1 Introduction
Following the lifting of travel constraints, the recovery of tourism is becoming a reality. Revenge travel, also described as compensatory travel, has been examined within the constraint-negotiation framework [1], which explores the impact of consumers’ negotiation on behavioral intentions in constrained situations. Prior research [2] has typically conceptualized revenge travel intention as a single latent construct, manifested by travel that is more expensive, more frequent, and longer in duration than before the crisis.
However, recent travel patterns challenges this conceptualization. For example, Shum and Mak [3] highlighted that in China, despite a notable surge in travel following the easing of restrictions, consumers’ spending on travel remained lower than pre-pandemic levels. This observation indicates necessity to separately understand more expensive, more frequent, and longer duration in travel rather than by the single construct of revenge travel. Moreover, given complex nature of economic and social shocks during the crisis, combinations of constraints, negotiation, and compromising strategies are likely to affect the types of revenge travel in the subsequent period.
Anzeige
From these, we recognize two points that warrant further investigation: i) It is necessary to analyze recent surge of travel by specific categories, such as more expensive, more frequent, and longer-stay travel; ii) It is essential to comprehensively define the factors that influence each type of revenge travel.
As such, this study utilizes fsQCA (fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis), which allows for the identification of causal relationship in combinations of various factors, to examine revenge travel in more detail. Specifically, we establish the following two research questions: RQ1) How are each of the three types of revenge travel—namely, more expensive travel, more frequent trips, and longer stays—affected by combinations of prior constraints, negotiation strategies, and compromises? RQ2) How do these combinations differ or resemble each other?
This study provides useful implications for the travel-related industries enabling a more detailed understanding of revenge travelers. Since travel may be disrupted again by diseases, climate change, or other factors, this study aims to uncover lessons from the current experience that could prove useful in the future.
2 Literature
This study is related to the literature on revenge travel driven by pent-up demand, i.e., the desire to consume goods or services that have been suppressed due to constraints, such as a pandemic. In tourism, revenge travel refers to the disproportionate surge of travel after the release of the constraints placed under the travel restrictions; People want to spend more, stay longer and travel more often. Regarding this, Kim et al. [2] found perceived travel risk and financial constraints affected revenge travel while Yao et al. [4] found that boredom was a mediator between pent-up demand and revenge travel intention.
Anzeige
This current study is also related to the constraint-negotiation model, a framework that examines the impact of constraints on consumer behavior. According to the model, consumers negotiate with given constraints to achieve desired outcomes. In the tourism setting, constraints may arise in time, money, and health conditions. There have been studies that examined the role of constraints in travel decision-making. Karl et al. [5] explored travel constraints in cognitive (further by changing perception and aspiration) and behavioral aspects. Wang et al. [6] reported that constraints had a significant impact on travel frequency, travel duration, and travel destination. They also found that consumers used a variety of strategies to negotiate with constraints, such as saving money, planning ahead, and traveling with friends or family.
Building on the previous research on pent-up demand and the constraints-negotiation model, first, it separately modeled three types of revenge travel: more expensive travel, more frequent travel, and longer stays; Second, it uses fsQCA to identify the causal relationships between combinations of constraints, negotiation, and compromises; Third, it examines the differences and similarities between these combinations.
3 Methodology and Results
3.1 Data and Measurements
The data was collected through an online survey firm in Republic of Korea in April 2022. To ensure clarity and readability, pilot tests were conducted using 50 surveys. The survey included 6 constraints construct (intrapersonal, interpersonal, time, cost, place, subjective norm constraints) adapted from Boo et al. [7], 3 travel negotiation strategies (changing perception, aspiration, and behavior) adapted from Karl et al. [5] and Lyu and Oh [8], 1 compromise strategy (authors’ own development based on the articles and media reports, e.g., Lannes and Xing [9]).
