.92.! .
as...“ .3 ; 2.. .
afiffific. r 5. . s . . l
. :3.

.5qu .mmwns. m. u

‘.

 

, 1

2%.. .91.»
CG

.3 . fl... .
I .

usmfikfl. VS;

.1: A... ..
.muishni. if .. .,
5...... it. . {dry 1.8.114
1.2.: .§.£¢§:..i9 , Elvin
3.5.234: 53:»! I .1! 2.311.
. u .Hqituci .I. a
5.0.4.5".1?)

HM!
.1

. ail.
3‘
xv

I 1

{ortizl .
.1 u‘lxyi V
Slit...
‘41}

. x artilnu.
2.6....

 

‘0-
5. . .v ..
31.»: .upr ‘ .
.13.‘ ;

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

TRAVEL BY PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES: A
DIFFUSION STUDY FOCUSED ON OPINION LEADERSHIP

Doctoral

presented by
ANNETTE MARIE RUMMEL

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Community, Agriculture,

Recreation, Resource Studies

Mimic/>5”

Major Pr‘oiegs’or’s Sigfiture

5-5-2008

 

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

AW 15802 910

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'IProj/AcoSPres/CIRC/DaleDueindd

 

TRAVEL BY PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES: A DIFFUSION STUDY
F OCUSED ON OPINION LEADERSHIP

By

Annette Marie Rummel

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies

2008

ABSTRACT

TRAVEL BY PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES: A DIFFUSION STUDY
FOCUSED ON OPINION LEADERSHIP

By
Annette Marie Rummel

Travel and tourism is a $1.3 trillion industry in the United States. Effective
tourism marketers recognize that identification and customer conversion of untapped
market segments is tantamount to successful tourism marketing efforts. Of the United
States traveling public, 21 million adults with disabilities travel for pleasure representing
a significant market segment. Diffusion of innovation theory research has shown that
some people ftmction as opinion leaders serving to accelerate the diffusion of products,
goods or services and participate at the highest levels of word of mouth interpersonal
communications events influencing the selection of tourism products. Understanding the
characteristics of disabled traveler opinion leaders serves to provide marketers with
additional tools to apply within tourism industry marketing strategic plans and for

developers and planners to build accessible facilities and infrastructure.

The objectives of this study were: 1.) to identify of opinion leadership within the
disabled traveler population, 2.) to explore tourism information needs as they exist in this
population, 3.) determine the extent to which various travel information sources are likely
to be employed for travel planning, and 4.) to identify characteristics of and differences
between the general population and the disabled traveler. Data were collected in a mail
survey. A total of 578 usable questionnaires were collected (an achieved 24% response

rate).

Each objective was met. Identification of opinion leadership within the disabled
sample occurred at a rate of 58%. Opinion leaders receive necessary information when
making hotel reservations and when inquiring about disability services, but indicated that
they do not receive necessary disability service information when using 800 numbers,
through web sites or when making airline reservations. Interestingly, even with the
indication that they do not receive the necessary disability service information from the
web; the disabled sample indicated the web and electronic media as their travel
information sources of choice for travel planning. A disturbing finding was the disparity
between household income levels between the groups, with the disabled population

lagging far behind.

In addition to these study objectives, additional findings pertain to preferred trip
length, geographic location of travel destinations, travel and repeat travel behavior, travel
party composition and the self perception of travel experience and travel skill. Severity
level of opinion leader’s disability and how this influenced travel behavior is also

included in the study.

From these results, tourism marketing product intervention program could be
developed to aide in development of programs and strategies to expand services to this
underserved market and to train opinion leaders to influence their followers to select a

particular tourism destination and hospitality services.

Copyright by
Annette Marie Rummel
2008

DEDICATION

This dissertation and my doctoral program are dedicated to my husband, William
Gallagher Rummel, and our daughters, Elizabeth Loraine Rummel and Sarah Caroline

Rummel. Thank you for everything good in my life.

“It is never too late to be what you might have been.”

George Elliot

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the teachers at Delta College who helped me understand how to
learn, the professors at Northwood University who inspired me to achieve, my Rochester Institute
of Technology partner in crime — Dr. Tracy Weber. I will remember with fondness the way we
made our way though our Master’s program. I am grateful to my mentors Dr. Dick Marechi, who
made me promise to complete my PhD. in tourism; Dr. Jim Jacobs, who pushed me to THINK
differently, and to MICRONY, who demonstrated selfless team success. Thanks are extended to
Dr. Joseph Fridgen for supporting my admittance to MSU and to Dr. Donald Holecek, whom I’ve
had the privilege of working with for more than two decades. To Dr. Christine Vogt I wish to
extend my grateful appreciation for her willingness to serve as my committee Chairperson. Dr.
Vogt pushed me to a higher level of performance. To Dr. James Dearing who introduced me to
Diffusion Theory. I will forever be grateful to Paige Schneider for her willingness to help,
support and teach me during my most difficult time at MSU. Thanks also to my two helpful
Bulgarian kids Sergy Kalnish and Asen Marchev. To my father and mother, Leo Charles and
Marilyn Lucille (Roberts) Eckenswiller, who blessed and encouraged all their children to achieve.
I do miss you both. To my sisters Veronica, JoAnn and Mardi who motivated me to persevere.
To my brothers Bill and Doug who each taught me very important life lessons. To my brother-in-
Iaw State Representative Ken Horn and sister-in-law Alana, I am so proud to have you both in our
family. Thank you to my mother and father-in-law, Bill and MaryAnn Rummel and sisters and

brothers-in-law Cari, Mike, Sue, Jon and Martha with whom I’ve been blessed.

Loving thanks are extended to my husband Willy and children Elizabeth & Sarah who
endured the trials and tribulations of my education, to whom this effort is dedicated. Ultimately I

give thanks to the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, only through whom all things are possible.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...................... ‘ ..................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................ 1
Statement of the problem and research questions ...................................... 6
Purpose of the study ........................................................................ 8
Delimitations ............................................................................... 8
Limitations .................................................................................. 9
Assumptions ............................................................................... 10
Definition of terms ........................................................................ 10
Organization of the dissertation ....................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................... 14
Review of the literature .................................................................... 14
Market segmentation ........................................................................ 14
Opinion leadership ......................................................................... 15
Travel life cycle ............................................................................ 17
Travel decision-making travel planning ................................................. 18
Travel specific interpersonal communication information source use .............. 19
Trip planning information source use ................................................... 20
Mass media source use ..................................................................... 21
Proposed hypotheses and conceptual model ............................................ 22
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................... 27
Methodology ............................................................................... 27
Instrumentation ............................................................................. 27
Sampling design ............................................................................ 29
Sample size ................................................................................. 3O
Selection of participants ................................................................... 31
Survey administration ..................................................................... 32
Mail survey response rate ................................................................. 37
Sources of survey error .................................................................... 38
Description of the sample ................................................................. 38
Statistical tests and analysis ............................................................. 41
Summary .................................................................................. 42

vii '

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................. 45
Results .................................. ‘ .................................................. 45
Demographics .............................................................................. 46
Travel proclivity .......................................................................... 51
Perceived travel experience .............................................................. 61
Physically disabled sample travel proclivity .......................................... 63
Hypotheses Testing ..................................................................... 76
Summary ................................................................................. 102

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................... 106
Summary, discussion and implications .................................................. 106
Key results and implications ............................................................. 106
Limitations of the findings ............................................................... 110
Future research .......................................................................... 1 l 1
Final comments .......................................................................... l 13
Management recommendations ........................................................ 114

APPENDICES ................................................................................... 1 16
Appendix A - Survey letters ............................................................. 117
Appendix B - Survey instrument ....................................................... 119
Appendix C - Post card ................................................................... 128
Appendix D — Survey reminder letter .................................................. 130
Appendix E — Non-response survey .................................................... 132
Appendix F - Magazine titles ........................................................... 136

REFERENCES ................................................................................. 140

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Travel opinion leadership scale mean scores ......................................... 29
Table 2. Study response rate ....................................................................... 34
Table 3. Sample respondents organized by disability .......................................... 37
Table 4. Population characteristics comparison of general sample and physically

disabled sample ........................................................................... 40
Table 5. Gender ..................................................................................... 47
Table 6. Age ......................................................................................... 47
Table 7. Education ................................................................................. 48
Table 8. Marital status .............................................................................. 48
Table 9. Household income ....................................................................... 49
Table 10. Children in household ................................................................. 49
Table 11. Overview of demographic results .................................................... 50
Table 12. Number of day-long vacations taken in past 12 months .......................... 52
Table 13. Number of short overnight vacations taken in past 12 months ................... 53
Table 14. Number of long overnight vacations taken in past 12 months ................... 54
Table 15. Trip month of recent memorable trip ................................................ 55
Table 16. Trip year of recent memorable trip ................................................... 55
Table 17. Geographic location of recent memorable trip destination visited ............... 56
Table 18. Visited destination before recent memorable trip ................................. 57
Table 19. Travel party composition for the recent memorable trip .......................... 57
Table 20. Overview of travel proclivity results .................................................. 59
Table 21. Perceptions of travel by geographic location of destination ...................... 62
Table 22. Perceived self assessment for travel .................................................... 63
Table 23. Classification of physical disability ................................................. 65
Table 24. Age became physically disabled ...................................................... 66

ix

Table 25

Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.
Table 37.
Table 38.

Table 39.
Table 40.

Table 41.
Table 42.

Table 43.

Table 44.

Table 45

LIST OF TABLES

(Continued)
. Number of years lived with disability .........................................

Recent trip - month preferred for physically disabled sample .............
Recent trip year for physically disabled sample ..............................
Geographic location of destination visited physically disabled ............
Visited destination before physically disabled sample .......................
Travel party composition physically disabled sample .......................
Disability service and information ratings .....................................
Overview disability sample travel proclivity .................................
Opinion leadership ...............................................................
Pre-trip planning activities for physically disabled sample .................
Years physically disabled ........................................................
Propensity to travel for vacation or leisure ....................................
Consideration of self relating to travel ........................................

Number of day-long vacations taken by physically disabled sample in
the past 12 months ................................................................

Average number of day-long vacations by physically disabled sample...

Number of short overnight vacations taken by the physically disable
sample in past 12 months ........................................................

Average number of short overnight vacations by disabled sample ........

Number of long overnight vacations taken by the physically disabled
sample in past 12 months ..........................................................................

Average number of long overnight vacations by physically disabled
sample ..............................................................................

Number of day-long vacations by disabled levels ............................

. Number of short overnight vacations taken physically disabled sample.

67
68
68
69
70
71
72
74
78
78
79
80
81

82
83

84

84

85

85
87

88

LIST OF TABLES

(Continued)
Table 46. Number of long overnight vacations taken physically disabled sample...

Table 47. Physically disabled classification and average number of vacation types
taken ...................................................

Table 48. Trip planning internet sites use by the physically disabled sample ........

Table 49. Importance of trip planning intemet sites to the physically disabled in
trip planning .......................................................................

Table 50. Use of trip planning sources by the physically disabled sample ...........

Table 51. Number of trip planning sources used by the physically disabled
sample ..............................................................................

Table 52. Importance of trip planning information sources by the physically
disabled sample ...................................................................

Table 53. Interpersonal communication events by the physically disabled sample.
Table 54. Use of newspapers by the physically disabled sample .......................
Table 55. Use of radio by the physically disabled sample ...............................
Table 56. Use of television by the physically disabled sample .........................
Table 57. Use of magazine titles by the physically disabled sample ...................
Table 58. Use of magazine articles by the physically disabled sample ...............

Table 59. Importance of electronic media information sources and print media
information sources in vacation planning by physically disabled
opinion leaders .....................................................................

Table 60. Overview of hypotheses testing, theories and areas of study ...............

xi

89

9O
91

92
93

94

95
96
97
98
99
99
100

102

104

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual model .............................. 23
Figure 2. Study respondent assigned group .............................................. 32

xii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

If asked to select one industry that makes a substantial impact on the economy of
the United States odds are most people would not readily identify the tourism industry.
However, travel and tourism is a $1.3 trillion industry in the United States (Travel
Industry of America, 2007). Travel and tourism generates $100 billion in tax revenue for

local, state, and federal government (Travel Industry of America, 2005).

From the United States tourism industry perspective, private and public
organizations invest enormous amount of money in advertising, promotional efforts and
in purchasing products and services to host this $1.3 trillion dollar demand. Effective
tourism marketers are aware that people are different and desire diverse types of tourism
experiences (Selin, 1994). With this understanding, the tourism industry has increasingly
segmented customers when developing marketing strategies (Cha, McCleary & Uysal,
1995; Gartner, 1996; Goeldner & Ritchie, 2003; Hsu & Lee, 2002; Loker & Perdue,
1992; MacKay, Andereck & Vogt, 2002; Mo, Havitz & Howard, 1994). Market
segmentation is a process that identifies small and specialized markets that eventually
build into a larger customer base (Shani & Chalasani, 1992). One such market is the

physically disabled traveler.

The US. Census (2000) reported 49.7 million people with some type of long
lasting condition or disability. These people represented 19% of the 257.2 million people
who were aged five and older in the civilian non-institutionalized population (or nearly
one in five). Within this population, they found that, of the 49.7 million people with

some type of long lasting condition or disability, 21.2 million possessed a disability

limiting basic walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying objects; already
representing a significant customer base. The US. Census (2000) also reported disability
rising with age. The profile of the largest aging population segment is the baby boomers,
identified as being independent, outgoing and possessing the most money of all
population age segments (Dychtwald, 1999). Since 60% to 70% of those classified as
disabled in the United States are 65 and older, to gain an understanding of the elderly
would be beneficial (AARP, 2007; Burnett & Paul, 1996, Phillips & Stemhal, 1977).

The population of the United States is aging, and the number of persons with disabilities
is growing at a steady pace; therefore, it is becoming increasingly difficult to overlook
this potentially desirable market segment (AARP, 2007; Burnett & Baker, 2001;

Dychtwald, 1999).

The following legal mandates protect the disabled with regards to recreation and
tourism: the Social Security Act, 1936; Vocational Rehabilitation Act, 1963; PL 88-29
Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1963; Education for Handicapped Children Act,
1967; PL 90-480 Architectural Barriers Act, 1968; PL 91-517 Developmental
Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act, 1971; PL 93-112 Rehabilitation Act
of 1973; PL 93-516 Rehabilitation Act Amendment of 1974; PL94-142 Education of All
Handicapped Children Act, 1975; PL99-457 Education of the Handicapped Act
Amendment, 1986 and the ADA (American with Disabilities Act, 1990) which provided
the mechanism for litigation. These laws require businesses and organizations to invest
in designing, retro-fitting or remodeling infrastructure to address the needs of the often
marginalized or largely ignored people with disabilities population. Tourism industry

members are not exempt from compliance. Tourism facilities serve the public and many

have made sizeable investments to update infrastructure, purchased specialized
equipment, and implemented policies to accommodate the various needs of people with
disabilities. Faced with large mandates and voluntary investment, many tourism industry
members wish to understand how they will realize a return on their investments; or
further, profit from these actions. Hence, developing marketing strategies targeted at this
population for which product and infrastructure investments have been made appear to be

necessary and prudent.

An early step in tourism marketing is the division of potential markets based upon
meaningful market segments (Cha, McCleary & Uysal, 1995; Gartner, 1996; Goeldner &
Ritchie, 2003; Hsu & Lee, 2002; Loker & Perdue, 1992; Mo, Havitz & Howard, 1994;
Sung, Morrison & O’Leary, 2000). Market segmentation assumes segment heterogeneity
(Gartner, 1996). When provided with product choices, people within a segment may act
homogeneously or in a similar manner. Heterogeneity may be established by applying
person specific variables (e.g., geographic, demographic), situational variables such as
types of products purchased while vacationing versus those made while at home, or as a
result of interaction of the two (Kotler, 1991). To capture product heterogeneity,
organizations can introduce new products to their product mix. However, to segment a
market, three conditions must be met. First, each segment member must possess one trait
linking them together, which is not present for non-members. Second, each must be large
enough for marketing purposes or to be potentially profitable to pursue. Finally,
marketing access to the segment must be achievable through practicable means such as

social networks, the media or by direct contact (Gartner, 1996).

The disability market fulfills these three criteria as demonstrated by the following:
First, although the severity of disabilities and their implications for behavior are diverse,
disabled people share some level of limitation (Burnett, 1991; Burnett & Paul, 1996;
Klippel, Sweeny & Sweeny, 1974; Schiffman, 1971). Second, according to the AARP
(2007), the disabled traveler market segment is growing, making it an attractive market
and a potentially profitable new market segment for tourism suppliers interested in
diversifying and capitalizing on the mandates required by the ADA (1990). Finally,
access to this segment is possible through affinity organizations (e. g. National
Association for Persons with Disabilities, the American Association for the Physically
Disabled, Paralyzed Veterans of America); through the intemet (e. g. The Disabled
Traveler, The Open Doors Organization); via magazines (e. g. New Mobility, Disability

Books); and by way of traditional electronic media.

Understanding the destination selection process of the disabled traveler segment
would be an important first step in forecasting this consumer’s behavior, as well as
providing a basis for better decision-making regarding investments into community
infrastructure, business facilities and services. “Numerous studies have examined the
types of sources used and the level of information usage within a travel decision context.
These studies have shown direct experience and advice from family, friends, and relatives
(interpersonal communication) as a preferred and highly used information source, in
contrast to advertisements and articles found in mass media formats (e. g., newspaper,

magazine, radio, television)” (Vogt, 1993, page 1).

A theory of communications, Diffusion of Innovations, casts a special focus on

interpersonal communications within social systems (Gatignon & Robertson, 1985).

Within diffusion theory, the role of opinion leader has been found to mediate mass media
effects (Rogers, 2005). Opinion leaders are information seekers (Troncalli & Thompson,
1972). Further, opinion leadership has been positively associated with cosmopoliteness
where information from outside the immwiate environment appears to be important
(Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955; Lazarsfeld, Berelson & Gaudet, I948; Lionberger, 1953;
Rogers, 2005). Product interest, media exposure and competence have also been found to
be positively associated with opinion leadership (Coleman, Katz & Menzel, 195 7;
Gatignon & Robertson, 1985; Myers & Robertson, 1972; Nicosia, 1964). Opinion
leaders’ innovativeness has been shown to be a function of the group’s norm: where
group norms favor innovativeness, the relationship will tend to be positive (Coleman,
Katz & Menzel, 1957; Lionberger, 1953; Menzel, 1960; Myers & Robertson, 1972;
Wilkening, 1952). Opinion leaders have been identified as receiving the greatest number
of sociometn'c choices are involved in the largest ntunber of social networks, and are
identified by others as sought out for advice (Kotler & Armstrong, 2006; Rogers, 2005).
Thus, gaining an understanding of interpersonal communications, opinion leadership and
personal experience roles in the disabled traveler’s travel destination selection process

may be important in serving and benefiting from this market segment.

Identification of opinion leadership is also thought to be a critical determinant of
word of mouth communication and interpersonal influence affecting the diffusion of new
products, concepts, and services (King & Summers, 1970). Opinion leaders drive trends,
influence mass opinion and, most importantly, sell a great many products (Kotler &

Armstrong, 2006).

Diffusion studies have been accomplished in the areas of agricultural innovations
(Ryan & Gross, 1943), medical practices (Kelly et al., 1991; Kelly et al., 1997),
technological advancements (Braun, 2003), media (Reardon & Rogers, 1988), marketing
(Arndt, 1967) and politics (Mohr, 1969). Use of this theory in the area of travel and
tourism and the identification of opinion leaders, who are key to interpersonal influence
affecting diffusion of a new products, however has been limited (Goldsmith, Flynn &
Bonn, 1994; Rossello, Aguilo & Riera, 2005; Sahadev & Islam, 2005; Shorter-Judson,

2000; Troncalli & Thompson, 1972).

It is accepted throughout the tourism literature that word of mouth advertising is a
powerful marketing tool (Bieger & Laesser, 2004; Goldsmith et al., 1994; Haywood,
1989; Hsu, Kang & Lam, 2006; Lindberg-Repo, 1999; Money & Crotts, 2003; Murphy,
2000; Vogt & Kaplanidou, 2003) and the most critical determinant of an area’s economic
tourism health (Gartner, 1996). According to Haywood (1989) popular services such as
travel and food seem to generate significantly more word of mouth than do experiences
of more mundane products. Opinion leaders have been identified as individuals who
exert considerable personal influence and from whom others seek word of mouth advice
(Amdt, 1967; Reynolds & Darden, 1971). However, identification of opinion leaders

within the disabled traveler market segments of the tourism industry has yet to take place.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study focuses on the identification of opinion leaders and measures opinion
leadership in travel planning and decision-making by people with disabilities. This study

fills two gap areas within the literature: lack of use of Diffusion of Innovations Theory

with specific focus on identification of opinion leaders in the disabled traveler population
and the role opinion leadership plays in travel decision-making by persons with

disabilities.

To test this phenomenon within the people with disabilities sample, the
investigator will incorporate trait and individual difference variables in the study
instrument to identify opinion leaders. Pre-trip and travel decision-making by people
with physical disabilities was examined using the Diffusion of Innovations Theory

(Rogers, 2005), with a focus on the role of the opinion leader.

Specifically, opinion leadership’s existence within the physically disabled traveler
population was identified, tourism information needs as they exist in this context were
explored and the extent to which various information sources are likely to be employed in

a vacation planning context were described.

The identification of opinion leader information sources used and detection of
patterns of pre-trip information sources employed in travel decision-making by persons
with disabilities involves addressing the following questions: 1. Can the opinion leader be
identified within the tourism market segment of persons with disabilities? 2. If opinion
leaders are identified, can use patterns of pre-trip information sources be identified? 3.
Does length of time a person lives with a disability affect vacation participation levels?

4. Does opinion leadership affect where and when persons with disabilities vacation? 5.
Does opinion leadership affect self consideration pertaining to travel? 6. Does opinion
leadership affect the number of vacations taken? 7. Does classification of disability

affect vacation participation levels? 8. To what extent are the sources likely to be

employed in trip planning? 9. Does opinion leadership affect the number of trip
planning, mass media, electronic and print media sources used in vacation planning?
And, 10. can a tourism product intervention program be developed to educate opinion

leaders to influence their followers to adopt a particular tourism destination?

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study was to examine how the tourism industry may capitalize
on their ADA and voluntary compliance investments, diversify and extend their client
base and satisfy an under-served market segment; persons with disabilities. From an
academic perspective, scholars follow an intellectual paradigm in a research field
enabling the pursuit of a coherent set of research directions. This paradigm imposes and
standardizes a set of assumptions and conceptual biases difficult to recognize and
overcome. Past Diffusion of Innovations research was expanded by searching for
different objectives and providing directions new to Diffusion of Innovations Theory.
Using Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers, 2005) as the theoretical framework, this
study examined the persons with disabilities population and opinion leadership’s

influence on pre-trip travel decision-making.

DELIMITATIONS

This study was delimited to the following:

0 Those individuals who are members of the American Association of

People with Disabilities, who reside in the Great Lakes States of

Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, not the entire population of
physically disabled persons in the United States.

Self-reported attitudes and behaviors related to day-long vacations and
overnight travel to touriSm destinations within the past 12 months.
Survey instrument interaction and information assimilation associated

with their responses.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited in the following ways:

Lack of control for bias factors between exposure to word of mouth and
acceptance of the word of mouth recommendation.

Failure to ascertain a precise time of pre-trip decision-making.

Findings that are reflective of respondents from the selected group and
may not be representative of other physically disabled travelers or
individuals.

Participant’s recall of specific interactions and information used for
decision making process potentially being less than perfect.

The degree to which the study instrument is reliable and valid.

The ability of the study participants to comprehend and respond utilizing

the survey mechanism.

P

 

ASSUMPTIONS

This study assumed the following:

Opinion leaders exist; participate in travel, search for information and use
this information in trip planning.

American Association of People with Disabilities membership list will
provide for physically disabled adults able to complete the study.

The variables selected will accurately reflect consumer characteristics of
the physically disabled traveler and the general population.

The Diffusion of Innovations Theory is a sound and appropriate theory to

apply to the physically disabled traveler market segment.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Cosmopoliteness: the degree to which an individual is oriented outside of a social

system (Rogers, 2005).

Diffusion of innovations: the study of how, why, and at what rate new products,

ideas and technology spread through cultures (Rogers, 2005).

