Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Progress in Tourism Management

Why do you cruise? Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays,
and the construction of a cruising motivation scale
Kam Hung a, *, James F. Petrick b
a
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
b
Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, USA

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

Article history: The purposes of this study were to develop a measurement scale for motivation to cruising and to
Received 1 May 2009 examine the role of cruising motivation on intention to cruise. The motivation measurement scale was
Accepted 14 March 2010 developed by following the procedures recommended by Churchill (1979). The scale was tested and
found to be both reliable and valid. The role of cruising motivation on intention to cruise was tested with
Keywords: an online panel survey and it was found that cruising motivation has a positive influence on cruising
Cruising motivation
intention. Based on the study results, some marketing implications were provided to the cruise industry.
Cruising intention
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Measurement scale development
Cruise tourism

1. Introduction
Motivation is a fundamental force behind all human behavior
(Berkman & Gilson, 1978). It refers to the “internal psychological
factors (needs and wants) that generate a state of tension or
disequilibrium within individuals” (Crompton & McKay, 1997,
p. 427). Although travel motivation has been extensively studied in
tourism literature, the discussion of motivation has not been
expanded to cruise tourism except for Qu and Ping’s (1999) study on
the motivations associated with cruising in Hong Kong. However,
this study adopted a motivation scale from elsewhere without
examining the reliability and validity of the scale. Since under-
standing the underlying motives to cruising is likely to enhance our
understanding of why people cruise and what they are looking for
from their trips, the first purpose of the current study was to
understand people’s motivation to cruising by developing a cruising
motivation measurement scale.
Although travel motivation has been identified as a critical
factor in explaining tourist behavior (Crompton, 1979), few studies
tested the relationship between travel motivation and travel
intention. Intention is defined as the direction of mind or “intended
mode of behavior” (Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 1405). Most
motivation studies have been characterized by identifying travel
motivations in different tourism contexts such as garden (Connell,
2004), rural tourism (Frochot, 2005), and national parks (Kim,
Lee, & Klenosky, 2003) without examining its influence on travel
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 2766 4334; fax: þ852 2362 9362.
E-mail addresses: hmkam@polyu.edu.hk (K. Hung), jpetrick@tamu.edu
(J.F. Petrick).
intentions. Although Kim and Chalip (2004) investigated the role of
travel motives on visiting intentions and found both direct and
indirect effects of travel motivations on desire to attend the World
Cup in Korea, their motivation measurement was adopted from
a leisure motivation scale and only three dimensions of the scale
were included in their study: escape, learning, and social motives.
Therefore, this study was conducted to first develop a measure-
ment scale for cruising motivation and then to investigate the
influence of motivation to cruising on people’s intention to take
a cruise vacation.
2. Literature review
Motivation has been one of the most researched topics in
a variety of fields (i.e., psychology, sociology, consumer behavior,
and tourism). Various motivation theories have been developed
such as drive reduction theory (Hull, 1943, 1952), hierarchy of needs
(Maslow, 1943, 1954), expectancy-value theories (Lewin, 1938), and
goal-directed behavior (Bettman, 1979). While some theories such
as drive reduction theory have suggested that people behave in
certain ways due to their innate biological tendencies such as eating
for hunger; others such as hierarchy of needs theory suggest that
people do something because they want to achieve certain goals
such as working hard to get a raise. The former is termed as
a regulatory approach and refers to responses to physiological
needs while the latter is termed a purposive approach and focuses
on goal-directed behaviors (Beck, 2000). In a tourism context, the
latter approach has been used more frequently.
Various motivation theories or concepts have been proposed to
explain tourist behavior. For instance, MacCannell (1973, 1999)

