Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage:

Progress in Tourism Management

Why do you cruise? Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays,
and the construction of a cruising motivation scale
Kam Hung a, *, James F. Petrick b
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purposes of this study were to develop a measurement scale for motivation to cruising and to
Received 1 May 2009 examine the role of cruising motivation on intention to cruise. The motivation measurement scale was
Accepted 14 March 2010 developed by following the procedures recommended by Churchill (1979). The scale was tested and
found to be both reliable and valid. The role of cruising motivation on intention to cruise was tested with
Keywords: an online panel survey and it was found that cruising motivation has a positive influence on cruising
Cruising motivation
intention. Based on the study results, some marketing implications were provided to the cruise industry.
Cruising intention
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Measurement scale development
Cruise tourism

1. Introduction intentions. Although Kim and Chalip (2004) investigated the role of
travel motives on visiting intentions and found both direct and
Motivation is a fundamental force behind all human behavior indirect effects of travel motivations on desire to attend the World
(Berkman & Gilson, 1978). It refers to the “internal psychological Cup in Korea, their motivation measurement was adopted from
factors (needs and wants) that generate a state of tension or a leisure motivation scale and only three dimensions of the scale
disequilibrium within individuals” (Crompton & McKay, 1997, were included in their study: escape, learning, and social motives.
p. 427). Although travel motivation has been extensively studied in Therefore, this study was conducted to first develop a measure-
tourism literature, the discussion of motivation has not been ment scale for cruising motivation and then to investigate the
expanded to cruise tourism except for Qu and Ping’s (1999) study on influence of motivation to cruising on people’s intention to take
the motivations associated with cruising in Hong Kong. However, a cruise vacation.
this study adopted a motivation scale from elsewhere without
examining the reliability and validity of the scale. Since under- 2. Literature review
standing the underlying motives to cruising is likely to enhance our
understanding of why people cruise and what they are looking for Motivation has been one of the most researched topics in
from their trips, the first purpose of the current study was to a variety of fields (i.e., psychology, sociology, consumer behavior,
understand people’s motivation to cruising by developing a cruising and tourism). Various motivation theories have been developed
motivation measurement scale. such as drive reduction theory (Hull, 1943, 1952), hierarchy of needs
Although travel motivation has been identified as a critical (Maslow, 1943, 1954), expectancy-value theories (Lewin, 1938), and
factor in explaining tourist behavior (Crompton, 1979), few studies goal-directed behavior (Bettman, 1979). While some theories such
tested the relationship between travel motivation and travel as drive reduction theory have suggested that people behave in
intention. Intention is defined as the direction of mind or “intended certain ways due to their innate biological tendencies such as eating
mode of behavior” (Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 1405). Most for hunger; others such as hierarchy of needs theory suggest that
motivation studies have been characterized by identifying travel people do something because they want to achieve certain goals
motivations in different tourism contexts such as garden (Connell, such as working hard to get a raise. The former is termed as
2004), rural tourism (Frochot, 2005), and national parks (Kim, a regulatory approach and refers to responses to physiological
Lee, & Klenosky, 2003) without examining its influence on travel needs while the latter is termed a purposive approach and focuses
on goal-directed behaviors (Beck, 2000). In a tourism context, the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 2766 4334; fax: þ852 2362 9362.
latter approach has been used more frequently.
E-mail addresses: (K. Hung), Various motivation theories or concepts have been proposed to
(J.F. Petrick). explain tourist behavior. For instance, MacCannell (1973, 1999)

