* Corresponding author. Tel. 61-03-54-447511; fax: 61-03-54-447977; e-mail: g.galloway@bendigo.latrobe.edu.au

Tourism Management 20 (1999) 665}671

Sensation seeking and attitudes to aspects of national parks:a preliminary empirical investigation

Graeme Galloway!,",*, Karla Lopez#!School of Psychological Science, La Trobe University, Bendigo Campus, P.O. Box 199, Bendigo, Victoria 3550, Australia

"Centre for Leisure and Tourism Policy Research, University of Canberra, Australia#School of Psychological Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora Campus, Australia

Abstract

This article reports the results of an exploratory study concerning the relationship between the personality construct &&sensationseeking'', operationalized in terms of Arnett's (1994, Personality and Individual Di+erences, 16(2), 289}296) Inventory, and attitudes tovarious aspects of national parks. Signi"cant relationships were observed between scores on the Intensity subscale of the Inventoryand attitudes to visiting remote parks, structured tours, presence of dangerous animals, seeking wildlife, and stimulating/challengingactivities. Scores on the Novelty subscale of the Inventory were also found to be signi"cantly related to attitudes to visiting remoteparks, as well as to the importance of picnic/BBQ facilities, meeting interesting/like-minded people, and eating in untouched areas ofparks. It is suggested that further productive research on this topic should examine the e!ects of individual di!erence variables inmore detail, most notably age, and other personality characteristics, as well as providing a more detailed characterization of parkfeatures. The analysis of markets for national parks in terms of sensation seeking and other personality variables appears to havesubstantial potential as a means to enhance the marketing and management of such areas. ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved.

Keywords: Personality; Sensation seeking; National parks

1. Introduction

This report describes the results of a pilot study of therelationship between the personality construct &&SensationSeeking'' and attitudes to several characteristics of nation-al parks. National parks are of primary interest in promo-tions of nature-based tourism which in turn is one of thefastest growing tourist markets (Blamey & Braithwaite,1997). The marketing of parks in an e!ective and sustain-able way necessitates a better understanding of the na-ture of the people in the actual, and the latent, parkmarkets } in particular, the push factors they are charac-terized by and the attitudes they hold to park features.

A personality inventory was used as the means bywhich to provide information about push factor charac-teristics for the following reasons (see Galloway, 1998, fora more detailed discussion). Many of the push factorsappealed to in in#uential accounts of leisure travelmotivation } for instance, those suggested in the&&needs-based'' accounts provided by Murray (1938),

Maslow (1970), Pearce (1993), Mannell and Iso-Ahola,(1987) and Fodness (1994), or in other analyses by suchinvestigators as Eagles (1991), Figler et al. (1992), Langet al. (1996) } can be conceptualized as personal values(see, for instance, Homer & Kahle, 1988; Walker et al.,1994) which are ongoing beliefs that a particular mode ofconduct or goal is personally preferable to its opposite(Rokeach, 1973). Indeed, in the leisure travel motivationliterature some attention to motives conceptualized asvalues is already apparent (see Madrigal & Kahle, 1994;Muller, 1991; Pitts & Woodside, 1986; Pizam & Calantone,1987). Furthermore, it has been suggested that personalityand personal values are related (Madrigal, 1995; Segal et al.,1993). Galloway (1998) suggests that the advantages forthe study of values o!ered by such a relationship includethat the measurement instruments associated with per-sonality constructs are typically established to be of ac-ceptable levels of reliability and validity and provideuseful standardized measures of the constructs. As in-dicated by Homer and Kahle (1988) values are the basisfor the construction of attitudes and behaviour. In theleisure travel context information about the values char-acteristic of a given personality construct thus provides

0261-5177/99/$ - see front matter ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 1 - X

Table 1Attitude items examined and predicted relationship between extent ofagreement with the Items and Sensation Seeking Scores

Items Relationship predicted

EducationalItem 1. I have no particular preferencesabout the kind of information I wouldlike to receive in a national park.

Negative

Item 2. I prefer to engage in structuredtours o!ered at national parks ratherthan taking a self-guided tour.

Negative

SocialItem 1. I like visiting national parksand meeting interesting people thereparticularly those who share my interests.

