Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Young travelers' intention to behave pro-environmentally: Merging

the value-belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory
Kiattipoom Kiatkawsin, Heesup Han*
College of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, 98 Gunja-Dong, Gwanjin-Gu, Seoul 143-747 South Korea

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

We examined young travelers' pro-

environmental behaviors.

The value-belief-norm theory and the
expectancy theory were merged.

Our unified model included a strong
prediction power.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research examined the intention to behave pro-environmentally while traveling amongst young
Received 23 October 2015 group tour travelers by adopting an empirically validated value-belief-norm theory and merging it with
Received in revised form Vroom's expectancy theory. The aim is to provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding
1 June 2016
the formation of environmentally friendly behaviors. The sample data of 538 responses were from young
Accepted 20 June 2016
group travelers. The responses were subjected to structural equation modeling. The results showed that
the combined model has a 12.8% stronger predictive power of pro-environmental intention than the
original theory alone. It was also discovered from the results that the variables of the expectancy theory
Keywords:
Value-belief-norm theory
strongly influence pro-environmental personal norms, which in turn influences pro-environmental in-
Expectancy theory tentions. The discussions covered both theoretical and practical implications of this research as well as
Pro-environmental intentions recommendations for further studies.
Group tours © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sustainable tourism
Tourists' behaviors

1. Introduction have shown the significant role of environmental quality and

Many tourist destinations depend on the attractiveness of their
environment to attract visitors (Ramkissoon, Smith, & Weiler,
2013). The relationship between tourism and its environmental
quality have often been discussed among both academics and
practitioners (Budeanu, 2007). Tourism competitiveness researches
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kiatkawsin@gmail.com (K. Kiatkawsin), heesup.han@gmail.
com (H. Han).
tourist satisfaction (Kim, 2014; Ramkissoon et al., 2013). While the
effort to mitigate negative effects of tourism has come from both
private and public sectors, cooperation from consumers is still
needed in the success of utilizing the nature sustainably (Halpenny,
2010). Santana-Jimenez and Hernandez (2011) found that tourists
generally focus on their own activities and experience while trav-
eling and give less consideration to the local environment. The
challenge of this present study is to find a robust framework
explaining pro-environmental behaviors while traveling, taking
existing theories that have been developed for various settings into

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.018
0261-5177/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88
account.
In hospitality and tourism research, a large number of studies
have focused on eco-friendly products and service offerings, such
as green hotels, eco-tourism, and volunteer tourism (Choi & Parsa,
2006; Han, 2015; Han, Hsu, & Lee, 2009; Han, Hsu, & Sheu, 2010;
Hu, Parsa, & Self, 2010; Lee, Lawton, & Weaver, 2012; Phillip,
Hunter, & Blackstock, 2010; Weaver, 2012). On the other hand,
ecology studies often emphasized the aggregate power of public
behaviors (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Dunlap & Van
Liere, 1978; Stern, 2010; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof,
1999). Because the majority of tourists still visit urban cities
(Miller, Merrilees, & Coghlan, 2015), the overall view of sustainable
tourism should also take into consideration the daily practices of
tourists. Stern (2000) underlined the aggregate impact of public
actions, specifically day-to-day green actions. Tourists in group
tours represented the mainstream tourism population in this
research. Empirical studies found general tourists tend to exhibit
less responsibility towards the environment during their holiday
than at home (Budeanu, 2007; Dolnicar & Grun, 2009; Miller et al.,
2015). This study focuses on green behavior on a broader scale.
Environmentally responsible behaviors do not need to be tied to
specific tourism products or services. Green behaviors of tourists in
an urban environment can contribute significantly to the overall
environmental quality of a destination.
In early pro-environmental behavior studies, models based on
knowledge and attitude towards the environment have been
prevalent (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). This led to many public
campaigns aiming to increase public knowledge on environmental
issues. Later, researchers found this approach to be ineffective
(Juvan & Dolnicar, 2014). Eco-friendly behavior research has been
approached via two main avenues, altruism and self-interests
(Bamberg & Moser, 2007). Researchers who view environmen-
tally responsible behaviors to be pro-socially motivated usually
adopted moral norm based theories such as the Norm-Activation
Model (NAM) by Schwartz (1977) or a more recently introduced
Value-Believe-Norm (VBN) theory by Stern et al. (1999). On the
other hand, there are researchers who view eco-friendly behavior
to be motivated by self-interests. Self-interest theories are based on
the assumption that actions are motivated by rewards or outcomes
(Hsu, Cai, & Li, 2010; Kaiser, Hubner, & Bogner, 2005). Bamberg and
Moser (2007) further suggested a mixture of both views is probably
the best approach.
Gronhoj and Thogersen (2009) as well as Johnson, Bowker, and
Cordell (2004) identified the attitude-action gap among young and
old populations. Young people showed higher knowledge towards
environmental issues. However, they were less inclined to follow
up with actions compared to their older counterparts. In general,
young people, the highly educated, and women were found to
exhibit positive attitude towards the environment (Autio &
Heinonen, 2004; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Pinto, Nique,
Anana, & Herter, 2011; Yu, 2014). Therefore, this study confines
the sample to only young university students and should theoret-
ically show significant and strong attitudes towards pro-
environmental behaviors. Another benefit of regulating sample
population is that the present study concentrates on the develop-
ment of a theoretical framework, and a homogeneous sample can
help diminish potential errors caused by other mediators. Lee,
Wilkins, and Lee (2011) stated that in general Korean travelers
tend to choose mass organized tours. This research specifically
samples those who previously participated in group tours to
represent the young Korean travelers.
This research acknowledges the theoretical gap and aims to
fulfill the gap by investigating university students' intentions to
behave pro-environmentally while they are traveling with group
tours using the VBN theory and Vroom's expectancy theory.
77
Particularly, we attempt 1) to develop a robust model that provides
a comprehensive framework for understanding the intentions to
behave pro-environmentally of young travelers in group tours by
merging two major theories (i.e., VBN and expectancy theory) in
behavior studies and 2) to identify the superiority of the proposed
theoretical framework compared to the original VBN framework by
surveying university students in group travels.
2. Literature review
2.1. Pro-environmental behaviors of young tourists
The term pro-environmental behavior entails a broad range of
actions and is interchangeably used with other words such as
environmentally responsible behavior, environmentally friendly
behavior, green behavior, and eco-friendly behavior (Guagnano,
Stern, & Dietz, 1995; Miller et al., 2015). This research adopted
the definition of pro-environmental behavior by Miller et al. (2015,
pp. 28): “any actions that protect the environment or minimize the
negative impacts of human activity on the environment in either
general daily practice or specific outdoor settings”. General daily
practices include water and electricity consumption, use of public
transportation, littering, recycling waste, reusing plastic bottles and
more (Caruana, Glozer, Crane, & McCabe, 2014). This study
measured common pro-environmental behaviors of tourists while
traveling. Behavioral intention, measured by the final construct was
adopted from previous studies (Miller et al., 2015; Dolnicar & Grun,
2009; Stern at al., 1999). They include a preference to buy local and
organic products, avoid plastic shopping bags, reuse plastic bottles,
save water and electricity, sort and recycle waste, and avoid dis-
turbing wildlife.
Previous researches found that factors such as age, income level,
gender, education level, and social background influence one's pro-
environmental attitude and behaviors (Budeanu, 2007; Han et al.,
2009; Ostman & Parker, 1987; Pinto et al., 2011). As stated earlier,
young people empirically showed a higher level of positive envi-
ronmental attitude. The theory adopted by this research measures
environmental knowledge because it is found to be the predictor of
beliefs and personal norms. The level of participation can differ
because of the emotional bond between people and their envi-
ronment. Halpenny (2010) and Anton and Lawrence (2014) found
that people tend to exhibit a higher level of environmentally
responsible actions if they feel a closer bond to the place. In a
research on national park visits, Ramkissoon et al. (2013) found that
people who showed a strong sense of belonging to the park were
more willing to engage in eco-friendly behaviors A study on hotel
guests' energy conservation behavior revealed lower energy saving
commitment during their holidays than at home, where they pay
the bills directly (Chang, Huh, & Lee, 2015). Juvan and Dolnicar
(2014) reported the attitude and behavior gap between home and
vacation settings. Some interviewees associated conservation be-
haviors with higher costs and time constraints, though most
showed high environmental knowledge and positive attitudes to-
wards environmental conservation. Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002)
also pointed out the barriers to pro-environmental behaviors
including monetary costs, emotional involvement, and prioritiza-
tion of responsibilities. Given the research context of this present
study, monetary costs and prioritization of responsibilities could
potentially explain young travelers' green intentions. Behaviors
that involve higher costs such as buying organic products could
receive less attention by young people. Environmental conserva-
tion may not appear to be high on university students' priority list
while traveling (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002; Lopez-Mosquera,
Garcia, & Barrena, 2014).
78 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88
2.2. The value-belief-norm theory
The VBN theory was first developed and introduced by Stern
et al. (1999). The framework aimed to provide a comprehensive
understanding of public support in an environmentalism context.
Public support is believed to be one of the most critical resources to
cope with social problems (Stern et al., 1999). Public problems are
large-scale problems, and they need social movements to solve
them collectively. A social movement for environmentalism is a
form of widespread change in behavior amongst individuals, ac-
tivists and organizations necessary to achieve the goal of reducing
adverse human effects on the environment (Stern, 2000; Stern
et al., 1999). Though effective social movements require all
groups to be involved, Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano (1989) found that
the single most important group is the general public. Johnston,
Larana, and Gusfield (1994) concurred through their research that
to achieve any movement goals, changes in individual behaviors
amongst the general public is necessary. This type of support is
termed private-sphere environmentalism by Stern (2000). Private-
sphere behaviors include the purchase, usage, and disposal of
general household products that can cause negative environmental
impacts. The VBN theory categorizes pro-environmental behaviors
into four groups: activism, non-activist public-sphere, private-
sphere and behaviors in organizations (Stern, 2000; Stern et al.,
1999). Due to the scope of this research, only private sphere ac-
tivities or general daily practices will be discussed.
The VBN theory is a framework built on three components:
values, beliefs and norms (Stern et al., 1999). Schwartz (1992, p.21)
defined value as “a desirable trans-situational goal varying in
importance, which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a
person or other social entity”. For the value components, Stern et al.
(1999) simplified Schwartz’s (1992) theory of basic values and
implemented it to the VBN. Environmental awareness is generally
promoted by the collective values or the altruism value (AV) type.
The second type of value, biospheric (BV), refers to the biosphere
and other species. Lastly, egoistic value (EV) places an importance
on one's own interests within the society (Stern, 2000). Personal
values have received major attention from various research disci-
plines, and their relationships as predictors of attitude have often
been supported (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Li & Cai, 2012; McCarty &
Shrum, 1994). Homer and Kahle (1988) explained that the values
structure is complex and can often consist of numerous variables. Li
and Cai (2012) and Crick-Furman and Prentice (2000) segmented
tourist motivation based on personal value. Their findings pre-
sented valuable marketing information, emphasizing the possibil-
ity of segmenting and measuring change within a culture. However,
the use of personal values is sensitive to cultural interpretations.
Watkins and Gnoth (2005) experienced misinterpretation of value
items due to cultural difference.
There are three constructs of beliefs. The first one is the New
Ecological Paradigm (NEP), sometimes referred to as the new
environmental paradigm. The NEP was first developed in the mid-
1970s by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978), however, due to the changes
in human activities and lifestyles, a revised measurement scale was
introduced (Dunlap, Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). The NEP scale
measured general and fundamental views about the biosphere and
humanity's relationship to it. Dunlap et al. (2000) defined NEP as
“beliefs about humanity's ability to upset the balance of nature, the
existence of limits to growth for human societies, and humanity's
right to rule over the rest of nature.” Stern (2000) justified the
adoption of NEP by the argument that it measures the general
public view about humanity's relationship with nature as
compared to those of environmentalists. This argument was also
justified by Dunlap et al. (2000) themselves, citing the strong
discriminant views between environmentalists and the general
public. The NEP is predicted by the three types of values, and it in
turns predicts the awareness of consequences.
Awareness of consequences (ACs) is a second construct of belief
in the VBN framework. It refers to a belief that environmental well
being can enhance or threaten other people, other species and the
biosphere (Stern, 2000). ACs precede the third and last construct of
belief, ascription of responsibility (AR). AR is the belief that human
actions can either prevent or escalate potential negative conse-
quences (Stern et al., 1999). The next construct is the pro-
environmental personal norm (PPN), which can be viewed as so-
cial rules dictating how its members should behave and are acti-
vated by their beliefs (Schwartz & Howard, 1981). AC, AR, and PPN
are the three constructs of the norm-activation model by Schwartz
(1977), and this framework has often been empirically been vali-
dated by many researchers (De Groot & Steg, 2009; Han, 2015; Van
Riper & Kyle, 2014). In the hospitality and tourism context, Han
(2015) used the VBN to explore the formation of green hotel con-
sumption choice. His results found AR to be the largest contributor
of tourists’ intention to patronize green hotels. Although the re-
lationships among all variables of the VBN often produce sound
statistical results, the predictive power remains in question
compared to other theories. Kaiser et al. (2005) found the theory of
planned behavior to produce significantly higher predictive power
compared to the VBN in conservation behavior among university
students.
At the end of the causal chain, the final construct of this research
measures intention to behave pro-environmentally while traveling
(IBP). Even though this study measures only intentions, many re-
searchers have agreed that intentions are significant indication of
behaviors (Boldero, 1995; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006). The intentions
are hypothesized to be influenced by PPN, also known as the sense
of obligation to take pro-environmental actions, a name that is
interchangeably used (Han, 2015). Definition of each construct has
been summarized in Table 1. The causal chain of the VBN can be
viewed as follows: BV, AV & EV / NEP / AC / AR / PPN / IBP
and given these evidences, the following hypotheses (H1-H7) were
developed:
H1. Biospheric value positively affects new ecological paradigm.
H2. Altruistic value positively affects new ecological paradigm.
H3. Egoistic value positively affects new ecological paradigm.
H4. New ecological paradigm positively affects awareness of
consequences.
H5. Awareness of consequences positively affects ascription of
responsibility.
H6. Ascription of responsibility positively affects pro-
environmental personal norm.
H7. Pro-environmental personal norm positively affects travelers'
intention to behave pro-environmentally while traveling.
2.3. Vroom's expectancy theory
The classical expectancy theory of motivation developed by
Vroom (1964) is one of the most respected and well-researched
theories amongst organizational and industrial psychologists
(Chiang & Jang, 2008; Karatepe & Sokmen, 2006; Karatepe &
Uludag, 2007; Kilic & Okumus, 2005). In tourism, many re-
searchers deployed this framework to capture tourists’ motivation
in choosing the types, destinations, and activities of their vacation
(Hsu et al., 2010). During the period of this research, the authors did
not find that the expectancy theory was previously applied to
 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88 79

