Model of Family Tourists’ Behavior Formation: A Meta-Synthesis Approach

Document Type : Article extracted From phd dissertation

Authors

1 Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of Management & Accounting, Allame Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Tourism Management, Faculty of Management & Accounting, Allame Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Handicraft, Faculty of Art & Architecture, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

10.22059/jut.2025.389030.1260

Abstract

A B S T R A C T
The growing popularity of family tourism and the rising demand from families, along with the diverse needs expressed by family travelers, underscore the necessity of developing and enhancing our understanding of family behaviors in the context of tourism. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to present a model of family tourists’ behavior. The research employs a qualitative methodology grounded in a meta-synthesis approach, following the seven-step model proposed by Sandelowski and Barroso. Data analysis was performed using a three-stage coding process, which involved the collaboration of two coders. Following the steps of the meta-synthesis, a total of 251 concepts, 40 sub-components, 16 components, six main axes, and two levels were identified, coded, and modeled from the 23 selected articles. The external level, titled "Family Tourist Behavior Formation Space," was encompasses the dimensions of "family lifestyle" (with components: family citizenship and family structure), "tourism planning process" (with components: role-playing at home, sense of route, destination experience, and achievements and memories), and "tourism elements" (with components: transportation, nutrition, accommodation, activities). On the other hand, the internal context titled "Family Tourist Behavior Formation Cycle" was encompasses the dimensions of "Drivers" (with components: motivation and determinants), "Experiences" (with components: actions and roles), and "Outcomes" (with components: benefits and feedback). As most significant outcome of the present study, in order to decontextualize and resocialize the theoretical foundations of tourist behavior for family tourist behavior, with a family perspective and placing the family at the center of tourist behavior research, a model of family tourist behavior was presented as the space and cycle of family tourist behavior formation. This model serves as a crucial tool in the tourism industry, enabling a deeper understanding of the cultural and social diversity, needs, preferences, and behaviors of families. It aims to address existing scientific gaps by providing insights that can inform better practices and strategies in family tourism.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The growing popularity of family tourism and the rising demand from families, along with the diverse needs expressed by family travelers, underscore the necessity of developing and enhancing our understanding of family behaviors in the context of tourism. Properly recognizing and understanding tourists’ interactions and experiences in family tourism is crucial for the tourism industry and service providers. Analyzing family tourism behavior in relation to families’ product choices and spending patterns can assist tourism marketers in developing effective promotional strategies, advertising campaigns, and distribution channels.Therefore, it is essential to conduct research that explores the behavior of family tourists to enhance our understanding of the family tourism market. Accordingly, the primary objective of this study is to develop a model of family tourist behavior.
 
Methodology
This research employs an inductive approach, is qualitative in nature, and serves an exploratory-explanatory purpose, based on a systematic review utilizing a meta-synthesis method. The statistical population of this research comprises all domestic and international studies conducted in the field of family tourist behavior. Additionally, the data collection method employed in this research is documentary. For the meta-synthesis approach, we utilized Sandelowski and Barroso’s seven-step model due to its applicability and widespread acceptance. Data analysis was performed using a three-step coding method (open, axial, and selective) conducted by two independent coders.
 
Results and discussion
Following the steps of the meta-synthesis, a total of 251 concepts, 40 sub-components, 16 components, six main axes, and two levels were identified, coded, and modeled from the 23 selected articles. The external level, titled "Family Tourist Behavior Formation Space," was encompasses the dimensions of "family lifestyle" (with components: family citizenship and family structure), "tourism planning process" (with components: role-playing at home, sense of route, destination experience, and achievements and memories), and "tourism elements" (with components: transportation, nutrition, accommodation, activities). On the other hand, the internal context titled "Family Tourist Behavior Formation Cycle" was encompasses the dimensions of "Drivers" (with components: motivation and determinants), "Experiences" (with components: actions and roles), and "Outcomes" (with components: benefits and feedback) (Fig. 1).
The idea of configuring the dimensions of "family lifestyle", "tourism planning process" and "tourism elements" as "the space of family tourist behavior formation" was based on the logic of the Venn diagram in a demand-oriented (rather than supply-oriented) approach. The combination of the dimensions of "family lifestyle" and "tourism planning process" was determined as "Interactions in Family Tourism", the combination of the dimensions of "family lifestyle" and "tourism elements" was determined as " tools of family tourism", and the combination of the dimensions of "tourism planning process" and "tourism elements" was determined as " Practices of Family Tourism". As a result of the tools, practices, and interactions confrontation associated with family tourism, a final composition was established, representing the space for shaping the behavior of family tourists. It is important to note that the absence of other variables in this framework does not imply their non-existence; rather, the concepts were organized in this manner solely to facilitate logical modeling and idea generation based on the findings. Furthermore, the concept of configuring the dimensions of ‘drivers,’ ‘experiences,’ and ‘outcomes’ within the context of the ‘family tourist behavior formation cycle’ is grounded in a systematic approach that encompasses input, process, output, and feedback. In this framework, the family behavior of tourists is modified or reinforced based on the interplay between expectations and perceptions, as well as the familization of experiences.
 
