An Exploratory Study on the Motivations behind Visiting the Holocaust Museum of Porto

Abstract

This study aims to identify the reasons why people visit the Holocaust Museum of Porto (HMP) and if other variables (sociodemographic ones, visitors’ similarity with Jewish community members, their knowledge of dark tourism, and experience with other Holocaust-related destinations) also influence such motivators. A quantitative analytical, observational and case-control study was conducted based on a survey of 488 respondents who completed a self-administered questionnaire at the HMP. Statistical data analysis included descriptive statistics, an exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity (through composite reliability and average variance extracted), and discriminant validity (through square roots of the AVE values). The findings reveal that visitors are drawn by factors such as novelty and knowledge-seeking and that the motives for visiting the museum differ according to their sociodemographic characteristics, visitors’ similarity with members of the Jewish community, and their knowledge of dark tourism and experience with other Holocaust-related destinations. Sociodemographic variables, previous practices related to the Holocaust and similarity have an impact on the drivers behind visiting dark places. These results contribute to dark tourism literature with an improved understanding of tourist behavior toward Holocaust memorial museums. In addition to filling a gap, it provides a comprehensive insight into the specific motivators behind visiting the HMP, possibly allowing this museum to better design tourist experiences, thus increasing the potential to attract more visitors and keep alive the memory of such atrocities that cannot be repeated.

1. Introduction

Literature on the motivations behind visiting dark tourist places often relies on conceptual models and frameworks and to a lesser extent on empirical research, which is scarce in relation to Holocaust museums. This study, through its examination of the specific case of the Holocaust Museum of Porto (HMP), looks to address the following research questions: Who are the visitors that visit the HMP, and why do they visit this museum? Do these visitors feel that they identify with the Jewish community, and does this lead them to pay a visit to the HMP? Does visitors’ knowledge of dark tourism and their practices toward Holocaust-related places have an impact on such close ties and the reasons behind their visit? Thus, this study aims to identify the reasons why people visit the HMP and if sociodemographic variables, visitors’ identification with Jewish community members, and their knowledge of dark tourism and experience with other Holocaust-related destinations influence such motivators.

The paper follows a conventional organization; it starts with the latest main concepts, providing a general perspective and then presenting one that is more specific: dark tourism and dark tourists’ motivations, followed by Holocaust memorial museums and empirical research on the motivations behind visiting Holocaust memorial museums. Next, the methodology follows, including the context in which this study was carried out, the procedures, the study design, the questionnaire, the data analysis, and the sample characterization. The results are then presented, and they begin by validating the choice of the population studied and the two instruments included in the questionnaire (the one that assesses the motivations behind dark tourism and the one that assesses the similarity with the Jewish community). This is followed by a descriptive analysis of all the variables included in the study, as well as how they are connected. Finally, a discussion, a conclusion, and suggestions for future studies are provided.

1.1. Dark Tourism and Dark Tourists’ Motivations

Dark tourism was defined as “the phenomenon which encompasses the presentation and consumption of real and commodified death and disaster sites” by Foley and Lennon [1] and constitutes a specific form of tourism. Museums, memorials, graveyards, prisons, battlegrounds, concentration camps, scenes of confrontation and other disasters, and places that deliberately recreate grief and death can be seen as dark tourism sites [2]. Extant literature indicates that dark tourists are not a homogeneous group, and neither are the same aspects intrinsic to the visitation of dark tourism places. Adding to the fixation and curiosity about death [3,4,5], dark tourists are driven by personal, psychological, and cultural motives [6]. Educational background, the wish to comprehend past events, and historical appeal have been cited as important by several authors [7,8,9,10,11], as well as novelty and knowledge-seeking [12], self-discovery [8], identity [7], recollection, remembrance, commemoration, nostalgia, compassion, meditation, and homage [8,11,13], curiosity [8,10,11,14], the search for novelty, experience, and genuineness [11,15], relaxation and leisure [7], convenience when visiting other places [10], and also status, reputation, affirmation, and credit that these visits offer [16]. Drawing from the literature, Mangwane et al. [17] mention the need for education and learning, entertainment, arousing curiosity, empathy, and memorialization as the main motivators behind visiting dark tourism attractions. Mangwane et al. [17] established seven potential visitor motivators in their study on a South African dark tourism heritage site: novelty and knowledge-seeking, remembrance and respect for victims (identified as the main motivator), curiosity, recommendation and value for money, fun and family, escape and relaxation, and museum attributes—the latter, based on findings by [18]. Brida et al. [19] revealed that museum visitors with higher levels of education were more motivated to visit and spend time in the museum. Among her findings, Mangwane et al. [17] found that younger visitors tended to visit a memorial museum because it was a safe place to visit, relax and learn about history, whereas older visitors were more inclined to spend time in a museum.

However, not all tourists who visit dark sites have a specific interest in death and disaster, as Ivanova and Light’s [20] research showed: the main reasons to visit these places were curiosity and an interest in the unusual, empathy, and the desire to identify with the victims of atrocity; and the thrill associated with horror. Additional motives included personal growth, empathy, spiritual travel, and the quest for a strong sense of unity and involvement [21].

1.2. Holocaust Memorial Museums

Holocaust-related places appeal to different visitors and form a particular segment of dark tourism, denoted as Holocaust tourism by Griffiths [22] and Light [9], and this has frequently been considered the darkest dark tourism [2,13]. Such is the case of Holocaust memorial sites and museums, part of the ever-growing trend of dark tourism [23], like the Yad Vashem in Jerusalem (The World Holocaust Remembrance Center), the Berlin Holocaust Memorial, the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Museum in Oświęcim, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. (USHMM), whose demand and consumption has grown across the years. For example, the USHMM alone has welcomed over 47 million visitors since 1993 [24]. The primary purpose of Holocaust memorial museums is to preserve the past and remember the victims of the Holocaust; they “reflect a demand today that those darkest days in human history are not only preserved but musealized and interpreted in a way that is widely accessible to present and future audiences” [23]. However, many are working to be living memorials, encouraging visits and aiming to “stimulate leaders and citizens to confront hatred, prevent genocide, promote human dignity, and strengthen democracy” [23].

As it is a dark tourism place, the main motive for visiting a Holocaust memorial museum could be fascination and interest in death [4], but it is not necessarily so; in a study about the visitors to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Museum, Biran, Poria and Oren [7] reported that was the least common reason for visiting the museum and that the main motives were the desire to ‘see it to believe it’, knowledge and understanding, compassion for victims, and an aspiration for a connection with one’s heritage [25]. Concerning research carried out on museum attendance, Brida et al. [19] found the reasons to visit a museum were twofold: one consisted of the quest for knowledge and the other was based on a more recreational attitude (light motivation). The museums themselves would be the choice of knowledge-seeking tourists, whereas, for others, visits could be occasional [19]. Holocaust museum visitors form a dark tourist subgroup; understanding their motives is particularly important in explaining the nature of the visitations [26]. Moreover, that subgroup is not homogeneous and can be segmented [27,28], namely in terms of sociodemographic and motivational aspects [17].

