance of each attribute. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA), usingprincipal axis factoring with varimax rotation, was conducted to iden-tify dimensions of the choice attributes. A confirmatory factor analysis(CFA) was then performed to validate the results of the EFA. This wasaccomplished by randomly splitting the data set in half before analysis,providing a calibration sample (n = 408) for estimating and fine-tuningthe factor model and a validation sample (n = 409) for testing the stabil-ity of the final model. Cross-validation is an often recommended (Hair,Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995) but seldom employed procedure for
Cathy H. C. Hsu 57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
validating models and has been shown to have a major impact on the de-cision to accept a model (Reynolds & Bezruczko, 1989).
The EFA was used to estimate a preliminary factor structure and toscreen variables for inclusion in the CFA, which was conducted withLISREL 8. Due to the absence of published motorcoach choice attributemodels, an EFA was necessary to estimate a proposed model for theLISREL program to examine the fit between the data and the model.The assessment of model fit was based on multiple criteria, includingthe chi-square ratio, root mean square residual (RMR), goodness-of-fitindex (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), normed fit index(NFI), and non-normed fit index (NNFI). The chi-square test exploredthe fit between the predicted and obtained covariance matrices. Modelshaving chi-square ratios of three or less are taken as suggestive of goodfit (Carmines & McIver, 1981). However, the chi-square likelihoodfunction was used for descriptive purpose only because the result couldbe misleading when assessing large-sample models (n > 200).
The GFI provides an overall degree of fit of the predicted square re-siduals compared to the actual data. The AGFI provides an overall de-gree of fit adjusted for the degrees of freedom. The NFI and NNFI areused as a way of controlling for sample size and determining whetherthe hypothesized model could be improved. Finally, the RMR is a mea-sure of the average of the fitted residuals. Although there are no specificguidelines for assessing the fit of a model, in general, when GFI, AGFI,NFI, and NNFI have a greater than .90 value, the model could be de-clared as being fit (Bollen, 1989). In addition, an acceptable RMR valuefor a fitted model is .05 or lower (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991).
RESULTS
Descriptive
Close to one-half of respondents (47.2%) were between 65 and 74years old, with more than one-third (39.5%) 75 or older (Table 1). Overthree-quarters of respondents were female (75.4%) and retired (81.3%).Various other motorcoach tour studies also reported high percentage offemale respondents (Badinelli, Davis, & Gustin, 1991; Duke & Persia,1994; Whipple & Thach, 1988). Two probable explanations for thisphenomenon are that women have a longer life span than men and thatwomen may be more willing to share their opinions. As for marital sta-tus, 52.4% were married and 39.3% were widowed. More than one-third
58 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Cathy H. C. Hsu 59
TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (n = 817)
Characteristics Percentage
Age
55-64 13.3
65-74 47.2
75 or over 39.5
Gender
Male 24.6
Female 75.4
Retirement Status
Not retired 7.4
Semi-retired 11.3
Retired 81.3
Marital Status
Married 52.4
Widowed 39.3
Not married 8.4
Education
Less than high school 4.4
High school 42.9
Some college 30.5
College degree 13.1
Graduate degree 9.0
Income
Less than $30,000 48.7
$30,000-$44,999 28.8
$45,000-$59,999 12.9
$60,000-$74,999 6.3
$75,000-$99,999 2.5
$100,000 or more 0.8
Travel Experience in Previous 12 Months
All overnight trips Mean = 3.12, Range = 1-40
Packaged overnight trips Mean = 1.97, Range = 1-25
Motorcoach overnight trips Mean = 1.85, Range = 1-25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
(42.9%) of respondents reported high school as the highest level of edu-cation and 30.5% had attended some college. Approximately one-half(48.7%) had less than $30,000 as annual household income in 1998 and28.8% had $30,000-$44,999. The average number of overnight tripstaken during the past 12 months was 3.12, of which 1.97 were pre-paidpackages and 1.85 were motorcoach tours. Demographic profile of re-spondents in this study was similar to the profile reported in the tourtraveler index study commissioned by the National Tour Foundation(Davidson-Peterson Associates, 1992).
