Content uploaded by Heike A. Schänzel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heike A. Schänzel on Jun 21, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 9 1
The Stress of the Family Holiday
By Elisa Backer and Heike Schänzel
Introduction
A holiday is by definition a time that is ‘free’: free from work and from producing things for
the profit of others; holidays are ‘good times’ (Inglis, 2000). Holidays are commonly
understood as a means to rest and recover from the stress and demands of everyday life
(Valtonen & Veijola, 2010). Compared to home and daily routines, holidays involve leisure,
anti-structure and are liberating at least in the daydream/fantasy version (Urry 1996 in Gram,
2005). Many people elect to take a holiday for the purposes of rest and relaxation (Leiper,
2004) with 70% of people citing the reduction of stress as their main reason (Plog, 2005).
However, as Urry notes there is the ideal and there is the reality version of holidays. Holidays
with children are different from holidays without them and this is acknowledged in some
studies of family holidays where it is not all harmony but also involve conflicts at times
(Gram, 2005; Johns & Gyimothy, 2002; Schänzel, 2010). Parents and children have different
needs and interests regarding holidays leading to tensions and added stresses.
The societal pressures on parents to have a ‘happy holiday’ are significant and are bound to
idealised notions of contemporary parenting (Carr, 2011). As discussed in Chapter 2, a
dominant ideology of parenting has emerged that increasingly perceives holidays as
opportunities for ‘quality family time’ or ‘purposive leisure time’ away from everyday
distractions. However, there is scant literature on the work involved and the difficulties with
organising and facilitating positive family experiences (Shaw, 2008). Therefore, the sources
of stress remain under-researched and unacknowledged. This chapter seeks to establish the
range of possible stress factors in the context of the family holiday and their relative
significance.
Given its significance as an influence on satisfaction with holiday experiences this research
specifically considers numerous forms of accommodation, the extent to which they added to
or relieved stress and what responses accommodation providers could make to alleviate some
of the stressors. The research questions sought to understand the relative significance of the
following factors in adding to or relieving stress associated with taking a family holiday;
Chapter 9 2
Accommodation type and facilities provided in addition to work commitments of parent/s and
life cycle stage of families.
Literature Review
Families travelling with children represent one of the largest markets in tourism and yet
tourism research has rarely taken notice of children’s and families’ holiday experiences (Carr,
2011; Obrador, 2012). Family holidays can be deemed to be a more ‘mundane’ and trivial
type of tourism (Bærenholdt, Haldrup, Larsen, & Urry, 2004). Despite the economic
significance of family tourism, this is a marginalised research area (Schänzel, Smith, &
Weaver, 2005). Previous research is mainly market and consumer driven (Lehto, Choi, Lin, &
MacDermid, 2009) with a lack of research into experiential dimensions or family group
dynamics. The predominance of tourism research that focuses on the individual and
emphasises detachment has effectively de-socialised tourist subjects rendering such research
unsuitable for families (Obrador, 2012). This has resulted in mainly individual interpretations
of group behaviour not inclusive of sociality (Schänzel, 2010).
Relatively little attention has been paid to the meaning of family holiday experiences to
parents (Blichfeldt, 2006; Carr, 2011; Shaw, Havitz, & Delamere, 2008) or the family group
(Gram, 2005), and there are few studies that investigate the family holiday experiences of
children (Blichfeldt, Pedersen, Johansen, & Hansen, 2011; Carr, 2011; Hilbrecht, Shaw,
Delamere, & Havitz, 2008; Small, 2008). There have been studies on family holiday
experiences that are mainly informed by a feminist perspective and thus focused on mothers
(Anderson, 2001; Davidson, 1996; Deem, 1996b; Small, 2005). Conversely, research on the
holiday experiences of fathers is only just emerging (Schänzel & Smith, 2011).
When family group dynamics are considered it emerges that a relationship exists between
time together or family time and pursuing own interests or own time that can involve conflict
(Schänzel, 2010). In fact, Gram (2005) has pointed out that holidays present conflicts in that
parents seek relaxation and children seek activities, which makes the ideal of togetherness
hard to achieve. This is highlighted by Jepsen and Blichfeldt’s (2005) study at a caravan site
where children were kept busy with activities which allowed adults to be passive and was
thus found conducive to family togetherness.
Chapter 9 3
There is considerable literature on the positive contributions of family leisure to family
cohesion, family interaction and overall satisfaction with family life (Orthner & Mancini,
1990; Reilly, 2002/2003). Similarly, family holiday research has focused on definitions of
family holidays as associated with bonding, togetherness and quality family time (Carr, 2011;
Gram, 2005; Schänzel, 2008; Shaw et al., 2008); well-being impacts (Gilbert & Abdullah,
2004); and the social value of holidays for disadvantaged families (McCabe, 2009; Minnaert,
Maitland & Miller, 2009).
A realisation exists amongst researchers that ‘family leisure’ has an underlying ideological
notion that reflects a romanticised version of family life (Harrington, 2001; Hilbrecht et al.,
2008). This idealisation of family leisure can have negative consequences for parents through
increased feelings of guilt and stress, especially among mothers, when the ideal of family
togetherness is difficult for them to achieve (Shaw, 2001). Several studies have found that
mothers reported a less positive leisure experience than fathers (e.g. Freysinger, 1994;
Wearing, 1993). There is increasing research evidence that family leisure activities may not
always be a positive experience for all family members (Larson, Gillman, & Richards, 1997;
Shaw & Dawson, 2001). Acknowledgment of both the benefits and difficulties of family
leisure can lead to a more realistic view of this valued aspect of family life (Shaw & Dawson,
2003/2004).