1.3. Empirical Research on the Motivations behind Visiting Holocaust Memorial Museums

Holocaust tourism and the sites associated with it constitute one of the most important groups of dark tourism locations in the world [29]. Sharpley and Stone (2009) refer to the need to empirically address dark destination consumption, and indeed some authors have empirically addressed dark tourists’ motivations in general [6,30,31]. Although there has been increased scholarly attention specifically toward the motivations behind visiting Holocaust dark tourism places (e.g., [11,14,32,33]), including memorial museums, most approaches are more concerned with educational dark tourism (e.g., [34,35]) and the preservation of sites [36] rather than visitors’ motivations and focused on arguments and conceptual frameworks rather than on empirical data [8]. Furthermore, while the number of authors empirically addressing motivations behind visiting memorial museums is increasing (e.g., [17,19,27,28,37,38]), to our knowledge, empirical studies about Holocaust memorial museums are still scarce. Visitors are also driven by responsible citizenship and the need to legitimize such an evocative historical era rooted in the broader public imagination [39]. As Isaac [40] stated, one of the main motivations behind visiting a memorial museum is to learn about the stories behind the atrocities at these sites.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Context

In 2020, the Portuguese Government, a member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, launched the project “Nunca Esquecer–em torno da Memória do Holocausto” (Never Forget, a national programme in remembrance of the Holocaust), raising initiatives around four axes: knowledge, education, institutional memory, and dissemination [41]. As a result, the Jewish Community of Porto (CIP/CJP), in partnership with B’nai B’rith International and other Holocaust museums around the world, created the HMP. The HMP is one of the few Holocaust museums worldwide run by a Jewish community. It is supervised by members of the Jewish Community of Porto whose parents, grandparents, and relatives were victims of the Holocaust [42]. According to Dr. Michael Rothwell (MR), the museum director, who agreed to an interview in the context of this research, the Museum’s objectives include exhibitions on specific themes of the Holocaust, support for Holocaust research, honoring millions of Jews killed by the Holocaust, as well as hundreds of thousands of refugees, fighting against historical revisionism that aims to deny the Holocaust and secondary the role of Jews, combating antisemitism in all its forms, and contributing so that the Holocaust never happens again.

Although open to all audiences, the target of the HMP is mostly the younger generation, which is why there is a focus on education and professional training for educators. MR believes that teaching about the Holocaust should always begin with the youngest, that is, with young people at school; therefore, this cultural facility (currently, the only one in the Iberian Peninsula) actively invites schools to visit it. Furthermore, the MHP highlights the position of Portugal (and Porto, in particular) as an escape destination for thousands of Jewish refugees. The Museum’s welcoming film and the hundreds of individual refugee files and objects left by refugees in the Porto Synagogue during World War II, which are now on display, make this position very clear.

Unfortunately, the MHP was meant to be opened in January 2021, but due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, this was delayed until April. Since then, the MHP has developed several activities: temporary exhibitions, choir concerts, lectures, training initiatives for teachers, institutional ceremonies, film screenings, and guided tours (general or focused on a specific theme). As a result, around 40 thousand visitors were welcomed in 2021, making the HMP one of the most visited museums in Portugal that year. Most of the visitors were young people in school (in the first two months, they represented 75% of the visitors and came, alone or in groups of friends, and were not accompanied by adults; and in the final months of the year, they came as part of school study visits). After new pandemic constraints, the HMP closed in late December 2021, and resumed its activities in April 2022.

Concerning promoting the HMP, the Museum’s press office disseminates the news to the media and, at the same time, uses its website and mailing lists to reach the public. MR feels that dissemination of information through visitors’ word-of-mouth has worked quite well so far, without prejudice to the fact that, in the future, the HMP may develop other ways of promoting, namely through social networks. This challenge, however, could be more effectively addressed if we were to better understand more about the visitors who come to the Museum, how they hear about it, and what leads them to visit the HMP.

In this study, the authors hypothesize:

H1. 

Visitors’ sociodemographic characteristics have an impact on the motivations behind visiting the HMP.

H2. 

Visitors’ knowledge of dark tourism and experience with other Holocaust-related destinations influences the reasons why they visit the HMP.

H3. 

Visitors’ similarity with Jewish community members has an impact on the reasons why they visit the HMP.

2.2. Procedures

The study was based on a survey carried out at the HMP between 19 April and 8 June 2022. The respective questionnaire included questions related to sociodemographic characteristics and dark tourism practices, an instrument that assesses the visitors’ similarity with [43] the Jewish community, and an instrument to evaluate their motivations behind visiting the HMP, adapted from Mangwane et al. [17]. These instruments were then translated from English to Portuguese using the back-translation technique. The procedures followed the Declaration of Helsinki and later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Five MSc students, with relevant training on the topic, presented the research protocol in person to visitors at the museum entrance; the questionnaire was self-administered. A pilot study was conducted to increase the reliability and validity of the survey. A small group of visitors and academics were invited to critique the initial draft of the survey. After revisions from the pilot study, the survey was launched, and data were collected. The sample for this study was based on convenience (participants who arrived at the museum to visit it were approached and invited to participate in the study), so it may be biased; however, this is more likely to occur if the sample is small [44] and this is not the case. The participants were informed about the purpose of the study and were ensured of the confidentiality and anonymity of the data; they also signed informed consent forms. The inclusion criteria consisted of being over 18 years of age.

2.3. Study Design

This is an analytical (describe the characteristics of a sample and draw inferences about the relationship between two or more variables), observational (the researcher determines the exposure), case-control study (the outcome is determined at the start of the study) [45].

2.4. Questionnaire

The questionnaire includes three sections: a sociodemographic one, a section related to knowledge about dark tourism, another section about tourist practices, the similarity scale, and the motivation scale for dark tourism.

The sociodemographic section included questions related to gender (masculine—1; feminine—2;), age, nationality (Portuguese—1; Other—2), education (basic/secondary—2; higher education—3), have/not have children (no children—0; with children—1), and area of activity (education—1; student—2; other activities—3).

The section about practices toward Holocaust-related destinations included a question about the participant’s knowledge of dark tourism, and questions specifically concerning the HMP: if the participant had ever visited the museum before, and how the participant found out about it, namely, through the “museum website”, “social media”, “touristic info”, and “family/friends”. Finally, it also asked participants about their tourist practices related to dark tourism (“Have you ever visited…?”—“Other Holocaust museums”; “Concentration camps”; “Holocaust memorials”; “Other Holocaust-related sites”; “Prisons”; “Sites of war”; “Sites of natural disasters”; “Stopped to see accidents”). All questions were answered dichotomously (no—0; yes—1). In addition, participants were asked how many times they had visited Holocaust-related websites.

The Similarity Scale, used by Paharia and Swaminathan [43], addresses how much an individual identifies with and feels close to members of a specific community, using four seven-point Likert-type items; their instrument borrowed the scale items from a measure used by Dahl, et al. [46]. The extreme anchors of the response scale were “1—Strongly disagree” to “7—Strongly agree”. The validity of the scale was not discussed by Paharia and Swaminathan [43]; the authors reported the scale’s alpha to be 0.93. In the present study, the four items are adapted to refer to the Jewish community, which was adequately identified in the redaction of the items (see Section 3.1.2).

In order to examine the motivational factors that drive the visit to the HMP, an instrument was developed based on a study about the motivators behind visiting a dark tourism site by Mangwane et al. [17], who applied 27 items, scale structured into seven constructs: Novelty and knowledge-seeking (four items), Remembrance and respect for victims (four items), Curiosity (six items), Recommendation and value for money (five items), Fun and family (four items), Escape and relaxation (two items), and Museum attributes (two items). ‘Remembrance and respect for victims’ was found to be the main motivator. The response scale was: 1—not important; 2—slightly important; 3—important; 4—very important; 5—extremely important. The authors did not discuss the scale’s validity; however, they reported the seven factors’ sub-scales alpha ranging from 0.742 to 0.783. For the purpose of the present study, two items were removed, as they were not applicable in the context of the HMP: “To participate in an event” (this could not be a reason for visiting the HMP) and “It’s value for money” (visits to the HMP are free); the remaining 25 items were adapted to the HMP (see Section 3.1.1).

