ArticlePDF Available


This theoretical study introduces a model of tourism motivation and expectation formation. It is based on a discussion and operationalization of both the behaviorist notion of drive reduction and the cognitivist constructs of attitudes and values. While the satisfaction of inner-directed values and motivations depends on classes of objects, outer-directed values target specific objects. In the case of trying to meet the latter, planners need to follow specific parameters in their product design and resource management as they are expressed in tourists' motivations, whereas with the satisfaction of inner-directed values, planners can choose from substitutable products and product configurations. The relationship between expectations and motivations is clarified.RésuméLa motivation du tourisme et la formation des attentes. Cette étude théorique présente un modèle de la motivation touristique et de la formation des attentes. Elle est basée sur une discussion et une mise en pratique de deux idées: la notion behavioriste de la réduction des pulsions et la notion cognitiviste concernant les attitudes et les valeurs. Tandis que la satisfaction des valeurs et motivations dirigées vers l'intérieur dépend de la classe de produits, les valeurs dirigées vers l'extérieur ciblent des produits spécifiques. Dans le cas où on voudrait satisfaire aux valeurs extérieures, les planificateurs doivent suivre des paramètres particuliers pour le design de leur produit et la gestion des ressources selon les motivations des touristes. Dans le cas des valeurs intérieures, les planificateurs peuvent choisir des produits, et des ensembles de produits, remplaçables. On clarifie le lien entre attentes et motivations.
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 283-304, 1997 pp.
0 1997 Else&r Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0160-7383/97 $17.00+0.00
PII: SOlSO-7383(96)00058-S
Juergen Gnoth
University of Otago, New Zealand
Abstract: This theoretical study introduces a model of tourism motivation and expectation
formation. It is based on a discussion and operationalization of both the behaviorist notion of
drive reduction and the cognitivist constructs of attitudes and values. While the satisfaction of
inner-directed values and motivations depends on classes ofobjects, outer-directed values target
specific objects. In the case of trying to meet the latter, planners need to follow specific
parameters in their product design and resource management as they are expressed in tourists’
motivations, whereas with the satisfaction of inner-directed values, planners can choose from
substitutable products and product configurations. The relationship between expectations and
motivations is clarified. Keywords: motives, motivation, expectations, values, attitudes,
emotions, cognitions, drives, tourism planning. 0 1997 El sevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
R&urn& La motivation du tourisme et la formation des attentes. Cette etude thCorique
prCsente un modkle de la motivation touristique et de la formation des attentes. Elle est basCe
sur one discussion et one mise en pratique de deux id&es: la notion behavioriste de la &do&on
des pulsions et la notion cognitiviste concernant les attitudes et les valeurs. Tandis que la
satisfaction des valeurs et motivations dirigtes vers I’intCrieur depend de la classe de produits,
les valeurs dirigtes vers I’cxtCrieur ciblent des produits spCcifques. Dans le cas oil on voudrait
satisfaire aux valeurs extCrieures, les planificateurs doivent suivre des paramhtres particuliers
pour le design de leur produit et la gestion des ressources selon les motivations des touristes.
Dans le cas des valeurs interieures, les planificateurs peuvent choisir des produits, et des
ensembles de produits, rempla~ables. On clarifie le lien entre attentes et motivations. Mots-cl&:
motifs, motivations, attentes, valeurs, attitudes, emotions, cognitions, pulsions, planilication du
tourisme. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Tourism is a construct employed to denote significant psychological,
social, and economic differences from other, similar behavior during
which people leave and return to their home. From the holidaymaker’s
perspective, tourism is a response to felt needs and acquired values
within temporal, spatial, social, and economic parameters. Once needs
and/or values have been activated and applied to a holiday scenario,
the generated motivation constitutes a major parameter in expec-
tation formation. Expectations, in turn, determine performance per-
ceptions of products and services as well as perceptions of experiences.
Motivation thus impacts on satisfaction formation.
The objective of this study is to develop a definitive model of tourism
Juergen Gnoth (Ph.D.) lectures in the Marketing Department, Otago University (Dunedin,
New Zealand. Email His interests include tourism behavior,
tourism branding theory, services and training, marketing ethics, psychophysics, and pricing.
Particular research areas focus on international tourism studies dealing with expectations,
motivations, and satisfaction formation for both hosts and guests.
motivation that helps categorizing attitudes towards destinations,
attractions, activities, events, and situations. The model is designed
to help the analysis of implications identifiable in tourists’ values,
motivations, expectations, and attitudes for tourism management and
product development. In the first instance, this study will discuss
recent developments of the attitude construct, its place in behavior
research, and importance for the suggested model. The second major
parameter of the suggested model is based on the dichotomy of “need”
and “press” (Murray 1938) or “pull” and “push” factors present in
the construct of motivation. The distinction into motives and motiv-
ation, as suggested by Heckhausen (1989), facilitates the discussion
of drive-based and cognition-based values tourists hold and utilize
when evaluating situations. Subsequently, a review of the literature
concludes that both emotional and cognitive parameters need to be
included when tourism motivations are considered for planning and
resource management purposes. The formation of values and their
role in motivation formation leads to an understanding of how values
and subsequent attitudes express both inner- or self-directed motiv-
ations and outer-directed values. Inner- or self-directed values contain
predominantly emotional drives, while outer-directed values are
mainly cognitive in nature. The article then discusses motives and
values in the context of expectation formation within the proposed
model, followed by conclusions on the measurement of motives and
Attitudes as the Basisfor Motivation Research
While being a social and economic phenomenon, planners are often
best advised to study tourism behavior in psychological terms (Lewin
1942). Anthropology (Adler 1989), sociology and sociopsychology
(Cohen 1972, 1978, 1988; MacCannell 1976, 1992; Parrinello 1993)
contributed concepts which help understand tourism in existential
terms. Economics and econometrics provide assistance in measuring
expenditures and impacts as well as offering forecasting models. But
the latter two study approaches are limited in forecasting behavior
as it relates to the supply and management of tourism facilitators.
Econometric models ofvisitor arrivals and expenses still fail to provide
any level of sophistication (Witt and Witt 1994). Sociological models
(Cohen 1978; Dann 1977; MacCannell 1976) contribute to a body of
knowledge that aids in understanding tourism behavior but, as yet,
often lack or have not been exposed to empirical verification. Both
sociology and psychology-the main sources for explaining and pre-
dicting tourism behavior-rely heavily on the attitude construct for
researching the subject. Attitudes, then, become the first topic of
discussion in the development of a model for tourism motivation and
Consumer behavior, to which tourism behavior belongs, has
attempted to model behavior since the late 60s (Engel, Kollat and
Blackwell 1968; Howard and Sheth 1969). While contributing mindful
insights which take account of findings in behavioral and cognitive
psychology, the influence of these models on the subject has waned
because of an apparent irrationality underlying hedonic or emotion-
ally driven behavior, which is a particular feature of holiday tourism.