Table 1
Definition of study variables.

Biospheric Value (BV)
Altruistic Value (AV)
Egoistic Value (EV)
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)
Awareness of Consequences
(AC)
Ascription of Responsibility
(AR)
Pro-environmental Personal
Norm (PPN)
Valence (Val)
Instrumentality (Ins)
Expectancy (Exp)
Intention to Behave
Pro-environmentally while
traveling (IBP)
Value was defined as “a desirable trans-situational goal varying in importance, which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a
person or other social entity” (Schwartz, 1992, p.21) biospheric value referred to the biosphere or non-living things (Stern et al.
1999, p. 85).
“Altruists are who care about other people and species” (Stern, 2000, p.413).
Also known as self-interest such as wealth, dominance, influence over others (Stern et al., 1999, p. 95).
“beliefs about humanity's ability to upset the balance of nature, the existence of limits to growth for human societies, and
humanity's right to rule over the rest of nature” (Dunlap et al., 2000, p. 427).
“beliefs that environmental conditions threaten things the individual vales” (Stern, 2000, p. 413) or “beliefs that environmental
conditions pose threats to other people, other species, or the biosphere” (Stern et al., 1999, p. 85).
“actions they (individuals) initiate could avert those (negative)consequences” (Stern et al., 1999, p. 85).
Personal norm was defined as the “feelings of moral obligation to perform or refrain from specific actions” (Schwartz & Howard,
1981, p.191).
“value the individual personally places on rewards” (Chiang & Jang, 2008, p. 314).
“perceived probability that good performance will lead to desired outcomes” (Chiang & Jang, 2008, p. 314).
“perceived probability that effort will lead to good performance” (Chiang & Jang, 2008, p. 314).
Pro-environmentally behaviors were defined as “any actions that protect the environment or minimize the negative impacts of
human activity on the environment in either general daily practice or specific outdoor settings” (Miller et al., 2015, pp. 28).

