Research papers - ntcu.edu.tw

80

The purpose of this study was to examine the dimensionality and usefulness of Hofstede’s meas-ure of values and Kahle’s List of Values (LOV) in the context of parks and recreation. Parks andrecreation areas around the world increasingly serve as international visitor attractions and playan important role in the international tourism industry. Since values presumably differ amongmembers of different cultures and purportedly influence people’s perceptions and behaviours,studying values among culturally diverse visitors is important if we are to understand their influ-ence on parks and recreation perceptions and behaviour. In 2005-2006, visitors to PokfulamCountry Park near metropolitan Hong Kong were surveyed. Using a purposive on-site conven-ience sampling approach at sites known to be heavily used by visitors with diverse ethnic back-grounds, a sample of 253 Hong Kong residents, 153 Mainland Chinese Visitors and 233 West-erners (including American, British, Australian, and European) was obtained. Analyses showedthat when employed in a park and recreation context, Hofstede’s measure of values must befurther refined to provide acceptable validity, reliability, and utility. On the other hand, Kahle’sList of Values (LOV) was found to be a meaningful and useful measure of values in a park set-

Abstract

CHIEH-LU LINational Chung Hsing University, Taiwan

WORLD LEISURE JOURNAL No. 2/2010 © Copyright by the authors

Research papers

Examining the dimensionality ofvalues for culturally diversecustomers in parks and recreation

GARRY E. CHICKThe Pennsylvania State University, USA

HOMER C. WUNational Taichung University, Taiwan

TIAN-MING YENNational Chung Hsing University, Taiwan

JOURNAL

81

✴ ✴ ✴

ting. Two dimensions of values, external and internal, were extracted from the original four-di-mension model and were compared among groups. Discussion of the findings and research im-plications are provided.

Keywords: values, culture, ethnicity, Hofstede’s measure of values, Kahle’s List of Values,parks and recreation

EXAMINING THE DIMENSIONALITY OF VALUES FOR CULTURALLY DIVERSE CUSTOMERS IN PARKS AND RECREATION

Introduction

The parks, recreation, and tourism industryhas rapidly grown during the last few decades.Parks and recreation areas around the worldincreasingly serve as international visitor at-tractions and play an important role in the in-ternational tourism industry. The World Tour-ism Organization (WTO) has reported that re-ceipts from international tourism grew by anaverage annual rate of nine per cent between1988 and 1997. The number of internationaltourist arrivals reached more than 664 millionin 1999 (well over 10 per cent of the world’spopulation), and international arrivals are ex-pected to reach one billion by 2010 (WTO,2008). Given the increasingly diverse visitorpopulation, changes in racial and ethnic com-position have confronted the management ofparks and recreation areas. Cultural valuesare presumably central to cultural differencesthat may exist among ethnic and nationalgroups (e.g., Swartz, 2001) and may ostensi-bly influence perceptions and behaviours. Weassume that this holds true with respect topark visitation behaviour and engaging in rec-reation. Hence, studying values among cultur-ally diverse visitors is important if we are tounderstand their influence on perceptions andbehaviour in parks and recreation (Vaske,Donnelly, & Petruzzi, 1996). The specific pur-pose of this study was to determine whetherHofstede’s (1980) measure of values andKahle’s (1986) List of Values (LOV) are valid,reliable, and useful in the context of parks andrecreation.

We are not aware of any measure of rec-reation or leisure-specific values that hasbeen validated cross culturally. Therefore, inorder to better understand the structure ofvalues among park visitors, we explore thedimensionality of values for presumably cul-turally diverse customers using measures of

values that have previously been validatedcross culturally in other contexts. We are in-terested in a dimensional framework forthese measures because it gives a skeletalstructure for cultural values and provides aparsimonious approach to interpreting theircomplexity. Research on factors which con-tribute to a better understanding of valuesamong diverse clienteles will help improvepark management on the one hand and pro-mote positive cultural understanding on theother (Chick, 2000).

The dimension framework also offersparks and recreation managers an evaluationtool that can translate the abstract constructsof values into meaningful actionable portraitson which service and management canbe based (Li, Absher, Graefe, & Hsu, 2008).Understanding the dimensions of valuesamong diverse visitors may facilitate manag-ers’ ability to predict visitors’ recreation be-haviour, thus permitting the customizationof services for particular market niches(Absher, 1998). For customers with particularvalue orientations, managers could provideniche services to meet their expectations(Johnson, Bowker, Bergstrom, & Cordell,2004). We expect, for example, that valuesshould relate to perceptions of service qualityand subsequent variables in park and recrea-tion settings (Li, 2006). Thus, in this study,we examine two different measures of values– Hofstede’s measure of values and Kahle’sLOV – which have been utilized numeroustimes in comparative cross-cultural studies,but not previously in a parks and recreationsetting in Hong Kong.

