Profiling the Silent Generation

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 27 November 2014, At: 01:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Hospitality & LeisureMarketingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19

Profiling the Silent GenerationLori Pennington-Gray a & Charles W. Lane aa University of Florida , Recreation, Parks andTourism, USAPublished online: 20 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Lori Pennington-Gray & Charles W. Lane (2002) Profiling the SilentGeneration, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 9:1-2, 73-95, DOI: 10.1300/J150v09n01_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v09n01_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J150v09n01_06

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J150v09n01_06

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J150v09n01_06

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Profiling the Silent Generation:Preferences for Travel

Lori Pennington-GrayCharles W. Lane

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study was to profile the travel prefer-ences of the “Silent Generation” and to analyze whether this cohortcould be segmented into specific types of travelers based on these prefer-ences. This particular age cohort was born between 1925 and 1943 and ispresently between 58 and 76 years of age. The results indicated five dis-tinct clusters: “Active Travelers,” “Urban Mobile Travelers,” “MobileBudget Travelers,” “Educational Cultural Travelers” and “UninvolvedTravelers.” Each segment sought unique preferences for pleasure travel.With respect to demographic differences between the five clusters of theSilent Generation, only gender and education significantly differed be-tween the groups. Tourism suppliers and marketers must acknowledgethat there are differences within cohorts as well as between cohorts anddevelop products and services that meet their needs. [Article copies avail-able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678.E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Silent generation, older adult, travel preferences, atti-tude, profile

Lori Pennington-Gray (E-mail: [email protected]) and Charles W. Lane(E-mail: [email protected]) are affiliated with the University of Florida, Recreation,Parks and Tourism.

Address correspondence to: Lori Pennington-Gray, PhD, Recreation, Parks andTourism, University of Florida, 325 Florida Gym, PO Box 118209, Gainesville, FL32611-8209.

The authors extend special thanks to the Canadian Tourism Commission for gener-ously donating the data for this study. The data for the Canadian (1995) DomesticTourism Market Research Study were originally prepared by Coopers & Lybrand Con-sulting. Neither the preparer of the original data nor the Canadian Tourism Commis-sion bears any responsibility for the analysis or the interpretations presented here.

Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 9(1/2) 2001 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.HaworthPress

INTRODUCTION

The senior segment of the population has had a significant impact on the lei-sure travel and tourism industry (Hagan and Uysal, 1991; Travel Industry As-sociation of America, 2001; Zimmer, Braylet & Searle, 1995). The seniormarket is formidable both in terms of its present and projected size and the fi-nancial strength of its members (Lieux, Weaver, & McCleary, 1994). Not onlyis an absolute increase in the number of seniors expected, senior’s proportionof the entire population is expected to increase substantially (You & O’Leary,2000). By the year 2000, the senior travel and tourism market in the UnitedStates could number 59 million individuals. In that same year, Canadians whoare 55 years of age and older may number approximately 5.6 million (Zimmer,Brayley & Searle, 1995).

The senior market possesses a very large share of discretionary dollars(Zimmer, et al., 1995). According to Linden (1986), half of the discretionaryincome in the United States is controlled by people over 50 years old. In 1985,older Americans allocated $20 billion for vacations (Lieux et al., 1994). Infact, 76% of senior travelers take at least one pleasure trip per year, and at least60% take 2 or 3 pleasure trips per year (Shoemaker, 1989). According to Kelly(2000), “eighty percent of all leisure travel is done by people older than 50”(p. S8). Rosenfeld (1986) indicated that Americans over 50 dominate the plea-sure travel and tourism market by traveling more frequently, going farther, andstaying away longer, than any other segment of the population. In fact, we seethe age profile of domestic travelers with the highest participation rates amongthose who are older. Although members of the senior market clearly have thedesire to travel, little seems to be known about why they travel, how theytravel, and their preferences for pleasure travel (Shoemaker, 1989).

A predictor that reliably separates travelers from nontravelers is age. As ageincreases, the tendency to travel decreases and the selection of near-by destina-tions increases. Two other predictors that also have very strong differentiatingability are education and health status. As education increases, the tendency totravel and to travel to far-away destinations increases. As health status deterio-rates, the tendency to travel decreases (Zimmer et al., 1995).

In addition to the expected challenges of aging and passing through life’sstages, generations are thought to share similar preferences for products, ser-vices and ideas. Shoemaker (1989) suggests that the senior market is not onehomogeneous group but, in fact, is composed of many submarkets, each withits own needs. One submarket of the senior market is the cohort to which an in-dividual belongs. According to Warnick (1993), in order to understand howgenerations differ, we must understand what binds them together or character-izes them as distinctly different from other generations.

74 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Understanding Generations in a Marketing Context

Marketers often segment consumers on factors such as age, sex, income,stage of life, and geography. Although these methods are often successful,another innovative segmentation technique is to group consumers into gener-ations (Schewe, Meredith & Noble, in press). A generation is usually 20-25years in length and is defined by its years of birth (Schewe et al., in press).Generations are large groups of individuals who are born during the sametime period and journey through life together. Individuals within a genera-tion experience similar external events during their lifetime (Schewe & No-ble, 2000). McPherson (1991) stated that to understand the preferences andneeds of future generations of seniors, we should be studying the particularbirth cohorts.

Generational groups are highly influenced by the external events that wereoccurring when they were “coming of age” (generally between the years17-23) (Schewe et al., in press). Each cohort goes through life experiencing aunique social, political, technological, and economic environment (Rentz,Reynolds, & Stout, 1983). These environments are thought to influence indi-viduals by imbedding values that remain throughout life. By experiencingthese same environmental effects, cohorts then share common values, atti-tudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Schewe & Noble, 2000).

Cohort-formed values, attitudes, and preferences do not change as a func-tion of age or lifestyle, therefore, cohort effects are life-long effects (Schewe etal., in press). Cohorts are formed by external events occurring during forma-tive years and can be of any length. These similarities provide the basis foreach cohort being targeted as a separate and increasingly profitable marketsegment. Simply assuming that tomorrow’s seniors will respond to marketingin similar ways as today’s seniors may have unfortunate results (Schewe &Noble, 2000).

According to Stoller and Gibson (1996), socio-historical times and mem-bership in a cohort shape the number and type of opportunities available to in-dividuals. “Each cohort brings to old age its own unique history, and this pastinfluences the nature of the later years of cohort members” (Foner, 1986, p. 134).As a collective group, they can be expected, over time, to participate similarlyin activities such as travel (Foot & Stoffman, 1996). In fact, Uhlenberg andMiner (1996) argued that changes in social structure will alter how differentcohorts age, because human behavior is shaped by the opportunities and con-straints imposed by the major social institutions encountered.