Within the substantial literature addressing women’s leisure (e.g. Cyba, 1992; Kay, 2001;
Shaw, 1985) two key issues appear: (a) women’s experiences of time tend to be much more
fragmented than those of many men, and (b) women tend to be the facilitators of others’
leisure, and only secondarily the recipients of leisure themselves (Kinnaird & Hall, 1996),
which means that family leisure becomes a source of both satisfaction and frustration for
women (Clough, 2001). It also means that women participate significantly less in physically
active leisure than men (Miller & Brown, 2005). These issues are associated with the ‘ethic of
care’ in relation to women’s leisure (Bialeschki, 1994; Henderson & Allen, 1991) and are
based on Gilligan (1982). Gilligan’s research has highlighted that women’s greater concerns
for social responsibility and relationships place a constraint upon their lives as ‘others’ are
often placed before self. Women often receive double messages about the value of
individuality, achievement, and also the need to be in connection with others (Chodorow,
1989) and thus lack autonomy compared with men (Wearing & Wearing, 1988).
Chapter 9 4
Tourism research on family holiday experiences from the mother’s perspective provides a
partial perspective on tensions and stresses within the family group on holiday. Recognising a
general absence of gender research in the tourism literature, researchers in the 1990s
examined impacts on host women, gendered guest-host relationships, employment of women
in tourism and to a lesser extent, women as tourists (e.g. Kinnaird & Hall, 1994; Sinclair,
1997; Swain, 1995). The female emphasis of socialising and interactions with others is
highlighted by Chaplin (1999) compared with the male emphasis on action and self.
Selänniemi (2002) concluded that women more often experience their holiday through
relationships while men seem more likely to let go into a limuloid float, free of everyday
demands.
Other tourism studies informed by a feminist research perspective are focused on mothers’
family holiday experiences. For example, Cerullo and Ewen (1984) looked at American
family camping holidays and confirmed earlier findings of women bearing the main domestic
and caring responsibilities. Illustrations of family holidays as potential stressful times,
particularly for women, can be found in New Zealand because domestic holidays traditionally
occur directly after the celebration of Christmas which women usually plan, organise, and
orchestrate (Fitzgerald, 1993; Richmond & Tolich, 2000). This is supported by other tourism
researchers (Anderson, 2001; Di Leonardo, 1992; Small, 2002), highlighting the never-
ending physical and emotional work of motherhood both at home and when travelling. In
ensuring the enjoyment of others, women sacrifice their own holiday time to plan activities
that will create lasting memories (Davidson, 1996) and feel dissatisfied when conflicts and
difficulties exist between family members on holiday (Deem, 1996b). Those studies identify
a relationship between ‘ethic of care’ and motherhood and women’s family holiday
experiences.
Family holidays are enjoyed by women for providing opportunities to nurture relationships
and for a reduction in the pace and standards of work. This notion of women performing the
bulk of tasks while on holiday, and especially work that reveals a caring ethic, is common
throughout feminist leisure and tourism literature. Thus, holidays cannot be described as an
escape from work when others (e.g. children) are involved. For many women the
continuation of domestic and caring responsibilities is merely transposed from home to
another location (Bella, 1992; Deem, 1996a; Small, 2005). Instead of a break from home,
holidays for women contain obligation, work, social disapproval, and responsibility
Chapter 9 5
(McCormack, 1998). Rosenblatt and Russell (1975) alluded to potential problems in family
travel as families are typically better insulated from interpersonal problems at home than
when they are together on holiday. While family holidays are seen as providing the
opportunity for both revitalisation and family bonding, there is also the opportunity for
serious interpersonal difficulties. However, the notion of families spending happy periods
together is a persistent marketing image and has long been part of the ‘mythology of tourism’
(Seaton & Tagg, 1995).
It appears there is disjunction between the ideal of happy family holidays and realities that
applies to mothers as much as fathers. Strong ideological notions of how parents ought to
behave underpin much of family leisure (Shaw, 2010) and extend to holiday behaviour.
Blichfeldt (2006) found that providing new experiences (such as holidays) is considered a
critical element of good parenting. There are cultural standards of putting children first
whereby the character and achievements of children are linked to the moral worth of parents
(Coakley, 2006).
Fathers today are expected to be more intimate and have greater involvement with their
children (Kay, 2009). This is deeply embedded in the social discourse about being a good
father (Daly, 1996), while the ideology of being a ‘good mother’ is still pervasive (Miller &
Brown, 2005). Also, there are strong cultural constraints on expressing dissatisfaction with
family holidays (Deem, 1996b), which can lead to guilt for mothers and blame when there is
conflict between family members (Davidson, 1996; Small, 2005).
Facilitating family leisure is seen as an obligatory aspect of parental responsibility (Shaw,
2008), yet the achievement of family leisure, as argued in Chapter two, is perceived as a
personal problem rather than a societal dilemma. Rather than gender per se, it is the presence
and absence of children and partners that has an impact on travel behaviour (Freysinger &
Ray, 1994; Lin & Lehto, 2006).
