546228

research-article2014
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287514546228Journal of Travel ResearchOh et al.

Research Article

Journal of Travel Research

Motivations and Goals of Slow Tourism

2016, Vol. 55(2) 205­–219
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287514546228
jtr.sagepub.com

Haemoon Oh1, A. George Assaf1, and Seyhmus Baloglu2

Abstract
The concept of slow tourism is gaining attention, and this study provides new insights into the phenomenon from the
perspective of a goal-driven consumption process. The authors conduct primary qualitative research to define slow tourism,
build a conceptual model, and develop measurement scales. Based on the data collected from four popular U.S. tourist
destinations, the authors find that goal-driven consumption theory exhibits compelling explanatory power for the slow
behavioral process in the tourism context. The slow tourism process also appears to coexist with fast modes of travel and
they contribute differently to general tourism experience outcomes. Discussion includes approaches to understanding the
slow tourism phenomenon, issues around slowness in human behavior, and future directions for research on slow tourism.

Keywords
slow tourism, goal-driven consumption, time, mass tourism, travel modes, tourism motivations

Introduction spatio-temporal practices, immersive modes of travel and

Recently, the field of tourism has witnessed a growing prolif-
eration of new forms of tourism. People travel to appreciate
the natural environment (ecotourism), immerse into different
cultures (cultural tourism), visit the authentic past/remains of
people and places (heritage tourism), learn the harmony
among the environment, local residents, and visitors (green
tourism), or obtain desirable medical treatments and services
(health/medical tourism). Some countries like Japan offi-
cially recognize these new forms of tourism to encourage
more travels as well as develop effective promotional strate-
gies (Maruyama and Parker 2012). Broadly underpinning
these new fads of tourism are two driving forces, say, envi-
ronmental sustainability and personal/social well-being
(Moore 2012). Emerging from these environmental and per-
sonal concerns, too, is another form of tourism called slow
tourism.
The concept of slow tourism is relatively new and, to date,
defies an exact definition. Its origin traces back to some more
institutionalized social movements such as slow food and
slow cities (CittaSlow) that started in Italy in the 1980s and
1990s (Fullagar, Markwell, and Wilson 2012; Hall 2012). In
its early notion, slow tourism often emphasized its close link
to speed and mobilities, especially with a particular interest
in the transportations to and from destinations that could not
only reduce environmental pollution through use of low car-
bon emission vehicles but also save depleting energy
resources. It therefore has been a concept frequently tied
with sustainable tourism. However, researchers argue that
slow tourism is much more than movement or transport
between places (Dickinson and Lumsdon 2010); “the term
‘mobilities’ [i.e., slow tourism] encapsulates a range of
ethical relations that are premised on the desire to connect in
particular ways and to disconnect in others” (Fullagar,
Markwell, and Wilson 2012, p. 3). In more recent years,
therefore, the focus of slow tourism has been shifting from
mere environmental sustainability to the practice of time and
space in ways conducive to personal satisfaction and well-
being (Parkins and Craig 2009).
The phenomenon of slow tourism also needs to be under-
stood in a broad sociocultural context of slow movement
(Fullagar, Markwell, and Wilson 2012; Groenendaal 2012).
In more developed and industrialized societies where travel
demands are becoming increasingly cultural and normative,
people tend to experience disempowerment, powerlessness,
and dehumanization due to the voracious competition on
speed (O’Regan 2012; Parkins 2004). Moreover, as advanc-
ing technology and inundating information constantly accel-
erate the pace of life, people are susceptible to undergoing
time poverty, surface engagement and processing of infor-
mation, loss of control, a blasé attitude (i.e., an indifference
toward the distinctions between things in value and mean-
ing), and eventually loss of the self (Howard 2012). Thus,
people’s desire to “slow down” may be a consequential
reflection of their mental resistance to the ever-accelerating
pattern of lifestyle in search of opportunities to vent their
1
University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA, USA
2
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Corresponding Author:
A.George Assaf, Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 90
Campus Center Way Flint 107, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.
Email: assaf@isenberg.umass.edu

