Content uploaded by Yi Liu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yi Liu on Jul 09, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
Tourism Review International, Vol. 28, pp. 85–96 1544-2721/24 $60.00 + .00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/194344224X17065495994350
Copyright © 2024 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-4421
www.cognizantcommunication.com
85
Address correspondence to Yi “Vanessa” Liu, Ph.D., Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State
University, 1301 East Main Street, Murfreesboro, TN, USA. E-mail: yi.liu@mtsu.edu
tourism (e.g., Guo et al., 2024; Zorlu et al., 2022) is
utilized to describe its tourism characteristics, such
as accommodation, destination services/activities,
and tourists’/campers’ experiences. Following the
transformation of the tourism industry after the
Introduction
Camping is one of the growing tourism activities
(Ma et al., 2020) that is typically associated with
nature (Mikulić et al., 2017). The term camping
CAN GLAMPING BE A VACATION TO HELP DINK COUPLES
RELAX AND MAINTAIN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS?
YI LIU* AND JASON DRAPER†
*Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State University,
Murfreesboro, TN, USA
†Conrad N. Hilton College of Global Hospitality Leadership, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Glamping brings a glamorous tourism experience providing potential opportunities to escape from
daily routines and maintain relationships during difficult/special times, such as the pandemic with
travel restrictions or postpandemic travel concerns. It is innovative to explore the unique group of
DINK (dual income, no kids) couples using glamping as context. This study examines the variations
in closeness among DINK couples based on four individual attachment styles (i.e., secure, anxious,
dismissive, fearful), and explores the relationships between closeness and subjective well-being. A
pilot test with 118 valid responses was adopted to ensure the validity of items and feasibility of the
study design. Utilizing attachment theory with four attachment styles, the main study analyzed 940
valid responses using confirmatory factory analysis, ANOVA, and multigroup path analysis. This
study highlights that people with a secure attachment style have a significantly 1) higher level of
closeness with their partner and 2) stronger relationship between closeness and subjective well-being
compared to the other three attachment styles (i.e., anxious, dismissive, and fearful). The results sug-
gest that glamping providers could improve glamping environments to be peaceful and comfortable
to attract potential glampers who have higher anxiety (i.e., anxious and fearful attachment styles).
Further, the results indicate that glamping could serve as a setting for couples’ therapy and to cele-
brate special events to enhance close relationships. These promoting/marketing strategies can benefit
small glamping businesses develop their products and potentially draw different types of visitors.
Key words: Glamping; Closeness; Subjective well-being; DINK couples
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
86 LIU AND DRAPER
such as cost, as well as scenery, cleanliness, and secu-
rity of the glamping site (Adamovich et al., 2021).
While the market for glamping is diverse, including
couples, limited studies focus on the unique tourism
activity of couple glamping, especially in DINKs’
glamping experience (e.g., closeness and subjective
well-being). Furthermore, according to attachment
theory, each individual has different attachment
styles that impact their cognition on closeness and
behaviors in a couple’s relationship. DINKs may
exhibit attachment styles similar to those of couples
who have children. However, what sets them apart
is the lack of parenting responsibilities, granting
them more flexibility in their relationship dynamics
and tourism activities. This distinction could signifi-
cantly impact their experiences in couple glamping.
Hence, the purpose of this study is twofold. First,
the study examines differences between four attach-
ment styles on the feeling of closeness of people in
DINK relationships who went glamping. Second, the
study examines the relationship between closeness
and subjective well-being in four different attach-
ment styles of DINK couples who went glamping.
This study offers perspectives of how couple glam-
ping experiences influence couples’ relationships,
especially closeness and subjective well-being.
Theoretical Framework
Some theories are applied to camping/glamping
studies. For example, the resource-based theory
is used in natural resources-related studies (Craig
et al., 2023); the business model canvas is used in
economic-related studies (Grande & Camprubi,
2024); and stimulus-organism-response framework
is used in studies of sustainable communications
while glamping (Sun & Huang, 2023). However,
this study focuses on the couple’s relationship from
a social perspective using glamping as a context.
Hence, attachment theory, which is a theory utilized
to explain couple relationships (Columbia Univer-
sity Department of Psychiatry, 2022), is used as the
theoretical framework for this study.
Attachment Theory
Bowlby (1969, 1973) developed attachment the-
ory, which demonstrates three stages of individu-
als’ behaviors (i.e., protest, despair, detachment)
postpandemic phase, camping has emerged as a
trending tourism activity (Mundet et al., 2023) for
individuals breaking away from their daily grinds
while being close to nature.
Glamping, a more luxurious form of camping
(Lu et al., 2022), also provides such opportunities.
Similar with camping, it serves as a part of tour-
ism and can also provide people with opportunities
to escape their daily routine, while prioritizing pri-
vacy (e.g., social distancing from those who do not
live with you) as a potential form of recreational
travel (Pop et al., 2024). Glamping tourism is an
emerging approach that enhances glampers’ luxury
experience and serves as a marketing strategy for
tourism destinations (Fernandes et al., 2021). Addi-
tionally, an industry market report shows that glam-
ping is a booming market in the US (Ekodome,
2022), which is expected to increase 13.1% over
the forecast period from 2023 to 2030 (Grand View
Research, 2022). Glamping plays an important role
in the tourism sector. Hence, this study focuses on
the glamping market in the US, which is lacking in
academic research in this area (Craig, 2021).