Literature ReviewEthnic groups, culture, and values

We define ethnic groups as being culture-based entities and use ethnic and national

82

CHIEH-LU LI, GARRY E. CHICK, HOMER C. WU, TIAN-MING YEN

groups as proxies for different cultures, a com-mon practice in leisure and other areas ofresearch (Gobster, 2007; Li, Absher, Hsu,& Graefe, 2008; Li, Chick, Zinn, Absher, &Graefe, 2007; Li, Zinn, Chick, Absher, Graefe,& Hsu, 2007). Furthermore, we use values tooperationalize culture since values are gener-ally thought to be one of the two major com-ponents of culture, with beliefs being the other(e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Swartz, 2001), andhave been operationalized and measured in avariety of ways. Values presumably differ crossculturally, including among racial and ethnicgroups (Cross & Madson, 1997). Thus, in thisstudy, the term cultural values refers to the val-ues shared by specific ethnic groups (Kroeber& Kluckhohn, 1952). It therefore makes senseto measure cultural values to explain ethnicsimilarities or differences in terms of people’sperceptions or behaviours in the context ofparks and recreation.

Hofstede’s measure of valuesCultural values are shared by members of

cultural groups and can influence ways ofthinking and behaving (Hofstede, 1991). Inthe most exhaustive cross-cultural study of val-ues to date, Hofstede (1980) and his col-leagues distributed 117,000 questionnaires,called the Values Survey Module, translatedinto 20 languages, to IBM employees in 70countries. Hofstede’s Value Survey Module isdesigned for measuring cultural differences invalues. It consists of 20 content questions(measured on bi-polar Likert-type scales) and6 demographic questions. Based on the datafrom 88,000 returned surveys, Hofstede es-tablished four dimensions of national culturalvalues: power distance, individualism, mascu-linity, and uncertainty avoidance. Later,Hofstede and Bond (1984) developed a fifthdimension, long-term orientation (i.e., Confu-cian dynamics). These five dimensions of na-tional cultural values are now widely used byscholars in international management, mar-keting, and other fields.

Numerous researchers have validatedHofstede’s measure of cultural values witha variety of different samples (Sondergaard,1994). For instance, Hofstede and Bond

(1984) used Rokeach’s value survey (1973) toprovide construct validity to Hofstede’s meas-ure. Evidence suggests that Hofstede’s dimen-sions of values are applicable not only to work-related values but to cultural values generally(Forgas & Bond, 1985; Hofstede & Bond,1984). Hofstede’s measure seems to begeneralizable across multiple contexts and so-cieties (e.g., Donthu & Yoo, 1998; Furrer, Liu,& Sudharshan, 2000; Mattila, 1999). Clark(1990) argued that Hofstede’s inventorymight account for many cultural differencesamong individuals, suggesting that such ameasure might also prove useful for assessingethnic cultural differences in parks and recrea-tion settings (Donthu & Yoo, 1998).

While Hofstede’s measure of values hasbeen widely used, some researchers (e.g.,McSweeney, 2002) have questioned its valid-ity and reliability. But, as Hofstede suggested“... my theory of cultural differentiation is likea product of a research laboratory, whichawaits the efforts of development techniciansto elaborate it into something of particularuse” (2001, p. 462). Hence, analyses of themeasure are needed to determine its validityand usefulness in the parks and recreationcontext.

Kahle’s List of ValuesPersonal values evolve from circumstances

with the external world and can provide endur-ing principles to guide behaviour (Rokeach,1973). Kahle’s (1983) List of Values (LOV) isanother instrument that is widely used formeasuring values cross culturally (Madrigal,1995). From an international business per-spective, Kahle sought to explain consumerbehaviour in different nations and contendedthat consumer behaviour can be largely deter-mined by the knowledge of the potential con-sumers’ psychographics, including their val-ues. The LOV has been frequently used in con-sumer research in the prediction of fashionpreferences, shopping and spending behav-iours, risky sports consumption, and tourismbehaviour (see, e.g., Kahle, Beatty, & Homer,1986).

The LOV is a widely accepted tool for cross-cultural comparison of values since it is parsi-

83


monious in its approach, easy to administer,has been validated by numerous studies, andhas been shown to be reliable (e.g., Kahle,1986; Kahle, Poulos, & Sukhdial, 1988). TheLOV consists of nine items collapsed into fourdimensions including harmony (security, senseof belonging, and warm relationship with oth-ers), respect (being well respected by othersand self-respected), achievement (self-fulfil-ment and sense of accomplishment) and he-donism (fun and enjoyment in life and excite-ment).

