predicting souvenir purchase intentions

http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/38/2/153The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/004728759903800208

1999 38: 153Journal of Travel ResearchSoyoung Kim and Mary A. Littrell

Predicting Souvenir Purchase Intentions

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/38/2/153.refs.htmlCitations:

at SCD UniversitÃ© de Savoie on April 28, 2011jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jtr.sagepub.com/

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/38/2/153

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ttra.com

http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

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

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

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/38/2/153.refs.html


NOVEMBER 1999JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH

Predicting Souvenir Purchase IntentionsSOYOUNG KIM AND MARY A. LITTRELL

Structural equation modeling was used for predictingsouvenir purchase intentions of 277 U.S. female touriststraveling to Mexico. The respondents evaluated five textileproducts and described their travel behaviors. Findings sug-gested a sequence of significant relationships between he-donic values, world-mindedness, recreational and ethnictourism, attitude toward souvenirs, and purchase intentions.

United States tourists’ expenditures on both domestic andinternational tourism grew a dramatic 75% during the 10years between 1985 and 1995 (Travel Industry Associationof America 1996). Of these expenditures, approximatelyone-third are devoted to shopping (Littrell et al. 1994). Rossand Iso-Ahola (1990) identified six major motives that wereimportant to sightseeing tourists and found that shoppingwas one distinct motive. As Kent, Shock, and Snow (1983)commented, “To be able to peruse, to examine, to feel andthink of the joys derived from purchasing certain merchan-dise is indeed pleasurable to millions of people, and for themis a minor, if not a major reason for travel” (p. 2). Shopping isbecoming increasingly important on trips of a leisure nature;it is correlated with other tourism styles as well (Jansen-Verbeke 1991; Littrell et al. 1994; Timothy and Butler 1995).Shopping is also considered a primary motive for undertak-ing a trip across international borders (Jansen-Verbeke 1991;Timothy and Butler 1995). Particularly, shopping opportu-nity is a major attraction that draws tourists to many develop-ing and less developed countries where the prices of goodsare generally low (Keown 1989).

Even though some people may not give a high priority toshopping as a significant criterion when initially selecting atravel destination, they do shop as they travel (Traveler’sNotes 1995). In a national survey conducted by the TravelIndustry Association of America, 44% of all respondentsreported shopping as one of their travel activities (Cook1995). The main products purchased by tourists are localhandicrafts, clothing, and books (Traveler’s Notes 1995).The possession of travel souvenirs is very important to tour-ists as “tangible evidence of the travel experience” (Littrellet al. 1994, p. 3). Tourists may also purchase nonsouveniritems, including apparel and durables, during travel. Giventhe attention that tourists devote to shopping, it is importantthat tourism marketers expand their understanding ofsouvenir-purchasing behavior.

Empirical evidence on the usefulness and applicability ofprominent consumer behavior models such as the Engel,Kollatt, and Blackwell model (Engel, Blackwell, andMiniard 1993) suggests that tourists’ souvenir-purchasingbehavior may be formulated through a process similar to

general consumer behavior models. That is, as with con-sumer behavior more generally, tourists’ souvenir-purchasing behavior may be influenced by such variables asvalues and attitudes. A number of studies have examinedtourists’ psychological characteristics, such as personal val-ues, and their travel activities, including physical involve-ment and level of interaction with host communities. In gen-eral, these studies were directed at describing tourism stylesbased on such variables. However, no studies were foundthat focus on predicting the relationships between tourists’psychological characteristics, travel activities, and souvenir-purchasing behavior. The present study was intended toexplore such predictive linkages.

International tourism is ripe for growth (U.S. Congres-sional House Committee on Small Business 1994). TheWorld Tourism Organization estimates that internationaltourist arrivals worldwide will reach 661 million in the year2000 and 937 million by 2010 (Vellas and Bécherel 1995).Despite the significance of international tourism, few studieshave dealt with souvenir-purchasing behavior within anintercultural context. This research seeks to explore interna-tional tourists’ souvenir-purchasing behavior by studyingU.S. tourists in a situation of traveling to another culture—Mexico.

In many developing countries, tourism is a major eco-nomic factor (Vellas and Bécherel 1995). During recent dec-ades Mexico has been one of the major destination countriesfor international tourism. The 1992 international tourismexpenditure in Mexico reached $6.1 billion, with an averageannual growth rate of 3.2% in the period 1980 to 1992(Latham 1995). International tourists bring into Mexicoapproximately $1.5 billion more than Mexicans spendabroad (van den Berghe 1995), placing tourism consistentlyamong the top three earners of foreign receipts in Mexico(U.S. Department of Commerce 1993). In addition, the hos-pitality industry in Mexico employs about one-tenth of thelabor force (van den Berghe 1995). Considering that morethan 90% of its visitors are from the United States (Latham1995), it is critically important for the Mexican tourism

Soyoung Kim is an assistant professor of human environmentsat Utah State University in Logan. Mary A. Littrell is a professor oftextiles and clothing in the Department of Textiles and Clothing atIowa State University in Ames. This research was part of the firstauthor’s doctoral dissertation at Iowa State University. The authorswish to thank Dr. Frederick Lorenz for his assistance with the dataanalysis. Partial support for the project came from the Louise Ro-senfeld International Fund and the College of Family and Con-sumer Sciences, Iowa State University.

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, November 1999, 153-162© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.



industry to understand U.S. tourists and to develop appropri-ate tourism promotions, activities, and products.