As shown in Table 2, almost all attributes were rated as important tovarious degrees. Of the 55 choice attributes, 20 were rated as extremelyimportant (M � 4.50), with reliability, comfort of the bus, personalsafety, and value for the money on top of the list. Shopping opportuni-ties was the only attribute had a rating of lower than 3.50. With seniors’perception of everything being important, the reduction of variableswith a factor analysis to summarize the essence of the 55 attributes inseveral major categories would be helpful to practitioners who havelimited resources and can only effectively address a few critical issuesat one time.
Means and standard deviations of the calibration and validation sam-ples are also provided in Table 2. T-tests were conducted to detect sig-nificant differences between the two samples. Of the 55 attributes, only3 (5.5%) had significantly different means (p < .05) between the twosamples. Therefore, the differences can be attributed to chance.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
The EFA using the calibration sample revealed six factors havingeigenvalues greater than one. Attributes having a factor loading of < .40on all factors, or loading on more than one factor with a loading score of� .40, were eliminated (Hatcher, 1994). The estimated 6-factor modelexplained 51.33% of the variances. The reliability alphas of the six fac-tors ranged from .68 to .80, with an overall alpha of .89. The retained 22choice attributes represented the dimensions of Social Activities, Oper-ator Services and Referrals, Flexible Schedule, Health and Safety, Pro-motional Materials, and Reputation (Table 3).
Findings of the EFA supported the results of previous investigationsof senior travelers. Of the six factors, Reputation (M = 4.80) and Healthand Safety (M = 4.67) were rated as extremely important. The other fourfactors, Flexible Schedule (M = 4.03), Operator Services and Referrals(M = 3.99), Promotional Materials (M = 3.86), and Social Activities (M =
60 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Cathy H. C. Hsu 61
TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Choice Attributes
OverallSample
CalibrationSample
ValidationSample
Attribute M SD M SD M SD
Reliability 4.88 0.39 4.89 0.39 4.87 0.40
Comfort of the bus 4.82 0.43 4.83 0.39 4.81 0.47
Personal safety 4.80 0.49 4.78 0.51 4.82 0.47
Value for the money 4.77 0.52 4.78 0.51 4.76 0.53
Safety precautions 4.75 0.55 4.77 0.49 4.72 0.60
Reputation 4.71 0.58 4.70 0.60 4.71 0.56
Interesting tour guide 4.67 0.63 4.68 0.60 4.66 0.66
Quality of hotel accommodation 4.65 0.62 4.67 0.58 4.63 0.66
Price of tour package 4.64 0.67 4.66 0.60 4.62 0.74
Non-smoking bus 4.62 0.91 4.59 0.93 4.65 0.90
Professionalism of tour guide 4.61 0.69 4.58 0.68 4.63 0.69
Clear view of passing sites from seat on bus 4.61 0.69 4.57 0.74 4.64 0.64
Emergency procedures 4.59 0.70 4.62 0.69 4.57 0.71
Luggage service 4.58 0.75 4.56 0.77 4.60 0.73
Comfortable tour pace 4.55 0.69 4.53 0.70 4.56 0.69
Empathy for health problems 4.54 0.75 4.55 0.72 4.53 0.77
Moving along with the planned schedule 4.54 0.66 4.53 0.64 4.55 0.68
Friendliness of bus driver 4.54 0.72 4.53 0.73 4.55 0.72
Frequent comfort breaks 4.53 0.71 4.49 0.73 4.56 0.68
Quality of food provided 4.51 0.69 4.48 0.70 4.53 0.68
Long enough stops at interesting places 4.48 0.76 4.48 0.77 4.48 0.75
Cancellation policy 4.48 0.78 4.45 0.79 4.51 0.76
Attractiveness of destination(s) 4.45 0.76 4.44 0.74 4.46 0.78
Variety of planned activities 4.34 0.79 4.33 0.79 4.34 0.79
Senior discounts 4.34 0.94 4.32 0.96 4.37 0.93
Multiple destinations 4.33 0.88 4.34 0.87 4.32 0.90
Past experience with operator a 4.30 0.89 4.22 0.98 4.36 0.80
Schedule/itinerary flexibility 4.24 0.82 4.26 0.77 4.22 0.87
Friendly dynamics among fellow travelers 4.24 0.84 4.24 0.85 4.24 0.83
Price of products/services at destination(s) 4.23 0.90 4.24 0.89 4.22 0.91
Tour operator recommendation 4.22 0.90 4.18 0.87 4.25 0.92
Uniqueness of experience 4.20 0.92 4.20 0.92 4.19 0.91
Not being bored 4.20 0.95 4.18 0.92 4.21 0.98
1-800 telephone number 4.04 1.07 4.00 1.06 4.08 1.08
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
3.76), were rated as important. The importance of flexible schedule,health and safety, and promotional materials were also common con-cerns found in other senior studies.