environmentalism research. Nevertheless, after reviewing the
literature on this theory as well as on the VBN theory, the authors
found the possibility to synergize the two theories together. A
discussion on the convergence of the models can be found in the
next section.
The expectancy theory is used for explaining the process in-
dividuals use to formulate decisions on various behavioral alter-
natives (Chiang & Jang, 2008). The framework comprises three
different constructs: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. The
three constructs determine the motivational force in directing
specific behaviors (Ferris, 1977; Murray & Frazier, 1986). Firstly,
valence determines the attractiveness of a particular outcome. The
second component is one's perception that performance will lead
to desired outcomes. The more efforts that are involved, the higher
the likelihood that the outcomes can be achieved (instrumentality).
Lastly, it is the perception that actions will lead to outcomes (ex-
pectancy) (Chiang & Jang, 2008; Hsu et al., 2010). In Hackman and
Porter’s (1968) study, the model was used to predict how hard
employees work on their job as well as the effectiveness of their
performance. How hard employees work was determined by the
effort invested during work, whereas effectiveness referred to how
the effort should ultimately secure the desired outcomes (Hackman
& Porter, 1968; Lawler & Suttle, 1973). Traditionally, the framework
is expressed as follows:
Motivational force ¼ Valence  Instrumentality  Expectancy
In this expression, the three components are individually
measured and together form the motivational force. However, this
study is of the opinion that the three components can be treated in a
causal chain which leads to motivational force or intention to behave
pro-environmentally while traveling. The expectancy theory has
been interpreted in a variety of ways since its introduction (Lawler &
Suttle, 1973). Lack of explicitness in defining the interactions be-
tween constructs may have caused researchers to experiment with
how each construct influences the others (Lawler & Suttle, 1973;
Lawler, 1971; Porter & Lawler, 1968). However, testing causality be-
tween constructs has often been done (Chiang & Jang, 2008;
Hackman & Porter, 1968; Heneman & Schwab, 1972; Lawler &
Suttle, 1973). The proposed causal chain is expressed as follows:
Valence/Instrumentality/Expectancy/Motivational force
In this instance, valence or the desired outcome is at the start of
the chain. Valence is formed by an individual's value placed on
specific outcomes, goals or preferences such as the desire to live in a
city free of air pollution (Gyurko, 2011). This then leads to instru-
mentality, which suggests the greater effort involved in reducing
air pollution, the greater impact is made to help reducing air
pollution (Ferris, 1977; Murray & Frazier, 1986). Individual contri-
bution can be small but effective on aggregate, underlining the role
of effort (instrumentality). Lastly, instrumentality is hypothesized
to have a positive effect on expectancy. Expectancy is the belief that
actions will lead to desired outcomes or valence. Expectancy then
affects the intention to behave pro-environmentally while trav-
eling. Based on the discussion of the expectancy theory, the
following hypotheses were developed:
H8. Valence positively affects instrumentality.
H9. Instrumentality positively affects expectancy.
H10. Expectancy positively affects travelers' intention to behave
pro-environmentally while traveling.
2.4. Converging two theoretical frameworks
Through extensive literature review in pro-environmental
behavior studies, it was found that discussions on individuals'
social-psychological constructs have higher predictive power in
forecasting pro-environmental behaviors than the ones focusing on
social demographic backgrounds (Baldero, 1995). Variables such as
values, attitudes, and beliefs towards the environment have been
empirically linked to how an individual feels and thinks, which
ultimately influence behaviors towards to the environment
(Guagnano et al., 1995; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006). The theory has
been empirically tested, and its validity has been confirmed.
Furthermore, its pro-social constructs led to researchers agreeing
on its superior predictive ability compared to other theories (Han,
2015; Kaiser et al., 2005; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006; Stern et al.,
1999; Van Riper & Kyle, 2014). Nevertheless, the VBN has been
studied alongside other prominent theories of attitudes, such as the
theory of planned behavior by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). Bamberg
and Moser (2007) suggested that combining pro-social and rational
choice theories could result in higher predictive power. Han (2015)
merged the VBN and the theory of planned behavior into one
theoretical framework. His research findings supported Bamberg
and Moser’s (2007) suggestions; the model showed stronger pre-
dictive ability compared to the standalone VBN framework.
80 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88
The adoption of the VBN theory can be justified by the successful
empirical applications of the theory in explaining one's pro-
environmental behaviors. Comparatively, the expectancy theory
framework was adopted to help enhance the power of the VBN.
Although the expectancy theory itself has been a popular frame-
work, it has also faced some criticism by various researchers
(Gyurko, 2011; Hsu et al., 2010). One prominent criticism of the
theory is its lack of social influence consideration. By converging
the expectancy theory with the VBN model, this limitation is hy-
pothesized to be minimal. The VBN originated as a theory in the
study of social movements. Its measurement items take into ac-
count individuals values and beliefs on the environment, which
affects both humans and other species. The point of view that
humans are jointly responsible for the environment may affect an
individual's eagerness to help in saving the environment. Van Riper
and Kyle (2014) mentioned that norms generally are formed by
social interactions, but ultimately the decisions are made at an
individual level. In other words, an individual's desired outcomes
(valence) may influence the amount of effort (instrumentality) and
eventually influence one's pro-environmental norms. Even though
the theory of planned behavior measures a wider range of variables
compared to the expectancy theory, it fails to take into account the
frequency of actions. Behaviors such as recycling and energy effi-
cient lifestyles require repeated efforts and not one-time actions.
Effective influence of norms is essential to help achieve widespread
changes in pro-environmental behaviors. Given these, the links
between the two theories have been hypothesized as follows:
H11. New ecological paradigm positively affects valence.
H12. Awareness of consequences affects instrumentality.
H13. Ascription of responsibility positively affects expectancy.
The proposed theoretical framework includes a total of 11
constructs and 13 research hypotheses. The relationships between
each constructs are illustrated in Fig. 1.
3. Methodology
3.1. Measurement instruments
The measurement scales used in this study were adopted from
previously validated researches in a variety of contexts (Chiang &
Jang, 2008; Dunlap et al., 2000; Han, 2015; Kaiser et al., 2005;
Hsu et al., 2010; Luo & Deng, 2008; Onwezen Antonidas, &
Bartels, 2013; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006; Stern, 2000; Stern et al.,
1999; Van Riper & Kyle, 2014). Instruments of Vroom's expectancy
Fig. 1. The proposed research model.
theory were applied in a broad range of disciplines (Chiang & Jang,
2008; Hsu et al., 2010; Lawler & Suttle, 1973; Luo & Deng, 2008;
Vansteenkiste, Lens, & De Witte, 2005). Using validated scales
provided a solid basis to build on; it also allowed for accurate
comparison of results with other studies. The relevant items were
then modified to best fit this study's settings. Moreover, the lan-
guage used in the survey was adjusted to fit the target sampling
population namely undergraduate university students. It aimed for
easier understanding of the measurement items, thus minimizing
potential errors and reducing the number of unengaged responses.
Seven-point Likert-type scales were used for all latent variables in
this study with no reverse coded questions. The scale ranged from
“Extremely disagree” (1) to “Extremely agree” (7), however for
three constructs, biospheric values, altruistic values and egoistic
values, scales ranged from “Extremely unimportant” (1) to
“Extremely important” (7).
Before the final version of the questionnaire was finalized, a pre-
test and reviews by senior academics, industry experts, and uni-
versity students were conducted. According to their comments,
minor adjustments to the wording, phrasing, formatting and
overall visual construct were adjusted. Due to the sample profile
being undergraduate university students based in South Korea, the
final version of the questionnaire was translated from English to
Korean by a bilingual speaker of both languages. The translator had
no prior knowledge of this particular research in order to avoid bias
and personal inputs. Furthermore, to ensure a successful trans-
lation, a second bilingual speaker of English and Korean was asked
to back translate from Korean to English. The result was a good
match to the original English version. Hence, an accurate trans-
lation was achieved. The questionnaire consisted of a cover letter,
which briefly outlined the purpose of the research, and provided a
concise description of the study setting. Lastly, demographic
questions with no inquiries regarding personal contact information
or sensitive personal questions were included.
3.2. Data collection
Data collection was done at seven universities in South Korea.
All universities were situated in large metropolitan cities. Univer-
sity students in South Korea tend to engage in group travels more
often than other age groups due to the social and educational
events organized by the universities. This consistency in the sample
population provided a relatively homogeneous sampling profile
and therefore achieved high internal validity of the data. The data
collection period spanned approximately two weeks between the
end of November 2014 and the beginning of December 2014. All of
 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88
the participants completed their questionnaires during class pe-
riods on a voluntary basis. No course credit for participating or
other incentives were given, and each participant was not allowed
to partake in the study on multiple occasions. The data collected
totaled 552 responses. Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2014)
recommended that cases exhibiting over 10% of missing data are
candidates for deletion. As a result, 6 responses were removed.
Then, to help detect unengaged responses, the standard deviation
was calculated for each of the responses. Cases with values lower
than 0.5 were closely examined for patterns exhibiting non-
engagement from the respondent. A further fourteen responses
were removed for exhibiting unengaged responses with five cases
showing zero standard deviation. Boxplots were used to identify
extreme outliers (Stevens, 2009). However, no outliers were found
and discarded. Thus, the total number of usable responses was 538.
Lastly, out of the 538 usable cases, a small amount of missing data
was replaced using the series mean and these were then subjected
to further data analysis (Hair et al., 2014).
3.3. Sample profile
ligned with the target sample group of university students, the
responses were all from undergraduate university students. 28.9%
of responses were first-year students at the time of the survey.
33.6% were second-year students, and they were the largest group
followed by 24.3% and 13.2% of third and final year students,
respectively. The average age amongst all respondents was 20.83
years old. The two largest age groups were 19 years old (22.7%) and
20 years old (22.5%), with ages 21 to 23 accounting for a further
41%. Ages 19 to 20 were typical for first or second-year under-
graduate students in Korea. The majority of respondents were
Korean, representing 97.8%, and the rest consisted of international
students (2.2%) such as Chinese and Singaporean students. The
students' majors were distributed as follows: 65.6% were enrolled
in the hospitality and tourism departments, food service manage-
ment students represented 8.9% of total responses, followed by
convention and events management at 8.4%. The next largest group
was those enrolled in foreign language studies, which accounted
for 8.6% of responses. One of the universities specialized in foreign
language studies, which represented 8% of all responses. All of the
universities have similar profiles regarding the student character-
istics and are all State recognized universities. One university is a
women's university, which accounted for 6.1% of responses. Due to
the popularity of hospitality and tourism studies amongst female
students in South Korea, the gender ratio was 2 to 1. Female stu-
dents accounted for 68%, and male students 32%. The largest group
of reported family annual income before tax was between $25,000
and $70,000 (65.9%). 10.3% reported an annual income of below
$25,000 and 8.1% reported family income before tax of over
$100,000 annually. The majority of respondents took part in two to
four group tours in the last 3 years (52.2%). 9% traveled in groups
more than 10 times within the last 3 years. In addition, 21.6% of
respondents reported having traveled in a group within the recent
month. The majority traveled in groups within the last year (81%).
At many Korean universities, group tours organized by university
departments and clubs are regularly attended by students, hence
53.1% of students last traveled with their respective department
and 16.1% with their university clubs. Package tours with friends or
family accounted for 18.2% of the type of group travel they last
attended. A summary of this study's sample profile can be seen in
Table 2.
3.4. Tools for analysis
Software used for the data analysis was IBM's SPSS version 21
81
and AMOS version 20. The combination of SPSS and AMOS has been
commonly employed in recent studies (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,
2012; Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, & Gursoy, 2013), mainly due to a
combination of user-friendliness and the ease of visual illustration
when working with conceptual models (Nunkoo et al., 2013). A
two-stage approach to structural equation modeling (SEM) pro-
posed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was adopted for this
research. SEM technique has been suggested to be the most
appropriate and is most widely used for complex model testing
with a large number of constructs such as in this present study
(Hair et al., 2014; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2012; Nunkoo et al.,
2013). For the first stage, the measurement model was analyzed
for adequacy, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to
assessed reliability and validity of the measurement model. After
achieving a satisfactory fit, the second stage involved testing the
structural model and the hypotheses by provided path coefficients
for each hypothesized relationship (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). Model
comparisons between existing models and this research's proposed
model have been provided to affirm the aim of this research in
developing a robust model in explaining pro-environmental in-
tentions in a group tour context.
4. Results
4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis
Testing the measurement model goodness of fit was performed
as the first step of the two-step approach suggested by Anderson
and Gerbing (1988). Before CFA, data screening was performed to
examine possible violations of basic assumptions. The results
showed no significant violations of the assumptions. Skewness
ranged between negative and positive value of 1 with exceptions of
3 measurement items (Stevens, 2009). However, they all are Likert-
type items thus not considered to be breaching the assumptions.
Kurtosis scores were all below the recommended threshold of 3.0
(Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). Further examinations of multivariate
normality, linearity and homoscedasticity showed no violations.
The factoring method used for conducting CFA was maximum
likelihood, and the results suggested a good model fit
(c2 ¼ 1132.405, df ¼ 507, p < 0.001, c2/df ¼ 1.987, RMSEA ¼ 0.043,
CFI ¼ 0.942, IFI ¼ 0.943). All scores suggested the acceptance of the
measurement model. According to Hair et al. (2014), CFI scores
above 0.90 are accepted for a sample size of 538 with 36 mea-
surement items. Each construct contained multiple measurements
items, and a composite reliability test was performed to test the
internal consistency. Results showed that all were greater than the
generally accepted minimum threshold of 0.70 with results ranging
between 0.755 and 0.875 (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012). Construct validity
was tested, and as shown in Table 3, convergence validity was
present with the average variance extracted (AVE) scores ranging
between 0.512 and 0.655 higher than the minimum requirement of
0.5 (Hair et al., 2014). Lastly, AVE values, which were all greater than
the correlation between a pair of research constructs, provide ev-
idence of discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al.,
2014).
4.2. Structural equation modeling
Stage two of Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-stage approach
was to test the structural model proposed by this study. After SEM
analysis was performed, the result showed satisfactory goodness-
of-fit statistics (c2 ¼ 1430.604, df ¼ 609, p < 0.001, c2/df ¼ 2.349,
RMSEA ¼ 0.050, CFI ¼ 0.916, IFI ¼ 0.916, TLI ¼ 908, NFI ¼ 0.863,
PGFI ¼ 0.755). The results of the hypothesized model showed a
satisfactory fit according to the suggested indices by Hair et al.
82 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88