The purpose of this research was to better understandinternational tourists’ travel and souvenir-purchasing behav-ior in order to predict their intention to purchase souvenirs.Specifically, we proposed a model incorporating hypothe-sized relationships between the variables that may affectinternational tourists’ travel and souvenir-purchasing inten-tions. The model is depicted in Figure 1. The exogenous vari-ables selected for the study were hedonic values (as an indi-cator of personal values) and world-mindedness (as anindicator of attitude toward other cultures). The endogenousvariables were tourism styles, attitude toward souvenirs, andintention to purchase souvenirs. In this study the model wastested for U.S. tourists traveling to Mexico.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Organization Framework

The Engel, Kollatt, and Blackwell (EKB) (Engel, Black-well, and Miniard 1993) model of consumer behavior servedas a theoretical framework for proposing relationshipsbetween the variables expected to influence tourists’souvenir-purchasing behavior (Figure 2). The EKB modelproposes that the product evaluation process leading to pur-chase decision consists of four key components: beliefs, atti-tudes, evaluative criteria, and intention. In addition, productevaluation is influenced by individual characteristics, includ-ing personality, lifestyles, motives, values, norms, and refer-ence groups (Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard 1993). On thebasis of the EKB model, a model was developed for thisstudy that incorporated the souvenir evaluation process andvariables influencing souvenir evaluations. Consumers’ gen-eral characteristics such as personal values and attitudetoward other cultures were expected to influence theirtravel-specific characteristics (tourism styles). It was antici-pated that these, in turn, would influence souvenir evalua-tion, including attitude toward souvenirs (a combination ofevaluative criteria and beliefs) and intention to purchasesouvenirs.

In addition to the EKB model, Fishbein’s (1967) attitudemodel was used to define the concept of attitude toward sou-venirs. The Fishbein model can be expressed in the followingmathematical form:

n

AB

= Â biei

i = 1,

whereA

B= attitude toward the behavior,

bi = the belief that performing behaviorB leads to conse-quencei,

ei= the evaluation of consequence i, and

n = the number of salient consequences.

Fishbein (1967) proposed that an individual’s attitudetoward performing a behavior is the summed set of thebeliefs about the consequences of engaging in the behaviorweighted by the evaluation of these consequences. In mar-keting, these consequences are typically represented in theform of product attributes. In a specific purchase situation,therefore, a consumer’s attitude is defined as being a functionof the presence (or absence) and evaluation of a number ofproduct attributes.

Finally, Fishbein’s (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) subse-quent general model of behavior and intention—theory ofreasoned action—provided a conceptual framework relatingattitude toward souvenirs, intention to purchase souvenirs,and actual purchase behavior. The model suggests that con-sumer behavior can be predicted by using intentions as themediator between attitude and overt behavior. Hence, in thepresent study, the relationship between intention and actualpurchase behavior was not examined, but it was assumed thatpurchase behavior is determined by, and predicted from, theindividual’s behavioral intention.

Exogenous Variables

Hedonic values. Values are centrally held evaluative be-liefs that provide the criteria for guiding actions across life’ssituations and for judging personal action or the action ofothers (Rokeach 1969). Studies of values have been con-cerned with questions of how personal values might influ-ence and guide individuals’ attitudes and behavior. Few stud-ies have examined the role of personal values in determiningtravel-related attitudes and behavior. Using a sample of trav-elers to in-state weekend travel attractions, Pitts and Wood-side (1986) observed that seeking pleasure was an important

154 NOVEMBER 1999

FIGURE 1PROPOSED MODEL FOR PREDICTING SOUVENIR INTENTIONS



value in differentiating between visitors and nonvisitors to aresort known for sports. In the present study, tourists’ he-donic values, or the seeking of pleasure, were anticipated toinfluence their tendency to participate in recreational travelactivities.

World-mindedness. Attitudes that tourists hold towardother cultures may play a critical role in influencing theirinternational travel experiences. In this research, world-mindedness was included as one dimension of attitude to-ward other cultures. Sampson and Smith (1957) defined world-mindedness or global-mindedness as “a frame of reference,or value orientation, favoring a world-view of the problemsof humanity, with mankind, rather than the nationals of a par-ticular country, as the primary reference group” (p. 105).Hett (1991) identified five dimensions of world-mindednessincluding responsibility, cultural pluralism, efficacy, global-centrism, and interconnectedness.

Smith (1955) compared the attitudes and personalities ofexceptionally world-minded individuals and exceptionallynationalistic individuals. He found that the world-mindedindividual was less masculine, more impulsive, easygoing,emotionally dependent, inclined toward introspection, andmore likely to belong to organizations with internationalinterests. In addition, world-mindedness had a highly nega-tive association with ethnocentrism. Although the relation-ship between international tourists’ level of world-mindedness and their travel behavior in other cultures has not

been studied, world-mindedness may be an important deter-minant of international tourists’ tendency to actively interactwith local people and show interest in indigenous cultures.

Endogenous Variables

Tourism styles. Typologies of tourism styles were devel-oped on the basis of various travel-related variables such astourists’ exposure to novelty during travels, shopping behav-ior, travel activities, and levels of interaction with host com-munities. Cohen (1972) was one of the first to suggest the ex-istence of different patterns of tourist behavior. He theorizedthat there are four tourist roles based on the extent of the tour-ist’s exposure to the novelty of the host culture. In his laterwork, Cohen (1979) proposed that tourists can also be cate-gorized into different types according to their travel experi-ences, specifically whether they are in pursuit of mere pleas-ure or in quest of meaning and authenticity. Recreationaltourists are not concerned with learning and experiencingother societies or cultures, although they find their travel ex-perience interesting. Diversionary tourists are alienated fromtheir own society but do not seek meaning or authentic expe-riences elsewhere. For them, travel is a mere escape fromboredom or a meaningless pleasure. Experiential tourists aremodern, alienated individuals who seek authentic experi-ences elsewhere. Experimental tourists view authentic expe-riences as essential but do not become fully immersed inother cultures. Finally, existential tourists, who are the oppo-

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 155

FIGURE 2A PARTIAL MODEL OF ENGEL, KOLLATT, AND BLACKWELL’S CONSUMER BEHAVIOR MODEL

Source: Based on the Shim and Drake (1990) model.



sites to the recreational tourists, are deeply immersed in othercultures or societies.