Lago and Poffley (1993) indicated that seniors want the freedom tocome and go, and make decisions regarding their leisure activities. An-derson and Langmeyer (1982) also noted that over-50 travelers pre-ferred non-hectic, preplanned pleasure trips for rest and relaxation orfor visiting relatives. And, they preferred to travel on an open schedule(Cothran, 1990). Blazey (1992) reported that older respondents had ma-jor fears about safety. Wilhite, Hamilton, and Reilley (1988) indicatedthat a marketing mix directed towards this population would have toconsider the elderly’s concern for safety, their physical needs and abili-ties, and their need for detailed information in advertising. Therefore,the dimensions identified in this study captured the essence of seniors’concerns and travel decision criteria.
62 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
TABLE 2 (continued)
OverallSample
CalibrationSample
ValidationSample
Attribute M SD M SD M SD
Adventuresome 4.03 0.89 4.01 0.89 4.05 0.89
Seat rotation opportunities on bus 4.01 1.20 4.03 1.17 3.99 1.23
Friends/relatives recommendation 4.01 0.99 4.02 1.01 4.01 0.98
Name recognition 4.01 0.91 3.97 0.91 4.04 0.91
Time to relax 3.96 0.98 3.92 1.01 4.00 0.95
Comprehensiveness of promotional materials 3.91 0.99 3.87 1.01 3.96 0.97
Evening entertainment 3.89 0.99 3.88 1.01 3.91 0.99
Availability of free time 3.88 1.01 3.87 1.01 3.90 1.02
Educational value 3.86 0.99 3.86 0.99 3.85 0.98
Climate of destination(s)a 3.86 0.97 3.78 0.99 3.94 0.96
Travel agent recommendation 3.83 1.11 3.80 1.12 3.85 1.10
Personalized attention 3.80 0.99 3.76 1.02 3.84 0.97
Attractiveness of promotional materials 3.80 1.05 3.75 1.09 3.84 1.00
Similar age of other participantsa 3.80 1.03 3.70 1.05 3.89 1.01
Group activities 3.73 1.04 3.71 1.07 3.74 1.01
Distance from home 3.71 1.05 3.70 1.09 3.72 1.01
Social contact opportunities 3.70 1.02 3.71 1.02 3.69 1.01
Home pick-up and drop-off 3.69 1.18 3.70 1.19 3.69 1.18
Availability of travel insurance 3.68 1.14 3.64 1.15 3.72 1.14
Recreational activities 3.66 1.01 3.66 1.01 3.67 1.02
Shopping opportunities 3.10 1.22 3.14 1.18 3.05 1.26
aSignificant differences found between calibration and validation samples at .05 level.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Cathy H. C. Hsu 63
TABLE 3. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Senior Choice Attributes (n = 408)
Factor/Attribute LoadingEigen-value
VarianceExplained
(%)Reliability
Alpha
Social Activities 6.81 10.51 .80
Evening entertainment .82
Group activities .67
Similar age of other participants .55
Recreational activities .46
Social contact opportunities .44
Operator Services and Referrals 1.99 10.08 .75
Senior discounts .63
1-800 telephone number .57
Availability of travel insurance .56
Name recognition .51
Travel agent recommendation .46
Friends/relative recommendation .45
Flexible Schedule 1.70 9.07 .76
Availability of free time .78
Time to relax .67
Schedule/itinerary flexibility .62
Health and Safety 1.30 9.03 .73
Safety precautions .76
Personal safety .66
Emergency procedures .62