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016

206 Journal of Travel Research 55(2)
stress, decelerate their pace, and ultimately restore and enrich
the self. In that sense, travel may offer an apropos channel,
especially if it is in a slow form.
Despite the growing sociocultural awareness of and
movement toward slowness, and more specifically slow
tourism in the tourism field, the literature documents little
systematic research on the topic (Fullagar, Markwell, and
Wilson 2012). In particular, slow tourism and its underlying
process from the perspective of personal meaning and
engagement are yet to see seminal empirical research for bet-
ter understandings of how travelers make related decisions
(Dickinson and Lumsdon 2010). Much of the existing
research on slow tourism is either descriptive or qualitative
and, thus, empirical evidence is still lacking to offer an
extended insight into its dimension and process (Groenendaal
2012). One reason for this lack of research could be due sim-
ply to its relative recency. Another potential reason is the
skepticism that critics—with some being active travel
researchers—hold against this new form of tourism.
Recognizing the parallel presence of research needs and
skepticism on slow tourism, this study aims to investigate
whether the phenomenon of slowness is empirically valid in
tourist behavior. More specifically, we identify motivations
and goals reflecting slow tourism and attempt to show
whether realization of such individual motivations and goals
is facilitated by the active choice of a slow pace of traveling.
To this end, this study develops and tests a conceptual model
of traveler-based slow tourism. We also test whether the slow
tourism process has implications for general tourist experi-
ence outcomes that frequently serve as criterion variables in
travel research. Such a test will offer an additional opportu-
nity to validate the ontological value of slow tourism for fur-
ther academic as well as pragmatic inquiries.
In the dearth of relevant theories and direct evidence, it is
difficult to take on a strong position to hypothesize any par-
ticular phenomenon of slow tourism. We therefore do not
necessarily view slowness in tourism as an anti-speed or anti-
mass tourism concept; rather, we suspect that both slow and
fast modes of travel coexist and indeed constantly interplay
within the same unit of travel, within the same traveler, and
both within and across destinations. That is, the dichotomy of
slow versus fast tourism is a matter of categorizing conve-
nience, reflecting a generalized pace, mode, or pattern of the
focal travel within which the traveler purposefully chooses to
engage in either a slow or fast mode of travel to maximize his
or her travel goal(s), be it satisfaction, personal well-being, or
self-fulfillment (Moore 2012; Singh 2012). Consequently, we
model both slow and fast modes of travel within a single
framework as competing and complementary, rather than
exclusive, choices toward a maximal attainment of the travel
goal, thereby assessing the relative roles of slow- versus fast-
paced travel modes in tourist behaviors. This approach could
extend the asymmetric dialectics of “enlightened mass tour-
ism” proposed recently by Weaver (2013).
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
Conceptualizing Slow Tourism
Slow Tourism as a Goal-Driven Consumption
To develop a conceptual model of traveler-based slow tour-
ism, this study relies on the theory of goal-driven consumer
behavior that has been gaining attention in consumer research
(Bagozzi and Dholakia 1999; Bagozzi and Warshaw 1990;
Chernev 2004; Novak, Hoffman, and Duhachek 2003).
According to goal-driven consumption theory (also synony-
mous with “goal-oriented” or “goal-directed”), much of con-
sumer behavior is goal-directed, and consumers make
purchases to produce or yield one or more end-state goals or
outcomes (Bagozzi and Dholakia 1999). Goals are central to
consumer decision making (Bettman 1979; Higgins 2002),
and consumption goals are not limited to end states but also
include experiences, ongoing processes, or a series of many
happenings that are interconnected (Novak, Hoffman, and
Duhachek 2003). For example, “a person’s vacation goal
might not be limited to a particular location and time period
per se but rather might reside in anticipated educational, rec-
reational, and interpersonal experiences” (Bagozzi and
Dholakia 1999, p. 19). Once goals are set, consumers strive
to achieve them in as effectual ways as possible. Striving for
goals means aligning behavior and sourcing relevant means
toward the goals or standards.
Slow tourism in general can be a goal-driven activity or
series of activities, as in a trip down the Amazon, an archeo-
logical excursion, or a religious pilgrimage all having expe-
riential goals of one sort or another (Bagozzi and Dholakia
1999). Sirgy (2010) illuminates how goal-driven consump-
tion epitomizes tourist behavior in general. Thus, slow tour-
ism, either as the sole or as a partial goal/action of a trip,
may as well follow a goal-driven behavioral process.
Bagozzi and Dholakia present an organizing model of the
goal-driven consumer behavior process in which three
activities appear to be key elements: goal setting, action
planning, and goal attainment/failure. In a slow tourism
context, immersing into a natural environment and thereby
revitalizing body and mind may be goals to a traveler taking
a vacation. As the action plan, the traveler may want to
choose the destination(s) and the way to travel (pace, access,
length, company, etc.) that are aligned with travel goals. The
degree of goal attainment will then determine his/her satis-
faction with the trip and relevant future behavioral inten-
tions (Higgins 2002 ).
Based on the discussion above, we propose in Figure 1 a
model of slow tourism from the perspective of the traveler’s
goal striving process. In the model, the first stage pertains to
slow tourism motivations. While discussing the goal-setting
stage of a goal-driven consumer behavior, Bagozzi and
Dholakia (1999) explain how the motivational aspects of a
goal are either consciously or unconsciously represented in
the mind of the consumer and summarize goal-setting activ-
ities in a goal hierarchy framework. At the lowest
Oh et al. 207
Fast Mode of
Travel
Slow
Tourism
Motivations
Slow Mode of
Travel
Figure 1.  A conceptual framework of slow tourism.
abstraction, the goal hierarchy conceives subordinate goals
(e.g., saving money for a trip). At the next level of the hier-
archy are focal goals (e.g., to escape the daily routine by
taking a trip), then followed at the highest level of abstrac-
tion by superordinate goals (e.g., enriching the self through
the trip). We adopted the concept of focal goals to specify
slow tourism motivations in our model and superordinate
goals as ultimate goals of slow tourism. In a trip, both fast
and slow modes of travel may facilitate realizing motiva-
tions (focal goals) and attaining ultimate goals (superordi-
nate goals), thereby contributing to general outcomes of the
entire trip (Dickinson and Peeters 2012). The stronger the
motivations, the more likely the goals will be achieved,
because the traveler will strive harder. Finally, we expect
that attainment of slow tourism goals contributes positively
to general trip outcomes.
Conceptualizing slow tourism in application of a main-
stream consumption theory is a novel attempt. Although
various writings, especially the recent volumes by Fullagar,
Markwell, and Wilson (2012) and Dickinson and Lumsdon
(2010), provide a collection of relevant thoughts and prac-
tices, generalizable theoretical frameworks of slow tourism
are yet to appear in the literature. Given the current status of
developing thoughts around slow tourism, primary research
geared to both conceptual and empirical validation of the
phenomenon is indispensable. Therefore, we conducted a
series of both qualitative and quantitative studies, as depicted
in Figure 2, to test the proposed model in Figure 1. Much of
our discussion that follows in this section relies on not only
the handful literature but also the findings from our primary
research, including the expert interviews and focus group,
which are detailed later. The focus of these primary studies
was on developing a content-valid set of scales to measure
slow tourism that might be omnipresent in various types of
trips and destinations.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
General
Slow
Tourism
Tourism
Experience
Goals
Outcomes
Defining Slow Tourism
Slowness in tourism has been characterized as an engagement
in a number of behavioral modes while traveling. Dickinson
and Lumsdon (2010), for example, emphasize that any defini-
tion of slow travel should focus on transportation for the sake
of environmental protection and participation in relatively
slower forms of travel such as exploring local history, culture,
and people. They define slow tourism as “a conceptual frame-
work that involves people who ‘travel to destinations more
slowly overland, stay longer and travel less’ and who incorpo-
rate travel to a destination as itself an experience and, once at
the destination, engage with local transport options and ‘slow
food and beverage,’ take time to explore local history and cul-
ture, and support the environment” (pp. 1-2). Lipman and
Murphy (2012) recognize sustainable consumption through
“slower” transport and products, reduced mobility, and “less”
travel as a key ingredient of slow tourism. Slow tourism also
means eschewing “fast leisure” and “fast tourism,” such as in
package tours and holiday taking, to alleviate the feelings of a
lack of time in the midst of the pressure for identity fulfill-
ment (Moore 2012). These rather categorical views to slow
tourism tend to focus on manifested forms of travel behavior,
not the underlying psychological process.
The form-based, categorical understanding of slow tour-
ism, however, poses several limitations. First, it does not
clearly explain why people engage in slow forms of travel
(e.g., motivations) and what they are pursuing by such a slow
practice of time and space (e.g., goals). Second, such overt
behavioral categories do not elucidate the decision-making
process from the individual traveler’s perspective, thereby
limiting our understanding of the phenomenon. Third, cate-
gorical definitions of slow tourism assume that travelers
share common standards or perceptions of temporality in
light of travel pace, mode, tempo, and rhythm. “Yet there is
208 Journal of Travel Research 55(2)
Literature Review
Expert Interview
Focus Group
Expert Review
Pilot Survey
Main Survey
Figure 2.  The research procedure employed.