Women are found to report more negative holiday experiences than men, due to the women’s
feelings of responsibility for others (Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, Gault, & Benton, 1992).
However, recent research into fathers’ holiday experiences reveal that fathers can take on
primary responsibility as entertainer of the children and facilitator of mothers’ own interests
(Schänzel & Smith, 2011); roles which have been little acknowledged previously. In effect,
Chapter 9 6
freedom from family obligations is sought not just by mothers in a good holiday experience
(Davidson, 1996; Small, 2005), but also fathers (Schänzel & Smith, 2011). This highlights
that the roles of mothers and fathers are both constrained on holiday and more research is
needed on the social dynamics present and possible societal influences.
The limited research on family tourism that has included children’s perspectives highlights
some generational differences in experience and even conflict (Carr, 2006, 2011; Schänzel,
2010). In fact, as Carr (2006) highlights, family holidays are among those products that have
the potential to cause the most family conflict. Children generally express more immediate
goals of having fun with others on holiday (Gram, 2005; Hilbrecht et al., 2008) rather than
any purposive notions of togetherness. Yet, very few studies focus on the difficulties of
facilitating family fun (Churchill, Clark, Prochaska-Cue, Creswell, & Ontai-Grzebik, 2007)
because social interaction and fun are seen as inferior to other tourism experiences. As
reported in Chapter 5, children on holiday seek fun and sociality with family but also with
their peers as part of gaining freedom from parental restrictions. Holidays then are as much
about family time as they are about time to pursue own interests either alone or with peers
and a balance is needed to avoid conflicts or tensions. This chapter is about gaining insights
into stress factors associated with family holidaying and thus adds to the limited research on
negative tourism experiences within families.
Method
According to the Global Organization for Stress (Global Organization for Stress, 2011),
holidays are helpful in reducing stress levels and “you can feel totally relaxed”. Reducing
stress was found to be the main reason why people took a holiday in a study by Plog (2005).
Other basic things such as spending time with spouse and having no schedules rated most
highly, whilst learning about local history/culture, being outdoors, romantic time and
enjoying physical tests were least common (Table 9.1).
Table 9.1 Reasons for taking a holiday in America 2003
Reason % Reason %
Get rid of stress 70 Have time for friends 23
Time with spouse 60 Learn history/culture 23
Enjoy no schedules 59 Important part of life 21
See/do new things 56 Romantic time 21
I feel alive/energetic 33 Like solitude/isolation 16
Gain Perspective 31 Enjoy being outdoors 14
Like being waited on 24 Enjoy physical tests 10
Chapter 9 7
Source: Plog (2005)
The aim of this research was broadly to explore whether taking a holiday assists in reducing
stress or adds to it for those in a family situation. This study also aimed to ascertain whether
families would report similar reasons for holidaying as found by general holidaying people as
reported in Plog’s (2005) findings.
An online survey was selected for conducting this research. The survey was designed to take
about ten minutes to complete. Primary schools in the regional Victorian city of Ballarat
(about 100 kilometres from the state capital Melbourne) were contacted and asked if they
would be prepared to circulate the web address and an invitation to participate in this research
via the school newsletter and/or notice board. The URL was also circulated through major
employers, media and through the snowball technique. It was determined that access through
the school system was the best way to contact a broad range of families in common with
previous studies (e.g. Carr, 2006; Schänzel, 2010).
The most common stated reason for taking a holiday has been found to be ‘to reduce stress’,
with 70% of people identifying this reason (Plog, 2005). However, anecdotal evidence
indicates that for families, particularly larger families with young children, holidays may
create rather than reduce stress. Thus, the aim of the research was to find out whether taking a
family holiday confirms or disconfirms the primary stated reason for taking holidays, i.e. to
relieve stress.
Research on family tourism is a marginalised area. Despite the size of the market the family
in tourism research has struggled to take account of the family dynamics that choreograph
tourism practices (Obrador, 2012). Research to date has focussed on definitions of family
holidays as mainly associated with bonding, togetherness and quality family time (Carr, 2011;
Gram, 2005; Schänzel, 2008). This research aimed to contribute to both theory and practice
by establishing whether stress can accompany the family holiday experience. This research
also explored a range of possible factors and their relative significance.
Results
The results are outlined in this section. There were 20 questions in the survey. All of these
except the last question required an answer in order to proceed through the survey. The first
Chapter 9 8
question asked respondents to identify their gender. The vast majority of respondents were
female (88%). Respondents were then asked to indicate their family situation. Virtually all
(96%) of the respondents indicated that they were a two-parent family. Only 4% were single
parent families. This bias reflects a major difficulty associated with collecting data from all
adult members, as identified by Carr (2006), namely how to actively involve fathers in the
data collection process.
The third question asked respondents to select an option that described the work demands in
their household. The majority (56%) of responses revealed that households comprised a
father who worked full-time and a mother who worked part-time or casually. Twenty per cent
of respondents stated that their household comprised two parents working full-time. The third
most popular response was that the father works full-time and the mother is not in the
workforce (10%). Mothers working full-time with a father who works part-time or casually
comprised 6% of the responses. As such, 82% of responses indicate that both parents work.