Positive

Item 2. I enjoy visiting national parksbecause it gives me the opportunityto spend time with family and friends.

Negative

Escape/contrastItem 1. I am likely to revisit parkswhere I enjoyed myself even if I expectnothing new in terms of stimulationand/or activities

Negative

Item 2. I am reluctant to visit parkswhich are remote.

Negative

PhysicalItem 1. I feel dissatis"ed with myexperience at a national park where thereare no opportunities to enjoy pleasantscenery such as the countryside,mountains, lakes, waterfalls, etc.

Positive

Item 2. I prefer to visit nationalparks which o!er the opportunity toengage in activities which I "ndstimulating and/or challenging.

Positive

=ildlifeItem 1. I stay away from areas in nationalparks where I am likely to encounterpotentially dangerous native animals.

Negative

Item 2. Rather than observe the localwildlife that gathers around visitors tonational parks I prefer actively to seek andinteract with other types of animals whichpopulate these areas.

Positive

FacilitiesItem 1. I like eating in areas of nationalparks which are untouched ratherthan using the designated areas.

Positive

Item 2. The availability of picnic/BBQfacilities is an important factor for mein deciding whether to visit anational park.

Negative

Item 3. I dislike primitive facilities atnational parks.

Negative

the basis for making testable predictions about the fea-tures of a given destination that will be incentives ordisincentives for a person. Indeed, in the market researchliterature considerable analysis has already been under-taken of the relationship between personality constructsand a variety of other products (see, for instance, Bennett,1997; Eisenhart, 1988; Mooradian, 1996; Morris, 1994).

The construct sensation seeking seems especially appro-priate for examination in this context. According to Arnett(1994) &&sensation seeking is not only a potential for takingrisks, but is more generally a quality of seeking intensityand novelty of experience which may be expressed inmultiple areas of a person's life'' (p. 290). Several studieshave established relationships between sensation seekingand various classes of beliefs and behaviours which seemto provide a strong basis for generating testable predic-tions about the relationship between that construct andattitudes to features of national parks. For instance,sensation seeking has been found to be positively corre-lated with: risk behaviour (Arnett, 1994, 1996; Hobfall etal., 1989); tendency to disclose personal thoughts andfeelings (Franken et al., 1990); dislike of structured andformal situations (Babbitt et al., 1990); adventure travel(Gilchrist et al., 1995); tendency to avoid repetition(Cronin, 1995); liking of intense experiences (Arnett, 1996;Goma-i-Freixanet, 1991); proneness to boredom underrestrained and repetitive situations (Vodanovich & Kass,1990); tendency towards disinhibition (McCourt et al.,1993); and negatively related to harm avoidance on theTridimensional Personality Questionnaire (McCourt etal., 1993). The characterization of sensation seeking interms of novelty, and intensity, seeking also providesgrounds for predictions in regard to the present topic.

The general categories of destination characteristics tobe examined here were chosen from the results of variousanalyses of motivations for leisure travel behaviour(Allen, 1982; Figler et al., 1992; Lang et al., 1996; Mayo,1995; Pizam & Calantone, 1987; Robie et al., 1993). Sixcategories of features were selected, viz., educational,social, escape/contrast, physical aspects (scenery andphysical activity), wildlife, and facilities (picnics/BBQ). Theabove-mentioned characterizations of sensation seekingwere the basis for choosing the attitudes and the predic-tions about how they will be related to sensation seekingscores. Two attitudes were investigated for each of the"rst "ve categories speci"ed above and for the sixth threewere examined. The attitudes and their predicted rela-tionships with sensation seeking are reported in Table 1.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

A sample of 100 undergraduate students recruited atLa Trobe University participated in this study. Partici-

pants were approached individually in a variety of uni-versity settings (e.g., cafe, lecture rooms) and asked tovolunteer to complete a questionnaire related to whatthe experimenter referred to as &&tourist motivation''.

666 G. Galloway, K. Lopez / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 665}671

Table 2Correlations of Sensation Seeking with Age, Gender, and Attitudes toaspects of national parks (NP 1}13)

Sensation SeekingAge !0.1Gender 0.29!NP 1 (visiting parks to be with family/friends) !0.12NP 2 (reluctant to visit parks which are remote) !0.44!

