Motivations to Cruise: An Itinerary and Cruise Experience Study

SPECIAL SECTION: CRUISE TOURISM AVAILABLE ONLINE

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

Motivations to Cruise: An Itinerary and Cruise Experience Study

Rory Victor Jones

As worldwide cruise passenger numbers demonstrated a trend towards a maturing industry in recent years

Loughborough University

(passenger numbers still increasing but at a declining rate), this study was undertaken to investigate the motivations influencing cruise tourists’ decision to cruise. Motivation data are vital for cruise companies to plan for the future. The study provides a valuable and timely insight into the motivations of 306 North American cruise tourists. A structured questionnaire was conducted on board a cruise ship operated by a major cruise company serving ports-of-call along the Eastern Atlantic Seaboard and the Caribbean. Data were collected on 6 cruise itineraries for a 6-week period from May 31 to July 6, 2008. Three aspects of potential tourist motivation were explored using 7-point Likert scales, including, information sources, vacation attributes, and motives derived from the Leisure Motivation Scale. The analysis is structured in relation to the respondents’ cruise itinerary and cruise experience. The influence of tested motivations varied with cruise experience but not cruise itinerary. For cruise tourists, personal- and Internet-based information sources are deemed most influential, and their desire to cruise is primarily driven by the need for stimulus-avoidance. Some significant implications for cruise companies have emerged.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

Keywords: motivation, cruise tourism, cruise itinerary, cruise experience, leisure motivation scale

30

Over the past two decades, cruise tourism has been a significant growth sector of the tourism industry but annual passenger data from the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) indicates continued but slowing growth since 2007, with 12.56 million passengers in 2007, 13 million in 2008, and 13.44 million in 2009 (CLIA, 2010). This could be an indication that the cruise industry is starting to enter a maturing phase, in which cruise passenger numbers are still increasing but at a declining rate. Although, it should be noted that this slowing growth could be an effect of the global recession and financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. Previously, in terms of numbers of tourists, cruise tourism has grown at roughly double the rate of tourism as a whole (Wood, 2004). With a maturing industry it will be increasing important for cruise companies to know who their customers are and what motivates them to take a cruise, to ensure they can continue to provide the necessary services and activities on their ships.

Correspondence Rory Victor Jones, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

This study was conducted to better understand the motivations influencing a passenger’s choice to cruise, and in particular, how these intersect with two factors: cruise itinerary (length of cruise) and cruise experience (whether passengers were first-time or repeat cruisers). Three aspects of motivation were investigated: information sources, vacation attributes, and a series of motives suggested by Ryan and Glendon (1998) for application to tourism that were derived from the Leisure Motivation Scale of Beard and Ragheb (1983).

Literature Review Motivation has been widely researched in a variety of fields (i.e., sociology, psychology, consumer behaviour and tourism). Iso-Ahola (1999) defines motive as ‘an internal factor that arouses and directs human behaviour’ (p. 40). Motivation determines not only if consumers will engage in a tourism activity, but also when, where, and what type of tourism they will pursue (Pizam & Mansfield, 1999). Travel motivation has been extensively studied in the tourism literature (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1977; Iso-Ahola, 1982), but very sparsely with regard to cruise tourism. Kerstetter et al. (2005) indicated limited research exists on the motivational factors that influence an individual’s decision to cruise. In fact, the academic literature on cruise tourism as a whole with the exception of economic studies (e.g., Chase & McKee, 2003; Dwyer

Jones, R.V. (2011). Motivations to cruise: An itinerary and cruise experience study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18, 30–40. DOI 10.1375/jhtm.18.1.30

Motivations to Cruise

& Forsyth, 1998; Henthorne, 2000; Kester, 2003) remains both ‘surprisingly small’ (Wood, 2000, p. 347) and limited in scope (Liburd, 2001). Other topics previously examined in the cruise literature include: environmental sustainability of cruise tourism (Johnson, 2002), cruise ship space (Weaver, 2005a; Wood, 2004; Yarnal & Kerstetter, 2005), McDonaldization of the cruise industry (Weaver, 2005b), tourist bubble (Jaakson, 2004), and safety assessment of cruise ships (Lois et al., 2004). De La Vina and Ford (2001) concluded ‘the cruise industry is an increasingly vital segment of the tourism sector that has escaped the rigorous examination of academic research’ (p. 410). A few previous studies investigating the underlying motivations for taking a cruise do exist and range of different factors have been found to influence people’s choice to cruise. Hung and Petrick (2011) examined the role that motivation played on intention to cruise by developing a measurement scale for cruise motivations. The authors found relaxation, enhancing kinship relationships or friendships, and convenience, were the major motivations for taking a cruise. It was also established that motivation had a positive influence on cruising intention. Applying Rusbult’s (1980) investment model, Li and Petrick (2008) established that a cruise passenger’s loyalty is a function of their satisfaction with previous cruises, quality of the alternatives available, and the size of investment made in the relationship. In addition, Petrick (2004a) found less loyal and first-time cruisers to be less price sensitive and spend more. Both, Petrick (2004a) and Petrick and Sirakaya (2004) found loyal and satisfied first-time cruisers had greater future cruising intentions. Petrick, Li, and Park (2007) using Crompton’s (1992) choice set model, studied cruise passengers’ decisionmaking process. Their results indicated loyalty, familiarity, and social influences were the main reasons influencing the decision to go on a cruise. Using three models, Petrick (2004b) examined the relationships between satisfaction, perceived value, and quality, to predict intention to repurchase a cruise vacation. While all three factors were found to have a positive effect, quality was considered the best predictor of intention with both a moderated and direct effect. Duman and Mattila (2005) also investigated the role of perceived values and satisfaction on intention to cruise. Their results showed both were influential. Teye and Leclerc (2003) observed the motivations to cruise in relation to cruise tourists’ ethnicity. The findings indicated while white Caucasian and ethnic minority cruisers were generally motivated by a set of common factors, a number of important differences existed. A factor analysis ascertained that the most important motives for white Caucasians were the social dimensions, the cultural discovery, and family and kinship, while for ethnic minorities these were the opportunity for uninhibited pursuits, the cultural discovery, and the entertainment opportunities.