 
Fig 1. Model of Family Tourist Behavior: Space and Cycle of Family Tourist Behavior Formation
 
Conclusion
As most significant outcome of the present study, in order to decontextualize and resocialize the theoretical foundations of tourist behavior for family tourist behavior, with a family perspective and placing the family at the center of tourist behavior research, a model of family tourist behavior was presented as the space and cycle of family tourist behavior formation. This model serves as a crucial tool in the tourism industry, enabling a deeper understanding of the cultural and social diversity, needs, preferences, and behaviors of families. It aims to address existing scientific gaps by providing insights that can inform better practices and strategies in family tourism. Given the rapid changes in consumer behavior, along with the evolving social, economic, and environmental conditions affecting families, the significance of these models in tourism policy and planning is growing daily. Therefore, investing in the research and development of these models is crucial for the advancement of the tourism industry.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdul-Aziz, Y., Hussin, S. R., Nezakati, H., Raja Yusof, R. N., & Hashim, H. (2018). The effect of socio-demographic variables and travel characteristics on motivation of Muslim family tourists in Malaysia. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 9(2), 222-239. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-03-2016-0016
  2. Bernardes, J. (1997). Family studies: An introduction. Psychology Press.
  3. Bernardes, J. and Keddie, D. (1994). Family Citizenship and Family Associationism. Unpublished paper presented to the Conference, Family Associations in Europe, Milan.
  4. Bertella, G. (2015). Celebrating the family abroad: the wedding tourism experience. Annals of Leisure Research, 18(3), 397-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2015.1064774
  5. Carr, N. (2011). Children’s and families’ holiday experience. London: Taylor & Francis.
  6. Chen, H., Jiao, Y., Li, X., & Zhang, K. (2022). Family tourism: Interpersonal interaction, existential authenticity and quality of tourist experience. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 28(1), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/13567667211022407
  7. Commuri, S., & Gentry, J. (2000). Opportunities for family research in marketing. Academy of Marketing Science Review, No. 8, 1–35. Retrieved from [https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/marketingfacpub/10/]. (Access Date: 10 June. 2022).
  8. Cox, C., Burgess, S., Sellitto, C., & Buultjens, J. (2009). The role of user-generated content in tourists' travel planning behavior. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(8), 743-764. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368620903235753
  9. Crompton, J. L. (1981). Dimensions of the Social Group Role in Pleasure Vacations. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(4), 550-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(81)90041-4
  10. Epp, A. M., & Price. L. L. (2008). Family Identity: A Framework of Identity Interplay in Consumption Practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 50-70. https://doi.org/10.1086/529535
  11. Gram, M. (2005). Family holidays. A qualitative analysis of family holiday experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(1), 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250510014255
  12. Habibah, A., Hamzah, J., Er, A. C., Buang, A., & Selvadurai, S. (2015). Appraisal of family-friendly tourism in Malaysia. Tourismos, 10(1), 37-62. ‌ https://doi.org/10.26215/tourismos.v10i1.426
  13. Haldrup, M., & Larsen, J. (2003). The family gaze. Tourist studies, 3(1), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797603040529
  14. Hofstede, Geert. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
  15. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  16. Hu, A., Li, H., & Pang, J. (2023). A Tale of Two Identities: The Value, Attitude, and Behavior of Adult Children towards Family Tourism Experiences. Sustainability, 15(19), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914364
  17. Johnson, B. (1997). Examining the Validity Structure of Qualitative Research. Education, 118(2), 282-292. Retrieved from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R_Johnson3/publication/246126534_Examining_the_Validity_Structure_of_Qualitative_Research/links/54c2af380cf219bbe4e93a59.pdf]. (Access Date: 10 June. 2).
  18. Kelly, C. (2022). Beyond ‘a trip to the seaside’: Exploring emotions and family tourism experiences. Tourism geographies, 24(2-3), 284-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1795711
  19. Kennedy-Eden, H., & Gretzel, U. (2016). Modern vacations - modern families: new meanings and structures of family vacations. Annals of Leisure Research, 19(4), 461-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2016.1178152
  20. Khamsing, N., Chindaprasert, K., Pitakaso, R., Sirirak, W., & Theeraviriya, C. (2021). Modified ALNS algorithm for a processing application of family tourist route planning: A case study of Buriram in Thailand. Computation, 9(2), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation9020023
  21. Kim, H., Baek, J., & Choe, Y. (2021). Family life cycle and preferences for a mega-sporting event package: The case of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games. Tourism Economics, 27(3), 548-568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816620907780
  22. Kim, S. S., Choi, S., Agrusa, J., Wang, K. C., & Kim, Y. (2010). The role of family decision makers in festival tourism. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 308-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.10.004