All of the constructs were measured by multiple survey items. Dependent variables are more-expensive, more frequent (each with 4 items, both from Park et al. [10]), and longer stay (3 item adapted from Amin et al. [11]) travel intention post-pandemic. The data were analyzed by fsQCA, which provides possible combinations of factors that are associated with a particular outcome, based on the set theoretic foundation. A total of 500 responses were collected and used in the analysis.
3.2 Results and Discussion
Table 1 presents the results. For common factors, behavioral negotiation was found across all three types of revenge travel. This result implies the concrete actions (such arranging travel schedule, budget, or travel companion) even under the constraints may result in any type of revenge travel later. Also, for each type, R4 appeared with a similar pattern; while the constraints are mostly present, absent social norm constraint with negotiation and compromise. These individuals are similar to “Invincible” travelers [13], who will take travel no matter what as long as it is perceived socially acceptable. R3, which shows the presence of constraints, the absence of cognitive negotiation, combined with the presence of behavioral negotiation and compromise, is similar for longer stays and more frequent travel.
As per each type of revenge travel, for more expensive travel intention, throughout R1 to R4, subjective norm appears as a core absent factor. The patterns unique to this type are R2 and R3, where constraints should be absent and either compromise strongly present with peripheral presence of behavioral negotiation and peripheral absence of changing aspiration (R2) or negotiation present (R3). Overall, for those who feel that travel is not against the social norm and low degree of perceived travel constraints over the pandemic are willing to take more expensive travel when the restriction is released.
For longer stays, R2 is highlighted with the absence of perceived constraints (time and cost-related constraints as core) with both negotiation and compromise present. This result can be interpreted that people who did not perceive strong cost and time constraints under the pandemic are likely to seek for compromise (e.g., luxury shopping compromising prohibited international travel). For the post-pandemic, these individuals may prefer longer stays (and not necessarily more expensive or frequent travel).
For more frequent travel, these travelers are likely to take a domestic trips to drive-to destinations while avoiding multi-stop travel as in ‘Corona Light travelers’ of Miao et al. [13]. R2 appears to be unique; among the constraints, only the interpersonal constraints are present while others are absent (with the cost constraint being core), with changing aspiration (core), behavioral negotiation, and compromise (both peripheral). These results suggest that during the pandemic, individuals who did not face economic constraints, but lacked travel companions resorted to compromising consumption while adjusting their aspiration for travel. When restrictions are lifted, they may opt for more frequent trips without necessarily increasing their expenses (possibly because there was a compromising alternative spending).
Table 1.
fsQCA Results
4 Implications
The current study contributes to the existing literature on travel constraints by investigating how combinations of the factors lead to different types of revenge travel. For theoretical contributions, this study refined the theory of constraints negotiation framework in the travel context by: i) analyzing specific categories of revenge travel and uncovering common as well as distinctive factors, ii) acknowledging the complexity in underlying factors through identifying causal relationships among combinations of constraints, negotiation, and compromising behavior. Overall, this study offers theoretical foundation for advancing knowledge in tourism recovery strategies following crises.
After a crisis, facilitating recovery is crucial, but without knowing which points to focus on, it is challenging to engage in effective marketing and communication plans. To this point, the results of this study can be utilized to design a customized approach targeting specific types of revenge travelers. For instance, if a local government or destination aims to attract travelers who will stay longer in the post-pandemic, their marketing campaigns may be built around R3 and R4, i.e., those who perceived constraints during the pandemic with particularly strong place-related constraints and actively engaged in behavioral negotiation. Therefore, promotions that highlight ease of restrictions combined with emotional appeal acknowledging individuals’ behavioral negotiation efforts under the restriction may target the right segment.
Understanding consumers is a critical first step in developing any smart tourism system; findings from this study will also contribute to enhance the effectiveness of such systems. By analyzing and interpreting the unique travel behaviors identified in this study, smart tourism systems can be designed to cater more precisely to the needs and preferences of different traveler segments.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.