Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Research http://jht.sagepub.com/

An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior Model for Tourists

Cathy H. C. Hsu and Songshan (Sam) Huang
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research published online 21 December 2010
DOI: 10.1177/1096348010390817

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jht.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/12/21/1096348010390817
A more recent version of this article was published on - Jun 24, 2012

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education

Additional services and information for Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jht.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jht.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

 Version of Record - Jun 24, 2012

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 21, 2010

What is This?

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

 AN EXTENSION OF THE THEORY
OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR
MODEL FOR TOURISTS
Cathy H. C. Hsu
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Songshan (Sam) Huang
University of South Australia

The sufficiency of theory of planned behavior (TPB) is still being questioned although
the model was validated in predicting a wide range of intentions and behaviors. Based
on a comprehensive literature review, an extended TPB model of tourists was proposed
to investigate relations among constructs of the model with the addition of motivation
and actual behavior. An instrument was developed based on previous tourism and mar-
keting studies as well as focus groups. A two-wave data collection was implemented, with
data collected from 1,524 Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou residents in Stage 1 and
311 respondents from the same cohort in Stage 2. Results of the study demonstrated that
the extended TPB model with tourist motivation fit the data relatively well, explaining
5% more of the variation in behavioral intention in comparison with a base model with-
out motivation. However, the model with both tourist motivation and actual behavior was
not tenable, despite a marginal relationship found between behavioral intention and
actual tourist behavior using regression analysis. The findings warrant further research
examining the predictive power of behavioral intention on actual behavior.

KEYWORDS: theory of planned behavior; extension of TPB; behavioral model;

Chinese outbound tourism; travel motivation; behavioral intention

Motivation for travel and the developmental process of a traveler’s behavior

are two ongoing research themes for tourism researchers. To take adequate
actions in tourism marketing or planning, one must understand which motiva-
tional factors influence individuals’ travel decisions, how attitudes are formed,
and how various reference groups affect travel behaviors (e.g., Moutinho, 1987).
Thus, numerous studies on tourist motivation and behaviors could be found
in the literature. Researchers have paid considerable attention to tourist motiva-
tion (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981; Fodness, 1994; Uysal & Hagan, 1993).
Some behavioral theories were also adopted to investigate how tourist motiva-
tions help develop travelers’ attitudes and how these attitudes lead to behavioral

Authors’ Note: The work described in this article was supported by a grant from The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University (Project No. G-YG47).
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. XX, No. X, Month XXXX, xx-xx
DOI: 10.1177/1096348010390817
© 2010 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
1
2    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

intentions in choosing a travel destination (Lam & Hsu, 2004, 2006; March &
Woodside, 2005a).
One of the often-researched consumer behavior formation models is the the-
ory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1988, 1991), which is an extension of
the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). TPB considers
both social (i.e., subjective norm) and psychological (i.e., attitudes) factors in
the consumers’ decision-making process and has been accepted and used to
predict individuals’ behaviors in hotel selection (Buttle & Bok, 1996), destina-
tion choice (Lam & Hsu, 2006), and social psychology studies (Conner, Kirk,
Cade, & Barrett, 2001). These previous studies paid particular attention to the
relationship between travelers’ attitudes and behavior intentions, which could
only predict a person’s “attempt” to perform a particular behavior but not the
actual performance of the behavior (March & Woodside, 2005b). Little research
could be found investigating how travelers’ motivation influences their attitudes
and behavioral intentions and subsequently determines their actual behaviors in
choosing an international travel destination.
The current study attempted to investigate the travelers’ behavior formation
process in visiting a destination and to test an extended model of the TPB.
Specifically, travel motivation and actual behavior were added to the TPB model,
which enriches the connotation of TPB, so that the travel behavior formation
process can be more thoroughly examined. A two-wave data collection process
was adopted to obtain data from a sample of potential mainland Chinese travelers
to Hong Kong, which enabled the empirical testing of the extended TPB model.
As Chinese outbound tourism is playing an unprecedented important role in the
global tourism industry (Cai, Li, & Knutson, 2007) and China’s outbound mar-
ket continues to grow in size and sophistication, Chinese travelers’ behavior for-
mation process in visiting a destination demands a deeper level of investigation.
The specific objectives of the study were to (a) investigate how different moti-
vation factors contribute to the formation of attitude; (b) examine the impacts of
motivation factors, attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm
on behavioral intention; and (c) explore the influence of attitude and behavioral
intention on actual behavior. The study makes a contribution to the theoretical
development of travel behavior formation by enhancing the sufficiency of a
commonly accepted consumer behavior model. Results of the study also provide
practical implications for the tourism industry in terms of marketing, operations,
and planning.

AN EXTENDED TPB MODEL

Theory of Reasoned Action/ Theory of Planned Behavior

TRA was proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) for the purpose of explain-
ing rational or volitional human behaviors, which states that a person’s volitional
behavior can be predicted directly from the person’s behavioral intention. By
identifying behavioral precursors (i.e., attitudes and subjective norm) and under-
standing their role in the context of a focal behavior, researchers have attempted
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    3

to develop suggestions for influencing and altering the target consumer behav-
ior and predict their various social behaviors (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw,
1988; van den Putte, 1991). Nevertheless, these research efforts have often resulted
in divergent views on the behavior formation process of consumers. The TRA,
in particular, has undergone various modifications and alternative conceptual-
izations. A meta-analytic study by Sheppard et al. (1988) disclosed that less than
20% of the 87 examined studies used Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) model as it was
originally intended to be used.
Thus, an extension of the TRA, known as the TPB, was then proposed by
Ajzen (1988, 1991) to predict behaviors not under complete volitional control.
The basic propositions of TPB are that people are likely to perform a particular
type of behavior if they believe that such behavior will lead to a particular and
valuable outcome, that their important referents will value and approve the
behavior, and that they have the necessary abilities, resources, and opportunities
to carry out such behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Conner, Warren, & Close, 1999). TPB
is especially applicable to behaviors that are not entirely under personal control
(Corby, Schnedier-Jamner, & Wolitski, 1996), and the theory itself encompasses
the relatively thoughtful process involved in considering personal costs and ben-
efits of engaging in various kinds of behavior (Petty, Unnava, & Stratham, 1991).
Compared with TRA, TPB postulates a set of relations among attitude, sub-
jective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention. An attitude
is a person’s positively or negatively valued predisposition, created by learning
and experience, to respond and behave in a consistent way toward certain defined
targets, such as a product or a tourist destination. In the context of tourism,
attitude is the predispositions or feelings toward a travel destination or service,
based on multiple perceived product attributes (Moutinho, 1987). Subjective
norm refers to an individual’s perception of social references, or relevant others’
beliefs that he or she should or should not perform such behavior. Because
people always turn to particular groups for their standards of judgment, any
person(s) served as a reference group could have a key influence on individuals’
beliefs, attitudes, and choices (Moutinho, 1987). Perceived behavioral control is
about an individual’s perceptions of his or her ability to perform a given behav-
ior. Several resources or opportunities could dictate the likelihood of behavioral
achievement (Ajzen, 1991), such as facilitating factors (Triandis, 1977), the
context of opportunity (Sarver, 1983), available resources (Liska, 1984), and
action control (Kuhl, 1985). The inclusion of perceived behavioral control pro-
vides information about the potential constraints on the action as perceived by
the actor. Although behavioral intention could be defined as an individual’s
attempt or plan to perform a particular behavior (Swan, 1981), it represents an
individual’s expectancies about a particular behavior in a given setting and can
be operationalized as the likelihood to act (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Many stud-
ies on destination choice intention were conducted based on the TPB model
(e.g., Lam & Hsu, 2004, 2006; B. Sparks & Pan, 2009), which proclaim that behav-
ioral intention is a consequence of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behav-
ioral control (Ajzen, 1991).
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
4    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

