A Comparison of Travel Decisions Between U.S. and International Students

(Jan 2009)

Malin Dejtisak, Ph.D., Srinakharinwirot University

Amy R. Hurd, Re.D., Illinois State University

Daniel J. Elkins, Ph.D., Illinois State University

Barbara Elwood Schlatter, Ph.D., Illinois State University

Please direct correspondence to:

Amy R. Hurd, Ph.D., Illinois State University

School of Kinesiology & Recreation

Campus Box 5121 - McCormick Hall 213

Normal, IL 61790-5121

309-438-5557

arhurd@ilstu.edu

Abstract

Travel and tourism is a major industry in the United States and internationally. Because it impacts regional development, local and national economies, and community employment rates, there is a need to understand the social and psychological forces and factors that motivate and satisfy individual travelers. The purpose of this study was to compare travel decisions between United States and international students at a Midwestern university based on Dann’s (1977) push and pull motivation factors. This study utilized a modified travel motivation survey from previous research to indicate the importance of travel motivations based on the 39 push and 27 pull motivation factors. Demographic information including gender, residency, and level of education were also analyzed to determine if such factors contributed to differences in travel motivation. The results indicated that the most important travel motivators were to have fun, see and experience a new destination, and to reduce stress. There were gender differences on 24 push and pull items with females rating all but viewing sporting events higher than males. When students in the United States were compared to international students, there were significant differences on 27 push and pull items. Respondents from the United States had higher means on a majority of the push factors with the exception of rediscovering myself. The findings of this study have implications for leisure and tourism service practitioners in that there are slight differences in travel motivation of college students in terms of gender and whether the student is domestic or international. Understanding these similarities and differences can impact tourism marketing to college students.

Introduction

Tourism destinations are a key component of the tourism system (Andreu, Kozak, Avci, & Cifter, 2005). As countries strive to increase their share of foreign visitors and domestic, it becomes necessary to understand motivations for pleasure travel (Yuan & McDonald, 1990). According to Chen and Tsai (2007), motivation is commonly seen as the driving force behind all actions, while tourism has been seen as the driving force for regional development, as it can boost destination’s tourist sales, revenue, employment, as well as national economy. Therefore, travel motivation is a key concept for understanding why and how individuals make travel decisions to preferred destinations (Kim, Jogaratnam, & Noh, 2006). In order to effectively serve recreation travelers at their destinations, it is essential for an agency dealing in recreation at the destinations to understand the psychological forces and factors that motivate and satisfy individual travelers (Chon, 1989).

There have been a number of research studies conducted to recognize motivation in the context of tourism. Findings from past research confirm that variables such as tourist perceptions of a destination or hospitality businesses, satisfaction levels, demographic profiles and tourist activities may vary according to countries of origin (Kozak, 2002). Dann’s (1977) push and pull motivational factors are one of the most common conceptual frameworks used to examine tourist motivations. This framework provides a simple and intuitive approach for explaining motivations that underlie tourist behavior (Klenosky, 2002).

The purpose of this research was to compare travel decisions between US and international students at a Midwestern university based on Dann’s (1977) push and pull motivation factors. It also focused on travel motivations of domestic and international university students and compared the most salient factors among each group. This study utilized a modified travel motivation survey from previous research to indicate the importance of travel motivations based on the push and pull motivation factors. Demographic information including gender, residency, level of education, and a list of the countries where the respondent has traveled was also analyzed to determine if such factors contributed to differences in levels of travel motivations.

Review of Literature

In general, this literature review examines research on motivation for travel. Specifically, it is focused on push and pull motivational factors relating to travel. In addition, race/ethnicity influences on leisure motivation and travel motivation in relation to travel patterns of college students are reviewed.

Motivation

Motivation is considered a critical variable because it is the compelling force behind all behavior. Murray (1964) defines a motive as an internal factor that arouses, directs, and integrates a person’s behavior. Research regarding motivation has been associated with satisfaction, behavioral intentions, activity preferences, and developed conceptual frameworks to understand individual motivations. After much work focusing on motivation Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed Self-Determination Theory (SDT) which is a general theory of motivation and personality and focused on psychological needs, specifically humans’ innate needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. SDT includes amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation. Amotivation is characterized by a lack of value towards the activity and a low perception of control; extrinsic motivation represents a less self-determined type of motivation; and intrinsic motivation represents a highly self-determined type of motivation (Carruthers, Platz, & Busser, 2006).

The Leisure Motivation Scale (LMS) was developed by Beard and Ragheb (1983) to standardize measures of leisure motivation. This scale classifies motives for participation such as intellectual, social, competence/mastery, and stimulus avoidance. The intellectual dimension refers to mental stimulation such as cognitive learning or the opportunity to use one’s imagination. The social component is the need for interpersonal relationships. The competency/mastery factor explains motivation in terms of competition and challenge, and finally, the stimulus avoidance dimension refers to escape and restoration.

Travel Motivation

It is recognized that motivation is only one of many variables which may contribute to explaining tourist behavior. The concepts of needs and motivations are interrelated. The decision to take a trip is made to complete physiological and psychological needs, which later motivates people to engage in travel activity (Andreu, Kozak, Avci, & Cifter, 2005).

There are a few tourism motivation frameworks in existence. The push and pull motivational framework was constructed by Dann (1977) to examine tourists’ motivations. Push factors refer to the specific forces that lead to the decision to take a vacation such as escape, prestige, enhancement of kinship relationships, relaxation, and hobbies. Previous research regarding the push-pull factors suggest that individual are pushed by invisible factors emerging from their psychological or physical desires and then pulled by visible factors affected by either natural environments such as warm and sunny beaches or destination attractions such as culture or history. Yoon and Uysal (2005) found that the push and pull motivations, satisfaction, and destination loyalty are related to one another.

A web-based travel motivation survey was developed by Kim, Jogaratnam, and Noh (2006) to collect data based on the push and pull motivation framework. The survey consisted of four main sections including future intentions to travel overseas during the upcoming six-month period, push and pull motivations, and information about socio-demographic characteristics including gender, age, nationality, marital status, academic year in college, and main source of funding for tuition. The results showed that five push and pull factors were particularly different across the destinations. The results also pointed out the push factors including escape, seeing and learning, adventure and thrill, indulgence, nature, and fun and entertainment. In addition, the pull factors include sun and beaches, time and cost, sports, attractions, family, and natural environment. These data showed that the students were differently pushed by internal factors and then pulled by external resources across the destinations. According to Kim, et al., (2006), college students’ demands are apparently higher than in the past due to the advancement of technology and communication of the globalization.

Iso-Ahola (1982) proposed a Social Psychological Model of Tourism Motivation (SPMTM) which is based on a social psychological perspective. It posits that one’s perceptions of traveling are very subjective because travel experiences are derived from the individual’s psychological awareness; therefore, different individuals may perceive the same trip with different purposes. Iso-Ahola’s motivation theory is applicable to leisure, recreation and tourism. The theory consists of four motivational dimensions including personal seeking (to feel good about oneself), personal escape (getting away from the routine or normal environment), interpersonal seeking (need to be with people of similar interests), and interpersonal escape (avoid interactions with others) (Snepenger, King, Marshall, & Uysal, 2006). In addition, Chon (1989) pointed out that traveler motivation is primarily a function of one’s perception of the attractiveness of outcomes related to individual’s travel objective; and perceived beliefs and likelihood of accomplishing their unmet needs and wants.

Demographic Influences on Leisure Motivation

There are many previous studies that attempt to understand the different functions of gender and race or ethnicity that play important roles to encourage individuals to participate and engage in leisure activities. Floyd, Shinew, McGuire, and Noe (1994) suggested that cultural processes are more important in explaining variation between blacks and whites in leisure participation. From their research, they found that blacks exhibit higher involvement in team sports, fitness activities, and socializing and voluntary organizations and less involvement in outdoor activities such as camping and hiking. On the other hand, whites preferred walking and outdoor activities such as hunting.