De La Vina and Ford (2001) used logistic regression analysis to determine the key factors influencing people’s propensity to cruise. The study identified previous cruise experiences, the cost, the duration of the cruise, and visiting new destinations, were significant considerations for consumers choosing a cruise. Qu and Ping (1999) studied the motivation, satisfaction and sociodemographics of Hong Kong cruise travellers and found the major travelling motivation factors were to escape from normal life, the social gathering, and the beautiful environment and scenery. Finally, the CLIA (2006) as part of its biennial cruise market profile study investigated two avenues of potential motivation and found the most influential vacation attributes for cruisers were the destination, the price, and the opportunity to relax and unwind; and second, the most influential sources of information were word of mouth, always wanted to go, the destination web site, their spouse or travel companion, and the cruise web site. The review of past cruise motivation literature suggests the decision to cruise is related to numerous factors. However, it would appear that the relationship is still not fully established and further research is required. This study investigated whether the influence of three potential sources of motivation: information sources, vacation attributes, and a series of motives derived from the Leisure Motivation Scale of Beard and Ragheb (1983), varied in relation to two factors previously neglected in the cruise motivation literature: cruise itinerary and cruise experience.

Methodology This study adopted a quantitative research methodology because it allowed for the collection of a substantial amount of statistically rigorous sociodemographic and motivation data that would be comparable with the majority of previous cruise motivation studies, all of which have used a quantitative approach (e.g., CLIA, 2006; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Petrick et al., 2007; Qu & Ping, 1999; Teye & Leclerc, 2003). A questionnaire was developed by the researcher, which was then approved by the cruise company with the requirements that it should not carry the company logo, and when administered, the researcher should state that they were working independently. In addition, any future publication of the data should ensure the company remained anonymous and for this reason is unnamed in this article. The questionnaire was pilot tested with four US citizens ranging from 20 to 47 years of age. All four had taken a cruise in the past 12 months with the cruise company that final data collection was completed. Feedback was returned by e-mail a month before the final study commenced. The selection of US citizens was purposeful as it was known that the majority of final participants would be of this nationality due to the New York embarkation port and from previous nationality statistics provided by the cruise company. The questionnaire was piloted for its suitability for a dominant US cruise market in terms of language, question comprehension, and content (education levels and qualifications). Feedback Volume 18 2011

31

Rory Victor Jones

was also sought for issues of structure, presentation, and completion time. After receiving feedback some minor alterations were made to the questionnaire. The final questionnaire comprised 26 fixed-response questions that could be completed in approximately five minutes. The use of fixed-response questions was considered advantageous for two main reasons: first, achieving the target sample size of 50 participants per cruise was thought more possible, and second, they tend to be easier to answer because the fixed alternatives act as a guide for respondents. Two types of fixed-response questions were used, factual for both sociodemographic (gender, age group, ethnic group, marital status, employment status, highest level of education, highest qualification earned) and cruise experience data (cruise itinerary and cruise experience), and 7-point Likert-type scale responses for motivation, which were based on the Leisure Motivation Scale of Beard and Ragheb (1983) and the CLIA (2006). The Likert scale provided interval data, anchored by 1 (Not at all influential) through to 7 (Extremely influential), which allowed for t tests to be completed. In addition to collecting motivation data relating to information sources and vacation attributes, a shortened version of Beard and Ragheb’s (1983) Leisure Motivation Scale produced by Ryan and Glendon (1998) was used. This provided the current research a strong theoretical underpinning relating to a specific model of human behaviour (Maslow, 1970) unlike the majority of previous cruise motivation studies in which development of questionnaire items were primarily ad hoc. The Leisure Motivation Scale was also chosen as, first, it can be argued the four motives on which the scale is comprised (Stimulus-Avoidance: to escape and get away from overstimulating life situations, avoid social contacts, seek solitude and calm conditions and to rest and unwind; Intellectual: to engage mental activities such as learning, exploring, discovering, thought and imagining; Competence-Mastery: to achieve, master, challenge, and compete; and Social: the need for friendship, interpersonal relationships and the esteem of others) closely mirror components of tourist motivation identified in the tourism literature (e.g., Iso-Ahola, 1982). Second, it has been successfully implemented by other tourism researchers (e.g., Kim & Chalip, 2004; Mohsin & Ryan, 2007; Ryan & Glendon, 1998; Yusof & Mohd Shah, 2008), and finally, the scale is shown to possess stability and rigour over time (Loundsbury & Hoopes, 1988). Secondary data were also used in the study. The cruise company provided a full passenger list for each cruise,

detailing the gender, age, and country of origin of each cruiser on board. This was used in the sampling process.

Data Collection The data collection was completed by a sole researcher on board a cruise ship operated by a major cruise company serving ports-of-call along the Eastern Atlantic Seaboard and the Caribbean for a 6-week period from May, 31, 2008 to July 12, 2008. During this period of time, two different itineraries were travelled, both three times, rotating on alternate weeks (Table 1). The Caribbean region was selected because it is the leading cruise destination accounting for 33% of the total cruise bed-days in 2008 (CLIA, 2010), and for 43% of cruise tourists remains the most appealing place to cruise (CLIA, 2008). Gaining permission to undertake data collection with passengers on board a cruise ship presented a rare research opportunity. Access to data collection in the cruise ship environment has proved difficult for previous researchers. This was identified by Weaver (2005a) who found that ‘written requests to interview or survey cruiseship tourists dockside or on board cruise ships were turned down’ (p. 167).

