Content uploaded by Margarida Pocinho
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margarida Pocinho on Apr 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring crEativity and wEllbEing
charactEristics of portuguEsE tourists
Soraia Garcês1
Margarida Pocinho2
Saul Neves de Jesus3
Ester Câmara4
Patricia Martins5
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore creativity and wellbeing characteristics in a sample of
Portuguese tourists while simultaneously building a creative tourist profile. A sample of 857
Portuguese tourists with ages ranging from 17 to 76 years was used. The Creative Personality
Scale short form and the Tourism Experience Scale were applied for data collection. The
results indicated positive and significant correlations between wellbeing and creativity.
Women showed higher levels of wellbeing. Older tourists performed better in creativity.
Age had a significant influence only on creativity and not on tourists’ overall wellbeing.
Non-students obtained higher and significant scores for creativity, while overall wellbeing
was not influenced by having a job (student vs non-student). A significant multiple linear
regression model suggested that wellbeing and age are significant predictors of creativity in
tourism settings. Wellbeing rankings showed positive emotions in first place, creativity in
second place and meaning in third place. In conclusion, the results indicated that creativity
and wellbeing are important factors for tourism experiences and that Portuguese tourists’
psychological profile already shows evidence that unique and memorable experiences are
essential in tourism destinations.
Keywords: Creativity, Wellbeing, Tourism.
JEL Classification: E71, I31, Z32, L83
1. INTRODUCTION
Tourism is one of the biggest sectors of the economy in many countries across the world.
According to the European Travel Commission (ETC) (2019a), Europe is still the leading
destination worldwide, with growth of 4% in international arrivals in 2019 compared with
2018. Tourism in Europe is therefore an important part of economic growth and employment
but also of social and cultural development (ETC, 2018). Despite this fact, “Recent data
indicate a slower expansion with only one third of reporting destinations surpassing growth
levels registered over the same period a year ago” (ETC, 2019a 5).
The slogan “To boldly go where destination Europe has never gone before”, part of the
strategy for Horizon 2022 of the ETC (2019b), proposes a shift in the tourism system that
brings new ways of studying it, working in it, and living in it. It envisions five objectives that
1 University of Madeira, Funchal; Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CINTURS), University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal
(soraiagarces@gmail.com)
2 University of Madeira, Funchal; Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CINTURS), University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal
(mpocinho@uma.pt)
3 Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs), University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal (snjesus@ualg.pt)
4 University of Madeira, Research Centre for Regional and Local Studies (UMa- CIERL), Funchal, Portugal (ester_camara04@hotmail.com)
5 University of Madeira, Research Centre for Regional and Local Studies (UMa- CIERL), Funchal, Portugal (patymartins_200@hotmail.com)
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., Jesus, S. N. (2020). JSOD, VIII(1), 4-15
5
imply changes to its marketing approach, segmentation, research, budget, and partnerships.
Table 1 gives a glimpse of the main aims of each of these objectives and how to reach them
by 2022.
Table 1. Horizon 2022 Tourism Strategy Objectives
Strategic objectives How?
Change of marketing From vertical (generic) to horizontal (thematic), in which product and experience
are central.
Change of segmentation Focus on cross-border passion grounded on specific themes rather than geography.
Change of research From macroeconomics to human behaviours.
Change of budget A substantial budget is important to attract worldwide partners.
Change of partnerships Build platforms, become open, and attract new partners.
Source: Content adapted from the ETC (2019b) marketing strategy for tourism
These objectives are accompanied by an adaptation of Europe to the current shifts in
societies and the new modern world, which are introducing new trends and travel patterns
with many new challenges for the industry but simultaneously many opportunities for
its competitiveness. A particular focus of the ETC (2019b) 2022 tourism strategy that
is relevant to the current paper is its emphasis on a research change that implies a new
and much-needed stand concerning how tourists perceive and are perceived. As tourism
is an industry of people and for people, people should come first and what they want
and desire are fundamental pieces of and for tourism strategies. As the ETC (2019b: 6)
stated, “Giving visitors a memorable experience gives them something to tell their friends
about”. In Portugal, the 2027 Strategy for Tourism considers people as a transversal asset
for all activities. Beyond this crucial asset, others, such as climate, culture, sea, or nature,
are important for the Portuguese strategy. However, Portugal recognizes wellbeing as an
emergent asset (Turismo de Portugal, 2017) and has included it in its country strategy for
the next few years.