little consensus on what ‘slow’ actually means, and how it is
practiced or interpreted in relation to different tourism con-
texts, cultures, and mobilities” (Fullagar, Markwell, and
Wilson 2012, p. 3). Moreover, the categorical approach may
also overlook slow tourism components embedded in many
other types of what can be so called “fast” and “non-slow”
travels. Although slow tourism may coincide with some
forms or categories of travel, it may reside more deeply in
individual motivations, subjective choice of travel modes,
and other personal reasons such as preference and lifestyle,
all driven by either clearly or loosely set goals for the focal
travel.
We define slowness attitudinally rather than in behavioral
categories. That is, we argue that the term “slow” should be
defined subjectively by individual travelers, rather than
that, for example, all visitors in certain travel genres or to
certain destinations are categorized as slow travelers. This
attitudinal approach is similar to the case of defining cus-
tomer loyalty by Dick and Basu (1994) and Oliver (1999),
who distinguished and emphasized the importance of attitu-
dinal loyalty over behavioral loyalty. It is also in line with the
type-based (i.e., based on the underlying psychological
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
• Collect secondary evidence of slow tourism
• Explore meaning and definition of slow tourism
• Structure the research plan
• Identify key issues around slow tourism
• Define meaning of slow tourism
• Generate dimensions of slow tourism
• Identify slow tourism motivations and goals
• Discuss personal meaning of slow tourism
• Discuss motivations and goals for slow tourism
• Generate possible measurement items
• Review key results of focus group
• Reassure the validity of the preliminary findings
• Review the draft instrument
• Confirm direction of measurement
• Assure workability of the national survey
• Confirm direction of measurement
• Refine and finalize the instrument
• Administer the survey nationally
• Assure random sampling and data quality
• Focus on generalizability of the results
process), rather than form-based (i.e., based on the manifest
behavior), view of tourism experiences (Uriely, Yonay, and
Simchai 2002). Consistent with the goal-driven consumer
behavior literature, therefore, slow tourism in this study
refers to a trip or a series of trips taken in the subjectively
determined, mentally slow pace of actions or movement for
realization of the motivations and goals that are specific to
the trip(s). This is a broader, attitude-based definition than
that implied prevalently in the extant literature in that a per-
son does not have to engage in particular forms of travel to
be a slow traveler and, at the same time, that not all travelers
engaged in particular categories of travel are slow travelers.
Slowness in tourism is essentially intrinsic, and it is deter-
mined less extrinsically.
Slow Tourism Motivations
At the focal level of Bagozzi and Dholakia’s (1999) goal
hierarchy, we determined six general slow tourism motiva-
tions for this study by means of expert interviews, a focus
group, and literature reviews. These motivations were based
on the consensus between what the expert and focus groups
Oh et al. 209
(interjudge reliability > .80) commonly suggested through
free elicitation methods and included relaxation, self-reflec-
tion, escape, novelty-seeking, engagement, and discovery.
Although suggested as common slow tourism motivations,
these motivations significantly overlapped with general
travel motivations reported in the literature. People may not
necessarily have a set of motivations unique to slow tourism
per se; instead, they may be motivated to travel “slowly” in
the same way they are for most other modes of travel, yet
maybe to practice a slow tempo and rhythm more exten-
sively so as to maximize attainment of some superordinate
goals associated closely with slow tourism. This is a premise
we are to empirically test in this study.
We briefly define the six motivations for this study with
reference to the results of our primary research and the exist-
ing literature. Relaxation refers to a state of being free from
pressure, stress, tension, anxiety, and excitement (nervous-
ness), giving the feeling of ease, comfort, calm, and relief
(McCabe 2009; Ryan and Glendon 1998; Yoon and Uysal
2005). The traveler may arrive at such a mental state through
temporal deceleration and spatial distance from the pace and
complexity of modern life (Howard 2012; Krippendorf
1987). Exercising a decelerated temporality in the novelty of
the physical and social context, the traveler may also want to
identify self-status, gain insights into self, enhance feelings
of self-growth, and experience authentic selfhood (Crompton
1979; Howard 2012). Similar to the concept of self-actual-
ization (Pearce and Lee 2005) and self-development (Li and
Cai 2012), therefore, self-reflection is defined as a generic
need for feeling connected to self, nourishing self, and iden-
tifying with self (Howard 2012). Escape has been a dominant
travel motivation (e.g., Beh and Bruyere 2007; Fodness
1994; Iso-Ahola 1982), and so is it to slow travelers accord-
ing to our expert and focus groups. Combining both personal
and interpersonal aspects (Snepenger et al. 2006), escape in
this study refers to a desire to detach oneself both physically
and mentally from one’s daily routines and obligations. Both
the expert and focus groups suggested that people get moti-
vated to engage in slow travels to seek novelty experience
through new temporalities, new places, and new people that
offer them sensations of thrills, adventures, and stimulation.
Many studies support such novelty seeking as an important
travel motivation (see Cohen 1979; Lee and Crompton 1992;
Li and Cai 2012; Pearce and Lee 2005). While the traveler
may seek many outcomes as a result of taking a trip, an
intrinsic pleasure of engaging in the travel activities, envi-
ronment, and local culture seems to motivate people to travel
slowly according to our focus group. Engagement motiva-
tion, defined in this study as the extent to which the traveler
is engrossed to or enjoys the action of traveling or the travel
environment, has seen slightly different operationalizations
in previous studies such as reward maximizing utilitarian
function (Fodness 1994), hedonism (Kim, Ritchie, and
McCormick 2010), aesthetic experience (Oh, Fiore, and
Jeong 2007), and reward maximization (Waller and Lea
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
1998). Finally, labeled often as learning, education, or
knowledge acquisition (Beh and Bruyere 2007; Fodness
1994; Ryan and Glendon 1998), discovery was suggested
also as a slow tourism motivation and is defined for this
study as a desire to learn and understand something new. We
borrowed some measurement items for these motivation
constructs from many of the studies referred to above.
Slow versus Fast Travel Modes
As shown in Figure 1, the traveler, while striving for goals
(Bagozzi and Dholakia 1999), may opt to travel either fast or
slow dependent upon time pressure, destination, and tourist
characteristics (Dickinson and Peeters 2012; Lew and
McKercher 2006). The fast mode of travel may work as a
“time saving” choice, while the slow mode as a “time savor-
ing” choice (Dickinson and Peeters 2012). Few studies, how-
ever, have empirically incorporated both fast and slow modes
of travel as a mentally instrumental process toward achiev-
ing some superordinate travel goals from a “type” or attitudi-
nal perspective (Uriely, Yonay, and Simchai 2002). Most
studies touching on fast versus slow modes of travel focused
on the “forms” or means of movement, that is, transporta-
tion, from one destination to another (e.g., Dickinson and
Peeters 2012; Lew and McKercher 2006). For the purpose of
our study, we define the fast mode of travel as the mental
tempo of movement or travel activities that is felt by the trav-
eler, mostly under time pressure, as fast, rushed, or hastened
in processing external stimuli during the trip. The slow mode
of travel then is the counteracting “type” of perceptions
about the conduct of travel (Lumsdon and McGrath 2011). It
is the tourist’s mentally and attitudinally slowed temporal
process of responding to external stimuli.
We expect that the traveler will utilize either the fast or
slow travel mode back and forth to maximize achieving his
or her travel goals. That is, the travel mode serves as an
instrumental process of behavior and mediates travel motiva-
tions toward travel goals, as in a means-end process (Gutman
1982; Klenosky 2002). When the travel goals are more
closely aligned with institutionalized mass tourism, the trav-
eler tends to employ faster travel modes more frequently
and, hence, the fast travel mode will play a more influential
mediating role. Conversely, for less institutionalized slow
tourism goals, the slow travel mode will be a dominant
choice facilitating goal attainment. We test these rationales in
the context of slow tourism motivations and goals, thereby
expecting that the slow travel mode will show its dominant
role in our proposed model.
Slow Tourism Goals
The focus group suggested most frequently two universal
goals of slow tourism: revitalization and self-enrichment.
For the revitalization goal, for example, the traveler would
want to get refreshed, reinvigorated, and recharged as a result
210 Journal of Travel Research 55(2)
of completing a slow travel. The self-enrichment goal would
help the traveler get inspired, discover self, expand one’s
perspective, understand and connect more deeply to the des-
tination, and restore positive attitudes and mindset.
Intuitively, the traveler will strive to attain the revitalization
goal out of slow tourism, given their related motivations
such as relaxation and escape. Similarly, the traveler with
such travel motivations as self-reflection, novelty-seeking,
and discovery may enrich self through the trip. Literature
supports the revitalization goal, both physical and mental, in
various forms of the travel motivations and benefits that are
realized through a travel and that are often operationalized as
travel outcomes (e.g., McCabe 2009; Ryan and Glendon
1998). Previous studies also operationalized the self-enrich-
ment goal in such concepts as self-development and self-
actualization (e.g., Pearce and Lee 2005) or personal growth
(Pearce and Packer 2013). In line with the extant research,
revitalization in this study refers to a state of both mental and
physical vigor restored through a slow travel and self-enrich-
ment is a perceived degree of enhanced self-esteem, confi-
dence, and self-assurance obtained as a result of slow
tourism.
General Travel Outcome Correlates