Empathy for health problems .50
Promotional Materials 1.17 7.03 .79
Attractiveness of promotional materials .77
Comprehensiveness of promotional materials .67
Reputation 1.06 5.62 .68
Reliability .71
Reputation .62
Total 51.33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The 22 variables retained in the EFA were then used in LISREL asindicators of their corresponding latent factor. Results of the CFAshowed acceptable fit indices (GFI = 0.926, AGFI = 0.902, NFI =0.878, NNFI = 0.921, RMR = .037) and the chi-square ratio was < 3(�2(191) = 378.45, p < 0.001). Even though the chi-square test had a sig-nificant p value, due to its sensitivity to large sample size, the signifi-cant differences found between the data and the model should not be aconcern. Therefore, it can be concluded that the data fit the proposedmodel. Detailed statistics of the final model are presented in Table 4.The parameter measurement estimates of the model were further exam-ined to evaluate the quality of the model. The t-value associated witheach of the loadings exceeded the critical value of 3.29 for the .001 sig-nificance level. This indicated that all attributes were significantly re-lated to their specified construct, establishing the constructs’ convergentvalidity and demonstrating that attributes were measuring the conceptsthat they were supposed to measure. The reliability for each construct,except for the Reputation dimension (.64), exceeded the recommendedlevel of .70. Therefore, the attributes within each dimension were suffi-cient in their representation of the constructs (Hair et al., 1995).
Correlations among the six constructs were examined to detect poten-tial multicollinearity. While no limit has been set that defines what arehigh correlations, values exceeding 0.90 should always be examined, andmany times correlations exceeding 0.80 can be indicative of problems(Hair et al., 1995). Correlations among the six subscales in this studyranged from 0.25 to 0.73 (p < .05), as shown in Table 5. Therefore, the in-strument was composed of six separate constructs, each measuring aunique dimension of the seniors’ motorcoach tour selection decision.
CONCLUSION
Kerlinger (1979) characterized factor analysis as one of the mostpowerful methods for reducing variable complexity. The instrumentused in this study contained a comprehensive list of 55 choice attributesobtained from various sources. Six subscales (i.e., Social Activities,Operator Services and Referrals, Flexible Schedule, Health and Safety,Promotional Materials, and Reputation) were derived from the EFA andsatisfactorily validated with the CFA. Results of the CFA indicated the
64 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
stability of the six-dimension structure as well as the quality of the mea-surement model. Therefore, as suggested by Hair et al. (1995) andReynolds and Bezruczko (1989), the author felt more confident in ac-cepting and reporting the measurement than if only an exploratory fac-tor analysis was conducted, which has been a common practice by manyresearchers in tourism marketing.