Barnett (2006) examined the influences of gender and race or ethnicity on leisure participation. She concluded that those factors have an effect on high school students’ leisure participation, young adults’ favorites for natural environments, perceived leisure boredom during free time, and middle-aged adults’ preferences in leisure benefits. The result showed that race or ethnicity was found to predict individual preferences for five of the seven types of leisure activities.

Previous research has suggested that nationality is one among a number of factors that account for differences in tourist behavior. Field (1999) stated that propensity to travel was influenced by national origin. Pizam and Sussmann (1995) explored further the explanatory value of nationality in regard to tourist behavior. They concluded that in 90% of the researched behavioral characteristics, the respondents perceived a significant difference between the nationalities. And that nationality had a moderating effect on tourism behavior.

Wolfe and Hsu (2004) studied tourism motivations between Non-Caucasians and Caucasians in order to determine whether tourism motivations are different based on culture preferences. They found that members of a minority population may differ from those of a majority population in regards to tourism motivations based on the sub-cultural hypothesis. According to Floyd and Shinew (1999), the sub-cultural hypothesis suggested that differences in leisure behavior could be attributed to norms and values of racial or ethnic groups.

Kim (2007) determined push and pull motivational dimensions of university student travelers and examined significant differences in the underlying dimensions between the two types of travel planned, domestic travel and international travel, by US university students. The results of the study revealed that university student travelers were differently pushed toward domestic travel and international travel. They were likely to be motivated by education, connection and thrill, friends, family togetherness, scenery, fun and relaxation. On the other hand, beach and sun and attraction appeared to be more important to international travel decisions than domestic travel decisions.

Travel Patterns of College Students

Sirakaya and McLellan (1997) suggested that college students, a subgroup of the youth market, have more materialistic values than their parents, and thus are more likely to respond to marketing campaigns which promote economic security and status. Field (1999) examined the college market segment and compared differences in vacation travel behaviors between Clemson University international and American domestic students. The results from the study recommended that foreign students tend to abandon their native travel patterns and preferences and adopt American ways. This trend begins to influence those students who have been in the United States only a short time and has a significant effect on students who attended high school in the United States prior to going on to college.

Research on domestic students traveling overseas was also developed. Chadee and Cutler (1996) investigated travel motives of 370 university students in New Zealand, of which 65.7% were Europeans and 22.3% were Asians. The results showed that 90% of the respondents intended to travel overseas. Reasons for traveling abroad included: to experience another culture (32%), to experience adventure (22%) and to seek job opportunities (8%). Based on Chadee and Cutler’s (1996) findings, segmenting student as a market group on the basis of ethnicity may be beneficial in targeting specific market groups. Sirakaya and McLellan (1997) stated that the most importance factors for students in choosing the destinations were ranging from the cost of the vacation and convenience, local hospitality and services, entertainment and drinking opportunities, recreation and sporting activity availabilities, and change from daily life environment.

The need to expand the literature to increase knowledge in the area of travel motivation, especially the different push pull factors in college students based on ethnicity, are important. According to the Market Research Report (2004), the youth travel market has grown rapidly in recent decades. Around one-fifth of all tourists in the world are young people between 15-25 years of age, and it is likely that this will increase in the future. This study was an attempt to demonstrate the differences in travel purposes and generate useful information that will be important to practitioners in the field who market travel to domestic and international students, as well as tourism major students and tourism organizations.