Interpersonal communication: the channels through which two or more people

communicate directly, including face to face, person to audience, over the

telephone/communication technologies (i.e., e-mail, chat rooms, blogs), or mail (Kotler &

Armstrong, 2006)

10

Media rich information source: the information sources focused on

communication of news, information or topical subjects (Burnett & Paul, 1996).

Non-opinion leader: an individual who seeks out advice from others when making

purchase decisions (Flynn, Goldsmith & Eastman, 1996).

Opinion leader: an individual member of a social stratum likely to influence other

persons in their immediate environment (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955).

Opinion leadership: when individuals attempt to influence the purchasing
behavior of other consumers in specific product fields (Flynn, Goldsmith & Eastman,

1996).

Msically disabled: an individual with a physical impairment that substantially
limits one or more activities of life at a given point in time

(http://wwwusdoi.gov/crt/ada/).

Travel contacts: number of contacts who exchanged travel information (Troncalli

& Thompson, 1972).

Travel experience: experience with traveling throughout the Midwest, United

States and internationally (Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998)

Travel life cycle: the birth to death changes over time in the life of the physically

disabled person’s travel activities (Zimmerman, 1982).

Trip planning: the degree and timing the respondent confirms details pertaining to

trips (V ogt & Fesenmaier, 1998).

Tourism specific information sources: information sources used in pre-travel

planning (Vogt & F esenmaier, 1998).

Word of mouth (WOML the passing of information by verbal means, especially
recommendations, but also general information, in an informal, person-to-person manner,
rather than by mass media, advertising, organized publication, or traditional marketing.
Word of mouth is typically considered a spoken communication, although web dialogue,
such as blogs, message boards and emails are often now included in the definition

(Solomon, 2007).
ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION

Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 1, this dissertation provides four
additional chapters in the examination of people with disabilities and opinion leadership.
Chapter 2, review of the literature, first discusses market segmentation and identifies the
conditions to be met to segment a market. Within Chapter 2, the market segmentation
discussion is followed by a description of Diffusion of Innovations Theory and the role of
opinion leadership within the theory, discussion of travel life cycle concept, travel
decision-making and travel planning behavior, travel specific interpersonal
communication information source use, travel specific trip planning information source
use, mass media source use as it relates to the people with disabilities market segment
and concludes with a description of hypotheses to tested and the conceptual model. The
theoretic underpinnings along with the proposed hypotheses addressed within this study
are presented. Chapter 3 contains details regarding the methodologies applied toward

instrumentation development, sample design, survey administration and sample size.

12

This is followed by a description of the selection of participants, survey administration
and the mail survey response rate. Sources of survey error are then discussed. The
chapter concludes with a description of the samples drawn for this study. Chapter 4 is
divided into four sections. The demographic profile of the survey participants is
described in section one. Results for all study participants’ travel proclivity are
highlighted in section two. The physically disabled sample travel information is the
focus of section three and results of the hypotheses testing are presented in section four.
The summary, discussion of key results and implications resulting from this study are
presented in Chapter 5. Limitations of the findings, followed by future research
opportunities are also conferred. The study concludes with final comments pertaining to

the study topic.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter is divided into seven sections. The first six sections are based upon
previous research from a variety of bodies of literature. Each of these sections provides
an overview and discussion pertaining to past research. The final section introduces the
proposed hypothesis to be tested and conceptual model. This chapter’s seven sections
include: market segmentation; opinion leadership; travel life cycle; travel decision-
making and travel planning; travel specific interpersonal communication information
source use and travel specific trip planning information source use; mass media source

use; and proposed hypotheses and conceptual model.
MARKET SEGMENTATION

The division of potential markets based upon meaningful market segments is an
early step in the tourism marketing process (Cha etal., 1995; Gartner, 1996; Goeldner &
Ritchie, 2003; Hsu & Lee, 2002; Loker & Perdue, 1992; Mo, Havitz & Howard, 1994;
Sung et al., 2000). Additionally, market segmentation assumes across segment
heterogeneity (Gartner, 1996). However, when provided with specific product choices,
people within a segment will often act homogeneously. To create product heterogeneity,
organizations can introduce new products to their product mix. Heterogeneity may be
introduced by applying targeted segment specific variables (e. g., geographic,
demographic, psychographic), situational variables such as types of products purchased
while vacationing versus those made while at home, or as a result of interaction of the

two (Kotler, 1991). However, to segment a market, three conditions must be met. First,

14

individual segment member’s must possess at least one trait linking them together, not
present for non-members. Second, the segment must be large enough for marketing
purposes or to be potentially profitable. Finally, access to the segment must be

achievable through targeted marketing (Gartner, I996).

The disability market fulfills these three criteria as demonstrated by the following.
First, physically disabled people share some level of limitation (Burnett & Paul, 1996).
Second, the physically disabled traveler market segment is growing (AARP, 1990),
making it an attractive market and a potentially profitable new market segment for
tourism suppliers interested in diversifying and capitalizing on the mandates required by
the ADA (1990). Finally, access to this segment is possible through affinity
organizations (i.e., National Association for Persons with Disabilities, the American
Association for the Physically Disabled, Paralyzed Veterans of America); through the
intemet (i.e., The Disabled Traveler, the Open Doors Organization); by magazines (i.e.,

New Mobility, Disability Books); and by way of traditional electronic media.
OPINION LEADERSHIP

A theory of communications, Diffusion of Innovations, casts a special focus on
interpersonal communications within social systems (Gatignon & Robertson, 1985).
Within Diffusion of Innovations Theory, the role of opinion leader has been found to
mediate mass media effects (Rogers, 2005). Opinion leaders are information seekers
(Troncalli & Thompson, 1972). Additionally, individual inclinations for relying on mass
media and opinion leadership have been measured (Gatignon & Robertson, 1985).

Opinion leadership has been positively associated with cosmopoliteness where

15

information from outside the immediate environment appears to be important (Katz &
Lazarsfeld, 1955; Lionberger, 1953). Product interest, media exposure and competence
have also been found to be positively associated with opinion leadership (Coleman, Katz
& Menzel, 1957; Myers & Robertson, 1972; Nicosia, 1964). Opinion leaders’
innovativeness has been shown to be a function of the group’s norm: where group norms
favor innovativeness, the relationship will tend to be positive (Coleman, Katz & Menzel,
1957; Lionberger, 1953; Menzel, 1960; Myers & Robertson, 1972; Wilkening, 1952).
Opinion leaders have been identified as receiving the greatest number of sociometric
choices, are involved in the largest number of social networks and are identified by others
as sought out for advice (Kotler & Armstrong, 2006; Rogers, 2005). Thus, gaining an
understanding of interpersonal communications, opinion leadership and personal
experience roles in the physically disabled traveler’s travel destination selection process

may be important in serving and benefiting from market segmentation.

Identification of opinion leadership is also thought to be a critical determinant of
word of mouth communication and interpersonal influence affecting the diffusion of new
products, concepts, and services (King & Summers, 1970). Opinion leaders drive trends,
influence mass opinion, and most importantly, sell a great many products (Kotler &

Armstrong, 2006; Rogers, 2005).

Diffusion studies have been accomplished in the areas of agricultural innovations
(Ryan & Gross, 1943), in medical practices (Kelly et al., 1991; Kelly et al., 1997),
technological advancements (Braun, 2003), media (Reardon et al., 1988), marketing
(Amdt, 1967) and politics (Mohr, 1969). Use of this theory in the area of travel and

tourism and the identification of opinion leaders, who are key to interpersonal influence

l6

affecting diffusion of a new products, however has been limited (Goldsmith, Flynn &
Bonn, 1994; Rossello, Aguilo & Riera, 2005; Sahadev & Islam, 2005; Shorter-Judson,
2000; Troncalli & Thompson, 1972). It is accepted throughout tourism literature that
word of mouth advertising is a powerful marketing tool (Bieger & Laesser, 2004;
Goldsmith, Flynn & Bonn, 1994; Haywood, 1989; Hsu, Kang & Lam, 2006; Linddberg-
Repo, 1999; Money & Crotts, 2002; Murphy, 2000; Vogt & Kaplanidou, 2003) and the
most critical determinant of an area’s economic tourism health (Gartner, 1996).
According to Haywood (1989) popular services such as travel and food seem to generate
significantly more word of mouth than do experiences of more mundane products.
Opinion leaders have been identified as individuals who exert considerable personal
influence and who others seek word of mouth advice from (Arndt, 1967; Reynolds &
Darden, 1971). However, identification of opinion leaders within the physically disabled

traveler market segments of the tourism industry has yet to take place.
TRAVEL LIFE CYCLE

The process of human behavior changing over a life-time is captured in the life-
cycle concept. This concept describes the birth-to-death series of stages that transpire in
the life of an individual or family. Rural sociologists were among the earliest users of the
concept of life-cycle changes. Family spending and changes in farming activities
associated with changes in family size and composition were the earliest concept
characteristics identified (Loomis, 1936; Miner, 1938; Sorokin, Zimmerman & Galpin,
1931). This concept was leveraged by marketing specialists, economists and consumer
behaviorists (Ghez & Becker, 1975; Lansing & Morgan, 1955). Demographers, using

vast databases, have documented life-cycle timing regularities and length of life-cycle

l7

stages (Glick & Norton, 1977). A study incorporating an exchange of research
contributions from other disciplines contributed to a life-cycle pattern identification study
within leisure (Rapaport, Rapaport & Strelitz, 1975). The destination evolution model
developed by Butler (1980) is widely used from the perspective of the tourist area time

oriented cycle of development.

Tourism destination life-cycle modeling studies have progressed in areas such as
event tourism (Wong, 2000); been applied to economic development discussions (Plog,
2001); examined across time horizons and between generations (Opperrnan, 1995) and
examined using stochastic multivariable modeling through regression expression
(Karplus & Krakover, 2005) and found to be valid. The individual life-cycle concept as a
tool for travel research was further developed by Zimmerman (1982). Zimmerman
(1982) compared trip-making by life-cycle stages; finding two components that
contributed - household structure (relationships among household members) and age of

household members.

TRAVEL DECISION-MAKIN G TRAVEL PLANNING

Understanding the destination selection process is an important first step in
forecasting consumer behavior, as well as providing a basis for better decision-making
regarding investments into community infrastructure, business facilities, marketing plans
and promotional materials. An abundance of studies on tourist information search
behavior exist including studies on; sources used and level of information usage within a
travel decision context (Bieger & Laesser, 2004; Cai, Feng & Breiter, 2004; Chen &

Gursoy, 2000; Fodness & Murray, 1997; Gitelson & Crompton, 1983; MacKay,

18

Andereck & Vogt, 2002; Mittal, 1995; Nolan, 1976; Rao, Thomas & Javalgi, 1992; Um
& Crompton, 1990; Vogt & F esenmaier, 1998; Vogt, Fesenmaier & MacKay, 1993).
“Studies have shown direct experience and advice from family, friends, and relatives
(interpersonal communication) is a preferred and highly used information source, in
contrast to advertisements and articles found in mass media formats (i.e., newspaper,
magazine, radio, television” (Vogt, 1993, page 1). Information search has been found to
be “a dynamic process wherein individuals use various amounts and types of information
sources in response to internal and external contingencies to facilitate travel planning and
largely focus on information channels” (Cai et al., 2004). Within the physically disabled
sector of the traveling public, Israeli (2002) reported physically disabled persons use a
different rule—based system for evaluating tourist sites; a non-compensatory procedure,
which eliminates alternatives, followed by a compensatory model to trade off attributes;
adding to their evaluation process. Woodside and Etzel (1980) reported disabled people

participate in careful planning before making trips.

TRAVEL SPECIFIC INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION INFORMATION

SOURCE USE

Marketers have paid attention to the topic of opinion leadership for many years
and have expressed the importance of this concept in marketing of products, goods and
services (Rogers, 2005). Advice from family, friends, and relatives (interpersonal
communication) is a preferred and highly used information source (Arndt, 1967;
Haywood, 1989; Reynolds & Darden 1971; Rogers, 2005; Vogt et al., 1993).
Communication through information sources perceived as important is central to

attracting visitors to a destination. According to Troncalli and Thompson (1972),

I9

understanding information sources perceived as important is essential to securing visitors
to certain geographic areas or specific travel locations. The vacation travel opinion
leader and the information sources visualized by this individual as being important for
both awareness and evaluative information would be valuable information for marketers
to understand (Darden and Troncalli, 1972). To gain an understanding of travel related
interpersonal communication information sources and how this information is used could
aid the marketer in the development of marketing strategies to elevate the volume of
these interpersonal communication events with the goal of increasing conversion of visits

to their product.
TRIP PLANNING INFORMATION SOURCE USE

Within the general population, travel decision making has been one of the most
comprehensively studied areas in tourism (Fesenmaier, Ricci, Schaumlechner, Wober and
Zanella, 2003; Sirakaya and Woodside, 2005) as has tourist information search behavior
on sources used and level of information usage within a travel decision context (Bieger &
Laesser, 2004; Cai et al., 2004; Chen & Gursoy, 2000; Fodness & Murray, 1997;
Gitelson & Crompton, 1983; MacKay et al., 2002; Mittal, 1995; Nolan, 1976; Rao et al.,
1992; Stewart and Vogt, 1999; Um & Crompton, 1990; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998; Vogt
et al., 1993). Traditionally, research on touristic information sources has often assumed
individuals seek touristic information for destination selection purposes (Um &
Crompton, 1990), however studies have shown that not everyone who gathers
information intends to travel or use this information in making a destination choice (Vogt
& Fesenmaier, 1998). According to Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998), expanding the View of

the tourism information search process from a strict marketing context into a broader

20

communication one could help explain the factors which influence the use of
communications as they relate to recreation and tourism experiences. Unlike studies in
the general population, travel decision and tourist information search behavior has not
been studied extensively in the area of physically disabled tourism; let alone expanding
from the strict marketing context into a broader communication context. Beginning at the
expanded approach level could jumpstart the research process, allowing a more broad
perspective of the information sources use by the physically disabled traveler. This could
permit marketers to develop their information sources to stimulate these additional uses

and capitalize on potential powerful marketing approaches at no additional expense.
MASS MEDIA SOURCE USE

Burnett and Paul (1996) noted that communication needs of the physically
disabled have yet to be recognized by advertisers. Further, Burnett and Paul (1996) noted
that individuals who have disabilities use information differently than those who do not.
Schmitt and Moody (1994) noted that physically disabled persons use mass media as a
means to verify their position in society and as a personal decision—making tool.
However, empirical research of the physically disabled consumer remains scarce.

Studies that have focused on the physically disabled consumer have imported theories
from geriatrics, socialization/re-socialization and alienation theories as the underpinning
of their efforts. In the area of geriatric study associated with the physically disabled
population, the US. Census (2000) reported disability rises with age and the largest aging
population segment is the baby boomer population, identified as being independent,
outgoing and possessing the most money of all population segments (Dychtwald, 1999).

AARP (2007) reported the population of the United States is aging and the number of

21

persons with disabilities is growing at a steady pace. Of the individuals classified as
disabled, 60% to 70% are age 65 and older, (AARP, 2007; Burnett & Paul, 1996). Kraus
and Stoddard (1989) found less than 10% of the currently disabled were born with their
disability and as a result needed to re-socialize post disability occurrence. Additionally,
Moschis, Mather, and Smith (1993) studied the role of age-targeted marketing by testing
exposure frequencies with mass media and personal sources. Moschis et a1. (1993)
reported a greater likelihood of product awareness and consequently product acceptance
as a result of mass media and personal source recommendations. The goal of advertisers
should be to recognize the needs of the physically disabled traveler, develop strategies to
reach this population, and select media vehicles that enhance the physically disabled

consumers’ ability to shop or buy.

PROPOSED HYPOTHESIS AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL

According to the Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers, 2005), a social system
may be identified as individuals engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a
common goal. Within this system, individuals may be distinguished from other members
of the system by their behavior. Opinion leaders distinguish themselves by the degree to
which they are able to influence other individuals’ attitudes or overt behavior informally
(Valente & Davis, 1999). These past findings were tested with a disability sample

through hypotheses one, four, five, six, and eight within this study (Figure l).

22

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

 

 

33
35cm sou—“€85 mafia—m at?

28: EE 3 s82 2:885

 

 

 

 

 

 

om: 350m «€05 mam—2

k

 

:2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$=o>m teaser—38...
cosmoisfifiov REEVES...

 

2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 850m 332:8:—
MESEE BE. #:0on .558.

 

a:

 

 

 

 

Logo.— coEEoéoZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

scum—acn— 3.550

 

 

/
\

 

 

.0304 .8590

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engage £335 32%.:

 

mm

 

NI

 

wESfiE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coo—a... $838.3 mo 39:52

 

 

322... row we 55802280

53

 

 

 

 

 

e:

 

.023. @565

 

 

 

 

 

3234 cacao

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.03.; 8 basemen—

 

m:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:585 as gas...

VI

 

 

 

 

 

 

m:

 

 

 

 

 

_:

 

 

 

 

.233 853.5

 

 

 

 

 

Sumo.— 5399.52

 

 

 

23

According to Zimmerrnann (1982), one facet of tourism’s temporal dimension is a
period event. A period event refers to annual changes and/or specific events that
influence tourism behavior. Less than 10% of currently disabled people were born with
their disability and re-socialization would be necessary in response to changes resulting
from the disability (Kraus & Stoddard, 1989). This claim was examined in the disability

sample through the investigation of hypotheses three and seven.

Reynolds and Darden (1971), Rogers (2005) and Summers (1970) identified that
persons recognized as opinion leaders tend to be more active in seeking interpersonal
communications about products in which they are interested, and are almost always more
exposed to particular types of communication channels that are relevant to their product
and/or service interest. These claims were examined in the disability sample through

hypothesis nine.

According to Rogers (2005), opinion leaders have greater exposure to mass media
than followers. This finding was examined in the disability sample through investigation

of hypothesis ten.

According to Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998) expanding the view of the tourism
information search process from a strict marketing context into a broader communication
one could help explain the factors which influence the use of communications as they
relate to recreation and tourism experiences. This finding was examined in the disability

market segment through hypotheses two and eleven.

Overall, this study tested the following eleven hypotheses as shown in Figure 1:

24

H1: The percentage of opinion leaders in the physically disabled traveler market
segment is greater than the percentage in the general traveler market segment.
H2: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will indicate stronger levels of
pre-trip planning activities than general traveler opinion leaders.

H3: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will have been physically
disabled for a longer period of time than physically disabled traveler non-opinion
leaders.

H4: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will report a higher perceived
propensity to travel for vacations or leisure than physically disabled traveler non-
opinion leaders.

H5: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will report a higher perceived
travel skill level than physically disabled traveler non-opinion leaders.

H6: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will take a greater number of
day-long, short overnight and long overnight vacations than physically disabled
traveler non-opinion leaders.

H7: The classification of physical disability may be a factor in the number of day-
long, short overnight and long overnight vacations participated in by physically
disabled traveler opinion leaders and physically disabled traveler non-opinion
leaders.

H8: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will more likely use tourism
specific trip planning information sources than physically disabled traveler non-

opinion leaders.

25

H9: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will record higher numbers of
interpersonal communication events about travel than physically disabled traveler
non-opinion leaders.

H10: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will use a greater number of
mass media sources in their trip planning than physically disabled traveler non-
opinion leaders.

H11: Physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will place greater importance on
the use of electronic media information sources than print media information

sources when planning a vacation.

In summary, chapter two provides a review of the literature focusing on
market segmentation, opinion leadership, travel life cycle, travel decision-making
and planning, travel specific interpersonal communication information source use
and in travel decisions specific trip planning information source use, and mass
media source use. It was from this literature that past findings were tested

between and within the samples through the guidance of the hypotheses.

26

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The focus of this study was on the identification of opinion leaders within the
physically disabled traveler market segments of the tourism industry and the pre-trip
information sources people with disabilities rely upon in their decision-making process.
Specifically, opinion leaders’ existence or level within the physically disabled sample
was identified; tourism information needs as they exist in this context were explored; and
the extent to which various information sources were likely to be employed were

described.

The methodology used in the study included the following steps: (a)
instrumentation, (b) sampling design and survey administration, (c) sample size, ((1)
selection of participants, (e) survey administration, (f) mail survey response rate, (g)

description of the sample; and (h) statistical tests and analyses.
INSTRUMENTATION

To meet the study objectives, a thorough review of opinion leadership
measurement scales was conducted. Opinion leadership was measured applying
Childers’ (1986) Opinion Leadership Scale. The Opinion Leadership Scale, originally
developed by King and Summers (1970), refined as recommended by Childers (1986)
and Flynn, Goldsmith and Eastman (1994), was used to identify opinion leadership
within the physically disabled and general samples. This revised Opinion Leadership

Scale contains six items adaptable to different product categories was modified to fit

27

tourism and the disability segment (i.e., the use of vacation travel as the product category

of study).

The Opinion Leadership Scale was operationalized on a five-point response
format. Item scores were summed to form a range of 6 to 30. Originally this scale was
developed by modifying an already existing self-designating measure of opinion
leadership (Rogers, 1961; Rogers & Cartano, 1962). The modification omitted the word
“new” to remove bias in favor of innovators. Childers’ (1986) Opinion Leadership Scale
offers several estimates of reliability and validity if the revised scale is used. These
include internal consistency reliability estimate of 0.83 as well as an average item-to-total
correlation of 0.62 and adequate levels of unidimensionality via structural equation
modeling. Jamrozy, Backman and Backman (1996) applied the scale in a nature-based
tourism context included an internal consistency reliability estimate of .88, a mean total
sum score for the scale was 19.5, sd = 5.64. The Opinion Leadership Scale applied to
vacation travel (Table 1) showed similar internal consistency reliability estimates and
unidimensional structure as found by Childers (1986) and Jamrozy et al. (1996). The
applied scale used in this vacation travel study included an internal consistency reliability

estimate of 0.87, a mean total sum score of 18.66, sd = 5.22.

28

Table 1. Travel Opinion LeadershiJLScale Mean Scores

 

Opinion Leadership Measurement

 

Items Scale Text Mean SD
How often do you talk to your

friends and neighbors about

vacation travel? Never to Very Often 3.26a 1.04
When you talk to your friends and Give very little information

family about vacation travel do to Give a great deal of

you? information 3.52 1.10
In the past 12 months, how many

friends and family have you told Told no one to Told 16 or

about vacation destinations? more people 2.91 1.22
Compared with your friends and Not at all likely to be asked

family, how likely are you to be to Very likely to be

asked about vacation travel? asked 2.98 1.17

Your friends and family tell

1n discussions of vacation travel, you about travel to You

which of the following happens tell your friends and

most? family about travel 2.90 1.06
Overall in all of your discussions Not used as a source of

with friends and family about advice to Often used as

travel are you? a source of advice 3.08 1.15
Overall opinion leadership score
(Mean) 18.66 5.23
Cronbach’s Alpha .87

 

a all items were measured on a 5-point scale
b n=578

Finally, a battery of scales covering the various travel experience, information
seeking, and trip planning related to travel decision-making processes (Burnett & Paul,
1996; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998) were employed. These various travel measurement
scales were chosen because they have been validated and found to be reliable
instruments. Diffusion of information through response recollection of pre-trip
information gathering for any leisure travel experience occurring in the past 12 months

was examined.

SAMPLING DESIGN

The methods applied in the determination of sample size, participant selection and

the survey administration process followed were outlined in this section. The study

29

sample size was established based upon a desired response rate goal and study funding
limitations. Selection of participants within the physically disabled population posed a
challenge due to privacy issues, population vulnerability issues and the fragmented nature
of the pe0ple with disabilities population. This was overcome by the identification of the
American Association of Persons with Disabilities organization and the voluntary,
confidential use of their list of members who reside in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and
Illinois. Survey administration included the development of the study instrument, post
card, final non-response bias survey instrument and a description of the steps taken to

yield the highest response rate possible.
SAMPLE SIZE

The total study sample (N = 2,400) was comprised of a physically disabled
sample study group and a general sample study group. The physically disabled sample
study sample (N = 1,200) was randomly selected from the Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and
Illinois American Associated of the Physically Disabled membership list. This group
was labeled the disability sample study group and served as the experimental group
within this study. The general sample study group was purchased from Survey Sampling
International, a recognized organization for supplying study quality lists. The general
sample study group was randomly drawn from a Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois
data base list (N =1 ,200). The general sample served as the control group within this
study. All respondent indicating a disability were removed from the general sample and
moved to the disabled sample. Previous diffirsion studies have identified the existence of
opinion leaders ’within the general population, but no previous studies had identified

opinion leadership within the physically disabled population. This control group was

30

needed to test the diffusion theory of opinion leadership within the physically disabled
population. These numbers were selected to produce an estimated 400 completed
surveys, with the disability group expected to reply approximately 10% higher than the
general public. Due to the budget limitations of this privately-funded study, the sample

size of 2,400 was considered sufficient.