TPB has been applied to examine a variety of social behaviors (e.g., Ajzen,
1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Conner & Sparks, 1996; P. Sparks, 1994; van
den Putte, 1991) with strong predictive utility, especially for those that are not
entirely under personal control (Corby et al., 1996). Although the efficacy of the
model has been validated in predicting a wide range of intentions and behaviors,
its sufficiency in predicting tourist behaviors is still being questioned. In addi-
tion to attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, some schol-
ars also argue that additional constructs, such as the achievement of personal
goals (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001), self-identity processes (P. Sparks & Shepherd,
1992), moral norms (Parker, Manstead, & Stradling, 1995), anticipated emotions
(Parker et al., 1995; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001; Richard, van der Pligt, & de Vries,
1995), past behaviors (Lam & Hsu, 2006; Oh & Hsu, 2001; Quellette & Wood,
1998), and visitors’ satisfaction (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Cronin & Taylor, 1994),
might enhance the TPB’s predictive power. Most importantly, there have been
some criticisms for the neglect of the motivation construct. Bagozzi and
Nataraajan (2000) argued that although attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioral control provide reasons for action, they lack the motivational
impetus for “energizing” the act. Generally speaking, TPB has been widely
used in social psychology, and the model has been supported by many studies
(Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001).

Tourist Motivation
The study of travel motivation is the starting point of any effort to gain the
knowledge of travel behavior; therefore, it has been an important topic in the
leisure and tourism literature since the 1960s when tourism became a focus of
academic study in various disciplines. Many researchers believe tourist motiva-
tion is derived from the influence of travelers’ inner personality (e.g., M. Jackson,
White, & Schmierer, 2000; Lazarus, 1991; Madrigal, 1995), psychographic
characteristics (e.g., Iso-Ahola, 1982; Pearce, 1993), and outside social/cultural
forces (e.g., Dann, 1981; Huang & Hsu, 2005). Many researchers explored tourists’
motivation from social, psychological, and cultural views. Although numerous
studies on the topic of tourist motivation are available, a universally agreed-on
conceptualization of the tourist motivation construct was still lacking (Fodness,
1994), especially in the context of non-Western cultures. Most of the existing
conceptual and empirical schemes of tourist motivation were developed and
tested using samples from developed societies and in Western cultures (e.g.,
Bansal & Eiselt, 2004; Dann, 1977; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Pearce, 1988; Pearce &
Caltabiano, 1983), although there have been successful but limited attempts to
apply these models in non-Western developed societies such as Japan (Cai &
Combrink, 2000; Cha, McCleary, & Uysal, 1995) and Taiwan (Jang, Yu, &
Pearson, 2003).
Taking China as a non-Western developing country, motivation studies on
Chinese outbound tourists have been a very recent phenomenon. Hong Kong
as one of the largest recipients of Chinese outbound tourists received the most

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    5

Figure 1
Proposed Model Based on TPB

Motivation of Visiting
a Destination

H2
H1 H6 Actual Behaviour
of Visiting the
Destination
Attitude toward
Visiting a Destination
H7
H3
Behavioral Intention
of Visiting the
Subjective Norm
Destination
toward Visiting a
Destination H4

H5
Perceived Behavioral
Control toward
Visting a Destination

attention in tourist motivation studies from academia (Hsu & Lam, 2003; Huang
& Hsu, 2005; Zhang & Lam, 1999). Instead of directly applying tourism moti-
vation models conceptualized in developed Western societies, a model that
places the study of motivation in relation to expectation and attitude was pro-
posed in a recent study by Hsu, Cai, and Li (2010) on mainland Chinese out-
bound tourists. Four motivation factors identified from 19 items in the study
included Knowledge, Relaxation, Novelty, and Shopping.

Model Proposition
Although TPB model was adopted by some researchers in hospitality and
tourism studies, few have simultaneously examined the nature of the motivation–
attitude–behavior relationship and the role of behavioral facilitators. The cur-
rent study attempted to test the applicability of the TPB with the addition of the
motivation and actual behavior in a tourism context. The conceptual model of
the current study is illustrated in Figure 1. In line with the study objectives, the
model, in which seven hypotheses were formulated, was empirically tested.
Motivation contributes to the understanding of the formation and change of
attitude (Katz, 1960). Theoretically, motivation is cognitive in nature in that it is
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
6    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

an interaction of motives and situation. Attitude, as a theoretical construct, is com-

monly believed to include three components: cognitive, affective, and conative
(Fishbein, 1967). However, when using attitude to predict behavioral intention
or actual behavior, researchers tend to view it as a relatively simple unidimen-
sional concept containing only the affective component (Ajzen, 1991). In the
present study, we follow the traditional research stream to apply attitude as an
affective construct. According to TPB, an individual’s attitude is determined by
behavioral belief, implying that cognitive motivation may influence affective
attitude (Ajzen, 1991). Behavioral belief is usually measured (e.g., Lam & Hsu,
2006) as respondents’ belief that the target act will enable them to accomplish
certain outcomes (i.e., expectation). However, attitudinal measurements in TPB
are not suitable for representing the motivation component of attitude (Bagozzi,
1986). Most tourist motivation studies measured the construct by asking respon-
dents the reason why they visit a destination or what they would like to do when
visiting a destination and is multidimensional by nature. Very few studies have
investigated the relationship between travel motivation and attitude (e.g., Beard
& Ragheb, 1983; Lam & Hsu, 2004, 2006). Hsu et al. (2010) found that motiva-
tion has a mediating effect on the relationship between expectation and attitude.
The relationship between motivation and travel intention to a destination has
not been well documented. Ajzen (1991) argued, however, intentions capture
the motivational factors that influence a behavior and indicate how hard people
are willing to try or how much effort they would exert to perform the behavior.
This implies that motivation is related to behavioral intention. Adding a separate
motivational component to the TPB will provide an alternative model that allows
an in-depth understanding of travelers’ motivation and its influence on the travel
behavior formation process. Therefore, the following two hypotheses were
proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Tourists’ motivation of visiting a destination has a direct effect on their

attitude toward visiting the destination.
Hypothesis 2: Tourists’ motivation of visiting a destination has a direct effect on their
behavioral intention of visiting the destination.

Most of the work on destination choice intention (e.g., Lam & Hsu, 2004, 2006;
B. Sparks & Pan, 2009) has been conducted based on the TPB model, which
proclaims that behavioral intention is a consequence of attitude, subjective norm,
and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). For instance, Lam and Hsu
(2004, 2006) conducted two empirical studies with 328 mainland Chinese trav-
elers (2004) and 390 Taiwanese tourists (2006) to predict intention of destina-
tion selection. In these studies, attitude and perceived behavioral control were
found to be related to mainland Chinese’s behavioral intention of visiting Hong
Kong, whereas for Taiwanese, subjective norm and perceived behavioral con-
trol were found to be related to their behavioral intention of choosing a destina-
tion. Similarly, B. Sparks and Pan (2009) found that subjective norm and perceived
behavioral control were correlated with behavior intention of mainland Chinese
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    7

in choosing Australia as a destination. Although an individual’s subjective norm

and perceived behavioral control affect the target future behavior, they do so only
indirectly through behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
Therefore, the following three hypotheses were proposed:

Hypotheses 3 to 5: Tourists’ attitude (Hypothesis 3), subjective norm (Hypothesis 4),

and perceived behavioral control (Hypothesis 5) of visiting a destination have a
direct effect on their behavioral intention of visiting the destination.

Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) original conceptualization asserts that the effect
of attitude on future behavior is completely mediated by intention, and they did not
establish the relationship between attitude and actual behavior (Conner & Armitage,
1998). Nevertheless, researchers still discovered that, in addition to an indirect
influence through intention, attitude can influence future behavior directly (Bagozzi
& Yi, 1989; Bentler & Speckart, 1981; Golob, 2003; Liska, 1984). Past studies in
this regard could be found in the tourism literature. For example, Pike (2006) con-
ducted a longitudinal examination of destination decision sets in the context of
short break holidays by car in Queensland, Australia. Two rounds of questionnaire
survey were administered in a 3-month interval. The first round survey intended
to identify destination preferences whereas the second examined actual travel
and destination revisit preferences. The findings indicated a general consistency
between attitude and behavior in the short term. Similarly, Lepp (2007) found that
residents’ positive attitude toward tourism would lead to actual protourism behav-
ior in Bigodi Village, Uganda. Thus, the following hypothesis was formed:

Hypothesis 6: Tourists’ attitude toward visiting a destination has a direct effect on

their actual behavior of visiting the destination.

The TPB seems to deal adequately with the relationship among attitude, sub-
jective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention, but the question of how
an intention is implemented in actual behavior has largely been ignored (Gärling,
Gillholm, & Gärling, 1998). Similarly, Eagly and Chaiken (1993) criticized the
TPB for not clarifying the exact nature of the relation between intention and
behavior, although research has explored how intentions may guide the perfor-
mance of behavior (Gollwitzer, 1993; Heckhausen, 1991; Kuhl, 1985). Some
meta-analyses of the TPB indicated that intention and perceived behavioral con-
trol only account for 34% of the variation to explain behavior (Godin & Kok,
1996; Sutton, 1998). According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), behavioral inten-
tion is considered as the immediate determinant and best predictor of behavior
among all the antecedents of behavior. The TPB theorized that intention results in
behavior when there is an opportunity to act (Ajzen, 1985). Thus, a construct of
actual behavior was added in the proposed model and a hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 7: Tourists’ behavioral intention of visiting a destination has a direct effect

on their actual behavior of visiting the destination.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

8    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

METHOD

Instrument Development
The instrument was developed based on focus group interviews and litera-
ture review. Five focus groups were conducted in Guangzhou and Beijing to
identify participants’ motivation to visit Hong Kong. Each group consisted of 6
to 9 participants and lasted for an average of 45 minutes. The participants were
evenly distributed in terms of gender. Half were between 30 and 39 years of age,
and three quarters were married. The participants were well educated, with 78%
having a college degree or above. More than one quarter of the participants had
visited Hong Kong before, with 70% being Guangzhou residents because of
geographical proximity. Twenty-seven motivation items were generated from
focus group results. These 27 motivation items were then combined with mea-
surements from previous research (e.g., Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981; Fodness,
1994; Hsu & Lam, 2003; Jang & Cai, 2002; Zhang & Lam, 1999) with a total
of 38 items generated for pilot studies. Two pilot studies were conducted in
mainland China with 204 and 186 respondents, respectively, to reduce and
refine the motivation items with factor analyses and reliability tests. Items on
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavior control were adapted from
Lam and Hsu (2004). The survey instrument was designed in English and trans-
lated into Chinese using a blind translation-back-translation method (Brislin,
1976). The translated version was reviewed by several tourism researchers with
competencies in both languages to ensure accuracy of translation.
All motivation items shared an umbrella question stem: “If you were to visit
Hong Kong in the near future, you would visit it because you’d like to . . .” The
attitude construct was measured by six statements that began with “From all your
knowledge about Hong Kong, you think the visit would be . . .” The six state-
ments were enjoyable, pleasant, worthwhile, satisfying, fascinating, and reward-
ing. Three statements were asked to measure subjective norm: “Most people
who are important to you think you should visit Hong Kong in the near future,”
“The people in your life whose opinions you value would approve your visiting
to Hong Kong in the near future,” and “Most people who are important to you
would visit Hong Kong in the near future.” Five statements were used to mea-
sure perceived behavioral control. A sample statement was, “Whether or not to
visit Hong Kong in the near future is completely up to you.”
Behavior intention and actual behavior were measured in two different sur-
veys. Behavior intention of visiting Hong Kong in the Wave 1 questionnaire
included four statements mainly adapted from Lam and Hsu (2004), which were
“You intend to visit Hong Kong in the next 6 months,” “You plan to visit Hong
Kong in the next 6 months,” “You want to visit Hong Kong in the next 6 months,”
and “You probably will visit Hong Kong in the next 6 months.” The actual
behavior in the Wave 2 questionnaire was measured with one statement: “How
many times did you visit Hong Kong in the past 6 months?” Except for actual
behavior, all the above items used the same 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging
from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1).
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    9

Two-Wave Data Collection

An empirical study was conducted to test the proposed model and hypothe-
ses. The sampling frame consisted of mainland Chinese individuals who have
shown interest in travel. The data used in this study were collected in three major
cities of Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, China. These three cities were selected
for their residents’ trendsetting status in lifestyles and higher income and, there-
fore, higher propensities to travel (Hsu & Crotts, 2006). The three cities also have
a broad geographic representation of China and include both long- and short-
haul potential mainland Chinese travelers to Hong Kong.
To accomplish the research objectives, a two-stage survey procedure was per-
formed to collect data. Stage 1 aimed to collect data on reasons of visiting Hong
Kong (motivation), attitude toward visiting Hong Kong, groups or individuals
whose views might influence respondents’ visit to Hong Kong (subjective norm),
the degree of control over a future visit (perceived behavioral control), likelihood
of visiting Hong Kong in the next 6 months (behavioral intention), and demo-
graphic characteristics. In Stage 2 data collection, in addition to motivation, sub-
jective norm, and perceived behavioral control, frequency of visit to Hong Kong
in the past 6 months was added to collect information on actual behavior.
For Stage 1 data collection, respondents were chosen based on a convenience
sampling method. A group of trained interviewers were stationed at airport ter-
minals, train stations, shopping malls, and outside travel agencies. Once respon-
dents agreed to participate in the survey, the purpose of the study was explained
and a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to them for completion on
site. As a result, 1,514 completed surveys were retained as the sample of the
study. Respondents were asked to provide name, phone number, mailing address,
and e-mail address for a follow-up survey in 6 months.
Wave 2 data collection was conducted 6 months after the initial survey.
Respondents of the first data collection were contacted by postal and/or e-mail
to be invited to complete the follow-up questionnaire. A total of 995 question-
naires were successfully sent (i.e., were not returned) by postal mail and 528 by
e-mail. Follow-up phone calls were made to remind participants of the question-
naire sent. Unique coding was used to make sure that each respondent can only
return the second questionnaire once. No participant was found to return both
the postal and e-mail surveys. A total of 311 questionnaires were returned, with
an overall response rate of 21.4%.

