Comparing the Active and on-Active Leisure-Tourism Connection: Leisure Involvement, Leisure Habit, Tourism Motivation, and Tourism Behavior

Researchers have suggested that leisure and tourism are closely related to each other. While the leisure-tourism connection has been observed indirectly in previous research, as yet, few studies have empirically investigated the psychological connection between leisure and tourism activity choices. Moreover, little attention has been given to the relationship between physically active and non-active leisure and tourism choices. Therefore, this study examined the leisure-tourism connection of both physically active (n=316) and non-physically active respondents (n=258) by using four latent variables, leisure involvement, leisure habit, tourism motivation, and tourism behavior. The leisure-tourism causal relationship was found to be statistically significant among the physically active respondents and as such supports trends evident in the existing literature

The role of satisfaction and involvement in loyalty: Comparing residents and tourists

Satisfaction is commonly considered important in predicting future behavioral loyalty in tourism contexts. However, few attempts have been made to find out if the role of satisfaction intensifies involvement as a factor contributing to loyalty, and if the loyalty process for residents and tourists in the context of cultural and historic festivals is the same. Therefore, this study examined the loyalty process of residents (n=181) and tourists (n=227) who attended the Tulip Time Festival in Holland, Michigan, measuring the relationship between involvement, satisfaction, and likelihood of returning to the festival. The results showed that tourists\u27 loyalty is not assured by satisfaction and as such is different from that of residents. A more dynamic relationship between residents and tourists was suggested to increase tourists’ loyalty

ArtPrize Attendees\u27 Profiles: Comparing 2011 with 2010

The purpose of this study was to compare 2011 with 2010 ArtPrize attendees’ demographics, spending, satisfaction, and the intention to return and to suggest future implications

Comparing two events: Tulip Time Festival and ArtPrize in Michigan

Few studies have compared different events to understand commonalities and differences in the relationship between demographic and trip characteristics and the amount of spending by different event attendees. Therefore, this study compared two annual events, with a similar population size, held in the same year and located within the same proximity by using the same instrument and method for the comparative study. The onsite data was randomly collected during the two events. The final usable sample size was 412 from Tulip Time Festival attendees and 862 from ArtPrize attendees. The responses were compared by using descriptive, t-test, and ANOVA. The present study found that each event had different demographics and trip characteristics and spending patterns, however both the events showed consistent results that spending patterns significantly differed by trip purpose, repeat attendance, and age. These similarities and differences found between two events were suggested for future management of similar events

Four Constructs and Consistent Behavior Patterns in the Leisure and Tourism Context

Lack of clarity in conceptualizing involvement, commitment, habit, and loyalty has led to confusion in their applications in the fields of leisure and tourism. This study traced their original meanings and analyzed the theoretical and conceptual similarity and dissimilarity among them. Self-value belief is a component of involvement instead of commitment. Attitudes emerging from action itself should be considered important in the commitment process. Habit includes automaticity, unconsciousness and resistance characteristics beyond behavioral frequency. Loyalty appears when favorable attitudes cause consistent behaviors. Relationships among the constructs were also examined to understand consistent leisure and tourism behavior patterns with a sample of 706 students. Data were analyzed by using MANOVA. The results showed that leisure involvement, leisure commitment, and leisure habit have significant relationships with leisure loyalty, but their subdomains had different relationships with three types of leisure loyalty and only one type of loyalty was significantly related to consistent leisure and tourism behaviors. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed in this paper

Comparing the Active and on-Active Leisure-Tourism Connection: Leisure Involvement, Leisure Habit, Tourism Motivation, and Tourism Behavior

previously providedResearchers have suggested that leisure and tourism are closely related to each other. While the leisure-tourism connection has been observed indirectly in previous research, as yet, few studies have empirically investigated the psychological connection between leisure and tourism activity choices. Moreover, little attention has been given to the relationship between physically active and non-active leisure and tourism choices. Therefore, this study examined the leisure-tourism connection of both physically active (n=316) and non-physically active respondents (n=258) by using four latent variables, leisure involvement, leisure habit, tourism motivation, and tourism behavior. The leisure-tourism causal relationship was found to be statistically significant among the physically active respondents and as such supports trends evident in the existing literature

The role of satisfaction and involvement in loyalty: Comparing residents and tourists

Satisfaction is commonly considered important in predicting future behavioral loyalty in tourism contexts. However, few attempts have been made to find out if the role of satisfaction intensifies involvement as a factor contributing to loyalty, and if the loyalty process for residents and tourists in the context of cultural and historic festivals is the same. Therefore, this study examined the loyalty process of residents (n=181) and tourists (n=227) who attended the Tulip Time Festival in Holland, Michigan, measuring the relationship between involvement, satisfaction, and likelihood of returning to the festival. The results showed that tourists' loyalty is not assured by satisfaction and as such is different from that of residents. A more dynamic relationship between residents and tourists was suggested to increase tourists’ loyalty

Identifying The Value Premium: A Test of Mutual Fund Performance Measures

Leisure activity involvement (LI), leisure activity habit (LH), leisure activity commitment (LC), and leisure activity loyalty (LY) are different concepts from each other. LI and LH represent intentional and automatic components of individuals identity-based leisure lifestyles, respectively, whereas LC focuses on the perceived irrevocability of the initial action due to investment and costs (financial & social) and side-bets (i.e., extended activities) and LY relates to favorable attitudes toward a specific activity, thereby having an intention to choose it first over other activities. Few studies have investigated how LI, LH, and LC are related to LY; also if LY is related to the leisure-tourism connection (LTC). The LTC assumes that tourism behaviors are rooted in leisure. The purpose of this study was 1) to investigate if LI, LH, and LC influence LY and 2) if LY affects the LTC. A sample of 706 college students was surveyed online. Approximately 73% were female and the average age of the sample was 24 years old. The questionnaire consisted of: favorite leisure activities (open ended), LI (lifestyles/identity, hedonic, social), LH (automatic, resistant, regular), LC (investment - time/money, regret if stop it, relevant activities extended from it, cost lose touch with friends), LY (prefer to choose it first over other activities, recommend it to other people, spread positive words to other people), and LTC (tendency to take part in favorite leisure activity during vacation(one dimension of multiple items), frequency of participation in it regardless of the main purpose of vacation, frequency of participation in it as the main purpose of vacation, the likelihood of participating in it as the main purpose of vacation in the next five years). The data were analyzed using CFA and MANOVA. 1) The results of the multivariate analysis showed that all lifestyles/identity, hedonic, and social domains of LI have significant relationships with all LY items (first choice, recommend, positive words), but the findings of the univariate analysis revealed that lifestyles/identity had no significant relationship with recommend, F (1, 45) = .848, p = .75, •p2 = .059. Also, first choice, F (1, 12) = 1.848, p = .062, •p2 = .033, recommend, F (1, 12) = .657, p = .793, •p2 = .01, and positive words, F(1, 12) = 1.442, p = .142, •p2 = .028 did not differ by social involvement. Further, automatic, resistant, and regular of LH significantly influenced loyal attitudes (first choice, recommend, & positive words) toward favorite leisure activity with the exception of a relationship between resistant and recommend, F (1, 12) = 1.442, p = .142, •p2 = .028. For LC, investment, regret, extension, and social cost had significant relationships with LY at the multivariate level, but social cost was not significantly related to first choice at the univariate level, F(1, 4) = 1.397, p = .233, •p2 = .008. For the relationship between LY and LTC, the results of the multivariate analysis revealed that first choice and positive words of LY had significant relationships with the LTC, but recommend did not show any statistically significant relevance with all the LTC items. More specifically, the findings of the univariate analysis showed that only those who prefer to choose this activity first over alternative activities tended to show the leisure-tourism connection behaviors (more tended to take part in their favorite leisure activities during their vacations, more frequently participated in it both regardless of the main purpose of their trip and as the main purpose of their trip, and were likely to do so in the future).In contrast, those who reported they would spread positive words of their favorite activity to others tended to take part in their favorite leisure activity on vacation, but not necessarily frequently either as the primary or the secondary purpose of their trip or in terms of future vacation plans. The finding that the influences on the LTC differ by different types of loyalty is important to use direct marketing and social networking-centered marketing differently

Pathways from economic hardship to couple conflict by socioeconomic status during COVID-19 in Korea

Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the direct and indirect relationships among economic hardship, economic strain, emotional stress, and couple conflict for married Koreans during the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, we investigated whether these pathways were different between lower and higher socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Background Due to the global economic downturn brought on by COVID-19, many couples experienced economic hardship including increased household debt, job loss, and reduced work hours. This context provides a valuable opportunity to test the family stress model (FSM) of romantic relationships, which explains the indirect pathways from economic hardship to couple-level outcomes. Method We collected the data using an online survey in May 2020, when the Seoul metropolitan area experienced the first surge of COVID-19 cases. The sample came from 605 married Korean adults (282 women, 323 men) and was analyzed using multigroup path analysis. Results Among the three markers of economic hardship, increased household debt had a stronger association with couple conflict for lower SES respondents directly and indirectly through elevated economic strain and emotional distress. The total effects of job loss and reduced work hours on more frequent couple conflict were stronger for the higher SES group. Conclusion The process from the three markers of economic hardship to couple conflict was different depending on socioeconomic resources. Implications Family practitioners need to consider SES variations and to work with financial counselors to better support couples with both economic and relationship difficulties.N