The Relationship between Personal Values and Behaviours in a Tourism Context
248
The Relationship between Personal Values and Behaviours in a Tourism Context Sheng YE This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Western Australia Business School Marketing 2017
Transcript of The Relationship between Personal Values and Behaviours in a Tourism Context
The Relationship between Personal Values and
Behaviours in a Tourism Context
Sheng YE
This thesis is presented for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Western Australia
Business School
Marketing
2017
THESIS DECLARATION I, SHENG YE, certify that:
This thesis has been substantially accomplished during enrolment in the degree. This
thesis does not contain material which has been accepted for the award of any other
degree or diploma in my name, in any university or other tertiary institution.
No part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission in my name, for any
other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior
approval of The University of Western Australia and where applicable, any partner
institution responsible for the joint-award of this degree. This thesis does not contain
any material previously published or written by another person, except where due
reference has been made in the text.
The work(s) are not in any way a violation or infringement of any copyright, trademark,
patent, or other rights whatsoever of any person. The research involving human data
reported in this thesis was assessed and approved by The University of Western
Australia Human Research Ethics Committee Approval:
Values and behaviours in tourism context. RA/4/1/6949
The work described in this thesis was funded by
Scholarship for international Research Fees China (IRFSC)
Top-Up Scholarship for China SIRF scholarships
Australian Government through the Australian Research Council
(DP110104152)
This thesis contains published work and/or work prepared for publication, some of
which has been co-authored.
Signature:
Date: 13/07/2017
i
ABSTRACT
This doctoral thesis examines the relations between personal values and behaviours in
tourism contexts. Personal values are broad life goals that indicate what is important to
people in their lives and serve as guides to people’s attitudes and behaviours. However,
personal values are relatively understudied in the context of tourism. The three
empirical papers that form this thesis seek to examine how people attribute personal
values to others, including tourism destinations, and how personal values impact
decisions making. Tourism was chosen as a context, as the tourism industry is growing
rapidly and contributed $1260 billion worldwide in 2015.
The first paper aimed to understand how people attribute values to others, both people
and destinations. Three studies were designed to test whether perceptions of others’
values reflected Schwartz’s (1992) well-supported theory of human values. Study 1
included 303 American respondents who answered questions about their personal values
and their perceptions of the values of most others in their country. Study 2 examined
152 Australian university students’ personal values and their perceptions of the values of
a fictitious person, who had been on one of four value-expressive holidays. Study 3
investigated 141 Australian tourists’ personal values and their perceptions of the values
of two popular cities: London and the New York City. Findings across the three studies
demonstrate that perceptions of others’ values reflect the known circular structure of
personal values, described in Schwartz’s value theory. This provides the first evidence
of the implicit theories of values that guide people’s perceptions of the values of both
human and non-human entities (i.e., destinations).
The second paper aimed to understand people’s perceptions of destination values in
more detail. It was designed to test a) whether the concept of destination values can be
justified across different samples and destinations and b) whether differences in
ii
perceived destination values can be attributed to respondents’ characteristics and
experiences. Current research examined 198 Australian tourists who answered questions
about their personal values, perceptions of the values of a recent memorable destination,
and why the holiday was memorable. Findings show the perceived structure of
destination values reflect the known circular structure of personal values, but that
tourists also differ widely in their perceptions of a destination values priorities. While
individual differences did not account for these differences, the reasons tourists gave for
why their holiday was memorable reflected their perceptions of the destination values.
Together, this provides support for the concept of destination values as a potential
positioning tool for destination marketers.
The third paper aimed to understand the effect of personal values on travel behaviours
across holiday situations. To do this, this study integrates the Schwartz’s value theory
with the well tested theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to examine the impact of values
on the antecedents of behaviour in tourism contexts, for the first time. The study was
designed to explore the impact of personal values priorities on all three TPB
behavioural antecedents: attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control.
A sample of 299 Australian university students completed the survey online at two
different points in times. At time 1, they answered questions about their own personal
values. At time 2 (3 months later), they answered questions about four different value-
expressive holiday types. Findings demonstrate that the congruence between the two
bipolar values dimensions (self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence and openness to
change vs. conservation) and the holiday type positively impacts attitudes, subjective
norms and perceived behavioural control for all four value-congruent holidays. This
provides the first evidence of the effect of personal values on guiding people’s holiday
decisions across contexts.
iii
In summary, this thesis provides new values theory, methods, and applications in the
context of tourism. It contributes to the academic literature by proposing and
demonstrating support for implicit theories of values. Implicit theories are usually
proposed to understand the relations between similar/dissimilar traits. This is the first
time that a more complex structure of implicit theories has been examined. It also
contributes by providing a new tool to assess destination values. This tool can be used
by both academics and practitioners to understand perceptions of their own and other
destinations values, which can be used to develop a unique position in this competitive
industry. Finally, it contributes to the understanding of how tourists own personal
values impact their decision making.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is impossible to complete such an undertaking without the help of others. First and
foremost, I am very grateful for the loving, support and sacrifices of my parents and my
supervisors.
I would like to acknowledge the following persons who have contributed and helped me
in completing in my research thesis:
I would like to sincerely thank Julie Ann Lee of University of Western Australia who
has been such an outstanding mentor throughout my research from research design,
survey design, data collection, analysis process and thesis writing. Julie’s invaluable
guide, considerable knowledge of the cross-cultural research, particularly in personal
value theory research has made her an invaluable resource whom I have enjoyed
bouncing ideas with. I am especially grateful to her for opening her office and home to
me whenever I have needed advice. I feel privileged to have worked with her. Her
guidance and valuable comments have definitely allowed me to gain greater insights
and knowledge in my research.
My sincere thanks go to Geoff Soutar of University of Western Australia for his
valuable experience in analytical tools that are important for my thesis and guided me
along the way. Geoff’s numerous years of research experience together with his vast
knowledge in the field of consumer behaviour has given both scope and focus to my
own research. I am particularly grateful to him for taking the time to share with me his
hands-on knowledge of statistical techniques. It has been an honour to collaborate with
him on the findings from this thesis.
I would like to express my appreciation to Joanne Sneddon who has quietly driven my
progress with this thesis. Joanne’s considerable knowledge of values theory applications
v
and qualitative research, experimental design and academic writing has given has been
an invaluable guide and I have always thoroughly enjoyed our discussions. In particular,
I really appreciate for her highly efficient and effective work, which definitely made a
huge difference. It has been an inspiriting time to discuss with her on different aspects
of the findings.
To the other PhD candidates in Marketing, thanks for your friendship and support.
And most importantly, to my Mum and Dad; thank you for your unwavering support in
everything I do, and for keeping everything in perspective.
vi
AUTHORSHIP DECLARATION: CO-AUTHORED PUBLICATIONS
This thesis contains work that has been published or prepared for publication.
Details of the work and Location in the thesis:
Implicit Theories of Values Structure (Chapter Three)
Personifying Destinations: A Personal Value Approach (Chapter Four)
Personal Values and the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Study of Values and
Holiday Trade-Offs in Young Adults. (Chapter Five)
Student contribution to the work: 80% for each of the listed work.
Coordinating Supervisor signature and dates
14/07/2017
Student signature:
13/07/2017
I, Julie Ann Lee, certify that the student statements regarding their contribution to
each of the works listed above are correct
Coordinating supervisor signature:
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. iv
AUTHORSHIP DECLARATION: CO-AUTHORED PUBLICATIONS ....................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1.Some Background to the Thesis .............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Research Questions and Aims ................................................................................................ 5
1.3. Significance and Originality .................................................................................................. 7
1.4. The Structure of the Thesis .................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE THREE
PAPERS ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.1. Personal Values Theories ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Personal Values and Perceptions .......................................................................................... 20
2.3. Personal Values and Behaviours .......................................................................................... 22
2.4. Personal Values and Behavioural Models ............................................................................ 26
2.5. Summary .............................................................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER THREE IMPLICIT THEORIES OF VALUES STRUCTURE ................... 33
3.1. Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 34
3.2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 35
3.3. Study 1 ................................................................................................................................. 41
3.4. Method ................................................................................................................................. 41
3.5. Results .................................................................................................................................. 44
3.6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 48
3.7. Study 2 ................................................................................................................................. 48
3.8. Method ................................................................................................................................. 48
3.9. Results .................................................................................................................................. 51
3.10. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 56
3.11. Study 3 ............................................................................................................................... 56
3.12. Method ............................................................................................................................... 56
3.13. Results ................................................................................................................................ 59
3.14. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 63
3.15. General Discussion ............................................................................................................ 63
viii
CHAPTER FOUR PERSONIFYING DESTINATIONS:A PERSONAL VALUES
APPROACH ................................................................................................................... 69
4.1. Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 70
4.2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 71
4.3. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 72
4.4. Study 1 .................................................................................................................................. 78
4.5. Method .................................................................................................................................. 78
4.6. Results .................................................................................................................................. 84
4.7. Discussion............................................................................................................................. 95
CHAPTER FIVE PERSONAL VALUES AND THE THEORY OF PLANNED
BEHAVIOUR: A STUDY OF VALUES AND HOLIDAY TRADE-OFFS IN YOUNG
ADULTS ......................................................................................................................... 99
5.1. Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 100
5.2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 101
5.3. Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 102
5.4. Method ................................................................................................................................ 110
5.5. Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 112
5.6. Results ................................................................................................................................ 113
5.7. Discussion........................................................................................................................... 117
5.8. Limitations and Future Directions ...................................................................................... 119
CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................... 121
6.1. A Summary of the Findings ................................................................................................ 121
6.2. Future Directions ................................................................................................................ 123
6.3. Research Limitations and Future Research ........................................................................ 128
REFERENCE ................................................................................................................ 131
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 157
APPENDIX A. ABSTRACT: Conference IACCP, 2016 .............................................. 158
APPENDIX B. ABSTRACT: Conference AMS, 2017 ................................................. 159
APPENDIX C. PAPER: Tourism Management, 2017 .................................................. 161
APPENDIX D. CHAPTER THREE SURVEY ............................................................ 164
APPENDIX E. CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY ............................................................... 192
APPENDIX F. CHAPTER FIVE SURVEY ................................................................. 197
APPENDIX G. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS ....................................................... 205
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Schwartz’s circular model of human values ................................................. 14
Figure 2.2 Schwartz’s refined value structure ................................................................. 16
Figure 2.3. The theory of reasoned behaviour (TRA) ..................................................... 28
Figure 2.4. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) ....................................................... 30
Figure 3.1. The circular model of the structure of relations ................................................ 38
Figure 3.2 Unfolding solution for personal values (Fig. 3.2a) and perceived most others
values (Fig. 3.2b) ............................................................................................................ 47
Figure 3.3. Unfolding solution for personal values and perceived others values across
the four holiday conditions ............................................................................................. 53
Figure 3.4.The small blue dots represent personal values (person-points) and the small
red triangles represent perceived others values (perceived person-points) ..................... 54
Figure 3.5.Unfolding solution for personal values (3.5a) and perceived destination
values (3.5b) .................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 4.1.The circular model of the structure of relations among ten basic human values and
the four higher order values. .............................................................................................. 75
Figure 4.2. The first of four choice sets for the measurement of destination values. ............. 81
Figure 4.3. Unfolding solution for personal values (a) and perceived destination values
of Bangkok and Paris (b)................................................................................................. 86
Figure 4.4.Leximancer theme map of respondents descriptions of their most memorable
travel experiences ............................................................................................................ 90
Figure 5.1. The circular model of the structure of relations among ten basic human values
and the four higher order values. ...................................................................................... 105
Figure 5.2.The Conceptual Model ................................................................................ 109
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. A List of Rokeach’s (1973) value survey items ............................................. 11
Table 2.2. The revised Schwartz values .......................................................................... 17
Table 3.1 Means, standard deviations of personal values and perceived values of most
others, within-person correlation between personal and others ...................................... 46
Table 3.2 Means and standard deviations of ten basic personal values and perceived
values of fictitious others for each holiday condition. .................................................... 52
Table 3.3 Means and standard deviations of the four higher order values of personal
values and perceived values of fictitious others, main effect of each four higher order
values for its corresponding holiday condition. .............................................................. 55
Table 3.4 Means and standard deviations of personal values and perceived destination
values .............................................................................................................................. 60
Table 4.1. Means and standard deviations of personal values and perceived destination
values of the most memorable holiday destination. ........................................................ 85
Table 4.2. The means and standard deviations of destination values of the three clusters
......................................................................................................................................... 89
Table 5.1. Means, reliability, AVE and correlations for each value dimension holiday
model ............................................................................................................................. 115
Table 5.2. The standardized coefficients and effect sizes for the models ..................... 116
Table 5.3. The path coefficients for the four higher order values and the bipolar value
dimensions on the TPB constructs ................................................................................ 117
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This thesis examines how personal values impact tourists’ behaviour. Past research
suggests values guide attitudes and behaviour. However, the strength of these
relationships varies greatly across situations, suggesting there is a need to examine them
in tourism contexts. Before discussing the research and providing the papers that make
up the heart of the thesis, some background is provided in the next section.
1.1.Some Background to the Thesis
Personal values and behaviour
Personal values are desirable, trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in
people’s lives (Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1960; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). The
study of values and their relationships to attitudes and behaviours has a long history
(Kahle, 1983; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992) across many disciplines, including
psychology and business-related subjects. In psychology, the study of values and their
impact on attitudes and behaviours provides a basis for understanding human cognition
(e.g., Rokeach, 1973). In business, it has extended our understanding of consumption
and preference (Feather, 1995; Hedlund, Marell, & Tommy, 2012; Torelli, Ozsomer,
Carvalho, Keh, & Maehle, 2012; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). However, despite the
importance of understanding values and their impact on behaviour, relatively little
research has examined the critical role personal values play in understanding behaviour
(Bardi & Schwartz, 2003) and the strength of these relationships are not clearly
understood.
There are several reasons for this lack of clarity. First, not all attitudes and behaviours
are value-expressive and the strength of these relationships depends on whether values
2
are activated, as people are not always consciously aware of their value systems
(Schwartz, 1992; Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Second, there are definitional and
operational inconsistencies in values research (Rohan, 2000). Many values instruments
exist, including Rokeach’s (1973) instrumental and terminal values, Kahle’s (1983) list
of values and Schwartz’s (1992) values theory, but not all have a strong theoretical base.
Finally, human behaviour is complex and is influenced by many factors, of which
personal values are only one.
Tourism as the research context
Tourism was chosen as the context for this study, as it is an important industry and one
in which values are likely to impact on people’s decisions. The global tourism industry
generated $US1260 billion in 2015 (UNWTO, 2016). Further, the UNWTO (2016)
forecasts suggest international tourists’ arrivals worldwide will increase to around 1.8
billion in 2030. This industry is important to Australia, as it contributed over $47 billion
to Australia’s GDP in 2015 (Tourism Satellite Account 2014/2015, 2016). However,
competition between travel destinations is fierce, with ten countries attracting 70% of
total visitors, with the rest competing for the remaining 30% (Morgan, Pritchard, &
Pride, 2007). This has made understanding the factors that influence people’s holiday
choices, such as perceptions of destinations and travel decisions, extremely important
for tourism researchers and destination managers. Further, tourism contexts are likely to
activate people’s values, as will be explained in more detail in Chapter Two.
Personal values and destination value perceptions
Over recent decades, tourism research has emphasised the importance of understanding
how tourists perceive destinations (e.g., through researching destination image and
destination personality), so as to develop strategic marketing programs that differentiate
3
these destinations from competitors (e.g., destination branding) (e.g., Ekinci & Hosany,
2006; Morgan & Pritchard, 2004; Pike, 2012) and to generate more favourable attitudes
and intentions (Letheren, Martin, & Jin, 2017). Researchers have suggested the use of
human-like characteristics as a way to induce more favourable feelings than simply
focusing on functional attributes, such as beaches and scenery (Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk,
& Baloglu, 2007). Prior research has, for example, tried to associate human personality
characteristics with destinations (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007; Usakli &
Baloglu, 2011). However, different sets of (relatively cohesive) personality factors
appear across destinations and samples (for examples of inconsistent personality factors
in tourism studies see Murphy et al., 2007 ; and also see Usakli and Baloglu, 2011).
Inconsistencies in the use of destination personality factors have constrained
replicability and generalisability in this field of research.
Given the potential impact personal values have on people’s perceptions (Knafo &
Schwartz, 2001; Sagiv, Sverdlik, & Schwartz, 2011), one of the central aims of the
studies undertaken within this thesis was to examine tourists’ perceptions of destination
values, to see if the personal value characteristics they associate to destinations reflect
the theorized values structure. No prior studies were found that had examined whether
or how such values are attributed to destinations. This is important, as people tend to
interpret the same situation differently based on their motivations, experiences and
social identities, which emphasises the importance of recognising heterogeneity in
tourist markets. Thus, the papers that make up the current project attempted to fill this
gap by seeing whether and how people attribute personal values to destinations at an
individual level and in different contextual settings.
4
Personal values and travel behaviour
Tourism researchers also need to understand people’s travel intentions. Previous studies
have emphasised the importance of travel motivations, which can be defined as “a set of
needs, which predispose a person to participate in a tourist activity” (Pizam, Neumann,
& Reichel, 1979, p.195), as they are essential to understanding tourists’ travel decisions
(Caber & Albayrak, 2016; Huang & Hsu, 2009; Lu, Hung, Wang, Schuett, & Hu, 2016).
Researchers have developed different theoretical frameworks to categorise the wide
variety of tourists’ needs. Popular models include the allocentrism-psychocentrism
model (Plog, 1974), the push and pull model (Dann, 1981), optimal arousal theory (Iso-
Ahola, 1982) and the travel career ladder model (Pearce, 1988). However, these models
generally focused on situation specific, internal psychological needs (Crompton &
McKay, 1997; Fodness, 1994) and were often obtained from exploratory factor analysis.
This resulted in a wide range of different motivations being suggested. For example:
Caber and Albayrak (2016) found “physical setting” and “challenge” were the
most important push motivations, while “novelty seeking” and “tourism
infrastructure” were the most important pull motivations.
Lu et al. (2016) found six outbound travel motivations (knowledge
enhancement, sensation seeking, self-fulfilment, socialising, pleasure seeking
and escape).
Huang and Hsu (2009) found four motivational factors (novelty, knowledge,
relaxation and shopping)
The wide array of situation-specific travel motivations have led to a plethora of
incomparable research outcomes that constrains our understanding and prediction of
travel behaviours, making things difficult for destination managers and researchers.
5
In contrast, personal values, as motivational life goals, are relatively stable across
situations (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992), a characteristic that may add to our
understanding of people’s travel decisions. Prior studies have shown that personal
values impact a wide variety of behaviours, such as gift-giving (Beatty, Kahle, &
Homer, 1991), voting intentions (Caprara, Schwartz, Capanna, Vecchione, &
Barbaranelli, 2006) and intention to recommend a tourist destination (Li & Cai, 2012).
Research has also linked other constructs that, in turn, might impact on behaviours, such
as attitude (Jayawardhena, 2004), personal norms (Nordlund & Garvill, 2003) and
identity (Gecas, 2000). In order to better understand the process through which personal
values influence travel behaviour and the factors that might influence people’s travel
decisions, it is necessary to look at how personal values influence the behavioural
antecedents identified by well-examined behavioural models. However, few studies
have examined the impact personal values have on commonly used consumer behaviour
models, such as the theory of planned behaviour model (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). Further,
such studies focused on the influence specific values (e.g., biosphere values (Han, 2015)
or environmental values (Goh, Ritchie, & Wang, 2017) have on pro-environmental
behaviours. No prior studies were found that examined how values impact on different
holiday contexts.
The current thesis addresses these gaps through three empirical papers, each of which
include quantitative aspects. The overall aim was to build our understanding of how
values impact tourists’ perceptions and decision making.
1.2. Research Questions and Aims
The overall aim of the thesis was to examine the role personal values play in tourism
contexts and, particularly, to understand the ways in which people might attribute values
6
to other people and entities, such as destinations. The thesis also investigated the effect
personal values had on decision making, specifically drawing on the TPB model. In
particular, the research project asked:
1. To what extent do people attribute human values to other entities, both human
and non-human (travel destinations)?
2. What impacts on tourist’s perceptions of a destination’s values?
3. To what extent do values influence behavioural intentions, and their
antecedents, in a tourism context?
These research questions were examined in three empirical papers provided in Chapter
Three, Chapter Four and Chapter Five. The first paper (“The Implicit Theories of Value
Structure”) examined the idea that people have implicit theories of values that help them
understand others. It included three studies that examined:
1. People’s perceptions of values of general others with no other information
provided.
2. A fictitious other with limited value-expressive information provided.
3. City destinations with no other information provided.
The findings suggest people can attribute personal values to the values of others,
including most others’ values and to a fictitious other, as well as to the values of city
destinations and that these attributions follow the theoretical structure described by
Schwartz’s (1992) values theory.
The second paper (“Personifying Destinations: A Personal Value Approach”) explored
destination value perceptions with different destinations. It also looked at the factors
7
that might influence perceptions of destination priorities. There were no relationships
between individual background differences and destination priorities, but there was
evidence of a link between memorable travel experiences and perceptions of a
destination’s values priorities.
The third paper (“Personal values and the theory of planned behaviour: A study of
values and holiday trade-offs in young adults”) examined the effect personal values had
on the antecedents to behaviour found in the TPB model across four different value
expressive holidays. Findings confirmed the suggestion that personal values directly
impact all antecedents to behaviour in the TPB.
1.3. Significance and Originality
The prominent role personal values play in our understanding and prediction of
behaviours has been acknowledged across a number of disciplines, but has received
limited attention in tourism contexts. While travel decisions have been studied
extensively, little attention has been focused on how personal values might be used to
better understand people’s perceptions of destinations and to predict holiday intentions.
Such information would be useful to those developing and implementing marketing
strategies designed to differentiate destinations from their competitors.
The present project combined personal values theory with a newly tested theory to
empirically test people’s implicit theories of values in guiding people’s perceptions of
the values of other people and destinations. The findings should help managers identify
perceptions of destination values and, so, assist in the development of effective
marketing strategies based on such perceptions. Further, the current project integrated
personal values theory with the TPB model for the first time, thereby exploring the
influence a values system had on its antecedent constructs across different holiday
8
contexts. The findings obtained provide insights into the impacts of tourists’ internal
motivational goals and suggest ways they can be used to segment target markets,
enabling marketers to develop appropriate positioning and promotional strategies.
1.4. The Structure of the Thesis
The thesis is presented as a collection of three manuscripts prepared for publication.
Chapter Three, Chapter Four and Chapter Five are manuscripts written for different
journals that have different audiences. Following on from the research aims, the
Chapters relate to the phases of research and each study has its own structure and is
written for the specific journals in which they were published or to which they have
been submitted. As each study was written for publication, each has an introduction, a
literature review and method and results and discussion sections that cover the
important theories and vary in length and detail according to the requirements of the
different journals. Chapter Two summarises the theories that were used in these studies
to provide more detailed information and Chapter Six concludes the thesis and discusses
the three studies’ theoretical contributions and managerial implications. The structure
of the abstract and the headings in Chapter Three, Chapter Four and Chapter Five, differ
according to the style used by the journal for which it is written. The papers found in
Chapter Three and Chapter Four were under review, but not accepted, when the thesis
was submitted. The paper in Chapter Five, on the other hand, was accepted by Tourism
Management in December, 2016 and will be published in October 2017.
9
CHAPTER TWO
BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THE THREE PAPERS
This Chapter provides a background literature review for the three empirical papers. It
covers the development of major personal value theories, research relevant to personal
values and perceptions and research relevant to relationships between personal values
and travel decisions. Following on from this Chapter, each of the papers contains its
own literature review that covers the literature relevant to the study discussed in that
paper.
2.1. Personal Values Theories
The papers in this thesis focus on Schwartz’s (1992) values theory, which is the most
comprehensive values theory used today. However, personal values have a long history.
This section briefly reviews this history to illustrate the importance of the field of
research in understanding human behaviour. Subsequently, the relevant elements of
Schwartz’s values theory are reviewed in more detailed in each paper.
Spranger (1928) was the first to suggest there were values (theoretical, economic,
aesthetic, social, political and religious values in this case) that all people share; with
one value likely to be dominant, with the others less so, and that the dominant value is
likely to differ between individuals. Spranger’s work generated considerable interest
and led to considerable research into human values in the later part of the Twentieth
Century (e.g., Allport, Vernon, & Lindzey, 1960; England, 1967; Kahle, 1983; Rokeach,
1973; Schwartz, 1992).
The next major breakthrough was Rokeach’s (1973) book (The Nature of Human
Values) (which had almost 18,000 Google Scholar citations by June, 2017), which
10
suggested values should be seen as a core concept across the social sciences. He defined
values as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-states of existence
is personality or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-
state of existence” (Rokeach’s (1973, p. 5). Rokeach is credited with two major
breakthroughs in values research, being the first to conceive of values as a system or
organization of beliefs that helps resolve conflicts and guide decisions. He argued all
‘men’ share this values system but they differ in the importance they attach to different
values. Thus, people’s values ranking guides their value-expressive decisions and
resolutions of conflicts. The idea that values differ in their priority is still influential.
Rokeach (1973) also developed the Rokeach Values Survey (RVS), which allowed
researchers to measure general values in a systematic and comparable manner.
Respondents were asked to arrange two sets of value-related items “in order of
importance order to YOU, as the guiding principles in YOUR life” (Rokeach, 1973, p.
27). The first set of 18 items included terminal items that related to people’s goals (e.g.,
wanting a comfortable life or self-respect), while the second set of 18 items included
instrumental items that related to modes of conduct (e.g., being broad-minded or
helpful). Both sets of items can be seen in Table 2.1. While the original RVS generated
rankings for the 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values scores, many researchers also
used rating scales (e.g., Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Ramasamy, Yeung, & Au, 2010).
Rokeach’s instrumental and terminal value items have been found to relate to a wide
range of other constructs, including traits (e.g., the Openness trait correlated with the
terminal value item ‘a world of beauty’ [r=0.30], Dollinger, Leong & Ulicni, 1996), and
behaviours (e.g., the exciting life value correlated with choosing outdoor vacations
[r=0.42], Pizam & Calantone, 1987).
11
Table 2.1. A List of Rokeach’s (1973) value survey items
Terminal items Instrumental items
1. True
Friendship
10. Wisdom 1. Cheerfulness 10. Imagination
2. Mature
Love
11. Salvation 2. Ambition 11. Independence
3. Self-
Respect
12. Family Security 3. Love 12. Intellect
4. Happiness 13. National Security 4. Cleanliness 13. Broad-Mindedness
5. Inner
Harmony
14. A Sense of
Accomplishment
5. Self-Control 14. Logic
6. Equality 15. A World of Beauty 6. Capability 15. Obedience
7. Freedom 16. A World of Peace 7. Courage 16. Helpfulness
8. Pleasure 17. A Comfortable Life 8. Politeness 17. Responsibility
9. Social
Recognition
18. An Exciting Life 9. Honesty 18. Forgiveness
However, the RVS has been criticised as lacking a theoretical underpinning that
provides an understanding of the reasons why people select and/or order values. This
restricts researchers’ ability to understand and predict relationships between values
measured in the RVS and value-expressive behaviours (Braithwaite & Law, 1985;
Schwartz, 2006). However, the RVS continues to be used to study human values and is
the foundation on which several other values measurement instruments have been
developed.
Kahle (1983), for example, developed a short nine-item List of Values (LOV), based on
the RVS, which has been widely used in marketing and tourism research (e.g., Madrigal,
1995; Madrigal & Kahle, 1994; Muller, 1991; Pitts & Woodside, 1986). The LOV has
been used to predict a wide range of consumer behaviours, such as gift-giving (Beatty,
12
Kahle, & Homer, 1991), fashion preferences (Rose, Shoham, Kahle, & Batra, 1994), as
well as behavioural intentions, such as the likelihood of saying positive things to other
people (Li & Cai, 2012).
Kahle’s (1983) LOV shortened the RVS so as to focus on the fulfilment of values, needs
and roles, as suggested by Feather (1975) and Maslow (1954) and on social adaptation
theory (Kahle, 1984; Kahle & Timmer, 1983). He argued Rokeach’s terminal values
accounted for most of the personal-oriented goals across a great number of value-
expressive situations (Kahle, 1983). He also combined some of the more abstract RVS
items (e.g., the LOV “security” item combined the RVS terminal values ”world peace”,
“national security” and “family security”). The values included in the LOV instrument
were:
1. Self-Respect
2. Security
3. Warm Relationships with Others
4. Sense of Accomplishment
5. Self-Fulfilment
6. Sense of Belonging
7. Being Well Respected
8. Fun and Enjoyment in Life
9. Excitement.
People ranked the importance of these nine values (e.g., Kahle, Beatty, & Homer, 1986)
or rated each value on the basis of how important it was in their daily life on a Likert-
type Scale (Homer & Kahle, 1988).
While an advantage of the LOV is its brevity (Kahle & Kennedy, 1988), it has also been
criticised for lacking a theoretical underpinning that provides an understanding of the
13
values’ trade-offs. Further, some of the relationships between values may be viewed as
having conflicting motivations. For instance, Lee, Soutar and Louviere (2007) found the
LOV rating based scores were positively correlated, even those items that might be
considered as conflicting (e.g., “having security in life” and “having an exciting life”).
This, again, limits the ability of the LOV to examine the content of people’s personal
values and to explain value-expressive behaviour, which was central to the current
project.
The next major development in values theory was made by Schwartz (1992), who
proposed and validated a theoretical structure of values, based on a circular motivational
continuum, in which neighbouring values share common motivations and opposing
values have contrasting motivations. In earlier work, Schwartz and Bilsky (1987, 1990)
had suggested eight values that were based on three “universal requirements of human
existence to which all individuals and societies must be responsive: needs of individuals
as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social interaction, and survival and
welfare needs of groups” (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990, p. 878). Schwartz (1992) extended
this work by dividing his continuum into the ten basic values that can be seen in Figure
2.1.
He suggested the values were located in a quasi-circular structure that can be seen in the
Figure and is based on the conflicts and compatibilities that underlie a universal set of
values. Neighbouring values in Figure 2.1 share similar motivations, while opposing
values have conflicting motivations. Thus, actions taken in pursuit of one value may be
compatible or in conflict with other values (Schwartz, 1992, 1996).
14
Figure 2.1. Schwartz’s circular model of human values
Adapted from “Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human
values with a different method of measurement.” Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology , by Schwartz, et al. (2001, p. 522), (© 2017 Sage Publications)
Schwartz (1992) summarised the relationships between the ten values along two bipolar
higher order dimensions. The first dimension contrasts “openness to change” with
“conservation”, which relates to conflicts between “following people’s own intellectual
and emotional interests in unpredictable and uncertain directions versus to preserve the
status quo and the certainty it provides in relationships with close others, institutions,
and traditions” (Schwartz, 1992, p. 43). The second dimension contrasts “self-
enhancement” with “self-transcendence”, referring to the conflict between the extents
“to which people motivated to enhance their own personal interests even at the expense
of others versus the extent to which they motivate people to transcend selfish concerns
and promote the welfare of others, close and distant, and of nature” (Schwartz,1992, p.
15
43-44).
More recently, Schwartz and his colleagues (Schwartz et al., 2012) refined his theory
into a larger number of values (19 in Schwartz et al., 2012 and 20 in Lee et al. 2016) by
splitting some of the original 10 values into facets and adding two new values (i.e., face
and humility) to explain regions between the original 10 values, as can be seen in Table
2.2. These facets (see Figure 2.2) can be aggregated to obtain the original ten values,
four higher order values, as well as several other dimensions, including self-
projection/anxiety-avoidance versus growth/anxiety-free, and personal versus social
outcome focused dimensions (Schwartz et al., 2012).
In Figure 2.2, values on the top half of the circle (e.g., from benevolence to stimulation)
express anxiety-free motivations and are more likely to express growth and self-
expansion. Values on the bottom half of the circle (from conformity to achievement)
reflect concerns with anxiety due to uncertainty in physical and social environment and
are more likely to foster self-protection and uncertain avoidance. Personal focus values
appear on the right of the circle (from self-direction to power) reflecting concerns about
the outcomes for self-benefit. Socially focused values appear on the left of the circle
(from security to universalism) reflecting concerns about the outcomes for the benefit of
others.
16
Figure 2.2 Schwartz’s refined value structure
Adopted from “Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, by Schwartz, et al. (2012, p. 669), (© 2012 American Psychological
Association)
Schwartz developed several instruments to measure these values. The original
instrument was the Schwartz Values Survey (SVS), which has 30 items describing
potential desirable end-states and 26 items describing potentially desirable ways of
acting (Schwartz, 1992). Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each value
item as a guiding principle in their lives on a nine-point scale (ranging from opposed to
my values (-1) to of supreme importance (7)). While data based on this instrument
reflected the theoretical values structure, the SVS was criticised for its length and the
abstract nature of the questions, which require a high level of comprehension ability to
understand their meaning.
17
Table 2.2. The revised Schwartz values
10 Basic
Values
20 Revised Values Conceptual definition in terms of motivational
goals
Self-direction Self-direction-
thought
Freedom to cultivate one’s own ideas and
abilities
Self-direction-action Freedom to determine one’s own actions
Stimulation Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and change
Hedonism Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification
Achievement Achievement Success according to social standards
Power Power-dominance Power through exercising control over people
Power-resources Power through control of material and social
resources
Face Maintaining one’s public image and avoiding
humiliation
Security Security-personal Safety in one’s immediate environment
Security-societal Safety and stability in the wider society
Tradition Tradition Maintaining and preserving cultural, family,
or religious traditions
Conformity Conformity-rules Compliance with rules, laws, and formal
obligations
Humility Recognizing one’s insignificance in the larger
scheme of things
Benevolence Benevolence-
dependability
Being a reliable and trustworthy member of
the in-group
Benevolence-caring Devotion to the welfare of in-group members
Universalism Universalism-
concern
Commitment to equality, justice, and
projection for all people
Universalism-nature Preservation of the natural environment
Universalism-
animals
Preservation of the welfare for all animals
Universalism-
tolerance
Acceptance and understanding of those who
are different from oneself
18
Note. Adapted from “Testing and extending Schwartz refined value theory using a Best-
Worst Scaling approach,” Lee et al., 2016, (© 2017 Sage Publications).