2.5. Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were calculated using the Statistical Program for Social Sciences SPSS version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was run using AMOS version 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive analysis indicators were used to characterize the sample.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (maximum likelihood) with principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted for the 25 motivation items by running an orthogonal (i.e., Varimax) rotated analysis to achieve a factor structure for these variables. Sample adequacy was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO > 0.80) value [47] and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < 0.05) [48]. Factors were assessed using Eigenvalues greater than 1 [49] and a minimum of 3 items per factor [50]. Items were removed based on communalities (<0.30), factor loadings (<0.40), and if Cronbach’s alpha increased if the item was deleted.

CFA with robust maximum likelihood estimation was conducted with the Satorra and Bentler [51] corrected chi-square (χ² < 3) being applied, using AMOS 28.0 [52]. Comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to evaluate the overall global model fit. Higher values for CFI and TLI and lower values for RMSEA indicated a better fit. CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90 and RMSEA ≤ 0.08 were criteria for adequate model fit, whereas CFI and TLI ≥ 0.95 and RMSEA ≤ 0.06 were criteria for well-fitting models [53]. Browne and Cudeck [54] employed the definition of “close fit”, as PCLOSE gives a test of close fit (≥0.05). Standardized Root Mean Square (SRMR) allows the average magnitude of the discrepancies between observed and expected correlations as an absolute measure of (model) fit criterion to be assessed, and it should present < 0.08 value [55]. Several multiple regression analyses were carried out to assess the variables that contribute to explaining the motivations.

Concerning data quality assurance mechanisms, several statistical indicators were assessed: skewness (−3–+3) and kurtosis (−7–+7) allowed the normality of the data to be assessed so that parametric tests could be used. Convergent validity was calculated by composite reliability (CR > 0.60) and average variance extracted (AVE > 0.50) values. Discriminant validity was assessed by the square roots of the AVE values (all cases superior to the correlations among the constructs). Significance was set at p  <  0.05. Cronbach’s alpha value (α = 0.70) was used to determine the reliability of the instruments.

2.6. Sample

No issues were found relating to sample size, missing data, nonnormality, and multicollinearity. As seen in

Table 1. Sample sociodemographic characteristics.

Sociodemographic Variables		N (%)
		Total
Sample		488 (100.0)
Gender	Male	172 (35.2)
	Female	316 (64.8)
Nationality	Portuguese	355 (72.7)
	Other	133 (27.3)
Education	Basic/Secondary	200 (41.0)
	Higher education	288 (59.0)
Activity	Education	169 (34.6)
	Student	143 (29.3)
	Other activities	176 (36.1)
Age group	<23	166 (34.0)
	23–50	166 (34.0)
	>50	156 (32.0)
Age	M ± SD; Min–Max	39.43 ± 18.79; 18–86

N = frequencies; % = percentage; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.

, the total sample was formed by 488 participants, with a mean age of 39.4 years old, of whom the majority were women, Portuguese, and with higher education.

Regarding age, the participants were almost evenly distributed into three age groups—up to 23 years old (34%), between 23 and 50 years old (34%), and above 50 years old (32%). Concerning professional activity, the same occurred concerning educators (34.6%), students (29.3%), and other activities (36.1%).

3. Results

3.1. Validation of the Instruments Used

3.1.1. The Motivations behind Visiting the Holocaust Museum of Porto Scale

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Results

Concerning the motivations behind visiting the HMP, an EFA was carried out to examine the factorial structure of the scale adapted from Mangwane et al.’s study [17] referred to in Section 2.4.

Table 2. Items correlations.