We selected Hofstede’s dimensions of val-ues and Kahle’s List of Values as they providetwo of the most commonly used measures ofvalues in cross-cultural research. We believethat examining the different structures of cul-tural values as they apply to parks and recrea-tion will help address the gap in the parks andrecreation literature as cross-cultural customerservices research moves forward.

The relationships between values and percep-tions of service quality, satisfaction, and be-havioural intentions

Previous research has revealed evidencefor the relationships between values and per-ception of service quality, satisfaction, and be-havioural intentions (Li, 2006, 2009; Liu,Furrer, & Sudharshan, 2001). For instance, Li(2006) found that perceptions of service qual-ity differed among various values segments ina U.S. national forest tourism visitor study.Taken from the perspective of Inglehart’s(1997) concepts of modernization andpostmodernization, three segments of valueswere identified and labelled Modernist, Mixed,and Postmodernist. The author further pointedout that, among the three homogeneous val-ues segments, the Mixed segment perceivedlower service quality than did the Modernistsegment. Later, in the Hong Kong CountryPark and Taiwan National Park recreationiststudies, Li and his colleagues (Li, 2009; Li,Lai, Chick, Zinn & Graefe, 2007) found thatcultural values significantly and positively influ-enced perceived service quality, satisfaction,and behavioural intentions.

Hence, we argue that values are con-ceived as a knowledge system that could in-

fluence service quality and subsequent vari-ables. From a multi-cultural marketing per-spective, more frequent intra- and inter-cul-tural interactions of visitors today haveheightened the need to understand these re-lationships. Therefore, it is vital to empiricallyassess the nature of the above-mentioned re-lationships among consumers across variouscultures.

MethodStudy setting, design, and sampling

Study setting: We conducted a visitor sur-vey in 2005-2006 at the Pokfulam CountryPark (PCP), an urban interface park in HongKong covering an area of over 270 hectares(i.e., approximately 667 acres) which pro-vides opportunities for outdoor recreationand enjoyment to both local residents and in-ternational visitors. Past research, based ona general population sample, indicated thatvisitors to the country parks in Hong Kongwere predominantly local residents (Wong,1997). Because a simple random sample ofpark visitors would not efficiently yield anadequate representation of different cultures(in the three subgroups of local residents,Mainlanders, and Westerners), a purposiveon-site survey at PCP was adopted (Straus,2009; Weisberg, Krosnick, & Bowen, 1996).The sampling sites were determined in con-sultation with country park officers and em-pirical on-site observation, as well as withreference to evidence from previous studies(Wong, 1997). Eventually, six sites known tobe frequented by visitors of diverse ethnicitywere identified for on-site interviews and sur-veys.

Design and sampling: The on-site inter-views and surveys were conducted for everythird visitor to avoid self-selection bias(Salant & Dillman, 1994). There were 16 sur-vey days between September 2005 and Janu-ary 2006. A total of 155 of the 857 subjectswho were approached declined to partici-pate, yielding a response rate of 82 per cent.The on-site interviews were focused on dayusers since this segment of users was known

84


1 The survey protocol and questionnaire wereback-translated from the simplified Chinese and Eng-lish into the traditional Chinese by bilingual studentsfrom Hong Kong and Mainland China, respectively.The translation discrepancies were discussed and re-vised to ensure accuracy of the meanings in differentlanguages.

to be the most diverse. Most of the respond-ents surveyed were in groups. When ap-proaching a party with more than one per-son, each member of the party was asked ifthey were willing to take about 10 minutesfor a visitor survey. If they were willing to par-ticipate, they were asked first to read the sur-vey protocol. The survey protocol was at-tached on the back of the survey clipboard,and introduced the purposes of the projectand their rights as a research participant(e.g., voluntary participation). The surveyprotocol and questionnaires were printed intraditional Chinese a s well as English andsimplified Chinese.1 Participants were wel-come to keep a copy of the survey protocol ifthey wanted further information about thevisitor survey.

In the questionnaire, participants wereasked, “What cultural group do you mostclosely identify with?” Following this question,13 items could be checked (e.g., Hong Kongresident, Mainland China resident, U.K. resi-dent), including the last item, Other andplease specify. In answering this question,a Hong Kong resident might identify him-self or herself as a Mainland China resident,or a U.K. resident might identify himselfor herself as a Hong Kong resident, for ex-ample, regardless of their biological heritage.Our measure of ethnic group was basedon a process of self-identification or theperceptions of individuals within eachgroup of what outsiders thought of them(Barth, 1996).