Question four asked respondents to state the number of dependent children they have living
with them full-time. The number of dependent children living with the respondents ranged
from one up to four. The average number of children was 2.46. The median was 2 with 36%
of respondents indicating that they had two children living with them. Only 11% of
respondents indicated that they had only one child, which was the same proportion of
responses for having four children. Twenty nine per cent of respondents stated that they had
three dependent children living with them.
The fifth question in the survey asked for the ages of the respondents’ children. Ranges were
offered for selection; being 0-4; 5-9; 10-14; 15-18, and 19+. The majority of children were in
the 5-9 age range (72%), which reflects a natural bias due to the authors targeting primary
schools. The second most popular choice was 0-4 age range (40%), followed by 10-14 (34%).
The sixth question asked respondents to state how many of their children went on their last
holiday with them. The average number of children accompanying their parent/s was 2.4
indicating a slight variation from the average number of dependent children as revealed in
question four. Responses showed some minor variation from question four, since question
four enquired about dependent children living with the respondent. Whilst most responses
were identical to question four, in some cases an additional child accompanied the family
Chapter 9 9
who is no longer living at home; in other cases a child did not accompany the family despite
being a dependent living at home with them.
Question seven asked respondents to identify what type of accommodation they stayed in on
their last holiday (Figure 9.1). Responses were very broad across most types of
accommodation. The only options that received no sections were boat house and 5 star hotels.
The single most popular choice was resorts (18%).
Figure 9.1 Accommodation stayed in during most recent holiday
Question seven did allow specific separation of each accommodation type. For example, it
allowed for a distinction between self-contained apartments and serviced apartments.
Serviced apartments, self-contained apartments, and rented/holiday houses are essentially
substitutes – all offering similar attributes. If combined, 42% of respondents elected these
forms of accommodation. Caravanning, self-contained cabins and camp sites were also a
popular type of accommodation (36% if aggregated). Staying with friends and relatives was
also a popular unique form of accommodation (14%).
The eighth question asked respondents how often someone in their travel party cooked dinner
whilst on their last holiday. Almost two-thirds (64%) of respondents cooked either every
Chapter 9 10
night or most nights. Only 18% of respondents did not cook dinner at all whilst on their most
recent holiday.
Question nine asked respondents to explain why they had selected the accommodation they
had identified previously in the survey. As open-ended responses were used for this question,
each answer was unique. However, some common themes were evident. Cost came through
as a strong theme, for example “cheapest accommodation for 6 people” (R20). The other
strong theme that was evident was space, for example “it was self-contained and had at least
three bedrooms” (R8) and “all inclusive package. Four children could stay and eat free”
(R30).
The next question, question ten, was ‘thinking about your most recent family holiday, what
were your reasons for taking that holiday?’ This was an open-ended question and as such,
attracted a range of unique responses. However, some common themes emerged. One central
theme was that the holiday was to reunite as a family. For example, one respondent stated the
holiday was for “time away from work as a family”. Similarly, another respondent stated it
was an “annual family holiday with other family members”. Another claimed it was “to relax
and spend time together as a family” whilst another stated “relax, get some exercise and
spend time together as a family”. The other theme that emerged related to needing a break.
For example, “we needed something different” and “needed a break and had too much leave
owing from work”. Similarly, “to get away from normal life at home” and “break away from
farm where there are constant interruptions even on occasional day off”.
Question eleven asked ‘when did you take your most recent family holiday?’ Dates varied
across the different respondents’ answers. However, three key themes emerged. The largest
theme that emerged was the previous Christmas – New Year period, highlighting that the
latest holiday was about six months prior to the survey. The second largest theme that
emerged was that the most recent holiday was from between 18 months and three years ago.
The third largest response was that the last holiday was the Easter period that had just passed.
For question twelve, respondents were asked ‘has your choice of accommodation type been
influenced by previous holiday experiences? If so, please explain.’ The responses were
evenly split between “yes” and “no”. Some interesting explanations were provided by some
of the respondents. Some demonstrated a great degree of repeat visitation such as “yes, stayed
Chapter 9 11
in same house 6 years in a row”. Others showed preference for a particular style of
accommodation based on past experiences (rather than actually booking the exact same place
each time). Some comments included “yes, resort style suits us” and “yes, we will always
want 2-3 bedroom accommodations for a family of 5-7”. Similarly, “yes, it was more
desirable to spend more time in independent accommodation” and also “yes got over
camping. Too small, noisy, wet. Sharing bathrooms. Moved on”.
The next question, thirteen, asked ‘which of the following reasons were important to you in
taking your most recent family holiday?’ Respondents could select as many options that were
applicable. Spending time with the family was an important reason to almost all respondents
(Figure 9.2). Other commonly mentioned reasons included to see/do new things, enjoy no
schedules, and get rid of stress.
Figure 9.2 Reasons for taking a family holiday
Question fourteen was specifically designed to follow on from the previous question, to
establish whether the reasons for taking the holiday were achieved. Most of the intended
Chapter 9 12
reasons were achieved to a similar capacity (Figure 9.3). The main difference was that
although almost half (48%) of respondents claimed they took a holiday to get rid of stress,
only around one-third (34%) claimed that this was achieved.