Lori Pennington-Gray and Charles W. Lane 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Strauss and Howe’s Generation Theory

Strauss and Howe (1991) have determined that there are seven generationscurrently living in the United States. Two of the generations are in the 90+ agegroup. The remaining five generations fall between one year and eighty-nineyears of age (Table 1). These generations are identified by the year that theywere born and by their personalities. First, there is the “GI Generation” bornbetween 1901 and 1924. The next generation is the “Silent Generation,” fol-lowed by the “Baby Boomers.” After the Boomers, comes the “ThirteenthGeneration” or “Generation X.” The last, or youngest generation, is the “Mil-lennial Generation.”

The generation that is the “youngest” of the older adult population is whatStrauss and Howe (1991) call the “Silent Generation.” They were born be-tween 1925 and 1943. This generation has been described as the “transitional”generation or “middle” generation. The Silent Generation is one of caution, in-difference, lack of adventure and imagination, and basically just “silent.” Thefirst half of the generation is one born during the Depression and, as a result,gives freely to charity, have a tender social conscience and believe in a fairprocess more than final results. The last half of the generation can rememberWorld War II from their childhood, and many joined the Peace Corps to showtheir generational bond.

Members of the Silent Generation are the parents of the Baby Boom Gener-ation–one of the largest current generations. When the Baby Boom Genera-tion, those born roughly between 1946 and 1964, moves into the older agecohorts, a travel boom is likely to occur. The bulk of the boomers will reach65+ years just after 2010. Until that time, the growth in the number of seniorsin the upper age categories will be gradual, with the number of old-old, those85+, growing much faster (Warnick, 1993).

Strauss and Howe’s Theory Applied to the Canadian Population

According to Foot and Stoffman (1996), much of the thinking related to at-titudinal and social changes in the United States can also be applied to Canada,


TABLE 1. Strauss and Howe’s Generations

Generation Year Born Age in 1995

GI Generation 1901-1924 71-94

Silent Generation 1925-1943 52-70

Baby Boomers 1944-1964 31-50

13th Generation 1965-1981 14-30

Millennial Generation 1982-present Less than 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

because the two countries have followed a similar generational pattern. Can-ada’s population pyramid contains a massive bulge, representing the huge gen-eration of the Baby Boomers. By comparison, Canada’s GI Generation andSilent Generation are small. The most recent generation, the Millennial Gener-ation, (children of the Baby Boomers) is a comparatively large generation.This generational pattern is roughly the same as that of the United States.Therefore, Strauss and Howe’s Theory of Generations may also be amenableto the Canadian population.

Travel and the Silent Generation

The Silent Generation cohort is a different breed of senior traveler. The Si-lent Generation’s domestic travel behavior indicated a decline in participationfrom 1979 to 1988 (Warnick, 1993). In 1979, the domestic travel participationrate was 65.5%, and it declined to 53.7% in 1989. The older half of the SilentGeneration, experienced a decline in domestic travel participation from 69.5%in 1979 to a low of 53% in 1986; thereafter, it increased slightly to 57.5% in1991 and evolved into one of the hot travel market segments of the 1990s(Warnick, 1993).

Warnick (2000) used cohort analysis to track changes in participation ratesin selected recreation activities within and between age categories during the1980s and 1990s. He concluded that recreation activities do not have stagnantor fixed participation rates, and that while rate change in selected activitiesmay not be dramatic, participation may vary widely over time, by age cohortand by generation. National trends and generational trends may differ.

Although previous studies have delineated the travel preferences of theBaby Boomer generation (c.f. Kelly, 2000; Raymond, 2000; Thau & Heflin;1997), very few analyses have been conducted which focus on the Silent Gen-eration, and the literature review indicates that none have looked specifically atpreferences for pleasure travel held by members of the Silent Generation.Therefore, the purpose of this study was to profile the travel preferences of the“Silent Generation” and to analyze whether this cohort could be segmentedinto specific types of travelers based on these preferences.

METHODS

The Domestic Tourism Market Research Study was conducted by Coopers &Lybrand Consulting in September and October of 1995. The objective of thestudy was to examine in detail the attitudes, perceptions and behaviors of Ca-nadians about tourism, travel opportunities and destinations. The overall pur-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

pose of the research was “to determine how best to market Canadiandestinations and products to Canadians and examine possibilities for importsubstitution.” The results were based on a combination of telephone andin-person interviews with over 3,300 Canadians in all regions of the country.The data was weighted so that each age, gender and province was representa-tive of the entire population.

Three sections of the Domestic Tourism Market Research Study were refer-enced for the purpose of this study. The first section comprised of one questionon the importance of 42 preference statements in pleasure travel planning.Using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 � not at all important to 5 �extremely important, respondents were asked to indicate how important eachitem was to them in their most recent decision to travel for pleasure. The sec-ond section included one question addressing attitudes towards pleasuretravel. Eighteen variables were measured on a four-point Likert scale, rangingfrom “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Finally, section three includedsix demographic characteristics: income, number of people under 18 living inthe household, number of people over 18 living in the household, marital sta-tus, education and gender.

This study used Strauss and Howe’s (1991) segments of generations. Those55-64 made up the “Silent Generation.” Only members of the cohort SilentGeneration made up the ultimate sample. The final sample size was 580. Dueto the measurement of age in the original study (categorical) only those whoresponded that they were between the ages of 55-64 were examined. This wasdeemed appropriate because many demographers have suggested that individ-uals on either end of the spectrum or those who are part of the “watershed”years may be different slightly from the overall generation (Foot & Stoffman,1995; Strauss & Howe, 1991). Therefore, the resultant age bracket of SilentGeneration members should provide a more concise picture of this genera-tion’s preference for pleasure travel.

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences(SPSS). Initially, descriptive statistics were referenced. Then, a principal com-ponents analysis with varimax rotation was computed to determine how manydimensions of preferences existed. Alpha coefficients were referenced to con-firm the results of the principal components analysis. A cluster analysis wasperformed on the resulting factors to identify groups of individuals who re-sponded similarly to the preference dimensions. This analysis employed atwo-step sequential clustering analysis on the factor scores to identify the clus-ter/segment solution. Additionally, analysis of variance and discriminant anal-ysis procedures were computed to better understand the cluster analysisresults. Crosstab procedures were employed to examine the relationship be-tween the resulting clusters of “types” of people in the Silent Generation and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

demographic variables. Finally, ANOVA with Scheffe post hoc tests were em-ployed to analyze seventeen attitude statements in relation to the five clusters.