Sampling The sample was selected using a stratified sampling technique. A target sample size of 50 participants for each of the six cruises was chosen. This number was selected primarily on the basis of time constraint, but consideration was also given to whether it was adequately large enough to provide representation of prominent sociodemographic subgroups like gender, age, ethnicity, and education. Also, as t tests were intended for use in the data analysis stage, sample sizes of approximately 25 or more were required to ensure validity. A total sample size of 306 cruise tourists was obtained. Both the six-day and eightday itineraries had 153 respondents. Using the passenger list provided by the cruise company, the sample was stratified by age to ensure proportional representation of the larger cruise ship population. Initially, the percentage of cruise tourists in each age group (18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, 80+) was calculated from the passenger list, and this was then equated to the number of participants required to undertake the questionnaire from each age group. An equal male and female split was applied to guarantee that gender differences in motivation were observed in the data. When an odd number of participants were required

Table 1 Itineraries Travelled During Data Collection Itinerary

32

Dates travelled

Number of days

1. New York, Port Canaveral- Florida, Nassau- Bahamas, Grand Bahama Island- Bahamas, New York

8 June 2008 22 June 2008 6 July 2008

6

2. New York, San Juan–Puerto Rico, Tortola–British Virgin Islands, Samaná–Dominican Republic, New York

31 May 2008 14 June 2008 28 June 2008

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

8

Motivations to Cruise

for an age group, an extra female was sampled as the total number of female cruise tourists was always greater than male for all cruises in the study. Those below the age of 18, or with physical or mental infirmity, or language difficulties were excluded from the study for ethical reasons. A convenience sampling technique was used to recruit potential participants. A standard introduction from the researcher was completed that stated the purpose of the research, and asked whether they would like to partake. Willing participants were handed a note outlining the aims of the research as approved by the SHES Ethics Committee, University of Reading, and thanked for their interest. Participants were then given the questionnaire to review and the option to no longer partake. The majority of questionnaires were completed by the participants themselves, but the option was given for the researcher to ask the questions and fill out the questionnaire based on verbal response. Questionnaires were completed in range of cruise ship environments that could be characterised as moderately quiet public social spaces in which interviewer and interviewee were comfortable. Once the total number of participants required for an age group was obtained, future potential participants were discarded.

of the sample in this study. Of this total, 46% were male and 54% were female, despite attempting to control for an equal male and female split. The gender sample obtained was thought acceptable for this study as the purpose of the equal split was to ensure gender differences in motivation were observed and the percentages acquired were therefore deemed sufficient. A comparison with the gender data provided by the cruise company indicates that the gender sample of this study was close to the actual percentages observed on the six cruises (44% male and 56% female). Therefore, in terms of gender this sample is an enhancement on the equal split applied by the CLIA (2006, 2008) in their previous studies. The number of respondents in each age group was controlled by the stratified sampling technique and ensured representativeness of the total cruise ship population. The majority of the sample, 83% identified themselves as being White, with 73% of these indicating that they were

Table 2 The Sociodemographics of the Participant Sample

Limitations of Methodology

Participant

Primarily, the methodology employed in this study had a sound and effective basis. However, the author recognises that the quantitative approach chosen, although suitable for the collection of the sociodemographic and cruise experience data was probably less so for motivation. The use of structured questionnaires in tourism studies has been criticised as they confine participants’ responses (Samdahl, 2005; Walle, 1997) and, therefore, lack the detail, richness, and personal viewpoints that may otherwise have been gained from a qualitative in-depth interview. Also, as data collection was completed outside of the traditional peak season ‘school summer holidays’ (i.e., not many children on board during this period), and the ethical clearance only permitted survey of passengers over the age of 18, it is not known what influence this would have had on the responses to motivational items, in particular those relating to childcare facilities and active pursuits. Finally, the majority of past cruise tourism research has been North American centric and this study has not addressed this imbalance. For this reason, the results should not be generalised to cruising in different global regions. In addition, all data collection was completed on board a single cruise ship operated by one cruise company. Motivations of cruise tourists travelling with other cruise lines were thus excluded from the study’s sample, and consequently, caution should be taken when generalising the results to other cruise lines. It is suggested that future research should aim to investigate the motivations of cruise tourists travelling with a range of cruise lines in the Asia–Pacific and Mediterranean cruise regions.

Gender Male Female

46.1 53.9

Age group 18–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–79 80+

21.9 14.1 23.5 19.6 12.4 6.2 2.3

Ethnic group White Mixed Asian Black Chinese Other

83.0 1.3 3.6 7.8 3.9 0.3

Marital status Single Married Re-married Separated Divorced Widowed

33.0 50.7 6.2 1.6 5.2 3.3

Highest level of education Elementary school High school College Graduate school

1.6 35.6 50.0 12.7

Highest qualification earned High school diploma Associate degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Professional Other None

35.3 10.1 38.6 11.4 1.6 1.3 1.6

Employment status Working full-time Working part-time Self-employed Unemployed Worker in the home Retired Student

68.3 6.9 1.0 0.3 3.6 12.7 7.2

Profile of the Participants A total of 306 questionnaires were completed by participants. Table 2 summarises the main sociodemographics

%

Volume 18 2011

33

Rory Victor Jones

White American. Income data for the participants were not collected as it was regarded as too sensitive as well as liable to false answers. Overall the sample demonstrated diversity. The profile of the participants in this study was compared to that produced by the CLIA (2008) in its cruise market profile study to judge its representativeness. The sample obtained was reasonable, particularly in terms of ethnicity (White: CLIA 89%, this study 83%; Black: 5%, 8%), educational attainment (college graduate: 62%, 63%), and employment status (full-time: 63%, 68%; retired: 14%, 13%). In relation to marital status a large variation existed, with the CLIA’s data indicating that 84% of cruise tourists were married while this study found this figure to be only 51%. This may stem from the variation in required minimum age of participation between the studies: CLIA (25 years), this study (18 years), which led to oversampling of those below 40 years old and undersampling of those between 40 and 59 years. As this study stratified by age to ensure proportional representation, the resultant under- and oversampling of certain age groups in comparison to the CLIA (2008), has an implication for the age data’s comparability with that study. The overall representativeness of the sample in terms of age is in line with the data provided by the cruise company. The percentage of participants over 60 years matched well (20%, 21%). With reference to past cruise experience (Table 3), of the total sample 70% can be categorised as repeat cruise tourists with just over half of these (52%) having taken their first cruise in the previous 10 years. A difference in the ratio of repeat to first-time cruise tourists exists between itinerary one and itinerary two. Although nonsignificant t(303) = .996, p > .05, the number of repeat cruisers on itinerary one was lower than that on itinerary two, 67% compared to 73%. The number of repeat cruisers surveyed in this study is much greater than the 55% that the CLIA (2008) believe to have taken repeat cruises.