Slower practices of time and space are conducive to the gen-
eral outcomes reflecting tourist experiences. We argued ear-
lier that fast and slow travels were not exclusive to each
other; rather, they coexist complementing each other in any
travel unit for a maximal attainment of travel goals. If slow
modes of travel are to complement fast counterparts, they
should contribute to not only slow tourism goals but also
general tourist outcomes that have been traditionally used to
evaluate the goodness of travels including mass tourism.
Thus, relating both travel modes and attainment of slow tour-
ism goals to general tourism experience outcomes, such as
satisfaction, return intention, and referral intention, would
offer an opportunity to assess the nomological and criterion
validities of slow tourism in the spirit of an integrated
approach (Dickinson and Peeters 2012; Weaver 2013).
We chose satisfaction, future return intention, and refer-
ral/recommendation intention as three criterion variables
based on their prevalent usage in tourism research (Baker
and Crompton 2000; Bowen and Clarke 2009; Lam and Hsu
2006; Yoon and Uysal 2005). Satisfaction refers to the degree
of “pleasurable fulfillment of some need, desire, or goal”
(Oliver 1999, p. 34) and, thus, it qualifies as a criterion vari-
able reflecting goal fulfillment as a result of a goal-driven
slow tourism consumption. Future revisit intention is the
likelihood of returning to the same destination for similar
travel goals in similar travel situations, and referral intention
is the likelihood of spreading positive words about or recom-
mending the travel experience specific to a particular desti-
nation (Lam and Hsu 2006; Oh, Fiore, and Jeong 2007).
These criterion variables are modeled merely as correlates of
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
the motivations, modes, and goal attainment of slow tourism;
the relationships among them are not a concern in this study
as they are addressed in many previous studies (e.g., Oh,
Fiore, and Jeong 2007).
Methods
Preliminary Studies
We conducted both qualitative and quantitative studies as
described in Figure 2 where we summarized both the study
methods and key activities. Toward instrumentation, primary
qualitative studies were necessary as our literature review
found few studies clearly defining the motivations and goals
associated with slow tourism (Iacobucci and Churchill 2010).
For expert interviews, we recruited six prolific researchers
internationally via email who had recently published work
on slow tourism or related topics. Upon their agreement, we
sent a set of structured, open-ended questions asking them to
define slow tourism and its possible subdimensions, list the
key motivations first and then goals that the slow tourist
might hold, and identify issues and directions for future aca-
demic inquiries. Of the “six experts,” three provided their
opinions: one was indifferent about slow tourism; one was
extremely critical of slow tourism and related advocacies,
rejecting them en masse; one did not respond. The respond-
ing experts shared an opinion about the lack of clear under-
standing about slow tourism (i.e., unclear definition),
undefined roles of slow tourism relative to prevailing forms
of mass tourism, and absence of theoretical research frame-
works and supporting evidence.
Ten recent travelers, balanced in sex, participated in the
focus group. We conveniently recruited these participants
from the staff directory of a university. In addition to balanc-
ing sex, we screened them so that they had at least one over-
night vacation trip within the previous six months. The
qualifying respondents participated in three sessions of
90-minute long intense discussions for a stipend of $100.
The first session ran for about 20 minutes with a focus on
understanding what slow tourism meant, especially in con-
trast to institutionalized, mass tourism. Next was a 40-min-
ute session to discuss important reasons or motivations for
which people would engage in slow tourism. The last
30-minute discussion concentrated on the ultimate benefits
they could get from conducting slow tourism. The group also
suggested that they would opt for either a fast or slow mode
of traveling whenever and wherever necessary to fulfill what
they were looking for in the trip. We recorded and transcribed
the discussion, and used two trained judges to sort the infor-
mation by following our frameworks. We used the informa-
tion that achieved at least 80% of between-judge reliability.
Based on the expert interviews and focus group, we
drafted a survey questionnaire and submitted it to four newly
recruited tourism research “experts” to ensure content valid-
ity. Two of the “experts” provided the comments and
Oh et al. 211
suggestions by email that helped us refine the instrument.
The other two experts did not respond in time. We also asked
10 undergraduate students to read the questionnaire and sim-
ulate survey participation. Their suggestions helped us esti-
mate the time taken to finish the survey and refine the
questionnaire further.
Instrumentation
All variables in our model were operationalized as multivari-
ate constructs, with slow tourism motivations having six sub-
dimensions, slow tourism goals two subdimensions, and
general travel outcomes three different correlates. We relied
on our primary research as well as the tourism motivation
literature to build the measurement scales for the motiva-
tions, goals, and general tourism experience outcomes, while
the scales for both fast and slow travel modes were based
solely on our primary research. The specific measurement
items for each construct appear in Table 2. Except for the
general tourism outcomes, all items were measured on a
5-point Likert-type scale with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = dis-
agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Two
items comprised tourist satisfaction, one anchored on a
5-point scale with 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 =
neutral, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied (Oh, Fiore, and
Jeong 2007) and the other on a 5-point scale with 1 = terrible
. . . 5 = delightful (Maddox 1985; Oh, Fiore, and Jeong 2007).
Both revisit intention and referral intention each had two
items anchored on a 5-point scale with 1 = very unlikely, 2 =
unlikely, 3 = neutral, 4 = likely, and 5 = very likely (Oh,
Fiore, and Jeong 2007).
Surveys
As the focus of our study was to assess the role of slow travel
modes in attaining travel goals, we attempted to test the
model across a broad spectrum of tourist destinations so as to
increase generalizability of our results. To this end, we
selected four popular destinations attracting a variety of trav-
elers with potentially diverse travel motivations and goals.
They were Hawaii, Las Vegas, Yellowstone National Park
(“Yellowstone”), and Martha’s Vineyard (“Martha’s”). We
intentionally avoided choosing destinations potentially
biased excessively toward slow tourism orientation in order
to assess the role of slow tourism conservatively. We col-
lected data electronically by establishing a website contain-
ing the research questionnaire for each destination and
inviting randomly American consumers from a national con-
sumer panel supplied by QualtricsTM. We required all partici-
pants to have traveled to the destination at least once in the
past six months, and the data confirmed this 100% through a
screening question. The questionnaire included two atten-
tion-filtering questions to check on the level of participant
involvement; all participants (100%) answered the questions
correctly. We piloted the questionnaire with a sample of
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
30–40 travelers, per destination, randomly drawn from the
same national consumer panel. Descriptive analyses of the
pilot data led us to revising two measures of travel modes to
derive measurement in more intended directions.
The main survey targeted obtaining a minimum of 250
complete responses for each destination for sufficient statis-
tical power in testing the model, given the expected model
size and number of parameters to estimate (Kline 2011). As a
result, we collected a total of 1,068 responses, with 266 for
Hawaii, 269 for Las Vegas, 265 for Yellowstone, and 268 for
Martha’s. We conducted parallel analyses of the model struc-
ture and measurement integrity across the four destinations
and, with sufficient evidence for equivalence in the model
structure and measurement, we combined the data so that our
results and discussions could focus on a general role of slow
tourism as intended (Milfont and Fischer 2010; Oh and Hsu
2014; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). We employed
structural equation modeling methods analyzing the vari-
ance–covariance matrices via LISREL 8.3 with the maxi-
mum likelihood estimator. Assessments of the model relied
mainly on comparative fit index (CFI), non-normed fit index
(NNFI), and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), following the suggestions by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988) and Hu and Bentler (1999).
Findings
Sample and Destinations
Table 1 summarizes sample characteristics. A gender balance
was evident and people in the age categories of 26–35 and
56–65 had slightly stronger representations than the others.
Nearly two-thirds of the sample reported their annual house-
hold income of US$100,000 or less. The majority were mar-
ried, either with children (44.2%) or without children
(16.2%), followed by single (31.2%). Whites represented
almost three-quarters, and more than 95% were taking vaca-
tion or leisure trips at least once a year. About a half of the
respondents reported having visited the destination within
the past three months and the remaining half within the past
six months, with more than 90% of all traveling for vacation
or visiting friends and family members. Only 15.7% traveled
alone and the remaining majority traveled with family mem-
bers, friends, or others. Finally, 81% had visited the same
destination more than once.
The destinations selected in this study seemed to cover
possibilities of both slow and fast tourism activities. The
respondents rated the destination on a fast- to slow-paced
tourism scale anchored with (n) 1 = suitable for very slow
paced tourism (36), 2 = suitable for slow-paced tourism
(180), 3 = suitable for both slow- and fast-paced tourism
(606), 4 = suitable for fast-paced tourism (170), and 5 = suit-
able for very fast-paced tourism (76). The response distribu-
tion was essentially normal, with the mean of 3.07 and
standard deviation of .862 (skewness = .23; kurtosis = .54).
212 Journal of Travel Research 55(2)

