Next Article in Journal
Applying Circulating and Ecological Sphere (CES) Concept for Post-Pandemic Development: A Case of Hingna Tahsil, Nagpur (India)
Previous Article in Journal
Study on Low-Carbon Technology Innovation Strategies through Government–University–Enterprise Cooperation under Carbon Trading Policy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/su14159384
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Determinants of Tourists’ Ethical Behavior Intention for Sustainable Tourism: The Role of Both Pursuit of Happiness and Normative Goal Framing

by
Eunhee Erica Ko
1,* and
Minho Cho
2
1
School of Tourism, Yeonsung University, 34 Yanghwa-ro 37beon-gil, Manan-gu, Anyang 14011, Korea
2
School of Tourism, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9384; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159384
Submission received: 22 June 2022 / Revised: 24 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 31 July 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explored variables that determine outbound Korean tourists’ ethical behavior intention during their visits of Southeast Asian countries and analyzed the influencing relationship between them in an integrated manner. The results from the partial least squares path modeling of the R statistical program demonstrate that the pursuit of hedonic and eudaimonic motives plays a positive role in activating normative goal framing which supports tourists’ ethical behavior intention. This study therefore empirically proved the important roles of both the pursuit of happiness in daily life and normative goal framing as motivators that enhance ethical behavior intention at tourist destinations to achieve the goal of sustainable tourism after the pandemic.

1. Introduction

Prior to the global outbreak of COVID-19, the tourism industry had grown to 10% of the world’s GDP in 2017, and the number of overseas tourists reached 1.3 billion, a 7% increase from the previous year [1] The outbound Korean tourist market grew noticeably in the past decade reaching 28 million in 2018, 2.4 times larger than the previous decade [2]. However, according to annual reports released by the US State Department [3] and End Child Prostitution Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT), Korean tourists are the main perpetrators of such crimes in Southeast Asia. The Guardian [4] cited the Philippine Tourism Agency as stating that most tourists travelling to the Philippines for sex trafficking are from Korea, the US, China, and Australia. Additionally, due to environmental pollution, a famous tourist destination, Boracay, was forced to close temporarily [5]. The same is true for Bali and Maya Bay, which regularly take measures to prohibit or temporarily prevent tourists from swimming [6]. The aforementioned examples demonstrate that it is necessary to rethink the role of tourism, the necessity for ethical behavior, and the attitudes of tourists. Tourism should be viewed as a way of satisfying one’s desires or needs and be recognized as a series of sociocultural, economic, and environmental phenomena that affect individuals, regions, and international communities.
In discussing ethical behavior, the role of tourists is paramount, because as with other consumption, their choices and actions are responsible for outcomes [7]. However, demanding ethical behavior requiring tourists to be responsible and dutiful is not simple because tourists normally tend to pursue fun and pleasure while traveling and desire to escape restrictions or daily routines [8,9]. Moreover, it is difficult for individual tourists to predict the outcomes of their ethical or unethical behavior [10,11]. Nevertheless, for sustainable tourism, given that tourists’ interest in experiencing local cultures or natural environments has increased, their sense of responsibility and ethical behavior must be encouraged [9,12].
Tourists’ ethical behavior involves a change in thinking and behavior that allows for critical reflection about tourists’ own behavior related to environmental, economic, and sociocultural aspects within sustainable tourism such as ecology, responsibility, fairness, and ethics [13,14]. In fact, similar research on tourists’ behavior has been increasing significantly since 2000, but most have leaned heavily on pro-environmental aspects [9,10,15]. Moreover, some studies utilized tourists’ ethical behavior as a simple variable without classifications [16,17] and only a few studies begun it to be categorized into different types [9,18,19,20,21,22]. However, when considering the role and impact of tourism from a holistic aspect, including sociocultural, economic, and environmental perspectives, the limitations of past research reveal the need to expand the scope and diversity of study on tourists’ ethical behavior intention.
What then could determine tourists’ ethical behavior? First, goal framing refers to the phenomenon that a focal goal such as hedonic, gain, or normative framing influences cognitive processes, interpretations, decision making, and behavior [23]. Normative goal framing among the three goals mainly elicits pro-social and altruistic behavior [24,25]. Furthermore, to apply the goal framing theory effectively, situational factors should be considered together [23,26]. However, previous studies related to behavior in the context of tourism have not thoroughly dealt with this theory and the role of normative goal framing as a focal goal remains uncertain. Second, happiness could be related to a condition for creating a good life [27] or an ethical phenomenon [28]. From this perspective, a concept was developed that highlights individual volition for the pursuit of happiness in daily life [29,30]. The pursuit of happiness is divided into hedonic and eudaimonic motives [29] that function as important motives or goals and elicit certain behaviors just as values do [31,32]. However, most prior research has interpreted happiness as a single dimension of an emotional state or outcome variable [17,33], and there are insufficient studies examining the relationship between the pursuit of happiness and various social phenomena and human behavior [32,34]. Third, actual behavior is controlled by focal goals, and abstract goals, such as value or happiness, motivate focal goals [35,36,37,38]. Accordingly, in terms of overall decision-making processes that lead to tourists’ ethical behavior intention, the pursuit of happiness is expected to activate tourists’ normative goal framing as well as actual behavior. Therefore, the integrative relationship among variables is also necessary to investigate.
Upon the abovementioned backdrop and the research gap, the goals of this study are as follows: First, to examine the impact of normative goal framing on both basic and extra levels of ethical behavior intention at tourist sites. Second, to examine the impact of pursuing hedonic and eudaimonic motives in daily life on tourists’ normative goal framing. Third, to examine the impact of the pursuit of happiness on different levels of tourists’ ethical behavior intention. This allows us to identify the factors that influence ethical behavior intention of tourists from multiple perspectives. To be specific, this is significant in that it interprets happiness as an abstract motive for determining tourists’ ethical behavior intention and build the relationship together with a focal goal and different levels of behavior intention in an integrated way. Not only the tourists themselves, but tourist operators, governments, and policy makers are required to play various roles and make efforts to induce and revitalize tourists’ ethical behavior. This study, therefore, suggests practical measures based on the results of detailed analysis.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Tourists’ Ethical Behavior Intention