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393 387

suggested that tourists travel to other destinations to seek of satisfaction and value. In addition, value was found to have
authentic opportunities when their usual environments lack such a positive effect on satisfaction.
an experience. Plog (1974, 2001) allocated tourists into an allo- The roles of satisfaction and perceived value on travel intentions
centricepsychocentric continuum in which tourists were catego- were further validated in Duman and Mattila’s (2005) work.
rized according to their personalities toward novelty-seeking and However, different from previous studies, affective factors (i.e.,
implied that personality was one of the basic sources of travel control, novelty, and hedonics) were included in the study to predict
motivation. Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) applied Maslow’s hier- their direct effects on satisfaction and perceived value as well as their
archy of needs to the study of tourist travel motivations, and sug- indirect influences on behavioral intentions. Results of their study
gested that experienced travelers are more likely to go on trips to found a predicting role of the variables on behavioral intentions.
fulfill higher level of needs (i.e., self actualization) than novice Other influential factors of behavioral intentions identified in past
travelers. These theories imply that people travel for fulfilling cruising studies include price sensitivity (Petrick, 2005), critical
certain needs and wants and that these needs and wants are the incidents (Petrick, Tonner, & Quinn, 2006), and perceived image of
basic motivations for initiating a travel experience. Although many cruise travel (Park, 2006). These studies generally conclude that
motivation theories have been proposed in past research, scholars cruising intentions are influenced by these factors. Although Vina and
have not perceived these approaches as competitive entities; Ford (2001) also studied factors influencing people’s propensity to
rather, they all contribute to the understanding of tourist behaviors cruise, the variables of prediction were limited to demographic and
in different ways. Thus, it is unlikely that scholars will ever agree on trip characteristics, and the studied sample was limited to those who
one unifying motivational theory in explaining tourist behavior. previously requested travel information for tourist destinations in
Despite the vast amount of attention that tourism scholars have South Texas from regional convention and visitor bureaus.
paid to studying travel motivation (e.g., Dann, 1977; Iso-Ahola, The review of past cruising literature suggests that intention to
1982; Crompton, 1979; Kim & Chalip, 2004), little effort has been cruise is influenced by many different factors. However, the
paid to studying travel motivation in the context of cruise tourism. research on cruising motivation and its relationship with cruising
While prior cruising research had focused more on economic intention is still lacking. It is thus still unknown why people choose
aspects of cruise tourism (e.g., Henthorne, 2000; Dwyer & Forsyth, to take cruises and how motivation influences their intentions to
1998; Vina & Ford, 1998), more recent research has paid more cruise. Although different benefits of cruising were included in the
attention to identifying different factors influencing cruise deci- CLIA’s cruise market profile study (CLIA, 2008), the cruising benefit
sion-making (Duman & Mattila, 2005; Petrick, 2004b; Li & Petrick, items were pre-determined in the questionnaire and their associ-
2008). Other topics which have been discussed in the past cruising ation with intentions to cruise was not explored. The sole use of
literature include safety assessment of cruise ships (Lois, Wang, structured questionnaires with Likert-type scales in most tourism
Wall, & Ruxton, 2004) and different social aspects of cruise studies has been criticized as confining subjects’ responses to pre-
tourism such as social space, interaction and liminality (Yarnal & determined items and forcing subjects to respond to items which
Kerstetter, 2005), tourist bubble (Jaakson, 2004), and McDonald- may not apply to them (Samdahl, 2005; Tapachai & Waryszak
ization of cruise tourism (Weaver, 2005). 2000). Therefore, the use of multi-methods which contain both
Different factors have been found in past studies to influence qualitative and quantitative methods is more likely to yield deeper
people’s cruising intentions. For instance, in their study of cruise understanding of a given topic. This study utilized both in-depth
passengers’ decision-making process, Petrick, Li, and Park (2007) interviews and a survey to understand people’s motivation to
found that loyalty, familiarity, and social influences were the cruising by developing a cruising motivation measurement scale
major factors affecting one’s decision to go on a cruise vacation. and to explore its influence on travel intentions.
Consistent with previous findings (Crompton & Ankomah, 1993),
the authors suggested that the choice set model (Crompton, 1992), 3. Research methods
which is a sequential travel decision-making process in which
people narrow down their destination choices to reach a final Adopting Churchill’s (1979) recommended measurement scale
decision, does not apply to those who make habitual/routinized development procedures, this study was conducted in four stages to
cruising decisions. address the objectives of the study. Stage one included in-depth
A few studies have also explored the role of loyalty in cruising interviews. Semi-structured interviews with a small sample were
intentions. For instance, Li and Petrick (2008) applied the invest- conducted to derive motivation measurement items. Convenience
ment model (Rusbult, 1980) in their study and found that loyalty is sampling was used to select subjects for the study. Participants
a function of cruise passengers’ satisfaction with their relationship included cruise passengers embarking and debarking at Port Ever-
with cruises, quality of other alternatives, as well as their invest- glades in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Different cruise lines were con-
ment size on the relationship. Taking another perspective, Petrick tacted during the period of December 2007 to February 2008 and
(2004a) compared fist-timers and repeaters and found that while two cruise lines (i.e., Holland America Line and Princess Cruises)
first-timers and less loyal visitors tend to be less price sensitive and granted the authors permissions to interview their passengers at
to spend more, loyal cruisers have higher revisit intentions and are Port Everglades.
more likely to spread positive word of mouth. These results were The sample size was not determined a priori. Rather the strategy
further supported by Petrick and Sirakaya’s (2004) study in which was to continue to interview people until the increment of new
they segmented cruisers by loyalty and found that loyal repeaters information forthcoming was minimal. All the interviews were
and satisfied first-timers tend to have higher perceptions of value semi-structured. In total, 32 interviews were conducted at the port
and are more likely to have positive word of mouth and revisit with 19 interviews conducted with passengers who had just
intentions in the future. debarked from cruises and 13 interviews conducted with passen-
Petrick (2004b) further investigated the roles of quality, value, gers who were waiting for embarkation. A total of 17 interviews
and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioral inten- were conducted with Holland America Cruise Lines’ passengers and
tions. He tested three competing models for predicting behavioral 15 interviews were conducted with Princess Cruises’ passengers.
intentions and found that while all three factors (i.e., quality, value, Stage two utilized a panel of experts. The motivation items
and satisfaction) influence repurchase intention directly, quality generated from both interviews and past literature (n ¼ 63) were
also has an indirect effect on repurchase intention via the mediators next submitted for review by a panel of experts consisting of seven
388 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393