Table 1.  Sample Characteristics (n = 1,068). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Duncan’s mul-
Frequency Percent
tiple range test indicated that Hawaii was neutral (mean =
2.98), Las Vegas was in favor of fast-paced tourism (3.64),
Sex and both Martha’s (2.82) and Yellowstone (2.81) were
 Male 531 49.7
slightly in favor of slow tourism (F = 64.35, p <.01).
 Female 537 50.3
 
Similarly, they answered another question, “While visiting
Age ______ last time, how fast or slow paced was your overall
  25 or younger 165 15.4 travel behavior?” on a scale (n) with 1 = very slow (20), 2 =
 26-35 308 28.8 slow (302), 3 = neutral (433), 4 = fast (268), and 5 = very fast
 36-45 158 14.8 (45) (skewness = .18; kurtosis = –.51). The respondents
 46-55 146 13.7 reported that they engaged in slightly fast paced tourism
 56-65 191 17.9
behavior in Las Vegas (mean = 3.45) but in slightly slow
  66 or older 100 9.4
 
paced tourism behavior at the other three destinations
Annual household income (Hawaii = 2.92; Martha’s = 2.83; Yellowstone = 2.86) (one-
  Less than $50,000 288 27.7 way ANOVA F = 31.61, p < .01). These results indicated that
 $50,000-$75,000 226 21.2 none of these sample destinations was extremely skewed
 $75,000-$100,000 235 22.0 toward either fast or slow tourism characteristics.
 $101,001-$125,000 117 11.0
 $125,001-$150,000 66 6.2
 $150,001-$175,000 60 5.6 Measurement Quality
  $175,001 or more 76 7.1
  The quality of our first-order measurement appeared to be
Marital status sound as shown in Table 2 reporting the confirmatory factor
 Single 333 31.2 analysis results. We dropped several measurement items
  Single with dependents 47 4.4 through preliminary analyses for reasons such as unaccept-
  Married with no children 173 16.2 ably low (<.40) or high cross loadings and low correlations
  Married with children 472 44.2
with the remaining items of the construct. The finalized mea-
 Other 43 4.0
 
surement model reported in Table 2 resulted in good fit with
Ethnic background RMSEA = .046, NNFI = .99, and CFI = .99 (χ2 = 1,362.67, df
 White 791 74.1 = 417); all parameters were statistically significant (p <.05)
 Hispanic/Latino 82 7.7 with no notable sign of improper solutions (Boomsma 2008).
  Asian/Pacific Islander 98 9.2 The factor loadings were .73 or higher, exhibiting satisfac-
  Black/African American 69 6.5 tory within-construct convergent validity (Anderson and
 Other 28 2.6
Gerbing 1988; Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Cronbach’s alphas of
 
