See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315417770

Individual Values and Holiday Preferences

Chapter · August 2014

DOI: 10.1108/S1871-3173_2014_0000009005

CITATIONS READS

0 336

1 author:

Tamara Jovanovic
University of Novi Sad
73 PUBLICATIONS 664 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tamara Jovanovic on 21 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

3
INDIVIDUAL VALUES AND
5
HOLIDAY PREFERENCES
7

9 Tamara Jovanovic
11

13 ABSTRACT

15 This chapter aims to explore relationship between individual values and

holiday preferences. Values as standards of assessing behaviors are often
17 used in tourism research and have been connected to tourists’ behaviors
and activities preferences. In this chapter, Schwartz Value Survey
19 (Schwartz, 1992) was used to determine individual values. Holiday
preferences were evaluated on a Likert scale using two separate lists:
21 types of destination (e.g., seaside, city) and forms of holiday (e.g., local,
short). Sample consisted of 120 university students in Serbia. Results
23 show that there is a correlation between values and holiday preferences.
Implications are further discussed in the chapter.
25 Keywords: Individual values; holiday preferences; correlation; Serbia
27

29 INTRODUCTION

31 The assumption of this research is that since values influence activities

they should also influence holiday preferences because they imply different
33 possible activities and goals that can be achieved on that holiday. People

35
Tourists’ Behaviors and Evaluations
Advances in Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Volume 9, 49 57
37 Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
39 ISSN: 1871-3173/doi:10.1108/S1871-317320140000009005
49
 50 TAMARA JOVANOVIC

1 travel to different destinations with the expectations of what those destina-

tions have to offer. Also, people choose how a holiday is going to look like,
3 is it going to be short or long, will they travel individually or in groups,
depending on their plans of behavior on that destination.
5

7
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
9
Values represent concepts or beliefs about life and desirable behavior
11 (Jago, 1997). They go beyond specific situations and guide the process of
selection and evaluation of behaviors or events (Schwartz, 1992). They are
13 more stabile over time than attitudes and many authors claim that they are
an important part of personality (Crick-Furman & Prentice, 2000;
15 Madrigal & Kahle, 1994; McCleary & Choi, 1999; Muller, 1991; Pitts &
Woodside, 1986; Schwartz, 1992).
17 Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) offered eight basic value (motivation)
domains but later (Schwartz, 1992) this list was extended into 11 value
19 domains (see “Method” section). Ten of these value domains have been
conceptually distinguished and empirically identified in a multitude of cross-
21 cultural samples (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). However,
Spirituality has not had a consistent broad meaning in cross-cultural studies
23 and Schwartz (1994) has excluded this value domain; he deemed it near-
universal, even though ultimate meaning in life has been shown to be a dis-
25 tinct and basic human need (Schwartz, 1992). In this research, older model
with 11 value domains has been used since it is our belief that Spirituality is
27 a value domain of significance and should not be excluded from the research.
Researchers have been exploring the influence of individual values on
29 tourism behavior (Backman & Crompton, 1990; Beatty, Kahle, Homer, &
Mirsa, 1985). Studies have shown that values influence the choice of holi-
31 day destination and activities during holiday (Beatty, Kahle, & Homer,
1991; Jackson, 1973; Morrison, Hsieh, & O’Leary, 1994). Values have been AU:1
33 proven useful in marketing of tourist offers while developing the product
and in marketing strategies (Muller, 1991; Pitts & Woodside, 1986). They
35 have also been connected with the preferences of certain holiday activities
(Beatty et al., 1985; Crick-Furman & Prentice, 2000; Madrigal & Kahle,
37 1994; Muller, 1991; Pitts & Woodside, 1986). However, there are no avail-
able studies that directly explore relationship between values and holiday
39 preferences types of destination (e.g., seaside, mountains) and forms of
holiday (e.g., individual, mass).
 Individual Values and Holiday Preferences 51

1 METHOD
3 Respondents of this study were 120 students of the Faculty of Sciences,
University of Novi Sad, Serbia. They were mostly female (73%), aged from
5 19 to 26 (95%).