Cathy H. C. Hsu 65
TABLE 4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Senior Choice Attributes (n = 409)
Factor/AttributeStandardized
Loading t-ValueaReliability
Alpha
Social Activities .76
Evening entertainment .46 --
Group activities .73 8.24
Similar age of other participants .57 7.41
Recreational activities .66 8.91
Social contact opportunities .65 7.88
Operator Services and Referrals .72
Senior discounts .47 8.30
1-800 telephone number .49 7.63
Availability of travel insurance .67 --
Name recognition .58 9.85
Travel agent recommendation .78 10.40
Friends/relative recommendation .54 8.93
Flexible Schedule .73
Availability of free time .62 --
Time to relax .53 10.76
Schedule/itinerary flexibility .63 9.23
Health and Safety .74
Safety precautions .39 --
Personal safety .36 11.13
Emergency procedures .46 12.91
Empathy for health problems .41 8.70
Promotional Materials .80
Attractiveness of promotional materials .88 --
Comprehensiveness of promotional materials .73 12.52
Reputation .64
Reliability .25 --
Reputation .44 9.20
a P � .05
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Even though the focus of this study was on senior travelers, the meth-odology reported in this paper can be adapted by hospitality and tourismresearchers when conducting similar studies on different populations.Because the research history of the hospitality and tourism field is rela-tively short, compared to other social science disciplines with well-de-veloped theories and instruments that have been refined over the years,many hospitality and tourism studies reported have been exploratory innature. To move forward with basic research and theoretical develop-ment, more rigorous research methodology and statistical techniques,such as the EFA and CFA combination, are needed. Therefore, the pro-cedure reported in this study could be used as a methodological exam-ple of instrument development.
Means of attributes indicated that all but one of the 55 items wererated as either extremely important or important. Therefore, the six fac-tors provided practitioners with a manageable pool of important areason which they should focus when designing products and services, andwhen communicating with potential senior motorcoach participants.Tour operators’ policy, reputation, and concerns for travelers’ healthand safety should be tour marketers’ top priority in building a favorableimage because reputation of tour operators and their health and safetyconcerns were of utmost important to senior travelers. This was sup-ported by the statement that seniors demand security and safety in a Ho-tel & Resort Industry article (“The Mature Market,” 1990). Touroperators should strive to provide reliable services and establish a goodreputation within the senior community as the tour operator of choice.Due to the possibility of having to deal with health care issues and emer-gencies during any given trip, specific policies and procedures should
66 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
TABLE 5. Correlations Among Subscales Using Validation Sample
SocialActivities
OperatorServices and
ReferralsFlexible
Schedule
Healthand
SafetyPromotional
Materials Reputation
Social Activities 1.00
Operator Servicesand Referrals
0.73 1.00
Flexible Schedule 0.44 0.61 1.00
Health and Safety 0.65 0.62 0.55 1.00
Promotional Materials 0.57 0.58 0.48 0.59 1.00
Reputation 0.32 0.49 0.73 0.43 0.25 1.00
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
be developed and clearly communicated to tour guides and bus driversto ensure proper implementation when needed.
Seniors also valued the flexibility of tour itinerary, positive referrals,and certain services provided by tour operators. Cothran (1990) andLago and Poffley (1993) also reported that seniors prefer flexibleschedules so that they have enough time to take care of their personalneeds. In addition, it was important for seniors to receive attractive pro-motional materials with comprehensive tour information, listing thetypes of social activities included in the tour package.
Practitioners can also use the six factors, or 22 attributes to be morespecific, to self-assess their strengths and weaknesses. Appropriatemarketing strategies can be developed based on the strengths and weak-nesses identified, and deficient areas could be improved. The reducedset of attributes can also be included in a customer satisfaction survey toobtain feedback from seniors on those important issues.
Future Studies
This study was an initial attempt in instrument development to assesssenior travelers’ motorcoach choice attributes. Because the data werecollected in Kansas, further testing with different senior populations isneeded to cross-validate the stability of the constructs. Reliabilities ofthe six dimensions were acceptable; however, future studies should tryto improve the alphas, especially for the Reputation dimension. Thiscould be accomplished by adding more items or using a 7-point Likerttype scale, instead of a 5-point scale, to increase the sensitivity of themeasurement, and therefore may improve the reliabilities of all con-structs. Future studies should also examine the construct validity of theinstrument by testing the convergent and discriminant validity.
This instrument has limited applicability in assessing senior choicebehavior in other types of travel, such as cruise packages and otherall-inclusive trips, because situational factors, such as length of trip andbudget, may influence travel decisions in different contexts. However,the measurement items developed in this study can be used as a basewhen designing survey instruments for other types of senior travel stud-ies.