Smith (1989) projected that, using the different types ofleisured mobility, tourism can be categorized into the follow-ing styles: ethnic, cultural, historic, environmental, and rec-reational tourism. Based on Graburn’s (1989) hypothesis thatvarying types of tourists may be attracted by different typesof souvenirs (Graburn 1989), a typology similar to Smith’s(1989) but incorporating souvenirs, was empirically gener-ated by Littrell and her colleagues (1994). Tourists’ prefer-ence for travel activities, souvenir products, and shoppingwere integrated in four distinct patterns. Ethnic, arts, andpeople orientation involved travel to ethnic communitieswhere tourists visited local residents, participated in ritualevents, visited art galleries and museums, and attended con-certs or theaters. Tourists with a strong ethnic, arts, and peo-ple orientation perceived tourism as an opportunity for per-sonal development and as a time for seeking authenticity in acommunity and among its residents. Products native to anarea were favored souvenirs. History and parks–orientedtourists were engaged in activities focusing on history or natu-ral beauty. Favorite crafts displayed a regional, ethnic, coun-try, or nature-related theme. Urban entertainment–orientedtourists were continuously involved in recreational activitiessuch as shopping, attending a professional sports event, visit-ing a recreational theme park, or going dancing or to a night-club. Finally, tourists who enjoyed outdoor activities such ashiking, backpacking, camping, and boating were referred toas active outdoor–oriented tourists. Tourists in the final twogroups purchased T-shirts and sweatshirts with a name orlogo symbolizing the vacation destination.

The Littrell et al. typology established correlates, but notpredictive relationships, among tourism variables. In thepresent research, two tourism styles—ethnic and recrea-tional—were chosen for further study using a predictivemodel. Cultural and recreational themes were selected asthey are (1) prominently featured in Mexican tourism promo-tions and (2) common across typologies developed by tour-ism scholars (Cohen 1979; Littrell et al. 1994; Smith 1989).

Attitude toward souvenirs. Two important concepts inFishbein’s attitude model are evaluative criteria, that is, de-lineation of product attributes that the consumer finds to beimportant and perception of whether products possess thevalued attributes. Several studies have sought to identify thedimensions by which consumers evaluate souvenirs or ethnictextiles and apparel (Littrell 1990; Slaybaugh, Littrell, andFarrell-Beck 1990). Attributes related to physical properties,cultural distinctiveness, and use or versatility are common.Littrell et al. (1994) found that tourists’ travel activities wereclosely related to evaluative criteria considered important forselecting souvenirs. Although souvenir evaluative criteriahave been identified in several studies, little is known aboutconsumers’ perception of the relative importance of attri-butes in souvenirs.

Intention to purchase souvenirs. The ultimate dependentvariable examined in this study was intention to purchasesouvenirs. Intention provides a link between consumers’ re-actions to products and their acquisition or use of the prod-ucts. Thus, intention has been used as an alternative measureto purchase behavior. While a number of studies in tourism

have described souvenir-purchasing behavior, no studieshave examined tourists’ intention to purchase souvenirs inrelation to their attitude toward souvenirs. In the present study,it was expected that tourists’ favorable attitude toward souve-nirs would predict their intention to purchase the souvenirs.

Hypotheses

Based on review of the existing literature, the followinghypotheses were proposed and tested:

Hypothesis 1:Hedonic values will positively affect rec-reational tourism.

Hypothesis 2:World-mindedness will positively affectethnic tourism.

Hypothesis 3:Ethnic tourism will significantly affecttourists’ attitude toward souvenirs.

Hypothesis 4:Recreational tourism will significantly af-fect tourists’ attitude toward souvenirs.

Hypothesis 5:Tourists’ attitude toward souvenirs will posi-tively affect their intention to purchase the souvenirs.

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

The population of interest was made up of female adultswho had traveled to Mexico or were planning to travel toMexico in the near future. Female adults were chosen asrespondents for this study because women are the more fre-quent purchasers of souvenirs such as apparel and householdtextiles (Anderson and Littrell 1995; Littrell et al. 1994).Another reason for choosing female respondents was toreduce the influences or differences related to gender in thispredictive study with its array of other exogenous andendogenous variables.

Six Mexico government tourism offices and one market-ing office in the United States were contacted to provide a listof names for individuals who had requested travel informa-tion concerning potential travel in Mexico. After eliminatingmale names and travel agencies from the list, 900 randomlyselected women were mailed a self-administered question-naire and color photographs of five Mexican textile products.The Dillman (1978) Total Design Method was used in col-lecting the data, except that a fourth mailing was not used. Ofthe 900 questionnaires mailed, 51 were returned due to aninaccurate address or because the recipient was of minor age.From the remaining 849 questionnaires, 336 were returnedfor a response rate of 40%. Of these, 277 surveys were com-pleted by adult women who had traveled to or were planningto travel to Mexico within 1 year. These 277 surveys pro-vided the data for the factor and structural equation modelinganalysis.

Respondents were between 18 and 76 years old; the aver-age age was 41 years. The sample was comparable in age tothe U.S. female population (43 years) (U.S. Bureau of theCensus 1997). A large number were Caucasian (83%), fol-lowed by Hispanics (6%) and African Americans (3%). Mar-ried women represented 63% of the sample, while 31% weresingle. More than 47 % of the respondents reported an annualhousehold income of $50,000 or above; approximately 26%

156 NOVEMBER 1999



had an annual household income between $25,000 and$49,999. The average income for the total U.S. populationwas $39,255; about 37% had an annual household income of$50,000 or more (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1997). Overall,the sample possessed somewhat higher income levels thanthe total U.S. population. The majority (83%) of the samplecompleted education beyond high school and 30% had atleast some graduate education. Seven out of 10 (71%) wereemployed.