Wellbeing is a key element today when thinking about and exploring tourism settings.
The search for meaningful lives and authenticity also produces a new set of tourists who no
longer want simply to sit and relax but who wish to interact and explore the new places that
they visit. Wellbeing is a construct that holds intrigue over time and in many different fields
(Smith & Diekmann, 2017). It can sometimes be considered as a cultural construct, since it
may mean different things to different people. Of the multiple possibilities of understanding,
two stand out: hedonic and eudemonic wellbeing. Hedonic wellbeing concerns a more “here
and now” idea of feeling good and pleasure, whereas eudemonic wellbeing may come from
less pleasant activities that in the end (possibly years later) lead to positive outcomes (Vada,
Prentice, & Hsiao, 2019). According to Uysal, Sirgy, Woo, and Kim (2015), constructs such
as wellbeing are integral to the core definition of tourism. Filep and Higham (2014) even
recognized that tourism has the potential to be a setting for wellbeing experiences.
Wellbeing is the main study field of positive psychology. One of the founders of this field
defined positive psychology as “the scientific study of the strengths, characteristics, and
actions that enable individuals and communities to thrive” (Seligman, 2013: 2). While it
may seem awkward to join psychological principles to tourism endeavours, Garcês, Pocinho,
and Jesus (2019: 105) acknowledged that the “introduction of Positive Psychology as the
study of wellbeing in Tourism is a very natural step that has the potential to contribute to
the development of new products and, ultimately, improve the tourism experience and the
competitiveness of the industry”. In this regard, in a systematic literature review, it was
found that, globally speaking, tourism has the potential to increase happiness and wellbeing
for locals and for tourists (Garcês, Pocinho, Jesus, & Rieber, 2018).
Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. VIII, Issue 1, (2020) 4-15
6
The growing theory building and studies in positive psychology have led to the first
attempt to classify wellbeing, through what have been called character strengths and virtues
(CVSs) (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This classification aims to identify the human
characteristics that allow people to flourish (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005).
One of the characteristics that has emerged is creativity. Creativity is identified in this
classification as part of the wisdom and knowledge virtue (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Despite the existence of different definitions of creativity, two major characteristics are
commonly accepted by the scientific community: originality and usefulness (Bacon, 2005).
Beyond positive psychology, the study and relevance of creativity in many different
contexts have been increasing for the last few years. This means that tourism itself has
also been influenced by it. Richards (2011) recognized that this influence is present not
only in the increased creative turn given to tourism products but also in the industry itself
by becoming a creative environment for skills and performance progress. While many
different theories exist about creativity, with different focuses from a unidimensional to a
multidimensional view, one of the oldest perspectives was developed by Rhodes (1961).
He described creativity as an interaction between four main aspects: person, process,
product, and environment. Richards (2011) reflected that tourism encompasses all these
four variables when, for example, people visit creative clusters (environment) or utilize
tourism attractions (products) or when creative activities concern design (creative process)
and tourists are involved in them (people). Thus, the application of creativity in tourism is a
very diverse phenomenon. In this regard, in a systematic literature review in which creativity
was researched in tourism settings, Garcês, Pocinho, and Jesus (2018: 5) concluded the
following:
… it looks that creativity is being approached from a background perspective
with an organizational/structural preoccupation, leading to the improvement of
the tourist experience through place and culture. This is aligned and expresses
the current trend of the ‘experience economy’ and what is understood as ‘creative
tourism’.
Creative tourism is one of the main subsets of tourism and refers to a type of tourism that
involves a less tangible experience in which learning about and deep experience of locals’
culture take a crucial part (Virfinija, 2016). According to the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) (2006) definition of creative tourism, it
emphasizes the idea of interaction in which tourists interact with the local environment in
an educational, emotional, social, and participative way as well as with the local culture and
residents, leading them to feel like part of the place. Richards (2011) concluded that creative
tourism can be seen as a blend of tourism and creativity and can work as an alternative to
cultural tourism, offering more authenticity in tourists’ experiences.