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.008
 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393
suggested that tourists travel to other destinations to seek
authentic opportunities when their usual environments lack such
an experience. Plog (1974, 2001) allocated tourists into an allo-
centricepsychocentric continuum in which tourists were catego-
rized according to their personalities toward novelty-seeking and
implied that personality was one of the basic sources of travel
motivation. Pearce and Caltabiano (1983) applied Maslow’s hier-
archy of needs to the study of tourist travel motivations, and sug-
gested that experienced travelers are more likely to go on trips to
fulfill higher level of needs (i.e., self actualization) than novice
travelers. These theories imply that people travel for fulfilling
certain needs and wants and that these needs and wants are the
basic motivations for initiating a travel experience. Although many
motivation theories have been proposed in past research, scholars
have not perceived these approaches as competitive entities;
rather, they all contribute to the understanding of tourist behaviors
in different ways. Thus, it is unlikely that scholars will ever agree on
one unifying motivational theory in explaining tourist behavior.
Despite the vast amount of attention that tourism scholars have
paid to studying travel motivation (e.g., Dann, 1977; Iso-Ahola,
1982; Crompton, 1979; Kim & Chalip, 2004), little effort has been
paid to studying travel motivation in the context of cruise tourism.
While prior cruising research had focused more on economic
aspects of cruise tourism (e.g., Henthorne, 2000; Dwyer & Forsyth,
1998; Vina & Ford, 1998), more recent research has paid more
attention to identifying different factors influencing cruise deci-
sion-making (Duman & Mattila, 2005; Petrick, 2004b; Li & Petrick,
2008). Other topics which have been discussed in the past cruising
literature include safety assessment of cruise ships (Lois, Wang,
Wall, & Ruxton, 2004) and different social aspects of cruise
tourism such as social space, interaction and liminality (Yarnal &
Kerstetter, 2005), tourist bubble (Jaakson, 2004), and McDonald-
ization of cruise tourism (Weaver, 2005).
Different factors have been found in past studies to influence
people’s cruising intentions. For instance, in their study of cruise
passengers’ decision-making process, Petrick, Li, and Park (2007)
found that loyalty, familiarity, and social influences were the
major factors affecting one’s decision to go on a cruise vacation.
Consistent with previous findings (Crompton & Ankomah, 1993),
the authors suggested that the choice set model (Crompton, 1992),
which is a sequential travel decision-making process in which
people narrow down their destination choices to reach a final
decision, does not apply to those who make habitual/routinized
cruising decisions.
A few studies have also explored the role of loyalty in cruising
intentions. For instance, Li and Petrick (2008) applied the invest-
ment model (Rusbult, 1980) in their study and found that loyalty is
a function of cruise passengers’ satisfaction with their relationship
with cruises, quality of other alternatives, as well as their invest-
ment size on the relationship. Taking another perspective, Petrick
(2004a) compared fist-timers and repeaters and found that while
first-timers and less loyal visitors tend to be less price sensitive and
to spend more, loyal cruisers have higher revisit intentions and are
more likely to spread positive word of mouth. These results were
further supported by Petrick and Sirakaya’s (2004) study in which
they segmented cruisers by loyalty and found that loyal repeaters
and satisfied first-timers tend to have higher perceptions of value
and are more likely to have positive word of mouth and revisit
intentions in the future.
Petrick (2004b) further investigated the roles of quality, value,
and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioral inten-
tions. He tested three competing models for predicting behavioral
intentions and found that while all three factors (i.e., quality, value,
and satisfaction) influence repurchase intention directly, quality
also has an indirect effect on repurchase intention via the mediators
387
of satisfaction and value. In addition, value was found to have
a positive effect on satisfaction.
The roles of satisfaction and perceived value on travel intentions
were further validated in Duman and Mattila’s (2005) work.
However, different from previous studies, affective factors (i.e.,
control, novelty, and hedonics) were included in the study to predict
their direct effects on satisfaction and perceived value as well as their
indirect influences on behavioral intentions. Results of their study
found a predicting role of the variables on behavioral intentions.
Other influential factors of behavioral intentions identified in past
cruising studies include price sensitivity (Petrick, 2005), critical
incidents (Petrick, Tonner, & Quinn, 2006), and perceived image of
cruise travel (Park, 2006). These studies generally conclude that
cruising intentions are influenced by these factors. Although Vina and
Ford (2001) also studied factors influencing people’s propensity to
cruise, the variables of prediction were limited to demographic and
trip characteristics, and the studied sample was limited to those who
previously requested travel information for tourist destinations in
South Texas from regional convention and visitor bureaus.
The review of past cruising literature suggests that intention to
cruise is influenced by many different factors. However, the
research on cruising motivation and its relationship with cruising
intention is still lacking. It is thus still unknown why people choose
to take cruises and how motivation influences their intentions to
cruise. Although different benefits of cruising were included in the
CLIA’s cruise market profile study (CLIA, 2008), the cruising benefit
items were pre-determined in the questionnaire and their associ-
ation with intentions to cruise was not explored. The sole use of
structured questionnaires with Likert-type scales in most tourism
studies has been criticized as confining subjects’ responses to pre-
determined items and forcing subjects to respond to items which
may not apply to them (Samdahl, 2005; Tapachai & Waryszak
2000). Therefore, the use of multi-methods which contain both
qualitative and quantitative methods is more likely to yield deeper
understanding of a given topic. This study utilized both in-depth
interviews and a survey to understand people’s motivation to
cruising by developing a cruising motivation measurement scale
and to explore its influence on travel intentions.
3. Research methods
Adopting Churchill’s (1979) recommended measurement scale
development procedures, this study was conducted in four stages to
address the objectives of the study. Stage one included in-depth
interviews. Semi-structured interviews with a small sample were
conducted to derive motivation measurement items. Convenience
sampling was used to select subjects for the study. Participants
included cruise passengers embarking and debarking at Port Ever-
glades in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Different cruise lines were con-
tacted during the period of December 2007 to February 2008 and
two cruise lines (i.e., Holland America Line and Princess Cruises)
granted the authors permissions to interview their passengers at
Port Everglades.
The sample size was not determined a priori. Rather the strategy
was to continue to interview people until the increment of new
information forthcoming was minimal. All the interviews were
semi-structured. In total, 32 interviews were conducted at the port
with 19 interviews conducted with passengers who had just
debarked from cruises and 13 interviews conducted with passen-
gers who were waiting for embarkation. A total of 17 interviews
were conducted with Holland America Cruise Lines’ passengers and
15 interviews were conducted with Princess Cruises’ passengers.
Stage two utilized a panel of experts. The motivation items
generated from both interviews and past literature (n ¼ 63) were
next submitted for review by a panel of experts consisting of seven
388 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393