faculty who conduct tourism research. The panel judged the To understand cruising motivations, cruisers were asked what
redundancy, applicability, and representativeness of the measure- motivated them to cruise. Various reasons (motivations) of cruising
ment items in a cruising context. were provided by the participants. Crompton’s (1979) nine cate-
To further purify the motivation measurement, a pilot test was gories of travel motivations were employed in this study as
conducted at stage three with 293 undergraduate students who a framework of analysis to systematically analyze the data and to
were in classes at the time the survey was administered. An investigate if cruising motivations found in this study coincided with
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a varimax rotation was per- those found in the travel motivation literature. The nine categories of
formed on the data to determine the dimensions of motivation travel motivations identified by Crompton (1979) are: escape from
scale. The 25 motivation items derived from the previous proce- a perceived mundane environment; exploration and evaluation of
dures were measured with a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ “Strongly self; relaxation; prestige; regression; enhancement of kinship rela-
Disagree,” 5 ¼ “Strongly Agree”). tionships; facilitation of social interaction; novelty; and education.
To measure intention to cruising, a modified measurement of The cruising motivation items, corresponding categories, and
behavioral intentions developed by Zeithaml, Berry, and frequencies reported by the participants are displayed in Table 1.
Parasuraman’s (1996) was adopted. In their investigation of The cruising motivations reported in this study coincided with
behavioral consequences of service quality, they developed some travel motivations reported in past studies (Crompton, 1979;
a 13-item behavioral intention measurement scale which included
five dimensions of behavioral intentions: loyalty to company
(loyalty), propensity to switch (switch), willingness to pay more Table 1
(pay more), external response to problems (external response), cruising motivations reported by interviewees.
and internal response to problems (internal response). The loyalty
Escape from usual environment 9 counts
component of behavioral intentions was chosen in this study to I want to get away from stress 9
measure behavioral intentions for its consistent satisfactory factor
Relaxation 18
loadings across different studies (e.g., Zeithaml et al., 1996; Tian-
It is relaxing 12
Cole, Crompton, & Willson 2002; Baker & Crompton, 2000a, Cruise takes care everything for me 4
200b; Lee, 2005). Similar to Lee (2005), four modified items I want to be pampered 1
were included in the measurement scale: I’ll say positive things I don’t need to make any decisions once I am on the cruise ship 1
about cruising to other people; I intend to cruise in the next three Prestige 2
years; I’ll recommend cruising to others; and I’ll encourage friends It is luxurious 1
and relatives to go on a cruise. A 5-point Likert-type scale was I like being served 1
used to measure each behavioral intention item. Same as the Enhancement of kinship relationships or friendship 15
motivation scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a vari- I want to spend time with my family/friends 11
max rotation was performed to examine the performance of My friends/family want to go 4

intention measurement. Facilitation of social interaction 7

At the last stage of study, an online panel survey was implemented I like to meet different people on the cruise ship 4
I’ll have common experience with my friends 1
to further validate the motivation scale and to test the relationship
A lot of other people that I know have cruised 1
between motivation and intention to cruise. Following Li (2006), the I want to get closer to the person(s) that I am with 1
study sample was chosen based on three criteria: 1) 25 years old and
Novelty 1
older; 2) Annual household income of $25,000 or more; and 3)
I’d like to at least cruise once 1
50e50 gender distribution. People who satisfy these criteria have
been suggested as the target market of cruise line companies (CLIA, Convenience 13
I can unpack for only once 5
2008). Since it is the intention of this study to generalize the study It is a convenient traveling style 5
results to the target market, these criteria were used. The sample was Everything you want is right there on a cruise ship 3
randomly selected from a list of qualified online panel members from
Destinations 9
a survey company’s database. A total of 5,300 qualified panel I am interested in the destinations 9
members were randomly chosen from the company’s database and
Activities 8
were invited for participation. A total of 992 responses were yielded,
I am free to do whatever I want, whenever I want, 3
resulting in an 18.7% response rate. After data cleaning, the final and wherever I want
sample size was 897 with 564 respondents being cruisers and 333 It offers different options for me and my companion(s) 3
respondents being non-cruisers. I like to read on the deck 1
I can watch sunrise and/or sunset 1

4. Findings Amenities/services 6
It has good food 1
It has good entertainments 1
In accordance with the four stages of investigation discussed in
It has good services 3
the previous section, the findings of the study are presented below. It has baby-sitting service 1

Being at sea fetish 7

4.1. In-depth interviews
I love being on the water/at the sea 4
I love being on the ship 3
A majority (19) of the participants in interviews were female
Weather 5
and most (21) were retired. The average age of participants was 60 I cruise for warm weather or to get away from winter 5
ranging from 22 to 85. Most participants (23) were married; five
Value 4
were single; two were divorced; and two were widowed. Most
Everything is included in one price 1
participants (27) had cruised more than once. Only five were first- It has high value for the money that I pay 3
timers, while most of the others were frequent cruisers. On average,
Word of mouth 2
they had cruised about three times in the past three years and I’ve heard good comments about it from others 2
about nine times in their life-time.
K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393 389

Botha, Crompton, & Kim, 1999), including: escape from usual envi- Table 3
ronment, relaxation, prestige, enhancement of kinship relationships, performance of motivation measurement scale in pilot test.