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS

Identification of opinion leaders within the physically disabled traveler sample
was the primary interest of this study. For this reason, a disability group, the American
Association of Persons with Disabilities (AAPD) was identified. The geographic area of
Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois was selected by the study sponsor as the primary
geographic area of interest. Every member of the AAPD residing in Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois possessed an equal chance of being randomly selected. A general
sample list originating from the same geographic area, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and
Illinois was purchased from Survey Sampling Incorporated, a mail list company.
Residents in the identified geographic area of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois

possessed an equal chance of being randomly selected.

The AAPD membership responses in this study revealed non-physically disabled
people holding memberships within the organization. This information was not
understood prior to a random sample being drawn from the AAPD membership list. The
decision was made to forgo use of the AAPD non-physically disabled sample
participants. This action was taken in order to ensure that survey response information

obtained from AAPD members came from persons who live with a disability.

31

Additionally, the removal of the AAPD non-disabled sample from the study analysis acts
to reduce bias that could have been introduced as a result of the differences highlighted
above (i.e., age of the sample participants being younger and high household incomes
reported). Figure 2 provides a visual representation of the general sample and the AAPD

sample and how sample participants were assigned within this study.

Figure 2. Study Respondent Assigned Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Sample AAPD Sample
DRGS’
moved
to
General Disabled DRASb Disabled Non-disabled
Sample Respondents l Respondents AAPD Respondents
(n = 229) General , Sample AAPD
Sample (n = 220 = [202+18]) Sample
(n =18) (n= 129)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Disabled respondents general sample
b. Disabled respondents AAPD sample

SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

A cover letter (Appendix A) was written for the physically disabled sample that
requested any physically disabled person; over the age of 18; and who had vacation
traveled within the past 12 months, to complete the survey. A different letter (Appendix
A) was used for the general population requesting that a person; over the age of 18; and
who had vacation traveled within the past 12 months, to complete the survey. A
comparison of the general study sample to the physically disabled study sample was
expected to reveal the effects of the experimental stimulus (Babbie, 2004); the

similarities associated with opinion leadership and differences from being a person with a

32

disability. As suggested by Dillman (2000), incentives/gifts increase the response rate.
As an incentive for completing the survey, participants were informed that their name
would be placed in a drawing for a two day-long vacation package to Frankenmuth,
Michigan - a popular Great Lakes State‘destination. This drawing occru'red on September

1, 2007, and the winner was survey number 699.

A four-page self-administered questionnaire was employed (Appendix B for a
copy of the survey instrument). Page one of the instrument featured a graphic of a globe
with a variety of people in various life situations (i.e., a mother with stroller, a small
child, an adult carrying a small child, a person in a wheel chair, a female with two young
children, a male hiker). The survey instrument was printed on white, 8.5 inch by 11.0
inch paper for the physically disabled sample and on beige, 8.5 inch by 11.0 inch paper
for the general sample. On May 1, 2007, each survey participant (1,200 — AAPD
members and 1,200-General Sample members) were sent a personalized letter using a
mail merge. This letter communicated vacation planning behavior as the focus for the
study. It also included directions for completing the survey. The letter, survey
instrument and a pre-addressed and postage paid envelope were folded and sent by first
class US. mail on May 1, 2007. Each survey received a survey code number in order to

track returned surveys on the master list (Table 2).

33

Table 2. Study Response Rate

 

.,, 2 B ‘5
g <2 E g g .9. § 8' a 9, 3.
m = 'O .2. m E '5 c) r: c: 5’
>. e < e s o a - o o a
v 2 2'2 g 8‘3 s 8 a? a
m 0 m :3 a E I-- a: a: D
AAPD Disabled&
Non-disabled Sample 1,200 (129) (6) (1) 1,064 336
General Sample 1,200 (58) 0 0 1,142 250
Total 2,400 (l 87) (6) (1) 2,206 5 86

 

a: adjustments shown in Figure 2 and Table 3.

A postcard was developed to thank study participants for returning the survey in a
timely manner and to serve as a reminder to those who had not yet responded to please
take the time to respond (refer to Appendix C for specimen). The postcard was printed
on green 4.25 inches by 5.5 inch paper and was sent on May 11, 2007 by US. first-class
mail. Any survey, as referenced by the survey code number and returned prior to May

1 1, 2007 was removed prior to the May 1 1, 2007 postcard mailing.

On May 29, 2007, a third mailing was sent to all study participants who had not
yet responded. The survey instrument was printed on white, 8.5 inch by 11.0 inch paper
for the physically disabled study and on beige, 8.5 inch by 11.0 inch paper for the general
sample. On May 29, 2007, each survey participant who had not yet responded was sent a
personalized letter that provided a description of the study focus: vacation planning
behavior and directions for completing the survey. The letter, survey instrument and a

pre-addressed, postage paid envelope were sent by first class US. mail on May 29, 2007

(refer to Appendix D for specimen).

On June 30, 2007, a final non-response contact was made with 200 (100 general

sample and 100 physically disabled sample) participants who were randomly selected

34

from the pool of non-respondents. These 200 people received an 8.5 inch by 11 inch
letter printed on official Michigan State University, Department of Community,
Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies letterhead. This letter included a final
request for response and included six duplicate questions from the original survey
instrument and one non-response bias questions. The six questions asked if the person
had vacation traveled in the past 12 months and what information sources they consider
most useful. The modified Opinion Leadership Scale was also duplicated within this
letter along with a physical disability status question. The non-response letter asked for
comments regarding travel and asked why they had not responded to earlier survey
requests. This final mailing also provided an opportunity for survey respondents to
comment regarding their non—response status to identify any non-response bias that may
exist (Appendix E for a copy of the non-response questionnaire). To track returned

surveys on the master list, each survey received a survey code number.

The results of this mailing produced fourteen responses (seven from the
physically disabled sample and seven from the general sample). Two of the responses
from the physically disabled sample indicated recipients cannot travel due to their
disability. Two responses from the general sample indicating recipients do not travel.
Four non-response instruments were returned completely blank (three from the physically
disabled sample and one from the general sample). The two instruments received from
the physically disabled respondents indicated both were opinion leaders, who had
traveled in the past twelve months and considered the intemet, friends and travel agents

the three most useful vacation planning information sources. Each indicated health-

35

related reasons for not responding earlier. Of the seven instruments returned by the

physically disabled sample, two were returned from opinion leaders (29%).

Of the four non-response bias instruments received from the general respondents,
one indicated that they had no knowledge of Michigan State University and therefore did
not respond, one indicated that they did not respond as a result of the instrument
originating from Michigan State University and one indicated they possess too many job
responsibilities and that travel was not a priority. The fourth responded that they do
travel, consider the intemet, travel agents and friends as the most useful vacation
planning information sources and were identified as an opinion leader. No reason was

provided as to why they had not responded earlier.

These non-response answers were useful to understand why individuals are
unlikely to complete a questionnaire. Unfortunately the 14 returned instruments were too

few in number to complete any analytical biases calculations.

After all the surveys were keyed, then a validity check for physically disabled
respondents occurred in both samples. Respondents, whom self-identified as non-
physically disabled were removed from the physically disabled study- sample and
assigned to the AAPD non-disabled sample (n = 123). Within the General sample,
persons who identified themselves as physically disabled were assigned to the physically
disabled study sample (n = 18). The three sample segments were general sample
(n=229), physically disabled sample (n=220) and the AAPD non-physically disabled

sample (n=129); for a total study sample of (n= 578). The anticipated response rate

36

(n=840) was not generated by the survey instrument. The total study response rate

(n=578) was much lower than expected based upon the processes followed.

For the purposes of this study, the AAPD non-physically disabled sample was not
used for analysis (Table 3). The decision to forgo use of the AAPD non-physically
disabled sample participants was made in order to ensure that survey response
information obtained from AAPD members came from persons who live with a

disability.

Table 3. Sample Respondents Organized by Disability

 

2 8
CL

géa 88

.g C 3 I— <

c: "' _ 8 L“ '0
8 .5 .o a) '8 5 a
v B 2 :3 E > 0 2 g
8 "’ O 8 E g, g a '5. ‘3'- a-
Q at, {£2 3 j: a o E E 3
o g M (I) M
8 m 8 g ,3‘ ’5 'U 1: Z), .8 'c
E Q '8 ‘-'-' ‘5 5 Z ” 2 g ._ 8
ass a a w 5 see a
8 § ,8 s as 8 ., .52 8 :2 a
at “U ad 0 D 0 ad 0 O Q <
AAPD non-disabled 129 0 0 0 0 129
Disabled 207 (2) 0 (3) 18 220

sub-total 336

General sample 250 0 (2) (1) (18) 229
Total 586 (2) (2) (4L 0 578

 

MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATE

To ensure the highest achievable response rates, Dillman’s (2000) Tailored
Design Method was followed for implementing the mail survey. The Dillman procedure

has proven to significantly improve response rates.

37

SOURCES OF SURVEY ERROR

The methodology used to conduct this study may have introduced survey error in

the data collected by way of the following (Dillman, 2000):

Sampling error may have occurred by surveying only a sample not the entire

population and the precision of this sample’s responses to estimate the entire population.

Coverage error was controlled for to the extent that the list providers included all
the members of the population and those members all had the equal chance of being

selected for the study.

Measurement error may have occurred based upon proper wording of questions
and the respondent’s ability or willingness to answer the questions accurately, precisely

or the ability to compare their response to others in the study.

Non-response error may have occurred by way of respondents to the survey
providing answers to questions that were different from the individuals who did not
respond. To address non-response bias, a survey was mailed to 100 randomly selected
AAPD member non-respondents and 100 randomly selected general sample non-
respondents. Unfortunately the 14 returned instruments were too few in number to

complete any analytical biases calculations.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE

The general sample survey subjects were obtained through a purchased list from

Survey Sampling International LLC (SS1), founded in 1977. This organization self

38

describes its services as the premier global provider of sampling solutions. For this
study, SSI provided access to a random sample of resident’s contact names, addresses,
city, state, zip code and plus four in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The population
characteristics for all residents of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were supplied by
SSI. Due to random selection from this population, these characteristics differ from the

general sample data presented later in this study.

Table 4 was organized to highlight differences between the SSI general
population characteristics and the AAPD disabled and non-disabled membership sample.
Differences between the samples could be a source of bias. Since the AAPD
organization does not possess population characteristics for their membership, responses
from this study instrrunent were used to complete the comparison with the general

population characteristics provided by SSI.

When considering the information provided by SSI, the general population can be
characterized as 55% between the ages of 35 and 64 years of age, with 28% reporting to
be 34 years of age or younger. Fifty percent of the general population reported
generating an annual household income of $40,000 or less with 66% reporting no

children residing in the household.

39

Table 4. Population Characteristics Comparison of General Sample and Physically
Disabled Sample
Physically Non-Physically
General Population Disabled Sample Disabled Sample

 

Sample (s31)a (AAPD) (AAPD)
Age in years
18-19 0.0% 0.5% 0.8%
20-24 9.7 2.3 2.3
25-34 18.3 8.2 11.6
35-44 19.6 13.6 15.5
45-54 20.2 24.5 27.9
55-64 14.7 31.8 27.1
65-74 8.9 12.3 12.4
75-84 6.0 4.5 1.6
85+ 2.6 2.3 0.8
All Ages 100% 100% 100%
Income
$20,000 or less 23.3% 23.8% 2.7%
$20,001-S40,000 26.7 22.2 17.8
340,001-360,000 20.7 12.7 1 1.6
$60,001 -$79,999 12.3 19.0 22.3
$80,000 and more 17.0 22.2 45.6
Total 1 00% l 00% l 00%
Children in household
Yes 33.9% 20.8% 29.8%
No 66.1 79.2 70.2
Total 1 00% 1 00% l 00%

 

a: SSI did not indicate Non-responses

SSI listed data on ages 0 - 19. No one under age 20 from the general
sample participated in this tourism study

SSI listed household income in the following categories: $0-9,999;
$10,000- 14,999;$1 5,000-24,999;$25,000-34,999;
$35,000-49,999;$50,000-74,999;$75,000-99,999;
$100,000-l49,999;$150,000-199,999;$200,000-249,999;$250,000+

SSI income category data were adjusted and estimated to fit the tourism
study categories

The physically disabled sample study participants were obtained from the
American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), established on July 25, 1995.
The American Association of People with Disabilities is self described as the largest
national non-profit cross-disability membership organization in the United States,

dedicated to ensure economic self-sufficiency and political empowerment for the more

40

than 56 million Americans with disabilities. For the purposes of this study, a random
sample of members from Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois was secured from the

AAPD.

The physically disabled sample can be described as somewhat older. Over half of
the physically disabled sample reported they were 55 years and older. The physically
disabled sample reported annual household income of $40,000 or less at a frequency of
46% and reported no children residing in the household at a rate of 79%. The AAPD
non-disabled population can be characterized as somewhat younger with 71% reporting
between the ages of 35 and 64 years of age, with 15% reporting to be 34 years of age or
younger. The AAPD non-disabled sample reported generating the highest annual
household income with 68% reporting household income of $60,000 or more and 70%

reporting no children residing in the household.

The removal of the AAPD non-disabled sample from the study analysis acts to
reduce bias that could have been introduced as a result of the differences highlighted
above (i.e., age of the sample participants being younger and high household incomes
reported). Bias could be introduced as a result of the physically disabled sample

reporting a slightly older participation base.
STATISTICAL TESTS AND ANALYSIS

Eleven research hypotheses were addressed in this study. These research
questions generated primarily categorical and interval data. Use of cross-tabulations, chi-
square statistics, independent samples t tests, paired samples t tests and a variety of

descriptive statistics were recommended for use by Alreck and Settle (2004), Babbie

41

(2004), and Howell (2002), with data the survey instrument generated. The level of

significance for tests were based on an alpha of <05.
SUMMARY

The methodology applied to this study was introduced in Chapter 3. A study
instrument was deve10ped based on a thorough review of relevant literature and tested

scales ensuring adequate estimates of reliability and validity throughout the instrument.

After development, the primary modified Opinion Leadership Scale was tested for
validity and found to show similar internal consistency reliability estimates and
unidimensional structure as applied in past studies. Sampling design was based on the
Tailored Design Method developed by Dillman (2000). Sample size was 2,400, with
1,200 originating from a purchased randomly selected list of general population residents
from Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The other 1,200 samples originated from the
membership of the American Association of People with Disabilities who reside in

Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. This sample was also randomly selected.

Survey administration followed a multi-step process. Step one was the
personalized cover letters communicating an incentive that was sent to each sample.
Letter one was written for the physically disabled sample and requested that the
physically disabled person, over the age of 18 and vacationed in the past 12 months
complete the survey. The letter written for and sent to the general population also
requested that a person over the age of 18 who had vacationed in the past 12 months

complete the survey. A four page self-administered questionnaire (white for the

42

physically disabled sample and beige for the general public) was employed. A self-

addressed and postage paid envelope also accompanied this original mailing.

Step two was a reminder post card thanking the participant for completing and
returning the survey. The third step was a mailing that included a letter, survey
instrument and self-addressed and postage paid envelope which was sent to non-

respondents.

Step four was a final non-response contact made with 200 (100 physically
disabled sample and 100 general sample) participants. These participants received a
letter requesting a response with the Opinion Leadership Scale presented in the same
format as on the original survey instrument. These participants were also provided the
opportunity to comment regarding their non-response status and report any non-response
bias. The number of responses was too small to draw any conclusions about potential

non-response bias.

After keying the results, a validity check for physically disabled respondents
resulted in removing 18 persons from the general population and assigning them to the
physically disabled population. Additionally, AAPD non-disabled members were
removed from the AAPD disabled members to create a separate sample group. For the
purposes of this study, the AAPD non-disabled sample was not used for hypotheses
analysis. The decision to forgo use of the AAPD non-physically disabled sample
participants was made in order to ensure that survey response information obtained from
AAPD members came from persons who live with a disability. Additionally, the removal

of the AAPD non-disabled sample from the study analysis acts to reduce bias that could

43

have been introduced as a result of the differences highlighted above (i.e., age of the

sample participants being younger and high household incomes reported).

Survey error that may have occurred while administering this study included but
may not be limited to surveying only samples and not the entire population, coverage
error, measurement error and non-response error. The general sample may be
characterized as more than 50% between the ages of 35 and 64 years of age, annual
household income of $40,000 or less and over 60% reporting no children residing in the
household. The disabled sample can be described as somewhat older with 70% being
between the ages of 35 and 64 years of age and reporting an annual household income of
$40,000 or less by more than 40% of the sample respondents. Additionally, the
physically disabled sample reported no children residing in the household at a rate of
nearly 80%. The AAPD non-disabled population can be characterized as somewhat
younger reporting over 70% being between the ages of 35 and 64 years of age and
household income of $60,000 with 70% reporting no children reside in the household.
Eleven hypotheses were addressed generating primarily categorical and interval data.
Cross-tabulations, chi-square statistics, independent samples t tests, paired samples t tests

and a variety of descriptive statistics were used to address the study questions.

44

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter is divided into four sections. The demographic profiles of all survey
participants are described in section one. Results for the study participant’s travel
proclivity are highlighted in section two. Results for the general sample, physically
disabled sample and AAPD non-disabled sample are presented in the first portion of
section two. Participant’s travel activities over the past 12 months are addressed first,
followed by the number of day-long, short overnight and long overnight vacations
participated in during this time period. Section two closes with general, physically
disabled and AAPD non—disabled sample participant’s recollection of a recent,
memorable vacation trip taken in recent years. Areas identified include the month and
year of their recent memorable trip. Next, participants were asked to identify the
geographic location of the destination visited and if they had visited the destination
before. Participants were then asked who was in their travel party, the geographic
location of travel destination classified as Midwest, United States and international and a

travel self assessment.

Section three focuses on the physically disabled sample travel proclivity. Self-
categorization of disability severity level by opinion leadership classification is
communicated first in this section. This is followed by the age and number of years
study participants have lived with their disability. A series of tests applied to the

physically disabled sample travel characteristics and travel self assessments follows.

45

Section three concludes with the physically disabled person’s ratings of hospitality

services. Results of the studies hypotheses testing are included in section four.

Respondents, self-identified as non-disabled, were removed from the physically
disabled study sample and assigned to the AAPD non-disabled sample (n = 123). Within
the general sample, persons who identified themselves as physically disabled were
assigned to the physically disabled study sample (n = 18). Therefore, the three survey
segments are general sample (n=229), physically disabled sample (n=220) and the AAPD
non-disabled sample (n=129); for a total study sample of (n= 578). The intent of this
study is to understand the physically disabled traveler. The general sample was not the
primary focus of the study. However, the general sample was important to compare the
physically disabled population to gain an understanding of similarities and differences
and test the level of information activities. The AAPD non-disabled sample was not used
for analysis, but a demographic description and their propensity for travel is included for

descriptive purposes.
DEMOGRAPHICS

Table 5 shows the gender distribution of the three samples. Males were
represented at a greater level in the general sample (64.2%), females were represented at
a greater level in both the physically disabled sample (58.6%) and the AAPD non-

disabled sample (67.4%).

46

Table 5. Gender

 

 

Physically AAPD
General Disabled Non-disabled
Gender Sample Sample Sample Total
Female 82 (35.8%) 129 (58.6%) 87 (67.4%) 298 (51.6%)
Male 147 (64.2) 91 (41.4) 42 (32.6) 280 (48.4)
Total 229 (100%) 220 (100%) 129 (100%) 578 (100%)

 

In all three samples, the most common age range reported was 50 to 59 years old.
General sample participants reported 50 to 59 years (28.2%), followed by 60 to 69 years
(19.9%), as shown in Table 6. For the physically disabled sample, participants reported
50 to 59 years old (33.3%) most frequently, followed by 60 to 69 years old (21.1%) and
in the AAPD non-disabled sample, participants reported 50 to 59 years old (32.8%) most

frequently, followed by 40 to 49 years old (18.9%).

 

 

Table 6. Age
Physically AAPD
General Disabled Non-disabled
_Age Ranges Sample Sample Sample Total
20 - 29 years 8 (3.7%) 14 (6.6%) 10 (8.2%) 32 (5.8%)
30 - 39 years 30 (13.9) 24 (11.3) 20 (16.4) 74 (13.4)
40 - 49 years 39 (18.1) 36 (16.9) 23 (18.9) 98 (17.8)
50 - 59 years 61 (28.2) 71 (33.3) 40 (32.8) 172 (31.2)
60-69 years 43 (19.9) 45 (21.1) 21 (17.2) 109 (19.8)
70 - 79 years 27 (12.5) 19(8.9) 7 (5.7) 53 (9.6)
80 years and over 8 (3.7) 4 (1.9) 1 (0.8) 13 (2.4)
Total 216 (100%) 213 (100%) 122 (100%) 551 (100%)

 

As shown in Table 7, when asked to report the highest level of education

obtained, the general sample reported a college degree was most frequently obtained

(26.5%) followed by some college education obtained (22.8%).

47

For the physically disabled sample, obtaining an advanced degree or a college
degree occurred at the same frequency (28.8%). The AAPD non-disabled sample

reported obtaining an advanced degree most frequently (47.2%).

Table 7. Education

 

 

Physically AAPD
General Disabled Non-disabled
iighest Level of Education Sample Sample Sample Total

Less than high school graduate 3 (1.4%) 5 (2.3%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (1.4%)
High school graduate 43 (20.0) 25 (11.6) 5 (4.1) 73 (13.2)
Technical school 16 (7.4) 2 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 18 (3.3)
Some college 49 (22.8) 44 (20.5) 14 (11.4) 107 (19.3)
College degree 57 (26.5) 62 (28.8) 23 (18.7) 142 (25.7)
Some graduate school 1 l (5.1) 15 (7.0) 23 (18.7) 49 (8.9)
Advanced degree 36 (16.7) 62 (28.8) 58 (47.2) 156 (28.2)
Total 215 (100%) 215 (100%) 123 (100%) 553 (100%)

 

Almost three-quarters (72.0%) of the general sample and less than half (48. 1%) of
the physically disabled sample were currently married, as seen in Table 8. One-quarter
(25.7%) of the physically disabled sample reported to have never been married and 9%

reported being widowed (8.9%). Two-thirds (66.4%) of the AAPD non-disabled sample

were married.

Table 8. Marital Status

 

 

AAPD
General Physically Disabled Non-disabled

Marital Status Sample Sample Sample Total
Married 157 (72.0%) 103 (48.1%) 83 (66.4%) 343 (61.6%)
Never married 19 (8.7) 55 (25.7) 19 (15.2) 93 (16.7)
Divorced or separated 30 (13.8) 37 (17.3) 14 (11.2) 81 (14.5)
Widowed 12 (5.5) 19 (8.9) 9 (7.2) 40 (7.2)
Total 218 (100%) 214 (100%) 125 (100%) 557 (100%)

 

One-quarter (25.9%) of the general sample reported a household income of
$40,000 to $59,999 with household income of $60,000 to $79,999 reported at the next
most frequent level (22.9%), as shown in Table 9. Within the physically disabled sample,

study participants reported household income of $20,000 and less most frequently

48

(23.8%) with household income of $20,000 to $39,999 reported at the next most frequent
level (22.2%). One-third (31.3%) of the AAPD non-disabled sample reported household
income greater than $100,000 and reported household income of $60,000 to $79,999 at

the next most frequent level (22.3%).

Table 9. Household Income

 

 

Physically AAPD
General Disabled Non-disabled

Household Income Sample Sample Sample Total
Less than $20,000 9 (4.5%) 45 (23.8%) 3 (2.7%) 57 (1 1.4%)
$20,000 to $39,999 27 (13.4) 42 (22.2) 20 (17.9) 89 (17.7)
$40,000 to $59,999 52 (25.9) 24 (12.7) 13 (11.6) 89 (17.7)
$60,000 to $79,999 46 (22.9) 36 (19.0) 25 (22.3) 107 (21.3)
$80,000 to $99,999 26 (12.9) 12 (6.3) 16 (14.3) 54 (10.8)
$100,000 or greater 41 (20.4) 30 (15.9) 35 (31.3) 106 (21.1)
Total 201 (100%) 189 (100%) 112 (100%) 502 (100%)

 

Table 10 shows that nearly three-quarters (72.6%) of the general sample reported
no children of 19 years of age or under residing in the household. Three-quarters
(79.2%) of the physically disabled sample had no children 19 years of age or under
residing in the household. Seven out of ten of the AAPD non-disabled sample

participants’ reported no children in the household (70.2%).