faculty who conduct tourism research. The panel judged the To understand cruising motivations, cruisers were asked what
redundancy, applicability, and representativeness of the measure- motivated them to cruise. Various reasons (motivations) of cruising
ment items in a cruising context. were provided by the participants. Crompton’s (1979) nine cate-
To further purify the motivation measurement, a pilot test was gories of travel motivations were employed in this study as
conducted at stage three with 293 undergraduate students who a framework of analysis to systematically analyze the data and to
were in classes at the time the survey was administered. An investigate if cruising motivations found in this study coincided with
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a varimax rotation was per- those found in the travel motivation literature. The nine categories of
formed on the data to determine the dimensions of motivation travel motivations identified by Crompton (1979) are: escape from
scale. The 25 motivation items derived from the previous proce- a perceived mundane environment; exploration and evaluation of
dures were measured with a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ “Strongly self; relaxation; prestige; regression; enhancement of kinship rela-
Disagree,” 5 ¼ “Strongly Agree”). tionships; facilitation of social interaction; novelty; and education.
To measure intention to cruising, a modified measurement of The cruising motivation items, corresponding categories, and
behavioral intentions developed by Zeithaml, Berry, and frequencies reported by the participants are displayed in Table 1.
Parasuraman’s (1996) was adopted. In their investigation of The cruising motivations reported in this study coincided with
behavioral consequences of service quality, they developed some travel motivations reported in past studies (Crompton, 1979;
a 13-item behavioral intention measurement scale which included
five dimensions of behavioral intentions: loyalty to company
(loyalty), propensity to switch (switch), willingness to pay more Table 1
(pay more), external response to problems (external response), cruising motivations reported by interviewees.
and internal response to problems (internal response). The loyalty
Escape from usual environment 9 counts
component of behavioral intentions was chosen in this study to I want to get away from stress 9
measure behavioral intentions for its consistent satisfactory factor
Relaxation 18
loadings across different studies (e.g., Zeithaml et al., 1996; Tian-
It is relaxing 12
Cole, Crompton, & Willson 2002; Baker & Crompton, 2000a, Cruise takes care everything for me 4
200b; Lee, 2005). Similar to Lee (2005), four modified items I want to be pampered 1
were included in the measurement scale: I’ll say positive things I don’t need to make any decisions once I am on the cruise ship 1
about cruising to other people; I intend to cruise in the next three Prestige 2
years; I’ll recommend cruising to others; and I’ll encourage friends It is luxurious 1
and relatives to go on a cruise. A 5-point Likert-type scale was I like being served 1
used to measure each behavioral intention item. Same as the Enhancement of kinship relationships or friendship 15
motivation scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a vari- I want to spend time with my family/friends 11
max rotation was performed to examine the performance of My friends/family want to go 4

intention measurement. Facilitation of social interaction 7

At the last stage of study, an online panel survey was implemented I like to meet different people on the cruise ship 4
I’ll have common experience with my friends 1
to further validate the motivation scale and to test the relationship
A lot of other people that I know have cruised 1
between motivation and intention to cruise. Following Li (2006), the I want to get closer to the person(s) that I am with 1
study sample was chosen based on three criteria: 1) 25 years old and
Novelty 1
older; 2) Annual household income of $25,000 or more; and 3)
I’d like to at least cruise once 1
50e50 gender distribution. People who satisfy these criteria have
been suggested as the target market of cruise line companies (CLIA, Convenience 13
I can unpack for only once 5
2008). Since it is the intention of this study to generalize the study It is a convenient traveling style 5
results to the target market, these criteria were used. The sample was Everything you want is right there on a cruise ship 3
randomly selected from a list of qualified online panel members from
Destinations 9
a survey company’s database. A total of 5,300 qualified panel I am interested in the destinations 9
members were randomly chosen from the company’s database and
Activities 8
were invited for participation. A total of 992 responses were yielded,
I am free to do whatever I want, whenever I want, 3
resulting in an 18.7% response rate. After data cleaning, the final and wherever I want
sample size was 897 with 564 respondents being cruisers and 333 It offers different options for me and my companion(s) 3
respondents being non-cruisers. I like to read on the deck 1
I can watch sunrise and/or sunset 1

4. Findings Amenities/services 6
It has good food 1
It has good entertainments 1
In accordance with the four stages of investigation discussed in
It has good services 3
the previous section, the findings of the study are presented below. It has baby-sitting service 1

Being at sea fetish 7

4.1. In-depth interviews
I love being on the water/at the sea 4
I love being on the ship 3
A majority (19) of the participants in interviews were female
Weather 5
and most (21) were retired. The average age of participants was 60 I cruise for warm weather or to get away from winter 5
ranging from 22 to 85. Most participants (23) were married; five
Value 4
were single; two were divorced; and two were widowed. Most
Everything is included in one price 1
participants (27) had cruised more than once. Only five were first- It has high value for the money that I pay 3
timers, while most of the others were frequent cruisers. On average,
Word of mouth 2
they had cruised about three times in the past three years and I’ve heard good comments about it from others 2
about nine times in their life-time.
 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393 389