Figure 9.3 Reasons for taking a holiday that were achieved
The issue of experience was considered further in question fifteen which asked ‘what types of
things impacted negatively on your level of stress whilst on your most recent family holiday
(consider both preparing for that trip as well as during that trip and explain in detail)?’ Some
of the responses involved matters that would be stressful for anyone planning for a holiday –
such as “weather and travel time”, and “worrying about the cost/money”. However many
responses were specific to families such as “packing was stressful, ensuring there were plenty
of down time activities for the children”.
Of note, many responses linked to the accommodation facilities such as “not having all our
stuff we normally have at home. Things in the house not child safe/friendly, i.e. the oven or
doors etc”. Similarly, “blinds in the bedrooms let light through, making it extremely hard for
a two year old to have naps and sleep past 5:30am. The outside noise was constant, traffic,
Chapter 9 13
humming of heaters/air conditioners, music etc”. Another respondent claimed “sharing the
one room was stressful especially in the evenings when we wanted a bit of a reprieve from
the kids”. Another example was “our son had a reaction to food and vomited four times, all
over himself and me. I had two loads of washing and couldn’t get access to the advertised
washing machine, so spent what was meant to be a relaxing night prior to a wedding hand
washing clothes in a tiny bathroom”. There were also discussions about dirty cooking
appliances and cutlery, lack of facilities, getting the wrong room, dusty bedding, a dirty
microwave, dusty place, and no response from the enquiries number listed for the venue.
Accommodation facilities were a likely contributor of the stress for some respondents, with
some respondents finding facilities inadequate. Question sixteen was ‘how well did the
facilities at your accommodation on your last family holiday cater for the size and shape of
your family?’ The most commonly stated area for being inadequately set up was drying
facilities (Figure 9.4).
Figure 9.4 Facilities in accommodation
Chapter 9 14
The issue of stress was considered further in question seventeen which asked ‘thinking about
your most recent family holiday, did you feel less stressed, more stressed, or the same when
you returned?’ There were five options to select: much less stressed, slightly less stressed,
stress level unchanged, slightly more stressed, much more stressed. For 36% of respondents,
their stress levels were either unchanged (16%) or had increased (20%) after going on their
last family holiday.
Question eighteen was respondents ‘in thinking about all your past family holiday
experiences, describe your best family holiday and explain why it was the best’. The
responses varied widely with a range of destinations mentioned. However, sometimes the
destination was not mentioned and the only focus was on the weather, or the stage the
children were at that seemed to be why the holiday was a success – with no relationship to the
destination. Several respondents spoke of a luxury accommodation being their best holiday.
For example, “our holiday to the Sunshine Coast in March was fantastic as it was in a large
luxury home. We will do this again with our family as it was great accommodation”. Others
said “we spent a bit more on accommodation so even though we stayed in most nights while
the kids slept, it felt like a luxury because we got to lounge around a gorgeous apartment”.
Similarly another person stated a “five star apartment…just amazing”.
Some respondents were unable to identify their best holiday as they had “only been on one
family holiday”. Others claimed that their best holiday was without their children or without
a young child – for example “the one where we left our youngest with my parents” or
“weekend away when only had one child”. A staycation was also mentioned “if we stay at
home we usually have the best time. We can do short day trips. My kids hate spending time in
the car for longer than 30 minutes”.
The following question was ‘in thinking about all your past family holiday experiences,
describe your worst family holiday and explain why it was the worst’. Some respondents
were unable to nominate a worst holiday. Other responses were varied with experiences being
affected by poor weather. However, some respondents specifically raised issues with their
accommodation as creating their poor experience. For example, “stayed in a hotel room. All
in the one room. Kids wouldn’t go to sleep. No backyard, etc. No locks on doors so kids kept
escaping. No kitchen so had to had all the time in the onsite restaurant. Very stressful!”
Another example was “poor or unclean accommodation” and respondents often referred to
Chapter 9 15
children being awake very early or not sleeping properly due to either lack of blinds, noise, or
poor quality beds. Others stated that it the facilities are inadequate for the size of the family it
adds too much household work. For example, “where the accommodation was deficient in
too many things …it adds to the household chores instead of a holiday being about relaxing it
is more work”.
The final question was ‘are there any other comments you would like to make?’ Almost half
of the respondents made a comment. Some of the comments involved stress, such as “I think
family holidays with young kids are very stressful unless there is some support for the parents
and opportunities for parents to have some time to themselves”. Another response was
“travelling with young children, especially toddlers, can be more trouble that it is worth
which is why we have not taken long holidays.” And similarly, “a wise friend once told me
once you have kids they are no longer called holidays but ‘time-away’. I now agree”.
Discussion
Holiday experiences are heavily impacted by the presence and absence of children
(Freysinger & Ray, 1994; Lin & Lehto, 2006). Freedom from typical family obligations are
sought by mothers (Davidson, 1996; Small, 2005) as well as fathers (Schänzel & Smith,
2011). Rest and relaxation is a common holiday purpose for many people (Leiper, 2004), and
70% of people state that reducing stress is their main reason for going on a holiday (Plog,
2005). Despite this family holidays are among those things that can cause the most family
conflict (Carr, 2006).