Table 10. Children in Household

 

 

Physically AAPD
General Disabled Non-disabled
Children in Household Sample Sample Sample Total
Yes 60 (27.4%) 45 (20.8%) 37 (29.8%) 142 (25.4%)
No 159 (72.6) 171 (79.2) 87 (70.2) 417 (74.6)
Total 219 (100%) 216 (100%) 124 (100%) 559 (100%)

 

The general sample may be smnmarized as primarily male (64.2%), age between
50 and 59 years old (28.2%), with a college degree (26.5%), household income between
$40,000 and $59,999 (25.9%), married (72.0%), and no children in the household under

19 years of age (72.6%), a srunmary of results is shown in Table 11.

49

Table 11. Overview of Demographic Results

 

 

Physically AAPD

General Disabled Non-disabled
Overview n Sample Sample Sample Total
Gender 578
Female 35.8% 58.6% 67.4% 51.6%
Male 64.2 41.4 32.6 434
Age 551
20 — 29 3.7 6.6 8.2 5.8
30—39 13.9 11.3 16.4 13.4
40—49 18.1 16.9 18.9 17.8
50 — 59 28.2 33.3 32.8 31.2
60—69 19.9 21.1 17.2 19.8
70 — 79 12.5 8.9 5.7 9.6
80 years and over 3.7 1.9 .8 2.4
Highest Education Attained 553
Less than high school 1.4 2.3 .0 1.4
High school graduate/GED 20.0 1 1.6 4.1 13.2
Technical school 7.4 .9 .0 3.3
Some college (no degree) 22.8 20.5 11.4 19.3
College degree 26.5 28.8 18.7 25.7
Some graduate school 5.1 7.0 18.7 8.9
Advanced degree 16.7 28.8 47.2 28.2
2006 Household Income 502
Less than $20,000 4.5 23.8 2.7 11.4
$20,000 to $39,999 13.4 22.2 17.9 17.7
$40,000 to $59,999 25.9 12.7 11.6 17.7
$60,000 to $79,999 22.9 19.0 22.3 21.3
$80,000 to $99,999 12.9 6.3 14.3 10.8
$100,000 and greater 20.4 15.9 31.3 21.1
Marital Status 557
Married 72.0 48.1 66.4 61.6
Never married 8.7 25.7 15.2 16.7
Divorced or separated 13.8 17.3 1 1.2 14.5
Widowed 5.5 8.9 7.2 7.2
Children in Household 559
Yes 27.4 20.8 29.8 25.4
No 72.6 79.2 70.2 74.6

 

The physically disabled sample may be summarized as primarily female (58.6%),

between age 50 and 59 (33.3%), with a college or advanced degree (46.6%), household

50

income between $20,000 and less (23.8%), never married (25.7%), and no children in the

household under 19 years of age (79.2%). Results are presented in Table 11.

The AAPD non-disabled sample may be summarized as primarily female
(67.4%), age 50 — 59 (32.8%), with an advanced degree (47.2%), household income

greater than $100,000 (31.3%), married (66.4%), and no children in the household under

19 years of age (70.2%). Results are shown in Table 11.

TRAVEL PROCLIVITY

Results for the general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled samples are
highlighted in the first portion of the section. Study participants were asked to recall
travel activities over the past 12 months. Specifically, the general, physically disabled
and AAPD non-disabled sample participants were asked to address the number of day-
long, short overnight and long overnight vacations they participated in during this time

period.

The general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled sample participants
were then asked to recall a recent, memorable vacation trip taken in recent years. The
first areas identified are the month and year of their recent memorable trip. Next,
participants were asked to identify the geographic location of the destination visited and
if they had visited the destination before. Participants were then asked who was in their
travel party, geographic location of travel destination, classified as Midwest, United

States and international, and travel self assessment.

Since the intent of this study was to understand the physically disabled traveler,

the focus of the section turns to the results specific to the physically disabled non-opinion

Sl

leader and opinion leader study sample. The physically disabled sample was asked to

self-classify the level of their physical disability, communicate the age that they became

physically disabled and asked to identify the number of years they have lived with their

disability. The next area to be addressed was the physically disabled non-opinion leaders

and opinion leader’s proclivity to travel for vacation or leisure purposes. This section

concludes with the physically disabled non-opinion leaders and opinion leaders rating of

disability services.

The general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled samples were asked

how many day-long vacations that they have taken in the past 12 months. Table 12

shows the greatest number of general sample participants reported taking no day-long

vacations in the past 12 months (44.1%) with one to five day-long vacation taken

reported with the next greatest frequency (41.5%). The physically disabled sample

reported taking no day-long vacations at the greatest frequency (43.2%). This was

followed by physically disabled sample participation in one to five day-long vacations at

the next most frequent rate (40.0%). The AAPD non-disabled sample participants

reported not participating in day-long vacations at the highest rate (41.1%) with

participation in one — five day-long vacations at the next most frequent level (39.5%).

Table 12. Number of Day-long Vacations Taken in Past 12 Months

 

 

Physically AAPD

Number of Day- General Disabled Non—disabled

_lo_ngVacations Sample Sample Sample Total
0 101 (44.1%) 95 (43.2%) 53 (41.1%) 246 (43.1%)
1 — 5 95 (41.5) 88 (40.0) 51 (39.5) 234 (40.5)
6 — 11 18 (7.9) 22 (10.0) 18 (14.0) 58 (10.0)
12— 16 9(39) 7(3.2) 4(31) 20 (3.5)
17—20 2(0.9) 3(1.4) 2(1.6) 7(1-2)
21 and greater 4 (1.7) 5 (2.3) l (0.8) 10 (1.7)
Total 229 (100%) 220 (100%) 129 (100%) 578 (100%)

 

52

The general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled sample were asked how
many short overnight (2 to 4 days in length) vacations that they have taken in the past 12
months. As seen in Table 13, the greatest number of general sample participants reported
taking one to five short overnight vacations in the past 12 months (56.3%) with taking no
short overnight vacations at the next greatest frequency (30.1%). The physically disabled
sample reported taking one to five short overnight vacations at the greatest frequency
(53.2%) followed by no short overnight vacations (33.2%). The AAPD non-disabled
sample participants reported one to five short overnight vacations in the past 12 months at

the highest rate (68.2%) followed by no short overnight vacations taken (19.4%).

Table 13. Number of Short Overnight Vacations Taken in Past 12 Months

 

 

Physically AAPD
Number of Short General Disabled Non-disabled
Overnight Vacations Sample Sample Sample Total
0 69 (30.1%) 73 (33.2%) 25 (19.4%) 167 (28.9%)
1 - 5 129 (56.3) 117 (53.2) 88 (68.2) 334 (57.8)
6-11 26(ll.4) 20(9.l) 14(10.9) 60(10.4)
12-16 2(0.9) 3(1.4) 2(1.6) 7(l.2)
17 — 20 l (0.4) 5 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 6 (1.0)
21 and greater 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 4 (0.7)
Total 229 (100%) 220 (100%) 129 (100%) 578 (100%)

 

The general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled samples were asked
how many long overnight (five or more days in length) vacations that they have taken in
the past 12 months. As seen in Table 14, the greatest number of general sample
participants reported taking one to five long overnight vacations in the past 12 months
(42.4%), with no long overnight vacation taken reported with the next greatest frequency
(39.3%). The physically disabled sample reported taking no long overnight vacations at
the greatest frequency (49.1%). This was followed by the physically disabled sample

participation in one to five long overnight vacations at the next most frequent rate

53

(38.2%). The AAPD non-disabled sample participants reported taking one to five long
overnight vacations at the greatest rate (51.2%) and taking no long overnight vacations in

the past 12 months at a rate of (30.2%).

Table 14. Number of Long Overnight Vacations Taken in Past 12 Months

 

 

Physically AAPD
Ntunber of Long Overnight General Disabled Non-disabled
Vacations Sample Sample Sample Total
0 90 (39.3%) 108 (49.1%) 39 (30.2%) 237 (41.0%)
1 — 5 97 (42.4) 84 (38.2) 66 (51.2) 247 (42.7)
6— 11 26(ll.4) 22(10.0) 18(14.0) 66(ll.4)
12— 16 l3(5.7) 3(1.4) 2(1.6) 18(3.l)
l7 — 20 1 (0.4) 2 (0.9) 3 (2.3) 6 (1.0)
21 and greater 2 (0.9) l (0.5) l (0.8) 4 (0.7)
Total 229 (100%) 220 (100%) 129 (100%) 578 (100%)

 

The general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled sample participants
were asked to recall a recent, memorable vacation trip taken in recent years. The first
area identified was to report on the month of their recent memorable trip, as shown in
Table 15. The general sample identified July as the most frequent month for travel
(13.2%) with September identified as the next most frequent month for travel (11.7%).
The physically disabled sample identified July as the most frequent month for travel
(18.6%) followed by August (11.9%). The AAPD non-disabled sample reported at July
was the most frequently identified month for travel (16.5%) closely followed by August

(13.2%).

54

Table 15. Trip Month of Recent Memorable Trip

 

 

Physically AAPD

General Disabled Non-disabled
Most Recent Trip Month Sample Sample Sample Total
January 5 (2.4%) 9 (4.6%) 0 (0.0%) 14 (2.7%)
February 13 (6.3) 7 (3.6) 6 (5.0) 26 (5.0)
March 18 (8.8) , 16 (8.2) 7 (5.8) 41 (7.9)
April 23 (11.2) 16 (8.2) 19 (15.7) 58 (11.2)
May 19 (9.3) 10 (5.2) 12 (9.9) 41 (7.9)
June 19 (9.3) 20 (10.3) 13 (10.7) 52 (10.0)
July 27 (13.2) 36 (18.6) 20 (16.5) 83 (16.0)
August 23 (11.2) 23 (11.9) 16032) 62(ll.9)
September 24 (11.7) 12 (6.2) 11 (9.1) 47 (9.0)
October 11 (5.4) 21 (10.8) 5 (4.1) 37 (7.1)
November 8 (3.9) 13 (6.7) 4 (3.3) 25 (4.8)
December 15 (7.3) 11 (5.7) 8 (6.6) 34 (6.5)
Total 205 (100%) 194 (100%) 121 (100%) 520 (100%)

 

The general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled sample participants
were asked to recall a recent, memorable vacation trip taken in recent years. Table 16
provides information regarding the year of a recent memorable trip. All three samples
identified 2006 or 2007 as the time period of their memorable trip with frequencies
reported by the general sample (56.7%), the physically disabled sample (52.5%) and

AAPD non-disabled sample reporting (68.3%).

Table 16. Trip Year of Recent Memorable Trip

 

 

Physically AAPD

General Disabled Non-disabled
Most Recent Trip Year Sample Sample Sample Total
2006 - 2007 118 (56.7%) 104 (52.5%) 84 (68.3%) 306 (57.8%)
2000 - 2005 77 (37.0) 76 (38.4) 31 (25.2) 184 (34.8)
1990 — 1999 8 (3.8) 11 (5.6) 6 (4.9) 25 (4.7)
1980—1989 2(1.0) 5 (2.5) 2 (1.6) 9(l.7)
1979 and prior 3 (1.4) 2 (1.0) 0 (0.0) 5 (0.9)
Total 208 (100%) 198 (100%) 123 (100%) 529 (100%)

 

Table 17 provides information regarding the geographic location of their most

memorable trip destination visited. Responses were coded into five distinct categories.

55

The categories include states of the survey (Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois), other
United States (states not in the survey area), Canada, Mexico and all other international
countries (not including Canada and Mexico). The general sample identified other
United States as the location of their memorable trip destination (61.5%) with all other
international destination locations as the next most frequently reported destination
(18.0%). The physically disabled sample identified other United States as the location of
their memorable trip destination (71.2%) followed by the states of the survey as the
location of their memorable trip destination (11.1%). The AAPD non-disabled sample
reported other United States as the location of their memorable trip destination (54.8%)

with all other international as their next most memorable trip destination (21.8%).

Table 17. Geographic Location of Recent Memorable Trip Destination Visited

 

 

Physically AAPD
Geographic Location of the General Disabled Non-disabled
Destination Visited Sample Sample Sample Total
States of surveya 25 (12.2%) 22 (11.1%) 14 (11.3%) 61 (11.6%)
Other US Statesb 126 (61.5) 141 (71.2) 68 (54.8) 335 (63.6)
Canada 5 (2.4) 6 (3.0) 7 (5.6) 18 (3.4)
Mexico 12 (5.9) s (4.0) 8 (6.5) 28 (5.3)
All other international
countriesc 37 (18.0) 21 (10.6) 27 (21.8) 85 (16.1)
Total 205 (100%) 198 (100%) 124 (100%) 527 (100%)

 

a: Includes responses from Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois
b: Includes all United States not included in states of survey
C: Includes all international countries except for Canada and Mexico

Referring to the memorable vacation trip, sample participants were asked; Prior to
this trip, had you visited this destination before? As shown in Table 18, over 50% of
both the general sample (52.6%) and the physically disabled sample (54.5%) responded
that they had visited the destination prior to their most recent memorable vacation. The

AAPD non-disabled sample reported nearly a 50% split in yes/no responses.

56

Table 18. Visited Destination Before Recent Memorable Trip

 

 

Physically AAPD
General Disabled Non-disabled
Visited Destination Before Sample Sample Sample Total
Yes 111 (52.6%) 109 (54.5%) 61 (49.6%) 281 (52.6%)
No 100 (47.4) 91 (45.5) 62 (50.4) 253 (474)
Total 211 (100%) 200 (100%) 123 (100%) 534 (100%)

 

Continuing to refer to the memorable vacation trip, the general, physically
disabled and AAPD non-disabled sample participants were asked to describe their travel
party composition, see Table 19. All three samples reported that over 50% of each
sample had traveled with family; with the general sample reporting (66.8%), the
physically disabled sample (59.3%) and the AAPD non-disabled sample (62.1%). Travel
parties consisting of friends followed with the general sample reporting (14.2%) and the
physically disabled sample (15.2%), however the AAPD non-disabled sample reported

travel with fiiends (12.9%) and travel alone (12.1%) at nearly the same rate.

Table 19. Travel Party Composition for the Recent Memorable Trip

 

 

Physically AAPD

General Disabled Non-disabled
Travel Party Sample Sample Sample Total
Family 141 (66.8%) 121 (59.3%) 77 (62.1%) 339 (62.9%)
Friends 30 (14.2) 31 (15.2) 16 (12.9) 77 (14.3)
Tour grouo 2 (0.9) 6 (2.9) 3 (2.4) 1 1 (2.0)
Yourself 15 (7.1) 20 (9.8) 15 (12.1) 50 (9.3)
Family and friends 15 (7.1) 20 (9.8) 9 (7.3) 44 (8.2)
Family, friends and tour
group 2 (0.9) 3 (1.5) 1 (0.8) 6 (1.1)
Family and tour grouo 2 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 2 (1.6) 4 (0.7)
Friends and tour grouo 4 (1.9) 3 (1 .5) 1 (0.8) 8 (1.5)
Total 211 (100%) 204 (100%) 124 (100%) 539 (100%)

 

Travel proclivity results for the three samples are summarized in Table 20. The
general sample can be characterized as follows; in the past 12 months 56% participated in
1 to 5 short overnight vacations and 42% took 1 to 5 long overnight vacations. July was

preferred by 13% of the general sample as the month for travel.

57

A majority of the general sample (57%), recalled a memorable trip that took place
in 2006 or 2007. For 62% of the general population, this memorable trip took place
within the United States, but outside of the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana or Illinois
with 53% having visited the destination before. The general population reported

traveling with family most frequently, (67%) as seen in Table 20.

58

Table 20. Overview of Travel Proclivity Results

 

 

Physically AAPD
Travel Proclivity in Past General Disabled Non-disabled
Twelve Months n Sample Sample Sample Total
Day-long Vacations Past
Twelve Months 578
0 44.1% 43.2% 41.1% 43.1%
1 —— 5 41.5 40.0 39.5 40.5
6 — 11 7.9 10.0 14.0 10.0
12— 16 g 3.9 3.2 3.1 3.5
17-20 .9 1.4 1.6 1.2
21 and greater 1.7 2.3 .8 1.7
Short Overnight
Vacations Past Twelve
Months 573
0 30.1 33.2 19.4 28.9
1 — 5 56.3 53.2 68.2 57.8
6-11 11.4 9.1 10.9 10.4
12-16 .9 1.4 1.6 1.2
17 — 20 .4 2.3 .0 1.0
21 and greater .9 .9 .0 0.7
Long Overnight
Vacations Past
Twelve Months 573
0 39.3 49.1 30.2 41.0
1 - 2 42.4 38.2 51.2 42.7
3—4 11.4 10.0 14.0 11.4
5— 10 5.7 1.4 1.6 3.1
11 - 15 .4 .9 2.3 1.0
16 and greater .9 .5 .8 0.7
Trip Month in Past
Twelve Months 520
January 2.4 4.6 .0 2.7
February 6.3 3.6 5.0 5.0
March 8.8 8.2 5.8 7.9
April 11.2 8.2 15.7 11.2
May 9.3 5.2 9.9 7.9
June 9.3 10.3 10.7 10.0
July 13.2 18.6 16.5 16.0
August 11.2 11.9 13.2 11.9
September 1 1.7 6.2 9.1 9.0
October 5.4 10.8 4.1 7.1
November 3.9 6.7 3.3 4.8
December 7.3 15.7 6.6 6.5

 

59

Table 20 (continued). Travel Proclivity Overview Past Twelve Months

 

 

Physically AAPD

Travel Proclivity Past Twelve General Disabled Non-disabled
Months Continued ll Sample Sample Sample Total
Most Recent Trip Year 529
2006 — 2007 56.7 52.5 68.3 57.8%
2000 — 2005 37.0 38.4 25.2 34.8
1990 — 1999 3.8 5.6 4.9 4.7
1980 - 1989 1.0 2.5 1.6 1.7
1979 and prior 1.4 1.0 .0 0.9
Most Recent Trip

Geographic Location

Destination Visited 527
States of survey 12.2 11.1 11.3 11.6
Other US States 61.5 71.2 54.8 63.6
Canada 2.4 3.0 5.6 3.4
Mexico 5.9 4.0 6.5 5.3
All other international 18.0 10.6 21.8

countries 16.1
Most Recent Trip Visited

Destination Before 534
Yes 52.6 54.5 49.6 52.6
No 47.4 45.5 50.4 47.4
Most Recent Trip Travel

Party 539
Family 66.8 59.3 62.1 62.9
Friends 14.2 15.2 12.9 14.3
Tour group .9 2.9 2.4 2.0
Yourself 7.1 9.8 12.1 9.3
Family and friends 7.1 9.8 7.3 8.2
Fam1ly, friends and tour .9 1.5 .8

group 1.1
Family and tour group .9 .0 1.6 0.7
Friends and tour group 1.9 1.5 .8 1.5

 

The physically disabled sample can be characterized as follows; 53% participated

in 1 to 5 short overnight vacations. Almost half of physically disabled sample members

took no long overnight vacations. July was the month 19% of the physically disabled

sample indicated as the preferred travel month. The most memorable trip recalled

occurred in 2006 or 2007 as reported by 53% of the physically disabled sample. This

most memorable trip took place within the United States, but did not include a visit to

60

Michigan, Ohio, Indiana or Illinois as reported by 71% of the physically disabled sample.
The physically disabled sample reported at a rate of 55% that they had visited the
destination before prior to their most memorable visit and 59% reported traveling with

family, as seen in Table 20.

The AAPD non-disabled sample can be characterized as follows; in the past 12
months 68% participated in 1 to 5 short overnight vacations and 51% took 1 to 5 long
overnight vacations. July was preferred by 17% of the AAPD non—disabled sample as the
month for travel. A majority of the AAPD non-disabled sample (68%) recalled a
memorable trip that occm'red in 2006 or 2007. For 55% of the AAPD non-disabled
sample, this memorable trip took place within the United States, but did not include a
visit to Michigan, Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. Half of the AAPD non-disabled sample
reported having not visited the destination before and 62% reported that they had traveled

with family, as seen in Table 20.
PERCEIVED TRAVEL EXPERIENCE

The general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled samples were asked to
identify their level of agreement with the statements: “I travel a lot in the Midwest”; “I
travel a lot in the United States” and, “I travel a lot internationally.” Their level of
agreement for their perceived travel behavior was based on a five-point scale; with one
being strongly disagree, 3 neutral, to 5 strongly agree. An ANOVA was computed
comparing the level of agreement score for each of the statements across the three

samples.

61

The item, “Midwest Vacation Experience” showed no significant difference
among the sample groups (F (2, 575) = 2.96, p > .05). These results are presented in

Table 21.

Table 21. Perceptions of Travel by Geographic Location of Destination

 

 

Geographic

Location of Physically AAPD

Travel General Disabled Non-disabled

Destination Sample Sample Sample F-Ratio p
Midwest 3.32”I (1.3”) 3.33 (1.3) 3.64 (1 .2) 2.96 .053c
United States 3.24 (1.2) 3.36 (1.2) 3.43 (1.2) 1.85 .158
International 2.23 (1.34) 2.01 (1.4) 2.22 (1.3) 1.85 .158

 

a: Mean based on a five-point Likert-style scale with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

Table 21 shows the response for the statement; “I travel a lot in the United
States.” The item “I travel a lot in the United States” showed no significant difference

among the samples (F (2, 575) = 1.85, p > .05).

9

Table 21 also shows the response for the statement; “I travel a lot internationally.’
The item “I travel a lot internationally” showed no significant difference among the

samples (F (2, 575) = 1.85, p > .05).

The general, physically disabled and AAPD non-disabled samples were asked to
identify their level of agreement with the statements: “I consider myself a well-traveled
person”; and, “I consider myself a skilled traveler.” Level of agreement for their
perceived travel experience was based on a five-point scale; with one being strongly
disagree, 3 neutral, to 5 strongly agree. An ANOVA was computed comparing the level

of agreement score for each of the statements across the three samples. With regard to

62

both statements and all three samples, each reported their level of agreement or

disagreement as neutral or average. Specifics regarding the analysis follow.

The item, “I consider myself a well-traveled person” showed no significant
difference among the sample groups (F (2, 575) = 1.82, p > .05). These results are

presented in Table 22.

Table 22. Perceived Self Assessment for Travel

 

 

Physically AAPD
Travel Self General Disabled Non-disabled
Assessment Sample Sample Sample F p
Well-traveled 2.76a (1.2”) 2.77 (1 .3) 3.00 (1 .1) 1.82 .163°
Skilled traveler 2.90 (1.2) 2.95 (1 .3) 3.21 (1.1) 2.78 .063

 

a: Mean based on a five-point Likert-style scale with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree

b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

The item, “I consider myself a skilled traveler” showed no significant difference
among the sample groups (F (2, 575) = 2.78, p > .05). These results are presented in

Table 22.

PHYSICALLY DISABLED SAMPLE TRAVEL PROCLIVITY

The premise of this study is to understand the physically disabled traveler
therefore; the general and AAPD non-disabled sample will not be used for analysis
within this section. The following information will provide research findings specific to
the physically disabled sample. Since this study centers on the identification of opinion
leadership within the physically disabled sample, the results are differentiated as
physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled sample opinion

leaders. To identify the presence of opinion leadership in this research, the Opinion

63

Leadership Scale authored by Childers (1986) was applied. This scale was modified to
fit tourism by Jamrozy et al. (1996) where the scale was applied in a nature-based tourism
context, this study applies the Opinion Leadership Scale to the disability segment as it
pertains to vacation travel planning. When tested by Childers (1986), the Opinion
Leadership Scale included internal consistency reliability estimate of 0.83, an average
item-to-total correlation of 0.62 and adequate testing of unidimensionality via structural

equation modeling.

Jamrozy et a1. (1996) modified the Childers (1986) scale and applied the scale in
nature-based tourism context. When tested, the Jamrozy et a1. (1996) modified scale
included an internal consistency reliability estimate of 0.88; a mean total sum score for

the scale was 19.5 and a standard deviation of 5.64.