Schwartz et al. (2001) subsequently developed the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ)
to address some of these disadvantages. This instrument used more concrete
descriptions of individuals rather than abstract value items. For instance, the Tradition
item in the SVS was described as, ‘respect for tradition, humble, accepting one’s portion
in life, devotion, modesty’, whereas in the PVQ it was described in the following
scenario, “s/he thinks it is important to do things the way s/he learned from her/his
family. S/he wants to follow their customs and traditions” (Schwartz et al., 2001, p.521).
While the PVQ was easier for respondents, Schwartz et al. (2001) found deviations
between adjacent value items (e.g., the security value items appear in the region formed
by benevolence and universalism value items).
Schwartz and his colleagues also measured the refined values with a PVQ instrument
that asks respondents to rate “How much is the person like you?” on 57 value items
using a 6-point scale (ranging from not like me at all (1) to very much like me (6)). Each
value item describes the important values of individuals (e.g., “Being creative is
important to her/him” measuring self-direction-thought value) (PVQ_R; Schwartz et al.,
2012, p.687). However, when examining the structure of the revised 19 values, the
theorized order of universalism and benevolence values were found to reverse in
different samples (Schwartz et al., 2012). Schwartz and his colleagues argued this result
may due to the measurement method.
In an attempt to clarify the structure of refined values Lee et al. (2016) developed a
Best-Worst Scaling instrument the (BWV-R) to measure a refined set of 20 values (19
refined values plus a new universalism-animals value that was identified in their study.
A balanced incomplete block experimental design (BIBD) was used to generate 21
19
value choice sets, with each choice set containing five value items and in which each
pair of different value items appeared an equal number of times. Respondents were
asked to choose the most and the least important value from the five value items for
each of the 21 value choice sets. Following Louviere, Flynn and Marley (2015), the
value scores were calculated using the simple count method, resulting in a value score
ranging from -1 (representing the least important value to the person) to +1
(representing the most important value to the person).
This quasi-circular structure has been supported in research undertaken in more than 75
countries across different cultures and different types of samples (Schwartz, 2015).
Schwartz (1992) used Guttman’s two dimensional Similarity Structure (SSA) to
examine the distance between value points to reflect associations among value items,
due to their ordinal nature. With the addition of options for ordinal data, SPSS
PROXSCAL MDS (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2012) became more commonly used to plot
value items onto a two dimensional space to examine whether the interrelations among
values fit empirically with the value theory at the sample level. More recently, Borg,
Bardi and Schwartz (2017) introduced a modified unfolding analysis, a particular type
of MDS, to show that the theory is supported across and within individuals. The same
structure has also been found across and within children (Lee, Ye, Sneddon, Collins, &
Daniel, 2017), further justifying the validity of Schwartz’s value structure.
While Schwartz (1992) values theory is commonly used in psychology and marketing, it
is important to note that there are other conceptualisations of values at the individual
and societal level. Inglehart’s (1971) Materialism-Postmaterialism values and House’s
GLOBE Project (Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness) (e.g.,
House, Javidan, Hanges & Dorfman, 2002), both have large scale empirical databases
that are commonly used in political science, management and several other disciplines.
20
Inglehart’s theory draws on Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs and hypothesises that
people’s needs have changed along two major value types: materialism and
postmaterialism. Materialism emphasises physical and economic security, whereas
postmaterialism emphasises belonging, esteem, intellectual and aesthetic satisfaction
(see Inglehart, 1971). House’s GLOBE explores the cultural values in a wide range of
countries and predicts the impact of cultural values on leadership and organizational
effectiveness (e.g., House et al., 2002). However, both of these value concepts are
empirically driven rather than examinations of the underlying structure of value theory.
Therefore, in this thesis, we will concentrate on Schwartz’s value theory.
2.2. Personal Values and Perceptions
This section reviews the relationships between personal values and perceptions of
others’ values. It serves as a supplemental literature review for the paper provided in
Chapter Three (Knowing me knowing you: Implicit theories of values).
Prior studies have examined the relationship between personal values and perceptions.
For instance, Bardi and Schwartz (2003) found people’s personal values (e.g., tradition,
stimulation) relate to their perceptions of familiar others’ (peers, partners) value
expressive behaviours (e.g., observe traditional customs on holidays; do unconventional
things). Vecchione, Caprara, Schoen, Castro, and Schwartz (2012) also found
universalism values (vs. security values) underlie perceptions of the positive (vs.
negative) consequences of immigration. Using Rokeach’s (1973) value survey,
Rentfrow and Gosling (2006) also found people’s personal values influence their
judgments of others’ values.
However, no study has seen whether the structure of personal values exists in people’s
perceptions of others’ values. That is, whether the trade-offs between others’ perceived
21
values reflect the values structure in Schwartz’s (1992) values theory. This led to a
question as to whether people perceive values that share underlying motivations (e.g.,
tradition and conformity) associate positively and values that have conflicting
motivations (e.g., stimulation and conformity) associate negatively within perceptions
of others?
Implicit theories of personality (IPTs) may provide insight into how the relationships
among values might be understood by individuals. IPTs (Bruner & Tagun, 1954, as
cited in Schneider, 1973) refer to the implicit beliefs people hold about the perceived
relationships among personality traits (those that go together and those that do not) to
infer the personality of another person (Critcher & Dunning, 2009). Empirical studies
have examined the relationships among traits in people’s perceptions of others’ traits or
prototypical behaviours, using different instruments, across different situations (e.g.,
Borkenau, 1988, 1990; D’Andrade, 1965; Passini and Norman, 1966). However,
whether the co-occurrence of traits in peoples’ perceptions was simply guided by the
semantic similarity between them remains unclear (Borkenau, 1992).
Critcher and Dunning (2009) shed some light on this when they examined egocentric
pattern projection as another basis for IPTs. They suggested people perceive
relationships between traits in others and reflect on how these traits covary in
themselves. Critcher and Dunning (2009) found consistent support for traits (e.g., warm
and friendly) correlating in the same way (e.g., positive vs. negative) in perceived
others, as they did in the self. Puzakova, Kwak and Taylor (2013) also supported an
egocentric view of IPTs in relation to products. They found consumers tend to project
the relationships among ones’ own personality traits onto the unobservable personality
traits of brand advertisements.
Critcher, Dunning and Rom (2015, p. 412) also found descriptions of others’ traits are
22
not random but, rather, are causally related (e.g., “I am not very wordy because I am
ambitious”. This increases the potential complexity within IPTs. Values have a complex
structure but, if people hold implicit theories of values, the structure of values should be
evident when they make inferences about others’ values, even strangers. However, no
studies has examines the implicit theories of values. This thesis, therefore, investigated
whether people hold implicit theories of values that reflect a known structure of values
when they form the impressions of others, even in situations of no or little information
about the other.
2.3. Personal Values and Behaviours
This section reviews the major theoretical relations between personal values and
behaviours. It serves as a supplemental literature review for Chapter Five (Personal
values and the theory of planned behaviour: A study of values and holiday trade-offs in
young adults).
While many researchers have stressed the influence personal values have on behaviour,
empirical studies have often found insignificant or weak to moderate relationships.
Examples of behaviours that had at least a moderate relationship with specific values,
include voting for the Liberal Party in Israel (self-direction r = 0.51; Schwartz, 1996)
and an intention to choose a club focused on welfare or environmental issues
(universalism r = 0.41; Feather, 1975). Those with weaker relationships, include the use
of alcohol (hedonism r = 0.12; Schwartz, et al., 2001) and the choice of a job offering
opportunities for independence, freedom, and creativity, but less security (self-direction
r = 0.16; Feather, 1995). There are also examples of insignificant relationships,
including Kahle’s (1983) external values (combining the sense of security, sense of
belonging and fun and excitement items) and travel behaviours (say positive things,
recommending, encouraging a visit and revisiting) (Li & Cai, 2012). Thus, the
23
relationship between values and behaviours is not clear-cut.
As noted in Chapter One, there are several reasons for this lack of clarity. First, not all
behaviours are value-expressive. The strength of a value-behaviour relationship depends
on whether values are activated (Schwartz, 1992; Torelli & Kaikati, 2009; Vallacher &
Wegner, 1987; Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Second, there have been definitional and
operational inconsistencies in values research (Rohan, 2000). As noted earlier, a number
of values scales are commonly used; only some of which have a strong theoretical
underpinning. Finally, human behaviour is complex and influenced by many factors.
Therefore, to better understand the link between values and behaviours, a systematic
examination of the associations between values and behaviours is necessary.
A few papers have suggested conditions in which the values-behaviour link is likely to
be activated and strong. These conditions may be useful in explaining the different
findings about the strength of the values-behaviour relationship. They can be combined
into three main categories, namely when:
1. Conflicting values are activated (Schwartz, 1992),
2. The behaviour is central to a person’s self-concept (Verplanken & Holland, 2002),
3. Construal is abstract rather than concrete (Torelli & Kaikati, 2009; Vallacher &
Wegner, 1987).
Condition 1: Conflicting values are activated. According to values theory, values are
likely to be activated when there is conflict (e.g., Schwartz, 1992). Feather (1995) found
moderate values to behaviour relationships when a scenario suggested a conflict
between universalism and its opposing power value. Specifically, students were asked to
“decide between running for political office in a student organization, thereby gaining
social recognition, influence, and authority, or joining an organization that respects
24
equality and open-mindedness and that tries to work out solutions to universal problems
concerned with peace, social justice, and the environment” (Feather, 1995, p. 1140). He
found universalism was positively (r = .41), and power was negatively (r= -.37) related
to the choice of joining an organization concerned with universal issues (e.g., peace,
social justice and the environment) rather than running for office.
Condition 2: Behaviour is central to a person’s self-concept. Verplanken and Holland
(2002) suggested that, when a situation is seen as relevant to values that are central to a
person’s self-concept, these values are likely to be activated and to guide behaviour. As
an example, Schwartz (1996) found self-direction was positively (r=0.51) related to
voting for the Liberal Party in Israel. He argued that, in Israel, civil liberties and law and
order are critical for many people and that the Arab-Israeli conflict makes liberalism
especially salient and relevant to people’s self-concept. Thus, the behaviour of people
who see self-direction values as important will be guided by such values.
Condition 3: The construal is abstract rather than concrete. Several scholars have
suggested that, when the cognitive representation of behaviour is at a highly abstract
level, situation relevant values are likely to be activated (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003;
Freitas, Gollwitzer & Trope, 2004; Schwartz, 1992; Torelli & Kaikati, 2009; Vallacher
& Wegner, 1987 ). This is in line with action identification theory (Vallacher & Wegner,
1987) and construal level theory (Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2003).
Abstract representations of behaviour are relatively decontextualized, goal relevant
representations that include general, superordinate, and essential information about an
action; whereas concrete representations of a behaviour are relatively contextualized,
goal irrelevant representations that include more detail, specific, subordinate
information about an action (Trope & Liberman, 2003; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). For
example, an abstract construal of a family trip to Thailand might involve thinking about
25
how much the family would enjoy the trip and how relaxed they would be after the trip,
whereas, a concreted construal of the same situation might involve thinking about the
kind of activities the family might participate and the type of accommodation they
might prefer to stay. Thus, it is possible different people can construe the same situation
as abstract or concrete.
Prior research supports this suggestion. For example, Torelli and Kaikati (2009) found
benevolence was positively related to intention to help a friend move to a new
apartment in an abstract primed condition (r= 0.43), but this was not the case when a
concrete condition was primed. It seems values as abstract constructs are more strongly
related to behaviours that are also represented at an abstract level, rather than a concrete
level (Eyal, Sagristano, Trope, Liberman, & Chaiken, 2009; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz
& Bilsky, 1987). Thus, when a values-behaviour relation is weak or non-existent, it
may partly be due to the construal of the situation.
Several factors have been found to influence the level of abstraction, including the
psychological distance of an event (Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman, 2006;
Trope & Liberman, 2003), situational familiarity, learning and enactment time and task
complexity (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Torelli and Kaikati (2009) suggested people
are more likely to form an abstract construal when a situation is presented as:
Hypothetical.
Socially distant (e.g., self vs. others; in groups vs. out of groups, actual vs.
possible identity).
In the distant future (e.g., next year vs. tomorrow)
In a remote geographical location (Trope & Liberman, 2003).
Eyal et al. (2009) found nine out of Schwartz’s ten values had a strong relationship (e.g.,
26
stimulation r= 0.58) with distant future events, such as attending a family reunion or
preparing a guest list for a friend’s party sometime in the next few months. Further,
Vallacher and Wegner (1987) suggested the more unfamiliar a situation, the longer
learning and enactment time and the greater complexity of a task, the higher was the
probability for an abstract rather than a concrete level of construal. However, these
factors may vary between individuals (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Consequently, most
researchers have primed construal levels to examine the effect of thinking about the
concrete or abstract aspects of a task.
In sum, value-behaviour relationships are likely to be stronger when the behaviour is
central to a person’s self-concept, evokes a conflict between values or can be construed
in an abstract manner. This last point may be especially relevant to marketing, as
promotion materials can be developed to prime an abstract level construal. For instance,
cosmetic commercials often try to evoke an abstract construal level by building ideal
images of the appeal a customer would obtain by using a product, rather than focusing
on the concrete details of a product (e.g., cost or care instructions).
Relatively strong values-behaviour relations might be found in tourism contexts, as the
four psychological distance variables (time, hypothetical, social and space) discussed
are all relevant to this context. Travel, especially international travel, is usually distant
in time, space, and social (self vs. other) elements and is often thought about in
hypothetical terms, when planning potential trips. Consequently, the current research
project used tourism contexts to examine value-behaviour relationships.
2.4. Personal Values and Behavioural Models
This section reviews two major theoretical behavioural models (the Theory of Reasoned
Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and its revised form the Theory of Planned Behaviour
27
(Ajzen, 1991) and discusses how values might impact each of the behavioural
antecedents in these models. This serves as a supplemental literature reviews for
Chapter Five (Personal values and the theory of planned behaviour: A study of values
and holiday trade-offs in young adults).
As noted, personal values not only guide people’s behaviours (e.g., Bardi & Schwartz,
2003) but are also antecedents of behaviours (e.g., attitudes, Allen, Ng, & Wilson, 2002;
Rose et al., 1994). Accordingly, to better understand the effect personal values have on
travel behaviour, it is important to integrate values theory with behavioural models that
have been well developed and tested in predicting and understanding travel behaviour.
Two theoretical models; namely The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory
of Planned Behaviour (TPB), which have been widely used to explain the psychological
process involved in travel behaviours, are discussed in t subsequent sections. These two
models are interrelated. The TRA presumes an individual’s attitudes and subjective
norms influence their intention to perform behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The
TPB builds on the TRA by adding the effect of perceived behavioural control on
behaviour, in response to the limitations of the TRA, which Ajzen (1991) acknowledged
as being limited to behaviour completely under the individual’s control.
The Theory of Reasoned Action
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) assumes people’s behaviour is rational, as their
behaviour is based on an evaluation of available information. According to the logic of
the TRA (shown in Figure 2.2), behaviour is directly predicted by intentions that, in
turn, is influenced by attitudes and subjective norms. Attitude toward behaviour refers
to the “individual’s positive and negative evaluation of performing the behaviour”
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980, p. 6). If a person’s behavioural belief is in favour of
28
performing the action, the person is more likely to undertake that action. Subjective
norms refer to “the person’s perception that important others desire the performance or
non-performance of a specific behaviour; this perception may or may not reflect what
the important others actually think he should do” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 57). This
refers to the social pressure exerted to engage in a particular behaviour (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980). Therefore, when a person evaluates an action outcome positively and
believes important others think s/he should perform the behaviour, it is more likely the
person will intend to perform it.
The applicability of TRA in studying intentions and behaviour has been confirmed by
researchers in many fields. These include moral behaviour (Vallerand, Deshaies,
Cuerrier, Pelletier, & Mongeau, 1992), university class attendance (Fredricks & Dossett,
1983), and gambling behaviour (Moore & Ohtsuka, 1997, 1999). However, researchers
have also raised questions concerning the limitations of TRA.
Figure 2.3. The theory of reasoned behaviour (TRA)
Adapted from Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, by Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980 p.100 (© 2017 by Pearson Education).
One of the major limitations of the TRA is its theoretical assumptions. The TRA
assumes that most actions of social relevance are under volitional control (Ajzen &
Attitudes
toward
behaviors
Subjective
Norms
Behavioral
Intention Behavior
29
Fishbein, 1980, p. 5). This implies the TRA can predict and explain behaviour variance
well only if behaviours are completely under a person’s control (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen &
Madden, 1986; Fishbein & Stasson, 1990). However, this assumption is unlikely to be
satisfied in most social behaviour situations. The model does not reflect situations in
which people have little control over their behaviours or when they give the behaviour
little consideration (e.g., habitual or irrational behaviours). This limits the model’s
applicability to travel behaviours, which are relatively costly and often include other
people.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Madden, 1986)
extended the TRA by adding perceived behavioural control as another antecedent of
intentions and behaviour. Perceived behavioural control refers to “the perceived ease or
difficulty of performing the behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 122). In other words, the
greater ability, resources and opportunities people believe they possess, the greater their
confidence in having perceived control over the behaviour and the greater likelihood
there is of the intended behavioural achievement (Ajzen & Madden, 1986). This
extension allows researchers to predict and understand behaviour when situations of
incomplete volitional control are presented. Not surprisingly, the importance of
perceived behavioural control in predicting behavioural intentions and actual behaviour
has been widely studied by researchers (e.g.,Cheng, Lam, & Hsu, 2006; Conner &
Abraham, 2001; Taylor & Todd, 1995).
The TPB suggests individual’s execution of a behavioural plan depends not only on
their behavioural and normative beliefs towards the performance of the behaviour, but
also on a person’s perception of control over other factors (Ajzen, 1991). That is, the
TPB assumes people are likely to carry out behaviour if they believe:
30
1. Such behaviour will lead to favourable outcome.
2. Their important referents think they should do the behaviour.
3. They have the necessary resources, abilities and opportunities to perform
such behaviour (Lam & Hus, 2006).
Further, as can be seen in Figure 2.3, the perception of behavioural control directly
impacts intentions, as well as the actual behaviour.
Figure 2.4. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB)
Adapted from “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, by Ajzen, 1991, p.182. (© 2017 by Elsevier)
Studies investigating the TPB in various disciplines have demonstrated improvement in
the prediction of intentions and behaviour over the TRA model. In tourism, the TPB has
been used to understand leisure and tourism behaviours, such as consumers’ intention to
choose restaurants (Cheng, et al., 2006), green hotel marketers’ decision-making
processes (Han & Kim, 2010) and intentions to visit destinations (Lam & Hsu 2006;
Quintal, Lee & Soutar, 2010). These studies generally found the TPB model to be useful
in explaining tourists’ behavioural intentions.
Attitudes
toward
behaviors
Subjective
norms
Behavioral
Intention Behavior
Perceived
behavioral
controls
31
Personal values and The TPB constructs
Aizen and Fishbein (2005) suggested individual differences, such as personal values,
are likely to impact on the three antecedents to behavioural intentions in their model. As
noted previously, personal values have been found to influence people’s focus of
attention (Verplanken & Holland, 2002) and are standards that guide people’s decisions
(Rokeach, 1973). This tends to make values-relevant information more accessible and,
thus, strengthen salient beliefs about the consequences of behaviours (attitude toward
performing the behaviours).
In a similar way, personal values may also influence our perceptions of others, including
what we think they would like us to do and our motivation to comply with such wishes
(i.e., subjective norms). For instance, people who value conformity are more likely to
adhere to social norms (Schwartz et al., 2012). This suggests personal values may also
influence people’s subjective norms.
Finally, there is evidence that personal values influence perceived behavioural control.
Previous research found openness to change values of self-direction, hedonism, and
stimulation were positively related to people’s perceived control over their own life [r =
.04 to .15], whereas, the Conservation values of tradition, conformity, and security, as
well as power, were negatively related to perceived control over life [r = -.02 to -.11]
(Bobowik, Basabe, Paez, Jimenez, & Bilbao, 2011)
One study has examined the effect personal values have on attitudes toward behaviours
within the TPB model (Hansen, 2008). However, this study did not examine the
influence personal values had on other TPB constructs (i.e., subjective norms and
perceived behavioural control). The paper in Chapter 5 fills this gap by examining the
effect personal values have on all three antecedents.
32
2.5. Summary
This Chapter reviewed the key theories and constructs relevant to the thesis and
highlighted research that was relevant to the current research, but that was not detailed
in the literature reviews found in the three papers (Chapter Three, Chapter Four and
Chapter Five). The review summarised the development of values theory and identified
the reasons why Schwartz’s (1992) values theory was chosen as the main focus of the
thesis. It also reviewed the research relevant to personal values and perceptions that led
to the identification of the implicit theories of values that is further developed in the
paper outlined in Chapter Three and extended to include brand and destination
personality in Chapter Four. The current chapter also described the TRA and the TPB
models that were the focus on Chapter Five and reviewed the literature that informed
the hypotheses about the impact personal values have on the TPB constructs that were
tested in the paper provided in Chapter Five. As was noted earlier, the literature review
in this Chapter was designed to provide some background details that were not included
in the three papers. All of the relevant methodology, results and implications are
discussed in these papers and are then integrated into the discussion that is provided in
Chapter Six.
33
CHAPTER THREE
IMPLICIT THEORIES OF VALUES STRUCTURE
This paper entitled “Implicit theories of values structure” by Ye, S., Lee, J. A., Sneddon,
J. N., Soutar, G. N., Bardi, A. (2017) has been submitted to an international journal for
consideration of journal publication.
Chapter Three contains the first paper presented in this thesis. The paper explored the
role of personal values in guiding people’s perceptions of others’ values. This paper
demonstrates the first evidence of the implicit theories of values in guiding people’s
perceptions of other human and non-human (destination) values. Aspects of this paper
were presented at the International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Conference in 2016 (Appendix A) and at the Academy of Marketing Science
Conference in 2017 (Appendix B).
34
Implicit Theories of Values Structure
3.1. Abstract
Objective: To examine whether people hold implicit theories of personal values that
reflect the conflicts and compatibilities in the known universal structure of personal
values.
Method: We analyse responses from three samples (a general population sample in the
United States, a university student sample in Australia, and a general population sample
in Australia) who responded to different target entities (general others N=303, 77%
female; a fictitious other N=152, 38% female and two cities N=141, 66% female) and
values measures. Results were assessed with unfolding analysis and mean differences.
Results: Across all three studies, we demonstrate that the known circle of relations
among values organizes the perceptions of the values of other human and nonhuman
entities, such as cities that cannot possess personal values.
Conclusions: Current finding suggests that the value structure is so deeply engrained in
our psyche that we implicitly use it when judging the values of others human and
nonhuman entities, and regardless of whether people are aware of it. This initial finding
can lead to many new future studies in research on perceptions of others.
35
3.2. Introduction
How do we make up information on people’s values beyond what we see? In daily
interpersonal interactions, people form impressions of others’ personalities, which go
beyond what they witness directly. These impressions help them predict other people’s
reactions and allow them to function effectively in social settings. Research and theory
suggest people use implicit beliefs about which personality traits go together and which
ones do not, to imply a broad system of personality from limited information (Critcher
& Dunning, 2009). These have been termed people’s Implicit Personality Theories
(IPTs: Schneider, 1973). IPTs have attracted a lot of research attention, and their initial
discovery has stimulated research that has advanced our understanding of humans. It is
therefore surprising that there is no mention in the literature of implicit theories of
values. Here, we propose for the first time the existence of implicit theories of values in
people’s judgements of the values of others. We suggest and demonstrate that people’s
implicit theories of values have the same structure as the known universal structure of
values (Schwartz, 1992). Moreover, these implicit values theories even extend to
people’s perceptions of inanimate entities attesting to how deeply engrained they are.
Structures in Implicit Personality Theories
Traditionally, IPTs have focused on relationships between semantically similar traits
(e.g., dominant and aggressive; imaginative and intellectual) rather than on aspects of
personality that have more complex structures. To test IPTs, researchers have examined
the associations among traits using various measurements, such as ratings of strangers’
traits (Passini & Norman, 1966), ratings of co-occurrence likelihood of traits (“how
likely a talkative person is sociable as well”, Boreknau, 1992, p.298), as well as ratings
of how good a list of activities is as an example for each trait (Borkenau, 1988).
36
The structure of IPTs have generally been examined in terms of semantic relatedness
between traits using factor analysis with studies showing factors that broadly resemble
the Big Five personality traits (e.g., Borkenau, 1988; Passini & Norman, 1966).
However, other research has identified factors that differed from the Big Five in both
the number and content (see review in Ashton, et al., 2004, see also Di Blas & Forzi,
1999). It is therefore unclear whether IPTs, measured as semantic similarities between
traits, can be used to understand judgements of more complex individual-difference
structures, such as personal values (e.g., Schwartz, 1992).
Researchers in social perception have argued implicit beliefs about self and others go
beyond combinations of (dis)similar traits to explain why ostensibly unrelated traits or
qualities coexist within a person (e.g., “She is wealthy and egotistical, which makes for
great fashion sense and good looks”, Park, 1986, p.910; “her ambitiousness leads her to
be ruthlessly unkind to others”, Critcher, Dunning, & Rom, 2015, p.405). Such causal
trait theories have origins in Asch (1946), as indicated by Critcher and his colleagues
(Critcher et al., 2015) who noted that the perceived presence of particular traits tend to
influence how people interpret other traits when forming impressions of different
people. For example, the cheerfulness of an ambitious person may be expressed
differently compared to the cheerfulness of a humble person.
Values as Part of Personality
Personal values is another important aspect of personality, which is related to, but
distinct from personality traits (Parks-Leduc, Feldman & Bardi, 2015). Personality traits
are commonly defined as descriptive characteristics of an individuals’ pattern of actions,
thoughts and emotions (McCrae & Costa, 2003), whereas personal values are defined as
broad life goals (e.g., achievement, benevolence) that indicate what is important to
people in their lives (Rokeach, 1973). Personal values transcend contexts and situations
37
(Schwartz, 1992), are largely stable (e.g., Vecchione et al., 2016), and relate to attitudes
(e.g., Boer & Fischer, 2013) and behaviours (e.g., Maio, 2010). Although values are
structured in similar ways across cultures, people differ in the importance they place on
specific values (Schwartz, 1992).
A widely accepted theory of personal values today is the Schwartz (1992) value theory,
which identifies conflicts and compatibilities among values that reflect an underlying
circular motivational continuum. Schwartz divided this circle into ten basic human
values and four higher-order values (Figure 3.1). Values that are adjacent to one another
(e.g., benevolence and universalism) share compatible motivations, whereas values
located on opposite sides of the circle (e.g., benevolence and achievement) are based on
conflicting motivations. Actions that promote one value are likely to promote adjacent
values, but thwart opposing values. This circular structure has been supported in
hundreds of studies in more than 75 countries using Multidimensional Scaling analyses
based on correlations across people in a sample (Schwartz, 2015). Recently, the same
structure has been found in within-person unfolding analyses in both adults (Borg,
Bardi, & Schwartz, 2017) and children (Lee, Ye, Sneddon, Collins, & Daniel, 2017).
This means that the theoretical interrelations of the compatibilities and conflicts among
values as described in Schwartz’s value theory are supported for each individual. The
structure of values was also supported through neuroimaging evidence. Specifically,
Leszkowicz, Linden, Maio and Ihssen (2017) found more activation in brain regions
involved when selecting between congruent values than between incongruent values.
38
Figure 3.1. The circular model of the structure of relations
among ten basic human values and the four higher-order values
Adapted with permission from “Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries,” by Schwartz, 1992, p. 45,
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. (© 2017 Elsevier)
Implicit Theories of Values
To the best of our knowledge, the possibility of implicit theories of values in judging the
values of others has not been examined previously. Consequently, we investigated
whether people spontaneously process limited information about others to draw
inferences about the complex interrelationships among their personal values and
whether this can be extended even to non-human entities. We propose that this is
important an important aspect involved in understanding and interpreting others.
Although there is vast evidence of the structure of values, no study has examined
whether Schwartz’s (1992) values structure can be seen in people’s inferences of others’
values. This enables testing whether people’s implicit theories of values can take a
39
complex but specific form, and in this case, the form of the same circle of values as that
found in personal value structure studies (Schwartz 1992; Schwartz et al., 2012).
How might implicit theories of values come about? Research has suggested the self is
an important source of IPTs, which helps explain the co-occurrence of traits in others
(Critcher & Dunning, 2009). People tend to assume others’ personality traits co-occur in
the same way as these traits relate within themselves (Critcher & Dunning, 2009). If
two traits co-occur within the self (e.g., warm and friendly), they are inferred to
positively relate in other people. If two traits are negatively related within the self (e.g.,
honest versus dishonest), they are assumed to not co-occur in other people (Critcher &
Dunning, 2009).
We suggest implicit theories of values are also formed by egocentric pattern projection.
In that people assume others’ values are structured in the same way as they are within
the self, but that people can prioritize different values. This produces a complex, but
well-organized, implicit system of beliefs about the conflicts and compatibilities among
others’ values that reflect the general structure of values, even if people are not
consciously aware of this structure. Hence, if they know another person values
universalism, they assume they also place some importance on the adjacent benevolence
and/or self-direction values, but far less on the opposing power and achievement or
security values (see Figure3.1).
The most obvious way to test this suggestion would be to ask people to rate the values
of someone they know and see whether they are structured according Schwartz’s (1992)
circle of values. However, such a finding may stem from an accurate assessment of that
known person’s values. In order to test our proposition, we need to ask people to rate
the values of unknown others and see whether their perceived values are structured in
this way. This enables us to see whether implicit theories of values can take the
40
complex, but well-organized, circular structure of values that has been found across
people (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2012) and within people (Borg et al., 2017).
If people hold implicit theories of values that reflect this circular structure, they might
also extend this system to spontaneously formed impressions of non-human entities.
Research has shown people can attribute personality traits to their pets (Gosling, Kwan,
& John, 2003), brands of products (Aaker, 1997) and even travel destinations (e.g.,
Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006; Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007). The
question is whether they can attribute the complex structure of values to non-human
entities. This would suggest implicit theories of values are so deeply engrained that
people naturally use them, even in situations that go well beyond the bounds of human
values theory. There is some evidence that this may be the case, as Torelli, Ozsomer,
Carvalho, Keh, and Maehle (2012) found a more simplified structure of values (four
higher-order values) emerged across peoples’ perceptions of 41 well-advertised brands
(e.g., Coke, Nike). We therefore generally hypothesize to find the circumplex structure
in perceptions of unknown others.
Could the hypothesized structure of values be found simply due to semantic similarities
and differences among values? A close examination of the value contents and previous
research suggests that this may not be the case. First, adjacent values are not
semantically similar, in that one value cannot be used interchangeably with another. For
example, values of independence are not semantically similar to values of stimulation
and excitement. Second, previous research suggests that semantic similarity cannot
account for the structure of values. Specifically, Pakizeh, Gebauer and Maio (2007)
found reaction times to be faster when judging the values from the opposing (vs. same)
motivational domains and also to be faster when judging values from motivational
related domains (e.g., same/opposing value domains) than from unrelated domains.
41
Importantly, they found that semantic associations between values did not account for
the differences in reaction times used to judge values.
The present research investigates whether implicit theories of values are organized
according to Schwartz’s (1992) circular structure of human values. Across three studies,
we examine whether this well-known values structure is evident in people’s perceptions
of other humans and non-human entities. Study 1 asks respondents to rate the values of
the generalized other. Study 2 provides one piece of information about a target person
and asks participants to rate all the values of the target. Study 3 goes beyond humans
and asks participants to think of a known city as a human being and rate its values.
Together, these studies can establish the existence of an implicit theory of values
structure.
3.3. Study 1
We examined whether implicit theories of values guided people’s perceptions of others’
values, when they have no substantive information on which to base their judgments.
Specifically, we asked participants about their perceptions of the values of “most other
people”.
3.4. Method
Participants and procedures
303 adults from the United States (USA) (77% Female; Mage = 46 years, SD = 13.96)
were recruited from an online commercial panel provider. They completed a survey that
asked about their own personal values and their perceptions of the values of “most other
people”. This sample size was sufficient to aim for a medium effect size (d=.30), using a
threshold of p<.05, and to yield a statistical power of .80 (see Supplemental Material for
details of sample size justification P.205-207).
42
Personal values. Personal values were measured using Schwartz’s refined Portrait
Values Questionnaire (PVQ_RR; see Lee et al., 2016, for the full scale), which consists
of 57 value items presented in randomized order. Participants are asked to rate how
similar a person described in the item was to them on each gender-matched person
description (e.g., it is important to him/her to form his/her views) on a 1 (not like me at
all) to 6 (very much like me) scale.
Perceived most others’ values. Perceived most others’ values were measured using the
same items but, in this case, participants were asked to rate how similar most other
people were to the same set of gender-matched person descriptions (e.g., it is important
to him/her to form his/her views) on a 1 (not like most others at all) to 6 (very much like
most others) scale. Participants’ ten basic values and their perception of others’ values
were calculated by averaging the items for each basic value, following Schwartz et al.’s
(2012) procedure.
Analytic strategy
We used Borg et al.’s (2017) unfolding model to examine the structure of personal and
others values. Unlike multidimensional scaling (MDS), which is an analysis based on
correlations or distances, and therefore a between-person analysis, unfolding is both a
within-person and a between-person analysis. In this unfolding approach, dissimilarity
scores (subtracting all value scores from the maximum value score in the sample) were
input into the SmacofRect function of the Smacof package in R (De Leeuw & Mair,
2009) and a two-dimensional structure was computed, in which each value and each
participant were represented by a single value-point or person-point. The location of
value-points reflects the shared common value structure across people, in that the closer
(vs. further away) from a value-point to another value-point, the more (vs. less)
compatible these two values are, whereas the location of person-points reflects
43
individuals’ value priorities, in that the closer an individual is to a value-point, the more
important that value is to them. Hence unfolding has an advantage over MDS in that it
can reveal the interrelations between values not only across people but also within each
person, whereas MDS is limited to testing the structure of values across persons (Borg
& Bardi, 2016).1 Unfolding analysis also produces a fit statistic, Stressn, for each value
and each person, which varies between 0 (perfect solution) and 1. A permutation test
was applied to assess the significance of the Stressn values for each unfolding solution
in comparison to the Stressn from 100 randomized data sets.