This study has revealed that family holidays can add to stress in some cases. Whilst almost
half (48%) of the respondents stated that reducing stress was one of their reasons for taking a
holiday, it was not necessarily achieved. Only around one-third (34%) of respondents found
that the holiday had the desired effect of reducing stress. At times, contributors to the stress
were associated with variables such as weather. Often the sheer orchestration of packing for
a family and dealing with the needs of children whilst en route added stress to the travel
experience. Yet, of significance here, at times the creation of stresses and the cause of
negative holiday experiences were based around simple accommodation facilities not being
suitable.
Chapter 9 16
Where washing facilities were promoted in the brochure, they were sometimes inadequate or
at other times not present. The effort involved in doing multiple loads of washing due to a
small machine or hand washing instead of machine washing, or trying to dry clothes with no
drying facilities added stress and discomfort. This added to household chores instead of the
holiday being an opportunity to relax.
Of note, respondents provided very different reasons for taking a holiday compared with the
findings from Plog (2005). Whilst reducing stress was the most common reason found in
Plog’s (2005) research, with 70% of people stating that reason; 48% of respondents in this
study indentified reducing stress as a reason. Instead, spending time with family was the
primary driver with almost all respondents stating that reason, confirming the family holiday
definition given in Chapter one. Enjoying no schedules and seeing/doing new things revealed
very similar response levels in this study compared with Plog’s findings. However, whilst
Plog (2005) found that 33% of people stated they wanted to feel alive/energetic, only 18% of
respondents in this study selected this option.
Other differences could be seen with the ‘gain perspective’ and ‘like being waited on’
options. These received low responses in this study (8% and 4% respectively) compared to
Plog’s (2005) findings of 31% and 24% respectively. The full comparison is outlined in Table
9.2.
Table 9.2 Reasons for taking a holiday: comparing Plog’s findings to this study
Reason % (Plog, 2005) % (this study)
Get rid of stress 70 48
Time with spouse / family 60 95
Enjoy no schedules 59 27
See/do new things 56 29
I feel alive/energetic 33 18
Gain Perspective 31 8
Like being waited on 24 4
Have time for friends / VFR 23 28
Learn history/culture 23 40
Important part of life 21 30
Romantic time 21 4
Like solitude/isolation 16 8
Enjoy being outdoors 14 36
Enjoy physical tests 10 2
Source: Plog (2005)
Conclusion
Chapter 9 17
Stress levels are for many parents unchanged or worsened by the holiday experience. Parents
are often amongst those most in need of a holiday, yet in some cases, they are not
experiencing the benefits that holidaying can bring to others. What is of significance is that
often the cause or contributor of stress is the result of simple things missing from the
accommodation. Respondents spoke of major angst arising from having no blinds in a child’s
bedroom preventing the child from being able to have an afternoon nap. As the lack of the
afternoon nap resulted in irritable behaviour from the child, the child became a poor
companion for the parents and led to a loss of enjoyment in the holiday.
At other times, cooking utensils were inadequate for a family as advertised in brochure.
Stories were revealed such as having only a small saucepan and therefore the parents had to
cook two dinners instead of one. Small washing machines resulted in more loads of washing.
If there was nowhere to dry clothes, this became awkward and created angst. Other stories
included the dining table only having four seats in a three-bedroom apartment designed to
sleep six people. Other sources of stress arose from the parents requesting accommodation
with no stairs yet having an apartment with stairs which was considered a hazard for young
children. Where requests for a laundry were not addressed it meant that parents were washing
in a hand basin for an entire family. These examples added to people’s workload of household
chores that are not typically considered relaxing. In some cases then the holiday resulted in an
increase in unpleasant tasks, not a relaxing and enjoyable experience.
This research adds to our understanding of the diverse needs of families; particularly those
families with pre-school aged children. Specific requirements to ensure young children’s
sleep routines are maintained are considered essential for those families. This family stage
can be identified as Family Life Cycle Stage III, which is an area discussed in Chapter 12.
Accommodation developers are most likely not in the FLC Stage III, resulting in those small
but essential design components being forgotten. Realising the stress impact that relatively
minor shortcomings of accommodation can have on the family holiday experience can lead to
change. Only by catering to the varied needs of families can the long-term future of these
businesses be ensured. The costs of ensuring a relatively stress-free holiday experience can be
considered minor compared to the costs of families not returning or poor word of mouth and
poor word-of-mouse (i.e. negative consumer comments made online). The most significant
implication of this research is to ensure operators are aware of the findings from this study. In
many cases the cause of stress arose from small expenses in terms of the cost of fitting out an
Chapter 9 18
apartment. At times the frustrations developed from the simplest things missing such as cheap
drying racks for clothes or window blinds.
This study has added to the literature exploring family holidays and has shown that families
have different reasons for taking holidays compared to general holidaying individuals. As a
result, operators specifically targeting families as their market need to be mindful of their
specific needs in order to ensure the holiday experience is a positive experience, which may
also increase repeat visitation. This study is limited by the small sample size and as such
further research to explore these issues with a larger sample size would add to our
understanding on stress factors within families in tourism.
Acknowledgement: The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution by Dr Mary
Hollick to this research.
References
Anderson, J. (2001). Mothers on family activity holidays overseas. In S. Clough & J. White
(Eds.), Women's Leisure Experiences: Ages, Stages and Roles (pp. 99-112).
Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.