The Opinion Leadership Scale as applied within this study to the disability
segment and applied to vacation travel planning showed similar internal consistency
reliability estimates and unidimensional structure as found by Childers (1986) and
Jamrozy et al. (1996). The Opinion Leadership Scale applied in this study reported an
internal consistency reliability estimate of 0.87; a mean total sum score of 18.66 and a

standard deviation of 5.22.

The Opinion Leadership Scale was operationalized on a five-point response
format. A mean score was calculated by adding up the responses (scale 1 to 5) on the six
items that form the Opinion Leadership Scale (range of 6 to 30). The mean score of
18.66 on the Opinion Leadership Scale segmented the opinion leader from the non-

opinion leader, following the approach used in Jamrozy et al. (1996). Descriptive

64

statistics on the Opinion Leadership Scale is presented in Table 1. Within the physically
disabled sample 58% of study participants were identified as opinion leaders with 42%

being identified as non-opinion leaders.

The physically disabled sample participant’s self-categorization of disability
severity level by opinion leadership classification was presented in section three. This is
followed by the age and number of years physically disabled that study participants have
lived with their disability. A series of tests applied to the physically disabled sample
travel characteristics and travel self assessments follows. Section three concludes with

the physically disabled person’s ratings of hospitality services.

Physically disabled sample study participants were asked to classify their
disability as severe, moderate or minor. Severe (47.0%) and moderate disabilities
(47.0%) were most common among the physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders
with only a few reporting minor disabilities, as shown in Table 23. Among the physically
disabled opinion leader sample, moderate disabilities (55.3%) were more common than
severe (43.9%), however, the difference between the two classifications was not

significant (X2 = 4.9, p > .05)

Table 23. Classification of Physical Disability

 

 

_ Physically

Physically Disabled Disabled
Classification Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
of disability Sample Sample Total (df = 2) p
Severe 39 (47 .O%) 50 (43.9%) 45.2%
Moderate 39 (47.0) 63 (55.3) 51.8
Minor 5 (6.0) 1 (0.1) 3.0
T0131 83 (100%) 1 14 (100%) 197 (100%) 4.92 .098

 

a: Significance at p < .05

65

Physically disabled sample non—opinion leaders and physically disabled sample
opinion leaders were asked to identify the age when they became physically disabled, see
Table 24. Birth to 12 years of age was the most common response by the physically
disabled sample non-opinion leader (26.2%), with ages 50 to 59 being reported at the
next greatest frequency (16.7%). Birth to 12 years of age was also the most common
response by the physically disabled sample opinion leader (27.4%). Age 13 to 19 was the
next most frequent age reported by the physically disabled sample opinion leader

(15.9%).

Table 24. Age Became Physically Disabled

 

 

Physically
Disabled Physically
Non-opinion Disabled
Leader Opinion Leader
Age Range Physically Disabled Sample Sample Total

Birtha — 12 22 (26.2%) 31 (27.4%) 53 (26.9%)
13— 19 8(9.5) l8(15.9) 26(13.2)
20 - 29 15 (6.0) 14 (12.4) 29 (14.7)
30 — 39 7 (8.3) 17 (15.0) 24 (12.2)
40—49 7(8.3) 16(14.2) 23 (11.7)
50 - 59 14 (16.7) 9 (8.0) 23 (11.7)
60 — 69 7 (8.3) 6 (5.3) 13 (6.6)
70 - 79 4 (4.8) 1 (0.9) 5 (2.5)
80 — 89 0 (0.0) 1 (0.9) I (0.5)
Total 84 (100%) 113L00%) 197 (100%)

 

a: According to resocialization theory (Kraus & Stoddard, 1989) 10% of currently physically disabled
people were born with their disability. This study sample’s frequency of participants born
with a disability is slightly higher (13.7%) n=27.

Physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled sample
opinion leaders were asked to identify the number of years they have lived with their
disability. As shown in Table 25, physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders
reported most frequently that they have lived with their disability for 1 to 12 years

(34.2%) with 30 to 39 years reported next most frequently (19%). The physically

66

disabled sample opinion leader also reported at the highest level that they have lived with
their disability for l to 12 years (28.8%), with ages 20 to 29 being reported at the next

greatest frequency (22.5%).

Table 25. Number of Years Lived with Disability

 

 

Physically
Disabled Physically
Non-opinion Disabled
Leader Opinion Leader

Years Lived with Disability Sample Sample Total
1 - 12 27 (34.2%) 32 (28.8%) 59 (31.1%)
13-19 10(12.7) 18(16.2) 28(14.7)
20 — 29 12 (15.2) 25 (22.5) 37 (19.5)
30-39 15(19.0) 13(11.7) 28(14.7)
40 — 49 3 (3.8) 5 (4.5) 8 (4.2)
50 — 59 6 (7.6) 12 (10.8) 18 (9.5)
60 —- 69 5 (6.3) 6 (5.4) 11 (5.8)
70 - 79 1 (1 .3) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5)
Total 79 (100%) 111 (100%) 190 (100%L

 

The physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and the physically disabled
sample opinion leaders were asked to recall a recent, memorable vacation trip taken in
recent years, results are presented in Table 26. Travel behavior results are presented to
provide information specific to the physically disabled traveler’s memorable vacation trip
taken in recent years and are not represented in the hypotheses tests. Other travel
variables specific to the physically disabled traveler non-opinion leaders and opinion
leader (i.e., rate of travel) are included in hypotheses tests. The first area identified was
to report on the month of their recent most memorable trip. The physically disabled
sample non-opinion leaders identified July as the most frequent month for travel (16.4%)
with June and August immediately following reporting the next most frequent months of
travel (13.7%). Physically disabled sample opinion leaders also identified July as the
most frequent month for travel (19.8%) with August and October as the next most

frequent months of travel (10.7%).

67

Table 26. Recent Trip - Month Preferred for Physically Disabled Sample

 

 

Physically
Disabled Physically
Non-opinion Disabled
Leader Opinion Leader

Most Recent Trip Month Sample Sample Total
January 4 (5.5%) 5 (4.1%) 9 (4.6%)
February 3 (4.1) ' 4 (3.3) 7 (3.6)
March 8 (11.0) 8 (6.6) 16 (8.2)
April 5 (6.8) 11 (9.1) 16 (8.2)
May 4 (5.5) 6 (5.0) 10 (5.2)
June 10 (13.7) 10 (8.3) 20 (10.3)
July 12 (16.4) 24 (19.8) 36 (18.6)
August 10(13.7) 13(10.7) 23 (11.9)
September 2 (2.7) 10 (8.3) 12 (6.2)
October 8 (11.0) 13 (10.7) 21 (10.8)
November 3 (4.1) 10 (8.3) 13 (6.7)
December 4 (5.5) 7 (5.8) 11 (5.7)
Total 73 (100%) 121 (100%) 194 (100%)

 

The physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and Opinion leaders were

asked to recall a recent, memorable vacation trip taken in recent years. Table 27 provides

information regarding the year of their recent most memorable trip. The physically

disabled sample non-opinion leaders identified the years 2000 to 2005 most frequently

(48.0%), with 2006 at a reported rate (32.0%) and 2004 (14.7%). Whereas, the

physically disabled sample opinion leaders identified 2006 most frequently (44.7%)

followed by the years 2000 to 2005 (32.5%).

Table 27. Recent Trip Year for Physically Disabled Sample

 

 

Most Recent Trip Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

Year- Physically Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader

disabled Sample Sample Total
2007 5 (6.7%) 20 (16.3%) 25 (12.6%)
2006 24 (32.0) 55 (44.7) 79 (39.9)
2000 — 2005 36 (48.0) 40 (32.5) 76 (38.4)
1990 — 1999 7 (9.3) 4 (3.3) 11 (5.6)
1980 - 1989 2 (2.7) 3 (2.4) 5 (2.5)
1979 and prior 1 (1 .3) l (0.8) 2 (1.0)
Total 75 (100%) 123 (100%) I98 Q00%)

 

68

The physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and the physically disabled
sample opinion leaders were asked to recall a memorable vacation trip taken in recent
years. Table 28 provides information regarding the geographic location of the destination
visited of their memorable trip. The physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders
identified the other United States as the location of their memorable trip destination
(73.0%) with all other international destination locations as the next most frequently
reported destination (10.8%). The physically disabled sample opinion leaders also
identified other United States as the location of their most memorable trip destination
(70.2%) followed by the states of the survey as the location of their memorable trip
destination (13.7%). All other international destinations was the third most frequent in
responses for physically disabled sample opinion leaders (10.5%). The prevalence of the
international destinations in frequency of visitation is of interest. This is especially of
interest due to the geographic proximity of Canada to the states of Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois where this study was focused. As presented in Table 28, Canada was
the least mentioned geographic location of destination visited by the physically disabled

sample.

Table 28. Geographic Location of Destination Visited Physically Disabled

 

 

Physically
Disabled Physically
Non-opinion Disabled

Geographic Location of the Leader Opinion
Destination Visited Sample Leader Sample Total
States of survey 5 (6.8%) 17 ( 13.7%) 22 (1 1.1%)
Other US States 54 (73.0) 87 (70.2) 141 (71.2)
Canada 3 (4.1) 3 (2.4) 6 (3.0)
Mexico 4 (5.4) 4 (3.2) 8 (4.0)
All other international countries 8 (10.8) 13 (10.5) 21 (10.6)
Total 74 (100%) 124 (100%) 198 (100%)

 

69

Referring to the memorable vacation trip, physically disabled sample non-opinion
leaders and physically disabled sample opinion leaders were asked whether they had
visited the destination prior to their visit. Table 29 shows that over 50% of both the
physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders (54.7%) and physically disabled sample
opinion leaders (54.4%) reported that they had visited the destination prior to their most

recent memorable vacation.

Table 29. Visited Destination Before Physically Disabled Sample

 

 

Physically
Disabled Physically
Non-opinion Disabled
Leader Opinion Leader

Visited Destination Before Sample Sample Total
Yes 41 (54.7%) 68 (54.4%) 109 (54.5%)
No 34 (45.3) 57 (45.6) 91 (45.5)
Total 75 (100%) 125 (100%) 200 (100%)

 

The physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled
sample opinion leaders were asked to describe their travel party composition on the
memorable vacation trip. Results are presented in Table 30. The physically disabled
sample non-opinion leaders reported traveling with family nearly two-thirds of the time
(65.4%) with physically disabled sample opinion leaders reporting travel with family
over half the time (55.6%). However, both sample groups atypically reported no
evidence of traveling with family and tour groups. Physically disabled sample non-
opinion leaders reported no activity of traveling with friends and tour groups, with
physically disabled sample opinion leaders reporting only slight participation (2.4%) in

traveling with friends and tour groups.

70

Table 30. Travel Party Composition Physically Disabled Sample

 

 

Physically
Disabled Physically
Non-opinion Disabled
Leader Opinion Leader

Travel Party Sample Sample Total
Family 51 (65.4%) 70 (55.6%) 121 (59.3%)
Friends 7 (9.0) 24 (19.0) 31 (15.2)
Tour group 3 (3.8) 3 (2.4) 6 (2.9)
Yourself 8 (10.3) 12 (9.5) 20 (9.8)
Family and friends 8 (10.3) 12 (9.5) 20 (9.8)
F amil , friends and tour
gm: 1 (1.3) 2 (1.6) 3 (1.5)
Family and tour group 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Friends and tour group 0 (0.0) 3 (2.4) 3 (1 .5)
Total 78 (100%) 126 (100%) 204 (100%)

 

Table 31 shows results of independent-samples t tests comparing service ratings
by physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled sample
opinion leaders. Study participants were asked to express their level of agreement with
the following statement; “I receive necessary disability services information when
making hotel reservations.” Physically disabled sample opinion leaders gave a higher
rating for receipt of necessary disability services information when making hotel
reservations (mean = 3.24) than physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders (mean =
2.75). There was a significant difference between the means of the two groups

(t (218) = 2.776, p < .05).

71

Table 31. Disability Service and Information Ratings
Physically Disabled Physically Disabled
Disability service and information Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
rating Sample Sample t p
1 receive necessary disability
services information when
making hotel reservations 2.75a (1 .4") 3.24 (1.3) 2.776 006"
I am understood when asking ‘ '
questions regarding
disability services 3.05 (1.3) 3.48 (1.3) 2.456 .015
I receive necessary disability
services travel information
when calling 800 numbers 2.54 (1.1) 2.73 (1 .2) 1.199 .232
I receive necessary disability
services travel information
through web sites 2.65 (1.2) 2.68 (1.2) .169 .866
I receive necessary disability
services information when
making airline reservations 2.89 (1.3) 3.13 (1.3) 1.314 .190
a: Mean based on a five-point Likert-style scale with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

 

 

Study participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statements;
“I am understood when asking questions regarding disability services.” Physically
disabled sample opinion leaders gave a higher rating (mean = 3.48) than physically
disabled sample non-opinion leaders (mean = 3.05). The independent-samples t test
comparing the mean scores identified a significant difference between the means of the

two groups (t (218) = 2.257, p < .05), see Table 31.

The statements; “I receive necessary disability services travel information when
calling 800 numbers”; “I receive necessary disability services travel information through
web sites” and “I receive necessary disability services information when making airline
reservations” were rated similarly opinion leaders and non-opinion leader groups.
Results are shown in Table 31. Each of these results shows disagreement with these

statements.

72

Physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders may be characterized as living
with a severe or moderate disability (47.0%). Over one—quarter of physically disabled
sample non-opinion leaders have been physically disabled since birth (26.2%).
Physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders reported at a rate of 34% they have lived
with the disability for 1 to 12 years. July was identified as their most recent trip month
(16.4%) with this trip being taken between 2000 and 2005 (48.0%), in the United States
not including Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois (73.0%). Physically disabled sample
non-opinion leaders reported having visited the destination prior to this trip at a rate of
(54.7%) and traveled with family members (65.4%). This information is presented in

Table 32.

73

Table 32. Overview Disability Sample Travel Proclivity

 

Physically Disabled

 

Sample Physically Disabled Sample
Travel Proclivity Overview ll Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Classification of disability 197
Severe 47.0% 43.9%
Moderate 47.0 5 53
Minor 6.0 0.1
Age Became Physically
Disabled 197
Birth — 12 26.2 27.4
13 — 19 9.5 15.9
20 — 29 6.0 12.4
30 ‘ 39 8.3 15.0
40 — 49 8.3 14.2
50 — 59 16.7 8.0
60 — 69 8.3 5.3
70 — 79 4.8 0.9
80 - 89 0.0 0.9
Years Lived with Disability 190
l T 12 34.2 23,3
13 - 19 12.7 16.2
20 - 29 152 22.5
30 — 39 190 1 1.7
40 — 49 3.8 4.5
50 ‘ 59 7.6 10.8
60 — 69 6.3 5.4
70 — 79 1.3 0.0
Most Recent Trip Month 194
Wm? 5.5 4.1
February 4.1 33
March 1 1.0 6.6
April 6.8 9.]
May 55 5.0
June 13.7 33
July 16.4 19.8
August 13.7 ]()_7
September 2.7 33
October 1 1.0 107
November 4. 1 8.3
December 55 5.8

 

74

Table 32 (continued). Overview of Disability Sample Travel Proclivity

 

 

Physically Disabled
Sample Physically Disabled Sample
Travel Proclivity Overview ll Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Most Recent Trip Year-
Physically Disabled 198
2007 6.7 16.3
2006 32.0 44.7
2000—2005 48.0 32.5
1990 — 1999 9.3 3.3
1980 — 1989 2.7 2.4
1979 and prior 1.3 0.8
Geographic Location of the
Destination Visited I98
States of survey 6.8 13.7
Other US States 73.0 70.2
Canada 4.1 2.4
Mexico 5.4 3.2
“133:; i12:1;emational 10.8 10.5
Visited Destination Before 200
Yes 54.7 54.4
No 45.3 45.6
Travel Party 204
Family 65.4 55.6
Friends 9.0 19.0
Tour group 3.8 2.4
Yourself 10.3 9.5
Family and friends 10.3 9.5
Family, friends and tour 13 1. 6
group
Family and tour group 0.0 0.0
Friends and tour group 0.0 2.4

 

Physically disabled sample opinion leaders may be characterized as living with a
moderate disability at a rate of (55.3%). Over one-quarter reported being physically
disabled since birth (27.4%). Physically disabled sample opinion leaders reported they
have lived with the disability for 1 to 12 (28.8%). July was reported as the preferred trip
moth for their most recent trip (19.8%), with this trip taken in 2006 or 2007 (44.7%), in
the United States but not including Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois (70.2%).

Physically disabled sample opinion leaders reporting having visited the destination before

75

(54.4%) and reported traveling with family (55.6%). These results are shown in Table

32.

HYPOTHESES TESTING

Childers (1986) authored the Opinion Leadership Scale to identify the presence of
opinion leaders. The scale was modified for use in tourism research by Jamrozy et al.
(1996) where the scale was applied in a nature-based tourism context. The Opinion
Leadership Scale was applied to the disability segment as it pertains to vacation travel
planning. The Opinion Leadership Scale, as tested by Childers (1986), included internal
consistency reliability estimate of 0.83, an average item-to-total correlation of 0.62 and
adequate testing of unidimensionality via structural equation modeling. After the scale
was modified by Jamrozy et al. (1996), and applied to nature-based tourism, the applied
scale in the nature-based tourism context included an internal consistency reliability
estimate of 0.88; a mean total sum score for the scale was 19.5 and a standard deviation
of 5.64. The Opinion Leadership Scale as applied within this study to the disability
segment and applied to vacation travel planning showed similar internal consistency
reliability estimates and unidimensional structure as found by Childers (1986) and
Jamrozy et al. (1996). The Opinion Leadership Scale applied in this study reported an
internal consistency reliability estimate of 0.87; a mean total sum score of 18.66 and a

standard deviation of 5.22.

The Opinion Leadership Scale was operationalized on a five-point response
format. A mean score was calculated by adding up the responses (scale 1 to 5) on six

items that form the Opinion Leadership Scale (range of 6 to 30). The mean score of

76

18.66 on the Opinion Leadership Scale segmented the opinion leader from the non-
opinion leader, following the approach used in Jamrozy et a1. (1996). All respondents
were used to determine the mean split of opinion leaders and non-opinion leaders.
Cronbach’s alpha is an unbiased estimate of the generalizability or a measure of how well
the sum score on the selected items captured the expected score in the entire domain is

heterogeneous. Rule of thumb is 0.70 or higher for accepted use

Hypothesis 1 states the percentage of opinion leaders in the physically disabled
traveler market segment is greater than the percentage in the general traveler market
segment. The mean score on the Opinion Leadership Scale divided opinion leaders from
non-opinion leaders. An independent-samples t test was calculated comparing the mean
score of subjects from the general sample identified as opinion leaders to the mean score
of physically disabled sample members identified as opinion leaders, see Table 33. A
significant difference was identified between the means of the two groups (t (447) =
2.041, p<.05). This finding was opposite from the finding supposed by hypothesis one.
Opinion leadership traits were stronger in the general sample (19.0) than the physically
disabled sample (17.9) contrary to the hypothesized relationship. Opinion leadership is
thought to be a critical determinant of word of mouth communication and interpersonal
influence affecting the diffusion of new products, concepts, and services. Additionally,
opinion leadership drives trends, influence mass opinion and, most importantly, sells a
great many products. 11'; “The percentage of opinion leaders in the physically disabled
traveler market segment is greater than the percentage in the general traveler market

segment.” was not supported by the data, however the identification of opinion leaders

77

within the physically disabled sample is an important first step in understanding this

market niche.

Table 33. Opinion Leadership

 

 

- Physically
General Disabled
Sample Sample I p
Opinion leadership 19.0a (5.5”) 17.9 (5.2) 2.041 042"

 

a: Mean score all items based on a range of 6 to 30 by adding responses for 6 questions
on Likert-style scale with 1 being least likely to 5 very likely

b: Standard deviation

c: Significance at p < .05

Hypothesis 2 states that physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will indicate
a stronger level of pre-trip planning activities than general sample opinion leaders. Table
34 shows results for three statements testing pre-trip planning. These statements include;
“I plan my entire trip well in advance” (t (447) = 0.74, p > .05); “I plan most of my
vacations before I leave and then fill in the details after I arrive” (t (447) = 0.27, p > .05)
and “I plan most of my vacation once I reach my destination” (t (447) = 0.08, p > .05) all
showed no significant difference between the two samples. See Table 34 for the results

of each statement. Hypothesis 2 was not supported by study results.

Table 34. Pre-trip Planning Activities for Physically Disabled Sample

 

 

Physically Disabled
General Sample Sample Opinion
Opinion Leaders Leaders 1 p
I plan my entire trip well in b c
advance 3.5a (1.2 ) 3.6 (1.3) .74 .459
I plan most of my vacations
before I leave and then fill
in the details after I arrive 3.2 (1 .2) 3.3 (1.3) .27 .788

1 plan most of my vacation
once I reach my destination 2.1 (1.1) 2.1 (1.2) .08 .936

a: Mean based on a five-point Likert—style scale with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree

b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

78

Hypothesis 3 states that physically disabled traveler opinion leaders will have
been physically disabled for a longer period of time than physically disabled traveler non-
opinion leaders. As reported in Table 35, an independent-samples t test was calculated.
These two groups showed no signifiCant difference (t (188) = .127, p > .05). Hypothesis

3 was not supported by these findings.

Table 35. Years Physically Disabled
Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample I P
Total number of years physically
disabled 25.3“ (19.3”) 25.0 (17.5) .127 .899C

 

a: Mean
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

Hypothesis 4 states that opinion leaders will report a higher perceived propensity
to travel for vacations or leisure than non-opinion leaders. Table 36 shows results of
independent-samples t tests comparing Midwest travel experience ratings by physically
disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled sample opinion leaders.
Study participants were asked to express their level of agreement with the following
statement; “I have traveled a lot in the Midwest.” Physically disabled sample Opinion
leaders reported a higher agreement rating (mean = 3.24) than physically disabled sample
non-opinion leaders (mean = 3.04). There was a significant difference between the

means of the two groups (t (218) = 2.84, p < .05).

79

Table 36. Propensity to Travel for Vacation or Leisure
Physically Disabled Physically Disabled
Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader

 

 

Sample Sample t p
1 have traveled a lot in the b
Midwest 3.043' (1.2 ) 3.54 (1 .4) 2.84 .005C
1 have traveled a lot in the
United States 2.93 (1 .2) 3.67 (1.2) 4.55 .000

I have traveled a lot
internationally 1.82 (1.2) 2.15 (1.5) 1.83 .069
a: Mean based on a five-point Likert-style scale with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

 

Study participants were asked to express their level of agreement with the
following statement; “I have traveled a lot in the United States.” Physically disabled
sample opinion leaders gave a higher agreement rating with this statement (mean = 3.67)
than physically disabled sample non—opinion leaders, who tended to disagree with the
statement, (mean = 2.93), see Table 36 for results. The difference between the means of

the two groups was significant (t (218) = 4.55, p < .05).

Also shown in Table 36, physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and
physically disabled sample opinion leaders were asked to express their level of agreement
with the following statement; “I have traveled a lot internationally.” Both segments
disagreed with this statement. The physically disabled sample opinion leaders provided a
higher rating, but still reported their disagreement with the statement (mean = 2.15) as did
the physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders (mean = 1.82). There was not a
significant difference between the means of the two groups (t (218) = 1.83, p > .05).

Hypothesis 4 was supported by these findings.

Hypothesis 5 states that opinion leaders will report a higher perceived travel skill

level than non-opinion leaders. Table 37 shows results of independent-samples t tests

80

comparing physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled
sample opinion leaders in perceived travel skill level. Study participants were asked to
express their level of agreement with the following statement; “I consider myself a well-
traveled person.” Physically disabled sample opinion leaders gave a higher agreement
rating (mean = 3.05) than physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders who responded
with disagreement with the statement (mean = 2.39). There was a significant difference

between the means of the two groups (t (218) = 3.73, p < .05).

Table 37. Consideration of Self Relating to Travel
Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample t p
I consider myself a b
well-traveled person 2.391’ (1.2 ) 3.05 (1 .3) 3.73 000°

I consider myself a skilled
traveler 2.64 (1.2) 3.17 (1 .3) 3.02 .003
a: Mean based on a five-point Likert-style scale with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

 

Physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled sample
opinion leaders were then asked to express their level of agreement with the following
statement; “I consider myself a skilled traveler.” Results are also presented in Table 37.
The physically disabled sample opinion leaders provided a higher rating, but still reported
themselves as neutral regarding the statement (mean = 3.17) as did the physically
disabled sample non-opinion leaders (mean = 2.64). There was a significant difference
between the means of the two groups (t (218) = 3.02, p < .05). Hypothesis 5 was

supported by these findings.