Measurement of perceived service quality,satisfaction, and behavioural intentions: Inaddition to using Hofstede’s values itemsand the LOV to measure subjects’ values,and to assess subjects’ perceptions of servicequality, 23 service quality items developed bythe USDA Forest Services (Absher, 1998)

were customized to fit the Hong Kong contextand measured on a five-point response scale.These 23 service quality items were dividedinto four dimensions, i.e., facilities, service,information, and management. TheCronbach’s alphas of the four dimensionsranged from .60 to .86. Three items wereused to measure satisfaction (Naylor, 1996).The Cronbach’s alpha value of these satisfac-tion items was .90. Four items (Cronin, Brady,& Hult, 2000), measured on a five-pointscale, were used to operationalize behav-ioural intentions, including passive, active,private, and self-recommendations. TheCronbach’s alpha value of the items was .87.Informants were asked to complete bothHofstede’s instrument and the LOV as well asthe measures of perceived service quality,satisfaction, and behavioural intentions.

Statistical analysis: Five types of statisticaltests were used. Descriptive analysis, con-firmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratoryfactor analysis (EFA), reliability analysis, andmultiple regression analysis were used to testHofstede’s measure of values and the LOV ina park and recreation context. Demographicvariables (e.g., age, gender) were also exam-ined. Descriptive analysis was used to calcu-late the socio-demographic and recreationbehavioural profiles of the sample and to re-port the means and standard deviations ofHofstede’s measure of values and the LOV.CFA was used to test validity. We used CFA toconfirm the theoretical models and hypo-thetical premises such as Hofstede’s (1980)five dimensions and Kahle’s four dimensionsof values. When CFA failed to confirm theclaimed dimensional structure of eithermeasure, we used EFA to examine character-istic features, discover interesting and inter-pretable relationships, and reduce thenumber of variables in the data. Reliabilityanalysis was employed to find the internalconsistency of values dimensions usingCronbach’s alpha. Finally, multiple regressionanalysis was used to test the predictive rela-tionships between values dimensions andservice quality, satisfaction, and behaviouralintentions.

85


2 Further analyses of Hofstede’s values indicesshowed that three out of the six Cronbach’s alpha val-ues were negative. When derived Cronbach’s alphavalues were negative, the reliability model broke.

Table 1. Goodness of fit statistics for Hofstede’s measure of values model

ResultsSocio-demographic and recreation behav-

ioural profiles: The sample demographic in-formation indicated that there were moremales (53 per cent, n = 362) than females(47 per cent, n = 322) and largely youngadults (mean age = 37). Half of the partici-pants were married with 46 per cent singleand the remaining 4 per cent either divorcedor widowed. While the average number ofchildren (21 or under) living in the householdwas 1, a large proportion of the participants(58 per cent) had no children in the house-hold. More than 61 per cent of the subjectswere employed outside the home, 16 percent were full-time students, and the remain-ing 23 per cent were full-time homemakers,retirees, or others. The level of educationshowed that 93 per cent of the participantscompleted formal education beyond highschool. Thirty per cent had already earned acollege degree and 23 per cent a graduatedegree. The annual household income indi-cated that 46 per cent of the participantsreported an income of over $HK250,000and 23 per cent of over $HK400,000. A sig-nificant majority of the participants wereday users (97 per cent), whose averagelength of stay in the PCP was around fourhours. The visit to the PCP was made alone(15 per cent), with family (38 per cent),friends (39 per cent), and family and friends(8 per cent). The tests of the subgroups re-vealed significant differences regarding age,employed status, formal education, and an-nual household income among three sub-groups. For example, the result showed West-erners were more likely to have graduate

degrees, higher annual household income,and travel longer distances to PCP. Moreover,compared to Mainlanders, Westerners alsotended to be older.

Analysis of Hofstede’s measure of values:The first step of the analyses was to use CFAto confirm Hofstede’s five dimensions: powerdistance, individualism, masculinity, uncer-tainty avoidance, and long term orientation.This test (with four items per dimension),using the LISREL 8.72 program, revealeda poor fit according to several indicators,such as Goodness of Fit Index (GFI = 0.53)and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR =0.15, see Table 1). Given the poor fit of theoriginal five-dimensional cultural valuesmodel, EFA was used to explore thedimensionality of the items in the parksand recreation context. Both orthogonal(uncorrelated factors) and oblique (corre-lated factors) solutions, via Varimax andDirect Oblimin rotation, were considered.The results of both the orthogonal andthe oblique solutions were very similar(e.g., showed six factors, but with pooralpha values2 ) and suggested no interpret-able patterns of dimensionality.