From the perspective of romantic travel experi-
ences (Filep & Matteucci, 2020), where love and
social interactions serve as motivations for travel,
glamping could potentially create communication
opportunities, enhance close relationships, and serve
as an option for couple tourism activities. Accordingly,
many couples with no children, otherwise known as
dual income no kids (DINK) (Su et al., 2017), can
maintain and improve family relationships (S. O. Lyu
et al., 2020), especially close/romantic relationships
(Morrow et al., 2014), through glamping. Such expe-
riences can be particularly beneficial to DINK cou-
ples to share ideas and emotions, build trust, cultivate
interests, and rekindle the closeness between them. It
is evident that an increasing number of younger gen-
erations (e.g., Gen Z) expected to adopt the DINK
lifestyle (Mariotti, 2022), which is often associated
with a luxurious lifestyle (Sim, 2023). Additionally,
DINK couples represent a potential market for glam-
ping tourism since they seek luxurious experiences
and have more time to travel due to being child free
(George, 2023; Li & Stodolska, 2022). Hence, it is
important to understand how glamping can influence
DINK couples’ relationships.
Studies on glamping have been conducted to
understand the experience related to accommodation,
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
GLAMPING VACATION FOR DINK COUPLES 87
past. For example, individuals may have had a lack
of close relationships in the past and are hesitant to
trust and be open to potential partners. Hence, based
on the definition, the styles of secure and anxious
belong to the anxious dimension and desire attach-
ment. The styles of dismissive and fearful belong
to the avoidance dimension and elude being close
with others. Therefore, this current study applies
attachment theory as a theoretical framework using
four attachment styles to understand the unique
psychological perceptions of DINKs’ close rela-
tionships when they go glamping, which is another
purpose of this study.
Glamping, Closeness, and Attachment Styles
Different from camping using tents or sleeping
bags, glamping accommodations are more glam-
orous with a natured-based atmosphere and more
full-service amenities (e.g., bed, bathroom, water,
electricity) (Craig, 2021). In terms of glamping
accommodation facilities, typically, a company
(e.g., Getaway and Wigwam Holidays), a personal
owner (e.g., the host from Airbnb), or state/national
parks (e.g., Yellowstone National Park) provide
products/services at glamping sites in the US. The
types and quality of products/services could lead to
different leisure/tourism experiences of glampers.
Amid these options, the pandemic changed travel-
ers’ plans and behaviors in many ways, significantly
impacting the glamping industry and the decision-
making made by glampers. More and more recent
travelers might prefer to go glamping to avoid over-
crowding and seek opportunities to recharge (Xiang
et al., 2023). According to Craig’s (2021) study,
about 46% of 2,926 leisure travelers who live in
North America prefer glamping after the pandemic.
Glamping provides an opportunity to escape the
confines of home and potentially immerse oneself
in comfort and even luxurious accommodations,
creating relaxing and rejuvenating experiences (Sun
& Huang, 2023). During and in the postpandemic
era, there are increasing amounts of pent-up demand
to travel (Clarke, 2021) to escape the isolation of
people within a household.
Recent studies have examined camping in the
contexts of hospitality accommodations (Grande &
Botti, 2023), travel intentions (Zorlu et al., 2022),
and service quality (Brochado & Brochado, 2019).
during childhood when facing a potential threat
or separation. Ainsworth et al. (2015) asserted
that attachment behaviors in adults are related to
childhood attachment behaviors, and attachment
is a “lasting psychological connectedness between
human beings” (Bowlby, 1969, p. 194). Hence,
even though attachment theory originally focuses
on childhood behaviors, the behaviors continue into
adulthood. Therefore, the theory can be applied in
studies of adults, such as DINK couples.
Attachment theory is commonly used to study
couples’ relationships (Conradi et al., 2021).
Additionally, Ein-Dor and Hirschberger (2016)
confirmed that attachment theory is related to sub-
jective well-being and asserted that it promotes
survival when facing potential danger, which
might occur while camping/glamping. The loca-
tion for glamping is normally a remote setting far
from cities that is not easy to get social media and
immediate resources/assistance. Thus, couples who
go glamping might face somewhat uncertain situa-
tions and unfamiliar environments. Hence, attach-
ment theory could help explain how individuals
with different attachment styles while couples (i.e.,
DINKs) who go glamping feel about their relation-
ships (e.g., closeness) and subjective well-being,
which is one of the purposes of this study.
Ainsworth et al. (2015) redefined the three
stages of individuals’ behaviors (Bowlby, 1973) to
three attachment styles (i.e., secure, anxious, and
avoidant). The secure style is related to a willing-
ness to accept support and search for attachment.
For example, individuals who feel comfortable in
their close couple relationship may seek social sup-
port from their partner when needed. The anxious
style is related to feeling separated yet having a
desire for attachment. For example, an individual
may become overly attached and, when their part-
ner is unavailable, become anxious. The avoid-
ant style is related to a need for emotion, but their
partner is unavailable to give the needed emotion.
Bartholomew (1990) further differentiated the
avoidant style into dismissive and fearful. The dis-
missive style is related to being independent and
avoiding the demand of being in a relationship. For
example, individuals believe they do not need oth-
ers and enjoy solitude. The fearful style is related
to feeling uncomfortable being close with others,
potentially because of a lack of attachment in the
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
88 LIU AND DRAPER
Relationship Between Closeness
and Subjective Well-Being
Closeness is a level of cognitive and emotional
interpersonal dependence (Aron et al., 1992), such
as between couples/partners. It shows that a long
distance/living apart/remote communication nega-
tively impacts partners’ closeness, resulting in lower
life satisfaction (Belus et al., 2019), likely a result
of limited opportunities to have close conversa-
tions and share experiences in person. Nikitin and
Freund (2021) examined couples’/partners’ daily
social interactions by asking participants to evaluate
the meaningfulness of their daily interactions. They
found that relationship closeness positively affects
participants’ subjective well-being. In the context of
glamping, it is usually set in a private and peace-
ful location that might offer partners the chance to
engage in intimate communications/interactions,
and experience nature. This, in turn, could increase
closeness and subjective well-being, which are
aspects of the glamping tourism experience.