Botha, Crompton, & Kim, 1999), including: escape from usual envi- Table 3
ronment, relaxation, prestige, enhancement of kinship relationships, performance of motivation measurement scale in pilot test.

facilitation of social interaction, and novelty. This suggests that Measures Coefficient Item-to- Mean S.D.a
cruising, as a form of travel, shares similar characteristics as other a total
types of pleasure travel. However, participants did not report the correlation

following Crompton (1979) items: exploration and evaluation of self, Self-esteem & social recognition .889
I cruise to do something that .749 2.233 1.188
regression, and education. This may be due to two reasons:
impresses others.
1) cruising is not perceived to offer these psychological benefits; and I cruise to be thought more highly .758 2.136 1.265
2) even though cruising provides these opportunities, they are not of by others for doing this.
perceived by the participants to be as significant as other motivation I cruise to help me feel like .744 2.600 1.315
items. a better person.
I cruise to have a high .681 2.321 1.224
Eight other categories emerged when categorizing the cruising status vacation.
motivation items: convenience, destinations, activities, amenities/ I cruise to increase my feelings .661 2.734 1.182
services, being at sea fetish, weather, value, and word of mouth. The of self-worth.
frequencies of the items reported by the participants suggest that I cruise to derive a feeling .707 2.930 1.198
of accomplishment.
cruising is strongly associated with relaxation, enhancement of
I cruise to photograph an exotic .502 2.976 1.360
kinship relationships or friendship, and convenience of travel. place to show friends.

Escape & relaxation .790

4.2. Panel of experts I cruise to have fun. .587 4.460 .796
I cruise so that I can be free .673 3.774 1.108
to do whatever I want.
A total of 63 cruise motivation items were generated from both
I cruise to escape. .677 3.948 1.089
interviews and past literature and submitted for review by a panel I cruise to give my mind a rest. .528 4.083 .891
of experts. After review, 25 motivation items, related to six different
Learning/discovery & novelty/thrill .777
motivations were retained (Table 2).
I cruise to enjoy nature. .650 3.955 1.057
I cruise to gain knowledge. .566 3.618 1.154
4.3. Pilot test I cruise to experience other cultures. .548 3.737 1.118
I cruise to enjoy activities that .579 4.097 .913
provide a thrill.
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a varimax rotation was
performed on the pilot test data to determine the dimensions of Socialization .826
Cruising provides me a chance .704 3.760 1.073
motivation and intention scales. For cruising intentions, Cronbach’s to meet new people.
Alpha of the scale was .86, and all item-to-total correlations were I cruise because I like to meet .704 3.550 1.114
greater than .5. For the motivations to cruising scale, the varimax different people on a cruise ship.