Tourists’ ethical behavior entails environmental preservation and considers the fair distribution of economic benefits such as the pay and welfare of those who are working in the tourism industry [15], while showing respect for local cultures at tourist sites [39]. Nonetheless, only recently, studies have begun to examine diverse ethical behavior in phases or categories. Wooliscroft et al. [22] classified ethical behavior as basic levels that most people can display, and comparatively difficult levels that require advanced application and willingness. This also can be interpreted as a hierarchy of ethical consumption behavior [22]. Geng et al. [20] argued that there are different types of pro-environmental behavior; some are costly or inconvenient with high constraints, others are almost free, easy to do, and more predictable, with less demanding conditions [40,41].
In the field of tourism, François-Lecompte and Prim-Allaz [18] divided responsible tourism into two categories: neo-sustainable and adventure-sustainable. Dolnicar [42] and Dwyer et al. [43] emphasized that studies about tourists’ ethical behavior should comprehensively include contents about economic, physical, and social behavior. Additionally, Lee et al. [21] categorized environmentally responsible behavior at tourist sites as follows: behavior that conserves nature and minimize disruptions to the environment; behavior that voluntarily avoids visiting areas suffering from environmental destruction; and behavior that reduces environmental damage. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft [9] argued that tourists who are good at manifesting high levels of ethical behavior that requires relatively more time and money can be predicted to engage in basic levels of ethical behavior successfully. Gao et al. [19] classified tourists’ ideal responsible behavior into basic responsibility, which demands relatively low-cost and neutral behavior and extra responsibility, which demands high-cost and proactive behavior.
Behavior intention refers to the likelihood of transferring one’s subjective perception or emotions to behavior [44]. Behavior intention has the greatest impact on behavior, and plays a mediating role between attitude and behavior [45]. Behavior intention is a determinant factor for actual behavior; therefore, it can precisely measure and predict future behavior [46,47]. It is also known as a surrogate variable of actual behavior [46,47,48,49]. For example, in previous studies regarding pro-environmental behavior, pro-environmental attitudes did not always result in aligned behavior [20,50] but behavior intention increases the likelihood of exhibiting actual behavior when one has a favorable attitude toward the environment [51,52].

2.2. Normative Goal Framing

Studies on goal framing began relatively recently, in the 2000s. Lindenberg and Steg [23] structuralized the related theory based on cognitive social psychology that discussed the impact of goals on a person’s cognition process. According to the theory, there are three focal goal framings: hedonic, gain, and normative [23,26].
Normative goal framing is the mindset to behave appropriately by focusing on environmental or social gain under certain conditions or situations [20,23,26,53] and is a focal goal when it comes to altruistic behavior related to the pro-social or pro-environmental field [23,24,26]. People tend to set aside other goals, such as their emotions, personal interests, or satisfaction, and focus on environmental or social gains when normative goals are strong [20]. Normative goals are sensitive to one’s own behavior and to that of others [54,55]. The related literature has proven that normative goal framing motivates pro-environmental or socially beneficial behavior via consumers [56], Indian students [24], and American teachers [57].
Similarly, Steg and De Groot [58], Chatzidakis et al. [59], and Ateş [60] verified a positive effect of consumers’ personal norms on pro-social behavior. Wang et al. [61] proved that tourists’ personal norms exerted a significantly positive effect on pro-environmental behavior intention at tourist sites, and other studies claimed that personal norms have positive effects on different kinds of ethical behavior and a greater effect on less strict levels of ethical behavior [19,22,40].
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1. 
Normative goal framing will exert a significant effect on tourists’ ethical behavior intention.
H1a. 
Normative goal framing will exert a positive effect on basic levels of ethical behavior intention.
H1b. 
Normative goal framing will exert a positive effect on extra levels of ethical behavior intention.

2.3. The Pursuit of Happiness

Goal structure, having a hierarchy of abstract goals, focal goals, and lower-level goals, is related to a certain level of action plan that a consumer is aiming for, and abstract goals, in their essence, provide the ultimate motives and reasons to determine their behavior [37,62]. Actual behavior is controlled by a focal goal, the middle level in goal hierarchy, and an abstract goal provides a motive to pursue a focal goal [37,38]. In this sense, happiness is a core and high value of our lives [63] and could be one of the abstract goals of human life [35,36].
Meanwhile, researchers started to pay fresh attention to the function of happiness as a cause of socially occurring events, not just as an outcome [32] and have proven that happiness has a positive effect on altruistic behavior, improves sociability, and drives organizational success [64,65,66]. Moreover, happiness can determine the degree of social development or progress [32,67] and has a positive effect on pro-social behavior [35,68,69]. While happiness and values are not the same, they are similar in terms of ultimate motives and direction of human behavior [31]. There are two well-known studies that have interpreted happiness from the perspective of motives: Peterson et al. [30] addressed orientation to happiness as comprising of a life of pleasure, engagement, and meaning; and Huta and Ryan [29] suggested hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Both studies highlighted that seeking different motives in a harmonious manner is the best way to maintain chronic happiness [29,30]. There is no guarantee that the pursuit of happiness realizes all intention, but it is an important driving force leading to specific actions [32].
The pursuit of hedonic motives is the tendency to seek joy or comfort in the present moment by using physical, mental, or social means [31,32,70]; the tendency to maximize pleasure and minimize physical or mental pain [30]. This is a similar view as the idea of the life of pleasure by Peterson et al. [30] and highlights the state of positive emotions [9,29]. It can help a person to restore physical and psychological energy by boosting or refreshing one’s subjective energy [29]. It was mainly known that the pursuit of hedonic motives values comfort and peace, and escape from worries and anxiety through emotional and cognitive self-regulation [29]. However, in more recent studies, Igarashi [71] argued that the pursuit of hedonic motives can contribute to a good life, health, social participation as well as success, and Yang et al. [72] verified that a life of pleasure has a positive effect on pro-social behavior and subjective wellbeing.
The pursuit of eudaimonic motives is for growth and creating meaning for oneself and others, while seeking a higher level of happiness [29]. It refers to the tendency to discover meaning and value in life [71] and to live an integrated life of engagement and meaning [30]. It not only seeks to improve levels of optimism, happiness, and positive emotions but is related to other people’s wellbeing or welfare [30]. In addition, it has a positive effect on career development and sense of accomplishment [32,73], and pro-social behavior that keeps in mind social attention or other people [72].
In addition, Malone et al. [10] asserted the necessity to induce pleasure and enjoyment for tourists who seek hedonism, since those emotions can motivate their ethical behavior. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft [9] stated that a life of pleasure has a positive effect on tourists’ ethical behavior in the same way as a life of meaning does. Caruana et al. [8] asserted that tourists who value pleasure implement the mechanism of self-regulation for the purpose of feeling joy, avoiding discomfort, and engaging in ethical behavior. Through this self-regulating mechanism, they control themselves, observe local culture, and compare their materialistic consumption behavior with the economic condition of local residents at tourist sites [39]. These findings show that, not only the pursuit of eudaimonic motives, but that of hedonic motives, can contribute to good life, health, and social participation [71]. In this sense, tourists who practice the pursuit of hedonic motives are more likely to regulate themselves and act ethical behavior in order to avoid uncomfortable emotions and to experience pleasure at tourist sites [10,39,57].
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2. 
The pursuit of happiness will exert a significant effect on tourists’ normative goal framing.
H2a. 
The pursuit of hedonic motives will exert a positive effect on tourists’ normative goal framing.
H2b. 
The pursuit of eudaimonic motives will exert a positive effect on tourists’ normative goal framing.
H3. 
The pursuit of happiness will exert a significant effect on tourists’ ethical behavior intention.
H3a. 
The pursuit of hedonic motives will exert a positive effect on basic levels of ethical behavior intention.
H3b. 
The pursuit of hedonic motives will exert a positive effect on extra levels of ethical behavior intention.
H3c. 
The pursuit of eudaimonic motives will exert a positive effect on basic levels of ethical behavior intention.
H3d. 
The pursuit of eudaimonic motives will exert a positive effect on extra levels of ethical behavior intention.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Model