Hypothesis 6 states that opinion leaders will take a greater number of day-long,

short overnight and long overnight vacations than non-opinion leaders. The physically

81

disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled sample opinion leaders were
asked how many day-long vacations that they have taken in the past 12 months. As seen
in Table 38 where categorical data are reported in a chi-square test, the greatest number
of physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders reported taking no day-long vacations
in the past 12 months (56.5%) with 1 to 2 day—long vacations taken reported with the next
greatest frequency (21.7%). The physically disabled sample opinion leader reported
taking no day-long vacations at the greatest frequency (33.6%) with participation in five

or more vacations at the next most frequent rate (30.5%).

Table 38. Number of Day-long Vacations Taken by the Physically Disabled Sample in
the Past Twelve Months

 

 

Physically

Physically Disabled Disabled
Number of Day- Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
long Vacations Sample Sample (df = 4) p
0 52 (56.5%) 43 (33.6%)
1 - 2 20 (21.7) 29 (22.7)
3-4 9(9.8) l6(13.3)
5 or more 11 (12.0) 39 (30.5)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 15.162 .002a

 

3: Significance at p < .05

Table 39 also shows a significant difference identified by an independent samples
I test between physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and opinion leaders and
their level of reported participation in day-long vacations as ratio data. Opinion leaders
display a higher participation level for day-long vacation activity (mean = 2.55) than
physically disabled sample non—opinion leaders (mean = 1.84). The difference between

the means of the two groups was significant (t (218) = 3.86, p < .05).

82

Table 39. Average Number of Day-long Vacations Taken by the Physically Disabled

Sample
Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample t p
Number of Day-long Vacations 1.848 (1.21b) 2.55 (1.46) 3.857 000’:

 

a: Mean
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

The physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled
sample opinion leaders were asked how many short overnight vacations they have taken
in the past 12 months. As seen in Table 40, where categorical data are reported in a chi-
square test, the greatest number of physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders
reported taking no short overnight vacations in the past 12 months (47.8%), with
participating in 1 to 2 short overnight vacations taken at the next greatest frequency
(31.5%). The physically disabled sample opinion leaders reported taking 1 to 2 overnight
vacations at the greatest frequency (26.6%). This was followed by participation in 3 to 4
short overnight vacations taken reported at the next most frequent rate (25.8%). Nearly
three-quarters of the physically disabled sample opinion leaders participated in short
overnight vacations as compared with the physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders

at a rate of just over 50%.

83

Table 40. Number of Short Overnight Vacations Taken by the Physically Disabled
Sample in Past Twelve Months

 

 

Physically
Disabled Physically
Non-opinion Disabled

Number of Short Overnight Leader Opinion Leader X2
Vacations Sample Sample (df = 5) p
0 44 (47.8%) 29 (22.7%)
1 — 2 29 (31.5) 34 (26.6)
3-4 13 (14.1) 33 (25.8)
5 or more 6 (6.5) 32 (25.0)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 24.736 .0001

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Table 41 shows a significant difference identified by an independent samples t
test between physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and opinion leaders and
their level of participation in short overnight vacations. Opinion leaders display a higher
participation level for short overnight vacation activity (mean = 3.56) than physically
disabled sample non-opinion leaders (mean = 2.21). The difference between the means

of the two groups was significant (t (218) = 5.60, p < .05).

Table 41. Average Number of Short Overnight Vacations by the Physically Disabled
Sample

 

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-Opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample t L
Short Overnight Vacations 221° (153’) 3.56 Q93) 5.598 000°

 

a: Mean
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

The physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled
sample opinion leaders were asked how many long overnight vacations they have taken
in the past 12 months. As seen in Table 42, where categorical data are reported in a chi-
square test, the greatest number of physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders
reported taking no long overnight vacations in the past 12 months (71.7%), with 1 - 2

long overnight vacation taken reported with the next greatest frequency (23.9%). The

84

physically disabled sample opinion leaders also reported 1 to 2 long overnight vacations
(48.4%) at the greatest frequency. This was followed by taking no long overnight
vacations (32.8%). Over two-thirds of the physically disabled sample opinion leaders
were shown to participate in long overnight vacations as opposed to physically disabled

sample non-opinion leaders at less than one-third.

Table 42. Number Of Long Overnight Vacations Taken by the Physically Disabled
Sample in Past Twelve Months

 

 

Physically
Disabled Physically
Non-opinion Disabled

Number of Long Overnight Leader Opinion Leader X2
Vacations Sample Sample (df = 5) p
0 66 (71.7%) 42 (32.8%)
1 — 2 22 (23.9) 62 (48.4)
3-4 3(3.3) l9(14.8)
Sormore 1(1.1) 5(3.9)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 33.695 .0008

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Table 43 shows a significant difference identified by an independent samples I
test between physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and Opinion leaders and
their level of participation in long overnight vacations. Opinion leaders display a higher
participation level for long overnight vacation activity (mean = 2.41) than physically
disabled sample non-opinion leaders (mean = 1.47). The difference between the means

of the two groups was significant (t (218) = 5.60, p < .05).

Table 43. Average Number of Long Overnight Vacations by Physically Disabled Sample
Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample t p
Long overnight vacations 1.47°l (.93") 2.41 (1.40) 5.602 000°

 

a: Mean
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

85

Hypothesis 6 was supported by these findings.

Hypothesis 7 states that the classification of physical disability may be a factor in
the number of day-long, short overnight and long overnight vacations taken by physically
disabled non-opinion leaders and opinion leaders. Results for severe and moderate have
been shown. However, due to the low number of cases, no minor disability results could

be calculated.

Results presented in Table 44, where categorical data are reported in a chi-square
text with level of disability as a third variable, shows no day-long vacations taken in the
past 12 months reported at the highest frequency rate by severely physically disabled
non-opinion leaders (59.0%). Opinion leaders however reported five or more numbers of
day-long vacations taken at a rate of (38.0%) for those who self-classified as severely
physically disabled. Within the moderately physically disabled classification, physically
disabled non-opinion leaders (59.0%) and opinion leaders (36.5%) reported taking no
day-long vacations at the highest frequency. Nearly 60% of the non-opinion leaders who
classified their disability as severe or moderate indicated they did not take any day-long
vacations. However, in the case of opinion leaders the Opposite was true. Seventy
percent of opinion leaders who self-classified as possessing a severe disability indicated
taking day-long vacations and over 60% who self-classified as possessing a moderate
disability take day-long vacations. Few physically disabled sample cases classified their

disability as minor (n = 6); therefore, this information was not shown.

86

Table 44: Number of Day-long Vacations by Disability Levels

 

Number of Day—long

 

Vacations Classification of Disability Severe Moderate
0 Non-opinion Leader 23 (59.0%) 23 (59.0%)
Opinion Leader 15 (30.0) 23 (36.5)
1 — 2 Non-opinion Leader 8 (20.5) 7 (17.9)
Opinion Leader 11 (22.0) 15 (23.8)
3 — 4 Non-opinion Leader 3 (7.7) 5 (12.8)
Opinion Leader 5 (10.0) 10 (15.9)
5 and greater Non-opinion Leader 5 (12.8) 4 (10.3)
Opinion Leader 19 (38.0) 15 (23.8)
Total Non-opinion Leader 39 (100%) 39 (100%)
Opinion Leader 50 (100%) 63 (100%)
X2 (df = 3) 9.612 5.608
P .022 .132“

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Results presented in Table 45, where categorical data are reported in a chi-square
text with level of disability as a third variable, shows no short overnight vacations taken
in the past 12 months reported at the highest frequency rate by severely physically
disabled non-opinion leaders (59.0%). Opinion leaders however reported 3 to 4 and five
or more numbers of short overnight vacations taken at a rate of (30.0%) for those who
self-classified as severely physically disabled. In the moderate disability classification,
physically disabled non-opinion leaders reported (41.0%) no short overnight vacations
taken. Moderately physically disabled opinion leaders reported participation in 1 to 2
short overnight vacations at a rate of (28.6%). More than three-quarters of the severely
physically disabled and over 70% of the moderately physically disabled opinion leaders
reported participating in one or more short overnight vacations in the past 12 months.
Thirty percent of the severely physically disabled opinion leaders and 19% of the

moderately physically disabled opinion leaders reported taking five or more short

87

overnight vacations in the past 12 months. Only a few physically disabled sample cases

(11 = 6) classifying their disability as minor. As a result, this data was not presented.

Table 45. Number of Short Overnight Vacations Taken Physically Disabled Sample

 

 

Number of Short

Overnight

Vacations Classification of Disability Severe Moderate

0 Non-opinion Leader 23 (59.0%) 16 (41.0%)
Opinion Leader 11 (22.0) 17 (27.0)

1 ‘ 2 Non-opinion Leader 11 (28.2) 14 (35.9)
Opinion Leader 9 (18.0) 18 (28.6)

3 ' 4 Non-opinion Leader 5 (12.8) 6 (15.4)
Opinion Leader 15 (30.0) 16 (25.4)

5 and greater Non-opinion Leader 0 (0.0) 3 (7.7)
Opinion Leader 15 (30.0) 12 (19.0)

Total Non-opinion Leader 39 (100%) 39 (100%)
Opinion Leader 50 (100%) 63 (100%)

X2 (df= 3) 23.434 5.112

p .000 .164a

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Results presented in Table 46, where categorical data are reported in a chi-square
text with level of disability as a third variable, shows no long overnight vacations taken in
the past 12 months reported at the highest frequency rate by the physically disabled non-
opinion leaders who self-classified as severely physically disabled (74.4%). The
physically disabled opinion leaders, who self-classified as severely physically disabled,
indicated 1 to 2 long overnight vacations (52.0%) in the past 12 months. Within the
moderately physically disabled classification, physically disabled non-opinion leaders
(69.2%) reported taking no long overnight vacations. The physically disabled sample
opinion leaders (49.2%) reported 1 to 2 long overnight vacations. Too few physically
disabled non-Opinion and opinion leaders classified their disability as minor (n = 6);

therefore, this information has not been presented.

88

Table 46. Number of Long Overnight Vacations Taken Physically Disabled Sample

 

 

Number of Long

Overnight

Vacations Classification of Disability Severe Moderate

0 Non-opinion Leader 29 (74.4%) 27 (69.2%)
Opinion Leader 13 (26.0) 23 (36.5)

I ' 2 Non-opinion Leader 9 (23.1) 10 (25.6)
Opinion Leader 16 (52.0) 31 (49.2)

3 ' 4 Non-opinion Leader 0 (0.0) 2 (5.1)
Opinion Leader 8 (16.0) 8 (12.7)

5 and greater Non-opinion Leader 1 (2.6) 0 (0.0)
Opinion Leader 3 (6.0) 1 (1 .6)

Total Non-opinion Leader 39 (100%) 39 (100%)
Opinion Leader 50 (100%) 63 (100%)

X2 (df = 3) 22.334 10.617

p .000 .014“

 

a: Significance at p < .05

As shown in Table 47, physically disabled sample opinion leaders who self-

classified as severely physically disabled participated in significantly more day-long,

short and long overnight vacations than did non-opinion leaders. Within the moderately

physically disabled classification, significant differences were also identified in day—long,

short and long overnight vacations taken. Since so few study participants self-classified

as possessing a minor disability, these results were not shown.

89

Table 47. Physically Disabled Classification and Average Number of Vacations Types
Taken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Physically
Physically Disabled Disabled
Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
11 Vacation Type Sample Sample 1 p

Severe 89 Day-long 228°p8") 3.60' (22") 3.210 002°
89 Short Overnight 1.82 (1.2) 3.84 (2.0) 4.832 .000
89 Long Overnight 1.46 (1.0) 2.60 (1.5) 2.141 .000
Moderate 102 Day-long 2.21 (1.7) 30642.0) .244 .030
102 Short Overnight 2.31 (1.5) 3.25 (1 .9) 2.648 .007
102 L011; Overnight 1.44 (.8) 2.22 (1 .3) 2.018 .000

 

a: Mean number of vacations
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

Hypothesis 7 that the classification Of physical disability may be a factor in the
number of day-long, short overnight and long overnight vacations participated in by
physically disabled non-opinion leaders and opinion leaders was supported to the extent
that for severely and moderately physically disabled persons the hypothesis was accepted.
However, due to the low number of cases, the hypothesis could not include support for

participants living with a minor disability.

Hypothesis 8 states opinion leaders in the physically disabled traveler sample will
more likely use tourism specific trip planning information sources than non-opinion
leaders in the physically disabled traveler sample. Specific trip planning information
sources tested were intemet sites and selected travel information sources. Trip planning

intemet sites included Expedia.com, Hotwire.com, Travelocity.com, Orbitz.com and

90

Hotels.com. Trip planning information sources included brochures from state tourism
offices, brochures from local attractions, guidebooks, highway welcome centers,
Chamber of Commerce, Convention & Visitors Bureau, picture books, travel agents and
motor club publications. Each item was measured on a Likert type scale with 1 not
important tO 5 very important. Additionally, study participants were provided with the
option do not use. Trip planning intemet site information will be presented first followed

by trip planning information source use.

Study participants were asked to recall a memorable trip and the trip planning
resources used to plan the leisure experience. Respondents were first segmented by trip
planning internet sites use or do not use. Results for intemet sites use or do not use for
physically disabled non-opinion leaders and physically disabled opinion leaders are
presented in Table 48. Table 48 shows that physically disabled traveler opinion leaders
were more likely to use intemet sites than physically disabled traveler non-opinion

leaders showing support for hypothesis 8.

Table 48. Trip Planning lntemet Sites Use by the Physically Disabled Sample

 

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
lntemet sites Sample Sample (df = 1) p
Do not use intemet sites 40 (43.5%) 28 (21.9%)
Use intemet sites 52 (56.5) 100 (78.1)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 11.698 .001“

 

a: Significance at p < .05

91

The next application used was to determine, for those who use intemet sites, the
number of sites used and was there a significant difference in the number used. Use

difference did not show significance.

For those who use trip planning intemet sites; a t-test calculated the importance of
using trip planning intemet sites by physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and
physically disabled sample opinion leaders. Results presented in Table 49 show that
physically disabled sample opinion leaders consider trip planning intemet sites more
important sources for information than physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders,

with the exception of Travelocity which did not result in a significant difference.

Table 49. Importance of Trip Planning lntemet Sites to the Physically Disabled in Trip
Planning

 

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-Opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample I P
Expedia 2.5°'(1.4)b 3.0 (1.6) 1.994 048°
Hotels 2.1 (1.2) 3.0 (1.5) 3.705 .000
Hotwire 1.9 (1.1) 2.4 (1.5) 2.604 .010
Orbitz 2.2 (1.2) 2.9 (1.6) 3.044 .003
Travelocity 2.7 (1.5) 3.1 (1.5) 1.648 .101

 

a: Mean based on a five-point Likert-style scale with 1 being not important to 5 very important
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

Study participants were segmented by trip planning sources use or do not use.
Trip planning sources include brochures from local attractions, brochures from the State,
chambers of commerce, convention and visitors bureaus, guidebooks, highway welcome

centers, motorclub publications, picture books and travel agents. The results for trip

92

planning information source use or do not use for physically disabled sample non-opinion
leaders and physically disabled sample opinion leaders are presented in Table 50. Table
50 shows that physically disabled sample opinion leaders are more likely to use trip
planning sources than physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders showing further

support for hypothesis 8.

Table 50. Use of Trip Planning Sources by the Physically Disabled Sample

 

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
Trip planning sources Sample Sample (df = 1) p
Do not use trip
planning sources 17 (18.5%) 5 (3.9%)
Use trip planning
sources 75 (81.5) 123 (96.1)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 12.629 .0003

 

a: Significance at p < .05

The next application determine, for those who use trip planning sources, how
many trip planning sources physically disabled sample opinion leaders and physically
disabled sample non-Opinion leaders used. Frequencies and percentages Of trip planning
sources used are illustrated in Table 51. These two groups just produced a significant
difference (t (196) = 1.970, p = .05). Hypothesis 9 was further supported by these
findings. Results presented in Table 51 show that physically disabled sample opinion
leaders are more likely to use a greater number of trip planning information sources than

physically disabled sample non-Opinion leaders.

93

Table 51. Number of Trip Planning Sources Useda by the Physically Disabled Sample

 

 

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled
Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample I p

1 10 (13.5%) 6 (4.9%)
2 4 (5.3) 6 (4.9)
3 9 (12.0) 12 (9.8)
4 4 (5.3) 9 (7 .3)
5 4 (5.3) 7 (5.7)
6 6 (8.0) 8 (6.5)
7 5 (6.7) 5 (4.1)
8 7 (9.3) 12 (9.8)
9 26 (34.7) 58 (47.2)
Trip planning sources b c d
used (mean) 5.9 (3.0 ) 6.7 (2.7) 1.970 .05

 

a: Trip planning sources include nine variables: brochures from state tourism offices, brochures
from local attractions, guidebooks, highway welcome centers, chamber of commerce,
convention & visitors bureau, picture books, travel agents and motor club publications

b: Mean
c: Standard deviation
(1: Significance at p < .05

Table 52 shows higher mean scores in the importance of each of the trip planning

information source Options. Opinion leaders showed significantly higher mean

importance scores in six of the nine options presented. Hypothesis 9 was further

supported by these findings.

94

Table 52. Importance of Trip Planning Information Sources by the Physically Disabled
Sample

 

 

Physically
Physically Disabled Disabled
Non-Opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample I P
Brochures from local attractions I 2.6a (1 .3") 3.3 (1.3) 3.579 .000c
Brochures from the state 2.7 (1.4) 3.1 (1.4) 1.722 .087
Chambers of commerce 2.0 (1.1) 2.4 (1.4) 2.408 .017
Convention & visitors bureaus 2.2 (1.2) 2.6 (1.4) 2.505 .013
Guidebooks 2.7 (1.4) 3.6 (1.4) 4.356 .000
Highway welcome centers 2.5 (1.3) 2.9 (1.5) 1.822 .070
Motorclub publications 2.6 (1.4) 3.1 (1.6) 2.260 .025
Picture books 2.1 (1.2) 2.4 (1.3) 1.925 .056
Travel agents 2.3 (1.3) 2.8 (1.5) 2.465 .015

 

a: Mean based on a five-point Likert-style scale with 1 being not important to 5 very important
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

Opinion leaders in the physically disabled sample rated intemet sites and travel
information sources as more important when planning for trips than physically disabled

sample non-opinion leaders. Hypothesis 8 was supported by this empirical evidence.

Hypothesis 9 states that opinion leaders in the physically disabled traveler sample
will record higher numbers of interpersonal communication events about travel than non-
opinion leaders in the physically disabled sample. To test hypothesis 9 independent-
samples t tests comparing mean scores of the physically disabled sample non-Opinion

leaders and the physically disabled sample opinion leaders were employed. Two items

95

were used to measure interpersonal communication events: (1) the number of persons
asked for travel information over the past 12 months, and (2) the number of persons who

asked the respondent for travel information over the past 12 months.

Physically disabled sample opinion leaders asked for travel advice significantly
more than physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders, (t (218) = 6.896, p < .05), see

Table 53 for findings.

Table 53. Interpersonal Communication Events by the Physically Disabled Sample
Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader
Sample Sample I p

Number of persons you

asked information or

recommendations from a b

when planning your vacation 1'7 (2'6 ) 4'8 (3'9) 6.896 .000c
Number of persons who

asked you about vacation

information when planning

their travel vacation 1'8 (3'6) 5'] (4'9) 5.734 .000

 

a: Mean score with each item measured on a ratio scale. Ranges of these distributions were 20
and 24, respectively. Both distributions were negatively skewed with modes of 3 and 2,
respectively.

b: Standard deviation

c: Significance at p < .05

The t test results for number of persons who asked the respondent for travel
information is shown in Table 53. Physically disabled travel opinion leaders were asked
for travel information more times than the physically disabled non-opinion leader group,

(t (218) = 5.734, p < .05); supporting hypothesis 9.

Hypothesis 10 states that opinion leaders in the physically disabled sample will
use a greater number of mass media sources in their trip planning than physically
disabled sample non-opinion leaders. Mass media information sources included ten
newspapers. Newspapers included; The New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street

Journal, Detroit Free Press/Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, Indianapolis Star, any Ohio

96

metro news, any local newspaper, any newspaper travel section, and any newspaper food
section. Mass media also includes radio, television, magazine articles and magazine
advertisements. Additionally, mass media included the following twelve magazines
titles; AARP Magazine, Reader ’s Digest, Better Homes & Gardens, Good Housekeeping,
Midwest Living, Ladies Home Journal, Woman ’5 Day, Family Circle, TV Guide, Modern
Maturity, National Geographic, other travel magazines. The result for newspapers use is
presented first. This is followed by radio, television, magazine articles and

advertisements and concludes with the results of the magazine title tests.

The results for newspapers use/do not use for physically disabled sample non-
opinion leaders and physically disabled sample opinion leaders are presented in Table 54.
Table 54 shows that physically disabled sample opinion leaders showed a propensity to
use newspapers for trip planning. However, the number of physically disabled sample
opinion leaders compared to the number of physically disabled sample non-opinion

leaders was not significantly different.

Table 54. Use of Newspapers by the Physically Disabled Sample

 

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
Newspapers Sample Sample (df = 1) p
Do not use Newspapers 34 (37.0%) 44 (34.4%)
Use newspapers 58 (63.0) 84 (65.6)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) .156 .693a

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Next, the results for radio use, television use and magazine use were tested.

Participants scored each of these information sources the same. Radio use or do not use

97

for physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders and physically disabled sample
opinion leaders are presented in Table 55. Table 55 shows that significantly more
physically disabled sample opinion leaders use radio sources as an important trip

planning information source than physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders.

Table 55. Use of Radio by the Physically Disabled Sample

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
Radio Sample Sample (df = 1) p
DO not use Radio 31 (33.7%) 20 (15.6%)
Use Radio 61 (66.3) 108 (84.4)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 9.815 .0028

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Next, the results for television use or do not use for physically disabled sample
non-Opinion leaders and physically disabled sample Opinion leaders are presented in
Table 56. Table 56 shows that physically disabled sample Opinion leaders were
significantly more likely to use television as a source of travel information than

physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders.

98

Table 56. Use of Television by the Physically Disabled Sample

 

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-Opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
Television Sample Sample (df = l) p
DO not use Television 31 (33.7%) 20 (15.6%)
Use Television 61 (66.3) 108 (84.4)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 9.815 .002a

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Next, the results for magazine titles use/do not use for physically disabled sample
non-opinion leaders and physically disabled sample opinion leaders are presented in
Table 57. Table 57 shows that physically disabled sample opinion leaders displayed a
propensity to use specific magazine titles as trip planning sources; however, this use

between groups, was not significant.

Table 57. Use of Magazine Titles by the Physically Disabled Sample

 

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
Magazines Sample Sample ' (df = 1) p
Do not use Magazines 33 (35.9%) 36 (28.1%)
Use Magazines 59 (64.1) 92 (71.9)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 1.491 .2223

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Table 58 shows the results for magazine articles used as mass media sources in
trip planning. Table 58 shows that physically disabled sample opinion leaders were
significantly more likely to use magazine articles as a source of travel information than

physically disabled sample non-opinion leaders.

99

Table 58. Use of Magazine Articles by the Physically Disabled Sample

Physically Disabled Physically Disabled

 

Non-opinion Leader Opinion Leader X2
Magazine Articles Sample Sample (df = I) p
Do not use Magazine
Articles 31 (33.7%) 20 (15.6%)
Use Magazine Articles 61 (66.3) 108 (84.4)
Total 92 (100%) 128 (100%) 9.815 002°

 

a: Significance at p < .05

Three of the mass media areas; radio, television and magazine articles, showed
significantly higher use reported by physically disabled sample opinion leaders. These

results support hypothesis 10.