7 Questionnaire used in this study consisted of three parts. First part

measured socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents: gender,
9 age, place of residence, and marital status.
Second part measured with Likert scale (1 7) holiday preferences which
11 were divided into two lists: type of destination and form of holiday. List
type of destination consisted of seven most popular types of destination
13 in Serbia (Jovanovic, Majstorovic, Dinic, & Armenski, 2012): seaside,
mountain, city, spa, village, river, lake. List form of holiday included eight
15 categories that can describe one’s holiday: abroad, local, long, short, mass,
individual, active, relaxation.
17 Third part of the questionnaire measured individual values using
Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) (Schwartz, 1992). SVS consists of 56 items,
19 30 terminal and 26 instrumental values. These items measure 11 value
domains: Spirituality (4 items), Achievement (6), Self-direction (6),
21 Hedonism (3), Security (7), Tradition (5), Universalism (7), Benevolence
(7), Conformity (4), Stimulation (3), and Power (4). Importance of each
23 value as a guiding principle in respondents life is assessed on the 9-point
scale, labeled: 7 (of supreme importance), 6 (very important), 5, 4 (unla-
25 beled), 3 (important), 2, 1 (unlabeled), 0 (not important), −1 (opposed to
my values). Unlike other typical scales, this scale enables respondents to
27 express opposition to certain values. Reliability of each value domain
ranges from α = 0.61 for Tradition to α = 0.75 for Universalism.
29

31 FINDINGS
33 Analyses were conducted using SPSS 17.0. Value domains were calculated
by averaging scores on each of the corresponding items in SVS. Pearson’s
35 correlation between value domains and holiday preferences was calculated.
Table 1 shows correlation between types of destinations and value
37 domains. All correlations are with coefficients between r = 0.185 and
r = 0.312, which are not high but still statistically significant (p < 0.05).
39 Tourists that prefer the seaside as destination have high achievement
and security values. Those who prefer mountains highly value benevolence
 52 TAMARA JOVANOVIC

1 Table 1. Correlations between Individual Values and Types of

Destinations. AU:2
3 Seaside Mountain City Spa Village River Lake

5 Benevolence r 0.156 0.214* 0.045 0.17 0.212* 0.270** 0.208* AU:3

p 0.09 0.019 0.625 0.064 0.02 0.003 0.023
Universalism r −0.003 0.206* 0.109 0.17 0.185* 0.312** 0.324**
7 p 0.973 0.024 0.235 0.064 0.043 0.001 0.000
Self-direction r 0.12 0.012 0.027 0.027 0.065 0.186* 0.253**
9 p 0.19 0.899 0.767 0.768 0.48 0.042 0.005
Stimulation r 0.083 0.059 0.225* 0.07 0.05 0.211* 0.156
p 0.369 0.524 0.014 0.446 0.591 0.021 0.089
11
Hedonism r 0.148 −0.132 0.045 −0.034 0.033 −0.072 −0.079
p 0.107 0.149 0.626 0.714 0.719 0.432 0.39
13 Achievement r 0.241** 0.031 0.152 0.055 −0.069 0.157 0.148
p 0.008 0.736 0.097 0.552 0.454 0.086 0.107
15 Power r 0.117 −0.002 0.203* 0.057 0.039 0.119 0.06
p 0.202 0.981 0.027 0.537 0.669 0.195 0.515
Security r 0.200* 0.06 0.135 0.113 −0.007 0.145 0.074
17 p 0.028 0.518 0.141 0.217 0.942 0.115 0.425
Tradition r 0.055 0.089 −0.031 0.141 0.249** 0.238** 0.124
19 p 0.549 0.333 0.739 0.125 0.006 0.009 0.176
Conformity r 0.037 0.075 0.01 0.126 0.004 0.083 0.1
p 0.692 0.415 0.915 0.17 0.969 0.367 0.278
21
Spirituality r 0.025 0.119 0.038 0.007 0.043 0.207* 0.223*
p 0.783 0.194 0.678 0.938 0.642 0.023 0.014
23