Average yearly travel frequency for vacation/leisure
internal consistency for the item sets of the constructs ranged
  Less than once a year 66 6.2 from .76 (engagement) to .92 (self-reflection), which was
  Once a year 258 24.2 satisfactory. Similarly, the composite reliabilities (ρη) of the
  2-3 times a year 526 49.3 constructs were at least .76 (engagement) and the amount of
  More than 2-3 times a year 218 20.4 variance extracted (ηVE) was at least .61 (both novelty-seek-
  ing and engagement), each exceeding the suggested mini-
Last time of visiting destination
mums (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Fornell and Larcker 1981).
  Within the last 3 months 510 47.8
  4-6 months ago 558 52.2
These results substantiated convergent validity of the con-
  structs. Discriminant validity of the constructs was assessed
Primary reason for last visit to destination by comparing the shared variance between each pair of con-
 Business 35 3.3 structs against the amounts of variance extracted for the two
 Vacation 827 77.4 constructs (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). None of the shared vari-
  Visiting friends or family members 146 13.7 ance was larger than the amount of variance extracted for any
  Attending conference or workshop 23 2.2
construct, thereby demonstrating between-constructs dis-
 Other 37 3.5
 
criminant validity.
Travel party size
 Alone 168 15.7
  With someone else (family, friends, 900 84.3
Role of Slow Tourism
etc.) Assured of measurement integrity at the first order, we mod-
   
eled both slow tourism motivations and goals as second-
First time visiting the destination 203 19.0
order constructs respectively in order to (1) derive a set of

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016

Oh et al. 213

Table 2.  Measurement Scales and Results of the Measurement Model.

Measures Mean SD Loadings Error

Slow tourism motivations

  Relaxation (α = .86; ρ(η) = .86; η(VE) = .67)
   I wanted to relax mentally. 4.12 .85 .87 .25
   I wanted to avoid interpersonal pressure and stress from my daily routine. 4.04 .89 .77 .41
   I wanted to experience peace and calm. 4.10 .90 .82 .33
  Self-reflection (α = .92; ρ(η) = .92; η(VE) = .74)
   I wanted to gain a new perspective on my life. 3.64 1.00 .85 .28
   I wanted to reflect more upon myself. 3.66 .99 .89 .21
   I wanted to feel inner harmony. 3.74 1.00 .86 .25
   I wanted to develop my personal and spiritual values. 3.51 1.12 .85 .29
  Escape (α = .80; ρ(η) = .81; η(VE) = .69)
   I wanted to escape from the hustles and bustles of my daily life. 4.17 .88 .90 .18
   I wanted to get away from everyday routines. 4.27 .77 .75 .44
  Novelty-seeking (α = .83; ρ(η) = .83; η(VE) = .61)
   I wanted to enjoy activities that offered thrills. 3.78 1.04 .74 .45
   I wanted to have opportunities to meet new people and do new things. 3.76 .99 .77 .40
   I wanted to seek adventure on this trip. 3.79 1.01 .83 .30
  Engagement (α = .76; ρ(η) = .76; η(VE) = .61)
   I wanted to feel that I totally belonged to the environment. 3.85 .90 .79 .37
   I wanted to immerse into local culture. 3.84 .96 .77 .41
  Discovery (α = .88; ρ(η) = .88; η(VE) = .65)
   I wanted to learn about something new. 3.99 .88 .79 .38
   I wanted to expand my knowledge of what the destination offered. 4.07 .85 .83 .31
   I wanted to obtain new perspectives from this travel. 3.99 .87 .83 .31
   I wanted to experience different things on this trip. 4.17 .82 .77 .41
 
Travel modes
  Fast pace travel (α = .79; ρ(η) = .79; η(VE) = .66)
   I tried to see the destination as much as possible in a limited amount of time. 3.81 1.04 .80 .37
   I tried to do more things at this destination under a time constraint. 3.34 1.05 .82 .32
  Slow pace travel (α = .69; ρ(η) = .70; η(VE) = .54)
   I took the tome to travel at my own pace. 4.15 .77 .74 .45
   I slowed down in my overall pace of travel. 3.65 .96 .73 .46
 
Slow tourism goals
  Self-enrichment (α = .90; ρ(η) = .90; η(VE) = .74)
   I felt much better about myself as a result of this trip. 3.85 .84 .86 .27
   This trip helped me enrich my overall perspective about myself. 3.78 .90 .88 .22
   I felt fulfilled about myself as a result of this trip. 3.92 .88 .85 .28
  Revitalization (α = .88; ρ(η) = .89; η(VE) = .79)
   I felt refreshed after visiting Hawaii. 4.23 .78 .91 .17
   This travel to Hawaii reenergized me. 4.12 .83 .87 .24
 
General tourism experience outcomes
  Satisfaction (α = .88; ρ(η) = .88; η(VE) = .78)
   How satisfied were you with your travel experience at Hawaii last time?a 4.50 .73 .88 .22
   Overall, how did you feel about your last trip to Hawaii?b 4.44 .70 .88 .22
  Future intention (α = .90; ρ(η) = .90; η(VE) = .82)
   How likely are you to travel to Hawaii again for similar purposes?c 4.49 .78 .88 .22
   How likely are you to consider Hawaii as an option for your future trips?c 4.44 .81 .93 .13
  Referral intention (α = .86; ρ(η) = .86; η(VE) = .75)
   How likely are you to recommend Hawaii to others?c 4.51 .75 .89 .21
   How likely are you to talk about Hawaii positively when you are asked?c 4.55 .73 .84 .29

Note: The model fit: χ2 = 1,362.67, degree of freedom (df) = 417; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .046; nonnormed fit index (NNFI) = .99; comparative fit
index (CFI) = .99. All parameter estimates are statistically significant (p < .01).
a
Measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied.
b
Measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = terrible, . . . , 5 = delightful.
c
Measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = very unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 3 = neutral, 4 = likely, and 5 = very likely; all the other items were measured on a 5-point scale with
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016