RESULTS

The sample overrepresented women slightly with 62% females and 38%males (Table 2). The majority of the sample (73%) were married or living withsomeone. One half (50%) had attended some high school or graduated fromhigh school. A large portion (62%) of the sample reported an annual householdincome of less than the $50,000 per year. Just over one quarter were retired(26%) and approximately one quarter were employed in blue collar jobs(24%).

Descriptive statistics of the forty-two preference statements revealed that“standards of hygiene and cleanliness” (mean = 3.66) had the highest meanscore, followed by “personal safety” (mean = 3.62) and “nice weather.” Thepreference statements which were least important to the sample were “alpineskiing” (mean = 1.29), “campground and trailer parks” (mean = 1.63) and“golf” (mean = 1.64) (see Appendix).

The 42 preference statements were factor analyzed using a principle com-ponents analysis with a varimax rotation. The final solution produced twelvefactors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and explaining almost 60% of thevariance. Based on convention, items with factor loadings greater than .40were selected for each factor. The original 42 preference statements loaded onthe 12 factors (Table 3).

The pattern of loadings intuitively made sense. The twelve factors were ti-tled, “Environment,” “Outdoor,” “Package tours,” “Educational,” “Entertain-ment,” “Cultural,” “Urban,” “Beach,” “Sports,” “Heritage,” “Mobile vaca-tions,” and “Budget vacations.” These “preference” dimensions explained59.7% of the total variance, their eigenvalues ranged from 1.04 to 7.77, and theresultant Cronbach alpha levels ranged from .45 to .73.

The first preference dimension, “Environment,” consisted of six state-ments, “Standards of hygiene and cleanliness,” “Personal safety,” “Environ-mental quality of air, water and soil,” “Nice weather,” “Easy access to healthcare facilities,” and “First class hotels and resorts.” By itself, this dimensionaccounted for 18.5% of the variance explained and had an eigenvalue of 7.77.

The “Outdoor” dimension included five statements: “Chances to see wild-life, birds and flowers,” “National and provincial parks,” “Outstanding scen-ery,” “Hunting and fishing” and “Outdoor activities such as hiking andclimbing.” It accounted for 6.87% of the variance and had an eigenvalue of2.89. Factor three, “Package Tours,” comprised of six preference items. They


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 2. Demographic Profile of the Silent Generation

Characteristics (n = 590) %

Number of people per household under 18

0 84.9

1 8.5

2 4.7

3 or more 1.9

Number of people per household over 18 (respondent = 1)

2 59.0

3 or more 23.2

1 17.8

Marital status

Married or living with someone 72.5

Separated or Divorced 11.2

Widow/Widower 8.3

Single 7.5

Education

Graduated from high school (grade 12) 25.9

Some high school 23.2

Some college or university 12.4

Bachelor's degree 12.4

Graduated from college 7.1

Primary school (grades 1-7) 5.9

Graduated from technical/vocational school 5.9

Masters or Doctorate 5.4

Gender

Female 62.4

Male 37.6

Income

Less than $35,000 29.2

$35,000 to $50,000 18.6

$50,001 to $75,000 15.9

$75,001 to $100,000 9.0

over $100,000 4.2

Occupation

Retired 26.1

Other 25.4

Blue collar 23.7

White collar 16.8

Self employed 5.1

Unemployed 2.9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 3. Factor Analysis Results of 25 Preference Statements

Preference Statements Res

ult

ant

Fac

tor

Sco

re

Mea

n*

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

Val

idN

um

ber

of

Cas

es

Eig

enva

lue

Cro

nb

ach

alp

ha

Per

cen

tag

eo

fva

rian

ceex

pla

ined

Cu

mu

lati

veva

rian

ceex

pla

ined

Factor 1: Environmental conditions 3.45 0.58 465 7.77 0.71 18.5 18.5

Standards of hygiene and cleanliness .78

Personal safety .73

Environmental quality of air, waterand soil

.68

Nice weather .51

Easy access to health care facilities .43

First class hotel and resorts .37

Factor 2: Outdoor activities 2.52 0.63 471 2.89 0.66 6.87 25.4

Chances to see wildlife, birds, flowers .73

National or provincial parks .73

Outstanding scenery .48

Hunting or fishing .45

Outdoor activities such as hiking, climbing .44

Factor 3: Package tours 2.43 0.68 452 2.17 0.72 5.17 30.6

Cruises of one or more nights .68

Availability of package trips and inclusive .61

Availability of comprehensive pre-trip info. .59

Variety of short guided excursions .59

Taking advantage of currency exchangerate

.43

Visiting remote coastal attractions .41

Factor 4: Educational 3.07 0.71 471 2.01 0.71 4.79 35.4

Variety of things to do and see .72

Opportunity to increase one's knowledge .69

Historical places or buildings .56

Factor 5: Entertainment 2.25 0.68 474 1.55 0.57 3.69 39.1

Casinos or other gambling .75

Nightlife and entertainment .61

Having fun/being entertained .51

Factor 6: Cultural activities 2.41 0.86 476 1.53 0.50 3.64 42.7

Museums and art galleries .75

Arts and cultural attractions .71

Factor 7: Urban vacation 2.38 0.67 462 1.32 0.50 3.14 45.8

Shopping .69

Theme parks and amusement parks .62

Activities for the entire family .45

Modern cities .43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

were: “cruises of one or more nights,” “Availability of package trips and inclu-sive trips,” “Availability of comprehensive pre-trip information,” “Variety ofshort guided excursions,” “Taking advantage of currency exchange rate,” and“Visiting remote coastal attractions.”

Factor four was named “Educational.” It included, “Variety of things to doand see,” “Opportunity to increase one’s knowledge,” and “Historical placesor buildings.” It had an eigenvalue of 2.01 and explained 5.17% of the vari-ance. Like the previous factor, factor five had three items “Casinos and othergambling,” “Nightlife and entertainment,” and “Having fun/being entertained,Factor 5 was labeled “Entertainment.”