NP 3 (prefer structured tours) !0.09NP 4 (dissatis"ed with lack of pleasant scenery) 0.03NP 5 (actively seeking wildlife) 0.2!

NP 6 (picnic/BBQ facilities as attractions) !0.16NP 7 (meeting interesting people at

national parks) 0.21!

NP 8 (revisiting parks which one enjoyed) !0.07NP 9 (no particular preferences about

information) 0.03NP 10 (prefer eating in untouched areas) 0.12NP 11 (avoiding potentially dangerous animals) !0.33!

NP 12 (visiting for stimulating/challengingactivities) 0.24!

NP 13 (dislike primitive facilities atnational parks) !0.12

!Indicates that the correlation is signi"cant (a"0.05).

La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee approvalfor this research was obtained prior to data collectionbeginning. The sample consisted of 54 females and 46males. Seventy-"ve participants were in age group 18}25,16 were in age group 26}30, and 9 were older than 31years.

2.2. Materials

Two survey instruments were used } viz., the Arnett(1994) Sensation Seeking Inventory, and a questionnairein which each participant rated the extent to which theattitude statements apply to himself/herself. The 20 itemArnett Sensation Seeking Inventory comprises twosubscales } one designed to index Novelty seeking, andthe other to index Intensity seeking. There were severalreasons why the Arnett Inventory was chosen instead ofthe often used Zuckerman et al. (1978) Form V sensationseeking scale which comprises four subscales } thrill andadventure seeking, experience seeking, disinhibition, andboredom susceptibility. Speci"cally, the latter uses a for-ced choice format which does not allow for the possibilitythat the item may not apply to a respondent. In addition,the language of the scale is now outdated, and severalquestions concern strenuous physical activities whichraises the possibility that any e!ects of age might notreally be attributable to sensation seeking but instead toage di!erences in physical strength. Ratings were madeby reference to the following seven-point scale which wasdisplayed on the questionnaire:

1. Never or almost never true of me.2. Usually not true of me.3. Sometimes but infrequently true of me.4. Occasionally true of me.5. Often true of me.6. Usually true of me.7. Always or almost always true of me.

The items were presented in the same randomized orderfor each participant. The order of presentation is in-dicated in Table 2.

3. Results

The correlations between scores on sensation seekingand extent of agreement with the attitude statements, andthe correlations of sensation seeking to age and to genderwere calculated using Spearman's rho and are reported inTable 2. Sensation seeking was not signi"cantly corre-lated with age but a signi"cant relationship was observedbetween sensation seeking and gender (the tendency be-ing for higher sensation seeking scores to be associatedwith males). Sensation seeking was as predicted signi"-cantly positively correlated with NP 5 (actively seekingwildlife), NP 7 (wish to meet interesting people at nation-

al parks), and NP 12 (visiting for stimulating/challengingactivities), and was as predicted signi"cantly negativelycorrelated with NP 2 (reluctant to visit parks whichare remote), and NP 11 (avoiding potentially dangerousanimals).

In order to examine in more detail the nature of therelationship of sensation seeking with age, gender, andthe park characteristics further analysis was conductedwith respect to each of the two subscales (Intensity andNovelty). As indicated in Table 3 Age was not signi"-cantly correlated with either subscale. On the other hand,Gender (which was signi"cantly correlated with the over-all sensation seeking score) was signi"cantly correlatedwith the Intensity subscale but not with the Noveltysubscale (males tending to score more highly than fe-males). Two hierarchical regressions were also conduc-ted, one with Novelty scores, and the other with Intensityscores, as the dependent variables which enables thestrength of the relationship of each to attitudes to parkfeatures to be observed with the e!ects of Age, Gender,and the other park characteristics partialled out. Becausethe correlation between Novelty and Intensity was notabove 0.6 (its value was 0.44) the a level remained at 0.05.Analysis of residuals for Novelty, and for Intensity, in-dicated that the assumptions required for performingregression analysis in regard to each were met.