As positive outcomes of creativity in tourism, Horng, Tsai, and Chung (2016)
acknowledged that promoting creativity in tourism settings is likely to increase behavioural
changes and the awareness of its relevance in this economic sector. In this sense, Marujo,
Serra, and do Rosário Borges (2019), in an exploratory study about the creative tourist
experience in a Portuguese region, found that those who participated in creative activities
looked for unique experiences and wanted to promote more creative behaviours. In another
study, Tan, Tan, Luh, and Kung (2015) explored tourists’ interactions in creative tourism
sites in Taiwan and found three types of tourists who participated in creative activities:
relaxers, sensation seekers, and the existential type.
Kiage (2018) acknowledged that creative tourists grow their creative potential by
participating in activities that involve interaction with locals, in which they can learn about
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., Jesus, S. N. (2020). JSOD, VIII(1), 4-15
7
the local culture. Creative tourists seek to be immersed in the culture and have authentic
local experiences while simultaneously learning about the place. They consume experiences
instead of products; it is an active and participatory activity that aims to achieve personal
development through experiences. This means that creativity has an important place in
tourism endeavours. Nonetheless, Garcês et al. (2018: 5) stated that:
… it looks that research is focusing more on developing the creativity of the
destination and those who work (or will work) there and not necessarily directing
efforts to explore creativity in those who visit. (…) more research about creativity
from the tourist perspective is important to further aligned the tourist experience
with the tourists themselves.
Thus, aligning creativity and wellbeing as part of the broader field of positive psychology
will allow an understanding of tourists from a different viewpoint. As Garcês et al. (2019)
stated, psychologically speaking, wellbeing can be an important variable for destination
competitiveness while simultaneously being a creative resource for the industry. Hence,
studying creative tourists can provide new insights into this subset of the industry and
allow the customization of new services. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the creative
personality and wellbeing characteristics of Portuguese tourists and analyse their creative
profile when engaged in tourism activities both in the national territory (Portugal) and in
international travel.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Participants
The sample was composed of 857 Portuguese tourists, who were randomly sampled through
social media and word of mouth. Their ages ranged from 17 to 76 years (M=29.29,
SD=11.89). Women accounted for 68.9% of the sample (n=589) and men for 31.1%
(n=266). The sample contained 53.1% of students (n=448) and 46.9% of non-students
(n=396).
2.2 Measurement Scales
For this study, two instruments were used: the Creative Personality Scale – short form (CPS)
(Pocinho, Garcês, Jesus, Viseu, & Tobal, submitted) and the Tourism Wellbeing Scale (TWS)
(Garcês, Pocinho, & Jesus, in press).
The CPS evaluates people’s perception of their own creative characteristics, meaning
that it aims to measure creative personality. The short form of the scale contains nine items
and is unidimensional. The CPS is a self-assessment measure of an individual’s creative
characteristics. Responses are given in a Likert format and range from completely disagree
(1) to completely agree (5). Total scores are obtained through the sum of the items that
compose this instrument. Validation studies, including exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses, have shown good psychometrics results: reliability of .86, significant and positive
correlations between all CPS items, and explained variance of 48.08% (Pocinho et al.,
submitted). In the present study, the reliability was .83.
The TWS aims to evaluate tourists’ wellbeing in a given destination. It measures positive
variables such as wellbeing, creativity, optimism, and spirituality, the main concepts from
positive psychology. The validation study, also involving exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses, showed adequate psychometric characteristics. The TWS is composed of
Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. VIII, Issue 1, (2020) 4-15
8
eight items and is unidimensional, but it is possible to analyse the items individually to
uncover data about the underlying positive concepts. Responses are given in a Likert format
and range from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (7). The reliability was .87 and the scale
showed evidence of convergent validity (Garcês et al., in press). In the current research, the
reliability was .85.