Analysis of the LOV: As with the analysisof Hofstede’s measure of values, CFA wasused to confirm the LOV’s four dimensions:harmony, respect, achievement, and hedon-ism. The result revealed a poor fit of the

86


Table 2. Goodness of fit statistics for List of Values model

Table 3. Analysis of List of Values with exploratory factor analysis

Table 4. Reliability of two new dimensions model for List of Values

87


Table 5. Mean and standard deviation for List of Values and intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of values

Figure 1. Subgroup differences in List of Values

model according to several indicators, suchas Goodness of Fit Index (GFI = 0.86) andRoot Mean Square Residual (RMR = 0.13)(see Table 2) via the LISREL 8.72 program.Given the poor fit of the original four-dimen-sional values model, EFA was again used toexplore interpretable dimensionality of theitems in the parks and recreation context.

Findings revealed different values dimensionsand clearly showed two dimensions of valueswhich we labelled external and internal(Table 3). The external factor accounted for34.01 per cent of the variance and the inter-nal factor accounted for 28.19 per cent ofthe variance. The total variance explainedwas 62.20 per cent.

88


Figure 2. Subgroup differences in List of Values

Further analysis of the LOV showed thatthe external dimension combined Kahle’s re-spect and harmony dimensions and the inter-nal dimension combined the achievementand hedonism dimensions (see Table 4). Thereliability test demonstrated acceptableCronbach’s alpha values with the externaldimension equalling .83 and the internaldimension equalling .81 (see Table 5). Whentesting these two dimensions with thethree-level ethnic group variable using analy-sis of variance, we found that the externaldimension of values did not significantlydiffer among the three ethnic groups (seeFigure 1).

On the other hand, we found that the in-ternal dimension of values significantly dif-fered among the groups. The Westernerswere more likely to rate the internal dimen-sion of values as more important thandid Hong Kongers and Mainlanders (seeFigure 2). Furthermore, we checked the pre-dictive validity of these two dimensions of val-ues, using external and internal dimensionsas the two independent variables, and per-ceived service quality, satisfaction, and be-havioural intentions indices as the dependent

variables, respectively. The results from allthe multiple regression models were signifi-cant at .001 level. In particular, the internaldimension was repeatedly significant in pre-dicting perceived service quality, satisfactionand behavioural intentions, but the model R-square ranged from 5 per cent to 12 percent. In other words, the combined effects ofexternal and internal dimensions of valuesexplained the variation in perceived servicequality, satisfaction and behavioural inten-tions ranging from 5 per cent to 12 per cent(see Table 6).

DiscussionHofstede’s measure of values in the parks

and recreation context: Originally, Hofstede’sdimensions of values (1980, 1991, 2001)were used to measure work-related values andwere based on presumed national cultural dif-ferences. Given that Hofstede’s dimensionshave been adopted across various contextsand societies, they have been presumed to be,to some degree, generalizable. However, inthis study, responses to Hofstede’s five dimen-sions of values did not follow the same pat-terns found in other studies. One reason may

89


Table 6. Multiple regression of service quality, facility, service, information, management, satisfaction, andbehavioural intentions on the external and internal dimensions of values

Dimensions of values Service quality index b

Beta P-value F-value Model P-value R-squareExternal dimension a 0.092 0.052Internal dimension a 0.281 <0.001 32.516 <0.001 0.112

Dimensions of values Facility index b

Beta P-value F-value Model P-value R-squareExternal dimension 0.201 <0.001Internal dimension 0.194 <0.001 35.291 <0.001 0.121

Dimensions of values Service index b

Beta P-value F-value Model P-value R-squareExternal dimension 0.034 0.488Internal dimension 0.207 <0.001 13.782 <0.001 0.051

Dimensions of values Information index b


Dimensions of values Management index b


Dimensions of values Satisfaction index c


Dimensions of values Behavioural intentions index d


Note:a There were 9 values items including 5 external values dimension items and 4 internal values dimension items.The external dimension was created by taking the mean of the 5 external values items. The internal dimensionwas created by taking the mean of the 4 internal values items. The external and internal dimensions served asthe independent variables in each multiple regression model.b There were 23 service quality items including 10 facility items, 4 service items, 5 information items, and4 management items. The service quality index was created by taking the mean of the 23 service quality items.The facility index was created by taking the mean of the 10 facility items. The ser vice index was createdby taking the mean of the 4 service items. The information index was created by taking the mean of the5 information items. The management index was created by taking the mean of the 4 management items.c The satisfaction index was created by taking the mean of the 3 satisfaction items.d The behavioural intentions index was created by taking the mean of the 4 behavioural intentions items. Theservice quality, facility, service, information, management, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions indices servedas the dependent variable respectively in each multiple regression model.