of a larger study that examined more extensively the influence of sociodemographics and previous cruise experience on cruise tourist’s motivations to cruise. The current analysis is completed for two traditional industry variables: cruise itinerary and cruise experience. These variables were chosen because they were regarded as the most relevant for cruise companies in planning the services and activities to provide on their cruise ships, for choosing suitable cruise destinations, as well as establishing the most appropriate information channels to exploit to encourage people to cruise given the possible backdrop of a maturing industry. For both variables, a two-stage analysis was completed. First, descriptive statistics were used to establish the relative influence of a range of motives on the choice to take a cruise. Second, a series of t tests were employed twice, first to examine whether the amount of influence derived from the given motives varied according to the respondents cruise itinerary (6 days or 8 days), and second, in relation to their cruise experience (first-time or repeat). Independent samples t tests were chosen for the statistical analysis as they are appropriate to assess whether the means of two groups are statistically different, when two experimental conditions, and different subjects have been used in each condition (Field, 2005). For each variable, the influences of three categories of motivations were investigated: information sources, vacation attributes, and a series of motives suggested by Ryan and Glendon (1998) for application to tourism that were derived from the Leisure Motivation Scale of Beard and Ragheb (1983).

Results The first segmentation for which motivation data are presented is cruise itinerary. Of the total respondents to the questionnaire, 153 were taking the 6-day cruise itinerary and a further 153 were taking the 8-day cruise. The findings of this section of the study are presented below.

Data Analysis

Information Sources and Cruise Itinerary

The sociodemographic, cruise experience and motivation data from each of the 306 completed questionnaires were numerically coded and input into an SPSS worksheet. The sociodemographic data were analysed using frequency analysis only, with the simple aim of understanding the profile of participants. This article is the product

Table 4 presents data on the influence which participants believed were derived from a range of information sources in their decision to take a cruise. Influence was measured using a Likert-type scale with 1 (Not at all influential) to 7 (Extremely influential). It can be seen that the most influential information sources for cruisers are their spouse or

Table 3 The Participant’s Past Cruise Experience Combined Itineraries 1 and 2 (%)

Itinerary 1 (%)

Itinerary 2 (%)

30.1 69.9

32.7 67.3

27.5 72.5

30.4 51.6 9.2 5.6 3.3

32.7 49.7 9.2 5.9 2.6

28.1 53.6 9.2 5.2 3.9

Cruise experience First-time Repeat Number of years since first cruise 0 years 1 to 10 years 11 to 20 years 21 to 30 years 31 to 40 years

34

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

Motivations to Cruise

Table 4 Degree to Which Information Sources Influenced the Choice to Cruise in Relation to Cruise Itinerary Mean (SD)

Information Source Word of mouth

P

6 day

8 day

t test

Effect size (r )

3.95 (2.404)

4.15 (2.296)

.466

0.04

Always wanted to go P

3.86 (2.570)

4.18 (2.420)

.273

0.06

Spouse/travel companion P

5.58 (1.834)

5.72 (1.760)

.485

0.04

Destination web site I

4.60 (2.222)

4.62 (2.173)

.938

0.04

Cruise web site I

5.50 (1.839)

5.54 (1.902)

.831

0.01

Internet advertisement I

1.71 (1.409)

2.02 (1.660)

.076

0.10

Travel magazine M

1.97 (1.734)

2.12 (1.846)

.463

0.04

Travel guide M

3.21 (2.427)

3.24 (2.370)

.924

0.01

Travel agent recommendation P

3.16 (2.340)

2.99 (2.373)

.529

0.04

Magazine advertisement M

1.49 (1.142)

1.77 (1.541)

.071

0.11

Television/radio commercial M

2.03 (1.638)

2.08 (1.790)

.790

0.02

Direct mail M

1.50 (1.372)

1.67 (1.535)

.308

0.06

Travel blog I

1.29 (1.038)

1.41 (1.172)

.381

0.05

Web chat room I

1.23 (0.942)

1.18 (0.717)

.585

0.03

Note:

P

= Personal-based information source I = Internet-based information source M = Media-based information source

travel companion, the cruise web site, the destination web site, word of mouth, and always wanted to go. These sources were ranked as the top five by cruisers on both itineraries. The least influential information sources were also consistent for both cruise itineraries; these were web chat room, travel blog, magazine advertisement, and direct mail. It is possible to cluster the information sources into three groups ‘personal based’, ‘Internet based’, and ‘media based’. Using these groups, it is clear that personal-based information sources are regarded as highly influential to cruisers, accounting for three out of the top five sources. A series of t tests demonstrated that in relation to cruise itinerary, no significant difference in influence was gained from any of the information sources.