Table 2
Demographics and travel characteristics.

Variable Category Distribution Valid percentage

Gender Male 172 32

Female 366 68
Age Mean 20.83
18 29 5.4
19 122 22.7
20 121 22.5
21 83 15.4
22 77 14.3
23 61 11.3
24 23 4.3
25 17 3.9
26 5 0.9
Nationality Korean 526 97.8
Chinese 11 2.0
Singaporean 1 0.2
Household income Under $24,999 50 10.3
$25,000-$39,999 147 30.4
$40,000-$54,999 95 19.6
$55,000-$69,999 77 15.9
$70,000-$84,999 40 8.3
$85,000-$99,999 36 7.4
Over $100,000 39 8.1
Student's year of study Freshmen (1st year) 155 28.9
Sophomore (2nd year) 180 33.6
Junior (3rd year) 130 24.3
Senior (4th year) 71 13.2
Student's major of study Hospitality and tourism management 353 65.6
Food service management 48 8.9
Convention and events management 45 8.4
Foreign language studies 49 9.2
Others 43 7.9
Frequency of group tour travel for the last 3 years 1 time 83 15.6
2-4 times 277 52.2
5-6 times 80 15.1
7-8 times 34 6.4
9-10 times 9 1.7
More than 10 times 48 9.0
Most recent group tour travel Within 1 month 114 21.6
Within 3 months 128 24.2
Within 6 months 82 15.5
Within 1 year 104 19.7
Within 2 years 64 12.1
Within 3 years 36 6.8
Type of most recent group tours Package group tour using a travel agency 92 18.2
University orientation related group tour 22 4.4
Field trip with department peers 268 53.1
Field trip with university club peers 84 16.6
Agri-volunteer travel 3 0.6
Collage graduation excursion 36 7.1

(2014). A number of suggestions by the modification indices
generated by AMOS software indicated potential improvements to
the model. After adding two additional paths from valence and
instrumentality to the pro-environmental personal norm construct,
the goodness-of-fit statistics improved significantly. At the same
time, the originality of the proposed model was minimally affected
(c2 ¼ 1228.224, df ¼ 607, p < 0.001, c2/df ¼ 2.140, RMSEA ¼ 0.046,
CFI ¼ 0.929, IFI ¼ 0.930, TLI ¼ 922, NFI ¼ 0.876, PGFI ¼ 762).
Therefore, this study retained the adjusted structural model (the
final model) for further discussion. One of the aims of this research
is to develop a robust model in explaining pro-environmental in-
tentions of young travelers while traveling in group tours, thus the
final model was then compared to the original framework of the
VBN (c2 ¼ 856.908, df ¼ 363, p < 0.001, c2/df ¼ 2.361,
RMSEA ¼ 0.050, CFI ¼ 0.935, IFI ¼ 0.936, TLI ¼ 0.928, NFI ¼ 0.894,
PGFI ¼ 0.752).
The final model displayed better fit than the proposed model
(c2/df ¼ 2.140) compared to (c2/df ¼ 2.349). It also displayed a
higher fit than the VBN model (c2/df ¼ 2.361). Results from a chi-
square difference test revealed that the two models significantly
differed (Dc2 ¼ 202.38, Ddf ¼ 2, p < 0.01). Fit of the final model was
also slightly better than the original VBN model. In addition, two
models were significantly different (Dc2 ¼ 371.316, Ddf ¼ 244,
p < 0.01). The final model included a superior ability for predicting
intention (R2 ¼ 0.483) than the proposed (R2 ¼ 0.461) and original
VBN model (R2 ¼ 0.428). The comparison summary is displayed in
Table 4.
The relationships amongst each construct were then tested as
hypothesized. Two new significant paths were discovered from the
structural analysis, a summary of the findings is shown in Table 5.
Biospheric value and altruistic value found to be significantly
related to the new ecological paradigm. Egoistic value on the other
hand was found to be insignificant. Therefore, while hypotheses 1
and 2 were supported, hypothesis 3 was rejected. Nonetheless, the
rest of the relationships amongst the VBN constructs were signifi-
cantly related as expected. Hence, hypotheses 4, 5, 6 and 7 were all
supported. The three constructs of the Expectancy theory were
significantly related. Therefore, hypotheses 8, 9 and 10 were also
 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88 83

Table 3
Correlation, reliability, AVE, ASV, mean and standard deviation.