Bonding .789
I cruise because my friends/family .656 3.830 1.050
Table 2
want to cruise.
cruising motivation items survived panel of experts’ review. I cruise to interact with friends/family. .656 4.042 .925
Escape/relaxation a
S.D. refers to standard deviation.
1. I cruise to give my mind a rest.
2. I cruise so that I can be free to do whatever I want.
3. I cruise to escape. exploratory factor analysis loaded items on six factors. Similar to
4. I cruise because I want to be pampered. other motivation studies, some factors from Table 2 were integrated
Exploration and evaluation of self with other factors. For instance, in Crompton and McKay’s (1997)
5. I cruise to increase my feelings of self-worth. factor analysis of festival attending motivations, “Novelty” and
6. I cruise to derive a feeling of accomplishment.
“Regression” loaded on the same factor. The first factor in this study
7. I cruise to help me feel like a better person.
consisted of items from the “Self-esteem” and “Social recognition”
Social recognition/prestige dimensions. Considering self-enhancement is often motivated by
8. I cruise to do something that impresses others.
social approval (Grubb & Hupp 1968), this integration is not
9. I cruise to be thought more highly of by others for doing this.
10. I cruise to photograph an exotic place to show friends. a surprise. The Cronbach’s Alpha for this dimension was .89 and all
11. I cruise to have a high status vacation. item-to-total correlations were above .5 (Table 3).
Socialization/bonding
The second factor was comprised of items from “Escape” and
12. I cruise because my friends/family want to cruise. “Relaxation”. Since escaping from work or mundane environments
13. I cruise to interact with friends/family. can be considered as part of relaxation, the grouping of items was
14. I cruise because I like to meet different people on a cruise ship. also deemed reasonable. The Cronbach’s Alpha for this factor was
15. Cruising provides me a chance to meet new people.
.79 and all item-to-total correlations were above .5.
16. I cruise so that I’ll have common experiences with my friends.
17. I cruise to enjoy the company of the people who came with me. The third factor integrated “Learning/Discovery” with “Novelty/
Thrill.” This is consistent with the notion of novelty defined by
Novelty/thrill
18. I cruise to enjoy activities that provide a thrill.
Crompton and McKay (1997) and measurement used by Lee and
19. I cruise to do something new. Crompton (1992). Novelty has been defined as “a desire to seek out
20. I cruise to have fun. new and different experiences through pleasure travel” (Crompton &
21. I cruise to “let my hair down”. McKay, 1997, p. 430) and measured by thrill, change from routine,
Learning/discovery boredom-alleviation, and surprise (Lee & Crompton, 1992). Since
22. I cruise to experience other cultures. learning and discovery are likely to lead to feelings of change, unor-
23. I cruise to satisfy my curiosity. dinary, or new experiences, their integration with the novelty
24. I cruise to gain knowledge.
dimension was also understandable. The Cronbach’s Alpha was .78
25. I cruise to enjoy nature.
and all item-to-total correlations were greater than .5.
390 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393
The fourth factor was “Socilalization” and the fifth “Bonding.” The
former refers to meeting other people on the cruise ship while the
latter refers to interacting with family or friends. Two items were
retained in “Socialization” while three items were retained in
“Bonding”. The Cronbach’s Alphas of “Socialization” and “Bonding”
were .83 and .79 respectively. All item-to-total correlations were
greater than .6.
The last factor which resulted from factor analysis had only one
item (“I cruise because I want to be pampered”) and was thus
excluded from final analysis. Four measurement items (“I cruise to
enjoy the company of the people who came with me,” “I cruise to do
something new,” I cruise to satisfy my curiosity,” and “I cruise to ‘let
my hair down’”) were eliminated due to cross-loadings. Although “I
cruise so that I’ll have common experiences with my friends” loaded
on Escape/relaxation dimension, it was judged to belong to
“Bonding” dimension and thus, was removed from the scale.
4.4. Online panel survey
To examine if the online panel survey sample was a reasonable
representation of the population of interest, the demographics of
the present sample were compared with the 2008 cruise market
profile reported by a national online study conducted by Cruise Line
International Association (CLIA, 2008). Since statistical comparison
is not feasible due to the unavailability of the previous data, the
comparisons are mainly descriptive. It was found that the two
samples share many similar characteristics in terms of age, income,
education, marital status, and job status. For instance, in both
studies, a majority of cruisers were married, slightly older, had
higher incomes, were more educated, and were more likely to be
retired than non-cruisers.
Using the online panel data, Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) was performed with Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS
7.0) to determine the reliability and validity of motivation
measurement scale as well as to test the effect of motivation on
cruising intentions. Since mild skewness and kurtosis were detec-
ted with the data, Maximum Likelihood (ML) was chosen as this
method has been suggested to be a robust estimator when fitting
model to moderate non-normal data (Muthén & Kaplan, 1992).
4.4.1. Assessment of Reliability and Validity of Motivation
Measurement Scale
Composite reliability, which also refers to the internal consis-
tency of indicators measuring the underlying factors (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981), was first examined in confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA). A scale can be declared to be reliable when its composite
reliability meet the criteria of .60 (Bagozzi & Kimmel, 1995) or .70
(Hair, Anderson, Tathm, & Black, 1998). Since the composite
reliability of all dimensions of motivation were found to be larger
than .70 (Table 4), the scale was deemed to be reliable.
Convergent validity refers to the extent of correlation between
the intended measure and other measures used to measure the same
construct (Clark-Carter, 1997). To establish convergent validity, the
magnitude of factor loadings should be greater than .60 (Bagozzi &
Yi, 1988). Since the CFA outputs suggested that all factor loadings
Table 4
Reliability of original motivation measurement scale.
Composite reliability Cronbach’s alpha
Self-esteem & social recognition .874 .915
Escape/relaxation .808 .829
Learning/discovery & thrill .831 .840
Bonding .856 .890
Socialization .801 .840
Table 5
Discriminant validity of original measurement scale.
Self-esteem/ Escape/ Learning/ Bonding Social
Social rec. relaxation discovery
& thrill
Self-esteem/social .708
recognition
Escape/relaxation .447 .718
Learning/discovery .385 .673 .745
& thrill
Bonding .306 .538 .463 .865
Socialization .547 .400 .546 .279 .820
The bold diagonal elements are the square root of the variance shared between the
constructs and their measures. Off diagonal elements are the correlations between
constructs.
were greater than .60 and were statistically significant (p < .001), the
convergent validity of the scale was deemed to be established.
Discriminant validity refers to the extent of dissimilarity between
the intended measure and the measures of different constructs
(Clark-Carter, 1997). Discriminant validity of factors can be estab-
lished when the square root of the average variance extracted for
each of the factors is greater than the correlations among the
constructs (Fornell & Larcker 1981). Table 5 demonstrates that the
measurement scale met these requirements of discriminant.
Although the above procedures demonstrated that the measure-
ment scale developed for motivation to cruising had satisfying reli-
ability and validity, the poor model fit indices (RMSEA ¼ .115,
NFI ¼ .833, CFI ¼ .844, GFI ¼ .795, AGFI ¼ .735) revealed potential
problems associated with the measurement scale or structural
motivation model. Modifications are often conducted to enhance the
performance of a measurement scale or model being investigated
(Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003). To identify problematic
measurement items and miss-fitting parameters in the original
model, the use of modification indices (e.g., Byrne, 1998; Maruyama,
1998) and EFA (e.g., Lai, 2007; Li, 2006) has been recommended.
However, scholars have suggested that re-specification on the
hypothesized model should only be made when they make logical
and theoretical sense (Byrne, 1998; Kline, 2005; Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1996).
Both modification indices and EFA were used as a reference for
re-specification in the current study. The results of EFA suggested
a four-dimension structure for cruising motivation with the elimi-
nation of the “Socialization” factor in the original scale. Four items
(“I cruise to meet new people,” “I cruise because I like to meet
different people on a cruise ship,” “I cruise to have fun,” and “I
cruise to enjoy nature”) were removed from the measurement scale
due to cross-loading problems. An inspection of modification
indices in the AMOS output suggested that three items (“I cruise to
do something that impresses others,” I cruise to be thought more
highly of by others for doing this,” and “I cruise to have a high status
vacation”) in the “Self-esteem & social recognition” dimension
were inter-correlated. This indicates that the three items might
have been duplicated due to their similar meanings. Therefore, one
out of three items (“I cruise to do something that impresses other”)
was retained in the final scale because it had the highest factor
loading. These procedures led to acceptable model fit indices
(RMSEA ¼ .088, GFI ¼ .925, AGFI ¼ .889, NFI ¼ .922, CFI ¼ .931). The
scale was checked once again for its reliability and validity and the
results suggested that the scale was both reliable and valid. Table 6
displays the resultant final measurement scale for motivation to
cruising.
4.4.2. Testing the effect of motivation on cruising intention
To test the influence of travel motivation on intention to cruise,
a structural model with a path from motivation to cruising
 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393 391