To examine whether the circular structure exist in people’s perceptions of others values,
we ran unfolding analysis with the participants’ personal values and their perceived
others values, separately. For each analysis, we adopted a theory-based value circle as a
starting configuration for value points and random configurations for person points to
assess the structure of personal values and perceived values of most others.
To assess whether there is statistically significant variation of the value importance
between participants’ value profiles and rated value profile of most others, the within-
person correlations across values was computed. Within-person correlations (called
“within-dyad correlations” in Barni, Ranieri, Scabini, & Rosnati, 2011) allowed
measurements of the similarity in the relative importance among the ten values. This
was done by correlating the respondents’ ten basic value ratings, with the perceived
most others’ ten-basic personal values. This obtained correlation score then was
averaged and transformed into a z score following Fisher’s r to z procedure (Kenny &
Acitelli, 1994).
1 We also report ordinal MDS solutions, with custom starting configurations (see
Schwartz, et al, 2012), in the supplemental materials (P.217-220).
44
To examine whether certain value types have more self-generated effect than others,
Pearson correlations was employed by associating participants’ ten-basic values, with
the corresponding value of perceived most others. T-tests were used to assess whether
differences between individual values were significant.
3.5. Results
Table 3.1 presents the means and standard deviations of participants’ personal values
and perceived values of most others for Study 1. Benevolence and self-direction values
were the most important values and power was the least important values to
participants. This finding is consistent with the findings of value profiles across other
adult samples (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). In contrast, security, hedonism, self-direction
and achievement values were perceived to be the most important for most other people.
Repeated measures MANOVA with bonferroni pairwise comparisons found that the
benevolence, self-direction, universalism and conformity values were significantly more
important at the .05 level for personal values than for perceptions of most others,
whereas hedonism, achievement, stimulation and power values were perceived to be
more important for most others than for personal values.
The unfolding analysis of people’s own values and their perceptions of the values of
others reflected the known structure of values, as depicted by the value-point order
around the circle, with only minor (neighbouring) deviations (see Figure 3.2). Figure
3.2 also presents fit indices (Stressn) for the observed configuration. The mean Stressn
scores for the unfolding solution were significantly better (.22 for personal values and
.20 for perceived values of most others) than the Stressn computed from the randomly
generated permutation tests (personal values=.26 and perceived values of most
others=.34; p<.001), which suggests the current unfolding solution fit the data well
45
(Borg et al., 2017). Stress-per-point coefficients were also obtained (see Borg et al.,
2017) to assess how much each value contributed to the total Stressn for each unfolding
solution (see Table S3.1 in the Supplemental Materials, P.208).
Interestingly, the configuration of perceptions of others’ values corresponded more
closely to the structure than did personal values (see Figure 3.2b). Two switches
between neighbouring values were found in the personal values structure (hedonism
with stimulation and security with conformity/tradition), while only one switch was
found in the perceptions of others values structure (benevolence with universalism),
which has often occurred with PVQ data (Lee et al., 2016).
Most person-points in Figure 3.2a were located closer to security, benevolence, self-
direction and universalism, suggesting the greater personal importance of these values
and the lesser importance of the opposing power value. However, in Figure 3.2b (others’
values) most perceived-person-points were located in a more central position with many
being located toward the self-focused values of hedonism, stimulation, achievement and
power.
We also investigated whether the structure underlying the perceived values of others
was based on self-projection, as self-projection tends to occur when there is no
information on another person, which leads to people relying on their own personality
(see Epley & Gilovich, 2001; Epley, Keysar, Boven, & Gilovich, 2004). Within-person
correlations between each person’s own values and their perceptions of most other’s
values, across the 10 basic values, varied widely (ranging from -.85 to .99). These
correlations were transformed into z scores and the average was compared to zero to
obtain an effect size. We found a moderate (Cohen, 1988) within-person relationship
between these values scores (r (303) =.51, p<.001), suggesting participants perceive a
moderate similarity in value priorities between themselves and most other people.
46
Table 3.1 Means, standard deviations of personal values and perceived values of most
others, within-person correlation between personal and others
Values Personal values
(N=303)
Values of Most others
(N=303)
Benevolence .63 (.55) a .22 (.50)
Self-direction .53 (.56) a .31 (.56)
Security .49 (.54) .44 (.57)
Universalism .19 (.56) a -.22 (.60)
Hedonism .07 (.74) .35 (.77) a
Conformity -.06 (.72) a -.29 (.72)
Tradition -.21 (.96) -.11 (.69)
Achievement -.23 (.80) .24 (.71) a
Stimulation -.41 (.81) -.07 (.70) a
Power -1.58 (1.14) -.34 (1.21) a
Within-person correlation .51***
Note. Repeated measures found means with subscripts in the row of personal values and
the row of perceived values of most others are significantly different at p < .05.
Standard deviations are in parentheses. ***
p<.001.
47
Fig. 3.2a. Unfolding solution for personal values (Stress=.22) (N=303)
Fig. 3.2b. Unfolding solution for perceived values of most others (Stress=.20) (N=303)
Figure 3.2 Unfolding solution for personal values (Fig. 3.2a)
and perceived most others values (Fig. 3.2b)
UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, TR = Tradition, CO = Conformity, SE =
Security, PO = Power, AC = Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST = Stimulation, SD =
Self-direction. Circle optimally fitted to value-points. Grey dots represent person-points
in Fig. 3.2a and perceived person-points in Fig. 3.2b.
48
3.6. Discussion
Study 1 examined individual perceptions of most others people’s values. Findings show
for each individual, the structure of personal values, and of perceptions of most other
people’s values, closely corresponded to the complex trade-offs in the known circular
structure of values. However, there was also a moderate similarity in value priorities
between self and most others. Hence, it is not yet clear whether the results showing
same structure of perceived others values reflect the implicit theories of values. Study 2
was designed to see whether the structure was reflected in perceptions of other people’s
values when participants were provided with limited value-expressive information.
3.7. Study 2
We examined whether implicit theories of values guided people’s perceptions of others’
values when they had limited value-expressive information about the other person, in
order to prevent self-projection. Rather than directly providing information about a
target’s values, which does not usually happen in real life, we provided information
about a value-expressive holiday choice, enabling respondents to make inferences about
the target’s values in a similar way to which people form perceptions of others in real
life.
3.8. Method
Participants, materials and procedures
152 students at a large Australian university (38% Male; Mage =21, SD=4.2) completed
two online surveys, 3 months apart, in exchange for course credit. The sample size of
152 was adequate for the desired effect size (see Supplemental Materials for details,
P.205-207). At Time 1, participants reported their personal values, as well as their age
and gender. Three months later (Time 2), they were randomly assigned to one of four
49
higher-order value conditions, in which they were presented with value-expressive
information about a gender-matched person they recently met. The value-expressive
information in each condition was designed to reflect one of Schwartz’s (1992) four
higher-order values, and edited until agreement about the content was reached from
three values researchers. The value-expressive text in each gender-matched condition is
indicated by the following italic text:
Openness to change (an exciting holiday full of novelty and adventure, where she
(he) did her (his) own thing in her (his) own way);
Self-enhancement (a prestigious holiday which reflected her (his) social status and
complemented her (his) high standards of taste);
Conservation (a well-organized holiday where she (he) could maintain her (his)
traditions and customs without worrying about being out of her (his) comfort zone);
and
Self-transcendence (a compassionate holiday where she (he) tried to understand,
appreciate and promote the welfare of people who are vulnerable).
This information was presented to participants in the following paragraph (bold added
to indicate the openness to change condition text): “You just met someone who came
back from an extended holiday. She (he) described an exciting holiday full of novelty
and adventure, where she (he) did her (his) own thing in her (his) own way. You
haven’t had a chance to talk to her (him) much, but you have some first impressions.
Which of the followings statements best describes your first impressions?”
Personal values. At Time 1, participants’ values were measured through the Schwartz
Refined Values Best Worst Survey (BWV-R: Lee et al., 2016). The BWV-R instrument
asks participants to choose the most and the least important values from 21 value sets
derived from a balanced incomplete block experimental design (for an example, see
50
APPENDIX D. P.175). The simple count method was used to score values (see
Louviere, Flynn, & Marley, 2015), which results in relative value scores ranging from -
1 to +1, with higher numbers reflecting greater importance and zero being the midpoint
of the scale. The four higher-order values scores were calculated for each participant
using Schwartz et al.’s (2012) procedure2.
Perceived others’ values. At Time 2, participant’s perceptions of the other person’s
values were measured using the 21-item Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-21:
Schwartz, 2003), which measures the importance of Schwartz’s (1992) 10 basic values.
Participants read a short description of a gender-matched person (e.g., “It’s important to
him to show his abilities. He wants people to admire what he does.”) and rated their first
impressions of the person on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 5
(very likely).
The separation of materials into two times, with a three month gap, reduced the chances
that participants were affected by answering questions about their own values before
answering questions about the target’s values. In addition, we used different values
instruments in Time 1 and 2 to further reduced this chance. As values are largely stable
and do not change much over three months (Bardi, Lee, Hofmann-Towfigh, & Soutar,
2009), they could still be used as a valid predictor for a variable collected three months
later.
2
Hedonism is theoretically located between Openness to change and Self-enhancement
values. In this study, hedonism was correlated most strongly and grouped with the
Openness to change values.
51
Analytic strategy
As in Study 1, unfolding analysis was used to see whether the data corresponded to the
known values structure. In this case, the personal and perceived other’s values scores
were converted to the same scale (0 to 1) before undertaking the unfolding analysis. In
addition, a repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess differences in the perceived
importance of values for the four hither order conditions.
3.9. Results
Descriptive analysis
Table 3.2 presents the means and standard deviations of participants’ personal values
and their perceived values of fictitious others across four holiday conditions, as well as
significant mean differences between them. For personal values, the benevolence,
hedonism, self-direction and stimulation values were more important and power and
tradition less important to participants than for their perceptions of others values. For
perceptions of the fictitious others, values corresponding to the four higher order values
for each holiday condition (e.g., openness to change in the openness to change holiday
condition) were rated as significantly higher than other values across all four holiday
conditions (see Table 3.2). Importantly, the conflicting values (e.g., conservation values
in openness to change holiday condition) were rated as the least important across all
four holiday conditions.
As in Study 1, the unfolding analysis results suggested people’s own values and their
perceptions of the values of others reflected the known structure of values (see Figure.
3.3). Again, the observed configuration for personal values and perceptions of others’
values fitted the data well and the location of values around the circle corresponded to
the theoretical order. The permutation test for the Stressn suggested that the fit of the
52
unfolding solution to the current data (Stress = .24) was significantly better than for the
randomly generated data (Stress=.29, p<.001) (Borg et al., 2017). Table S3.1 (in
Supplemental Materials, P.208) provides the Stress-per-point coefficient. As expected,
the location of others’ values clearly differed depending on the value-expressive holiday
condition, with most of the others’ values located close to the manipulated higher-order
values (see Figure 3.4).
Table 3.2 Means and standard deviations of ten basic personal values and perceived
values of fictitious others for each holiday condition.
Personal
values
Perceived others values
(Holiday conditions)
10 basic
values
(N=152) OC Holiday
(N=38)
SE Holiday
(N=39)
CO Holiday
(N=39)
ST Holiday
(N=36)
Self-direction 0.22 (0.30) 1.21(0.57) -0.43(0.65) -0.24(0.81) 0.33(0.51)
Stimulation 0.24 (0.45) 1.09(0.59) -0.44(0.72) -1.20(0.89) 0.42(0.70)
Hedonism 0.31 (0.40) 0.79(0.55) 0.71(0.70) -0.39(0.84) -0.65(0.68)
Achievement 0.12 (0.42) -0.29(0.65) 1.01(0.65) -0.25(0.59) -0.12(0.74)
Power -0.38(0.38) -0.78(0.56) 1.25(0.53) -0.24(0.65) -0.75(0.77)
Security 0.14 (0.27) -0.89(0.54) 0.28(0.59) 0.89(0.78) -0.72(0.76)
Tradition -0.34 (0.48) -0.42(0.51) -0.72(0.58) 0.72(0.55) 0.03(0.58)
Conformity -0.30 (0.32) -1.10(0.52) 0.34(0.75) 0.60 (0.75) -0.57(0.76)
Benevolence 0.42 (0.29) 0.21(0.52) -0.58(0.37) 0.19(0.49) 0.75(0.63)
Universalism 0.01 (0.27) 0.13(0.62) -0.96(0.49) -0.06(0.46) 0.86(0.54)
Note. Means in bold in the same column are significantly higher than other values at p <
.05. Means in italic are significantly lower than others at p<.05. Standard deviations are
in parentheses. OC=openness to change; SE=self-enhancement; CO= conservation;
ST=self-transcendence.
53
Figure 3.3. Unfolding solution for personal values
and perceived others values across the four holiday conditions
Blue dots are personal values (person-points). Red triangles are perceived others values
(perceived person-points). UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, TR = Tradition, CO
= Conformity, SE = Security, PO = Power, AC = Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST =
Stimulation, SD = Self-direction.
54
Fig.3.4a. Openness to change holiday
condition (N=38).
Fig. 3.4b. Self-enhancement holiday
condition (N=39)
Fig. 3.4c. Conservation holiday condition.
(N=39)
Fig. 3.4d. Self-transcendence holiday
condition. (N=36)
Figure 3.4.The small blue dots represent personal values (person-points) and the small
red triangles represent perceived others values (perceived person-points)
The large blue dots represent the means of personal values and the large red triangles
represent the means of perceived others’ values. UN = Universalism, BE =
Benevolence, TR = Tradition, CO = Conformity, SE = Security, PO = Power, AC =
Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST = Stimulation, SD = Self-direction.
55
Table 3.3 Means and standard deviations of the four higher order values of personal
values and perceived values of fictitious others, main effect of each four higher order
values for its corresponding holiday condition.
Self-values
(N=152)
OC Holiday
(N=38)
SE Holiday
(N=39)
CO Holiday
(N=39)
ST Holiday
(N=36)
OC .25 (.28) 1.15 (.51)a -.43 (.47) c -.72 (.71)c .38 (.47)b
SE -.24 (.34) -.54 (.52)c 1.13 (.49)a -.24 (.52)b -.44 (.58)c
CO -.14 (.21) -.80 (.36)c -.03 (.39)b .74 (.54)a -.42 (.43)c
ST .16 (.19) .16 (.51)b -.81 (.40)d .04 (.34)b .81 (.51)a
F-statistics 95.66***
107.23***
37.45***
42.48***
Note. Means in bold with subscripts are significantly different from means within the
same column at p < .001. Standard deviations are in parentheses. OC = Openness-to-
change; SE = Self-enhancement; CO = Conservation; ST = Self-transcendence. F-
statistics represent the main effect of holiday condition on perceived others values.
***p<.001
Differences in perceptions of other’s values across the four higher-order conditions
were examined using repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni pairwise comparison
tests. In each condition, the corresponding higher-order value was significantly more
important than all other values (see Table 3.3). Unlike Study 1, the within-person
correlation between personal values and perceived others values was not significant
across the sample (r (152) =.10, p＝.380), suggesting that the close correspondence
between perceptions of others values and the known structure of values was not due to
self-projection.
56
3.10. Discussion
The structure of personal values, and of perceived others’ values, closely corresponded
to the known circular structure of values. Respondents clearly based their inferences of
others’ value priorities on the information provided by the value-expressive holiday
conditions. However, their inferences did not just reflect the provided information, but
extended to the complex trade-offs inherent in the values structure. Thus, we were able
to provide evidence of implicit theories of values, while ruling out the similarity in
value priorities between self and others that might be influenced by self-projection.
These results give rise to the question: How pervasive is the effect of implicit theories
of values? Would it extend to non-human entities, which clearly do not have values? We
explored these possibilities in the next study.
3.11. Study 3
In Study 3, we examined whether implicit theories of values guided people’s
perceptions of non-human entities. We asked participants about their own values and
their perceptions of the values of two cities (London and New York City). These cities
were chosen as most people have some knowledge of them, reducing the chances of
self-projection.
3.12. Method
Participants and procedures
57
141 Australian adults (66% Female; Mage = 54 years, SD = 14.52) were recruited from
an online commercial panel provider. The sample size of 141 was adequate for the
desired effect size (see Supplemental Material, P.205-207). Participants completed a
survey asking about their own personal values, their perceptions of the values of one of
the two cities (London [N = 63] and New York City [N = 78]; randomly allocated) and
their experiences with that destination. They also reported their age and gender.
Personal values. As in Study 2, participants’ values were measured through the
Schwartz Refined Value Best Worst Survey (BWV-R: Lee et al., 2016).
Destination values. Participants’ perceptions of the values of London or New York were
measured using a Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) approach (Louviere et al., 2015). This
approach has been used successfully for the measurement of values (Lee, Soutar, &
Louviere, 2007, 2008). It produces a set of relative values scores without the post-hoc
scale use correction, as is the recommended practice for rating scale values instruments
(see Schwartz, 1992).
Following Louviere, Lings, Islam, Gudergan, and Flynn (2013), we designed items that
reflected each of the four higher-order values using words and definitions (shown as
mouse-overs) based on the Schwartz Values Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz,
2006). The choice of specific value words was made in conjunction with a team of
values experts to ensure they reflected the breadth of items within each of the higher-
order values and were appropriate for city destinations.
58
The higher-order destination values statements are indicated by the following italic text:
Openness to change - “having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom”
Self-transcendence - “having unity with nature, social justice, equality, loyalty”
Conservation - “having social order, security, respect for tradition, being humble”
Self-enhancement - “having social power, authority, success, being capable”
These higher-order destination values statements were placed within subsets, derived
from an efficient balanced incomplete block experimental design. This created four
comparison sets, each of which included three of the four destination values statements.
Participants saw each statement three times and each pair of statements twice.
Participants were shown a picture of London or New York and were asked to think
about that destination as if it was a person, before choosing the most and least important
values to this destination from each of the four subsets (see APPENDIX D for an
example of the first BWS set and city pictures, P.187). As in Study 2, the simple count
method was used to calculate destination values scores.
Destination experiences. Participants were asked if they had visited the destination and
how knowledgeable they were about it, on a seven-point not at all knowledgeable (1) to
very knowledgeable (7) scale (London M = 3.91, SD = 1.90; NYC M = 2.91, SD =
1.70). Over 60 percent of participants had visited London and 36 percent had visited
New York City.
59
As in Study 1 and 2, unfolding analysis was used to see whether the data corresponded
to the known structure of values. Discriminant analysis in R was used to assess mean
differences in perceived value priorities between the two cities. In this case, Canonical
correlation analysis (CCA) was used to see whether there were significant relationships
between participants’ personal higher-order values and their perceptions of the city’s
higher-order values, as only four “city values” were obtained. The CCA SPSS syntax,
which has been well tested (see Sherry & Henson, 2005) was used in this case.
3.13. Results
Descriptive analysis
Table 3.4 presents the means and standard deviations of the personal values and
destination values of Study 3. Self-transcendence (ST) was the most important and self-
enhancement (SE) was the least important personal value, which is consistent with
findings from other adult samples (e.g., Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Conservation (CO)
was perceived to be the most important destination value for London, whereas the
opposing openness to change (OC) was perceived as the most important destination
value for New York City (NYC). While some might expect the opposing dimensions
would be least important, means at a sample level are not expected to follow the
model’s structure (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). For both destinations, self-transcendence
value was perceived to be the least important value. Interestingly, the standard
deviations for the destination values were much higher than for personal values,
60
suggesting greater variation in these values.
Table 3.4 Means and standard deviations of personal values and perceived destination
values
Personal values
(N=141)
London
(N=63)
New York City
(N=78)
Self-transcendence 0.26 (0.15) -0.13 (0.59) -0.29 (0.56)
Conservation 0.09 (0.16) 0.26 (0.59) -0.16 (0.54)
Openness to change 0.07 (0.19) -0.05 (0.60) 0.33 (0.59)
Self-enhancement -0.53 (0.24) -0.07 (0.62) 0.11 (0.66)
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses
The unfolding analysis suggested people’s own values and their perceptions of the
values of destinations reflected the known structure of values (see Figure 3.5). Again,
the observed configuration for personal values and perceptions of destination values
fitted the data well. The unfolding solutions revealed the location of higher-order values
corresponded to the expected theoretical trade-offs in the structure. The mean Stressn
scores for the unfolding solutions were significantly smaller (.11 for personal values and
.27 for destination values) than those for the permutation tests (.12 for personal values
and .32 for destination values; p <.001). Table S3.2 in Supplemental Materials provides
the Stress-per-point coefficient (P.219).
Perceptions of destination values shared a common structure in which the trade-offs
between higher-order values were clearly present (See Figure 3.5b). However, the value
61
profiles of London and New York significantly separated along a discriminant function
that contrasted openness to change and conservation values (Welsh’s t (129.70) = 4.21, p <
.001), with London being closer to conservation and NYC being closer to openness to
change. These differences did not relate to respondents’ gender (Welsh’s t (90) =.56, p＝
.584), age 3 (F (2, 138) =1.19, p＝.310) or self-reported knowledge of the destinations
4
(Welsh’s t (118.88) = 1.59, p=.114). As in Study 2, we found no relationship between
participants’ personal values and their perceptions of city values (London Wilk’s =.88,
F (16, 168.67) = .46, p＝.962 and NYC Wilk’s =.84, F (16, 214.49) = .81, p＝.669).
Fig. 3.5a. Unfolding solution for personal values (Stress=0.11) (N=141)
3 We divided participants into three age groups: N24-46 =43, N47-62=44, N63-86=54, on
the basis of the 30%, 60% and 100% of the age.
4 We divided participants into Low (N=83) vs. High (N=58) knowledge groups based
on the median (MLondon=3, MNew York =4) of the reported scores.
62
Fig. 3.5b. Unfolding solution for perceived destination values (Stress=0.11) (N=141).
Figure 3.5.Unfolding solution for personal values (3.5a)
and perceived destination values (3.5b)
OC=Openness to change, SE=Self-enhancement, CO=Conservation, ST=Self-
transcendence, Des_OC=Openness to change, Des_SE =Self-enhancement,
Des_CO=Conservation, Des_ST=Self-transcendence. LD: London. NY: New York City.
Personal values are shown as grey dots (person-points) in Fig.3.5a. The large red dot
and the large blue triangle represent the mean value scores of London and New York
City, respectively. Grey dots and triangles in Fig.3.5b represent participant’s perceptions
of the values of London and New York City, respectively. Circle optimally fitted to
value-points. The solid line is the linear discriminant on which the value profile of
London and New York City are best separated.
63
3.14. Discussion
Study 3 extended the evidence of implicit theories of values to non-human entities by
showing, for the first time, that people’s perceptions of the values of a city reflected the
known structure of values. On average, London was seen to place more importance on
conservation values, whereas NYC was seen to place more importance on openness to
change values. As predicted, people differed widely in their perceptions of the values
profiles of each city. Again, we were able to rule out the effect of self-projection, as we
found no relationship between personal values and perceived city values.
3.15. General Discussion
This paper is the first to show the evidence that of implicit theories of values structure
reflect the circular structure of Schwartz’s value theory at individual level. Across three
studies, we provided the first evidence that people hold well-organized and coherent
implicit theories of values structure, and that they use these theories to infer the
compatibilities and conflicts among the values of human and non-human entities. We
found perceptions of others’ values follow the known circular structure of personal
values, as described in Schwartz’s (1992) values theory. This finding was obtained
consistently, using different instruments, across different time periods (Study 2) and in
the same time period (Study 3). We also found perceptions of city values followed the
two bi-polar dimensions described in Schwartz’s values theory. In addition, in Studies 2
and 3, we were able to rule out the alternative explanation of self-projection.
64
The finding that people’s judgements of the values of others reflect the circular
motivational structure contributes to the personality literature in that it shows that the
IPTs go beyond simple semantic relatedness to reflect more complex personality
structures. Past studies examining perceptions of others’ values focus on the similarity
in corresponding value dimensions between self and generalized others but have not
reported on the value structure of others as a whole (Fischer, 2006). The present study
provides strong evidence for the Schwartz’s circular value structure in perceptions of
others. The results of this study suggest that it is enough to describe a person using a
single value content to elicit people’s judgements of the entire value system of the target
person, even when other values are not made salient. Taken together, this suggests that
people are not only able to judge the relatedness between two similar values (as
indicated by the IPTs) but also can detect the likelihood of the different importance
levels of all other values of a perceived person.
Some self-projection was evident in Study 1. However, if this was the only influence on
perceptions of others’ values we would expect to see the more similarity between one’s
own and perceived most others value priorities. That is, the person-points representing
individuals’ own value priorities and the perceived-person-points representing value
priorities of most others would be distributed in a highly similar pattern in the two
unfolding plots. This was not the case, with the cloud of person-points located closer to
security, benevolence, self-direction and universalism values – similar to the hierarchy
of pan-cultural values (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001) - compared to the cloud of perceived-
65
person-points. Hence, the perceived values structure could not have been solely
influenced by self-projection of one’s own value priorities.
Our studies provide evidence that implicit theories of values influence perceptions of
others’ values when little or no information about the target other is provided. This
should also extend to people we know much more about (e.g., family, friends and co-
workers). However, given that we are likely to have more information about close
others and see them in different roles and contexts, the conflicts and compatibilities
among values may be less extreme because our specific knowledge of them may
distance them a little from the stereotypic structure of the values. Graphically, the
perceived-person-points in the unfolding plots may appear closer to the centre than to
the edge of the circle, which indicates a less distinct values structure. This would not
invalidate implicit theories of values, but should lead to new areas of interest, such as
the impact of complexity and distinctiveness on personal and perceived others values.
Self-complexity relates to the number of self-aspects one uses to organize knowledge
about oneself and the degree of distinctiveness among these self-aspects in different
contexts and roles (Linville, 1985). Self-concept distinctiveness relates to the tendency
to have different personality characteristics in different social roles (Donahue, Robins,
Roberts, & John, 1993). For instance, a person may place a high importance on
benevolence and security when they are with their immediate family, but in their
working life they might place a higher level of importance on power and security. There
is some evidence that more complex individuals, such as immigrants (especially first
66
generation vs. majority others), hold value priorities that differ across life contexts (e.g.,
Daniel, et al., 2012). It would advance our knowledge further to see whether people
whose value priorities differ across contexts (e.g., bicultural and those with higher
levels of self-complexity or self-concept distinctiveness) hold coherent implicit theories
of values structures that guide their perceptions of others values. It is possible that these
people use implicit theories of values structures when evaluating others, even if they see
themselves as having a more complex and potentially less coherent values structure.
Would our findings also replicate across cultures? It is important to examine whether
theoretically compatible, implicit theories of values structure are as prevalent in tight as
opposed to loose cultures (Gelfand et al., 2011). In tight cultures (e.g., India, Singapore,
Malaysia), the range of appropriate behaviours across situations is restricted, whereas
loose cultures (e.g., Brazil, Hungary, Israel) permit a wider range of behaviours
(Gelfand, et al, 2011). Thus, individuals in tighter cultures are more likely to adhere to
norms in society, whereas those in looser cultures may be more likely to express their
own internal values in a more consistent manner. Implicit theories of values structure
offers a way to untangle the effects of societal norms by examining whether people hold
the same structure of values for themselves compared to others. It might be the case that
in tight cultures, people perceive their own value structure as less consistent and more
contextual, whereas they view the value structure of perceived others as being more
consistent with the Schwartz’s theoretical value structure. However, in loose cultures,
people might perceive the structure of their own values as more consistent but the
67
structure of the perceived others values as less consistent with Schwartz’s value
structure.
In this paper we examined the overall structure of perceived values. Another un-
researched question that may be informed by implicit theories of values is whether some
values are perceived more accurately than others. Recent research suggests perceptions
of another person’s traits, based on the person’s versus the target’s characteristics, vary
across traits (Hehman, Sutherland, Flake, & Slepian, 2017). As some traits, such as
openness to experience and agreeableness, are linked to values (Parks-Leduc, et al.,
2015), it would be possible to use these known links as a basis for drawing hypotheses
in this regard. It may also be that for some values (e.g., tradition, stimulation) that have
been found to relate strongly to behaviours (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003), targets’
characteristics expressed by their behaviours contributed more to the perceptions of
such values. This is because people may have learned that these values are more closely
related to behaviour, therefore the behaviours that express them are better indicators of
underlying values compared to other behaviours.
We also provided the first evidence of the implicit theories of values of inanimate
objects in Study 3, extending Torelli et al.’s (2012) study of brand values by examining
perceptions of the values of cities both across and within individuals. Figure 3.5b
illustrates a shared structure for city values across people, as well as significant
differences between peoples’ perceptions of the two cities. These results clearly show
that perceptions of the values of London and New York were not driven by self-
68
projection or by social norms, as there was substantial diversity in the cities’ value
profiles. On reflection, it is not surprising that people saw the same city very differently,
as cities offer a variety of experiences and activities for visitors (e.g., museums and
historical sites, luxurious hotels and spas, theatre, clubs and pubs and parks and
gardens). Research is needed to explore the effect of people’s experiences on their
perceptions of cities’ values. A potential limitation of this study is that we show only
one image of each city, future research is required to test whether different images of the
same city evoke different value priorities.
Overall, it is clear that our finding that implicit theories of values structure exist in
judgments of others provides a novel pathway for new research in social perceptions.
Our results open the door to research into the perceived values of other non-human
entities (e.g., political parties, charities and other organizations, pets and other objects),
with whom we interact regularly.
69
CHAPTER FOUR
PERSONIFYING DESTINATIONS: A PERSONAL VALUES APPROACH
This paper entitled “Personifying destinations: A personal values approach.” by Ye, S.,
Lee, J. A., Sneddon, J. N., & Soutar, G. N(2017) has been submitted to an international
journal for consideration of journal publication.
Findings of Chapter four provide first evidence of a link between the holiday
experiences and perceptions of destination values. To further justify the concept of
destination values, and to explore what impacts on tourists’ perceived destination
values, two studies were conducted and reported in Chapter Four. Chapter Four contains
the second paper presented in this thesis. The paper demonstrates a consistent structure
of perceived destination values. Perceived destination values were found to relate to
tourists’ memorable holiday experiences.
70
Personifying destinations: A personal values approach
4.1. Abstract
This research examined whether tourists perceive destinations as having a coherent
values system reflecting the known structure of personal values. We surveyed 198
Australian tourists to examine their perceptions of the values of a memorable holiday
destination that they visited in the last 12 months. We found that tourists perceived
destinations to share a common values structure, but differ in the values priorities
attributed to each destination. Importantly, the shared structure of memorable holiday
destinations’ values reflected the higher-order trade-offs in the Schwartz values theory.
We also found that tourists’ description of their most memorable holiday experience
reflected their perceptions of the destinations’ values priorities.
71
4.2. Introduction
Destination branding is an important marketing tool used to differentiate destinations in
highly competitive holiday markets (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Morgan & Pritchard,
2004; Pike, 2012). Researchers have suggested that personifying destinations with
human-like characteristics can lead to more favourable outcomes than branding based
on functional attributes, such as beaches or scenery (Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk, & Baloglu,
2007). Marketers view personification as an important way to differentiate from similar
destinations (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011) and
to promote favourable attitudes and travel intentions towards a destination (Letheren,
Martin, & Jin, 2017).
Using personality traits to personify destinations has been widely examined in tourism
research (e.g., Hosany, Ekinci & Uysal, 2006; Murphy et al., 2007; Hultman, Skarmeas,
Oghazi & Beheshti, 2015). In general, the destination personality literature has built on
Aaker’s (1997) brand personality research. However, this research has often found that
different personality dimensions emerge for each destination, limiting comparability
between and generalizability across destinations. Similar findings in consumer branding
research (e.g., Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garoleara, 2001; Sung & Tinkham, 2005) led
to a search for other more stable characteristics, such as brand values (e.g., Torelli,
Ozsomer, Carvalho, Keh, & Maehle, 2012).
In current study, we draw on personal values theory to examine whether people attribute
72
destinations with a set of human-like value priorities that reflect the known structure of
personal values in Schwartz (1992) theory. Specifically, we examined people’s
perceptions of the values of a recent memorable holiday destination. If tourists perceive
destinations to hold different value priorities and share a common values structure,
destination marketers should be able to use this information to compare across
destinations and develop unique values-based positioning to provide a competitive
advantage.
4.3. Literature Review
Through advertising, marketers can intentionally imbue their brands with human
characteristics (Allen, Ng, & Wilson, 2002; Durgee & Veryzer, 1996), including
personality traits (Aaker, 1997) and personal values (Torelli et al., 2012). An
examination of prior tourism research suggests people perceive destinations as having
personality traits (e.g., Hosany, et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007). Most destination
personality studies have used or adapted Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale.
However, Aaker’s five original dimensions have rarely been found in destination
personality research, rather a set of different dimensions have been found for each
destination, limiting comparability. For example, Hosany and colleagues (2006) found
three dimensions when they asked respondents to recall the destination they most
recently visited (sincerity, excitement and conviviality). Murphy and colleagues (2007)
found four dimensions for the Whitsunday Islands (upper-class, honest, exciting and
tough) and three for Cairns (sincere, sophisticated and outdoorsy) in Australia. Usakli
73
and Baloglu (2011) found five dimensions for Las Vegas (vibrancy, sophistication,
competence, contemporary and sincerity) in America. Further, at least some of these
personality characterizations appear to be incongruent (e.g., upper-class and tough for
the Whitsunday Islands; sophisticated and outdoorsy for Cairns).
Other tourism researchers developed alternative general destination personality scales
(e.g., d’Astous & Boujbel, 2007; Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009), as well as
situation-specific personality scales (e.g., a mainland Chinese destination personality
scale; Pan, Zhang, Gursoy, & Lu, 2017). The sheer number and breadth of potential
personality trait items is likely to lead to many new variants. In contrast, the application
of Schwartz (1992) values theory offers one universal list of values from which
destinations can be compared.