As their mainstay, these models contain the construct of attitudes
which are particularly regarded as unidirectional, thus permitting a
relatively uncomplicated measurement procedure (Fishbein and
Ajzen 1975; Lutz 1981). The subsequent addition of social norms and
the attitude towards the activity involving subject and object (A,,!)
as indicators of actual behavior, helped improve the validity of the
construct (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977).
The theory underlying Aact represents a refinement of the measure-
ment objective but only as far as behavior is guided by such externally
determined values. For these, the objective locus of control rests with
the social and physical environment, since that is the source of these
values to which the individual has to defer. In more recent years,
emotions have become recognized as a further important source for
behavior (Mittal 1988; Pratkanis, Breckler and Greenwald 1989;
Zajonc 1980). This recognition has helped severely shake dominant
beliefs about the attitude paradigm (Chaiken and Stangor 1987). For
those values which are under strong emotional influence, the objective
locus of control lies within the person as he/she produces those
emotions. In turn, these emotions can direct behavior often dis-
regarding or unconscious of social norms. Tourism promotes and
fosters hedonic behavior and thus, while the pursuit of pleasure relies
on what an individual has learnt, many attitudes are formed in order
to satisfy the self and not social norms.
A paradigmatic shift in attitude conception as discussed by social
scientists (Pratkanis, Breckler and Greenwald 1989) has been a latent
necessity ever since attitudes were found to be unstable over the
parameters of time and space (situations). The conceptual inclusion
of emotions and the actual loop-structure of attitudes, whereby past
attitudes influence perception and the formation of new ones, finally
caused the unidirectional model to be strongly relativized (Ajzen
1989). Further impact on the attitude paradigm can be expected from
developments in the value literature (Kahle 1983; Schwartz 1992).
The conceptual links of attitudes with values as the deeper seated
beliefs which help organise them have been noticed (Rokeach 1973),
yet, the actual definition of attitudes in view of emotions and values
has been elusive. As a consequence, the literature gives ample evi-
dence of the difficulty one has when wishing to distinguish whether
an attitude is meant to be a “state of readiness” (Allport 1937), an
evaluative response (Thurstone 1927), an interactive tripartite system
of beliefs, affect and conations (Rosenberg and Hovland 1960) or a
strictly unidirectional construct (Howard 1994; Lutz 1981).
Despite these shortcomings, the attitude construct still remains the
mainstay for tourism research which is due to its functional role. The
function of attitudes appertains to knowledge, ego defense, value
expression, utility (Katz 1960), and social adaptation (Fodness 1994;
Smith, Bruner and White 1956). As functions, attitudes are the
mediators between needs and values as they arise within a subject
and the particular situation in which one finds himself/herself. Both
of these parameters (motives and situation) can vary and determine
the function of an attitude within the dynamic flow of action (Atkinson
and Birch 1974; McGuire 1985). The result is the multiplicity and
multidimensionality of tourists’ behavior as can be observed and mea-
For a motivational theory with relevance for tourism planning,
however, the theory of attitude functions by itself is of only limited
use. This is true insofar as it is accepted that a particular attitudinal
function can contain a number of related motives. In addition, a
similar attitude can serve differing motives and values in different
situations (Murray 1938). As a consequence, functions are often
restricted to exposing the instrumental nature of attitudes only, while
their expressive content (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman 1959;
Swan and Combs 1976) remains obscured. In other words, the texture
of motives is potentially richer than its function might indicate. The
function of attitudes declares a causal relationship between a behavior
and a targeted object but it does not reveal what both behavior and
object represent emotionally and to the tourist’s self. The functional
approach to attitudes relies on clear-cut relationships whereas, in
reality, motives underlying attitudes are often fuzzy. This approach,
therefore, remains too general for the present purposes.
For practical and managerial reasons, a theory of tourism motiv-
ation has to help explain behavior as well as assist in the satisfaction
of its underlying cognitive and emotional motives. Consequently, atti-
tudes have to be, one, captured and categorized within a complete
and multidimensional system that reflects their structural diversity
regarding expectations and experiences of attitude objects; and, two,
presented within a theory permitting a straightforward application
for tourism planning and management of resources and experiences.
Parallel to the internal (psychological) and external (situational)
reality in which a tourist finds himself, the following discussion dis-
tinguishes the differences between motives and motivations according
to Heckhausen ( 1989) and explains emotional aspects of motives.
Based on this distinction, a review of the tourism motivation literature
leads to the development of a model of the tourism motivation and
expectation formation process.
Tourists’ Motivation Process
The history of tourism research parallels developments in modern
consumer behavior research. It thus follows mostly the cognitivist
approach and traces the behavioral “cycle” of stimulation, including
motivation and intention formation, the actual behavior and experi-
ence and, finally, evaluation and (retention of) consequences. The
prominent measurement tool in tourism motivation research is the
attitude construct and Heider’s (1958) and Kelley’s (1967) theory
of attribution. By implication, the behavioral “cycle” also includes
elements of the behaviorist line of thought appertaining to emotional
tension and drive reduction through tourism. To contextualize this
line of thought and operationalize it for tourism motivation research,
it is important to note that, historically, holidays and tourism are
phenomena which evolved in conjunction with cultural developments
from which vacations derived influences as to form and purpose (Adler
1989). In the Western World, free time and holidays are now inevitably
connected to the concept of self-actualization or self-realization-
that is, to (either) redress the stresses and strains from a work-a-day
life and (or) to develop mind and body to its full potential (Dumazedier
1967; Krippendorf 1987; Parker 1983). Vera Grunow-Lutter defines
self-realization as a person’s dynamic relationship between the real
and the ideal self concept. Self-realization is, therefore, not a state
but a process of decreasing the distance between these two cognitive
systems which themselves are subject to continuous change (Grunow-
Lutter 1983:76).
In line with consumer behavior models (Engel, Kollat and Blackwell
1968; Howard and Sheth 1969), the decision to self-actualize as a
tourist can be regarded as either the outcome of a fundamentally new
decision-making process, or one which is routinized (Krippendorf
1987), which has basic questions solved already (i.e., whether to travel
or not to travel) and which is mainly concerned with how, where, and
when to travel. This process is characterized as one in which a tourist’s
real self strives to narrow the perceived gap to the ideal self through
a certain, freely chosen set of behaviors. The perceived gap may
indicate both internally and externallycontrolledvalues. The felt need
to self-actualize represents the motive which-by way of situational
parameters such as opportunity, time, and money-sets the stage for
the process of motivation. The envisaged holiday then raises expec-
tations (or expectational attitudes) of future satisfaction, both cog-
nitively and emotionally.