The results of the "rst regression, in which Intensitywas the dependent variable, are reported in Table 4.The entry of Age at step 1 did not account for a signi"-cant proportion of the variance associated with Inten-sity (R2 change"0.0238, F(1, 98)"2.39, p'0.05).The next step, at which the Gender variable was entered,

G. Galloway, K. Lopez / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 665}671 667

Table 3Correlations of the Sensation Seeking subscales Intensity and Noveltywith Age and Gender

Intensity Novelty

Age !0.154 !0.013Gender 0.327! 0.160

!Indicates that the correlation is signi"cant (a"0.05).

Table 4Summary of the hierarchical regression analysis of attitudes to nationalpark characteristics (NP), Gender, and Age as predictors of scores onthe Intensity subscale of Arnett's Sensation Seeking Inventory

Step Predictor R2 R2 change

1 Age entered 0.02377 0.023772 Gender entered 0.14299 0.11922!

3 NP 1}13 entered 0.41934 0.27635!

! Indicates a signi"cant R2 change, a"0.05.

Table 5Strength of each attitude to a characteristic of a national park (NPs, asidenti"ed in Table 2) as a predictor of Intensity scores

Predictor b Tolerance t

NP 1 !0.126 0.981 !1.328NP 2 !0.223 0.985 !2.421!

NP 3 !0.224 0.958 !2.339!

NP 4 0.045 0.993 0.479NP 5 0.273 0.988 3.003!NP 6 !0.016 0.999 !0.168NP 7 0.1147 0.994 1.220NP 8 !0.011 0.898 !0.109NP 9 !0.015 0.997 !0.155NP 10 0.032 0.981 0.337NP 11 !0.309 0.941 !3.360!

NP 12 0.289 0.965 3.166!NP 13 !0.168 0.996 !1.802

! Indicates that the result is signi"cant, a"0.05.

Table 6Summary of the hierarchical regression analysis of attitudes to nationalpark characteristics (NP), Gender, and Age as predictors of scores onthe Novelty subscale of Arnett's Sensation Seeking Inventory

Step Predictor R2 R2 change

1 Age entered 0.00016 0.000162 Gender entered 0.02657 0.026413 NP 1}13 entered 0.39439 0.36782!

! Indicates a signi"cant R2 change, a"0.05.

Table 7Strength of each attitude to a characteristic of a national park (NPs, asidenti"ed in Table 2) as a predictor of Novelty scores

Predictor b Tolerance t

NP 1 !0.013 0.981 !0.126NP 2 !0.498 0.985 !5.676!

NP 3 !0.056 0.958 !0.549NP 4 !0.028 0.988 !0.272NP 5 0.085 0.988 0.841NP 6 !0.263 0.999 !2.707!

NP 7 0.279 0.994 2.878!NP 8 !0.078 0.898 !0.740NP 9 0.017 0.997 0.165NP 10 0.227 0.981 2.298!

NP 11 !0.110 0.941 !1.067NP 12 0.053 0.965 0.519NP 13 !0.032 0.996 !0.319

! Indicates that the result is signi"cant, a"0.05.

signi"cantly increased the prediction of the variance as-sociated with Intensity (R2 change"0.1192, F(2,97)"8.09, p(0.05). The entry of the attitudes to thecharacteristics of national parks variable also signi"-cantly increased the prediction of the variance associatedwith Intensity (R2 change"0.2764, F(15, 84)"4.04,p(0.05).

The strength of each attitude to a characteristic ofa national park as a predictor of Intensity scores isreported in Table 5. Five of the attitude items contrib-uted signi"cantly to the prediction of scores on the Inten-sity subscale. These are: NP 2 (reluctant to visit parkswhich are remote), NP 3 (prefer structured tours), NP 11(avoiding potentially dangerous animals), each of whichwas negatively related to the Intensity subscale scores (asit was predicted they would be to sensation seekingscores in general), and NP 5 (actively seeking wildlife),NP 12 (visiting for stimulating/challenging activities)which were, as predicted they would be in regard tosensation seeking scores in general, positively related tothe Intensity subscale scores.

The results of the second regression, in which Noveltywas the dependent variable, are reported in Table 6.Neither the entry of Age at step 1, nor Gender at step 2,accounted for a signi"cant proportion of the varianceassociated with Novelty (R2 change for Age" 0.00016,F(1, 98)"0.01581, p'0.05: R2 change for Gender"0.02641, F(2, 97)"1.32375, p'0.05). The entry of theattitudes to the park characteristics signi"cantly in-creased the prediction of the variance associated withNovelty (R2 change"0.36782, F(15, 84)"3.64684,p(0.05).

The strength of each attitude as a predictor of Noveltyscores is reported in Table 7. Four of the attitude items

contributed signi"cantly to the prediction of scores onNovelty. These are: NP 2 (reluctant to visit parks whichare remote), NP 6 (importance of picnic/BBQ facilities),each of which was negatively related to the Novelty score(as it was predicted they would be to Sensation Seeking

668 G. Galloway, K. Lopez / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 665}671

scores in general), and NP 7 (desire to meet interesting,like-minded people in national parks), and NP 10 (prefereating in untouched areas) which were, as also predictedin regard to Sensation Seeking scores in general, posit-ively related to the Novelty score.

4. Discussion

The present study is an original application of thepersonality construct sensation seeking to the study ofattitudes to characteristics of national parks although theconcept &&arousal'' (and cognate notions) which underliessensation seeking (cf. Zuckerman, 1990) has receivedsome attention in the context of the study of leisure traveland related motivation in general (e.g., Floyd, 1997;Mannell & Iso-Ahola, 1987; Mannell et al., 1988;Plog, 1990, 1991; Wahlers & Etzel, 1985). In short, it wasobserved that an increase in scores on the Intensitysubscale of the Arnett Inventory is associated with adecrease in reluctance to visit remote parks, decrease inpreference for structured tours, decrease in likelihood ofavoiding areas where it is believed potentially dangerousnative animals will be encountered, increase in preferenceactively to seek wildlife, and increase in preference toengage in stimulating/challenging activities. An increasein scores on the Novelty subscale of the Arnett Inventoryis associated with a decrease in reluctance to visit remoteparks (which is the only attitude item signi"cantly relatedto both subscales of the Arnett Inventory), decrease inimportance of picnic/BBQ facilities, increase in liking formeeting interesting, similar-minded people, and increasein preference for eating in untouched areas in nationalparks.

On the other hand, signi"cant relationships were notobserved between sensation seeking and importanceplaced on visiting national parks to spend time withfamily and friends, dissatisfaction experienced about lackof pleasant scenery, tendency to engage in repeat visita-tion if nothing new by way of stimulation and/or activ-ities are expected, having a preference about the kind ofinformation received about parks visited, dislike ofprimitive facilities at national parks.

The above-mentioned relationships were identi"edwith the e!ects of gender partialled out. This is a relevantconsideration in regard to the characteristics in this studywhich have emerged as potential barriers/disincentivesfor some people (e.g., remoteness, dangerous animalsfor lower sensation seekers). Various researchers (seeHenderson et al., 1988 for examples) have indicated thatfemales tend to experience more barriers to leisure travelthan do males. Females also tend to show lower levels ofsensation seeking than males. Given this, it was possiblethat the characteristics identi"ed in this study as beingdisincentives for lower sensation seekers were really onlydisincentives for females. However, the analysis indicated

that the signi"cant trend for decreasing sensation seekingto be associated with increasing disincentive strength ofthe above-mentioned characteristics remained when thee!ects of gender were taken into account.

The "nding of a signi"cant relationship between gen-der and the Intensity, but not the Novelty, subscalescores, is consistent with the results of previous research.For instance, Zuckerman et al., (1978) found that theThrill and Adventure Seeking, and the Disinhibition sub-scales of the Form V Sensation Seeking Scale are signi"-cantly related to gender in the same way as observed forintensity scores in the present study but that the othertwo subscales are not signi"cantly related to gender. The"rst two subscales closely resemble Arnett's Intensitysubscale and the latter two are very similar to the ArnettNovelty subscale.

As regards age and sensation seeking, previous re-search indicates that an increase in age is typically asso-ciated with a decrease in sensation seeking (e.g., Arnett,1994, 1996; Vodanovich & Kass, 1990; Zuckerman et al.,1978). In the present study, however, a signi"cant rela-tionship between age and sensation seeking was notobserved. It is evident, though, that such a result could beattributable to the relatively small range of ages exam-ined. Only nine participants were over 31 years of age.

