ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION 103
Alex Maritz1, Shang Pao Yeh2, Chich Jen Shieh3 EFFECTS OF PERSONALITY TRAIT ON PERCEIVED RISK AND TRAVEL INTENTION IN TOURISM INDUSTRY Although traveling population is rapidly growing, risks are inevitable whenever there are trav el activities. For this reason, tourists' perceived risk and the enhancement of travel intention have been highly pursued objectives in tourism. Research on the relations among perceived risk, travel intention, and Revisit Intention is scarce. The research motivation is therefore induced, expecting to provide the research outcomes as the reference for the relative sectors and tourism businesses. This study aims to examine the effects of tourists' personality trait on perceived risk and tourists' perceived risk on travel intention. To verify the research objective, employees in national parks of Taiwan and tourists have been surveyed. The total of 420 copies of the questionnaire were distrib uted. After removing the invalid and incomplete responses, 274 valid copies were retrieved, repre senting the response rate of 65%. According to the research outcomes, personality trait demon strates partially significant correlations with perceived risk, perceived risk further shows partial correlations with travel intention, whereas personality trait demonstrates notable correlations with perceived risk, while perceived risk appears to moderate the effects of personality trait on travel intention. The suggestions offered are expected to benefit the tourism industry. Keywords: personality trait; perceived risk; travel intention; tourism industry.
Research background. Over the last few decades of stable economic growth, national incomes have increased and the working hours have reduced, causing peo ple's lifestyles and attitudes to change. The increased standard of living and reduction in the prices for various travel options has resulted in recreational travel becoming a part of living for most people in developed countries. For example, the number of tourists traveling on weekends is continually increasing. Nevertheless, many risks are inherent in travel activities (Wang, 2010; Hsieh, 2010). The increasing traveling pop ulation represents the increasing travel risks (Tsaur, Tzeng & Wang, 2010; Yeh, 2009). There are 10 possible risks which tourists might encounter, including device risk, financial risk, health risk, physical risk, political risk, psychological risk, satisfaction risk, social risk, terrorism risk, and time risk (Chen, 2009). National research on travel safety is very scarce; most literature on risks has focused on economy, investment, or information. Research on risks in management has mostly covered climate and workplace, but is rare on the topic of personality trait. Accordingly, in the present research the effects of tourists' personality trait on per ceived risk and perceived risk on travel intention are investigated. The research out comes and resulting implications are expected to provide the relative sections or tourism business with reference or suggestion for improvement. Definition and review of literature. I. Personality trait. Gatewood & Field (1998) regarded personality trait as a con tinuous dimension (such as independence, sociability, and need for achievement) to explain the consistency of personal behaviour in different situations. Chang (2010)
1 Associate Professor, Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Business and Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. 2 PhD, (Management), Professor, Department of Tourism, I Shou University, Taiwan, ROC. 3 Professor, Department of International Business, Chang Jung Christian University, Taiwan, ROC.
© Alex Maritz, Shang Pao Yeh, Chich Jen Shieh, 2013 104 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION considered that personality was the unique character of a person adapting to people, oneself, external affairs, and the entire environment; such a character, with integrity and permanence, was presented on physical and mental characteristics under the interaction of individual heredity, environment, maturity, and learning. Cattell demonstrated that trait is a permanent reaction which shows consistent behaviour under distinct situations (Chang, 2010). With cluster analysis and factor analysis utilised by Cattell, the following dimensions for personality trait were obtained and adopted for this study (Huang, 2009): (1) extroversion — individuals who are identified by creative thinking, independence, action, insight into affairs, confidence, activeness, performance, preference to making friends, and out going; (2) conscientiousness — represents individuals who have increased concentration on objectives and work, who demonstrate responsibility and duty, pay attention to details and politeness, as well as reliability, friendliness, and association; (3) emotional sen sitivity — identified by the increased levels of anxiety, discouragement, worry, insecu rity, and uncontrollable temper. II. Perceived risk. Wang (2010) defined travel risk as the possible risks which tourists perceive in the process of travel, as a result from the provided travel servic es. The extended travel perceived risk refers to the perceived uncertainties and the possibility of negative effects upon the booking of a trip and at the travel destina tion, including the feeling, perception, notice, memory, induction, imagination, anticipation, plan, decision, problem solving and communication (Chiang, 2009). This also includes the related touring products and services on the trip (Yeh, 2009) and at the destination. Referring to Cheng (2009), the above risks are classified into 3 categories in this study: (1) personal risk — refers to economic risks caused by death, accidents, diseases, age, or unemployment of a person; (2) property risk — refers to the changes of property value, including negotiable securities, bonds, and real estate, caused by accidents; (3) liability risk — represents the liability to pay compensation for others encountering property loss or physical hazard. III. Travel intention. Travel intention is regarded as tourists' intention to travel: purchase intention (Lu, 2009) and; purchase intention of travel products (Lee, 2009). Wu (2010) and Cheng (2009) perceive travel intention as tourists' intention of travel ing to a scenic area. In other words, travel intention can be tourists being interested in a destination and further making a tour (Lu, 2010). For the purposes of this study, the adopted definition of travel intention considers it to be a tourists' purchase inten tion of travel (Lu, 2009). Research hypothesis and method design. I. Research hypothesis and framework. (1) Research hypothesis. Liu (2011) examined the perceived risk of a group tour and found significant effects of personality trait of tourists on the perceived risk of travel. Lin, Su & Huang (2011) studied the effects of travel risk awareness of con sumers on travel decision and found the notable effects of perceived risk on travel intention. Yen (2010) further repeated the effects of personality trait on travel per ceived risk on the sample of elementary school teachers. Lee (2009) also identified significant positive effects of personality trait on attitudes to risks. Finally, Chen (2010) has suggested that distinct personality trait and perceived risk would affect the decision making and behaviours of Japanese tourists.
ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF ECONOMICS Vol. 2, #3, 2013 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION 105
Accordingly, the following hypotheses have been identified for this study: H1 — personality trait shows significant correlations with perceived risk. H2 — perceived risk present notable correlations with travel intention. H3 — personality trait reveals remarkable correlations with perceived risk. H4 — perceived risk shows moderating effects on the relations between person ality trait and travel intention. (2) Research framework. By summing up the above literature, the conceptual framework for this study is drawn — Fig. 1 — to discuss the relations between per sonality trait, perceived risk, and travel intention.
H3 H4
Extroversion Personal Risk
H1 H2 Conscie ntiou sness Property Risk Travel Intention Emotional Liability Risk Sensitivity Figure 1. Conceptual framework II. Research subject. The total of 420 questionnaires have been distributed to the employees and tourists of the national parks of Taiwan. After removing invalid and incomplete responses, 274 valid responses have been retrieved, representing the response rate of 65%. It is worth noting here that National Park refers to the representative natural areas or humanistic historical landmarks in a country. Since the first national park — Yellowstone “national park” — was established in the USA in 1872, more than 3800 national parks have been established around the world. National parks and natural conservation were first promoted in Taiwan in 1961. After the adoption of National Park Law in 1972, the total of 8 national parks have been established, including Kenting, Yushan, Yangmingshan, Taroko, Shei Pa, Kinmen, Dongsha Atoll, and Taijiang. For effectively managing and maintaining national parks and assets, National Park Management has been estab lished under the Ministry of Interior. Regarding the present study's sample of parks, Kenting National Park, Yushan National Park, Yangmingshan National Park, Taroko National Park, Shei Pa National Park, Kinmen National Park, have been selected. III. Analysis. Regression analysis is used for understanding the relations among personality trait, perceived risk, and travel intention. Analysis and discussion. I. Factor analysis of personality trait. With factor analysis, the personality trait scale has extracted 3 factors of extro version (eigenvalue = 2.258, α = 0.83), conscientiousness (eigenvalue = 1.733, α = 0.88), and emotional sensitivity (eigenvalue=1.351, α=0.82). The covariance explained achieved 81.834%.
ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF ECONOMICS Vol. 2, #3, 2013 106 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION
With factor analysis, perceived risk scale extracted 3 factors of personal risk (eigenvalue = 3.208, α = 0.85), property risk (eigenvalue = 2.627, α = 0.80), and lia bility risk (eigenvalue = 2.043, α = 0.87); the covariance explained reached 78.075. With factor analysis, travel intention scale extracted the factor of travel intention (eigenvalue = 3.791, α = 0.90); the covariance explained achieved 84.723%. II. Correlation Analysis of personality trait and perceived risk. Multiple regression analysis was applied to test the hypotheses and theoretical framework. The first regression, Table 1, shows the significance (F = 7.648, p < 0.001) of the regression equation where: personality trait showed to have significant effects on personal risk and; conscientiousness and emotional sensitivity showed significant and positive effects on personal risk (beta = 0.172, p < 0.05; beta = 0.216, p < 0.05). The second regression, Table 1, presented the significance of the regression equation (F = 15.371, p < 0.001) where: personality trait demonstrated notable effects on property risk and; emotional sensitivity showed significantly positive effects on property risk (beta = 0.185, p < 0.05). The third regression revealed (Table 1), the significance of the regression equa tion (F = 19.403, p < 0.001) where: personality trait appeared to have notable effects on liability risk and; extroversion, conscientiousness, and emotional sensitivity demonstrated positive effects on liability risk (beta = 0.185, p < 0.05; beta = 0.221, p < 0.01; beta = 0.243, p < 0.01. As a result, H1 was partially supported. Table 1. Multiple Regression Analysis of personality trait and perceived risk
Dependent Perceived Risk variable Independent Personal Risk Property Risk Liability Risk variables Personality β Beta ρ β Beta ρ β Be ta ρ Trait Extro-version 0.933 0.103 0.174 0.615 0.071 0.273 1.836* 0.185 0.015 Conscientio- 1.689* 0.172 0.039 1.146 0.122 0.069 2.052** 0.221 0.008 usness Emotional Sensitivity 1.946* 0.216 0.012 1.713* 0.185 0.016 2.142** 0.243 0.002 F 7.648 15.371 19.403 P 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** R2 0.167 0.233 0.281 Adjusted R2 0.016 0.024 0.031 Note: * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01, *** for p < 0,001. III. Correlation analysis of personality trait, perceived risk, and travel intention. Multiple regression analysis was utilised for testing the hypotheses and theoretical framework. The first regression, Table 2, shows the significance of the regression equa tion (F = 24.905, p < 0.001) where: personality trait demonstrates significant effects on travel intention and; extroversion, conscientiousness, and emotional sensitivity demon strate significant and positive effects on travel intention (beta = 0.196, p < 0.05; beta = 0.227, p<0.01; beta = 0.263, p < 0.01). Consequently, H3 was supported. The second regression (Table 2) shows the significance of the regression equa tion (F = 33.167, p < 0.001) where: perceived risk demonstrates significant effects on
ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF ECONOMICS Vol. 2, #3, 2013 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION 107 travel intention and; personal risk and liability risk demonstrate to have notable pos itive effects on travel intention (beta = 0.154, p < 0.05; beta = 0.257, p < 0.01). In this case, H2 is partially supported. Table 2. Multiple Regression Analysis of personality trait, perceived risk and travel intention Dependent variable Travel Intention Independent variable ρ ρ Personality Trait β Beta β Beta Extroversion 1.877* 0.196 0.013 Conscientiousness 1.979* 0.227 0.011 Emotional 0.263 0.000 2.331** Sensitivity Perceived Risk Personal Risk 1.629* 0.154 0.041 Property Risk 0.537 0.041 0.483 Liability Risk 2.219** 0.257 0.000 F 24.905 33.167 P 0.000*** 0.000*** R2 0.215 0.328 Adjusted R2 0.036 0.047 Note: * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01. IV. Moderating effects of personality trait and perceived risk on travel intention. With hierarchical regression analysis, the moderating effects of perceived risk are shown in Table 3, in which personality trait appears to significantly explain travel intention (F = 24.905, p < 0.001). From Model II which simultaneously considered the effects of personality trait and perceived risk on travel intention, β of extroversion significantly dropped from .196 (p < .05) down to .107 (p > .05), suggesting that per ceived risk would reduce the direct effects of extroversion on travel intention. Furthermore, β of conscientiousness notably dropped from .227 (p < .05) down to .132 (p > .05), revealing that perceived risk would reduce the direct effects of consci entiousness on travel intention. Finally, β of emotional sensitivity significantly dropped from .263 (p < .01) down to .147 (p < .05), showing that perceived risk would reduce the direct effects of emotional sensitivity on travel intention. From the research outcomes, perceived risk appears to partially moderate the effects in the rela tionship between personality trait and travel intention. This means that H4 is sup ported. Conclusion and suggestion. According to the evidence presented in this study, extrovert tourists do not appear to be significantly affected by travel risks, possibly because most hotels in Taiwan are established in the cities or famous scenery areas, where public security is of little concern. Conscientious tourists who are paying more attention to details however, appear to be affected by liability risk, while emotionally sensitive tourists are more concerned by risks in general. It is thus recommended for
ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF ECONOMICS Vol. 2, #3, 2013 108 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION tourism firms to reinforce the equipment of hotels and consider possible dangers, such as lightening on corridors, security of emergency ladders, lightening in rooms, and the marks of emergency exits, so as to better meet the needs of customers. Feeling comfortable, tourists are likely to recommend the services to relatives or promote online. Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Personality Trait and perceived risk effects on travel intention Dependent Travel Intention variable Indepen- dent Model I Model II variables Perso- nality β Beta ρ β Beta ρ Trait Extro- 1.877* 0.196 0.013 1.133 0.107 0.071 version Conscie- ntiousness 1.979* 0.227 0.011 1.241 0.132 0.059 Emotional Sensitivity 2.331** 0.263 0.000 1.583* 0.147 0.048 Perceived
Risk Personal 2.019** 0.215 0.007 Risk Property 2.168** 0.229 0.004 Risk Liability 1.802* 0.183 0.019 Risk F 24.905 46.281 P 0.000*** 0.000*** R2 0.215 0.389 Adjusted 0.036 0.087 R2 Note: * for p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01. For travel in remote areas however, tourism firms should connect with other local tourism firms or police and security institutes and inform tourists so as to alle viate any possible concerns. In addition to transportation, accommodation and cater ing, medical institutes, emergency contact and complaint and emergency lines should be printed on the brochures or websites. Moreover, tour leaders and tour guides should frequently promote and facilitate risk management. Effectively, risk management could decrease risks, reduce damages caused by risks, and develop a reliable image of travel quality. Reference Chang, C. H. (2010). Modern Psychology. Taipei: Tunghua. Cheng, T. T. (2009). Risk Management Theory and Practice (1st Edition). Taipei: WorldOne. Chen, J. Y. (2010). The personality trait, travel risk perception and decision making of Japanese tourists. Journal of the Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology, 20, 167 173. Chen, S. L. (2009). Service Quality Management (1st Edition). Taipei: Future Career Management Corporation.
ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF ECONOMICS Vol. 2, #3, 2013 ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION 109
Cheng, Y. P. (2009). The study of Tourism Behavior, Satisfaction and Revisiting Willingness of Japanese Tourists to Taiwan. Journal of Jin Wen Institute of Technology, 10(II), 303 315. Chiang, P. S. (2009). A study of Measuring International Young Tourists' Lifestyle, Travel Type, Risk Perceptions of Travel, and Travel Satisfaction in Taiwan. Tamsui Osford Journal of Tourism, 3, 1 26. Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (1998). Human resource selection (4th ed). Orlando, Florida: The Dryden Press. Huang, H. L. (2009). A Study on the Relationship between Personality, Work Stress and Subjective Well being among Female Teachers of Elementary School. Social Policy & Social Work, 1(2), 33 36. Hsieh, S. F. (2010). A study on the perceived risk of consumers. Journal of Jin Wen Institute of Technology, 11(I), 187 198. Lee, C. W. (2009). A Study of the Relationships btween Visitors' Recreational Satisfaction and Revisiting Willingness in 17 km Coastline area in Hsinchu City. Chung Hua Journal of Management, 6(3), 107 125. Lee, W. L. (2009). The Comparison and Analysis Among Personalities, Risk Perception, Risk Attitude, Adoption Behavior and Investment Performance in Offshore Mutual Funds on Domestic and Offshore Mutual Funds Investors and Stock Investor. Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 53 76. Lin, C. S., Su, H. Y. & Huang, C. Y. (2011). Effects of risk perception on travel decision of con sumers A case study on Kaohsiung areas. Journal of Shu Te University, 5(1), 61 74. Liu, T. H. (2011). Research on The Relationship Between perceived risk and Information Search of Tourism Inclusive Package Tour. The Case of Taipei City Residents. Management Review, 2(1), 38 57. Lu, C. T. (2009). The study of travel motivation, satisfaction and willingness to revisit of the Chi Chi area visitors. Journal of Nanhua University, 4(3), 28 42. Lu, H. Y. (2010). A Study of the Relationships among Travel Motivation, Satisfaction and Revisit Intention Group Package Tours to Switzerland as a Case. Journal of the Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology, 20, 167 173. Wang, K. C. (2010). The Establishment of Evaluation Model for Travelling Risk Application of Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Journal of Customer Satisfaction, 5(2), 61 81. Wu, C. Y. (2010). A Study on Tourists' Satisfaction and Revisiting Willingness. Journal of National Park, 14(2), 23 41. Yeh, C. (2009). The Relationship between Tourist Risk Perception and Tourist Hesitation: The Moderating Role of Tourist Knowledge Played. Journal of National Huwei University of Science & Technology, 28(1), 127 138. Yen, H. L. (2010). The Influence of the Personality, Lifestyles and Travel Risk Perception upon the Travel Insurance Consumption of the Elementary School Teachers. Sun Yat Sen Management Review, 8(1), 153 200.
ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF ECONOMICS Vol. 2, #3, 2013