Vacation Attributes And Cruise Itinerary Table 5 illustrates the influence of a variety of vacation attributes in the choice to cruise. An almost identical ranking of the vacation attributes was identified by cruise tourists on both itineraries. The only differences referred to the influence of the top and bottom two attributes; 6day cruisers scored comfort of most influence, followed by accommodation second, whereas 8-day cruisers ranked these in reverse. Similarly, 6-day cruisers considered local people as the least influential vacation attribute, with child facilities second to last. Again, respondents on the 8-day itinerary scored the influence of these two attributes the other way around. A significant t-test result for the attribute culture showed that in relation to the length of cruise, a variation in its influence exists. However, the

Table 5 Degree to Which Vacation Attributes Influenced the Choice to Cruise in Relation to Cruise Itinerary Mean (SD )

Vacation attribute Nightlife

S

6 day

8 day

t test

Effect size (r)

5.29 (1.820)

4.95 (1.854)

.114

0.09

Bars S

4.08 (2.002)

3.80 (1.933)

.223

0.07

History C

3.48 (1.747)

3.75 (1.804)

.177

0.08

Scenery

5.91 (1.339)

5.96 (1.332)

.732

0.02

Accommodation

6.61 (0.660)

6.56 (0.760)

.470

0.04

Comfort

6.67 (0.574)

6.53 (0.787)

.082

0.10

Local people C

3.10 (1.663)

3.45 (1.902)

.091

0.10

Culture C

4.43 (1.743)

4.86 (1.775)

.035

0.12

Get away

6.53 (0.896)

6.39 (1.034)

.216

0.07

Child facilities

3.16 (2.664)

2.71 (2.602)

.135

0.09

Mix with others S

4.29 (1.873)

4.07 (1.927)

.322

0.06

Climate

6.39 (0.995)

6.27 (1.175)

.319

0.06

Note:

S

= Social attribute C = Cultural attribute

Volume 18 2011

35

Rory Victor Jones

importance of this effect is small (r = .12). For all other vacation attributes, no significant difference in influence was observed.

Motives Derived From the Leisure Motivation Scale and Cruise Itinerary Table 6 illustrates the extent to which the study’s participants believed a range of motives, derived from the Leisure Motivation Scale for application to tourism, influenced their decision to cruise. The data show that the most influential motivations for cruisers on both cruise itineraries are the ability to both mentally and physically relax, to discover new places and things, and to avoid the hustle and bustle of daily life. As suggested by Beard and Ragheb (1983), motivations can be classified into four categories: stimulus-avoidance, intellectual, competencemastery, and social. The stimulus-avoidance items, which assess ‘the drive to escape and get away from over-stimulating life situations’ (Beard and Ragheb, 1983, p. 225), account for four of the top five most influential motivations for cruisers on 6- and 8-day cruises. The least influential items were identified as to challenge my abilities, to use my physical abilities / skills in sport, and to use my imagination. The low influence of these three items is consistent for both itineraries. As two of the three least influential items relate to the motivational component, competence-mastery, in which individuals seek ‘to achieve, master, challenge, and compete’ (Beard and Ragheb, 1983, p. 225) it would appear that for cruise tourists this type of motivation is of little influence. Nonsignificant t-test results established that there was no variation in the amount of influence of any of the items as related to the length of cruise. The second segmentation for which motivation data are presented is cruise experience. Of the total respondents, 92 could be described as first-time cruisers and 214 as repeat cruisers.

Information Sources and Cruise Experience Table 7 presents data on the influence that respondents believed were gained from information sources as related to their previous cruise experience. The most influential information sources for both first-time and repeat cruise tourists are similar, with the major difference in the top five referring to the source, always wanted to go. Firsttimers ranked this of most influence, but repeaters demoted it to sixth and also halved the influence score attached. Overall, repeaters assigned lower influence scores; in fact, all information sources scored under six. The least influential sources are also similar for both firsttime and repeat cruise tourists ranking web chat room, travel blog, and magazine advertisement near the bottom. The influence of only three out of the fourteen information sources increased with repeat cruisers (travel magazine, magazine advertisement and direct mail). A t test indicated that direct mail is also significantly more influential for repeat cruisers, after being ranked of lowest influence by first-timers. It is possible to cluster the information sources into three groups ‘personal based’, ‘Internet based’, and ‘media based’. Using the information source clusters, it is clear that personal-based information sources are regarded as highly influential for first-time cruisers, accounting for three out of the top five sources, but for repeaters this pattern is down-rated. A series of t tests demonstrated that, with the exceptions of travel magazine, magazine advertisement, and web chat room, the influence of the other information sources are significantly different when the cruise tourist is a repeater rather than a first-timer. Observing the effect sizes of the significant t test results, always wanted to go (r = .72), and word of mouth (r =.61) present the largest effects, followed by television / radio commercial (r =.44), and destination web site (r =.39) with medium range effect sizes.

Table 6 Degree to Which Motives Derived From the Leisure Motivation Scale Influenced the Choice to Cruise in Relation to Cruise Itinerary Mean (SD)

Leisure Motivation Scale items 6 day

8 day

t test

Effect size (r)

To physically relax S-a

6.34 (1.046)

6.48 (0.897)

.198

0.07

To mentally relax S-a

6.55 (0.866)

6.56 (0.818)

.946

0.00

To avoid the hustle and bustle of daily life S-a

6.01 (1.526)

5.99 (1.589)

.883

0.01

To be in a calm atmosphere S-a

5.73 (1.391)

5.73 (1.339)

.967

0.00

To discover new places and things I

6.05 (1.383)

6.03 (1.369)

.934

0.00

To use my imagination I

2.67 (1.594)

2.92 (1.905)

.217

0.07

To use my physical abilities/skills in sport C-m

2.75 (1.723)

2.59 (1.749)

.430

0.05

To increase my knowledge I

4.52 (1.850)

4.60 (1.971)

.720

0.02

To gain a feeling of belonging S

3.42 (1.827)

3.33 (1.930)

.670

0.02

To be with others S

3.93 (1.768)

3.78 (2.103)

.481

0.04

To build friendships with others S

3.61 (1.759)

3.67 (2.077)

.812

0.01

To have a good time with friends S

5.35 (1.763)

5.43 (1.942)

.689

0.02

To develop close friendships S

4.01 (1.799)

4.04 (2.109)

.907

0.01

To challenge my abilities C-m

2.46 (1.666)

2.53 (1.740)

.737

0.02

Note:

36

S-a =

Stimulus-avoidance motive I = Intellectual motive C-m = Competence-mastery motive S = Social motive

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

Motivations to Cruise

Table 7 Degree to Which Information Sources Influenced the Choice to Cruise in Relation to Cruise Experience Mean (SD)

Information source Word of mouth

P

First-time

Repeat

t test

Effect size (r)

5.88 (1.759)