Personal values are defined as broad “desirable trans-situational goals that vary in
importance, and serve as guiding principles in the life of a person or other social entity”
(Schwartz, 1994, p.21). They determine what is important, guide attitudes and behaviors
and reflect real differences between individuals, entities and societies (see recent review
in Sagiv, Roccas, Cieciuch & Schwartz, 2017). The most studied and established value
theory to date is that of Schwartz (1992) values theory.
Schwartz’s theory of human values
Schwartz (1992) advanced the study of personal values by identifying the motivational
continuum that underlies the circular structure of values. In this structure (Figure 4.1),
74
values that are adjacent to one another (e.g., self-direction and stimulation) share similar
motivations, in those actions taken to pursue one value can simultaneously promote the
realization of the other. Whereas values that oppose each other in the circular structure
(e.g., self-direction and conformity) have conflicting motivations, and actions taken to
pursue one value inhibits the attainment of the other.
Schwartz (1992) divided the circle of value items into 10 basic values and two bi-polar
dimensions (see Figure 4.1): Openness to change versus Conservation and Self-
transcendence versus Self-enhancement. Openness to change, which includes self-
direction and stimulation values, emphasizes the freedom to pursue intellectual and
emotional interests in new and exciting ways. Conservation, which includes security,
tradition and conformity values, emphasizes certainty and preservation of the status quo.
Self-transcendence, which includes universalism and benevolence values, emphasizes
the welfare of all others over personal concerns. Self-enhancement, which includes
power and achievement values, emphasizes the pursuit of personal interests over those
of others. People share a common structure of values (Schwartz, 1992), but they differ
in the priorities they place on specific values, such that one person may place the
highest importance on personal success (e.g., Self-enhancement), whereas another
person may place the highest importance on promoting the welfare of others (e.g., Self-
transcendence). There is ample evidence to show that peoples’ values priorities guide
their attitudes (e.g., Ye, Soutar, Sneddon & Lee, 2017) and behaviours (e.g., Bardi &
Schwartz, 2003).
75
Evidence supporting the circular structure of values has been found in hundreds of
samples in more than 75 countries (Schwartz, 2015). More recently, the circular
structure of values has also been found at the individual level for adults (Borg, Bardi, &
Schwartz, 2017) and for children (Lee, Ye, Sneddon, Collins, & Daniel, 2017).
Figure 4.1.The circular model of the structure of relations among ten basic human values and
the four higher order values.
Adapted from “Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and
empirical tests in 20 countries.” By Schwartz, S.H. 1992, p.1-65. (© 2017 by the Elsevier).
Destination values: personifying destinations with personal values
The present research investigates the potential for personifying destinations with
76
personal values. We define destination values as representing a set of relatively stable
human-like characteristics that reflect what is perceived as important to a destination.
Destination values are distinct from both the perceived value of a destination (i.e., its
utility, as measured with items such as “This attraction has an acceptable standard of
quality”; Prebensen, Woo, Chen, & Uysal, 2013, p.259). Destination values also differ
from other destination personality traits.
Both personality traits and values are similar in that they describe relatively stable
aspects of personality that differ between people and are based on a combination of
genetic and environmental influences (e.g., Knafo & Spinath, 2011; McCrae & Costa,
2008). However, they differ in their focus, with personality traits focusing on
descriptive characteristics (i.e., how individuals tend to feel, think and behave) and
values focusing on motivational goals (i.e., what is desirable or important to individuals
or entities).
Personality traits and values are also believed to differ in their development, with
personality traits thought to be more biologically based (McCrae & Costa, 2008) and
values more strongly shaped by a persons’ interaction with their environment, including
how they experienced their upbringing, education, work and culture (Rokeach, 1973;
Schwartz, 2014). Given that values are more strongly shaped by the way people
experience their environment and the social systems within it, values may be a more
natural way to think about destinations than personality traits.
77
Like personality traits (e.g., trendy, cheerful, charming, or tough; Ekinci & Hosany,
2006), destination values (e.g., the importance of freedom or security) can be
communicated through exposure to external channels (e.g., news, documentaries, social
media, word of mouth, travel expert advice), as well as transmitted to people through
their personal experiences with a destination, including interactions with locals,
observations of societal norms and engagement in daily life and activities (e.g.,
museums visits, cultural events, music, sports, bars and clubs and outdoor activities).
This process is similar to how Schwartz (2014) argued that people’s values are shaped
by their society and experiences of it. Thus, differences in tourists’ experiences with,
and information about, a destination are likely to lead to differences in their perceptions
of a destination’s values priorities.
To date, only two studies have examined destination values. Based on interviews with
20 respondents, Pike (2012) used a repertory technique to explore destination attributes
(e.g., different culture, friendly people) and laddering analysis to explore the shared
values (e.g., broaden my mind, safety) that underpin travel consequences (e.g.,
refresh/relax). Eight values emerged from this study, of which four were mapped onto
Rokeach’s (1973) terminal values. Pike suggested using personal values as a framework
to position destinations in future research. The current study fills this gap by extending
Schwartz’s (1992) values theory to destinations to provide a platform for comparison
across destinations.
Only one empirical study was found to examine the values of a city (Zenker, Gollan and
78
Quaquebeke, 2014). This study examined the values attributed to a city, by averaging
the values of the people who live there, in a similar manner to the way in which cultural
values are measured. However, recent evidence in the study of cultural and personal
values show that there is much more variance in values at the individual than the
cultural level (Fischer & Schwartz, 2011). Measuring perceptions of the destination
values in potential or actual tourists allows destination marketers to examine the
heterogeneity across tourists, as well the group level perceptions. This recognises that it
is important to examine the perceptions of potential or actual tourists, if the concept of
destination values is to be used by destination marketers.
In the current study, we examined tourist’s perceptions of the values of a recent
memorable holiday destination. We expect people to report different destinations as
prioritizing different values, but sharing a common known values structure (e.g.,
Schwartz’s, 1992 value theory). We also expect the differences in perceptions of a
destinations values priority to be reflected in their descriptions of their most memorable
holiday experiences.
4.4. Study 1
4.5. Method
Participants and procedure
The sample consisted of 198 Australian tourists who had taken a holiday away from
home in the last 12 months (M = 57 years old, SD = 14.54; 55% male) (see
79
Supplemental Materials for the sample justification, P.206-208). Respondents were
recruited from a large online commercial panel provider (PureProfile) and paid a small
fee to compensate them for their time. Participants completed two online surveys
administered one year apart. At Time 1 respondents completed an online survey of their
personal values, as part of a larger study. At Time 2, respondents completed an online
survey that asked about their most memorable recent holiday.
Measures
Personal values. The Schwartz refined best worst values survey (BWV-R, Lee et al., in
press) was used to measure personal values. Respondents were asked to select the most
and the least important values from five value statements in each of 21 value choice
sets. Following Louviere, Lings, Islam, Gudergan and Flynn (2013), we used the simple
count method to compute value scores, generating values scores ranging from -1 (the
least important) to +1 (the most important). The four higher order values were
computed following Schwartz et al.’s (2012) procedure.
Memorable destination. One year later, we asked the same respondents to identify the
city or the town in which they spent most of their time on their most memorable holiday
in the last 12 months. Respondents were then asked to describe their most memorable
experience in this destination (‘What was the most memorable experience in this city or
town?’) and to describe why this was their most memorable experience (‘Please explain
why this was your most memorable experience’) in open-ended questions.
80
Destination values. Participants’ perceptions of the destination values at which they had
their most memorable holiday experience were measured using a Best-Worst Scaling
(BWS) approach, as this method has been found to be useful for measuring personal
values (Lee et al., in press; Lee, Soutar, & Louviere, 2008). Following Louviere and his
colleagues (2013), the four higher-order values items were designed using words from
the Schwartz Values Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992; 2006). The specific SVS words and
their definitions (used as mouse-overs) were chosen to reflect the breadth and
applicability of each construct by a team of personal values and tourism experts.
The four higher-order destination values items are in italic, as follows:
Openness to change - “having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom”
Self-transcendence - “having unity with nature, social justice, equality, loyalty”
Conservation - “having social order, security, respect for tradition, being humble”
Self-enhancement - “having social power, authority, success, being capable”
We used a balanced incomplete block experimental design to place the four higher-order
destination values statements into four subsets of three statements each, where each
statement appeared to respondents three times and each pair of statements twice.
Respondents were asked to choose the most and the least important value items for the
city or the town they had spent the most time in on this holiday. Specifically, they were
asked to think of the city or the town as if it was a person who holds certain life goals as
important and to describe what does the city or town value most the least in life? Figure
4.2 shows the first of four comparison sets used to measure destination values.
81
Figure 4.2. The first of four choice sets for the measurement of destination values.
Analytical Strategy
Unfolding analysis. We used Borg, Bardi and Schwartz’s (2017) unfolding model to
examine whether respondent’s perceptions of destination values share a common values
structure, based on the trade-offs between the four higher order values in Schwartz’s
(1992) values theory. Unfolding is the only model to our best knowledge that allows
researchers to simultaneously generate both persons and values in a shared two-
dimensional space (Borg & Bardi, 2016) and to examine whether each person can fit to
the shared structure (e.g., Gollan & Witte, 2014). Unfolding allows the examination of
interrelationships between values, not only across people (at the sample level) but also
within each person (at the individual level) (Borg & Bardi, 2016). Therefore, it is a
suitable method for examining heterogeneity within respondents.
Borg et al.’s (2017) unfolding model generates a structure that best represents the
82
interrelations among personal values in a sample. In this Study, the interrelations among
the values were not constrained to reflect Schwartz’s (1992) values theory. We used the
smacofRect function in the Smacof package in R (De Leeuw & Mair, 2009) to identify
(a) the location of each value (i.e., value-point), (b) each respondent’s values priorities
(i.e., person-point) and (c) their perceptions of the values priorities of the destination
(destination-point) in a two-dimensional space. The distance between value-points and
person-points represents the relative importance of that value to the respondent in the
structure. The distance between value-points and destination-points represents a
respondent’s perception of the relative importance of that value to the destination in the
structure. That is, the closer (vs. more distant) a destination-point appears to a value-
point the more (vs. less) important the respondent sees this value to be to the destination
and the further away a destination-point is to a value-point the less (vs. more) important
it is.
We assessed the fit of the two-dimensional unfolding solution by calculating the Stressn
score, which ranges from 0 (a perfect solution) to 1, and compared it to the Stressn of
the unfolding solutions from 100 randomized data sets. We also assessed mean
differences in destination-points using discriminant analysis, t-tests and ANOVA
following Borg et al., (2017) between gender and three age groups (N25-51 =60, N52-
63=61, N64-93=76).
Canonical correlation analysis (CCA). We used CCA to identify relationships between
respondents’ personal values and their perceptions of destination values (see Sherry &
83
Henson (2005) for a review and Hosany et al. (2006) for a tourism example). CCA
simultaneously creates linear combinations (called canonical variates) between two sets
of variables (here, personal values and perceived destination values) that have the
highest correlation between the two sets. The CCA SPSS syntax, which has been well
tested (e.g., Sherry & Henson, 2005), was used in this case. The current data met the
assumptions for CCA based on multicollinearity, linearity, multivariate normality tests
and sample size (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).
Cluster analysis. We conducted a cluster analysis of destination-points, obtained from
the unfolding solution, to identify groups that differed in perceived destination values
priorities. Ward’s Hierarchical clustering algorithm and the agglomeration coefficient
schedule was used to determine the optimal number of clusters (For a similar cluster
selection process see Park and Yoon [2009] and Amaro, Duare and Henriques [2016]).
Repeated measures MANOVA was used to examine differences in perceived destination
values between clusters.
Leximancer analysis. We used Leximancer analysis to examine respondents’ reasons
why this was their most memorable experience. This analysis transforms natural
language through a series of algorithms and statistical processes to form an automated
semantic pattern (Smith & Humphrey, 2006). Leximancer was used because it provides
a means to discover implicit, indirect relations between texts that may be overlooked
when manually coded (Crofts & Bisman, 2010). Despite this advantage over manual
coding methods, Leximancer’s automated text analysis has limitations. For instance, it
84
does not allocate different words (e.g., garden and mountain) to a shared concept (e.g.,
nature). Therefore, we supplemented the automated analysis with manual checking and
editing the Leximancer thesaurus for each concept using a similar approach to Wu,
Wall, and Pearce (2014) and Tseng, Wu, Morrison, Zhang and Chen (2015).
4.6. Results
Descriptive analysis
Table 4.1 presents the means and standard deviations of respondents’ personal values
and their perceived destination values. On average, Self-transcendence was the most
important and Self-enhancement was the least important personal value, which is
consistent with previous values research (e.g., Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). For memorable
destinations, Conservation was the most important value, closely followed by Openness
to change, whereas Self-enhancement was perceived to be the least important value.
The most important destination values differed from that of personal values, but the
least important values were the same. Again, the standard deviations for perceived
destination values were all much higher than those of personal values.
85
Table 4.1. Means and standard deviations of personal values and perceived destination
values of the most memorable holiday destination.
Personal values Perceived destination values
Self-transcendence 0.21 (0.20) 0.13 (0.58)
Openness to change 0.10 (0.26) 0.21 (0.65)
Conservation 0.05 (0.20) 0.24 (0.57)
Self-enhancement -0.46 (0.32) -0.57 (0.50)
Note. Standard deviations are in the parentheses.
Unfolding analysis
The data fitted the unfolding solution well, as can be seen in the Stressn values in
Figures 4.3a and 4.3b. The mean Stressn scores for the unfolding solution were 0.11 for
personal values and 0.28 for destination values. These scores were significantly smaller
than the Stressn scores calculated for the 100 random permutations (personal values =
0.22; destination values = 0.32; p = 0). This suggests the fit of each unfolding solution
was significantly better than for the randomly generated permutations (Borg et al.,
2017; Mair, Borg, & Rusch, 2016).
Figure 4.3a shows the unfolding solution for respondents’ personal values. The
respondents in this sample share a common values structure in which the trade-offs
between Conservation and Openness to change and between Self-transcendence and
Self-enhancement values are clearly present. Most of the person-points were to be
located toward the Self-transcendence value, which is consistent with the high mean
86
score presented in Table 4.1.
Figure 4.3a. Unfolding solution for person values (Stress=.12, N=139).
Figure 4.3b. Unfolding solution for destination values (Stress=.28, N=139)
Figure 4.3. Unfolding solution for personal values (a)
and perceived destination values of Bangkok and Paris (b)
OC = Openness to change, SE = Self-enhancement, CO = Conservation, ST = Self-
transcendence. In (a) grey dots represent person-points. In (b) grey dots represent
87
destination-points.
Figure 4.3b shows the unfolding solutions for perceived destination values.
Respondents’ perceptions of the values of their most memorable holiday destination
share a common structure in which the trade-offs between the four higher-order values
were clearly present. The robustness of the structure of perceived destination values was
tested by running unfolding analysis using ideal and random starting configurations (see
Borg et al., 2017) and, once again, the order of the value-points remained the same.
Clearly perceived destination values share the same structure as those of personal
values. People differed in the values priorities that they attributed to their most
memorable holiday destinations to a much greater extent than was the case with their
own personal values. There were no significant differences in perceived destination
values by gender (Welsh’s t(192.14) = -1.23, p = 0.21, d = 0.25) or age groups (F(2, 195) =
0.23, p = 0.80, d = 0.10).
Canonical analysis
This analysis yielded one significant model with squared canonical correlations (R2
c) of
0.14 (Wilks’s λ = 0.81 criterion, F(12, 505.63) = 3.45, p < 0.001). The full model explained
19% of the variance (1- λ) shared between the variable sets (personal values and
perceived destination values). This suggests tourists’ personal values were marginally
associated with their perceptions of destination values, indicating a small effect of self-
projection of personal values on perceived destination values, despite being measured
one year apart.
88
Perceived destination value clusters
Ward’s hierarchical clustering procedure suggested a three-cluster solution. Table 4.2
presents the means and standard deviations of the perceived destination values for each
of the three clusters. Using repeated measures MANOVA, we found a significant
interaction between clusters and destination values (F(5.62, 548.20) = 3.48, p = 0.003, ηp2 =
0.03). To clarify these differences, we then ran separate general linear models, with
Bonferroni confidence adjustment, to examine which of the higher order values were
significantly different within each cluster (see Table 4.2). For cluster 1 (CO_ST
destinations), Conservation and Self-transcendence values were significantly higher
than the other values. For cluster 2 (OC_SE destinations), Openness to change and Self-
enhancement values were significantly higher than the other values. For cluster 3
(OC_ST destinations), Openness to change and Self-transcendence values were
significantly higher than the other values.
89
Table 4.2. The means and standard deviations of destination values of the three clusters
Destination
Values
Cluster 1 (N=91)
CO_ST destination
Cluster 2 (N=31)
OC_SE destination
Cluster 3 (N=76)
OC_ST destination
OC -0.38 (0.39)c 0.68 (0.36)a 0.72 (0.32)a
SE -0.56 (0.47)c 0.06 (0.50)b -0.85 (0.22)d
CO 0.65 (0.39)a -0.10 (0.57)b -0.12 (0.38)c
ST 0.29 (0.54)b -0.65 (0.36)c 0.25 (0.42)b
Note. OC = openness to change; SE = self-enhancement; CO = conservation; ST = self-
transcendence. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Means with different subscripts
within the same column indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.
Leximancer analysis
The three destination values clusters were used as group tags in the Leximancer analysis
to explore whether there were differences in the reasons respondents gave for why this
was their most memorable holiday experience. Thirty concepts were automatically
identified by Leximancer as the most frequently mentioned. Sixteen concepts in six
themes were retained after a careful assessment of the meanings of the automatically
identified concepts using a similar approach to Crofts and Bisman (2010).
Specifically, we excluded words or concepts that did not explain why respondents’
experiences were memorable (e.g., destination names such as Australia, New York and
Osaka) and merged words with the same or similar meaning into the same concept (e.g.
natural, nature; different, differences). We also added words with similar meanings into
the automatically identified concepts. For instance, scenery, forest, pelican, Black
90
Mountain and botanical garden were added to the ‘nature’ concept. We also created
concepts that were not automatically identified, to combine words with similar
meanings that were relevant to the study. For example, the ‘prestige’ concept was
created with items, such as luxury, famous, outstanding and iconic.
Figure 4.4.Leximancer theme map of respondents descriptions
of their most memorable travel experiences
Themes are in capital letters. Theme importance in descending order is identified by red
(PEOPLE), khaki (FAMILY), green (PRESTIGE; FUN), blue (EXPERIENCE) and
purple (HISTORY).
91
Figure 4.5 shows the conceptual map of respondents’ reasons for this being their most
memorable holiday experience. The PEOPLE theme was the most important (100%
connected to respondents). It was named PEOPLE as this concept was the most
frequently occurring within the theme. This theme also included the concepts for
‘different’, ‘food’ and ‘culture’. This theme reflected respondents’ descriptions of their
most memorable holiday experience being different from their everyday lives and
unique to the destination, specifically in terms of meeting and interacting with local
people (e.g., “I love meeting people and learning more about their country”), sampling
local food (e.g., “I got to try and eat a lot of different foods that I have never tried
before”) and experiencing a different culture (e.g., “I saw a different culture- different
way of being married”).
The FAMILY theme was the next most important (50% connected), combining the
concepts of ‘family’ and ‘nature’. This theme reflected respondents’ descriptions of their
most memorable holiday experiences being about spending time with family (e.g., “It
was enjoyable spending time with family and making memories in an enjoyable and
stress free environment”) and being in nature (e.g., “Having the space and freedom to
enjoy and be a part of nature.”).
The PRESTIGE theme, containing ‘prestige’, ‘seeing’, ‘architecture’ and ‘friendliness’,
was the third most important (48% connected). This theme reflected respondents’
descriptions of their most memorable holiday experiences being about prestigious and
rare experiences, such as seeing iconic architecture (e.g., “famous architecture and
92
history to it”) and receiving high quality service (e.g., “Great accommodation, delicious
food, outstanding staff and very welcoming”).
The FUN theme, containing ‘fun’, ‘friends’ and ‘relaxing’, was the fourth most
important (34% connected). This theme reflected respondents’ descriptions of their most
memorable holiday experiences being about having fun (e.g., “I made friends from all
over the world and shared many fun experiences, and exchanged ideas that broadened
my worldview”) and relaxing (e.g., “it was enjoyable and relaxing”).
The EXPERIENCE theme, containing the ‘experience’ concept, was the fifth most
important (16% connected). This theme reflected respondents’ descriptions of their most
memorable holiday experiences being about experiencing unique and different things
(e.g., “Living in Australia, we rarely have the opportunity to experience such a vast
array of priceless treasures from thousands of years ago” and “We don’t get to
experience this much in the town we come from”).
The HISTORY theme, containing the ‘history’ and ‘memories’ concepts, was the sixth
most important (14% connected). This theme reflected respondents’ descriptions of their
most memorable holiday experiences being about learning and reflecting on the past
(e.g., “The history is fascinating and the process was interesting”) and evoking feelings
of nostalgia (e.g., “Brings back childhood memories as I grew up here and seeing /
feeling the differences after twenty years”).
93
Themes and concepts by destination cluster groups
Cluster 1 (CO_ST) included destinations that were perceived to prioritize Conservation
and Self-transcendence values. In the concept map (see Figure 4.5) this cluster was
located closer to the “HISTORY” and “FAMILY” themes and further away from the
“EXPERIENCE” and “FUN” themes. The most frequently mentioned concepts by this
cluster were “memories” (100%), “history” (80%), “seeing” (67%), “friendliness”
(67%), “nature” (62%) and “family” (60%). These findings suggest that the CO_ST
destination cluster linked with memorable holiday experiences that focused on
connecting with history (e.g., “It made me feel connected to past events in history”),
spending time with family (e.g., “It was enjoyable spending time with family and
making memories in an enjoyable and stress free environment”), and being in nature
(e.g., “The scenery, the freedom of the nature”). These frequently mentioned concepts
are well aligned with Conservation values, emphasizing preservation of tradition and
customs, and Self-transcendence values, emphasizing the welfare of people and
protection of nature.
Cluster 2 (OC_SE) included destinations that were perceived to prioritize Openness to
change and Self-enhancement values. In the concept map (see Figure 4.5) this cluster
was located closer to the “PRESTIGE” and “EXPERIENCE” themes and further away
from the “FAMILY” and “HISTORY” themes. The most frequently mentioned concepts
by this cluster were “prestige” (45%), “seeing” (33%) and “architecture” (33%). These
findings suggest that the OC_SE destination cluster linked with memorable holiday
94
experiences that focused on high-quality, luxury and unusual experiences (e.g., “They
do not leave anything out when you are prepared to pay for the luxury”; “Iconic and
different to usual”; “We saw singers, dancers, musicians of very high calibre many
times a day for 7 days. It would have impossible to see these people for me”). These
frequently mentioned concepts are well aligned with Self-enhancement values,
emphasizing attaining social status and prestige and Openness to change values,
emphasizing novelty and exploration.
Cluster 3 (OC_ST) included destinations that were perceived to prioritize Openness to
change and Self-transcendence values. In the concept map (see Figure 4.5) this cluster
was located closer to the “FUN” and “EXPERIENCE” themes and further away from
the “HISTORY” and “PRESTIGE” themes. The most frequently mentioned concepts by
this cluster were “fun” (67%), “relaxing” (60%), “friends” (57%) and “experience”
(55%). These findings suggest that the OC_ST destination cluster linked with
memorable holiday experiences that focused on fun (e.g., “I made friends from all over
the world and shared many fun experiences”), and unusual experiences (e.g., “It was a
once in a lifetime experience”; “It is an experience you don't get elsewhere”). These
frequently mentioned concepts are well aligned with Openness to change values,
emphasizing excitement, novelty and exploration in life, and Self-transcendence values,
emphasizing the acceptance of others and concern for their welfare.
95
4.7. Discussion
Personifying destinations with human-like characteristics is an important aspect of
destination marketing. Yet, researchers have mainly focused on personality traits, which
do not seem to be stable across destinations limiting comparability. The current study
provides the first evidence that tourists perceive destinations to have different values
priorities, but share a common, known structure; that of Schwartz’s (1992) personal
values theory. Specifically, the personal values of respondents and their perceptions of a
memorable destinations values share a common values structure, in which the trade-offs
between Conservation and Openness to change and between Self-transcendence and
Self-enhancement were clearly present. Further, just as people differed in their values
priorities within this structure, so did their perceptions of the destination’s values, but to
a much greater extent than did personal values. We expected differences in tourists’
perceptions of the values priorities of destinations, arguing that these perceptions would
be shaped by tourists’ personal knowledge and experiences of the destinations.
We also examined potential explanations for the differences in the perceptions of
destination values. First, we examined whether demographic characteristics were related
to these perceptions. In other studies, destination image has been related to individual
differences, such as age (Beerli & Markin, 2004; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999) and
gender (Beerli & Markin, 2004). However, we found no evidence for differences in the
perceived values priorities of destinations being related to age or gender groups.
96
Next, we examined relations between the tourist’s own personal values and their
perceptions of the destination’s values. We found small but significant relations between
personal values and the perceived values of memorable destinations. Based on the
Leximancer analysis, we believe that this is not simple self-projection, but rather based
on the tourist’s experiences of the destination. Specifically, the Leximancer analysis
suggested that respondents described reasons for their most memorable holiday
experiences in ways that were consistent with the values priorities they attributed to
their selected destinations in all three destination clusters.
These findings are particularly relevant to tourism researchers and marketers that are
interested in positioning destinations using personification strategies. Prior research
suggests that personification of destinations using personality traits limits
generalizability across destinations and samples. Our findings provide an alternative
way to evaluate tourists’ perceptions of destinations; with personal values that have a
robust and generalizable structure. In particular, our findings suggest that personal
values can be used to personify destinations in ways that are meaningful, and thus may
enhance tourism marketers’ destination branding arsenal (e.g., Ekinci, et al., 2007;
Usakli & Baloglu, 2011).
The Leximancer analysis suggests some ways in which marketers can target different
visitor segments. For instance, tourists who prefer a destination that conveys Self-
enhancement and Openness to change values could be targeted with appeals and
activities that emphasize prestige, luxury and novelty, whereas tourists who prefer a
97
destination that conveys Openness to change and Self-transcendence values could be
targeted with appeals and activities that emphasize novelty, fun and spending time with
friends and family. Further research is needed to test whether specific value-expressive
appeals relate to higher preferences and intentions, in a similar way to Torelli et al.’s
(2012) study of heavily advertised brands.
We also provide destination marketers with a way to measure destination values, at least
in terms of the higher-order values. This measure can be used to evaluate tourists’
perceptions of a specific destination values, as well as those of their main competitors.
In this way, perceived destination values can be compared directly across different
destinations. The same measure can also be used to compare the same destination over
time, so as to assess the impact marketing campaigns might have on a destination’s
values. Future research could also look at more elaborate values measures that examine
Schwartz’s (1992) 10 or 11 basic values, in a similar way to the best-worst scaling
measure of personal values developed by Lee, et al. (2008).
Several limitations and future directions are noted. First, future studies should examine
perceptions of destination values across cultures. While the examination of Australian
tourists’ perceptions of destinations values helped us to gain insight into the
applicability of Schwartz’s value structure to destinations, these findings may not
generalize to other cultures. Second, research is needed to examine how perceptions of
destination’s values priorities form. For instance, experimental research could examine
causal relations between value-expressive information and experiences and differences
98
in the perceived values priorities of destinations. Our Leximancer analysis suggested a
link between memorable experiences and perceptions of destination’s values priorities,
but did not provide causal evidence for this relation. Third, future research should
examine whether situation specific travel motivations are related to perceived
destination values.
99
CHAPTER FIVE
PERSONAL VALUES AND THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOUR:
A STUDY OF VALUES AND HOLIDAY TRADE-OFFS IN YOUNG ADULTS
Ye, S., Soutar, G. N., Sneddon, J. N., & Lee, J. A. (2017). Personal values and the
theory of planned behaviour: A study of values and holiday trade-offs in young
adults. Tourism Management, 62, 107-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.023
(Appendix C)
Chapter Five contains the third paper of the thesis. This paper was designed to examine
the link between personal values and holiday decisions. Specifically, the paper examines
the effect of personal value on the framework of the theory of planned behavior
constructs, across different holiday choices. The main findings from this research have
been accepted by Tourism Management (see Appendix C).
100
Personal values and the theory of planned behaviour:
A study of values and holiday trade-offs in young adults
5.1. Abstract
Prior studies have ignored information inherent in the structure of people’s values when
investigating their impact on tourism decisions. This study examined how personal
values trade-offs along two bipolar values dimensions (self-enhancement versus self-
transcendence and openness-to-change versus conservation) impacted young adults’
travel decisions. A two-staged survey of 299 young adults obtained personal values (at
time 1) and value-expressive holiday preferences within a theory of planned behaviour
(at time 2). Both bipolar values dimensions predicted attitudes, subjective norms and
perceived behavioural control towards value-congruent holidays. The total effect of
personal values on intentions was larger than that of subjective norms for both
dimensions and larger than that of perceived behavioural control for the self-
transcendence verses self-enhancement dimension.
101
5.2. Introduction
Youth and student travellers make a significant economic contribution to the tourism
industry (Chen, Chen, & Okumus, 2013; Thrane, 2015). These travellers accounted for
more than 23% of over 1 billion international tourists in 2015 (UNWTO-WYSE, 2016).
Further, it is estimated that the total annual spend of youth travellers will increase from
USD 286 billion in 2014 to USD 400 billion by 2020. Student travellers represent the
most significant segment of youth tourists (Richards & Wilson, 2005).
A major focus of youth travel research has been in understanding how travel
motivations impact specific tourism decisions (e.g., Bicikova, 2014; Kim, Jogaratnam,
& Noh, 2006; Thrane, 2008; Xu, Morgan, & Song, 2009). However, these types of
motivations generally focus on internal psychological needs that relate to tourists’
interest in travel and holiday activities (Crompton & McKay, 1997; Fodness, 1994).
These motivational needs (e.g., relaxation, escape, family togetherness; Yoon & Uysal,
2005) are likely to change in relation to different travel occasions. However, more
abstract motivations that are relatively stable across time and situations may paint a
more consistent picture of decision choices between tourism behaviours. The current
study examines the influence of personal values (i.e., motivational life-goals) on
decisions that young adults make about different types of holidays.
A review of prior studies shown personal values impact tourism preferences (e.g., Lee,
Soutar, & Louviere, 2008; Madrigal & Kahle, 1994). However, research has ignored the
102
critical role the structure of personal values plays in predicting behaviour (Bardi &
Schwartz, 2003). Further, research on personal values in tourism has often focused on
one or two constructs of interest, which limits our understanding of the full impact of
values on decision processes. In addition, prior studies found values impact on
behavioural antecedents, such as attitudes (Hansen, 2008; Jayawardhena, 2004) and
norms (Nordlund & Garvill, 2003), which in turn, impact behavioural intentions.
Therefore, to better understand how values, influence behaviours, this study combined
the theory of personal value and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), which
is one of the most commonly studied behavioural models to see how personal value
trade-offs impact the travel decisions of young adults.
5.3. Literature Review
Values in Tourism Research
Personal values are defined as trans-situational motivational life-goals that serve as
guiding principles in people’s lives (Feather, 1995; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz,1994).
They convey what is important to people and they differ in relative importance between
people (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). These differences give meaning to the things people
do and relate to their perceptions (e.g., Sagiv, Sverdlik, & Schwarz, 2011), attitudes
(e.g., Allen, Ng, & Wilson, 2002; Rose, Shoham, Kahle, & Batra, 1994) and behaviours
(e.g., Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Beatty, Kahle, & Homer, 1991).
Empirical studies have shown relations between personal values and tourism
103
preferences and behaviour. Early studies used Rokeach’s (1973) instrumental and
terminal values, to examine attractions (Pitts and Woodside, 1986) and outdoor vacation
preferences (Pizam & Calantone, 1987). Later, Kahle’s list of values (1983) was
especially influential in tourism segmentation (e.g., Ekinci and Chen, 2001;
Mehmetoglu, Hines, Graumann and Greibrokk, 2010; Muller, 1991) and the prediction
of tourism preferences (e.g., Madrigal & Kahle, 1994). However, both Rokeach’s and
Kahle’s values instruments have been criticised as lacking a theoretical underpinning to
guide the selection and ordering of values. It is possible that this restricts our ability to
understand and predict the relationships between values and value-expressive
behaviours (Braithwaite & Law, 1985; Schwartz, 1996).
Schwartz’s (1992) value theory advanced the study of values by identifying a circular
motivational continuum upon which the conflicts and compatibilities among values is
based. As many decisions, including tourism decisions, are likely to activate both
congruent and conflicting values, it is crucial to understand people’s values systems,
rather than the priority given to a single value (Lee, Soutar, Daly, & Louviere, 2011;
Schwartz, 1996). A review of prior studies shown almost all studies that have examined
the relations between the structure of values and value-expressive behaviours are
outside of the tourism context (e.g.,Doran, 2009; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008; Zhou,
Thøgersen, Ruan, & Huang, 2013), with notable exceptions in the tourism segmentation
literature (e.g., Choi, Heo, & Law, 2016; Lee et al., 2011).
104
The Schwartz Value Theory
Schwartz (1992) posited a circular motivational continuum that uncovered the trade-offs
among values for the first time. This value structure has been supported for a wide
range of context (e.g., Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2012) in more than 75 countries
(Schwartz, 2015). Importantly, this circular structure also applies to the relations
between values and value-expressive behaviours (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003).
Schwartz (1992) summarised the trade-offs along two bi-polar dimensions: Openness to
change (OC) versus Conservation (CO) and Self-transcendence (ST) versus Self-
Enhancement (SE). OC, which includes self-direction and stimulation values,
emphasizes the freedom to pursue intellectual and emotional interests in new and
exciting ways. CO, which includes security, tradition and conformity values,
emphasises certainty and preservation of the status quo. ST, which includes
universalism and benevolence, emphasises the welfare of all others over selfish
concerns. SE, which includes power and achievement, emphasises the pursuit of
personal interests over those of others. In later papers, Schwartz (e.g., Schwartz et al.,
2012) suggested other summary dimensions of his motivational continuum. These
include personal-focused values (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement and
power) versus social-focused values (universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition,
security), and self-protection/anxiety-avoidance values (conformity, tradition, security
and power) versus growth/anxiety-free values (Hedonism, Stimulation, self-direction,
universalism, benevolence) with achievement located on the boarder (Schwartz et al.,
105
2012). Each of these is illustrated in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1. The circular model of the structure of relations
among ten basic human values and the four higher order values.