facilitation of social interaction, and novelty. This suggests that Measures Coefficient Item-to- Mean S.D.a
cruising, as a form of travel, shares similar characteristics as other a total
types of pleasure travel. However, participants did not report the correlation

following Crompton (1979) items: exploration and evaluation of self, Self-esteem & social recognition .889
I cruise to do something that .749 2.233 1.188
regression, and education. This may be due to two reasons:
impresses others.
1) cruising is not perceived to offer these psychological benefits; and I cruise to be thought more highly .758 2.136 1.265
2) even though cruising provides these opportunities, they are not of by others for doing this.
perceived by the participants to be as significant as other motivation I cruise to help me feel like .744 2.600 1.315
items. a better person.
I cruise to have a high .681 2.321 1.224
Eight other categories emerged when categorizing the cruising status vacation.
motivation items: convenience, destinations, activities, amenities/ I cruise to increase my feelings .661 2.734 1.182
services, being at sea fetish, weather, value, and word of mouth. The of self-worth.
frequencies of the items reported by the participants suggest that I cruise to derive a feeling .707 2.930 1.198
of accomplishment.
cruising is strongly associated with relaxation, enhancement of
I cruise to photograph an exotic .502 2.976 1.360
kinship relationships or friendship, and convenience of travel. place to show friends.

Escape & relaxation .790

4.2. Panel of experts I cruise to have fun. .587 4.460 .796
I cruise so that I can be free .673 3.774 1.108
to do whatever I want.
A total of 63 cruise motivation items were generated from both
I cruise to escape. .677 3.948 1.089
interviews and past literature and submitted for review by a panel I cruise to give my mind a rest. .528 4.083 .891
of experts. After review, 25 motivation items, related to six different
Learning/discovery & novelty/thrill .777
motivations were retained (Table 2).
I cruise to enjoy nature. .650 3.955 1.057
I cruise to gain knowledge. .566 3.618 1.154
4.3. Pilot test I cruise to experience other cultures. .548 3.737 1.118
I cruise to enjoy activities that .579 4.097 .913
provide a thrill.
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a varimax rotation was
performed on the pilot test data to determine the dimensions of Socialization .826
Cruising provides me a chance .704 3.760 1.073
motivation and intention scales. For cruising intentions, Cronbach’s to meet new people.
Alpha of the scale was .86, and all item-to-total correlations were I cruise because I like to meet .704 3.550 1.114
greater than .5. For the motivations to cruising scale, the varimax different people on a cruise ship.

Bonding .789
I cruise because my friends/family .656 3.830 1.050
Table 2
want to cruise.
cruising motivation items survived panel of experts’ review. I cruise to interact with friends/family. .656 4.042 .925
Escape/relaxation a
S.D. refers to standard deviation.
1. I cruise to give my mind a rest.
2. I cruise so that I can be free to do whatever I want.
3. I cruise to escape. exploratory factor analysis loaded items on six factors. Similar to
4. I cruise because I want to be pampered. other motivation studies, some factors from Table 2 were integrated
Exploration and evaluation of self with other factors. For instance, in Crompton and McKay’s (1997)
5. I cruise to increase my feelings of self-worth. factor analysis of festival attending motivations, “Novelty” and
6. I cruise to derive a feeling of accomplishment.
“Regression” loaded on the same factor. The first factor in this study
7. I cruise to help me feel like a better person.
consisted of items from the “Self-esteem” and “Social recognition”
Social recognition/prestige dimensions. Considering self-enhancement is often motivated by
8. I cruise to do something that impresses others.
social approval (Grubb & Hupp 1968), this integration is not
9. I cruise to be thought more highly of by others for doing this.
10. I cruise to photograph an exotic place to show friends. a surprise. The Cronbach’s Alpha for this dimension was .89 and all
11. I cruise to have a high status vacation. item-to-total correlations were above .5 (Table 3).
The second factor was comprised of items from “Escape” and
12. I cruise because my friends/family want to cruise. “Relaxation”. Since escaping from work or mundane environments
13. I cruise to interact with friends/family. can be considered as part of relaxation, the grouping of items was
14. I cruise because I like to meet different people on a cruise ship. also deemed reasonable. The Cronbach’s Alpha for this factor was
15. Cruising provides me a chance to meet new people.
.79 and all item-to-total correlations were above .5.
16. I cruise so that I’ll have common experiences with my friends.
17. I cruise to enjoy the company of the people who came with me. The third factor integrated “Learning/Discovery” with “Novelty/
Thrill.” This is consistent with the notion of novelty defined by
18. I cruise to enjoy activities that provide a thrill.
Crompton and McKay (1997) and measurement used by Lee and
19. I cruise to do something new. Crompton (1992). Novelty has been defined as “a desire to seek out
20. I cruise to have fun. new and different experiences through pleasure travel” (Crompton &
21. I cruise to “let my hair down”. McKay, 1997, p. 430) and measured by thrill, change from routine,
Learning/discovery boredom-alleviation, and surprise (Lee & Crompton, 1992). Since
22. I cruise to experience other cultures. learning and discovery are likely to lead to feelings of change, unor-
23. I cruise to satisfy my curiosity. dinary, or new experiences, their integration with the novelty
24. I cruise to gain knowledge.
dimension was also understandable. The Cronbach’s Alpha was .78
25. I cruise to enjoy nature.
and all item-to-total correlations were greater than .5.
390 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393

The fourth factor was “Socilalization” and the fifth “Bonding.” The Table 5
former refers to meeting other people on the cruise ship while the Discriminant validity of original measurement scale.

latter refers to interacting with family or friends. Two items were Self-esteem/ Escape/ Learning/ Bonding Social
retained in “Socialization” while three items were retained in Social rec. relaxation discovery
“Bonding”. The Cronbach’s Alphas of “Socialization” and “Bonding” & thrill

were .83 and .79 respectively. All item-to-total correlations were Self-esteem/social .708
greater than .6.
Escape/relaxation .447 .718
The last factor which resulted from factor analysis had only one Learning/discovery .385 .673 .745
item (“I cruise because I want to be pampered”) and was thus & thrill
excluded from final analysis. Four measurement items (“I cruise to Bonding .306 .538 .463 .865
enjoy the company of the people who came with me,” “I cruise to do Socialization .547 .400 .546 .279 .820

something new,” I cruise to satisfy my curiosity,” and “I cruise to ‘let The bold diagonal elements are the square root of the variance shared between the
my hair down’”) were eliminated due to cross-loadings. Although “I constructs and their measures. Off diagonal elements are the correlations between
cruise so that I’ll have common experiences with my friends” loaded
on Escape/relaxation dimension, it was judged to belong to
“Bonding” dimension and thus, was removed from the scale. were greater than .60 and were statistically significant (p < .001), the
convergent validity of the scale was deemed to be established.
4.4. Online panel survey Discriminant validity refers to the extent of dissimilarity between
the intended measure and the measures of different constructs
To examine if the online panel survey sample was a reasonable (Clark-Carter, 1997). Discriminant validity of factors can be estab-
representation of the population of interest, the demographics of lished when the square root of the average variance extracted for
the present sample were compared with the 2008 cruise market each of the factors is greater than the correlations among the
profile reported by a national online study conducted by Cruise Line constructs (Fornell & Larcker 1981). Table 5 demonstrates that the
International Association (CLIA, 2008). Since statistical comparison measurement scale met these requirements of discriminant.
is not feasible due to the unavailability of the previous data, the Although the above procedures demonstrated that the measure-
comparisons are mainly descriptive. It was found that the two ment scale developed for motivation to cruising had satisfying reli-
samples share many similar characteristics in terms of age, income, ability and validity, the poor model fit indices (RMSEA ¼ .115,
education, marital status, and job status. For instance, in both NFI ¼ .833, CFI ¼ .844, GFI ¼ .795, AGFI ¼ .735) revealed potential
studies, a majority of cruisers were married, slightly older, had problems associated with the measurement scale or structural
higher incomes, were more educated, and were more likely to be motivation model. Modifications are often conducted to enhance the
retired than non-cruisers. performance of a measurement scale or model being investigated
Using the online panel data, Structural Equation Modeling (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). To identify problematic
(SEM) was performed with Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS measurement items and miss-fitting parameters in the original
7.0) to determine the reliability and validity of motivation model, the use of modification indices (e.g., Byrne, 1998; Maruyama,
measurement scale as well as to test the effect of motivation on 1998) and EFA (e.g., Lai, 2007; Li, 2006) has been recommended.
cruising intentions. Since mild skewness and kurtosis were detec- However, scholars have suggested that re-specification on the
ted with the data, Maximum Likelihood (ML) was chosen as this hypothesized model should only be made when they make logical
method has been suggested to be a robust estimator when fitting and theoretical sense (Byrne, 1998; Kline, 2005; Jöreskog & Sörbom,
model to moderate non-normal data (Muthén & Kaplan, 1992). 1996).
Both modification indices and EFA were used as a reference for
4.4.1. Assessment of Reliability and Validity of Motivation re-specification in the current study. The results of EFA suggested
Measurement Scale a four-dimension structure for cruising motivation with the elimi-
Composite reliability, which also refers to the internal consis- nation of the “Socialization” factor in the original scale. Four items
tency of indicators measuring the underlying factors (Fornell & (“I cruise to meet new people,” “I cruise because I like to meet
Larcker, 1981), was first examined in confirmatory factor analysis different people on a cruise ship,” “I cruise to have fun,” and “I
(CFA). A scale can be declared to be reliable when its composite cruise to enjoy nature”) were removed from the measurement scale
reliability meet the criteria of .60 (Bagozzi & Kimmel, 1995) or .70 due to cross-loading problems. An inspection of modification
(Hair, Anderson, Tathm, & Black, 1998). Since the composite indices in the AMOS output suggested that three items (“I cruise to
reliability of all dimensions of motivation were found to be larger do something that impresses others,” I cruise to be thought more
than .70 (Table 4), the scale was deemed to be reliable. highly of by others for doing this,” and “I cruise to have a high status
Convergent validity refers to the extent of correlation between vacation”) in the “Self-esteem & social recognition” dimension
the intended measure and other measures used to measure the same were inter-correlated. This indicates that the three items might
construct (Clark-Carter, 1997). To establish convergent validity, the have been duplicated due to their similar meanings. Therefore, one
magnitude of factor loadings should be greater than .60 (Bagozzi & out of three items (“I cruise to do something that impresses other”)
Yi, 1988). Since the CFA outputs suggested that all factor loadings was retained in the final scale because it had the highest factor
loading. These procedures led to acceptable model fit indices
(RMSEA ¼ .088, GFI ¼ .925, AGFI ¼ .889, NFI ¼ .922, CFI ¼ .931). The
Table 4 scale was checked once again for its reliability and validity and the
Reliability of original motivation measurement scale. results suggested that the scale was both reliable and valid. Table 6
Composite reliability Cronbach’s alpha displays the resultant final measurement scale for motivation to
Self-esteem & social recognition .874 .915 cruising.
Escape/relaxation .808 .829
Learning/discovery & thrill .831 .840 4.4.2. Testing the effect of motivation on cruising intention
Bonding .856 .890 To test the influence of travel motivation on intention to cruise,
Socialization .801 .840
a structural model with a path from motivation to cruising
K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393 391

Table 6 variance of cruising intention explained by cruising motivation was

performance of final motivation measurement scale. examined by R square. The test results suggested that motivation
Factora S.E.b Mean S.D.c C.R.d p has a statistically significant positive influence on cruising intention
loading (b ¼ .629, t ¼ 12.981, p < .001) and explained 39.5% of the variance
Self-esteem & social recognition in cruising intention. A further investigation of the standardized
 To do something that .721 .039 2.13 1.231 18.501 *** coefficients was conducted to determine which motivation factors
impresses others.
contributed the most to the construct. It was found that “Escape/
 To help me feel like a .827 .033 2.82 1.274 15.735 ***
better person. Relaxation” contributed the most to intentions to cruise (b ¼ .852),
 To increase my feelings .824 .031 2.47 1.233 15.868 *** followed by “Learning/Discovery & thrill” (b ¼ .797), “Self-esteem/
of self-worth. Social recognition” (b ¼ .639), and “Bonding” (b ¼ .604).
 To derive a feeling of .833 .031 2.90 1.248 15.476 ***
 To photograph an exotic .622 .052 3.01 1.290 19.625 e 5. Discussions and implications
place to show friends.

Escape/relaxation Groves et al. (2004) presented two major survey dimensions:

 So that I can be free to do .786 .036 3.46 1.198 15.109 *** measurement and representational, in which the former is con-
whatever I want.
 To escape. .806 .035 3.72 1.187 14.177 ***
cerned with what the survey is about and the latter concerns who
 To give my mind a rest. .779 .033 3.63 1.141 15.396 e the survey is about. Validity and reliability are two of the major
concerns in scale development. Developing a measurement scale
Learning/discovery & thrill
 To gain knowledge. .726 .035 3.75 1.061 15.361 *** which is both reliable and valid is important to reflecting the true
 To enjoy activities that .706 .036 3.62 1.075 16.014 e meanings of a construct of interest. While validity refers to the
provides a thrill. extent to which measurement scales are measuring the constructs
 To experience other cultures. .763 .034 3.85 1.059 13.903 *** of interest (Nunnally, 1967), reliability refers to the repeatability of
Bonding a result with the same measurement (Aneshensel, 2002).
 Because my friends/family .868 .045 3.45 1.187 7.753 *** This study developed a measurement scale for motivations to
want to cruise.
cruising by following the rigorous procedures recommended by
 To interact with friends/family. .924 .045 3.57 1.149 4.285 e
Churchill (1979). The final scale was deemed to be both reliable and
***p < .001 valid. Given the increasing popularity of cruise tourism and scarcity
Items with factor loading lower than .5 were excluded from final scale.
b of research in this topic, the establishment of a motivation scale in
S.E. refers to standard error.
S.D. refers to standard deviation. the cruising context is believed to be a timely contribution to the
C.R. refers to critical ratio or t-value. literature and will hopefully act as a stepping stone to further
investigations in this topic.
intention was tested in AMOS (Fig. 1). The fit indices Another purpose of the study was to examine the influence of
(RMSEA ¼ 0.072, NFI ¼ .939, CFI ¼ .949, GFI ¼ .925, and AGFI ¼ .899) cruising motivation on cruising intentions. The study found a posi-
suggested that the model had an acceptable fit to the data. tive relationship between the two variables. This implies that given
While the contribution of travel motivation to cruising intention the same conditions, people who have higher cruising motivation
was evaluated with the resultant standardized coefficients (b), the are more likely to cruise in the future. This finding validates the

Fig. 1. Model tested in AMOS.

392 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393

important role of motivation in travel decision-making proposed in the cruise market. Some activities offered during the trip may also
previous studies (Crompton, 1979). be designed with enhancing kinships in mind. Games or competi-
Since only about 40% of the variance in cruising intention was tions among different families may provide a good time and serve
explained by cruising motivation in the current study, future a purpose of bonding for the passengers and those who come along
studies should incorporate other variables in order to more fully with them.
understand cruising intentions. Past studies have found various
factors influencing cruising intentions including quality, value and 6. Limitations and concluding remarks
satisfaction (Petrick, 2004b), loyalty (Petrick, 2004a), familiarity
and social influence (Petrick, Li, & Park, 2007), affective factors Although the study is considered to be a timely contribution to
(Duman & Mattila, 2005), price sensitivity (Petrick, 2005), and travel motivation as well as the cruising literature, it is nonetheless
perceived image (Park, 2006). Comparing or integrating motivation subject to some limitations. First, the study only examined travel
with these factors in future research may enhance our under- motivations associated with North American cruising. Thus, the
standing of people’s decision-making in the cruising context. results should not be generalized to cruising in other contexts.
Several marketing implications can be drawn from the current Second, an online panel survey was conducted to collect data in
study. First, “Escape/Relaxation” was found to be the strongest the current study. Since online panels are typically characterized by
motivation in both the interviews and survey. This suggests that those who have registered with online panel companies or those
people associate cruise tourism with freedom, escaping and who have internet access and computer skills, it does not neces-
relaxation and that these are primary reasons which motivate them sarily represent the whole U.S. population.
to cruise. Therefore, when promoting cruise vacations to the public, In addition, interviews were conducted with cruisers at the
promotional campaigns should demonstrate people enjoying their preliminary stage of the study. Since only two cruise companies (i.e.,
freedom, escaping from their mundane life, and/or resting on Holland America Line and Princess Cruises) granted the researcher
a cruise. Cruise tourism may be able to differentiate itself from permission to interview their passengers, passengers of other cruise
other types of tourism by building an escaping or relaxing vacation lines were unable to be reached and thus, were excluded from the
image in order to convey cruising services to specific markets. study sample. Therefore, generalizing the current results to other
However, marketers should also evaluate beforehand if this market cruise lines should be done with caution.
segment is substantial enough for a profitable business (Kotler, Nevertheless, the study has developed a valid and reliable
Bowen, & Makens, 1998). measurement scale for motivation to cruising. Further testing of the
Second, different motivations to cruising were identified in the scale with other samples such as cruisers in the Asia Pacific region,
current study. This suggests that although travelers are motivated or Mediterranean would be useful to refining the measurement
by the escaping and relaxing aspects of cruise tourism, they may scale and increasing the scale’s generalizability. Also, the positive
also expect to receive other benefits from their cruise vacation relationship between motivation and cruising intentions identified
(even though these perceived benefits may not be the primary in the current study further consolidate the important role of
reasons for them to go on a cruise). Therefore, focusing on motivation in travel research and reveal specific underlying reasons
providing escaping and relaxing services only is unlikely to fully why people choose to cruise.
satisfy customers. Rather, cruise ships should also strive to fulfill
cruisers’ desires for “Learning/Discovery & thrill,” “Self-esteem/
Social recognition” and “Bonding” when they are on board. Acknowledgement
Although cruisers often like to stay in a tourist bubble (Jaakson,
2004) in which they can be worry-free, they also do not like to be This work was supported by the Holland America Line-Westours,
bored. It is thus proposed that varied learning and discovery Inc. Research Grant.
opportunities should be provided to the interested passengers.
Different programs such as “Be a chef/captain/cast member today” References
may appeal to those who are interested in learning. Discovery
Aneshensel, C. S. (2002). Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. California:
opportunities may be offered not only at the ports cruise ship visit,
Sage Publications, Inc.
but also on board when the ship is moving. Tours to different back Bagozzi, R. P., & Kimmel, S. K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories for the
stage areas (i.e., the captain’s office, kitchen, shows) may be prediction of goal directed behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34,
arranged for families or interested passengers. 437e461.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
To respond to cruisers’ need for “Self-esteem/Social recogni- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74e94.
tion,” different strategies may also be implemented. For instance, Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000a). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral inten-
past research has suggested that most cruisers are satisfied with tions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000b). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral inten-
their experience and would like to repeat their cruise vacation in tions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.
the future. Public recognition to those who have cruised frequently Beck, R. C. (2000). In N. Robert (Ed.), Motivation: Theories & principles (4th ed.).
may boost their self-esteem and make them feel appreciated. Some Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Berkman, H. W., & Gilson, C. C. (1978). Consumer behavior: Concepts and strategies.
passengers may go on a cruise for special occasions such as Belmont, California: Dickenson Press.
wedding anniversaries, birthdays or honeymoons. Gathering this Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading,
information at the time when they sign up for a cruise vacation and MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. S. (1999). Developing a revised competitive
acknowledging these occasions during their cruise might make
position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37,
them feel special. In addition, a certificate which indicates each 341e352.
passenger’s name and dates of their cruise may also be distributed Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
to cruise passengers so that they can share with others when they
Associates, Inc., Publishers.
return home. Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
To address cruisers’ need for “Bonding”, cruise lines may offer constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, XVI(February), 64e73.
discounts to those who bring a new family member or friend on Clark-Carter, D. (1997). Doing quantitative psychological research: From design to
report. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press Ltd.
board. This might not only encourage bonding time with family and Connell, J. (2004). The purest of human pleasures: the characteristics and motiva-
friends on the cruise, but also attract new customers and expand tions of garden visitors in Great Britain. Tourism Management, 25, 229e247.
K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393 393

