The study of personality type was later replaced by the concept of “lifestyle”, which is defined as the way in which people spend their money and allocate their time (Kaynak & Kara, 2001). This approach serves to “make sense of what people do, why they do it, and what doing it means to them and others” (Vyncke, 2002, p. 448). The first approach in studying lifestyle used the AIO (activities, interests, and opinions) items. “Activities” include areas such as work and hobbies; “interests” comprise items such as family, home, fashion and food and wine; and “opinions” are directed towards social issues (Blasius & Mühlichen, 2010). However, due to its extensive and burdensome approach (up to 300 items), the study of AIOs was replaced by the study of “values” (Blasius & Mühlichen, 2010; Vyncke, 2002). Values are defined as “the desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives” (Vyncke, 2002, p. 448). They cover concepts such as beliefs, opinions, prejudices, desires and aspirations (Mitchell, 1983). It has been claimed that values are more associated with behaviour than personality traits because values are more significant to the individual’s cognitive system (Madrigal, 1995). In fact, it has been claimed that values define lifestyle patterns (Gunter & Furnham, 2015).
Some of the most well-known instruments for measuring values include the Rokeach Value Survey [RVS] (Rokeach, 1973), the List of Values [LOV] (Kahle, 1983), and the Values and Lifestyle [VALS] scale (Mitchell, 1984). The RVS comprises 18 values classified either as “terminal”, which are related to the people’s goals; or “instrumental”, which represent the preferred mode of behaving to attain the first ones (Rokeach, 1973). Limitations of this instrument include the difficulty for the participant to rank so many items, time consuming, information lost, impossibility of ties, universality of assumptions, lack of a strong theoretical and empirical base, and not all the values are relevant to consumer behaviour (Clawson & Vinson, 1978; Vyncke, 2002). The LOV scale was suggested by Kahle (1983) as a shorter and more easily implemented instrument which is derived from the RVS (Watkins & Gnoth, 2005). In this instrument, the 18 values are reduced to nine values (self-respect, security, warm relationship with others, sense of accomplishment, self-fulfilment, sense of belonging, being well- respected, fun and enjoyment in life, and excitement) (Kahle, 1983). The use of the LOV scale has been shown to have comparable validity to the RVS while having greater parsimony (Watkins & Gnoth, 2005). It has also been shown to be effective in predicting tourism behaviour (Madrigal, 1995) and on evaluating and comparing
45
different studies (Blasius & Mühlichen, 2010). Disadvantages of the LOV scale include: (1) the poverty of information, (2) that is relatively theory-poor and (3) that the data cannot be analysed by sophisticated techniques such as means of clusters or factor analysis (Blasius & Mühlichen, 2010).
The VALS scale stands for values and lifestyles and focuses on attitudes, needs, wants, beliefs and demographics (Shih, 1986). It was developed by Mitchell (1983) and comprises nine lifestyles grouped in four categories: need-driven, outer-directed, inner-directed, and combined outer-inner directed (Shih, 1986). This is an alternative approach to AIO, which could be useful in particular when it is theory-driven (Blasius & Mühlichen, 2010). One limitation of this approach is the inclusion of a large set of items. These items are reduced by means of cluster or factor analysis (Blasius & Mühlichen, 2010). A more recent development of a lifestyle instrument was proposed by Vyncke (2002). He suggested that the combination of values, life visions, aesthetic style and media preferences [VALM] could improve the lifestyle segmentation. While he claimed that his proposal provides richer data and yields better performance than other lifestyle segmentation methods, it appears that there is scarcity of research conducted following this exploratory study.
In tourism, there have been several studies using lifestyle characteristics in different ways. For example, to understand travel behaviour; to investigate whether values are a good predictor of activity preferences; and to segment visitors. In fact, there are some studies that have expanded the concept of personal values by studying context-specific items such as social or environmental values. Table 3-2 below provides an overview of the use of lifestyle characteristics on tourism studies.
46
Table 3-2 Tourism studies using psychographic characteristics
Author Type of scale
used
Aim Main findings
(Chow & Murphy,
2011) AIO To examine the relationship between psychographics and demographics, and the intended and actual travel
behaviour.
The combination of psychographics and demographics predicts better “intended” than “actual” behaviour.
(Lee & Sparks,
2007) AIO To investigate the difference in the travel behaviour of two groups of Koreans residing in different countries, based on lifestyle segmentation.
Travel patterns vary between groups. Lifestyle and behaviour appear to be dependent on residential country. (Matzler,
Hattenberger, Pechlaner, & Abfalter, 2004)
AIO To investigate the relationship between lifestyle and (1) vacation styles, (2) guest satisfaction, word-of-mouth and intended revisits, and (3) satisfaction drivers for a destination.
Lifestyle influences satisfaction, word-of- mouth and the intention to revisit a destination. However, there was not a relationship between one lifestyle and one vacation style.
(Zografos & Allcroft,
2007) Environmental values To segment eco-tourists by environmental values. Environmental values are a good alternative to segment eco-tourists. (Fairweather,
MasIin, & David, 2005)
Environmental
values To explore the relationship between visitor response to ecolabels and their environmental values.
Two clusters were identified based on their values. It appears that the majority of participants accept ecolabels. (Madrigal & Kahle,
1994) LOV To examine the relationship between values and the importance of tourism activities for destination choice.
Values are a better predictor of activity preference than demographics. (Watkins & Gnoth,
2005) LOV To explore the validity and reliability of the LOV scale in the Japanese context. The results suggest that the LOV scale is not cross-culturally Invariant.
(T. E. Muller, 1991) LOV To demonstrate the importance of values on international visitor segmentation.
Personal values determine the choice of vacation destination.
(Madrigal, 1995) LOV & Plog’s
scale To examine the relationship between LOV and Plog’s personality scale; and measure the ability of each scale to predict travel style (group vs independent visitors).
Personal values are related to personality type.
LOV was able to differentiate travel styles while Plog’s instrument was unable to do it.
(Pitts & Woodside,
1986) RVS To examine the relationship between values and travel behaviour. Personal values are useful in describing individuals who visit, or not, a specific travel attraction.
(Luk, de Leon,
Leong, & Li, 1994) RVS To explore the influence of cultural values on visitors’ expectations regarding the quality of organised tours.
Values can be applied for cross-cultural segmentation. It also appears they have an influence on quality expectations. (Shaw & Tomsett,
2006) RVS, LOV & VALS To investigate whether individuals within households belong to the same psychographic profile.
Differences were found between household decision makers. However, the results may not be sufficient to invalidate the application of psychographics.
(Blamey &
Braithwaite, 1997) Social Value Inventory To test if social values are an appropriate alternative for segmenting the ecotourism market.
Social values are a better alternative for segmentation involving social goods. (Shih, 1986) VALS To investigate the relationship between
destination choice and VALS. VALS provided valuable information for market segmentation and as a tool for understanding destination choice.