2.3 Procedures and Data Analysis
Data collection was accomplished mostly through social media with the dissemination of
Google Forms and through word of mouth in social circles. The ethical standards regarding
confidentiality and anonymity were explained to the participants. The inclusion criterion
for the study was that the participants had to have had a tourism experience, either in their
own country (Portugal) or abroad. After the data were collected, they were introduced into
the statistical software SPSS – Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 25.0. The
analysis focused on descriptive, correlational, and inferential statistics. We used Levene’s
test for equality of variances. This is a test that determines whether two conditions have
about the same or different amounts of variability between their scores. The p values were
greater than .05, which means that the variability in the two conditions is about the same,
and we chose to assume equal variances.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Creativity and Wellbeing Correlations and Descriptive Statistics
A Pearson’s r correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between the
total of the CPS (Creative Personality Scale) and the eight items of the TWS (Tourism
Wellbeing Scale). There was a strong positive correlation between the CPS and all the items
of the TWS (.172<r<.304, p<.001). Increases in levels of tourism wellbeing were correlated
with increases in creative personality scores.
Measures of central tendency were computed to summarize the data for the study
variables. Measures of dispersion were computed to understand the variability of scores for
these variables. The CPS mean was 36.50, with a minimum of 15 and a maximum of 45.
This is a reasonable value for tourists’ creativity (Pocinho et al., submitted). The participants
mostly chose level 4 (‘moderately agree’) of the five Likert options. The TWS mean was
40.85, with a minimum of 14 and a maximum of 56. Table 2 summarizes the correlation
results and descriptive statistics between the variables.
Table 2. TWS and CPS: Correlations and Descriptive Statistics (N=857)
Variables CPS 6. 8. 10. 11. 13. 14. 19. 27. Global
TWS
Global CPS 1
6. I was able to see the
positive side of the less
agreeable situations that
occurred.
.240** 1
8. I found out new
ways of being that gave
meaning to aspects of
my life.
.220** .498** 1
10. I had lots of fun. .172** .418** .340** 1
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., Jesus, S. N. (2020). JSOD, VIII(1), 4-15
9
11. I faced this
experience as a unique/
original opportunity. .207** .447** .489** .565** 1
13. I engaged in the
community activities
(ex. cultural, events,
etc).
.275** .320** .379** .337** .389** 1
14. This experience was
a dream come true. .191** .304** .461** .363** .552** .411** 1
19. I experienced a
connection/relationship
with something higher
than myself.
.187** .332** .491** .257** .387** .419** .504** 1
27. I felt good in the
relationship I developed
with new people. .230** .420** .504** .398** .420** .437** .434** .444** 1
Global TWS .304** .643** .740** .606** .735** .671** .741** .708** .716** 1
M36.50 5.04 5.36 6.27 5.71 4.55 4.36 3.98 5.19 40.85
SD 4.59 1.60 1.52 1.16 1.55 1.88 2.00 1.91 1.67 8.09
Range 15–45 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 1–7 14–56
Note. CPS – Creative Personality Scale; TWS – Tourism Wellbeing Scale.
** p<.001.
Source: Own Elaboration
3.2 Wellbeing Rankings
As a main part of the present study, a ranking analysis for the wellbeing construct was
performed. In the TWS item responses, the majority of tourists opted for level 4 (‘agree in
part’) in the range of seven Likert levels available for this measurement. The ranking of the
eight items of the TWS scale are presented in Table 3 both in English and in Portuguese. As
it is possible to observe in this table, the first chosen item was related to positive emotions,
the second to creativity, and the third to meaning. The item chosen less frequently was
related to spirituality.
Table 3. TWS Item Ranking
Rank Items (EN) Items (PT) Variable M
1 I had lots of fun. 10. Diverti-me imenso Positive emotions 6.27
2I faced this experience as a unique/
original opportunity. 11. Encarei esta experiência como uma
oportunidade única/original. Creativity 5.71
3I found new ways of being that
gave meaning to aspects of my life.
8. Descobri novas formas de ser e estar
que deram significado a aspetos da
minha vida. Meaning 5.36
4I felt good in the relationship I
developed with new people. 27.Senti-me bem na relação que
desenvolvi com pessoas novas. Relationships 5.19
5I was able to see the positive side
of the less agreeable situations that
occurred.
6.Consegui ver o lado positivo das
situações menos agradáveis que
ocorreram. Optimism 5.04
6I engaged in community activities
(culture, events, etc).
13. Envolvi-me nas atividades da
comunidade (ex. culturais, eventos,
etc). Engagement 4.55
7This experience was a dream come
true. 14. Esta experiência foi a realização de
um sonho. Accomplishment 4.36
8I experienced a connection/
relationship with something higher
than myself.