BV AV EV NEP AC AR PPN Val Ins Exp IBP AVE ASV

BV 0.800a 0.442c 0.015 0.151 0.069 0.103 0.176 0.238 0.160 0.044 0.138 0.640 0.154
AV 0.665b 0.782 0.017 0.116 0.054 0.094 0.208 0.194 0.162 0.037 0.138 0.612 0.146
EV 0.124 0.129 0.716 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.008 0.013 0.009 0.021 0.014 0.513 0.011
NEP 0.389 0.340 0.043 0.716 0.134 0.134 0.183 0.178 0.104 0.032 0.138 0.512 0.128
AC 0.262 0.233 0.061 0.492 0.805 0.432 0.253 0.132 0.127 0.031 0.138 0.648 0.148
AR 0.321 0.307 0.051 0.366 0.657 0.806 0.373 0.189 0.169 0.049 0.135 0.649 0.168
PPN 0.420 0.456 0.089 0.428 0.503 0.611 0.740 0.376 0.332 0.094 0.440 0.547 0.244
Val 0.488 0.441 0.116 0.422 0.363 0.435 0.613 0.724 0.454 0.053 0.204 0.525 0.203
Ins 0.400 0.403 0.096 0.323 0.357 0.411 0.576 0.674 0.809 0.162 0.275 0.655 0.196
Exp 0.209 0.192 0.145 0.178 0.175 0.222 0.307 0.231 0.403 0.785 0.174 0.615 0.070
IBP 0.371 0.372 0.119 0.372 0.371 0.368 0.663 0.452 0.524 0.417 0.723 0.523 0.179
Mean 5.764 5.944 4.575 5.390 5.130 5.136 5.016 5.987 5.617 4.688 5.262
SD 0.934 0.903 1.032 0.945 1.030 1.037 0.939 0.813 0.981 1.264 0.998

Note1. Goodness-of-Fit Statistics: c2 ¼ 1132.405, df ¼ 507, p < 0.001, c2/df ¼ 1.987, RMSEA ¼ 0.043, CFI ¼ 0.942, IFI ¼ 0.943.
Note2. BV ¼ Biopheric Value, AV ¼ Altruistic Value, EV ¼ Egoistic Value, NEP ¼ New Ecological Paradigm, AC ¼ Awareness of Consequences, AR ¼ Ascription of Responsibility,
PPN ¼ Pro-environmental Personal Norm, Val ¼ Valence, Ins ¼ Instrumentality, Exp ¼ Expectancy, IBP ¼ Intention to Behave Pro-environmentally While Traveling.
a
Composite reliabilities are along the diagonal.
b
Correlations.
c
Squared correlations.

supported. Lastly, the three hypothesized relationships linked the EV. New ecological paradigm then explained 33.8% and 33.5% of
VBN framework to the Expectancy theory (H11, H12, and H13). the awareness of consequences and valence respectively. As ex-
While the first two hypotheses (H11 and H12) displayed significant pected, incremental increases in the R-squared values in ascrip-
relationships and both hypotheses were supported, the last hy- tion of responsibility (46%) and instrumentality (46.8%)
pothesis (H13) displayed an insignificant value. Hence, the hy- represented the total variance explained by its antecedents.
pothesis was rejected. Lastly, 54.2% of pro-environmental personal norms were
As mentioned above, SEM analysis's modification indices sug- explained by ascription of responsibility, valence, and instru-
gested the discovery of two other significant relationships that mentality. On the other hand, 16.5% of expectancy was explained
were not initially hypothesized. This research has opted to intro- by both instrumentality and ascribed responsibility. Lastly, 48.3%
duce those two relationships to the final model and will be retained of intention to behave pro-environmentally while traveling was
for further discussion. The first significantly unaccounted rela- explained by its antecedents.
tionship discovered (D1) was between valence and pro- Assessment of the indirect impacts between the study con-
environmental personal norm. The second was between instru- structs was performed, and the results were as follows: all but one
mentality and pro-environmental personal norms. With the in- factor had significant and positive indirect impact on intention to
clusion of both discovered paths, model fit statistics demonstrated behave pro-environmentally while traveling, namely BV (b ¼ 0.112,
improved fits compared to the proposed model as well as the VBN p < 0.01), AV (b ¼ 0.066, p < 0.01), new ecological paradigm
theory. Therefore, this present study chose to retain both paths. (b ¼ 0.318, p < 0.01), awareness of consequences (b ¼ 0.208,
Fig. 2 illustrated the final model and the result from the SEM p < 0.01), valence (b ¼ 0.341, p < 0.01), ascription of responsibility
analysis. (b ¼ 0.225, p < 0.01), and instrumentality (b ¼ 0.233, p < 0.01).
In terms of total variance explained, the results showed that Egoistic value (b ¼ 0.002, p > 0.05) did not show significant indirect
26.3% of new ecological paradigm was explained by BV, AV and impact. Further evidence of mediation effects continued to show
awareness of consequences was indirectly affected by biospheric
value (b ¼ 0.204, p < 0.01) and altruistic value (b ¼ 0.121, p < 0.01).
Valence was indirectly affected by biospheric value (b ¼ 0.203,
Table 4 p < 0.01) and altruistic value (b ¼ 0.120, p < 0.01). Ascription of
Results of the structural model comparisons. responsibility was also indirectly affected by biospheric value
Goodness-of-fit VBN Hypothesized Final model
(b ¼ 0.138, p < 0.01), altruistic value (b ¼ 0.082, p < 0.01), and new
statistics & R squared model ecological paradigm (b ¼ 0.394, p < 0.01). Instrumentality was
indirectly affected by biospheric value (b ¼ 0.156, p < 0.01), altru-
Fit indices
c2 856.908 1430.604 1299.224 istic value (b ¼ 0.092, p < 0.01), and new ecological paradigm
df 363 609 607 (b ¼ 0.446, p < 0.01). Pro-environmental personal norm was indi-
c /df rectly affected by biospheric value (b ¼ 0.160, p < 0.01), altruistic
2
2.361 2.349 2.140
RMSEA 0.050 0.050 0.046
value (b ¼ 0.095, p < 0.01), new ecological paradigm (b ¼ 0.457,
CFI 0.935 0.916 0.929
IFI 0.936 0.916 0.930
p < 0.01), awareness of consequences (b ¼ 0.310, p < 0.01), and
TLI 0.928 0.908 0.922 valence (b ¼ 0.142, p < 0.01). Lastly, the same set of constructs
NFI 0.894 0.863 0.876 indirectly effected expectancy; biospheric value (b ¼ 0.070,
PGFI 0.752 0.755 0.762 p < 0.01), altruistic value (b ¼ 0.041, p < 0.01), new ecological
R2 (Adjusted)
paradigm (b ¼ 0.198, p < 0.01), awareness of consequences
IBP 0.428 0.461 0.483
(b ¼ 0.105, p < 0.05), and valence (b ¼ 0.238, p < 0.01). Egoistic
Note 1. Chi-square difference test between the final model and the hypothe-
value, on the other hand, did not show significant indirect effect on
sized model: Dc2 ¼ 202.38, Ddf ¼ 2, p < 0.01.
Note 2. Chi-square difference test between the final model and the VBN The-
any of the constructs. The details of the indirect impact assessment
ory: Dc2 ¼ 371.316, Ddf ¼ 244, p < 0.01. can be seen in Table 6.
Note 3. IBP ¼ Intention to Behave Pro-environmentally While Traveling.
84 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88

Table 5
Standardized parameter estimates of the structural equation modeling.

Standardized estimate t-value Hypothesis

H1: Biospheric Value / New Ecological Paradigm 0.351 4.938* Supported

H2: Altruistic Value / New Ecological Paradigm 0.207 2.943* Supported
H3: Egoistic Value / New Ecological Paradigm 0.007 0.151 Rejected
H4: New Ecological Paradigm / Awareness of Consequences 0.581 9.308* Supported
H5: Awareness of Consequences / Ascription of Responsibility 0.678 13.260* Supported
H6: Ascription of Responsibility / Pro-environmental Personal Norm 0.407 8.821* Supported
H7: Pro-environmental Personal Norm / Intention to Behave Pro-environmentally while traveling 0.583 10.139* Supported
H8: Valence / Instrumentality 0.619 10.728* Supported
H9: Instrumentality / Expectancy 0.384 6.880* Supported
H10: Expectancy / Intention to Behave Pro-environmentally while traveling 0.259 5.176* Supported
H11: New Ecological Paradigm / Valence 0.579 8.876* Supported
H12: Awareness of Consequences / Instrumentality 0.150 3.382* Supported
H13: Ascription of Responsibility / Expectancy 0.069 1.328 Rejected
D1: Valance / Pro-environmental Personal Norm 0.337 5.167* Discovered
D2: Instrumentality / Pro-environmental Personal Norm 0.229 3.820* Discovered

Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for the final model: Total variance explained: Total impact on intention to behave
c2 ¼ 1228.224, df ¼ 607, p < 0.001, c2/ R2 of IBP ¼ 0.483 pro-environmentally while traveling:
df ¼ 2.140, RMSEA ¼ 0.046, CFI ¼ 0.929, R2 of PNN ¼ 0.542 BV ¼ 0.112
IFI ¼ 0.930, TLI ¼ 922, NFI ¼ 0.876, R2 of AR ¼ 0.460 AV ¼ 0.066
PGFI ¼ 762 R2 of AC ¼ 0.338 EV ¼ 0.002
R2 of NEP ¼ 0.263 NEP ¼ 0.318
R2 of Exp ¼ 0.165 AC ¼ 0.208
R2 of Ins ¼ 0.468 AR ¼ 0.255
R2 of Val ¼ 0.335 PNN ¼ 0.583
Val ¼ 0.341
*p < 0.01 Ins ¼ 0.233
Exp ¼ 0.259

Note. BV ¼ Biopheric Value, AV ¼ Altruistic Value, EV ¼ Egoistic Value, NEP ¼ New Ecological Paradigm, AC ¼ Awareness of Consequences, AR ¼ Ascription of Responsibility,
PPN ¼ Pro-environmental Personal Norm, Val ¼ Valence, Ins ¼ Instrumentality, Exp ¼ Expectancy, IBP ¼ Intention to Behave Pro-environmentally While Traveling.