90


3 An itemisation of Hofstede’s measure of valuesused in this study is available from the lead authorupon request.

4 Based on the exclude case listwise solution, theoverall response rate of Hofstede’s measure of valuesitems was 64 per cent. For the three groups, the re-sponse rates for Hong Kong resident, Mainlander, andWestern were 60, 59, and 74 per cent respectively.

Table 7. Comparison of socio-demographic and trip characteristics among HK resident, mainlander andwestern

be because of the relative heterogeneity insocio-demographics and trip characteristicsof the sample (see Table 7). The heterogene-ous socio-demographic and trip profile mightalso reflect little within-group homogeneityof values, especially for the major nominalethnic groups traditionally used for compara-tive purposes (Li, Chick, Zinn, Absher, &Graefe, 2007).

Another reason why responses of valuesdid not follow the same patterns found inother studies might be due to the difficulty ofmeasuring values cross-culturally (Shelby,Vaske, & Donnelly, 1996; Zinn, Manfredo,Vaske, & Wittmann, 1998). Values are re-garded as one of the most abstract types ofsocial cognition and are often indirect andhard to identify (Kahle, 1983). When differ-ent cultures interact, values may become am-biguous (Rokeach, 1973). In this study, statis-tics for Hofstede’s five-dimension modelshowed a poor fit using CFA according toseveral indicators, such as Goodness of FitIndex and Normed Fit Index. Values are acti-vated when certain conditions are met(Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1992). In otherwords, values are usually brought to one’smind through response to a stimulus. How-ever, when respondents in the present studywere asked Hofstede’s values questions,many objected, saying that those cultural

questions were too abstract, too direct, orunrelated to their recreation trip.

Furthermore, in comparison to Kahle’sLOV measure (e.g., sense of belonging, senseof accomplishment, warm relationships withothers), some items in Hofstede’s measure(e.g., inequalities among people are bothexpected and desired, less powerful peopleshould be dependent on the more powerful)3

sometimes seemed too direct and evenoffensive. Respondents tended to skip thoseitems that seemed unfriendly or provocative.4

The relatively high level of abstraction ofHofstede’s items might also explain the fail-ure of EFA to identify interpretable dimen-sions of values in this study (Torelli & Kaikati,2009).

LOV in the parks and recreation context:Although the findings of CFA to the LOVitems indicated a poor fit for the original four-dimension model, the EFA clearly revealedtwo dimensions of values in a park and rec-

91


5 According to Cohen (1988), R2 values of .01,.09, and .25 could be used to denote small, medium,and large effects, respectively, in behavioural sciences.

reation context. These two new dimensions,external and internal, well captured themeaning of the LOV measure and providedgood face validity. The initial four dimen-sions were reorganized and combined intotwo dimensions with acceptable reliabilityand provided an unambiguous and parsimo-nious approach to interpret the seeminglycomplex values. When analyzing the differ-ences between these two dimensions of val-ues among three ethnic groups, we foundthe external dimension did not differ signifi-cantly among groups. This result indicatedthat external values such as sense of belong-ing, warm relationship with others, and beingwell respected by others, were equally impor-tant to the three ethnic groups. Perhapsthose who like to visit parks and recreationareas share consensus patterns such assense of harmony, and these patterns arereflected in their values. In other words, thefindings implied that the external orientedvalues may be universal to the three culturalgroups.

On the other hand, those who identifiedthemselves as Westerners tended to rate in-ternal values, such as self-fulfilment, sense ofaccomplishment, fun and enjoyment in life,and excitement, as more important thanthose who identified themselves as HongKonger or Mainlander. This might be be-cause Western-oriented visitors were morelikely to de-emphasize tolerance, obedience,communal obligations, and duty in life, butgave more emphasis to achievement, com-petitiveness, hedonism, self-expression, self-esteem, choices of life style, and quality oflife. This is consistent with earlier researchfindings (e.g., Hall, 1976; Reisinger & Turner,1999) showing values differences betweenWestern and Oriental cultures.

The predictive validity checks from allmultiple regression models were significantat the .001 level but the R-square of all mod-els ranged from 5 per cent to 12 per cent,which was not strong.5 The findings echo a

number of studies of ethnicity and leisurewhere the researchers achieved statistical sig-nificance but accounted for little of the vari-ance (Chick, Li, Zinn, Absher, & Graefe,2007; Li, Chick, Zinn, Absher, & Graefe,2007). In addition, since the internal dimen-sion was repeatedly significant in predictingperceived service quality, satisfaction, andbehavioural intentions in all multiple regres-sion models, to some extent this internal di-mension (which included self-fulfilment,sense of accomplishment, fun and enjoymentin life, and excitement), possessed more pre-dictive power than did the external dimen-sion. While the combined effect of these twodimensions demonstrated acceptable predic-tive validity, we feel that better measures areneeded. In other words, the practical signifi-cance of having 5 per cent to 12 per cent ofthe variance accounted for suggests thatthere was, in fact, something there but themeasurement method used for values dimen-sions was simply not accounting for it verywell. We suggest that it is essential to exploreother measures of values, for example,Schwartz’ Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992) andtest their explanatory power to predict servicequality and subsequent variables in parks andrecreation.