The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that determine tourists’ ethical behavior intention and to systematically analyze the influencing relationship between them to identify the process of determining the ethical behavior of tourists in an integrated manner. Therefore, we established a causal relationship between the pursuit of hedonic and eudaimonic motives (abstract goal), normative goal framing (focal goal), and ethical behavior intention, and created a new research model as shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Sample and Data Collection

This study focused on the factors that affect the ethical behavior intention of Korean tourists visiting member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) such as Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Cambodia, and Brunei. The ASEAN has developed into a region where the tourism industry, as well as economic and socio-cultural development, is the fastest growing [74]. This region is highly preferred by Korean tourists, and according to 2019 data, countries of Southeast Asia such as Vietnam and Thailand, ranked highest among tourist destinations visited by Koreans [75].
The sample selected for this study comprised Korean adults who were 20 years or older and had traveled to Southeast Asia. According to the questionnaire survey, 77.5% of respondents expressed their intention to revisit the same tourist sites [76]. The intention to revisit China or Hong Kong was relatively low, while the intention to revisit Southeast Asia was relatively high [76]. In other words, tourists who experienced traveling in Southeast Asia are more likely to return.
Purposive sampling and quota sampling based on gender and age were selected among non-probability sampling for the following reasons: First, we paid close attention to the findings of similar studies that dealt with tourists’ responsible attitudes or behavior. They found that gender and age reflect significant differences in tourists’ attitudes related to responsible tourism [77]; those with a pro-environmental attitude are either older or women, while those without are either young or men [78]. Second, the online survey used for data collection in this study had the advantage of enabling quick and efficient collection of responses from users, allowing access to a wider range of consumers compared to the field survey method [79,80]. However, many prior online studies had more female respondents than males [81,82,83]. Third, the number of Korean female tourists was almost equal to males and the number of outbound travelers by age was slightly higher for those in their 30s and slightly lower for those in their 60s, while other age groups were almost evenly distributed [75]. Therefore, we attempted to increase the representativeness by appropriately reflecting the characteristics of population without biasing the sample [84].
The questionnaire survey was conducted in two steps to check the comprehensibility of questionnaire items and to improve the accuracy of the survey. First, using a draft questionnaire for graduate students at tourism department in Korea, 10 copies were surveyed to ascertain respondent understanding. Second, we conducted a preliminary survey using 50 self-reporting questionnaires on an online survey site among people with experience of traveling to Southeast Asia. We received feedback from respondents on ambiguity and revised unclear terminology to be more comprehensible. After two revisions, we eliminated items with low content validity and prepared the final version for the main survey. The online survey was conducted with the final version of the questionnaire through Korea’s largest online research company (embrain.com), and the data collected through self-reporting responses. The overall temporal scope of the survey from the preliminary period was from June to August 2019. The related link to the questionnaire was sent to the online panels via email, and as a filtering question, all the respondents were first asked if they had traveled to Southeast Asia within the past 3 years. A total of 6175 emails were sent and 843 without travelling experience to Southeast Asia within the past 3 years were eliminated. As a result, 480 samples were collected and 432 were used for analysis after excluding 48 incomplete or insincere copies.

3.3. Measurement Development

The variables for testing hypotheses based on the research model were the pursuit of happiness, normative goal framing, and ethical behavior intention. To evaluate these variables, measurement items were constructed by extracting and applying the related contents verified in previous studies according to the topic and purpose of this study (i.e., [9,19,21,23,24,29,30,32,53,57,59,77,85,86,87]). Four items were used to measure the pursuit of hedonic motives (e.g., “I am seeking enjoyment in everyday life”). Five items were used to measure the pursuit of eudaimonic motives (e.g., “I am seeking to pursue excellence in everyday life”). Normative goal framing was evaluated with four items (e.g., “During my travel, to act according to moral principles is important”). Basic levels of ethical behavior intention were evaluated with five items (e.g., “During my travel, I will respect local culture and tradition”). Four measurement items were utilized for extra levels of ethical behavior intention requiring relatively more time, money, and proactiveness (e.g., “During my travel, I will not visit sites where the environment can be damaged”). All questionnaire items except for six general information about demographics were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

3.4. Data Analysis

To analyze the questionnaires collected, we mainly utilized the R statistical program widely used in relation to recent big data analysis. R is an open-source program that supports diverse statistical packages, and in this study, partial least squares path modeling (PLSPM) was chosen. PLSPM supports partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) that can quantitatively identify the causal relationship between factors. Additionally, it has the advantage of particularly high efficiency because it evaluates the reliability and validity required for the analysis of SEM by using the characteristics of R, a script-type language [88].

4. Findings

4.1. Sample and Descriptive Statistical Analysis

We performed frequency analysis to examine the characteristics of the collected data from the sample population and descriptive statistical analysis was followed to check for extremely non-normal distribution of data.

4.1.1. Demographic Characteristics

The size of the sample that responded to the survey was 432. Frequency analysis was performed to examine demographic characteristics. By using quota sampling based on gender and age, the number of each gender was equal: 216 male (50.0%) and 216 female (50.0%) of 432. The group in their 30s was the largest with 110 (25.5%). The 20s, 40s, and 50s groups were similar, and the group aged 60 and over was the smallest, with 65 (15.0%). Most respondents were college graduates—255 (59.0%); high school graduates were the smallest—39 (9.0%). Most respondents were earning KRW 2–4 million—176 (40.7%), followed by KRW 4–6 million—118 (27.3%). Many respondents held office jobs—183 (42.4%), and the smallest groups were homemakers—44 (10.2%) and students—29 (6.7%). Respondents with over five overseas visits within the past 3 years numbered 124 (28.7%); three visits totaled 115 (26.6%); and two visits numbered 110 (25.5%).