Factors 6, 9, 11 and 12 all had two items. They were labeled “Cultural activi-ties,” “Sports vacations,” “Mobile vacations,” and “Budget vacation,” respec-tively. They ranged in variance explained from 2.48% to 3.14%, respectively, andhad eigenvalues that ranged from 1.04 to 1.53. Factor seven, “Urban vacation”had four items, “Shopping,” “Theme parks and amusement parks,” “Activities forthe entire family,” and “Modern cities.” It accounted for 3.64% of the variance.


TABLE 3 (continued)

Preference Statements Res

ult

ant

Fac

tor

Sco

re

Mea

n*

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

Val

idN

um

ber

of

Cas

es

Eig

enva

lue

Cro

nb

ach

alp

ha

Per

cen

tag

eo

fva

rian

ceex

pla

ined

Cu

mu

lati

veva

rian

ceex

pla

ined

Factor 8: Beach vacation 1.86 0.68 474 1.30 0.55 3.08 48.9

Beaches for sunbathing and swimming .70

Water sports .70

Alpine skiing** .44

Factor 9: Sports vacation 1.83 0.79 475 1.24 0.73 2.95 51.9

Golf .75

Spectator sporting events .59

Factor 10: Heritage 2.77 0.69 469 1.17 0.60 2.78 54.7

Interesting and friendly local people .67

Opportunity to experience aboriginalcultures

.59

Local cuisine .49

Factor 11: Mobile vacation 1.85 0.88 473 1.10 0.52 2.61 57.3

High quality restaurants .80

Campground and trailer parks .74

Factor 12: Budget vacation 2.63 0.80 468 1.04 0.45 2.48 59.7

Budget accommodations .73

Inexpensive restaurants .67

*Each preference dimension was measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1, “never important” to 4 “always important.”**Item eliminated based on results of Reliability Analysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

“Beach vacations” was the label for factor eight. It included three items“Beaches for swimming and sunning” “Water sports,” and “Alpine skiing.”Cronbach alpha analysis revealed that eliminating “Alpine skiing” would in-crease the score from .34 to .55, so this was done. The final dimension ac-counted for 3.08% of the variance. Finally, factor ten “Heritage vacations”included three items “Interesting and friendly local people,” “Opportunity tosee or experience aboriginal cultures,” and “Local cuisine.” This factor had anexplained variance of 2.78% and a Cronbach alpha of .60.

It should be noted that the most important preferences (based on overallmean score) were Environmental factors, Educational and Heritage. The leastimportant were Sports, Mobile and Beach. The means on the twelve dimen-sions ranged from a low of 1.83 to a high of 3.45, indicating the range in impor-tance of the dimensions, overall.

Identification of Clusters

Cluster analysis was applied to identify groups of respondents based onsimilar responses to the twelve preference dimensions. Initially, a Ward’s hier-archical clustering method was used to determine the number of clusters. Ex-amination of the dendrograms and agglomeration coefficients suggested fiveclusters. This number was then used in a follow-up K-means cluster analysis.

Analysis of variance and discriminant analysis procedures were used to fur-ther clarify the results of the cluster analysis. Analysis of variance documentedthat statistically significant differences existed between all five clusters (Table4). Univariate F ratios revealed significant differences among all clusters on allfactors. More specifically, Cluster I was significantly more likely to place im-portance on the preference for environmental concerns (mean = 3.87), outdooractivities (mean = 3.16), package tours (mean = 3.15), entertainment (mean =2.92), sports (mean = 3.00), heritage (mean = 3.37) and budget travel (mean =3.15) than Cluster II, III, IV, and V. Cluster II, on the other hand, was signifi-cantly more likely than the other clusters to be drawn to the mobile vacations(mean = 3.72) and urban vacations (mean = 2.68) than other clusters. ClusterIII placed more importance on the preference for mobile and budget vacations(mean = 2.53 and 3.02, respectively). Cluster IV placed more importance oneducation (mean = 3.41) and cultural activities (mean = 2.86) than any othercluster. Finally, Cluster V had lower scores on all preferences. Therefore,based on the primary preferences identified by each cluster, they were labeled,“Active Travelers” (Cluster I), “Urban Mobile Travelers” (Cluster II) “MobileBudget Traveler” (Cluster III), “Educational Cultural Traveler” (Cluster IV)and “Uninvolved Traveler” (Cluster IV).

Discriminant analysis was performed on the three clusters in an effort toidentify which preferences best discriminated among the five clusters. The


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

four canonical discriminant functions were statistically significant as mea-sured by the chi-square statistic. Function 1 explained 36.7% of the total vari-ance and had an eigenvalue of 1.30. Function 2 explained 35.8% of thevariance and had an eigenvalue of 1.29. Function 3 explained 18.5% of thevariance and had an eigenvalue of .65 and Function 4 explained 9.0% of thevariance and had an eigenvalue of .32. Classification matrices also were exam-ined to determine whether the functions were good predictors. Table 5 indi-cates the high degree of classification accuracy; 89.4% of the cases werecorrectly classified.

In order to better understand the five clusters, the Chi-square procedure wasadopted to determine if there were any statistically significant differencesamong the five cluster groups. Table 6 provides the results of this analysis.

The Chi-square analysis revealed that clusters were only significantly dif-ferent with regard to education and gender. Cluster II (Urban Mobile Traveler)


TABLE 4. Means of Preference Dimensions Among Five Groups of the SilentGeneration

Preference Dimension Cluster I:Active

Travelers

Cluster II:UrbanMobile

Travelers

Cluster III:MobileBudget

Travelers

Cluster IV:Educational

CulturalTravelers

Cluster V:UninvolvedTravelers

F-ratio

Sig.level

(n = 49) (n = 73) (n = 148) (n = 89) (n = 55)

Factor 1:Environmental

3.87 3.76 3.49 3.28 3.21 23.5 .000

Factor 2:Outdoor activities

3.16 3.05 2.49 2.35 2.23 46.6 .000

Factor 3:Package tours

3.15 2.80 2.34 2.43 2.02 48.9 .000

Factor 4:Educational

3.23 3.24 2.73 3.41 2.48 38.3 .000

Factor 5:Entertainment

2.92 2.30 2.36 2.11 1.91 80.9 .000

Factor 6:Cultural activities

2.82 2.56 2.26 2.86 1.66 46.8 .000

Factor 7:Urban vacation

2.28 2.68 2.26 2.26 2.02 32.0 .000

Factor 8:Beach vacation

2.70 2.09 1.77 1.87 1.53 48.7 .000

Factor 9:Sports vacation

3.00 1.89 1.57 1.50 1.97 18.5 .000

Factor 10:Heritage

3.37 3.08 2.64 2.86 2.32 63.9 .000

Factor 11:Mobile vacation

1.65 2.72 2.53 1.38 1.32 107.1 .000

Factor 12:Budget vacation

3.15 2.25 3.02 2.58 2.18 61.7 .000

Note: Items that comprise each preference dimension were measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1, “never impor-tant” to 4 “always important.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

was comprised of less educated females than Clusters I, III, IV and V. Cluster I(Active Travelers) was more inclined to be males who graduated college oruniversity. Cluster III (Mobile Budget Travelers) was made up of mostly fe-males with a high school diploma or less. Cluster IV (Educational CulturalTraveler) consisted of higher educated females with higher incomes. Finally,Cluster V had the greatest number of people with only primary school educa-tion (7.5%) and the greatest number of individuals who had some college oruniversity.