Bærenholdt, J. O., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Performing Tourist Places.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Bella, L. (1992). The Christmas Imperative: Leisure, Family, and Women's Work. Halifax,
Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Bialeschki, M. D. (1994). Re-entering leisure: Transition within the role of motherhood.
Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1), 57-74.
Blichfeldt, B. S. (2006). A nice Vacation (8/06). Esbjerg, DK: University of Southern
Denmark. Retrieved from http://www.sam.sdu.dk/ime/PDF/blichfeldt8.pdf
Blichfeldt, B. S., Pedersen, B. M. l., Johansen, A., & Hansen, L. (2011). Tweens on Holidays.
In-Situ Decision-making from Children's Perspective. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 11(2), 135-149.
Carr, N. (2006). A comparison of adolescents' and parents' holiday motivations and desires.
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(2), 129-142.
Carr, N. (2011). Children's and Families' Holiday Experiences. London and New York:
Routledge.
Chapter 9 19
Cerullo, M., & Ewen, P. (1984). The American family goes camping: Gender, family, and the
politics of space. Antipode, 16(3), 35-46.
Chaplin, D. (1999). Back to the cave or playing away? Gender roles in home-from-home
environments. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 23(3), 181-189.
Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Churchill, S. L., Clark, V. L. P., Prochaska-Cue, K., Creswell, J. W., & Ontai-Grzebik, L.
(2007). How rural low-income families have fun: A grounded theory study. Journal of
Leisure Research, 39(2), 271-294.
Clough, S. (2001). A juggling act: Women balancing work, family and leisure. In S. Clough
& J. White (Eds.), Women's Leisure Experiences: Ages, Stages and Roles (pp. 129-
138). Eastbourne, UK: Leisure Studies Association.
Coakley, J. (2006). The good father: Parental expectations and youth sports. Leisure Studies,
25(2), 153-163.
Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P. (1992). Emotion and Gender:
Constructing Meaning from Memory. London: Sage.
Cyba, E. (1992). Women's attitudes towards leisure and family. Society and Leisure, 15(1),
79-94.
Daly, K. (1996). Spending time with the kids: Meanings of family time for fathers. Family
Relations, 45(4), 466-476.
Davidson, P. (1996). The holiday and work experiences of women with young children.
Leisure Studies, 15(2), 89-103.
Deem, R. (1996a). No time for a rest? Time & Society, 5(1), 5-25.
Deem, R. (1996b). Women, the city and holidays. Leisure Studies, 15(2), 105-119.
Di Leonardo, M. (1992). The female world of cards and holidays: Women, families, and the
work of kinship. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethinking the Family: Some
Feminist Questions (pp. 246-261). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Fitzgerald, C. H. (1993). Getting away from it all? An exploration into New Zealand women's
experience of Christmas holidays. Unpublished Masters thesis, Victoria University,
Wellington, NZ.
Freysinger, V. J. (1994). Leisure with children and parental satisfaction: Further evidence of a
sex difference in the experience of adult roles and leisure. Journal of Leisure
Research, 26(3), 212-226.
Chapter 9 20
Freysinger, V. J., & Ray, R. O. (1994). The activity involvement of women and men in young
and middle adulthood: A panel study. Leisure Sciences, 16(3), 193-217.
Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the sense of well-being. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(1), 103-121.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Global Organization for Stress. (2011). Stress Solutions for the World. Retrieved 9 June 2011,
from http://www.gostress.com/stress-question-do-vacations-solve-stress/
Gram, M. (2005). Family holidays. A qualitative analysis of family holiday experiences.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 5(1), 2-22.
Harrington, M. (2001). Gendered time: Leisure in family life. In K. J. Daly (Ed.), F. m.
Berardo, Minding the Time in Family Experience: Emerging Perspectives and Issues
(Vol. 3, pp. 343-382). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Henderson, K. A., & Allen, K. R. (1991). The ethic of care: Leisure possibilities and
constraints for women. Society and Leisure, 14(1), 97-113.
Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S. M., Delamere, F. M., & Havitz, M. E. (2008). Experiences,
perspectives, and meanings of family vacations for children. Leisure/Loisir, 32(2),
541-571.
Inglis, F. (2000). The Delicious History of the Holiday. London: Routledge.
Jepsen, A. L., & Blichfeldt, B. S. (2005, August). Freed from experience: Why people spend
their vacations at a nearby caravan site. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the
18th Scandinavian Academy of Management (NFF) Conference, Århus, Denmark.
Johns, N., & Gyimothy, S. (2002). Mythologies of a theme park: An icon of modern family
life. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), 320-331.
Kay, T. (2001). New women, same old leisure: The upholding of gender stereotypes and
leisure disadvantage in contemporary dual-earner households. In S. Clough & J.
White (Eds.), Women's Leisure Experiences: Ages, Stages and Roles (pp. 113-128).
Eastbourne, UK: Leisure Studies Association.
Kay, T. (Ed.). (2009). Fathering through Sport and Leisure. London: Routledge.
Kinnaird, V., & Hall, D. (Eds.). (1994). Tourism: A Gendered Analysis. Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kinnaird, V., & Hall, D. (1996). Understanding tourism processes: A gender-aware
framework. Tourism Management, 17(2), 95-102.
Chapter 9 21
Larson, R. W., Gillman, S. A., & Richards, M. H. (1997). Divergent experiences of family
leisure: Fathers, mothers, and young adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(1),
78-97.