mtv_1

mtv_2

mtv_3

mtv_4

mtv_5

mtv_6

mtv_7

mtv_8

mtv_9

mtv_10

mtv_11

mtv_12

mtv_13

mtv_14

mtv_15

mtv_16

mtv_17

mtv_18

mtv_19

mtv_20

mtv_21

mtv_22

mtv_23

mtv_24

mtv_25

mtv_1

1

mtv_2

0.559 **

1

mtv_3

0.643 **

0.563 **

1

mtv_4

0.523 **

0.376 **

0.577 **

1

mtv_5

0.565 **

0.372 **

0.510 **

0.494 **

1

mtv_6

0.303 **

0.345 **

0.331 **

0.309 **

0.320 **

1

mtv_7

0.224 **

0.411 **

0.293 **

0.202 **

0.201 **

0.236 **

1

mtv_8

0.330 **

0.324 **

0.383 **

0.463 **

0.228 **

0.311 **

0.336 **

1

mtv_9

0.423 **

0.254 **

0.402 **

0.529 **

0.339 **

0.290 **

0.216 **

0.438 **

1

mtv_10

0.407 **

0.319 **

0.438 **

0.529 **

0.361 **

0.276 **

0.299 **

0.412 **

0.639 **

1

mtv_11

0.356 **

0.306 **

0.380 **

0.493 **

0.293 **

0.261 **

0.250 **

0.432 **

0.526 **

0.567 **

1

mtv_12

0.249 **

0.165 **

0.219 **

0.375 **

0.109 *

0.188 **

0.125 **

0.330 **

0.455 **

0.474 **

0.448 **

1

mtv_13

0.162 **

0.131 **

0.177 **

0.290 **

0.152 **

0.273 **

0.092 *

0.256 **

0.397 **

0.375 **

0.310 **

0.652 **

1

mtv_14

0.103 *

0.106 *

0.171 **

0.233 **

0.125 **

0.230 **

0.128 **

0.215 **

0.304 **

0.272 **

0.267 **

0.502 **

0.455 **

1

mtv_15

0.172 **

0.143 **

0.207 **

0.173 **

0.120 **

0.283 **

0.241 **

0.180 **

0.200 **

0.224 **

0.238 **

0.311 **

0.275 **

0.335 **

1

mtv_16

0.178 **

0.206 **

0.222 **

0.292 **

0.146 **

0.348 **

0.158 **

0.306 **

0.354 **

0.349 **

0.365 **

0.487 **

0.490 **

0.486 **

0.447 **

1

mtv_17

0.238 **

0.195 **

0.236 **

0.318 **

0.172 **

0.232 **

0.190 **

0.273 **

0.384 **

0.394 **

0.350 **

0.605 **

0.493 **

0.426 **

0.314 **

0.575 **

1

mtv_18

0.283 **

0.172 **

0.292 **

0.373 **

0.192 **

0.304 **

0.097 *

0.328 **

0.438 **

0.438 **

0.418 **

0.534 **

0.473 **

0.409 **

0.282 **

0.537 **

0.650 **

1

mtv_19

0.177 **

0.179 **

0.211 **

0.261 **

0.118 **

0.271 **

0.194 **

0.257 **

0.343 **

0.375 **

0.399 **

0.504 **

0.406 **

0.425 **

0.487 **

0.529 **

0.492 **

0.541 **

1

mtv_20

0.255 **

0.292 **

0.256 **

0.342 **

0.170 **

0.346 **

0.211 **

0.364 **

0.374 **

0.374 **

0.365 **

0.453 **

0.401 **

0.369 **

0.399 **

0.515 **

0.521 **

0.566 **

0.569 **

1

mtv_21

0.239 **

0.280 **

0.289 **

0.344 **

0.204 **

0.287 **

0.235 **

0.329 **

0.312 **

0.316 **

0.341 **

0.353 **

0.331 **

0.316 **

0.422 **

0.393 **

0.432 **

0.435 **

0.512 **

0.620 **

1

mtv_22

0.171 **

0.187 **

0.230 **

0.247 **

0.132 **

0.312 **

0.225 **

0.346 **

0.255 **

0.278 **

0.288 **

0.443 **

0.407 **

0.328 **

0.528 **

0.501 **

0.450 **

0.432 **

0.546 **

0.577 **

0.615 **

1

mtv_23

0.142 **

0.083

0.158 **

0.254 **

0.037

0.233 **

0.161 **

0.315 **

0.368 **

0.340 **

0.300 **

0.520 **

0.480 **

0.396 **

0.358 **

0.494 **

0.535 **

0.502 **

0.549 **

0.538 **

0.514 **

0.650 **

1

mtv_24

0.172 **

0.116 *

0.174 **

0.314 **

0.132 **

0.245 **

0.075

0.294 **

0.405 **

0.363 **

0.328 **

0.568 **

0.654 **

0.393 **

0.244 **

0.474 **

0.605 **

0.573 **

0.425 **

0.529 **

0.431 **

0.487 **

0.655 **

1

mtv_25

0.146 **

0.076

0.154 **

0.216 **

0.058

0.148 **

0.148 **

0.281 **

0.378 **

0.346 **

0.291 **

0.509 **

0.495 **

0.316 **

0.207 **

0.362 **

0.536 **

0.512 **

0.485 **

0.377 **

0.299 **

0.396 **

0.648 **

0.647 **

1

Notes: * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05.

reports the correlations found between the 25 Likert scale questions from the motivations behind visiting the HMP, conducted on data gathered from 488 participants. All items are positively and significantly correlated with each other between r = 0.655 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.092 (p < 0.01). The exceptions are items 23 and 25, which do not significantly correlate with items 2 and 5; in addition, item 24 does not correlate significantly with item 7.

A Principal Components analysis with a Varimax (orthogonal) rotation of the 25 items was carried out. An examination of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the sample was factorable (KMO = 0.929). The results of an orthogonal rotation of the solution are shown in

Table 3. Motivation Scale for visiting the HMP: Exploratory factorial analyses (1).

		LD1	LD2	LD3	LD4	h2
1	To learn something new.	0.106	0.799	0.075	0.125	0.672
2	To pay my respects to the victims of the Holocaust.	−0.083	0.629	0.267	0.291	0.559
3	To increase my knowledge about sites of human tragedies.	0.084	0.770	0.147	0.210	0.666
4	To experience something unique.	0.335	0.670	0.022	0.254	0.625
5	To learn about history.	0.056	0.784	0.056	−0.044	0.623
6	To educate my children.	0.109	0.460	0.431	0.004	0.409
7	To commemorate the Holocaust.	−0.115	0.179	0.318	0.672	0.598
8	To understand why dark tourism sites are controversial.	0.251	0.297	0.150	0.612	0.549
9	To arouse my curiosity.	0.535	0.438	−0.046	0.383	0.627
10	To see artifacts from the Holocaust.	0.477	0.450	−0.003	0.452	0.634
11	The Holocaust Museum seemed different from traditional tourism attractions.	0.415	0.385	0.065	0.456	0.532
12	To get away from my daily routine.	0.765	0.142	0.170	0.128	0.651
13	Friends and family were visiting the Holocaust Museum.	0.738	0.135	0.184	−0.038	0.597
14	It is close to where I live/I’m staying.	0.528	0.137	0.336	−0.119	0.425
15	It reminds me of my own personal suffering.	0.150	0.106	0.720	0.039	0.553
16	It was suggested in the media.	0.536	0.176	0.508	−0.025	0.576
17	To spend time in a museum.	0.689	0.149	0.321	0.060	0.604
18	It is a safe place to visit.	0.687	0.230	0.285	0.048	0.608
19	For nostalgic reasons.	0.493	0.064	0.564	0.159	0.591
20	To meet people with similar interests.	0.444	0.172	0.592	0.182	0.611
21	To have a spiritual experience.	0.289	0.168	0.648	0.230	0.583
22	To help me deal with personal death.	0.365	0.029	0.717	0.199	0.688
23	To relax.	0.640	−0.084	0.445	0.242	0.674
24	To spend time with my family.	0.784	0.052	0.230	0.075	0.676
25	I thought the museum could be fun.	0.719	−0.068	0.131	0.260	0.606
	Eigenvalues	9.458	2.948	1.519	1.014
	Total variance explained (%)	37.834	11.791	6.075	4.055	59.754
	Determinant score [above 0.00001]				1.178 × 10−6
	Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (df); p < 0.05				6523.144 (300); <0.001
	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure (KMO) (above 0.50)				0.929
	Diagonal element anti-correlation matrix (above 0.50)				0.844–0.956
	Cronbach’s alpha (α)	0.930 (if item 7 deleted)			0.929

Notes: h2 = Extracted Communality Coefficients; LD = Structure coefficients.

.

The solution reported in Table 3 was not acceptable since, although normative values were found for the determinant score, Bartlett’s test of sphericity, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure, Diagonal element anti-correlation matrix, and Cronbach’s alpha, several items (6—“To educate my children”, 10—“To see artifacts from the Holocaust”, 11—“The Holocaust Museum seemed different from traditional tourism attractions”, 16—“It was suggested in the media”, and 19—“For nostalgic reasons”) indiscriminately saturate on several factors. As such, those items were removed, and a new rotation was carried out, resulting in a three-factor solution. However, although normative values of all the statistical indicators were found, the solution was not acceptable since items 7 (“To commemorate the Holocaust”) and 15 (“It reminds me of my own personal suffering”) saturate in different factors. A new rotation was then performed, having removed those two items. Again, item 8 (“To understand why dark tourism sites are controversial”) saturates in factors 1 and 2, and item 21 (“To have a spiritual experience”) on factors 1 and 3. Therefore, those items were removed, and a new rotation was carried out. The resulting two-factor solution was improved by removing items 2 (“To pay my respects to the victims of the Holocaust”) and 5 (“To learn about history”), as the scale reliability was reported to increase if those items were dropped. For the final stage, the principal components factor analysis of the remaining 14 items was conducted using varimax rotation, with two factors explaining 58.99% of the total variance (

Table 4. Motivation Scale for visiting the HMP: Exploratory factorial analyses (5).

		LD1	LD2	h2
1	To learn something new.	0.061	0.842	0.713
3	To increase my knowledge about sites of human tragedies.	0.078	0.848	0.726
4	To experience something unique.	0.239	0.783	0.670
9	To have my curiosity aroused.	0.417	0.594	0.527
12	To get away from my daily routine.	0.743	0.241	0.611
13	Friends and family were visiting the Holocaust Museum.	0.733	0.136	0.556
14	It is close to where I live/I’m staying.	0.587	0.119	0.359
17	To spend time in a museum.	0.751	0.214	0.610
18	It is a safe place to visit.	0.702	0.310	0.588
20	To meet people with similar interests.	0.661	0.265	0.508
22	To help me deal with a personal death.	0.672	0.129	0.468
23	To relax.	0.810	0.066	0.661
24	To spend time with my family.	0.828	0.119	0.699
25	I thought the museum could be fun.	0.747	0.067	0.563
	Eigenvalues	6.360	1.898
	Total variance explained (%)	45.429	13.557	58.987
	Determinant score [above 0.00001]			0.001
	Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (df); p < 0.05		3558.589 (91); <0.001
	Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure (KMO) (above 0.50)			0.903
	Diagonal element anti-correlation matrix (above 0.50)		0.785–0.941
	Cronbach’s alpha (α)	0.908 (if item 1 deleted)		0.907

Notes: h2 = Extracted Communality Coefficients; LD = Structure coefficients.

). Despite this relatively low value, the model presents a good fit.