5. Discussion
This research attempted to fuse two prominent theories in their
respective fields. The VBN has largely been acknowledged in pre-
vious researches to have significant predictive ability in terms of
pro-environmental behaviors (De Groot & Steg, 2009; Han, 2015;
Stern et al., 1999). The expectancy theory, on the other hand, has
been applied in various contexts with mixed results (Lawler &
Suttle, 1973; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005). This research merged the
expectancy theory with the VBN framework to provide a more
robust framework for predicting tourists’ intention to behave pro-
environmentally while traveling. Even though the original VBN
included private-sphere behaviors and discussed the aggregate
impact of day-to-day green behaviors, it fails to measure “effort.”
While the expectancy has received some criticism since its
introduction, its versatility has been praised (Chiang & Jang, 2008;
Lawler & Suttle, 1973; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005). The expectancy
theory focuses on performance and effort (Chiang & Jang, 2008),
“right actions lead to the desired outcomes” and “the more effort,
the higher likelihood of achieving the desired outcomes.” Results of
this study support the merger of the two theories.
Within the constructs of the expectancy theory, causal re-
lationships (H8, H9, and H10) were all significant as hypothesized.
The findings imply that valence (desire of environmental quality
that improves trip satisfaction) is the antecedent of effort. In other
words, the effort to behave pro-environmentally can be influenced
by the desired outcomes. Traditionally, pro-social intention is often
predicted by moral norms or feelings of guilt (De Groot & Steg,
2009; Onwezen, Antonides, & Bartels, 2013). Between the three
constructs, instrumentality or effort received the largest variance,

Fig. 2. Result of the structural equation modeling (Final Model).