Additionally within the study, respondents were provided the opportunity to
identify other magazines used while planning vacations. Respondents provided an
additional 133 specific magazine titles they use. Although motorclub publications (i.e.,
AAA) was offered as an option within the twelve magazine titles/section of the study,
AAA Magazine was mentioned the greatest number of times (n = 23) in the open—ended
question. This may indicate that respondents did not understand the reference to the
publication within the options provided. It may also indicate that AAA publications are
an important resource to the physically disabled sample. Conde Nast Traveler was
mentioned at the next highest level (n = 8), followed by Budget Travel (n = 7). A

complete list of magazines mentioned is included in Appendix F.

Hypothesis 11 states that physically disabled sample Opinion leaders will place
greater importance on the use of electronic media information sources than print media

information sources. Electronic media sources include intemet sources (intemet, e-mail,

100

web blogs or blogs, chat rooms, social networking sites and trip planning intemet sites;
Expedia, Hotwire, Travelocity, Orbitz and Hotels. com), radio and television. Print media
information sources include magazine articles - advertisements, newspapers (New York
Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Detroit Free Press/Detroit News, Chicago
Tribune, Indianapolis Star, any Ohio metro news, any local newspaper, travel section,
and food section), and magazines (AARP Magazine, Reader’s Digest, Better Homes &
Gardens, Good Housekeeping, Midwest Living, Ladies Home Journal, Woman ’5 Day,
Family Circle, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, National Geographic, other travel

magazines).

The use of electronic media as an information source for travel offers benefits
such as ease of access to information; ease of information sharing through social
networks and allows for conveniences when making reservations. The intent of this
investigation was to establish if electronic media as an information source for travel by
the physically disabled opinion leader is leveraged at a higher level than print media
information sources. The hypothesis was based on the physically disabled sample
heightened physical challenges, the availability of access to electronic media sources and
past research that suggests that opinion leaders seek out information at a high level and

use emerging technologies channels (Rogers, 2005).

The survey instrument requested participants to indicate the importance of
information sources when planning vacations on a five-point scale (1 not important to 5
very important). Using the results received from the physically disabled sample Opinion
leaders, a paired samples t-test was calculated to test the importance of electronic media

information sources and print media information sources when planning a vacation.

101

Results presented in Table 59 show that physically disabled sample opinion leaders
indicated the importance of electronic media information sources at a significantly higher
mean score than print media information sources when vacation planning (t (22) = 3.269,

p < .05). Hypothesis 11 is supported by these findings.

Table 59. Importance of Electronic Media Information Sources and Print Media
Information Sources in Vacation Planning by Physically Disabled Opinion Leaders

 

 

Electronic Media Print Media
Information Sources lnfonnation Sources T p
Physically disabled opinion
leaders 2.61 (.8") 1.9 (.7) 3.269 007°
Physically disabled non-
opinion
leaders 2.2 (.7) 1.6 (.6) 3.917 .002

 

a: Mean based on a five-point Likert-style scale with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree
b: Standard deviation
c: Significance at p < .05

An additional comparison not included in hypothesis 1 1, but that may be of
interest is also presented in Table 59. The importance of electronic media information
sources and print media information sources used in vacation planning by physically
disabled sample non-opinion leaders indicate the importance of electronic media
information sources at a significantly higher mean score than print media information

sources when vacation planning (t (22) = 3.917, p < .05).

SUMMARY

This chapter was divided into four sections. Section one described the
demographic profile of all survey participants and section two highlighted results for
study participant’s travel proclivity. Since the purpose of this study is to understand the

physically disabled traveler market segment, section three drew the specific focus on the

102

physically disabled sample’s travel proclivity and section four providing results for the

study’s hypotheses tests.

Table 60 provides an overview of the areas of study, the authors of past studies
with theories identified from where study questions were drawn then modified for use

within a tourism context, and the results of hypotheses testing.

103

Table 60. Overview of Hypotheses Tesgg, Theories and Areas of Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support or
Non-support
for Original
Hypotheses Restated as Actual Findggs Theory/Authora Hypotheses
H1 :The percentage of DUI in the physically
disabled traveler market segment is Diffusion of
Opinion greater than the percentage in the Innovations c
leadership Jeneral traveler market segment. (Rogers, 2005) NS
H4: DOLd reported a higher perceived Diffusion of
propensity to travel for vacations or Innovations
leisure than DNOLc (RogersiOOS) Sf
Diffusion of
HS : DOL reported higher perceived Innovations
travel skill levels than DNOL (Rogers, 2005) S
H6: DOL took a greater number of day, Diffusion of
short overnight and long overnight Innovations
vacations than DNOL (Roggrs, 2005) S
H7: Classification of physical disability
factors into the number of day, Diffusion of
short overnight and long overnight Innovations
vacations taken by DOL and DNOL (Rogers, 2005) S
H8: DOL used more tourism specific trip Diffusion of
planning information sources than Innovations
DNOL (Rogers, 2005) S
H9: DOL recorded higher numbers of Diffusion of
interpersonal communication events Innovations
about travel than DNOL (Roggrs, 2005) S
Disability and
3 Resocialization
H : Length on time physically disabled does (Zimmermann,
Travel life cycle not differ between DOL and DNOL 1982) NS
Trip Planning
Information
Travel decisron- H2: DOL did not indicate stronger levels Source Use
making of pre-trip planning activities than (Vogt &
travel g Fesenmaier,
planning GS 1998) NS
Travel Specific
Trip Planning
Information
Travel specific H Source Use
trip planning H : DOL placed greater importance on (Vogt &
information electronic media than print media Fesenmaier,
source use for vacation plann'm 1998) S

 

104

 

Table 60 (continued). Overview of Hypotheses Testirg Theories and Areas of Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support or
Non-support
for Original

Hypotheses Restated as Actual Findings Theory/Author Hypotheses

10 Mass Media

H : DOL used greater numbers of Source Use
Mass media mass media sources in their trip (Burnett & Paul,
source use planning than DNOL 1996) S

 

a: Theory and author discussion found on pages 37 to 42
b: OL = Opinion leaders

c: NS = Not supported

(1: DOL = Physically disabled traveler Opinion leader

e: DNOL = Physically disabled traveler non-opinion leader
f: S = Supported

g: GS = General sample opinion leader

105

 

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Identification of trip planning behaviors and information source use by physically
disabled travelers was investigated. Determinants to address variations in trip planning
behaviors and information sources use were also studied. Opinion leadership and non-
opinion leadership as they relate to travel decision-making, travel planning, travel
specific interpersonal communications, information source use, travel specific trip
planning information source use, mass media and electronic media sources used were
examined. The research hypothesis that opinion leaders exist within the physically
disabled travel market and opinion leadership affects trip planning behaviors was
partially or fully supported. Evidence that links changes in patterns of trip planning

behaviors and information sources used with Opinion leadership is offered.

The subsequent section presents the summary of key results highlighting the
study’s most salient findings. These findings are systematized according to the concept
presentation within the study. This is followed by a discussion of the limitations of these

findings, future research recommendations and concludes with final comments.
KEY RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS

The initial step of hypothesis testing was to identify the existence of opinion
leaders and measure opinion leadership in travel planning and decision-making by people
with disabilities. To test this hypothesis trait and individual difference variables were

incorporated and integrated under the Theory of Diffusion (Rogers, 2005).

106

Past studies have not isolated whether Opinion leaders are born or evolve into
people who influence others in the adoption of innovations. However, past studies have
defined certain traits used to identify the Opinion leader within a social stratum (Flynn et

al., 1996; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955; ROgers, 2005).

Opinion leaders, thought to play a critical role in of word of mouth advertising,
communication and interpersonal influence that affects the diffusion of new products,
concepts, and services (Rogers, 2005), were identified in this study’s physically disabled
sample. Results showed opinion leaders were found at a greater level in the general
sample than in the physically disabled sample. This may indicate that members of
general sample participate in a stronger social network when making travel decisions.
However, the identification of opinion leaders within the physically disabled sample is an
important first step in understanding this market niche and understanding the dynamics of

the physically disabled traveler social network.

The premise of this study was to understand the physically disabled traveler
therefore; the following information will provide research findings specific to the
physically disabled sample. Physically disabled sample opinion leaders reported travel in
the Midwest and within the Unites States at a greater level than physically disabled
sample non-opinion leaders. International travel between and within opinion leaders and
non-opinion leaders were reported at similar levels. These results indicate that air travel
poses unique challenges for persons with disabilities. This may have contributed to lower

ratings for the level of international travel.

107

Physically disabled sample opinion leaders rated significantly higher than non-
opinion leaders in reporting consideration of self relating to travel. Although, opinion
leaders reported a significantly higher rating, it must be noted opinion leader’s self rating
was neutral when asked if they considered themselves well-travelled and skilled at travel.
This neutral rating may suggest a lack Of confidence in the physically disabled traveler’s
travel experience and prowess. The development of accurate and easy to access
disability-specific travel resources may act to inform these people, help elevate their

confidence level and result in more confident participation in travel.

Opinion leaders reported significantly higher participation in day-long, short
overnight and long overnight vacations taken in the past 12 months than non-opinion
leaders. Opinion leaders also recorded significantly higher numbers of interpersonal
communication events relating to travel than non-opinion leaders. These findings follow
with findings of past diffusion studies where opinion leaders are information seekers
(Troncalli & Thompson, 1972), have been positively associated with cosmopoliteness
(Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955), innovativeness as a function of the group’s norm (Coleman et
al., 1957; Lionberger, 1953; Menzel, 1960; Myers & Robertson, 1972; Wilkening, 1952),
and they drive trends, influence mass opinion and sell a great many products (Kotler &

Armstrong, 2006).

According to the findings of this study, disability severity level and opinion
leadership factors into the number of and length of vacation participation. Physically
disabled sample opinion leaders who self-classified as severely physically disabled
participated insignificantly more day-long, short and long overnight vacations than did

non-opinion leaders. Moderately physically disabled opinion leaders and non-opinion

108

leaders showed no significant difference in day-long vacation participation levels,
however opinion leaders showed significance in short and long overnight vacations taken.
Additionally, findings of this study showed that the length of time a person has lived with
a disability does not play a role in opinion leadership, nor does the age at which the
person became physically disabled. These findings support the innovativeness associated
with opinion leadership (Rogers, 2005). Furthermore, opinion leaders have been
identified as individuals who exert considerable personal influence and whom others seek
word of mouth advice (Amdt, 1967; Reynolds & Darden, 1971). Marketers interested in
gaining a share of the physically disabled traveler market would be wise to consider a
strategy to attract opinion leaders from the disability market as customers, thus expanding
their opportunity to also gain non-opinion leaders. Consideration of disability level,
length of time the person has lived with the disability or upon the age that the person

became physically disabled does not appear to be as relevant.

Opinion leaders were shown to use trip planning information sources more
frequently than non-opinion leaders when planning their vacation travel. Conversely,
mass media sources did not show significant use differences between Opinion leaders and
non-opinion leaders within the physically disabled sample. Comparisons between
electronic media sources and print media sources shows that both the physically disabled
sample non-opinion leaders and the physically disabled sample opinion leaders
demonstrate significantly higher use numbers for electronic media sources than for print
media sources and that physically disabled sample opinion leaders demonstrate the
highest use in both electronic and print. Marketers seeking to attract the physically

disabled traveler market should consider the addition of disability specific information

109

and photographs to trip planning, using both electronic and print media sources. Use of
web logs, blogs, face book, etc. provide new avenues for the customer to spread product
information grounded in experiences. Focus on these as opportunistic mechanisms, share
disability services information and highlight destination amenities specifically designed

to support visitation by a person with disabilities.

LIMITATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Limitations to the findings of this study are present. The data set was limited to
responses provided at a single moment in time. A longitudinal study may provide more
prolific and robust data results (i.e., a longitudinal study to identify the physically
disabled traveler’s changes in travel behavior, service needs or travel desires over time or
to study the broad physically disabled traveler generational cohort and identify variance

patterns over time.)

The data set for physically disabled persons was limited to those individuals who
sought membership with the American Association of the Physically Disabled and also
reside in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. This group Of physically disabled
individuals may not be representative of physically disabled persons in general or
generalizable to other geographic areas. Moreover, physical ability to complete the
survey, for example those with “major” disabilities, may have been a concern for the
study: however, response rates for both samples (general person sample and physically

disabled person sample) were similar.

The physically disabled sample afforded mostly severely and moderately

physically disabled persons. Persons with minor disabilities appeared not to be members

110

of the American Association of the Physically Disabled. It is anticipated that individuals
with minor disabilities are more able to travel, thus physically disabled persons travel
statistics presented here are most likely lower than the full physically disabled

population.

This study attempted to create a situation whereby respondents were asked to
recall travel planning resources used, travel related communications and past behaviors
and activities participated in when planning vacations. This study is limited to

participant’s ability to accurately recall this information.

Finally, a limitation of the study was the measurement of the variables. The scale
used to measure opinion leadership was adopted from Childers (1986), pertaining to retail
product purchases and therefore limited to this intended format. Additionally within this
scale, the approach of using the mean score to differentiate opinion leaders from non-

opinion leaders served as a limitation.

FUTURE RESEARCH

The techniques used to market to people are fast changing. This study addressed
one facet of marketing, the identification of opinion leaders and measured opinion
leadership in travel planning and decision-making by people with disabilities. Future
research could extend this study to opinion leadership within different segments of the
physically disabled traveler market (e.g., activities, race/ethnicity, trip purpose, trip
schedule). Additionally, this study was conducted at a time when communication
mechanisms Were rapidly changing. Future studies could focus more on electronic use of

technology. Using the web; through intercept studies; with focus groups and using

111

snowballing sampling could help identify social networks specific to the physically

disabled traveler market and would enrich the understanding of these persons.

The identification of opinion leadership’s existence within the physically disabled
traveler market is just one element in the study of diffusion theory. Understanding how
new ideas and products are adopted within a social network and the roles different
individuals play in the adoption process over time offers an abundance of research
opportunities. Identification of the social networks found within the physically disabled
traveler market, the various roles individuals play within this process and the
investigation of the best practices to employ to successfully and comprehensively
communicate with these social networks would be a contribution in further understanding

of this market.

Research could further examine the specific travel needs and desires of the
physically disabled traveler. An origin-to-destination study that identifies required
services for the physically disabled traveler would be an extraordinarily helpful tool for
the destination marketer and could also assist economic development officials with
service gap information for their respective region. Additionally, the tourism industry
rule of thumb for the average United State travel party size is 2.5 persons. Since results
of this study show disabled travelers traveling with farme and friends, research regarding
travel party size and spending could be accomplished. This indicates that the disabled
traveler market segment holds potential for both the disabled traveler and their spending
and in addition the spending of individuals traveling with these individuals. This
information wOuld be very valuable to assist marketers with economic impact projects

pertaining to this growing market segment.

112

Finally, longitudinal research on the physically disabled traveler opinion leader
could be implemented to test changes over time in decision-making behavior, travel
behavior, biological need changes, etc. Since research within the physically disabled
traveler market segment is sparse, use of historical data to predict future behavior is
limited. Advances in health care enable people to live longer and survive war induced
disabilities additionally disability numbers rise with age. As a result, investments into
research to further understand the currently physically disabled traveler as well as those
likely to become physically disabled as a result of war or as peOple age could advance
academic understanding of the physically disabled traveler and could help predict future
behavior. Additionally, further research could provide important information to the
travel industry. As travel industry members strive to serve the physically disabled
traveler future research findings could deliver the information needed to develop
improved goods and services for this underserved, potentially profitable and growing in

size and importance market niche.

FINAL COMMENTS

According to Roger (2005) getting a new idea adopted is difficult. The theory of
diffusion focuses on ascertaining the process in which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Opinion
leadership is the degree to which an individual is able to influence other individuals’
attitudes or overt behavior informally in a desired way with relative frequency. In this
study, the opinion leader identified within the physically disabled sample reported higher
perceived propensity to travel for vacations or leisure within the Midwest and the United

States than non-opinion leaders. The opinion leader within the physically disabled

113

sample perceived a higher skill level, took a greater number of day-long, short overnight
and long overnight vacations; and recorded a higher number of interpersonal
communication events about travel than their physically disabled sample non-opinion
leader counterpart. The physically disabled sample opinion leaders were more likely to
use tourism specific trip planning information sources, greater numbers of mass media
sources and placed a higher importance on use of electronic media information sources

than were their physically disabled sample non-opinion leader cohorts.
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

From these results, the beginnings of a tourism product intervention program may
be developed. This program could focus on disability specific information and may be
focused at opinion leaders to encourage them to influence their followers and adopt the
particular tourism destinations designed to meet their needs. Electronic and digital media
(i.e., intemet, radio, television) is the recommended mechanism for use in this
communication effort. This may be accomplished by the development of web pages and
digital information designed specifically for the physically disabled traveler. Accurate
and detailed information regarding accessibility to attractions, restaurants, shopping and
lodging facilities are desirable and could serve to stimulate conversations within the
social networks of these individuals. Additionally, information regarding repair services
for mobility units, sight and hearing alert mechanisms available for use and pharmacy
hours of operations serve as a few examples of services, which if available, could be
communicated to the physically disabled traveler by way of electronic media and could

stimulate word of mouth recommendations. Electronic messages that allow for visuals

114

should include images of disables persons enjoying the facilities. Additionally,
familiarization tours for tour operators, travel agents, press writers and identified
physically disabled traveler opinion leaders could be executed. Promotional offers
targeted to this market segment could be developed. A specific promotion may allow the
tourism industry facility to measure the return on investment for the program and

potentially justify further investments to serve this market segment.

115

APPENDICES

116

APPENDIX A

SURVEY COVERLETTER

117

Date

Name
Address
City, State Zip

Dear (Sir Name):

Michigan State University (MSU) is studying vacation planning behavior. We are interested in learning
about your travel experiences. The research study will both fulfill a dissertation requirement and be shared
in several venues of the tourism industry.

The survey will take 10-15 minutes to complete. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this survey. However, if you choose not to complete all or part of the questions,
you will not suffer any penalty. You are free to discontinue your participation at any time. Your responses
will be anonymous and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. As a
thank you for taking the time to complete the survey, your name will be entered in a drawing for one two-
day vacation package to the Bavarian Inn Lodge in Frankemnuth Michigan.

If you have any questions about this project at any time, please call Dr. Christine Vogt, Associate Professor
at MSU: (517)432-0318 or contact her at vogtc@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you
may contact - anonymously, if you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph. D., Director of the Human Research
Protection Programs (HRPP) at Michigan State University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, email:
irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation!

Sincerely,

Christine A. Vogt, PhD Annette Rummel, PhD Candidate
Michigan State University Michigan State University
vogtc@msu.edu rummelal @msu.edu

 

Enclosures: surVey, postage paid envelope

118

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

119

i’ MICHIGAN STATE
,t...(1i I. 5: 11va ERSITY

 

The survey should take 10 — 15 minutes to complete. Part 1 asks about how much you travel. Part 2 asks
about the resources you consult for travel information. Part 3 asks whether you discuss travel with others
and how you plan your trips and the last section asks for information about your physical condition and
household. If any adult person the household has a physical disability, please have them complete this
survey; otherwise please complete and return the survey in the prepaid envelope.

 

I PART 1: This section asks how much you travel for vacations or leisure.

 

 

1. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements about vacation
travel over your lifetime. (please circle one response for each statement)

strongly strongly
Statement neutral

disagree agree
I have traveled a lot in the
Midwest ................ 1 2 3 4 5
I have traveled a lot in the Unlted 1 2 3 4 5
States .........
I have traveled a lot 1 2 3 4 5
rnternatronally..................
l consrder myself a well-traveled 1 2 3 4 5
person .........
I consrder myself a skllled 1 2 3 4 5

traveler .................

 

 

 

 

2. In the past 12 months, approximately how many day vacations, short overnight vacations and long
overnight vacations have you taken (both domestic or international)? (please use "0 " if none or fill in a
number)

Day-long vacation (1 day or less)

 

Short overnight vacation (2 or 4 days)

 

Long overnight vacation (5 or more days)

 

 

 

 

120

 

 

3. Please recall a recent, memorable vacation trip that you took in recent years.

 

 

a. When did you go on this trip? month year

b. Where did you go on this trip? destination (s)

c. Prior to this trip, had you been to this destination before? 1:] yes C] no

d. Who went on this vacation trip with you? (check all that apply) 1:] family Cl friends

[:1 tour group C] yourself

 

PART 2: This section asks about resources you use to plan your leisure vacations.

 

 

4. Please indicate the importance of each newspaper source when planning vacations. (please circle one
response for each newspaper or check “do not use ”)

 

 

 

Newspaper . not somewhat . very do not

Important Important Important use
New York Times 1 2 3 4 5 Cl
USA Today 1 2 3 4 5 1:1
Wall Street Journal 1 2 3 4 5 [:1
Detroit FreePress/News l 2 3 4 5 Cl
Chicago Tribune 1 2 3 4 5 El
Indianapolis Star 1 2 3 4 5 [:1
Any Ohio metro newspaper I 2 3 4 5 1:]
Any local newspaper I 2 3 4 5 Cl

 

 

121

 

 

 

5. Please indicate the importance of each lnfonnation source when planning vacations. (please circle one
response for each information source or check “do not use ")

 

 

 

 

 

Information sources not somewhat 1:: do not
important important rtant use
lntemet l 3 5 [:1
e-mail 1 3 5 El
Web logs or Blogs 1 3 5 Cl
Chat rooms 1 3 5 D
Social networking sites 1 3 5 Cl
Expedia.com 1 3 5 Cl
Hotwire.com l 3 5 Cl
Travelocity.com 1 3 5 1:]
Orbitz.com l 3 5 D
Hotels.com l 3 5 D
My past experience 1 3 5 Cl
Well-traveled acquaintances l 3 5 Cl
Advice from family 1 3 5 [:1
People with whom I work 1 3 5 El
Advice from friends 1 3 5 El
Previous involvement w/ similar places 1 3 5 Cl
My travel partner’s past experiences 1 3 5 Cl
Brochures from state tourism office 1 3 5 D
Brochure from local attraction 1 3 5 13
Guidebooks 1 3 5 [:1
Highway welcome centers 1 3 5 El
Chambers of commerce 1 3 5 [:1
Convention and visitors bureaus 1 3 5 Cl

122

 

 

 

not somewhat its; do not
lnfonnation sources: important important rtant use
Picture books 3 5 [:1
Travel agents 3 5 Cl
Motor club publications (i.e. AAA) 3 5 [:1
Radio commercials 3 5 El
TV commercials 3 5 [:1
Magazine articles 3 5 1:]
Magazine advertisement 3 5 Cl

 

 

6. Please indicate the importance of each magazine when planning vacations. (please circle one response

for each magazine or check “do not use ")

 

 

 

very
Magazines not somewhat impo do not
important important rtant use
AARP Magazine 1 3 5 [:1
Readers Digest 1 3 5 13
Better Homes and Gardens 1 3 5 Cl
Good Housekeeping 1 3 5 Cl
Midwest Living 1 3 5 [:1
Ladies Home Journal 1 3 5 [:1
Women’s Day 1 3 5 El
Family Circle 1 3 5 1:]
TV Guide I 3 5 Cl
Modern Maturity 1 3 5 [:1
National Geographic 1 3 5 El
Other travel magazines 1 3 5 [:1

Please identify other magazine (8) for
planning vacations:

 

 

 

123

 

 

7. Please indicate the three information sources you find most useful in planning your vacations.

1. 2. 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ PART 3: This section asks how you plan your vacations and who you discuss vacations with.

 

 

8. Please circle the number that best describes your interactions (verbal, electronic or written) with friends
and family regarding vacation travel. (circle one for each statement)

a) How often do you talk to your friends and neighbors about vacation travel:
never sometimes very often
1 2 3 4 5

b) When you talk to your friends and family about vacation travel do you:

give very little give some give a great deal of
information information information
1 2 3 4 5

c) In the past 12 months, how many friends and family have you told about vacation destinations?

told told told told
told no one
1-5 people 6-10 people ”-15 people 16 or more people
1 2 3 4 5

d) Compared with your friends and family, how likely are you to be asked about vacation travel?

not at all likely to be moderately very likely to be
asked asked
likely
I 2 3 4 5

e) In discussions of vacation travel, which of the following happens most?

your friends and you tell your friends
family tell you about even split and family about
travel travel
1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

124

 

1) Overall in all of your discussions with friends and family about travel are you:

not used as a source , often used as a
, sometimes ,
of advrce source of advrce
1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

9. People plan their trips in different ways; please indicate your level of agreement with the following
statements describing how you plan your travel vacations. (circle one box for each statement)

strongly strongly
neutral
disagree agree
I plan my entire trip well in advance .................. 1 2 3 4 5
I plan most of my vacations before I leave and then 1 2 3 4 5
fill in the details after I arrive ....................
I plan most of my vacatlon once I reach my 1 2 3 4 5

destination .................................................