Adapted from “Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with
a different method of measurement.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , by Schwartz,
et al. (2001, p. 522), (© 2017 Sage Publications
Values that are adjacent to one another share similar motivations and values that are
more distant have conflicting motivations, such that the pursuit of one value can
promote the attainment of neighbouring values and thwart the attainment of opposing
values. For example, actions intended to promote the welfare of all others
(universalism) are also likely to promote the welfare of close others (benevolence) and
106
at the same time, hinder the pursuit of opposing values (power and achievement).
People share the same value structure but differ in the relative important people place
on different values. That is, two people may attribute a similar importance to OC values,
but differ in the importance they place on ST and SE values. This may lead to the
pursuit of different values-expressive behaviours or the same behaviour for different
reasons. Using the example of a diving holiday that is likely to express individuals’ OC
values, one of these individuals may be motivated by a desire to experience the beauty
of nature (universalism), whereas the other may be motivated by the desire to achieve
the prestige associated of mastering this skill (achievement). Therefore, it is important
to examine the influence of the value structure rather than the single value to understand
and predict individuals’ travel decisions.
The theory of planned behaviour
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen, 1991) explains the process by which
individuals make decisions. Central to the TPB is an individual’s intention to perform a
target behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In general, intentions are
significant and proximal indicators of behaviour (Ajzen, 2001; Oreg & Katz-Gerro,
2006). That is, the stronger a person’s intention to perform a behaviour, the more likely
they are to do so (Ajzen, 1991). In the TPB, intentions are determined by three
antecedents; attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Attitudes
refer to the person’s positive or negative evaluation of performing a behaviour.
107
Subjective norms are a person’s perception of whether people who are important to
them think that they should or should not perform a behaviour. Perceived behavioural
control is an individual’s belief that they have the resources and opportunities to
perform a behaviour.
The TPB has been used to examine a wide range of tourism decisions. These studies
have used the TPB model to examine tourists intention to visit specific destinations
(Lam & Hsu, 2006; Quintal, Lee, & Soutar, 2010), revisit and recommend wineries
(Quintal, Thomas, & Phau, 2015; Sparks, 2007), engage in pro-environmental
behaviour in hotels (Han, 2015; Han & Kim, 2010), and make online bookings (Sahli &
Legohérel, 2015). These studies generally found the TPB model to be relevant to
explaining tourists’ behavioural intentions.
Aizen and Fishbein (2005) suggested that individual differences, such as personal
values, may impact all three antecedents to behavioural intentions in their model.
However, no studies have examined these impact on all three antecedents. We only
found one study to examine the effects of personal values on antecedent constructs in
the theory of planned behaviour. Hansen (2008) examined the impact of personal values
on attitudes toward shopping for groceries online in the context of the TPB. He found
that attitudes toward shopping for groceries online were positively related to self-
enhancement values and negatively to conservation values. However, this study did not
test the relations between values and the other TPB constructs (i.e., subjective norms
and perceived behavioural control). In the current study, we extend the literature by
108
examining, for the first time, the impact of personal values on the full set of antecedents
to intentions in the TPB model. Specifically, we examine the impact of Schwartz higher
order values on attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control in relation
to value-congruent holiday choices.
The Conceptual model and hypotheses
Holiday decisions are considered to be effortful choice situations, where people weigh
up the pros and cons of different alternatives. In these situations, values are likely to be
activated, especially when the alternatives promote conflicting values (Schwartz, 1992).
If a holiday alternative is congruent with a person’s value priorities it is more likely to
be preferred, whereas if it is conflicting it is more likely to be rejected. People make
value congruent choices for several reasons, including a need for consistency between
beliefs and actions, because it is rewarding, and because it is clearly related to what they
want (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003).
Personal values have long been thought to underlie the criteria people use to select,
guide and justify their behaviours (Rokeach, 1973). Following Ajzen and Fishbein
(2005), we expect personal values will have a direct positive impact on tourists’
attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control toward holiday options
that are value congruent. The conceptual model, depicted in Figure 5.2, shows the
hypothesised relations between people’s higher order values priorities and their
preferences for four holiday options that reflect each of these values.
109
Figure 5.2.The Conceptual Model
Thus, we hypothesise the following relations between personal values and attitudes,
subjective norms and perceived behavioural control toward value congruent holiday
options:
Hypothesis 1. The two bipolar values dimensions will have a positive impact on:
a) Attitudes toward value-congruent holiday options;
b) Subjective norms toward value-congruent holiday options; and
c) Perceived behavioural control towards value-congruent holiday options.
Hypothesis 2. Attitudes toward going on a value congruent holiday will have a direct
positive impact on behavioural intentions.
Hypothesis 3. Subjective norms toward going on a value congruent holiday will have a
direct positive impact on behavioural intentions.
Hypothesis 4. Perceived behavioural control toward going on a value congruent
holiday will have a direct positive impact on behavioural intentions.
110
5.4. Method
Participants and survey procedures
University students were considered an appropriate convenience sample for the current
study, given the size and importance of this market (UNWTO-WYSE, 2016). Two
online surveys were distributed three months apart to business students at a large
Australian university in exchange for course credit. At Time 1, 353 students (52% male,
age range: 18-58 years, median age 21, SD=3) completed an online questionnaire that
included personal values and several socio-demographic variables (gender, age and
nationality), as part of a larger study. Three months later, 85% (299) of these students
(48% male, age range: 18-54 years, median age 20, SD=3) completed a second online
questionnaire that asked questions related to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
constructs in relation to their intentions to go on each of four value-expressive holidays
when they completed their university studies.
Measures
Lee et al.’s (2016) refined best worst survey (the BWV-r) was used to measure
respondents’ personal values. This approach was chosen as it eliminates response biases
(e.g., patterning bias) that are commonly associated with rating scale measures and
produces relative value scores without the need for posthoc standardisation (Lee et al.,
2008), as recommended by values researchers (e.g., Schwartz, 1992).
The scales used to measure the TPB constructs were adapted from the commonly used
111
scales (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Basuroy, 2003;
Quintal et al., 2010) to make them relevant to the current study. These scales have been
well tested and their measurement properties have been demonstrated in these studies.
In the current study, the focal decision was intention to go on four different value-
expressive holidays:
An exciting holiday (reflecting Openness-to-Change),
A prestigious holiday (reflecting Self-Enhancement),
A well-organized holiday (reflecting Conservation), and
A compassionate holiday (reflecting Self-Transcendence).
These holiday-types were found to reflect the listed higher-order values in a prior study
that asked respondents to describe the values of a person they recently met, who had
been on one of these four holiday-types. The results indicated that the targeted higher-
order value in each condition was significantly higher than for all other values.
Two models were examined each reflecting one of the bipolar value dimensions. The
first examined the influence the OC versus CO bipolar dimension (OC minus CO
values) had on the TPB constructs for the OC minus CO holidays. The second examined
the influence the ST versus SE bipolar dimension (ST minus SE values) had on the TPB
constructs for the ST minus SE holidays.
Intentions to go on each of the value expressive holidays when they finish university
was measured with three items (intend, plan and expend effort) on Likert scales ranging
112
from 1 (unlikely) to 7 (very likely). Attitudes toward going on each of the four value
expressive holidays when they finish university was measured by four seven-point
semantic differential scales (bad - good, unattractive - attractive, bored - excited, and
unsatisfying - satisfying). Subjective norms were measured on two seven-point Likert
scales, asking if most people who are important to the respondent think they
should/should not and would approve/disapprove of them going on each of the four
value expressive holidays when they finish university. Finally, perceived behavioural
control was measured with two seven-point Likert scales asking how much personal
control (very little control to complete control) and their confidence (strongly disagree
to strongly agree) about being able to go on each of the value expressive holidays when
they finish university.
5.5. Data Analysis
Data pre-processing
Following Lee et al. (2016), respondents’ personal values were calculated by subtracting
the number of times one value item was chosen as the least important from the number
of times the same value item was chosen as the most important. This number was then
divided by the total number of times the item appeared across the sets (five times),
creating a -1 to +1 importance scale on which higher scores implied greater importance.
The four higher-order values were computed using the composition rules suggested by
Schwartz et al. (2012).
113
Partial Least Squares-SEM
A partial least squares (PLS) approach was used to estimate the model (Figure 5.2). PLS
is a variance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) method that maximizes the
explained variance of a model’s latent constructs and has some advantages in predictive
research (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, 2012; Lee,
Yang & Graham, 2006; Ryu, Kim, & Lee, 2009). The PLS approach is less impacted by
normality and sample size than are covariance-based SEM procedures (Henseler,
Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009; Reinartz, Haenlein, & Henseler, 2009), which may explain
its popularity in a wide range of contexts (Hair, et al., 2012), including some recent
tourism studies (e.g., Khoshkam, Marzuki, & Al-Mulali, 2016). Specifically, we used
PLS confirmatory factor analysis procedures in the WarpPLS 5.0 software program
(Kock, 2015). This uses a bootstrapping approach that reduces the effect of non-normal
data on the results (Kock, 2016). The constructs’ reliability and convergent and
discriminant validity were examined within each holiday type prior to the model’s
estimation.
5.6. Results
Descriptive analysis
The means and standard deviations for each of the bipolar value dimension: OC versus
CO = 0.35 (0.42); ST versus SE = 0.31 (0.52). These means are consistent with previous
studies of young adults’ values profiles (e.g., Schwartz, 2005).
114
Table 5.1 shows the means, standard deviations, validity and reliability of the TPB
constructs for each bipolar value dimension. The TPB construct means were all positive,
suggesting respondents had generally more positive attitudes, subjective norms and
perceived behavioural control toward going on a OC than on a CO holiday and on a ST
than on a SE holiday. Table 5.1 also shows the AVE scores of the TPB constructs and
correlations between the TPB constructs and the trade-offs between values and TPB
constructs. The AVE scores for each construct in the TPB had good measurement
properties (reliability and convergent validity) in each holiday context. Further, the
maximum squared correlation between the constructs was less than the smallest AVE
scores for those constructs in each holiday context. Consequently, discriminant validity
was assumed for all constructs in each holiday type (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Hypothesis testing
The WarpPLS partial least squares program (Kock, 2015) was used to assess these
properties and to estimate each model (Model 1: OC versus CO and Model 2: ST versus
SE). The three TPB antecedents accounted for over 70% of the variance in intentions
toward going on a value congruent holiday in both models (Table 5.2). The bipolar
value dimensions significantly impacted all three TPB antecedents, supporting H1a,
H1b and H1c. H2 (attitude on intention) and H4 (PBC on intention) were also
supported, but H3 (SN on intention) was not supported in either model.
115
Table 5.1. Means, reliability, AVE and correlations for each value dimension holiday model
Construct
Items M(SD) Construct
Reliability
AVE OC-CO Att SN PBC
The OC versus CO Holiday (trade-offs between OC and CO holidays) N=299
ATT 4 1.90 (1.71) 0.93 0.76 0.31
SN 2 0.38 (1.67) 0.83 0.71 0.16 0.49
PBC 2 0.76 (1.50) 0.69 0.53 0.39 0.68 0.60
INT 3 1.97 (1.93) 0.92 0.79 0.33 0.77 0.55 0.77
ST-SE Att SN PBC
The ST versus SE Holiday (trade-offs between ST and SE holidays) N=299
ATT 4 0.34 (2.29) 0.93 0.76 0.52
SN 2 0.85 (1.94) 0.78 0.64 0.33 0.65
PBC 2 0.25 (1.69) 0.70 0.54 0.44 0.75 0.75
INT 3 0.40 (2.54) 0.96 0.88 0.54 0.83 0.66 0.80
Note. Abbreviations are as follows: OC, openness to change; SE, self-enhancement; CO, conservation; ST, self-transcendence; ATT, Attitudes, SN, Subjective
norms; PBC, Perceived behavioural control; INT, intentions. Correlations great than |.11| are significant at p<0.05 level.
116
Table 5.2. The standardized coefficients and effect sizes for the models
Model 1: OC versus CO
(N=299)
Model 2: ST versus SE
(N=299)
β Cohen’s d β Cohen’s d
valuesATT 0.31 ***
0.09 0.52 ***
0.27
valuesSN 0.16 **
0.03 0.33 ***
0.11
valuesPBC 0.39 ***
0.15 0.44 ***
0.19
ATTINT 0.44 ***
0.34 0.52 ***
0.44
SNINT 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01
PBCINT 0.43 ***
0.33 0.39 ***
0.32
R2 0.71 0.76
**p<0.01,
***p<0.001
The value dimensions also had significant positive total effects on intention (OC versus
CO β = 0.31; ST versus SE β = 0.45). In model 1, the effect size for the value dimension
on intention (d = 0.10) was greater than for that of SN (d = 0.04), but not attitude (d =
0.34) or PBC (d= 0.33). In model 2, the effect size for the value dimension on intention
(d = 0.24) was greater than for SN (d= 0.01) but not and for attitude (d = 0.44) or PBC
(d = 0.32).
We argued that a person’s values structure, represented by the bipolar dimensions in
our analysis, should add to the explanation of holiday intentions beyond that suggested
by single values. In Table 5.3, we report the βs for the four higher order values on the
TPB antecedents and assess the differences from the bipolar models. That is, we ran
117
the same analysis for each of the four value expressive holiday model separately. We
found the bipolar β had significantly more influence than did the higher order values in
6 of the 12 comparisons and that there was no case in which the bipolar β had
significantly less influence than did the higher order values.
Table 5.3. The path coefficients for the four higher order values and the bipolar value
dimensions on the TPB constructs
OC-CO OC CO ST- SE SE ST
Values-ATT 0.31 0.23 0.16* 0.52 0.35
* 0.41
Values-SN 0.16 0.2 0.17 0.33 0.29 0.21
Values-PBC 0.39 0.13**
0.18**
0.44 0.24* 0.17
**
Note. All coefficients were significant above the p<0.05 level. Significant differences
in path coefficients between the higher order and bipolar values are indicated by
* p<0.05,
** p<0.01,
***p<0.001.
5.7. Discussion
The primary aim of the current study was to examine the impact personal values had on
young adults’ holiday decisions, using the TPB model as a framework. The analyses
suggested personal values significantly impacted on all three TPB antecedents; this
study shows a greater effect of values than that shown in prior research (e.g., Goh,
Ritchie, & Wang, 2017). This finding also extends our knowledge of tourism
behaviour, as previous studies generally focused on particular values (e.g.,
universalism value, Hedlund, 2011) or on specific behavioural antecedents, such as
attitudes (e.g., Hansen, 2008).
118
Overall, the TPB model was generally supported. Attitudes and perceived behavioural
control were significantly related to intention, whereas subjective norms were not
significantly related to intention in both bipolar value dimension models. These findings
are consistent with prior findings of a stronger effect of attitudes and a weaker effect of
subjective norms on intentions in more individual cultures (e.g., Bagozzi, Wong, Abe, &
Bergami, 2000; Hsu & Huang, 2012; Quintal et al., 2010). The none significant
normative influence of subjective norms on intentions may due to the fact that Australia
is high on individualism (90 Hofstede cultural scores). People who are more
individualist tend to motivated by their own goals and preferences and see their own
needs as priority (Triandis, 1995).
The study has implications for travel researchers and practitioners. It is the first study
that examined relationships between personal values and the TPB model’s constructs in
a tourism context. The study reported in this article makes theoretical and practical
contributions to the field.
Practically, as current findings indicate individual differences in holiday decision
process, future study could consider to segment tourists based on their person values
when exploring travel decision process. Managers can develop customized tourism
products that meet target groups’ motivational goals. For example, a destination might
attract people who prioritize anxiety avoidance (the self-enhancement and conservation
value group) by emphasizing the social approval in the messages of advertisements.
119
Moreover, this group of tourists may be interested in visiting places and attractions that
enhance their social status and demonstrate their personally success. Marketers could
consider to promote their destinations with well-organized holidays that minimize
people’s uncertainty but also reflect prestigious holiday standards. On the other hand,
destination marketers may consider a distinct strategy to attract people are anxiety free
(openness to change and the self-transcendence value group) and place more importance
on self-growth. They tend to find novel experiences as more appealing. Given that,
advertisement of destinations focusing on information of unique and novel holiday
experience could be more effective to attract this group of tourists.
5.8. Limitations and Future Directions
As always, there are several limitations. In current study, we examined university
students as means to understand the most significant market segment of the youth
tourism (Richards & Wilson, 2005). However, university students who had similar
socio-demographic characteristics (age, life stage, education) tend limits the study’s
generalizability. While student sample has been justified in literature (e.g., Burnett &
Dune, 1986) and have been used in recent tourism studies (e.g., Alvarez & Campo,
2014; Chen et al., 2013) and are identified as an important tourism market (Thrane,
2015, 2016), future research with a more general sample seems desirable.
Further, current study used abstract holiday concept (e.g., an exciting holiday) rather
than more concrete holiday type (e.g., visit theme park, beach, museum, etc.). This may
120
increase the strength of the impact values have on the TPB constructs. This is because
values are more likely to be activated to guide value congruent behaviour when the
cognitive representation of behaviour is at a highly abstract level (Freitas, Gollwitzer, &
Trope, 2004; Torelli & Kaikati, 2009). Future research could consider trying to use
more explicit holiday information when using the TPB model or other well developed
behavioural model to examine the role of personal values in travel decision making.
121
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The previous three Chapters were self-contained papers that had been submitted to or
accepted by journals. Each included a literature review, methods, results and discussion
section. This final Chapter provides an overall summary and discussion of the findings
from the three empirical papers. The first section summarises and discusses findings
drawn from the research undertaken in this project. The second section identifies the
implications and limitations of the studies and suggests some future research
opportunities.
6.1. A Summary of the Findings
The overall aim of the thesis was to examine the role personal values play in some
tourism contexts and, particularly, to understand the ways in which people may attribute
values to other people and entities, such as destinations. The thesis also investigated the
effect personal values had on decision making, drawing on the TPB model to do this. In
particular, the project asked:
1. To what extent do people attribute human values to other entities, both human
and non-human (travel destinations)?
2. What impacts on tourist’s perceptions of a destination’s values?
3. To what extent do values influence behavioural intentions, and their
antecedents, in a tourism context?
122
The first paper (Chapter Three) was related to the first project aim. It examined whether
perceptions of others’ values reflect Schwartz’s (1992) theorized value structure. Across
three studies that examined different samples in different contexts, this paper provide
the first evidence that implicit theories of values guide people’s perceptions of the
values of other human and non-human entities (two city destinations in this case). The
current research extends implicit theories to understand people’s implicit beliefs about a
more complex structure that includes not only compatible but also conflicting values.
This new theory provides a new way for researchers and practitioners to gain
knowledge of how people understand other people and other non-human entities
(destination values) in daily social interactions.
The second paper (Chapter Four) was related to the second project aim. It investigated
relationships between individual differences and people’s perceptions of destination
values. This paper provides evidence that perceived destination values follow the same
trade-offs between the four higher order values hypothesized in Schwartz’s (1992)
values theory. Further, tourists’ memorable holiday experiences were found to be well
aligned with individual differences in perceived destination values. These findings add
to the literature on destination perceptions and destination marketing. Researchers and
marketers can use the newly developed destination values measurement instrument to
evaluate tourists’ perceptions of the values of their own destinations and of other
competing destinations. In this way, marketers can better understand the uniqueness of
their own destinations and design effective marketing appeals to enhance
123
competitiveness.
The third paper (Chapter Five) was related to the third project aim. It tested for the first
time the effect personal values have on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) in four
value expressive holiday contexts. These four value dimensions were found to have
positive influences on attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control
toward going on value expressive holidays. These results demonstrated the importance
of personal values and values congruence in understanding and predicting intentions in
tourism contexts.
In summary, the current research contributes to the literature by improving our
understanding of tourists’ destination perceptions; suggesting individual differences
relate to differences in destination value perceptions and showing the extent to which
tourists’ personal values predict their holiday decisions. These findings open up
promising future research directions in the fields of destination perceptions and
destination marketing.
6.2. Future Directions
A major future direction should be the exploration of the formation of destination value
perceptions. Although the current research found a link between personal values,
memorable holiday experiences and perceived destination values, it did not provide
evidence of the value perception formation process. Future research should explore the
relationships between personal values and memorable holiday experiences and tourists’
124
perceptions of different destination values.
An un-researched question is whether the relationships between tourists’ personal
values and perceived destination values reflect self-projection effects. This would
suggest tourists use their own values as a reference point when making inferences of
destination values. If this is the case, as suggested by anchoring-and-adjustment theory
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), people will tend to adjust away from an initial reference
point. Further research is needed to examine whether the anchor point for destination
values perceptions is the self or a different reference point.
Another interesting research question that should be examined is the extent to which
tourists’ individual differences contribute to the degree of adjustment in their
perceptions of destination values. In this thesis differences in age, gender and
knowledge were not related to destination values perceptions, but memorable
experiences appeared to reflect destination values. As suggested by Prebble, Addis and
Tippett (2013), some experiences are more memorable, as they tend to be important to
people’s self-concept and, hence, are easier to access when recalled. This suggests
tourists’ personal values might have a greater influence on destination values
perceptions than expected. Future research should examine tourists’ personal values and
holiday experiences at different points in the decision making process and with different
amounts and types of external information, to explore these interrelationships and their
combined effect on destinations’ values perceptions.
125
Further, although no prior research has examined the formation of destination value
perceptions, studies in destination image formation might provide insights for future
research. Crompton’s (1979, p.18) widely used definition of destination image (“the
sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has of a destination”) suggests
perceived destination values might serve as an abstract representation of destination
image. Accordingly, factors that have been found to contribute to perceived destination
image may also help explain differences in tourists’ perceptions of a destination’s
values.
Perceptions of destination image have been found to relate to individual differences,
such as age and education, as well as to differences in holiday experiences, travel
motivations and sources of information (e.g., friends, guidebooks, advertisements)
(Beerli & Markin, 2004). Considering the effect personal values have on people’s
selective attentions (Verplanken & Holland, 2002), future research should also explore
what types and content of information shape people’s perceptions of destination values
and generate more favourable destination perceptions, or whether situation specific
travel motivations are related to perceptions of destination values so as to provide a
more comprehensive understanding of these constructs for destination researchers and
marketers.
Researchers have suggested that perceived similarity with other tourists influences
travel behaviour, but no one has examined this with values. For instance, Hosany &
Martin, (2012) found that tourists’ perceived similarity with other people on a cruise
126
influenced their satisfaction with the cruise, which then influenced their intention to
recommend the cruise. Future research could explore whether the perceived similarity
between tourists’ own values and the perceived values of other tourists, would influence
their holiday experiences and travel intentions.
Further, although tourism is usually a group activity (Hsu & Huang, 2012), the current
research focused on the influence personal values had on individual holiday decisions.
Future research should examine the role personal values play in predicting group
intentions in tourism contexts. As suggested by Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002), we-
intentions may better capture social influence than I-intentions, as individuals then view
themselves as a member of a group, rather than as distinct individuals coming together
but acting separately.
Future research should also examine whether individuals differ in terms of the relative
impact their personal values have on different antecedents to travel intentions. For
instance, self-transcendence or openness to change values are less anxiety avoidant than
self-enhancement or conservation values (Schwartz et al., 2012). People who prioritize
self-transcendence consider the importance of promoting others’ benefits might find
subjective norms have a stronger influence than attitudes on we-intentions to go on
holiday with a group of people. However, people who priorities self-enhancement tend
to place their own interests ahead of that of others and so might find attitudes have a
stronger influence than subjective norms on we-intentions.
127
Future research should also examine other well developed behavioural models that may
also add to our understanding of the relationships between tourists’ personal values,
intentions and behaviours. For instance, the model of goal directed behaviours (MGB),
which includes the TPB but redefines their roles as indirectly affecting behavioural
intentions through desire. This model also introduces anticipated emotions, group
norms, frequency of past behaviour, recent past behaviour, social identity and we-
intentions to better explain purposive goal-directed behaviour (Bagozzi & Dholakia,
2002; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001). The MGB has recently been used to understand
medicine festival visitors’ intentions (Song, You, Reisinger, Lee, & Lee, 2014) and to
explain cruise travellers’ environmental decisions (Han, Lee, & Hwang, 2016). Given
its usefulness in tourism contexts, future research should explore the effects personal
values have on the MGB in tourism contexts.
Finally, the current study was cross sectional as it did not focus on changes in tourists’
travel experiences and travel decisions. It is possible people modify their perceptions of
destinations as a result of their past or recent travel experiences and, hence, may change
their evaluations of a holiday over time. However, time and budget considerations
meant these issues could not be examined in the present study. Consequently, future
research should explore longitudinal relationships between personal values and
behaviours in tourism contexts.
128
6.3. Research Limitations and Future Research
As with all studies, there are limitations in the present study. First, the findings were
constrained by the samples that were used. For the first two empirical studies (Chapter
Three and Chapter Four), respondents were recruited from a commercial panel provider,
as residents in the United States of America and Australia. As such, the sample \ might
not be representative of all tourists from these two countries. Similarly, for the third
empirical study (Chapter Five), respondents were a convenience sample of university
students from Australia. Consequently, respondents cannot be assumed to be
representative of the youth tourist population of Australia. While the findings of the
current studies cannot be generalised to the entire population of Australian young adults,
the shared perceptions and evaluations of the four different holiday types were likely
indicative of this particular segment of the community.
Second, all respondents were from developed and more individualistic cultures
(Hofstede, retrieved 2017). Therefore, it is not known whether the current findings
would be replicated in similar samples from different cultures. Although Schwartz’s
(1992) value structure has been validated across cultures, additional research could
extend the present studies to other countries (e.g., Asian countries and developing
countries) and go beyond current contexts to test whether the current findings can be
confirmed and generalized.
Third, the use of commercial, online panels limited the ability to probe for further
129
information and restricted the possibility of obtaining deeper insights from the results.
This limitation was addressed, in part, in Chapter Four, where open-ended questions
were used to generate deeper insights. However, face to face interviews or focus group
discussions might be beneficial in future research in order to observe respondents and
structure research questions to guide a deeper and a more comprehensive conversation
around the research topics.
Fourth, the measurements of destination values were restricted to Schwartz’s four
higher order values. This potentially constrains the level of detail tourism marketers can
elicit about perceived destination values and their ability to explore more specific aspect
of their destinations among tourists.
Fifth, the direct effect of values on behavioural intentions tend to be relatively smaller
than other well examined behavioural antecedents, such as attitudes, subjective norms,
etc. To better understand the effect of values in tourism research, a consideration might
be to explore segmenting individuals into groups that are based on travel preferences,
for example, whether individuals prefer to take holidays for leisure or for business
purposes or whether people prefer to travel alone or travel with companions.
Sixth, the focus on correlational effects rather than causal effects between values and
perceptions of others (other people and destinations) and between values and holiday
preferences limits conclusions. Future research could consider exploring the causality
link between values and other constructs (e.g., perceptions and behaviours) across
130
contexts using experimental studies or more advanced neuroimaging techniques.
Seventh, the current holiday descriptions were designed to reflect the four higher order
values and to activate people’s more abstract construal level mindset; however, it is not
clear whether the reported effect of values on the model of TPB would remain
consistent when adapting a more concrete description of holiday (e.g., descriptions of
travel activities/ travel itinerates, etc.). Future research could explore to what extent the
level of abstraction of information impacts on the effect of values on value-related
constructs (e.g., attitudes, norms, intentions) in tourism context.
To summarize, despite the limitations of the current project, the research provides
several findings that contribute to our understanding of the role personal values play in
tourism contexts. This opens the door for promising future research directions,
particularly for researchers who are interested in personifying destinations with human
characteristics and those who are interested in understanding individual differences in
tourists’ holiday decisions.
131
REFERENCE
Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers
of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492-508. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.492
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(3), 347-356.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1),
27-58.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D.
Albarracin, Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), The handbook of attitudes (pp.
173-221). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes,
intentions, and perceived behavioural control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22(5), 453-474. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
Allen, M. W., Ng, S. H., & Wilson, M. (2002). A functional approach to instrumental
and terminal values and the value-attitude-behaviour system of consumer choice.
European Journal of Marketing, 36(1/2), 111-135. doi:
10.1108/03090560210412728
Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. (1960). Study of values (3rd ed.). Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
132
Alvarez, M. D., & Campo, S. (2014). The influence of political conflicts on country
image and intention to visit: A study of Israel's image. Tourism Management, 40,
70-78. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.05.009
Amaro, S., Duarte, P., & Henriques, C. (2016). Travelers’ use of social media: A
clustering approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 59, 1-15.
doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2016.03.007
Anderson, C. A., & Sedikides, C. (1991). Thinking about people: Contributions of a
typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person
perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 203-217.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.203
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 41(3), 153-163. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000179
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., ... & De
Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives:
solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356-366. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). International Social Action in Virtual
Communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2-21. doi:
10.1002/dir.10006
Bagozzi, R. P., Dholakia, U. M., & Basuroy, S. (2003). How effortful decisions get
enacted: The motivating role of decision processes, desires, and anticipated
emotions. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 16(4), 273-295. doi:
10.1002/bdm.446
Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., Abe, S., & Bergami, M. (2000). Cultural and situational
contingencies and the theory of reasoned action: Application to fast food
restaurant consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 97-106. doi:
133
10.1207/S15327663JCP0902_4
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals
of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-897. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00030-4
Bardi, A., Lee, J. A., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., & Soutar, G. (2009). The structure of
intraindividual value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97(5), 913-929. doi: 10.1037/a0016617
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207-1220.
Barni, D., Ranieri, S., Scabini, E., & Rosnati, R. (2011). Value transmission in the
family: Do adolescents accept the values their parents want to transmit? Journal
of Moral Education, 40(1), 105-121. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2011.553797
Beatty, S., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. (1991). Personal values and gift-giving
behaviours: A study across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 149-
157. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(91)90049-4
Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(3), 657-681. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.010
Bicikova, K. (2014). Understanding student travel behavior: A segmentation analysis of
British university students. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(7), 854-
867. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2014.890154
Bobowik, M., Basabe, N., Páez, D., Jiménez, A., & Bilbao, M. A. (2011). Personal
values and well-being among Europeans, Spanish natives and immigrants to
Spain: Does the culture matter? Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(3), 401-419.
doi: 10.1007/s10902-010-9202-1
Boer, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes
and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude–value linkages.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1113-1147. doi: 10.1037/a0031347
134
Borg, I., & Bardi, A. (2016). Should ratings of the importance of personal values be
centered? Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 95-101. doi:
10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.011
Borg, I., Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2017). Does the value circle exist within persons
or only across persons? Journal of Personality, 85(2), 151-162. doi:
10.1111/jopy.12228
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and
applications.New York, NK: Springer Science & Business Media.
Borg, I., Groenen, P. J., & Mair, P. (2012). Applied multidimensional scaling. New York,
NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Borkenau, P. (1988). The multiple classification of acts and the big five factors of
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 22(3), 337-352. doi:
10.1016/0092-6566(88)90034-7
Borkenau, P. (1990). Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), 381-396. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.58.3.381
Borkenau, P. (1992). Implicit personality theory and the five‐factor model. Journal of
Personality, 60(2), 295-327. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00975.x
Braithwaite, V. A., & Law, H. G. (1985). Structure of human values: Testing the
adequacy of the Rokeach value survey. Journal of Personalit and Social
Psychology, 49(1), 250-263. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.250
Burnett, J. J., & Dune, P. M. (1986). An appraisal of the use of student subjects in
marketing research. Journal of Business Research, 14(4), 329-343. doi:
10.1016/0148-2963(86)90024-X
Caber, M., & Albayrak, T. (2016). Push or pull? Identifying rock climbing tourists'
motivations. Tourism Management, 55, 74-84.
135
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.003
Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006).
Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology,
27(1), 1-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00447.x
Chen, H.-J., Chen, P.-J., & Okumus, F. (2013). The relationship between travel
constraints and destination image: A case study of Brunei. Tourism Management,
35, 198-208. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07.004
Cheng, S., Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Negative word-of-mouth communication
intention: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(1), 95-116. doi:
10.1177/1096348005284269
Choi, M. J., Heo, C. Y., & Law, R. (2016). Progress in shopping tourism. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(sup1), 1-24. doi:
10.1080/10548408.2014.969393
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned
behavior: Toward a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1547-1561. doi:
10.1177/01461672012711014
Critcher, C. R., & Dunning, D. (2009). Egocentric pattern projection: How implicit
personality theories recapitulate the geography of the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 931-945. doi: 10.1037/a0015670
Critcher, C. R., Dunning, D., & Rom, S. C. (2015). Causal trait theories: A new form of
person knowledge that explains egocentric pattern projection. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 400-416. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000019
136
Crofts, K., & Bisman, J. (2010). Interrogating accountability: An illustration of the use
of Leximancer software for qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Research in
Accounting & Management, 7(2), 180-207. doi: 10.1108/11766091011050859
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination
and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel
Research, 17(4), 18-23.
Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425-439. doi: 10.1016/S0160-
7383(97)80010-2
D'Andrade, R. G. (1965). Trait psychology and componential analysis. American
Anthropologist, 67(5), 215-228. doi: 10.1525/aa.1965.67.5.02a00790
d'Astous, A., & Boujbel, L. (2007). Positioning countries on personality dimensions:
Scale development and implications for country marketing. Journal of Business
Research, 60(3), 231-239. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.11.005
Daniel, E., Schiefer, D., Möllering, A., Benish‐Weisman, M., Boehnke, K., & Knafo, A.
(2012). Value differentiation in adolescence: The role of age and cultural
complexity. Child Development, 83(1), 322-336. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2011.01694.x
Dann, G. M. (1981). Tourist motivation an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2),
187-219.
De Leeuw, J., & Mair, P. (2009). Multidimensional scaling using majorization:
SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 31(4), 1-30. doi:
10.18637/jss.v031.i03
Di Blas, L., & Forzi, M. (1999). Refining a descriptive structure of personality attributes
in the Italian language: The abridged Big Three circumplex structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 451-481.