19. Experienciei uma ligação/relação
com algo superior a mim própria/
próprio. Spirituality 3.98
Source: Own Elaboration
Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. VIII, Issue 1, (2020) 4-15
10
2.3 Creativity and Wellbeing Gender Differences
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare global creativity (CPS) and
wellbeing (TWS) between men and women. In relation to creativity, the CPS results showed
that there was no statistically significant difference between the male and the female gender
(t (853)=-.63, p>.05). Regarding wellbeing (TWS), we found significant gender differences.
In the global scores of the TWS, there was a significant difference in the scores for women
(M=41.03, SD=8.88) and men (M=38.75, SD=10.21); t (830)=3.29, p = 0.001. These
results suggest that gender has an effect on tourism wellbeing. Specifically, our results suggest
that the wellbeing of female tourists is higher than that of male tourists. However, the effect
size, based on the means, standard deviation, sample size, Cohen d, and Hedges g, is small
(d/g=0.24).
Analysing the items of the TWS one by one, the results showed the existence of
significant gender differences only in four variables – creativity, positive emotions, positive
relationships, and achievement – with women performing better than men (Table 4).
Table 4. TWS Gender Differences
TWS items Variables Gender n M (SD) Cohen d /
Hedges g
2. I had lots of fun. Positive emotions Female 569 6.36 (1.05) 0.21/0.22
Male 262 6.10 (1.36)
4. I faced this experience as a unique/
original opportunity. Creativity Female 570 5.83 (1.48) 0.23/0.24
Male 262 5.45 (1.75)
6. This experience was a dream come true. Achievement Female 570 4.51 (1.97) 0.23/0.23
Male 260 4.05 (2.06)
8. I felt good in the relationship I developed
with new people. Positive relationships Female 566 5.28 (1.64) 0.16/0.17
Male 260 5.00 (1.75)
Source: Own Elaboration
3.3 Creativity and Wellbeing Age Differences
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare global creativity (CPS) and
wellbeing (TWS) according to participants’ age groups: the younger participants were under
30 years old and the older participants were 30 years old or older.
In the global scores of the CPS, there was a significant difference between the younger
(M=36.01, SD=4.55) and the older (M=37.69, SD=4.49) participants; t (846)=-5,204,
p<.001. These results suggest that older tourists (30 years old or over) performed better on
the creativity scale than the younger tourists, who were under 30 years old. Regarding the
TWS, the results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’
age with the exception of the creativity variable/item: “11. Encarei esta experiência como
uma oportunidade única/original” (I faced this experience as a unique/original opportunity),
(t (825)=-.2,488, p=.013), for which the younger (M=5.81, SD=1,559) performed better
than the older (M=5.53, SD=1.55) participants.
3.4 Creativity and Wellbeing Tourists’ Job Differences
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare global creativity (CPS) and
wellbeing (TWS) according to participants’ job groups: student and non-student tourists.
Analysing wellbeing, the TWS results showed that there is no statistically significant
difference between student and non-student tourists (all items with p>.05). In the global
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., Jesus, S. N. (2020). JSOD, VIII(1), 4-15
11
scores of the CPS, there was a significant difference between student (M=35.94, SD=4.48)
and non-student (M=37.27, SD=4.59) participants; t (842)=-4,251, p<.001. These results
suggest that non-students (tourists with a job or retired people) performed better on the
creativity scale than the tourists who had never had a job (who had only been students).
3.5 Creativity and Wellbeing Linear Regression
A multiple linear regression analysis was performed as a complement to the study and to
test whether wellbeing significantly predicted participants’ ratings of creativity. A significant
regression equation was found with two predictors (wellbeing and age) that explained 12.4%
of the variance (R2=.12.4, F(1,814)=25.46, p<.01). The participants’ predicted creativity is
equal to 28.17+.16 (wellbeing)+1.59 (age).
Table 4. Regression Model Summary
R R2Adjusted R2F Sig.
.356b.127 .124 25.46 .000
Source: Output from SPSS
Table 5. Regression Model Coefficients
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients tSig.
B Error Beta
Constant 28.166 .791 35.592 .000
Wellbeing .155 .016 .312 9.511 .000
Age 1.585 .314 .165 5.046 .000
Dependent variable: creativity.
Source: Output from SPSS
4. CONCLUSION
The study presented here made the first attempt to build a creative profile of Portuguese
tourists with wellbeing variables. The overall results are interesting. A strong and positive
correlation was found between creativity and wellbeing, meaning that, when wellbeing
is higher, it leads to higher creativity and vice versa. This result allowed the authors to
hypothesize that creativity is an important factor for feeling well in tourism experiences,
which implies that efforts should be made by stakeholders to promote creativity as a measure
to increase wellbeing among tourists and therefore promote memorable experiences. Other
studies have already shown the importance of creativity for workers’ performance (Horng
et al., 2016) and that tourism can be a promoter of creativity (de Bloom, Ritter, Kuhnel,
Reinders, & Geurts, 2014). However, as Garcês et al. (2018) found in a systematic literature
review, it appears that creativity is being focused on the development of the destination
and the workers and not directly on tourists’ own development. Thus, here is a niche that
probably should be explored.
The exploratory study of the wellbeing variables’ rankings also offered a different way of
understanding tourists and their needs and wants regarding their own way of thinking. In
first place came positive emotions, followed by creativity and then meaning. These overall
results allowed the authors to believe that, in this sample, tourists still look for time away
Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. VIII, Issue 1, (2020) 4-15
12
from home that helps them to feel good and enjoy a good time. As the European Travel
Commission (2016) acknowledged, the idea of fun and relaxation will always be part of
tourism, although Smith and Diekmann (2017) recognized that people want meaning and
authenticity too. However, creativity appeared in second place, confirming that something
is changing: people are looking for unique experiences. The literature in the last few years
has brought awareness of exactly this: that a shift is happening and therefore new tourism
strategies are crucial. Third on the ‘podium’ was meaning, which only fortifies the idea that
today a change is not only happening but has already happened: people are looking for
true and authentic experiences that can bring meaning and personal development to their
own lives. As the literature (Kirillova, Lehto, & Cai, 2016) has already recognized, tourism
is moving to a stage of personal and transformative experiences, and, as Pine and Gilmore
(2019) described in their new re-release of the ‘Experience Economy’, time is of the essence
and transformative experiences are crucial to develop deep and unique relationships between
customers and destinations. These rankings are also in accordance with other studies, like
the study by Marujo et al. (2019), which found that those who engage in creative activities
in destinations look for uniqueness. It is also aligned with the three types of tourists engaged
in creative activities in Tan et al.’s (2015) study: the relaxers may be the ones who look for
positive emotions, the sensation seekers are the ones who seek unique experiences, and the
existential ones are those who look for meaning in their lives.
Another important result regards the gender, age, and job analysis, which also offered
new reflections. First, creativity did not show any gender differences, which was expected,
since other studies have reported this (Cashdan & Welsch, 1966; Charyton & Snelbecker,
2007; Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Ayyıldız-Potur & Barkul, 2009; Sayed & Mohamed, 2013),
leading the authors to think that gender has no influence on perceptions of creativity.
However, wellbeing showed gender differences, with women obtaining higher scores. It is
also interesting that, when analysing each wellbeing item individually, significant differences
were found only for creativity, positive emotions, relationships, and achievement. This leads
to the hypothesis that women enjoy more positive emotions and relationships with the local
community in their tourism experiences than men and see these same experiences as unique
and as a kind of achievement in their lives.
Regarding age, older tourists showed more creativity than younger ones. When analysing
wellbeing and its sub-variables, only creativity was significant again. However, here, younger
people showed higher scores than older tourists. This difference between the two creativity
variables used may be due to the different measures applied; despite aiming to understand
creativity as a whole, the CPS is a composite measure to analyse creative personality
characteristics, whereas, in the case of the TWS, creativity is assessed as only one item. This
item measures the uniqueness and originality of the tourism experience, which may be more
appealing for young people, who may have fewer tourism experiences than older tourists,
who may already have travelled more and do not envision their tourism experience in such
a new and unique way as younger tourists may perceive it.
In the analysis of the job variable, there were no significant differences in wellbeing,
meaning that being a student, or not, does not matter for feeling good. However, in the
creativity measure, significant differences emerged, and it was the non-students who
performed better. This result is interesting and unfortunately aligns with the idea that
schools still pose barriers to creativity, as was reported for example in the study by Banaji,
Cranmer, and Perrotta (2014).
Finally, while testing the predictive models, as a complement to the study, just one model
stood out as being psychometrically sound. In this model, wellbeing and age were creative
predictors, explaining about 12.4% of the variance. These results allowed the authors to
think again that, when people feel well, they tend to be more creative but also that age
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., Jesus, S. N. (2020). JSOD, VIII(1), 4-15
13
is important for creativity. The latter result is curious, since it is commonly understood
that children are creative, then school presents barriers to their creativity, which tends to
diminish throughout their school years. However, here, ageing also increases their creativity
or at least their recognition that they are creative. This may be explained by the fact that
soft skills such as creativity are currently a major recruitment asset. Thus, while pursuing
jobs after school, people need to develop these skills, which may lead to this result that age
is a creative predictor.
This research is not without limitations, and here we provide suggestions for further
studies. It is understood that a deeper analysis is needed to understand better how wellbeing
can be a predictor of creativity but also whether creativity is otherwise a predictor of wellbeing
or whether the two are mutually connected in such a way that they work symbiotically. Thus,
more studies are necessary to comprehend these relationships. It would also be interesting to
involve tourists from other countries and analyse possible cultural differences.
Overall, this study made an attempt to give a first glimpse of Portuguese creative
tourists through psychological variables. Creativity is understood here as a major element of
wellbeing, and therefore it should be recognized as an asset to promote wellbeing in tourism
destinations. Nevertheless, the major conclusion that this study reached is that the results
illustrate the presence of the much-talked-about shift in tourism experiences and that there
is an urgent need for destinations and host communities to adapt to it. The fact that the
ETC (2019) has recognized in its 2022 strategy that memorable experiences are important is
thus a major step. The future of tourism is changing, so now is the time to make changes and
look for something unique to give to tourists while simultaneously respecting locals’ culture
and heritage. Creative tourists are a group of tourists who want fun but also uniqueness and
meaningful experiences. Consequently, stakeholders need to consider and deliver these if
they want to ensure their sustainability and future ‘experience economy’.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research for this paper was financially supported by ARDITI – the Regional Agency
for Development of Research, Technology and Innovation of Madeira, Project M1420-
09-5369-FSE-000001, Madeira 14-20 Program, through a post-doctoral research grant
for the first author. This paper is also financed by National Funds provided by FCT-
Foundation for Science and Technology through project UIDB/04020/2020.
REFERENCES
Ayyıldız-Potur, A., & Barkul, O. (2009). Gender and creative thinking in education: A
theoretical and experimental overview. ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 6(2), 44–
57.
Bacon, S. (2005). Positive psychology’s two cultures. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 181–
192. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.181
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior,
42(2), 75–105.
Banaji, S., Cranmer, S., & Perrotta, C. (2014). What’s stopping us? Barriers to creativity
and innovation in schooling across Europe. In K. Thomas & J. Chan (Eds.), Handbook of
research on creativity (pp. 450–463). UK: Elgar Publishing.
Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, Vol. VIII, Issue 1, (2020) 4-15
14
Cashdan, S., & Welsch, G. (1966). Personality correlates of creative potential in talented
high school students. Journal of Personality, 34, 445–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1966.
tb01726.x
Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. (2007). General, artistic and scientific creativity attributes
of engineering and music students. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2), 213–225.
De Bloom, J., Ritter, S., Kuhnel, J., Reinders, J., & Geurts, S. (2014). Vacation from work:
A ‘ticket to creativity’? The effects of recreational travel on cognitive flexibility and
originality. Tourism Management, 44, 164–171.
European Travel Commission (2016). Lifestyle trends & tourism: How changing consumer behavior
impacts travel to Europe. Brussels: European Travel Commission.
European Travel Commission (2018). Annual report 2018. Brussels: European Travel
Commission.
European Travel Commission (2019a). European tourism: Trends & prospects (Q3/2019).
Brussels: European Travel Commission.
European Travel Commission (2019b). Horizon 2022: To boldly go where destination Europe has
never gone before. Brussels: European Travel Commission.
Filep, S., & Higham, J. (2014). Chasing well-being. In T. DeLacy, M. Jiang, G. Lipman, & S.