Methods

Subjects

The sample for this study was drawn from the Registered Student Organizations (RSO) list of a Midwestern University. Ten RSO’s focusing on international students were randomly selected and 10 RSO’s not specifically designated for international students were randomly selected. Because it was desired to have 100 domestic and 100 international students, the RSO’s produced too small of a sample size. To augment the sample and reach non RSO members, undergraduate classes were targeted in several departments across campus. Once the RSOs and classes were identified, the faculty advisor for the RSOs was contacted to ask for participation in the study. The researcher attended a regularly scheduled meeting, described the purpose of the study, and asked attendees to complete the survey on-site. There were 105 domestic students and 100 international students who completed the survey.

Procedures

The study utilized a modified travel motivation survey from previous research. The instrument was employed to collect data associated with push and pull motivational dimensions of university students (Kim, et al., 2006). The instrument consisted of two main sections. In the first section student respondents were asked to specify the importance of the 39 push and 27 pull motivational items in planning their next pleasure trip. A five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important) was used. The final section of the survey included demographics questions including age, gender, level of education, residency, and a list of the countries to which they have traveled.

Statistical Design

Descriptive statistics were used to examine the most important push and pull factors. T-tests were conducted to determine if there were differences in travel motivation based on gender and country of origin. Analyses of variance procedures (ANOVA) were conducted to explore differences in push and pull motivation items selected by the respondents based on class standing. A significance level of α = .05 was established a priori.

Results

Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were computed after administering the test to 205 respondents. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for push factors was 0.94, while the coefficients for pull factors was 0.91. Both scales utilized in this study indicate a strong measure of reliability.

Demographics

The survey was administered to 205 college students. Of the total sample of students, 65.4% (n = 134) were female, while 33.2% (n = 68) were male. A small percentage (1.5%, n = 3) did not indicate their gender. In terms of level of education, 53 respondents were freshmen, 25 were sophomores, 24 were juniors, 46 were seniors, 56 were graduate students. Regarding students’ home countries, 105 respondents were students from the United States, 80 were Asian, 5 were European, 5 were African, 2 were Guyanese, 2 were Columbian, and 10 did not indicate a home country. The mean age of the sample was 23.13 years (sd = 5.02), with a range in age of 18 to 49.

Descriptive Statistics for Push and Pull Factors

Descriptive statistics were computed to examine the most important factors in terms of students travel motivation. The most important travel motivations factors were as follows: having fun (m = 4.56, sd = 0.84), seeing a new destination (m = 4.31, sd = 0.95), experiencing a new destination (m = 4.29, sd = 0.95), to reduce stress (m = 4.13, sd = 1.10), and being entertained (m = 4.12, sd = 1.06). Conversely, to participate in sport events (m = 2.44, sd = 1.28), meeting the opposite sex (m = 2.48, sd = 1.28), to view sport events (m = 2.57, sd = 1.25), party reputation (m = 2.65, sd = 1.31), and familiarity of a place (m = 2.72, sd = 1.21) were the least important factors for their travel. See Table 1 for a complete reporting of descriptive statistics for push factors means, and Table 2 for the pull factors means.

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Push Motivational Factors

Push Factors	Mean	Std. Deviation
Having fun	4.56	0.84
Seeing a new destination	4.31	0.95
Experiencing a new destination	4.30	0.94
To reduce stress	4.13	1.10
Being entertained	4.12	1.06
Being emotionally refreshed	4.07	0.93
To get a chance to be free	3.91	1.12
Seeing many attractions	3.85	1.09
Experiencing a new culture	3.85	1.07
Being physically refreshed	3.84	1.02
Learning something new	3.82	1.13
Experiencing new life-style	3.80	1.10
Experiencing different life-style	3.78	1.09
Increasing knowledge	3.75	1.25
Enjoying good weather	3.74	1.19
To spend time with friends	3.71	1.05
Finding excitement	3.68	1.15
Getting away from school	3.64	1.29
Visiting friends	3.64	1.13
Being adventuresome	3.56	1.11
To be together with my family	3.52	1.28
Visiting relatives	3.48	1.28
Spending time with someone special	3.46	1.13
Seeing nature	3.44	1.22
Rediscovering myself	3.43	1.23
Escaping ordinary	3.42	1.24
Finding thrills	3.37	1.18
Meeting new friends/local people	3.33	1.24
Being daring	3.32	1.20
Visiting places where my family comes from	3.29	1.31
Observing wildlife	3.27	1.22
To visit a place recommended by friends	3.26	1.14
Get away from my job	3.20	1.29
Talking about a trip after returning home	3.18	1.31
Being away from demands of home	3.03	1.25
To do nothing	2.86	1.27
Indulging in luxury	2.85	1.3