In order to develop a firm grasp of tourists’ attitudes towards holiday
objects and experiences, the following working-definition of emotions
and cognitions as antecedent influences forms the basis for further
elaborations. Cognitions refer to mental representations such as
knowledge or beliefs. Emotions, on the other hand, encompass drives,
feelings, and instincts. Attitudinal affect is a distinct influence of the
emotional system by being attached to cognitions about objects and
experiences. Affect thus carries a cognitive structure itself in the form
of emotion-awareness (de Rivera, Possell, Verette and Weiner 1989;
Rollenhagen and Dalkvist 1989). The two systems of emotions and
cognitions differ in the degree of control a person has over their
generation and manipulation. Both systems contribute to the tourism
motivation process and the goals the tourist wishes to achieve. Their
inclusion in a model of motivation and expectation formation can
thus assist in an enhanced understanding of tourists’ perceptions,
experiences, and evaluations. Here the two separate constructs of
motives and motivation, along with relevant material from motivation
psychology, need to be introduced and advanced.
A4otives and Motivation
According to Heckhausen (1989:7-16), a motive is a lasting dispo-
sition. Each motive has its distinct type of contents in the form of
goals of behavior. “Contents” here means that a person chooses from
a repertoire of learned or conceived actions, while the “goals” refer
to the consequences of one’s actions. Conversely, motivations contain
results of situation-person interactions. They are a collective term
for processes and effects with common parameters: in a particular
situation, a person chooses a certain behavior for its expected results.
Clarifying the interrelationship between these parameters will
uncover some of the role and nature of organismic drives and tourists’
cognitive reflections to achieve their goals. The distinction between
motives and motivations is important because it allows, on the one
hand, a categorization of the energy that moves people to act (motives)
and, on the other, allows these motives to be expressed differently
by different individuals. What would otherwise be locked into an
immutable stimulus-reaction relationship (Heckhausen 1989), can
now connect in a multitude of ways as there are different situations,
tourists’ characteristics and attitudes.
To begin with, people develop habits, characteristics, and traits. A
personal characteristic constitutes itself by the individual’s ability
to make different stimuli functionally equivalent and to introduce
consistent equivalent forms of action and expression and manipulate
their course (Allport 1937). 0 ne and the same motive can thus gen-
erate situationally different behavior, while different motives can
generate very similar behavior (Murray 1938). Motives and personal
characteristics determine a person’s disposition. The individual dis-
positions are then reasons for behavior in given situations (Cattell
1957; Lewin 1942). Regarding situations in-which these dispositions
are expressed, peoplecontirmally interact with their environment
and must, therefore, be characterized with due reference to this
environment (Murray 1938). Interaction promotes learning processes
in the form of assimilation, integration, and chunking of information
as well as building narrowly definable behavioral cause-effect relation-
ships which become habitual characteristics of a person or groups of
persons. “In other words, what an organism knows or believes is, in
some measure, a product of formerly encountered situations. Thus,
much of what is now inside the organism was once outside” (Murray
A person’s disposition can be represented as a situation of “need”
which Murray describes as an organic potentiality organizing per-
ception intellection, conation, and action. Furthermore, when applied
to a particular situation, the person experiences a “press” (or pull)
which “is a temporal gestalt of stimuli which usually appears in the
guise of a threat of harm or promise of benejit to the organism” (Murray
1938:122). Both need and press combine to form a “thema” or an
“equivalent group of behavioral situations (Heckhausen 1989) -
e.g., an organism perceives two different situations as having similar
characteristics and reacts in the same fashion in both situations. The
principle according to which consumers in general and tourists in
particular generate the necessary heuristics to form themata are
expressed in their values. The conceptual parameters used in eva-
luating tourism objects (i.e., organizing perceptions) are either cog-
nitively or emotionally motivated (Krober-Riel and Meyer-Hentschel
Zajonc 1968). Emotions are important in holiday
tourism, since it is a pleasure-seeking
relationship between emotions and
cognitions as mediated by cognitions [one-system view (Plutchic
(1980)], the other allows (creating affect) and even for
emotions to motivate and drive behavior directly, without the inter-
ference or mediation of cognitions [two-system view (Izard 1991)].
Regarding these and their via attitudes,
Tomkins writes that “the basic power of the affect system is a conse-
quence of its freedom to combine with a variety of other...messages
similarities between the role of emotions as
evaluating processes and cognitive evaluations of utilities of objects.
While Heckhausen (1989) discusses psychologists (Zajonc 1980;
Zajonc and Markus 1984), and economists (Mittal 1988;
Etzioni 1988), and consumer and Meyer-
Hentschel 1982) postulate that preferences and decisions are often
based on affective premises rather than cognitive deliberations. Hol-
iday tourism as a hedonic activity is thus prone to
emotional influence. In effect, this constitutes a shift in paradigm and
opposes the widely used traditional attitude construct by Ajzen and
Fishbein which assumes the existence of emotions (affect) but only as
a variable which depends on cognitions. More recent work is beginning
to move towards a two-system paradigm regarding emotions and
cognitions as interactive but fundamentally different systems
A central concept in both emo-
tion and behaviorist psychology is “drive”, the energizer for behavior.
Drive Theory, Expectancy Theory, and Motivation
The propositions advanced so far refer mainly to cognitivist
approaches to motivation but omit a presentation of the contribution
behaviorists made with the drive theory. The latter theory offers a
way of understanding tourists’ expectation formation without, for
example, experience-based cognitions a tourist could rely on in
decision-making processes. In situations such as tourism to a new
destination, often a tourist has to depend on drives as motivators in
addition to cognitions or pull-factors. Behaviorists, based on Hull
(1943), regard behavior as the product of drive strength and habit
strength. Thus, whereas psychologists like Lewin (1942) stress antici-
patory knowledge, behaviorists regard past learning as the decisive
stimulus for behavior.
To synthesize these two approaches, according to drive theory,
nonselective activity is triggered by feelings of deprivation (in these
cases mostly hunger or thirst). The strength of the drive is seen as
related to the length of deprivation (Thorndike 1911). This causes
behavior to occur which eventually leads to the feeling of deprivation
to subside and satisfaction to occur. If a drive is reduced satisfactorily,
the organism is likely to remember all or parts of the behavior that
led to the success and it will employ the behavior again. In this way,
an organism learns to acquire habits. Based on these observations,
Hull formulated the “drive x habit” theory ( 1943). The drive theory
is part of the stimulus-reaction (S-R) approach to behavior.