Table 6 variance of cruising intention explained by cruising motivation was

performance of final motivation measurement scale. examined by R square. The test results suggested that motivation
Factora S.E.b Mean S.D.c C.R.d p has a statistically significant positive influence on cruising intention
loading (b ¼ .629, t ¼ 12.981, p < .001) and explained 39.5% of the variance
Self-esteem & social recognition in cruising intention. A further investigation of the standardized
 To do something that .721 .039 2.13 1.231 18.501 *** coefficients was conducted to determine which motivation factors
impresses others.
contributed the most to the construct. It was found that “Escape/
 To help me feel like a .827 .033 2.82 1.274 15.735 ***
better person. Relaxation” contributed the most to intentions to cruise (b ¼ .852),
 To increase my feelings .824 .031 2.47 1.233 15.868 *** followed by “Learning/Discovery & thrill” (b ¼ .797), “Self-esteem/
of self-worth. Social recognition” (b ¼ .639), and “Bonding” (b ¼ .604).
 To derive a feeling of .833 .031 2.90 1.248 15.476 ***
accomplishment.
 To photograph an exotic .622 .052 3.01 1.290 19.625 e 5. Discussions and implications
place to show friends.

Escape/relaxation Groves et al. (2004) presented two major survey dimensions:

 So that I can be free to do .786 .036 3.46 1.198 15.109 *** measurement and representational, in which the former is con-
whatever I want.
 To escape. .806 .035 3.72 1.187 14.177 ***
cerned with what the survey is about and the latter concerns who
 To give my mind a rest. .779 .033 3.63 1.141 15.396 e the survey is about. Validity and reliability are two of the major
concerns in scale development. Developing a measurement scale
Learning/discovery & thrill
 To gain knowledge. .726 .035 3.75 1.061 15.361 *** which is both reliable and valid is important to reflecting the true
 To enjoy activities that .706 .036 3.62 1.075 16.014 e meanings of a construct of interest. While validity refers to the
provides a thrill. extent to which measurement scales are measuring the constructs
 To experience other cultures. .763 .034 3.85 1.059 13.903 *** of interest (Nunnally, 1967), reliability refers to the repeatability of
Bonding a result with the same measurement (Aneshensel, 2002).
 Because my friends/family .868 .045 3.45 1.187 7.753 *** This study developed a measurement scale for motivations to
want to cruise.
cruising by following the rigorous procedures recommended by
 To interact with friends/family. .924 .045 3.57 1.149 4.285 e
Churchill (1979). The final scale was deemed to be both reliable and
***p < .001 valid. Given the increasing popularity of cruise tourism and scarcity
a
Items with factor loading lower than .5 were excluded from final scale.
b of research in this topic, the establishment of a motivation scale in
S.E. refers to standard error.
c
S.D. refers to standard deviation. the cruising context is believed to be a timely contribution to the
d
C.R. refers to critical ratio or t-value. literature and will hopefully act as a stepping stone to further
investigations in this topic.
intention was tested in AMOS (Fig. 1). The fit indices Another purpose of the study was to examine the influence of
(RMSEA ¼ 0.072, NFI ¼ .939, CFI ¼ .949, GFI ¼ .925, and AGFI ¼ .899) cruising motivation on cruising intentions. The study found a posi-
suggested that the model had an acceptable fit to the data. tive relationship between the two variables. This implies that given
While the contribution of travel motivation to cruising intention the same conditions, people who have higher cruising motivation
was evaluated with the resultant standardized coefficients (b), the are more likely to cruise in the future. This finding validates the

Fig. 1. Model tested in AMOS.