It is interesting to note, however, that all five clusters indicated a variety ofmarital statuses, income levels and number of people living in the home. Forexample, Cluster I (Active Travelers) had more widows/widowers (9.5%) andthe largest portion of middle income earners (31.4%). Cluster II (Urban Mo-bile Travelers) had more two household families who were married (78.0%)earning $35,000 to $49,999 (27.5%). Cluster III (Mobile Budget Travelers)had more low-income earners (36.4%) and the greatest number of two familyhomes (68.0%). Cluster IV were more likely to have high incomes (31.8%)and be single than other clusters and Cluster V was represented by single par-ent homes (8.5% were single, 7.4% had 2 children under 18 years).

Identification of Attitudes of the Five Clusters

Descriptive statistics of the seventeen attitude statements revealed that“getting good value for my money is important to me” (mean = 3.72) had thehighest mean score, followed by “For me, money spent on travel is well spent”(mean = 3.65) and “I travel for leisure whenever I can afford to” (Table 7). Theattitude statements which were least important to the sample were “I generallylike to go to the same place every year for my holiday” (mean = 2.02), “Longdistance travel is more of a hassle than a holiday” (mean = 1.69) and “I do notreally like to travel” (mean = 1.32).


TABLE 5. Classification Results

Group No. of Cases 1 2 3 4 5

% % % % %

1 49 92.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.0

2 73 8.0 90.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

3 148 0.9 6.4 87.3 2.7 2.7

4 89 0.8 1.7 1.7 86.4 9.3

5 55 2.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 93.6

Note: 89.4% of the cases were correctly classified

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Of the seventeen attitude statements towards pleasure travel, analysis ofvariance revealed differences between six statements and the five generationalClusters (Table 8). Those differences were seen among: “It is important thatpeople I encounter speak my language,” “I generally go to the same place ev-ery year for my holiday,” “Once I get to my destination, I like to stay put,” “I


TABLE 6. Demographic Profiles of Silent Generation Travelers

Characteristics Cluster I:Active

Travelers


Travelers


Travelers


CulturalTravelers


(n = 49) (n = 73) (n = 148) (n = 89) (n = 55)

Number of people under 18 % % % % %

0 78.6 88.0 85.5 85.6 88.3

1 16.7 6.0 6.4 9.3 4.3

2 2.4 6.0 7.3 2.5 7.4

3 2.4 0.0 0.9 2.5 0.0

Number of people over 18

1 23.8 16.0 20.0 14.4 17.0

2 42.9 68.0 57.3 61.9 63.8

3 33.3 16.0 22.7 23.7 19.1

Marital Status

Single 7.1 8.0 3.6 8.5 8.5

Married or live with someone 73.8 78.0 74.5 72.6 76.6

Separated or Divorced 9.5 10.0 14.5 11.1 9.6

Widow/Widower 9.5 4.0 7.3 7.7 5.3

Education**

Primary school (grade 1-7) 4.9 0.0 7.3 2.6 7.5

Some high school 12.2 28.0 20.9 14.5 19.4

Graduated high school 31.7 30.0 30.0 16.2 33.3

Graduated technical school 4.9 6.0 5.5 5.1 5.4

Some college or university 12.2 16.0 15.5 17.9 18.3

Graduate college or university 19.5 4.0 4.5 10.3 1.1

Bachelor's degree 12.2 6.0 12.7 18.8 15.1

Masters or Doctorate 2.4 10.0 3.6 14.5 0.0

Gender*

Female 45.2 64.0 67.3 69.5 59.6

Male 54.8 36.0 32.7 30.5 40.4

Income

Less than $34,999 25.7 29.5 36.4 23.4 32.3

$35,000 to $49,999 20.0 27.3 25.0 25.5 27.7

$50,000 to $74,999 31.4 18.2 26.1 27.7 20.2

$75,000 to $99,999 20.0 11.4 9.1 16.0 12.3

Over $100,000 2.9 13.6 3.4 31.8 7.7

Note: * significant at the .05 level and ** significant at the .01 level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

take lots of short trips to a lake or cottage,” “I prefer traveling overseas,” and “Ioften take holidays during the summer.”

The Scheffe post hoc test revealed differences between Clusters I and III,IV. Members of the Silent Generation, who comprised Cluster I, were morelikely to agree with the statement “It is important that people I encounter speakmy language.” Members of Cluster V were significantly more likely to agreethat “I generally like to go to the same place every year for my holiday” thanCluster I and II, and “Once I get to my destination, I like to stay put” than Clus-ter III. Those who comprised Cluster IV were more likely to agree that theypreferred travelling overseas than Cluster I and less likely to agree that they of-ten take holidays during the summer than Cluster II. Finally, those in Cluster IIwere more likely to say they take lots of short trips to a lake or cottage thanCluster IV.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to document the preferences for pleasuretravel for members of the Silent Generation and to analyze whether they could


TABLE 7. Attitudes and Travel Preferences and Resultant F Scores of The Si-lent Generation

Attitude Statements Mean Std. Dev. F Score Sig.