Senior travelers were selected as the sample of the study based ontheir importance to the travel industry. Results of this study could helppractitioners and researchers develop further understanding of this sig-nificant market. The findings of this study, however, did not indicatewhether the choice attribute constructs identified were unique to the se-
Cathy H. C. Hsu 67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
nior population. It is possible that choice attributes are defined by thetravel experience provided by motorcoach tours, not by age. Therefore,comparison and contrast between data collected from other age groupsand the senior data to determine if attribute dimensions were age spe-cific are worthy of further investigation.
REFERENCES
Anderson, B., & Langmeyer, L. (1982). The under-50 and over-50 traveller: A profileof similarities and differences. Journal of Travel Research, 20(4), 20-24.
Badinelli, K., Davis, N., & Gustin, L. (1991, September 9). Senior travel study. Hoteland Motel Management, 206, 31-34.
Backman, K.F., Backman, S.J., & Silverberg, K.E. (1999). An investigation into thepsychographics of senior nature-based travellers. Tourism Recreation Research,24(1), 13-22.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L.W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organi-zational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421-458.
Blazey, M.A. (1992). Travel and retirement status. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4),771-783.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.Bryant, W.K. (1995). The economic organization of the household. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.Carmines, E., & McIver, J.P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables:
Analysis of covariance structures. In G. Bohrnstedt & E. Borgatta (Eds.), Socialmeasurement: Current issues (pp. 65-116). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Chacko, H., & Nebel, E. (1993). The group tour industry: An analysis of motorcoachtour operators. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(1), 69-83.
Cleaver, M., Muller, T.E., Ruys, H.F.M., & Wei, S. (1999). Tourism product develop-ment for the senior market, based on travel-motive research. Tourism RecreationResearch, 24(1), 5-11.
Cothran, M.R. (1990). Senior power. Hotel and Resort Industry, 13(2), 98.Davidson-Peterson Associates, Inc. (1992). Tour traveler index: A profile of the es-
corted tour consumer–the benchmark study. Lexington, KY: National Tour Foun-dation.
Duke, C.R., & Persia, M.A. (1994). Foreign and domestic escorted tour expectations ofAmerican travelers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6(3/4), 61-77.
Duke, C.R., & Persia, M.A. (1996). Consumer-defined dimensions for the escortedtour industry segment: Expectations, satisfaction, and importance. Journal ofTravel & Tourism Marketing, 5(1/2), 77-99.
Fesenmaier, D.R. (1988). Integrating activity pattern into destination choice models.Journal of Leisure Research, 20(3), 175-191.
Goggin, J.M. (1999). Elderhostel meets the “silent revolution.” Tourism RecreationResearch, 24(1), 86-89.
68 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Haider, W., & Ewing, G.O. (1990). A model of tourist choices of hypothetical Carib-bean destinations. Leisure Sciences, 12(1), 33-47.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate dataanalysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysisand structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS, Inc.
Heung, V.C.S., & Chu, R. (2000). Important factors affecting Hong Kong consumers’choice of a travel agent for all-inclusive package tours. Journal of Travel Research,39(1), 52-59.
Hong, G., Kim, S.Y., & Lee, J. (1999). Travel expenditure patterns of elderly house-holds in the US. Tourism Recreation Research, 24(1), 43-52.
Hsu, C.H.C. (2000). Determinants of mature travelers’ motorcoach tour satisfactionand brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(2), 223-238.
Javalgi, R.G., Thomas, E.G., & Rao, S.R. (1992). Consumer behaviour in the US plea-sure travel marketplace: an analysis of senior and nonsenior travellers. Journal ofTravel Research, 31(2), 14-19.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1979). Behavioral research: A conceptual approach. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.
Klenosky, D., Gengler, C., & Mulvey, M. (1993). Understanding the factors influenc-ing ski destination choice: A means-end analytic approach. Journal of Leisure Re-search, 25(4), 362-379.
Lago, D., & Poffley, J.K. (1993). The aging population and the hospitality industry in2010: Important trends and probable services. Hospitality Research Journal, 17(1),29-47.