A recent study shows that partners with higher
closeness but lower anxiety are more willing to
share positive life expectations (Kuang & Gettings,
2021), leading to relationship stability and subjec-
tive well-being. Additionally, Hudson et al. (2020)
demonstrated that individuals in a stable close rela-
tionship are happier and have higher life satisfac-
tion than those who are single. Similarly, Cao et al.
(2020) employed attachment theory to examine the
relationship between a sense of security and life
satisfaction. They discovered that individuals with
higher secure-base support experience greater life
satisfaction. Current literature shows, directly and
indirectly, closeness can be a potential predictor of
subjective well-being (Nikitin & Freund, 2021) in
diverse individuals with varying lifestyles and per-
sonal attachment styles. For example, DINKs may
be more likely to perceive and focus on closeness
and subjective well-being since their partner/spouse
is the only one who stays in the household. Further,
individuals potentially have different attachment
styles, which might influence individuals’ emo-
tions and behaviors. It is important to explore how
people with different attachment styles perceive
the relationship between closeness and subjective
well-being because it could help glamping tour-
ism destinations and sites understand the potential
Other camping studies have focused on groups
of people, such as summer camping for children
(Tong et al., 2020), camping for families in gen-
eral (X. Lyu & Fan, 2020), and camping for ill
people as therapy (Harper, 2017). Lu et al. (2022),
after analyzing the glampers’ online review posts,
found both the nature scenery and the accommo-
dation space affect glampers’ levels of enjoyment,
relaxation, and social bonding between individuals.
However, the black box about the social impacts
has not been fully opened, especially the impacts
of close relationships among couple (e.g., DINKs)
glampers, who are likely one of the main markets
of the glamping industry.
A close or romantic relationship is a specific
term to describe the closeness/intimacy between
couples/partners (Lemay & Clark, 2008). Glamping
can provide a meaningful leisure/tourism experi-
ence, including strengthening relationships between
families and friends who go together (Hassell et al.,
2015). Brochado and Brochado (2019) categorized
glamping as a type of ecotourism, which relies on
the natural environment. Their study suggests glam-
ping offers not only a feeling of relaxation, but also
a strong romantic experience for couples. Glamp-
ing, as a leisure travel activity, can be a way to influ-
ence the levels of a close relationship. Therefore,
similar to attending leisure events (Liu & Draper,
2022), glamping could be an opportunity to enhance
personal relationships (X. Lyu & Fan, 2020), such
as closeness for couple (e.g., DINKs) glampers.
Individuals, including DINKs, exhibit diverse
attachment styles, such as secure, anxious, avoid-
ance, and fearful, each of which corresponds to
different psychologically emotional systems and
attachment behaviors. Based on attachment theory,
as mentioned above, the four attachment styles
reflect different perceptions of closeness. It is cru-
cial to comprehend how DINKs perceive closeness
in the context of glamping, an emerging field under
the tourism umbrella. This understanding can serve
as a valuable tool for leveraging the social impact
of glamping as an effective marketing strategy for
promoting tourism destinations and sites. Hence,
the following research question:
RQ1: Is there a difference in the feeling of close-
ness among glampers who are DINKs with the
four attachment styles?
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
GLAMPING VACATION FOR DINK COUPLES 89
the pandemic. Considering the timing of data col-
lection and the occurrence of the pandemic, it is
probable that some participants indulged in glam-
ping activities amid the pandemic. Since glamp-
ing could be an option for people to get away, it is
reasonable timing to explore the social effects of
glamping between glampers, such as DINK couples
in this study. The results could provide market-
ing suggestions for those glamping tourism sites/
destinations and for those DINK couples who might
need to enhance their relationships. This study
recruited participants from the US using MTurk,
which is a reliable online panel to collect data.
Bartneck et al. (2015) conducted a study to com-
pare the data quality/responses between MTurk and
direct recruitment and found very similar responses.
Additionally, Berry et al. (2022) conducted a study
to examine the data quality using five online data
panels (e.g., MTurk, Qualtrics, Kantar) for social
science studies and revealed MTurk obtains higher
quality data. This is a cross-sectional data collection
study, which means data are collected at one point in
time (Rindfleisch et al., 2008) and no reminders are
sent out. Participants responded to the questionnaire
through MTurk and were incentivized with 30 cents
to complete the online questionnaire.
In the current study, a total of 1,564 initial respon-
dents were recruited while 940 valid responses
were used for analysis for the main study. Kline
(2023) demonstrated that Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) and Structure Equation Modeling
(SEM) require large samples to accurately assess
the model fit/parameter estimates. Comrey and Lee
(1992) mentioned that a sample size of 300 is con-
sidered good but over 500 is recommended while
over 1,000 is excellent for CFA. Based on a study
by Lei and Lomax (2005), there is no difference
in the results of GFI, NFI, and CFI across sample
sizes of 200, 500, and 1,000 in the SEM analysis. In
this study, final sample size exceeds the minimum
sample size required for CFA, which is 10 to 20
cases per observed variable (Kline, 2013). Hence,
this sample achieved the requirement for analysis.
Pilot Test
The purpose of the pilot test is to ensure the
validity of all items and the feasibility of the study
design (Johanson & Brooks, 2010), which includes
market better to customize products and services.
As mentioned earlier, DINKs are a growing group
in younger generations, and this group tends to
prefer luxurious life experiences (Sim, 2023).
Therefore, this study explores the social impacts
of DINKs on their romantic glamping experiences
from attachment styles’ perspectives. Hence, the
following research question:
RQ2: Is there a relationship between closeness and
subjective well-being across the four attachment
styles among glampers who are DINKs?
Methodology
Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
Two qualifier questions were used to increase
the study’s validity: 1) respondents had to live in
a DINK household, 2) respondents had to indicate
they went glamping with their partner in the 2 years
preceding the study. Therefore, the study’s sample
was DINK couples who have been glamping.