25
and universalism. City as destination attracts tourists who value stimula-
27 tion and power. Spas have only marginally significant correlations with
benevolence and universalism. Villages are popular with people that have
29 high benevolence, universalism, and tradition values. Tourists that prefer
rivers value benevolence, universalism, self-direction, stimulation, spiritual-
31 ity, and tradition. Lakes have similar relationship with values as rivers but
without significant correlations with tradition and stimulation values.
33 Relationship between individual values and forms of holiday can be seen
in Table 2. Significant correlation coefficients vary between r = 0.181 and
35 r = 0.463. People who prefer to travel abroad value benevolence, universal-
ism, stimulation, and achievement. Those who like to touristically visit
37 local destinations have high benevolence, universalism, and tradition
values. Longer holiday is attractive for those who value benevolence, uni-
39 versalism, self-direction, stimulation, and achievement. Tourists who prefer
short holiday value benevolence. Mass holiday is for those who have high
 39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
Table 2. Correlations between Individual Values and Forms of Holiday.
Abroad Local Long Short Mass Individual Active Relaxation

Benevolence r 0.213* 0.326** 0.256** 0.236** 0.105 0.054 0.201* 0.089

p 0.02 0.000 0.005 0.01 0.253 0.561 0.028 0.335
Universalism r 0.204* 0.206* 0.209* 0.129 0.06 0.024 0.271** −0.009
p 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.162 0.517 0.796 0.003 0.923
Self-direction r 0.11 0.035 0.247** 0.111 0.126 0.047 0.361** −0.039
p 0.231 0.702 0.006 0.229 0.171 0.608 0.000 0.669
Stimulation r 0.208* −0.052 0.349** −0.102 0.303** −0.005 0.381** 0.115
p 0.023 0.572 0.000 0.266 0.001 0.959 0.000 0.211
Hedonism r −0.003 −0.103 0.157 −0.084 0.181* −0.213* 0.171 0.185*
Individual Values and Holiday Preferences

p 0.975 0.262 0.087 0.362 0.048 0.019 0.062 0.043

Achievement r 0.269** −0.022 0.278** −0.046 0.156 0.052 0.463** 0.093
p 0.003 0.814 0.002 0.617 0.089 0.571 0.000 0.311
Power r 0.107 0.021 0.178 −0.106 0.162 −0.117 0.244** 0.185*
p 0.246 0.817 0.052 0.25 0.077 0.203 0.007 0.043
Security r 0.152 0.074 0.134 0.11 0.007 −0.001 0.179 0.138
p 0.098 0.425 0.145 0.23 0.942 0.991 0.05 0.132
Tradition r 0.105 0.208* 0.139 0.09 −0.005 0.008 0.06 0.099
p 0.255 0.023 0.13 0.326 0.954 0.927 0.513 0.281
Conformity r 0.091 0.169 0.104 0.135 −0.048 0.103 0.14 0.027
p 0.322 0.064 0.26 0.141 0.602 0.264 0.128 0.769
Spirituality r 0.08 0.086 0.157 0.114 −0.055 0.144 0.059 0.037
p 0.387 0.349 0.087 0.213 0.55 0.117 0.522 0.685
53
 54 TAMARA JOVANOVIC

1 stimulation and hedonism. Active holiday has a similar relationship with

values as the form of long holiday except that it also correlates with power.
3 Tourists who search relaxation on their holiday have high hedonism and
power. Interestingly, preference of individual holiday has negative correla-
5 tion with hedonism.
Additionally, correlations between types of destinations and forms of
7 holiday were tested. Correlation coefficients range from r = 0.184 to
r = 0.343 (p < 0.05). Seaside is correlated with traveling abroad, for longer
9 period of time and active participation. Mountains correlate with abroad
and local traveling, for longer period of time and individual traveling. City
11 is connected with longer traveling, in both large groups and individually and
requires active participation on the holiday. Spa is correlated to traveling
13 abroad and local, for longer period of time, individually. Visiting villages is
correlated with the local traveling, individually with longer stays. Holiday
15 on river is usually longer, in large groups and individually, with active parti-
cipation and relaxation. Lakes are correlated with traveling abroad, longer
17 holiday, both large groups’ and individual travel and active participation.
Finally, average preference values and standard deviations, for each type
19 of destination and form of holiday, were calculated. Most preferred type of
destination is the seaside and least preferred is spa. Highest variations in
21 responses were for city destination. Tourism abroad has the highest average
of preference values while individual tourism has the lowest. Individual
23 tourism has also the highest variation in responses.