 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88
Table 6
Indirect-impact assessment.
Indirect effect of On
AC Val
Biospheric value 0.204* 0.203*
Altruistic value 0.121* 0.120*
Egoistic value 0.004 0.004
New ecological paradigm e e
Awareness of consequences e e
Valence e e
Ascription of responsibility e e
Instrumentality e e
Note. BV ¼ AC ¼ Awareness of Consequences, Val ¼ Valence, AR ¼ Ascription of Responsibility, Ins ¼ Instrumentality, PPN ¼ Pro-environmental Personal Norm,
Exp ¼ Expectancy, IBP ¼ Intention to Behave Pro-environmentally While Traveling *p < 0.01, **p < 0.05.
supporting this research's emphasis on how the effort would have a
positive contribution to the predictive power. Lastly and unsur-
prisingly, when a tourist feels that their action can and will ulti-
mately contribute to the overall well-being of the environment, it
positively influences an intention to act sustainably while traveling.
Based on the findings of Juvan and Dolnicar (2014) who studied the
gap between attitude and action, a number of respondents some-
times feel it is acceptable to make an exception, citing that “vaca-
tions are a special treat”, hinting to their inner justification to relax
their normal routine. However, the finding supports a potential
new approach to foster green actions. It refrains from positioning
green behaviors as routine and mundane but instead promote the
outcomes (great environment) to be desirable.
The relationships among the VBN's constructs showed strong
correlations, consistent with Han (2015) and Kaiser et al.’s 2005)
results. Nevertheless, unique to this present research, egoistic value
did not result in a significant link to NEP as initially hypothesized.
The deviation in results could be caused by other unexplained
phenomena unique to this particular study rather than the validity
of the model itself. A possible explanation could be that young
Koreans do not place a high emphasis on social dominance, wealth,
influencing power over others, and authoritative power. The
inconsistency of the value items was also experienced by Stern et al.
(1999). Initially, the VBN proposed three types of values, namely
altruistic, egoistic, and traditional values. Altruistic values refer to
both values towards other humans and other species. However,
Stern (2000) recognized the emerging awareness of biospheric
values and its distinct properties with altruistic values towards
other humans. He subsequently separated altruistic values into
altruistic and biospheric values in the updated article on the VBN.
Empirical findings proved awareness of consequences, ascription of
responsibility, and personal norms to be fundamental in explicating
one's pro-social behaviors (De Groot & Steg, 2009; Han, 2015; Stern,
2000). Nonetheless there was slight variation in the results
compared to some other studies. Han’s (2015) found AR to have the
highest R2 among the variables of the VBN, whereas personal norm
was the highest in this study. The difference further highlights how
decisions are formed in two distinct contexts. We can assume that
for day-to-day actions, personal norm drives the behaviors, given
that such actions involve minimal decision making. On the other
hand, the decision to patronize green hotels does not happen often
and therefore involves a deeper and more complex decision-
making process. This also shows how the sample feels the posi-
tive effect green hotels have on the environment. The results of
total impact on intention (final construct) further act as supporting
evidence. Moreover, the results showed norms to display the
largest amount of total impact where AC was the largest in Han's
findings. Bamberg and Moser’s (2007) results were consistent with
this study, moral norm was the largest predictor of pro-
environmental intentions.
85
AR Ins PNN Exp IBP
0.138* 0.156* 0.160* 0.070* 0.112*
0.082* 0.092* 0.095* 0.041* 0.066*
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.002
0.394* 0.446* 0.457* 0.198* 0.318*
e e 0.310* 0.105** 0.208*
e e 0.142* 0.238* 0.341*
e e e e 0.225*
e e e e 0.233*
The relationships between the two models were all positively
significant as hypothesized. Positive H11 was consistent with pre-
vious studies (Autio & Heinonen, 2004; Pinto et al., 2011; Yu, 2014).
It can be safely interpreted that people who have a positive attitude
towards the environment would generally wish for high quality
environmental conditions when traveling. The two discovered re-
lationships aid to further strengthen our previous discussion on
how personal norm plays a central role in predicting intention.
These findings have illustrated not only that pro-environmental
behaviors began from personal values towards the environment
but also that they can be influenced and generated. Lastly, exam-
ining the details of the final construct revealed interesting findings.
Three items produced low loadings and were therefore removed
from the analysis. The three items were 1) I would prefer to buy
local products, 2) I would buy “eco-“ or “organic-“ products when
possible, and 3) I would buy products in eco-friendly packaging
when possible i.e. avoid plastic shopping bags, plastic bottles, and
try to reuse bottles and bags. A pattern emerged that when actions
potentially involved an increase in spending, they produced less
than satisfactory loadings. This finding was paralleled with
Kollmuss and Agyeman’s (2002) summary that lack of money is one
of the barriers to pro-environmental behavior regardless of atti-
tudes. Given that the sample of this study was young university
students, economic barriers were reflected in the results.
6. Implications
The VBN has been developed and proposed recently and has yet
to gain widespread recognition in wider research fields. Since the
introduction of the VBN, many researches have validated its con-
structs in various applications such as exploring conservation
behavior (Kaiser et al., 2005), a cross-national study of pro-
environmental behavior (Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006) and afore-
mentioned tourists' consumption in the green lodging context
(Han, 2015). This research added another research context by suc-
cessfully demonstrating the application of the model to the tourists'
intention to behave pro-environmentally while traveling. Theo-
retical implications of this research lie largely on the significant
value of the theory's effectiveness in predicting intentions,
comprehensiveness in terms of theory deepening and broadening,
and its applicability to future researches, leading to the fulfillment
of this research's objectives. Han (2015) fused the VBN with the
theory of planned behavior and found the proposed model to be
significantly more effective in predicting green hotel consumption
behaviors. Together with this research, both extended versions of
the VBN framework pointed out the possibility of broadening the
VBN theory to apply to a slightly different context.
The results also provided a basic understanding of how to
manipulate green intentions. Putting this study into practice, one
should first look at energy and water consumptions of hotels.
86 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88
Chang et al. (2015) suggested that utilities are one of the highest
expenses in hotel operations. Some hotels have implemented en-
ergy and water saving technologies and methods while maintain-
ing a high level of service over the years (Goldstein, Cialdini, &
Griskevicius, 2008). Common methods are encouraging guests to
re-use their towels and the implementation of hotel keycards that
automatically turn the electricity off when guests leave their hotel
rooms (Goldstein at al., 2008). Studies found that the success of
conservation schemes must be implanted in the most efficient
manner (Chang et al., 2015; Judah et al., 2009; Nolan, Schultz,
Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008). The use of social norms
such as comparing one's behavior with other hotel guests' behav-
iors (i.e. the message “the majority of guests in this room reuse
their towels”) was more effective than using altruism based mes-
sages such as “help save the planet” (Chang et al., 2015; Goldstein
et al., 2008). Public shaming was also another effective method.
In the study by Judah et al. (2009), signs reading “Is the person next
to you washing with soap?” were used with success in promoting
personal hygiene at public toilets. The results of this study can be
interpreted in a similar manner. Personal norm was the largest
influencer of intention to encourage tourists' sustainable behaviors
while traveling emphasis could be placed at the norm level. In the
case of Han's study (2015) to market green hotels, marketers would
be looking at increasing awareness instead.
A large amount of total variance explained by instrumentality
supported the potential implementation of a reward system for
energy efficient guests. Chang et al. (2015) proposed a reward
system to help promote conservation behaviors. A reward system
for guests requires an energy usage monitoring system to be
installed in every room, raising the question whether the savings
could overcome the high initial implementation costs. However, it
may be a potential strategy that hotels could implement in the
future. Instrumentality also highlighted another key practical
contribution to destinations and site managers. Bridging the gap
between attitude and behavior can be done by making it conve-
nient for tourists to perform. For example, to help promote recy-
cling behaviors, public authorities and site managers should install
more trash bins in public areas. It is also worth noting that devel-
oping infrastructure for tourists also benefits local people (Al-
Rimmawi, 2003).
7. Future research directions and limitations
As with most research, the issues of generalizability can always
be debated. While this study used university students as samples,
the results provided a good basis for understanding young travelers
in the group tours context and their intention to behave pro-
environmentally. Although, student travelers adequately repre-
sented young travelers in the present study, it may not be possible
to generalize our findings to all young travelers. The sampling range
should be greater in future studies. A number of moderators or
control groups could also be tested to widen the scope. This
research attempted to expand the VBN by merging with the ex-
pectancy theory for the first time, and its validity may still be open
to debate and criticism. Secondly, it is worth noting a sampling
limitation, due to the data collection method deployed for this
research, surveying travelers at a destination was not possible.
Therefore, this research has measured intentions rather than the
behaviors directly. However as stated earlier, it is accepted in other
empirical researches that intention is a significant indication of
behavior. Third, results in this research should be taken with
caution, similarly with other public and common goods related
behaviors; survey participants may feel reluctant to express their
true opinions because of ethical and moral pressure to show their
willingness to behave towards the common good. It is
recommended to interpret the data in this study with this under-
standing. Another minor limitation found in this study was the
disparity in gender distribution of the sample population where
female participants contributed approximately 2 to 1 of the sample
size. The accuracy of the report on household income could also be
called into question. Nonetheless for the purpose of this research,
both limitations may play a minor or no effect role on the overall
interpretation of the results. Lastly, the final model proposed by this
research is open for comments, debate and suggestions. Additional
constructs may be included to provide an even more comprehen-
sive understanding of the topic, and these are encouraged in order
to achieve an even more meaningful extension of this research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.018.
Appendix B
Biospheric value (Mean, SD).
(Han, 2015; Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999).
Extremely unimportant (1)/Extremely important (7).
Preventing pollution, conserving natural resources (5.296,
1.042).
Respecting the earth, harmony with other species (5.775,
1.0881).
Unity with nature, filling into nature (5.351, 1.223).
Protecting the environment, preserving nature (6.004, 1.016).
Altruistic value (Mean, SD).
(Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999).
Extremely unimportant (1)/Extremely important (7).
Equality, equal opportunity for all (5.855, 1.106).
A world at peace, free of war, and conflict (6.043, 1.088).
Social justice, care for the weak (5.954, 1.083).
Helpful, helping others (5.924, 1.034).
Egoistic value (Mean, SD).
(Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999).
Extremely unimportant (1)/Extremely important (7).
Social power, control over others, and dominance (4.009, 1.416).
Wealth, material possessions, money (5.046, 1.273).
Authority, the right to lead or command (4.537, 1.293).
Influential, having an impact on people and events (4.706,
1.281).
New Ecological Paradigm (Mean, SD).
(Dunlap et al. 2000; Han, 2015; Stern et al., 1999).
Extremely disagree (1)/Extremely agree (7).
The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset (5.071,
1.280).*
Humans are severely abusing the environment (5.807, 1.064).
Earth is like a spaceship with limited room and resources (5.175,
1.301).
We are not doing enough at the moment to protect the envi-
ronment (5.188, 1.219).
Awareness of Consequences (Mean, SD).
(Han, 2015; Stern et al., 1999).
Extremely disagree (1)/Extremely agree (7).
The tourism industry can cause pollution, climate change, and
exhaustion of natural resources because of infrastructures required
to cater to a large number of tourists (5.078, 1.152).
Tourism can generate huge environmental impacts on the
environment (5.052, 1.216).
Tourists can cause environmental deteriorations of the host
community such as wastes and excessive use of energy/water/fuel
(5.260, 1.162).
 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88
Ascription of Responsibility (Mean, SD).
(Han, 2015; Stern et al., 1999).
Extremely disagree (1)/Extremely agree (7).
I believe that every traveler is partly responsible for the envi-
ronmental problem caused by the tourism industry (5.203, 1.155).
I feel that every traveler is jointly responsible for the environ-
mental deteriorations caused by traveling activities (5.134, 1.150).
Every traveler must take responsibility for the environmental
problems caused during their trips (5.071, 1.259).
Pro-Environmental Personal Norm (Mean, SD).
(Han, 2015; Stern et al., 1999).
Extremely disagree (1)/Extremely agree (7).
I feel an obligation to act pro-environmentally by choosing eco-
friendly activities while traveling in a group (4.699, 1.195).
Regardless of what other people do, because of my own values/
principles, I feel that I should behave in an environmentally friendly
way while group traveling (4.768, 1.225).
I feel that it is important to be environmentally friendly,
reducing the harm to the community and its environment while
traveling in a group (5.284, 1.122).
I feel it is important that travelers in general behave in an eco-
friendly manner while group traveling (5.312, 1.067).
Valence (Mean, SD).
(Chiang & Jang, 2008).
Extremely disagree (1)/Extremely agree (7).