Getting value for my money is important to me 3.72 0.58 2.08 0.08

For me, money spent on travel is well spent 3.65 0.57 1.49 0.24

I travel for leisure whenever I can afford to 3.58 0.68 2.26 0.06

I enjoy making my own arrangements for my holidays 3.43 0.80 0.56 0.69

I take frequent short trips of a few days each year 3.28 0.98 2.45 0.45

I generally take one or two trips of a week or more each year 3.20 1.05 0.77 0.54

I often take holidays during the summer 3.19 1.05 2.38 0.05

It is important that people I encounter speak my language 2.87 1.12 4.33 0.00

I often take winter holidays 2.45 1.16 0.93 0.45

I take lots of short trips to a lake or cottage 2.34 1.28 5.76 0.00

Once I get to my destination, I like to stay put 2.28 1.11 2.75 0.03

I like to travel on all-inclusive packages 2.26 1.14 2.09 0.08

I prefer to go on escorted tours 2.15 1.14 0.72 0.58

I prefer travelling overseas 2.10 1.12 7.17 0.00

I generally go to the same place every year for my holiday 2.02 1.01 4.29 0.00

Long distance travel is more of a hassle than a holiday 1.69 1.01 0.24 0.92

I do not really like to travel 1.32 0.73 0.49 0.74

Note: Items that comprise each attitude statement were measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly dis-agree” to 4 “strongly agree.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

be segmented into specific types of visitors based on these preferences. The re-sults indicated that generally the preferences by members of the Silent Genera-tion follow a traditional pattern as identified in previous research (Showemaker,1993; Blazey, 1986). The most important individual preference items includedthose related to the environment: standards of cleanliness, safety, weather andenvironmental quality of air and water. With respect to the way in which itemsloaded on to preference dimensions, many of the twelve dimensions have beenidentified in the literature (i.e., price, outdoor recreation, beaches, culture,package tours). Given that this sample had an overrepresentation of females,


TABLE 8. Means of Attitudes Among Five Groups of the Silent Generation

Attitudes Cluster I:Active

Travelers


Travelers


Travelers


CulturalTravelers


(n = 49) (n = 73) (n = 148) (n = 89) (n = 55)

I travel for leisure when I can afford to 3.71 3.61 3.69 3.58 3.44

For me, $ spent on travel is well spent 3.71 3.82 3.61 3.64 3.62

I generally take one or two trips of aweek or more each year

3.62 3.45 3.21 3.20 3.14

I generally take frequent short trips of afew days each year

3.40 3.55 3.40 3.12 3.30

I prefer to go on escorted tours 2.37 2.06 2.13 2.03 2.08

It is important that people I encounterspeak my language *

3.19 (a) 2.92 3.01 (a) 2.52 2.89 (b)

Getting good value for my money isimportant

3.93 3.65 3.75 3.68 3.65

I generally like to go to the sameplace every year for my holiday*

1.86 (b) 1.80 (b) 2.02 1.94 2.39 (a)

I enjoy making my own arrangementsfor my holidays

3.33 3.45 3.52 3.41 3.44

Once I get to my destination, I like tostay put *

2.40 2.22 2.09 (b) 2.21 2.56 (a)

I like to travel on all-inclusive packages 2.66 2.37 2.29 2.11 2.18

I do not really like to travel 1.17 1.31 1.29 1.25 1.33

Long distance travel is more of a hasslethan holiday

1.62 1.69 1.60 1.58 1.69

I often take winter holidays 2.64 2.29 2.40 2.50 2.31

I take lots of short trips to a lake orcottage*

2.64 2.94 (a) 2.44 1.99 (b) 2.43

I prefer traveling overseas* 1.88 (a) 1.96 2.22 2.52 (b) 1.76

I often take holidays during thesummer*

3.31 3.43 (a) 3.32 2.98 (b) 3.23

Items with different superscripts indicate significant differences. For example, Cluster I (a) and Cluster III (a) did not signifi-cantly differ from each other in their response to the attitude statement. They did, however, differ from Cluster V (b). Mem-bers of the Silent Generation who comprised Cluster I were significantly more likely to agree with statement that “it isimportant that people I encounter speak my language” than were individuals who comprised Cluster V.

Note: Items that comprise each attitude statement were measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1, “strongly dis-agree” to 4 “strongly agree.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

this makes sense. This overrepresentation may be in part to the longer life spanof females.

The most important preference dimension for members of the Silent Gener-ation was the Environmental Dimension. This dimension included such thingsas: safety, standards of cleanliness and hygiene, weather and easy access tohealth care facilities. Again, given this generation is dominated by femalesfrom the WWII era, this may not be surprising. Previous research has indicatedthat safety is a concern for this group (Howell, Moreo & DeMicco, 1993;Martinage, 1999; Pennington-Gray, 1994).

The second interesting finding was that “Education” (which included itemssuch as “Opportunity to increase one’s knowledge” “Variety of things to seeand do” and “Historical places and buildings”) was the next most importantfactor to members of the Silent Generation. Research has indicated that educa-tion influences one’s preference for travel (see Gitelson and Kerstetter 1990).This study supports this notion. The overall mean on this dimension was 3.07.This suggests that the preference for learning while traveling is a large compo-nent of the older generations travel preferences. In fact, the top activities iden-tified by Travel Industry of America (2001) for the “Mature Generation”(those 55+) are visiting historical places or museums (15%), attending culturalevents and festivals (12%) and gambling (11%). In addition, the growth inedu-travel supports this finding (Holdnak & Holland, 1996). When examiningthe demographic profiles of this cluster, findings revealed that this group con-tained more females and higher levels of education. This finding supports pre-vious research that indicates women tend to place high preference on travelingfor education (Pennington-Gray & Kerstetter, 1999).

The third interesting finding was the presence of the Mobile vacation di-mension and the budget vacation. These dimensions were comprised of itemsthat focused on price and value of travel: budget accommodations, camp-grounds and trailer parks, inexpensive restaurants and high-quality restau-rants. Interestingly, these issues are consistent with Strauss and Howe’s profileof the Silent Generation. Strauss and Howe (1991) suggest that this generationtends to be frugal and price-sensitive because they were children of the De-pression and grew up during “sparing” times. In addition, this issue may bemore germane to the Canadian population than a U.S. population because ofrelative weakness of the Canadian dollar, which influences Canadians’ abilityto travel to “warmer” destinations. The extent to which price plays a role in allolder adults’ preference for travel has not been adequately documented andwarrants further attention.

It is not surprising that the urban vacation preference was dominated by sin-gle women with lower incomes who live in families with children under theage of 18. Preferences for modern cities, theme parks, shopping and activities


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

for the entire family suggest that perhaps this segment is the “grandmother”segment that is traveling with grandchildren. Bradford (1998) suggests that“Grand-travel” is a viable and distinct segment of the pleasure travel marketand continually growing. He indicates that “Grand-travel” packages have re-ported explosive growth in demand over the past few years (1998). Marketerswould do well to recognize the preferences for this market and to continue todevelop products that respond to these preferences.