A larger sample comprising a wider spread of ages isrequired to give a more accurate characterization of therelationship between age and sensation seeking. The lat-ter point is one of several relevant to the question of howfuture research on this topic might most productivelyproceed which will now be examined.

4.1. Directions for further research

Considering the exploratory nature of this study theobservation of several signi"cant (although low) relation-ships between sensation seeking and attitudes to parkcharacteristics is promising. The processes a!ecting atti-tudes are obviously complex and there is considerablescope for further research on this topic.

One area which warrants further examination con-cerns individual di+erence variables. For instance, it isimportant to examine whether the pattern of resultsobserved here is replicated with a sample comprisingolder people. As one illustration of how age might be animportant factor, consider the item &&I am reluctant tovisit parks which are remote'' which was signi"cantlynegatively related to sensation seeking in this study ofyounger participants. However, with increasing age cer-tain barriers to longer distance travel might develop } forinstance, health or safety related considerations } asa result of which older higher sensation seekers might beas reluctant as older lower sensation seekers to visitremote parks. It is also possible that items which were notsigni"cantly related to sensation seeking in this studymight be signi"cantly related for older participants.

G. Galloway, K. Lopez / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 665}671 669

Sensation seeking is obviously not the only personalityconstruct that might be useful in regard to the presentand related topics. For example, Galloway (1998, p. 103)discusses literature which is consistent with the sugges-tion that Plog's (1990, 1991) allocentric}psychocentriccharacterization of personality can be conceptualized interms of the notion &&locus of control'' characterized byRotter (1966). The possibility is that allocentrics are in-ternal, and psychocentrics are external, locus of control.Another set of personality constructs which have re-ceived attention in the leisure travel context are thoseassociated with Holland's Vocational Preference Inven-tory (see, for example, Frew & Shaw, 1995). The useful-ness of a given personality construct as a means by whichto predict attitudes to aspects of national parks coulddepend on the attitude objects under examination. Forexample, while sensation seeking has been observed inthis study to be related to attitudes about visiting remoteparks it might not be as strongly related to characteristicsto do with accomplishment which could be more strong-ly related to locus of control (see Homer & Kahle, 1988).An interesting issue for further study is whether a charac-terization of people in terms of a combination of personal-ity traits } for example, high sensation seeker, internallocus of control } provides a stronger basis for predictingattitudes to park features than does a description interms of just one personality trait.

There is also considerable scope for more detailedexamination of aspects of national parks. The factorsexamined in the present study (educational, social,escape/contrast, physical, wildlife, facilities) are the kindsof motives that consistently emerge from studies relevantto the present one (see above). The fact that at least oneitem from every category was signi"cantly related tosensation seeking in this study indicates that they wereappropriate choices for consideration in regard to thatconstruct. Those categories, though, by no means ex-haust the features that could productively be investigated(cf., Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Ward & Russell, 1981 fora more detailed discussion).

It is also necessary to investigate whether values otherthan those associated with any given personality vari-able, such as social values (cf., Blamey & Braithwaite,1997) a!ect the relationship between personality andattitudes. Additionally, further research is requiredconcerning how those relationships are a!ected bydemographic characteristics.

The establishment of reliable and detailed connectionsbetween personality-based market segments andattitudes to park features has obvious relevance to themarketing and management of national parks. Asregards marketing, park features which are more stronglypositively valued by members of a given segment couldbe highlighted in advertising directed at that segment,whereas negatively valued features could be downplayedor ways of avoiding them indicated. As pointed out by

Witt and Wright (1992) the expectations people have ofexperiencing a particular feature at a destination aremajor determinants of the feature's incentive/disincentivestrength. Manipulating expectations could thus bringabout an increase in the overall attractiveness of a par-ticular destination. In this context, another advantage ofcharacterizing people on the basis of personality is thatliterature relevant to the question of how to advertisemost e!ectively to people of a given personality type isalready available. For example, Rowland et al. (1989)have identi"ed di!erences in the kinds of television pro-grams preferred by lower as opposed to higher sensationseekers.