Conversely, the cognitivist expectancy theories stress the “expect-
ancyxvalue” equation that helps predict behavior (Lewin 1942;
Vroom 1964). While drive theory is retrospective in nature, in that
past rewards are associated and objects of learning can acquire the
role of an enforcer, the expectancy theory is forward-looking and
anticipatory in nature. In expectancy theory, action is motivated via
a knowledge of or belief in future rewards. Expectancy theory is thus
fundamentally cognitive, whereas drive theory is emotional.
Porter and Lawler (1968) discuss both psychological theories and
summarize two further differences. First, drive theory views the mag-
nitude of the goal, or its power to satisfy, as a source of general
excitement. It increases levels of activity nonselectively. Conversely,
expectancy theory regards anticipatory knowledge as directing
behavior selectively. Second, drive theory hypothesizes that an outcome
gains its positive value through its potential for drive-reduction. This
refers to the fact that physiological deprivation creates a tension which
generates nonselective activity. Associations with primary reinforcers
(e.g., food, rest, and relaxation) increase the value for rewards. In
contrast, expectancy theory “has been much less explicit on this point”
(Porter and Lawler 1968: 11). Th is is where cognitive psychology and
behaviorism exchange ideas and influence each other.
Tolman (1932), f a ormer behaviorist, combines the two approaches.
Tolman distinguishes between an expectancy for the goal which
includes knowledge and beliefs about outcomes (anticipatory), and a
demand for the goal representing, in part, the behaviorist contribution
of the motivational force (organism based). One of Tolman’s overall
aims in his work (1932) is to move away from contemporary behavior-
ists’ views which stress that behavior is “molecular”: that its under-
lying character is physical and physiological. Rather, Tolman regards
behavior as “molar”: that it is influenced by past learning and capable
of future learning. He employs the concept of Gestalt which signifies
the co-occurrence of mental representations triggered by outside stim-
uli (the sign-gestalt paradigm). The three parts of sign-gestalt are:
sign-object, signified means-end relation, and signified-object. Such
representations contain both what the organism remembers as well
as what can be expected from the object. Tolman thus hinted at a
dichotomy of internal and external motivators containing drive-based
emotions (push factors) and cognitions (pull factors). This dichotomy
is flanked by the universal nature of needs all humans experience as
well as the presence of objects and specific situations with which these
needs arise.
Following these explanations, push factors in tourism are internally
generated drives causing the tourist to search for signs in objects,
situations, and events (henceforth objects) that contain the promise
of reducing prevalent drives. In turn, pull factors are generated by
the knowledge about goal attributes the tourist holds. Whereas push
factors allow a versatile response to differing external situations by
making them functionally equivalent [stimulus generalization (Pavlov
1927)], pull factors depend on cognitively penetrable parameters
(Pylyshyn 1986). C onsequently, research into tourists’ motivations
can be distinguished into two groups. One is concentrating on motives
or push factors, while the other group concentrates on pull factors.
Only the latter takes situational parameters into consideration.
Research into motives thus refers to tourists’ lasting dispositions
reoccurring with cyclical regularity, while motivation research tends
to emphasize distinct situational parameters in which these motives
are expressed. Both motivations and motives occur simultaneously in
the dynamic flow of action (Atkinson and Birch 1974). For practical
and analytical reasons, however, they are here discussed separately.
Some researchers use both aspects of motivation formation in develop-
ing a motivational theory, while others use only one of the central
aspects underlying motives and motivation. The distinction assists
in highlighting considerations of the emotion-cognition dichotomy,
prepares for a discussion of values as bio-, socio- and psychogenic
operationalizations of motives, as well as a discussion of values as
antecedents to attitudes.
Motives and Motivations in Tourism Research
Motives are here distinguished from motivations, whereby the for-
mer refer to the generic energizer for behavior. Although motives
imply a direction and a target, only motivations actually include such
targets or objects and refer to an interaction between motives and
situations. Motivations are cognitive in nature. For example, the state-
ment “I am going to Bali for its balmy weather” can be penetrated
cognitively (Pylyshyn 1986). F or managers and planners, the situations
tourists choose for holidays and activities thus often contain clearly
observable parameters that permit inferences indicating tourists’
evaluations of specific objects and events in given situations. Motives,
on the other hand, tend to be more global and less situation-specific.
A popular line in some blues as well as country and western songs is,
“I am going where the weather suits my clothes”. What is here cased
in a poetic frame indicates a more fundamental reason for behavior.
At most, however, it implies only a class of objects suitable for the
satisfaction of that particular motive. From this perspective, a specific
behavior observed in a particular situation can be indicative of a range
of differing motives as the tourist adapts to the given situation.
The apparent gap between the two concepts of motive and motiv-
ation finds a parallel in the approaches by cognitivist and behaviorist
psychologists. Whereas the latter concentrate on the observable and
objectively measurable, the former often seek a deeper understanding
of what it is that energizes tourists towards particular activities. In a
planning and resource management context, knowledge about motiv-
ations enables planners and managers to determine trends and usage
levels of particular resources, but they are forced to constantly monitor
behavior and survey motivations.
Motivations indicate object-specific preferences. Unfortunately for
planners, tourists often alter preferences for destinations and tourism
activities seemingly at the spur of a moment, without giving
researchers, marketers, and resource planners an indication as to why
and into which direction they change (the impact of the Gulf War on
international tourism might be seen as a case in point; the war changed
motivations without a clear indication of underlying motives).
Conversely, a given motive driving a decision to “change” behavior is,
by itself, too general as to offer clear and operationalizable strategies
and goals in planning and development situations. Therefore, a solution
to bridge the qualitative gap between motives and motivations should
come from an overtly declared acceptance and exploitation of both
schools of thought (behaviorist and cognitivist) in the pursuit of achiev-
ing new hypotheses and paradigms (Foxall 1990). With the increasing
acknowledgement of emotions as a separate system rather than merely
a subsystem in the shape of affective components of cognitions and
attitudes, the tourism motivation literature shows a trend that indicates
a growing inclusion of findings of both schools of thought.
Those researchers who emphasize situational parameters (Butler
1980; Opaschowski 1977; Plog 1979; Studienkreis fur Tourismus 1988)
tend to produce motivations which managers and planners are
believed to be able to “translate” into product packages containing
features that target the expressed reasons for travel. The Studienkreis
fur Tourismus in Starnberg, Germany, has produced an annual tour-
ism survey of the German population since 1970. In 1987, for example,
the eight most often mentioned reasons for travel in order of import-
ance were: to switch off, recreate; to get away from everyday life,
change the environment; to reflect on one’s self, have time to think;
to experience many different things; to expand one’s horizon, do
something for culture and education; to have time for each other; to
pursue a sport, get fit; and to get exercise, some light sport or playful
activities (Studienkreis fur Tourismus, 1988:table 4). Both the
sequence and contents of tourists’ motivations in Germany has chan-
ged little over the last 20 years. Consequently, tourism marketers,
managers and planners can exploit such findings with a measure of
confidence. Persisting motivationai groupings tend to produce tourist
typologies, assisting in marketing mix management. Marketers can
produce tourism products and packages with features that promise
the satisfaction of expressed wants, while recreation and resource
planners can develop strategies for the management of visitor flows
and capacity limitations. This practice is, however, not without dan-
gers since typologies can become tautological in their application, a
point dealt with below.