Three scales with all items measured on a 7-point
Likert-type scale from 1 = strongly disagree and
7 = strongly agree were adopted. An attention
check question was included between scales. Basic
demographic items were included at the end of the
questionnaire.
Attachment style is measured by the Experiences
in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) scale
(Fraley et al., 2000), which includes 36 items repre-
senting two dimensions of attachment (i.e., anxiety
and avoidance) with four styles (i.e., secure, anxious,
dismissive, and fearful). The first 18 items measure
the anxiety dimension, while the last 18 items mea-
sure the avoidance dimension. In terms of the four
styles, secure refers to individuals with low avoid-
ance and low anxiety; anxious refers to individuals
with low avoidance and high anxiety; dismissive
refers to individuals with high avoidance and low
anxiety; and fearful refers to individuals with high
avoidance and high anxiety. Closeness is measured
by a revised 12-item Unidimensional Relationship
Closeness Scale (Dibble et al., 2012). Subjective
well-being is measured by a revised Satisfaction
with Life Scale (Diener, 1985) with five items.
The data were collected in April 2022 when states
and travel attractions in the US were recovered from
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
90 LIU AND DRAPER
well-being both exceed 0.50, indicating accept-
able convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). Fur-
ther, the square root of AVEs of 0.72 for closeness
and 0.74 for subjective well-being are both greater
than the correlation of 0.66, offering evidence of
discriminant validity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The
structure of closeness (χ2 = 180.26, CFI = 0.98,
RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.02) and subjective
well-being (χ2 = 27.33, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.07,
SRMR = 0.02) show reasonable model fit (Byrne,
2001).
the analysis for four attachment styles. According
to Hertzog (2008), the threshold of at least 25 par-
ticipants per group is recommended for the pilot
test. Hence, prior to the main study, a pilot test with
118 valid responses out of 150 initial responses was
conducted. Some modifications were made to the
ECR-R scale. First, to ensure items are correctly
and easily perceived, this study deleted one item,
“I find it relatively easy to get close to my spouse/
partner,” which is relatively repeated with the item,
“It’s not difficult for me to get close to my spouse/
partner.” Second, to increase the validity and con-
sistency, all items were revised to be negative word-
ing. For example, “It’s not difficult for me to get
close to my spouse/partner” was changed to “It’s
difficult for me to get close to my spouse/partner”;
“I rarely worry about my partner leaving me” was
changed to “I worry about my spouse/partner leav-
ing me”; “I feel comfortable depending on roman-
tic partners” was changed to “I feel uncomfortable
depending on my spouse/partner.” Hence, the first
18 items measured the anxiety dimension, while the
last 17 items measured the avoidance dimension.
Results
Demographics
The descriptive results are shown in Table 1.
Overall, 35.8% of respondents were between the
ages of 30 to 39, while 27.8% were between the
ages of 18 to 29, and 23.9% were between the ages
of 40 to 49. Males made 56.2%, females 43.5%,
and LGBTQ+ 0.3%. Most of the respondents
(71.3%) obtained a college degree and 14.2% a
postgraduate degree. Almost two thirds (64.9%) of
respondents worked on-site as full-time employees,
while 24.8% at home full-time.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
CFA with maximum likelihood estimation using
Mplus 7.4 was conducted to examine whether the
items have the proposed factor structures. Results
of CFA are shown in Table 2. All factor loadings
in the structures of both closeness and subjec-
tive well-being are over 0.6 (range from 0.67 to
0.80). Additionally, the average variance extracted
(AVE) of 0.52 for closeness and 0.55 for subjective
Table 1
Descriptive Demographics
N (%)
Age (M = 36.60, SD = 10.34)
18–29 261 (27.8%)
30–39 336 (35.8%)
40–49 224 (23.9%)
50–59 82 (8.7%)
60 and above 35 (3.7%)
Total 938 (100.0%)
Gender
Male 528 (56.2%)
Female 409 (43.5%)
LGBTQ+ 3 (0.3%)
Total 940 (100.0%)
Income
Less than $20,000 46 (4.9%)
$20,000–$39,999 178 (19.0%)
$40,000–$59,999 311 (33.1%)
$60,000–$79,999 210 (22.4%)
$80,000–$99,999 106 (11.2%)
$100,000 and above 88 (9.4%)
Total 939 (100.0%)
Education
Some high school 35 (3.7%)
Some college 100 (10.8%)
College graduate 663 (71.3%)
Post-graduate school 132 (14.2%)
Total 930 (100.0%)
Work situation over the past 2 years
Work on-site full-time 607 (64.9%)
Work at home full-time 232 (24.8%)
Combination of work onsite and work
at home 85 (9.1%)
Other 11 (1.2%)
Total 935 (100.0%)
Spouse/partner’s work situation over the
past 2 years
Work on-site full-time 587 (63.1%)
Work at home full-time 255 (27.4%)
Combination of work onsite and work
at home 82 (8.8%)
Other 7 (0.8%)
Total 931 (100.0%)
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
GLAMPING VACATION FOR DINK COUPLES 91
of low and high for each variable. Then the four
combinations of low and high were used to create
a new variable coding and labeling the four attach-
ment styles. The response with low for both anxiety
and avoidance was coded 1, referring to the secure
style; the response with high for anxiety and low
for avoidance was coded 2, referring to the anxious
style; the response with low for anxiety and high
for avoidance was coded 3, referring to the dis-
missive style; and the response with high in both
anxiety and avoidance was coded 4, referring to the
fearful style.
The ANOVA results (Table 3) suggest there is a
significant difference between at least two of the
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
ANOVA was conducted to explore the first
research question on differences in the feeling of
closeness between the four attachment styles (i.e.,
secure, anxious, dismissive, and fearful). Fraley
et al.’s (2000) measurement of ECR-R and recom-
mended grouping procedure was used to create the
four attachment styles from the 35 ECR-R items.