Stimuli

Photographs of five Mexican textile products served asthe stimuli for the study. Textile products were selectedbecause they are small and easy to pack (Graburn 1989) andare common shopping items among tourists visiting Mexico(Adair 1996). Initially, 13 Mexican souvenirs representingseven different product categories were chosen for pretest-ing. Selection was based on the researchers’ observations ofmarkets and shops in Oaxaca, Mexico and consultation witha cultural specialist in Oaxaca. Oaxaca is the destination ofchoice for tourists seeking colonial surroundings, archaeo-logical sites, and indigenous creativity (Adair 1996); Oaxacais recognized as a major folk art center for Mexico. Productsfrom Oaxaca are marketed to tourists throughout Mexico.The city has become Mexico’s eighth most popular traveldestination, following Mexico City and beach destinationssuch as Cancun and Acapulco (If You Go 1997); tourism isnow Oaxaca’s leading source of economic income (Mader1998). Criteria for souvenir selection were adopted from pre-vious studies of tourists (Littrell 1990; Littrell et al. 1994;Slaybaugh, Littrell, Farrell-Beck 1990). These included that(1) items be currently on the market and available to touristsand that (2) they be diverse in technique, color, function, design,theme, and price.

For 8 out of 13 products, photographs as well as informa-tion about fiber content, size, and price were obtained fromthe 1996 catalog of FONART (Fondo Nacional para elFomento de las Artes). FONART is a government organiza-tion that promotes craft development and marketing in Mex-ico and abroad. FONART has a network of stores that arelocated in the largest cities of Mexico and features a wideselection of crafts from all over the country. AlthoughT-shirts and woven belts were among major souvenir itemsin Mexico, these were not available in the catalog. Therefore,three T-shirts and a woven belt were purchased from storesor markets in Oaxaca. Photographs of these five items notincluded in the catalog were taken by a professional photog-rapher in a manner to resemble the photographic style of thecatalog.

The 13 stimuli photographs were pretested with a con-venience sample of 24 women employed in faculty and staffpositions at the researchers’ university. Those souvenirs thatelicited diverse responses from participants related to pur-chase intention were selected for the main survey. In addi-tion, the researchers ensured that product variety be main-tained for the final stimuli. Five Mexican textile souvenirsrepresenting five different product categories (T-shirt,woven rug, place mat, cushion cover, and woven belt) wereselected. Information on the fiber content, size, and price waspresented in the questionnaire so respondents would have thesame information as would be available in an actual purchasesituation.

Questionnaire: Operationalization of Variables

Hedonic values. Two items measuring hedonic values(pleasure and comfortable life) were selected from Dicksonand Littrell’s (1997) study of consumers of handcrafted ap-parel. A 99-point rating scale ranging from 1 (Nothing I do isever based on this guiding principle) to 99 (Everything I do isbased on this principle) was adopted (α = .78).

World-mindedness. Nine items measuring world-mindedness were adopted from previous studies (Bhawukand Brislin 1992; Wiseman, Hammer, and Nishida 1989) aswell as developed by the researchers (1 = strongly disagree,7 = strongly agree). Factor analysis using the principal com-ponent method of extraction and varimax rotation was usedto reduce the number of the items. An eigenvalue of one wasused for the purpose of extraction. In addition, an examina-tion of scree tests and conceptual clarity of items includedwithin each factor determined the decision for the number offactors. This procedure for item reduction and determinationof number of factors was also employed for tourism stylesand attitude toward souvenirs. Factor analysis of the world-mindedness items generated two factors that accounted for46% of the total variance. The first factor included items in-dicating general interest in other cultures (e.g., “I like todecorate my home or office with artifacts from other coun-tries” and “I am interested in the history and culture of othercountries”). This factor was titled Interest in Other Cultures(α = .73). The second factor, called Open-Mindedness, con-tained items representing global worldview and cultural plu-ralism (e.g., “Culturally mixed marriages are not wrong” and“Our country should permit the immigration of foreign peo-ples”) (α = .65). Open-Mindedness was an outer-directedperspective on other cultures, while Interest in Other Cul-tures represented a more emotional, inner-directed way ofviewing other cultures.

Tourism styles. Twelve items designed to measure ethnicand recreational tourism were adapted from the scale used byLittrell and her colleagues (1994). Respondents rated thelevel of importance of various travel activities when travel-ing in other countries (1 = very unimportant, 7 = very impor-tant). Factor analysis of 12 travel activities resulted in threefactors, explaining 63% of the total variance. The first factor,Ethnic, was composed of items favoring engrossment in theauthentic life of communities. Activities included visitingethnic communities, attending ethnic or community festivalsor fairs, and meeting interesting people different from them-selves (α = .75). Recreational activities such as shopping,visiting recreational theme parks, bringing home souvenirsfrom the trip, participating in night entertainment, and takinga complete package tour were loaded on the second factor, la-beled Recreational (α = .69). The third factor included itemssuch as attending sports events or concerts and looking forantiques. This factor did not seem to have a common themeand, thus, it was not included in further analysis.

Attitude toward souvenirs. Items measuring evaluativecriteria for souvenirs were developed by Littrell et al. (1994).Respondents were asked to rate the importance of 14 criteriawhen selecting souvenirs as they travel (1 = very unimpor-tant, 7 = very important). Respondents then viewed colorphotographs of five Mexican souvenir items and indicated




their perception of the presence of 11 attributes for each sou-venir (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Factor analysis of evaluative criteria resulted in threefactors: Aesthetics, Uniqueness, and Care and Travel. Thefactors accounted for 57% of the total variance. Factoranalysis was also performed on perceived attributes sepa-rately for five Mexican souvenirs. A three-factor solutionwas employed to produce factors directly comparable withthe three evaluative-criteria factors. As a result of factoranalysis, similar factors to those of evaluative criteriawere revealed for all five souvenirs, indicating the rele-vance of the factors across various product types. Onlyitems loading on the same factor across five souvenirs andon the identical factor of evaluative criteria were chosen tocreate a measure of attitude toward souvenirs, resulting intwo items for each factor. Items for the Aesthetics factorwere “The design is appealing” and “The colors areappealing,” while the items for the Uniqueness factorincluded “It is new, innovative” and “The product isunique or one of a kind.” The items for the Care and Travelfactor covered “It is easy to care for or clean” and “It iseasy to pack or carry with me on the trip.”