137
Dollinger, S. J., Leong, F. T. L., & Ulicni, S. K. (1996). On traits and values: With
special reference to openness to experience. Journal of Research in Personality,
30(1), 23-41.
Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (1993). The divided self:
Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles
on self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
64(5), 834-846. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.834
Doran, C. J. (2009). The role of personal values in fair trade consumption. Journal of
Business Ethics, 84(4), 549-563. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9724-1
Durgee, J. F., & Veryzer, R. W. (1996). Translating values into product wants. Journal of
Advertising Research, 36(6), 90-100.
Ekinci, Y., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Segmenting overseas British holidaymakers by
personal values. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9(3-4), 5-15. doi:
10.1300/J150v09n03_02
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand
personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 127-139.
doi: 10.1177/0047287506291603
Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Baloglu, S. (2007). Host image and destination
personality. Tourism Analysis, 12(5-6), 433-446. doi:
10.3727/108354207783227885
England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of
Management Journal, 10(1), 53-68.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and
adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-
provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391-396. doi:10.1111/1467-
9280.00372
138
Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as
egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87(3), 327-339. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.327
Eyal, T., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Chaiken, S. (2009). When
values matter: Expressing values in behavioural intentions for the near vs.
distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 35-43. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.023
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2013). G*Power Version 3.1.7
[computer software]. Retrieved from
http://www.psycho.uniduesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/download-and-
register
Feather, N. T. (1975). Values in Education and Society. New York, NY: Free Press.
Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influences of values on the
perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135-1151. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1135
Fischer, R. (2006). Congruence and functions of personal and cultural values: Do my
values reflect my culture’s values?. Personality and Social Psychology
bulletin, 32(11), 1419-1431.doi:10.1177/0146167206291425
Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. (2011). Whence differences in value priorities? Individual,
cultural, or artifactual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(7),
1127-1144. doi: 10.1177/0022022110381429
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M., & Stasson, M. (1990). The role of desires, self‐predictions, and perceived
control in the prediction of training session attendance. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 20(3), 173-198. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00406.x
139
Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3),
555-581. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(94)90120-1
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382-388.
Fredricks, A. J., & Dossett, D. L. (1983). Attitude–behaviour relations: A comparison of
the Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bentler-Speckart models. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45(3), 501-512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.501
Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abastract and
concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others' self-regulatory efforts.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 739-752. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.003
Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial
distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17(4),
278-282. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-
reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493-501. doi: 10.1016/S1364-
6613(98)01262-5
Gecas, V. (2000). Value identities, self-motives, and social movements. In S. Stryker, T.
J. Owens & R. W. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (Vol. 13,
pp. 93-109). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., . . . Arnadottir,
J. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study.
Science, 332 (6033), 1100-1104. doi: 10.1126/science.1197754
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97-107. doi:
140
10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.12.002
Goh, E., Ritchie, B., & Wang, J. (2017). Non-compliance in national parks: An
extension of the theory of planned behaviour model with pro-environmental
values. Tourism Management, 59, 123-127. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.07.004
Gosling, S. D., Kwan, V. S. Y., & John, O. P. (2003). A dog's got personality: A cross-
species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1161-1169. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1161
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1989). The self as a memory system: Powerful, but
ordinary. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 41-54. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.41
Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Canonical
correlation: A supplement to multivariate data analysis. Multivariate Data
Analysis (6th ed., pp. 1-44). Upper Saddie River, NJ: Person Prentice Hall
Publishing. Retrieved from
http://www.mvstats.com/downloads/supplements/canonical_correlation_7e.pdf.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. doi:
10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use
of partial least squares structural equation modelling in marketing research.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414-433. doi:
10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
Han, H. (2015). Travellers’ pro-environmental behaviour in a green lodging context:
Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behaviour.
Tourism Management, 47, 164-177. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.014
141
Han, H., & Hwang, J. (2016). Cruise travellers’ environmentally responsible decision-
making: An integrative framework of goal-directed behaviour and norm
activation process. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 94-
105. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.03.006
Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision
formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behaviour.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 659-668. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.01.001
Hansen, T. (2008). Consumer values, the theory of planned behaviour and online
grocery shopping. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 128-137.
doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00655.x
Hedlund, T. (2011). The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to
accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment on tourists’ intentions to
buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 11(4), 278-288. doi: 10.1177/1467358411423330
Hedlund, T., Marell, A., & Tommy, G. (2012). The mediating effect of value orientation
on the relationship between socio-demographic factors and environmental
concern in Swedish tourists' vacation choices. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(1), 16-
33.
Hehman, E., Sutherland, C. A., Flake, J. K., & Slepian, M. L. (2017). The Unique
contributions of perceiver and target characteristics in person perception.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000090
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares
path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing,
20(1), 277-319.
Hofstede, G. (Retrieved 2017). National Culture Dimensions, Geert Hofstede. Retrieved
142
July 2017, from https://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
Homer, T. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A Structural Equation Test of the Value-Attitude-
Behavior Hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638-
646. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination
personality: An application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of
Business Research, 59(5), 638-642. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.001
Hosany, S., & Martin, D. (2012). Self-image congruence in consumer behaviour.
Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 685-691.
doi :10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.015
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, O., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and
implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE.
Journal of World Business. 37, 3-10.
Hsu, C. H., & Huang, S. S. (2012). An extension of the theory of planned behavior
model for tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36(3), 390-417.
doi: 10.1177/1096348010390817
Huang, S., & Hsu, C. H. (2009). Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived
constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1),
29-44. doi: 10.1177/0047287508328793
Inglehart, Ronald. (1971). The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in
Post-Industrial Societies. American Political Science Review 65, 991-1017.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A
rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256-262.
Jayawardhena, C. (2004). Personal values' influence on e-shopping attitude and
behaviour. Internet Research, 14(2), 127-138. doi: 10.1108/10662240410530844
Kahle, L. R. (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America.
143
New York, NY: Praeger.
Kahle, L. R. (1984). Attitudes and Social Adaptation: A Person-Situation Interaction
Approach. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Kahle, L. R., Beatty, S. E., & Homer, P. (1986). Alternative measurement approaches to
consumer values: the list of values (LOV) and values and life style (VALS).
Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 405-409.
Kahle, L. R., & Kennedy, P. (1988). Using the list of values (LOV) to understand
consumers. Journal of Services Marketing, 2(4), 49-56. doi: 10.1108/eb024742
Kahle, L. R., & Timmer, S. G. (1983). A theory and a method for studying values.
Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America, 43-69.
Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (1994). Measuring similarity in couples. Journal of
Family Psychology, 8(4), 417.
Khoshkam, M., Marzuki, A., & Al-Mulali, U. (2016). Socio-demographic effects on
Anzali wetland tourism development. Tourism Management, 54, 96-106. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2015.10.012
Kim, K., Jogaratnam, G., & Noh, J. (2006). Travel decisions of students at a US
university: Segmenting the international market. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
12(4), 345-357. doi: 10.1177/1356766706067606
Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2001). Value socialization in families of Israeli-born and
Soviet-born adolescents in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(2),
213-228. doi: 10.1177/0022022101032002008
Knafo, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on girls' and
boys' gender-typed and gender-neutral values. Developmental Psychology,
47(3), 726-731. doi: 10.1037/a0021910
Kock, N. (2014). A note on how to conduct a factor-based PLS-SEM analysis (pp. 2-
11). Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems. Retrieved from
144
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0066/1e9c5ff92819932ebbd8f5b11a3c5d5d3bee
.pdf.
Kock, N. (2016). Non-normality propagation among latent variables and indicators in
PLS-SEM simulations. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 15(1),
299-315.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Predicting behavioural intention of choosing a travel
destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589-599.
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.02.003
Ledden, L., Kalafatis, S. P., & Samouel, P. (2007). The relationship between personal
values and perceived value of education. Journal of Business Research, 60(9),
965-974.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.021
Lee, J. A., Sneddon, J., Daly, T., Soutar, G., Louviere, J., & Schwartz, S. (2016). Testing
and extending Schwartz refined value theory using a best-worst scaling
approach. Assessment. doi: 1073191116683799
Lee, J. A., Soutar, G., & Louviere, J. (2008). The best–worst scaling approach: An
alternative to Schwartz's values survey. Journal of Personality Assessment,
90(4), 335-347. doi: 10.1080/00223890802107925
Lee, J. A., Soutar, G. N., Daly, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2011). Schwartz values clusters
in the United States and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2),
234-252.
Lee, J. A., Soutar, G. N., & Louviere, J. (2007). Measuring values using best-worst
scaling: The LOV example. Psychology & Marketing, 24(12), 1043-1058.
doi: 10.1002/mar.20197
Lee, J. A., Soutar, G., & Louviere, J. (2008). The best–worst scaling approach: An
alternative to Schwartz's values survey. Journal of Personality Assessment,
145
90(4), 335-347. doi: 10.1080/00223890802107925
Lee, J. A., Ye, S., Sneddon, J. N., Collins, P. R., & Daniel, E. (2017). Does the intra-
individual structure of values exist in young children? Personality and
Individual Differences, 110, 125-130. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.038
Lee, K.-h., Yang, G., & Graham, J. L. (2006). Tension and trust in international business
negotiations: American executives negotiating with Chinese executives. Journal
of International Business Studies, 37(5), 623-641. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400215
Letheren, K., Martin, B. A., & Jin, H. S. (2017). Effects of personification and
anthropomorphic tendency on destination attitude and travel intentions. Tourism
Management, 62, 65-75. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.03.020
Leszkowicz, E., Linden, D. E., Maio, G. R., & Ihssen, N. (2017). Neural evidence of
motivational conflict between social values. Social Neuroscience, 12(5), 494-
505. doi:10.1080/17470919.2016.1183517
Li, M., & Cai, L. A. (2012). The effects of personal values on travel motivation and
behavioural intention. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 473-487.
doi: 10.1177/0047287511418366
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations
in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.75.1.5
Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don't put all of your
eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3(1), 94-120. doi:
10.1521/soco.1985.3.1.94
Louviere, J., Lings, I., Islam, T., Gudergan, S., & Flynn, T. (2013). An introduction to
the application of (case 1) best–worst scaling in marketing research.
146
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(3), 292-303.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.10.002
Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Marley, A. (2015). Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods
and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lu, J., Hung, K., Wang, L., Schuett, M. A., & Hu, L. (2016). Do perceptions of time
affect outbound-travel motivations and intention? An investigation among
Chinese seniors. Tourism Management, 53, 1-12.
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.003
Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction. Journal of
Leisure Research, 27(3), 205-227.
Madrigal, R., & Kahle, L. R. (1994). Predicting vacation activity preferences on the
basis of value-system segmentation. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 22-28.
doi: 10.1177/004728759403200304
Maio, G. R. (2010). Mental representations of social values. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 1-43. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Mair, P., Borg, I., & Rusch, T. (2016). Goodness-of-Fit assessment in multidimensional
scaling and unfolding. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 51(6), 772-789.
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2016.1235966
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory
perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor
model of personality traits. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews & D. H. Saklofske
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Volume 1-
Personality Theories and Models (2nd ed., pp. 273-294). Trowbridge, Wiltshire,
147
UK: Cromwell Press Ltd.
Mehmetoglu, M., Hines, K., Graumann, C., & Greibrokk, J. (2010). The relationship
between personal values and tourism behaviour: A segmentation approach.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(1), 17-27. doi: 10.1177/1356766709356210
Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1997). Gambling activities of young Australians:
Developing a model of behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(3), 207-236.
doi: 10.1023/A:1024979232287
Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1999). Beliefs about control over gambling among young
people, and their relation to problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviours, 13(4), 339-347. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.13.4.339
Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2004). Meeting the destination branding challenge. In N.
Morgan, A. Pritchard & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the
unique, destination proposition (2nd ed., pp. 59-78). Oxford, UK: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2007). Destination branding (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Routledge.
Muller, T. E. (1991). Using personal values to define segments in an international
tourism market. International Marketing Review, 8(1), 57-71.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to
differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 5-
14. doi: 10.1177/0047287507302371
Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and
personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 339-347.
doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9
Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting pro-environmental behaviour cross-
148
nationally values, the theory of planned behaviour, and value-belief-norm
theory. Environment and Behaviour, 38(4), 462-483.
doi: 10.1177/0013916505286012
Pakizeh, A., Gebauer, J. E., & Maio, G. R. (2007). Basic human values: Inter-value
structure in memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 458-
465. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.007
Pan, L., Zhang, M., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2017). Development and validation of a
destination personality scale for mainland Chinese travellers. Tourism
Management, 59, 338-348. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.005
Park, B. (1986). A method for studying the development of impressions of real people.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 907-917.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.907
Park, D.-B., & Yoon, Y.-S. (2009). Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A
Korean case study. Tourism Management, 30(1), 99-108.
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.03.011
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal
values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3-29.
doi: 10.1177/1088868314538548
Passini, F. T., & Norman, W. T. (1966). A universal conception of personality structure?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(1), 44-49. doi:
10.1037/h0023519
Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Perkins, A. W., & Forehand, M. R. (2006). Decomposing the implicit self–concept: The
relative influence of semantic meaning and valence on attribute self–association.
Social Cognition, 24(4), 387-408. doi:10.1521/soco.2006.24.4.387
149
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in
goal-directed behaviours: Broading and deepening the theory of planned
behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79-98. doi:
10.1348/014466601164704
Pike, S. (2012). Destination positioning opportunities using personal values: Elicited
through the repertory test with laddering analysis. Tourism Management, 33(1),
100-107. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.008
Pitts, R. E., & Woodside, A. G. (1986). Personal values and travel decisions. Journal of
Travel Research, 25(1), 20-25. doi: 10.1177/004728758602500104
Pizam, A., & Calantone.R. (1987). Beyond psychographics-values as determinants of
tourist behaviour. Hospitality Management, 6(3), 177-181. doi: 10.1016/0278-
4319(87)90052-1
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1979). Tourist satisfaction: Uses and misuses.
Annals of Tourism Research, 6(2), 195-197.
Plog, S. (1974). W/hy Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Quarterly, 14(4), 55-58.
Poulsen, J., & French, A. (2008). Discriminant function analysis (DA). Retrieved from
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/efc/classes/biol710/discrim/discrim.pdf.
Prebble, S. C., Addis, D. R., & Tippett, L. J. (2013). Autobiographical memory and
sense of self. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 815-840. doi: 10.1037/a0030146
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Taylor, C. R. (2013). The role of geography of self in
“filling in” brand personality traits: Consumer inference of unobservable
attributes. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 16-29. doi:
10.1080/00913367.2012.748632
Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2010). Risk, uncertainty and the theory of
planned behavior: A tourism example. Tourism Management, 31(6), 797-805.
150
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.006
Quintal, V. A., Thomas, B., & Phau, I. (2015). Incorporating the winescape into the
theory of planned behaviour: Examining ‘new world’wineries. Tourism
Management, 46, 596-609. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.08.013
Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M. C. H., & Au, A. K. M. (2010). Consumer support for
corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of religion and values. Journal of
Business Ethics, 91(1), 61-72. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0568-0
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the
efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332-344. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2006). Message in a ballad: The role of music
preferences in interpersonal perception. Psychological Science, 17(3), 236-242.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2005). Youth tourism-Finally coming of age? In M. Novelli
(Ed.), Niche tourism: Contemporary issues, trends and cases (pp. 39-46).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rodgers, J. L. (1991). Matrix and stimulus sample sizes in the weighted MDS model:
Empirical metric recovery functions. Applied Psychological Measurement,
15(1), 71-77. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662169101500107
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A Rose by Any Name? The Values Construct. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255-277.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free press.
Rose, G. M., Shoham, A., Kahle, L. R., & Batra, R. (1994). Social values, conformity,
and dress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(17), 1501-1519.
Ryu, M.-H., Kim, S., & Lee, E. (2009). Understanding the factors affecting online
elderly user’s participation in video UCC services. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 25(3), 619-632. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.013
151
Sagiv, L., Sverdlik, N., & Schwarz, N. (2011). To compete or to cooperate? Values'
impact on perception and action in social dilemma games. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 41(1), 64-77. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.729
Sahli, A. B., & Legohérel, P. (2015). The tourism Web acceptance model: A study of
intention to book tourism products online. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 22
(2), 179-194. doi: 10.1177/1356766715607589
Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin,
79(5), 294-309. doi:10.1037/h0034996
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical test in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1-65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
4560.1994.tb01196.x
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behaviour: Applying a theory of integrated
value systems. Paper presented at the The psychology of values: The Ontario
Symposium, Hillsdale, NJ. Retrieved from
http://www.palermo.edu/cienciassociales/psicologia/publicaciones/pdf/Psico2/2P
sico%2007.pdf
Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. ESS
Questionnaire Development Report (Chapter 7) (pp. 259-319). Retrieved from
http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/core_ess_questionnaire
/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf
Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in
individual values. Paper presented at the Valores e comportamento nas organizaç
Atoes [Values and behavior in organizations], (pp. 56 –95). Petrópolis, Brazil.
152
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and
applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2-3), 137-182. doi:
10.1163/156913306778667357
Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in
light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 5-13.
doi: 10.1177/0022022113490830
Schwartz, S. H. (2015). Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. In T.
Brosch & D. Sander (Eds.), Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics,
neuroscience, philosophy, psychology and sociology (pp. 63-84). Oxford: UK:
Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a
similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268-290.
doi: 10.1177/0022022101032003002
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human
values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and
strucuture of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878-891. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.58.5.878
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., . . .
Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663-688. doi: 10.1037/a0029393
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001).
Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a
different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5),
519-542.
153
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and
structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92-116.
Sherry, A., & Henson, R. K. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation
analysis in personality research: A user-friendly primer. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 84(1), 37-48. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8401_09
Sirgy, M. J., & C. Su (2000). Destination image, self congruity, and travel behaviour:
Toward an integrative model.” Journal of Travel Research, 38 (4), 340–352.
Smith, A. E., & Humphreys, M. S. (2006). Evaluation of unsupervised semantic
mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behaviour
Research Methods, 38(2), 262-279.
Song, H., You, G.-J., Reisinger, Y., Lee, C.-K., & Lee, S.-K. (2014). Behavioural
intention of visitors to an oriental medicine festival: An extended model of goal
directed behaviour. Tourism Management, 42, 101-113. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.003
Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist
behavioural intentions. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1180-1192. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2006.11.003
Spranger, E. (1928). Types of men: The psychology and ethics of personality. Halle,
Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Sung, Y., & Tinkham, S. F. (2005). Brand personality structures in the United States and
Korea: Common and culture-specific factors. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
15(4), 334-350. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1504_8
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176. doi:
10.1287/isre.6.2.144
Thrane, C. (2008). The determinants of students' destination choice for their summer
154
vacation trip. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4), 333-348.
doi: 10.1080/00220620802588797
Thrane, C. (2015). Students' summer tourism: An econometric analysis of trip costs and
trip expenditures. Tourism Management Perspectives, 15, 65-71. doi:
10.1016/j.tmp.2015.03.012
Thrane, C. (2016). Students' summer tourism: Determinants of length of stay (LOS).
Tourism Management, 54, 178-184. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.010
Torelli, C. J., & Kaikati, A. M. (2009). Values as predictors of judgments and
behaviours: the role of abstract and concrete mindsets. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 96(1), 231-247. doi: 10.1037/a0013836
Torelli, C. J., Ozsomer, A., Carvalho, S. W., Keh, H. T., & Maehle, N. (2012). Brand
concepts as representations of human values: Do cultural congruity and
compatibility between values matter? Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 92-108. doi:
10.1509/jm.10.0400
Tourism Satellite Account 2014/2015. (2016). Australian National Accounts: Tourism
Satellite Account, 2014-2015. Retrieved from www.aussatats.abs.gov.au
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tripadvisor. (2015). Top 25 Destinations-World. Retrieved from
https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/TravelersChoice-Destinations
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Construal. Psychological Review, 110(3),
403-421. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403
Tseng, C., Wu, B., Morrison, A. M., Zhang, J., & Chen, Y.-c. (2015). Travel blogs on
China as a destination image formation agent: A qualitative analysis using
Leximancer. Tourism Management, 46, 347-358. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.012
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and
155
biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00372
UNWTO-WYSE. (2016). Global Report on The Power of Youth Travel. In U. E. team
(Ed.), (Vol. Thirteen). Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).
Retrieved from
http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/2wyse_ultimoscambios.pdf.
UNWTO. (2016). UNWTO Tourism Highlights. Retrieved from http://www.e-
unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145
Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: An
application of self-congruity theory. Tourism Management, 32(1), 114-127. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.006
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What Do People Think They're Doing?
Action Identification and Human Behaviour. Psychological Review, 94(1), 3-15.
Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J.-P., Pelletier, L. G., & Mongeau, C. (1992).
Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action as applied to moral behaviour: A
confirmatory analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 98-
109. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.98
Vecchione, M., Caprara, G., Schoen, H., Castro, J. L. G., & Schwartz, S. H. (2012). The
role of personal values and basic traits in perceptions of the consequences of
immigration: A three‐nation study. British Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 359-
377.
Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S., Alessandri, G., Döring, A. K., Castellani, V., Caprara,
M.G. (2016). Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood:
An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 111-122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.002
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults
in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values.
156
Ecological Economics, 64(3), 542-553. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: effects of
activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434-447.
Wu, M.-Y., Wall, G., & Pearce, P. L. (2014). Shopping experiences: International
tourists in Beijing's silk market. Tourism Management, 41, 96-106. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.010
Xu, F., Morgan, M., & Song, P. (2009). Students' travel behaviour: A cross-cultural
comparison of UK and China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(3),
255-268. doi: 10.1002/jtr.686
Ye, S., Soutar, G. N., Sneddon, J. N., & Lee, J. A. (2017). Personal values and the
theory of planned behaviour: A study of values and holiday trade-offs in young
adults. Tourism Management, 62, 107-109. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.023
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management,
26(1), 45-56. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.016
Zenker, S., Gollan, T., & Quaquebeke, N. (2014). Using polynomial regression analysis
and response surface methodology to make a stronger case for value congruence
in place marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 184-202. doi:
10.1002/mar.20686
Zhou, Y., Thøgersen, J., Ruan, Y., & Huang, G. (2013). The moderating role of human
values in planned behaviour: The case of Chinese consumers' intention to buy
organic food. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(4), 335-344.
157
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. ABSTRACT: Conference IACCP, 2016.
APPENDIX B. ABSTRACT: Conference AMS, 2017.
APPENDIX C. PAPER: Tourism Management, 2017.
APPENDIX D. CHAPTER THREE SURVEY
APPENDIX E. CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY
APPENDIX F. CHAPTER FIVE SURVEY
APPENDIX G. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
158
APPENDIX A. ABSTRACT: CONFERENCE IACCP, 2016
Abstract: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2016
31st July-3
rd August, 2016
Nagoya, Japan
The implicit theories of values structure
Sheng YE, Julie Lee, Joanne Sneddon, Geoff Soutar
ABSTRACT
Schwartz theory of the structure of values has been supported across individuals in more
than 80 countries. We examine whether this structure is also evident when people
project another’s values and how similar projected values are to individual’s own
values. We administered the PVQrr, as well as a projected version (asking how much
like other people is this person) to adults in the USA (N=303) and China (N=276).
Results from multi-dimensional scaling indicate that both self and projected data
correspond to Schwartz structure in the USA and China. We found evidence of
similarity between self and projected values at the individual level. The correlation
between self and projected values was positive and significant in the USA (r = .27, p <
.001) and China (r = .31, p <.001). A marginal difference was found between males (r =
.35) and females (r = .25, Z = 1.28, p= .10).
159
APPENDIX B. ABSTRACT: CONFERENCE AMS, 2017
Abstract: Academy of Marketing Science, 2017
27th
June-1st
July, 2017
Christchurch, New Zealand
Personal values characteristics as representative of destination values: an abstract
Sheng YE, Julie Anne Lee, Joanne Sneddon, Geoff Soutar,
ABSTRACT
Destination branding has become an important way to differentiate destinations in
highly competitive holiday markets (e.g., Morgan, Prichard & Pride, 2004; Ekinci &
Hosany, 2006; Pike, 2012). Prior studies have also found that people are able to
perceive brands as having personal values that reflect Schwartz (1992) higher order
dimensions (Torelli, et al, 2012). In this study, we examine whether destinations are
perceived as having human values across and within people’s perceptions.
In this study, destination values are defined as a set of relatively stable human attributes
that reflect what is important to a destination. Perceptions of destination values are
likely to be based on information from many different sources. People do not need to
experience a destination firsthand in order to perceive a destination’s values. Secondary
information, such as documentaries, advertisements, and word of mouth, may contribute
to these perceptions, especially if they are reinforced over time. This view differs from
that of cultural values, which are most commonly measured as aggregates of citizen’s
personal values.
We surveyed 141 Australian and 121 Chinese respondents to examine their perceptions
of the personal values of two popular city destinations: London and New York City.
Unfolding analyses was used to examine respondents’ perceptions of destinations
160
values. We show, for the first time, that people’s perceptions of destination values
reflect Schwartz (1992) human value structure. People perceive destinations to share a
common values structure that follows the trade-offs implicit in the compatibility and
conflicts between the motivations that underlie human values. The findings show on
average, London was perceived as a city that places more importance on tradition,
conformity and security than about freedom and fun (Schwartz et al., 2012). In contrast,
NYC was perceived as a city that places more importance on novel and different things
(i.e., accepting distinct forms of arts, and appreciating cultural differences, not restrict
by social expectations) than following others expectations (Schwartz, 1992; 2005).
However, we also find that individual differences between people’s perceptions of
destination values. Further research is needed to untangle the reasons for differences in
the perceptions of destination values across potential tourists.
References available upon request.
161
APPENDIX C. PAPER: TOURISM MANAGEMENT, 2017
162
163
164
APPENDIX D. CHAPTER THREE SURVEY
Study 1. Survey Questionnaire
1. Personal values (PVQ_RR gender matched)
Here we briefly describe different people. Please read each description and think about
how much that person is or is not like you. Put an X in the box to the right that shows
how much the person described is like you.
Not
like
me at
all
Not
like
me
A
little
like
me
Moder-
ately
like me
Like
me
Very
muc
h
like
me
1. It is important to him to form his
views independently.
2. It is important to him that his
country is secure and stable
3. It is important to him to have a
good time.
4. It is important to him to avoid
upsetting other people.
5. It is important to him that the
weak and vulnerable in society be
protected.
6. It is important to him that people
do what he says they should.
7. It is important to him never to
think he deserves more than other
people.
8. It is important to him to care for
nature.
9. It is important to him that no one
should ever shame him.
10. It is important to him always to
look for different things to do.
11. It is important to him to take care
of people he is close to.
12. It is important to him to have the
power that money can bring.
13. It is very important to him to
avoid disease and protect his
health.
165
Not
like
me at
all
Not
like
me
A
little
like
me
Moder-
ately
like me
Like
me
Very
much
like
me
14. It is important to him to be
tolerant toward all kinds of people
and groups.
15. It is important to him never to
violate rules or regulations.
16. It is important to him to make his
own decisions about his life.
17. It is important to him to have
ambitions in life.
18. It is important to him to maintain
traditional values and ways of
thinking.
19. It is important to him that people
he knows have full confidence in
him.
20. It is important to him to be
wealthy.
21. It is important to him to take part
in activities to defend nature.
22. It is important to him never to
annoy anyone.
23. It is important to him to develop
his own opinions.
24. It is important to him to protect
his public image.
25. It is very important to him to help
the people dear to him.
26. It is important to him to be
personally safe and secure.
27. It is important to him to be a
dependable and trustworthy
friend.
28. It is important to him to take risks
that make life exciting.
29. It is important to him to have the
power to make people do what he
wants..
166
Not
like
me at
all
Not
like
me
A
little
like
me
Moder-
ately
like me
Like
me
Very
much
like
me
30. It is important to him to plan his
activities independently.
31. It is important to him to follow
rules even when no-one is
watching.
32. It is important to him to be very
successful.
33. It is important to him to follow his
family’s customs or the customs
of a religion.
34. It is important to him to listen to
and understand people who are
different from him.
35. It is important to him to have a
strong state that can defend its
citizens.
36. It is important to him to enjoy
life’s pleasures.
37. It is important to him that every
person in the world have equal
opportunities in life.
38. It is important to him to be
humble.
39. It is important to him to figure
things out himself.
40. It is important to him to honor the
traditional practices of his culture.
41. It is important to him to be the
one who tells others what to do..
42. It is important to him to obey all
the laws.
43. It is important to him to have all
sorts of new experiences..
44. It is important to him to own
expensive things that show his
wealth
167
.
Not
like
me at
all
Not
like
me
A
little
like
me
Moder-
ately
like me
Like
me
Very
much
like
me
45. It is important to him to protect
the natural environment from
destruction or pollution
46. It is important to him to take
advantage of every opportunity to
have fun.
47. It is important to him to concern
himself with every need of his
dear ones.
48. It is important to him that people
recognize what he achieves.
49. It is important to him never to be
humiliated.
50. It is important to him that his
country protect itself against all
threats.
51. It is important to him never to
make other people angry.
52. It is important to him that
everyone be treated justly, even
people he doesn’t know.
53. It is important to him to avoid
anything dangerous.
54. It is important to him to be
satisfied with what he has and not
ask for more.
55. It is important to him that all his
friends and family can rely on him
completely.
56. It is important to him to be free to
choose what he does by himself.
57. It is important to him to accept
people even when he disagrees
with them.
168
2. Perceived values of most others (gender-matched)
Now we would like to ask you about how similar MOST OTHER PEOPLE are to the
person in these descriptions…so this question is not about you…rather it is about the
average person in general.
Please read each description and think about how much that person is like most other
people. Click the box to the right that shows how much the person described is like
most other people.
How much like most other people is this person?
Not
like
most
others
at all
Not
like
most
others
A little
like
most
others
Moder-
ately
like
most
others
Like
most
others
Very
much
like
most
others
1. It is important to him to form his
views independently.
2. It is important to him that his
country is secure and stable
3. It is important to him to have a
good time.
4. It is important to him to avoid
upsetting other people.
5. It is important to him that the
weak and vulnerable in society be
protected.
6. It is important to him that people
do what he says they should.
7. It is important to him never to
think he deserves more than other
people.
8. It is important to him to care for
nature.
9. It is important to him that no one
should ever shame him.
10. It is important to him always to
look for different things to do.
11. It is important to him to take care
of people he is close to.
12. It is important to him to have the
power that money can bring.
169
How much like most other people is this person?
Not
like
most
others
at all
Not
like
most
others
A little
like
most
others
Moder-
ately
like
most
others
Like
most
others
Very
much
like
most
others
13. It is very important to him to
avoid disease and protect his
health.
14. It is important to him to be
tolerant toward all kinds of people
and groups.
15. It is important to him never to
violate rules or regulations.
16. It is important to him to make his
own decisions about his life.
17. It is important to him to have
ambitions in life.
18. It is important to him to maintain
traditional values and ways of
thinking.
19. It is important to him that people
he knows have full confidence in
him.
20. It is important to him to be
wealthy.
21. It is important to him to take part
in activities to defend nature.
22. It is important to him never to
annoy anyone.
23. It is important to him to develop
his own opinions.
24. It is important to him to protect his
public image.
25. It is very important to him to help
the people dear to him.
26. It is important to him to be
personally safe and secure.
27. It is important to him to be a
dependable and trustworthy friend.
170
How much like most other people is this person?
Not
like
most
others
at all
Not
like
most
others
A little
like
most
others
Moder-
ately
like
most
others
Like
most
others
Very
much
like
most
others
28. It is important to him to take risks
that make life exciting.
29. It is important to him to have the
power to make people do what he
wants..
30. It is important to him to plan his
activities independently.
31. It is important to him to follow
rules even when no-one is
watching.
32. It is important to him to be very
successful.
33. It is important to him to follow his
family’s customs or the customs of
a religion.
34. It is important to him to listen to
and understand people who are
different from him.
35. It is important to him to have a
strong state that can defend its
citizens.
36. It is important to him to enjoy
life’s pleasures.
37. It is important to him that every
person in the world have equal
opportunities in life.
38. It is important to him to be
humble.
39. It is important to him to figure
things out himself.
40. It is important to him to honor the
traditional practices of his culture.
41. It is important to him to be the one
who tells others what to do..
171
How much like most other people is this person?
Not like
most
others
at all
Not
like
most
others
A little
like
most
others
Mode-
rately
like
most
others
Like
most
others
Very
much
like
most
others
42. It is important to him to obey all
the laws.
43. It is important to him to have all
sorts of new experiences..
44. It is important to him to own
expensive things that show his
wealth
45. It is important to him to protect
the natural environment from
destruction or pollution.
46. It is important to him to take
advantage of every opportunity to
have fun.
47. It is important to him to concern
himself with every need of his
dear ones.
48. It is important to him that people
recognize what he achieves.
49. It is important to him never to be
humiliated.
50. It is important to him that his
country protect itself against all
threats.
51. It is important to him never to
make other people angry.
52. It is important to him that
everyone be treated justly, even
people he doesn’t know.
53. It is important to him to avoid
anything dangerous.
54. It is important to him to be
satisfied with what he has and not
ask for more.
55. It is important to him that all his
friends and family can rely on him
completely.
172
How much like most other people is this person?
Not
like
most
others
at all
Not
like
most
others
A little
like
most
others
Moder-
ately
like
most
others
Like
most
others
Very
much
like
most
others
56. It is important to him to be free to
choose what he does by himself.
57. It is important to him to accept
people even when he disagrees
with them.
Thank you for your participation in this survey!
173
Study 2. Survey Questionnaire
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. The survey will take about 20 minutes to
complete. Please take as much time as you need to answer the questions. Most questions only
require you to tick a box.
The results will only be published in aggregate form. The information you provide will be
treated as strictly confidential and no data about you will be released by the investigator. Your
student number will only be used to assign your grade, and to link your response to other
surveys. No other information about you will be accessed by the researchers. All student
numbers will be eliminated from the data before any analysis takes place. The unit coordinator
of the Consumer Behaviour unit will not handle the data when Student ID’s are attached; this
will be done by a third party within the Marketing Department of UWA.