3.27 (2.125)

.000

0.61

Always wanted to go P

6.41 (1.376)

2.99 (2.141)

.000

0.72

Spouse/travel companion P

6.07 (1.663)

5.47 (1.825)

.006

0.20

Destination web site I

5.64 (1.948)

4.17 (2.149)

.000

0.39

Cruise web site I

6.16 (1.626)

5.24 (1.901)

.000

0.29

Internet advertisement I

2.27 (1.761)

1.69 (1.411)

.005

0.23

Travel magazine M

1.96 (1.703)

2.08 (1.828)

.582

0.03

Travel guide M

3.70 (2.596)

3.02 (2.279)

.032

0.17

Travel agent recommendation P

3.65 (2.433)

2.82 (2.280)

.005

0.16

Magazine advertisement M

1.62 (1.283)

1.64 (1.397)

.925

0.01

Television/radio commercial M

2.97 (2.125)

1.66 (1.325)

.000

0.44

Direct mail M

1.16 (0.802)

1.76 (1.628)

.000

0.24

Travel blog I

1.57 (1.353)

1.26 (0.971)

.050

0.17

Web chat room I

1.25 (0.847)

1.18 (0.833)

.517

0.04

Note:

P = Personal-based information source I = Internet-based information source M = Media-based information source

Vacation Attributes and Cruise Experience Table 8 shows the influence of a variety of vacation attributes in the choice to cruise. It can be seen that for firsttime and repeat cruise tourists the five most influential vacation attributes are comfort, accommodation, get away, climate, and scenery, although a variation in their perceived ranking does exist. The two least influential attributes for both first-timers and returners were the child facilities and the local people. Of note, for repeaters a significant decline in the influence of the ‘social’ vacation attributes was observed, and with the exception of local people, a significant increase in the ‘cultural’ illustrated by the significant t test results. However, the importance of these effects was small. For all other vacation attributes, no significant difference in influence between first-time and repeat cruise tourists was discovered.

Motives Derived From the Leisure Motivation Scale and Cruise Experience Table 9 illustrates the extent to which first-time and repeat cruise tourists believed a range of motives derived from the Leisure Motivation Scale influenced their choice to cruise. The two most influential motives for both classifications of cruiser were the ability to mentally, and physically relax. The next most influential motives were to avoid the hustle and bustle of daily life, and to discover new places and things; however first-time and repeat cruisers ranked whether these motives were third or fourth most influential in reverse. The stimulus-avoidance items account for four of the top five most influential motivations for repeaters and three of the top five for first-timers. The two least influential items for repeaters and two out of the three least influential for first-timers

Table 8 Degree to Which Vacation Attributes Influenced the Choice to Cruise in Relation to Cruise Experience Mean (SD )

Vacation attribute Nightlife

S

First-time

Repeat

t test

Effect size (r)

5.50 (1.872)

4.96 (1.808)

.018

0.14

Bars S

4.62 (2.090)

3.65 (1.845)

.000

0.23

History C

3.23 (1.828)

3.78 (1.734)

.013

0.14

Scenery

6.02 (1.204)

5.90 (1.387)

.455

0.04

Accommodation

6.53 (0.718)

6.61 (0.709)

.399

0.05

Comfort

6.54 (0.717)

6.62 (0.679)

.366

0.05

Local people C

3.00 (1.887)

3.40 (1.740)

.075

0.10

Culture C

4.26 (2.016)

4.81 (1.629)

.023

0.19

Get away

6.55 (1.009)

6.42 (0.950)

.268

0.06

Child facilities

2.99 (2.625)

2.92 (2.651)

.824

0.01

Mix with others S

4.50 (1.890)

4.04 (1.892)

.053

0.11

Climate

6.47 (0.988)

6.27 (1.126)

.148

0.08

Note:

S

= Social attribute C = Cultural attribute

Volume 18 2011

37

Rory Victor Jones

Table 9 Degree to Which Motives Derived From the Leisure Motivation Scale Influenced the Choice to Cruise in Relation to Cruise Experience Mean (SD)

Leisure Motivation Scale Items First-time

Repeat

t test

Effect size (r)

To physically relax S-a

6.18 (1.089)

6.51 (0.908)

.007

0.15

To mentally relax S-a

6.53 (0.748)

6.56 (0.879)

.789

0.02

To avoid the hustle and bustle of daily life S-a

6.13 (1.439)

5.94 (1.603)

.337

0.06

To be in a calm atmosphere S-a

5.51 (1.371)

5.82 (1.352)

.067

0.11

To discover new places and things I

6.10 (1.276)

6.01 (1.416)

.625

0.03

To use my imagination I

2.68 (1.716)

2.84 (1.778)

.490

0.04

To use my physical abilities/skills in sport C-m

3.14 (1.919)

2.46 (1.612)

.003

0.24

To increase my knowledge I

4.53 (1.964)

4.57 (1.889)

.860

0.01

To gain a feeling of belonging S

4.00 (1.875)

3.11 (1.817)

.000

0.22

To be with others S

4.48 (1.884)

3.59 (1.908)

.000

0.21

To build friendships with others S

4.32 (1.927)

3.35 (1.850)

.000

0.23

To have a good time with friends S

6.00 (1.453)

5.13 (1.945)

.000

0.28

To develop close friendships S

4.75 (1.914)

3.71 (1.896)

.000

0.24

To challenge my abilities C-m

2.86 (1.873)

2.34 (1.601)

.022

0.19

Note:

S-a

= Stimulus-avoidance motive I = Intellectual motive C-m = Competence-mastery motive S = Social motive

relate to competence-mastery motives indicating the little influence of this category of motivation. Significant t test results were found for all items of the social, and competence-mastery components; repeat cruise tourists scored each individual item of less influence than first-timers. In addition, a significant t test result was also established for the item to physically relax. Nevertheless, all of the effect sizes were small.