In the final solution presented in Table 4, one factor comprises four items and the other ten items. Internal consistency for each factor was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The obtained alphas were good: 0.799 for Factor 1, and 0.911 for Factor 2. A total of 14 items reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.907. No substantial increases in alpha for any of the scales could have been achieved by eliminating more items. For the total scale, CR = 0.944, AVE = 0.548, and AVE squared = 0.740; for Factor 1, CR = 0.854, AVE = 0.598, and AVE squared = 0.773; for Factor 2, CR = 0.917, AVE = 0.528, and AVE squared = 0.727.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results

A CFA was carried out to test the model found in EFA. The results supported the EFA findings (Figure 1). A two-factor model was found (χ²(66) = 179.07, p < 0.001) with good fit for all indices: CFI = 0.968; TLI = 0.956; SRMR = 0.052; RMSEA = 0.059 (0.049, 0.070; 90% CI); PCLOSE = 0.068. Nevertheless, correlations between item errors were established to achieve this model.

3.1.2. The Similarity Scale

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Results

Initially, the factorability of the four items was examined. The four items of the Similarity scale were subjected to an EFA with varimax rotation. The maximum likelihood factor analysis with a 0.40 cut-off point and Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues greater than 1 yielded a one-factor solution, not rotated, as the best fit for the data, accounting for 79.72% of the total variance explained.

As documented in

Table 5. The Similarity scale EFA results.

Items		LD	h2	M	SD	Skw	Krt	Cronbach’s α
siml_1	There are many similarities between me and members of the Jewish community.	0.88	0.77	4.40	1.87	−0.31	−0.95
siml_2	I feel similar to members of the Jewish community.	0.91	0.83	4.47	1.83	−0.35	−0.86
siml_3	I feel very close to members of the Jewish community.	0.89	0.80	4.35	1.79	−0.21	−0.88
siml_4	I can identify with the Jewish community members.	0.89	0.80	4.74	1.80	−0.58	−0.66
Total	Similarity			4.49	1.63	−0.34	−0.53	0.915

Notes: LD = structure coefficients; h2 = extracted communality coefficients; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Skw = skewness; Krt = kurtosis.

, structure coefficients ranged from 0.88 to 0.91, and communality coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.79. Correlations between items ranged from 0.77 to 0.83. These items were reliable as a single dimension (Cronbach’s α = 0.915; composite reliability (CR) = 0.940; average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.797; AVE squared = 0.893). If any item was deleted, Cronbach’s alpha value decreased.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results

To test the model found in EFA, a CFA was performed. The results supported the EFA findings (Figure 2). A one-factor model was found (χ²(1) = 3.48, p = 0.062) with an excellent fit for all indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.998; Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.989; Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.006; Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.071 (0.00, 0.159; 90% Confidence Interval (CI)); p-value of Close Fit (PCLOSE) = 0.224. However, a correlation between the errors of two items (items 1 and 2) was established to achieve this model.

3.2. Questions about Tourist Practices Descriptives

About 78% of the respondents were unaware of the concept of dark tourism, and only 7% had visited the HMP before (

Table 6. Participants’ practices toward Holocaust-related destinations.

Do you know what dark tourism is?		N	Percent
	No	378	77.5
	Yes	110	22.5
Have you ever visited the Holocaust Museum of Porto before?		N	Percent
	No	454	93
	Yes	34	7
How did you find out about the Holocaust Museum of Porto?		N	Percent
Museum website	No	418	85.7
	Yes	70	14.3
Social media	No	395	80.9
	Yes	93	19.1
Touristic info	No	349	71.5
	Yes	139	28.5
Family/friends	No	263	53.9
	Yes	225	46.1
Have you ever visited…		N	Percent
Other Holocaust museums?	No	323	66.2
	Yes	165	33.8
Concentration camps?	No	387	79.3
	Yes	101	20.7
Holocaust memorials?	No	325	66.6
	Yes	163	33.4
Other Holocaust-related sites?	No	331	68.0
	Yes	156	32.0
How many times have you visited Holocaust-related sites?		N	Percent
Never		260	53.3
1–5		181	37.1
6–10		39	8.0
More than 10		8	1.6

). When asked how they knew about the OMH, almost half the participants answered they had heard about it through family and friends, whereas less than 15% referred to the HMP’s website. Most participants had never visited Holocaust-related destinations prior to the survey; those who did, visited several destinations more than once.

3.3. Motives and Similarity Descriptives

As seen in the previous section, Factor 1 includes the following items: “To learn something new”, “To increase my knowledge about sites of human tragedies”, “To experience something unique”, and “To have my curiosity aroused”. Those items are related to the search for novelty and knowledge; as such, we adopted the same designation of Mangwane et al.’s study [17]: “Novelty and knowledge-seeking”. Factor 2 includes the following items: “To get away from my daily routine”, “Friends and family were visiting the Holocaust Museum”, “It is close to where I live/I’m staying”, “To spend time in a museum”, “It is a safe place to visit”, “To meet people with similar interests”, “To help me deal with a personal death”, “To relax”, “To spend time with my family”, and “I thought the museum could be fun”. Overall, those items could be categorized as “fun and family” and “escape and relaxation”, to use Mangwane et al.’s study designations (the remaining four constructs are not present in our model). Therefore, we will label Factor 2 as “Fun, family, escape, and relaxation”. The table below reports statistics for the Similarity to the Jewish community scale and the Motives to visit the Holocaust Museum scale (also decomposed in factors 1 and 2). It is worth noting that the main driver behind visiting the HMP is novelty and knowledge-seeking rather than entertainment (Factor 2—Fun, family, escape, and relaxation) because the mean value is higher in novelty and knowledge-seeking. There are no correlations between similarity and motivations—total, Factor 1, and Factor 2 (

Table 7. Motives and similarity descriptives and correlations.

Descriptives	M	SD	Skw	Krt	Cronbach’s α
Similarity with the Jewish community a	4.49	1.63	−0.34	−0.53	0.915
Motives to visit the Holocaust Museum b	2.91	0.86	0.28	−0.57	0.907
Factor 1—Novelty and knowledge-seeking b	3.97	0.81	−0.57	−0.39	0.799
Factor 2—Fun, family, escape and relaxation b	2.48	1.01	0.39	−0.63	0.911
Correlations	Sim	Mot	F1	F2
Similarity with the Jewish community	1
Motives to visit the Holocaust Museum	−0.066	1
Factor 1—Novelty and knowledge-seeking	0.031	0.665 **	1
Factor 2—Fun, family, escape and relaxation	−0.088	0.971 **	0.468 **	1

Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Skw = skewness; Krt = kurtosis; ^a—measures: 1–7; ^b—measures: 1–5; Sim—Similarity with the Jewish community; Mot—Motives to visit the Holocaust Museum; F1—Factor 1—Novelty and knowledge-seeking; F2—Factor 2—Fun, family, escape and relaxation; ** p < 0.05.

).

3.4. Motives and Similarity Differences

There are statistically significant differences in terms of total motivation with regard to sociodemographic variables: women, participants without children of Portuguese nationality, with basic/secondary education, students and younger people have significantly higher motivation values than men, participants with children, of other nationalities, with higher education, non-students, and older persons. Participants who did not obtain tourist information about the HMP, those who obtained it through family/friends, and those who have visited Holocaust museums, concentration camps, Holocaust memorials, and other Holocaust-related sites show significantly higher total motivation values than their counterparts. People who visited Holocaust-related sites more often showed lower motivation to visit the HMP (

Table 8. Total motivation differences.

Sociodemographic Variables				Total Motivation
				M ± SD	t	p	d
Gender	Male			2.78 ± 0.85	−2.459	0.014	−0.233
	Female			2.98 ± 0.85
Children?	No children			3.01 ± 0.89	3.048	0.002	0.279
	W/children			2.77 ± 0.80
Nationality	Portuguese			3.07 ± 0.80	6.973	<0.001	0.734
	Other			2.47 ± 0.86
Education	Basic/Secondary			3.31 ± 0.83	9.373	<0.001	0.863
	Higher education			2.63 ± 0.76
					F	p	ɳ2
Activity	Education			2.76 ± 0.76	15.964	<0.001	0.062
	Student			3.24 ± 0.87
	Other activities			2.78 ± 0.87
Age group	<23			3.26 ± 0.88	32.505	<0.001	0.118
	23–50			2.90 ± 0.78
	>50			2.54 ± 0.75
					r	p
Age					0.365	<0.001
Practices toward Holocaust-related destinations
				M ± SD	t	p	d
Do you know what dark tourism is?			No	2.91 ± 0.87	0.243	0.808	0.026
			Yes	2.89 ± 0.81
Have you ever visited the Holocaust Museum of Porto before?			No	2.90 ± 0.86	−1.199	0.231	−0.213
			Yes	3.08 ± 0.78
How did you find out about the Holocaust Museum of Porto?
Museum website			No	2.93 ± 0.86	1.385	0.167	0.179
			Yes	2.78 ± 0.81
Social media			No	2.93 ± 0.87	1.200	0.231	0.138
			Yes	2.81 ± 0.81
Touristic info			No	2.97 ± 0.84	2.406	0.017	0.241
			Yes	2.76 ± 0.88
Family/friends			No	2.79 ± 0.85	−3.453	<0.001	−0.314
			Yes	3.05 ± 0.85
Have you ever visited…
Other Holocaust museums?			No	3.12 ± 0.83	7.976	<0.001	0.763
			Yes	2.50 ± 0.77
Concentration camps?			No	3.00 ± 0.85	4.653	<0.001	0.520
			Yes	2.56 ± 0.78
Holocaust memorials?			No	3.09 ± 0.83	6.800	<0.001	0.653
			Yes	2.55 ± 0.81
Other Holocaust-related sites?			No	3.08 ± 0.83	7.007	<0.001	0.680
			Yes	2.53 ± 0.79
How many times have you visited Holocaust-related sites?					r	p
Number of times					−0.284	<0.001

Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; t = t-test; Cohen’s d = size effect; F = ANOVA; ɳ² = eta squared size effect; r = Pearson correlation; p = p-value.

).

There are statistically significant differences concerning Factor 1 (novelty and knowledge-seeking motivation) with regard to sociodemographic variables: women, participants of Portuguese nationality with basic/secondary education, students, and younger people have significantly higher values of novelty and knowledge-seeking motivation than men, people of other nationalities, with higher education, non-students, and older participants. Participants who have visited Holocaust museums, concentration camps, Holocaust memorials, and other Holocaust-related sites have significantly higher values of novelty and knowledge-seeking motivation than their counterparts. People who visited Holocaust-related sites more often presented lower novelty and knowledge-seeking motivation to visit the HMP (

Table 9. Factor 1: novelty and knowledge-seeking motivation differences.

Sociodemographic Variables				Factor 1
				M ± SD	t	p	d
Gender	Male			3.81 ± 0.86	−3.029	0.003	−0.297
	Female			4.05 ± 0.77
Children?	No children			3.98 ± 0.81	0.331	0.740	0.030
	W/children			3.95 ± 0.80
Nationality	Portuguese			4.08 ± 0.73	4.639	<0.001	0.526
	Other			3.66 ± 0.93
Education	Basic/Secondary			4.10 ± 0.78	3.184	0.002	0.293
	Higher education			3.87 ± 0.82
					F	p	ɳ2
Activity	Education			3.99 ± 0.74	5.054	0.007	0.020
	Student			4.11 ± 0.80
	Other activities			3.82 ± 0.86
Age group	<23			4.09 ± 0.80	4.171	0.016	0.017
	23–50			3.97 ± 0.77
	>50			3.83 ± 0.84
					r	p
Age					−0.143	0.002
Practices toward Holocaust-related destinations
				M ± SD	t	p	d
Do you know what dark tourism is?			No	3.94 ± 0.83	−1.321	0.188	−0.132
			Yes	4.05 ± 0.72
Have you ever visited the Holocaust Museum of Porto before?			No	3.95 ± 0.82	−1.471	0.142	−0.262
			Yes	4.16 ± 0.64
How did you find out about the Holocaust Museum of Porto?
Museum website			No	3.97 ± 0.82	0.369	0.712	0.048
			Yes	3.93 ± 0.77
Social media			No	3.97 ± 0.81	0.286	0.775	0.033
			Yes	3.94 ± 0.80
Touristic info			No	4.01 ± 0.76	1.834	0.068	0.198
			Yes	3.85 ± 0.91
Family/friends			No	3.91 ± 0.82	−1.641	0.101	−0.149
			Yes	4.03 ± 0.79
Have you ever visited…
Other Holocaust museums?			No	4.08 ± 0.77	4.400	<0.001	0.421
			Yes	3.74 ± 0.83
Concentration camps?			No	4.04 ± 0.79	3.814	<0.001	0.426
			Yes	3.70 ± 0.82
Holocaust memorials?			No	4.08 ± 0.76	4.328	<0.001	0.415
			Yes	3.75 ± 0.86
Other Holocaust−related sites?			No	4.08 ± 0.75	4.439	<0.001	0.457
			Yes	3.72 ± 0.88
How many times have you visited Holocaust−related sites?					r	p
Number of times					−0.143	0.002

Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; t = t-test; Cohen’s d = size effect; F = ANOVA; ɳ² = eta squared size effect; r = Pearson correlation; p = p-value.

).

There are statistically significant differences concerning Factor 2 (Fun, family, escape, and relaxation motivation) with regard to sociodemographic variables: participants without children, of Portuguese nationality, with basic/secondary education, students, and younger people present significantly higher values of fun, family, escape, and relaxation motivation than participants with children, of other nationalities, with higher education, non-students, and older persons. Participants who did not obtain tourist information about the HMP, those who obtained it through family/friends, and those who did not visit other Holocaust museums, concentration camps, Holocaust memorials, or other Holocaust-related sites show significantly higher values on this factor than their counterparts. People who visited Holocaust-related sites more often present lower values of fun, family, escape, and relaxation motivation to visit the HMP (

Table 10. Factor 2: Fun, family, escape, and relaxation motivation differences.

Sociodemographic Variables			Factor 2
			M ± SD	t	p	d
Gender	Male		2.37 ± 0.99	−1.910	0.057	−0.181
	Female		2.55 ± 1.02
Children?	No children		2.62 ± 1.05	3.568	<0.001	0.321
	W/children		2.30 ± 0.94
Nationality	Portuguese		2.67 ± 0.97	6.820	<0.001	0.693
	Other		2.00 ± 0.96
Education	Basic/Secondary		2.99 ± 0.98	10.127	<0.001	0.932
	Higher education		2.13 ± 0.88
				F	p	ɳ2
Activity	Education		2.27 ± 0.91	17.699	<0.001	0.068
	Student		2.89 ± 1.03
	Other activities		2.36 ± 1.01
Age group	<23		2.93 ± 1.04	37.368	<0.001	0.134
	23–50		2.47 ± 0.91
	>50		2.02 ± 0.87
				r	p
Age				−0.143	0.002
Practices toward Holocaust-related destinations
			M ± SD	t	p	d
Do you know what dark tourism is?		No	2.50 ± 1.02	0.676	0.500	0.073
		Yes	2.43 ± 1.01
Have you ever visited the Holocaust Museum of Porto before?		No	2.47 ± 1.02	−0.949	0.343	−0.169
		Yes	2.64 ± 0.95
How did you find out about the Holocaust Museum of Porto?
Museum website		No	2.51 ± 1.02	1.522	0.129	0.197
		Yes	2.31 ± 0.95
Social media		No	2.51 ± 1.03	1.329	0.184	0.153
		Yes	2.36 ± 0.96
Touristic info		No	2.55 ± 1.01	2.213	0.027	0.222
		Yes	2.32 ± 1.01
Family/friends		No	2.34 ± 1.00	−3.561	<0.001	−0.323
		Yes	2.66 ± 1.00
Have you ever visited…
Other Holocaust museums?		No	2.73 ± 0.99	7.976	<0.001	0.763
		Yes	2.00 ± 0.88
Concentration camps?		No	2.58 ± 1.02	4.266	<0.001	0.477
		Yes	2.11 ± 0.89
Holocaust memorials?		No	2.69 ± 1.00	6.614	<0.001	0.635
		Yes	2.07 ± 0.91
Other Holocaust−related sites?		No	2.68 ± 1.01	6.732	<0.001	0.654
		Yes	2.05 ± 0.88
How many times have you visited Holocaust-related sites?				r	p
Number of times				−0.291	<0.001

Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; t = t-test; Cohen’s d = size effect; F = ANOVA; ɳ² = eta squared size effect; r = Pearson correlation; p = p-value.

).

Similarity values present statistically significant differences in relation to all sociodemographic variables except for gender. Thus, participants who have children (t = −1.393; p < 0.001; d = −0.137), who are not Portuguese nationals (t = −0.514; p < 0.001; d = −0.554), who have higher education (t = −5.709; p < 0.001; d = −0.525), who work in the field of education (F = 12.567; p < 0.001; ɳ² = 0.049), and older participants (F = 35.921; p < 0.001; ɳ² = 0.129) have significantly higher similarity values than participants without children with Portuguese nationality, with basic/secondary education, students, and younger people present higher values.

In addition, some similarity values related to Practices toward Holocaust-related destinations show statistically significant differences: participants who heard about the HMP through the museum website (t = −3.379; p < 0.001; d = −0.436); and not through family/friends (t = 2.259; p = 0.024; d = 0.205) present significantly higher similarity values than their counterparts; participants who have visited other Holocaust museums (t = −8.177; p < 0.001; d = −0.782), concentration camps (t = −5.434; p < 0.001; d = −0.607), other Holocaust memorials (t = −7.866; p < 0.001; d = −0.755), and other Holocaust-related destinations (t = −8.165; p < 0.001; d = −0.793) have significantly higher similarity values than those who have not; the greater the number of times participants visited Holocaust-related sites, the greater the similarity value (r = 0.308; p < 0.001).

Finally, to test the hypotheses of this study, multiple linear regressions were carried out for the total motivation scale, for Factor 1 (novelty and knowledge-seeking) and Factor 2 (fun, family, escape, and relaxation). Sociodemographic variables, tourist practices, sources of knowledge about the museum, knowledge about what dark tourism is, and similarity entered the model as independent variables. The models identified for the total motivation scale, Factor 1 and Factor 2, are pretty similar (

Table 11. Variables that contribute to the motivations (total) behind visiting dark places.

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	B	EP B	β	B	EP B	β	B	EP B	β
Gender	0.165	0.071	0.092	0.163	0.070	0.091	0.137	0.070	0.076
Age	−0.007	0.002	−0.163	−0.006	0.002	−0.136	−0.008	0.002	−0.174
Nationality	−0.028	0.005	−0.220	−0.023	0.005	−0.185	−0.027	0.005	−0.210
Education	−0.467	0.081	−0.268	−0.455	0.081	−0.262	−0.463	0.080	−0.266
Previous visits to HMP				0.340	0.133	0.101	0.312	0.132	0.093
Visit other Holocaust-related places				−0.254	0.079	−0.139	−0.321	0.079	−0.175
Similarity							0.088	0.023	0.167
R2 (R2 Adj.)	0.249 (0.243)			0.273 (0.263)			0.294 (0.284)
F for change in R2	40.033 **			7.637 **			14.839 **
Variables that contribute to the motivations (Factor 1) behind visiting dark places
	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	B	EP B	β	B	EP B	β	B	EP B	β
Gender	0.195	0.074	0.115	0.194	0.074	0.115	0.167	0.073	0.098
Age	−0.005	0.002	−0.113	−0.003	0.002	−0.080	−0.005	0.002	−0.124
Nationality	−0.025	0.006	−0.210	−0.022	0.006	−0.184	−0.025	0.006	−0.212
Visit other Holocaust-related places				−0.220	0.081	−0.127	−0.295	0.082	−0.170
Similarity							0.093	0.024	0.186
R2 (R2 Adj.)	0.091 (0.085)			0.104 (0.097)			0.132 (0.123)
F for change in R2	16.035 **			7.436 **			15.180 **
Variables that contribute to the motivations (Factor 2) behind visiting dark places
	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	B	EP B	β	B	EP B	β	B	EP B	β
Age	−0.011	0.003	−0.204	−0.008	0.003	−0.154	−0.010	0.003	−0.190
Education	−0.554	0.097	−0.269	−0.535	0.097	−0.260	−0.537	0.096	−0.261
Nationality	−0.442	0.092	−0.194	−0.339	0.095	−0.149	−0.378	0.095	−0.167
Previous visits to HMP				0.407	0.157	0.103	0.381	0.155	0.096
Visit other Holocaust museums				−0.215	0.111	−0.101	−0.248	0.110	−0.116
Visit other Holocaust-related places				−0.172	0.106	−0.079	−0.230	0.106	−0.106
Similarity							0.095	0.027	0.153
R2 (R2 Adj.)	0.249 (0.244)			0.275 (0.266)			0.293 (0.283)
F for change in R2	53.268 **			5.804 **			12.420 **

Notes: R² = R squared; R² Adj. = R squared adjusted; B = unstandardized regression coefficients; EP B = unstandardized error of B; β = standardized regression coefficients; ** p < 0.001.

). The variables contributing to explaining 28.4% of the variance of the total motivation scale are gender, age, nationality, education, previous visits to the HMP, visiting other Holocaust-related places, and similarity; the variables that contribute the most are nationality and education. The variables that contribute to explaining 12.3% of the variance of Factor 1 (novelty and knowledge-seeking) of the motivation scale are gender, age, nationality, education, visiting other Holocaust-related places, and similarity; the variables that contribute the most are nationality and similarity. The variables contributing to explaining 28.3% of the variance of Factor 2 (fun, family, escape, and relaxation) of the motivation scale are gender, nationality, education, previous visits to the HMP, visiting other Holocaust-related places, visiting other Holocaust museums, and similarity; the variables contributing the most are age and education. To summarize sum, sociodemographic variables, previous practices related to the Holocaust and similarity have an impact on the motivations behind visiting dark places, confirming all our hypotheses.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to identify the motivations behind visiting the HMP and explore if sociodemographic variables, visitors’ similarity with members of the Jewish community, and their knowledge of dark tourism and experience with other Holocaust-related destinations influence such motivators. In order to carry out this study, two instruments were validated for this sample, following the statistical procedures suggested by the literature: one that assesses similarity with the Jewish community and another that assesses the motivations behind visiting the HMP. Both instruments revealed a good fit. Several instruments that assess dark tourists’ motivations have been developed and validated for different populations [56]. The instrument that assesses participants’ motivations behind dark tourism in this study revealed a bifactorial structure (novelty and knowledge-seeking; and fun, family, escape, and relaxation), with the novelty and knowledge-seeking factor presenting a higher mean value and, therefore, is the main reason why people visit the HMP, in line with Isaac et al. [13], Bigley et al. [14] and Sharpley and Stone [17]. Although it was not expected that fun, family, escape, and relaxation became one factor, these aspects often appear to be associated with each other (significant correlations) even when they are listed as separate factors, as noted by Jiao et al. [57].

The total sample was formed by 488 participants, with a mean age of 39.4 years old, of whom the majority were women, Portuguese, and with higher education. The age of our sample is very close to the sample of the experimental group in a study by Betts et al. [58], although younger than the control group of the same study and younger than a study by Nawijn et al. [38]. Betts et al. [58] compared two groups: a control group and an experimental group that created art based on their emotional response to the contents of the exhibition, who engaged in reflective writing and participated in a discussion group. Nawijn et al. [38] explored the expected intensity of emotional responses from a potential visit to a concentration camp memorial site. Regarding gender, the studies by Betts et al. [58] and Nawijn et al. [38] are much more balanced than ours, which is predominantly female. The participants in our study have a higher level of education than those in the study by Nawijn et al. [38]. Concerning professional activity, in our study, three groups were found: educators, students, and other activities. Information regarding the professional activity of the participants was not included in the aforementioned studies; however, in the study by Betts et al. [58] it “was hoped that the sampling procedure would capture some professionals from the fields of law enforcement, the judiciary and the military, diplomacy, medicine, education, and religion, as these are specific groups which have been identified by the USHMM as target groups for education about the Holocaust”.

Most respondents were unaware of the concept of dark tourism. This result can be explained by the fact that dark tourism is a relatively recent phenomenon [9] and, therefore, unknown to much of the public. Furthermore, even if people are aware of what dark tourism is, it does not necessarily imply that they associate this tourist practice with Holocaust-related sites. In fact, many tourists, when visiting dark places, are not aware that they are doing so because they are not aware of the concept or they do not recognize the place as such [4,59]. Indeed, one of the objectives of dark tourism is to make people aware of its existence, why it exists, and how it materializes in different places [60].

Almost half the participants had heard about HMP through family and friends, whereas over 1/7 of the sample referred to the HMP’s website. This result reflects the importance of word-of-mouth in the dissemination of information about museums in general, as personal referrals are often mentioned as one of the main reasons for visiting a museum [61], as this promotional strategy is one that best suits a museum with limited scale and budget [62], as is the context of the HMP. Most participants had never visited Holocaust-related destinations prior to the survey; those who had, visited several destinations more than once. Rice and Khanin [63] analyzed “why do they keep coming back?” and found that attribute satisfaction and push motives were positively related to repeat visitation, contrary to pull motives that were not related but reinforced the effect of push motives. “Repeat tourism” refers to tourists visiting the same destination once again or multiple times [64].

A profile of participants presents higher values of similarity with the Jewish community; it is characterized by having children, not being a Portuguese national, having higher education, working in the field of education, and being older. Working in the field of education predisposes participants to be more aware of the topic; in addition, the MHP proactively approaches schools to educate young people about the Holocaust. This similarity can be a motivating factor to visit the museum. Besides, Soulard et al. [65] found that after visiting a Holocaust Museum, travelers felt transformed, “empowered, pursuing remembrance and education, and identifying societal issues that warrant mobilization” (p. 1).

The participants who heard about the HMP through the museum website (and not through family/friends) present significantly higher similarity values than their counterparts. This result can be explained by the active search by participants on the museum’s website. Furthermore, participants who have visited other Holocaust museums, concentration camps, other Holocaust memorials, and other Holocaust-related destinations have significantly higher similarity values than those who have not, probably because the topic was of interest to them prior to visiting the museum, which justifies that the greater the number of times participants visited Holocaust-related sites, the greater the similarity value.

Participants who are more motivated to visit the HMP are women and participants without children; also, people of Portuguese nationality with basic/secondary education, students, and younger people—this subsample is the museum’s primary target population. The fact that women feel more inclined than men to visit the museum could be explained by the level of development that young women reach earlier than men [66].

Participants who obtained information about the HMP through family/friends and those who have already visited Holocaust museums, concentration camps, Holocaust memorials, and other Holocaust-related sites show significantly higher total motivation, higher novelty and knowledge-seeking motivation, and greater fun, family, escape, and relaxation motivation values than their counterparts. This result shows that familiarity with the Holocaust theme constitutes a motivating factor for visiting the museum; that is, people interested in this topic want to continue exploring it. However, the result that indicates that people who visited Holocaust-related sites more often presented lower motivation to visit the HMP, may seem contradictory if we do not consider the novelty factor, and the growing expectation of exploring the topic in different ways, namely through more immersive and engaging experiences, with the support of digital media and virtual and augmented reality technologies (e.g., [67,68,69]); indeed, visitors’ experience and expectations are essential for museums in terms of management and development [70].

Finally, sociodemographic variables, previous practices related to the Holocaust and similarity have an impact on motivations behind visiting dark places, confirming all our hypotheses.

5. Conclusions

The present research indicates that HMP visitors are primarily women, participants without children, of Portuguese nationality with basic/secondary education, students, and younger people. It also found two core motivation factors that drive people to visit the HMP: novelty and knowledge-seeking motives, and fun, family, escape, and relaxation motives; most visitors are more interested in novelty and knowledge-seeking motivations. Similarity with the participants with the Jewish community is not a very important motivator for a visit, nor is visitors’ knowledge about dark tourism. However, dark tourism practices, especially Holocaust-related, influence motivations to visit the HMP. The novelty of this article consists in the inclusion, in addition to the instrument that assesses motivations, of instruments and questions that assess tourist practices in the context of dark tourism and the perception of similarity with the Jewish community that, besides allowing the sample to be characterized in a more in-depth way, allowed us to assess their impact on motivations. Furthermore, no study has been carried out yet based on this particular museum.

The HMP has invested in communicating through the press and its website and in relying upon personal referrals for diffusion purposes. Although this promotional strategy has produced good results so far, as the demand is comprised by its primary target (young visitors, mostly students or in the education area), there is the potential to explore other visitor profiles, namely, targeting older people (the mean age of the sample was about 39 years old). Such an endeavor is imperative to sustain and preserve the museum’s mission and broaden its reach. Understanding dark tourism demand-side drivers, such as visitor motivation, is important in sustaining today’s Holocaust “consumption” (Griffiths, 2018). However, there is also the supply side, as in other forms of tourism, which may be somehow neglected in the literature, specifically the experiential aspect of visiting Holocaust museums. To ensure that the museum and the memory of the Holocaust remain relevant to its visitors, it is imperative to ensure that their needs and expectations are met and provide appealing and satisfying experiences in a relaxing environment. Therefore, the HMP could develop new, experiential, and effective exhibition strategies, including digital technologies, to engage people in immersive and simulative memories of the Holocaust and an attractive level of public programming to carry the memory of the Holocaust into the future.

Despite the practical insights of this study concerning the motivations behind visiting a dark tourism destination museum, it is conceded that the study’s narrow focus on the HMP limits the extent of its findings. Future research needs to be conducted on other Holocaust museums to allow for the generalization of findings. In addition, the study focused on a relatively small sample of respondents, which limits generalisability. Further research could comprise a more considerable sample size, namely to allow for comparisons among nationalities. As the HMP should not only keep its visitors but also create new ones, future studies could also study non-visitors to assess their experience expectations. Moreover, since our study focused only on motivations behind visiting the HMP, further research is needed to assess the whole visitor experience, that is, the process before, during and after the visit.