Push Factors	Mean	Std. Deviation
Going places my friends have not visited	2.82	1.37
Meeting the opposite sex	2.48	1.28

Note. N = 205. The scales are ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Pull Motivational Factors

Pull Factors	Mean	Std. Deviation
Good value for the cost	3.98	1.08
Beautiful scenery and landscapes	3.92	1.07
Safety and security	3.90	1.14
Warm and sunny weather	3.71	1.34
Sea and beaches	3.70	1.32
Cultural attractions	3.68	1.10
Clean accommodations	3.67	1.27
Convenient transportation	3.65	1.17
Comfortable accommodations	3.60	1.17
Availability of information about a destination	3.47	1.12
Historic attractions	3.41	1.21
Restaurants	3.40	1.21
Nightlife and entertainment	3.40	1.26
Easy accessibility	3.34	1.18
River/lake/streams	3.31	1.17
Shopping opportunities	3.24	1.31
Travel time	3.23	1.17
Family oriented	3.20	1.18
Local people	3.17	1.15
Quiet rest areas	3.08	1.19
Educational opportunities	3.06	1.20
Recreational and sports facilities	2.90	1.27
Snow/mountains	2.82	1.28
Familiarity of a Place	2.72	1.20
Party reputation	2.65	1.31
To view sport events	2.57	1.24
To participate in sport events	2.45	1.28

Note. N = 205. The scales are ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).

_______________________________________________________________________

Descriptive Statistics for International Travel Indicated by Respondents

With respect to experience in international traveling, 38% (n = 79) of the total sample had traveled abroad. Respondents were asked to indicate four foreign countries to which they have traveled to in the past five years. The most frequently visited countries, were Japan, the United States, Mexico, Canada, France, and Italy, respectively.

Push and Pull Factors and Gender

An independent-samples t test was performed to determine if significant differences existed in the push factors based on gender of student respondents. Results indicated significant differences in gender (p < .05) on 13 items (Table 3). Specifically, the results indicated that females had higher means on most of the push items regardless of significance with the exception of learning something new, observing wildlife, seeing nature, meeting the opposite sex, meeting new friends/local people, experiencing new life-style, being daring, being adventuresome, finding thrills, and rediscovering myself (Table 3).

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 3

Push Factors and Gender – t test

Push Factors	t-Value	df	p-Value	Mean		Std. Deviation
				Male	Female	Male	Female
To do nothing	-2.02	200	.04*	2.62	3.00	1.25	1.28
To reduce stress	-3.12	198	.<001*	3.79	4.29	1.23	0.99
Being physically refreshed	-2.71	200	.01*	3.59	3.99	1.05	0.98
Being emotionally refreshed	-3.04	200	.00*	3.81	4.22	0.99	0.87
Seeing a new destination	-2.39	197	.02*	4.08	4.42	1.06	0.88
Experiencing a new destination	-2.80	198	.01*	4.03	4.42	1.06	0.86
Seeing many attractions	-2.76	200	.01*	3.56	4.00	1.12	1.05
Having fun	-3.35	199	.<001*	4.29	4.70	1.04	0.69
Enjoying good weather	-2.47	200	.01*	3.44	3.87	1.11	1.20
Indulging in luxury	-3.34	198	<.001*	2.43	3.08	1.27	1.32
Visiting relatives	-2.99	198	<.001*	3.12	3.67	1.23	1.25
To visit a place recommended by friends	-2.10	200	.04*	3.03	3.88	1.15	1.11
To spend time with friends	-2.69	200	.01*	3.44	3.86	0.98	1.07

Note. Male (n = 68); Female (n = 134). Some categories may not equal to 100% due to non responses.