Discussion and Implications for the Cruise Industry As worldwide cruise passenger numbers demonstrated a trend towards a maturing industry in recent years, this study was undertaken to investigate the motivations influencing cruise tourists’ decision to cruise. Motivation data are vital for cruise companies and marketers to plan for the future. This study provides a valuable and timely insight into the motivations of 306 North American cruise tourists, travelling with a major cruise company, visiting ports-of-call along the Eastern Atlantic Seaboard and the Caribbean. The analysis was structured in relation to the passengers cruise itinerary and cruise experience and some significant implications for cruise companies have emerged. The finding that the same influence is derived from individual information sources regardless of cruise itinerary indicates that marketers can use any of the listed information sources to attract customers to different itineraries while maintaining their influential effect. This is, however, said with caution, as although two itineraries were indeed investigated in this study, both can be classified into the same standard cruise industry segment: 6 to 8 days. Cruises are commonly classified into four length segments: 2 to 5 days, 6 to 8 days, 9 to 17 days, and 18 days plus (CLIA, 2010). If two different length segments 38

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

were investigated perhaps a variation in their influence would have been observed. Personal-based information sources were considered among the most influential for all participants of this study with word of mouth emerging as one of the most important. The importance of word of mouth was previously demonstrated by the CLIA (2006) and De La Vina and Ford (2001). This finding highlights the need for cruise lines to ensure the service they provide is always of the highest possible standard. Positive customer satisfaction should consequently be translated into positive word of mouth. As previously found by Li and Petrick (2008), Petrick (2004a) and Petrick and Sirakaya (2004), the data in this study indicate that by ensuring previous customers leave their cruise satisfied; future potential customers will be generated. Also, in line with previous findings (CLIA, 2006; Teye & Leclerc, 2003) the high influence of a cruise tourist’s spouse or travel companion was observed. Although noteworthy in itself, this finding also raises a question as to whether some of the cruise tourists who completed the survey had no other motivation to cruise other than their spouse or travel companion had chosen it. For that reason, the full range of motivations of the primary decision-maker may not have been captured by the survey. It was found that the desire to just want to go on a cruise is a motivation that cruise companies can initially rely on to attract new customers; in fact, it was deemed as the most influential source for first-time cruise tourists. The significance of just wanting to cruise was also revealed by the CLIA (2006), although, this appears to be a short-term motivation as the high level of influence attached to this desire initially, does not persist beyond a customer’s first cruise. It would appear that cruise lines should pay particular attention to their Internet-based marketing; specifically,

Motivations to Cruise

the cruise and destination web sites, but not Internet advertising, blogs, or chat rooms. A higher level of influence is attained from Internet-based information sources than the traditional media outlets (travel magazine, magazine advertisement, television/radio commercial, and direct mail). The cruise company web site was found to be hugely influential for passengers, and for that reason, its design, as well as the information it provides should be a priority for cruise companies. The source destination web site also ranked high, and although this is likely to refer to a range of web sites available on the Internet, this result may show value in cruise companies providing detailed tourist information on their own cruise web site about the destinations and ports their cruise ships visit. The high influence of cruise and destination web sites has previously been recognised by the CLIA (2006), however, the current study found the cruise web site to be more influential than the destination web sites, whereas formerly the reverse had been observed. This finding is in fitting with research which discusses the cruise ship as the vacation destination and not the ports-of-call it visits (Weaver 2005a; Wood, 2004). Cruise tourists were found to be greatly motivated by the comfort and accommodation which cruise ships provide them. Cruise companies have built and equipped their cruise ships to a level which is equal to or better than, many high-end land-based hotels and, accordingly, cruise ships have become well known for the luxury and service they offer. Cruise companies should, therefore, strive to maintain this level of accommodation and service, not only on their new cruise ships, but also among ageing ships in their fleets should they wish to continue to attract new and repeat customers. Another core aspect of service that cruise lines have focused on providing and continuously seek to enhance is the nightlife (e.g., shows, bars, clubs, and gambling). Teye and Leclerc (2003) previously showed entertainment opportunities to be an important motive for ethnic minority cruisers, but results from this study show that in general, and despite the amount of attention it receives from the cruise companies, it is only considered an average motivation for taking a cruise. Moreover, after a passenger’s first-ever cruise, the influence of this attribute declines further. The finding that nightlife is of less influence to repeat cruisers is further supported by the results of the Leisure Motivation Scale, as all items of the social component were scored lower by repeat cruisers than first-timers. The importance of the social aspect of cruising has also been shown in several previous cruise motivation studies (Hung & Petrick, 2010; Petrick et al., 2007; Qu & Ping, 1999). Seeing that both current findings and past studies (CLIA, 2006; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Hung & Petrick, 2010; Qu & Ping, 1999) indicate that the need for stimulus-avoidance is highly influential to cruise tourists, it could be argued that instead of creating social nightlife and entertainment spaces, cruise companies would benefit from providing more relaxed and calm spaces on their ships.

A significant variation in the influence of culture was identified between the two itineraries in this study. Cruise tourists on the 8-day cruise considered culture more important than those on a 6-day cruise. It could be argued this preference is reflected in the cruise itinerary; the ports-of-call on the 8-day cruise were San JuanPuerto Rico, Tortola–British Virgin Islands, Samaná– Dominican Republic, whereas on the 6-day cruise, Port Canaveral–Florida, Nassau–Bahamas, Grand Bahama Island–Bahamas. This finding illustrates that variation in a cruise tourist’s motivation does play a role in cruise itinerary choice. In addition, cultural vacation attributes were seen to increase in influence after the first cruise. This is further evident from the higher percentage of repeat cruisers on the 8-day itinerary (73%) than the 6-day itinerary (67%). Formerly, Teye and Leclerc (2003) identified the importance of ‘cultural discovery’ to white Caucasian and ethnic minority cruisers. Cruise tourists in this study scored competencemastery motives low. This is an important result, as cruise companies have attempted to diversify the range of sporting and physical activities they offer, from golf to rock climbing and even ice skating. Although there is little doubt that these can enhance a passenger’s experience and satisfaction of cruising, it would appear that cruise companies are not directly attracting customers by having such facilities available.