We understand that you have a choice to participate in this study and as such you may end
the questionnaire at any time without giving reason or justification. Completion of the two
surveys will result in you receiving full marks for your weekly activity. Should you wish to opt-
out of the surveys, you may complete a written assignment as an alternative. If you wish to take
this option please email the marketing groups research assistant ([email protected]).
You will be sent the appropriate information via email, and you may submit it back to the same
email address. The research assistant will then remove any identifying information and return it
to your unit coordinator for grading.
Winthrop Professor Julie Lee
UWA Business School
The University of Western Australia
M263, 35 Stirling Highway Crawley
Western Australia, 6009
Email: [email protected]
Approval to conduct this research has been provided by The University of Western
Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering
participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or
issues with the researchers at any time. In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of
researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may make any complaints about this
research project by contacting the Human Research Ethics Office at The University of Western
Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing to [email protected] All research
participants are entitled to retain a copy of any Participant Information For and/or Participant
Consent Form relating to this research project.
Please DO NOT USE the 'Back' and 'Forward' buttons on your browser. Use the buttons at
the bottom of each screen.
Thank you for your participation.
174
1. What is your UWA Student ID number?
PLEASE ENTER CAREFULLY. This is how you get credit for the survey
2. What is your gender?
3. Personal values
In this section, we will ask you to pick the MOST and LEAST important from each set of
principles that guide your life. While more than one may be important or unimportant, please
choose the MOST and the LEAST important to YOU as a guiding principle in YOUR life. In
total there will be 21 small sets of a large range of guiding principles. While some sets have
statements in common, each set also introduces some new statements. It is important that you
answer all sets. Below is the list of guiding principles that will appear in the 21 sets:
1. Developing your own original ideas and opinions
2. Being free to act independently
3. Having all sorts of new and exciting experiences
4. Explaining my ideas clearly to others
5. Taking advantage of every opportunity to enjoy life’s pleasures
6. Being ambitious and successful
7. Having the power that money and possessions can bring
8. Having the authority to get others to do what you want
9. Protecting your public image and avoiding being shamed
10. Living and acting in ways that ensure that you are personally safe and secure
11. Living in a safe and stable society
12. Following cultural, family or religious practices
13. Obeying all rules and laws
14. Making sure you never upset or annoy others
15. Being humble and avoiding public recognition
16. Being a completely dependable and trustworthy friend and family member
17. Helping and caring for the wellbeing of those who are close
18. Caring and seeking justice for everyone, especially the weak and vulnerable in society
19. Protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution
20. Caring for the welfare of animals
21. Being open-minded and accepting of people and ideas, even when you disagree with
them
175
1/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Caring and seeking justice for everyone, especially the
weak and vulnerable in society
Being free to act independently
Being ambitious and successful
Making sure you never upset or annoy others
Living and acting in ways that ensure that you are
personally safe and secure
2/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Being ambitious and successful
Developing your own original ideas and opinions
Having the power that money and possessions can bring
Having the authority to get others to do what you want
Protecting your public image and avoiding being
shamed
3/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Being a completely dependable and trustworthy friend
and family member
Living in a safe and stable society
Having all sorts of new and exciting experiences
Being ambitious and successful
Being open-minded and accepting of people and ideas,
even when you disagree with them
176
4/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Being humble and avoiding public recognition
Being ambitious and successful
Caring for the welfare of animals
Taking advantage of every opportunity to enjoy life’s
pleasures
Obeying all rules and laws
5/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Protecting the natural environment from destruction or
pollution
Explaining my ideas clearly to others
Helping and caring for the wellbeing of those who are
close
Following cultural, family or religious practices
Being ambitious and successful
6/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Taking advantage of every opportunity to enjoy life’s
pleasures
Having all sorts of new and exciting experiences
Explaining my ideas clearly to others
Being free to act independently
Developing your own original ideas and opinions
\
177
7/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Being free to act independently
Protecting the natural environment from destruction or
pollution
Being humble and avoiding public recognition
Living in a safe and stable society
Having the power that money and possessions can bring
8/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Obeying all rules and laws
Helping and caring for the wellbeing of those who are
close
Being open-minded and accepting of people and ideas,
even when you disagree with them
Protecting your public image and avoiding being
shamed
Being free to act independently
9/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having the authority to get others to do what you want
Following cultural, family or religious practices
Being free to act independently
Caring for the welfare of animals
Being a completely dependable and trustworthy friend
and family member
178
10/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Following cultural, family or religious practices
Living and acting in ways that ensure that you are
personally safe and secure
Developing your own original ideas and opinions
Obeying all rules and laws
Living in a safe and stable society
11/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Caring for the welfare of all animals
Having the power that money and possessions can bring
Living and acting in ways that ensure that you are
personally safe and secure
Having all sorts of new and exciting experiences
Helping and caring for the wellbeing of those who are
close
12/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Living and acting in ways that ensure that you are
personally safe and secure
Taking advantage of every opportunity to enjoy life’s
pleasures
Protecting your public image and avoiding being
shamed
Being a completely dependable and trustworthy friend
and family member
Protecting the natural environment from destruction or
pollution
179
13/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Being open-minded and accepting of people and ideas,
even when you disagree with them
Being humble and avoiding public recognition
Having the authority to get others to do what you want
Living and acting in ways that ensure that you are
personally safe and secure
Explaining my ideas clearly to others
14/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Developing your own original ideas and opinions
Being open-minded and accepting of people and ideas,
even when you disagree with them
Protecting the natural environment from destruction or
pollution
Caring and seeking justice for everyone, especially the
weak and vulnerable in society
Caring for the welfare of animals
15/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Explaining my ideas clearly to others
Obeying all rules and laws
Being a completely dependable and trustworthy friend
and family member
Having the power that money and possessions can bring
Caring and seeking justice for everyone, especially the
weak and vulnerable in society
180
16/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having all sorts of new and exciting experiences
Protecting your public image and avoiding being
shamed
Caring and seeking justice for everyone, especially the
weak and vulnerable in society
Being humble and avoiding public recognition
Following cultural, family or religious practices
17/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Living in a safe and stable society
Caring and seeking justice for everyone, especially the
weak and vulnerable in society
Taking advantage of every opportunity to enjoy life’s
pleasures
Helping and caring for the wellbeing of those who are
close
Having the authority to get others to do what you want
18/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Helping and caring for the wellbeing of those who are
close
Being a completely dependable and trustworthy friend
and family member
Making sure you never upset or annoy others
Developing your own original ideas and opinions
Being humble and avoiding public recognition
181
19/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having the power that money and possessions can bring
Making sure you never upset or annoy others
Following cultural, family or religious practices
Being open-minded and accepting of people and ideas,
even when you disagree with them
Taking advantage of every opportunity to enjoy life’s
pleasures
20/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Protecting your public image and avoiding being
shamed
Caring for the welfare of animals
Living in a safe and stable society
Explaining my ideas clearly to others
Making sure you never upset or annoy others
21/21) Of these, which are the most and least important to you as guiding principles in
your life?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Making sure you never upset or annoy others
Having the authority to get others to do what you want
Obeying all rules and laws
Protecting the natural environment from destruction or
pollution
Having all sorts of new and exciting experiences
182
4. Perceived values of a fictitious other (gender-matched) (3-months later).
One of the four holiday conditions were randomly assigned to each respondent:
An exciting holiday condition
You just met someone who came back from an extended holiday. He described an
exciting holiday full of novelty and adventure, where he did his own thing in his
own way. You haven't had a chance to talk to him much, but you have some first
impressions. Which of the following statements best describes your first impressions?
A prestige holiday condition
You just met someone who came back from an extended holiday. He described a
prestigious holiday which reflected his social status and complemented his high
standards of taste. You haven't had a chance to talk to him much, but you have some
first impressions. Which of the following statements best describes your first
impressions?
A well-organized holiday condition
You just met someone who came back from an extended holiday. He described a well-
organized holiday where he could maintain his traditions and customs without
worrying about being out of his comfort zone. You haven't had a chance to talk to
him much, but you have some first impressions. Which of the following statements best
describes your first impressions?
A compassionate holiday condition
You just met someone who came back from an extended holiday. He described a
compassionate holiday where he tried to understand, appreciate and promote the
welfare of people who are vulnerable. You haven't had a chance to talk to him much,
but you have some first impressions. Which of the following statements best describes
your first impressions?
183
Very
Unlikely
Un-
likely
Un-
decided
Likely Very
Likely
1. Thinking up new ideas and being
creative is important to him. He likes
to do things in his own original way.
2. It is important to him to be rich. He
wants to have a lot of money and
expensive things.
3. He thinks it is important that every
person in the world be treated
equally. He believes everyone should
have equal opportunities in life.
4. It's important to him to show his
abilities. He wants people to admire
what he does.
5. It is important to him to live in secure
surroundings. He avoids anything
that might endanger his safety.
6. He likes surprises and is always
looking for new things to do. He
thinks it is important to do lots of
different things in life.
7. He believes that people should do
what they're told. He thinks people
should follow rules at all times, even
when no-one is watching.
8. It is important to him to listen to
people who are different from him.
Even when he disagrees with them,
he still wants to understand them.
9. It is important to him to be humble
and modest. He tries not to draw
attention to himself.
10. Having a good time is important to
him. He likes to "spoil" himself.
11. It is important to him to make his
own decisions about what he does.
He likes to be free and not depend on
others.
12. It's very important to him to help the
people around him. He wants to care
for their well-being.
184
Very
Unlikely
Un-
likely
Un-
decided
Likely Very
Likely
13. Being very successful is important to
him. He hopes people will recognize
his achievements.
14. It is important to him that the
government insure his safety against
all threats. He wants the state to be
strong so it can defend its citizens.
15. He looks for adventures and likes to
take risks. He wants to have an
exciting life.
16. It is important to him always to
behave properly. He wants to avoid
doing anything people would say is
wrong.
17. It is important to him to get respect
from others. He wants people to do
what he says.
18. It is important to him to be loyal to
his friends. He wants to devote
himself to people close to him.
19. He strongly believes that people
should care for nature. Looking after
the environment is important to him.
20. Tradition is important to him. He
tries to follow the customs handed
down by his religion or his family.
21. He seeks every chance he can to have
fun. It is important to him to do
things that give his pleasure.
Thank you for your participation in this survey!
185
Study 3. Survey Questionnaire
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey!
This study is conducted by the University of Western Australia. The survey will take about 20
minutes to complete, though some people may take more or less time than that. Please take as
much time as you need to answer the questions. Most questions only require you to tick a box.
There are four sections, asking about what is important to you, your attitudes and behaviours
around travel destinations and some background questions.
The information you provide will be treated as strictly confidential and no data about you
will be released by the investigator. All your answers to the questions are strictly anonymous.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will any information be released about you as an individual nor
will your data be sold or otherwise distributed. This data will ONLY be used for academic
purposes. Completion of the questionnaire will be taken as evidence of consent to participate in
this study.
Your responses are important to this project. Should you have any questions about this
research, please contact:
Professor Julie Lee
UWA Business School
The University of Western Australia
M263, 35 Stirling Highway Crawley
Western Australia, 6009
Email: [email protected]
Approval to conduct this research has been provided by The University of Western Australia, in
accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering
participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or
issues with the researchers at any time. In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of
researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may make any complaints about this
research project by contacting the Human Research Ethics Office at The University of Western
Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing to [email protected] All research
participants are entitles to retain a copy of any Participant Information For and/or Participant
Consent Form relating to this research project.
Please DO NOT USE the 'Back' and 'Forward' buttons on your browser. Use the buttons at
the bottom of each screen.
186
1. Personal value section
The same BWS 21 choice sets questions as in the Study 2 of Chapter 3.
2. Destination section
2.1.Familiarity with destinations
Just as people have certain characteristics and goals that define them, so do cities. A
city's geographical location, climate, population, history, culture, nature environment,
social and economic development come together to project certain characteristics.
How knowledgeable are you with the following destinations?
Not at all
knowledgeable
Very
Knowledgeable
London, United Kingdom
New York City, United States
2.2. Destination value section (London)
In the next section, we will ask you to think about the personal characteristics of two
different cities.
Take a moment to think about the London, UK, as if it were a person who holds certain
life goals as important. What does London, UK value most and least in life?
187
1/4) How would you describe London, UK as a person? What is most and least important to
Bangkok?If you need clarification of these words, move your mouse over the blue text to see
more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
Having social order, security, respect for tradition,
being humble
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
2/4) How would you describe London, UK as a person? What is most and least important to
Bangkok?If you need clarification of these words, move your mouse over the blue text to see
more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality,
loyalty
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
188
3/4) How would you describe London, UK as a person? What is most and least important to
Bangkok?If you need clarification of these words, move your mouse over the blue text to see
more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality,
loyalty
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
4/4) How would you describe London, UK as a person? What is most and least important to
Bangkok?If you need clarification of these words, move your mouse over the blue text to see
more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having social order, security, respect for tradition,
being humble
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality,
loyalty
189
2.3. Destination value section (New York City)
Take a moment to think about the New York City, USA, as if it were a person who holds certain
life goals as important. What does Paris value most and least in life?
1/4) How would you describe New York City, USA as a person? What is most and least
important to Paris? If you need clarification of these words, move your mouse over the blue text
to see more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
Having social order, security, respect for tradition,
being humble
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
190
2/4) How would you describe New York City, USA as a person? What is most and least
important to Paris? If you need clarification of these words, move your mouse over the blue text
to see more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality,
loyalty
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
3/4) How would you describe New York City, USA as a person? What is most and least
important to Paris? If you need clarification of these words, move your mouse over the blue
text to see more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality,
loyalty
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
4/4) How would you describe New York City, USA as a person? What is most and least
important to Paris? If you need clarification of these words, move your mouse over the blue
text to see more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having social order, security, respect for tradition, being
humble
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality, loyalty
191
3. Demographic questions
3.1.Gender. Are you...? Male Female
3.2.3.2. Age. In what year were you born (YYYY)? ______
3.3. Have you ever visited
London, UK New York City, USA
Thank you for your participation in this survey!
192
APPENDIX E. CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY
1. Personal value section
The same BWS 21 choice sets questions as in the Study 2 of Chapter 3.
2. Destination section
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey!
This study is conducted by the University of Western Australia. The survey will
take about 15 minutes to complete, though some people may take more or less time than
that. Please take as much time as you need to answer the questions. Most questions only
require you to tick a box. There are three sections, asking about your most memorable
holiday, the places you've visited and your overall experience of the holiday.
The information you provide will be treated as strictly confidential and no data
about you will be released by the investigator. All your answers to the questions are
strictly anonymous. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will any information be released
about you as an individual nor will your data be sold or otherwise distributed. This data
will ONLY be used for academic purposes. Completion of the questionnaire will be
taken as evidence of consent to participate in this study.
Your responses are important to this project. Should you have any questions about
this research, please contact:
Professor Julie Lee
UWA Business School
The University of Western Australia
M263, 35 Stirling Highway Crawley
Western Australia, 6009
Email: [email protected]
Approval to conduct this research has been provided by The University of Western
Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person
considering participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise
any questions or issues with the researchers at any time. In addition, any person not
satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may
make any complaints about this research project by contacting the Human Research
Ethics Office at The University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing
to [email protected] All research participants are entitles to retain a copy of
193
any Participant Information For and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this
research project.
Please DO NOT USE the 'Back' and 'Forward' buttons on your browser. Use the
buttons at the bottom of each screen.
1. Personal values
the same BWS 21 choice sets questions as in the Study 1.
2. Screening questions.
Have you taken a holiday where you stayed away from home at least a week in the
last 12 months?
Yes No
3. Travel experiences
3.1. Thinking about your most memorable holiday in the last 12 months, where you
stayed away from home for at least a week. Which country or countries did you visit
on this holiday?
To select multi countries, please click Ctrl (on a PC) or Cmd (on a Mac) when
clicking.
a. In which city or town did you spend most of your time on this holiday?
194
3. Destination values
Now, please take a moment to think about the city or town that you spent the most
time in on this holiday. Think about this city or town, as if it were a person who
holds certain life goals as important. What does the city or town value most and
least in life?
Please tell us how you would describe this city or town in the next four questions. It
is important that you complete all four questions as best you can.
1/4) How would you describe the city or town as a person? What is most and least
important to the city or town ? If you need clarification of any of these words, move
your mouse over the blue text to see more detail.
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
Having social order, security, respect for tradition, being humble
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
2/4) How would you describe the city or town as a person? What is most and least
important to the city or town ?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality, loyalty
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
195
3/4) How would you describe the city or town as a person? What is most and least
important to the city or town ?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having an exciting life, creativity, curiosity, freedom
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality, loyalty
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
4/4) How would you describe the city or town as a person? What is most and least
important to the city or town ?
Most
Important
Least
Important
Having social order, security, respect for tradition, being humble
Having social power, authority, success, being capable
Having unity with nature, social justice, equality, loyalty
4. Memorable holiday experiences
In this section, we would like to know more about your holiday to better understand
your perceptions.
a. What was the most memorable experience in this city or town?
Please be as detailed as possible in your answer.
196
b. Please explain why this was your most memorable experience?
Please be as detailed as possible in your answer.
5. Demographic questions
a. Gender. Are you...? Male Female
b. Age. In what year were you born (YYYY)? ______
c. How often do you travel ?
Once every three years
Once every other year
Once a year
2-3 times a year
4-5 times a year
6+more times a year
Thank you for your participation in this survey!
197
APPENDIX F. CHAPTER FIVE SURVEY
Survey Quesionnaire
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. The survey will take about 20
minutes to complete. Please take as much time as you need to answer the questions.
Most questions only require you to tick a box.
The results will only be published in aggregate form. The information you provide
will be treated as strictly confidential and no data about you will be released by the
investigator. Your student number will only be used to assign your grade, and to link
your response to other surveys. No other information about you will be accessed by the
researchers. All student numbers will be eliminated from the data before any analysis
takes place. The unit coordinator of the Consumer Behaviour unit will not handle the
data when Student ID’s are attached; this will be done by a third party within the
Marketing Department of UWA.
We understand that you have a choice to participate in this study and as such you
may end the questionnaire at any time without giving reason or justification.
Completion of the two surveys will result in you receiving full marks for your weekly
activity. Should you wish to opt-out of the surveys, you may complete a written
assignment as an alternative. If you wish to take this option please email the marketing
groups research assistant ([email protected]). You will be sent the appropriate
information via email, and you may submit it back to the same email address. The
research assistant will then remove any identifying information and return it to your unit
coordinator for grading.
Winthrop Professor Julie Lee
UWA Business School
The University of Western Australia
M263, 35 Stirling Highway Crawley
Western Australia, 6009
Email: [email protected]
Approval to conduct this research has been provided by The University of Western
Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person
considering participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise
any questions or issues with the researchers at any time. In addition, any person not
satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may
make any complaints about this research project by contacting the Human Research
Ethics Office at The University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing
to [email protected] All research participants are entitled to retain a copy of
any Participant Information For and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this
research project. Please DO NOT USE the 'Back' and 'Forward' buttons on your
browser. Use the buttons at the bottom of each screen.
198
Thank you for your participation.
1. Personal value section
The same BWS 21 choice sets questions as in the Study 2 of Chapter 3.
2. The TPB constructs section
2.1 Intentions
Please answer all questions as your responses are very important. Please refer to these
holiday types when answering the questions. They will appear at the top of each page
for reference.
An exciting holiday full of novelty and adventure, where you can do your own
thing in your own way.
A prestigious holiday where you can enhance your social status and complement
your high standards of taste in the eyes of others.
A well-organised holiday where you can maintain your traditions and customs
without worrying about being out of your comfort zone.
A compassionate holiday where you have the opportunity to understand,
appreciate and promote the welfare of people who are vulnerable.
Please express the degree to which you intend to go on each type of holiday when you finish
your university studies.
Very
Unlikely
Very
Likely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
An exciting holiday
A prestigious holiday
A well-organised holiday
A compassionate holiday
199
Please express the degree to which you plan to go on each type of holiday when you finish your
university studies.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
An exciting holiday
A prestigious holiday
A well-organised holiday
A compassionate holiday
Please express the degree to which you will expend effort to go on each type of holiday when
you finish your university studies.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
An exciting holiday
A prestigious holiday
A well-organised holiday
A compassionate holiday
200
2.2 Perceived behavioural control
The following questions relate to how much control you think you have over going on
each type of holidays when you finish your university studies. When answering these
questions, please consider time and money and other factors which may influence your
decisions and actions.
How much personal control do you feel you have over going on each type of holiday
with the group of people you identified above when you finish your university studies.
Very
little
control
Complete
control
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
An exciting holiday
A prestigious holiday
A well-organised holiday
A compassionate holiday
I am confident that I would be able to go on each type of holiday with the group of
people you identified above when I finish your university studies.
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
An exciting holiday
A prestigious holiday
A well-organised holiday
A compassionate holiday
201
2.3. Attitudes
On the following scales, please express your attitudes toward going on each type of
holiday with the group of people you identified above when you finish your university
studies.
An exciting holiday full of novelty and adventure, where you can do your own thing in
your own way.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
Bored Excited
Unattractive Attractive
Unsatisfying Satisfying
A prestigious holiday where you can enhance your social status and complement your
high standards of taste in the eyes of others.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
Bored Excited
Unattractive Attractive
Unsatisfying Satisfying
202
A well-organised holiday where you can maintain your traditions and customs without
worrying about being out of your comfort zone.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
Bored Excited
Unattractive Attractive
Unsatisfying Satisfying
A compassionate holiday where you get chance to understand, appreciate and promote
the welfare of people who are vulnerable.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad Good
Bored Excited
Unattractive Attractive
Unsatisfying Satisfying
203
2.4.Subjective norms
Please express how strongly most people who are important to you feel about you go on
each type of holiday when you finish your university studies.
Who are the most important people to you? ______________________________
Most people who are important in my life think I should or should not go on each type of
holiday when I finish my university studies.
Should not Should
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
An exciting holiday
A prestigious holiday
A well-organised holiday
A compassionate holiday
Most people who are important to me would approve or disapprove of me going on each
type of holiday when I finish my university studies.
Disapprove Approve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
An exciting holiday
A prestigious holiday
A well-organised holiday
A compassionate holiday
204
3. Demographic questions
3.1. Gender. Are you...? Male Female
3.2. Age. In what year were you born (YYYY)? ______
3.3 Frequency of taking the value expressive holidays
Have you been to any of these holiday types?
Never Once Twice 3+time
1 2 3 4
An exciting holiday
A prestigious holiday
A well-organised holiday
A compassionate holiday
Thank you for your participation in this survey!
205
APPENDIX G. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
Justification of sample size
The sample sizes for each study were deemed sufficient. All three studies adopted
online survey, which force participants to provide response before they could proceed to
the next question. No missing data was found.
Unfolding analysis. This analysis examining value structure in people’s perceptions of
others values is known as a special case of multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS)
(Borg & Groenen, 2005), which has been noted as not sensitive to sample size as other
parametric model (e.g., ANOVA) (Rodgers, 1991). Prior similar studies had sample
sizes ranging from 69 (Borg, Bardi, & Schwartz, 2017) to 748 (Lee, Ye, Sneddon,
Collins, & Daniel, 2017). For current studies, the sample sizes ranged from 141 to 303
are deemed sufficient.
Within-person correlation. This method requires an average effect size (d=.30), using
a using an alpha level of .05 for a two tails test, and to achieve an approximately 80%
statistical power, the sample size would require at least 84 participants generated from
G*Power analysis program (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2013).
A Repeated measures ANOVA. According to the guideline from G*Power analysis
program (Faul et al., 2013). With four measurements (four higher-order values), to
achieve a power of 0.80, an alpha level of 0.05, and a medium effect size (f= .25) (Faul
206
et al., 2013), the required sample size is 24.
Discriminant analysis in R. According to the guideline established by Poulsen and
French (2008), for a discriminant analysis was conducted, a sufficient sample size with
four independent variables a sample of 20 participants will be needed.
Canonical correlation analysis. According to the rules of thumb (Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 2010), the acceptable sample size is larger than 10 participants
per variable. The sample size of each analysis (N 63 respondents of London city)
exceeds the minimum sample size (N 40 as four value variables) for canonical
correlation analysis.
The Minimum sample size of the PLS-SEM:.According to Hair et al., (2011, p.144),
PLS-SEM minimum sample size should be equal to the larger of the following: (1) “ten
times the largest number of formative indicators used to measure one construct or (2)
ten times the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular latent construct
in the structural model”.
Accordingly criteria (1), in our study, the largest number of the formative indicator was
4 that used to measure one construct (attitudes), consequently the minimum sample size
would be 40. As for the criteria (2), the largest number of structural paths was 3 directed
at a particular latent construct (Intentions), the minimum sample size would be 30.
Very recently, Kock (2014) suggested a formula based on Monte Carlo simulation.
Given our initial expectation of any retain path coefficient will be above 0.15, this
207
suggest the sample should be at least 274.
N > (2.48/Abs(bm))^2
Note. bm=minimum path coefficients
http://warppls.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/minimum-sample-size-in-pls-sem.html
Collectively, our current sample size 299 for the value expressive TPB model and the
value dimension TPB models meet the minimum sample size required by the PLS-SEM.
208
CHAPTER THREE
A. Stress-per-point
Table S3.1.Stressn, means of Stressn for the unfolding solution of Study 1 & 2 and
contribution percentages of each value to the total Stressn (Stress-per-Point)
Study 1 Study 2
Ten basic values Personal values Perceived most
others values
Personal &
Perceived others
Self-direction 7.04 9.70 8.91
Stimulation 9.16 8.21 9.33
Hedonism 10.40 8.19 12.57
Achievement 9.86 7.38 10.52
Power 17.20 19.16 6.51
Security 6.13 14.61 11.82
Tradition 13.28 8.50 15.73
Conformity 11.18 10.08 9.08
Benevolence 7.04 7.27 7.49
Universalism 8.71 6.90 8.04
Stressn 0.22 0.20 0.24
Means of Stressn 0.26 0.34 0.29
P-value 0.00 0.00 0.00
209
Table S3.2. Stressn, means of Stressn for the unfolding solution of Study 3 and
contribution percentages of each value to the total Stressn (Stress-per-Point)
Four higher order values Personal values Perceived destination
values
Openness to change 22.50 22.61
Self-enhancement 22.06 25.37
Conservation 23.74 25.24
Self_transcendence 31.69 26.78
Stressn 0.11 0.27
Means of Stressn 0.12 0.32
P-value 0.00 0.00
The Stress-per-point coefficient represents each value’s contribution to the total Stressn
for each unfolding solution (Borg, Groenen, & Mair, 2012). Outliers with relatively
higher contributions of Stress-per-point were detected. Unfolding solutions with and
without outliers suggest no change in the value relations. Follow Borg et al., (2017), the
outliers were not removed from subsequent analysis.
210
B. Unfolding analysis outliers.
Table S3.3. Unfolding outliers of personal values of Study 1.
ID SD ST HE AC PO SE TR CO BE UN
1077 0.43 1.10 1.10 0.43 -2.57 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.10 -1.15
1125 1.40 -2.60 -0.27 1.40 -1.10 1.40 1.07 -2.43 1.40 1.32
1143 1.48 -0.52 0.15 1.48 -3.52 -0.02 -3.52 -0.85 0.98 1.23
1175 0.32 -0.02 1.32 0.65 0.65 0.15 1.65 -2.35 0.98 -0.10
1185 0.70 -0.63 1.03 -2.30 -3.30 0.53 -3.30 1.03 1.03 0.62
1193 1.07 0.40 1.73 -0.60 -1.93 -0.93 -1.27 1.40 1.73 -0.52
1200 0.58 -2.25 1.75 -2.25 -3.25 0.92 1.75 0.92 0.92 0.25
1212 0.65 -1.18 0.82 1.48 0.48 -0.18 1.48 -1.52 1.32 -0.85
1215 1.48 0.15 0.15 0.15 -0.52 0.82 -3.18 -3.02 1.48 0.98
1236 1.08 -1.75 -2.75 0.25 -2.42 0.92 -1.08 0.92 -0.08 1.08
1244 2.00 -0.67 1.33 -1.33 -2.50 2.00 0.33 -0.50 -1.17 -0.42
1251 1.87 0.70 -0.30 1.03 -2.30 -0.63 2.03 -2.13 2.03 -0.13
1263 2.22 0.55 0.55 -0.12 -1.12 0.05 0.55 -2.28 0.88 -0.70
1295 -0.75 1.25 -0.75 -0.75 -2.08 1.08 -1.75 -0.58 1.92 0.58
1299 -1.47 -0.63 1.03 -0.63 1.20 -0.30 -0.97 -0.47 0.03 0.37
Note. SD: self-direction; ST: stimulation; HE: hedonism; AC: achievement; PO: power;
SE: security; TR: tradition; CO: conformity; BE: benevolence; UN: universalism.
211
Table S3.4.Unfolding outliers of perceived most others of Study 1.
ID SD ST HE AC PO SE TR CO BE UN
1013 0.82 -0.52 0.48 -0.52 -4.18 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
1026 -0.05 1.28 1.28 0.95 0.62 -1.38 1.28 0.28 0.78 -1.38
1029 1.08 0.08 1.08 1.08 -3.08 1.08 -2.25 0.58 1.08 0.08
1042 1.08 -2.08 -0.08 1.58 1.25 1.42 0.92 -0.92 0.75 -1.58
1050 0.62 -0.88 -0.22 -0.22 -4.22 0.78 0.78 0.62 0.78 0.70
1075 0.78 -2.22 -2.22 0.45 -3.72 0.78 0.78 0.62 0.78 0.78
1112 1.43 -1.90 0.43 -0.57 -0.40 -1.07 -1.90 1.10 1.27 -0.73
1113 0.97 0.30 1.30 -1.03 -3.37 1.63 0.97 0.63 1.13 -0.20
1125 0.68 -1.98 1.35 0.68 0.68 1.18 1.02 -2.48 0.85 0.43
1143 -0.05 -0.88 0.78 0.12 2.45 -0.72 -0.88 0.62 -0.88 -0.88
1153 1.45 1.45 1.45 0.78 -2.88 1.45 -2.22 -2.05 -0.72 1.45
1170 1.93 -1.07 -0.07 -0.40 -1.07 0.93 -2.73 -1.73 1.27 0.93
1185 1.68 0.35 0.02 1.35 1.68 1.02 1.02 -1.98 -0.15 -1.57
1190 0.87 0.20 0.87 -0.80 -4.13 0.87 0.53 -0.63 0.87 0.87
1214 2.45 2.45 2.45 1.78 2.45 0.78 -1.55 -2.55 -1.72 -1.97
1228 1.47 -2.20 -2.53 -2.87 -1.70 1.63 0.47 0.97 1.30 -0.45
1263 2.03 0.37 0.37 0.70 -2.13 1.70 0.37 -2.63 0.37 -0.47
1300 1.90 0.23 2.23 -0.77 -1.77 0.07 -2.43 0.40 -0.43 -0.52
Note. SD: self-direction; ST: stimulation; HE: hedonism; AC: achievement; PO:
power; SE: security; TR: tradition; CO: conformity; BE: benevolence; UN:
universalism.
212
We examined the Stressn associated with participant in each unfolding analysis. We
found 15/303 responses in the personal value and 18/303 in the perceived most
others values had a Stressn greater than two standardized deviations from the mean
Stressn (see Table S3.3, S3.4).
The value profiles of these outliers, in general, assigned high and low importance to
adjacent values. For example, one of the outliers (ID=1236) rated self-direction
values as very important (1.08) and stimulation values as unimportant (-1.75).
Because it is not possible to place a person-point close to self-direction but distant
from stimulation, when these values are next to each other, this person did not fit so
well into the unfolding solution.
We estimated the unfolding solutions for personal values and judged values of most
others twice, with and without the outliers, and found the ordering of all values
around the circle remained the same. Thus, the removal of outliers from the
subgroups did not affect the unfolding solutions; as such they were not removed
from subsequent analysis. This was expected; as noted by Borg et al., (2015) the
location of value-points is determined by the data of all persons in the analysis.
213
Table S3.5.Unfolding outliers of personal values and perceived fictitious others of Study 2.
ID SD ST HE AC PO SE TR CO BE UN
21301311 -0.50 -0.80 -0.20 0.40 -0.30 0.00 -0.60 0.70 0.30 -0.10
21264204 -0.20 -1.00 1.00 0.40 -0.60 0.60 -0.60 0.00 0.30 0.00
21283876 -0.20 -0.60 0.00 0.80 0.50 0.30 -0.60 -0.10 0.60 -0.20
21509126 -0.20 0.00 0.00 0.60 -0.50 0.40 -1.00 0.50 0.50 -0.20
21518893 -0.20 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.10 -0.80 0.30 0.50 -0.60
21137255 -0.10 0.40 0.00 0.60 -0.30 0.10 1.00 -0.70 0.60 -0.25
21129184 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.20 -0.10 0.50 1.00 -0.50 0.40 -0.35
21312956 0.00 0.00 -0.60 0.80 -0.10 0.20 -1.00 -0.50 0.60 0.10
21591406 0.00 0.20 0.80 -0.20 -0.40 -0.20 0.60 -0.50 0.00 0.45
21486268 0.10 -0.20 -0.60 0.80 -0.10 -0.10 -0.80 -0.40 0.00 0.40
20498093 0.20 -0.60 0.00 0.60 0.50 0.30 -1.00 -0.50 0.20 -0.05
20517125 0.30 1.00 -0.60 0.60 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 -0.60 0.30 -0.05
21308361 0.70 0.00 -0.20 0.60 -0.80 0.50 -0.60 0.20 0.00 -0.30
21323623 0.70 -0.60 0.00 0.80 0.10 0.60 -1.00 -0.30 0.00 -0.25
Note. SD: self-direction; ST: stimulation; HE: hedonism; AC: achievement; PO: power; SE: security; TR: tradition; CO: conformity; BE: benevolence;
UN: universalism. As we ran the unfolding analysis for both personal values and perceived values of fictitious others in one solution, we present the
results in one table.