214 Journal of Travel Research 55(2)
results commensurate with the model proposed in Figure 1
and (2) draw more definite conclusions on the proposed
model. Not only was such a model with second-order factors
conceptually identical to the proposed model but it would
also avoid potentially mixed conclusions due to the multiple
paths from motivations to travel modes and from travel
modes to goals when modeled at the first order of individual
subdimensions. The partial second-order structural model
reflecting Figure 1 fit the data aptly, with RMSEA = .065,
NNFI = .98, and CFI = .98 (χ2 = 2580.87, df = 469). While
these fit indices were slightly penalized for the increased
model complexity (i.e., the enlarged χ2-to-df ratio) due to the
second-order factors included, they were still acceptable. In
particular, the 90% confidence interval of RMSEA ranged
tightly from .063 to .067. The parameter estimates con-
formed to expectations. The second-order loadings of both
motivations and goals were all statistically significant (p
<.05), and their standardized values ranged from .67 to .87
for the motivations and .84 and .88 for the goals.
The structural parameter estimates were generally consis-
tent with our expectations as summarized in Table 4. Slow
motivation led the traveler to choosing both fast (β = .09, t =
2.35) and slow (β = .68, t = 17.5) travel modes, yet choosing
the latter far more prevalently. Motivation also positively
affected goal attainment (β = .62, t = 11.45). While slow
travel mode contributed significantly to slow goal attainment
(β = .32, t = 5.72), fast travel mode did not (β = –.05, t =
–1.79). Fast travel mode was negatively associated with all
three criterion constructs (p <.01), that is, satisfaction (β =
–.23), return intention (β = –.18), and referral intention (β =
–.21), whereas slow travel mode’s relationships with them
all were essentially null (p > .10). Attaining slow tourism
goals contributed significantly and positively to the tourist’s
satisfaction, return intention, and referral intention (p <.01).
The model explained little in the variance of fast travel mode
(1%), 46% in slow travel mode, 76% in slow tourism goal
attainment, 43% in satisfaction, 30% in return intent, and
43% in referral intent, respectively.
We considered two possible models rivaling the proposed
model. First, just as motivation could make the tourist strive
for goals, so could it do for general tourism experience out-
comes. Testing such a premise required allowing direct paths
from motivation to tourist satisfaction, future return inten-
tion, and referral intention. This fully recursive model
resulted in essentially the same goodness of fit with RMSEA
= .064 (±.003), NNFI = .98, and CFI = .98 (χ2 = 2516.53, df
= 466). The three newly added parameters were all statisti-
cally significant, but all in the negative direction (–.61 for
satisfaction, –.56 for return intent, and –.48 for referral
intent). These negative signs were inconsistent with the first-
order correlations shown in Table 3, suggesting the operation
of potential suppression effects (Maassen and Bakker 2001).
Hence, this model was rejected in favor of the proposed
model.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
Second, the other rival model considered was one specify-
ing travel modes to affect general tourism outcomes only indi-
rectly through slow tourism goal attainment. This model was
motivated particularly by the three insignificant direct paths
from slow mode to the general outcomes from the proposed
model results in the fact that their first-order correlations were
all statistically significant and sizable (.48, .42, and .48,
respectively). This model, which constrained the two direct
paths from travel modes to general tourism outcomes to zero,
resulted in fit indices slightly inferior to those for the proposed
model, with RMSEA = .066 (±.003), NNFI = .97, and CFI =
.98 (χ2 = 2655.54, df = 471). A χ2-difference test comparing
this to the proposed model indicated that this model was sig-
nificantly worse than, and therefore should be rejected in favor
of, the proposed model (Δχ2 = 74.67, df = 2, p < .01).
Discussion
Goal-driven consumption behavior theory seems to provide
a cogent framework for explaining the slow tourism phe-
nomenon. As Bagozzi and Dholakia (1999) conceptualized,
travelers may set the focal-level goals for slow tourism
(motivation) and strive for maximizing attainment of some
superordinate goals through optimal choices of, for example,
their tempo, rhythm, and pace of travel. Our data show that
in a slow tourism context, motivations lead to choosing both
fast and slow travel modes and also positively contribute to
attaining slow tourism goals. As expected, slow travel mode
contributes much more powerfully to slow tourism goals
than fast travel mode; the contribution of fast travel mode to
slow tourism goal attainment was marginally negative.
Nonetheless, fast travel mode appears to be a significant,
direct determinant of general tourism experience outcomes,
while slow travel mode influenced them only indirectly
through slow tourism goal attainment. These indirect effects
were all statistically significant and positive (β = .20, t = 4.99
on satisfaction; β = .16, t = 4.69 on return intent; β = .21, t =
4.99 on referral intent). Thus, the slow tourism process (i.e.,
slow tourism motivation → slow travel mode → slow tour-
ism goal attainment) appears to predict the criterion vari-
ables, establishing both nomological and criterion validities
of the model. Combined, these results appear to provide a set
of empirical evidence supporting for the sheer presence of
the slow tourism phenomenon.
Interestingly, our data show that fast travel mode has a
direct, negative effect on the three criterion variables (see
Table 4). These criterion variables have been widely used to
gauge performances of tourist destinations in various
research programs including those of mass tourism. Most
slow tourism researchers characterize such mass tourism as
fast paced travels and, thus, fast travel mode could be posi-
tively associated with these general tourism outcomes.
However, that was not the case in our data. Traveling in a fast
pace may not only interfere with attainment of slow tourism
Oh et al. 215

Table 3.  Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviation of the Model Constructs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
 1. Relaxation 1.00  
 2. Self-reflection 0.72 1.00  
 3. Escape 0.78 0.57 1.00  
 4. Novelty seeking 0.34 0.60 0.39 1.00  
 5. Engagement 0.59 0.76 0.56 0.67 1.00  
 6. Discovery 0.55 0.64 0.53 0.70 0.74 1.00  
 7. Fast travel –0.05 0.15 –0.09 0.22 0.04 0.04 1.00  
 8. Slow travel 0.71 0.59 0.58 0.28 0.52 0.48 –0.14 1.00  
 9. Self-enrichment 0.56 0.74 0.47 0.55 0.64 0.56 0.10 0.60 1.00  
10. Revitalization 0.66 0.58 0.60 0.42 0.55 0.56 –0.16 0.68 0.71 1.00  
11. Satisfaction 0.34 0.31 0.32 0.24 0.35 0.39 –0.25 0.48 0.48 0.63 1.00  
12.  Future intention 0.27 0.24 0.34 0.24 0.32 0.24 –0.19 0.41 0.42 0.52 0.64 1.00  
13.  Referral intention 0.36 0.30 0.37 0.28 0.40 0.38 –0.23 0.47 0.48 0.61 0.79 0.79 1.00
Mean 4.09 3.64 4.22 3.78 3.85 4.06 3.58 3.90 3.85 4.18 4.47 4.47 4.53
SD 0.88 1.03 0.83 1.01 0.93 0.86 1.10 0.87 0.87 0.81 0.72 0.80 0.74

Table 4.  Results of Hypothesis Tests. claim that it is not applicable to every tourism context (e.g.,
Dickinson and Lumsdon 2010). Based on the results of this
Paths β SE t Ratio
study, we argue that slowness is more than mere anti-speed
Motivation → Fast travel 0.09 0.04 2.35 (the correlation between fast and slow modes was –.14),
Motivation → Slow travel 0.68 0.02 17.50 more than refusal to the dominant logic of speed, and more
Motivation → Goal attainment 0.62 0.05 11.45 than those categorical niches of tourism (Fullagar, Markwell,
Slow travel → Goal attainment 0.32 0.10 5.72 and Wilson 2012). It is a mental, psychological, and behav-
Slow travel → Satisfaction –0.04 0.07 –0.53 ioral process embedded in a vast majority of goal-driven
Slow travel → Return intent 0.00 0.08 –0.02 consumption activities, including much of the tourism phe-
Slow travel → Referral intent –0.05 0.08 –0.79 nomenon. In other words, both fast and slow modes of action
Fast travel → Goal attainment –0.05 0.03 –1.79 taken are on the same continuum of all human behaviors,
Fast travel → Satisfaction –0.23 0.02 –6.60
conscious or unconscious, across time and space, constantly
Fast travel → Return intent –0.18 0.02 –5.10
interplaying as options flexibly chosen for maximal goal
Fast travel → Referral intent –0.21 0.02 –6.14
attainment. Indispensable, therefore, is a multidisciplinary,
Goal attainment → Satisfaction 0.63 0.04 9.95
phenomenological in-depth understanding of slowness from
Goal attainment → Return intent 0.51 0.04 7.89
Goal attainment → Referral intent 0.65 0.04 10.04
the behavioral perspective of individual and group tourists.
This approach also needs to be incorporated into the study of
Note: R2: Fast travel mode = .01; slow travel mode = .46; slow mobility and modality in the tourism context (e.g., Hannam,
tourism goal achievement = .76; satisfaction = .43; return intent = .30; Butler, and Paris 2014; Lew and McKercher 2006).
recommendation = .43.
Slow tourism motivations and goals seem to share much
commonness with general tourism motivations reported in
goals but also undermine the tourist’s satisfaction and inten- the literature. As reviewed earlier, most slow tourism–spe-
tions to return and recommend. In contrast, the slow tourism cific motivations found through our primary research
process was significantly conducive to these tourist experi- appeared to be quite similar to those used to study tourists in
ence outcomes. We suspect that the slow process might have various travel contexts. Nevertheless, these motivations
been a driving force, indeed, of tourist satisfaction and accounted for little variance in fast travel mode (1%), while
behavioral intention reported in previous studies, especially they explained 46% of variance in slow travel mode.
of mass tourism, even if its role was not identified in those Moreover, while the slow tourism process contributed posi-
studies. Hence, this issue appears to be a broadly neglected tively to the model, explaining 76% of variance in slow tour-
aspect in tourism research, calling for further investigations. ism goals and, to a lesser degree, tourist satisfaction (43%),
This study also provides evidence supporting the onto- return intention (30%), and referral intention (43%), fast
logical value of slowness in the tourism phenomenon and for travel model did not affect slow tourism goals and negatively
future theoretical efforts. Many researchers view slow tour- contributed to the three general tourism outcomes. Thus, in
ism rather categorically as a niche phenomenon or market our data the slow tourism process seems to establish both
(e.g., Lipman and Murphy 2012; Moore 2012) and even nomological and criterion validities, and the strong