When cluster and discriminant analyses were applied to identify groups ofrespondents, five distinct clusters emerged: “Active Travelers,” “Urban Mo-bile Travelers,” “Mobile Budget Travelers,” “Educational Cultural Travelers”and “Uninvolved Travelers.” According to this finding there are five distincttypes of travelers, all of whom seek unique preferences for pleasure travel.Crompton (1979) and Showemaker (1993) contended that the travel market isnot homogeneous and that individuals seek multiple preferences from theirtravel experiences. This study’s findings support their arguments. The SilentGeneration appears to have diverse interests regarding their preferences andattitudes towards pleasure travel.

With respect to demographic differences between the five clusters of the Si-lent Generation, only gender and education significantly differed between thegroups. This is interesting in that Blazey (1987) suggests that income wouldhave differentiated between groups. This may be due to the fact that this sam-ple had a high percentage of retired individuals and was more homogeneouswith respect to income.

More revealing was the relationship between the attitude statements and thefive clusters. It was understandable that the members of the “Uninvolved Trav-eler” group also indicated that they preferred to stay put once they got to theirdestination and that they liked going to the same destination every year. Thisgroup appeared to be less “involved” with pleasure travel and may even lendsupport to the argument that some people just don’t like to travel (Penning-ton-Gray & White, in press).

In addition, the “Active Traveler,” those who preferred a variety of travelactivities, indicated it was more important that people they encounter speaktheir language than the “Educational Cultural Traveler” and the “UninvolvedTraveler.” This is consistent with Cohen’s typology (1979b) of the tourist,where the “Mass tourist” is more likely to operate in the tourist bubble and lesslikely to venture out into the host’s environment.

Cluster II, the “Urban Mobile Traveler” tended to take many short trips to alake or cottage and often take holidays during the summer. Again, examiningtheir preferences for modern cities, trailer parks and campgrounds supportsthese attitudes. Finally, the “Educational Cultural Traveler” indicated that theypreferred traveling overseas. This makes sense when examining the demo-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

graphics of this group. Members of this group tended to have higher educa-tional levels and higher income levels.

The results of this study do suggest that there are some unique preferencesheld by members of the Silent Generation. This is an important preliminaryfinding. Although previous research has focused on the senior market or theolder adult market, to date a profile of members of the Silent Generation hasnot existed.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Traditional research has suggested that aging affects one’s preference fortravel. However, “Cohort Theory” would suggest that different generationsshould behave differently based on “epochal” events that have affected theirattitudes and preferences. Further research must look at comparing and con-trasting these generations to see the influence of “epochal events” on one’spreference for travel. Did growing up as Depression-era children, like the Si-lent Generation did, influence their strong preference for economical travel?Will Baby Boomers, who are reported to be the wealthiest generation to haveever lived, also be frugal when it comes to travel? These questions still remainto be answered.

This study has provided the first “glimpse” at the preferences and attitudesfor pleasure travel held by members of the Silent Generation. However, thequestion remains . . . how similar will the travel preferences for this generationbe to the upcoming Baby Boomer Generation? Can we expect similar “pro-files” of travelers in the Baby Boomer Generation? Will attitudes towardstravel be consistent among the two generations? As the first baby boomers jointhe 55 plus demographic next year, future research on the similarities and dif-ferences among members of the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomer Gen-eration is necessary. This study has provided a profile of the existing olderadult generation. This profile may provide a basis for comparison in the yearsto come.

REFERENCES

Cohen, E. (1979d). Sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(1), 18-194(spec. issue).

Crompton, J. L., (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 6 (4): 408-424.

Foot, D. & D. Stoffman. (1996). Boom, bust & echo: How to profit from the coming de-mographic shift Toronto: Macfarlane, Walter & Ross.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Foner, A. (1986). Aging and old age: New perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NY:Prentice Hall.

Gitelson, R. J., and Kerstetter, D. L. (1990). The Relationship between sociodemo-graphic variables, benefits sought and subsequent vacation behavior: A case study.Journal of Travel Research, 28 (3): 24-29.

Hagan, L. A. and M. Uysal (1991). An examination of motivations and activities ofpre-retirement (50-64) and post-retirement (65-99) age groups for a tourism group.Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Travel and TourismResearch Association, Long Beach, CA.

Holdnak, A. & Holland, S. (1996). Edu-Tourism: Vacationing to learn–American’squest for adventure and thirst for knowledge have created a new type of tourismwhere vacationers participate in educational activities as they enjoy exotic loca-tions. Parks and Recreation Magazine, 31 (9), 72-80.

Howell, R., Moreo, P., and DeMicco, F. (1993). A qualitative analysis of hotel servicesdesired by female business travelers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(4): 115-132.

Kelly, C. (2000). Active lifestyle central to targeting. Advertising Age. 71 (29), S8Lieux, E. M., Weaver, P. A., & McCleary, K. W. (1994). Lodging preferences of the

senior tourism market. Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 712-728.Linden, F. The $800 billion market. American Demographics, 8(2), 5-6.Martinage, D. A. (1999). Business women and violence. Association Management, 41

(8), 65-69.McPherson, B. D. (1990). Aging as a social process: An introduction to individual and

population aging. Markham, ONT: Butterworths.Pennington-Gray, L. (1994). The impact of socio-demographic and travel behavior

variables on benefits sought by college educated women who travel for pleasure.Unpublished master’s thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, State College.

Pennington-Gray, L. & D. Kerstetter (1999). Perceived constraints to nature-basedtourism: A case study of women living in the midwest. Travel Tourism ResearchAssociation Conference Proceedings, June 11-14, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Pennington-Gray, L., & Kerstetter, D. L. (in press). Examining travel preferences ofolder Canadian adults over time. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing.

Pennington-Gray, L. & E. White (in press). The leisure behavior paradox:Profiling those who say they don’t like to travel. The Journal of Teaching in Travel and

Tourism.Raymond, J. (2000). The joy of empty nesting. American Demographics. 22 (5): 48-54.Rentz, J. O., Reynolds, F. D., & Stout, R. G. (1983). Analyzing changing consumption

patterns with cohort analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 12-20.Rosenfeld, J. (1986). Demographics on vacation. American Demographics, 8(1), 39-41.Schewe, C. D., Meredith, G. E., & Noble, S. M. (in press). Cohort segmentation:

Where past, present and future collide. Journal of Marketing Research.Schewe, C. D., & Noble, S. M. (2000). Market segmentation by cohorts: The value and

validity of cohorts in America and abroad. Journal of Marketing Management, 16,129-142.