The three dimensions of attitude toward souvenirs weremeasured using indices derived from a combination of theevaluative-criteria factor and the perceived-attributes factor.Attitude scores for each dimension appeared highly consis-tent across the five souvenirs. Therefore, attitude scores weresummed across the souvenirs and one model, rather thanseparate models for the five souvenirs, was run.

Intention to purchase souvenirs. Researchers have usedthe intention-to-purchase scale as an attitudinal measure oflikely purchase behavior. Gruber (1971) found a high corre-lation (r = .95) between purchase intent and purchase prob-ability. To ascertain behavioral intentions with regard to pur-chasing Mexican souvenirs, respondents were asked toindicate the likelihood that they would purchase each souve-nir item (1) for themselves and (2) for others as a gift (1 =very unlikely, 7 = very likely). Intention scores appearedhighly consistent for the five souvenirs and, thus, weresummed across the five souvenirs.

Demographic information. Information on demographiccharacteristics was obtained for sample description pur-poses. Respondents were asked about their age, ethnic group,marital status, education, occupation, and income.

Analysis of the Proposed Model

Because the measures used in this study demonstratedgood internal consistency, it was decided to use summatedscores as single item indicators (Brown, Cron, and Leigh1993; Good, Page, and Young 1996). Scores for individualfactor items were added and then divided by the number ofitems in the factor. Summated scores were created for all fac-tors, with the exception of factors for souvenir evaluative cri-teria and perceived attributes. Three measures of attitudetoward souvenirs (Aesthetics, Uniqueness, and Care andTravel) were created using Fishbein’s (1967) multiattributemathematical model for combining souvenir evaluative cri-teria and perceived attributes. Table 1 indicates the state-ments of the summated scales of each of the nine constructsin the model.

The maximum-likelihood estimation procedure wasused via LISREL VII (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1989) to ana-lyze the proposed causal model. Maximum-likelihood tech-niques estimate the population parameters most likely tohave produced the observed data. Compared to path analy-sis, structural equation modeling is based on less-restrictiveassumptions. Structural equation modeling can be appliedwhere there is measurement error, correlated residuals, andreciprocal causation (Pedhazur 1982). In this research, thedimensions under the same variable, such as ethnic and rec-reational tourism styles, were hypothesized to have no direct

158 NOVEMBER 1999

TABLE 1

STATEMENTS MEASURING CONSTRUCTS

Construct Item

Hedonic values PleasureComfortable life

Interest in other I like to decorate my home or officecultures with artifacts from other countries.

I love to travel abroad if I have time andmoney.

I am interested in the history andculture of other countries.

Open-mindedness Culturally mixed marriages are notwrong.

It would be better to be a citizen of theworld than of any particular nation.

Any healthy individual, regardless ofrace or religion, should be allowed tolive wherever he or she wants in theworld.

Our country should permit theimmigration of foreign people.

Recreational Shoppingtourism Visiting recreational theme parks with

rides and sportsBringing home souvenirs from the tripParticipating night entertainment such

as dancing or nightclubsTaking a complete package tour

Ethnic tourism Visiting ethnic communitiesAttending ethnic or community festivals

or fairsMeeting interesting people different

than myself

Aesthetics The colors are appealing.The design is appealing.

Uniqueness It is new, innovative.It is unique or one of a kind.

Care and travel It is easy to care for or clean.It is easy to pack or carry with me on

the trip.

Purchase How likely is it that you would buy thisintentions product for yourself?

How likely is it that you would buy thisproduct for others as a gift?



association; instead, the residuals were allowed to covarywith each other. The analysis was performed with the covari-ance matrix of the variables. Table 2 shows the intercorrela-tions, means, and standard deviations for variables in themodel.

Analysis of the causal model involved three steps. First,the overall fit of the causal model was evaluated using a chi-square statistic, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjustedgoodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and root mean square residual(RMS). Second, the overall fit of the model was comparedwith those of alternative models, including a null model and aless restrictive model. Finally, the parameter estimates asso-ciated with the research hypotheses were examined.

A MODEL OF SOUVENIRPURCHASE INTENTION

Proposed Model

The proposed model was tested for its overall fit to thedata. Various measures are available to judge overall fit ofthe structural equation model and, among those, a chi-squarestatistic, GFI, AGFI, and RMS are most often used. A chi-square statistic measures the difference between the samplevariance-covariance matrix and the one reproduced throughmodel estimation; accordingly, a large chi-square value rep-resents a poor model fit. The chi-square statistic alone, how-ever, is not adequate for testing model fit, because itincreases with sample size. Therefore, when sample size isfairly large, a model can be rejected even when the model fitsthe data well; if the sample size is small, a model can befalsely accepted even when it fits the data poorly (Pedhazur1982). According to Bagozzi and Yi (1988), the chi-squarestatistic is not a good indicator of fit whenN > 200. A chi-square statistic is also sensitive to departure from the multi-variate normal distribution assumed by the maximum-likelihood estimation technique (Jöreskog and Sörbom1989).