4.1.2. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

In PLS-SEM, assumptions are not made about data distribution. This contrasts with covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM), in which distinguishing between normal distribution and non-normal distribution is important. However, it is necessary to check its extremity because extreme non-normal distribution can affect the significance of causal relationships through bootstrapping [89].
Therefore, descriptive statistical analysis, including skewness and kurtosis, was performed (Table 1). The skewness of all variables was below an absolute value of 1, and kurtosis was below an absolute value of 2, which indicates that data distribution was not extreme and at an adequate level of normalcy [90].

4.2. Evaluation of Models

The evaluation of outer model in PLS-SEM is an evaluation of reliability and validity of the measurement indicators, and is necessary to verify internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity [88,91]. The evaluation of the inner model assesses the causal relationship between latent variables and entails a comprehensive analysis of coefficients of determination R2, GoF index, and path coefficients [88].

4.2.1. Evaluation of Outer Model

Internal consistency reliability was examined with Cronbach’s α, a conventional reliability evaluation method, and Dillon-Goldstein’s rho value, deemed a preferable reliability evaluation item through considering different loadings of measurement variables [88,89]. The result showed no problems with reliability as both values were above 0.7. In PLS-SEM, the evaluation of convergent validity requires average variance extracted (AVE) values and must consider the outer loading of each indicator and its statistical significance [89]. The results had no issues as all the AVE values were above 0.5 and most factor loadings were above 0.7, with some above 0.6 [92] (Appendix A). The result of examining statistical significance by calculating t-value and indicator reliability, including minimum value (perc 0.025) and maximum value (perc 0.975), showed that values between the upper and lower limits did not include 0 and all indicators were statistically significant (t-value >1.96). The loading of each measurement indicator belonging to each latent variable was significantly higher than the cross loading of these measurement indicators in other latent variables. Fornell-Larcker’s criteria was also satisfied as the square root value of AVE of each latent variable was found to be greater than the highest correlation with other latent variables. Accordingly, both convergent validity and discriminant validity were secured (Table 2 and Table 3).

4.2.2. Evaluation of Inner Model and Hypotheses Testing

Next, we evaluated the inner model. Cohen [93] proposed the explanatory power for R2 to be small = 0.02, medium = 0.13, and large = 0.26, while Hair et al. [89] stated that an R2 of 0.20 is high in the studies of consumer behavior but a higher R2 value is required in the field of marketing. In a PLS model, the value of each factor at 10% and higher is said to have explanatory power [94]. In this study, R2 values had no problems with explanatory power as it was 0.137 for normative goal framing, 0.277 for basic levels of ethical behavior intention, and 0.252 for extra levels of ethical behavior intention. Tenenhaus et al. [95] proposed GoF with a range from 0 to 1 as an index for the overall fit of an inner model in PLS and recommended a minimum of 0.36 as the standard. Some scholars disagree that GoF is an ideal index for examining the adequacy of a model [96]; nonetheless, the GoF index for this study was 0.361. The path coefficient is a causal relationship between latent variables, and the hypothesis established can be tested through path analysis. According to analysis results, seven out of eight hypotheses were supported when t value (t > ±1.96), confidence interval calculated by boosting, was used as a standard.
Hypothesis H1a and H1b were supported. Normative goal framing was found to have a significantly positive effect on basic levels (b = 0.422, p < 0.001) and extra levels (b = 0.096, p < 0.05) of ethical behavior intention. Hypotheses H2a and H2b were supported. The pursuit of hedonic motives exerted a significantly positive effect on normative goal framing (b = 0.188, p < 0.001) as did the pursuit of eudaimonic motives (b = 0.260, p < 0.001). Hypothesis H3a was rejected while H3b, H3c, and H3d were supported. The pursuit of hedonic motives exerted no significant effect on basic levels (b = 0.027, n.s.) but a significantly positive effect on extra levels (b = 0.117, p < 0.05) of ethical behavior intention. Lastly, the pursuit of eudaimonic motives was found to exert a significantly positive effect on both basic levels (b = 0.190, p < 0.001) and extra levels (b = 0.406, p < 0.001) of ethical behavior intention (Table 4) (Figure 2).

4.2.3. Additional Analysis

Based on the above hypotheses testing, we additionally conducted Sobel Test to see the role of normative goal framing as a mediator between the pursuit of happiness and ethical behavior intention. As a result, though there was no direct effect between the pursuit of hedonic motives and basic levels of ethical behavior intention (b = 0.027, n.s.), normative goal framing acted as a full mediator among two factors. On the other hand, it was shown that normative goal framing did not act as a mediator between the pursuit of hedonic motives and extra levels of ethical behavior intention. In the path of eudaimonic motives and basic or extra levels of ethical behavior intention, normative goal framing acted as a partial mediator (Table 5).