Shoemaker, S. (1989). Segmentation of the senior pleasure travel market. Journal ofTravel Research, 27(3), 14-21.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future,1584-2069. New York: Quill.

Stoller, E., & Gibson, R. (1996). Worlds of difference: Equality in the aging experience(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

Swain, M. (1995). Gender in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (2): 247-266.Thau, R. D. & J. S. Heflin (1997). Generations Apart. Prometheus Books: New York.Travel Industry Association of America (2001). Newsline: February 2001. Travel In-

dustry Association of America. Washington. D. C.Uhlenberg, P., & Miner, S. (1996). Life course and aging: A cohort perspective. In R.

Binstock & L. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp.208-229). San Diego: Academic Press.

Warnick, R. B. (2000). Recreation participation trends: Generational patterns andchange. Trends 2000- 5th Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Sympo-sium–Shaping the Future. Michigan State University: Department of Recreation,Parks and Tourism. East Lansing, Michigan. Conference Paper and Abstract.

Warnick, R. B. (1993). U.S. domestic travel: Back to the future: The impact of an agingU.S. population on domestic travel trends. In 1993 Annual Review of Travel, Vol.2(1) (pp. 73-89). New York: American Express Travel Related Services.

Warnick, R. (1993). Back to the Future: U.S. Domestic Travel and GenerationalTrends, 1979 to 1991. Paper presented at the Resort and Commercial RecreationAssociation, Mohonk Mountain House, New Paltz, New York, November 1993.

Warnick, Rodney B. and Dennis R. Howard. (1996). Market share analysis in selectedsport and recreational activities: 1979 to 1993. Journal of Park and Recreation Ad-ministration. Vol. 14 (2).

You, X., & O’Leary, J. T. (2000). Age and cohort effects: An examination of older Jap-anese travelers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(1/2), 21-42.

Zimmer, Z., Brayley, R. E., & Searle, M. (1995). Whether to go and where to go: Iden-tification of important influences on seniors’ decisions to travel. Journal of TravelResearch, 33 (3), 3-10.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


APPENDIX

Percentage Distribution, Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Responses toPreference Statements

Preference Statement N NeverImportant

(1)%

Sometimesimportant

(2)%

Oftenimportant

(3)%

Alwaysimportant

(4)%

Mean Std.Dev.

Standards of hygiene andcleanliness

477 2.1 6.1 15.3 76.5 3.66 0.69

Personal safety 475 2.9 7.6 13.7 75.8 3.62 0.75

Nice weather 477 3.1 11.3 23.5 62.1 3.44 0.81

Interesting and friendly local people 476 2.1 14.9 28.6 54.4 3.35 0.81

Destinations that provide value formy $

473 5.1 11.4 26.8 56.7 3.35 0.87

Environmental quality of air, waterand soil

473 7.2 12.3 23.7 56.9 3.30 0.94

Opportunity to increase one'sknowledge

473 3.8 19.5 29.2 47.6 3.21 0.88

Outstanding scenery 476 3.4 18.1 33.4 45.2 3.20 0.85

Easy access to health carefacilities

473 8.9 14.0 25.2 52.0 3.20 0.99

Variety of things to do and see 474 4.0 19.0 34.6 42.4 3.15 0.87

Having fun/being entertained 475 4.4 26.5 31.4 37.7 3.02 0.91

Chances to see wildlife, birds,flowers

475 5.5 29.1 30.3 35.2 2.95 0.93

Taking advantage of currencyexchange rate

470 16.2 18.3 21.5 44.0 2.93 1.13

Availability of comprehensivepre-trip info.

473 14.2 24.3 21.1 40.4 2.88 1.10

Historical places or buildings 475 6.1 31.2 33.9 28.8 2.85 0.91

Shopping 476 10.7 33.2 24.4 31.7 2.77 1.01

Local cuisine 474 10.8 34.6 29.5 25.1 2.69 0.97

Budget accommodations 471 14.4 31.8 26.1 27.6 2.67 1.03

National or provincial parks 475 13.3 34.9 28.8 22.9 2.61 0.98

Inexpensive restaurants 474 12.0 37.3 30.2 20.5 2.59 0.95

Activities for the entire family 463 22.5 29.4 21.2 27.0 2.53 1.11

Beaches for sunbathing andswimming

476 21.8 31.7 23.1 23.3 2.48 1.07

Arts and cultural attractions 477 16.1 41.5 22.2 20.1 2.46 0.99

Variety of short guided excursions 474 19.8 38.2 23.4 18.6 2.41 1.01

Museums and art galleries 476 18.3 43.1 23.1 15.5 2.36 0.95

Visiting remote coastal attractions 473 24.1 38.3 22.0 15.6 2.29 1.00

Opportunity to experienceaboriginal cultures

471 25.3 38.4 19.7 16.6 2.28 1.02

Modern cities 475 25.1 40.4 22.9 11.6 2.21 0.95

First class hotel and resorts 474 32.7 34.0 16.7 16.7 2.17 1.06

Availability of package trips andinclusive

474 35.9 30.0 16.7 17.5 2.16 1.10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Preference Statement N NeverImportant

(1)%

Sometimesimportant

(2)%

Oftenimportant

(3)%

Alwaysimportant

(4)%

Mean Std.Dev.

Outdoor activities such as hiking,climbing

475 34.5 30.9 19.4 15.2 2.15 1.06

Nightlife and entertainment 476 31.7 39.7 17.9 10.7 2.08 0.96

High quality restaurants 474 42.4 24.3 17.9 15.4 2.06 1.10

Spectator sporting events 476 34.0 39.5 16.8 9.7 2.02 0.95

Theme parks and amusementparks

475 35.4 40.6 15.2 8.8 1.97 0.93

Cruises of one or more nights 467 43.5 33.2 13.1 10.3 1.90 0.98

Water sports 475 51.6 25.3 13.9 9.3 1.81 1.00

Hunting or fishing 475 62.3 17.9 11.2 8.6 1.66 0.98

Casinos or other gambling 475 59.4 22.7 10.7 7.2 1.66 0.93

Golf 475 65.1 16.6 7.6 10.7 1.64 1.01

Campground and trailer parks 473 68.5 11.0 9.3 11.2 1.63 1.05

Alpine skiing 475 82.5 9.9 4.0 3.6 1.29 0.71

Note: Items sorted by mean score.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

58 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Profiling the Silent Generation

Documents

Transcript of Profiling the Silent Generation