Furthermore, the situational parameter created by planners always
implies specific or idiosyncratic configurations of person-situation
interactions. A good example is probably theme parks, which are
under constant pressure to introduce “new” attractions. In these
cases, research findings based on motivations are thus often volatile
and ephemeral. While this can be countered with more frequent
tourism motivation surveys, it impinges on the planning horizons of
managers and puts resources at risk.
Opaschowski (1977), a sociologist, likens tourism to a motivational
crisis where the motives of escape and search feature as ideal extremes
within which actual tourism behavior occurs. In his study, Opa-
schowski analyzes both the findings of the Studienkreis as well as
tourism advertisements in media and forms eight tourism groups or
types. Based on these loosely referenced considerations, tourists
tended more towards either of the two ideals in their search for self-
A comparable methodology is pursued by Valene Smith (1977). Her
typology is based on her interest in impact studies and host-guest
relationships. She groups tourists according to their wish to adapt
themselves to local norms. Depending on their interests, other
researchers use different parameters. Plog (1972), for example, bases
his typology of psycho- and allocentric tourists on the type and quality
of touristic suprastructures one finds at different destinations. Linked
to this approach is the concept of a destination product lifecycle,
according to which the fortunes of a destination change over time
from discovery to growth and maturity/decline. A similarly inspired
typology is that of Butler (1980). The fundamental problem linked
with these and other typologies is that they can become tautological
(Braun 1989). The above typologies are based on observations of
objectively measurable facts. Subsequently, similar behavior is
observed with other tourists and viewed and sorted with the typology
at hand. Category-membership is then regarded as the reason for
observed behavior. Consequently, typologies are tautological since
they refer to themselves, explaining nothing.
The need for a more sophisticated approach to tourism motives and
motivations allowing for a deeper penetration and understanding of
tourism behavior becomes instantly clear when such typologies are
contrasted by findings in anthropology. Judith Adler (1989) points out
that a tourist is likely to assume a certain role s/he likes to perform
during a vacation. That role, in turn, might be exchanged temporarily
or even daily with other roles. She regards tourism as a particular
kind of self-expression and, therefore, advocates the adoption of the
view that perceives tourism as a form of art. Adler implies that tourists
are longing for a synergetic effect emerging from the enactment of
all those roles. This synergy is the industry’s major aim to satisfy. The
longing for this synergy is expressed in the various types of behaviors
tourists pursue. Some of this longing targets short-term goals often
consisting of tangible and socially symbolic objects, while other aspects
target the satisfaction of the self (Bloch 1986; Gnoth 1994). The roles
tourists play can thus change from one day to the next. For example,
such role-changes allow a tourist to be a “picaro” who imitates the
life of a highwayman or pirate at one occasion on Bangkok’s Pat Pong,
to assume the airs of a socialite in a casino the next, and to imitate
the education-hungry intellectual during visits to museums and art-
galleries on the following occasion. It is rhetorical to ask to what
“type” such a “common” tourist belongs to.
Other typologies that consider situational or objectively measurable
parameters are those by Hartmann (1982) and Cohen (1988). These
latter approaches differ from the hitherto cited ones by including
considerations of motives as a mainstay of their paradigm. Cohen
(1972, 1978, 1988) is notable for his development of MacCannell’s
(1976) concept of “authenticity”. Accordingly, tourists seek attrac-
tions that can be located on a continuum bounded by the poles of
staged vs. authentic attraction. When combining this theory with
his earlier typology (Cohen 1972) of existential, experiential, and
experimental tourists, Cohen introduces sociologically conceived
motives which drive tourists’ behavior as a function of the individual’s
interaction with the (social) environment.
Hartmann (1982) p
ex ressly determines motivations by situational
factors, in particular, landscape features. Referring to the (Gestalt)
psychologist Willy Hellpach, Hartmann expands on how landscape
features can arouse certain psychic reactions. These are based on
cultural and social learning and are enshrined in poems, novels, or
songs dealing with those landscapes. The sentiments are oper-
ationalized through respondents’ mood-descriptions echoing in
thought-patterns. They serve Hartmann as characterizations of
motives. Although subjective in nature, these descriptors and motives
are, nonetheless, tied to objective stimuli and landscape features.
Based on those two sets of variables and an empirical survey, Hart-
mann describes a number of types of tourists. The types are formed
according to their (objective) landscape preferences and their (sub-
jective) motives. Both of the latter two groups of variables help
generate (statistically significant) different groups of tourists.
Hartmann (1982) thus outlines a methodology which objectifies the
emotional contents of motives in tourists’ motivations by predicting
motives from landscape preferences and landscape preferences from
Pearce ( 1982), P earce and Caltabiano (1983), and Pearce and Mos-
cardo (1985) 1
a so attempt to bridge the qualitative gap between
motives and motivations with an interpretive methodology and com-
bine tourists’ situational descriptions with categories from Maslow’s
hierarchy (1954). The approach thus resembles Hartmann’s (1982)
but excludes any specific consideration of any emotional contents in
motivations, since Maslow’s hierarchy is too general to allow for any
particular degree of specificity. Braun (1989), a psychologist, utilizes
a dichotomy of concepts reminiscent of the “escape and search”
dichotomy often referred to by sociologists (Dann 1977; Dumazedier
1967; Iso-Ahola 1982; Parker 1983), consequently indicating a more
holistic approach than in the majority of methodologies hitherto dis-
cussed. He bases his research into motives and motivations of tourists’
on two interrelated theories. First, there is Wicklund’s theory of the
static vs. dynamic orientation (1986) and, second, the theory of self-
fulfilment (Wicklund and Gollwitzer 1981) which, in turn, is based on
Lewin’s theory of motivated behavior. In essence, Braun’s meth-
odology can be compared to Hartmann’s (1982) for its expressed
recognition of emotions. Braun’s adoption of the static vs. dynamic
orientation together with Hartmann’s (1982) are the only meth-
odologies that could be found which consider emotional pre-
dispositions as motivators in any depth.
Braun’s results highlight that tourists’ orientations rely on value
systems and evaluations of situations (Lewin 1942; Vroom 1964).
Here, as elsewhere in the general motivation literature, motives and
motivations are often used synonymously with values. The shape and
form by which such (bio-, socio-, and psychogenic) values are satisfied
is best described with the help of situational parameters. In this way,
the general nature of motives or abstract values gain a measurable
and applied quality, since their actual form is one of attitudes-the
unit of analysis for understanding motives and motivations. It should,
however, be observed that values also include effects of enculturation
and socialization.