Other measures of the overall fit of the model such as GFIand AGFI are independent of sample size and nonnormality.These are indicators of the extent to which the variance andcovariance are explained by the model. The AGFI adjusts forthe degrees of freedom of a model relative to the number ofvariables, while the GFI does not. Another important

indicator is the RMS, a measure of the average residual vari-ances and covariances. Generally, models with good fit arecharacterized by ap-value for a chi-square test > .05, GFI >.95, AGFI > .90, and RMS < .05 (Jöreskog and Sörbom1989).

The value of chi-square for the proposed model in thisstudy was 38.56 (df= 17, p = .002). The GFI, AGFI, andRMS were .969, .917, and .056, respectively. Theχ2/df ratiowas 2.27. According to Carmines and McIver (1981), ratiosof 3, 2, or less represent a good fit. Taken together with theseindicators, the fit of the proposed model to the data appearedsatisfactory.

Comparison of Models

Comparing the fit of the proposed model with alternativemodels provides added understanding of the acceptability ofthe proposed model (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Threenested models, including the baseline model (i.e., the mostrestrictive model), proposed model, and less-restrictivemodel, were compared with each other.

The baseline model in this study posited complete inde-pendence of all observed variables. In the less-restrictivemodel, five additional paths (i.e., hedonic values [ξ1] → eth-nic tourism [η2], interest in other cultures [ξ2] → recreationaltourism [η1], open-mindedness [ξ3] → recreational tourism[η1], recreational tourism [η1] → purchase intentions [η6],and ethnic tourism [η2] → purchase intentions [η6]) werefreed so that the five direct relationships were newlyestablished.

Chi-square comparisons indicated improvements in totalfit obtained by one model over another. The difference inchi-square values between the baseline model and the pro-posed model was significantly large (∆χ2 [19] = 439.85,p <.001), suggesting that the proposed model explained the rela-tionships between variables significantly better than thebaseline model. The difference between the proposed modeland the less-restrictive model was not significant (∆χ2 [5] =9.85,p > .050), indicating that the five additional paths didnot provide a significant increase in explanatory power.

Test of Hypotheses

Figure 3 presents parameter estimates of the proposedmodel. Results showed that three of the five hypothesizedrelationships were confirmed. Consistent with the first


TABLE 2

INTERCORRELATION, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR VARIABLESIN THE PROPOSED MODEL (N = 250)

Variable η1 η2 η3 η4 η5 η6 ξ1 ξ2 ξ3 M SD

η1: Recreational tourism 1.0 4.3 1.2η2: Ethnic tourism .04 1.0 5.4 1.1η3: Aesthetics (souvenir attitude) .26 .27 1.0 5.4 0.8η4: Uniqueness (souvenir attitude) .38 .04 .35 1.0 4.2 1.0η5: Care and travel (souvenir attitude) .28 .16 .36 .40 1.0 5.2 0.9η6: Purchase intentions .24 .21 .58 .41 .34 1.0 4.0 1.2ξ1: Hedonic values .28 –.14 .07 .17 .06 .00 1.0 82.8 16.0ξ2: Interest in other cultures –.06 .48 .23 –.01 .08 .23 –.00 1.0 5.7 1.1ξ3: Open-mindedness –.13 .35 .18 –.02 –.05 .25 –.09 .43 1.0 5.2 1.2



hypothesis, hedonic values had a direct positive causal influ-ence on recreational tourism (γ11 = .30, t = 4.98). Touristswho placed greater importance on hedonic values, such aspleasure and comfortable life, were more likely to favor rec-reational travel activities. Interest in other cultures andopen-mindedness were found to have strong positive directeffects on ethnic tourism (γ22 = .41, t = 6.82; γ23 = .18, t =3.04), in agreement with the second hypothesis. Touristswith greater interest in other cultures and a stronger globaland open mind were more likely to participate in ethnic tour-ism when traveling.

As predicted by the third hypothesis, recreational tourismwas significantly related to all three dimensions of attitudetoward souvenirs. Those actively engaged in recreationaltourism held more favorable attitudes toward aesthetic quali-ties (β31 = .25,t = 4.27), uniqueness (β41 = .38,t = 6.45), andportability (β51 = .28,t = 4.61) of souvenirs. Among the threedimensions of souvenir attitudes, uniqueness was moststrongly affected by recreational tourism. By comparison,ethnic tourism significantly affected two dimensions of atti-tude toward souvenirs. Tourists actively involved in ethnictourism were more likely to hold favorable attitudes towardthe aesthetic qualities (β32 = .26, t = 4.41) and portability ofsouvenirs (β52 = .15,t = 2.46). It should be noted that attitudetoward the aesthetic aspects of souvenirs was nearly equallyinfluenced by both recreational and ethnic tourism.

The final hypothesis predicted the positive effects of atti-tude toward souvenirs on purchase intentions. Attitudetoward the aesthetic qualities and uniqueness of souvenirsexerted strong positive effects on purchase intentions (β63 =.47,t = 8.61;β64 = .21,t = 3.76); however, there was no rela-tionship between attitude toward the portability of souvenirsand purchase intentions. Tourists with more favorable atti-tudes toward the aesthetic aspects and uniqueness of souve-nirs tended to have stronger purchase intentions.

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATION

The present research represented the first attempt to testand validate a model of tourists’ souvenir-purchasing inten-tions. The variables in this study have been examined exten-sively in past research, but mostly in isolation or through cor-relation. Studies that explain the structural relationshipsamong the variables do not currently exist. The advantage ofincorporating a number of variables within one model is thatit facilitates understanding of the relative and disparateeffects of the variables. The results, which generally sup-ported the EKB (Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard 1993) modelof consumer behavior, suggest continued use of the theoreti-cal frameworks by tourism researchers.

Through analysis of the causal model, this research rec-ognized the existence of two distinct dimensions of travelexperience, that is, recreational tourism and ethnic tourism,and explored the two styles in relation to their determinantsand outcomes. Researchers in tourism have long been inter-ested in developing a typology of travel experiences; how-ever, relatively little empirical research has been done toexplore why and how tourists differ. Empirical results in thisstudy suggested that personal values and attitude towardother cultures can help to predict these two distinct patternsof travel experiences. That is, tourists’ desire for pleasuresignificantly predicted their tendency to participate in recrea-tional travel activities, such as visiting recreational themeparks and participating in night entertainment. On the otherhand, tourists’ general interest in other cultures explainedtheir importance on such travel activities as visiting ethniccommunities and meeting interesting people different fromoneself. This finding confirms the attitude-behavior linkagein the context of tourism and suggests that traveling can beviewed as a way of fulfilling individual desires and manifest-ing personal values.

160 NOVEMBER 1999

FIGURE 3PROPOSED MODEL AND STANDARDIZED PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Note: Values in parentheses represent t-values. χ2 = 38.56; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .97; adjusted goodness-of-fit index(AGFI) = .92; root mean square residual (RMS) = .06.



Findings regarding relationships between attitude towardsouvenirs and purchase intention suggest several applica-tions for retailers that are marketing souvenirs to tourists orfor tourism promoters who develop print, media, and internetadvertising. First, tourism marketers should stress the aes-thetic qualities and uniqueness of products from their desti-nations as a means of attracting international tourists. Whiletourists favor souvenirs that can be easily transported, port-ability does not appear to be a final predictor of intent to pur-chase. Product aesthetics and uniqueness warrant greaterattention in tourism promotions, visual merchandisingthrough in-store displays, and by retail sales associates whenvisiting with tourists. Second, at travel destinations whereboth ethnic and recreational tourists are attracted, a singlestrategy focusing on product aesthetics and uniqueness isappropriate. Retailers need not develop separate strategiesfor marketing souvenirs to each group. Finally, designingshopping environments that offer pleasure to tourists whilealso broadening their cultural experiences would enhancetheir travel experiences.

LIMITATIONS

The results of this study should be evaluated in the lightof certain limitations. First, respondents’ evaluations of sou-venirs were limited to five stimulus items. Although the fivesouvenirs were considered representative of Mexican textilesouvenirs, they do not reflect the full range of textile souve-nirs available in a real shopping situation. In addition, photo-graphs were used in this study instead of actual products.Respondents evaluated the souvenirs based only on visualassessment. It was assumed that other senses such as touchand smell are also important in making purchase decisionsfor textile souvenirs. Second, the study was limited to U.S.women; the specific setting was the Mexico souvenir market.Thus, findings may not be generalizable to male tourists or toother international tourist populations. Third, methodologi-cal issues should be noted. The single summated item, self-measure of a variable, is potentially capable of measurementerror. In this study, however, the model was analyzed underthe assumption of no such error.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

On the basis of the findings of this study some sugges-tions for future research are offered. First, additionalresearch is needed to further refine measures for the researchvariables. Although the measures possessed acceptable reli-ability and construct validity, they should be viewed as pre-liminary measures of the constructs. Second, future studiesshould test alternative models proposing different relation-ships and other constructs not addressed by this research, toprovide a more complete understanding of tourists’ traveland souvenir behavior. Third, future studies should test themodel with a different sample of international tourists, forexample, Korean tourists who are traveling to Mexico. Previ-ous studies (Pizam and Sussmann 1995; Ritter 1987; Wood-side and Lawrence 1985) have found differences between travelbehavior patterns of East Asian tourists and U.S. tourists.

Testing the model with Korean tourists would, therefore,reveal meaningful information on how the same variablesinterrelate for tourists from collectivist cultures.

Fourth, in the present study, purchase intention wasmeasured by asking respondents about their likelihood ofbuying a souvenir for oneself and their likelihood of buyingthe souvenir for others as a gift. Scores for the two questionsappeared strongly correlated with each other across five sou-venirs, and thus the summated score was used for the mea-sure of purchase intention. Future research, however, maydifferentiate between the two types of purchase intention toprovide information on whether the relationship betweenattitude toward souvenirs and purchase intention is influ-enced by purchase situations of buying for oneself versusbuying for others. Finally, while it was beyond the scope ofthis study to develop hypotheses regarding demographicvariables, future research should examine the effects ofdemographic variables on travel and souvenir-purchasingbehavior. The effects of age on tourist behavior were evi-denced by several studies (Anderson and Langmeyer 1982;Anderson and Littrell 1995), which found distinctly differenttrip-planning styles and travel activities among tourists indifferent age-groups; however, studies that examine the pre-dictive relationship between age and souvenir-purchasingbehavior do not currently exist. Therefore, the effects of agealong with the effects of other demographic variables shouldbe explored in more detail.

REFERENCES

Adair, M. (1996).Mexico. New York: Macmillan.Anderson, B., and L. Langmeyer (1982). “The Under-50 and Over-50 Trav-

elers: A Profile of Similarities and Differences.”Journal of Travel Re-search, 21: 20-24.

Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing (1988). “Structural Equation Modelingin Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.”Psy-chological Bulletin, 103: 411-23.

Anderson, L. F., and M. A. Littrell (1995). “Souvenir-Purchase Behavior ofWomen Tourists.”Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2): 328-48.

Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi (1988). “On the Evaluation of Structural EquationModels.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1): 74-94.

Bhawuk, D.P.S., and R. Brislin (1992). “The Measurement of InterculturalSensitivity Using the Concepts of Individualism and Collectivism.”International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16: 413-36.

Brown, S. P., W. L. Cron, and T. W. Leigh (1993). “Do Feelings of SuccessMediate Sales Performance-Work Attitude Relationships?”Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (2): 91-100.

Carmines, E. G., and J. P. McIver (1981). “Analyzing Models with Unob-served Variables: Analysis of Covariance Structures.” InSocial Mea-surement: Current Issues, edited by G. W. Bohrnstedt and E. F. Borgatta.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 65-115.