5. Discussion

In this study, we used the pursuit of happiness, normative goal framing, and behavior intention as variables to examine overall decision-making processes that lead to tourists’ ethical behavior intention. A new research model was presented and verified to predict causal relationships between variables.
First, normative goal framing exerts a significantly positive effect on both basic levels (b = 0.422, p < 0.001) and extra levels (b = 0.096, p < 0.05) of ethical behavior intention. This supports the previous studies of Chakraborty et al. [24], Lindenberg and Steg [23,26], Liobikienė and Juknys [56], and Miao and Wei [57] who argued that it is desirable for normative goal framing to act as a focal goal for altruistic behavior such as pro-social or eco-friendly behavior. In other words, it was proved that activating tourists’ normative goal framing at tourist sites can be an important motivator for both basic and extra levels of ethical behavior intention and has a relatively greater effect on basic levels.
Second, the pursuit of hedonic and eudaimonic motives exerts a significantly positive effect on normative goal framing respectively (b = 0.188, p < 0.001) (b = 0.260, p < 0.001). This supports previous findings by Huta and Ryan [29], Igarashi [70], and Yang et al. [72], who discussed the positive impact of pursuing these motives on society. It is also similar to the finding of Caruana et al. [8] that those who normally value pleasure activate self-regulation mechanisms at tourist sites because they desire to feel joy and avoid negative emotions during their travel. In other words, it is proved that pursuing hedonic or eudaimonic motives in daily life plays a role in activating tourists’ normative goal framing. It is noteworthy that seeking hedonic motives can also act positively for normative goal framing at tourist sites.
Meanwhile, previous studies maintained that tourists seek pleasure and have the psychological trait to escape restraints while traveling [8,9]. In other words, it is not easy to activate normative goal framing at tourist sites, and an unconscious motivator is required to improve it. In this aspect, this study found that the pursuit of hedonic or eudaimonic motives in daily life can take this role and, at the same time, serve as a driving force to increase tourists’ ethical behavior intention.
Third, the pursuit of hedonic motives exerted a significantly positive effect on extra levels (b = 0.117, p < 0.05) of ethical behavior intention. Moreover, the pursuit of eudaimonic motives exerted a significantly positive effect on both basic (b = 0.190, p < 0.001) and extra levels (b = 0.406, p < 0.001) of ethical behavior intention. This supports previous findings that happiness affects a person’s decision making and induces pro-social behavior [68] and the pursuit of eudaimonic motives has the most positive effect and hedonic motives also has a weak but positive effect on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior [9]. This is similar to the findings of Caruana et al. [8], Malone et al. [10], and Miao and Wei [57], that tourists are more likely to practice ethical behavior to avoid an uncomfortable mood at tourist sites.
Lastly, contrary to expectations, the pursuit of hedonic motives did not show a significant effect on basic levels (b = 0.027, n.s.) of ethical behavior intention. This might reflect that pursuit of happiness can function as a driving force for a certain behavior, but it does not always guarantee the practice of behavior [32]. However, with the regard to this result, it is necessary to pay attention to the role of normative goal framing as a mediator according to the above additional analysis. In other words, the pursuit of hedonic motives in daily life is not enough to activate the basic levels of ethical behavior directly, but normative goal framing can act between the two variables to help tourists put them into practice.

6. Conclusions and Implications

This study was intended to provide a theoretical basis for examining overall decision-making processes leading to tourists’ ethical behavior intention from an integrated perspective. To this end, based on previous studies, the pursuit of happiness as an abstract motive or goal of a specific behavior, normative goal framing that directly affects behavior in the cognitive process, and behavior intention, known as a variable that more directly affects behavior, were utilized. The main contributions are as follows; First, the relationship between the pursuit of happiness and normative goal framing of tourists was newly verified by expanding the scope of research utilizing goal framing theory. The results showed that the impact of pursuing hedonic and eudaimonic motives on normative goal framing was relatively different, but both have positive roles in normative goal framing.
Second, this study attempted to avoid either an extremely macroscopic or microscopic perspective on tourists’ ethical behavior intention and stressed the need to change tourists’ perceptions more systematically and to induce ethical behavior. To this end, it intended to contribute to the expansion of research diversity and discussion by encompassing not only the environmental but social and economic aspects.
Third, this study categorized tourists’ ethical behavior intention into two types and attempted to identify causal relationships with other variables. The results showed a significant relationship by verifying that activation of normative goal framing through pursuing hedonic or eudaimonic motives in daily life has a positive role on basic and extra levels of ethical behavior intention. Therefore, this study provided a comprehensive view of the overall decision-making process that affects different levels of tourists’ ethical behavior intention.
Finally, this study verified that happiness can function as an abstract motive for tourists’ ethical behavior intention. The results showed that the pursuit of happiness, either directly or indirectly, affects tourists’ ethical behavior intention and functions as a driving power for a certain mindset or behavior. Accordingly, by proving that the pursuit of happiness has a role as an explanatory variable that affects tourists’ behavior, it suggested the necessity of further studies on happiness in the field of tourism.
This study also provided practical implications in three different ways. First, normative goal framing exerts a positive effect on both basic and extra levels of ethical behavior intention. Therefore, stakeholders at airports, famous tourist sites, and lodgings such as hotels need to actively implement measures to improve normative goal framing. However, it is not easy to activate normative goal framing, since other goal framings can easily replace it when people wish to have high regard for normative goals and behave appropriately but do not know how [23,26]. Thus, it is critical to clearly inform them which behaviors are appropriate. For example, a government organization that has jurisdiction over a specific tourist destination can summarize regulations within the area in writing using multinational languages and provide brief explanations using online or virtual reality devices from the moment tourists enter airports. Hotels, restaurants, and transporters need to make their own templates, cards, or videos about ethical behavior rules to be followed in the facilities they operate, and actively share them. In other words, when attempting to promote tourists’ ethical behavior with the goal of sustainable tourism, concrete measures and active practices are required for activating normative goal framing. Moreover, outbound tourists can positively contribute to inbound tourism to their home country and interest in their culture; however, their unethical behavior can damage the national image and rather curtail inbound tourism [97]. In this sense, it is required to emphasize the educational aspect in the longer term. For example, it is necessary to proactively run educational programs related to ethical behavior at schools. Developing a mature civic awareness in adolescents can not only build normative goal framing but strengthen personal and social standards by consensus throughout the society, and could facilitate ethical behavior as tourists.
Second, it was found that the pursuit of happiness, which is an individual’s effort to pursue happiness in daily life, has a positive effect on the formation of normative goal framing as a tourist. Therefore, it is worthy that individuals make efforts to continuously pursue happiness; however, in this, people are inevitably influenced by society or the country to which they belong [98]. Moreover, since tourism has an organic relationship with various social phenomena, it influences the environment, society, economy, and so forth, but, at the same time, is affected by them [15,42]. Thus, it is important to create social atmospheres that actively encourage the pursuit of happiness, not only to facilitate normative goal framing as tourists, but for many other social situations.
Third, the pursuit of happiness was found to exert a directly or indirectly positive effect on tourists’ ethical behavior intention. Particularly, in consideration of the direct and positive role of eudaimonic motives, creating a social atmosphere that values them can foster the growth and harmony of society beyond tourism.