ConclusionThe testing of Hofstede’s measure of val-

ues and the LOV suggests that values, asmeasured in the park and recreation context,need to be further refined to be more mean-ingful and useful. In particular, Hofstede’smeasures of values require additional study todetermine their appropriateness in the parkand recreation context. If, for example, weconsider criterion-related validity, with differ-entiating ethnically diverse park visitors as thecriterion, then Hofstede’s measure fails. Nev-ertheless, the valid measurement of valuescross-culturally among diverse ethnic groupsusing multiple data sets across different set-tings may help us explore the effects of cul-tural values on leisure behaviour and enhanceniche parks and recreation management(Vaske & Manning, 2008).

92


REFERENCES

Absher, J.D. (1998). Customer service measuresfor national forest recreation. Journal of Park and Rec-reation Administration, 16(3), 31-42.

Barth, F. (1996 orig, 1969). Ethnic groups andboundaries. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with la-tent variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Chick, G.E. (2000). Editorial: Opportunities forcross-cultural comparative research on leisure. LeisureSciences, 22, 79-91.

Chick, G.E., Li, C....., Zinn, H.C., Absher, J. & Graefe,A.R. (2007). Ethnicity as a construct in leisure re-search: A rejoinder to Gobster. Journal of Leisure Re-search, 39(3), 554-566.

Clark, T. (1990). International marketing and na-tional character: A review and proposal for an integra-tive theory. Journal of Marketing, 54(October), 66-79.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for thebehavioral sciences. 2nd Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Cronin, J.J., Brady M.K., & Hult, G.T.M. (2000).Assessing the effects of quality, value and customersatisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions inservice environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2),193-218.

Cross, S., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self:Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin,122, 5-37.

Donthu, N. & Yoo, B. (1998). Culture influenceson service quality expectations. Journal of Service Re-search, 1(2), 178-86.

Forgas, J.P. & Bond, M.H. (1985). Cultural influ-ences on the perception of interaction episodes. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 75-88.

Furrer, O., Liu, B.S., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). Therelationships between cultural and service quality per-ceptions – Basic for cross-cultural market segmenta-tion and resource allocation. Journal of Service Re-search, 2(4), 355-371.

Gobster, P.H. (2007). Comments on the paper“Ethnicity as a variable in leisure research” byChieh-Lu Li et al. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(3),546-553.

Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY:Anchor.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: In-ternational differences in work-related values. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations:Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences:Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organi-zations across nations. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. & Bond, M.H. (1984). Hofstede’s cul-tural dimensions: An independent validation usingRokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 15(4), 417-433.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization andpostmodernization: Cultural, economics, and politicalchange in 43 societies. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press.

Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., Bergstrom, J. C., &Cordell, K. H. (2004). Wilderness values in America:Does immigrant status or ethnicity matter? Societyand Natural Resources, 17, 611-628.

Kahle, L.R. (Ed.) (1983). Social values and socialchange: Adaptation to life in America. New York:Praeger.

Kahle, L.R. (1986). The nine nations of NorthAmerica and the value basis of geographic segmenta-tion. Journal of Marketing, 50, 37-47.

Kahle, L.R., Beatty, S.E., & Homer, P.M. (1986).Alternative measurement approaches to consumervalues: The List of Values (LOV) and Values and Life-styles (VALS). Journal of Consumer Research, 13,405-409.

Kahle, L.R., Poulos, B., & Sukhdial, A. (1988).Changes in social values in the United States duringthe past decade. Journal of Advertising Research, 28,35-41.

Kroeber, A.L. & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: Acritical review of concepts and definitions. Papers ofthe Peabody Museum of American Archaeologyand Ethnology, Vol. 47, Cambridge, Mass: HarvardUniversity Press.

Li, C. (2006). Exploring the relationship betweenthe segments of cross-cultural values and forest tour-ism service quality. e-Review of Tourism Research,4(6), 137-144.

Li, C. (2009). Why do people travel to naturebased tourism destinations? In Proceedings of the40th Travel and Tourism Research Association AnnualConference. 21-24, June 2009. Honolulu, Hawaii,U.S.A. 8pp.