The first 18 items measure the dimension of anx-
ious while the last 17 items measure the dimension
of avoidance. First, the medians for the total of
each dimension, anxiety (Mdn = 59) and avoidance
(Mdn = 58), were used to create two categories
Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Factor Loadings
Closeness (α = 0.93, AVE = 0.52, M = 5.55, SD = 0.92)
My relationship with my spouse/partner is close. 0.67
When we are apart, I miss my spouse/partner a great deal. 0.70
My spouse/partner and I disclose important personal things to each other. 0.70
My spouse/partner and I have a strong connection. 0.75
My spouse/partner and I want to spend time together. 0.75
I’m sure of my relationship with my spouse/partner. 0.74
My spouse/partner is a priority in my life. 0.73
My spouse/partner and I do a lot of things together. 0.73
When I have free time, I choose to spend it alone with my spouse/partner. 0.71
I think about my spouse/partner a lot. 0.73
My relationship with my spouse/partner is important in my life. 0.72
I consider my spouse/partner when making important decisions. 0.70
Model fit indices: χ2(54) = 180.26, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.02.
Subjective well-being (α = 0.86, AVE = 0.55, M = 5.45, SD = 1.07)
In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 0.69
The conditions of my life are excellent. 0.79
I am satisfied with my life. 0.80
So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life. 0.72
If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. 0.70
Model fit indices: χ2(5) = 27.33, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.02.
Note. Correlations: Subjective well-being (square root of AVE = 0.74); Closeness (square root of
AVE = 0.72): 0.66, p < 0.01.
Table3
ANOVA Comparisons of Closeness From Four Attachment Styles
Tamhane Comparisons
Styles nMean (SD)Secure Anxious Dismissive Fearful
Secure 518 5.76 (0.62) –
Anxious 32 4.54 (0.74) <0.000 –
Dismissive 60 5.14 (0.86) <0.000 0.004 –
Fearful 330 5.38 (1.18) <0.000 <0.000 0.345 –
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
92 LIU AND DRAPER
p < 0.001), anxious style (β = 0.58, p < 0.001), and
dismissive style (β = 0.57, p < 0.001).
Discussion
This study focuses on DINK couples (i.e., dual
income and no kids). Along with the particular
characteristic of DINK, the study highlights the
impact of four attachment styles on close relation-
ships while enhancing the uniqueness of this study.
Unlike couples with children, DINK couples can
travel more easily, or in the case of this study go
glamping. Glamping provides a safe way for peo-
ple to escape and potentially work on relationships,
which this study examines.
This study is guided by two primary research
questions. First, Is there a difference between the
four attachment styles on the feeling of closeness?
Results reveal differences between five of the six
group comparisons. The only comparison that is
not significant is dismissive and fearful attach-
ment styles, which are the two in the middle when
ranking the four groups by the mean of closeness.
Within the grouping procedures, dismissive and
fearful attachment styles have high avoidance in
common. Therefore, it might be expected that these
two groups have the lowest level of closeness.
However, perhaps the anxious style has the low-
est level of closeness because of a new potential
experience in glamping, in which during a pan-
demic people were isolated due to lockdowns, were
now in areas around others. Perhaps their anxiety
was heightened to a point where avoidance was
elevated in the unique experience of glamping dur-
ing a pandemic. This provides an opportunity for
future research.
The second research question asks: Is there a
relationship between closeness and subjective
four attachment styles on the feeling of closeness,
F(3, 936) = 32.62, p < 0.001. Tamhane post hoc
tests were used to determine which attachment
styles were significantly different in terms of feel-
ing of closeness. Tamhane tests were used because
they are more conservative post hoc tests when
groups have unequal variances (i.e., Levene’s test
for equality of variances is significant) (Dunnett,
1980; Tamhane, 1979). First, those with a secure
attachment style (M = 5.76, SD = 0.62) have a
significantly higher level of closeness with their
partner compared to the other three attachment
styles: anxious (M = 4.54, SD = 0.74), dismis-
sive (M = 5.14, SD = 0.86), and fearful (M = 5.38,
SD = 1.18). Those with dismissive attachment
style (M = 5.14, SD = 0.86) have a higher level of
closeness compared to anxious attachment style
(M = 4.54, SD = 0.74). Finally, those with a fear-
ful attachment style (M = 5.38, SD = 1.18) have a
higher level of closeness compared to anxious style
(M = 4.54, SD = 0.74).
Multiple Group Path Analysis
Multiple group path analysis, a family of SEM,
was conducted to simultaneously compare param-
eters of the relationship between closeness and
subjective well-being in each of the four groups
of attachment style. The unconstrained model was
tested in each of the four styles. Because it is a sin-
gle path from the independent variable “closeness”
to the dependent variable “subjective well-being,”
the unconstrained model is just identified/saturated,
where the number of free parameters equals to the
number of known values and the degrees of free-
dom is zero. Comparing the chi-square difference
between the unconstrained model and constrained
model using Likelihood Ratio (LR) test result
shows that the fit of constrained model is signifi-
cantly worse than that of the unconstrained model,
c2 (3) = 32.07, p < 0.001. Therefore, the results
from the unconstrained models are reported.
Results of multiple group path analysis are shown
in Table 4. All four attachment styles have a signifi-
cant relationship between closeness and subjective
well-being. Individuals who are in the secure style
have the strongest relationship between closeness
and subjective well-being (β = 0.75, p < 0.001),
followed by the fearful tyle individuals (β = 0.59,
Table 4
Multiple Group Path Analysis From the
Unconstrained Model: Closeness →
Subjective Well-Being
Styles β z p
Secure 0.75 39.50 <0.001
Anxious 0.58 4.88 <0.001
Dismissive 0.57 6.48 <0.001
Fearful 0.59 16.24 <0.001
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
GLAMPING VACATION FOR DINK COUPLES 93
behaviors. These concepts are critical personal fac-
tors to glamping experiences, which do not only
rely on objective factors (e.g., products, location)
at a glamping site. This study provides a unique
perspective of different individual characteristics/
attachments to the social impacts of glamping.