Lieux, E.M., Weaver, P.A., & McCleary, K.W. (1994). Lodging preference of the se-nior tourism market. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 712-728.
Marshall, A. (1997, April 7). Seniors have big travel budgets but need accommodation.Hotel and Motel Management, 212, 17.
The mature market: A growing force in travel. (1990). Hotel and Resort Industry,13(10), 11.
Milman, A. (1998). The impact of tourism and travel experience on senior travelers’psychological well-being. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 166-170.
Moisey, R.N., & Bichis, M. (1999). Psychographics of senior nature tourists: The Katynature trail. Tourism Recreation Research, 24(1), 69-76.
Moscardo, G., & Green, D. (1999). Age and activity participation on the Great BarrierReef. Tourism Recreation Research, 24(1), 57-68.
Moschis, G.P., Lee, E., & Mathur, A. (1997). Targeting the nature market: opportuni-ties and challenges. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(4), 282-23.
Mossberg, L.L. (1995). Tour leaders and their importance in charter tours. TourismManagement, 16(6), 437-445.
National Tour Association, Inc. (1997). Market assessment plan for the future seniormarket: A tour operator survival guide for the next generation of seniors.Lexington, KY: Author.
Pitts, R.E., & Woodside, A.G. (1986). Personal values and travel decisions. Journal ofTravel Research, 25(1), 20-25.
Cathy H. C. Hsu 69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Quiroga, I. (1990). Characteristics of package tours in Europe. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 17, 185-207.
Reynolds, A.J., & Bezruczko, N. (1989). Assessing the construct validity of a life skillscompetency test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(1), 183-193.
Richard, M., & Sundaram, D. (1994). A model of lodging repeat choice intentions. An-nals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 745-755.
Ross, E.D., & Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1991). Sightseeing tourists’ motivation and satisfac-tion. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 226-237.
Shoemaker, S. (1994). Segmenting the U.S. travel market according to benefits real-ized. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 8-21.
Siderelis, C., Brothers, G., & Rea, P. (1995). A boating choice model for the valuationof lake access. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(3), 264-282.
Travel Industry Association of America (2000). Domestic research: Travel by matureAmericans. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved July 31, 2000 from the WorldWide Web: http://www.tia.org/tiaweb/travel/mature/asp
Turco, D., & Riley, R. (1996). Choice factors and alternatives for riverboat gamblers.Journal of Travel Research, 35(3), 24-29.
Um, S., & Crompton, J.L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice.Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432-448.
US Bureau of the Census. (2000). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000 (120thed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Vincent, V.C., & de los Santos, G. (1990). Winter Texans: Two segments of the seniortravel market. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), 9-12.
Vining, J., & Fishwick, L. (1991). An exploratory study of outdoor recreation sitechoices. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(2), 114-132.
Wang, K., Hsieh, A., & Huan, T. (2000). Critical service features in group packagetour: An exploratory research. Tourism Management, 21(2), 177-189.
Whipple, T.W., & Thach, S.V. (1988). Group tour management: Does good serviceproduce satisfied customers? Journal of Travel Research, 27(2), 16-21.
Wilhite, B., Hamilton, K., & Reilley, L. (1988). Recreational travel and the elderly:Marketing strategies with a normalization perspective. Activities, Adaptation andAging, 12(1/2), 59-72.
Woodside, A.G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destinationchoice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 8-14.
Wuest, B.E.S., Tas, R.F., & Emenheiser, D.A. (1996). What do mature travelers per-ceive as important hotel/motel customer services? Hospitality Research Journal,20(2), 77-93.
You, X., & O’Leary, J.T. (1999). Destination behaviour of older UK travellers. Tour-ism Recreation Research, 24(1), 23-34.
Zimmer, Z., Brayley, R.E., & Searle, M.S. (1995). Whether to go and where to go:identification of important influences on senior & decisions to travel. Journal ofTravel Research, 33(3), 3-10.
70 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
28 1
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