392 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393
important role of motivation in travel decision-making proposed in
previous studies (Crompton, 1979).
Since only about 40% of the variance in cruising intention was
explained by cruising motivation in the current study, future
studies should incorporate other variables in order to more fully
understand cruising intentions. Past studies have found various
factors influencing cruising intentions including quality, value and
satisfaction (Petrick, 2004b), loyalty (Petrick, 2004a), familiarity
and social influence (Petrick, Li, & Park, 2007), affective factors
(Duman & Mattila, 2005), price sensitivity (Petrick, 2005), and
perceived image (Park, 2006). Comparing or integrating motivation
with these factors in future research may enhance our under-
standing of people’s decision-making in the cruising context.
Several marketing implications can be drawn from the current
study. First, “Escape/Relaxation” was found to be the strongest
motivation in both the interviews and survey. This suggests that
people associate cruise tourism with freedom, escaping and
relaxation and that these are primary reasons which motivate them
to cruise. Therefore, when promoting cruise vacations to the public,
promotional campaigns should demonstrate people enjoying their
freedom, escaping from their mundane life, and/or resting on
a cruise. Cruise tourism may be able to differentiate itself from
other types of tourism by building an escaping or relaxing vacation
image in order to convey cruising services to specific markets.
However, marketers should also evaluate beforehand if this market
segment is substantial enough for a profitable business (Kotler,
Bowen, & Makens, 1998).
Second, different motivations to cruising were identified in the
current study. This suggests that although travelers are motivated
by the escaping and relaxing aspects of cruise tourism, they may
also expect to receive other benefits from their cruise vacation
(even though these perceived benefits may not be the primary
reasons for them to go on a cruise). Therefore, focusing on
providing escaping and relaxing services only is unlikely to fully
satisfy customers. Rather, cruise ships should also strive to fulfill
cruisers’ desires for “Learning/Discovery & thrill,” “Self-esteem/
Social recognition” and “Bonding” when they are on board.
Although cruisers often like to stay in a tourist bubble (Jaakson,
2004) in which they can be worry-free, they also do not like to be
bored. It is thus proposed that varied learning and discovery
opportunities should be provided to the interested passengers.
Different programs such as “Be a chef/captain/cast member today”
may appeal to those who are interested in learning. Discovery
opportunities may be offered not only at the ports cruise ship visit,
but also on board when the ship is moving. Tours to different back
stage areas (i.e., the captain’s office, kitchen, shows) may be
arranged for families or interested passengers.
To respond to cruisers’ need for “Self-esteem/Social recogni-
tion,” different strategies may also be implemented. For instance,
past research has suggested that most cruisers are satisfied with
their experience and would like to repeat their cruise vacation in
the future. Public recognition to those who have cruised frequently
may boost their self-esteem and make them feel appreciated. Some
passengers may go on a cruise for special occasions such as
wedding anniversaries, birthdays or honeymoons. Gathering this
information at the time when they sign up for a cruise vacation and
acknowledging these occasions during their cruise might make
them feel special. In addition, a certificate which indicates each
passenger’s name and dates of their cruise may also be distributed
to cruise passengers so that they can share with others when they
return home.
To address cruisers’ need for “Bonding”, cruise lines may offer
discounts to those who bring a new family member or friend on
board. This might not only encourage bonding time with family and
friends on the cruise, but also attract new customers and expand
the cruise market. Some activities offered during the trip may also
be designed with enhancing kinships in mind. Games or competi-
tions among different families may provide a good time and serve
a purpose of bonding for the passengers and those who come along
with them.
6. Limitations and concluding remarks
Although the study is considered to be a timely contribution to
travel motivation as well as the cruising literature, it is nonetheless
subject to some limitations. First, the study only examined travel
motivations associated with North American cruising. Thus, the
results should not be generalized to cruising in other contexts.
Second, an online panel survey was conducted to collect data in
the current study. Since online panels are typically characterized by
those who have registered with online panel companies or those
who have internet access and computer skills, it does not neces-
sarily represent the whole U.S. population.
In addition, interviews were conducted with cruisers at the
preliminary stage of the study. Since only two cruise companies (i.e.,
Holland America Line and Princess Cruises) granted the researcher
permission to interview their passengers, passengers of other cruise
lines were unable to be reached and thus, were excluded from the
study sample. Therefore, generalizing the current results to other
cruise lines should be done with caution.
Nevertheless, the study has developed a valid and reliable
measurement scale for motivation to cruising. Further testing of the
scale with other samples such as cruisers in the Asia Pacific region,
or Mediterranean would be useful to refining the measurement
scale and increasing the scale’s generalizability. Also, the positive
relationship between motivation and cruising intentions identified
in the current study further consolidate the important role of
motivation in travel research and reveal specific underlying reasons
why people choose to cruise.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Holland America Line-Westours,
Inc. Research Grant.
References
Aneshensel, C. S. (2002). Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Kimmel, S. K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories for the
prediction of goal directed behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34,
437e461.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74e94.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000a). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral inten-
tions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000b). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral inten-
tions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.
Beck, R. C. (2000). In N. Robert (Ed.), Motivation: Theories & principles (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Berkman, H. W., & Gilson, C. C. (1978). Consumer behavior: Concepts and strategies.
Belmont, California: Dickenson Press.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An information processing theory of consumer choice. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. S. (1999). Developing a revised competitive
position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37,
341e352.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, XVI(February), 64e73.
Clark-Carter, D. (1997). Doing quantitative psychological research: From design to
report. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press Ltd.