Third, this study contributes to the theoretical
literature on attachment theory. By examining the
role of closeness and subjective well-being in the
context of glamping experiences among DINK
couples, this study sheds light on the dynamics
of attachment within this demographic. Specifi-
cally, our findings offer insights into how attach-
ment styles influence perceptions of closeness and
subjective well-being in tourism-oriented settings.
While the attachment theory is widely used in child
development (e.g., White et al., 2023) and couple
relationships (Chin et al., 2024), these topics pri-
marily focus on individuals’ emotions/behaviors
based on the theory. This study explores the nature
of the theory in the glamping tourism setting to
understand the experiences of glampers/tourists,
which are closely associated with their emotions/
behaviors. This contributes to a deeper understand-
ing of attachment theory and its applicability in
diverse contexts, such as glamping travel.
Practical Implications
First, this study suggests that glamping desti-
nations/sites could serve as a setting for couples
therapy, in addition to/rather than such venues as
resorts. This unique setting of glamping destina-
tions/sites might enhance the experience for those
individuals seeking such chances to save their close
relationship. Glamping destinations/sites should
tailor the products differently from other tourism
settings such as resorts to provide a unique expe-
rience. For example, leveraging the proximity to
nature, glamping destinations/sites can provide a
wide array of outdoor activities by collaborating
with other hospitality and tourism establishments
in the vicinity, such as romantic picnics, horseback
riding, and couple photography sessions. These
activities allow couples to immerse themselves in
the natural surroundings, creating memorable expe-
riences and strengthening their bond. Furthermore,
these activities could serve as a marketing strategy
to attract couples to glamping destinations/sites
well-being across the four attachment styles?
Results show a significant and positive relationship
between closeness and subjective well-being for all
four attachment styles. Anxious, dismissive, and
fearful attachment styles result in very close regres-
sion coefficients, while the secure attachment style
is well above the other three. This makes sense since
the secure attachment style is low for both anxiety
and avoidance categories, while the anxious and
dismissive attachment styles are low in one of the
categories and high in the other, and fearful attach-
ment style is high for both anxiety and avoidance
categories. It could be that the anxious and fearful
attachment styles with high anxiety was heightened
due to the pandemic, the timing, and context of the
study. The dismissive attachment style, being high
in avoidance, also makes sense in the context of
glamping, or any context might not make them feel
comfortable enough to feel a sense of closeness.
Implications
Theoretical Implications
First, this study confirms glamping can help
build interpersonal relationships. While previous
studies identify extreme sports such as skydiving
to do so (Frye, 2018), this study identifies more
relaxing leisure activities as ones to help build
close relationships between couples. Studies using
COVID-19 as a context find remote/virtual activi-
ties can help reduce anxiety (Coward-Gibbs, 2021).
However, people need social interaction. A recent
study shows leisure travelers remain willing to take
glamping trips after COVID-19 (Craig & Karabas,
2021), possibly leading to an emerging segment in
travel/leisure.
Second, glamping would be an option for DINKs
to interact to maintain/improve relationships dur-
ing times other activities might not be as readily
accessible. DINKs can spend more money on travel
(Euromonitor International, 2019) and look for
luxurious lifestyles/activities (Srivastave, 2023).
Glamping would potentially serve as an activity
to help them develop close relationships, escape
regular settings, and enjoy nature even after the
pandemic. Using glamping as a context, this study
explores the four attachment styles that influence an
individual’s perception of closeness and attachment
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
94 LIU AND DRAPER
that at least some of the participants in this study
went glamping during the pandemic. Future studies
could extend this research to investigate whether
there are changes in the results when individuals
engage in glamping in the most recent year.
Second, this study focused on “glamping,” a
luxurious form of camping. Future studies might
collect data from camping/glamping sites to further
increase reliability. In addition, other forms of rec-
reation as a setting/context for exploring relation-
ships should be conducted. For example, a previous
study identified those who experience extreme
sports together develop close relationships (Frye,
2018). There are plenty of other leisure activities
that could be used as a context to replicate and
build on this study examining of the relationships
between closeness and subjective well-being.
References
Adamovich, V., Nadda, V., Kot, M., & ul Haque, A. (2021).
Camping vs. glamping tourism: Providers’ perspective in
the United Kingdom. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment & Tourism, 6(54), 1431–1441.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N.
(2015). Patterns of attachment: A Psychological study of
the strange situation. Psychology Press.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of
other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal
closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
64(4), 596.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of struc-
tural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attach-
ment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 7(2), 147–178.
Bartneck, C., Duenser, A., Moltchanova, E., & Zawieska, K.
(2015). Comparing the similarity of responses received
from studies in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to studies
conducted online and with direct recruitment. PloS One,
10(4), e0121595.
Belus, J. M., Pentel, K. Z., Cohen, M. J., Fischer, M. S., &
Baucom, D. H. (2019). Staying connected: An examina-
tion of relationship maintenance behaviors in long-dis-
tance relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 55(1),
78–98.
Berry, C., Kees, J., & Burton, S. (2022). Drivers of data qual-
ity in advertising research: Differences across MTurk
and professional panel samples. Journal of Advertising,
51(4), 515–529.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.
Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol 2. Separation:
Anxiety and anger. Hogarth Press.
while also contributing to potential revenue gen-
eration. By offering a variety of appealing outdoor
experiences tailored for couples, glamping destina-
tions/sites can effectively showcase their unique
offerings and entice romantic getaways. Such part-
nerships not only enhance the overall guest experi-
ence and expand the range of offerings available to
visitors, but also make the destination more appeal-
ing and enriching. Additionally, they contribute to
maximizing the profitability of the glamping tour-
ism destinations/sites.