7. Limitations and Future Research

This study contributed to explore the overall decision-making process that leads to tourists’ ethical behavior intention. In particular, the pursuit of happiness, normative goal framing, and behavior intention are utilized as variables and proposed a new research model to verify causal relationships between variables. Nevertheless, this study has limitations. First, we selected ethical behavior intention as an outcome variable based on previous findings that intention is the proxy variable that can best predict actual behavior [46,47,49]. Nonetheless, it is probable that tourists’ ethical behavior intention can differ from actual behavior. Therefore, a follow-up study is required using the same model to measure tourists’ actual ethical behavior and to examine whether there is any disparity between intention and actual behavior.
Second, this study mainly concentrated on presenting a new research model based on literature reviews and testing hypotheses by verifying relationships between variables. Thus, moderating effects were not examined. Future research can provide more practical implications by comparing the moderating effect of demographic factors.
Third, this study is limited in that it did not include tourists who have not traveled to Southeast Asia or tourists who have traveled to other countries. Therefore, follow-up studies can examine differences among groups visiting various destinations. Furthermore, if the same research model is applied after the pandemic and compared with the results of the current study, further insights can be added.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.E.K.; Investigation, E.E.K.; Methodology, E.E.K.; Project administration, M.C.; Supervision, M.C.; Writing—original draft, E.E.K.; Writing—review & editing, M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Sustainability 14 09384 g0a1 550
Figure A1. R plot, loadings.
Figure A1. R plot, loadings.
Sustainability 14 09384 g0a1