_______________________________________________________________________

With respect to pull factors and gender of respondents, an independent-samples t test was performed to determine if significant differences existed in pull motivational factors based on gender. Results indicated significant differences in gender (p < .05) on the 11 items (Table 4). Generally, the results indicated that females had higher means on most of the pull items with the exception of snow/mountains, recreational and sports facilities, to participate sport events, and to view sport events.

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 4

Pull Factors and Gender – t test

Pull Factors	t-Value	df	p-Value	Mean		Std. Deviation
				Male	Female	Male	Female
Warm and sunny weather	-3.70	198	<.001*	3.24	3.95	1.34	1.29
Sea and beaches	-2.25	199	.03*	3.40	3.83	1.24	1.34
Beautiful scenery and landscapes	-2.83	199	.01*	3.60	4.05	1.12	1.01
Clean accommodations	-2.46	199	.02*	3.35	3.81	1.18	1.29
Comfortable accommodations	-3.30	198	<.001*	3.24	3.80	1.09	1.18
Good value for the cost	-2.89	200	<.001*	3.68	4.13	1.11	1.04
Restaurants	-4.24	198	<.001*	2.89	3.63	1.20	1.14
Nightlife and entertainment	-2.09	200	.04*	3.13	3.52	1.33	1.22
Local people	-2.15	200	.03*	2.91	3.28	1.19	1.11
Shopping opportunities	-2.63	200	.01*	2.88	3.39	1.32	1.27
To view sport events	2.00	200	.05*	2.79	2.43	1.14	1.28

Note. Male (n = 68); Female (n = 134). Some categories may not equal to 100% due to non responses.

*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

_______________________________________________________________________

Push and Pull Factors and Home Country

Because of the number of respondents the sample was divided into two groups – domestic and international students. An independent-samples t test was performed to examine differences in the push factors based travel motivation. Results indicated significant differences (p < .05) in push motivational factors between United States citizens and those from other countries on 18 items (Table 5). Specifically, the results indicated that respondents from the United States had higher means on a majority of the push factors with the exception of rediscovering myself.

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 5

Push Factors and Home Country - t test

	Push Factors	t-Value	df	p-Value	Mean		Std.Deviation
					USA	Other	USA	Other
Being away from demands of home		5.27	193	.<001*	3.43	2.54	1.10	1.27
Escaping from ordinary/ responsibilities		6.39	193	.<001*	3.92	2.88	1.01	1.27
To do nothing		3.77	195	.<001*	3.18	2.52	1.28	1.15
Getting away from school		4.33	193	.<001*	4.01	3.26	1.03	1.39
To reduce stress		3.52	193	.<001*	4.37	3.83	0.80	1.31
Have fun		4.71	194	.<001*	4.81	4.26	0.50	1.06
Be entertained		3.76	195	.<001*	4.38	3.83	0.87	1.19
Enjoy weather		5.52	195	.<001*	4.18	3.32	0.92	1.27
Be daring		2.49	192	.01*	3.49	3.07	1.12	1.24
Find thrills		3.30	195	.<001*	3.62	3.08	1.05	1.26
Find excitement		4.98	194	.<001*	4.02	3.24	0.93	1.25
Rediscover myself		-2.17	195	.03*	3.25	3.63	1.18	1.30
Indulge in luxury		3.56	193	.<001*	3.16	2.50	1.29	1.29
Visit friends		2.32	195	.02*	3.81	3.43	1.08	1.18
Visit relatives		3.83	193	.<001*	3.77	3.09	1.13	1.36
Be with family		3.07	194	.<001*	3.76	3.21	1.15	1.37
Visit places where family from		3.18	195	.<001*	3.54	2.96	1.32	1.26
Spend time with friends		3.30	195	.<001*	3.92	3.43	0.98	1.10