Second, from an event tourism perspective,
glamping sites could be a venue for private/
personal events. For example, glamping could be
a way of celebrating a couple’s marriage anniver-
sary/honeymoon. Not all people would like or have
a chance to celebrate their personal events with
friends/family. Some people might prefer a private/
romantic experience to celebrate their big moment
while some people whose families could not attend
their events for different reasons might still like
to have a unique experience. Glamping can create
memories for couples to celebrate important life
events while enhancing their closeness and subjec-
tive well-being. Extending personal/special event
tourism services at original glamping products is a
creative/managerial suggestion for glamping site/
company owners. This suggestion could also help
glamping businesses during the slow glamping
season. Additionally, glamping destinations/sites
could also offer group tourism activities, such as
wine tastings. This would provide opportunities to
meet other glampers and enjoy an activity in a big-
ger social setting.
Limitations and Future Research
First, the study limits the sample to DINK house-
holds, thus excluding people who have retired, but
who also experienced the pandemic and lockdowns.
This is evident with almost 90% of the sample under
the age of 50 (87.5%). To expand this study, future
studies could include a broader sample of camp-
ers/glampers and assess differences between the
demographic groups. This study also only included
US residents; future studies could be replicated in
other countries, and perhaps other activities people
did to work on their relationships during a time
of fear around the world. Furthermore, it is likely
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
GLAMPING VACATION FOR DINK COUPLES 95
Ekodome. (2022). 2022 national glamping report reveals
booming market & big opportunities. https://ekodome.
com/2022-national-glamping-report-reveals-booming-
market-big-opportunities/
Euromonitor International. (2019). Childless couples can
afford to spend big. https://www.euromonitor.com/
article/childless-couples-can-afford-to-spend-big
Fernandes, S., Ferreira, D., Alves, T., & de Sousa, B. M. B.
(2021). Glamping and the development of sustainable
tourism: A Portuguese case study. In A. Lubowiecki-
Vikuk, B. M. Barbosa de Souse, B. M. Dercan, & W. L.
Filho (Eds.), Handbook of sustainable development and
leisure services (pp. 201–222). Springer.
Filep, S., & Matteucci, X. (2020). Love in tourist motiva-
tion and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 44(6), 1026–1034.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An
item response theory analysis of self-report measures of
adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 78(2), 350.
Frye, N. E. (2018). Let’s do what together?! Shared activity
perceptions and relationship closeness. Leisure Sciences,
40(5), 374–386.
George, A. S. (2023). The rise of DINKs: How childfree
couples are reshaping economies. Partners Universal
International Research Journal, 2(4), 95–111.
Grand View Research. (2022). Glamping market size, share
& trends analysis report by accommodation (cabins &
pods, tents, yurts, treehouses), by age group, by region,
and segment forecasts, 2023–2030. https://www.grand
viewresearch.com/industry-analysis/glamping-market
Grande, K., & Botti, L. (2023). Measuring the comparative advan-
tage of camping businesses: A multicriteria sorting method-
ology. Tourism and Hospitality Research. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584221145813
Grande, K., & Camprubi, R. (2024). Analysing the business
model canvas of the camping industry using cluster anal-
ysis. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 24(2), 171–186.
Guo, Q., Yang, X., & Xie, H. (2024). The impacts of mountain
campsite attributes on tourists’ satisfaction and behavioral
intentions: The mediating role of experience quality. Jour-
nal of Destination Marketing & Management, 32, 100873.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., &
Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pear-
son Prentice Hall.
Harper, N. J. (2017). Wilderness therapy, therapeutic camp-
ing and adventure education in child and youth care lit-
erature: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services
Review, 83, 68–79.
Hassell, S., Moore, S. A., & Macbeth, J. (2015). Exploring
the motivations, experiences and meanings of camping
in national parks. Leisure Sciences, 37(3), 269–287.
Hertzog, M. A. (2008). Considerations in determining sam-
ple size for pilot studies. Research in Nursing & Health,
31(2), 180–191.
Hudson, N. W., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2020).
Are we happier with others? An investigation of the
links between spending time with others and subjective
Brochado, A., & Brochado, F. (2019). What makes a glamp-
ing experience great? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, 10(1), 15–27.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with
AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to
testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instru-
ment. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.
Cao, X., Wang, D., & Wang, Y. (2020). Remembering the
past and imagining the future: Partners’ responsiveness
in specific events relates to relationship satisfaction and
subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 37(2), 538–558.
Chin, B. N., Kim, L., Parsons, S. M., & Feeney, B. C. (2024).
Attachment orientation and preferences for partners’
emotional responses in stressful and positive situations.
Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), 77.
Clarke, P. (2021). Google reveals scale of pent-up demand,
post-pandemic trends. https://www.travelpulse.com/
news/features/google-reveals-scale-of-pent-up-travel-
demand-post-pandemic-trends.html
Columbia University Department of Psychiatry. (2022).
How attachment styles influence romantic relationships.
https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/how-attach
ment-styles-influence-romantic-relationships
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor
analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Conradi, H. J., Noordhof, A., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2021).
Satisfying and stable couple relationships: Attachment
similarity across partners can partially buffer the nega-
tive effects of attachment insecurity. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, 47(3), 682–697.
Coward-Gibbs, M. (2021). Why don’t we play pandemic?
Analog gaming communities in lockdown. Leisure Sci-
ences, 43(1/2), 78–84.
Craig, C. A. (2021). Camping, glamping, and coronavirus
in the United States. Annals of Tourism Research, 89,
103071.