Cohen, E. (1972). “Toward a Sociology of International Tourism.”SocialResearch, 39: 164-82.

(1979). “A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences.”Sociology, 13:179-201.

Cook, S. D. (1995). “1996 Outlook for Travel and Tourism Basics for Build-ing Strategies.” InProceedings of the Travel Industry Association ofAmerica’s Twenty-First Annual Outlook Forum, edited by S. D. Cookand B. McClure. Washington, DC: Travel Industry Association ofAmerica, pp. 5-18.

Dickson, M. A., and M. A. Littrell (1997). “Consumers of Clothing from Al-ternative Trading Organizations: Social Attitudes and PurchaseEvaluative Criteria.”Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 15 (1):20-33.

Dillman, D. A. (1978).Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total DesignMethod. New York: John Wiley.

Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. W. Miniard (1993).Consumer Behav-ior. 7th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.

Fishbein, M. (1967). “A Behavior Theory Approach to the Relations be-tween Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude toward the Object.” InReadings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, edited by M. Fishbein.New York: John Wiley, pp. 389-400.




Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen (1975).Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Good, L. K., T. J. Page, and C. E. Young (1996). “Assessing HierarchicalDifferences in Job-Related Attitudes and Turnover among Retail Man-agers.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (2): 148-56.

Graburn, N. H. (1989). “Tourism: The Sacred Journey.” InHosts andGuests: The Anthropology of Tourism, 2d ed., edited by V. Smith.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 21-36.

Gruber, A. (1971). “Purchase Intent and Purchase Probability.”Journal ofAdvertising Research, 10: 23-27.

Hett, E. J. (1991). “The Development of an Instrument to Measure Global-Mindedness.”Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (6): 2099-A.

“If You Go.” (1997).Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 23, p. 8.Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1991). “Leisure Shopping: A Magic Concept for the

Tourism Industry?”Tourism Management, 12: 9-14.Jöreskog, K. G., and D. Sörbom (1989).LISREL VII: A Guide to the Pro-

gram and Applications. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Kent, W. E., P. J. Shock, and R. E. Snow (1983). “Shopping: Tourism’s Un-

sung Hero(in).”Journal of Travel Research, 21 (4): 2-4.Keown, C. E. (1989). “A Model of Tourists’ Propensity to Buy: The Case of

Japanese Visitors to Hawaii.”Journal of Travel Research, 27 (3):31-34.Latham, J. (1995). “International Tourism Flows.”Progress in Tourism and

Hospitality Research, 1: 63-71.Littrell, M. A. (1990). “Symbolic Significance of Textiles Crafts for Tour-

ists.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17 (2): 228-45.Littrell, M. A., S. Baizerman, R. Kean, S. Gahring, S. Niemeyer, R. Reilly,

and J. Stout (1994). “Souvenirs and Tourism Styles.”Journal ofTravel Research, 33 (1): 3-11.

Mader, R. (1998). “Tourist Guide of the State of Oaxaca.”Business Mexico,8 (5): 45.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982).Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. 2d ed.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Pitts, R. E., and A. G. Woodside (1986). “Personal Values and Travel Deci-sions.”Journal of Travel Research, 25: 20-25.

Pizam, A., and S. Sussmann (1995). “Does Nationality Affect Tourist Be-havior?”Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (4): 901-17.

Ritter, W. (1987). “Styles of Tourism in the Modern World.”Tourism Rec-reation Research, 12 (1): 3-8.

Rokeach, M. (1969).Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ross, E. L., and S. E. Iso-Ahola (1990). “Sightseeing Tourists’ Motivationand Satisfaction.”Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 226-37.

Sampson, D. L., and H. P. Smith (1957). “A Scale to Measure World-Minded Attitudes.“Journal of Social Psychology, 45: 99-106.

Shim, S., and M. F. Drake (1990). “Consumer Intention to Purchase Apparelby Mail Order: Beliefs, Attitude, and Decision Process Variables.”Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9 (1): 18-26.

Slaybaugh, J., M. A. Littrell, and J. Farrell-Beck (1990). “Consumers ofHmong Textiles.”Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 8 (2):56-64.

Smith, H. P. (1955). “Do Intercultural Experiences Affect Attitudes?”Jour-nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51: 469-77.

Smith, V. (1989). “Introduction.” InHosts and Guests: The Anthropology ofTourism, 2d ed., edited by V. Smith. Philadelphia: University of Penn-sylvania Press, pp. 1-17.

Timothy, D. J., and R. W. Butler (1995). “Cross-Border Shopping: A NorthAmerican Perspective.”Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1): 16-34.

Travel Industry Association of America (1996).1995 Travel Market Report:Full Year Results of the National Travel Survey. Washington, DC:Travel Industry Association of America.

Traveler’s Notes. (1995).Consumer Reports Travel Letter, October: 234.U.S. Bureau of the Census (1997).Statistical Abstract of the United States.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.U.S. Congressional House Committee on Small Business (1994).The Effect

of International Tourism and International Commerce on Local Eco-nomies and Small Businesses. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.

U.S. Department of Commerce (1993).World Tourism at the Millennium:An Agenda for Industry, Government and Education. Washington,DC: Government Printing Office.

van den Berghe, P. L. (1995). “Marketing Mayas: Ethnic Tourism Promo-tion in Mexico.” Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (3): 568-88.

Vellas, F., and L. Bécherel (1995).International Tourism. New York: St.Martin’s.

Wiseman, R. L., M. R. Hammer, and H. Nishida (1989). “Predictors of Inter-cultural Communication Competence.”International Journal of Inter-cultural Relations, 13: 349-70.

Woodside, A., and J. Lawrence (1985). “Step Two in Benefit Segmentation:Learning the Benefits Realized by Major Travel Markets.”Journal ofTravel Research, 24 (1): 7-13.

162 NOVEMBER 1999



predicting souvenir purchase intentions

Documents