Li, C., Absher, J., Graefe, A.R. & Hsu, Y., (2008).Research reflections – Services for culturally diversecustomers in parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences,30(1), 87-92.

Li, C., Absher, J.D., Hsu, Y. & Graefe, A.R.(2008). Approaches to measuring cultural diversity inrecreation. In D. J. Chavez, P. L. Winter, & J. D.Absher, (Eds.). Recreation visitor research: Studies ofdiversity (General Technical Report PSW-GTR-210,pp. 207-216). Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest ResearchStation.

Li, C., Chick, G.E., Zinn, H.C., Absher, J. & Graefe,A.R. (2007). Ethnicity as a variable in leisure research.Journal of Leisure Research, 39(3), 514-545.

93


CHIEH-LU LIDepartment of Forestry

National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan

GARRY E. CHICKDepartment of Recreation, Park, and Tourism

ManagementThe Pennsylvania State University, USA

HOMER C. WUGraduate Institute of Sustainable Tourism and

Recreation ManagementNational Taichung University, Taiwan

TIAN-MING YENDepartment of Forestry

National Chung Hsing University, Taiwan

Address for correspondence:

CHIEH-LU LIDepartment of Forestry

National Chung Hsing University250, Kuo Kuang Road, Taichung, Taiwan.

E-mail address:[email protected] or [email protected].

✴ ✴ ✴

Li, C., Lai, P.C., Chick, G.E., Zinn, H.C., & Graefe,A.R. (2007). Cross-cultural models of customer serv-ice: The case of Hong Kong country park recreation.Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,25(3), 41-66.

Li, C., Zinn, H.C., Chick, G.E., Absher, J., Graefe,A.R. & Hsu, Y. (2007). Segmentation of culturallydiverse visitors’ values in forest recreation manage-ment. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 81(1/2),19-29.

Liu, B.S., Furrer, O., & Sudharshan, D. (2001). Therelationships between culture and behavioral inten-tions toward services. Journal of Service Research,4(2), 118-129.

Madrigal, R. (1995). Personal values, traveller per-sonality type, and leisure travel style. Journal of LeisureResearch, 27(2), 125-142.

Mattila, A. S. (1999). The role of culture in theservice evaluation process. Journal of Service Re-search, 1(3), 150-61.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of na-tional cultural differences and their consequences:A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Re-lations, 55(1), 89-118.

Naylor, G. (1996). How consumers determinevalue: A new look at inputs and process. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona,Tucson, AZ.

Reisinger, Y. & Turner, L. (1999). A cultural analy-sis of Japanese tourists: Challenges for tourism mar-keters. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11/12),1203-1227.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values.New York: Free Press.

Salant, P, &, Dillman, D, A, (1994). How to con-duct your own survey. New York: Wiley Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the contentand structure of values: Theoretical advances andempirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25,pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.

Shelby, B., Vaske, J.J., & Donnelly, M.P. (1996).Norms, standards, and natural resources. Leisure Sci-ences, 18(2), 103-123.

Sondergaard, M. (1994). Hofstede’s conse-quences: A study of reviews, citations and replications.Organization Studies, 15(3), 447-456.

Straus, M.A. (2009). The national context effect:An empirical test of the validity of cross-national re-search using unrepresentative samples. Cross-CulturalResearch, 43, 183-205

Swartz, M. (2001). On the substance and usage ofculture’s elements. Cross-Cultural Research, 35, 179-200.

Torelli, C.J. & Kaikati, A.M. (2009). Values as pre-dictors of judgments and behaviors: The role of ab-

stract and concrete mindsets. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 96(1), 231-247.

Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., & Petruzzi, J.P. (1996).Country of origin, encounter norms, and crowdingin a frontcountry setting. Leisure Sciences, 18,161-176.

Vaske, J. J. & Manning, R.E. (2008). Analysis ofmultiple data sets in outdoor recreation research:Introduction to the special issue. Leisure Sciences,30(2), 93-95.

Weisberg, H.F., Krosnick, J.A., & Bowen, B.D.(1996). An introduction to survey research, polling,and data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-tions, Inc.

Wong, F.Y. (1997). Recreational use of Hong Kongcountry parks: An analysis of patterns and demand.Unpublished doctoral thesis. The University of HongKong, Hong Kong.

World Tourism Organization. (2008). http://www.unwto.org/index.php, July 25 2009, 2:29 pm.

Zinn, H.C., Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., &Wittmann, K. (1998). Using normative beliefs to deter-mine the acceptability of wildlife management actions.Society & Natural Resources, 11, 649-662.

Documents

Research papers - ntcu.edu.tw