Formation of Values and their Role in Motivation
Heckhausen (1989) was quoted as regarding motives as latent
needs. Terms such as hunger or thirst denote categories of needs. As
mere needs, they are neutral. As motives, however, these needs indi-
cate a subject who is feeling the need, including a directed force
driving the subject, as well as a specific, or a class of objects towards
which the need is directed. If motives can be qualified within these
parameters, they become motivations. When linking the abstract par-
ameter delimitation of motives to actual situations, cultural, and
social impacts are also implied which further qualify these motivations
and raise the underlying motives to the level of values. Values contain
valencies (Lewin 1942; Vroom 1964) or results of evaluative inter-
actions between a subject and an object. The evaluation, in turn, is a
learned behavior and based on perceptions. While this description
appears circular, it reflects the formation of a mind-set (Boring 1950)
at the end of a motivational process. Mind-set effects are based on
cognitive processes that promote solving the task which stimulated
the rise of the mind-set (Gollwitzer, Heckhausen and Steller 1990). A
response to stimulation implies that the mind-set contains an
emotional energy measured in its intensity and persistence of occur-
rence. While the emotional energy is expressed in intentions, its
cognitive counterpart is the as-yet-ill-defined concept of involvement.
In general terms, values are considered to be the most abstract
constructs when referring to the organizing principles of behavior
(Kahle 1983). While values can be biogenic, like the need for food or
shelter, they can also be sociogenic like the need for “esteem by
others”. Satisfying the psychogenic need of self-actualization, for
example, is the process of lifting the real self to the level of the ideal
self (Grunow-Lutter 1983). As such, these needs are abstract. In
reality, the actual operationalization of these needs is learned and
practical and only subsequently expressed in values. The trans-
formation of experiences into adaptable, learned behavior involves
abstraction of information. From an information processing view,
experiences generating values and attitudes are learned and stratified
clusters of information-i.e., physical stimuli generate responses in
the form of codes and symbols (representations). These are the basis
for conceptual learning and, when related to each other, form the
basis for rule-acquisitions. In turn, rule-applications in problem-solv-
ing tasks generate cognitive strategies which constitute learned
behavior and become independent of the actual contents of codes and
symbols. In other words, rules are abstracted from specific situations
(Bruner 1971; GagnC 1977). Values are thus chosen rules by which
certain behavioral processes are perceived to lead to satisfactory out-
comes. In terms of adaptation theory, values are learned strategies to
either adapt one’s environment to meet one’s needs or adapt one’s
self to a given environment (Kahle 1983).
Values are either cognition-dominant or emotion-dominant. If
values are cognition-dominant, they are outer-directed or object-
directed and founded on knowledge about a goal, experience, or situ-
ation (objects). Often, an object symbolizes a value (Holbrook and
Hirschman 1982; Prentice 1987). Such objects are difficult to substi-
tute. If they symbolize status or satisfy self-esteem needs, these objects
are mostly of a tangible nature. So, too, are attributes that symbolize
satisfaction of the “sense of belonging” (Kahle 1983; Maslow 1954;
Rokeach 1973; Schwartz and Bilsky 1987). For example, a trip to the
Bahamas might belong to the “things we do”, since it is recognized
as a symbol of affluence, good taste, or cosmopolitan outlook, as well
as what a person considers as a gratifying expression of self-esteem.
For the same people, a trip to little known Sweden’s northern territory
of Lapland might merely signify unpredictable behavior or an attempt
for opinion-leadership. Such values are outer and other-directed and
thus cognition-dominant as they relate to knowledge referring to
a goal or pull-element. In case values are emotion-dominant, their
expectational intentions are inner-directed. Contrary to outer-
directed values, their locus of control rests with the self. The push
(as against the pull of outer-directed values) is drive-based and the
interaction with outside objects is associative in the sense that it is
not a specific object that is needed to satisfy but rather a class of
objects. This latter theoretical aspect is based on the capacity to
generalize stimuli (Pavlov 1927). The inner-directed need or value of
“sense of achievement” (Kahle 1983), for example, is based on the
feeling of “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi 1975). Yet it is not the object but
the process which is targeted as in the case of the “need for play”
(Murray 1938).
Distinguishing values on the basis of their direction, locus of control
and logical function allows explanations as to what aspects in tourism
are substitutable. The satisfaction of emotional values reduces drives,
whereas the satisfaction of outer-directed and more cognitive values
confirms and strengthens the belief component of attitudes (Gnoth
1994). While in the example the symbol of “‘a trip to the Bahamas”
represents the value of (self-)esteem and is cognitively penetrable via
attribution theory (Heider 1958; Kelley 1967), “traveling to remote
areas”, or “seeking wilderness” merelysign$es a promise. The Gestalt
of wilderness promises to satisfy inner-directed values such as self-
fulfilment and excitement. In the case of “self-fulfilment”, the tourist
responds to an emotional awareness that the object containing the
Gestalt will be instrumental in satisfying the drive to reduce a per-
ceived gap between the real and the ideal self. In the case of “excite-
ment”, the Gestalt contains the promise to stimulate as well as reduce
the drive for excitement.
Motives, Values, and Expectations
Figure 1 represents a summary of the motivation and expectation
formation process. Needs can be stimulated either from within a
person or from without. Initially, when internally generated, needs
establish themselves as an urge (Bloch 1986). An urge is emotional
Persistence Intensity
Urge __
Drive (push)
7 4 L
Values + Objective Situation f Perception
\ /
r Motivation $
Attitudes -
Expectations /
- Attitude
--. Effect +--
Figure 1. The Process of Motivation and Expectation Formation
and “sets up a specific action tendency-the first sign that emotion
is working to organise your thought and action” (Izard 199 1:2). The
action tendency induces a person’s perception to scan the environment
for objects that satisfywhat has now become a motive. At this moment,
the motivation process involves situational parameters and the socio-
psychological construct of values.