References

  1. UNWTO. Why Tourism? 2019. Available online: http://www2.unwto.org/content/why-tourism (accessed on 13 November 2019).
  2. Korea Tourism Statistics. 2019. Available online: http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1655 (accessed on 15 February 2021).
  3. Trafficking in Persons Report. 2017. Available online: https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2017/index.htm (accessed on 5 November 2019).
  4. The Guardian. Do You Ever Think about Me? 2019. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/02/children-sex-tourists-leave-behind-fathers-visited-philippines (accessed on 10 November 2019).
  5. Lonely Planet. When Will We Be Able to Travel to Boracay Again? 2018. Available online: http://lonelyplanet.co.kr/magazine/articles/AI_00001737 (accessed on 10 January 2020).
  6. ASEAN Korea Centre Blog. 2019. Available online: https://m.blog.naver.com/PostList.nhn?blogId=akcsns (accessed on 2 January 2020).
  7. Earth-Changers. Sustainable Tourism, Ecotourism, Responsible Travel, Conscious Tourism… What’s the Difference? 2017. Available online: https://earthchangers.medium.com/sustainable-tourism-ecotourism-responsible-travel-conscious-tourism-whats-the-difference-bb13f0b72221 (accessed on 11 November 2019).
  8. Caruana, R.; Crane, A. Getting away from it all. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1495–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A.; Wooliscroft, B. Ethical holiday behavior, wellbeing and orientations to happiness. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2016, 11, 83–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Malone, S.; McCabe, S.; Smith, A.P. The role of hedonism in ethical tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 44, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Miller, G.; Rathouse, K.; Scarles, C.; Holmes, K.; Tribe, J. Public understanding of sustainable tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37, 627–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Goodwin, H.; Francis, J. Ethical and responsible tourism: Consumer trends in the UK. J. Vacat. Mark. 2003, 9, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Speed, C. Are backpackers ethical tourists? In Backpacker Tourism: Concepts and Profiles; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2008; pp. 54–81. [Google Scholar]
  14. Weeden, C. Ethical tourism—Is its future in niche tourism? In Niche Tourism, Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2005; pp. 233–245. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lovelock, B.; Lovelock, K. The Ethics of Tourism; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee, H.Y.; Bonn, M.A.; Reid, E.L.; Kim, W.G. Differences in tourist ethical judgment and responsible tourism intention: An ethical scenario approach. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Paramita, W.; Zulfa, N.; Rostiani, R.; Widyaningsih, Y.A.; Sholihin, M. Ethics support through rapport: Elaborating the impact of service provider rapport on ethical behaviour intention of the tourists. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 63, 102693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. François-Lecompte, A.; Prim-Allaz, I. Les français et le tourisme durable: Proposition d’une typologie. Manag. Avenir 2009, 29, 308–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Gao, J.; Huang, Z.; Zhang, C. Tourists’ perceptions of responsibility: An application of norm-activation theory. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 276–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Geng, J.; Long, R.; Chen, H. Impact of information intervention on travel mode choice of urban residents with different goal frames: A controlled trial in Xuzhou, China. Transp. Res. Part A 2016, 91, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, T.H.; Jan, F.H.; Yang, C.C. Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 454–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wooliscroft, B.; Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A.; Noone, A. The hierarchy of ethical consumption behavior: The case of New Zealand. J. Macromark. 2014, 34, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Chakraborty, A.; Singh, M.P.; Roy, M. A study of goal frames shaping pro-environmental behaviour in university students. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2017, 18, 1291–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Groot, J.I.; Steg, L. Morality and prosocial behavior: The role of awareness, responsibility, and norms in the norm activation model. J. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 149, 425–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. Goal-framing theory and norm-guided environmental behavior. In Encouraging Sustainable Behavior; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 37–54. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sirgy, M.J. The Psychology of Quality of Life: Hedonic Well-Being, Life Satisfaction, and Eudaimonia; Springer Science and Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 50. [Google Scholar]
  28. Haybron, D.M. Two philosophical problems in the study of happiness. J. Happiness Stud. 2000, 1, 207–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huta, V.; Ryan, R.M. Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J. Happiness Stud. 2010, 11, 735–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Peterson, C.; Park, N.; Seligman, M.E.P. Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. J. Happiness Stud. 2005, 6, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huta, V.; Waterman, A.S. Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. J. Happiness Stud. 2014, 15, 1425–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kryza-Lacombe, M.; Tanzini, E.; O’Neill, S. Hedonic and eudaimonic motives: Associations with academic achievement and negative emotional states among urban college students. J. Happiness Stud. 2019, 20, 1323–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fatima, J.K.; Di Mascio, R.; Sharma, P. Demystifying the impact of self-indulgence and self-control on customer-employee rapport and customer happiness. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Seligman, M.E. Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. Handb. Posit. Psychol. 2002, 2, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lane, T. How does happiness relate to economic behaviour? A review of the literature. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2017, 68, 62–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Layard, R. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science; Penguin UK: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pieters, R.; Baumgartner, H.; Allen, D. A means-end chain approach to consumer goal structures. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1995, 12, 227–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Vallacher, R.R.; Wegner, D.M. What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychol. Rev. 1987, 94, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Caruana, R.; Glozer, S.; Eckhardt, G.M. ‘Alternative Hedonism’: Exploring the role of pleasure in moral markets. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 166, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Bamberg, S.; Schmidt, P. Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 264–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guagnano, G.A.; Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 699–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dolnicar, S. Identifying tourists with smaller environmental footprints. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 717–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P.; Spurr, R.; Hoque, S. Estimating the carbon footprint of Australian tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18, 355–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barr, S.; Gilg, A.W. A conceptual framework for understanding and analyzing attitudes towards environmental behaviour. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2007, 89, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kaiser, F.G.; Scheuthle, H. Two challenges to a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Moral norms and just world beliefs in conservationism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2003, 35, 1033–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Ru, X.; Li, J.; Zhao, D. Understanding employee’s electricity conservation behavior in workplace: Do normative, emotional and habitual factors matter? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1070–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, G. Antecedents of employee electricity saving behavior in organizations: An empirical study based on norm activation model. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 1120–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Anable, J. ‘Complacent car addicts’ or “aspiring environmentalists”? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transp. Policy 2005, 12, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Ferdous, A.S. Applying the theory of planned behavior to explain marketing managers’ perspectives on sustainable marketing. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2010, 22, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Powell, R.B.; Ham, S.H. Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 467–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bösehans, G.; Walker, I. Do supra-modal traveller types exist? A travel behaviour market segmentation using Goal framing theory. Transportation 2020, 47, 243–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Cialdini, R.B.; Reno, R.R.; Kallgren, C.A. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Horne, C. The enforcement of norms: Group cohesion and meta-norms. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2001, 64, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liobikienė, G.; Juknys, R. The role of values, environmental risk perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: The Lithuanian case. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3413–3422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Miao, L.; Wei, W. Consumers’ pro-environmental behavior and the underlying motivations: A comparison between household and hotel settings. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 32, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Steg, L.; De Groot, J. Explaining prosocial intentions: Testing causal relationships in the norm activation model. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 49, 725–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chatzidakis, A.; Kastanakis, M.; Stathopoulou, A. Socio-cognitive determinants of consumers’ support for the fair trade movement. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 133, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Ateş, H. Merging theory of planned behavior and value identity personal norm model to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, S.; Ji, C.; He, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L. Tourists’ waste reduction behavioral intentions at tourist destinations: An integrative research framework. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 25, 540–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pieters, R. A control view of the behaviour of consumers: Turning the triangle. Eur. J. Mark. 1993, 27, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Diener, E. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Taquet, M.; Quoidbach, J.; de Montjoye, Y.A.; Desseilles, M.; Gross, J.J. Hedonism and the choice of everyday activities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 9769–9773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Veenhoven, R. Hedonism and happiness. J. Happiness Stud. 2003, 4, 437–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Walsh, L.C.; Boehm, J.K.; Lyubomirsky, S. LSE Business Review: Is Happiness a Consequence or Cause of Career Success? 2018. Available online: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/91358/1/Walsh_Is-happiness-a-consequence_Author.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2021).