25

27 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

29 The goal of this research was to examine the relationship between indivi-
dual values and holiday preferences. Both, types of destination and forms
31 of holiday, are indirectly connected to holiday activities. Tourists expect to
engage in certain activities depending on the type of destination (swimming
33 on the seaside, skiing on the mountains, etc.) and depending on the form of
holiday (short stay requires activities that are not time consuming, traveling
35 abroad includes cultural exchange activities, etc.). Results indicate that
there is a meaningful relationship between these two constructs.
37 Results of this study contribute to a better understanding of the tourism
market and experts could use them in developing and improving marketing
39 strategies for each type of destination and form of holiday. People who pre-
fer seaside for their holiday are focused on personal success and stability.
 Individual Values and Holiday Preferences 55

1 These tourists are more rigid and prefer to travel to familiar, secure desti-
nations and they are focused on themselves more than on other people.
3 Most of the tourists from Serbia nowadays travel to abroad seaside (such
as Greece, Turkey, and Montenegro), since Serbia is a landlocked country.
5 Many tourists go to the same seaside destination every year which is in
accordance with the security value.
7 Mountain tourists are invested in others’ well-being. They are helpful,
loyal, and forgiving to others and believe that all people are equal. They
9 also believe that nature and local community should be protected and pre-
served. Tourists from Serbia visit both local and abroad mountains and
11 they prefer to go alone. So mountains attract strong individuals with love
for nature and appreciation of diversity between people.
13 City tourists like freedom of thought and action but are also focused on
self-interest. They need variety and stimulation from the surrounding and
15 city seems to fulfill this need. They also seek prestige and social status
which is apparently gained when visiting cities. Serbian tourists visit cities
17 on their own or with large groups and they like active holiday which is in
accordance with stimulation value domain.
19 Villages, on the other hand, visit people who value benevolence, univers-
alism, and tradition. These are values that describe people who are con-
21 cerned for others but rigid and dislike change and novelty. They need close
friendly contact with people and local, traditional holidays. Villages seem
23 to satisfy these needs. Rivers and lakes as destinations are correlated with
the largest number of values.
25 Lakes have similar relationship with values as rivers but without correla-
tions with values stimulation and tradition. This means that lake tourism
27 attracts people with less rigid opinions, that don’t need that much excite-
ment but still require active participation in a certain amount. Visiting spas
29 is not correlated significantly to any measured values. Spa tourism in
Serbia is highly undeveloped and is still considered more a form of medical
31 treatment for elderly than relaxation.
Traveling abroad highly attracts wide variety of people. It was some-
33 thing that was uncommon for a long period of time in Serbia, because of
the sanctions and strict visa regime. Today, it is much easier to travel
35 abroad because Serbia has an EU candidate status and no visas for most of
the EU countries. People who travel abroad value other people and are tol-
37 erant. They also seek adventure and novelty and social acknowledgment of
others.
39 Those who travel local also value other people and their opinions, but
they are more rigid and love their country and customs. Longer, active
 56 TAMARA JOVANOVIC