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016

216 Journal of Travel Research 55(2)
explanatory ability of the slow tourism process seems to
imply that the slow tourism phenomenon may not be just an
emerging concept, but it may be the phenomenon that has
existed ubiquitously without being properly recognized.
The proposed model produced expected results in gen-
eral, but drew attention to two aspects. First, consistent with
the first-order correlations in Table 3, the relationships
between fast travel mode and the three criterion constructs
were in the negative direction. This means that although the
tourist may adopt fast travel mode in mass tourism contexts,
such a choice is likely to undermine his/her satisfaction and
future intentions. Second, the direct paths from slow travel
mode to the three criterion constructs were negative, incon-
sistent with the correlations in Table 3. This inconsistency
could be caused by either model misspecification, especially
in the absence of specific theories, or an operation of slight
suppression effects due to the correlations among the predic-
tors of the criterion constructs (Maassen and Bakker 2001).
Nonetheless, these effects were essentially zero (i.e., statisti-
cally insignificant, with negligible effect sizes) and, thus,
they could be practically constrained to zero for correct
model solutions. A reestimation of the model with these
effects fixed at zero yielded essentially identical results in all
the remaining aspects of the model. The effects of slow mode
on the criterion constructs may be mediated completely by
slow tourism goals, even if their first-order correlations were
of moderate magnitude.
The results provide multiple implications for destination
marketers, tourism planners, and policy makers. First, they
should not treat slow tourism as a concept independent of or
opposite to faster forms of tourism. Instead, both slow and
fast tourism should be viewed as coexisting, complementary
means to achieving travel goals. For that reason, they need to
pay attention to both aspects in their destination design and
promotion. Second, they need to approach slow tourism
from the perspective of the traveler’s behavioral process
rather than defining forms of travel and type of travelers by
the characteristics of the destination visited. Either faster or
slower modes of travel are what the tourist subjectively
determines to engage and they have different implications
for various travel outcomes. Key is a tourist-centered, pro-
cess-oriented behavioral understanding of the phenomenon.
Third, offering speedy tourism opportunities needs addi-
tional consideration regarding their potential consequences.
Although this study unveiled a damaging impact of fast-
paced travel mode on the tourist’s experiential outcomes in
one aspect, its effects may be reaching farther in broader
tourism contexts.
Concluding Remarks
This study provides a new perspective on the ontological sta-
tus of slowness, and slow tourism, in a broad context of tour-
ism. Based on goal-driven consumption theory, we
conceptualized slow tourism as a phenomenon coexisting
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
with faster forms of tourism in any unit of travel. Slow travel
mode in this sense was viewed as a striving process channel-
ing slow tourism-specific motivations toward maximizing
chance to realize slow tourism goals. Data covering four
popular tourist destinations with diverse fast and slow tour-
ism opportunities revealed a powerful explanatory ability of
the slow tourism process. This study adds to the literature a
new layer of understanding about speed, mobility, temporal-
ity, and pace, the tourist’s goal-oriented practice of time, and
the implications of fast and slow travel modes. We argue that
slowness is an option and process permeated in almost all
tourism activities and, in fact, it may serve as both a motiva-
tion and goal for what Iso-Ahola (1982) called “escape” to
travel. Our proposed model and approach also extend
Weaver’s (2013) “enlightened mass tourism” in that we do
not view mass and slow tourism as separate entities to syn-
thesize; rather, we showed that slow tourism might have
already existed as a quintessential part of mass tourism.
This study leaves several issues to address future investi-
gations. First, goal-driven consumption theory needs addi-
tional investigations into other possible model specifications.
For example, Bagozzi and Dholakia (1999) elaborate the
goal-driven process in further detail, including five steps and
feedback reactions. We adapted our goal-driven slow tour-
ism model to three main steps and feedback-like criterion
variables. Thus, our model may be limited in its explanatory
power to the extent that such an abbreviated goal-driven pro-
cess omitted any key information as well as is incompatible
with the original model specification of goal-driven
consumption.
Second, the proposed model needs more rigorous evalua-
tions. One way to do so is to identify and incorporate into the
same model a central fast (mass) tourism process. Such an
expanded model may allow various comparisons between
the slow and fast tourism processes, thereby providing valu-
able insights into the underlying behavioral mechanisms of
tourism. As partially revealed in this study, the fast tourism
process may function as a countervailing process to slow
tourism, but still conducive to explaining tourist experience
and destination performance. Model complexity may become
a challenge in this case. Another way is to test the model
across more diverse destinations that may involve varying
degrees of temporal practices during travel because of desti-
nation characteristics. Inclusion of additional destinations
with different characteristics and target markets may offer
more enlightening understandings of the temporal
phenomenon.
Third, temporality, which can be practiced as either fast or
slow, necessitates clear definitions and operationalization in
the tourism context. The literature is unclear about how slow
is really slow, and vice versa. In this study, we took a subjec-
tive approach letting the traveler determine their own mental
speed or tempo of traveling. This subjective approach, albeit
more direct and accurate than that by forms of transportation,
makes it also difficult to judge and measure the actual speed.
Oh et al. 217
Moreover, the function of temporality may not be linear.
Both fastness and slowness may have threshold points. That
is, too fast or too slow temporality, often imposed by various
travel situations and conditions, may not produce linear
effects in the expected directions; indeed, excessive skew-
ness in temporality may yield adverse effects. The negative
impact of fast travel mode on general tourism outcomes
could be a case in point; fastness may be viewed positively as
long as it is interpreted as convenience rather than loss of
control or superficial engagement, or vice versa. There might
also be a zone of temporality within which the traveler does
not or cannot distinguish fast from slow speed. Adding the
temporality dimension and the tourist’s practice of such tem-
porality to the existing tourism mobility research will be a
fruitful avenue for future investigations.
Another revealing issue for future research relates to the
conceptual overlap of the slow tourism process with existing
tourism motivation models, as noted earlier. Although our
qualitative study subjects provided motivations and goals
pertaining to slow travel modes, these motivations and goals
could be viewed as a subset of various tourism motivation
models reported in the literature. Such an overlap in results
attests to our argument again that slow tourism may not exist
as a form or process independent of other forms or processes
in travel. Counterintuitively, too, such an overlap implies a
potential sharing of deep-seated human desires among vari-
ous practices of time including slow mode in travel. Studies
are needed to delve into deeper levels of behavioral processes
underlying slow, fast, or other temporal practices to refine the
travel motivation process. Projective research techniques
such as laddering in means end models may be instrumental.
The practice and study of time, and temporality, promise
a fertile ground for future tourism research. Traditionally,
time has been a concern more with economic and engineer-
ing researchers. As leisure cannot be properly conceptual-
ized independent of labor, so is the practice of leisure time
away from that of work life. In that sense, slow tourism and
its conceptual potential signal the similar importance and
interest for systematic research. Future studies need to refine
our understanding of the slow tourism phenomenon from the
behavioral perspective and continue improving the measure-
ment scales for both theoretical advances and practical appli-
cations. These efforts may be productive with “slow”
approaches.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Caesars Hospitality Research Center Grant #6020, University of
Nevada Las Vegas.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
References
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. (1988). “Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
Approach.” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-23.
Bagozzi, R. P., and U. Dholakia. (1999). “Goal Setting and Goal
Striving in Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Marketing, 63
(special issue 1999): 19-32.
Bagozzi, R. P., and P. R. Warshaw. (1990). “Trying to Consume.”
Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (2): 127-40.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. (1988). “On the Evaluation of Structural
Models.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1):
74-94.
Baker, D. A., and J. L. Crompton. (2000). “Quality, Satisfaction
and Behavioral Intentions.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27
(3): 785-804.
Beh, A. W., and B. L. Bruyere. (2007). “Segmentation by Visitor
Motivation in Three Kenyan National Reserves.” Tourism
Management, 28 (6): 1464-71.
Bettman, J. R. (1979). An Information Processing Theory of
Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Boomsma, A. (2008). “Teacher’s Corner: Reporting Analyses of
Covariance Structures.” Structural Equation Modeling, 7 (3):
471-83.
Bowen, D., and J. Clarke. (2009). Contemporary Tourist Behavior:
Yourself and Others as Tourists. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Chernev, A. (2004). “Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference
for the Status Quo.” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3):
557-65.
Cohen, E. (1979). “A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences.”
Sociology, 13, 179-201.
Crompton, J. (1979). “Motivations of Pleasure Vacations.” Annals
of Tourism Research, 6 (4): 408-24.
Dick, A. S., and K. Basu. (1994). “Customer Loyalty: Toward an
Integrated Conceptual Framework.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 22 (2): 99-113.
Dickinson, J., and L. Lumsdon. (2010). Slow Travel and Tourism.
London: Earthscan.
Dickinson, J., and P. Peeters. (2012). “Time, Tourism Consumption
and Sustainable Development.” International Journal of
Tourism Research, 16 (1): 11-21.
Fodness, D. (1994). “Measuring Tourist Motivation.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 21 (3): 555-81.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. (1981). “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1):
39-50.
Fullagar, S., K. Markwell, and E. Wilson. (2012). Slow Tourism:
Experiences and Mobilities. Bristol, UK: Channel View.
Groenendaal, E. (2012). “Slow Tourism Initiatives: An Exploratory
Study of Dutch Lifestyles Entrepreneurs in France.” In Slow
Tourism: Experiences and Mobilities, edited by S. Fullagar,
K. Markwell, and E. Wilson. Bristol, UK: Channel View, pp.
201-13.
Gutman, J. (1982). “A Means-End Chain Model Based on
Consumer Categorization Processes.” Journal of Marketing,
46 (2): 60-72.
Hall, M. C. (2012). “The Contradictions and Paradoxes of
Slow Food: Environmental Change, Sustainability and the
Conservation of Taste.” In Slow Tourism: Experiences and
218 Journal of Travel Research 55(2)
Mobilities, edited by S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, and E. Wilson.
Bristol, UK: Channel View, pp. 53-68.
Hannam, K., G. Butler, and C. M. Paris. (2014). “Developments
and Key Issues in Tourism Mobilities.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 45 (2): 171-85.
Higgins, E. T. (2002). “How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct
Values: The Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision
Making.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (3): 177-91.
Howard, C. (2012). “Speeding Up and Slowing Down: Pilgrimage
and Slow Travel through Time.” In Slow Tourism: Experiences
and Mobilities, edited by S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, and E.
Wilson. Bristol, UK: Channel View, pp. 11-24.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. (1999). “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes
in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus
New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1): 1-55.
Iacobucci, D., and G. A. Churchill. (2010). Marketing Research:
Methodological Foundations (with Qualtrics Card), 10th edi-
tion. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). “Toward a Social Psychological Theory
of Tourism Motivation: A Rejoinder.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 9:256-62.
Kim, J. H., J. R. Ritchie, and B. McCormick. (2010). “Development
of a Scale to Measure Memorable Tourism Experiences.”
Journal of Travel Research, 51 (1): 12-25.
Klenosky, D. B. (2002). “The ‘Pull’ of Tourism Destinations: A Means-
End Investigation.” Journal of Travel Research, 40 (2): 385-96.
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling, 3rd edition. New York: Guilford.
Krippendorf, J. (1987). The Holiday Makers: Understanding the
Impact of Leisure and Travel. Oxford: Heinemann Professional.
Lam, T., and C. H. C. Hsu. (2006). “Predicting Behavioral Intention
of Choosing a Travel Destination.” Tourism Management, 27
(4): 589-99.
Lee, T. H., and J. Crompton. (1992). “Measuring Novelty Seeking
in Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 19:732-51.
Lew, A., and B. McKercher. (2006). “Modeling Tourist Movements:
A Local Destination Analysis.” Annals of Tourism Research,
33 (2): 403-23.
Li, M., and L. A. Cai. (2012). “The Effects of Personal Values
on Travel Motivation and Behavioral Intention.” Journal of
Travel Research, 51 (4): 473-87.
Lipman, M. B., and L. Murphy. (2012). “‘Make Haste Slowly’:
Environmental Sustainability and Willing Workers on Organic
Farms.” In Slow Tourism: Experiences and Mobilities, edited
by S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, and E. Wilson. Bristol, UK:
Channel View, pp. 84-98.
Lumsdon, L. M., and P. McGrath. (2011). “Developing a Conceptual
Framework for Slow Travel: A Grounded Theory Approach.”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19 (3): 265-79.
Maassen, G. H., and A. B. Bakker. (2001). “Suppressor Variables
in Path Models: Definitions and Interpretations.” Sociological
Methods and Research, 30 (2): 241-70.
Maddox, R. N. (1985). “Measuring Satisfaction with Tourism.”
Journal of Travel Research, 23 (3): 2-5.
Maruyama, M., and G. Parker. (2012). “‘Fast Japan, Slow Japan’:
Shifting to Slow Tourism as a Rural Regeneration Tool in
Japan.” In Slow Tourism: Experiences and Mobilities, edited
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016
by S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, and E. Wilson. Bristol, UK:
Channel View, pp. 170-84.
McCabe, S. (2009). “Who Needs a Holiday? Evaluating Social
Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (4): 667-88.
Milfont, T. L., and R. Fischer. (2010). “Testing Measurement
Invariance across Groups: Applications in Cross-Cultural
Research.” International Journal of Psychological Research,
3 (1): 111-21.
Moore, K. (2012). “On the Periphery of Pleasure: Hedonics,
Eudaimonics, and Slow Travel.” In Slow Tourism:
Experiences and Mobilities, edited by S. Fullagar,
K. Markwell, and E. Wilson. Bristol, UK: Channel View,
pp. 25-35.
Novak, T. P., D. L. Hoffman, and A. Duhachek. (2003). “The
Influence of Goal-Directed and Experiential Activities on
Online Flow Experiences.” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13 (1/2): 3-16.
Oh, H., A. M. Fiore, and M. Jeong. (2007). “Measuring Experience
Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications.” Journal of Travel
Research, 46 (November): 119-32.
Oh, H., and C. H. C. Hsu. (2014). “Assessing Equivalence of
Hotel Brand Equity Measures in Cross-Cultural Contexts.”
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36 (1):
156-66.
Oliver, R. (1999). “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of
Marketing, 63:33-44.
O’Regan, M. (2012). “Alternative Mobility Cultures and the
Resurgence of Hitch-Hiking.” In Slow Tourism: Experiences
and Mobilities, edited by S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, and E.
Wilson. Bristol, UK: Channel View, pp. 128-42.
Parkins, W. (2004). “Out of Time: Fast Subjects and Slow Living.”
Time and Society, 13 (2/3): 363-82.
Parkins, W., and G. Craig. (2006). Slow Living. Sydney: University
of New South Wales Press.
Pearce, P. L., and U. Lee. (2005). “Developing the Travel Career
Approach to Tourist Motivation.” Journal of Travel Research,
43 (1): 226-37.
Pearce, P.L., and J. Packer. (2013). “Minds On The Move: New
Links From Psychology To Tourism,” Annals of Tourism
Research, 40: 386-411.
Ryan, C., and I. Glendon. (1998). “Application of Leisure
Motivation Scale to Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research,
25 (1): 169-84.
Singh, S. (2012). “Slow Travel and Indian Culture: Philosophical
and Practical Aspects.” In Slow Tourism: Experiences and
Mobilities, edited by S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, and E. Wilson.
Bristol, UK: Channel View, pp. 214-26.
Sirgy, M. J. (2010). “Toward a Quality-of-Life Theory of Leisure
Travel Satisfaction.” Journal of Travel Research, 49 (2):
246-60.
Snepenger, D., J. King, E. Marshall, and M. Uysal. (2006).
“Modeling Iso-Ahola’s Motivation Theory in the Tourism
Context.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (3): 140-49.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and H. Baumgartner. (1998). “Assessing
Measurement Invariance in Cross-Cultural Consumer
Research.” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June):
78-90.
Oh et al. 219

Uriely, N., Y. Yonay, and D. Simchai. (2002). “Backpacking Author Biographies

Experiences: A Type and Form Analysis.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 29 (2): 520-38.
Waller, J., and S. E. G. Lea. (1998). “Seeking the Real Spain?
Authenticity in Motivation.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25
(4): 110-29.
Weaver, D. B. (2013). “Asymmetrical Dialectics of Sustainable
Tourism: Toward Enlightened Mass Tourism.” Journal of
Travel Research, doi:10.1177/0047287513491335.
Yoon, Y., and M. Uysal. (2005). “An Examination of the Effects
of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A
Structural Model.” Tourism Management, 26 (1): 45-56.
Haemoon Oh is a professor and Head of the Department of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Isenberg School of
Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
A. George Assaf is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, Isenberg School of
Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Seyhmus Baloglu is a professor and Harrah Distinguished Chair in
the William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University
of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at ANAHUAC on June 13, 2016