 

 

 

 

10. Over the past 12 months, how many persons (i.e. friends, co-workers, family) did you ask information
or recommendations from when planning your vacations? number of people

 

11. Over the past 12 months, how many persons (e.g., friends, co-workers, family) asked you about
vacation information when planning their travel vacations? number of people

 

 

 

 

[ PART 3: The final section asks questions for classification purposes only.

12. Are you? (please check one box)

El female [:1 male
13. What is your current martial status? (please check one box)

[:1 married [:1 divorced/separated

El never married 1:] widowed

125

14. In what year were you born? year (e.g., 1959)

15. Are there children under 19 years of age living in your household? (please check one box)

[:1 yes Cl no

 

 

16. Please indicate the highest level of education you have obtained. (please check one box)

[:1 Less than High School Graduate 1:] College Degree

[:1 High School Graduate [:1 Some Graduate School
C1 Technical School 1:1 Advanced Degree

[:1 Some College 1:1 Other: describe

 

 

 

 

17. Which of the following statement best describes your total annual 2006 household income (from all
sources) before taxes? (please check one box)

[:1 Less than $20,000 Cl $60,000 to $79,999
[:1 $20,000 to $39,999 [:1 $80,000 to $99,999
U $40,000 to $59,999 C] Greater than $100,000

 

 

18. Are you physically disabled? (please check one box)

[:1 no, -—t skip to question 20

 

 

[:1 yes, at what age did you become disabled? years Old

What is the nature of your disability?

 

Please classify your disability. [1 severe Cl moderate El minor

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

19. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements. (check one

response for each statement)
Statement

I receive necessary disability services information
when making hotel reservations...

I am understood when asking questions regarding
disability services ......................

I receive necessary disability services travel
information when calling 800 numbers .........

I receive necessary disability services travel
information through web sites ....................

I receive necessary disability services lnfonnation
when making airline reservations.

strongly

disagree

neutral

strongly

agree

 

 

 

20. Are there any additional comments regarding travel you would like to share? If so, please provide

below:

 

 

 

 

Thank you!

Please return to: Tourism Study, 131 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1222

127

 

APPENDIX C

POSTCARD

128

POSTCARD BACK

Hello,

Recently, we sent you a survey about vacation planning. If you have already
returned the survey, thank you for your timely response. We appreciate your
time and effort.

If you have not yet sent the survey back in the prepaid envelope, please take

some time now to complete the survey. Your response is very important for the completion of this study,
accurate representation of vacation planning decision-

making and will result in recommendations to improve vacation planning

information.

Once again, thank you for your help in completing this research. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call me at 517-432-0318 or
e-mail me at vogtc@msu.edu. Thanks again for your help!

Sincerely,

Christine Vogt, Michigan State University

POSTCARD FRONT

Christine Vogt

Michigan State University

Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
131 Natural Resources Building

East Lansing, MI 48824-1222

 

129

APPENDIX D

SURVEY REMINDER LETTER

130

Date

Name
Address
City, State Zip

Dear (Sir Name):

About three weeks ago, we wrote to you asking about your thoughts and Opinions on vacation
planning. As of today, we have not yet received your completed questionnaire. If you have
already returned your questionnaire thank you.

We are writing you again because of the importance of your opinion in gaining an accurate picture
of vacation planning behavior. Overall response has been encouraging so far. However, the
accuracy of the final results depends upon you and others in the study that have yet to respond.
Your response is important for accurate completion of this research study. It will also fulfill a
dissertation requirement for a student at Michigan State University and will result in
recommendations to improve travel information for vacationer’s to the Midwest region of the
United States of America.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you may refuse to answer any
particular questions. The survey will take 10-15 minutes to complete. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing and returning this survey. However, if you choose not to
complete all or part of the questions, you will not suffer any penalty. As a thank you for taking
the time to complete the survey, your name will be entered in a drawing for one two-day vacation
package to the Bavarian Inn Lodge in Frankenmuth Michigan. This drawing will be held on June
15, 2007. Surveys received after that date will be accepted; however, names will not be included
in the drawing.

Any questions about this project may be directed to Dr. Christine Vogt, Associate Professor at
MSU: (517) 432-0318 or contact her at vogc@msu.edu. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish, Peter Vasilenko, PhD, Director of the Human
Research Protection Programs at MSU: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email:
irb@msu.edu, or mail: 202 Olds Hall, E. Lansing, MI 48824.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation!

Christine A. Vogt, PhD Annette Rummel, PhD Candidate
Michigan State University Michigan State University
vogtc@msu.edu rummela 1 @msu.edu

 

Enclosures: survey, postage paid envelope

131

APPENDIX E

NON RESPONSE SURVEY

132

Date

Name
Address
City, State Zip

Dear (Sir Name):

Over the past two months you were selected to receive a survey called “Travel Survey.” I am writing you
for a final time because we did not hear from you. To accurately understand travel activity, we need the
full range of public input, including your information. Would you consider answering these few critical
questions and return this letter in the prepaid envelope? Your answer will be anonymous. This will be the
last contact with you.

 

1. Please indicate the three information sources you find most useful in planning your vacations.

1. 2. 3.

 

 

 

2. Please circle the number that best describes your interactions (verbal, electronic or written) with friends
and family regarding vacation travel. (circle one for each statement)

a) How ofien do you talk to your friends and neighbors about vacation travel:
never sometimes very often
1 2 3 4 5

b) When you talk to your friends and family about vacation travel do you:

give very little give some give a great
. . . . deal of
Information Information , ,
Information
I 2 3 4 5

c) In the past 12 months, how many friends and family have you told about vacation destinations?

told told told m”
told no one
16 or more
1-5 people 6-10 people “-15 people people
1 2 3 4 5

(1) Compared with your friends and family, how likely are you to be asked about vacation travel?

not at all likely to be moderately very likely to
asked be asked
likely
I 2 3 4 5

 

133

 

 

e) In discussions of vacation travel, which of the following happens most?

you tell your

your friends and friends and

family tell you about even splrt family about
travel
travel
1 2 ' 3 4 5

1) Overall in all of your discussions with friends and family about travel are you:

often used as
not used as a source of

. sometimes a source of
advrce .
advrce
1 2 3 4 5

 

3. Are you physically disabled? (please check one box)

[:1 no, —> skip to question 5.

 

 

[:1 yes, at what age did you become disabled? years old

What is the nature of your disability?

 

Please classify your disability. [:1 severe [:1 moderate Cl minor

 

 

 

4. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements. (check one
response for each statement)

strongly strongly
Statement neutral

disagree agree
I receive necessary disability services
. . . . 1 2 3 4 5
lnfonnation when maklng hotel reservatrons .....
I am understood when asking questions

. . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

regarding dlsablllty servrces .........................
I receive necessary disability services travel
. . . 1 2 3 4 5
mforrnatron when calling 800 numbers ............
I receive necessary disablllty servrces travel 1 2 3 4 5

information through web sites .......................

134

 

 

I receive necessary disability services
lnfonnation when making airline reservations...

 

 

5. Are there any additional comments regarding travel you would like to share? If so, please provide
below:

 

 

 

We greatly appreciate your cooperation!

Christine A. Vogt, PhD Annette Rummel, PhD Candidate
vogtc@msu.edu rummelal@msu.edu

Enclosures: survey, postage paid envelope

135

 

APPENDIX F

MAGAZINE TITLES

136

AAA

AAA Destinations

AAA Home + Away

AAA Hone & Away

AAA Magazine

AAA Magazine

AAA Members magazine

AAA Tour book, Ohio hist soc
AAA, MEA

Airline Magazine

Airline Magazines, Alaska Travel
Audubon

Auto motor, Auto week, Cars
Backpacker

BlueGreen

Boater's guide, North American Hunter
Books obtained at Travel offices
Budget travel

Budget Travel

Budget Travel, Atlantic

Budget Travel, Conde Nast
Budget Traveler Country Living
Budget Travel

Camping & time share magazines
Conde Nast

Conde Nast, Traveler, National
Geographic, AAA Magazine, Travelers
Candle Nast. Style

Chamber of Commerce

Conde Nast

Conde Nast Traveler

Conde Nast

Conde Nast, Travel & Leisure, Budget
Travel, Regional Magazines Arizona
Highway Chicago

Cooking Light, Vanity Fair
Cruise Books

Cruise Books Mostly

Cruise Magazines

Cruise Travel

Destination Brochures

Disability Magazines

Disability travel magazine

Ebony & Essence

Elk's Magazine

Emerging Horizons
Environmental Magazines/Earth watch
Family Fun

Far and away fi'om AAA

Florida & Shell

Game & Fish outdoor, IL

Golf

Golf Magazines

137

Golf Digest

Gourmet, House Beautiful, France &
Just about Hors

Hawaii Magazine, Oh, FL, KY,
Individual State Magazines NV, TX,
etc.

Home and away

Home & Away, AAA

Horse (Equine Related) APHA, AQHA
I do not use one

International Magazines

Interval

Magazine of Destination e.g., "Lake"
magazines published by State/Provinces
Martha Steward Living, Gold wing
Road Rider Magazine

Men's Fitness, Conde Nast Traveler
Michigan travel magazine

Michigan Traveler

Motel Coupon Books

New Mobility

non-response

Ohio Magazine

Ohio Motorist

Ohio, Over the backyard Fence

Out Traveler

Parachutist, Skydiving

Pop Photo Rider (motorcycle)
professional journals and newsletters,
list serves

Professional list serves

Quilt Magazines

Readers digest

Reminis, "local"(Travelocity)

Resort Condominiums International
Endless Vacation

Scuba; Skiing

Sea kayaker, Canoe+ Kayak, Bicycling
Sherman Travel & International Living
Smithsonian, Preservation

Sothem Living, Coastal Living
Southern Living - AMC Outdoors
Southern Living

Southwest Living, Traverse City,
Chicago

Trailer Life

Travel

Travel & Leisure

Travel by American Express

Travel from American Express
Travel Leisure

Travel Section newspaper

Traveler

0 TV Travel Channel 0 Virtuoso
0 University Quarterly’s 0 Where to retire
0 Veterans Magazines

138

REFERENCES

AARP. (2007). Global aging: Achieving its potential. Washington, DC: American
Association Of Retired Persons.

ADA. (1990). American with disabilities act. Washington, DC: National council on
Disability.

Alreck, P. L., Settle, R. B. (2004). The survey research handbook (Third ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin

Amdt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product.
Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), 291-295.

Babble, E. (2004). The practice of social research (Tenth ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomas Learning

Bieger, T., Laesser, C. (2004). lnfonnation sources for travel decisions: Toward a source
process model. Journal of Travel Research, 42, (May), 357-371.

Braun, P. (2003). A study on the adoption and diffusion of internet technologies in a
regional tourism network. Victoria Australia: University of Ballarat.

Burnett, J. J. (1991). Examining the media habits of the affluent elderly. Journal of
Advertising Research, 20, 33-41.

Burnett, J. J ., & Baker, H. B. (2001). Assessing the travel-related behaviors of the
mobility-disabled consumer. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 4-11.

Burnett, J. J ., & Paul, P. (1996). Assessing the media habits and needs of the mobility-
disabled consumer. Journal of Advertising, 25 (3), 47 — 59.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for a
management of resources’. Canadian Geographer, 24 (1), 5-12.

Cai, L. A., Feng, R., Breiter, D. (2004). Tourist purchase decision involvement and
information preferences. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 138-148.

Cha, 8., McCleary, K., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motivations of Japanese overseas
travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research,
33, 33-39.

Chen, J. S., & Gursoy, D. (2000). Cross-cultural comparison of the information
sources used by first-time and repeat travelers and its marketing
implications. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19 (2), 191-203.

Childers, T. L. (1986). Assessment of the psychometric properties of an opinion
leadership scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 184-188.

140

Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., Menzel, H. (1957). The diffusion of innovation among
physicians. Sociometry, 20 (4) December, 253-270.

Darden, W. R. & Troncalli, M. T. (1972). Life style and demographic analysis of leisure
time and vacation travel. Division of Research: University of Georgia.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method —
(Second ed). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Dychtwald, K. (1999). Agepower: How the 21" century will be ruled by the new old.
Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin.

Fesenmaier, D., Ricci, F., Schaumlechner, E., Wober, K., & Zanella, C. (2003).
DIETORECS: Travel advisory for multiple decision styles. Information and

Communication Technology in Tourism 2003 .° The Proceedings of the
International Conference of ENTER 2003. A. F rew, M. Hitz, and P. O’Connor,

Helsinki, Finland. http://dietorecs. itc. it/Papers/EnterZ003-Dietorecs-final.pdf
(January), 232-241.

Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E., & Eastman, J. K. (1994). The King and Summers opinion
leadership scale: Revision and refinement. Journal of Business Research, 31, 55-
64.

Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Eastman, J. K. (1996). Opinion leaders and opinion
seekers: Two new measurement scales. Journal of Marketing Science. 24 (2),
137-147.

Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1997). Tourist information search, Annals of Tourism
Research, 24 (3), 503-523.

Gartner, W. C. (1996). Tourism development: Principles, processes and policies.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gatignon, H., Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 849-867.

Ghez, G., & Becker, G. (1975). The allocation of time and goods over the life cycle. New
York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Gitelson, R., & Crompton, J. L. (1983). The planning horizons and sources Of
information used by pleasure vacationers. Journal of Travel Research, 21 (3) 2-7.

Glick, P., & Norton, A. J. (1977). Marrying, divorcing and living together in the
US. today. Population Bulletin 32 (5).

Goeldner, C. R., & Ritchie, B. J. R. (2003). Tourism: Practices, principles, and
philosophies (Ninth ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

141

Goldsmith, R. E., Flynn, L. R., & Bonn, M. (1994). An empirical study of heavy users of
travel agencies. Journal of Travel Research. 33 (1), 38-43.

Haywood, K. M. (1989). Managing word of mouth communications. The Journal of
Services Marketing, 3 (2), 55-67.

Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (Fifth ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:
Duxbury Thomson Learning

Hsu, C. H. C., Kang, S. K., & Lam, T. (2006). Reference group influences among
Chinese travelers. Journal of Travel Research. 44, 474-484.

Hsu, C. H. C., & Lee, E. J. (2002). Segmenting of senior motorcoach travelers. Journal
of Travel Research, 40 (4), 364-373.

Israeli, A. A. (2002). A preliminary investigation of the importance of site accessibility
factors for disabled tourists. Journal of Travel Research. 4, 101-104.

Jamrozy, U., Backman, S. J., & Backman, K. F. (1996). Involvement and opinion
leadership in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (4), 908-924.

Karplus, Y., & Krankover, S. (2005). Stochastic multivariable approach to modeling
tourism area life cycles. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5 (3), 235-253.

Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal Influence. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Kelly, J. A., Murphy, D. A., Sikkema, K. J ., McAuliffe, T. L., Roffrnan, R. A., Solomon,
L. J., Winett, R. A., Kalichman, S. C., & the Community HIV Prevention
Research Collaborative. (1997). Randomized, controlled, community-level HIV

prevention intervention for sexual-risk behavior among homosexual men in US
cities. The Lancet, 11 (350), 1500-1505.

Kelly, J. A., St. Lawrence, J. S., Diaz, Y. E., Stevenson, L.Y., Hauth, A. C., Brasfield, T.
L., Kalichman, S. C., Smith, J. E., & Andrew, M. E. (1991). HIV risk behavior

reduction following intervention with key opinion leaders of population: An
experimental analysis. American Journal of Public Health. 81 (2),168 — 171.

King, C.W., & Summers, J .O. (1970). Overlap of Opinion leadership across product
categories. Journal of Marketing Research. 7, 43-50.

Klippel, R., Sweeny, E., & Sweeny, T.W. (1974a). The use of information sources by the
aged consruner. The Gerontologist. 14 (2), 163-166.

Klippel, R., Sweeny, E., & Sweeny, T.W. (1974b). The use of information sources by the
aged consumer. The Gerontologist. l4 (2), 163-166.

Kotler, P. (1991). From mass marketing to mass customization. Planning Review
September/October, 1 1-47.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2006). Principles of marketing (Eleventh ed.) Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

142

Kraus, L. E., & Stoddard, S. (1989). Chart book on disability in the United States.
Washington, DC: US National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Lansing, J. B., & Morgan, J. N. (Eds). (1955). Consumer finances over the life cycle
(Vol. 2. ). New York: New York University Press.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people ’3 choice. New York:
Columbia University Press. '

Leitrnan, R., Cooper, E., & Risker, P. (1994). National Organization on Disability/Harris
Survey of Americans with Disabilities, New York: National Organization on
Disability.

Lindberg-Repo, K. (1999). Word of mouth communication in the hospitality industry:
Center for Relationship Marketing and Service.

Lionberger, H. F. (1953). Some characteristics of farm operators sought as sources of
farm information in a Missouri community. Rural Sociology, 18, 327-338.

Loker, L., & Perdue, R. (1992). A benefit-based segmentation of a non-resident summer
travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 31, 30-35.

Loomis, C. P. (1936). The study of the life-cycle of families, Rural Sociology, 1,
180-199.

MacKay, K.J., Andereck, K.L., & Vogt, CA. (2002). Understanding vacation
motorist niche markets. Journal of Travel Research, 40 (5), 356-363.

Menzel, H. (1960). Innovation, integration and marginality: A survey of physicians.
American Sociological Review, 25 (5), 704-713.

Miner, H. (193 8). The French Canadian Family cycle, American Sociological Review, 3
(10), 700-708.

Mittal, B. (1995). A comparative analysis of four scales of involvement. Psychology &
Marketing, 12, 663-682.

Mo, C., Havitz, M., & Howard, D. (1994). Segmenting travel markets with the
international tourism role (itr) scale. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 24-30.

Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political
Science Review, 63, 111-126.

Money, R. B., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information
search, planning and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism
Management, 24, 191 -202.

Moschis, George, P., Mather, A., & Smith, Ruth, B. (1993). Older consumers.
Orientations toward age-based marketing stimuli. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 21 (3), 195-205.

143

Murphy, L. (2000). Exploring social interactions of backpackers. Annals of Tourism
Research 28, (1), 50-67.

Myers, J., & Robertson, T. S. (1972). Dimensions of opinion leadership. Journal of
Marketing Research. 9 (2), 41-46.

Nicosia, F.N. (1964). Opinion leadership and the flow of communications. Paper
presented at the American Marketing Association, Winter Conference.

Nolan, S. D., Jr. (1976). Tourists’ use and evaluation of travel information sources:
Summary and conclusions. Journal of Travel Research, 14 (2), 6-8.

Opperman, M. (1995). Travel life cycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (3), 535-552.

Phillips, L. N., & Stemhal, B. (1977). Age differences in information processing: A
perspective on the aged consumer. Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (4), 44—57.

PL 88-29 National Outdoor Recreation Plan (1963). Therapeutic Recreation, An
Introduction (Third Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PL 90-170 Education for Handicapped Children Act (1967). Therapeutic Recreation, An
Introduction (Third Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PL 91-517 Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act (1971).
Therapeutic Recreation, An Introduction (Third Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.

PL 93-112 Rehabilitation Act (1973). Therapeutic Recreation, An Introduction (Third
Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PL 93-516 Rehabilitation Act Amendment (1974). Therapeutic Recreation, An
Introduction (Third Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PL 94-142 Education of All Handicapped Act Amendment (1986). Therapeutic
Recreation, An Introduction (Third Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PL 99-457 Education of the Handicapped Act Amendment (1986). Therapeutic
Recreation, An Introduction (Third Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Plog, S. C. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. The Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (3), 13-24.

Rao, S. R., Thomas, E. G. & Javalgi, R. G. (1992). Activity preferences and trip-planning
behavior of the US. outbound pleasure travel market. Journal of Travel
Research, 30 (3), 3-12.

Rapaport, R., Rapaport, R. N., & Strelitz, Z. (1975). Leisure and the family life cycle.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

144

Reardon, K. K., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Interpersonal versus mass media
communication — A false dichotomy. Human Communication Research, 15 (2),
284-303.

Reynolds, F. D., & Darden, W. R. (1971). Mutually adaptive effects of interpersonal
communication. Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (11), 449-454.

Rogers, EM. (1961). Characteristics Of agricultural innovator and other adopter
categories. Research Bulletin, 882.

Rogers, EM. (2005). Diflusion of Innovations (Fifth ed). New York, NY: The Free
Press.

Rogers, E.M., & Cartano, D. G. (1962). Methods of measuring opinion leadership. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 26, 43 5-441.

Rossello, J ., Aguilo, E., & Riera, A. (2005). Modeling tourism demand dynamics.
Journal of Travel Research. 44 (8), 111-116.

Ryan, B., & Gross, NC. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa
communities. Rural Sociology 8, 15-24.

Sahadev, S., & Islam, N. (2005). Why hotels adopt ICT: A study on the ICT adoption
propensity of hotels in Thailand. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 17 (5), 391-401.

Schiffman, LG. (1971). Sources of information for the elderly. Journal of Advertising
Research, 11 (1), 33-37.

Schmitt, R. & Moody, T. E. (Eds). (1994). Assessing the media habits and needs of the
mobility-disabled. New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Selin, S. (1994). Marketing protected areas for ecotourism: An oxymoron? Trends 31, 19-
22.

Shani, D., & Chalasani, S. (1992). Exploiting niches using relationship marketing. The
Journal of Services Marketing. 6 (4), 43-52.

Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision making
by travelers. Tourism Management. (V 01. 26). 815-832.

Shorter-Judson, B. G. (2000). Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations in the airline
industry: An investigation of consumer preference for alternative ticketing
methods (the case of electronic ticketing). Golden Gate University School of
Business, San Francisco, CA.

Social Security Act. (1936). Therapeutic Recreation, An Introduction (Third Ed).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Solomon, M. R. (2007). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (Seventh ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

145

Sorokin, P. A., Zimmerman, C. C., & Galpin, C. J. (1931). A systematic
Sourcebook in Rural Sociology, (Vol. 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.

Stewart, S. & Vogt, C. (1999). A case-based approach to understanding vacation
planning. Leisure Sciences (Vol. 21). 79-95.

Summers, J. O. (1970). The identity of women’s clothing fashion opinion leadership.
Journal of Marketing Research 7 (5), 178-185.

Sung, H. Y., Morrison, A. M., & O’Leary, J. T. (2000). Segmenting the adventure travel
market: From the north american industry providers’ perspective. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 9 (4), 1-20.

TIA. (2005a). Travel industry facts. Washington, DC: The Travel Industry Association of
America.

TIA. (2005b). Travelers’ use of the internet. Washington, DC: The Travel Industry
Association of America.

TIA. (2007). Domestic travel market report. Washington, DC: The Travel Industry
Association of America.

Troncalli, M. T., & Thompson, J .R. (1972). Relative importance of information sources
used by travel opinion leaders. Life style and demographic analysis of leisure time
and vacation travel: Division of Research: University of Georgia.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L., (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination
choice. Annuals of Tourism Research, 17, 432-448.

United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected social characteristics: 2000 data
set summary. In US. D. o. t. Census (ed.) (Vol. File 4 (SF 4)—n Sample Data): US

Census Bureau.

Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the Diffusion of Innovations using
opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science. 566 (11), 55-67.

Vocational Rehabilitation Act. (1963). Therapeutic Recreation, An Introduction (Third
Ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Vogt, C. A. (1993). The role of touristic information in the pre-trip experience: Indiana
University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Vogt, C. A., & F esenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information search
model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (3), 551-578.

Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. & MacKay, K. (1993). Functional and aesthetic
information needs underlying the pleasure travel experience. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2, 133-146.

146

Vogt, C. A., & Kaplanidou, K. (2003). The role of word of mouth and how it can be used
to develop a competitive advantage for a destination (pp. 1-6): Michigan State
University Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, Resource Studies.

Wilkening, E. A. (1952). Informal leaders and innovators in farm practices. Rural
Sociology, 17 (9), 272-275.

Wong, F. J ., (2000). Event tourism and the product life cycle. Boca Raton, FL: Florida
Atlantic University.

Woodside, A. G., & Etzel, M. J. (1980). Impact of physical and mental handicaps on
vacation travel behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 18 (3), 9-11.

Zimmerman, C. A. (1982). The life cycle concept as a tool for travel research.
Transportation, 1 1, 51-69.

147