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS and LISREL. Data were first screened by
checking the descriptive statistics. Because structural equation modeling (SEM)
requires that the data should not extremely violate the assumption of normality,
both univariate and multivariate normality were tested. The skewness statistics
ranged from -1.324 to -0.100 and the kurtosis statistics from -0.933 to 2.480.
Because none of the absolute values of univariate skewness exceeded 2 and none
of the absolute values of univariate kurtosis exceeded 3, the data should not be
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
10    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

treated as extremely violating normality according to Kline’s (1998) criteria.

Therefore, no data transformation was attempted.
Following the data screening, the Wave 1 sample was randomly split into two
halves, one as calibration sample (n = 784) and the other as validation sample
(n = 730). Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were run with the calibration sample
on each of the research constructs in the proposed model except actual behavior.
Subsequently, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were run with the validation
sample to see whether the underlying factorial structures (measurement models)
still hold, with adjustments being made where necessary. Once the measurement
models were identified, the overall measurement model was tested, followed by
the test of the proposed structural model, with both using the validation sample.
To test the extended TBP model including actual behavior, the two-wave data
were merged together. The new data set contains Wave 1 data for motivation,
attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control and Wave 2 data for
actual behavior with an effective sample size of 311. Because of the substantial
reduction of sample size in the Wave 2 data, the originally proposed model can-
not be tested using the full structural model with all the observed variables. The
model was very complicated with the inclusion of the motivation factors (latent
variables) and their measurement indicators. A sample size of 311 was consid-
ered too small to ensure stable model estimation (Kline, 1998). An alternative
solution was sought. Each latent variable (e.g., motivation factors, attitude,
subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and visit intention) was replaced
by a proxy variable. Values of the proxy variables were calculated by the fol-
lowing formula (Field, 2009):

Pi = S(Iij * Fij)/n,

where Pi is the ith latent variable, Iij is the jth indicator’s observed score in the
ith latent variable, Fij is the standardized factor loading of the jth indicator’s
observed score in the ith latent variable, and n is the number of indicator vari-
ables for the ith latent variable. The model with the proxy variables and actual
behavior appeared to be a pure path model without latent variables. The path
model was then tested to see whether it fits the data.
This study adopted maximum likelihood as the estimation method in all SEM
analyses. Chi-square, ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom (dfs), root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean square residual
(RMR), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), and comparative fit
index (CFI) were adopted as multiple model fit criteria (Diamantopoulos &
Siguaw, 2000). The cutoff point of c2/df was set at 3:1 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989),
and the cutoff points of RMSEA, standardized RMR, GFI, NFI, and CFI were .08,
.05, .90, .90, .90, respectively (Byrne, 1998; Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000).

RESULTS

The characteristics of respondents from Wave 1 are shown in Table 1. The

sample was evenly distributed between males and females. About 73% of the
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    11

Table 1
Profile of Wave 1 Survey Participants (n = 1,514)

Characteristics Percentage

Gender
Male 50.1
Female 49.9
Age (years)
18 or younger 8.2
18-29 73.6
30-39 10.3
40-49 4.4
50-59 2.6
60 or older 0.9
Marital status
Never been married 76.9
Married 22.2
Divorced 0.5
Widowed 0.2
Other 0.2
Occupation
Businessman 6.3
Civil servant 3.2
Teacher 3.1
Clerk/white-collar worker 34.1
Blue-collar worker 3.3
Retired 1.5
Unemployed 4.9
Other 43.6
Personal monthly income (RMB)a
Less than 1,000 9.4
1,001-2,000 22.3
2,001-3,000 19.0
3,001-4,000 9.2
4,001-5,000 5.2
More than 5,000 5.6
No income 29.3
Education level
Middle school and below 4.2
High school or professional high school 27.8
2-3 year college 27.4
4-year university 35.3
Postgraduate or above 5.3
Have ever visited Hong Kong before?
Yes 13.3
No 86.7

a. 1 U.S. dollar = approximately 6.8 RMB.

respondents were between 18 and 29 years old. Respondents were well edu-
cated, with nearly 70% of them holding a college or higher education level, and
one third of them being white-collar workers. Only 13% of the respondents had
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
12    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

visited Hong Kong before. The age and occupation profile of respondents from
Wave 2 was similar to that of Wave 1, with 77% between 18 and 29 years old
and white-collar workers (47%) representing the most popular occupation.

Measurement of Motivation
EFA was conducted to extract underlying dimensions of motivation with the
calibration sample (n = 784). A principal component method with varimax rota-
tion was used. To control the number of factors extracted, a minimum eigenvalue
of 1 was used. Items exhibiting low factor loadings (≤.40), high cross-loadings
(>.40), or low communalities (<0.50) would be removed as a principle (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2002). The factor analysis reached a solution of
four factors without deleting any items. The four factors were labeled as
Knowledge, Relaxation, Novelty, and Shopping (Table 2). A Cronbach’s alpha
reliability test was run and all factors showed acceptable levels of reliability.
After identifying the underlying motivation factors, the factorial structure
was tested using CFA with the validation sample (n = 730). The measurement
model with all items did not seem to have a satisfactory fit with the data
(c2/df = 6.31, RMSEA = .085, standardized RMR = .068, GFI = .88, NFI =
.90, CFI = .91). Five measurement items were then removed from the model,
as suggested by the modification indices and their lack of utility to serve as a
highly reliable measurement indicator either because of low loading or double
loading. These items were “enjoy natural and urban landscape in Hong Kong”
from the Knowledge factor, “release work pressure” from the Relaxation fac-
tor, and “experience a metropolitan city,” “feel the magnificence of the city’s
skyscrapers,” and “visit cultural and historical attractions” from the Novelty
factor.

Measurements of Other Latent Variables

The same procedure was applied to test the measurement models of attitude,
subjective norm (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC), and behavioral
intention (BI). EFA was run with the calibration sample first to identify the
underlying latent structure and then the latent structure was due for CFA and
further adjustment to find a suitable measurement model for each latent vari-
able. As shown in Table 3, two attitude items, with the semantic words of
“fascinating” and “rewarding,” were removed from the attitude measurement
because of redundancy. Two perceived behavioral control variables with the
reversed wording (“It is difficult for you to visit Hong Kong in the near future”
and “It is impossible for you to visit Hong Kong in the near future”) were
found to lie on a different underlying factorial dimension from the other three
items in the EFA. The result was probably because of the reversed wording.
With an acceptable reliability of the three statements loaded on the primary
factor, the two reversed items were removed. Similarly, one behavioral inten-
tion item, “You want to visit Hong Kong in the next 6 months,” was removed
in the CFA process.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
 Table 2
Factor Analyses of Motivation Items

EFA (n = 784) CFA (n = 730)

Variance Standardized Composite

Factor/Item Loading Eigenvalue Explained (%) Factor Loading t-Value SMC Reliability

Knowledge (EFA a = .815, M = 5.33) 3.460 17.298 .92

MOT10: Know more about Hong Kong as an  .741 .675 18.924 .456
  example of “One Country, Two Systems”
MOT11: Experience different cultures .703 .714 20.352 .510
MOT19: Learn Hong Kong’s unique colonial   .683 .639 17.674 .409
  history
MOT17: Experience the melting culture of   .681 .558 14.977 .312
  East meeting West
MOT8: Increase knowledge about other places .617 .634 17.471 .401
MOT9: Interact with Hong Kong people .571 .652 18.126 .426
MOT16: Enjoy natural and urban landscape in   .438
  Hong Kong
Relaxation (EFA a = .761, M = 5.23) 2.730 13.648 .73
MOT4: Enjoy happy time with family .772 .711 18.651 .506
MOT3: Relax and rest .736 .521 13.168 .272
MOT5: Enjoy happy time with friends who travel   .709 .739 19.427 .545
  together
MOT14: Release work pressure .576

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

MOT6: Have some time for a break from   .570 .574 14.695 .329
  routine life
Novelty (EFA a = .735, M = 5.00) 2.489 12.447 .73
MOT2: Experience a metropolitan city .647
MOT13: Visit a destination that most people   .626 756 17.710 .572
  think deserves a visit

13
(continued)
14
Table 2 (continued)

EFA (n = 784) CFA (n = 730)

Variance Standardized Composite

Factor/Item Loading Eigenvalue Explained (%) Factor Loading t-Value SMC Reliability
MOT12: Fulfill curiosity about Hong Kong .585 .767 17.907 .589
MOT15: Feel the magnificence of the city’s   .571
  skyscrapers
MOT7: Visit cultural and historical attractions .539
Shopping (EFA a = .703, M = 4.90) 2.143 10.714 .71
MOT18: Buy world famous brand-name products .819 .852 18.636 .726
MOT20: Buy IT and telecommunication products .763 .585 14.024 .342
MOT1: Go shopping .723 .545 13.201 .297
Total (EFA a = .865) 54.107
KMO = .870 c2 = 294.57, df = 84, p < .001
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: c2 = 4828.915, RMSEA = .059
p< .000 Standardized RMR = .048
GFI = .95, NFI = .94, CFI = .96

Note: EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; KMO = Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMR =

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SMC = squared
multiple correlation.
 Table 3
Factor Analyses of Attitude, Subjective Norm, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Behavior Intention

EFA (n = 784) CFA (n = 730)

Variance Standardized Composite

Factor/Item Loading Eigenvalue Explained (%) Factor Loading t-Value SMC Reliability

Attitude (EFA a = .854, M = 5.59) 3.512 58.525 .82

ATT1: The visit would be enjoyable .751 .661 18.400 .437
ATT2: The visit would be pleasant .782 .829 24.394 .687
ATT3: The visit would be worthwhile .769 .708 20.246 .502
ATT4: The visit would be satisfying .838 .698 19.663 .487
ATT5: The visit would be fascinating .775
ATT6: The visit would be rewarding .665
KMO = .868 c2 =5.29, df = 2, p = .07, RMSEA =. .0475,
Bartlett’s test of sphericity:   standardized RMR = .0133, GFI = .996,
c2 =1848.301, p < .000 NFI = .995, CFI = .997
Subjective Norm (EFA a = .854, M = 4.34) 2.324 77.457 .84
SN1: Most people who are important to you   .904 .841 25.008 .707
  think you should visit Hong Kong in the  
  near future
SN2: The people in your life whose opinions   .876 .812 23.991 .660
  you value would approve your visiting  
  Hong Kong in the near future
SN3: Most people who are important to you   .860 .735 21.348 .541

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

  would visit Hong Kong in the near future
KMO = .721 c2 = 0, df = 0, p =1; saturated model
Bartlett’s test of sphericity:  
c2 = 1053.509, p < .000

(continued)

15
 Table 3 (continued)

16
EFA (n = 784) CFA (n = 730)

Variance Standardized Composite

Factor/Item Loading Eigenvalue Explained (%) Factor Loading t-Value SMC Reliability
Perceived Behavioral Control (EFA a = .837, 2.267 75.558 .83
  M = 3.92)
PBC2: Whether or not to visit Hong Kong in   .841 .675 19.062 .456
  the near future is completely up to you
PBC3: If you wanted to, you could visit   .875 .826 23.868 .682
  Hong Kong in the near future
PBC4: You have complete control over visiting   .890 .839 24.316 .704
  Hong Kong in the near future
KMO = .716 c2 = 0, df = 0, p = 1; saturated model
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: c2 = 942.367,
p < .000
Behavioral Intention (EFA a = .861, M = 4.42) 2.824 70.607 .81
INT1: You intend to visit Hong Kong in the   .818 .555 15.059 .308
  next 6 months
INT2: You plan to visit Hong Kong in the   .837 .919 25.114 .845
  next 6 months
INT3: You want to visit Hong Kong in the   .855
  next 6 months
INT4: You probably will visit Hong in the   .851 .788 21.451 .621

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

  next 6 months
KMO = .662 c2 = 0, df = 0, p = 1; saturated model
Bartlett’s test of sphericity:  
c2 = 1601.678, p < .000

Note: EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; KMO = Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI =
goodness-of-fit index; RMR = root mean square residual; NFI = normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SMC = squared
multiple correlation.
 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    17

Overall Measurement and Structural

Models Without Actual Behavior
An overall measurement model was tested with all latent variables (four
motivation factors, attitude, PBC, SN, BI) except actual behavior using the vali-
dation sample (n = 730). All latent variables were specified to freely correlate
with each other. The overall measurement model was found to fit the data very
well (c2/df = 2.81, RMSEA = .050, standardized RMR = .048, GFI = .92,
NFI = .94, CFI = .96). Following the two-step model testing procedure com-
monly used in SEM (Byrne, 1998; Kline, 1998), the proposed structural model
can then be tested.
The proposed structural model without actual behavior was tested by allow-
ing causal relationships as proposed among the latent variables. The structural
model was found to fit the data well (c2/df = 2.83, RMSEA = .050, standardized
RMR = .049, GFI = .92, NFI = .94, CFI = .96) and explained 42% (R2) of the
total variation in behavioral intention, demonstrating a strong explanatory
power of the proposed model (Cohen, 1988). To test whether adding the motiva-
tion construct improved the proposed model’s explanatory power, the base TPB
model without motivation was further tested. The results also showed a good
model fit (c2/df = 2.36, RMSEA = .043, other fit indices not produced by
LISREL because of missing data). However, the base model only explained
37% (R2) of the variation in behavioral intention, with path coefficients slightly
increased (Attitude → BI: b = .209; SN → BI: b = .349; PBC → BI: b = .241).
This finding reinforces the necessity of extending the base TPB model in differ-
ent applied areas of behavioral sciences to improve its explanatory power, which
prompted the current study.
As shown in Table 4 and Figure 2, all motivation factors had a significant
positive effect on attitude. The result thus supported Hypothesis 1. However,
only Shopping as a motivation factor posted a significant influence on behav-
ioral intention; the other three motivation factors did not affect behavioral inten-
tion. Thus, Hypothesis 2 can only be partially supported. As expected, subjective
norm had a very salient effect (b = .315) on behavioral intention, so did per-
ceived behavioral control (b = .171), albeit in a lesser magnitude. In contrast,
attitude was found to have an effect on behavioral intention; however, judging
from the path coefficient (b = .095), the effect appeared only marginal. These
findings generally supported Hypotheses 3 to 5. The proposed model explained
33% of the variable for attitude and 42% of that for behavioral intention, which
indicated that the explanatory power of the model was quite satisfactory.

Testing the Structural Model With Actual Behavior

The combined two-wave data were used to test the structural model with
actual behavior (Figure 1). Considering the limitation with the sample size, proxy
variables were calculated and used in the final path model with actual behavior.
Actual behavior was measured by respondents’ number of visits to Hong Kong
during the 6-month interval between Wave 1 and Wave 2 data collection. Among
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
18    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Figure 2
Structural Model Without Actual Behavior

Knowledge Relaxation Shopping

Novelty

.29** .117*
.19** .235**
.247**

Attitude
.095*

Visit
Intention
Subjective .315**
Norm

.171**
χ2 = 916.9, df = 324, p <.01
Perceived RMSEA = 0.0501
Behavioral Standardized RMR = .0485
Control GFI =.918
NFI =.940
CFI =.960

**significant at the .01 level; *significant at the .05 level

*p <.05. **p <.01 level.

the 311 respondents, 43 (13.8%) had actualized their travel to Hong Kong dur-
ing the 6-month interval. Of those with realized behaviors, 31 (72%) traveled to
Hong Kong once, 7 (16%) traveled to Hong Kong twice, 4 (9%) traveled three
times, and 1 (2.3%) traveled six times. A cross-tab chi-square test showed that
respondents from Guangzhou were more likely to have realized travels than
those from Beijing and Shanghai (c2 = 23.14, p < .01).
Despite the researchers’ effort to simplify the model structure by using proxy
aggregated variables, the model did not converge with the data in the path analy-
sis. LISREL outputs displayed a warning message that the covariance matrix to
be analyzed was not positive definite. Alternatively, regression analysis was
applied to test whether actual behavior can be explained by behavioral intention
and/or attitude. Results of the first regression analysis with intention as the
independent variable and actual behavior as the dependent variable showed that
behavioral intention was correlated with actual behavior (b = .135, p < .001).
However, the explanatory power of behavioral intention on actual behavior was
very limited (R2 = .048). The second regression analysis was run with intention

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    19

Table 4
Path Analysis Results of the Proposed Model

Path Standardized b t-Value

Knowledge → Attitude   .190 3.518**

Relaxation → Attitude   .290 5.840**
Novelty → Attitude   .117 2.105*
Shopping → Attitude   .235 5.154**
Knowledge → Behavioral Intention   .052 0.991a
Relaxation → Behavioral Intention   .065 1.359a
Novelty → Behavioral Intention   .000 0.004a
Shopping → Behavioral Intention   .247 4.951**
Attitude → Behavioral Intention   .095 1.970*
Perceived Behavior Control → Behavioral Intention   .171 3.410**
Subjective Norm → Behavioral Intention .315 5.964**

a. Not significant.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

and attitude as independent variables and actual behavior as the dependent variable.
Attitude (b = .044, p = .445) was insignificant whereas behavior intention was
significant but again with limited explanatory power (b = .128, p = .001, R2 = .051).
The results provided evidence to support Hypothesis 7 but reject Hypothesis 6.
Caution should be taken not to overstate the findings because the method switch
from SEM to regression only serves to test specific hypotheses, not the struc-
tural model. It seemed that when including actual behavior, structural relations
among the variables of interest are less salient.
Repeated-measure t tests were used to see whether significant changes occurred
between the two data collection points. Seven of the 20 motivation items, 2 of
the 6 attitude items, 4 of the 5 PBC items, and 3 of the 4 SN items exhibited
significant changes between the two measurements. This finding suggests that
unobservable events between the two data collection administrations may have
produced changes in major research constructs of interest, which may in turn
reduce the prediction power of the extended TPB model with actual behavior.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Using TPB as the theoretical framework, this study identified gaps in the
literature and proposed an extended model to be tested in an emerging market.
In this regard, this study makes significant academic and practical contributions
in the following aspects.
Results of this study demonstrated the utility of TPB as a conceptual frame-
work in analyzing the behavior of visiting a destination among potential visi-
tors. Subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and attitude all had direct
and positive impact on behavioral intention. Important referents’ suggestions or
evaluations of visiting a destination have a greater influence in choosing the des-
tination than perceived behavior control. Attitude does play a role in behavioral
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
20    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

intention, but the effect can only be regarded as marginal. Results of this study
mostly parallel that of Lam and Hsu (2006) who found that among Taiwanese
respondents, subject norm (b = .37, p < .01) had the strongest influence on
behavior intention, followed by perceived behavior control (b = .19, p < .05). In
their study, however, the path between attitude and behavior intention was insig-
nificant. The concurrence of the present study and Lam and Hsu’s in subjective
norm’s relatively strong predictive power may be attributed to the collectivistic
culture where both studies collected data. In a collectivistic culture like the
Chinese, people may be more subject to social norm influences than those from
a dominantly individualistic culture. In contrast, some TPB application studies
in Western contexts found that the relationship between subjective norm and
behavior intention was not well established (e.g., B. Sparks, 2007).
This study also contributed to the extension of TPB. Although motivation
plays an important role in the formation and changing of attitude (Katz, 1960),
very few studies have well examined the relationship between travel motivation
and attitude or travel intention (e.g., Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Lam & Hsu, 2004,
2006). Adding a separate motivation component, with four motivation factors
derived in this study context, to the TPB provided an alternative model that
allows an in-depth understanding of travelers’ motivation of visiting a destina-
tion and its influence on the travel behavior formation process. Results showed
that the extended TPB model with the addition of tourist motivation held with
the study sample. For mainland Chinese travelers, the motivation of Shopping
as a significant predictor of their intention of visiting Hong Kong has been
demonstrated.
The TPB seems to deal adequately with the relationship between attitude and
intention; however, the question of how an intention is actualized as a behavior
has largely been ignored (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Gärling et al., 1998). Although
behavior intention was to predict actual behavior, it is the actual behavior, not
the likelihood of the behavior to be carried out, that makes a difference for
practitioners. Thus, the establishment of relationships among motivation, atti-
tude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavior intention as
well as actual behavior would make a significant contribution to both theory and
practice. A two-wave data collection procedure was adopted to obtain the actual
behavior data. However, no evidence could be generated from the data to support
the extended model with both tourist motivation and actual behavior included
despite that the data did support a relationship between behavioral intention and
actual behavior.
Some studies also found that actual behavior cannot be sufficiently predicted
by intention using the TPB model. For instance, Paris and Van Den Broucke
(2008), in examining drivers’ speeding behavior, noted that the actual speeding
behavior was not significantly predicted by intention and perceived control.
Arnold et al. (2006) insightfully suggested that more attention should be directed
to differences in people’s circumstances when using a TPB model to predict
behavior, particularly regarding past decisions and behavior, and to obstacles in
implementing an intention.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    21

Discrepancies in relationship between intention and actual behavior found in

numerous past studies also led Ajzen and colleagues to consider underlying socio­
psychological attributes such as hypothetical bias (Ajzen, Brown, & Carvajal,
2004). Ajzen et al. (2004) argued that intention could well resemble a hypo-
thetical reaction which tends to inflate respondents’ perception of the occur-
rence of their real behavior. The hypothetical bias could be an explanation of the
inaccuracy of intention’s prediction of behavior. Using an experimental research
design, Ajzen et al. introduced a remedy concept, corrective entreaty, and found
that after explaining the sociopsychological mechanism of hypothetical bias to
participants, their subsequent intention responses became more realistic and the
predictive power of intention on behavior increased significantly.
The present study revealed a very marginal predictive capacity of intention
on actual behavior. Behavioral intention can only explain 5% of the variance in
actual behavior using regression analysis. Hypothetical bias as identified by
Ajzen et al. (2004) may be one reason for such a low percentage. Considering
the study context, we also speculate that other factors may have caused inten-
tion’s low predictive power. As Chinese still value outbound travel as high-end
consumption that can enhance one’s prestige and social status, they may respond
more favorably to the intention questions.
Besides behavioral intention, other factors may play more decisive roles in
determining the actual behavior. For example, travel constraints may explain the
deviation of actual behavior from intention (E. L. Jackson, 1988; E. L. Jackson,
Crawford, & Godbey, 1993). Prior studies incorporating actual behavior in the
TPB model suggested that past habitual behavior could contribute to the predic-
tion of actual behavior (Mullan & Wong, 2009; Verbeke &Vackier, 2005). In our
study, 87% of the Wave 1 respondents had never visited Hong Kong. To most
respondents, especially those from far away cities of Beijing and Shanghai,
visiting Hong Kong could hardly be regarded as a habitual behavior. Research
also indicated that frequency and recency of prior buying behavior predicts the
subsequent purchase incidence (De Cannière, De Pelsmacker, & Geuens, 2009).
In the case of the current study, only 9% of those who had never visited Hong
Kong made the visit in the 6-month period between data collections; however,
among those who had visited in the past, 53% visited again (some for multiple
times) in the same period, which supports the results of the above-reviewed stud-
ies. Thus, the overall lack of prior behavior may explain the inability to predict
actual behavior in the present study.
Another academic contribution of this study lies in its special study context.
Unlike most of the prominent travel behavior models developed in Western
societies or developed countries, this article reported the applicability of a model
based on the TPB in a developing country and non-Western society. China has
achieved the most impressive development and become a new yet prosperous
tourism outbound market in the past two decades. Because of the very different
social, cultural, political, and economic background, the characteristics of Chinese
outbound travelers are distinctive from those of Western society. However, the exp­
loration of Chinese outbound market seemed insufficient in the tourism literature
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
22    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

(Cai, 2007; Cai et al., 2007). Compared with Western countries where wealth is
greatest among those aged 45 to 54 years, Chinese growing affluence will be
concentrated among those aged 25 to 44 years, to which the majority of respon-
dents in the current study belonged. This is in large because of the one-child
policy and the unparalleled level of support in education by the Chinese govern-
ment. With up to 500 million consumers, this group of people, who like to travel
and shop, has become the backbone of consumption across China (Ernst &
Young, 2005). Therefore, an investigation into the outbound travel behavior of
young and middle-aged Chinese tourists can help destination marketers and
managers better understand the characteristics of the market and communicate
with them more effectively accordingly.
Based on the findings of the study, some salient implications can be derived.
As overseas travel becomes more common for the mainstream consumer mar-
ket, social influence from referent members of mainland Chinese residents
becomes an important factor in making travel decisions. Thus, marketing and
public relations campaigns should not only be directed toward potential travel-
ers but also the general public in forming a positive destination image among
all members of the society so that positive influence can be exerted on potential
travelers through subjective norm. Image campaigns, rather than result-specific
promotions, could serve this purpose. Communication messages should also
encourage positive word of mouth, whether based on actual visit experience in
the past or general image formed through media exposure.
Acknowledged as the “shopping paradise” by mainland Chinese residents,
regardless of whether or not they had visited this city (Huang & Hsu, 2005),
Hong Kong has an overall image of duty-free, world-famous luxury goods and
abundant branded clothing and electronic products. Shopping is not only a
motivation factor but also a signature attraction of Hong Kong. Because the
Individual Visit Scheme has been extended to more Chinese cities, the number
and proportion of independent and repeat travelers increased annually. Acc­
ording to Hong Kong Tourism Board, the proportion of independent and repeat
Chinese travelers reached 55.5% in 2007 for the first time (Hong Kong
Tourism Board, 2008), which demonstrated free independent travelers as the
primary form of outbound travelers to Hong Kong. Comparing with tour groups,
independent travelers usually have greater flexibility and financial means in
shopping. But the advantage of shopping in Hong Kong may be weakened with
the development and change of global macroeconomic environment, which
will influence the behavior intention of traveling to Hong Kong. For example,
after China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, custom duties of most
import commodities have been lowered gradually. Some of the Chinese coastal
cities may become good shopping destinations in the future when high-quality
products can be purchased at similar prices. For the sake of Hong Kong tour-
ism industry’s sustainable development, Hong Kong’s tourism and retail trades
need to work together to enhance tourists’ shopping experience by offering the
most attractive product mix, enjoyable shopping environment, and top-notch

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    23

service quality. Positive and negative implications of the shopping motivation

serving as a relatively strong predictor of behavior intention need to be further
studied in detail.
Perceived behavior control was also found to be an important predictor
of behavior intention. Marketing communication with potential visitors should
stress the fact that visiting Hong Kong is easy, hassle free, and within their own
control.
This study empirically investigated the ability of behavioral intention in pre-
dicting actual behavior in a tourism context. Results showed that a satisfactory
model cannot be generated with the actual behavior included as a study con-
struct. Future studies should further explore the relationship between behavior
intention and actual behavior to verify the results of this study. Among the Wave
2 respondents, 84% had not actualized their intention in the past 6 months. The
low actualization rate may be because of the short time interval between the two
data collection points. Thus, a longer lap in data collection points could allow
respondents more chance to realize their intention. Testing the model separately
for repeat and first time visitors would also generate insights on the role of past
behavior on future behavior within the TPB framework. Other factors, such as
economic, situational, and other personal issues, could also have interfered with
the predictive ability of behavior intention on actual behavior. The practical con-
tribution to Hong Kong was at the same time the limitation of this present study.
Similar research efforts are warranted to verify the validity of the model for other
destinations and other traveler markets.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. B. J. Kuhl

(Ed.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitude, personality and behavior. Milton Keynes, England: Open
University Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between inten-
tions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1108-1121.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A
meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Arnold, J., Loan-Clarke, J., Coombs, C., Wilkinson, A., Park, J., & Preston, D. (2006).
How well can the theory of planned behavior account for occupational intentions?
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 374-390.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1986). Attitude formation under the theory of reasoned action and a pur-
poseful behavior reformation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 95-107.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraajan, R. (2000). The year 2000: Looking forward. Psychology
& Marketing, 17, 1-11.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). The degree of intention formation as a moderator of the
attitude-behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 266-279.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

24    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Baker, D., & Crompton, J. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals
of Tourism Research, 27, 785-804.
Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. (2004). Exploratory research of tourist motivations and planning.
Tourism Management, 25, 387-396.
Beard, J., & Ragheb, M. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure
Research, 15, 219-228.
Bentler, P. M., & Speckart, G. (1981). Attitudes “cause” behaviors: A structural equation
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Review, 40, 226-238.
Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Crosscultural studies.
International Journal of Psychology, 11, 215-229.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modelling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buttle, F., & Bok, B. (1996). Hotel marketing strategy and the theory of reasoned action.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8, 5-10.
Cai, L. (2007). Toward a deserved image and identity of the Chinese consumers in the
global marketplace of tourism (in Chinese). Tourism Tribune, 22(1), 16-18.
Cai, L., & Combrink, T. (2000). Japanese female travelers: A unique outbound market.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 16-24.
Cai, L., Li, M., & Knutson, B. (2007). Research on China outbound market: A meta
review. Journal of Leisure & Hospitality Marketing, 16, 5-20.
Cha, S., McCleary, K., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motivations of Japanese overseas trav-
elers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research, 34, 33-39.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A
review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,
1429-1464.
Conner, M., Kirk, S. F. L., Cade, J. E., & Barrett, J. H. (2001). Why do women use
dietary supplements? The use of the theory of planned behavior to explore beliefs
about their use. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 621-633.
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (1996). The theory of planned behavior and health behaviors.
In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behavior: Research and practice
with social cognition models (pp. 121-162). Buckingham, England: Open University
Press.
Conner, M., Warren, R., & Close, S. (1999). Alcohol consumption and the theory of
planned behavior: An examination of the cognitive mediation of past behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1676-1704.
Corby, N., Schnedier-Jamner, M., & Wolitski, R. (1996). Using the theory of planned
behavior to predict intention to use condoms among male and female injecting drug
users. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 52-75.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivation for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,
6, 408-424.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1994). SERFPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling perfor-
mance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 125-131.
Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4,
184-194.
Dann, G. (1981). Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8, 187-219.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    25

De Cannière, M. H., De Pelsmacker, P., & Geuens, M. (2009). Relationship quality and
the theory of planned behavior models of behavioral intentions and purchase behav-
ior. Journal of Business Research, 62, 82-92.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the unini-
tiated. London, England: Sage.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Ernst & Young. (2005, September). China: The new lap of luxury [Electronic version].
Retrieved from http://www.ln.edu.hk/mkt/staff/gcui/EY-Luxurygoods.pdf
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.),
Attitude theory and measurement (pp. 477-492). New York, NY: Wiley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduc-
tion to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 21,
555-581.
Gärling, T., Gillholm, R., & Gärling, A. (1998). Reintroducing attitude theory in travel
behavior research: The validity of an interactive interview procedure to predict car
use. Transportation, 25, 129-146.
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applica-
tions to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11, 87-98.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. In W. Stroebe &
M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 141-185).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Golob, T. F. (2003). Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research. Transportation
Research Part B: Methodological, 37, 1-25.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2002). Multivariate Data
Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hong Kong Tourism Board. (2008). A statistical review of Hong Kong tourism 2007.
Hong Kong SAR: Author.
Hsu, C. H. C., Cai, L. A., & Li, M. (2010). Expectation, motivation, and attitude: A tour-
ist behavioral model. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 282-296.
Hsu, C. H. C., & Crotts, J. C. (2006). Segmenting mainland Chinese residents based on
experience, intention and desire to visit Hong Kong. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 8, 279-287.
Hsu, C. H. C., & Lam, T. (2003). Mainland Chinese travelers’ motivations and barri-
ers of visiting Hong Kong. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 2(1),
60-67.
Huang, S., & Hsu, C. (2005). Mainland Chinese residents’ perceptions and motivations
of visiting Hong Kong: Evidence from focus group interviews. Asia Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research, 10, 191-205.
Iso-Ahola, S. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A
rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 256-262.
Jackson, E. L. (1988). Leisure constraints: A survey of past research. Leisure Sciences,
10, 203-215.
Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure con-
straints. Leisure Sciences, 15, 1-11.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

26    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Jackson, M., White, G., & Schmierer, C. (2000). Predicting tourism destination choices:
Psychographic parameters versus psychological motivations. In M. Ewen (Ed.), Peak
performance in tourism and hospitality research: CAUTHE 2000 refereed research
papers (pp. 57-63). Bundoora, Australia: School of Tourism and Hospitality, La
Trobe University.
Jang, S. C., & Cai, L. A. (2002). Travel motivations and destination choice: A study of
British outbound market. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 13, 111-133.
Jang, S. C., Yu, L., & Pearson, T. (2003). Chinese travelers to the United States: A com-
parison of business travel and visiting friends and relatives. Tourism Geographies, 5,
87-108.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7—A guide to the program and applica-
tions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24, 163-204.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York,
NY: Guilford.
Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional aspect of achievement motivation and learned helplessness:
Toward a comprehensive theory of action control. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in
experimental personality research (Vol. 13, pp. 99-171). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2004). Theory of planned behavior: Potential travelers from
China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28, 463-482.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel
destination. Tourism Management, 27, 589-599.
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion & adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lepp, A. (2007). Residents’ attitudes towards tourism in Bigodi village, Uganda. Tourism
Management, 28, 876-885.
Liska, A. E. (1984). A critical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen
attitude-behavior model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 61-74.
Madrigal, R. (1995). Personal values, traveler personality type, and leisure travel style.
Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 125-142.
March, R., & Woodside, A. G. (2005a). Testing theory of planned versus realized tourism
behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 905-924.
March, R., & Woodside, A. G. (2005b). Tourism behavior: Travelers’ decisions and
actions. Cambridge, England: CABI.
Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behavior in tourism. European Journal of Marketing,
21(10), 1-44.
Mullan, B. A., & Wong, C. L. (2009). Hygienic food handling behaviours: An application
of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 52, 757-761.
Oh, H., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2001). Volitional degrees of gambling behaviors. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28, 618-637.
Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Extending the theory of
planned behaviour: The role of personal norm. British Journal of Social Psychology,
34, 127-137.
Paris, H., & Van Den Broucke, S. (2008). Measuring cognitive determinants of speeding:
An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11, 168-180.
Pearce, P. (1988). The Ulysses factor: Evaluation visitors in tourist settings. New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012
 Hsu, Huang / EXTENSION OF THE TPB MODEL FOR TOURISTS    27

Pearce, P. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In D. Pearce & R. Butler (Eds.),

Tourism research: Critiques and challenges (pp. 113-134). London, England: Routledge.
Pearce, P., & Caltabiano, M. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travelers’ experi-
ences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 16-20.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-
directed behaviors: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behavior. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 79-98.
Petty, R., Unnava, R., & Stratham, A. (1991). Theories of attitude change. In T. S. Robertson
& H. H. Kassarjiann (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 241-280). London,
England: Prentice Hall.
Pike, S. (2006). Destination decision sets: A longitudinal comparison of stated destina-
tion preferences and actual travel. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12, 319-328.
Quellette, J., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple
processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin,
124, 54-74.
Richard, R., van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. (1995). Anticipated affective reactions and
preventions of AIDS. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 9-21.
Sarver, V. T. J. (1983). Ajzen and Fishbein’s “Theory of reasoned action”: A critical
assessment. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 13, 155-163.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action:
A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.
Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist
behavioural intentions. Tourism Management, 28, 1180-1192.
Sparks, B., & Pan, G. W. (2009). Chinese outbound tourists: Understanding their atti-
tudes, constraints and use of information sources. Tourism Management, 30, 483-494.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.10.1014
Sparks, P. (1994). Food choice and health: Applying, assessing and extending the theory
of planned behaviour. In D. R. Rutter & L. Quine (Eds.), Social psychology and
health: European perspectives (pp. 25-46). Aldershot, England: Avebury.
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behaviour:
Assessing the role of identification with green consumerism. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 55, 388-399.
Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we
doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1317-1338.
Swan, J. (1981). Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction with a retail service.
Journal of Retailing, 57, 49-66.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behaviour. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. (1993). Motivations of pleasure travel and tourism. In M. Khan,
M. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), Encyclopedia of hospitality and tourism (pp. 798-810).
New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
van den Putte, B. (1991). 20 years of the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein and Ajzen:
A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Verbeke, W., & Vackier, I. (2005). Individual determinants of fish consumption:
Application of the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 44, 67-82.
Zhang, H., & Lam, T. (1999). An analysis of mainland Chinese visitors’ motivation to
visit Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 20, 587-594.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012

28    JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Submitted February 6, 2010

Accepted October 12, 2010
Refereed Anonymously

Cathy H. C. Hsu, PhD (e-mail: hmhsu@polyu.edu.hk), is a professor and associate

director in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR. Songshan (Sam) Huang, PhD
(e-mail: Sam.Huang@unisa.edu.au), is a lecturer in tourism management in the School
of Management at the University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at UNIV LIBRARY AT IUPUI on August 23, 2012