Lehto, X. Y., Choi, S., Lin, Y.-C., & MacDermid, S. M. (2009). Vacation and family
functioning. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 459-479.
Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism Management (3rd ed.). Sydney: Pearson.
Lin, Y.-C., & Lehto, X. Y. (2006). A study of female travelers' needs trajectory and family life
cycle. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 15(1), 65-88.
McCabe, S. (2009). Who needs a holiday? Evaluating social tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 36(4), 667-688.
McCormack, C. (1998). Memories bridge the gap between theory and practice in women's
leisure research. Annals of Leisure Research, 1(1), 37-49.
Miller, Y., & Brown, W. (2005). Determinants of active leisure for women with young
children-an "ethic of care" prevails. Leisure Sciences, 27, 405-420.
Minnaert, L., Maitland, R., & Miller, G. (2009). Tourism and social policy: The value of
social tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 316-334.
Obrador, P. (2012). The place of the family in tourism research: Domesticity and thick
sociality by the pool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 401-420.
Orthner, D. K., & Mancini, J. A. (1990). Leisure impacts on family interaction and cohesion.
Journal of Leisure Research, 22(2), 125-137.
Plog, S. (2005). Targeting Segments: More important than ever in the Travel Industry. In
Teobald, W. (Ed.) Global Tourism (3rd ed., pp.271-293). Sydney: Elsevier.
Reilly, R. C. (2002/2003). Family volunteering: Making a difference together. Leisure/Loisir,
27(3/4), 305-332.
Richmond, E. H., & Tolich, M. (2000). The third shift: Task allocation and ultimate
responsibility on family camping holidays. New Zealand Sociology, 15(2), 284-303.
Rosenblatt, P. C., & Russell, M. G. (1975). The social psychology of potential problems in
family vacation travel. The Family Coordinator, 24(2), 209-215.
Schänzel, H. A. (2008). The New Zealand family on holiday: Values, realities and fun. In J.
Fountain & K. Moore (Eds.), In Proceedings to the New Zealand Tourism and
Hospitality Research Conference Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University.
Schänzel, H. A. (2010). Whole-Family Research: Towards a Methodology in Tourism for
Encompassing Generation, Gender, and Group Dynamic Perspectives. Tourism
Analysis, 15(5), 555-569.
Chapter 9 22
Schänzel, H. A., & Smith, K. A. (2011). The absence of fatherhood: achieving true gender
scholarship in family tourism research. Annals of Leisure Research, 14(2-3), 129-140.
Schänzel, H. A., Smith, K. A., & Weaver, A. (2005). Family holidays: A research review and
application to New Zealand. Annals of Leisure Research, 8(2-3), 105-123.
Seaton, A. V., & Tagg, S. (1995). The family vacation in Europe: Paedonomic aspects of
choices and satisfactions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 4(1), 1-21.
Selänniemi, T. (2002). Couples on holiday: (En)gendered or endangered experiences? In M.
B. Swain & J. H. Momsen (Eds.), Gender/Tourism/Fun(?) (pp. 15-23). New York:
Cognizant Communication Corporation.
Shaw, S. M. (1985). Gender and leisure: Inequality in the distribution of leisure time. Journal
of Leisure Research, 17(4), 266-282.
Shaw, S. M. (2001). The family leisure dilemma: Insights from research with Canadian
families. World Leisure, 43(4), 53-62.
Shaw, S. M. (2008). Family leisure and changing ideologies of parenthood. Sociology
Compass, 2(2), 688-703.
Shaw, S. M. (2010). Diversity and ideology: changes in Canadian family life and implications
for leisure. World Leisure Journal, 52(1), 4-13.
Shaw, S. M., & Dawson, D. (2001). Purposive leisure: Examining parental discourses on
family activities. Leisure Sciences, 23(4), 217-231.
Shaw, S. M., & Dawson, D. (2003/2004). Contradictory aspects of family leisure:
Idealization versus experience. Leisure/Loisir, 28(3/4), 179-201.
Shaw, S. M., Havitz, M. E., & Delamere, F. M. (2008). I decided to invest in my kids'
memories: Family vacations, memories, and the social construction of the family.
Tourism Culture & Communication, 8(1), 13-26.
Sinclair, M. T. (Ed.). (1997). Gender, Work and Tourism. London: Routledge.
Small, J. (2002). Good and bad holiday experiences: Women's and girls' perspectives. In M.
B. Swain & J. H. Momsen (Eds.), Gender/Tourism/Fun? (pp. 24-37). Elmsford, New
York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.
Small, J. (2005). Women's holidays: Disruption of the motherhood myth. Tourism Review
International, 9(2), 139-154.
Small, J. (2008). The absence of childhood in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research,
35(3), 772-789.
Swain, M. B. (1995). Gender in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 247-266.
Chapter 9 23
Urry, J. (1996). The Tourist Gaze. Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London:
Sage.
Valtonen, A., & Veijola, S. (2010). Sleep in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 175-
192.
Wearing, B. (1993). The family that plays together stays together: Or does it? Leisure and
mothers. World Leisure & Recreation, 35(3), 25-29.
Wearing, B., & Wearing, S. (1988). ‘All in a day’s leisure’: Gender and the concept of leisure.
Leisure Studies, 7(2), 111-123.