Vorster (Eds.), Green growth and travelism: Concept, policy and practice for sustainable tourism
(pp. 112–125). New York, NY: Routledge.
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., & Jesus, S. (2018). Review of optimism, creativity and spirituality
in tourism research. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 24(1), 1–11. doi: https://doi.
org/10.20867/thm.24.1.6
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., & Jesus, S. N. (2019). Psychological wellbeing as a creative resource
for businesses in the tourism industry: A multidisciplinary view. In S. J. Teixeira & J.
M. Ferreira (Eds.), Multilevel approach to competitiveness in the global tourism industry (pp.
98–119). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., & Jesus, S. (in press). Psychometric analysis of the Tourism Wellbeing
Scale (TWS): A multidisciplinary approach. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências.
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., Jesus, S. N., & Rieber, M. (2018). Positive psychology and tourism:
A systematic literature review. Tourism & Management Studies, 14(3), 41–51. doi: https://
doi.org/10.18089/tms.2018.14304
Horng, J. S., Tsai, C. Y., & Chung, Y. C. (2016). Measuring practitioners’ creativity in the
Taiwanese tourism and hospitality industry. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 269–278.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.01.001
Kiage, O. (2018). Influence of perceived value on tourist future intentions to creative
tourism attractions in Kenya’s north coast. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management,
6(4), 152–166. doi: 10.17265/2328-2169/2018.08.002
Kirillova, K., Lehto, X., & Cai, L. (2016). Existential authenticity and anxiety as outcomes:
The tourist in the experience economy. International Journal of Tourism Research, 19(1),
13–26.
Marujo, N., Serra, J., & do Rosário Borges, M. (2020). The creative tourist experience in
the Alentejo region: A case study of the CREATOUR project in Portugal. In Á. Rocha,
A. Abreu, J. de Carvalho, D. Liberato, E. González, & P. Liberato (Eds.), Advances in
tourism, technology and smart systems. Smart innovation, systems and technologies (vol. 171, pp.
705–714). Singapore: Springer.
Garcês, S., Pocinho, M., Jesus, S. N. (2020). JSOD, VIII(1), 4-15
15
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pine, J., & Gilmore, J. (2019). The experience economy: Competing for customer, time, attention, and
money. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Review Press.
Pocinho, M., Garcês, S., Jesus, J., Viseu J., & Tobal, J. (submitted). Psychometric study of the
short-form of the creative personality scale. Revista PSICOLOGIA.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310.
Richards, G. (2011). Creativity and tourism: The state of the art. Annals of Tourism Research,
38(4), 1225–1253. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.07.008
Sayed, E., & Mohamed, A. (2013). Gender differences in divergent thinking: Use of the
test of creative thinking–drawing production on an Egyptian sample. Creativity Research
Journal, 25(2), 222–227.
Seligman, M. (2013). Building the state of wellbeing: A strategy for South Australia. Adelaide
thinker in residence 2012–2013. Adelaide: SA Department of the Premier and Cabinea.
Seligman, M., Steen, T., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology in progress.
Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.
Smith, M., & Diekmann, A. (2017). Tourism and wellbeing. Annals of Tourism Research, 66,
1–13. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2017.05.006
Tan, S. K., Tan, S. H., Luh, D. B., & Kung, S. F. (2015). Understanding tourist perspectives
in creative tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(10), 981–987. doi: https://doi.org/10.10
80/13683500.2015.1008427
Turismo de Portugal (2017). Estratégia Turismo 2027. Retrieved from https://www.
turismodeportugal.pt/SiteCollectionDocuments/estrategia/estrategia-turismo-2027.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2006).
Towards sustainable strategies for creative tourism: Discussion report of the planning meeting for the
2008 International Conference on Creative Tourism. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.
org/ark:/48223/pf0000159811
Uysal, M., Sirgy, M., Woo, E., & Kin, H. (2015). Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research
in tourism. Tourism Management, 53, 244–261. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.013
Vada, S., Prentice, C., & Hsiao, A. (2019). The influence of tourism experience and well-
being on place attachment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 322–330.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.007
Virfinija, J. (2016). Interaction between cultural/creative tourism and tourism/cultural
heritage industries. In L. Butowski (Ed.), Tourism – From empirical research towards practical
application (pp. 137–156). Croatia/Rijeka: InTech.