The kinds of relationships of interest in the presentpaper also have relevance to park management. Speci"-cally, making available at a park the kinds of thingswhich are strongly positively valued by a particular per-sonality-based segment could reduce the likelihood ofdissatisfaction which could be felt by people whose de-sired experience is not matched by their actual experienceat a park (see Chon, 1989, 1990, 1992; Weber, 1997).

References

Allen, L. (1982). The relationship between Murray's personality needsand leisure interests. Journal of ¸eisure Research, 14(1), 63}76.

Arnett, J. (1994). Sensation seeking: A new conceptualization and anew scale. Personality and Individual Di+erences, 16(2), 289}296.

Arnett, J. (1996). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescentreckless behavior. Personality and Individual Di+erences, 20(6),693}702.

Babbitt, T., Rowland, G., & Franken, R. (1990). Sensation seeking:Preoccupation with diet and exercise regimens. Personality andIndividual Di+erences, 11(7), 759}761.

Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). A!ective images of tourismdestinations. Journal of ¹ravel Research, 35(Spring), 11}15.

Bennett, R. (1997). Communicator credibility, personality factors andcustomer responses to comparative advertising claims. MarketingIntelligence and Planning, 15(2), 85}96.

Blamey, R., & Braithwaite, V. (1997). A social values segmentation ofthe potential ecotourism market. Journal of Sustainable ¹ourism, 5(1),29}45.

Chon, K. (1989). Understanding recreational traveler's motivation,attitude and satisfaction. ¹he ¹ourist Review, 44(1), 3}6.

Chon, K. (1990). The role of destination image in tourism: A review anddiscussion. ¹he ¹ourist Review, 45(2), 2}9.

Chon, K. (1992). The role of destination image in tourism: An extension.¹he ¹ourist Review, 47(1), 2}8.

Cronin, C. (1995). Construct validation of the strong interest inventoryadventure scale among female college students. Measurement andEvaluation in Counseling and Development, 28, 3}8.

Eagles, P. (1991). The motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Ecotourismconference papers, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia,(pp. 12}19).

Eisenhart, T. (1988). How to really excite your prospects: Corporatepsychographics. Business Marketing, 73(7), 44}53.

Figler, M., Weinstein, A., Sollers, J., & Devan, B. (1992). Pleasure travel(tourist) motivation: A factor analytic approach. Bulletin of thePsychonomic Society, 30(2), 113}116.

Floyd, M. (1997). Pleasure, arousal, and dominance: Exploring a!ectivedeterminants of recreation satisfaction. ¸eisure Sciences, 19, 83}96.

670 G. Galloway, K. Lopez / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 665}671

Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of ¹ourismResearch, 21(3), 555}581.

Franken, R., Gibson, K., & Mohan, P. (1990). Sensation seeking anddisclosure to close and casual friends. Personality and IndividualDi+erences, 11(8), 829}832.

Frew, E., & Shaw, R. (1995). Industrial tourism: The experience and themotivation to visit. Proceedings of the national tourism and hospitalityconference, Melbourne, Australia (pp. 88}104).

Galloway, G. (1998). Motivations for leisure travel: A critical examina-tion. Proceedings of the eighth Australian tourism and hospitalityresearch conference, 11}14 February, Gold Coast, Queensland,Australia (pp. 99}108).

Gilchrist, H., Povey, R., Dickinson, A., & Povey, R. (1995). The Sensa-tion Seeking Scale: Its use in a study of the characteristics of peoplechoosing &&adventure holidays''. Personality and Individual Di+er-ences, 19(4), 513}516.

Goma-i-Freixanet, M. (1991). Personality pro"le of subjects engaged inhigh physical risk sports. Personality and Individual Di+erences,12(10), 1087}1093.

Henderson, K., Stalnaker, D., & Taylor, G. (1988).The relationshipbetween barriers to recreation and gender-role personality forwomen. Journal of ¸eisure Research, 20(1), 69}80.

Hobfoll, S., Rom, T., & Segal, B. (1989). Sensation seeking, anxiety andrisk taking in the Israeli context. New York: Plenum Press.

Homer, P., & Kahle, L. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behaviour hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 54(4), 638}646.