  23. Kozak, M., & Duman, T. (2012). Family Members and Vacation Satisfaction: Proposal of a Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.847
  24. Larsen, J. (2008). De‐exoticizing Tourist Travel: Everyday Life and Sociality on the Move. Leisure Studies, 27(1), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360701198030
  25. Larsen, J., Urry, J. & Axhausen, K. (2007). Networks and tourism: mobile social life. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 244-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.08.002
  26. Lehto, X. Y., Choi, S., Lin, Y. C., & MacDermid, S. M. (2009). Vacation and family functioning. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 459-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.04.003
  27. Lehto, X. Y., Lin, Y. C., Chen, Y., & Choi, S. (2012). Family vacation activities and family cohesion. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(8), 835-850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2012.730950
  28. Li, M., Lehto, X., & Li, H. (2020). 40 Years of Family Tourism Research: Bibliometric Analysis and Remaining Issues. Journal of China Tourism Research, 16(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2020.1733337
  29. Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (eds.), The Qualitative Researcher's Companion (pp. 279-300). USA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986274.n2
  30. Michie, D. A. (1986). Family travel behaviour and its implications for tourism management: An international study. Tourism Management, 7(1), 8-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(86)90053-1
  31. Miyakawa, E., Pearce, P. L., & Oguchi, T. (2022). Savoring tourism: Exploring basic processes. Annals of Tourism Research, 97(C), 103498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103498
  32. Nichols, C. M., & Snepenger, D. J. (1988). Family decision making and tourism behavior and attitudes. Journal of Travel Research, 26(4), 2-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728758802600401
  33. Obrador, P. (2012). The place of the family in tourism research: domesticity and thick sociality by the pool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 401-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.07.006
  34. Panasiuk, A., & Wszendybył-Skulska, E. (2021). Social aspects of tourism policy in the European Union, The example of Poland and Slovakia. Economies, 9(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010016
  35. Qiao G., Cao, Y., Chen, Q., & Jia, Q. (2022). Understanding Family Tourism: A Perspective of Bibliometric Review. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 13, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.937312
  36. Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Springer: New York.
  37. Schänzel, H. A. & Smith, K. A. (2011). The absence of fatherhood: achieving true gender scholarship in family tourism research. Annals of Leisure Research, 14(2-3), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2011.615712
  38. Schänzel, H. A. & Yeoman, I. (2015). Trends in family tourism. Journal of Tourism Futures, 1(2), 141-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2014-0006
  39. Schänzel, H. A. (2010). Whole-family research: towards a methodology in tourism for encompassing generation, gender, and group dynamic perspectives. Tourism Analysis, 15(5), 555-569. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354210X12889831783314
  40. Schänzel, H. A., & Yeoman, I. (2014). The future of family tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 39(3), 343-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2014.11087005
  41. Schänzel, H. A., Smith, K. A., & Weaver, A. (2005). Family holidays: a research review and application to New Zealand. Annals of Leisure Research, 8(2-3), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2005.10600965
  42. Schänzel, H. A., Yeoman, I., & Backer, E. (Eds.). (2012). Family tourism: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Bristol: Channel view publications.
  43. Shaw, S. M. (2008). Family leisure and changing ideologies of parenthood. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 688-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00076.x
  44. Smith, V. & Hughes, H. (1999). Disadvantaged families and the meaning of the holiday. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(2), 123-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-1970(199903/04)1:2<123::AID-JTR146>3.0.CO;2-R
  45. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
  46. Wang, Y., & Li, M. (2021). Family Identity Bundles and Holiday Decision Making. Journal of Travel Research, 60(3), 486-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520930091
  47. Wu, M. Y., & Wall, G. (2016). Chinese Research on Family Tourism: Review and Research Implications. Journal of China Tourism Research, 12(3-4), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2016.1276873
  48. Yarnal, C. & Kerstetter, D. (2005). Casting off: an exploration of cruise ship space, group tour behavior, and social interaction. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 368-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287505274650
  49. Yeoman, I. S., Schänzel, H. A., & Zentveld, E. (2022). Family tourism: A New Zealand COVID-19 perspective. Journal of Tourism Futures, 8(2), 240-244. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2021-0274
  50. Zhong, S., & Peng, H. (2021). Children's tourist world: Two scenarios. Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 38, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100824
urban tourism
Volume 12, Issue 1
April 2025
Pages 1-20

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics