psychocentric tourist

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity: Made easy

Disclaimer: Some posts on Tourism Teacher may contain affiliate links. If you appreciate this content, you can show your support by making a purchase through these links or by buying me a coffee . Thank you for your support!

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity is one of the best-known theoretical models in the travel and tourism industry. Since Plog’s seminal work on the rise and fall of tourism destinations, back in 1974, a vast amount of subsequent research has been based on or derived from this concept- so it is pretty important! But what  is  Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity?

In this article I will explain, in  simple  language, what this fundamental tourism model is and how it works. I will also show you why it is so important to understand Plog’s work, whether you are a student or whether you are working in the tourism industry.

Are you ready to learn more? Read on…

What is Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity?

How did plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity come about, why destination areas rise and fall in popularity, allocentric tourists, psychocentric tourists, mid-centric tourists, positive aspects of plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, negative aspects of plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, key takeaways about plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity: faqs, to conclude: plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity.

Stanley Plog’s  model of allocentricity and psychocentricity has been widely taught and cited for almost 50 years- wow! And I would hazard a guess that you are studying this too? Why else would you be reading this blog post? Well, worry not- I am confident in the knowledge that by the time you get to the end of this article you will be a Plog expert!

Right, so lets get to the point…. what is Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity?

Plog’s model is largely regarded as a cornerstone of tourism theory. It’s pretty important. This model has provided the foundations for many other studies throughout the past four decades and has helped  tourism industry stakeholders  to better comprehend and manage their tourism provision.

Plog’s work was the precursor to  Butler’s Tourism Area Lifecycle . Plog wanted to examine the way in which tourism destinations develop. How do they grow? How and why do they decline? How can we make (relatively) accurate predictions to help us to better manage the tourism provision at hand?

Plog’s research found that there were (are) distinct correlations between the appeal of a destination to different types of tourists and the rise and fall in popularity of a destination.

Plog essentially delineated these types of tourists according to their personalities. He then plotted these along a continuum in a bell-shaped, normally distributed curve. This curve identified the rise and fall of destinations.

‘You said this would be a  simple explanation ! I still don’t understand?!’

OK, OK- I have my academic jargon fix over with. Lets make this easy…

To put it simply, Plog’s theory demonstrates that the popularity of a destination will rise and fall over time depending on which types of tourists find the destination appealing.

‘OK, I get it. Can I read something else now?’.

Well, actually- no.

If you are going to  really  understand how Plog’s model works and how you can put it into practice, you need a little bit more detail.

But don’t worry, I’ll keep it light… keep reading…

So lets start with a little bit of history. Why did Plog do this research in the first place?

Plog’s research began back in 1967, when he worked for market-research company, Behavior Science Corporations (also known as BASICO). Plog was working on a consulting project, whereby he was sponsored by sixteen domestic and foreign airlines, airframe manufacturers, and various magazines. The intention was to examine and understand the psychology of certain segments of travellers.

During this time, the commercial  aviation industry was only just developing . Airlines wanted to better understand their potential customers. They wanted to turn non-flyers into flyers, and they wanted Plog to help. This saw the birth of Plog’s research into tourism motivation, that later spanned into decades of research into the subject.

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity demonstrated that destinations rise and fall in popularity in accordance with the types of tourists who find the destination appealing.

Essentially, Plog suggested that as a destination grows and develops (and also declines), it attracts different types of people.

Example: Tortuguero versus Kusadasi

Lets take, for example, Tortuguero. Toruguero is a destination in  Costa Rica  that is pretty difficult to reach. I travelled here with my husband and baby to see the turtles lay their eggs, it was pretty incredible. If the area was more developed, the turtles probably wouldn’t choose this area as their breeding ground anymore.

To reach Tortuguero, we had many hours in the car on  unmade roads . We then had to take  a boat , which only left a couple of times a day. This was a small local boat with a small motor. There were only a handful of hotels to choose from.

The only people who were here  wanted  to be here. The journey would put most tourists off.

In contrast, I was shocked at the  overtourism  that I experienced when I visited Kusadasi, in Turkey. The beaches here were some of the busiest I have ever seen. The restaurants were brimming with people.

Here you could find all of the home comforts you wanted. There was a 5D cinema, every fast food chain I have ever known, fun fair rides, water parks, water sports and much more. The area was highly developed for tourism.

Plog pointed out that as a destination reaches a point in which it is widely popular with a well-established image, the types of tourist will be different from those who will have visited before the destination became widely developed. In other words, the mass tourism market attracts very different people from the niche and non-mass tourism fields.

Plog also pointed out that as the area eventually loses positioning in the tourism market, the total tourist arrivals decrease gradually over the years, and the types of tourists who are attraction to the destination will once again change.

Plog’s tourist typology

OK, so you get the gist of it, right? Now lets get down to the nitty gritty details…

Plog developed a typology. A typology is basically a way to group people, or classify them, based on certain characteristics. In this case, Plog classifies tourists based on their motivations.

Note: Plog has suggested the updated terms ‘dependables’ and ‘venturers’ to replace pscychocentric and allocentric, but these have not been generally adopted in the literature

Plog examined traveller motivations and came up with his classifications of tourists. He came up with two classifications (allocentric and psychocentric), which were then put at the extremes of a scale.

As you can see in the diagram above, psychocentric tourists are placed on the far left of the scale and allocentric tourists are placed at the far right. The idea is then that a tourist can be situated at any place along the scale.

‘OK, so I understand the scale. But what do these terms  actually  mean?’

Don’t worry, I am getting there! Below, I have outlined what is meant by the terms allocentric and psychocentric.

In Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, the allocentric tourist is most likely associated with destinations that are un(der)developed. These tourists might be the first tourists to visit an area. They may be the first intrepid explorers, the ones brave enough to travel to the ‘unknown’. The types of people who might travel to Torguero- the example I gave previously.

Allocentric tourists like adventure. They are not afraid of the unknown. They like to explore.

No familiar food? ‘Lets give it a try!’

Nobody speaks English? ‘I’ll get my with hand gestures and my translation app.’

No Western toilets? ‘My thighs are as strong as steel!’

Allocentric tourists are often found travelling alone. They are not phased that the destination they are visiting doesn’t have a chapter in their guidebook. In fact, they are excited by the prospect of travelling to a place that most people have never heard of!

Allocentric tourists enjoy  cultural tourism , they are ethical travellers and they love to learn.

Research has suggested that only 4% of the population is predicted to be purely allocentric. Whilst many people do have allocentric tendencies, they are more likely to sit further along Plog’s scale and be classified as near or centric allocentics.

OK, so lets summarise some of the common characteristics associated with allocentric travellers in a neat bullet point list (I told you I would make this easy!)

Allocentric tourists commonly:

• Independent travellers
• Excited by adventure
• Eager to learn
• Likes to experience the unfamiliar
• Is put off by group tours, packages and mass tourism
• Enjoys  cultural tourism
• Are ethical tourists
• Enjoy a challenge
• Are advocates of  sustainable tourism
• Enjoys embracing  slow tourism

Psychocentric tourists are located at the opposite end of the spectrum to allocentric tourists.

In Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, psychocentric tourists are most commonly associated with areas that are well-developed or  over-developed for tourism . Many people will have visited the area before them- it has been tried and tested. These tourists feel secure knowing that their holiday choice will provide them with the comforts and familiarities that they know and love.

What is there to do on holiday? ‘I’ll find out from the rep at the welcome meeting’

Want the best spot by the pool? ‘I’ll get up early and put my towel on the sun lounger!’

Thirsty? ‘Get me to the all-inclusive bar!’

Psychocentric tourists travel in organised groups. Their holidays are typically organised for them by their  travel agent . These travellers seek the familiar. They are happy in the knowledge that their holiday resort will provide them with their home comforts.

The standard activity level of psychocentric tourists is low. These tourists enjoy holiday resorts and  all inclusive packages . They are components of  enclave tourism , meaning that they are likely to stay put in their hotel for the majority of the duration of their holiday. These are often repeat tourists, who choose to visit the same destination year-on-year.

So, here is my summary of the main characteristics associated with psychocentric tourists.

Psychocentric tourists commonly:

• Enjoy familiarity
• Like to have their home comforts whilst on holiday
• Give preference to known brands
• Travel in organised groups
• Enjoys organised tours, package holidays and all-inclusive tourism
• Like to stay within their holiday resort
• Do not experience much of the local culture
• Do not learn much about the area that they are visiting or people that live there
• Pay one flat fee to cover the majority of holiday costs
• Are regular visitors to the same area/resort

The reality is, not many tourists neatly fit into either the allocentric or psychocentric categories. And this is why Plog developed a scale, whereby tourists can be placed anywhere along the spectrum.

As you can see in the diagram above, the largest category of tourists fall somewhere within the mid-centric category on the spectrum. Tourists can learn towards allocentric, or pyschocentric, but ultimately, they sit somewhere in the middle.

Mid-centric tourists like some adventure, but also some of their home comforts. Perhaps they book their holiday themselves through dynamic packaging, but then spend the majority of their time in their holiday resort. Or maybe they book an organised package, but then choose to break away from the crowd and explore the local area.

Most tourists can be classified as mid-centric.

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity has been widely cited throughout the academic literature for many years. It is a cornerstone theory in travel and tourism research that has formed the basis for further research and analysis in a range of contexts.

Plog’s theory preceded that of Butler, which is subsequently intertwined with Plog’s model, as demonstrated in the image below. As you can see, Butler was able to develop his  Tourism Area Lifecycle  based in the premise of the rise and fall of destinations as prescribed by Plog.

Plog’s theory has encouraged critical thinking throughout the tourism community for several decades and it is difficult to find a textbook that doesn’t pay reference to his work.

Whilst Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity is widely cited, it is not without its critique. In fact, many academics have questioned it’s ‘real-world’ validity over the years. Some common criticisms include:

• The research is based on the US population , which may not be applicable for other nations
• The concepts of personality, appeal and motivation are subjective terms that may be viewed different by different people. This is exemplified when put onto the global stage, with differing cultural contexts.
• Not all destinations will move through the curved continuum prescribed by Plog, in other words- not all destinations will strictly follow this path
• It is difficult to categorise people into groups- behaviours and preferences change overtime and between different times of the year and days of the week. People may also change depending on who they are with.

So, what are the key takeaways about Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity? Lets take a look…

• Psychocentrics are the majority of travelers who prefer familiar destinations, mainstream attractions, and predictable experiences. They tend to seek comfort, security, and convenience in their travels and are less likely to take risks or seek out new experiences.
• Allocentrics, on the other hand, are a minority of travelers who seek out unique and exotic destinations, adventure, and novelty. They are more willing to take risks and venture into unfamiliar territories in pursuit of new experiences.
• Plog’s model suggests that people’s travel preferences are determined by their personality traits, values, and life experiences.
• The model also proposes that travelers may move along a continuum from psychocentric to allocentric as they gain more experience and exposure to travel.
• Plog’s model has been criticized for oversimplifying travel motivations and not accounting for the diversity of motivations and preferences within each category.
• Despite its limitations, Plog’s model remains a useful tool for understanding tourist behavior and designing marketing strategies that target specific types of travelers.

Finally, lets finish up this article about Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity by addressing some of the most commonly asked questions.

Do you understand Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity now? I certainly hope so!

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity is important theory in tourism is a core part of most tourism management curriculums and has helped tourism professionals understand, assess and manage their tourism provision for decades, and will continue to do so for decades to come, I’m sure.

If you found this article about Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity then please do take a look around the website, because I am sure there will be plenty of other useful content!

Liked this article? Click to share!

What Is Psychocentric in Tourism?

By Alice Nichols

Have you ever heard the term ‘Psychocentric’ in tourism? If not, then you are in the right place. In this article, we will discuss what psychocentric means in tourism and its importance.

What Is Psychocentric?

Psychocentric is a term used to describe a type of tourist who prefers to stay within their comfort zone when traveling. They tend to avoid taking risks and prefer familiar experiences rather than trying new things. Psychocentric tourists are often concerned with safety and security and tend to travel in groups or with family members.

Importance of Psychocentric Tourists

While psychocentric tourists may seem less adventurous, they play a crucial role in the tourism industry. They prefer established and popular destinations that have a good reputation for safety and quality services. This means they contribute significantly to the local economy by spending money on hotels, restaurants, transportation, and other activities.

Characteristics of Psychocentric Tourists

Psychocentric tourists have some common characteristics that set them apart from other types of travelers. These include:

• Prefer organized tours or packages
• Choose familiar destinations over new ones
• Avoid physical risk-taking activities
• Prefer to travel with family or friends
• Tend to plan their trips well in advance
• Value safety and security over adventure

Examples of Psychocentric Tourism Destinations

Some examples of popular psychocentric tourism destinations include:

• The Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, USA.
• The Gold Coast in Australia.
• The Maldives Islands.
• Rome, Italy.
• Paris, France.

10 Related Question Answers Found

What does psychocentric mean in tourism, what is poorism tourism, why is enclave a negative impact of tourism, what is economic leakage tourism, how tourism is bad, how does waste affect tourism, what does economic leakage in tourism mean, what is morbid tourism, what are the psychology of tourism, why is tourism bad, backpacking - budget travel - business travel - cruise ship - vacation - tourism - resort - cruise - road trip - destination wedding - tourist destination - best places, london - madrid - paris - prague - dubai - barcelona - rome.

© 2024 LuxuryTraveldiva

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Tourists’ apprehension toward choosing the next destination: A study based on the learning zone model

Associated data.

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

The current research is based on Senninger’s Learning Zone Model applied to the tourists’ comfort zone. This model was created in 2000 and it proved to be useful in many applied areas: Psychology, Sociology, Marketing and Management. This modes is a behavioral one and shows how a person can justify his action based on previous tested experiences (comfort zone) or dares to step beyond in fear, learn or growth zone. Our research is extending the existent area of expertise to tourism. We aimed at exploring whether the tourists’ apprehension toward choosing their next destination from a comfort zone perspective or rather from the other zones’ perspectives such as fear, learning or growth. To meet this purpose we conducted a mixed method: firstly a qualitative one, an in-depth interview based on Delphi method with 10 tourism specialists and secondly an online survey on 208 Generation Z tourists. The interviews were meant to help developing a 20 items scale (5 items for each level of the model) to measure from which of the 4 zones are the respondents making the choice of the future travel destination. Our conclusions show that Gen Z tourists display behaviors that can be associated with learning or growth zones rather than the comfort zone. This is relevant when choosing the next travel destination, because our findings could bring about a new approach to promoting tourist destinations as part of various products. As a result, a large range of managerial tools can better adapt the promotion messages to the target market from a new psychological perspective.

Introduction

The comfort zone could be associated with a warm and familiar hug, nevertheless, psychologists consider it beneficial and restrictive at the same time ( McWha et al., 2018 ). This field of research has been popular with a variety of specialists such as mental health practitioners, behavior therapists, and other psychologists ( Gilligan and Dilts, 2009 ). The paradox noticed by many is that while finding oneself in the comfort zone provides calm and quietness ( Passafaro et al., 2021 ), at the same time it might prevent growth ( Santoro and Major, 2012 ; Woodward and Kliestik, 2021 ). The solution researchers seem to agree upon is to balance those two divergent forces (the one that keeps us wanting to remain still and the one that makes us wanting to grow) to improve our lives ( Berno and Ward, 2005 ).

Bardwick (1995) coined the term “comfort zone” in the management context, in order to help assess more efficiently the motivation behind certain employees’ behaviors. Inside of the comfort zone, the stimulus for performance growth seems scarce. While the routine generally averts risks it can also limit human resources development. That is why Karwowski (2018) considered that this concept also applies to the field of behavioral psychology.

Our comfort zone is considered to be a psychological, emotional, and behavioral construct ( Lichy and Favre, 2018 ; Nica et al., 2022a ) that defines our daily routine and involves familiarity, safety, and security. Although we often hear professors, coaches, or motivational speakers encouraging us to reach beyond our limits and explore activities outside our regular boundaries, this ignores a fundamental reality, namely the existence of personal differences among individuals. Someone’s comfort zone might be completely different from another’s.

Each person has his/her comfort zone modeled by herself, a healthy adaptation to achieve an emotional balance free from anxiety. It is a place where a person feels calm, comfortable, and relaxed. However, experimenting with a reasonable amount of stress or anxiety from time to time can prove beneficial. Miller (2019) refers to the comfort zone as an illusion, a self-imposed mental limitation that is not easy to overcome. The difficulty of overcoming this limitation is mostly linked to the fear of missing the warmth and calm of our imaginary cocoon ( Nica et al., 2022b ).

Page (2020) summarized the most relevant 4 benefits of moving beyond this comfort zone: (i) self-fulfillment, a term retrieved from the classical hierarchy of needs formulated by Maslow (1943) and (ii) growth mindset, a term defined by Dweck (2000) as relying on flexibility, trial and error and unlimited potential as opposed to a fixed mindset where people believe there is a personal threshold for everyone beyond which advance become problematic. (iii) antifragility which regard volatility, hazard, chaos, and stress as push factors for self-development and prosperity ( Taleb, 2014 ), and (iv) self-efficacy explained by Bandura (1997) as the sum of actions to be executed to reach a certain objective.

An interesting approach developed by Senninger (2000) is the Learning Zone Model. According to this model, the fear which settles in once the comfort zone is left behind does not necessarily indicate reaching the panic zone. It is more of a natural emotion accompanying moving into the learning and growth zones.

Once all these obvious advantages of stepping out of the comfort zone are taken into account, the essential question is to find out from which one of the four zones (comfort/fear/learning or growth) is the Gen Z consumer reacting when choosing the next tourist destination?

We want in this paper to investigate, starting from Senninger’s model, Generation Z travelers, aged 18–27, in order to discover which one/ones out of the four zones (comfort/fear/learning or growth) is the most important for them when it comes to choose the next travel destination. For that reason we conducted a mixed method research. Firstly, with the help of tourism and travel specialists (Delphi method), we created a 20 items questionnaire (5 for each zone) and secondly we applied it in an online survey on 208 Gen Z individuals. We set as a research objective the identification of certain behavioral patterns of Gen Z consumers who are currently in their comfort zone.

Section 2 of this paper presents the details of our research design and the following parts describe the findings, discussions and conclusions. This would serve future research on solutions and actions for taking them to the superior level of this model, namely the growth zone, overcoming feelings of fear and anxiety which prevents this progress.

Literature review

The learning zone model.

This model was developed initially by Vygotsky (1978) , later on, the definitive version belonged to Senninger (2000) . The underlying idea is that in order to learn and progress we need to be challenged and stimulated ( Kliestik et al., 2022 ). It is all about the balance of forces. If we are not pushed enough, the probability that we move beyond the comfort zone is rather low, while if we are pushed too hard, the risk is to panic and feel overwhelmed. Both situations lack a proper balance and entail limited learning ( Senninger, 2000 ).

The model has two variations: a limited one with only three zones and an expanded one with four zones. We based our research on the latter. The comfort zone provides a familiar and safe feeling and entitles the subjects of it to feel in control. It is a risk-free area that is also not very eventful ( Karwowski, 2018 ; Kovacova et al., 2022 ). A state of reaching a plateau besides monotony and boredom settles in Kovacova et al. (2022) . Often, people tend to conform to it and even put the effort into maintaining it ( Kliestik et al., 2022 ). However, as life moves on, a series of internal and external factors trigger changes ( Dweck, 2005 ; Kliestik et al., 2022 ). We might get sick, change our job or our family might expand and all these push us outside of our comfort zone.

As soon as we move out of our comfort zone we find ourselves in the fear zone. There, a process of self-inquiry about our choices might occur. It is possible that we face a low self-confidence situation and doubt settles in Miller (2019) . Sometimes we internalize critical voices which have a paralyzing effect on ourselves ( Senninger, 2017 ). Often, we can be scared to the point when we regret moving out of our comfort zone and rush back inside of it ( Andronie et al., 2021 ). Meanwhile, we might start complaining more and focus on obstacles and issues to justify this embarrassing return ( Wallace and Lãzãroiu, 2021 ).

Once we get close enough to the learning zone we score the first victory: we passed the fear zone and we suppressed the internal and external critical voices ( Page, 2020 ). In the learning zone we face new challenges, but we tend to prioritize solutions over problems ( Lyons, 2022 ). In other words, we move from a pessimistic to an optimistic perspective and this allows us to grow ( Pearce and Packer, 2013 ).

The growth zone might be equated with the terminus point for this psychological pursuit. Here, the old fears are slowly receding even if new ones might settle in. The advantage is that we became more resilient during this phase and we learned to set more ambitious goals for ourselves ( Lǎzãroiu and Harrison, 2021 ). As long as our personal development continues our lives gather more sense. Progressively, we define superior objectives, and we create a long-term-based personal view ( Pongelli et al., 2021 ).

This model, besides its significant contribution to human psychology development, remains a resource with robust applied configuration ( Dweck, 2005 ; Kliestik et al., 2022 ). Our work intends to explore how this model could be applied to understanding tourists’ behaviors.

Intentionally leaving the comfort zone can be possible only by developing a growth mindset. While a rigid mindset keeps us in the prison of the fear of failure, a growth mindset expands opportunities and possibilities. It inspires us to overcome fear, to take healthy risks, to learn new lessons and the outcomes are blooming in all life dimensions ( Perruci and Warty Hall, 2018 ).

When it comes to learning, Elbæk et al. (2022) are presenting the effects of Yerkes-Dodson law that stipulates that there is an empirical relationship between stress and performance. In other words, that there is an optimal level of stress that corresponds to an optimal level of performance. Based on Yerkes-Dodson law, learning is possible not only beyond comfort zone, but also beyond fear. Is not defined by stress. Quite the opposite! It is a space for opportunities, where, in order to optimize the performance, people must reach a certain level of stress, higher than normal. So we obtain what they call to be an optimal anxiety.

Comfort zone proves to be nothing but a cozy place to live in, and its only reason is to prepare you for all the challenges in life ( Anichiti et al., 2021 ). Anxiety, fear and stress improve performance until a certain level—called optimum stimulation level. Beyond this point, performance drops while stress is increasing ( Avornyo et al., 2019 ).

What we can see is that comfort, fear and learning are strongly related ( Perruci and Warty Hall, 2018 ). Learning zone model developed by Senninger can be justified by seeking balance ( Freeth and Caniglia, 2020 ). We must exit our comfort zone long enough to reach optimal anxiety, but not too much, for not letting anxiety to take control.

Moreover, all our decisions are facing these mirrors: the comfort mirror—showing the future self that keeps our status quo ; the fear-mirror—presenting the possible panic we have to face in near future; the learning-mirror—with all the lessons we have the assimilate and the growth-mirror—that is indicating the future self we want to become. And, by analyzing all these projections, our mind is developing a cost-benefit analysis ( Zheng et al., 2021 ). As long as we stay in our comfort zone, the benefits are small but guaranteed. We feel good, safe and we are not in danger. However, if we don’t change a thing, we cannot expect something spectacular to happen. If we remain there for a long time, we can limit ourselves, sinking into boredom and monotony.

Plog (1974) , examined the motivations of travelers and arrived at the classification of tourists starting from two approaches: allocentric and psychocentric. Allocentric tourists, or often called ‘wanderers‘, are brave enough to travel to the unknown. They like adventure and would not mind if they were the first to explore a certain area. Allocentric tourists will often travel alone, without the need for a guide. They enjoy cultural tourism, are ethical travelers and love to learn. Stainton (2022) suggested that only 4% of the population is expected to be purely allocentric, most are on Plog’s scale in the category of close or centric cluster. Allocentric tourists have some common features: they are independent travelers, they like adventure; they are eager to learn and like to experience unfamiliar things; they are not followers of mass tourism, tourist packages and group excursions; they are fans of cultural tourism, being ethical tourists; love challenges; prefers sustainable tourism and slow tourism (as opposed to mass tourism). All this being said, making an analogy with the characterization of the four areas of Senninger (2000) , Learning Model allocentric tourists are rather those who are in the growth zone or in transition from the learning zone to the growth zone.

At the opposite side are psychocentric or ‘repeating‘ tourists. They are most often associated with well-developed or overdeveloped areas for tourism. They will choose holiday destinations that have already been “tested,” where they can feel comfortable and familiar. The portrait of a psychocentric tourist ( Stainton, 2022 ), looks like this: he/she enjoys familiarity and likes the chosen destination to offer him/her the comfort of home; prefers well-known brands; often travels in organized groups; is a supporter of holiday packages and all-inclusive holidays; spends a lot of time in the holiday resort and doesn’t know much about the local culture; he/she is not open to learning new things about the area he visits or about the people who live there; pays a single flat fee to cover most of the holiday costs and is a regular visitor to the same resort/destination. This typology, without a doubt, can be associated with the comfort zone, being mentioning key words such as: “comfortable,” “familiar,” “known,” “regular,” “organized” etc.

The reality is that not many tourists fit perfectly into the two typologies at the extremes ( Stainton, 2022 ), respectively, allocentric and psychocentric. And this is why Plog has developed a scale, through which tourists can be placed anywhere along the spectrum. So, the largest category of tourists falls somewhere in the mid-centered category of the spectrum. Mid-center tourists like to have a little adventure, but also something from the comfort of home. Maybe they book their vacation by means of an interesting announcement, but then they spend most of their time in the holiday resort. Or maybe they choose an organized trip, but then they choose to break away from the crowd and explore the local area ( Stainton, 2022 ). These tourists are best suited to the fear zone, where there is a battle between staying in the comfort zone and progressing further toward the learning zone.

Plog (1974) created a fundamental model in travel and tourism research. His theory has encouraged critical thinking throughout the tourism community for several decades. Our paper goes beyond Plog’s model, being enriched by Senninger (2000) explanations of consumer psychology in the face of a purchasing decision. We aim to explore these types of tourists from the perspective of the learning area from which they chose to make the travel decision.

Methodological approach

Research context.

The current research explores the psychographic and behavioral factors determining the choice of a certain tourist destination. It was targeted at the Generation Z adult population within the age range 18–27. The research is based on the Learning Zone Model formulated by Senninger (2000) which features four zones: comfort, fear, learning, and growth. The research results, conclusions, and suggestions will constitute a reference point for formulating various marketing strategies. Those marketing strategies include promoting a tourist destination once the profile of Gen Z tourist is defined according to the 4 above-mentioned zones. Therefore, personalized marketing messages can emerge aiming at for example diminishing the fears and uncertainty of those in the comfort or fear zones or attracting those in the learning or growth zone through new experiences, adventure, and other challenges. Each destination has one or more target markets and a tourist typology-based learning zones model might be a relevant variable when segmenting the market for Gen Z tourists.

Research design

The purchase decisions of Gen Z tourists are largely emotional and can be attributed to certain zones of the learning zone model developed by Senninger (2000) . The consumer acts from within a certain zone such as comfort, fear, learning, or growth. This can lead to certain behavioral patterns when choosing a tourist destination. We devised the following research question:

From which one of the four zones (comfort/fear/learning or growth) is the Gen Z consumer reacting when choosing the next tourist destination?

The research had 2 main phases

Phase 1 involved qualitative research aimed at identifying the keywords corresponding to each of the 4 zones part of the model (comfort, fear, learning, and growth). We planned to do this by exploring tourism specialists’ views. The resulting keywords were subsequently integrated into the quantitative research instrument. The objectives set for phase 1 were:

• O1.1: Generating keywords for describing the behavior of tourists who are in the comfort zone as per the Learning zone model ( Senninger, 2000 ).
• O1.2: Generating keywords for describing the behavior of tourists who are in the fear zone as per Learning zone model ( Senninger, 2000 ).
• O1.3: Generating key words for describing the behavior of tourists who are in the learning zone as per Learning zone model ( Senninger, 2000 ).
• O1.4: Generating key words for describing the behavior of tourists who are in the growth zone as per Learning zone model ( Senninger, 2000 ).

Phase 2 consisted of quantitative research directed toward analyzing the Gen Z tourists’ perspectives from Iasi, Romania. Their perspective was scrutinized corresponding to the Learning Zone Model (comfort, fear, learning, and growth zones) in terms of choice of their future travel destination. More precisely we focused on learning from which of the 4 zones are they making this choice. The objectives set for phase 2 were

• O2.1: Identifying the Gen Z tourist profile (among those living in Iasi). Profiling is based on tourism services purchase frequency, distance traveled, domestic/outbound destinations preference, type of holiday, travel motivation, and travel budget.
• O2.2: Identifying specific behavior related to their comfort zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.
• O2.3: Identifying specific behavior related to their fear zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.
• O2.4: Identifying specific behavior related to their learning zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.
• O2.5: Identifying specific behavior related to their growth zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

Research hypotheses

For phase 2 of the research (online survey), we formulated the four hypotheses.

As Stainton (2022) stated, based on Plog (1974) model, there are psychocentric or ‘repeating‘ tourists. Our sample of experts have characterized them with words like: comfort seekers, valuing control and security, having a strong aversion against risk and willing to repeat positive experiences. So, after Plog (1974) ; Stainton (2022) and justified by the choices made by our group of experts, we can formulate the first hypothesis:

H1: There is a connection among the attributes of the comfort zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing of a tourist destination.

Elbæk et al. (2022) argued that there is a relationship between stress and performance. They said that it is necessary to step into fear in order to thrive. Fear and stress can be challenging, but only until a certain point, beyond what performance is not possible. When it comes to analyze tourists behavior facing fear, our group of specialists selected words like: being suggestible, overcoming fear of unknown and challenges, willing to experience and being courageous. Based on that we formulated the second hypothesis:

H2: There is a connection among the attributes of the fear zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing of a tourist destination.

Comfort, fear and learning are strongly related ( Perruci and Warty Hall, 2018 ). We must exit our comfort zone long enough to reach optimal anxiety, but not too much, for not letting anxiety to take control ( Freeth and Caniglia, 2020 ). Only those who are willing to learn and keep an open mind are thriving ( Anichiti et al., 2021 ). That is why our group of specialists selected the following words to describe a person that makes a decision justified by his/hers learning zone: is open to novelty, curious, interested in learning new things, loves challenges and risk taking, being explorer and adventurous. As a consequence, the third hypothesis is:

H3: There is a connection among the attributes of the learning zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing of a tourist destination.

Leaving the comfort zone can be possible only by developing a growth mindset ( Perruci and Warty Hall, 2018 ). Our mind is developing a cost-benefit analysis ( Zheng et al., 2021 ) and puts into balance the cost of leaving the comfort zone with the benefit of reaching the growth zone. Those who see mainly the benefits are, according to our group of specialists: decisive, emotionally developed, willing to fulfill ideals and objectives, committed to their personal growth and seeing traveling as a lifestyle. These conclusions helped us formulate the fourth hypothesis:

H4: There is a connection among the attributes of the growth zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing of a tourist destination.

Research methods

Phase 1: Semi-Structured interview applied to tourism specialists using the Delphi method. There were 10 experts in tourism (tourism agents, bloggers, and tourism master graduates).

Phase 2: Quantitative research based on an online survey having 208 respondents among travel enthusiastic from Iasi. The gender split was 87 and 121 female respondents, aged 18–27, corresponding to Gen Z.

The research instruments

Phase 1: We used a selection questionnaire for selecting the participants. The interviews required answers regarding the profiling of a tourist who makes the purchase decision from his comfort, fear, learning, or growth zone.

Phase 2: Based on the specialists’ answers, the questionnaire items were realized. The instrument had 3 sections:

• Section 1 was built around determining the profile of Gen Z tourists and consisted of 8 questions. The questions asked the participants to associate the travel with a random word, to assess their travel frequency, preference for either domestic or international destinations, the maximum distance they were eager to travel, holiday type and motivation, and their weekly travel budget.
• Section 2 consisted of 4 sets of 5 statements each using keywords defining tourists from each of the 4 zones (comfort, fear, learning, growth). The statements were based on the specialists’ answers collected through the semi-structured interview described earlier. Respondents were asked to grade the statements on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 meant full disagreement and 10 full agreement. Each construct contains a so-called key-statement which is formulated based on the most representative key-word.
• I want to feel in control.
• I choose on safety criteria (personal safety, transport, destination, etc.).
• I try to reduce the risk of unforeseen events, which could take me out of my comfort zone.*
• I prefer to repeat positive experiences I have had in the past.
• I avoid any complications that may occur.
• I always want to gather new experiences.
• I try to overcome my fear of the unknown.*
• I let myself be influenced by the opinions of those around me.
• I leave room for the unexpected.
• I accept new challenges, giving up excessive planning.
• I am open to all experiences.
• I allow myself to always be curious.
• I leave room for adventure.
• I am willing to learn new things.*
• I love challenges.
• I am always determined on what I want.
• I consider any experience that contributes to my personal growth.*
• I am getting closer to fulfilling my dreams as a tourist.
• I am looking for experiences that will enrich my soul.
• I consider traveling as a lifestyle.

Section 3 consisted of social and demographic questions for identifying the respondents.

Research results

For this initial phase of our research, namely the semi-structured interview using the Delphi method, we inquired a group of 10 tourism experts from Iasi. The objective was to identify keywords in defining the tourists choosing travel destinations from one of the 4 zones of The Learning Zones Model of Senninger (2000) . Table 1 shows the prevalence of the most frequently mentioned keywords.

The prevalence of the most frequently used keywords or expressions describing a tourist according to Senninger’s model.

Source: own computation.

The keywords and expressions provided by the 10 tourism specialists were centralized as per Table 1 . We, therefore, achieved all 4 objectives and ranked the keywords and expressions according to their prevalence. For the comfort zone, the following keywords or expressions were selected: comfort, security, risk aversion, repeating positive experiences, and control. For the fear zone, the following keywords or expressions were selected: suggestible, inclination to experiment, overcoming fear of the unknown, new challenges, and lack of excessive planning. For the learning zone, the following keywords or expressions were selected: openness to novelty, curious, Interest in learning new things, loves challenges and adventurous. For the growth zone, the following keywords or expressions were selected: decisive, fulfilling objectives and ideas, personal growth and emotional development.

We analyzed the results of the survey for each stated objective.

We exported the data from the SPSS software using the “Descriptive Statistics” function in order to obtain the prevalence. According to the Dimensional Analysis, we created the profile of a Gen Z tourist from Iasi. S/he associates travel mostly with relaxation, freedom feelings, adventure, and experience. S/he travels on average 6 times a year and prefers equally domestic and international destinations. We noted an inclination to travel to a maximum distance of 2,300 kilometers from home and he enjoys mostly 2 types of holidays: resort holidays and city breaks. Whenever s/he chooses a holiday destination a number of attributes are sought: relaxation, having fun, exploring nature, understanding local history, and culture, and adventure. The Gen Z tourist from Iasi allocates on average a weekly travel budget of approximately 2,400 RON (500 euros).

• O2: Identifying specific behavior related to their comfort zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

For verifying this hypothesis we performed a correlation test for the variable attributes of the comfort zone based on r Pearson correlation. We used SPSS software for this end.

According to Table 2 , each correlation significant because Sig is 0.000 (< 0.05) and it consists of a direct correlation ( r > 0). The differences are based on the strength of the correlation between 2 variables. The strongest correlation within the comfort zone is between the risk and uncertainty avoidance, the r-value being 0.699 which indicated a strong correlation. Another strong correlation was found between “security inspired choices” and “risk avoidance” with an r-value of 0.654 although this correlation does not involve causality. Among “security inspired choices” and “uncertainty avoidance” we found an average to good correlation, Pearson r-correlation being 0.523.

Pearson correlation for the comfort zone variables.

We used Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability to identify the measure of internal consistency among the items defining the comfort zone, calculated by SPSS software. The aim was to check whether the items contribute to the comfort zone significance or not. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.779 which indicated a good consistency ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). A side note would be that once the item “inclination to be in control” is removed the consistency improves. As a conclusion of this test, we can state that the comfort zone items do have an acceptable consistency which means there is consistency among the answers given by respondents for this dimension. This will lead to identifying the specific behaviors of tourists choosing a certain destination from their comfort zone.

• O3: Identifying specific behavior related to their fear zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

We performed a Pearson correlation test to verify this hypothesis. We aimed at measuring the correlation among the variables defining the fear zone. This test was performed through SPSS software and the results are summarized in Table 3 .

Pearson correlation for the fear zone variables.

As per Table 3 , all correlations are positive for the fear zone, Pearson r correlation displaying beside the positive values significant correlation (Sig < 0.05). The strongest correlation within the fear zone is between “Lack of excessive planning and acceptance of new challenges” and “unforeseen events” with an r correlation value of 0.627 indicates an average to good correlation. A second moderate correlation can be noticed between “Inclination to experiment” and “overcoming fear of the unknown: ( r = 0.534).

We used Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability to identify the measure of internal consistency among the items defining the comfort zone, calculated by SPSS software. The aim was to check whether the items contribute to the comfort zone significance or not. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.772 which indicated a good consistency ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). This consistency could be improved if the item “suggestible” was eliminated.

As a conclusion of this test, we can state that the fear zone items do have an acceptable consistency which means there is consistency among the answers given by respondents for this dimension. This will lead to identifying the specific behaviors of tourists choosing a certain destination from the fear zone.

• O4: Identifying specific behavior related to their learning zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

H3: There is a connection among the attributes of the learning zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing a tourist destination.

We performed a Pearson correlation test to verify this hypothesis. We aimed at measuring the correlation among the variables defining the fear zone. This test was performed through SPSS software and the results are summarized in Table 4 .

Pearson correlation for the learning zone variables.

All correlations presented in Table 4 are significant (Sig = 0.000 < 0.05) and we see positive correlation (r correlation > 0). In terms of their strength, we see within this dimension reasonable, good, or strong correlations.

We used Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability to identify the measure of internal consistency among the items defining the learning zone, calculated by SPSS software. The aim was to check whether the items contribute to the comfort zone significance or not. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.890 which indicated a good to strong consistency ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). This consistency could be slightly improved if the item “curiosity” was eliminated.

As a conclusion of this test, we can state that the learning zone items do have an acceptable consistency which means there is consistency among the answers given by respondents for this dimension. This will lead to identifying the specific behaviors of tourists choosing a certain destination from the learning zone.

• O5: Identifying specific behavior related to their growth zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

We performed a Pearson correlation test to verify this hypothesis. We aimed at measuring the correlation among the variables defining the fear zone. This test was performed through SPSS software and the results are summarized in Table 5 :

Pearson correlation for the growth zone variables.

Although all correlations among variable attributes of the growth zone are significant (Sig = 0.000 < 0.05) and positive (r correlation > 0), we noticed no strong or very strong correlations. Most of the correlations are weak, where the r-correlation is situated between 0.2 and 0.4. We found several moderate correlations ( r = 0.4–0.6) which could be further discussed:

The correlation between “Travel as lifestyle” and “Seeking experiences leading to emotional growth,” r = 0.493.

The correlation between “Preference toward experiences leading to personal growth: and “Main decider for his life,” r = 0.484.

The correlation between “Preference toward experiences leading to personal growth” and “Seeking experiences leading to emotional growth,” r = 0.484.

The correlation between “Main decider for his life” and “Fulfilling dreams as a tourist,” r = 0.412.

The correlation between “Fulfilling dreams as a tourist” and “Seeking experiences leading to emotional growth,” r = 0.435.

We used the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability to identify the measure of internal consistency among the items defining the growth zone, calculated by SPSS software. The aim was to check whether the items contribute to the comfort zone significance or not. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.748 which indicated an acceptable consistency ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). This consistency could not be improved through the removal of any item.

As a conclusion of this test, we can state that the growth zone items do have an acceptable consistency which means there is consistency among the answers given by respondents for this dimension. This will lead to identifying the specific behaviors of tourists choosing a certain destination from the growth zone.

Senninger’s Learning Model is an evergreen one and, moreover, is proving to be a transversal one. It explains the foundations of decision making process. All the time the human mind tries to arbitrate between staying safe and daring for more, between remaining in the comfort zone and overcoming fear of leaving it. The comfort zone is, no matter what, the reference system of all the other levels, even if you decide to buy bread or an electric car ( Wallace and Lãzãroiu, 2021 ; Popescu et al., 2022 ), to choose between staying home or discover a new destination ( Andronie et al., 2021 ; Nica, 2021 ; Pop et al., 2022 ; Robinson, 2022 ).

In tourism and travel, various companies or even cities understood that a traveling decision is facing two alternatives: (1) not to change a thing and repeat a previous choice (like staying home or choosing all over again the same tested destination) and (2) pointing out new destinations, new experiences, new adventures ( Pop et al., 2022 ). So a question is rising: the tourist offer must include arguments for both types of travelers or must be a focused one? Spontaneously we might think dichotomicly: you must be either unique or you do not count. But the reality shows that we can have smart cities, with a smart infrastructure and integrating IoT, but offering also traditional well conserved historical areas ( Andronie et al., 2021 ; Nica, 2021 ; Robinson, 2022 ). Some will come for tasting new experiences and some will be attracted by nostalgic reasons.

In the end everything is a segmentation issue. For different targets you must have different arguments. That is why our research can be a basis for including a new criterion to the segmentation strategy for tourist products and services. By knowing what particular learning zone is the most important in making a travel decision for a certain segment of clients a company can adapt the offer. The case of Gen Z consumers is particularly interesting, because they are the future most important travelers. They are highly educated, social and environmental activists, digital natives and, extremely important, the most significant buyers all over the globe. They know to find without any help the most reliable information online ( Popescu Ljungholm, 2022 ), they are present on various social media and are the most probably to leave a review. In the light of our research model we can ask ourselves: should we treat Gen Z equally, like we used to do with all the other generations before (decision made from our comfort zone)? Should we fear them and decide that they are beyond our marketing possibilities (decision made from our fear zone)? Should we try to understand them (decision made from our learning zone)? Or should we decide to grow with them ( Popescu Ljungholm, 2022 ), to thrive together (decision made from our growth zone)?

Our research offers a glimpse into a very actual and important question: is the buying decision impacted by one of these four learning zones? We added a new perspective to the well-known Senninger’s model, one referring to choosing the next travel destination. We have experienced the Covid-19 pandemic situation and tourism and travel sector was one of the most affected ones. We hesitated to travel because of fear. We chosed to stay safe and we remained home for years. Now, in 2022, we are facing the same old decision related to travel destinations. What we have noticed is that Gen Z dare to exit their comfort zone and to go beyond fear, driven by learning and growth reasons. We still do not know how responded other generations or if Gen Z have the same response for every decisions, no matter the domain.

The main contribution is that we can offer a measuring scale for the 4 zones of the Learning Zone Model. The particularity lies in applying this model to tourism. It opens new possibilities for the model to be applied to other fields as well alongside new possibilities for statistical determinants through inferential statistics. Moreover, understanding the zone where a decision is made, choosing a destination or other products or services allows us to profile better the consumer from a psychological perspective.

The present research explored the Gen Z tourist’s decision for their next holiday. As a theoretical implication, we started by creating a scale based on the 4 zones corresponding to Senninger’s model. Our scale had 20 items (5 statements for each zone/level of the model) regarding choosing the next travel destination and it is measured from 1 to 10 according to the extent to which a respondent agrees, where 1 is full disagreement and 10 is full agreement (Likert scale). Each section involved one key statement which contains the name of the interest zone (e.g., comfort zone).

As a future research perspective, our intention for this statements is to be used in further inferential statistics as part of future research. This key statement had scored consistently the best evaluation as per Cronbach’s Alpha test.

The managerial implications can be helped by our findings. We consider that the Senninger’s Learning Model can provide segmentation criteria (comfort seekers/fear dominants/learners and thrivers) for a new variable: learning type.

To support that, we say that all the statements were based on collected data from tourism specialists. They describe the tourists choosing a travel destination from within their comfort zone as being focused on control and security, being persons who try to mitigate any risks. Therefore they choose their travel destinations depending on security and lack of unforeseen situations criteria. They also rely on repeating positive experiences. Our quantitative research shows for the comfort zone the strongest correlation is between the willingness to mitigate risks and uncertainty avoidance which could take this type of tourist out of his comfort zone. A second strong correlation found was between security-inspired choices and uncertainty avoidance.

According to the specialists choosing a certain travel destination from within the fear zone can be mostly explained through a high degree of being suggestible but also curious and making efforts to overcome the fear of the unknown, lack of excessive planning and welcoming of new challenges. We used those descriptors in realizing our survey and we found out the strongest correlation among the variables of the fear zone was in fact a moderate one. It was the correlation between lack of excessive planning and accepting new challenges. A second reasonable correlation was between new experiences and overcoming the fear of the unknown. All the other correlations within the fear zone were weak toward moderate.

Travelers choosing their destination from within the learning zone were depicted by the specialists as being open to novelty, curious, eager to learn, adventurous, and accepting challenges as well as risks. Our survey results indicated that the Learning zone is the most relevant for Gen Z tourists from Iasi when choosing a travel destination. We recorded the strongest correlations here such as between being adventurous and opened to new experiences; being adventurous and accepting new challenges; being opened to new experiences and a preference for challenges; being adventurous and learning new things and embracing new challenges and the readiness to learn new things. The other correlations were moderate toward good.

For the travelers in the growth zone, the destination choice involves fulfilling certain ideals and objectives from a touristic point of view. Experiences that involve emotional development, passion, decisiveness, personal growth, accepting risks, and perceiving travel as a lifestyle are the most important for them. While most of the correlations are weak, we found, however, a few reasonable correlations: (i) between travel as a lifestyle and seeking experiences leading to emotional growth, (ii) between inclination toward experiences leading to personal development and decisiveness, (iii) between seeking experiences leading to emotional growth and inclination toward experiences leading to personal development, (iv) between decisiveness and fulfilling dreams as a tourist, and (v) between seeking experiences.

To sum up, we can state that the Gen Z tourist from Iasi displays behaviors that can be associated with learning or growth zones rather than the comfort zone. This is relevant when choosing the next travel destination.

As limitations, we can mention that the sample was limited to 209 individuals, a number relatively small to be statistically representative for the Gen Z population of Iasi. The sample’s structure is heterogenic, having more female respondents. We operated with a convenience non-probability sample.

At the theoretical level the model used as the fundament of this research is the Learning Zone Model ( Senninger, 2000 ) which consists of the 4 zones (comfort, fear, learning, and growth) do not offer a clear differentiation of those zones. We cannot assign a precise zone to each tourist since the model was conceived as more of a progressive path.

The research method, an online survey, might reflect the main reason for the lack of representativity of the sample. Since the survey was distributed online using various social media platforms, there was a lack of control over the respondents. Moreover, the collection of data was carried out during the last phase of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions which involved a relevant transition from online to offline.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, at University Alexandru Ioan Cuza of Iasi. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Andronie M., Lãzãroiu G., ?tefãnescu R., Ionescu L., Coco?atu M. (2021). Neuromanagement decision-making and cognitive algorithmic processes in the technological adoption of mobile commerce apps. Oeconom Copernicana 12 863–888. 10.24136/oc.2021.028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anichiti A., Dragolea L. L., Tacu Hârşan G. D., Haller A. P., Butnaru G. I. (2021). Aspects regarding safety and security in hotels: Romanian experience. Information 12 :44. 10.3390/info12010044 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Avornyo P., Fang J., Antwi C. O., Aboagye M. O., Boadi E. A. (2019). Are customers still with us? The influence of optimum stimulation level and IT-specific traits on mobile banking discontinuous usage intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47 348–360. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Worth Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bardwick J. M. (1995). Danger in the comfort zone: From boardroom to mailroom – how to break the entitlement habit that’s killing American business , 2nd Edn. San Diego, CA: Amacom. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berno T., Ward C. (2005). Innocence abroad: A pocket guide to psychological research on tourism. Am. Psychol. 60 593–600. 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.593 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Oxforshire: Taylor and Francis. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S. (2005). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbæk C. T., Lystbæk M. N., Mitkidis P. (2022). On the psychology of bonuses: The effects of loss aversion and Yerkes-Dodson law on performance in cognitively and mechanically demanding tasks. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 98 :101870. 10.1016/j.socec.2022.101870 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeth R., Caniglia G. (2020). Learning to collaborate while collaborating: Advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research. Sustain. Sci. 15 247–261. 10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilligan S., Dilts R. (2009). The hero’s journey: A voyage of self discovery. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karwowski M. (2018). The flow of learning. Eur. J. Psychol. 14 :291. 10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1660 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kliestik T., Zvarikova K., Lãzãroiu G. (2022). Data-driven machine learning and neural network algorithms in the retailing environment: Consumer engagement, experience, and purchase behaviors. Econ. Manag. Financ. Mark. 17 57–69. 10.22381/emfm17120224 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kovacova M., Machova V., Bennett D. (2022). Immersive extended reality technologies, data visualization tools, and customer behavior analytics in the metaverse commerce. J. Self Govern. Manag. Econ. 10 7–21. 10.22381/jsme10220221 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lǎzǎroiu G., Harrison A. (2021). Internet of things sensing infrastructures and data-driven planning technologies in smart sustainable city governance and management. Geopolit. Hist. Int. Relat. 13 23–36. 10.22381/GHIR13220212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lichy J., Favre B. (2018). “ Leaving the comfort zone: Building an international dimension in higher education ” in International Enterprise Education eds Mulholland G., Turner J. J. (London:Routledge; ), 234–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyons N. (2022). Talent acquisition and management, immersive work environments, and machine vision algorithms in the virtual economy of the metaverse. Psychosociol. Issues Hum. Resour. Manag. 10 121–134. 10.22381/pihrm10120229 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslow A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50 370–396. 10.1037/h0054346 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McWha M., Frost W., Laing J. (2018). Travel writers and the nature of self: Essentialism, transformation and (online) construction. Ann. Tour. Res. 70 14–24. 10.1016/j.annals.2018.02.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller A. L. (2019). The illusion of choice: Parallels between the home cinema industry of the 1980s and modern streaming services, international journal of media. J. Mass Commun. 5 1–8. 10.20431/2454-9479.0504001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nica E. (2021). Urban big data analytics and sustainable governance networks in integrated smart city planning and management. Geopolit. Hist. Int. Relat. 13 93–106. 10.22381/GHIR13220217 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nica E., Kliestik T., Valaskova K., Sabie O.-M. (2022a). The economics of the metaverse: Immersive virtual technologies, consumer digital engagement, and augmented reality shopping experience. Smart Govern. 1 21–34. 10.22381/sg1120222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nica E., Sabie O.-M., Mascu S., Luţan A. G. (2022b). Artificial intelligence decision-making in shopping patterns: Consumer values, cognition, and attitudes. Econ. Manag. Finan. Mark. 17 31–43. 10.22381/emfm17120222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Page O. (2020). How to leave your comfort zone and enter your ‘growth zone’. Available online at: https://positivepsychology.com/comfort-zone/ (accessed May 12, 2022). [ Google Scholar ]
• Passafaro P., Chiarolanza C., Amato C., Barbieri B., Bocci E., Sarrica M. (2021). Outside the comfort zone: What can psychology learn from tourism (and vice versa). Front. Psychol. 12 :650741. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.650741 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pearce P. L., Packer J. (2013). Minds on the move: New links from psychology to tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 40 386–411. 10.1016/j.annals.2012.10.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perruci G., Warty Hall S. (2018). “ The learning environment ,” in Teaching leadership. Bridging theory and practice , eds Perruci G., Warty Hall S. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; ), 1–8. 10.4337/9781786432773 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plog S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 14 55–58. 10.1177/001088047401400409 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pongelli C., Calabrò A., Quarato F., Minichilli A., Corbetta G. (2021). Out of the comfort zone! Family leaders’ subsidiary ownership choices and the role of vulnerabilities. Fam. Bus. Rev. 34 404–424. 10.1177/08944865211050858 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pop R. A., Sãplãcan Z., Dabija D. C., Alt M. A. (2022). The impact of social media influencers on travel decisions: The role of trust in consumer decision journey. Curr. Issues Tour. 25 823–843. 10.1080/13683500.2021.1895729 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popescu Ljungholm D. (2022). Metaverse-based 3D visual modeling, virtual reality training experiences, and wearable biological measuring devices in immersive workplaces. Psychosociol. Issues Hum. Resour. Manag. 10 64–77. 10.22381/pihrm10120225 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popescu G. H., Valaskova K., Horak J. (2022). Augmented reality shopping experiences, retail business analytics, and machine vision algorithms in the virtual economy of the metaverse. J. Self Govern. Manag. Econ. 10 67–81. 10.22381/jsme10220225 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson R. (2022). Digital twin modeling in virtual enterprises and autonomous manufacturing systems: Deep learning and neural network algorithms, immersive visualization tools, and cognitive data fusion techniques. Econ. Manag. Finan. Mark. 17 52–66. 10.22381/emfm17220223 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Santoro N., Major J. (2012). Learning to be a culturally responsive teacher through international study trips: Transformation or tourism? Teach. Educ. 23 309–322. 10.1080/10476210.2012.685068 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Senninger T. (2000). Abenteuer leiten in abenteuern lernen. Aachen: OEkotopia. [ Google Scholar ]
• Senninger T. (2017). Abenteuer leiten in abenteuern lernen: Methodenset zur planung und leitung kooperativer lerngemeinschaften fuer training und teamentwicklung in schule, jugendarbeit und betrieb , 7th Edn. Aachen: OEkotopia. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stainton H. (2022). Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity: Made easy. Available online at: https://tourismteacher.com/plogs-model-of-allocentricity-and-psychocentricity/ (accessed May 12, 2022). [ Google Scholar ]
• Taleb N. N. (2014). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York, NY: Random House. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tavakol M., Dennick R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2 :53. 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wallace S., Lãzãroiu G. (2021). Predictive control algorithms, real-world connected vehicle data, and smart mobility technologies in intelligent transportation planning and engineering. Contemp. Read. Law Soc. Just. 13 79–92. 10.22381/CRLSJ13220216 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodward B., Kliestik T. (2021). Intelligent transportation applications, autonomous vehicle perception sensor data, and decision-making self-driving car control algorithms in smart sustainable urban mobility systems. Contemp. Read. Law Soc. Just. 13 51–64. 10.22381/CRLSJ13220214 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng D., Ritchie B. W., Benckendorff P. J. (2021). Beyond cost–benefit analysis: Resident emotions, appraisals and support toward tourism performing arts developments. Curr. Issues Tour. 24 668–684. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1732881 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Plog’s and Butler’s Models: a critical review of Psychographic Tourist Typology and the Tourist Area Life Cycle

2018, Turizam

This paper attempts to examine the two popular cited theories in tourism studies, Psycho-graphic Tourist Typology by Stanley Plog and the Tourism Area Life Cycles (TALC) by Richard Butler, which have been widely accepted and applied by scholars worldwide and have retained their relevance more than three decades as the pioneer concepts in Tourism. By capturing and reviewing scholarly articles, this paper identifies some key absent issues that should be concerned when use theories in future tourism research.

Related Papers

Sport i Turystyka. Środkowoeuropejskie Czasopismo Naukowe

Karolina Korbiel

In theoretical studies on the typology of tourists, various criteria for their identification can be found. A drawback of this approach is the lack of one common concept of tourist division, which would allow for comparing research results at various academic and marketing centers. There is a definition problem of tourism and the tourist themselves, the concepts often differing from each other, thus, there is no common ground on which the theories of the separation and division of tourists can be built. In the presented publication, a review of selected, varying tourist types have been conducted. Typologies of tourists are based on various criteria, ranging from sociological and psychological to demographic, geographic, economic, marketing and others often having an interdisciplinary basis. First of all, attempts were made to show the diversity of typological concepts presented in the world. They are used in scientific research but only refer to a small group of respondents and it i...

Elvina Daujotaite

girish prayag

Holly Donohoe

Claudia Poletto

Alan A Lew , C. Michael Hall

As comprehensive and far-reaching as this volume has been, in many ways it only scratches the surface of the geographic approach to understanding tourism. It is not a comprehensive state-of-the-art review of tourism geography, let alone tourism studies. It was also not an attempt to delineate the complex evolution of tourism studies, nor to define an agenda for research. Finally, it was not an attempt to provide a rationale for the way tourism is, or should be, structured for academic study.

Antonio Miguel Nogués-Pedregal

Several authors have noted that tourism has always been quite an undisciplined endeavour, and as such, a transdisciplinary topic of scientific research (Xiao, Jafari, Cloke, & Tribe, 2013). In one way or another, this perspective upon tourism has led to comprehensive discussions on epistemological issues. Rather than engage in endogamic self-reflection on the nature and structure of tourism studies and consequently the type of knowledge produced by these academic networks, we should prioritize ontology (Tribe, 2010).

Annals of Tourism Research

Stephen Lea

Jess Ponting

Ute Jamrozy

RELATED PAPERS

jenaro vera guarinos

Lucas Ignacio Hespanhol

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Anatoly Dritschilo

Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses

Richard Njouom

Linguistics

Nikolaos Lavidas

Suzanne Wilson

Gavo Handika

Tarcísio Vanderlinde

Transportation Research Part B: Methodological

R. Jayakrishnan

10° Ecoinovar

Computación y Sistemas

Daniel Reséndiz Gutiérrez

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Terrence Conway

Revista Brasileira de Planejamento e Desenvolvimento

Nuno Patricio

Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education

Norbert Gruenwald

JORGE HERNAN MUNERA RESTREPO

Fortune Journals

Croatian Journal of Education - Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje

Şeyma Değirmenci

Canadian Journal of Animal Science

EDUARDO ALBERTO ALFARO CHAVEZ

Soil Horizons

Energy Research &amp; Social Science

Richard Bull

International Journal of Nanotechnology

Muthukumaran Packirisamy

RePEc: Research Papers in Economics

Bernard Gazier

Química Nova

TECNOCIENCIA Chihuahua

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

John Persing

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 12 March 2021

Curiosity–tourism interaction promotes subjective wellbeing among older adults in Japan

• Tomoko Totsune   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7352-4054 1 , 2 ,
• Izumi Matsudaira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6842-9522 3 &
• Yasuyuki Taki 1 , 3  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  69 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

4002 Accesses

8 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Cultural and media studies

Aging societies are one of the major problems faced in the modern world. Promoting subjective wellbeing is a key component in helping individuals positively accept and adapt to psychological and physical changes during their aging process. Tourism is one of the activities that have been demonstrated to promote subjective wellbeing. However, motivation for tourism and its benefits to subjective wellbeing among the older adults have rarely been discussed. The current study aimed to investigate whether tourism contributes to the subjective wellbeing of older adults. We examined the relationships between travel frequency, subjective wellbeing, and the personal trait of curiosity, mediated by the factor of family budget situation. The results demonstrated that diverse curiosity motivates individuals to travel; thus, diverse curiosity positively correlates to subjective wellbeing, both directly as well as indirectly through travel frequency. However, this relationship is limited by the factor of family budget, with tourism contributing to the subjective wellbeing of only well-off older adults. This study concludes that tourism has potential to contribute to subjective wellbeing during later stages of life.

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring motivation via three-stage travel experience: how to capture the hearts of Taiwanese family-oriented cruise tourists

Wen-Yu Chen, Yu-Hsiang Fang, … Cheng-Yi Kuo

Impact of internet celebrities’ short videos on audiences’ visit intentions: Is beauty power?

Peng Li & Yang Sun

Family tourism development in the new era of tourism: Korean tourists’ domestic trip preferences for accommodation, travel duration, destination, and natural environment

Soyeun (Olivia) Lee, JooHyang Kim & Heesup Han

Introduction

Individuals’ perspectives on aging may be somewhat negative due to issues such as increasing disease morbidity and declining productivity and cognitive function. In today’s aging societies, a great deal of attention has thus been devoted to the positive acceptance of aging, which involves a focus on adapting to and enjoying the older stages of life despite inevitable psychological and physical changes.

Quality of life is one of the indicators of acceptance of aging. Quality of life positively correlates with psychological acceptance, which is the willingness to accept age-related changes and distress (Butler and Ciarrochi, 2007 ). Subjective wellbeing, which is a self-reported measure of a person’s wellbeing that includes global assessment of several aspects of life, captures individual evaluation of quality of life (Diener, 1984 ). Furthermore, positive affect is reported to play a protective role against the development of dementia among older adults (Murata et al., 2016 ). Thus, promoting subjective wellbeing among older adults, especially in the early stages of old age, may lead to improved perspectives on aging and maintaining cognitive health while aging.

Exposures to various life conditions and activities are reported to be associated with subjective wellbeing, and tourism is one activity that has been suggested to be linked to the quality of life of older adults (Zhang and Zhang, 2018 ; Kim et al., 2015 ). Tourism is suggested to positively affect multiple life domains of the tourist, and it is suggested that travels generally contribute to positive affect and quality of life (Uysal et al., 2016 ). However, it has not been investigated whether more frequent travel contributes to higher subjective wellbeing.

Personality traits provide important motives that lead individuals to travel. It has been suggested that leisure time activity preference, including for tourism, is predetermined by personal disposition (Przepiorka and Blachnio, 2017 ; Diener et al., 1999 ; Lee and Crompton, 1992 ). Moreover, perception of subjective wellbeing is also suggested to have a strong relationship to personality (Steel et al., 2008 ). This relationship is based on the fact that personality affects preference for involvement in activities (Przepiorka and Blachnio, 2017 ; Diener et al., 1999 ) and that specific personalities evaluate the meaning of life events more positively than others.

Curiosity is one personal characteristic that motivates individuals to devote time to leisure activities and also correlates to subjective wellbeing (Nishikawa et al., 2015 ; Nishikawa, 2014 ). Besides the common recognition that curiosity acts as a motivation to travel, curiosity has received little attention in relation to travel motivation.

With regard to the relationship between tourism and subjective wellbeing, other internal factors, social environment, and external circumstances need to be considered, besides just personality traits. One of the factors that cannot be ignored is the state of the family budget. Satisfaction with income has been suggested to relate to happiness (Diener et al., 1993 , 1999 ), and since tourism costs money, a certain amount of income or wealth is required to afford travelling (Fleischer and Pizam, 2002 ).

Given the importance of subjective wellbeing of seniors, the potential of tourism frequency to affect subjective wellbeing, and the suggested relationship of curiosity with both tourism involvement and subjective wellbeing, the current study aimed to investigate the relationships among these three factors. We hypothesized that curiosity is one of the key predictors of travelling preference and subjective wellbeing among older adults and that travel frequency positively correlates with subjective wellbeing even after controlling for trait curiosity; however, we also hypothesized that this relationship is mediated by family budget. We focused on people in their 60s, as it is thought that early intervention towards subjective wellbeing is a promising approach to maintaining cognitive health of the older adults; also, this age group is already more active in travelling than other age groups and is a most attractive age group for travel marketers.

The current study contributes to the better understanding of the contribution of tourism to subjective wellbeing among older adults by operationalizing curiosity as an underlying personal disposition. Recommendations are provided for the travel industry, to help promote subjective wellbeing among older adults.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Young seniors as a target for intervention to promote subjective wellbeing.

As of September 2020, the elderly ratio (percentage of the population that is over 65 years old) has reached 28.7% in Japan. Total population in Japan has decreased by 290,000 from last year, while population over 65 years old has increased by 300,000 (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2020 ). One of the problems we face in the aging society is increasing morbidity due to dementia. Dementia comprises a group of symptoms associated with cognitive decline and loss of ability to perform everyday activities according to pathological changes of the brain. It is one of the major causes of elderly dependency and disability, and impacts quality of life, affecting the physical, psychological, social, and economic situation not only of the individual who develops dementia but also of their families, caregivers, and the wider society. However, late-life engagement in social and leisure activities is suggested to have a negative association with risk of dementia (Wang et al., 2002 ), and subjective wellbeing is also suggested to play a protective role against functional decline (Hirosaki et al., 2013 ) and cognitive decline (Murata et al., 2016 ). Therefore, intervention for subjective wellbeing especially in early seniors is expected to be promising in terms of maintaining cognitive health.

Contribution of travel to subjective wellbeing

Exposures to various life conditions and activities are reported to be associated with subjective wellbeing, and tourism is one activity that has been suggested to be linked to quality of life in older adults (Zhang and Zhang, 2018 ; Kim et al., 2015 ).

Travelling requires various cognitive activities, such as choosing a destination, arranging activities, conducting them as planned or intentionally departing from plans, communicating with one’s companions and local people, and managing possible contingencies in unfamiliar situations. Gaining such generally pleasant experiences leads to subjective wellbeing in tourists, and it has been shown that tourists also show ‘pre-trip-happiness’ while planning and anticipating travel (Gilbert and Abdullah, 2004 ). Tourism is suggested to positively affect the tourist’s life domains, such as leisure life, social life, family life, and cultural life, and to contribute to life satisfaction (Uysal et al., 2016 ).

Previous studies on the relationship between travelling and subjective wellbeing have mainly focused on detailed description of travellers: who they are, with whom they go, where they go, what they do, what aspects of their lives are influenced by the experience, and what internal mediating factors for subjective wellbeing relate to the quality of their travel. For instance, Gram et al. ( 2019 ) showed that travel with grandchildren offers both fun time and legacy time to seniors and contributes to both individual and intergenerational wellbeing. Furthermore, Fritz and Sonnentag ( 2006 ) showed that vacations offer employees experiences such as positive and negative work reflections, relaxation, mastery experience, and break from work hassles and thus improve subjective wellbeing. These studies offer a better understanding of the contribution of travel to subjective wellbeing, although in limited social and travel settings. In addition, however, holistically, Uysal et al. ( 2016 ) point out in a review that travel, in general, contributes to positive affect and quality of life. Therefore, promoting travel in any situation may promote subjective wellbeing. However, few studies have focused on the relationship between travel frequency (quantity of travel) and subjective wellbeing, and it has not been revealed whether frequent travel contributes to higher subjective wellbeing. Accordingly, the following hypothesis was developed in this study:

Hypothesis 1 : Frequent travellers show better subjective wellbeing than less frequent travellers.

Young seniors as a target for tourism marketing

Older adults are an emerging target of tourism marketing in Japan nowadays. People in their 60s are among the most frequent travellers (Odaka et al., 2011 ; Japan Tourism Agency, 2020 ), as they are often financially well off and have more leisure time to spare than younger people (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2016 ). Also, while people over 70 exhibit a steep increase in amount of time spent on medical care, in hospital, and in recuperation (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2016 ), people in their 60s are healthier and more able to travel. Promoting travel in younger age groups, who are often in the middle of their working lives, may not be easy; additionally, in Japan, these age groups are decreasing in size compared to older adults, meaning diminishing returns on pursuing them as tourists. The population in their 60s will show an absolute increasing trend and an increase in the ratio among the whole population until 2036 (National institute of Population and Social Security Research, 2017 ). Therefore, the 60s age group is a major target for intervention by tourism marketers to promote travel.

Motivation for travel

Travel marketers have devoted great attention to understanding the travel motivation of customers and factors influencing it. Crompton ( 1979 ) classified relevant socio-psychological motives into seven: escape from a perceived mundane environment, exploration and evaluation of self, relaxation, prestige, regression, enhancement of kinship relationships, and facilitation of social interaction; these were accompanied by two cultural motives: novelty and education. Among seniors, it has been found that rest and relaxation, social interaction, physical exercise, learning, nostalgia and excitement are common reasons for travel (Fleischer and Pizam, 2002 ).

Socio-psychological motives of individuals are often discussed from the standpoint of personality traits. It has been suggested that leisure time activity preference, including for tourism, is predetermined by personality (Przepiorka and Blachnio, 2017 ; Diener et al., 1999 ; Lee and Crompton, 1992 ). Among personality traits related to travel are allocentrism and psychocentrism; Plog ( 1974 ) has classified tourist character in terms of these. Allocentrism refers to the characteristics of outgoingness, self-confidence, and adventurousness, while psychocentrism refers to the characteristics of self-inhibition, nervousness, and non-adventurousness. These two characteristics lead to opposite preferences in travel destinations: allocentric tourists tend to prefer unexplored destinations and psychocentric tourists to prefer familiar destinations. The personal characteristic of novelty-seeking is also suggested to play a role in choosing travel destinations (Lee and Crompton, 1992 ).

Curiosity is another personal characteristic suggested to motivate travel. It refers to personal dispositions motivating individuals to obtain cognitive stimulation, that is, to desire knowledge and experience, and is consistently recognized as a critical intrinsic motivator of human behaviour (Berlyne, 1954 ; Litman and Spielberger, 2003 ; Lowenstein, 1994 ). Epistemic curiosity is predominant in humans, distinguishing human curiosity from that of other species (Kidd and Hayden, 2015 ; Berlyne, 1966 ). It refers to the drive not only to access information-bearing stimulation, capable of dispelling the uncertainties of the moment, as other species do, but also to acquire knowledge.

Definitions of epistemic curiosity vary between researchers; in the current study, we use the definition of Nishikawa and Amemiya ( 2015 ), in which epistemic curiosity consists of two dimensions: diverse curiosity and specific curiosity. Diverse curiosity is defined as the motivation to widely explore new information, while specific curiosity is the motivation to explore specific information in order to solve cognitive conflicts (Nishikawa and Amemiya, 2015 ). Nishikawa and Amemiya’s theory of epistemic curiosity has its origins in research by Hatano and Inagaki ( 1971 ) showing that those with more diverse curiosity tend to actively seek novel and varied information, while those with more specific curiosity tend to be sensitive to inconsistency and to actively and continuously seek information to cope with contradiction (Nishikawa and Amemiya, 2015 ; Hatano and Inagaki, 1971 ). Despite the fact that curiosity drives individuals to actively seek information, it has received little attention in the context of travel motivation. Accordingly, we have set the following hypothesis to investigate the relationship of curiosity to travel:

Hypothesis 2 : Frequent travellers show higher epistemic curiosity than less frequent travellers.

Personal traits as determiners of subjective wellbeing

Besides the relationship of personality traits to travel motivation, existing studies have also suggested that personality traits acts as a strong determinant of subjective wellbeing (Steel et al., 2008 ). This relationship is based on the fact that certain personalities evaluate life experiences more positively than others. Chen and Yoon ( 2018 ) reported a relationship between tourism, wellbeing, and the personality trait of novelty-seeking, finding that the direct effect of novelty-seeking on life satisfaction (top-down influence) was significantly greater than the indirect effect through tourism experiences (bottom-up influence) (Chen and Yoon, 2018 ). Furthermore, curiosity is also reported to be related to subjective wellbeing via maintaining knowledge in older adults (Kashidan and Steger, 2007 ; Nishikawa et al., 2015 ). Therefore, when considering curiosity as a motivation to travel, the effect of curiosity on subjective wellbeing needs to be taken into account. Accordingly, we set the following hypotheses to investigate the causal relationship between travel frequency, subjective wellbeing, and curiosity:

Hypothesis 3 : Curiosity has a positive correlation with subjective wellbeing.

Hypothesis 4 : Travel frequency positively correlates with subjective wellbeing even after being controlled by trait curiosity (main hypothesis, to investigate whether travel frequency contributes to subjective wellbeing of the older adults in a relationship with curiosity).

Moderation effects of income on travel involvement and subjective wellbeing

Besides personal traits, other internal factors, social environment, and external circumstances needs to be considered as factors moderating travel involvement’s effect on subjective wellbeing. One such factor that has been discussed is the effect of income. Satisfaction with income has been suggested to relate to happiness (Diener et al., 1993 , 1999 ), and since tourism costs money, a certain amount of income or wealth is required to afford it (Fleischer and Pizam, 2002 ). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 5 : Family budget situation alters the relationship among travel frequency, subjective wellbeing, and curiosity.

Participants

The participants were selected from a pool of Japanese customers in their 60s who were registered with a travel agency. These customers were sent a questionnaire asking about their attitudes toward travelling, daily living conditions (such as age, income, subjective family budget situation, medical status, occupation, family structure, and self-perceived health), and cognitive traits. All study participants provided informed consent, and the study design was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tohoku University (Approved No. 2018-1-740). Data were collected in June 2017, before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of the 1068 participants who responded to and returned the questionnaire, 233 were excluded due to deficient questionnaire data. In total, 835 participants were included in the study ( n  = 835; male = 437, mean age = 64.73 ± 2.79).

Global self-report measures

Trait curiosity.

Using a 5-point Likert scale, participants completed the 12-item Epistemic Curiosity Scale (Nishikawa and Amemiya, 2015 ), rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale was developed by Nishikawa and Amemiya, the same researchers who proposed the definition of epistemic curiosity used in the current study. The scale consists of 12 items, 6 each on diverse and specific curiosity. Examples of items to evaluate diverse curiosity are ‘I enjoy solving novel problems’ and ‘I am interested in things that no one has ever experienced’; in contrast, examples of items to evaluate specific curiosity are ‘I would like to investigate thoroughly when learning something’ and ‘I think carefully and devote a long time to solving problems’. The scale was developed and is presented in Japanese. (The example questionnaire items mentioned above were translated by the authors of the current study for better understanding of the scale, and are not validated in English).

Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)

Using a 7-point Likert-type scale, participants completed the 4-item Japanese version of the SHS (Lyubomirsky and Lepper, 1999 ; Shimai et al., 2004 ), rated from 1 (not a very happy person, less happy, not at all) to 7 (a very happy person, more happy, a great deal). The SHS assesses subjective happiness from the respondent’s own perspective, including both cognitive and affective evaluation of personal life. This differs from some measurement tools for subjective wellbeing, which are biased toward either cognitive or affective aspects.

Questionnaire regarding travel frequency

Participants rated their recent frequency of travel from the following options: (1) more than 10 times per year, (2) 5–9 times per year, (3) 3–4 times per year, (4) 1–2 times per year, (5) once in 2–3 years, and (6) less than once in 2–3 years (Hardly ever). The definition of the travel was dependent on the respondents’ own perspectives. The variable of travel frequency is used as a nominal variable in the analysis to investigate hypotheses 1 and 2 and as an ordinal variable to clarify the correlation between the two components of epistemic curiosity and travel frequency in the testing of hypothesis 2 and in hypothesis 3–5.

Questionnaire regarding subjective family budget situation

Participants rated their recent subjective family budget situation from the following options: (1) Extremely good, (2) Moderately good, (3) Neither good nor bad, (4) Moderately bad, and (5) Extremely bad. In asking the financial situations of individuals, we assumed that participants may have different numbers of family members to provide for, levels of debt, cost of shelter and of living, and ideal living standards, so that their financial situation may not simply be validated by the amount of income itself. Thus, we adopted a scale asking for participants’ subjective feelings on their family budget situations. The variable was reclassified into three groups according to whether they considered their family budget situation to be (1) Extremely/moderately good, (2) Neither good nor bad, or (3) Moderately/extremely bad. The results were used in the testing of hypothesis 5.

Statistical analysis

For cognitive function, statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 software. The mediation analyses were performed using the SPSS PROCESS macro ( http://processmacro.org/index.html ) (Hayes, 2018 ). Mediation analysis was performed with a bootstrapping approach using 10,000 resamples.

Participants’ profiles

We surveyed Japanese customers aged 59–69 who had registered with a travel agency ( n  = 835; male = 437, mean age = 64.73 ± 2.79SD). They completed the questionnaire on their travel frequency and demographic and daily living conditions, such as age and subjective family budget situation. Participants also completed the Epistemic Curiosity Scale for the measurement of personal characteristics and the SHS for the measurement of subjective wellbeing. The participants’ demographic characteristics are shown in Tables 1 and 2 .

Mean age and subjective wellbeing scores were significantly higher in male participants than in female participants ( t -test p  < 0.001, p  = 0.017). No significant difference was observed between epistemic curiosity score, travel frequency, and subjective family budget situations (Tables 1 and 2 ).

Relationship of travel frequency with subjective wellbeing

First, to investigate the positive relationship between travel and subjective wellbeing, we conducted a nonparametric test to identify if there was a difference in subjective wellbeing scores between travel frequency groups (testing Hypothesis 1).

For subjective wellbeing, we used travel frequency as a nominal variable and analysed whether there were scale score differences between travel frequency groups. The results demonstrated that those who travelled five times or more per year had higher subjective wellbeing scores than those who travelled twice or less per year (Fig. 1 ). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported.

Travel frequency: (1) More than 10 times per year, (2) 5–9 times per year, (3) 3–4 times per year, (4) 1–2 times per year, (5) Once in 2–3 years, (6) Less than once in 2–3 years (Hardly ever); SHS Subjective Happiness Scale. The bar charts show the scale score (mean ± SD). Significant SHS score difference between 1–4/5, 2–4/5, 3–4 (* p  < 0.05).

Relationship of epistemic curiosity with travel frequency

Second, to investigate if curiosity motivates tourism, we conducted a nonparametric test to identify whether there was a difference in curiosity scale scores between travel frequency groups (testing Hypothesis 2). The results revealed that those who travel 10 times or more per year have more diverse curiosity than other frequency groups, except for those who do not travel at all (Fig. 2a , Table 3 ). Furthermore, those who travel five to nine times per year showed more diverse curiosity than those who travel twice or less per year. Curiosity score differences between travel frequency groups were determined by a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test ( p  = 0.012), although no significant difference was observed with post-hoc pairwise comparison (Fig. 2b , Table 3 ).

Travel frequency: (1) More than 10 times per year, (2) 5–9 times per year, (3) 3–4 times per year, (4) 1–2 times per year, (5) Once in 2–3 years, (6) Less than once in 2–3 years (Hardly ever), DC diverse curiosity, SC specific curiosity. The bar charts show the test scores (mean ± SD). a Significant DC difference between 1–2/3/4/5, 2–4/5 (* p  < 0.05). b Significant SC difference between groups were observed using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test ( p  = 0.012), although no significant difference was seen in post-hoc pairwise comparison of Dunn’s test with Bonferroni error correction. c Mediation analysis between DC, SC and travel frequency. The positive effect of SC on travel frequency is completely mediated by DC (** p  < 0.01).

Epistemic curiosity consists of diverse curiosity and specific curiosity, which are reported to have a positive correlation (Nishikawa and Amemiya, 2015 ). To modulate the correlation between the two curiosity components, we conducted a mediation analysis between diverse curiosity, specific curiosity, and travel frequency. After controlling for diverse curiosity, specific curiosity was no longer a predictor for travel frequency (Fig. 2c ), and the indirect coefficient was significant ( B  = −0.182, SE = 0.0349, 95% CI [−0.2505, −0.1143]).

In sum, Hypothesis 2 was supported, but only diverse curiosity among the two components of epistemic curiosity was seen to motivate travel.

Curiosity as a determinant of subjective wellbeing

To investigate the influence of personality on subjective wellbeing, we examined whether trait curiosity correlates with subjective wellbeing (testing of Hypothesis 3). We conducted a correlation analysis between epistemic curiosity and subjective wellbeing scores to investigate whether the personal trait of epistemic curiosity is a determinant of subjective wellbeing.

To modulate the correlation between the two curiosity components, we conducted a mediation analysis between diverse curiosity, specific curiosity, and subjective wellbeing scores. After controlling for diverse curiosity, specific curiosity was no longer a predictor of subjective wellbeing (Fig. 3 ). The indirect coefficient was also significant ( B  = 0.211, SE = 0.0343, 95% CI [0.1432, 0.2778]). In sum, among the two components of epistemic curiosity, only diverse curiosity acts as a determinant of subjective wellbeing; in other words, the personal trait of diverse curiosity correlates positively with subjective wellbeing, indicating that highly curious people have generally higher subjective wellbeing. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

All B ’s represent unstandardized regression coefficients obtained through bootstrapping using 10,000 resamples. The range in brackets represents the 95% CI of the indirect effect. ** p  < 0.001.

Causal model of diverse curiosity, travel frequency, and subjective wellbeing

Following the findings that the personal trait of curiosity positively relates to both travel frequency and subjective wellbeing and that travel frequency also positively relates to subjective wellbeing, we conducted a mediation analysis to investigate the causal relationship among the three factors. We proposed that trait curiosity positively affects subjective wellbeing both directly (i.e., curiosity has a top-down influence on subjective wellbeing) and indirectly through travel frequency. We also hypothesized that travel frequency positively correlates with subjective happiness even after it is controlled by trait curiosity (i.e., bottom-up effect of tourism on subjective wellbeing) (hypothesis 4). As the earlier results demonstrated that among the two components of epistemic curiosity, only diverse curiosity motivates travel, we used diverse curiosity but not specific curiosity in the analysis. The results revealed that participants with greater diverse curiosity traits demonstrated greater travel frequency than other participants ( B  = −0.228, SE = 0.0353, p  < 0.001) and that greater travel frequency is related to higher subjective wellbeing ( B  = −0.125, SE = 0.0322, p  < 0.001). Upon testing the significance of the indirect effect using bootstrap estimation with 10,000 resamples, the indirect coefficient was significant ( B  = 0.286, SE = 0.0089, 95% CI [0.0127, 0.0475]), as was the direct effect of diverse curiosity on subjective wellbeing ( B  = 0.266, SE = 0.0336, p  < 0.001) (Fig. 4a ). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

All B ’s represent unstandardized regression coefficients obtained through bootstrapping using 10,000 resamples. The range in brackets represents the 95% CI of the indirect effect. ** p  < 0.01, * p  < 0.05, + p  < 0.10.

Effect of family budget on travel and subjective wellbeing

Since travelling is not an essential activity in daily life, we hypothesized that preference for travel may depend on the family budget situation. Therefore, we also assessed the effect of family budget on the causal model of diverse curiosity, travel frequency, and subjective wellbeing.

Participants were classified into three groups according to whether they considered their family budget situation to be ‘extremely/moderately good’, ‘neither good nor bad’, or ‘moderately/extremely bad’. All three groups demonstrated a significant positive relationship between diverse curiosity and subjective happiness as a total effect (Fig. 4b–d ).

The ‘extremely/moderately good’ and ‘neither good nor bad’ groups showed a significant relationship between travel frequency and subjective wellbeing (Fig. 4b, c ). This implies that higher travel frequency promotes higher subjective wellbeing. However, the indirect effect of travel frequency on the relationship between diverse curiosity and subjective wellbeing was significant only in the ‘neither good nor bad’ group ( B  = 0.0206, SE = 0.0100, 95% CI [0.0026, 0.0419]). Even after controlling for travel frequency, diverse curiosity remained a significant predictor of subjective wellbeing. In the ‘extremely/moderately bad’ family budget situation group, higher diverse curiosity was a predictor of higher subjective wellbeing; however, diverse curiosity did not predict travel frequency, which in turn was not related to subjective wellbeing (Fig. 4d ). In short, the causal relationship among frequency, subjective wellbeing, and curiosity was modified by the family budget situation. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

The primary goal of our study was to investigate whether tourism, in a relationship with curiosity, contributes to the subjective wellbeing of older adults. In addition to establishing the relevant relationships, we also gained a number of interesting findings that contribute to a better understanding of the motivations of tourism and the construct of subjective wellbeing.

Diverse curiosity works as a motivation to travel

As we hypothesized, the personal trait of curiosity showed a positive relationship with travel frequency, indicating that diverse curiosity motivates travel. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing that curiosity drives people to travel and that it relates to subjective wellbeing directly and indirectly through travelling. However, specific curiosity revealed no significant relationship with travel frequency. Nishikawa and Amemiya ( 2015 ) conceptualized diverse curiosity as the motivation to widely explore new information, which relates to positive attitudes toward ambiguity and to fun-seeking aspects of the behavioural activation system; these in turn cultivate the attitude required to voluntarily approach novel stimuli. In contrast, specific curiosity refers to the motivation to explore information in order to solve cognitive conflicts, and relates to the preference for order and ambiguity control (Nishikawa and Amemiya, 2015 ). From the perspective of ambiguity, diverse curiosity then works as a drive to encounter ambiguity, while specific curiosity works as a drive to reduce and exclude it. Based on the results showing that travelling is driven by diverse curiosity, travelling may then be assumed to comprise behaviour directed toward widely seeking novel stimuli, but not seeking specific information. Furthermore, it is intuitively clear that travelling means exploring miscellaneous new information and may increase information ambiguity. From the perspective of specific curiosity, travelling may then not always comfortable, as one may be confronted by uncontrollable ambiguous situations.

Intrapersonal balance of epistemic curiosity may determine ‘appropriate’ travel frequency of individuals

After controlling for diverse curiosity in the mediation analysis to investigate the effect of specific curiosity on travel frequency, the regression coefficient of specific curiosity on travel frequency changed from a plus to a minus sign (Fig. 2c ). However, the direct coefficient was not significant ( B  = 0.049, ns); this may imply that people with high specific curiosity resist travelling, in contrast to those with diverse curiosity. In short, the intrapersonal balance of diverse and specific curiosity may modulate individuals’ interest level and determine their ‘appropriate’ travel frequency, implying that promoting frequent travel may not always result in a positive effect on subjective wellbeing.

The study’s results revealed that curiosity, which is an intrinsic desire for cognitive stimulation, motivates travel. This in turn may support the idea that travelling is a cognitively stimulating activity. Participation in cognitively stimulating activities has been associated with reduced late-life cognitive decline, in the cognitive reserve hypothesis (Wilson et al., 2013 ; Stern, 2012 ). Therefore, tourism, which entails cognitively stimulating activity, may contribute to slower late-life cognitive decline. As discussed, however, an individual’s travel frequency may depend on their personal intra-balance of epistemic curiosity. Thus, the question remains as to whether encouraging tourism extrinsically will successfully promote subjective wellbeing. Since there is a possibility that overly frequent travel experiences may induce mental discomfort from the perspective of individual levels of specific curiosity, extrinsically forced tourism experiences may have adverse effects.

Also, as regards the contribution of personal disposition to subjective wellbeing (i.e., the top-down effect of curiosity on subjective wellbeing), diverse curiosity showed a significant positive correlation with subjective wellbeing. This relationship is consistent with reports that greater trait curiosity relates to better subjective wellbeing (Nishikawa et al., 2015 ; Nishikawa, 2014 ).

Travel frequency positively affects subjective wellbeing of older adults

Looking into the relationship between travel frequency and subjective wellbeing, we found that participants with higher levels of trait diverse curiosity demonstrated higher scores on subjective wellbeing. Even after controlling for the positive relationships between the personal trait of curiosity and both travel frequency and subjective wellbeing, mediation analysis demonstrated that travel frequency positively correlates with subjective wellbeing; the indirect effect of travel frequency was also significant (Fig. 4a ). To our knowledge, this is the first report to show a relationship between travel frequency and subjective wellbeing among older adults. The findings indicate that travel quantity is as important as travel quality.

Family budget situation alters the relationship among travel frequency, subjective wellbeing, and curiosity

The positive relationship between travel frequency and subjective wellbeing was significant only in groups that were not financially constrained (Fig. 4b, c ). Also, the relationship between diverse curiosity and travel frequency in individuals with financial restrictions showed less significance than in those with no financial restrictions. In other words, these results suggest that among individuals that have financial restrictions, diverse curiosity does not act as a motivation to travel and travel frequency does not contribute to subjective wellbeing. Thus, taken together, these findings indicate that travel frequency contributes to subjective wellbeing (i.e., there is a bottom-up effect of tourism on subjective wellbeing) but that this effect is limited by family budget.

Having financial difficulties may mean that travelling is unaffordable; even if the family can afford it, it can cause difficulties in terms of making ends meet after travelling. Thus, it makes sense that the contribution of tourism to subjective wellbeing is effective only in those who are well-off and can afford to travel. Additionally, among individuals with financial restrictions, curiosity did not act as a motivation to travel. The information-seeking behaviour involved in diverse curiosity does not have a specific direction with regard to the information or stimuli sought; thus, curiosity may have motivated other information-seeking activities instead of travelling for people with financial restrictions. This relationship also implies that individuals who have financial restrictions experience not merits but demerits to subjective wellbeing, due to not being able to travel.

However, previous studies on low-income families have demonstrated that availability of financial support that allows such families to participate in tourism and holiday breaks increases their quality of life and subjective wellbeing (McCabe and Johnson, 2013 ; McCabe et al., 2010 ). Thus, supporting individuals who have the potential to benefit from tourism (i.e. persons with a high diverse curiosity trait) but who cannot afford to travel due to financial difficulties may act as a promising intervention to promote subjective wellbeing among the public. This supports the recognition of the importance of social tourism initiatives to provide opportunities to travel for those that are otherwise unable to participate due to certain disadvantages, including financial difficulties. A relationship between social tourism participation and health self-perception has been also reported, indicating that tourists are more active and healthy than non-tourists (Ferrer et al., 2016 ).

Besides the fact that travel consumes money, travellers have to deal with complications caused by daily activities (e.g., job, housework, medical care); leisure time, number of family members, and other confounding factors may affect the relationship between travel frequency and subjective wellbeing. Moreover, other factors, such as interpersonal relationships with travel companions, may also influence seniors’ travel behaviour and subjective wellbeing. In the current study, only 22 participants, or 2.6%, answered that they always travel alone. Therefore, the majority of the participants are to some degree concerned with interpersonal relationships with travel companions. Interpersonal relationships may facilitate travel (Huber et al., 2018 ) and promote subjective wellbeing through travel experiences (Gram et al., 2019 ); however, this study did not assess what psychological or physiological effects travel companions may modify. Furthermore, the current study was designed to investigate whether travel’s contribution to subjective wellbeing is made in a relationship with trait curiosity, and we focused on the dimension of travel frequency. Therefore, factors such as quality of travel (e.g. travel destination, travel satisfaction, interpersonal relationships) are not taken into account in the analysis. From the current findings, we can only assert that frequent travel positively correlates with subjective wellbeing; however, the effect of travel on subjective wellbeing may also differ among travel destinations, travel companions, travel duration, and other travel quality factors, and therefore further investigation is required to assert a causal relationship between travel frequency and subjective wellbeing.

Furthermore, additional limitations of our study need to be considered. First, the study subjects were recruited from among registered customers of a travel agency. Our study demonstrated that diverse curiosity drives interest in travel and frequent travel, but our study may be limited to those who are already interested in travelling to a certain extent. The information-seeking behaviour of diverse curiosity does not have a specific orientation with regard to the type or location of the information or stimuli sought; there exist multiple potential preferences regarding information sources (e.g., when reading a book, one may prefer reading mysteries, romance novels, non-fiction, or yet another category) (Nishikawa, 2013 ). Therefore, travel is anticipated to have competition from other information-seeking activities as an object of diverse curiosity. This means that higher levels of diverse curiosity in the general population may not lead directly to higher interest in and frequency of travel. While the findings of the current study indicated that curiosity acts as a motivation to travel among people in their 60s; however, curiosity may motivate other information-seeking activities besides travelling in other age groups. Preference for travelling may also be induced by other cognitive traits, characteristics, age-related life events, or environmental factors, such as satisfaction with former travel experiences; however, this remains unclear from the present study.

We also need to inform the reader that our study was designed to assess the contribution of tourism to subjective wellbeing in the early stage of old age; this is why the subjects’ age range was limited to those in their 60s. This age range was set because of the already active travel status of people in this group, and intervention for subjective wellbeing in this age group is expected to be promising in terms of maintaining cognitive health. However, the relationship of tourism to subjective wellbeing may differ in the later stages of old age, due to socioeconomic status, health problems, or changes in epistemic curiosity level. In trait theory, it is generally assumed that personal traits, including curiosity, are relatively stable over time and consistent over situations. However, it has been suggested by some researchers that personality traits develop and change even through the later stages of life, and that the traits of extraversion and openness steadily decline at the end of life. It has also been reported that poor health results in this personality change (Wagner et al., 2016 ). Thus, personal psychological and physical states may affect personal traits in the long term, and this effect should be taken into account in future studies.

Another limitation is that the definition of travel/tourism is not specifically discussed in this study. The word ‘travel’ or ‘tourism’ (in Japanese, both words are represented by the term ryokou ) was used in the questionnaire, but the definition was dependent on the respondents’ own perspectives. We anticipated that participants would interpret travel using a classical definition, which would be unrelated to the purpose of sharing material through social networking services (SNSs, i.e., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter). Since motives for sharing experiences through SNS may include a desire for self-revelation and recognition, travel may act as one resource for gaining such approval. Therefore, based on such motives, travel may not be the purpose itself, but rather a method. However, in our study, such motives were not seen in the responses to the questionnaire item asking about specific motives for travel. Thus, we expect that the definition of ‘travel’ used in this study did not closely reflect the motive of desire for approval.

Cultural differences may also exist in definitions of travel, and there may be other confounding factors in individual approaches to travel. Therefore, cultural background should be taken into account; further studies should be conducted in this respect.

Finally, we would like to reiterate that the current study was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, which drastically changed travel behaviour among the world population. The effects of the pandemic on communities, such as travel restrictions, lockdowns, social distancing, restrictions on gatherings, and severe health threat, have already altered the tourism industry and are expected to continue to change travel behaviour post-COVID-19. Thus, changing social conditions need to be considered in future studies.

The present study has demonstrated that diverse curiosity motivates early seniors to travel and that tourism promotes subjective wellbeing in older adults, even though subjective wellbeing is generally affected and predetermined by the personality of curiosity.

We have revealed that people with higher diverse curiosity are more highly motivated to travel and more dedicated to travelling and that their subjective wellbeing is positively affected by travel frequency. Our study thus adds the novel evidence that curiosity acts as a motivation to travel and also that frequency of travel contributes to subjective wellbeing.

Since higher subjective wellbeing plays a protective role toward cognition during aging, our study helps substantiate the potential role of travelling in maintaining public wellbeing. However, high specific curiosity, which may coexist with high diverse curiosity, may not always lead to positive effects of frequent travel. Therefore, unconditional targeted promotion of frequent travel may not be appropriate as an intervention to advance subjective wellbeing among the older adults; instead, promoting travelling for people with suitable personality traits may improve subjective public wellbeing. Additionally, the relationship among travel frequency, curiosity, and subjective wellbeing was modified by financial restrictions, demonstrating that tourism contributing to the subjective wellbeing of only the well-off older adult in general social settings. One way to promote broader subjective wellbeing may be financial assistance for travelling, such as social tourism initiatives to provide opportunities to travel for those otherwise unable to participate due to financial disadvantages.

To sum up the current study contributes to a better understanding of the contribution of tourism to subjective wellbeing among older adults. However, in reality, tourism’s involvement in subjective wellbeing may not be as simply modelled as our study proposes, and may include factors such as interpersonal relationships and dispositions. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate the relevant relationships in terms of other potential confounding factors.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available, but can be made available to individuals approved by the ethics committee of Tohoku University.

Berlyne DE (1954) A theory of human curiosity. Br J Psychol 45:180–191

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Berlyne DE (1966) Curiosity and exploration. Science 153:25–33

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Butler J, Ciarrochi J (2007) Psychological acceptance and quality of life in the elderly. Qual Life Res 16:607–615

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chen CC, Yoon S (2018) Tourism as a pathway to the good life: comparing the top-down and bottom-up effects. J Travel Res 58:866–876

Article   Google Scholar  

Crompton JL (1979) Motivation for pleasure vacation. Ann Tour Res 6:408–424

Diener E (1984) Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull 95:542–575

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Diener E, Sandvik E, Seidlitz L, Diener M (1993) The relationship between income and subjective well-being: relative or absolute? Soc Indic Res 28:195–223

Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL (1999) Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychol Bull 125:276–302

Ferrer JG, Sanz MF, Ferrandis ED, McCabe S, Garcia JS (2016) Social tourism and healthy ageing. Int J Tourism Res 18:297–307

Fritz C, Sonnentag S (2006) Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: the role of workload and vacation experiences. J Appl Psychol 91:936–945

Fleischer A, Pizam A (2002) Tourism constraints among Israeli seniors. Ann Tour Res 29:106–123

Gilbert D, Abdullah J (2004) Holiday taking and the sense of well-being. Ann Tour Res 13:103–121

Gram M, O’Donohoe S, Schänzel H, Marchant C, Kastarinen A (2019) Fun time, finite time: temporal and emotional dimensions of grandtravel experiences. Ann Tour Res 79:102769

Hatano G, Inagaki K (1971) Hattatu to kyouiku ni okeru naihatuteki doukiduke. Meijitosho Shuppan, Tokyo

Google Scholar  

Hayes AF (2018) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach, 2nd edn. The Guilford Press, New York

Hirosaki M, Ishimoto Y, Kasahara Y et al. (2013) Positive affect as a predictor of lower risk of functional decline in community-dwelling elderly in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int 13:1051–1058

Huber D, Milne S, Hyde KF (2018) Constraints and facilitators for senior tourism. Tour Manag Perspect 27:55–67

Japan tourism agency (2020) Research study on economic impacts of tourism in Japan: Japan national tourism survey 2018. Japan Tourism Agency, Tokyo

Kashidan TB, Steger MF (2007) Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning in life: traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motiv Emot 31:159–173

Kidd C, Hayden BY (2015) The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron 88:449–460

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kim H, Woo E, Uysal M (2015) Tourism experience and quality of life among elderly tourists. Tour Manag 46:465e476

Lee TH, Crompton J (1992) Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Ann Tour Res 19:732–751

Litman JA, Spielberger CD (2003) Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. J Pers Assess 80:75–86

Lowenstein G (1994) The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation. Psychol Bull 116:75–98

Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS (1999) A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc Indic Res 46:137–155

McCabe S, Johnson S (2013) The happiness factor in tourism: subjective well-being and social tourism. Ann Tour Res 41:42–65

McCabe S, Joldersma J, Li C (2010) Understanding the benefits of social tourism: linking participation to subjective well-being and quality of life. Int J Tour Res 12:761–773

Murata C, Takeda T, Suzuki K, Kondo K (2016) Positive affect and incident dementia among the old. J Epidemiol Res 2:118–124

National institute of Population and Social Security Research (2017) Population Projections for Japan (2017): 2016 to 2065 (Appendix: Auxiliary Projections 2066 to 2115). http://www.ipss.go.jp/pp-zenkoku/e/zenkoku_e2017/pp29_summary.pdf . Accessed 14 Oct 2020

Nishikawa K (2013) A review of experimental studies on the diversive curiosity and specific curiosity. Kandai Psychol Rep 10:71–85

Nishikawa K (2014) The influence of curiosity on health and social relations: applicative study on the individual differences of curiosity. Kandai Psychol Rep 12:33–42

Nishikawa K, Amemiya T (2015) Development of an Epistemic Curiosity Scale: diverse curiosity and specific curiosity. Jpn J Educ Psychol 63:412–425

Nishikawa K, Yoshizu J, Amemiya T, Takayama N (2015) Individual difference in trait curiosities and their relations to mental health and psychological well-being. J Jpn Health Med Assoc 24:40–48

Odaka S, Hibino N, Morichi S (2011) Domestic tourists’ behavior and characteristics based on individual data. J JSCE Ser D3 67:67_I_727-67_I_735

Plog S (1974) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Q 14(4):55–58

Przepiorka AM, Blachnio AP (2017) The relationships between personality traits and leisure time activities: development of the Leisure Time Activity Questionnaire (LTAQ). Neuropsychiatry 7:1035–1046

Shimai S, Otake K, Utsuki N, Ikemi A, Lyubomirsky S (2004) Development of Japanese version of the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS), and examination of its validity and reliability. Jpn J Public Health 51:845–853

Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2016) Survey on Time Use and Leisure Activities 2016. https://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/shakai/index.html . Accessed 28 Oct 2020

Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2020) Statistics Topics No. 126. https://www.stat.go.jp/data/topics/topi1261.html . Accessed 28 Oct 2020

Steel P, Schmidt J, Shultz J (2008) Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychol Bull 134:138–161

Stern Y (2012) Cognitive reserve in aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol 11:1006–1012

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Uysal M, Sirgy MJ, Woo E, Kim H (2016) Quality of life (QOL) and well-being research in tourism. Tour Manag 53:244–261

Wagner J, Ram N, Smith J, Gerstorf D (2016) Personality trait development at the end of life: antecedents and correlates of mean-level trajectories. J Pers Soc Psychol 111:411–429

Wang HY, Karp A, Winbald B, Fratiglioni L (2002) Late-life engagement in social and leisure activities is associated with a decreased risk of dementia: a longitudinal study from the Kungsholmen Project. Am J Epidemiol 155:1081–1087

Wilson RS, Boyle PA, Yu L, Barnes LL, Schneider JA, Bennett DA (2013) Life-span cognitive activity, neuropathologic burden, and cognitive aging. Neurology 81:314–321

Zhang L, Zhang J (2018) Impacts of leisure and tourism on elderly’s quality of life in intimacy: a comparative study in Japan. Sustainability 10(12):4861

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Club Tourism International Inc. We thank the staff from Club Tourism International Inc. who were involved in questionnaire acquisition and all our colleagues at Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku University, for their support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

Tomoko Totsune & Yasuyuki Taki

Department of Neurology, National Hospital Organization Sendai-Nishitaga Hospital, Sendai, Japan

Tomoko Totsune

Smart-Aging Research Center, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan

Izumi Matsudaira & Yasuyuki Taki

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Drafting/revising the manuscript for content: T.T., I.M., and Y.T. Study design and concept: T.T., I.M. and Y.T. Analysis and interpretation of the data: T.T., I.M., and Y.T. Acquisition of the data: I.M. Obtaining funding: Y.T. Correspondence to T.T.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomoko Totsune .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

This work was funded by Club Tourism International Inc.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Totsune, T., Matsudaira, I. & Taki, Y. Curiosity–tourism interaction promotes subjective wellbeing among older adults in Japan. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 69 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00748-3

Download citation

Received : 27 August 2020

Accepted : 29 January 2021

Published : 12 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00748-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Subscriber Services
• For Authors
• Publications
• Archaeology
• Art & Architecture
• Bilingual dictionaries
• Classical studies
• Encyclopedias
• English Dictionaries and Thesauri
• Language reference
• Linguistics
• Media studies
• Medicine and health
• Names studies
• Performing arts
• Science and technology
• Social sciences
• Society and culture
• Overview Pages
• Subject Reference
• English Dictionaries
• Bilingual Dictionaries

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search

Allan Beaver

• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Related Content

In this work.

• allocentric tourists
• tourism pull and push factors
• tourist typologies
• Publishing Information
• General Links for this Work
• Introduction
• Recommended Tourism Syllabus Content for Higher Education Courses
• EC Computer Reservation System Rules
• Acknowledgements

psychocentric tourist  

The opposite of the adventurous allocentric tourist. The psychocentric seeks familiarity, hence the Costa Brava, Spain, and advertisements ‘Tea like ...

Access to the complete content on Oxford Reference requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs , and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us .

• Oxford University Press

PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice ).

date: 12 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|45.133.227.243]
• 45.133.227.243

Character limit 500 /500

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Tourists’ apprehension toward choosing the next destination: a study based on the learning zone model.

• Department of Management, Marketing and Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi, Iaşi, Romania

The current research is based on Senninger’s Learning Zone Model applied to the tourists’ comfort zone. This model was created in 2000 and it proved to be useful in many applied areas: Psychology, Sociology, Marketing and Management. This modes is a behavioral one and shows how a person can justify his action based on previous tested experiences (comfort zone) or dares to step beyond in fear, learn or growth zone. Our research is extending the existent area of expertise to tourism. We aimed at exploring whether the tourists’ apprehension toward choosing their next destination from a comfort zone perspective or rather from the other zones’ perspectives such as fear, learning or growth. To meet this purpose we conducted a mixed method: firstly a qualitative one, an in-depth interview based on Delphi method with 10 tourism specialists and secondly an online survey on 208 Generation Z tourists. The interviews were meant to help developing a 20 items scale (5 items for each level of the model) to measure from which of the 4 zones are the respondents making the choice of the future travel destination. Our conclusions show that Gen Z tourists display behaviors that can be associated with learning or growth zones rather than the comfort zone. This is relevant when choosing the next travel destination, because our findings could bring about a new approach to promoting tourist destinations as part of various products. As a result, a large range of managerial tools can better adapt the promotion messages to the target market from a new psychological perspective.

Introduction

The comfort zone could be associated with a warm and familiar hug, nevertheless, psychologists consider it beneficial and restrictive at the same time ( McWha et al., 2018 ). This field of research has been popular with a variety of specialists such as mental health practitioners, behavior therapists, and other psychologists ( Gilligan and Dilts, 2009 ). The paradox noticed by many is that while finding oneself in the comfort zone provides calm and quietness ( Passafaro et al., 2021 ), at the same time it might prevent growth ( Santoro and Major, 2012 ; Woodward and Kliestik, 2021 ). The solution researchers seem to agree upon is to balance those two divergent forces (the one that keeps us wanting to remain still and the one that makes us wanting to grow) to improve our lives ( Berno and Ward, 2005 ).

Bardwick (1995) coined the term “comfort zone” in the management context, in order to help assess more efficiently the motivation behind certain employees’ behaviors. Inside of the comfort zone, the stimulus for performance growth seems scarce. While the routine generally averts risks it can also limit human resources development. That is why Karwowski (2018) considered that this concept also applies to the field of behavioral psychology.

Our comfort zone is considered to be a psychological, emotional, and behavioral construct ( Lichy and Favre, 2018 ; Nica et al., 2022a ) that defines our daily routine and involves familiarity, safety, and security. Although we often hear professors, coaches, or motivational speakers encouraging us to reach beyond our limits and explore activities outside our regular boundaries, this ignores a fundamental reality, namely the existence of personal differences among individuals. Someone’s comfort zone might be completely different from another’s.

Each person has his/her comfort zone modeled by herself, a healthy adaptation to achieve an emotional balance free from anxiety. It is a place where a person feels calm, comfortable, and relaxed. However, experimenting with a reasonable amount of stress or anxiety from time to time can prove beneficial. Miller (2019) refers to the comfort zone as an illusion, a self-imposed mental limitation that is not easy to overcome. The difficulty of overcoming this limitation is mostly linked to the fear of missing the warmth and calm of our imaginary cocoon ( Nica et al., 2022b ).

Page (2020) summarized the most relevant 4 benefits of moving beyond this comfort zone: (i) self-fulfillment, a term retrieved from the classical hierarchy of needs formulated by Maslow (1943) and (ii) growth mindset, a term defined by Dweck (2000) as relying on flexibility, trial and error and unlimited potential as opposed to a fixed mindset where people believe there is a personal threshold for everyone beyond which advance become problematic. (iii) antifragility which regard volatility, hazard, chaos, and stress as push factors for self-development and prosperity ( Taleb, 2014 ), and (iv) self-efficacy explained by Bandura (1997) as the sum of actions to be executed to reach a certain objective.

An interesting approach developed by Senninger (2000) is the Learning Zone Model. According to this model, the fear which settles in once the comfort zone is left behind does not necessarily indicate reaching the panic zone. It is more of a natural emotion accompanying moving into the learning and growth zones.

Once all these obvious advantages of stepping out of the comfort zone are taken into account, the essential question is to find out from which one of the four zones (comfort/fear/learning or growth) is the Gen Z consumer reacting when choosing the next tourist destination?

We want in this paper to investigate, starting from Senninger’s model, Generation Z travelers, aged 18–27, in order to discover which one/ones out of the four zones (comfort/fear/learning or growth) is the most important for them when it comes to choose the next travel destination. For that reason we conducted a mixed method research. Firstly, with the help of tourism and travel specialists (Delphi method), we created a 20 items questionnaire (5 for each zone) and secondly we applied it in an online survey on 208 Gen Z individuals. We set as a research objective the identification of certain behavioral patterns of Gen Z consumers who are currently in their comfort zone.

Section 2 of this paper presents the details of our research design and the following parts describe the findings, discussions and conclusions. This would serve future research on solutions and actions for taking them to the superior level of this model, namely the growth zone, overcoming feelings of fear and anxiety which prevents this progress.

Literature review

The learning zone model.

This model was developed initially by Vygotsky (1978) , later on, the definitive version belonged to Senninger (2000) . The underlying idea is that in order to learn and progress we need to be challenged and stimulated ( Kliestik et al., 2022 ). It is all about the balance of forces. If we are not pushed enough, the probability that we move beyond the comfort zone is rather low, while if we are pushed too hard, the risk is to panic and feel overwhelmed. Both situations lack a proper balance and entail limited learning ( Senninger, 2000 ).

The model has two variations: a limited one with only three zones and an expanded one with four zones. We based our research on the latter. The comfort zone provides a familiar and safe feeling and entitles the subjects of it to feel in control. It is a risk-free area that is also not very eventful ( Karwowski, 2018 ; Kovacova et al., 2022 ). A state of reaching a plateau besides monotony and boredom settles in Kovacova et al. (2022) . Often, people tend to conform to it and even put the effort into maintaining it ( Kliestik et al., 2022 ). However, as life moves on, a series of internal and external factors trigger changes ( Dweck, 2005 ; Kliestik et al., 2022 ). We might get sick, change our job or our family might expand and all these push us outside of our comfort zone.

As soon as we move out of our comfort zone we find ourselves in the fear zone. There, a process of self-inquiry about our choices might occur. It is possible that we face a low self-confidence situation and doubt settles in Miller (2019) . Sometimes we internalize critical voices which have a paralyzing effect on ourselves ( Senninger, 2017 ). Often, we can be scared to the point when we regret moving out of our comfort zone and rush back inside of it ( Andronie et al., 2021 ). Meanwhile, we might start complaining more and focus on obstacles and issues to justify this embarrassing return ( Wallace and Lãzãroiu, 2021 ).

Once we get close enough to the learning zone we score the first victory: we passed the fear zone and we suppressed the internal and external critical voices ( Page, 2020 ). In the learning zone we face new challenges, but we tend to prioritize solutions over problems ( Lyons, 2022 ). In other words, we move from a pessimistic to an optimistic perspective and this allows us to grow ( Pearce and Packer, 2013 ).

The growth zone might be equated with the terminus point for this psychological pursuit. Here, the old fears are slowly receding even if new ones might settle in. The advantage is that we became more resilient during this phase and we learned to set more ambitious goals for ourselves ( L ǎ zãroiu and Harrison, 2021 ). As long as our personal development continues our lives gather more sense. Progressively, we define superior objectives, and we create a long-term-based personal view ( Pongelli et al., 2021 ).

This model, besides its significant contribution to human psychology development, remains a resource with robust applied configuration ( Dweck, 2005 ; Kliestik et al., 2022 ). Our work intends to explore how this model could be applied to understanding tourists’ behaviors.

Intentionally leaving the comfort zone can be possible only by developing a growth mindset. While a rigid mindset keeps us in the prison of the fear of failure, a growth mindset expands opportunities and possibilities. It inspires us to overcome fear, to take healthy risks, to learn new lessons and the outcomes are blooming in all life dimensions ( Perruci and Warty Hall, 2018 ).

When it comes to learning, Elbæk et al. (2022) are presenting the effects of Yerkes-Dodson law that stipulates that there is an empirical relationship between stress and performance. In other words, that there is an optimal level of stress that corresponds to an optimal level of performance. Based on Yerkes-Dodson law, learning is possible not only beyond comfort zone, but also beyond fear. Is not defined by stress. Quite the opposite! It is a space for opportunities, where, in order to optimize the performance, people must reach a certain level of stress, higher than normal. So we obtain what they call to be an optimal anxiety.

Comfort zone proves to be nothing but a cozy place to live in, and its only reason is to prepare you for all the challenges in life ( Anichiti et al., 2021 ). Anxiety, fear and stress improve performance until a certain level—called optimum stimulation level. Beyond this point, performance drops while stress is increasing ( Avornyo et al., 2019 ).

What we can see is that comfort, fear and learning are strongly related ( Perruci and Warty Hall, 2018 ). Learning zone model developed by Senninger can be justified by seeking balance ( Freeth and Caniglia, 2020 ). We must exit our comfort zone long enough to reach optimal anxiety, but not too much, for not letting anxiety to take control.

Moreover, all our decisions are facing these mirrors: the comfort mirror—showing the future self that keeps our status quo ; the fear-mirror—presenting the possible panic we have to face in near future; the learning-mirror—with all the lessons we have the assimilate and the growth-mirror—that is indicating the future self we want to become. And, by analyzing all these projections, our mind is developing a cost-benefit analysis ( Zheng et al., 2021 ). As long as we stay in our comfort zone, the benefits are small but guaranteed. We feel good, safe and we are not in danger. However, if we don’t change a thing, we cannot expect something spectacular to happen. If we remain there for a long time, we can limit ourselves, sinking into boredom and monotony.

Plog (1974) , examined the motivations of travelers and arrived at the classification of tourists starting from two approaches: allocentric and psychocentric. Allocentric tourists, or often called ‘wanderers‘, are brave enough to travel to the unknown. They like adventure and would not mind if they were the first to explore a certain area. Allocentric tourists will often travel alone, without the need for a guide. They enjoy cultural tourism, are ethical travelers and love to learn. Stainton (2022) suggested that only 4% of the population is expected to be purely allocentric, most are on Plog’s scale in the category of close or centric cluster. Allocentric tourists have some common features: they are independent travelers, they like adventure; they are eager to learn and like to experience unfamiliar things; they are not followers of mass tourism, tourist packages and group excursions; they are fans of cultural tourism, being ethical tourists; love challenges; prefers sustainable tourism and slow tourism (as opposed to mass tourism). All this being said, making an analogy with the characterization of the four areas of Senninger (2000) , Learning Model allocentric tourists are rather those who are in the growth zone or in transition from the learning zone to the growth zone.

At the opposite side are psychocentric or ‘repeating‘ tourists. They are most often associated with well-developed or overdeveloped areas for tourism. They will choose holiday destinations that have already been “tested,” where they can feel comfortable and familiar. The portrait of a psychocentric tourist ( Stainton, 2022 ), looks like this: he/she enjoys familiarity and likes the chosen destination to offer him/her the comfort of home; prefers well-known brands; often travels in organized groups; is a supporter of holiday packages and all-inclusive holidays; spends a lot of time in the holiday resort and doesn’t know much about the local culture; he/she is not open to learning new things about the area he visits or about the people who live there; pays a single flat fee to cover most of the holiday costs and is a regular visitor to the same resort/destination. This typology, without a doubt, can be associated with the comfort zone, being mentioning key words such as: “comfortable,” “familiar,” “known,” “regular,” “organized” etc.

The reality is that not many tourists fit perfectly into the two typologies at the extremes ( Stainton, 2022 ), respectively, allocentric and psychocentric. And this is why Plog has developed a scale, through which tourists can be placed anywhere along the spectrum. So, the largest category of tourists falls somewhere in the mid-centered category of the spectrum. Mid-center tourists like to have a little adventure, but also something from the comfort of home. Maybe they book their vacation by means of an interesting announcement, but then they spend most of their time in the holiday resort. Or maybe they choose an organized trip, but then they choose to break away from the crowd and explore the local area ( Stainton, 2022 ). These tourists are best suited to the fear zone, where there is a battle between staying in the comfort zone and progressing further toward the learning zone.

Plog (1974) created a fundamental model in travel and tourism research. His theory has encouraged critical thinking throughout the tourism community for several decades. Our paper goes beyond Plog’s model, being enriched by Senninger (2000) explanations of consumer psychology in the face of a purchasing decision. We aim to explore these types of tourists from the perspective of the learning area from which they chose to make the travel decision.

Methodological approach

Research context.

The current research explores the psychographic and behavioral factors determining the choice of a certain tourist destination. It was targeted at the Generation Z adult population within the age range 18–27. The research is based on the Learning Zone Model formulated by Senninger (2000) which features four zones: comfort, fear, learning, and growth. The research results, conclusions, and suggestions will constitute a reference point for formulating various marketing strategies. Those marketing strategies include promoting a tourist destination once the profile of Gen Z tourist is defined according to the 4 above-mentioned zones. Therefore, personalized marketing messages can emerge aiming at for example diminishing the fears and uncertainty of those in the comfort or fear zones or attracting those in the learning or growth zone through new experiences, adventure, and other challenges. Each destination has one or more target markets and a tourist typology-based learning zones model might be a relevant variable when segmenting the market for Gen Z tourists.

Research design

The purchase decisions of Gen Z tourists are largely emotional and can be attributed to certain zones of the learning zone model developed by Senninger (2000) . The consumer acts from within a certain zone such as comfort, fear, learning, or growth. This can lead to certain behavioral patterns when choosing a tourist destination. We devised the following research question:

From which one of the four zones (comfort/fear/learning or growth) is the Gen Z consumer reacting when choosing the next tourist destination?

The research had 2 main phases

Phase 1 involved qualitative research aimed at identifying the keywords corresponding to each of the 4 zones part of the model (comfort, fear, learning, and growth). We planned to do this by exploring tourism specialists’ views. The resulting keywords were subsequently integrated into the quantitative research instrument. The objectives set for phase 1 were:

O1.1: Generating keywords for describing the behavior of tourists who are in the comfort zone as per the Learning zone model ( Senninger, 2000 ).

O1.2: Generating keywords for describing the behavior of tourists who are in the fear zone as per Learning zone model ( Senninger, 2000 ).

O1.3: Generating key words for describing the behavior of tourists who are in the learning zone as per Learning zone model ( Senninger, 2000 ).

O1.4: Generating key words for describing the behavior of tourists who are in the growth zone as per Learning zone model ( Senninger, 2000 ).

Phase 2 consisted of quantitative research directed toward analyzing the Gen Z tourists’ perspectives from Iasi, Romania. Their perspective was scrutinized corresponding to the Learning Zone Model (comfort, fear, learning, and growth zones) in terms of choice of their future travel destination. More precisely we focused on learning from which of the 4 zones are they making this choice. The objectives set for phase 2 were

O2.1: Identifying the Gen Z tourist profile (among those living in Iasi). Profiling is based on tourism services purchase frequency, distance traveled, domestic/outbound destinations preference, type of holiday, travel motivation, and travel budget.

O2.2: Identifying specific behavior related to their comfort zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

O2.3: Identifying specific behavior related to their fear zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

O2.4: Identifying specific behavior related to their learning zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

O2.5: Identifying specific behavior related to their growth zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

Research hypotheses

For phase 2 of the research (online survey), we formulated the four hypotheses.

As Stainton (2022) stated, based on Plog (1974) model, there are psychocentric or ‘repeating‘ tourists. Our sample of experts have characterized them with words like: comfort seekers, valuing control and security, having a strong aversion against risk and willing to repeat positive experiences. So, after Plog (1974) ; Stainton (2022) and justified by the choices made by our group of experts, we can formulate the first hypothesis:

H1: There is a connection among the attributes of the comfort zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing of a tourist destination.

Elbæk et al. (2022) argued that there is a relationship between stress and performance. They said that it is necessary to step into fear in order to thrive. Fear and stress can be challenging, but only until a certain point, beyond what performance is not possible. When it comes to analyze tourists behavior facing fear, our group of specialists selected words like: being suggestible, overcoming fear of unknown and challenges, willing to experience and being courageous. Based on that we formulated the second hypothesis:

H2: There is a connection among the attributes of the fear zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing of a tourist destination.

Comfort, fear and learning are strongly related ( Perruci and Warty Hall, 2018 ). We must exit our comfort zone long enough to reach optimal anxiety, but not too much, for not letting anxiety to take control ( Freeth and Caniglia, 2020 ). Only those who are willing to learn and keep an open mind are thriving ( Anichiti et al., 2021 ). That is why our group of specialists selected the following words to describe a person that makes a decision justified by his/hers learning zone: is open to novelty, curious, interested in learning new things, loves challenges and risk taking, being explorer and adventurous. As a consequence, the third hypothesis is:

H3: There is a connection among the attributes of the learning zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing of a tourist destination.

Leaving the comfort zone can be possible only by developing a growth mindset ( Perruci and Warty Hall, 2018 ). Our mind is developing a cost-benefit analysis ( Zheng et al., 2021 ) and puts into balance the cost of leaving the comfort zone with the benefit of reaching the growth zone. Those who see mainly the benefits are, according to our group of specialists: decisive, emotionally developed, willing to fulfill ideals and objectives, committed to their personal growth and seeing traveling as a lifestyle. These conclusions helped us formulate the fourth hypothesis:

H4: There is a connection among the attributes of the growth zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing of a tourist destination.

Research methods

Phase 1: Semi-Structured interview applied to tourism specialists using the Delphi method. There were 10 experts in tourism (tourism agents, bloggers, and tourism master graduates).

Phase 2: Quantitative research based on an online survey having 208 respondents among travel enthusiastic from Iasi. The gender split was 87 and 121 female respondents, aged 18–27, corresponding to Gen Z.

The research instruments

Phase 1: We used a selection questionnaire for selecting the participants. The interviews required answers regarding the profiling of a tourist who makes the purchase decision from his comfort, fear, learning, or growth zone.

Phase 2: Based on the specialists’ answers, the questionnaire items were realized. The instrument had 3 sections:

Section 1 was built around determining the profile of Gen Z tourists and consisted of 8 questions. The questions asked the participants to associate the travel with a random word, to assess their travel frequency, preference for either domestic or international destinations, the maximum distance they were eager to travel, holiday type and motivation, and their weekly travel budget.

Section 2 consisted of 4 sets of 5 statements each using keywords defining tourists from each of the 4 zones (comfort, fear, learning, growth). The statements were based on the specialists’ answers collected through the semi-structured interview described earlier. Respondents were asked to grade the statements on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 meant full disagreement and 10 full agreement. Each construct contains a so-called key-statement which is formulated based on the most representative key-word.

Comfort zone:

I want to feel in control.

I choose on safety criteria (personal safety, transport, destination, etc.).

I try to reduce the risk of unforeseen events, which could take me out of my comfort zone.*

I prefer to repeat positive experiences I have had in the past.

I avoid any complications that may occur.

I always want to gather new experiences.

I try to overcome my fear of the unknown.*

I let myself be influenced by the opinions of those around me.

I leave room for the unexpected.

I accept new challenges, giving up excessive planning.

Learning zone:

I am open to all experiences.

I allow myself to always be curious.

I leave room for adventure.

I am willing to learn new things.*

I love challenges.

Growth zone:

I am always determined on what I want.

I consider any experience that contributes to my personal growth.*

I am getting closer to fulfilling my dreams as a tourist.

I am looking for experiences that will enrich my soul.

I consider traveling as a lifestyle.

Section 3 consisted of social and demographic questions for identifying the respondents.

Research results

For this initial phase of our research, namely the semi-structured interview using the Delphi method, we inquired a group of 10 tourism experts from Iasi. The objective was to identify keywords in defining the tourists choosing travel destinations from one of the 4 zones of The Learning Zones Model of Senninger (2000) . Table 1 shows the prevalence of the most frequently mentioned keywords.

Table 1. The prevalence of the most frequently used keywords or expressions describing a tourist according to Senninger’s model.

The keywords and expressions provided by the 10 tourism specialists were centralized as per Table 1 . We, therefore, achieved all 4 objectives and ranked the keywords and expressions according to their prevalence. For the comfort zone, the following keywords or expressions were selected: comfort, security, risk aversion, repeating positive experiences, and control. For the fear zone, the following keywords or expressions were selected: suggestible, inclination to experiment, overcoming fear of the unknown, new challenges, and lack of excessive planning. For the learning zone, the following keywords or expressions were selected: openness to novelty, curious, Interest in learning new things, loves challenges and adventurous. For the growth zone, the following keywords or expressions were selected: decisive, fulfilling objectives and ideas, personal growth and emotional development.

We analyzed the results of the survey for each stated objective.

We exported the data from the SPSS software using the “Descriptive Statistics” function in order to obtain the prevalence. According to the Dimensional Analysis, we created the profile of a Gen Z tourist from Iasi. S/he associates travel mostly with relaxation, freedom feelings, adventure, and experience. S/he travels on average 6 times a year and prefers equally domestic and international destinations. We noted an inclination to travel to a maximum distance of 2,300 kilometers from home and he enjoys mostly 2 types of holidays: resort holidays and city breaks. Whenever s/he chooses a holiday destination a number of attributes are sought: relaxation, having fun, exploring nature, understanding local history, and culture, and adventure. The Gen Z tourist from Iasi allocates on average a weekly travel budget of approximately 2,400 RON (500 euros).

O2: Identifying specific behavior related to their comfort zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

For verifying this hypothesis we performed a correlation test for the variable attributes of the comfort zone based on r Pearson correlation. We used SPSS software for this end.

According to Table 2 , each correlation significant because Sig is 0.000 (< 0.05) and it consists of a direct correlation ( r > 0). The differences are based on the strength of the correlation between 2 variables. The strongest correlation within the comfort zone is between the risk and uncertainty avoidance, the r-value being 0.699 which indicated a strong correlation. Another strong correlation was found between “security inspired choices” and “risk avoidance” with an r-value of 0.654 although this correlation does not involve causality. Among “security inspired choices” and “uncertainty avoidance” we found an average to good correlation, Pearson r-correlation being 0.523.

Table 2. Pearson correlation for the comfort zone variables.

We used Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability to identify the measure of internal consistency among the items defining the comfort zone, calculated by SPSS software. The aim was to check whether the items contribute to the comfort zone significance or not. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.779 which indicated a good consistency ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). A side note would be that once the item “inclination to be in control” is removed the consistency improves. As a conclusion of this test, we can state that the comfort zone items do have an acceptable consistency which means there is consistency among the answers given by respondents for this dimension. This will lead to identifying the specific behaviors of tourists choosing a certain destination from their comfort zone.

O3: Identifying specific behavior related to their fear zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

We performed a Pearson correlation test to verify this hypothesis. We aimed at measuring the correlation among the variables defining the fear zone. This test was performed through SPSS software and the results are summarized in Table 3 .

Table 3. Pearson correlation for the fear zone variables.

As per Table 3 , all correlations are positive for the fear zone, Pearson r correlation displaying beside the positive values significant correlation (Sig < 0.05). The strongest correlation within the fear zone is between “Lack of excessive planning and acceptance of new challenges” and “unforeseen events” with an r correlation value of 0.627 indicates an average to good correlation. A second moderate correlation can be noticed between “Inclination to experiment” and “overcoming fear of the unknown: ( r = 0.534).

We used Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability to identify the measure of internal consistency among the items defining the comfort zone, calculated by SPSS software. The aim was to check whether the items contribute to the comfort zone significance or not. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.772 which indicated a good consistency ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). This consistency could be improved if the item “suggestible” was eliminated.

As a conclusion of this test, we can state that the fear zone items do have an acceptable consistency which means there is consistency among the answers given by respondents for this dimension. This will lead to identifying the specific behaviors of tourists choosing a certain destination from the fear zone.

O4: Identifying specific behavior related to their learning zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

H3: There is a connection among the attributes of the learning zone as per The Learning Model Zone ( Senninger, 2000 ) corresponding to choosing a tourist destination.

We performed a Pearson correlation test to verify this hypothesis. We aimed at measuring the correlation among the variables defining the fear zone. This test was performed through SPSS software and the results are summarized in Table 4 .

Table 4. Pearson correlation for the learning zone variables.

All correlations presented in Table 4 are significant (Sig = 0.000 < 0.05) and we see positive correlation (r correlation > 0). In terms of their strength, we see within this dimension reasonable, good, or strong correlations.

We used Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability to identify the measure of internal consistency among the items defining the learning zone, calculated by SPSS software. The aim was to check whether the items contribute to the comfort zone significance or not. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.890 which indicated a good to strong consistency ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). This consistency could be slightly improved if the item “curiosity” was eliminated.

As a conclusion of this test, we can state that the learning zone items do have an acceptable consistency which means there is consistency among the answers given by respondents for this dimension. This will lead to identifying the specific behaviors of tourists choosing a certain destination from the learning zone.

O5: Identifying specific behavior related to their growth zone for Gen Z tourists from Iasi as far as their next holiday choice is concerned.

We performed a Pearson correlation test to verify this hypothesis. We aimed at measuring the correlation among the variables defining the fear zone. This test was performed through SPSS software and the results are summarized in Table 5 :

Table 5. Pearson correlation for the growth zone variables.

Although all correlations among variable attributes of the growth zone are significant (Sig = 0.000 < 0.05) and positive (r correlation > 0), we noticed no strong or very strong correlations. Most of the correlations are weak, where the r-correlation is situated between 0.2 and 0.4. We found several moderate correlations ( r = 0.4–0.6) which could be further discussed:

The correlation between “Travel as lifestyle” and “Seeking experiences leading to emotional growth,” r = 0.493.

The correlation between “Preference toward experiences leading to personal growth: and “Main decider for his life,” r = 0.484.

The correlation between “Preference toward experiences leading to personal growth” and “Seeking experiences leading to emotional growth,” r = 0.484.

The correlation between “Main decider for his life” and “Fulfilling dreams as a tourist,” r = 0.412.

The correlation between “Fulfilling dreams as a tourist” and “Seeking experiences leading to emotional growth,” r = 0.435.

We used the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability to identify the measure of internal consistency among the items defining the growth zone, calculated by SPSS software. The aim was to check whether the items contribute to the comfort zone significance or not. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.748 which indicated an acceptable consistency ( Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ). This consistency could not be improved through the removal of any item.

As a conclusion of this test, we can state that the growth zone items do have an acceptable consistency which means there is consistency among the answers given by respondents for this dimension. This will lead to identifying the specific behaviors of tourists choosing a certain destination from the growth zone.

Senninger’s Learning Model is an evergreen one and, moreover, is proving to be a transversal one. It explains the foundations of decision making process. All the time the human mind tries to arbitrate between staying safe and daring for more, between remaining in the comfort zone and overcoming fear of leaving it. The comfort zone is, no matter what, the reference system of all the other levels, even if you decide to buy bread or an electric car ( Wallace and Lãzãroiu, 2021 ; Popescu et al., 2022 ), to choose between staying home or discover a new destination ( Andronie et al., 2021 ; Nica, 2021 ; Pop et al., 2022 ; Robinson, 2022 ).

In tourism and travel, various companies or even cities understood that a traveling decision is facing two alternatives: (1) not to change a thing and repeat a previous choice (like staying home or choosing all over again the same tested destination) and (2) pointing out new destinations, new experiences, new adventures ( Pop et al., 2022 ). So a question is rising: the tourist offer must include arguments for both types of travelers or must be a focused one? Spontaneously we might think dichotomicly: you must be either unique or you do not count. But the reality shows that we can have smart cities, with a smart infrastructure and integrating IoT, but offering also traditional well conserved historical areas ( Andronie et al., 2021 ; Nica, 2021 ; Robinson, 2022 ). Some will come for tasting new experiences and some will be attracted by nostalgic reasons.

In the end everything is a segmentation issue. For different targets you must have different arguments. That is why our research can be a basis for including a new criterion to the segmentation strategy for tourist products and services. By knowing what particular learning zone is the most important in making a travel decision for a certain segment of clients a company can adapt the offer. The case of Gen Z consumers is particularly interesting, because they are the future most important travelers. They are highly educated, social and environmental activists, digital natives and, extremely important, the most significant buyers all over the globe. They know to find without any help the most reliable information online ( Popescu Ljungholm, 2022 ), they are present on various social media and are the most probably to leave a review. In the light of our research model we can ask ourselves: should we treat Gen Z equally, like we used to do with all the other generations before (decision made from our comfort zone)? Should we fear them and decide that they are beyond our marketing possibilities (decision made from our fear zone)? Should we try to understand them (decision made from our learning zone)? Or should we decide to grow with them ( Popescu Ljungholm, 2022 ), to thrive together (decision made from our growth zone)?

Our research offers a glimpse into a very actual and important question: is the buying decision impacted by one of these four learning zones? We added a new perspective to the well-known Senninger’s model, one referring to choosing the next travel destination. We have experienced the Covid-19 pandemic situation and tourism and travel sector was one of the most affected ones. We hesitated to travel because of fear. We chosed to stay safe and we remained home for years. Now, in 2022, we are facing the same old decision related to travel destinations. What we have noticed is that Gen Z dare to exit their comfort zone and to go beyond fear, driven by learning and growth reasons. We still do not know how responded other generations or if Gen Z have the same response for every decisions, no matter the domain.

The main contribution is that we can offer a measuring scale for the 4 zones of the Learning Zone Model. The particularity lies in applying this model to tourism. It opens new possibilities for the model to be applied to other fields as well alongside new possibilities for statistical determinants through inferential statistics. Moreover, understanding the zone where a decision is made, choosing a destination or other products or services allows us to profile better the consumer from a psychological perspective.

The present research explored the Gen Z tourist’s decision for their next holiday. As a theoretical implication, we started by creating a scale based on the 4 zones corresponding to Senninger’s model. Our scale had 20 items (5 statements for each zone/level of the model) regarding choosing the next travel destination and it is measured from 1 to 10 according to the extent to which a respondent agrees, where 1 is full disagreement and 10 is full agreement (Likert scale). Each section involved one key statement which contains the name of the interest zone (e.g., comfort zone).

As a future research perspective, our intention for this statements is to be used in further inferential statistics as part of future research. This key statement had scored consistently the best evaluation as per Cronbach’s Alpha test.

The managerial implications can be helped by our findings. We consider that the Senninger’s Learning Model can provide segmentation criteria (comfort seekers/fear dominants/learners and thrivers) for a new variable: learning type.

To support that, we say that all the statements were based on collected data from tourism specialists. They describe the tourists choosing a travel destination from within their comfort zone as being focused on control and security, being persons who try to mitigate any risks. Therefore they choose their travel destinations depending on security and lack of unforeseen situations criteria. They also rely on repeating positive experiences. Our quantitative research shows for the comfort zone the strongest correlation is between the willingness to mitigate risks and uncertainty avoidance which could take this type of tourist out of his comfort zone. A second strong correlation found was between security-inspired choices and uncertainty avoidance.

According to the specialists choosing a certain travel destination from within the fear zone can be mostly explained through a high degree of being suggestible but also curious and making efforts to overcome the fear of the unknown, lack of excessive planning and welcoming of new challenges. We used those descriptors in realizing our survey and we found out the strongest correlation among the variables of the fear zone was in fact a moderate one. It was the correlation between lack of excessive planning and accepting new challenges. A second reasonable correlation was between new experiences and overcoming the fear of the unknown. All the other correlations within the fear zone were weak toward moderate.

Travelers choosing their destination from within the learning zone were depicted by the specialists as being open to novelty, curious, eager to learn, adventurous, and accepting challenges as well as risks. Our survey results indicated that the Learning zone is the most relevant for Gen Z tourists from Iasi when choosing a travel destination. We recorded the strongest correlations here such as between being adventurous and opened to new experiences; being adventurous and accepting new challenges; being opened to new experiences and a preference for challenges; being adventurous and learning new things and embracing new challenges and the readiness to learn new things. The other correlations were moderate toward good.

For the travelers in the growth zone, the destination choice involves fulfilling certain ideals and objectives from a touristic point of view. Experiences that involve emotional development, passion, decisiveness, personal growth, accepting risks, and perceiving travel as a lifestyle are the most important for them. While most of the correlations are weak, we found, however, a few reasonable correlations: (i) between travel as a lifestyle and seeking experiences leading to emotional growth, (ii) between inclination toward experiences leading to personal development and decisiveness, (iii) between seeking experiences leading to emotional growth and inclination toward experiences leading to personal development, (iv) between decisiveness and fulfilling dreams as a tourist, and (v) between seeking experiences.

To sum up, we can state that the Gen Z tourist from Iasi displays behaviors that can be associated with learning or growth zones rather than the comfort zone. This is relevant when choosing the next travel destination.

As limitations, we can mention that the sample was limited to 209 individuals, a number relatively small to be statistically representative for the Gen Z population of Iasi. The sample’s structure is heterogenic, having more female respondents. We operated with a convenience non-probability sample.

At the theoretical level the model used as the fundament of this research is the Learning Zone Model ( Senninger, 2000 ) which consists of the 4 zones (comfort, fear, learning, and growth) do not offer a clear differentiation of those zones. We cannot assign a precise zone to each tourist since the model was conceived as more of a progressive path.

The research method, an online survey, might reflect the main reason for the lack of representativity of the sample. Since the survey was distributed online using various social media platforms, there was a lack of control over the respondents. Moreover, the collection of data was carried out during the last phase of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions which involved a relevant transition from online to offline.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, at University Alexandru Ioan Cuza of Iasi. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Andronie, M., Lãzãroiu, G., ?tefãnescu, R., Ionescu, L., and Coco?atu, M. (2021). Neuromanagement decision-making and cognitive algorithmic processes in the technological adoption of mobile commerce apps. Oeconom Copernicana 12, 863–888. doi: 10.24136/oc.2021.028

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anichiti, A., Dragolea, L. L., Tacu Hârşan, G. D., Haller, A. P., and Butnaru, G. I. (2021). Aspects regarding safety and security in hotels: Romanian experience. Information 12:44. doi: 10.3390/info12010044

Avornyo, P., Fang, J., Antwi, C. O., Aboagye, M. O., and Boadi, E. A. (2019). Are customers still with us? The influence of optimum stimulation level and IT-specific traits on mobile banking discontinuous usage intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 348–360. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.001

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Google Scholar

Bardwick, J. M. (1995). Danger in the comfort zone: From boardroom to mailroom – how to break the entitlement habit that’s killing American business , 2nd Edn. San Diego, CA: Amacom.

Berno, T., and Ward, C. (2005). Innocence abroad: A pocket guide to psychological research on tourism. Am. Psychol. 60, 593–600. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.593

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Oxforshire: Taylor and Francis.

Dweck, C. S. (2005). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Elbæk, C. T., Lystbæk, M. N., and Mitkidis, P. (2022). On the psychology of bonuses: The effects of loss aversion and Yerkes-Dodson law on performance in cognitively and mechanically demanding tasks. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 98:101870. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2022.101870

Freeth, R., and Caniglia, G. (2020). Learning to collaborate while collaborating: Advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research. Sustain. Sci. 15, 247–261. doi: 10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z

Gilligan, S., and Dilts, R. (2009). The hero’s journey: A voyage of self discovery. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.

Karwowski, M. (2018). The flow of learning. Eur. J. Psychol. 14:291. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v14i2.1660

Kliestik, T., Zvarikova, K., and Lãzãroiu, G. (2022). Data-driven machine learning and neural network algorithms in the retailing environment: Consumer engagement, experience, and purchase behaviors. Econ. Manag. Financ. Mark. 17, 57–69. doi: 10.22381/emfm17120224

Kovacova, M., Machova, V., and Bennett, D. (2022). Immersive extended reality technologies, data visualization tools, and customer behavior analytics in the metaverse commerce. J. Self Govern. Manag. Econ. 10, 7–21. doi: 10.22381/jsme10220221

L ǎ z ǎ roiu, G., and Harrison, A. (2021). Internet of things sensing infrastructures and data-driven planning technologies in smart sustainable city governance and management. Geopolit. Hist. Int. Relat. 13, 23–36. doi: 10.22381/GHIR13220212

Lichy, J., and Favre, B. (2018). “Leaving the comfort zone: Building an international dimension in higher education” in International Enterprise Education eds G. Mulholland and J. J. Turner (London:Routledge), 234–259.

Lyons, N. (2022). Talent acquisition and management, immersive work environments, and machine vision algorithms in the virtual economy of the metaverse. Psychosociol. Issues Hum. Resour. Manag. 10, 121–134. doi: 10.22381/pihrm10120229

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370–396. doi: 10.1037/h0054346

McWha, M., Frost, W., and Laing, J. (2018). Travel writers and the nature of self: Essentialism, transformation and (online) construction. Ann. Tour. Res. 70, 14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2018.02.007

Miller, A. L. (2019). The illusion of choice: Parallels between the home cinema industry of the 1980s and modern streaming services, international journal of media. J. Mass Commun. 5, 1–8. doi: 10.20431/2454-9479.0504001

Nica, E. (2021). Urban big data analytics and sustainable governance networks in integrated smart city planning and management. Geopolit. Hist. Int. Relat. 13, 93–106. doi: 10.22381/GHIR13220217

Nica, E., Kliestik, T., Valaskova, K., and Sabie, O.-M. (2022a). The economics of the metaverse: Immersive virtual technologies, consumer digital engagement, and augmented reality shopping experience. Smart Govern. 1, 21–34. doi: 10.22381/sg1120222

Nica, E., Sabie, O.-M., Mascu, S., and Luţan, A. G. (2022b). Artificial intelligence decision-making in shopping patterns: Consumer values, cognition, and attitudes. Econ. Manag. Finan. Mark. 17, 31–43. doi: 10.22381/emfm17120222

Page, O. (2020). How to leave your comfort zone and enter your ‘growth zone’. Available online at: https://positivepsychology.com/comfort-zone/ (accessed May 12, 2022).

Passafaro, P., Chiarolanza, C., Amato, C., Barbieri, B., Bocci, E., and Sarrica, M. (2021). Outside the comfort zone: What can psychology learn from tourism (and vice versa). Front. Psychol. 12:650741. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.650741

Pearce, P. L., and Packer, J. (2013). Minds on the move: New links from psychology to tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 40, 386–411. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2012.10.002

Perruci, G., and Warty Hall, S. (2018). “The learning environment,” in Teaching leadership. Bridging theory and practice , eds G. Perruci and S. Warty Hall (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 1–8. doi: 10.4337/9781786432773

Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel Restaur. Adm. Q. 14, 55–58. doi: 10.1177/001088047401400409

Pongelli, C., Calabrò, A., Quarato, F., Minichilli, A., and Corbetta, G. (2021). Out of the comfort zone! Family leaders’ subsidiary ownership choices and the role of vulnerabilities. Fam. Bus. Rev. 34, 404–424. doi: 10.1177/08944865211050858

Pop, R. A., Sãplãcan, Z., Dabija, D. C., and Alt, M. A. (2022). The impact of social media influencers on travel decisions: The role of trust in consumer decision journey. Curr. Issues Tour. 25, 823–843. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2021.1895729

Popescu Ljungholm, D. (2022). Metaverse-based 3D visual modeling, virtual reality training experiences, and wearable biological measuring devices in immersive workplaces. Psychosociol. Issues Hum. Resour. Manag. 10, 64–77. doi: 10.22381/pihrm10120225

Popescu, G. H., Valaskova, K., and Horak, J. (2022). Augmented reality shopping experiences, retail business analytics, and machine vision algorithms in the virtual economy of the metaverse. J. Self Govern. Manag. Econ. 10, 67–81. doi: 10.22381/jsme10220225

Robinson, R. (2022). Digital twin modeling in virtual enterprises and autonomous manufacturing systems: Deep learning and neural network algorithms, immersive visualization tools, and cognitive data fusion techniques. Econ. Manag. Finan. Mark. 17, 52–66. doi: 10.22381/emfm17220223

Santoro, N., and Major, J. (2012). Learning to be a culturally responsive teacher through international study trips: Transformation or tourism? Teach. Educ. 23, 309–322. doi: 10.1080/10476210.2012.685068

Senninger, T. (2000). Abenteuer leiten in abenteuern lernen. Aachen: OEkotopia.

Senninger, T. (2017). Abenteuer leiten in abenteuern lernen: Methodenset zur planung und leitung kooperativer lerngemeinschaften fuer training und teamentwicklung in schule, jugendarbeit und betrieb , 7th Edn. Aachen: OEkotopia.

Stainton, H. (2022). Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity: Made easy. Available online at: https://tourismteacher.com/plogs-model-of-allocentricity-and-psychocentricity/ (accessed May 12, 2022).

Taleb, N. N. (2014). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York, NY: Random House.

Tavakol, M., and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2:53. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wallace, S., and Lãzãroiu, G. (2021). Predictive control algorithms, real-world connected vehicle data, and smart mobility technologies in intelligent transportation planning and engineering. Contemp. Read. Law Soc. Just. 13, 79–92. doi: 10.22381/CRLSJ13220216

Woodward, B., and Kliestik, T. (2021). Intelligent transportation applications, autonomous vehicle perception sensor data, and decision-making self-driving car control algorithms in smart sustainable urban mobility systems. Contemp. Read. Law Soc. Just. 13, 51–64. doi: 10.22381/CRLSJ13220214

Zheng, D., Ritchie, B. W., and Benckendorff, P. J. (2021). Beyond cost–benefit analysis: Resident emotions, appraisals and support toward tourism performing arts developments. Curr. Issues Tour. 24, 668–684. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1732881

Keywords : learning zone model, comfort zone, fear zone, learning zone, growth zone, tourist destination

Citation: Manolic ǎ A, Ionesi D-S, Dr ǎ gan L-M, Roman T, Bertea PE and Boldureanu G (2022) Tourists’ apprehension toward choosing the next destination: A study based on the learning zone model. Front. Psychol. 13:987154. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987154

Received: 05 July 2022; Accepted: 29 July 2022; Published: 25 August 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Manolic ǎ , Ionesi, Dr ǎ gan, Roman, Bertea and Boldureanu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Adriana Manolic ǎ , [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

TeachersCollegesj

Knowledge repository and useful advices

What are Psychocentric tourists?

Table of Contents

• 1 What are Psychocentric tourists?
• 2 What is Plog tourism?
• 3 Who are the psychocentric tourists in Plog’s model?
• 4 What does it mean to be a psychocentric traveler?

Psychocentric tourists are self-inhibiting, nervous, and non-adventurous; they often refuse to travel by air for psychological reasons rather than financial or other practical concerns. In comparison, allocentric tourists are outgoing, self-confident, and adventurous.

What is Plog tourism?

Plog’s model is largely regarded as a cornerstone of tourism theory. Plog essentially delineated these types of tourists according to their personalities. He then plotted these along a continuum in a bell-shaped, normally distributed curve. This curve identified the rise and fall of destinations.

What is Plog?

Plog is the verb for the noun Plogging which is jogging and picking up litter.

What are the types tourist?

Types of tourism There are three basic forms of tourism: domestic tourism, inbound tourism, and outbound tourism. Domestic tourism refers to activities of a visitor within their country of residence and outside of their home (e.g. a Brit visiting other parts of Britain).

Who are the psychocentric tourists in Plog’s model?

What does it mean to be a psychocentric traveler.

Which is an example of an allocentric tourist destination?

Which is the best definition of the word psychocentric?

Privacy Overview

2018 Primetime Emmy & James Beard Award Winner

R&K Insider

Join our newsletter to get exclusives on where our correspondents travel, what they eat, where they stay. Free to sign up.

A History of Moscow in 13 Dishes

Featured city guides.

Is It Safe in Moscow?

Stanislav Solntsev / Getty Images

When you visit Moscow , Russia, you’re seeing one of the world’s largest, and most expensive, capital cities . While there is a history of violent crime against foreign journalists and aid personnel in Russia, a trip to Moscow is usually safe for mainstream travelers. Most tourists in Moscow only face potential issues with petty crime, though terrorism is also a concern. Visitors should stick to the principal tourist areas and abide by the local security advice.

Travel Advisories

• The U.S. Department of State urges travelers to avoid travel to Russia because of COVID-19 and to "exercise increased caution due to terrorism, harassment, and the arbitrary enforcement of local laws."  
• Anyone exploring more of Russia should avoid "The North Caucasus, including Chechnya and Mount Elbrus, due to terrorism, kidnapping,   and   risk of civil unrest." Also, travelers should stay away from "Crimea due to Russia’s occupation of the Ukrainian territory   and   abuses by its occupying authorities."  
• Canada states travelers should use a high degree of caution in Russia due to the threat of terrorism and crime.  

Is Moscow Dangerous?

The Moscow city center is typically safe. In general, the closer you are to the Kremlin , the better. Travelers mainly need to be aware of their surroundings and look out for petty crime. Be especially careful in tourist areas such as Arbat Street and crowded places like the Moscow Metro transit system. The suburbs are also generally fine, though it is advised to stay away from Maryino and Perovo districts.

Terrorism has occurred in the Moscow area, leading authorities to increase security measures. Be more careful at tourist and transportation hubs, places of worship, government buildings, schools, airports, crowds, open markets, and additional tourist sites.

Pickpockets and purse snatching happen often in Russia, perpetrated by groups of children and teenagers who distract tourists to get their wallets and credit cards. Beware of people asking you for help, who then trick you into their scheme. Don’t expect a backpack to be a safe bag bet; instead, invest in something that you can clutch close to your body or purchase a money belt . Always diversify, storing some money in a separate location so that if you are pickpocketed, you'll have cash elsewhere. Keep an eye out for thieves in public transportation, underground walkways, tourist spots, restaurants, hotel rooms and homes, restaurants, and markets.

Is Moscow Safe for Solo Travelers?

Large cities like Moscow in Russia are overall fairly safe if you are traveling alone, and the Moscow Metro public transit is a secure and easy way to get around. But it is still a good idea to follow basic precautions as in any destination. Avoid exploring alone at night, especially in bad areas. You may want to learn some basic Russian phrases or bring a dictionary, as many locals don't speak English. However, in case you need any help, there are tourist police that speak English. Also, exploring with other trusted travelers and locals or on professional tours is often a good way to feel safe.

Is Moscow Safe for Female Travelers?

Catcalling and street harassment are infrequent in Moscow and the rest of Russia and females traveling alone don't usually have problems. There are plenty of police officers on the streets as well. Still, it serves to stick to Moscow's well-lit, public areas, avoid solo night walks, and use your instincts. Women frequenting bars may take receive some friendly attention. Females can wear whatever they want, but those entering Orthodox churches will be required to cover up. Though women in Russia are independent, domestic violence and other inequality issues take place regularly.

Safety Tips for LGBTQ+ Travelers

Russia is not known as a gay-friendly country. However, Moscow is one of the more welcoming cities with a blooming LGBTQ+ community and many friendly restaurants, bars, clubs, and other venues. Hate crimes in Russia have increased since the 2013 anti-gay propaganda law. Openly LGBTQ+ tourists in this conservative country may experience homophobic remarks, discrimination, or even violence, especially if traveling with a partner. Also, while women hold hands or hug publicly—whether romantically involved or not—men should avoid public displays of affection to prevent being insulted or other issues.

Safety Tips for BIPOC Travelers

Moscow  and other big cities in Russia have sizable populations of various cultures, so discrimination against BIPOC travelers is rarer than in other parts of the country where it can become dangerous. Some people living in Russia who are Black, Asian, Jewish, and from other backgrounds have experienced racial discrimination and violence. Tourists won't usually experience overt racism but may be the recipients of some stares. If anyone should bother you, be polite and resist being taunted into physically defending yourself.

Safety Tips for Travelers

Travelers should consider the following general tips when visiting:

• It's best not to drink the tap water. If you do, boil it before drinking, though showering is safe and the amount used to brush teeth is generally not harmful. Mineral water is widely drunk, especially at restaurants, and if you prefer not to have it carbonated ask for “ voda byez gaz” (water without gas).
• If you need emergency assistance in case of fire, terrorism, medical issues, or more, dial 112 in Russia for bilingual operators.
• Be judicious about taking photographs, especially of police or officials. This can potentially bring unwanted attention to yourself by members of law enforcement who won’t mind asking to see your passport. Also avoid snapping photos of official-looking buildings, such as embassies and government headquarters.
• Carry your passport in as secure a manner as possible. If you get stopped for any reason by the police, they can fine or arrest you if you don't have the document with you. Also, keep photocopies of your passport, the page on which your travel visa appears, and any other documents that relate to your stay in Russia.
• Use official taxis only and steer clear of illegal taxi companies, especially at night. Ask your hotel to call a reputable taxi company.

U.S. Department of State. " Russia Travel Advisory ." August 6, 2020.

Government of Canada. " Official Global Travel Advisories ." November 19, 2020.

Is It Safe in Peru?

Is It Safe in Guatemala?

Is It Safe in Rio de Janeiro?

Is It Safe in Barbados?

Is It Safe in Egypt?

Is It Safe in Sweden?

Is It Safe in Colombia?

Is It Safe in Jamaica?

Is It Safe in Germany?

Is It Safe in Iceland?

Is It Safe in Mexico?

2020 Travel Warnings for Countries in Africa

Is It Safe in Russia?

Is It Safe in Amsterdam?

Is It Safe in Thailand?

Is It Safe in Trujillo, Peru?

Psychology, tourism

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2015
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Kevin Moore 3  

238 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Decrop, A. 2006 Vacation Decision Making. Wallingford: CABI.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gnoth, J., and X. Matteucci 2014 A Phenomenological View of the Behavioural Tourism Literature. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:3-21.

Article   Google Scholar  

March, R., and A. Woodside 2009 Tourism Behaviour: Traveller’s Decisions and Actions. Wallingford: CABI.

Google Scholar  

Pearce, P. 1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour. Oxford: Pergamon.

Pearce, P. 2005 Tourist Behaviour: Themes and Conceptual Schemes. Clevedon: Channel View.

Pearce, P. 2011 Tourist Behaviour and the Contemporary World. Bristol: Channel View.

Plog, S. 2001 Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(3):13-24.

Stringer, P., and P. Pearce 1984 Toward a Symbiosis of Social Psychology and Tourism Studies. Annals of Tourism Research 11:5-14.

Stringer, P., and P. Pearce 1991 Psychology and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18:136-154.

Van Raaij, W., and D. Francken 1984 Vacation Decisions, Activities and Satisfactions. Annals of Tourism Research 11:101-112.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Environment, Society and Design, Lincoln University, Ellesmere Junction Rd, 7647, Lincoln, New Zealand

Kevin Moore

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Moore .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Hospitality Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin, USA

Jafar Jafari

School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

Honggen Xiao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 © Crown

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Moore, K. (2015). Psychology, tourism. In: Jafari, J., Xiao, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_295-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_295-1

Received : 19 January 2015

Accepted : 19 January 2015

Published : 24 September 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-01669-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

TravelAwaits

Our mission is to serve the 50+ traveler who's ready to cross a few items off their bucket list.

19 Unique And Fabulous Experiences In Moscow

• Destinations

Thinking of visiting Russia? When visiting such a famous city, one must, of course, visit the iconic landmarks first. Moscow has plenty of those, most of them in the center of the city, which is very well-planned for tourists. Once you’ve seen the sights that are on most travelers’ lists, it’s time to branch out and visit some of the lesser-known sites, and there are some fascinating places to see and things to do.

I know this list is long, but I just couldn’t help myself. You probably won’t have the time to see them all. But that’s okay. Just scroll through the list and choose what sounds the most interesting to you. Where possible, make sure to book in advance, as things can get crowded, especially during high season.

1. The Red Square, Kremlin, And Surroundings

Red Square (Krasnya Ploshad) is the heart and soul of Russia, and where much of the country’s history has unfolded. This is the most famous landmark in Moscow and indeed the whole country, it’s an absolute must-do! The square is always full of people and has a rather festive atmosphere!

Saint Basil’s Cathedral

This is the famous church with the rainbow-colored, onion-domed roof. The cathedral was commissioned in the 1500s by Ivan the Terrible and according to legend, the Tsar thought it was so beautiful, that he ordered that the architect’s eyes be cut out afterward, so he could never build anything more beautiful! He wasn’t called Ivan the Terrible for no reason!

Lenin’s Mausoleum

The “love-it-or-hate-it” of tourist attractions in Russia. A glass sarcophagus containing the embalmed body of Russian revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin. It may seem a bit bizarre to display the mummy of a person, but it has been there for almost half a century and the 2.5 million visitors who come each year, clearly feel the queuing and thorough body search are worth it, to be in Lenin’s presence.

Pro Tip: no photos and no loud talking are allowed inside the Mausoleum.

Eternal Flame

There is an Eternal Flame in honor of an unknown soldier on the left side of Red Square. The hourly changing of the guards is worth seeing.

The Kremlin is the official residence of the Russian president. You can see it from the outside, or you can take an excursion to one of the museums located inside. This is the biggest active fortress in Europe, and holds a week’s worth of attractions! Once behind the 7,332-feet of walls, there are five squares, four cathedrals, 20 towers, various museums, and the world’s largest bell and cannon to see. Worth a special mention is the Armory Chamber that houses a collection of the famous Faberge Eggs.

Pro Tip: You can only go inside the Kremlin if you are part of a tourist group.

2. Bolshoi Theatre

Bolshoi Theatre translates to “The Big Theatre” in Russian, and the building is home to both the Bolshoi Ballet and Bolshoi Opera — among the oldest and most famous ballet and opera companies in the world.

Pro Tip: It’s hard to get an inexpensive ticket, so if you’re reading well in advance of going to Moscow then try buying tickets on the official website . Last-minute tickets cost around $250 per person. If this is out of your budget, about an hour before a performance, you can try buying a ticket at the entrance from a reseller. Most can speak enough English to negotiate the price.

Tour the Bolshoi Theatre: You can take a group guided tour of the Bolshoi Theatre which focuses on the history and architecture of the theatre and behind the scenes. There’s an English language tour that lasts 2 hours and costs around $300 for a group of up to six.

3. Luxury Shopping At GUM And TSUM

Russia’s main department store, GUM, has a stunning interior that is home to over 100 high-end boutiques, selling a variety of brands: from luxurious Dior to the more affordable Zara. Even if shopping is not on your Moscow to-do list GUM is still worth a visit; the glass-roofed arcade faces Red Square and offers a variety of classy eateries. TSUM, one of the biggest luxury malls in town, is right behind the Bolshoi and GUM. It’s an imposing building with lots of history, and worth a visit just for its design and its glass roof.

4. Christ The Savior Cathedral

This is one of Russia’s most visited cathedrals and is a newer addition to the gorgeous array of Muscovite cathedrals, but don’t let its young age fool you. After perestroika, in the early 90s, the revived Russian Orthodox Church was given permission to build a cathedral on this site. It did the location honors and built the largest temple of the Christian Orthodox Church. The façade is as grand as you’d expect, but it’s the inside that will mesmerize you, with its domes, gold, gorgeous paintings, and decor!

The cathedral is located just a few hundred feet away from the Kremlin and was the site of the infamous Pussy Riot protest against Putin back in 2012.

Pro Tip: Bring a shawl to cover your hair as is the local custom.

5. Gorky Park

Moscow’s premier green space, Gorky Park (Park Gor’kogo) is the city’s biggest and most famous park. There is entertainment on offer here for every taste, from outdoor dancing sessions to yoga classes, volleyball, ping-pong, rollerblading, and bike and boat rental in summer. In winter, half the park turns into a huge ice skating rink. Gorky Park is also home to an open-air movie theater and the Garage Museum of Contemporary Art. There is also Muzeon Art Park, a dynamic contemporary space with a unique collection of 700 sculptures. It is located right in front of Gorky Park.

6. Sparrow Hills Park

If you take a walk from Gorky Park, along the Moscow River embankment, you’ll end up in the city’s other legendary park, Sparrow Hills. Although the park doesn’t offer as many activities as its hip neighbor, it has a great panoramic view of the city

Pro Tip: You can take a free walking tour to all of the above attractions with an English-speaking guide.

7. River Cruising

One of the best ways to experience Moscow, and see all the famous landmarks, but from a different angle, is from the Moscow River. Take a river cruise. Avoid the tourist crowds. There are little nameless old boats that do the cruise, but if you are looking for a more luxurious experience take the Radisson Blu cruise and enjoy the sights with some good food and a glass of wine.

8. Metro Hopping

Inaugurated in the 1930s, the Moscow Metro system is one of the oldest and most beautiful in the world. Started in Stalinist times, each station is a work of art in its own right. I’d recommend touring the stations between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. This way, you’ll be able to properly see it without the crowds. Ideally, I’d recommend taking a tour with a knowledgeable guide with GuruWalk, who will tell you stories of forgotten stations and how the history of the country is interconnected with the metro development. If going by yourself, then I definitely recommend checking out: Mayakovskaya, Ploschad Revolutsii, Kievskaya, Kropotkinskaya, Kurskaya, and Novoslobodskaya stations.

Visit the free Moscow Metro Museum: For real train enthusiasts, located in the southern vestibule of Sportivnaya station is a small free museum. Here you can take a peek into the driver’s cabin, see a collection of metro tokens from different cities, and see different models of a turnstile, traffic lights, escalator, and more.

9. Moscow State University View

In his effort to create a grander Moscow, Stalin had seven skyscrapers built in different parts of town; they’re called the Seven Sisters. The largest of these buildings and the one with the best view is the main building of the Moscow State University. Although this is a little outside the city center, the view is more than worth it.

10. Izmailovsky Market

Mostly known for the city’s largest flea market, the district of Izmaylovo is home to a maze of shops where you can get just about anything, from artisan crafts to traditional fur hats, handcrafted jewelry, fascinating Soviet memorabilia, and antiquities. It’s also one of Moscow’s largest green spaces. There are often no price tags, so be prepared to haggle a bit. Head to one of the market cafes for a warming mulled wine before continuing your shopping spree.

The History of Vodka Museum is found here, and the museum’s restaurant is the perfect place to sample various brands of the national drink.

Once you’ve covered the more touristy spots, Moscow still has plenty to offer, and the places below will also be full of locals! So for some local vibes, I would strongly recommend the spots below!

11. Moscow City

With a completely different vibe, Moscow City (also referred to as Moscow International Business Center) is like a mini Dubai, with lots of impressive tall glass buildings. Here is where you’ll find the best rooftops in towns, like Ruski Restaurant, the highest restaurant both in Moscow City and in Europe. Moscow City is great for crowd-free shopping and the best panoramic views of the city.

12. Tretyakov Gallery

Tretyakov Gallery started as the private collection of the Tretyakov brothers, who were 19th-century philanthropists. They gave their private collection to the government after their deaths. If there is just one museum you visit in Moscow, I recommend this one!

13. Tsaritsyno Museum-Reserve

Tsaritsyno was a residence of Catherine the Great more than two centuries ago. It became derelict during the Soviet era but has now been fully renovated. With its opulently decorated buildings, gardens, meadows, and forests, Tsaritsyno Park is the perfect place for a green respite in Moscow.

14. Kolomenskoye

A 10-minute metro ride from the city center is Kolomenskoe Museum-Reserve, where you can get an idea of what Russia looked like 200 years ago. You’ll find ancient churches (one dating back to the 16th century), the oldest garden in Moscow, and the wonderful fairytale wooden palace of Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich, father of Peter the Great.

15. Ostankino TV Tower

Built in 1967, Ostankino TV Tower was the tallest free-standing construction in the world at the time, it’s still the 8th tallest building in the world and the highest in Europe. It’s also the best observation deck, with a glass floor and 360-degree views. The speedy elevators take you 1,105 feet in next to no time.

Pro Tip: You need to book in advance; entrance is based on specific ticket times and the capacity is limited and only a certain number of tourists are allowed per day. Don’t forget your passport, you’ll need it to get through security.

16. Zaryadye Park

Zaryadye is a newly opened, landscaped urban park so new you won’t find it in a lot of tour guides. The park is near Red Square and is divided into four climatic zones: forest, steppe, tundra, and floodplains, depicting the variety of climatic zones in Russia.

These last three suggestions are a little quirky, but all are really worth checking out.

17. Museum Of Soviet Arcade Games

Release your inner child playing on 66 arcade machines from the Soviet era! What a great way to spend a couple of hours when tired of visiting museums and palaces. The staff speaks excellent English and are happy to explain how the games work.

18. Moscow Rooftop Tour

Take a 1-hour private Moscow rooftop tour with an experienced roofer. I can just about guarantee none of your friends will be able to say they’ve done it! For your comfort, I recommend wearing comfortable shoes. Take your camera, there are some amazing photo opportunities out there!

19. Sanduny Banya

This classical Russian bathhouse opened its doors in 1808 and is famous for combining traditional Russian banya services with luxurious interiors and service. If you enjoy spas and saunas, then you should experience a Russian bathhouse at least once in your life! Go with an open mind and hire a specialist to steam you as it’s meant to be done — by being beaten repeatedly with a besom (a leafy branch)! This is said to improve circulation, but is best done by a professional!

So there you have my list of things to do in Moscow. I could have gone on and on and on, but I didn’t want to try your patience! There are so many things to do in this vibrant city that you’ll definitely need to allocate several days for exploring.

Here are some other reasons to visit Moscow and Russia:

• 7 Reasons To Put Moscow On Your Travel Bucket List
• Russia 30 Years (And 30 Pounds) Ago
• Massive Mysterious Craters Appearing Again In Siberia

Born and raised in Sydney, Australia, before moving to Africa at the age of 21, Sarah Kingdom is a mountain climber and guide, traveler, yoga teacher, trail runner, and mother of two. When she is not climbing or traveling she lives on a cattle ranch in central Zambia. She guides and runs trips regularly in India, Nepal, Tibet, Russia, and Ethiopia, taking climbers up Tanzania’s Mount Kilimanjaro numerous times a year.

Moscow, Russia

See the official Rolling Stones web site in Russia , also having info in English!

How "the rolling stones" solve the problem of unemployment in moscow, their own uncompetence, their own openess, thanks to constantin preobrazhensky (moscow) for supplying info about the web site and the stones show in russia. also thanks to leonid ulitsky , italy, for info..