A person’s values, which have been defined as strategies to adapt
situations to one’s needs or strategies to adapt oneself to situations
(Kahle 1983), assist in evaluating the potential of objects, situations,
and events for satisfying these values. In the context of this study,
a person has now become a tourist who is involved in evaluating
destinations and other tourism facilities. The extent to which values
are emotionally or cognitively motivated distinguish them as to the
level of emotional drive they contain. This helps determine the quality
of expectations (Miller 1976). If values and evaluations of objects are
cognitively dominant, the hypothesis underlying the expectation and
containing the likelihood of an object to produce the desired outcome
(Vroom 1964), is cognitively dominant as well. If values are emotion-
dominant, expectations can be described in terms of the amount of
hope or fear they contain, as the polar points of a continuum (Bloch
Structurally, expectations are thus similar to attitudes. They are
positively or negatively inclined and contain measures of cognitions,
affect, and conations, whereby the conational element expresses itself
in two aspects: the intensity and persistence with which the con-
firmation or falsification is desired or longed for, and the extent to
which the tourist evaluates levels of possible satisfaction the targeted
experiences might procure. In other words, expectations are tentative
(mental or neural) representations of future events or unfinished
learning processes. Although cognitively engendered and built on
existing and assimilated attitudes, these expectations can contain a
considerable amount of affect. This is particularly the case, if these
expectations refer to as yet unknown destinations or never before
experienced encounters. Compared to attitudes, however, the affect
contained in emotion-dominant expectations is merely nominal and
based on emotion-awareness: the tourist is conscious of a feeling of
longing or desire to experience certain outcomes. Despite the cog-
nitive structure this awareness might indicate, the feeling itself is not
or merely to a limited extent cognitively penetrable (de Rivera,
Possell, Verette and Weiner 1989; Rollenhagen and Dalkvist 1989).
Both feelings and cognitions contained in expectations direct per-
ception and behavior in that objects are targeted according to their
instrumentality to satisfy the values underlying the expectations. Sub-
sequent learning processes that seek to find fulfilment of these expec-
tations are characterized by prior motivations, the shape and form of
the expectational attitude, the process of stabilizing and integrating
prior tentative neural or mental representations, and by a reduction
of drives resulting in a feeling-state of awareness of their absence
and/or the confirmation of cognitive structures of attitudes (Harvey,
Hunt and Schroder 1961; Tolman 1932).
The perception of experiences, “Event”, as well as the formation
or modification of attitudes, “Effect” (see Figure l), can be expected
to differ according to the amount of cognitions and emotions involved
in underlying expectations. While a specific object is the target of
cognitions and the confirmation of cognitively dominant hypotheses,
the targeted outcome of drive-based expectations is the reduction of
drives. As classical experiments of conditioning have shown (Pavlov
1927), drive-based learning assimilates and generalizes stimuli. In
other words, it is not a specific object but an outcome which is targeted.
Expectations seeking drive-reduction can thus be assumed to be sat-
isfied via classes of experiences as opposed to cognition-dominant
expectations which require more specific experiences and objects or
products and services. The result is that overall satisfaction as an
emotional response to an experience (Oliver 1981) is more closely
related to inner-directed or drive-based attitudes and values rather
than to outer-directed or cognitive dominant values and attitudes
(Gnoth 1994). Th e experience and outcome a tourist perceives have
been termed “Event” and “Effect” in Figure 1. The latter describes
the impact on drives (emotions), on both old and new attitudes and
values (affect and cognitions) including the satisfaction judgment
(affective-cognitive evaluation).
The model presented in this article details the tourism motivation
and expectation formation process. Felt needs or motives turn into
motivations when coupled with both situations and a tourist’s value
system. The interaction between these elements influences a tourist’s
perception of an object so that the perception responds to the tourist’s
mindset. The expectations and attitudes towards the object are deter-
mined by both the tourist’s felt needs and value system. Those atti-
tudes and expectations which are emotion-dominant contain inner-
or self-directed drives. In this case, an object is targeted for its promise
to satisfy inner-directed needs and values. It is the essence or Gestalt
that is targeted by such values and directed back, as it were, towards
the self. Objects targeted by such values (e.g., destinations, services,
experiences) can thus be substituted. For example, a tourist’s need
for and value of excitement could be satisfied equally by reading a
thrilling novel, a boardgame, orjumping off a bridge where the tourist
is tied to an elastic cord (bungee jump). Conversely, values which are
outer-directed target specific objects which symbolize that value. Such
values as well as subsequent attitudes are cognition-dominant and
objects targeted by such values are difficult to replace or substitute
as they tend to symbolize those values. Although attitudes based on
the former type of values are emotional in contents, they are able to
be cognized through emotion awareness. They can be expected to
express a reduced drive once satisfied, whereas the latter can be
expected to confirm and strengthen the attitudes held by reinforcing
their position within the tourist’s cognitve map. The diversity of poss-
ible combinations of motives, values, and situations explain the array
of differences in tourists’ motivations and perceptions.
The theoretical excursion into the distinction among motives,
motivations, and values impacts on measuring tourism motivations.
It has shown that the differentiation permits cultural, social, and
situational influences to come to bear on the motivational process. In
particular, these influences are operationalized as tourists’ values
expressing learned strategies to satisfy needs by either adapting the
environment to suit one’s needs, or to adapt oneself to given situations.
In the case of holiday tourism, tourists can be assumed to choose an
environment most suitable to fit their motives and preferences. Those
values and attitudes which come to bear on choices relating to des-
tinations, activities, transport, and other tourism facilitators can be
distinguished according to their amount of cognition vs. emotion they
contain. Efforts to measure these constructs can build on standard
attitude measurement-techniques as far as outer-directed or cog-
nitively dominant attitudes and values are concerned. In the case of
emotionally dominant attitudes and values, it can be expected that
they are less likely to be logically linked to objects of experiences,
whereas cognitively dominant expectations show more of a logical
relationship or one which bears the structure of a logical argument
but are carried by social convention (Gnoth 1994). All of these con-
siderations are necessary because of the qualitative difference
between cognitions and (the presence and absence of) drives. Fur-
thermore, the impact and importance of drive based motivation-sat-
isfaction requires statistical weighting procedures and/or due
recognition of these differences in the interpretation of results. In
order to assure completeness, motivational scales should relate to the
general or specific situation tourists find themselves in and be guided
by value systems suitably covering all aspects of the tourism life
domain. 0 0
Adler, J.
1989 Travel as Performed Art. American Journal of Sociology 94(6):1366-1391.
Ajzen, I.
1989 Attitude Structure and behavior. In Attitude Structure and Function, A.
Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler and A. G. Greenwald, eds., pp. 241-271. Hillsdale NJ:
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein
1977 Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical
Research. Psychological Bulletin 84:888-918.
Allport, G. W.
1937 Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt.
Atkinson, J. W., and D. A. Birch
1974 The Dynamics ofAchievement Oriented Activity. In Motivation and Achieve-
ment, J. W. Atkinson and J. 0. Reynor, eds., pp. 271-325. Washington DC:
1970 A Dynamic Theory of Action. New York: Wiley.
Bloch, E.
1986 The Principle of Hope. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Boring, E. G.
1950 A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Braun, 0. L.
1989 Vom Alltagsstress zur Urlaubszufriedenheit. Dissertation, University of Bielefeld.
Bruner, J. S.
1971 The Relevance of Education. New York: Norton.
Butler, R. W.
1980 The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Man-
agement of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24:5-12.
Cattell, R. B.
1957 Personality and Motivation: Structure and Measurement. London: Harrap.
Chaiken, S., and C. Stangor
1987 Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology 38:575-630.
Csikszentmihalyi, M.
1975 Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, E.
1972 Towards a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research 39: 164-182.
1978 Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 6:18-35.
1988 Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
Dann, G. M. S.
1977 Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4: 184-
Dumazedier, J.
1967 Towards a Society of Leisure. New York: The Free Press.
Engel, J. F., D. T. Kollat, and R. D. Blackwell
1968 Consumer Behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Etzioni, A.
1988 Normative-Affective Factors: Toward a New Decision-Making Model. Journal
of Economic Psychology 9:125-150.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen
1975 Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Itroduction to Theory and
Research. Reading MA: Addison Wesley.
Fodness, D.
1994 Measuring Tourist Motivation. Annals of Tourism Research 21:555-581.
Foxall, G.
1990 Consumer Psychology. In Behavioural Perspective. London: Routledge.
Gag& R.
1977 The Conditions of Learning (2nd ed.). NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gollwitzer, P. M., H. Heckhausen, and B. Steller
1990 Deliberative and Implemental Mind-Sets: Cognitive Tuning Towards Congru-
ous Thoughts and Information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Gnoth, J.
1994 Expectations and Satisfaction in Tourism: An Exploratory Study into Mea-
suring Satisfaction. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Marketing, University of
Otago, New Zealand.
Grunow-Lutter, V.
1983 Freizeit und Selbstverwirklichung: Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Konzeption
von Selbstverwirklichung und die Analyse ihrer (faktischen) Erscheinungs-
formen in der Freizeit. Bielefeld: Pfeffer.
Hartmann, K. D.
1982 Zur Psychologie des Landschaftserlebens. Studienkreis ftir Tourismus:
Harvey, 0. J., D. E. Hunt, and H. M. Schroder
1961 Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization. New York: Wiley.
Heckhausen, H.
1989 Motivation und Handeln (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Heider, F.
1958 The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman
1959 The Motivation to Work (2nd ed). New York: Wiley.
Holbrook, M. B., and E. C. Hirschman
1982 The Experiential Aspect of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and
Fun. Journal of Consumer Research 9(9):132-140.
Howard, J. A.
1994 Buyer Behaviour in Marketing Strategy. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Howard, J. A., and J. N. Sheth
1969 The Theory of Buyer Behaviour. New York: Wiley.
Hull, C. L.
1943 Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
Iso-Ahola, S. E.
1982 Toward a Social Psychology Theory of Tourism Motivation. Annals of Tourism
Research 12:256-262.
Izard, C. E.
1991 The Psychology of Emotions. New York: Plenum.
Kahle. L. R.. ed.
1983 Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America. New York:
Katz, D.
1960 The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly
24: 163-204.
Kelley, H. H.
1967 Attribution Theory in Social Psychology. In Nebraska Symposium on Motiv-
ation, D. Levine, ed., pp. 192-238. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Krippendorf, J.
1987 The Holiday Makers. London: Heinemann.
Krober-Riel, W., and G. Meyer-Hentschel
1982 Werbung-Steuerung des Konsumenten Verhaltens. Physica: Wtirzburg.
Lewin, K.
1942 Field Theory of Learning. Yearbook of National Social Studies of Education
Lutz, R. J.
1981 The Role of Attitudes in the Theory of Marketing. In Perspectives in Con-
sumer Behaviour, Kassarjan and Robertson, eds., pp. 371-390. Englewood Cliffs
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MacCannell, D.
1976 The Tourist. New York: Schocken.
1992 Empty Meeting Grounds: The Tourist Papers. New York: Routledge.
McGuire, W. J.
1985 Attitudes and Attitude Change. In Handbook of Social Psychology, G. Lindzey
and E. Aronson, eds. (3rd ed., vol. 2), pp. 233-346. New York: Random House.
1989 The Structure of Individual Attitudes and Attitude Systems. In Attitude
Structure and Function, A. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler and A. G. Greenwald, eds.,
pp. 37-70. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Maslow, A. H.
1954 Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
Miller, J. A.
1976 Exploring Some Alternative Measures ofconsumer Satisfaction.In Marketing
1776-1976 and Beyond, K. L. Bernhardt, ed., pp. 661-664. Chicago IL: American
Marketing Association.
Mittal, B.
1988 The Role of Affective Choice Mode in the Consumer Purchase of Expressive
Products. Journal of Economic Psychology 9:499-524.
Murray, H. A.
1938 Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oliver. R. L.
1981 Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes in Retail Settings.
Journal of Retailing 57(3):25-48.
Opaschowski, H.
1977 Urlaub: Der Alltag Reist Mit. Psychologie Heute 6:18-24.
Parker, S.
1983 Leisure and Work. In Leisure and Recreational Studies 2. London: Allen and
Parrinello, G. L.
1993 Motivation and Anticipation in Post-Industrial Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 20:233-249.
Pavlov, I. P.
1927 Conditioned Reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, P. L.
1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour. In Experimental Social Psy-
chology 3. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
1988 The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. New York:
Pearce, P. L., and M. L. Caltabiano
1983 Inferring Travel Motivations from Travelers’ Experiences. Journal of Travel
Research 3: 16-20.
Pearce, P. L., and G. M. Moscardo
1985 The Relationship between Travellers’ Career Level and the Concept ofAuth-
enticity. Australian Journal of Psychology 37(2): 157-174.
Plog, s.
1979 Why Destination Areas Rise and fall in Popularity. Paper presented to the
Travel Research Association Southern California Chapter, Los Angeles.
Plutchic, R.
1980 Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis. New York: Harper and Row.
Porter, L. W., and E. E. Lawler III
1968 Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood IL: Irwin.
Pratkanis A., S. J. Breckler, and A. G. Greenwald
1989 Attitude Structure and Function. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Prentice, D. A.
1987 Psychological Correspondence of Possessions, Attitudes, and Values. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 53:993-1003.
Pylyshyn, Z. W.
1986 Computation and Cognition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Rivera, J. de, L. Possell, J. A. Verette and B. Weiner
1989 Distinguishing Elation, Gladness, and Joy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 57:1015-1023.
Rokeach, M.
1973 The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Rollenhagen, C., and Jan Dalkvist
1989 Cognitive Aspects of Emotion Awareness: A Scaling Approach. Reports from
the Department of Psychology No. 704, University of Stockholm.
Rosenberg, M. J., and C. I. Hovland
1960 Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioural Components of Attitudes. In Attitude
Organization and Change, C. I. Hovland and M. J. Rosenberg, eds., pp. 1-14.
New Haven CT: Yale