Conclusion This study has taken a further step towards understanding the underlying motivations which encourage cruise tourists to take a cruise vacation. The results obtained in this study show that there are many motivations to cruise, but the level of influence assigned to any of these motivations may vary according to a passenger’s cruise experience but not in relation to their cruise itinerary. Overall, personal-based information sources, in particular word of mouth and spouse or travel companion, were considered among the most influential for cruisers. The desire to just want to go on a cruise is an important motivation especially for first-time cruise tourists. Internet-based information sources, specifically the cruise and destination web sites were of high influence, and developing information networks between cruise and destination web sites may be key in motivating future cruise tourists. Cruisers were greatly motivated by the comfort and accommodation, which cruise ships provide them, but only moderately by the nightlife, in spite of the great attention the cruise companies pay to these facilities. The need for stimulus-avoidance was deemed most important to cruise tourists, whereas competence-mastery motives were considered of low influence, despite the wide range of sporting and physical activities on offer.

Acknowledgment This work was completed during my time with the Department of Geography at the University of Reading under the supervision of Dr Erlet Cater. Volume 18 2011

39

Rory Victor Jones

References Beard, J.G., & Ragheb, M.G. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(3), 219–227. Chase, G.L., & McKee, D.L. (2003). The economic impact of cruise tourism on Jamaica. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 16–22. Crompton, J.L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408–424. Crompton, J.L. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3), 420–434. Cruise Lines International Association. (2006). 2006 cruise market profile. Report of findings. Retrieved from http://www.bitaz.com .mx/docs/200620Market20Profile20Study.pdf Cruise Lines International Association. (2008). 2008 Cruise market profile study. Retrieved from http://www.cruising.org/sites/ default/files/pressroom/Market_Profile_2008.pdf Cruise Lines International Association. (2010). 2010 CLIA Cruise Market Overview Statistical Cruise Industry Data Through 2009. Retrieved from http://www2.cruising.org/press/overview2010/ Dann, G.M.S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4), 184–194. De La Vina, L., & Ford, J. (2001). Logistic regression analysis of cruise vacation market potential: demographic and trip attribute perception factors. Journal of Travel Research, 39(4), 406–410. Duman, T., & Mattila, A.S. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value. Tourism Management, 26(3), 311–323.

Lois, P., Wang, J., Wall, A., & Ruxton, T. (2004). Formal safety assessment of cruise ships. Tourism Management, 25(1), 93–109. Loundsbury, J.W., & Hoopes, L. (1988). Five year stability of leisure activity and motivation factors. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(2), 118–134. Maslow, A.H. (1970). Personality and motivation. New York: Harper and Row. Mohsin, A. & Ryan, C. (2007). Exploring attitudes of Indian students toward holidaying in New Zealand using Leisure Motivation Scale. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. 12(1), 1–18. Petrick, J.F. (2004a). Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tourism Management, 25(4), 463–470. Petrick, J.F. (2004b). The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions, 42(4), 397–407. Petrick, J.F., Li, X., & Park, S.Y. (2007). Cruise passengers’ decisionmaking processes. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(1), 1–14. Petrick, J.F., & Sirakaya, E. (2004). Segmenting cruisers by loyalty. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 472–475. Pizam, A., & Mansfield, Y. (1999). Consumer behavior in travel and tourism. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press. Qu, H., & Ping, E.W.Y. (1999). A service performance model of Hong Kong cruise travelers’ motivation factors and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 20(2), 237–244.

Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic significance of cruise tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 393–415.

Rusbult, C.E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186.

Field, A.P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.

Ryan, C., & Glendon, I. (1998). Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 169–184.

Henthorne, T.L. (2000). An analysis of expenditures by cruise ship passengers in Jamaica. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 246–250.

Samdahl, D.M. (2005). Making room for ‘silly’ debate: a critical examination on leisure constraints research. In E.L. Jackson, Constraints to Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Hung, K. & Petrick, J.F. (2011). Why do you cruise? Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays, and the construction of a cruising motivation scale. Tourism Management, 32(2), 386–393. Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of motivation: a rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256–262. Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1999). Motivational foundations in leisure. In E.L. Jackson & T.L. Burton, Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 35–51). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Jaakson, R. (2004). Beyond the tourist bubble? Cruiseship passengers in port. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 44–60. Johnson, D. (2002). Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: A reality check. Marine Policy, 26(4), 261–270. Kerstetter, D.L., Yin Yen, I. & Yarnal, C.M. (2005). Plowing uncharted waters: A study of perceived constraints to cruise travel. Tourism Analysis, 10(2), 137–150.

40

Liburd, J.J. (2001). Cruise tourism development in the south of St Lucia. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal. 49(3), 215–228.

Teye, V., & Leclerc, D. (2003). The white Caucasian and ethnic minority markets: Some motivational perspectives. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 227–242. Walle, A.H. (1997). Quantitative versus qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 524–536. Weaver, A. (2005a). Spaces of containment and revenue capture: ‘supersized’ cruise ships as mobile tourism enclaves. Tourism Geographies, 7(2), 165–184. Weaver, A. (2005b). The McDonaldization thesis and cruise tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 346–366. Wood, R.E. (2000). Caribbean cruise tourism globalization at sea. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 345–370.

Kester, J.G.C. (2003). Cruise tourism. Tourism Economics, 9(3), 337–350.

Wood, R.E. (2004). Cruise ships: Deterritorialized destinations. In L. Lumsdon & S.J. Page, Tourism and transport. Issues and agenda for the new millennium, London: Elsevier.

Kim, N-S. & Chalip, L. (2004). Why travel to the FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives, background, interest, and constraints. Tourism Management, 25(6), 695–707.

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(4), 368–379.

Li, X., & Petrick, J.F. (2008). Examining the antecedents of brand loyalty from an investment model perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 25–34.

Yusof, A., & Mohd Shah, P. (2008). Application of leisure motivation scale to sport tourism. The International Journal of the Humanities, 6(1), 105–114.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management