I believe if the environment of the host community is good, I will
enjoy my trip more (6.214, 0.950).
I believe behaving pro-environmentally is the right thing to do
while traveling (5.991, 0.938).
Clean and unpolluted environment is important for me when
traveling (5.755, 1.081).
Instrumentality (Mean, SD).
(Chiang & Jang, 2008).
Extremely disagree (1)/Extremely agree (7).
I believe I can be a role model to other tourists by behaving pro-
environmentally when I travel (5.626, 1166).
I believe the more pro-environmentally actions I do, the more I
can help the environment (5.677, 1.078).
The more knowledge I have about the environment, the more I
can help to protect it (5.549, 1.151).
Expectancy (Mean, SD).
(Chiang & Jang, 2008).
Extremely disagree (1)/Extremely agree (7).
My eco-friendly behaviors can prevent environmental deterio-
ration (5.140, 1.264).*
I believe behaving pro-environmentally does not require more
time (4.756, 1.341).
I believe it is not difficult to be environmentally friendly (4.619,
1.473).
Intention to behave pro-environmentally while traveling
(Mean, SD).
(Miller et al., 2015; Dolnicar & Grun, 2009; Stern at al., 1999).
Extremely disagree (1)/Extremely agree (7).
I would prefer to buy local products (4.838, 1.408).*
I would buy “eco-” or “organic-” products when possible (4.625,
1.250).*
I would buy products in eco-friendly packaging when possible
i.e. avoid plastic shopping bags, plastic bottles and try to reuse
bottles and bags (4.687, 1.330).*
I would try to save water and electricity i.e. turning off the tap
while washing/brushing teeth, turning off the lights if I leave the
room for more than 10 min, walking up the stairs if only need to go
1 floor up, and using hotel towels more than once (4.935, 0.1335).
I would try to learn about the recycling facilities and actions of
the locals (4.994, 1.253).
87
I would try to dispose garbage properly if possible i.e. sort my
garbage into separate containers for paper, plastic, glass, etc. (5.634,
1.139).
I would try to protect local resources as much as I could i.e. I
would voluntarily stop visiting a famous spot if it needed to recover
from environmental damage and I would not disturb any creatures
and vegetation, for example, feeding fish and birds or picking
flowers (5.485, 1.221).
*This item was excluded due to its low loading (<0.5).
References
Al-Rimmawi, H. A. (2003). Palestinian tourism: A period of transition. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(2), 76e85.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychology Bulletin, 103(3), 411e423.
Anton, C. E., & Lawrence, C. (2014). Home is where the heart is: The effect of place of
residence on place attachment and community participation. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology, 40, 451e461.
Autio, M., & Heinonen, V. (2004). To consume or not to consume? Young people's
environmentalism in the affluent Finnish society. Young Nordic Journal of Youth
Research, 12(2), 137e153.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of struc-
tural equation models. Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8e34.
Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera:
A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14e25.
Boldero, J. (1995). The prediction of household recycling of newspapers: The role of
attitudes, intentions, and situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25(5), 440e462.
Budeanu, A. (2007). Sustainable tourist behavior e A discussion of opportunities for
change. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 499e508.
Caruana, R., Glozer, S., Crane, A., & McCabe, S. (2014). Tourists' accounts of
responsible tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 46, 115e129.
Chang, H., Huh, C., & Lee, M. J. (2015). Would an energy conservation nudge in
hotels encourage hotel guests to conserve? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 1e12.
Chiang, C.-F., & Jang, S. (2008). An expectancy theory model for hotel employee
motivation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 313e322.
Choi, G., & Parsa, H. G. (2006). Green practices II e Measuring restaurant managers'
psychological attributes and their willingness to charge for the “green prac-
tices”. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 9(4), 41e63.
Crick-Furman, D., & Prentice, R. (2000). Modeling tourists' multiple values. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(1), 69e92.
De Groot, J., & Steg, L. (2009). Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of aware-
ness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 149(4), 425e449.
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1989). Social structural and social psycho-
logical bases of environmental concern. Environmental & Behavior, 30, 450e471.
Dolnicar, S., & Grun, B. (2009). Environmentally friendly behavior e Can hetero-
geneity among individuals and contexts/environments be harvested for
improved sustainable management? Environment & Behavior, 41(5), 693e714.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A
proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 9, 10e19.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of
Social Issues, 56(3), 425e442.
Ferris, K. R. (1977). A Test of the expectancy theory of motivation in an accounting
environment. The Accounting Review, 52(3), 605e615.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and Behavior: An intro-
duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382e388.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint:
Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of
Consumer Research, 35(3), 472e482.
Gronhoj, A., & Thogersen, J. (2009). Like father, like son? Intergenerational trans-
mission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 414e421.
Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior
relationship: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and
Behavior, 27(5), 699e718.
Gyurko, C. C. (2011). A synthesis of Vroom's model with other social theories: An
application to nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 31, 506e510.
Hackman, J. R., & Porter, L. W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of work
effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 417e426.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect
of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 409e421.
88 K. Kiatkawsin, H. Han / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 76e88
Han, H. (2015). Travelers' pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context:
Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior.
Tourism Management, 47, 164e177.
Han, H., Hsu, L., & Lee, J. (2009). Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes
toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers' eco-
friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-
ment, 28, 519e528.
Han, H., Hsu, L., & Sheu, C. (2010). Application of the theory of planned behavior to
green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities.
Tourism Management, 31, 325e334.
Heneman, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1972). Evaluation of research on expectancy theory
prediction of employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 1e9.
Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the Value-Attitude-
Behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638e646.
Hsu, C. H. C., Cai, L. A., & Li, M. (2010). Expectation, motivation, and attitude: A
tourist behavioral model. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 282e296.
Hu, H.-H., Parsa, H. G., & Self, J. (2010). The dynamics of green restaurant patronage.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(3), 344e362.
Johnson, C., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental
belief and behavior: An examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social
psychological context. Environmental and Behavior, 36(2), 157e186.
Johnston, H., Larana, E., & Gusfield, J. R. (1994). Identities, grievances and new social
movements. In E. Laurana, H. Johnston, & J. R. Gusfield (Eds.), New social Move-
ments: From ideology to identity, 3-35. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Judah, G., Aunger, R., Schmidt, W.-P., Michie, S., Granger, S., & Curtis, V. (2009).
Experimental pretesting of hand-washing interventions in a natural setting.
American Journal of Public Health, 99(2), 405e411.
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2014). The attitude-behaviour gap in sustainable tourism.
Annals of Tourism research, 48, 76e95.
Kaiser, F. G., Hubner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned
behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 2150e2170.
Karatepe, O. M., & Sokmen, A. (2006). The effects of work role and family role
variables on psychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline employees.
Tourism Management, 27, 255e268.
Karatepe, O. M., & Uludag, O. (2007). Conflict, exhaustion, and motivation: A study
of frontline employee in northern Cyprus hotels. Hospitality Management, 26,
645e665.
Kilic, H., & Okumus, F. (2005). Factors influencing productivity in small island ho-
tels: Evidence from northern Cyprus. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 17(4), 315e331.
Kim, J.-H. (2014). The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The devel-
opment of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with
memorable experiences. Tourism Management, 44, 34e45.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environ-
mentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ-
mental Education Research, 8(3), 239e260.
Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lawler, E. E., & Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 482e503.
Lee, Y.-S., Lawton, L. J., & Weaver, D. B. (2012). Evidence for a South Korean model of
Ecotourism. Journal of Travel Research, 52(4), 520e533.
Lee, H.-J., Wilkins, H., & Lee, Y.-S. (2011). Feeling ‘protected’ in mass organized group
tours. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 11(2), 131e159.
Li, M., & Cai, L. A. (2012). The effect of personal values on travel motivation and
behavioral intention. Journal of Travel Research, 51(4), 473e487.
Lopez-Mosquera, N., Garcia, T., & Barrena, R. (2014). An extension of the Theory of
Planned Behavior to predict willingness to pay for the conservation of an urban
park. Journal of Environmental Management, 135, 91e99.
Luo, Y., & Deng, J. (2008). The new environmental paradigm and nature-based
tourism motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 392e402.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values,
value orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 30, 53e62.
Miller, D., Merrilees, B., & Coghlan, A. (2015). Sustainable urban tourism: Under-
standing and developing visitor pro-environmentally behaviors. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 23(1), 26e46.
Murray, D., & Frazier, K. B. (1986). A within-subjects test of expectancy theory in a
public accounting environment. Journal of Accounting Research, 24(2), 400e404.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008).
Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 913e923.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Structural equation modelling and regression
analysis in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(8), 777e802.
Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Use of structural equation
modeling in tourism research: Past, present, and future. Journal of Travel
Research, 52(6), 759e771.
Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., & Bartels, J. (2013). The norm activation model: An
exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental
behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141e153.
Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-
nationally: Values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm
theory. Environmental and Behavior, 38(4), 462e483.
Ostman, R. E., & Parker, J. L. (1987). Impact of education, age, newspapers, and
television on environmental knowledge, concerns, and behaviors. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 19(1), 3e9.
Phillip, S., Hunter, C., & Blackstock, K. (2010). A typology for defining agritourism.
Tourism Management, 31, 751e758.
Pinto, D. C., Nique, W. M., Anana, E. D. S., & Herter, M. M. (2011). Green consumer
values: How do personal values influence environmentally responsible water
consumption? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(2), 122e131.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Home-
wood, IL: Irwin.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L. D. G., & Weiler, B. (2013). Testing the dimensionality of
place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-
environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach.
Tourism Management, 36, 552e566.
Van Riper, C. J., & Kyle, G. T. (2014). Understanding the internal processes of
behavioral engagement in a national park: A latent variable path analysis of the
value-belief-norm theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 288e297.
Santana-Jimenez, Y., & Hernandez, J. M. (2011). Estimating the effect of the over-
crowding on tourist attraction: The case of Canary Islands. Tourism Manage-
ment, 32(2), 415e425.
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221e279). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1e65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision making model of
altruism. In J. P. Rushton, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior
(pp. 89e211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407e424.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, I., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm
theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.
Research in Human Ecology, 6(2), 81e97.
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & De Witte, H. (2005). Understanding unemployed
people's job search behavior, unemployment experience and well-being: A
comparison of expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 269e287.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Watkins, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). Methodological issues in using Kahle's list of values
scale for Japanese tourism behavior. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(3), 225e233.
Weaver, D. B. (2012). Organic, incremental and induced paths to sustainable mass
tourism convergence. Tourism Management, 33, 1030e1037.
Yu, X. (2014). Is environment ‘a city thing’ in China? Rural-urban differences in
environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 39e48.
Kiattipoom Kiatkawsin is currently undertaking a Ph.D.
degree in Hospitality and Tourism at the Collage of Hos-
pitality and Tourism Management at Sejong University,
Korea. He received his MSc degree in Hospitality and
Tourism management from Edinburgh Napier University,
Scotland. In addition, he has earned his MBA in Hospitality
Management and Postgraduate Diploma in Events Man-
agement from the Hotel and Tourism Management Insti-
tute, Switzerland.
Heesup Han is an Associate Professor in the College of
Hospitality and Tourism Management at Sejong University,
Korea. His research interests include airline, medical
tourism, green hotels, and hospitality and tourism mar-
keting. His papers have been selected as the most down-
loaded and read articles in many top-tier hospitality and
tourism journals.