Note. US Students (n = 105); other countries students (n = 92). Some categories may not equal to 100% due to non responses. *The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

_______________________________________________________________________

With respect to pull factors and home country of respondents. Results indicated a significant difference (p < .05) in pull motivational factors between United State citizens and those from other countries on 9 items (Table 6). Generally, respondents from the United States had higher means on a majority of the pull items with the exception of cultural attractions, historic attractions, availability of information about a destination, travel time, quiet rest areas, educational opportunities, and to participate in sport events.

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 6

Pull Factors and Home Country – t test

Pull Factors	t-Value	df	p-Value	Mean		Std.Deviation
				USA	Other	USA	Other
Warm and sunny weather	7.94	193	.<001*	4.35	3.01	0.92	1.41
Sea and beaches	4.36	194	.<001*	4.05	3.26	1.06	1.45
Clean accommodations	3.19	194	.<001*	3.94	3.38	1.15	1.30
Comfortable accommodations	3.95	193	.<001*	3.90	3.26	1.06	1.23
Convenient transportation	2.87	195	.01*	3.89	3.41	1.02	1.28
Good value for the cost	4.61	195	.<001*	4.30	3.61	0.83	1.24
Restaurants	3.46	193	.<001*	3.65	3.07	1.13	1.25
Nightlife and entertainment	5.64	195	.<001*	3.84	2.89	1.10	1.25
Availability of information about a destination	-2.19	194	.03*	3.30	3.66	1.14	1.13

Note. US Students (n = 105); other countries students (n = 92). Some categories may not equal to 100% due to non responses. *The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

_______________________________________________________________________

Push and Pull Factors and Level of Education

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare means of the push factors of respondents based on levels of education; freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors and graduate students. Significance differences were found among many of the push factors (p < .05). The analyses revealed significant differences between levels of education for following items: being away from demands of home (F(4,197) = 8.09, p < .001), escaping from ordinary/responsibilities (F(4,198) = 5.05, p < .05), to do nothing (F(4,199) = 3.33, p < .05), getting away from school (F(4,197) = 3.85, p < .05), meeting the opposite sex (F(4,198) = 4.46, p < .05), going places my friends have not visited (F(4,199) = 3.69, p < .05), and indulging in luxury (F(4,197) = 4.42, p < .05) (Table 7).

In terms of pull factors and levels of education, a one-way ANOVA was computed to compare means of pull factors of subjects who were freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors and graduate students. Significance differences were found between pull factors and level of education for the following items: restaurants (F(4,197) = 2.55, p < .05), nightlife and entertainment (F(4,199) = 5.50, p < .001), and shopping opportunities (F(4,199) = 3.49, p < .05).

Tukey’s HSD was used to determine the specific nature of the differences between the factors. However, there was no pattern in differences based on education, therefore no reasons for the differences could be discerned.

Discussion

This study examined the differences in travel decisions between United States and international students at a Midwestern university based on Dann’s (1977) push and pull motivation factors. The results of this study indicated the most important factors in terms of travel motivations for the student respondents were having fun, seeing a new destination, experiencing a new destination, to reduce stress, and being entertained. These findings support previous research by Andreu et al., (2005) which found that people decided to travel to complete physiological and psychological needs. These findings also support Iso-Ahola (1982) that people choose to travel to seek intrinsic rewards; for example having fun, seeing a new destination, experiencing a new destination, and escaping from routine environments. According to Carruthers, et al., (2006), intrinsically motivated participation involved challenging, expanding capacity, and discovering and understanding the world more fully. In addition, they classified intrinsic motivations into three types; intrinsic motivation toward knowledge, toward accomplishment, and toward experiencing stimulation. Travel can be motivated by all three.