1 holidays are for social people who prefer independent thought and creativ-
ity, who look for experience and strive for success.
3 Short holidays seem to be attractive for selfless people. People who enjoy
life’s pleasures and seek stimulation will travel with lots of people.
5 Relaxing holiday draws people who need enjoyment in life and who like to
feel powerful. Curiously, people who prefer to go on holiday on their own
7 have negative relationship with hedonism. Those might be people who like
to postpone their pleasures in life in order to achieve something in life.
9 However, there were no significant correlations with achievement or self-
direction. There is low positive correlation with spirituality, which might be
11 significant with a larger and more diverse sample.
It is interesting to note that conformity has no significant correlations
13 with any holiday preferences; it was only marginally positively correlated
with local tourism. Every holiday is a time to let go, to enjoy, forget about
15 the pressure for awhile. Self-restraint because of social norms seems to be
relinquished when on holiday.
17 As every study, this has several limitations. One limitation is that for
this research, only students were included in the sample. For more reliable
19 results, different age and occupation groups should be included. Second
limitation is that correlation coefficients were rather low but nevertheless
21 significant. With larger, more diverse sample, this limitation should be
overcome. This research should be extended to different cultures, to explore
23 whether this relationship between values and holiday preferences is invar-
iant. Also, possible moderators and mediators of this relationship should
25 be explored (socio-demographic characteristics, previous experience with
destinations, and forms of holiday).
27

29 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
31 This chapter received support from the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technological Development, Republic of Serbia (Grant Number: 176020).
33 Research that is presented here is a part of the doctoral research of Tamara
Jovanovic.
35

37 REFERENCES
39 Backman, S. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Differentiating between active and passive disconti-
nuers of two leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 197 212.
 Individual Values and Holiday Preferences 57

1 Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1991). Personal values and gift giving behaviors:
A study across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 22, 149 157.
Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., Homer, P. M., & Mirsa, S. (1985). Alternative measurement
3 approaches to consumer values: The list of values and the Rokeach value survey.
Psychology and Marketing, 3, 181 200.
5 Crick-Furman, D., & Prentice, R. (2000). Modeling tourists’ multiple values. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(1), 69 92.
7 Jago, L. K. (1997). Special events and tourism behaviour: A conceptualisation and an empirical
analysis from a values perspective. Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University.
Jovanovic, T., Majstorovic, N., Dinic, B., & Armenski, T. (2012, June 21 22). Applicability
9 of Brand Personality Scale on travel destinations. Paper presented at the international
conference on Destination Branding, Heritage and Authenticity 1st EJTHR inter-
11 national conference, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela.
Madrigal, R., & Kahle, L. R. (1994). Predicting vacation activity preferences on the basis of
value-system segmentation. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 22 28.
13 McCleary, K. W., & Choi, B. M. (1999). Personal values as a base for segmenting inter-
national markets. Tourism Analysis, 4(1), 1 17.
15 Muller, T. (1991). Using personal values to define segments in an international tourism
market. International Marketing Review, 8, 57 70.
17 Pitts, R. E., & Woodside, A. G. (1986). Personal values and travel decisions. Journal of Travel
Research, 25, 20 22.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances
19 and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (pp. 1 65). Orlando, FL: Academic.
21 Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values?
Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19 45.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values.
23 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550 562.
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure
25 of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92 116.

27

29

31

33

35

37

39
 AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Please e-mail or fax your responses

Book: ACTHR-V009-
and any corrections to:
3610921
E-mail:
Chapter: CH006
Fax:
Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for typesetting, some questions may have arisen.
These are listed below. Please check your typeset proof carefully and mark any corrections in
the margin of the proof or compile them as a separate list.

Disk use
Sometimes we are unable to process the electronic file of your article and/or artwork. If this is
the case, we have proceeded by:

□ Scanning (parts of) your article □ Rekeying (parts of) your article
□ Scanning the artwork
Bibliography
If discrepancies were noted between the literature list and the text references, the following
may apply:

□ The references listed below were noted in the text but appear to be missing from
your literature list. Please complete the list or remove the references from the text.

□ UNCITED REFERENCES: This section comprises references that occur in the

reference list but not in the body of the text. Please position each reference in the text
or delete it. Any reference not dealt with will be retained in this section.

Queries and/or remarks

Location in Article Query / remark Response

AU:1 The references “Jackson, 1973;

Morrison, Hsieh, & O’Leary, 1994”
are cited in the text but not present
in the reference list. Please provide
the details in the reference list.

AU:2 Please provide the significance of

bold values and the significance of
“*" and “**” in the legend of
Tables 1 and 2
 AU:3 Please note that italics is preferred
for emphasis of words. Please clarify
whether bold words in Tables 1 and
2 can be changed to italics.

View publication stats