Cruise Line International Association (CLIA. (2008). 2008 Cruise market profile MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist
study. Available from World Wide Web: settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 589e603.
research/index.cfm. Accessed 14.02.09. MacCannell, D. (1999). Staged authenticity. In. The tourist: A new theory of the leisure
Crompton, J. L. (1992). Structure of destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism class (3rd ed.). (pp. 91e107) Berkeley: University of California Press.
Research, 19(3), 420e434. Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, Sage Publication, Inc.
6(4), 408e424. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
Crompton, J. L., & Ankomah, P. K. (1993). Choice set propositions in destination 370e396.
decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(3), 461e476. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor
Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425e439. analysis of non-normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. British
Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19e30.
Research, 4, 184e194. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: issues and
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
vacation value. Tourism Management, 26, 311e323. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic significance of cruise tourism. Annals of Oxford University Press. (2007) (6th ed.).Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on
Tourism Research, 25(2), 393e415. historical principles, Vol. 1 A-M NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with Park, S. Y. (2006). Tapping the invisible cruise market: The case of the cruise industry.
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.
18, 39e50. Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travellers’
Frochot, I. (2005). A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural areas: a Scottish experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 16e20.
perspective. Tourism Management, 26, 335e346. Petrick, J. F. (2004a). Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tourism Management, 25,
Groves, R. M., Flowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. 463e470.
(2004). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Petrick, J. F. (2004b). The role of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise
Grubb, E. L., & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, generalized stereotypes, and passengers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 397e407.
brand selection. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(February), 58e63. Petrick, J. F. (2005). Segmenting cruise passengers with price sensitivity. Tourism
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data Management, 26, 753e762.
analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Petrick, J. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2004). Segmenting cruisers by loyalty. Annals of Tourism
Henthorne, T. L. (2000). An analysis of expenditures by cruise ship passengers in Research, 31(2), 472e475.
Jamaica. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 246e250. Petrick, J. F., Li, X., & Park, S. Y. (2007). Cruise passengers’ decision-making
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts. processes. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(1), 1e14.
Hull, C. L. (1952). A behavior system. New Haven: Yale University Press. Petrick, J. F., Tonner, C., & Quinn, C. (2006). The utilization of critical incident
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: technique to examine cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions. Journal of Travel
a rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256e262. Research, 44, 273e280.
Jaakson, R. (2004). Beyond the tourist bubble? Cruiseship passengers in port. Annals Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and
of Tourism Research, 31(1), 44e60. Restaurant Quarterly, 14(4), 55e58.
}reskog, K. G., & So
Jo } rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Plog, S. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and
Scientific Software International. Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 13e24.
Kim, N. S., & Chalip, L. (2004). Why travel to the FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives, Qu, H., & Ping, E. W. Y. (1999). A service performance model of Hong Kong cruise
background, interest, and constraints. Tourism Management, 25, 695e707. travelers’ motivation factors and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 20, 237e244.
Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in Romantic associations: a test
at Korean national parks. Tourism Management, 24, 169e180. of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172e186.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Samdahl, D. M. (2005). Making room for “silly” debate: critical reflections on leisure
New York, NY: The Guilford Press. constraints research. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure (pp. 337e349).
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (1998). Marketing for hospitality and tourism State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Tapachai, N., & Waryszak, R. (2000). An examination of the role of beneficial image
Lai, P. H. (2007). Conserving the rural landscape of the Texas hill country: a place in tourist destination selection. Journal of Travel Research, 39(August), 37e44.
identity-based approach. Unpublished dissertation, Texas A&M University, Tian-Cole, S., Crompton, J. L., & Willson, V. L. (2002). An empirical investigation of
College Station. the relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions
Lee, S. Y. (2005). A conceptual model of the roles of price, quality, and intermediary among visitors to wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 1e24.
constructs in determining behavioral intention to visit a festival. Unpublished Vina, L. D. L., & Ford, J. (1998). Economic impact of proposed cruiseship business.
dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 205e208.
Lee, T. H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Annals of Vina, L. D. L., & Ford, J. (2001). Logistic regression analysis of cruise vacation market
Tourism Research, 19, 732e751. potential: demographic and trip attribute perception factors. Journal of Travel
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological Research, 39, 406e410.
forces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Weaver, A. (2005). The McDonaldization thesis and cruise tourism. Annals of
Li, X. (2006). Examining the antecedents and structure of customer loyalty in a tourism Tourism Research, 32(2), 346e366.
context. Unpublished dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station. Yarnal, C. M., & Kerstetter, D. (2005). Casting off: An exploration of cruise ship space,
Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). Examining the antecedents of brand loyalty from an group tour behavior, and social interaction. Journal of Travel Research, 43,
investment model perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 25e34. 368e379.
Lois, P., Wang, J., Wall, A., & Ruxton, T. (2004). Formal safety assessment of cruise Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences
ships. Tourism Management, 25, 93e109. of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31e46.