214
In total, Stressn of 14 perceived others values were larger than two standardized
deviations from the Stressn means (see Table S3.5). In general, participants assigned
similar importance on opposing values. For example, one of outliers (ID=21301311)
rated stimulation as unimportant (-.80) and its opposing tradition value as
unimportant (-.60). As it is impossible to place a person-point close to stimulation
and also near tradition. This respondent did not fit well into the unfolding solution.
We estimated the unfolding solution with and without these outliers, the order of
values did not change. Thus, we retained these responses in subsequent
215
Table S3.6. Unfolding outliers of personal values and perceived destination values of Study 3.
Personal values (N=11) Perceived destination values (N=13)
ID OC SE CO ST ID OC SE CO ST
1058 0.00 -0.87 0.56 0.13 1017 -0.33 1.00 -1.00 0.33
1019 0.20 -0.67 0.40 0.07 1066 -0.67 0.33 -0.33 0.67
1034 -0.20 0.13 -0.04 0.13 1089 -0.33 0.67 -0.67 0.33
1071 0.33 -0.67 0.28 0.10 1103 -1.00 0.67 -0.33 0.67
1187 -0.33 -0.27 0.08 0.30 1105 1.00 -1.00 0.33 -0.33
1202 0.40 -0.87 0.12 0.17 1122 0.67 -0.67 0.67 -0.67
1208 0.13 -0.87 0.36 0.13 1137 1.00 -0.33 0.33 -1.00
1009 0.00 -0.13 -0.16 0.43 1138 -1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
1084 0.20 -0.80 0.36 0.23 1167 1.00 -1.00 0.33 -0.33
1169 -0.20 -0.20 -0.04 0.43 1169 0.00 0.33 -1.00 0.67
1267 0.20 -0.60 0.44 0.03 1195 0.33 -0.33 1.00 -1.00
1244 0.67 -0.67 0.67 -0.67
1250 0.33 -0.67 1.00 -0.67
Note. Outliers are defined as the stress scores greater than two standardized deviations from the mean Stress in unfolding analysis of respondents’
personal values. OC: Openness to change value. SE: Self-enhancement value. CO: Conservation value. ST: Self-transcendence values.
216
As can be seen in the Table S3.6, the value profiles of these outliers, in general,
assigned high and low importance to adjacent values. For example, ID 1058
perceived Conservation value as the most important but its adjacent value Self-
enhancement as the least important. Because it is not possible to place a person-
point close to Conservation and distant from Self-enhancement, when these
values are next to each other, this person did not fit so well into this unfolding
solution. Another example, ID 1017 perceived destination as placing more
importance on Self-enhancement value but perceived its adjacent value
Conservation as the least important. Because it is not possible to place a person-
point representing perceived value of a particular destination close to Self-
enhancement and distant from Conservation values, when these values are next
to each other, this person did not fit so well into this unfolding solution of
destination values
217
1. MDS solutions.
Figures S3.1a.
MDS solution for personal values
(N=303)
Stress-1=.05, Tucker’s coefficient of
congruence=.99
Figures S3.1b.
MDS solution for perceived values of
most others (N=303), Stress-1=.07,
Tucker’s coefficient of congruence=.99
Figure S3.1. MDS solutions for personal values (Figure S3.1a) and perceived
most others values (Figure. S3.1b). UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, TR
= Tradition, CO = Conformity, SE = Security, PO = Power, AC = Achievement,
HE = Hedonism, ST = Stimulation, SD = Self-direction.
The fit of both solutions of MDS are good with value items mostly arrayed along
the theorized value structure. The order of the value items is almost as predicted
by Schwartz’s value theory (1992), with some deviations between neighboring
values.
218
Figure S3.2a.
Personal values of Openness to change
holiday condition (N=38), Stress-1=.09,
Tucker’s coefficient of congruence=.99
Figure S3.2b.
Perceived values of others of
Openness to change holiday condition
(N=38), Stress-1=.13, Tucker’s
coefficient of congruence=.99
Figure S3.2c.
Personal values of Self-enhancement
holiday condition (N=39), Stress-1=.12
Tucker’s coefficient of congruence=.99
Figure S3.2d.
Perceived values of others of Self-
enhancement holiday condition
(N=39), Stress-1=.13
Tucker’s coefficient of
congruence=.99
219
Figure S3.2e.
Personal values of Conservation
holiday condition (N=39), Stress-1=.10
Tucker’s coefficient of congruence=.99
Figure S3.2f.
Perceived values of others of
Conservation holiday condition
(N=39), Stress-1=.15
Tucker’s coefficient of
congruence=.99
Figure S3.2g.
Personal values of Self-transcendence
holiday condition (N=36), Stress-1=.12,
Tucker’s coefficient of congruence=.99
Figure S3.2h.
Perceived values of others of Self-
transcendence holiday condition
(N=36), Stress-1=.16, Tucker’s
coefficient of congruence=.99
Figure S3.2. MDS solutions for personal values and perceived values for others.
UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, TR = Tradition, CO = Conformity, SE =
Security, PO = Power, AC = Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST = Stimulation,
SD = Self-direction.
220
The fit of all solutions of MDS are acceptable with value items mostly arrayed
along the theorized value structure. The order of the value items is almost as
predicted by Schwartz’s value theory (1992), with some deviations between
neighboring values.
Figure S3.3a.
Personal values (N=141)
Stress-1=.003, Tucker’s coefficient of
congruence=.99
Figure S3.3b.
Perceived values of London and New
York cities (N=141), Stress-1=.01,
Tucker’s coefficient of congruence=.99
Figure S3.3. MDS solutions personal values and perceived values for city
destinations.
UN = Universalism, BE = Benevolence, TR = Tradition, CO = Conformity, SE =
Security, PO = Power, AC = Achievement, HE = Hedonism, ST = Stimulation,
SD = Self-direction.
The fit of the two solutions of the MDS are good, with values located reflecting
the compatible and conflicts relationships between the four higher order values.
221
CHAPTER FOUR
A. Skew, kurtosis and normality tests
Table S4.1. Skewness, Kurtosis and Normality tests of personal values and
destination values.
Destination have been to
Personal values Skewness Kurtosis KS SW
Openness to change 0.32 -0.13 0.08 0.99
Self-enhancement 0.93 0.55 0.12 0.92
Conservation -0.15 -0.09 0.05 0.99
Self-transcendence -0.65 0.16 0.11 0.97
Destination values Skewness Kurtosis KS SW
Openness to change -0.29 -1.09 0.16 0.90
Self-enhancement 1.19 0.79 0.23 0.81
Conservation -0.21 -0.96 0.15 0.92
Self-transcendence -0.30 -0.74 0.15 0.94
Note. KS” Kolmogorov-Smirnov. SW: Shapiro-Wilk. The p-values of normality test
(Kolmogorov-Smirnow and Shapiro-Wilk) were all significant at p<0.05 level.
This suggested violations of the assumption of normality. Italic KSs
(Kolmogorov-Smirnow) and SWs (Shapiro-Wilk) they are not significant at
p<0.05 level.
222
B. Stress-per-point of unfolding analysis as means to examine the fit of each
respondent and each four higher-order values.
Table S4.2.Contribution percentage of each higher-order value to the total stress
generated by all value points in the unfolding solutions of respondents’ personal
values (Stress-per-Point)
Personal Values
(N=198)
Destination Values
(N=198)
Openness to Change 22.15 21.15
Self-enhancement 22.69 22.51
Conservation 28.94 23.28
Self-transcendence 26.22 33.06
Note. The higher contribution percentage, the less fit of the particular value to the
total unfolding solution.
Table S4.2 presents the Stress-per-point coefficient for all unfolding solutions of
current three studies. Stress-per-point coefficient contributed to the total Stressn
for each unfolding solution and whether any value was poorly represented in the
configuration (Borg, Gronenen, & Mair, 2012). The four higher-order values
differed in their contributions to the overall Stressn; All four higher order values
contributed roughtly the same for personal value solutions. For destination value
solutions, all four higher order values contributed roughly the same to the overall
Stressn , with perceived self-transcendence values contributed more than other
values to Stressn However, these higher Stressn values located as expected in the
predicted structure for all.
223
Unfolding analysis outliers.
Table S4.3. Unfolding outliers of personal values .
ID Openness to
change
Self-
enhancement
Conservation Self-
transcendence
2387961842 -0.20 0.13 -0.20 0.40
2632914834 -0.30 -0.07 -0.16 0.53
3986736876 -0.25 -0.47 -0.04 0.57
4547995134 -0.25 -0.07 -0.08 0.43
6513544229 0.15 -0.40 -0.32 0.50
6973754179 0.00 -0.47 -0.28 0.50
8381355918 0.05 -0.33 -0.48 0.40
8636633724 0.15 -0.87 0.32 0.20
1936693675 0.25 -0.27 -0.52 0.27
4278166327 0.50 -0.87 0.00 0.07
8545927849 0.50 0.67 -0.16 -0.43
As can be seen in the Table S4.3, The value profiles of these outliers, in
general, assigned similar importance on opposing values or high and low
importance to adjacent values. For example, ID 2387961842 perceived
openness to change value and its opposing conservation value as similarly less
important than the other two higher-order values. Because it is not possible to
place a person-point close to openness to change and also near conservation;
when these values locate opposing to each other, this person did not fit so well
into this unfolding solution to certain extent. we estimated the unfolding
solution with and without these outliers, the order of values did not change.
Thus, we retained these responses in subsequent analysis.
224
Table S4.4. Unfolding outliers of perceived destination values.
ID Openness to change Self-enhancement Conservation Self-transcendence
3183435669 0.33 -0.33 -1.00 1.00
3843427886 -1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
4744423123 -1.00 0.67 -0.33 0.67
7894713396 -0.67 0.33 -0.33 0.67
2387961842 0.33 -0.67 1.00 -0.67
3183435669 0.33 -0.33 -1.00 1.00
As can be seen in the Table S4.4, The value profiles of these outliers, in general,
assigned similar importance on opposing values, or high and low importance to
adjacent values. For example, ID 3843427886 perceived destination as placing
more importance on self-transcendence value but also place the least importance
on its compatible value openness to change. Because it is not possible to place a
person-point representing perceived value of a particular destination close to
Self-transcendence but far away from openness to change value, when these
values are next to each other, this person did not fit so well into this unfolding
solution of destination values to some extent. we estimated the unfolding
solution with and without these outliers, the order of values did not change.
Thus, we retained these responses in subsequent analysis.
225
CHAPTER FIVE.
A. Covariance matrix, means, standard deviations, skew, kurtosis, AVE, construct reliability and model fit
Table S 5.1. Covariance matrix of Higher-order values and the TPB items of the Openness to Change TPB holiday model
N=299 OC SE CO ST
Iin1O
C
Iin2O
C
Iin3O
C
ATT1O
C
ATT2O
C
ATT3O
C
ATT4O
C
SN1O
C
SN2O
C
PBC1O
C
PBC2O
C
OC 0.07 0.00 -0.03 -0.01 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04
SE 0.00 0.12 -0.02 -0.05 -0.05 -0.08 -0.09 -0.11 -0.10 -0.11 -0.11 -0.04 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02
CO -0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.03 -0.05 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.03
ST -0.01 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02
Iin1OC 0.06 -0.05 -0.04 0.03 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.60 0.56 0.63 0.66 0.46 0.33 0.35 0.43
Iin2OC 0.06 -0.08 -0.03 0.05 0.97 1.66 1.31 0.72 0.61 0.74 0.80 0.62 0.39 0.48 0.59
Iin3OC 0.06 -0.09 -0.05 0.06 1.00 1.31 1.78 0.80 0.70 0.85 0.87 0.65 0.48 0.40 0.69
ATT1OC 0.06 -0.11 -0.02 0.06 0.60 0.72 0.80 1.06 0.82 0.95 0.95 0.45 0.35 0.28 0.57
ATT2OC 0.04 -0.10 -0.02 0.05 0.56 0.61 0.70 0.82 0.87 0.86 0.83 0.36 0.29 0.23 0.44
ATT3OC 0.06 -0.11 -0.03 0.07 0.63 0.74 0.85 0.95 0.86 1.19 1.08 0.46 0.36 0.31 0.58
ATT4OC 0.06 -0.11 -0.02 0.06 0.66 0.80 0.87 0.95 0.83 1.08 1.36 0.48 0.36 0.28 0.64
SN1OC 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 0.03 0.46 0.62 0.65 0.45 0.36 0.46 0.48 1.53 1.04 0.27 0.47
SN2OC 0.05 -0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.33 0.39 0.48 0.35 0.29 0.36 0.36 1.04 1.44 0.28 0.45
PBC1OC 0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.35 0.48 0.40 0.28 0.23 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.28 1.42 0.72
PBC2OC 0.04 -0.02 -0.03 0.02 0.43 0.59 0.69 0.57 0.44 0.58 0.64 0.47 0.45 0.72 1.83
Note: OC: Openness to change; SE: Self-enhancement; CO: Conservation: ST: Self-transcendence. INT: intention; ATT: Attitudes; SN: Subjective
norms; PBC: Perceived behavioural control. N=299 for each of the holiday TPB model.
226
Table S5.2. Covariance matrix of Higher-order values and the TPB items of the Self-Enhancement TPB holiday model
N=299 OC SE CO ST Iin1SE Iin2SE Iin3SE ATT1SE
ATT2S
E
ATT3S
E
ATT4S
E
SN1S
E
SN2S
E
PBC1S
E
PBC2S
E
OC 0.07 0.00 -0.03 -0.01 -0.06 -0.10 -0.08 -0.03 -0.07 -0.05 -0.09 -0.07 0.01 -0.06 -0.04
SE 0.00 0.12 -0.02 -0.05 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.13
CO -0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.01
ST -0.01 -0.05 0.00 0.05 -0.09 -0.09 -0.08 -0.06 -0.07 -0.06 -0.07 -0.06 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06
Iin1SE -0.06 0.24 0.00 -0.09 3.71 3.11 3.06 2.23 2.01 2.30 2.37 2.13 1.59 1.81 1.85
Iin2SE -0.10 0.24 0.02 -0.09 3.11 3.98 3.54 1.97 1.90 2.13 2.31 2.16 1.61 1.84 2.03
Iin3SE -0.08 0.25 0.00 -0.08 3.06 3.54 4.14 2.17 2.00 2.32 2.50 2.35 1.68 1.66 1.98
ATT1SE -0.03 0.17 -0.02 -0.06 2.23 1.97 2.17 3.21 2.41 2.67 2.72 1.83 1.53 1.27 1.47
ATT2SE -0.07 0.17 0.00 -0.07 2.01 1.90 2.00 2.41 3.14 2.52 2.55 1.49 1.19 1.10 1.43
ATT3SE -0.05 0.17 -0.01 -0.06 2.30 2.13 2.32 2.67 2.52 3.39 2.83 1.79 1.29 1.11 1.57
ATT4SE -0.09 0.19 0.01 -0.07 2.37 2.31 2.50 2.72 2.55 2.83 3.55 2.02 1.49 1.31 1.69
SN1SE -0.07 0.17 0.02 -0.06 2.13 2.16 2.35 1.83 1.49 1.79 2.02 3.82 2.67 1.50 1.78
SN2SE 0.01 0.10 -0.01 -0.04 1.59 1.61 1.68 1.53 1.19 1.29 1.49 2.67 3.69 1.49 1.72
PBC1SE -0.06 0.12 0.01 -0.05 1.81 1.84 1.66 1.27 1.10 1.11 1.31 1.50 1.49 3.80 2.41
PBC2SE -0.04 0.13 0.01 -0.06 1.85 2.03 1.98 1.47 1.43 1.57 1.69 1.78 1.72 2.41 4.04
Note: OC: Openness to change; SE: Self-enhancement; CO: Conservation: ST: Self-transcendence. INT: intention; ATT: Attitudes; SN: Subjective
norms; PBC: Perceived behavioural control. N=299 for each of the holiday TPB model.
227
Table S5.3. Covariance matrix of Higher-order values and the TPB items of the Conservation TPB holiday model
N=299 OC SE CO ST
Iin1C
O
Iin2C
O
Iin3C
O
ATT1C
O
ATT2C
O
ATT3C
O
ATT4C
O
SN1C
O
SN2C
O
PBC1C
O
PBC2C
O
OC 0.07 0.00 -0.03 -0.01 -0.06 -0.11 -0.10 -0.06 -0.08 -0.07 -0.08 -0.02 0.01 -0.08 -0.07
SE 0.00 0.12 -0.02 -0.05 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.01
CO -0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.05
ST -0.01 -0.05 0.00 0.05 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01
Iin1CO -0.06 0.01 0.06 0.02 2.68 2.49 2.34 1.44 1.67 1.48 1.66 1.59 1.05 0.96 1.33
Iin2CO -0.11 0.00 0.09 -0.01 2.49 3.44 2.80 1.47 1.72 1.62 1.71 1.81 1.17 1.23 1.50
Iin3CO -0.10 -0.01 0.07 0.00 2.34 2.80 3.44 1.50 1.68 1.58 1.76 1.65 1.12 1.30 1.59
ATT1CO -0.06 -0.05 0.06 0.02 1.44 1.47 1.50 2.40 1.72 1.67 1.93 1.34 0.92 0.74 1.11
ATT2CO -0.08 0.00 0.07 -0.02 1.67 1.72 1.68 1.72 2.80 2.04 2.04 1.40 0.86 0.79 1.12
ATT3CO -0.07 -0.01 0.06 0.00 1.48 1.62 1.58 1.67 2.04 2.42 2.05 1.35 0.85 0.87 1.17
ATT4CO -0.08 -0.03 0.06 0.00 1.66 1.71 1.76 1.93 2.04 2.05 2.81 1.43 0.97 0.83 1.24
SN1CO -0.02 -0.02 0.05 -0.01 1.59 1.81 1.65 1.34 1.40 1.35 1.43 2.70 1.64 0.84 1.15
SN2CO 0.01 -0.02 0.03 -0.02 1.05 1.17 1.12 0.92 0.86 0.85 0.97 1.64 2.07 0.68 0.70
PBC1C
O
-0.08 0.01 0.08 -0.02 0.96 1.23 1.30 0.74 0.79 0.87 0.83 0.84 0.68 2.60 1.70
PBC2C
O
-0.07 0.01 0.05 -0.01 1.33 1.50 1.59 1.11 1.12 1.17 1.24 1.15 0.70 1.70 3.24
Note: OC: Openness to change; SE: Self-enhancement; CO: Conservation: ST: Self-transcendence. INT: intention; ATT: Attitudes; SN: Subjective
norms; PBC: Perceived behavioural control. N=299 for each of the holiday TPB model.
228
Table S5.4. Covariance matrix of Higher-order values and the TPB items of the Self-Transcendence TPB holiday model
N=299 OC SE CO ST Iin1ST Iin2ST Iin3ST ATT1ST
ATT2S
T
ATT3S
T
ATT4S
T
SN1S
T
SN2S
T
PBC1S
T
PBC2S
T
OC 0.07 0.00 -0.03 -0.01 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.04 -0.02 -0.02
SE 0.00 0.12 -0.02 -0.05 -0.19 -0.21 -0.21 -0.22 -0.21 -0.19 -0.22 -0.12 -0.05 -0.06 -0.09
CO -0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.03 -0.04 0.02 0.01
ST -0.01 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.07
Iin1ST -0.03 -0.19 -0.02 0.16 3.29 2.87 2.99 1.90 2.00 1.96 1.72 1.49 0.69 1.36 1.27
Iin2ST -0.05 -0.21 0.00 0.16 2.87 3.71 3.37 1.82 2.00 2.03 1.52 1.62 0.60 1.51 1.47
Iin3ST -0.05 -0.21 0.00 0.17 2.99 3.37 4.17 2.05 2.33 2.24 1.75 1.78 0.60 1.54 1.66
ATT1ST -0.03 -0.22 0.00 0.16 1.90 1.82 2.05 2.96 2.10 1.95 2.12 1.18 0.73 0.79 0.89
ATT2ST -0.01 -0.21 0.00 0.15 2.00 2.00 2.33 2.10 2.85 2.20 1.87 1.27 0.55 0.97 1.07
ATT3ST -0.04 -0.19 0.01 0.14 1.96 2.03 2.24 1.95 2.20 2.71 1.85 1.24 0.50 1.12 1.09
ATT4ST -0.03 -0.22 0.00 0.15 1.72 1.52 1.75 2.12 1.87 1.85 3.03 1.00 0.62 0.95 0.80
SN1ST -0.01 -0.12 -0.03 0.10 1.49 1.62 1.78 1.18 1.27 1.24 1.00 2.79 1.09 0.92 1.00
SN2ST 0.04 -0.05 -0.04 0.06 0.69 0.60 0.60 0.73 0.55 0.50 0.62 1.09 1.88 0.53 0.56
PBC1ST -0.02 -0.06 0.02 0.05 1.36 1.51 1.54 0.79 0.97 1.12 0.95 0.92 0.53 3.11 1.65
PBC2ST -0.02 -0.09 0.01 0.07 1.27 1.47 1.66 0.89 1.07 1.09 0.80 1.00 0.56 1.65 3.65
Note: OC: Openness to change; SE: Self-enhancement; CO: Conservation: ST: Self-transcendence. INT: intention; ATT: Attitudes; SN: Subjective
norms; PBC: Perceived behavioural control. N=299 for each of the holiday TPB model.
229
Table S5.5. Covariance matrix of ST vs. SE value dimensions holiday model
N=229 ST_SE Iin1ST/SE Iin2ST/SE Iin3ST/SE ATT1ST/SE ATT2ST/SE ATT3ST/SE ATT4ST/SE SN1ST/SE SN2ST/SE PBC1ST/SE PBC2ST/SE
ST_SE 0.27 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.62 0.45 0.24 0.28 0.36
Iin1ST/SE 0.67 6.69 6.03 6.13 4.60 4.44 4.70 4.64 4.02 2.36 2.47 2.93
Iin2ST/SE 0.69 6.03 6.87 6.39 4.31 4.27 4.58 4.53 4.06 2.33 2.51 2.96
Iin3ST/SE 0.71 6.13 6.39 7.48 4.70 4.73 5.08 5.08 4.29 2.49 2.55 3.15
ATT1ST/SE 0.60 4.60 4.31 4.70 6.10 4.72 4.90 5.04 3.29 2.13 2.04 2.50
ATT2ST/SE 0.60 4.44 4.27 4.73 4.72 6.21 5.04 4.79 3.12 2.04 1.90 2.43
ATT3ST/SE 0.56 4.70 4.58 5.08 4.90 5.04 6.53 4.95 3.47 2.14 2.09 2.80
ATT4ST/SE 0.62 4.64 4.53 5.08 5.04 4.79 4.95 6.89 3.47 2.39 1.98 2.44
SN1ST/SE 0.45 4.02 4.06 4.29 3.29 3.12 3.47 3.47 5.41 2.93 2.08 2.43
SN2ST/SE 0.24 2.36 2.33 2.49 2.13 2.04 2.14 2.39 2.93 3.74 1.65 1.67
PBC1ST/SE 0.28 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.04 1.90 2.09 1.98 2.08 1.65 3.72 1.98
PBC2ST/SE 0.36 2.93 2.96 3.15 2.50 2.43 2.80 2.44 2.43 1.67 1.98 3.82
230
Table S5.6.Covariance matrix of OC vs. CO value dimensions holiday model
N=229 OC_CO Iin1OC/CO Iin2OC/CO Iin3OC/CO ATT1OC/CO ATT2OC/CO ATT3OC/CO ATT4OC/CO SN1OC/CO SN2OC/CO PBC1OC/CO PBC2OC/CO
OC_CO 0.18 0.22 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.09 0.20 0.20
Iin1OC/CO 0.22 3.41 3.35 3.16 1.91 2.21 2.19 2.28 1.85 1.18 1.25 1.91
Iin2OC/CO 0.29 3.35 4.85 3.74 2.22 2.43 2.62 2.62 2.37 1.48 1.71 2.36
Iin3OC/CO 0.27 3.16 3.74 4.79 2.11 2.41 2.48 2.55 2.04 1.32 1.59 2.26
ATT1OC/CO 0.20 1.91 2.22 2.11 3.06 2.34 2.45 2.66 1.54 1.02 0.99 1.66
ATT2OC/CO 0.22 2.21 2.43 2.41 2.34 3.67 2.96 2.78 1.62 0.92 1.02 1.70
ATT3OC/CO 0.22 2.19 2.62 2.48 2.45 2.96 3.64 3.08 1.80 1.15 1.21 2.10
ATT4OC/CO 0.22 2.28 2.62 2.55 2.66 2.78 3.08 3.94 1.69 1.09 1.09 2.07
SN1OC/CO 0.13 1.85 2.37 2.04 1.54 1.62 1.80 1.69 3.96 2.31 1.27 1.64
SN2OC/CO 0.09 1.18 1.48 1.32 1.02 0.92 1.15 1.09 2.31 2.61 0.92 1.02
PBC1OC/CO 0.20 1.25 1.71 1.59 0.99 1.02 1.21 1.09 1.27 0.92 2.35 1.48
PBC2OC/CO 0.20 1.91 2.36 2.26 1.66 1.70 2.10 2.07 1.64 1.02 1.48 3.67
231
Table S5.7.Means, Standard deviation, skewness and Kurtosis of the TPB items and four higher-order personal values for each holiday model
N=299 An Exciting Holiday
(OC value expressive )
A Prestigious Holiday
(SE value expressive)
A Well-organized Holiday
(CO value expressive)
A Compassionate Holiday
(ST value expressive)
Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis
OC 0.22 (0.27) -0.23 -0.09 0.22 (0.27) -0.23 -0.09 0.22 (0.27) -0.23 -0.09 0.22 (0.27) -0.23 -0.09
SE -0.19 (0.34) 0.53 0.04 -0.19 (0.34) 0.53 0.04 -0.19 (0.34) 0.53 0.04 -0.19 (0.34) 0.53 0.04
CO -0.12 (0.20) 0.00 -0.17 -0.12 (0.20) 0.00 -0.17 -0.12 (0.20) 0.00 -0.17 -0.12 (0.20) 0.00 -0.17
ST 0.12 (0.22) -0.27 -0.46 0.12 (0.22) -0.27 -0.46 0.12 (0.22) -0.27 -0.46 0.12 (0.22) -0.27 -0.46
INT1 6.48 (1.00) -2.77 9.58 3.83 (1.93) 0.08 -1.13 4.55 (1.64) -0.46 -0.47 4.25 (1.82) -0.21 -0.96
INT2 6.18 (1.29) -2.12 4.71 3.39 (2.00) 0.32 -1.13 4.24 (1.85) -0.30 -0.95 3.76 (1.93) 0.08 -1.12
INT3 6.13 (1.33) -2.02 4.08 3.33 (2.03) 0.37 -1.16 4.10 (1.85) -0.21 -1.01 3.75 (2.04) 0.10 -1.25
ATT1 6.43 (1.03) -2.46 7.33 4.81 (1.79) -0.56 -0.61 5.04 (1.55) -0.58 -0.25 5.18 (1.72) -0.80 -0.19
ATT2 6.56 (0.93) -3.09 11.97 4.32 (1.77) -0.26 -0.82 4.01 (1.67) -0.05 -0.80 4.45 (1.69) -0.34 -0.64
ATT3 6.32 (1.09) -2.16 5.54 4.49 (1.84) -0.37 -0.81 4.45 (1.55) -0.37 -0.42 4.28 (1.65) -0.34 -0.54
ATT4 6.29 (1.17) -2.02 4.36 4.43 (1.88) -0.37 -0.91 4.46 (1.68) -0.40 -0.57 5.49 (1.74) -1.05 0.15
SN1 5.98 (1.24) -1.30 1.36 4.30 (1.95) -0.10 -1.15 5.37 (1.64) -0.94 0.14 5.07 (1.67) -0.59 -0.48
SN2 6.10 (1.20) -1.36 1.44 4.97 (1.92) -0.53 -0.93 5.93 (1.44) -1.47 1.72 5.90 (1.37) -1.32 1.39
PBC1 5.56 (1.19) -0.81 0.85 3.90 (1.95) 0.04 -1.14 4.89 (1.61) -0.55 -0.48 4.22 (1.76) -0.18 -0.85
PBC2 5.81 (1.35) -1.34 1.75 4.05 (2.01) -0.02 -1.22 4.95 (1.80) -0.63 -0.59 4.22 (1.91) -0.22 -1.08
Note: OC: Openness to change; SE: Self-enhancement; CO: Conservation: ST: Self-transcendence. INT: intention; ATT: Attitudes; SN: Subjective
norms; PBC: Perceived behavioural control. N=299 for each of the holiday TPB model. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
232
Table S5.8.Means, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis of the TPB items for each of the value priority holiday models
OC-CO Holiday model ST-SE Holiday model
N=299 N=299
Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Mean (SD)
Skewness Kurtosis
OC-CO 0.35 (0.42) -0.09 -0.12 ST-SE 0.31 (0.52) -0.49 -0.15
INT1 1.93 (1.85) 0.18 -0.02 INT1 0.42 (2.59) -0.01 -0.31
INT2 1.94 (2.20) -0.11 0.29 INT2 0.37 (2.62) 0.06 0.22
INT3 2.03 (2.19) -0.21 0.46 INT3 0.41 (2.73) 0.16 -0.28
ATT1 1.38 (1.75) 0.26 0.04 ATT1 0.37 (2.47) 0.00 -0.30
ATT2 2.55 (1.92) -0.15 -0.37 ATT2 0.13 (2.49) 0.05 -0.05
ATT3 1.86 (1.91) -0.04 -0.03 ATT3 -0.21 (2.56) 0.15 0.33
ATT4 1.82 (1.99) 0.01 0.26 ATT4 1.07 (2.62) 0.07 0.76
SN1 0.61 (1.99) 0.31 0.55 SN1 0.76 (2.33) 0.07 0.86
SN2 0.17 (1.62) 0.62 2.12 SN2 0.93 (1.93) 0.64 -0.31
PBC1 0.66 (1.53) 0.37 0.71 PBC1 0.32 (1.93) 0.01 -0.28
PBC2 0.86 (1.92) 0.64 0.82 PBC2 0.17 (1.95) 0.11 -0.29
Note: OC: Openness to change; SE: Self-enhancement; CO: Conservation: ST: Self-transcendence. INT: intention; ATT: Attitudes; SN: Subjective
norms; PBC: Perceived behavioural control. N=299 for each of the holiday TPB model. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
233
Table S5.9.Means, standard deviations, construct reliability, AVE, and correlations for the four higher order values and the TPB constructs.
Note. Correlations in italic are not significant at p<0.05 level.
Construct
Items M(Std.) Construct
Reliability
AVE OC SE CO ST ATT SN PBC
An Exciting Holiday (OC value expressive holiday) N=299
ATT 4 6.40 (0.98) 0.94 0.82 0.21 -0.28 -0.17 0.29 -
SN 2 6.04 (1.12) 0.82 0.69 0.12 -0.14 -0.04 0.12 0.41 -
PBC 2 5.68 (1.08) 0.62 0.46 0.17 -0.08 -0.14 0.07 0.53 0.43 -
INT 3 6.26 (1.10) 0.90 0.75 0.21 -0.21 -0.17 0.21 0.71 0.48 0.56
A Prestigious Holiday (SE value expressive holiday) N=299
ATT 4 4.51 (1.67) 0.94 0.94 -0.13 0.31 -0.02 -0.17
SN 2 4.64 (1.79) 0.83 0.83 -0.11 0.21 0.05 -0.12 0.58
PBC 2 3.97 (1.78) 0.76 0.76 -0.06 0.24 -0.00 -0.18 0.54 0.63
INT 3 3.51 (1.86) 0.93 0.93 -0.16 0.37 0.01 -0.21 0.74 0.63 0.66
A Well-organized Holiday (CO value expressive holiday) N=299
ATT 4 4.49 (1.44) 0.92 0.73 -0.18 -0.03 0.21 -0.01
SN 2 5.65 (1.42) 0.82 0.70 -0.06 -0.06 0.17 -0.02 0.59
PBC 2 4.92 (1.52) 0.74 0.59 -0.12 0.01 0.20 -0.08 0.52 0.46
INT 3 4.29(1.66) 0.92 0.80 -0.19 -0.02 0.24 -0.02 0.72 0.63 0.61
A Compassionate Holiday (ST value expressive holiday) N=299
ATT 4 4.85 (1.49) 0.90 0.70 -0.09 -0.34 -0.02 0.45
SN 2 5.48 (1.31) 0.64 0.47 -0.10 -0.31 0.03 0.36 0.60
PBC 2 4.22 (1.58) 0.66 0.47 -0.02 -0.20 -0.01 0.23 0.51 0.54
INT 3 3.92 (1.81) 0.94 0.82 -0.09 -0.33 -0.02 0.43 0.78 0.65 0.66
234
Table S5.10. The Fit indices of TPB holiday model
OC Holiday Model
(N=299)
SE Holiday Model
(N=299)
CO Holiday Model
(N=299)
ST Holiday Model
(N=299)
ST vs. SE Holiday
(N=299)
OC vs. CO Holiday
(N=299)
APC 0.15**
0.15**
0.12**
0.15**
0.37***
0.30***
ARC 0.20***
0.22***
0.19***
0.28***
0.33***
0.25***
AARS 0.19***
0.21***
0.18***
0.27***
0.33***
0.24***
AVIF 3.11 3.18 3.14 3.15 2.63 1.91
AFVIF 2.74 2.99 2.85 3.06 3.14 2.37
GoF 0.41 0.44 0.40 0.47 0.51 0.43
SPR 0.87 0.73 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00
RSCR 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00
SSR 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00
Note: APC: Average path coefficient; ARS: Average R-squared; AARS: Average adjusted R-squared; AVIF: Average block VIF, acceptable, if <=5,
ideally <=3.3; AFVIF: Average full collinearity VIF, acceptable, if <=5, ideally <=3.3; GoF: Tenenhaus GoF, small >=0.1, medium >=0.25,
large>=0.36; SPR: Sympson's paradox ratio, acceptable, if>=0.7, ideally=1; RSCR:R-squared contribution ratio, acceptable if >=0.9, ideally=1;
SSR: Statistical suppression ratio, acceptable, if>=0.7. OC: Openness to change; SE: Self-Enhancement; CO: Conservation; ST: Self-
Transcendence. *p<0.05,
**p<0.01,
***p<0.001