Lang, C., O'Leary, J., & Morrison, A. (1996). Trip-driven attributesegmentation of Australian outbound nature travellers. Proceedingsfrom the Australian tourism and hospitality research conference, 6}9February, Co!s Harbour, N.S.W., Australia (pp. 361}377).

Madrigal, R. (1995). Personal values, traveler personality type, andleisure travel style. Journal of ¸eisure Research, 27(2), 125}142.

Madrigal, R., & Kahle, L. (1994). Predicting vacation activity prefer-ences on the basis of value - system segmentation. Journal of ¹ravelResearch, 22(3), 22}28.

Mannell, R., & Iso-Ahola, S. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure andtourism experience. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 14, 314}331.

Mannell, R., Zuzanek, J., & Larson, R. (1988). Leisure states and &&#ow''experiences: Testing perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation hy-potheses. Journal of ¸eisure Research, 20(4), 289}304.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York:Harper and Row.

Mayo, E. (1975). Tourism and the national parks: A psychographic andattitudinal study. Journal of ¹ravel Research, 14(1), 14}18.

McCourt, W., Guerra, R., & Cutter, H. (1993). Sensation seeking andnovelty seeking: Are they the same? Journal of Nervous and MentalDisease, 181(5), 309}312.

Mooradian, T. (1996). Personality and ad-evoked feelings: The case forextroversion and neuroticism. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 24(2), 99}109.

Morris, L. (1994). A new psychology for successful telemarketing. DirectMarketing, 56(10), 27}32.

Muller, T. (1991). Using personal values to de"ne segments in aninternational tourism market. International Marketing Review, 8,57}70.

Murray, H. (1938). Exploration and personality. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Pearce, P. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In D. Pearce,& R. Butler, ¹ourism research: Critiques and challenges (pp. 113}134).London: Routledge.

Pitts, R., & Woodside, A. (1986). Personal values and travel decisions.Journal of ¹ravel Research, 25, 20}25.

Pizam, A., & Calantone, R. (1987). Beyond psychographics } values asdeterminants of tourist behavior. International Journal of HospitalityManagement, 6(3), 177}181.

Plog, S. (1990). A carpenter's tools: An answer to Stephen L. J. Smith'sreview of psychocentrism/allocentrism. Journal of ¹ravel Research,28(4), 43}45.

Plog, S. (1991). ¸eisure travel: Making it a growth market...Again.New York: Wiley.

Robie, C., Bateson, A., Ellison, P., & Figler, M. (1993). An analysis ofthe tourism motivation construct. Annals of ¹ourism Research, 20(4),773}776.

Rokeach, M. (1973). ¹he nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external

control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), WholeNo. 609.

Rowland, G., Fouts, G., & Hetherton, T. (1989). Television viewing andsensation seeking: Uses, preferences and attitudes. Personality andIndividual Di+erences, 10(9), 1003}1006.

Segal, M., Segal, U., & Niemczycki, M. (1993). Value network forcross-national marketing management: A framework for analysisand application. Journal of Business Research, 27, 65}83.

Vodanovich, S., & Kass, S. (1990). Age and gender di!erences inboredom proneness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4),297}307.

Wahlers, R., & Etzel, M. (1985). Vacation preference as a manifestationof optimal stimulation and lifestyle experience. Journal of ¸eisureResearch, 17(4), 283}295.

Walker, M., Burnham, D., & Borland, R. (1994). Psychology (2nd ed.).Brisbane: Wiley.

Ward, L., & Russell, J. (1981). The psychological representation ofmolar physical environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 110(2), 121}152.

Weber, K. (1997). The assessment of tourist satisfaction using theexpectancy discon"rmation theory: A study of the German travelmarket in Australia. Paci,c ¹ourism Review, 1, 35}45.

Witt, C., & Wright, P. (1992). Tourist motivation: Life after Maslow. InP. Johnson, & B. Thomas, Choice and demand in tourism (pp. 33}55).New York: Mansell.

Zuckerman, M. (1990).The psychophysiology of sensation seeking.Journal of Personality, 58(1), 313}345.

Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S., & Eysenck, H. (1978). Sensation seeking inEngland and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 139}149.

G. Galloway, K. Lopez / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 665}671 671