Further analyses of the results indicated significant differences between push and pull motives based on gender. There were several significant differences found in push and pull items which imply that gender may influence travel motivation. These findings support Barnett (2006) that gender was found to predict social and outdoor leisure participation. She pointed out that leisure reveals interests, talents, fears, and personality of the individual. The results of the studies provide useful information for professionals in leisure and travel marketing to consider when creating travel packages or campaigns for customer satisfaction. For example, based on the findings, males preferred to learn something new, observe wildlife, see nature, meet new friends/local people, be adventuresome, and view sport events. Whereas females preferred seeing and experiencing a new destination, indulging in luxury, and visiting relatives.

With respect to push and pull factors and home country, the respondents were divided into U.S. domestic and international students to examine travel decisions’ differences between those groups. The findings indicated that to do nothing, to reduce stress, to be physically, and to be emotionally refreshed were the most significant factors in terms of push motivation. In addition, preferred destinations were warm and sunny, has a sea and beaches, and clean accommodations. The overall results suggested that domestic and international students are more similar than different in terms of travel motivation. The findings of this study support Field’s (1999) research in that foreign students who have been in the United States only a short time tend to abandon their native travel patterns and preferences and adopt American ways. Furthermore, based on the results, respondents from the United States placed more importance on most of the push and pull items. Specifically, these results provide implications for future research to further investigate these factors and why higher ratings came from U.S. students.

Future Research

This study has a few limitations that prevent the results from being generalized to the entire population of college students. These generalizations include the sample size and the selection of the sample from one university. However, this exploratory study is a starting point for further research on the topic of travel motivation with this population.

Further research should be done through a comparative study of a travel motivation survey for further validating push and pull motivation in the university student market. Another research study might be implemented as a qualitative study to interview men and women to determine why women placed more importance on those motivational factors than men. Additionally, a study to examine reasons for domestic students placing more importance on both push and pull motivational factors than international students might be implemented. Alternatively, a comparative study of a travel motivation survey between domestic students in the United States and international students studying in their home country might be implemented.

Implications

The findings of this current study have implications for leisure and tourism service practitioners. Travelers from different backgrounds have different leisure interests. According to Beard and Ragheb (1983), in order to understand recreation better, it is critical to recognize the forces that drive it, springing from the behavior patterns of people who engage in it, the social and psychological needs that individuals seek to satisfy, and the established and encouraged forms of consumption. Therefore, recreation and tourism should be offered in a wide range of programs and activities to encourage participation. Moreover, satisfactions of individual travelers are important to promote destination loyalty. Understanding psychological motives will help travel agencies and companies to successfully target their market by meeting students’ individual needs and desires and by distributing the concrete travel packages or programs to potential student travelers. This study indicated that different marketing approaches for domestic and international students may not be necessary since the push and pull factors do not differ greatly. Nonetheless, professionals should consult research regarding travel and leisure motivation to conduct effective travel and recreation programs. Studies dealing with Leisure Motivation Scale (LMS), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Dann’s (1977) push and pull motivational framework could help predict consumer’s demand and facilitate recreational program designers.

Conclusion

In understanding reasons that encourage individuals to make decisions for traveling, it is critical to recognize the travel motivation of travelers. Demographic factors such as race, ethnicity, and gender are also important factors which shape humans’ internal forces. In order to effectively serve recreation travelers at their destinations, it is essential for recreation agencies to understand the psychological forces and factors that motivate and satisfy individual travelers. The purpose of the research was to compare travel decisions between U.S. and international students at a Midwestern university based on Dann’s (1977) push and pull motivation factors. This study also focused on travel motivations of domestic and international university students and compared the most salient factors among each group. From the results, home country of the travelers did not have much influence on travel decisions. Nevertheless, findings from this study contribute to an understanding of differences in travel motivation and provide valuable empirical support to professionals in the field who market travel to domestic and international destinations towards college students.