Craig, C. A., & Karabas, I. (2021). Glamping after the coro-
navirus pandemic. Tourism and Hospitality Research,
21(2), 251–256.
Craig, C. A., Ma, S., & Feng, S. (2023). Climate resources
for camping: A resource-based theory perspective. Tour-
ism Management Perspectives, 45, 101072.
Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The
unidimensional relationship closeness scale (URCS):
Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of
relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24(3),
565.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Gritffin, S.
(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.
Dunnett, C. W. (1980). Pairwise multiple comparisons in the
unequal variance case. Journal of the American Statisti-
cal Association, 75(372), 796–800.
Ein-Dor, T., & Hirschberger, G. (2016). Thinking attach-
ment theory: From a theory of relationships to a theory
of individual and group survival. Current Direction in
Psychological Science, 25(4), 223–227.
Delivered by Ingenta
IP: 104.53.227.100 On: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 20:29:41
Article(s) and/or figure(s) cannot be used for resale. Please use proper citation format when citing this article
including the DOI, publisher reference, volume number and page location.
96 LIU AND DRAPER
Morrow, R., Rodriguez, A., & King, N. (2014). Camping: A
tool for relationship maintenance? Therapeutic Commu-
nities: The International Journal of Therapeutic Com-
munities, 25(2), 48–55.
Mundet, L., Grijalvo, M., & Marin, J. (2023). Are camper
travel lovers the new wave of tourism? A growing trend
for destinations. International Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Administration. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2023.2175290
Nikitin, J., & Freund, A. M. (2021). Does focusing on others
enhance subjective well-being? The role of age, motiva-
tion, and relationship closeness. Psychology and Aging,
36(1), 69.
Pop, A.-M., Marian-Potra, A.-C., Hognogi, G.-G., & Puiu,
V. (2024). Glamping tourism as a sustainable response
to the need to reinvigorate domestic tourism. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 31, 100803.
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman,
C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey
research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of
Marketing Research, 45(3), 261–279.
Sim, O.-M. (2023). Do couples with no children save,
spend, invest and plan for retirement differently? We
find out! Thesimplesum. https://my.thesimplesum.com/
dinks-plan-differently/
Srivastava, R. (2023). Marketing of consumer financial
products: Insights from service marketing. Business
Expert Press.
Su, Z., Hu, Z., & Peng, X. (2017). The impact of changes in
China’s family patterns on family pension functions. The
International Journal of Health Planning and Manage-
ment, 32(3), 351–362.
Sun, T., & Huang, T. (2023). Research of glamping tourism
based on the aesthetics of atmosphere. Sustainability,
15(1), 581.
Tamhane, A. C. (1979). A comparison of procedures for
multiple comparisons of means with unequal variances.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366),
471–480.
Tong, Y., Wu, M. Y., Pearce, P. L., et al. (2020). Children and
structured holiday camping: Processes and perceived out-
comes. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 100706.
White, S., Gibson, M., Wastell, D., & Walsh, P. (2023).
Reassessing attachment theory in child welfare. In Social
work (pp. 109–115). Routledge.
Xiang, K., Cao, Y., Qiao, G., & Li, W. (2023). Glamping: An
exploration of emotional energy and flow experiences in
interaction rituals. Tourism Management Perspectives,
48, 101149.
Zorlu, K., Tuncer, M., & Taşkın, G. A. (2022). The effect
of COVID-19 on tourists’ attitudes and travel intentions:
An empirical study on camping/glamping tourism in
Turkey during COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Insights, 6(2), 947–965.
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 119 (3), 692.
Johanson, G. A., & Brooks, G. P. (2010). Initial scale devel-
opment: Sample size for pilot studies. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 394–400.
Kline, R. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analy-
sis. In Applied quantitative analysis in education and the
social sciences (pp. 171–207). Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
Kuang, K., & Gettings, P. E. (2021). Uncertainty manage-
ment in sexual communication: Testing the moderating
role of marital quality, relational closeness, and commu-
nal coping. Health Communication, 36(11), 1368–1377.
Lei, M., & Lomax, R. G. (2005). The effect of varying
degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling.
Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 1–27.
Lemay Jr, E. P., & Clark, M. S. (2008). How the head liber-
ates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness
guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 94(4), 647.
Li, M. Z., & Stodolska, M. (2022). Beyond luxury consump-
tion: The meaning and meaning-making mechanism
in conspicuous outbound tourism. Journal of Leisure
Research, 53(5), 687–704.
Liu, Y., & Draper, J. (2022). The influence of attending fes-
tivals with children on family quality of life, subjective
well-being, and event experience. Event Management,
26(1), 25–40.
Lu, C. Y., Suhartanto, D., & Chen, B. T. (2022). Explora-
tion of new outdoor leisure activities (glamping) during
the post-pandemic era. Tourism Recreation Research.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/025
08281.2022.2111628
Lyu, X., & Fan, Y. (2020). Research on the relationship of
work family conflict, work engagement and job crafting:
A gender perspective. Current Psychology: A Journal for
Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues,
41(4), 1767–1777.
Lyu, S. O., Kim, J. W., & Bae, S. W. (2020). Family vaca-
tioners’ willingness to pay for glamping travel sites: A
family functioning segmentation. International Journal
of Tourism Research, 22(2), 155–167.
Ma, S., Craig, C. A., & Feng, S. (2020). The Camping Cli-
mate Index (CCI): The development, validation, and
application of a camping-sector tourism climate index.
Tourism Management, 80, 104105.
Mariotti, T. (2022). What is the DINK lifestyle? Ruby Home.
https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/dink-lifestyle/
Mikulić, J., Prebežac, D., Šerić, M., & Krešić, D. (2017).
Campsite choice and the camping tourism experience:
Investigating decisive campsite attributes using rele-
vance-determinance analysis. Tourism Management, 59,
226–233.