Connell, J. (2004). The purest of human pleasures: the characteristics and motiva-
tions of garden visitors in Great Britain. Tourism Management, 25, 229e247.
 K. Hung, J.F. Petrick / Tourism Management 32 (2011) 386e393
Cruise Line International Association (CLIA. (2008). 2008 Cruise market profile
study. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.cruising.org/press/
research/index.cfm. Accessed 14.02.09.
Crompton, J. L. (1992). Structure of destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19(3), 420e434.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research,
6(4), 408e424.
Crompton, J. L., & Ankomah, P. K. (1993). Choice set propositions in destination
decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(3), 461e476.
Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425e439.
Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 4, 184e194.
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise
vacation value. Tourism Management, 26, 311e323.
Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic significance of cruise tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(2), 393e415.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39e50.
Frochot, I. (2005). A benefit segmentation of tourists in rural areas: a Scottish
perspective. Tourism Management, 26, 335e346.
Groves, R. M., Flowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R.
(2004). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Grubb, E. L., & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, generalized stereotypes, and
brand selection. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(February), 58e63.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Henthorne, T. L. (2000). An analysis of expenditures by cruise ship passengers in
Jamaica. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 246e250.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts.
Hull, C. L. (1952). A behavior system. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation:
a rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256e262.
Jaakson, R. (2004). Beyond the tourist bubble? Cruiseship passengers in port. Annals
of Tourism Research, 31(1), 44e60.
}reskog, K. G., & So
Jo } rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Kim, N. S., & Chalip, L. (2004). Why travel to the FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives,
background, interest, and constraints. Tourism Management, 25, 695e707.
Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors
at Korean national parks. Tourism Management, 24, 169e180.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (1998). Marketing for hospitality and tourism
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lai, P. H. (2007). Conserving the rural landscape of the Texas hill country: a place
identity-based approach. Unpublished dissertation, Texas A&M University,
College Station.
Lee, S. Y. (2005). A conceptual model of the roles of price, quality, and intermediary
constructs in determining behavioral intention to visit a festival. Unpublished
dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Lee, T. H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 19, 732e751.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological
forces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Li, X. (2006). Examining the antecedents and structure of customer loyalty in a tourism
context. Unpublished dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station.
Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). Examining the antecedents of brand loyalty from an
investment model perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 25e34.
Lois, P., Wang, J., Wall, A., & Ruxton, T. (2004). Formal safety assessment of cruise
ships. Tourism Management, 25, 93e109.
393
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist
settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 589e603.
MacCannell, D. (1999). Staged authenticity. In. The tourist: A new theory of the leisure
class (3rd ed.). (pp. 91e107) Berkeley: University of California Press.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publication, Inc.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
370e396.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor
analysis of non-normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19e30.
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: issues and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oxford University Press. (2007) (6th ed.).Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on
historical principles, Vol. 1 A-M NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Park, S. Y. (2006). Tapping the invisible cruise market: The case of the cruise industry.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travellers’
experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 16e20.
Petrick, J. F. (2004a). Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tourism Management, 25,
463e470.
Petrick, J. F. (2004b). The role of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise
passengers’ behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 397e407.
Petrick, J. F. (2005). Segmenting cruise passengers with price sensitivity. Tourism
Management, 26, 753e762.
Petrick, J. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2004). Segmenting cruisers by loyalty. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(2), 472e475.
Petrick, J. F., Li, X., & Park, S. Y. (2007). Cruise passengers’ decision-making
processes. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(1), 1e14.
Petrick, J. F., Tonner, C., & Quinn, C. (2006). The utilization of critical incident
technique to examine cruise passengers’ repurchase intentions. Journal of Travel
Research, 44, 273e280.
Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Quarterly, 14(4), 55e58.
Plog, S. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 13e24.
Qu, H., & Ping, E. W. Y. (1999). A service performance model of Hong Kong cruise
travelers’ motivation factors and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 20, 237e244.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in Romantic associations: a test
of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172e186.
Samdahl, D. M. (2005). Making room for “silly” debate: critical reflections on leisure
constraints research. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure (pp. 337e349).
State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Tapachai, N., & Waryszak, R. (2000). An examination of the role of beneficial image
in tourist destination selection. Journal of Travel Research, 39(August), 37e44.
Tian-Cole, S., Crompton, J. L., & Willson, V. L. (2002). An empirical investigation of
the relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions
among visitors to wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 1e24.
Vina, L. D. L., & Ford, J. (1998). Economic impact of proposed cruiseship business.
Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 205e208.
Vina, L. D. L., & Ford, J. (2001). Logistic regression analysis of cruise vacation market
potential: demographic and trip attribute perception factors. Journal of Travel
Research, 39, 406e410.
Weaver, A. (2005). The McDonaldization thesis and cruise tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(2), 346e366.
Yarnal, C. M., & Kerstetter, D. (2005). Casting off: An exploration of cruise ship space,
group tour behavior, and social interaction. Journal of Travel Research, 43,
368e379.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences
of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31e46.