  67. Helliwell, J.F.; Huang, H.; Wang, S. The geography of world happiness. In World Happiness Report; United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 12–41. [Google Scholar]
  68. Reimers, V.; Magnuson, B.; Chao, F. Happiness, altruism and the prius effect how do they influence consumer attitudes towards environmentally responsible clothing. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2017, 21, 115–132. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wang, L.; Graddy, E. Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2008, 19, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Waterman, A.S. Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1993, 64, 678–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Igarashi, Y. Personal happiness in relation to culture. EC Psychol. Psychiatry 2016, 1, 133–144. [Google Scholar]
  72. Yang, Y.; Li, P.; Fu, X.; Kou, Y. Orientations to happiness and subjective well-being in Chinese adolescents: The roles of prosocial behavior and internet addictive behavior. J. Happiness Stud. 2017, 18, 1747–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hirschi, A. Effects of orientations to happiness on vocational identity achievement. Career Dev. Q. 2011, 59, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. ASEAN Korea Centre. ASEAN Overview. 2019. Available online: https://www.aseankorea.org/kor/ASEAN/asean1.asp (accessed on 12 December 2019).
  75. Korea Tourism Organization. Foreign Tourists Visiting Korea (95~14 Years). 2019. Available online: http://kto.visitkorea.or.kr/kor/ktom/stat/stat.kto (accessed on 11 March 2021).
  76. Korea Tourism Organization. 2017. Available online: https://kto.visitkorea.or.kr/kor/notice/data/report/org/board/view.kto?id=428899 (accessed on 10 May 2019).
  77. Kang, M.; Moscardo, G. Exploring cross-cultural differences in attitudes towards responsible tourist behaviour: A comparison of Korean, British and Australian tourists. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2006, 11, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, A.K.; Weiler, B. Visitors’ attitudes towards responsible fossil collecting behaviour: An environmental attitude-based segmentation approach. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 602–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kim, M.J.; Chung, N.; Lee, C.K. The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce: Shopping online for tourism products and services in South Korea. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kim, M.J.; Park, J.Y.; Lee, C.K.; Chung, J.Y. The role of perceived ethics in the decision-making process for responsible tourism using an extended model of goal-directed behavior. Int. J. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2017, 31, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gao, Y.; Mattila, A.S.; Lee, S. A meta-analysis of behavioral intentions for environment-friendly initiatives in hospitality research. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 54, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. What influences water conservation and towel reuse practices of hotel guests? Tour. Manag. 2018, 64, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Untaru, E.N.; Ispas, A.; Candrea, A.N.; Luca, M.; Epuran, G. Predictors of individuals’ intention to conserve water in a lodging context: The application of an extended theory of reasoned action. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 59, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Neuman, W.L. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 7th ed.; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  85. Barbopoulos, I. The Consumer Motivation Scale: Development of a Multi-Dimensional Measure of Economical, Hedonic, and Normative Determinants of Consumption. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  86. Diallo, M.F.; Diop-Sall, F.; Leroux, E.; Valette-Florence, P. Responsible tourist behaviour: The role of social engagement. Rech. Appl. Mark. (Engl. Ed.) 2015, 30, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dijkstra, J.K.; Kretschmer, T.; Lindenberg, S.; Veenstra, R. Hedonic, instrumental, and normative motives: Differentiating patterns for popular, Accepted, and Rejected Adolescents. J. Early Adolesc. 2015, 35, 308–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sanchez, G. PLS Path Modeling with R; Trowchez Editions: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013; p. 383. [Google Scholar]
  89. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  90. West, S.G.; Finch, J.F.; Curran, P.J. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables, Problems and remedies. In Structural Equation Modeling, Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Hoyle, R.H., Ed.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 56–75. [Google Scholar]
  91. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  92. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillside, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  94. Sosik, J.J.; Kahai, S.S.; Piovoso, M.J. Silver bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organization research. Group Organ. Manag. 2009, 34, 5–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Henseler, J.; Sarstedt, M. Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput. Stat. 2013, 28, 565–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Lee, K.W.; Jo, A.R. Current issues and policy tasks for people’s overseas travel. Korea Tour. Policy 2016, 65, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  98. Lyubomirsky, S.; Sheldon, K.M.; Schkade, D. Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2005, 9, 111–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 09384 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Sustainability 14 09384 g001
Sustainability 14 09384 g002 550
Figure 2. R plot, Coefficient.
Figure 2. R plot, Coefficient.
Sustainability 14 09384 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistical analysis (N = 432).
Table 1. Descriptive statistical analysis (N = 432).
FactorMinimumMaximumMeanSDSkewnessKurtosis
Pursuit of happiness2.364.93 3.647 0.473−0.095−0.249
Hedonic Motives2.005.003.6410.546−0.2240.066
Eudaimonic Motives1.204.803.4100.643−0.4500.428
Normative goal framing2.505.003.9840.547−0.230−0.065
Ethical behavior intention1.734.923.7240.504−0.0430.319
Basic level1.885.004.0470.494−0.1750.201
Extra level1.285.003.4000.662−0.2000.274
Table
Table 2. Test of internal consistency, reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
Table 2. Test of internal consistency, reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
VariableItemHMEMNGFBLO
EBI		ELO
EBI		Perc
0.025		Perc
0.975		tCronbach’s
α		DG.
Rho		AVE
Hedonic
Motives
(HM)		Seeking enjoyment in everyday life 0.7230.1840.3040.2300.1100.6270.79616.9590.7090.8210.527
Seeking pleasure in everyday life 0.7550.2710.2040.1880.2670.6670.82319.623
Seeking fun in everyday life 0.7390.2640.1410.0930.2180.6380.80517.810
Seeking to take it easy in everyday life 0.6870.3360.1180.0550.2590.5810.76414.079
Eudaimonic
Motives
(EM)		Seeking to pursue excellence
in everyday life 		0.2460.8010.2410.2690.3900.7560.83636.5700.8480.8920.624
Seeking to pursue the best in everyday life 0.3600.7980.2280.2830.3130.7470.83436.143
Seeking to make the world a better place in everyday life 0.2960.8510.3150.3050.3840.8180.87853.959
Seeking to gain insight into something in everyday life 0.1570.7390.2200.2080.4200.6740.78425.943
Seeking to think that what I do matters to society in everyday life 0.3320.7560.2740.2610.3800.6990.80428.151
Normative
Goal
Framing
(NGF)		During my travels, to act according to moral principles is important0.2280.2080.7530.3650.1940.6850.80124.4480.8130.8770.640
During my travels, I feel obliged to follow moral practices to avoid guilt 0.2340.2570.8290.3590.2090.7860.86738.988
During my travels, I should make a good impression on local people and others 0.2160.2590.8300.3590.1480.7670.87132.003
During my travels, most people who are important to me (e.g., family and friends) think that I should follow local rules and regulations0.2150.3060.7870.4700.2660.7290.82932.102
Basic Level
Of
Ethical Behavior Intention
(BLOEBI)		During my travels, I will respect local culture and tradition 0.1390.1820.4900.7690.2000.6770.83719.0720.7700.8450.521
During my travels, I will buy locally made products 0.1670.2300.4390.7780.2260.6960.84121.188
During my travels, I will protect wild animals and plants 0.1500.2030.2220.6870.2910.5890.76316.147
During my travels, I will follow local rules and regulations 0.1690.2870.2880.7250.3710.6430.78819.722
During my travels, I will conserve water and electricity 0.1410.3150.2890.6430.4290.5520.71815.725
Extra Level
Of
Ethical Behavior
Intention
(ELOEBI) 		During my travels, I will not visit sites where the environment can be damaged0.2280.3930.2180.3540.8240.7800.85442.8300.8020.8710.629
During my travels, I will try to participate in environment or culture education programs 0.1800.4020.1940.2340.8260.7670.87132.979
During my travels, I will communicate with locals and learn their way of life0.2830.2810.1970.3560.7270.6510.78720.693
During my travels, I am willing to make an economic contribution for local people and societies. 0.2200.4320.2160.3650.7920.7390.83432.453
Table
Table 3. Test of discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker’s criteria).
Table 3. Test of discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker’s criteria).
FactorHMEMNGFBLOEBIELOEBI√AVE
HM1.0000.3520.2790.2120.2870.726
EM0.3521.0000.3260.3370.4780.790
NGF0.2790.3261.0000.4920.2610.800
BLOEBI0.2120.3370.4921.0000.4150.722
ELOEBI0.2870.4780.2610.4151.0000.793
Table
Table 4. Result of the path analysis and hypotheses testing.
Table 4. Result of the path analysis and hypotheses testing.
Hypothesis
Path		Coefficients.etPerc
0.025		Perc
0.975		pResult
H1aNGF->BLOEBI0.4220.0439.8340.3370.5080.000 ***Supported
H1bNGF->ELOEBI0.0960.0442.1780.0120.1820.029 *Supported
H2aHM->NGF0.1880.0454.1430.1020.2750.000 ***Supported
H2bEM->NGF0.2600.0435.9790.1700.3420.000 ***Supported
H3aHM->BLOEBI0.0270.0440.612−0.0590.1170.541Not supported
H3bHM->ELOEBI0.1170.0472.4890.0200.2040.013 *Supported
H3cEM->BLOEBI0.1900.0493.8900.1030.2910.000 ***Supported
H3dEM->ELOEBI0.4060.0419.9720.3200.4760.000 ***Supported
* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Sobel Test.
Table 5. Sobel Test.
Mediated Effect Path Z ScoreMediated Division
HM->NGF->BLOEBI3.843 ***Full Mediation
HM->NGF->ELOEBI1.933No Mediation
EM->NGF->BLOEBI5.147 ***Partial Mediation
EM->NGF->ELOEBI2.052 **Partial Mediation
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ko, E.E.; Cho, M. Exploring Determinants of Tourists’ Ethical Behavior Intention for Sustainable Tourism: The Role of Both Pursuit of Happiness and Normative Goal Framing. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159384

AMA Style

Ko EE, Cho M. Exploring Determinants of Tourists’ Ethical Behavior Intention for Sustainable Tourism: The Role of Both Pursuit of Happiness and Normative Goal Framing. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159384

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ko, Eunhee Erica, and Minho Cho. 2022. "Exploring Determinants of Tourists’ Ethical Behavior Intention for Sustainable Tourism: The Role of Both Pursuit of Happiness and Normative Goal Framing" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159384

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop