Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Jan 4;10(1):8. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01499-5

Do personal values and motivation affect women’s solo travel intentions in Taiwan?

Yi-Man Teng 1, Kun-Shan Wu 2,✉, Ying-Chieh Lee 2
PMCID: PMC9811876  PMID: 36619596

Abstract

Female solo travel is experiencing a global increase and specifically, gaining popularity in Asia. This study explores how personal values and female solo travel motivation affect travel behavior. Using a sample comprising 381 single females in Taiwan, partial least squares structural equation modeling was utilized to investigate the hypotheses. The results revealed Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3 are supported, which verifies personal internal values significantly affect female solo travel motivation, and are identified as significant factors influencing female solo travel intention. Additionally, Hypothesis 5 is partially support, indicating the female solo travel motivations of escape/relaxation, relationship, and self-actualization contribute to the formation of positive female solo travel intention. As Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4 are unsupported, external values have no impact on female solo travel motivation or any significant effect on female solo travel intention. This research adds to the vast gap in tourism literature by identifying the personal values and motivations of female solo travel, and benefits the development of the female solo travel market.

Subject terms: Business and management, Business and management

Introduction

Although the COVID-19 pandemic influenced international travel decisions and changed tourism significantly during 2020 and 2021, French (2020) revealed the solo traveler market could be the first to return as the tourism sector recovers from the COVID-19 crisis. Furthermore, Wen et al. (2020) proposed that independent travel will likely increase after the COVID-19 pandemic. Solo travel is an increasingly common tourism option in modern society, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, which presents the travel industry with a great opportunity for recovery post-pandemic (Yang et al., 2022).

Owing to changes in social and political circumstances, the increasing interest from women to travel solo is evident in many parts of the world, and is a fast-growing segment of the travel industry (Wilson & Little, 2005; Dempsey, 2015). According to Solo Travel Statistics (2019), 72% of women in the USA prefer to travel alone and between 2015 and 2017, female solo bookings increased by 45%. Women currently account for almost two-thirds of travelers, particularly Asian women who occupy a growing proportion of contemporary tourism (Yang et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2018). The Klook poll (2019) also shows that in 2019, solo travel was more prevalent in Asia, 69% to 93%, compared to 60% to 69% in Western nations. Seow and Brown (2018) evidence Asian women have a growing interest in solo travel, and similarly, Bond (2019) states women traveling alone has become commonplace and can be attributed to travelers’ life changes.

Wilson and Little (2005) define female solo travelers as women traveling alone, without partners, family, or friends, who are in search of adventure, social interaction, education, and self-understanding, and are confident by themselves. McNamara and Prideaux (2010) consider female solo travelers to be women who travel to a destination alone and not as part of a group or organized tour. Gaining a life-changing experience, empowerment, liberation, identity, personal time, and freedom from domestic roles encourages women to consider traveling alone (Jordan & Gibson, 2005; Wilson & Harris, 2006). Similarly, Yang et al. (2018a) states female solo travel takes women out of their home environments and into unfamiliar destinations and cultures. In search of freedom, independence, empowerment, and autonomy, women traveling alone demonstrate a new style of travel.

Although there is support for the autonomy and freedom of female solo travelers, they still face danger and harassment, and encounter criticism and restrictions (Elliot, 2015). Women traveling alone also experience societal disapproval, unwanted attention, and sexual harassment (Karagöz et al., 2021). Furthermore, research evidences female solo travelers fear being attacked, abused, or harassed by men, which limits their use of the recreational spaces provided by their travel destination (Seow & Brown, 2018). Asian female solo backpackers encounter and overcome varied real and subjective risks (Wantono & McKercher, 2020). Yang et al. (2018b) argues that Asian female solo travelers respond to risk through a variety of gender-specific spatial and physical practices, which highlight tourist risk perception. They also discovered that female solo travelers’ experiences are more susceptible to social risks and psychological pressure.

Female solo travel has risen globally, drawing attention from academics and researchers. There is extensive literature focusing on the concept of perceived gender risks for female solo travelers such as assault, sexual harassment, and personal safety (Wilson & Little, 2005; Yang et al., 2018b; Kour & Gupta, 2019; Thomas & Mura, 2019; Kaba, 2021); travel experiences such as empowerment, surveillance, resistance, and self-discovery (Jordan & Gibson, 2005; Yang et al., 2019; Nikjoo et al., 2021); female solo travelers’ constraints (Nguyen, 2018; Schwab, 2019; Uatay et al., 2019; Ngwira et al., 2020; Bernard et al., 2022); psychological-social support (Karagöz et al., 2021); requirements and preferences of female solo travelers (Sebova et al., 2021); and motivations (Chiang & Jogaratnam, 2006; Seow & Brown, 2018; Breda et al., 2020; Terziyska, 2021).

There is still insufficient research focusing on the effect of personal values and motivations on female solo travel intention. Considering the importance of identifying value and motivations as key concepts in tourism consumption behavior (Hindley and Font, 2018), it is essential to identify the effect of personal values and motivations on female solo travel and the consequences thereof. In marketing and tourism research, personal values and motivations are important factors to better understand consumer behavior (Woosnam et al., 2016; Lin & Fu, 2016; Kim, 2020; Seow & Brown, 2018; Khan et al., 2019).

Female tourists are inhibited by vulnerability and their perceptions of potential risks, for example, walking alone at night or in isolated spaces (Brown et al., 2020). Asian female solo travelers also face other complications such as the influence of Confucianism, meaning they are often perceived as domesticated, dependent, vulnerable, and obedient (Yang et al., 2018a). Regardless of these perceptions and despite being bound by cultural beliefs and stricter social expectations, more Asian women are breaking stereotypes by preferring to travel alone (Yang et al., 2017). In Taiwan, the rise in female solo travel has been greatly influenced by factors such as globalization, economic expansion, and democratic tendencies. In 2019, there were 8,736,907 (51.09%) Taiwanese female outbound travelers, which is higher than the number of males (Taiwan Tourism Bureau, 2020). As Taiwanese women become an extensive part of Asian tourists and a significant demographic for outbound tourism, it is crucial the motivations for Taiwanese female solo travelers are studied. Existing relevant studies do not explore this specific demographic in detail (Su & Wu., 2020). Thus, the focus of this study is female solo travel intention of women in Taiwan, from the perspective of personal values, motivations, and travel experience. This research aims to show a holistic perspective of female solo travel intention, and explores how personal values and female solo travel motivation affects travel behavior.

The remainder of this study is structured as follows: “the Literature Review and Hypothesis Development” section includes reviews of relevant literature and hypothesis development; the “Research method” section provides sample details, measurements of constructs, and data analysis; the “Results” section explains the sample profile, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results, and the path coefficient of the structural model; the “Discussion” sections offers a discussion of the empirical results, theoretical and practical implications, limitations and protentional future research suggestions.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Personal values

According to Schwartz (1992), the definition of personal values is “the transcending motivating life goals and guiding principles of an individual’s life”. Within the tourism industry, personal values are linked to tourism behavior, including tourists’ decision-making processes, motivations, and activity preference (Lin & Fu, 2016). From a theoretical perspective, it is significant to compare the explanatory power of an individual’s personal values on travel behavior. Personal values also provide accurate clarification for travel behavior, as individuals with different personal values exhibit different travel behavior patterns (Mehmetoglu et al., 2010). Li and Cai (2012) and Kim’s (2020) empirical tourism literatures support the above implications. Academics and practitioners can gain valuable information by exploring the nexus between personal values and travel behavior.

List of values (LOV) (Kahle et al., 1986) is the most extensively applied values scale in tourism and leisure consumer studies (Muller, 1991; Madrigal & Kahle, 1994; Chen & Sasias, 2014; Li, Cai, & Qiu, 2016; Lindberg et al., 2019; Wen & Huang, 2019; Li & Cai, 2012; Mauri & Nava, 2021). There are nine terminal values in the LOV: self-fulfillment, self-respect, sense of accomplishment, security, sense of belonging, warm relationships with others, well-respected, fun and enjoyment, and excitement. The nine values are classified into two categories: external and internal values (Li & Cai, 2012). LOV is the prevalent tool applied in value studies and has been used previously to investigate tourist and traveler behavior. Based on the suggestions of Ladhari et al. (2011), LOV is simpler, more effectively managed and has greater predictive utility in consumer behavior than Values and Lifestyles (Mitchell, 1983), and the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1973). In line with rising interest in personal values and awareness of current tourism literature, this research employs LOV to investigate personal values as the antecedent variables effecting female solo travel motivation and solo travel intention.

Solo travel motivation

Motivation is the predominant catalyst for humans to complete action, move forward, and realize their goals. (Luvsandavaajav & Narantuya, 2021). Hsu et al. (2017) state that when an individual’s need is stimulated, motivation will emerge to guide people to take the required action to satisfy their needs. Simply put, motivation is the tendency to fulfill an individual’s psychological needs (Bromley, 1990). Travel motivation is one of the most important contributors toward travelers’ decision-making behavior, thus gaining a greater comprehension of travelers’ motivation is crucial to establishing tourists’ behavioral patterns (Luvsandavaajav & Narantuya, 2021).

In tourism academicians, tourists’ motivation to go to a specific destination and the reason they choose to travel are both topics of debate (Keshavarzian & Wu, 2017; Wong et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2022; Katsikari et al., 2020; Luvsandavaajav & Narantuya, 2021). Travel motivation causes individuals to participate in tourist activities and compels travelers to take the required actions to satisfy their needs (Fodness, 1994; Pizam & Mansfeld (1999)). Yoon and Uysal (2005) regard travel motivation as an internal power that stimulates and inspires people to choose a specific destination for the purpose of obtaining expected benefits and satisfaction. Mayo and Jarvis (1981) pointed out travelers are driven by psychological elements, and travelers’ behavior is accounted for by motivation.

The cultural and biological force that provides direction and value to travel patterns, decisions, experiences, and behaviors is commonly referred to as tourism motivation (Pearce, 2005). As tourists are from different countries and cultures, and have differing characteristics and tourist product preferences, travel motivation has a heterogeneous structure (Çelik & Dedeoğlu, 2019; Kozak, 2002). Owing to this heterogeneous structure, there is no global theory that can prove travelers’ motivation. Thus, diverse theories have been researched and developed accordingly (Robinson et al., 2011).

Yoon and Uysal (2005) show that anthropology interprets motivation as moving away from a routine environment to seek authentic experiences, while psychology explains motivation via emotional and cognitive motives, or internal and external motives. Travel motivation is a combination of requirements and attitudes that compel an individual to join in touristic activities (Pizam et al.,1979).

Travel Career Ladder was developed based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, which demonstrates people tend to change their travel motivation based on relationships, stimulation, self-esteem and development, and fulfillment of their travel career ladder (Pearce, 1988; Pearce & Lee, 2005). The Push-Pull Model states that travel decisions are motived by push factors and pull factors in a two-stage process (Uysal et al., 2008). Destination features and external motivation are regarded as the pull factors, and internal motivation belongs to the push factors (willingness and needs etc.) of an individual. Both of which are present during the decision-making process.

As women travel alone for a variety of reasons, solo travel motivation is still changeable; however, some studies specifically investigate the motivation for female solo travel. For example, Chiang and Jogaratnam (2006) identify the four motivations for female solo travel as experience, escape, relaxation, and socialization. Yang et al. (2019) state the reason for Asian female solo travel is self-discovery, which is constructed by challenging the social expectations for Asian women. Some research shows that female solo travelers, in their search of freedom, embrace the autonomy, independence, and empowerment gained by traveling alone (Yang et al., 2018a, 2018b). Thus, the intrinsic motivations for female solo travelers are their need to feel challenged, empowered, and autonomous (Bianchi, 2016; Wilson & Little, 2005).

Other research identifies the motivations for most women who travel alone are a need to find themselves, not having a travel companion, freedom of choice, experience and adventure, and to escape from daily routines (Breda et al., 2020). Similarly, women choose solo travel for adventure, independence, personal fulfillment, individuality and escape (Pereira & Silva, 2018). Female solo travelers desire an escape from their daily lives and look for active resistance against the gender stereotypes they are used to. Through solo travel, women can reconfigure their identity, and at the same time, change the power relationship that maintains the mainstream social concept.

Existing literature suggests cultural influences and constraints effect female solo travel motivation. Western female travelers from individualist cultures are often characterized as independent and therefore, presumed more likely to embark on solo travel (Yang et al., 2019). Research has identified that for women from advanced countries, the key motivations for solo travel in Australia are self-actualization and self-construal (Yang et al., 2022). Confronting stereotypes, the motivations of British, Australian, and American female solo travelers are feelings of freedom, autonomy and empowerment, confirmation of their identity, and increased self-esteem (Bianchi, 2016).

Although female solo travelers share some commonalities, the interpretation of tourism in developing Muslim countries differs from advanced western countries (Cohen & Cohen, 2015). Islam is a religion that permeates many facets of Muslim life, particularly among women and their leisure activities (Moghadam et al., 2009). In patriarchal Muslim communities, hegemonic masculinity has degraded the role of women (Hosseini et al., 2022). Therefore, women face various restrictions, such as not being allowed to travel alone or requiring permission from their father or husband to travel (Seyfi et al., 2022). The severe domination of Islamic laws on cultures in traditional Muslim countries has weakened the effect of female sole travel motivation. However, recent study results indicate that solo travel motivations are independence, self-empowerment, freedom and flexibility, and exploration (Hosseini et al., 2022). The discussed literature suggests the differences between the female solo travel motivations of women in developed and developing countries is not that dissimilar.

Hypotheses development

Homer and Kahle (1988), and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) argue that values are the basis of culture and humanity, therefore, human behavior could be predicted and indicated by values. During the motivation development process, values are the guidelines when replying to stimulus (Kahle, 1983), and help to assess the tourism environment and destinations of the objects or events. In the perspective of cultural and social factors, values impact an individual’s motivation and are identified as the external environment signals. Previous studies identify two dimensions of values: external and internal (Li & Cai, 2012).

Several studies argue personal values significantly impact an individual’s behavior. Ateljevic (1997) posits that values obtained in daily life are dedicated to the making of motivations, and simultaneously studied the influence of value systems on tourism motivation in order to determine how a situational influence represented by values affects tourists’ motivation. Furthermore, Li and Cai (2012) empirically tested the impacts of personal values (internal and external values) on motivations and behavioral intention and found they had a direct impact on travel motivation. Woosnam et al. (2016) argue that tourism literature should investigate the connection between values and motivations on the attendance levels of particular tourist attractions. Their research confirmed that values significantly predict the motivations and potential attendees of the Winnipeg Fringe Theater Festival.

Tourists consider the nexus between personal values and the quality of the leisure and travel activities, and the connection between values and actual tourism behavior important (Pitts & Woodside, 1986). In a study on tourism, Hindley and Font (2018) point out that values and motivations have a complex interrelationship, and argue that values are the underlying psychological determinants of consumers’ purchase intentions, thus stimulating ethical consumption. In line with prior research results, Hede et al. (2004) demonstrate a connection between personal values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions of participants in urban hallmark events. More recently, young travelers’ self-transcendence values contain predictive power over motivations and behavioral intention for sustainable tourism among young travelers (Cavagnaro et al., 2021).

Travel motivation is essential to predict travel behavioral intention (Jang et al., 2009; Li & Cai 2012; Khan et al., 2019; Hosany et al., 2020;), thus many studies focus on the nexus between travel motivation and tourists’ behavioral intention. Yoon and Uysal (2005) reveal tourist motivations are antecedents for tourist satisfaction and tourists’ behavioral intention, particularly with regard to re-visiting and recommendations to others. Jang and Feng (2007) state that the motivation for seeking new experiences significantly affects tourists’ intentions to revisit the destination within a three-year period. A study on tourists in France shows that travel motivation significantly positively effects behavioral intention (Prayag, 2012). Li and Cai (2012) empirically test the impacts of travel motivation on behavioral intention, and evidence that the travel motivation of Novelty and Knowledge significantly positively impacts behavioral intention.

Khuong and Ha (2014) state that push motivations and pull motivations have a positive correlation between travelers’ satisfaction and behavioral intention. Luvsandavaajav and Narantuya (2021) apply travel push motivations and pull motivations to examine and confirm the correlation between values, perceived benefits, and behavioral intention. Their findings suggest travel motivation (push and pull factors) are significant constructs of behavioral intention. Furthermore, travel motivation as internal sociopsychological drivers, such as novelty-seeking, escape-seeking, assurance-seeking, and interaction-seeking motivations, can influence travel decision formation (Maghrifani et al., 2022). Based on this discussion, Hypotheses 1 to 5 (H1-H5) are:

H1: Internal values positively impact on travel motivation.

H2: External values positively impact on travel motivation.

H3: Internal values positively impact on behavioral intention.

H4: External values positively impact on behavioral intention.

H5: Travel motivation positively impact on behavioral intention.

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model.

Fig. 1. Female solo travel intention research model.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The model examines the relationship between internal values, external values, travel motivation and behavioral intention.

Research methods

Sample

A quantitative approach based on structured self-administered questionnaires was used to both assess the conceptual model and test the proposed hypotheses. The snowball sampling method was used to collect data from single females in Taiwan. An online survey was distributed via Line using a Google Forms link. Before the questionnaire was distributed to the participants, they were told the purpose of the survey and once they had agreed to participate, were provided with the questionnaire to complete. In determining the sample size, the rule-of-thumb recommendations from Sekaran and Bougie (2010) were followed. The sample size should be greater than 30 and less than 500, and several times (preferably more than 10 times) the number of variables in multivariable studies. Based on this consideration and the rule of thumb, the minimum sample size of this study was greater than 35 (35*10) or equal to 350.

Measurements of constructs

The questionnaire comprised four sections: (1) Demographics, including participants’ age, education, and average annual income; (2) Personal Values; (3) Solo Travel Motivation; and (4) Solo Travel Intention. The items in the survey questionnaire were adapted from prior studies (Table 1) and measured using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Table 1.

Constructs and measurement items.

Constructs/questionnaire items
Internal values (IV)
 IV1. Sense of self-fulfillment.
 IV2. Excitement.
 IV3. Sense of accomplishment.
 IV4. Fun and enjoyment in life.
 IV5. Warm relationships with others.
External values (EV)
 EV1. Self-respect.
 EV2. Being well-respected.
 EV3. Sense of security.
 EV4. Sense of belonging.
Female solo travel motivation (MO)
 MO 1. Find active, adventurous, exciting things to do.
 MO 2. Show-off.
 MO 3. Share travel experience with others.
 MO 4. Meet new people.
 MO 5. Mix with fellow travelers.
 MO 6. Escape other places/pressures.
 MO 7. Relax and take it easy.
 MO 8. Escape from routine.
 MO 9. Overcoming challenges.
 MO 10. Seeking intellectual enrichment.
 MO 11. Learn something new.
 MO 12. Because it is a talked about, well-publicized destination.
 MO 13. Special food.
 MO 14. Comfortable lodging.
 MO 15. Fulfill a lifelong dream and ambition.
Female solo travel intention (IN)
 IN 1. I think it worthwhile to travel alone.
 IN 2. I would travel alone if my budget allowed.
 IN 3. Compared with traveling with others, I prefer to travel alone.
Open in a new tab

Personal values were measured using a nine-item LOV scale (Kahle, 1983). Travel motivation was measured using Pereira and Silva’s (2018) fifteen-item scale based on Loker-Murphy’s (1997) modified Travel Career Patterns theory (Pearce, 1988). There are four items for Escape/Relaxation, five for Relationship, three for Self-actualization/Development, and three items for Fulfillment. Three items from Reisinger and Mavondo (2005), and Lam and Hsu’s (2006) scale were extracted to measure female solo travel intention. An example of one of these items is: “I think traveling alone is worth it.”

Data analysis

SPSS 26.0 and VISUAL PLS 1.04b were utilized to descriptive statistics analysis, Harman’s single-factor test, and assess the structural data. To check for any common method variance issues, Harman’s single-factor test was used. EFA was conducted on female solo travel motivation and personal values to examine the dimensionalities and psychometric properties. In the second stage, the associations among personal values, female solo travel motivation, and solo travel intention were empirically tested using the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique. The research used SEM with partial least square (PLS) for model estimation and hypothesis testing. Social science studies prefer applying PLS-SEM for multivariate analysis (Abid et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2021).

Results

Descriptive statistics

The survey received 409 responses in total; however, 28 invalid questionnaires were removed, leaving 381 valid questionnaires. The effective sample recovery rate is 93.2%. Table 2 shows the respondents’ basic demographic information. A descriptive analysis of all variables was performed to assess their normality prior to testing the econometric and structural models. The results show the sample skewness is between −0.057 and 0.985, and the kurtosis risk is between −1.269 and 0.816, which does not violate the normality hypothesis.

Table 2.

Summary of descriptive statistics.

Item Classification Frequency Percentage (%)
Age 30–34 years old 106 27.8
35–40 years old 71 18.6
41–45 years old 84 22.0
46–49 years old 50 13.2
≧ 50 years old 70 18.4
Education level College diploma or lower 89 23.4
Bachelor 188 49.3
Master’s or higher 104 27.3

Average annual income

(NT dollars)

 500,000 or below 100 26.2
500,001–1,000,000 174 45.7
1,000,001–1,500,000 70 18.4
1,500,001–2,000,000 21 5.5
2,000,001 or above 16 4.2
Open in a new tab

Common method bias and multicollinearity evaluation

This study tested the common method bias (CMB) using several methods, including Harman’s one-factor test. The variance explained by the first factor loading is only 25.047% of the total variance, which is less than 50%, as suggested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986). This means CMB is not obvious in the dataset. Furthermore, the results of the full variance inflation factors (VIF) can be utilized to assess CMB and allows for a more conservative test than traditional EFA (Kock, 2013). The VIF should be less than 3.3 to exclude CMB (Kock & Lynn, 2012). In the model, VIF values are less than five, as stated in recent articles (Farooq et al., 2022; Talwar et al., 2020). Therefore, the data did not identify any multicollinearity issues within the constructs (Hair et al., 2020). As the CMB was tested using the mentioned-above different methods, it can be assumed that CMB is not an issue.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

The EFA procedure helps to reduce the multicollinearity or correlation of error terms among indicators in CFA (Li & Cai, 2012), thus EFA is necessary in this study.

Regarding the construction of the personal values, two factors were extracted that were capable of explaining 59.471% of the variance in the variables (Table 3). Those two factors were labeled Internal Values and External Values. This result is similar to those of previous studies (Li & Cai, 2012), except the statement “fun and enjoyment in life” is included in Internal Values, and the statement “being well-respected” is included in External Values. The reliability test shows the factors are higher than 0.7.

Table 3.

EFA of personal values.

Factor/item Loading Eigenvalue Variance explained (%) Corrected
item-total correlation		 Cronbach’s α
Factor 1: Internal values 2.703 30.033 0.661 0.792
 Sense of self-fulfillment 0.791 0.506
 Excitement 0.760 0.634
 Sense of accomplishment 0.723 0.634
 Fun and enjoyment in life 0.641 0.540
 Warm relationships with others 0.599 0.543
Factor 2: External values 2.649 29.438 0.797
 Self-respect 0.805 0.630
 Being well-respected 0.777 0.662
 Sense of security 0.758 0.569
 Sense of belonging 0.678 0.579
Total 59.471 0.844
Open in a new tab

In terms of the construct of female solo travel motivation, 15 items are retained to generate a five-factor solution, explaining 61.761% of the total variance. Furthermore, five items load highly on Factor 1: Relationship; four items load highly on Factor 2: Escape/Relaxation; three items load highly on Factor 3: Self-actualization/Development; and three items load highly on Factor 4: Fulfillment. The reliability coefficients range from 0.632 to 0.803, which indicates satisfactory levels of internal consistency (Table 4).

Table 4.

EFA of female solo travel motivation.

Factor/item Loading Eigenvalue Variance explained
(%)		 corrected item-total cor
relation		 Cronbach’s α
Factor 1: Relationship 3.019 20.127 0.805
 Find active, adventurous, exciting things to do 0.831 0.693
 Show-off 0.779 0.663
 Share travel experience with others 0.749 0.649
 Meet new people 0.659 0.513
 Mix with fellow travelers 0.556 0.466
Factor 2: Escape/relaxation 2.329 15.525 0.750
 Escape other places/pressures 0.826 0.581
 Relax and take it easy 0.726 0.570
 Escape from routine 0.672 0.561
 Overcoming challenges 0.574 0.472
Factor 3: Self-actualization/development 2.136 14.242 0.723
 Seeking intellectual enrichment 0.864 0.657
 Learn something new 0.816 0.575
 Because it is a talked about, well-publicized destination 0.595 0.416
Factor 4: Fulfillment 1.780 11.866 0.632
 Special food 0.794 0.484
 Comfortable lodging 0.749 0.505
 Fulfill a lifelong dream and ambition 0.566 0.344
Total 61.761 0.826
Open in a new tab

Assessment of the measurement model

CFA was utilized to validate the proposed factor structure and confirm whether modification is required. As proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a two-step CFA was conducted to evaluate each construct separately and assess the overall measurement model.

First, the individual reliability of each item is determined by analyzing the simple loadings or correlations of the measures or indicators with their respective construct. To indicate a good fit, the indicators’ external loadings must be higher than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2014). The item “warm relationships with others” in Personal Values, was deleted due to the low standardized factor loading, as suggested by Hair et al. (2014). For Female Solo Travel Motivation, the items “mix with fellow travelers”, “because it is a talked about, well-publicized destination”, and “fulfill a lifelong dream and ambition” were also removed due to the low standardized factor loading (Hair et al., 2014).

Second, the Cronbach’s alpha and CR values exceed the minimum requirement of 0.7, suggesting that reliability is satisfactory (Table 5) (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Hair et al. (2017, 2020); Yusof et al., 2012). Third, the AVE values are more than the threshold value of 0.50 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Hair et al. (2017, 2020); Yusof et al., 2012), meaning the convergent validity is satisfactory.

Table 5.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Variable Items Mean Std Loading t-value CR AVE Cronbach’s α
Internal value Sense of self-fulfillment 4.244 0.641 0.784 25.237 0.850 0.586 0.761
Sense of accomplishment 4.241 0.668 0.757 24.133
Fun and enjoyment in life 4.381 0.661 0.741 22.489
Excitement 3.808 0.816 0.781 32.735
External value Self-respect 4.094 0.701 0.750 21.151 0.866 0.618 0.797
Being well-respected 4.346 0.645 0.835 35.864
Sense of security 4.486 0.610 0.743 16.693
Sense of belonging 4.168 0.687 0.812 24.615
Relationship Find active, adventurous, exciting things to do 4.189 0.755 0.824 42.151 0.876 0.639 0.811
Show-off 4.425 0.655 0.823 36.700
Share travel experience with others 4.262 0.598 0.750 23.996
Meet new people 4.420 0.630 0.800 30.860
Escape/relaxation Escape other places/pressures 3.743 0.841 0.765 26.128 0.842 0.572 0.750
Escape routine 3.472 0.803 0.755 19.950
Relax and take it easy 4.071 0.745 0.798 40.008
Overcoming challenges 3.522 0.826 0.704 21.490
Self-actualization/development Learn something new 3.016 1.093 0.899 42.135 0.898 0.815 0.773
Pursue a hobby or interest 3.094 1.060 0.907 38.471
Fulfillment Special food 3.869 0.873 0.937 39.513 0.842 0.730 0.656
Comfortable lodging 3.433 0.905 0.762 11.264
Female solo travel intention I think it worthwhile to travel alone 3.861 0.931 0.915 98.230 0.936 0.831 0.897
I would travel alone if my budget allowed 3.596 1.061 0.939 157.329
Compared with traveling with others, I prefer to travel alone 3.094 1.045 0.880 65.291
Open in a new tab

Discriminant validity is assessed using the correlation between variables and constructs, and by comparing the square root of AVE values with the correlations between constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results of examining the constructs indicate the discriminant validity is satisfactory (Table 6).

Table 6.

Fornell–Larcker criterion analysis of the model.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(1) Internal 0.766
(2) External 0.493** 0.786
(3) Relationship 0.478** 0.261** 0.800
(4) Escape/relaxation 0.440** 0.145** 0.408** 0.756
(5) Self-actualization/development 0.104* 0.043 0.146** 0.227** 0.903
(6) Fulfillment 0.208** 0.239** 0.310** 0.396** 0.307** 0.854
(7) Female solo travel intention 0.351** 0.003 0.377** 0.432** 0.310** 0.180** 0.912
Mean 4.1686 4.2736 4.3241 3.7021 3.0551 3.6509 3.5171
Standard deviation 0.5343 0.5212 0.5287 0.6079 0.9718 0.7670 0.9231
Open in a new tab

Note: Values in bold represent the square root of AVE. Note: ** denotes p < 0.01.

Hypothesis testing procedure and results

The PLS method is used to test the hypotheses as it focuses on interpreting path coefficients and variances, rather than overall model fit (Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006). The advantage of this method is that the assumption of normal distribution required by structural equation models is relaxed, meaning more complex models can be estimated using smaller sample sizes.

The empirical results evidence that internal values have a significant positive effect on the motivations of Escape/Relaxation (β = 0.495, t = 10.304, p < 0.01), Relationship (β = 0.467, t = 9.822, p < 0.01), Self-actualization/Development (β = 0.111, t = 1.776, p < 0.05), and Fulfillment (β = 0.337, t = 5.303, p < 0.01) (Table 7). Thus, H1-1 to H1-4 are supported. However, external values have no significant influence on motivational factors, thus H2-1 to H2-4 are not supported. In addition, internal values significantly positively influence female solo travel intention (β = 0.239, t = 3.802, p < 0.01), whereas external values significantly negatively affect female solo travel intention (β = −0.200, t = −3.694, p < 0.01). Thus, H3 is supported, while H4 is not supported.

Table 7.

Path analysis of structural model.

Hypothesis Path coefficient Std. error t-value Consequence
H1-1: Internal values → Escape/relaxation 0.495** 0.048 10.304 Supported
H1-2: Internal values → Relationship 0.467** 0.048 9.822 Supported
H1-3: Internal values → Self-actualization/development 0.111* 0.063 1.776 Supported
H1-4: Internal values → Fulfillment 0.337** 0.064 5.303 Supported
H2-1: External values → Escape/relaxation −0.082 0.055 −1.506 Not supported
H2-2: External values → Relationship 0.041 0.033 1.240 Not supported
H2-3: External values → Self-actualization/development −0.008 0.045 −0.178 Not supported
H2-4: External values → Fulfillment 0.061 0.052 1.165 Not supported
H3: Internal values → Solo travel intention 0.239** 0.063 3.802 Supported
H4: External values → Solo travel intention −0.200** 0.054 −3.694 Not supported
H5-1: Escape/Relaxation → Solo Travel Intention 0.237** 0.059 4.037 Supported
H5-2: Relationship → Solo Travel Intention 0.196** 0.052 3.779 Supported
H5-3: Self-actualization/development → Solo travel intention 0.216** 0.044 4.941 Supported
H5-4: Fulfillment → Solo travel intention −0.015 0.040 −0.377 Not supported
Open in a new tab

*denotes p < 0.05; **denotes p < 0.01.

Furthermore, the results also evidence that the motivations of Escape/Relaxation (β = 0.237, t = 4.037, p < 0.01), Relationship (β = 0.196, t = 3.779, p < 0.01), and Self-actualization/Development (β = 0.216, t = 4.941, p < 0.01) have a significant positive influence on female solo travel intention, but Fulfillment has no impact on female solo travel intention (β = −0.015, t = −0.377, p > 0.05). Thus, H5-1, H5-2, and H5-3 are supported, whereas H5-4 is not supported. The path graph of the proposed model is presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Path diagram of the structural model (**denotes p < 0.01).

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Internal values have a significant relationship with travel motivation and solo travel intention. Subsequently, travel motivation had a partially supported effect on solo travel intention.

Discussion

The number of women embracing the autonomy of traveling independently is growing. Searching for freedom, independence, and empowerment, female solo travelers choose unfrequented or ‘off the beaten track’ destinations (Wilson & Little, 2005). Research focusing on the effect of personal values and motivations on female solo travel intention remains insufficient, and has long been neglected in female solo travel literature. This study aims to identify the personal values and motivations that support the increase in female solo tourist behavior to fulfill the current research deficiency in tourism literature. The results of this research both verify the findings of previous studies and elicit new information.

Theoretical implications

Although solo travel is one of the fastest growing areas of the tourism industry, research is still limited, particularly in understanding what motivates female travelers’ desire to travel alone. This study and its findings contribute to existing tourism literature in several ways.

First, based on the research sample, results confirm that personal internal values significantly effect female solo travel motivation. Direct influences from personal internal values and female solo travel intention are also identified. This finding is consistent with the contentions of Woosnam et al. (2016) and Cavagnaro et al. (2021), who evidence travelers’ values have a predictive effect on motivations and behavioral intention.

Females who have internal values tend to form positive female solo travel motivation and intention toward a solo trip, which aligns with previous studies that evidence females’ emotionality influences their ability to manage situations (Costa et al., 2017). The internal values of sense of self-fulfillment, accomplishment, fun and enjoyment in life, and excitement have a similar influence as emotionality does on female solo travelers’ motivation and intention. This finding concurs with Li et al.’s (2016) propositions, who indicate that internal values have significant effects on tourist behavioral intention.

A female’s internal values enable them to participate in the process of women’s freedom and empowerment, which supports the findings of prior studies that through female solo travel, women can transcend the system and societal roles, stereotypical traditions, and social expectations (Seow & Brown, 2018; Bernard et al., 2022). Overall, this study evidences that personal internal values influence female solo travel motivation, with escape/relaxation being the primary contributor.

Second, the results also confirm that external values have no impact on female solo travel intention or any significant effect on female solo travel motivation. The reason for this could be that the construct of female solo travel motivation in this research model comprises the subjective emotions of self-respect, being well-respected, sense of security, and sense of belonging, which are related to emotionally dominant internal values. Hence, predicting the variation effect on the selected sample’s travel motivation and travel intention is arduous when investigating object-directed external values (Prentice,1987; Li et al., 2016).

Third, the empirical results confirm the significant effects of solo travel motivation on female solo travel intention. This finding concurs with Hosany et al. (2020). The motivations for female solo travel in this study are related to seeking escape, relaxation, relationships (meeting new people), and self-actualization/development. These motivations influence female solo travel intention in the future, particularly escape/relaxation as this is the most prominent factor affecting female solo travel motivation. Therefore, escaping from daily duties and life pressures, enjoying freedom, and reflecting on their own lives all have a transformative impact on the intention of women to travel alone.

Managerial/social implications

This study’s findings have crucial implications for the hospitality and tourism industry and its managers. First, the results identify the role of personal values in determining female solo travel behavior. Tourism practitioners and destination marketers should appeal to the primary female internal values of sense of self-fulfillment and accomplishment, fun and enjoyment in life, and excitement to improve the overall travel package and destination features. For example, when proposing a luxury tour, it could be marketed as a spiritual journey to fulfill the pursuit of well-being, self-fulfillment, and accomplishment, and thus ultimately increase the desire for females to travel alone. When proposing an ultimate tour, it could be offered as an in-depth cultural and informative journey that satisfies the personal internal values of fun and accomplishment, conforming to the desires of the female solo traveler.

Second, as identifying female solo travel motivation is significant to determining female solo travel intention, it is suggested the tourist industry markets specifically to this demographic and provides special travel itineraries, packages, tourism products, and attractions aimed at fulfilling the female solo traveler’s desire to escape and/or relax. Traveling that achieves the pursued attributes will assist in the development of a positive attitude and intentions toward female solo travel.

Third, it is also suggested that travel enterprises evaluate the personal values of female travelers according to the LOV (Kahle & Kennedy, 1988) to understand individual travel motivations, so as to improve the willingness of women to travel alone. Enterprises should aim to meet the needs of female solo travelers by focusing their advertising strategies on this niche market. Such a strategy could more accurately develop the tourism products required to target the female solo traveler market, and ultimately improve the enterprise’s position and enhance their brand loyalty. Finally, providing tourism marketers with recommendations for development and service enhancement of female solo travel products would be beneficial as this is a fast-growing and lucrative market.

Limitations and future research

Although this study identifies the effect of personal values on female solo travelers’ behavior as well as the influence on female solo travelers’ motivation, it still has some limitations. First, the research sample uses the snowball sampling method to collect data from single females in Taiwan via Line. The generalizability of the study findings is limited as it only presents the viewpoints and personal values of females in Taiwan. The results cannot be generalized for females from different countries and cultures as a whole, thus future research should investigate more diverse countries and cultures.

Tims et al. (2013) insists only longitudinal research completes the path in the theoretical model, thus the second limitation is the possibility of longitudinal parameters. Third, travel motivation will change dynamically over time, depending on travel experience behaviors. It would be interesting to study past travel experiences as a construct in future research models.

Fourth, several studies raise the issue of safety and security, and suggest greater protection for female solo travelers against male leering and sexual violence (Berdychevsky & Carr, 2022; Su & Wu, 2020). Future studies should address legal resources, facilities, and policies to promote female solo travel, such as female-only public spaces, subway cars and railways, and the need for female-only floors in hotels and other accommodation.

Fifth, tourist behavior and assessments are significantly influenced by emotions and cognitive processes (Hosany et al., 2021). However, the current literature ignores the emotional and cognitive implications of tourist behavior (Lee & Lee, 2021). Individual tourists may evaluate the same event differently cognitively and emotionally. Considering this viewpoint, this study encourages future research on female solo travel to examine cognitive and emotional consequences, in order to fill in the gaps in this area. Lastly, future studies should specify whether women are traveling alone domestically or internationally, as this alters the type of limitations that apply.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The author sought and gained ethical approval from the institution’s Research Ethical Board and the study complied with ethical standards. There was no number attached to the approval.

Informed consent

The researcher sought and gained consent of the participants to take part in the study. Out of the 409 sampled participants, all 409 accepted and voluntarily participated in the study after the researcher assured them of anonymity and that their responses were solely for academic purposes.

Footnotes

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

References

  1. Abid A, Jie S, Aslam W, Batool S, Lili Y. Application of structural equation modelling to develop a conceptual model for smallholder’s credit access: the mediation of agility and innovativeness in organic food value chain finance. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0235921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended twostep approach. Psychol Bull. 1988;103(3):411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ateljevic I (1997) Tourist motivation, values and perceptions. Tourist experience. In: Ryan C (ed.). Cassell, London. pp. 193–209
  4. Bernard S, Rahman I, McGehee NG. Breaking barriers for Bangladeshi female solo travelers. Tour Manag Perspect. 2022;41:100932. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100932. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berdychevsky L, Carr N (eds.) (2022) Innovation and impact of sex as leisure in research and practice. Routledge
  6. Bianchi C. Solo holiday travellers: motivators and drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Int J Tour Res. 2016;18(2):197–208. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2049. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bond M (2019) Women Travel Statistics from Women Travel Expert. Retrieved January 1, 2021, from http://gutsytraveler.com/women-travel-statistics-2/
  8. Breda Z, Santos A, Kliček T, Dinis G (2020) Profile, motivations, and experiences from Portuguese solo female travelers. In: Contemporary management approaches to the global hospitality and tourism industry. IGI Global. pp. 131–150
  9. Bromley DB (1990) Behavioral gerontology: central issues in the psychology of aging. Wiley, New York
  10. Brown L, de Coteau D, Lavrushkina N. Taking a walk: the female tourist experience. Tour Stud. 2020;20(3):354–370. doi: 10.1177/1468797620930036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cavagnaro E, Staffieri S, Carrieri A, Burns K, Chen N, Fermani A. Profiling for sustainable tourism: young travellers’ self-transcendence values and motivations. Eur J Tour Res. 2021;28:2810–2810. doi: 10.54055/ejtr.v28i.2261. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Çelik S, Dedeoğlu BB. Psychological factors affecting the behavioral intention of the tourist visiting Southeastern Anatolia. J Hosp Tour Insights. 2019;2(4):425–450. doi: 10.1108/JHTI-01-2019-0005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen HJ, Sasias M. Tourist segmentation in Taiwan’s wineries: a cultural perspective. Soc Behav Pers. 2014;42(2):223–236. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2014.42.2.223. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chiang CY, Jogaratnam G. Why do women travel solo for purposes of leisure? J Vacat Mark. 2006;12(1):59–70. doi: 10.1177/1356766706059041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cohen E, Cohen SA. A mobilities approach to tourism from emerging world regions. Curr Issues Tour. 2015;18(1):11–43. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2014.898617. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Costa C, Bakas FE, Breda Z, Durão M. ‘Emotional’ female managers: how gendered roles influence tourism management discourse. J Hosp Tour Manag. 2017;33:149–156. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.09.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dempsey C (2015) Visa Global Travel Intention Study 2015. In PATA Conference.
  18. Elliot M (2015) Solo female travels on the rise in Southeast Asia. Travel Daily Media. http://www.traveldailymedia.com/218965/solo-femaletravel-on-the-rise-in-southeast-asia. Accessed 8 September 2022.
  19. Farooq R, Zhang Z, Talwar S, Dhir A. Do green human resource management and self-efficacy facilitate green creativity? A study of luxury hotels and resorts. J. Sustain Tour. 2022;30(4):824–845. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1891239. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. French L (2020) Solo travel is the second-most popular category for post-lockdown trips, says cox & kings. Travel weekly. Available via https://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/378221/solo-travel-is-the-secondmost-popularcategory-for-post-lockdown-trips-says-cox-king. Accessed 8 September 2022.
  21. Fodness D. Measuring tourist motivation. Ann Tour Res. 1994;21(3):555–581. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(94)90120-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M (2014) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications, Inc., Los Angeles, CA
  24. Hair JF, Howard MC, Nitzl C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J Bus Res. 2020;109:101–110. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hede A, Jago L, Deery M. Segmentation of special event attendees using personal values: relationships with satisfaction and behavioral intentions. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour. 2004;5(2-4):33–55. doi: 10.1300/J162v05n02_03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hindley A, Font X. Values and motivations in tourist perceptions of last-chance tourism. Tour Hosp Res. 2018;18(1):3–14. doi: 10.1177/1467358415619674. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ (2005) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, third millennium. McGraw-Hill, New York
  28. Homer PM, Kahle LR. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(4):638–646. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hosany S, Buzova D, Sanz-Blas S. The influence of place attachment, ad-evoked positive affect, and motivation on intention to visit: Imagination proclivity as a moderator. J Travel Res. 2020;59(3):477–495. doi: 10.1177/0047287519830789. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hosany S, Martin D, Woodside AG. Emotions in tourism: theoretical designs, measurements, analytics, and interpretations. J Travel Res. 2021;60(7):1391–1407. doi: 10.1177/0047287520937079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hsu CY, Lee WH, Chen WY. How to catch their attention? Taiwanese flashpackers inferring their travel motivation from personal development and travel experience. Asia Pacific J Tour Res. 2017;22(2):117–130. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2016.1182038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hosseini S, Macias RC, Garcia FA. The exploration of Iranian solo female travellers’ experiences. Int J Tourism Res. 2022;24(2):256–269. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2498. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jang SS, Feng R (2007) Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tour Manag 28(2):580–590. 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.024
  34. Jang S, Bai B, Hu C, Wu CME. Affect, travel motivation, and travel intention: a senior market. J Hosp Tour Res. 2009;33(1):51–73. doi: 10.1177/1096348008329666. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jordan F, Gibson H. “We’re not stupid… But we’ll not stay home either”: experiences of solo women travelers. Tour Rev Int. 2005;9(2):195–211. doi: 10.3727/154427205774791663. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaba B (2021) Foreign Solo Female Travellers’ Perceptions of Risk and Safety in Turkey. In Hidden Geographies (pp. 475–493). Springer, Cham.
  37. Kahle L (1983) Social values and social change: adaptation to life in America. Praeger, New York
  38. Kahle LR, Beatty SE, Homer P (1986) Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: the List of Values (LOV) and Values and Life Style (VALS. J Consum Res 13(3):405–409. 10.1086/209079
  39. Kahle LR, Kennedy P (1988) Using the list of values (LOV) to understand consumers. Journal of Services Marketing.
  40. Karagöz D, Işık C, Dogru T, Zhang L (2021) Solo female travel risks, anxiety and travel intentions: Examining the moderating role of online psychological-social support. Curr Issues Tour 24(11):1595–1612. 10.1080/13683500.2020.1816929
  41. Katsikari CH, Hatzithomas L, Fotiadis T, Folinas D. Push and pull travel motivation: segmentation of the Greek market for social media. Sustainability. 2020;12(11):1–18. doi: 10.3390/su12114770. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Keshavarzian P, Wu CL. A qualitative research on travellers’ destination choice behaviour. Int J Tour Res. 2017;19(5):546–556. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2128. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Khan MJ, Chelliah S, Ahmed S. Intention to visit India among potential travellers: Role of travel motivation, perceived travel risks, and travel constraints. Tour Hosp Res. 2019;19(3):351–367. doi: 10.1177/1467358417751025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Khuong MN, Ha HTT. The influence of push and pull factors on the international leisure tourists’ return intention to Ho Chi Minh City. Vietnam Int J Trade Econ Finance. 2014;5(6):490–496. doi: 10.7763/IJTEF.2014.V5.421. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kim M. A systematic literature review of the personal value orientation construct in hospitality and tourism literature. Int J Hosp Manag. 2020;89:102572. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102572. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Klook (2019) Unpacking Solo Travel: Klook’s global survey uncovers our love-hate relationship with solo travel. Available via https://www.klook.com/newsroom/content/6388?n=0. Accessed 8 September 2022.
  47. Kock N (2013) WarpPLS 4.0 user manual. ScriptWarp Systems, Laredo
  48. Kock N, Lynn GS. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an illustration and recommendations. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2012;13(7):546–580. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Kour P, Gupta S (2019) Analysis of travel risk perception and travel intentions among solo female travellers towards Kashmir as a destination. Int j res commer manag 10 (3):14–16.
  50. Kozak M. Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations. Tour Manag. 2002;23(3):221–232. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00090-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ladhari R, Pons F, Bressolles G, Zins M. Culture and personal values: How they influence perceived service quality. J Bus Res. 2011;64(9):951–957. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Lam T, Hsu HC. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tour Manag. 2006;27(4):589–599. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.02.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lee KJ, Lee SY. Cognitive appraisal theory, memorable tourism experiences, and family cohesion in rural travel. J Travel Tour Mark. 2021;38(4):399–412. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2021.1921094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Li M, Cai LA. The effects of personal values on travel motivation and behavioral intention. J Travel Res. 2012;51(4):473–487. doi: 10.1177/0047287511418366. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Li M, Cai LA, Qiu S. A value, affective attitude, and tourist behavioral intention model. J China Tour Res. 2016;12(2):179–195. doi: 10.1080/19388160.2016.1225620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lin CF, Fu CS. Changes in tourist personal values: impact of experiencing tourism products and services. Asia Pacific J Tour Res. 2016;22(2):173–186. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2016.1208670. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Lindberg K, Veisten K, Halse AH. Analyzing the deeper motivations for nature-based tourism facility demand: a hybrid choice model of preferences for a reindeer visitor center. Scand J Hosp Tour. 2019;19(2):157–174. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2018.1482565. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Loker-Murphy L. Backpackers in Australia: a motivation-based segmentation study. J Travel Tour Mark. 1997;5(4):23–45. doi: 10.1300/J073v05n04_02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Luvsandavaajav O, Narantuya G. Understanding of travel motivations of domestic tourists. J Tour Serv. 2021;22(12):1–22. doi: 10.29036/jots.v12i22.253. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Madrigal R, Kahle L. Predicting vacation activity preferences on the basis of value system segmentation. J Travel Res. 1994;32(3):22–28. doi: 10.1177/004728759403200304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Maghrifani D, Liu F, Sneddon J. Understanding potential and repeat visitors’ travel intentions: the roles of travel motivations, destination image, and visitor image congruity. J Travel Res. 2022;61(5):1121–1137. doi: 10.1177/00472875211018508. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Mauri C, Nava CR. Do tourists experience boredom in mountain destinations? Ann Tour Res. 2021;89:103213. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2021.103213. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Mayo EJ, Jarvis LP (1981) The psychology of leisure travel. CBI Publishing Inc, Boston
  64. McNamara KE, Prideaux B (2010) A Typology of solo independent women travellers. Int J Tour Res 12(3):253–264. 10.1002/jtr.751
  65. Mehmetoglu M, Hines K, Graumann C, Greibrokk J. The relationship between personal values and tourism behaviour: a segmentation approach. J. Vacat. Mark. 2010;16(1):17–27. doi: 10.1177/1356766709356210. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Mitchell A (1983) The Nine American Life Styles: Who We Are and Where We Are Going. Macmillan, New York
  67. Moghadam S, Knudson-Martin C, Mahoney AR. Gendered power in cultural contexts: Part III. Couple relationships in Iran. Fam Process. 2009;48(1):41–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01266.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Muller T. Using personal values to define segments in an international tourism market. Int Mark Rev. 1991;8:57–70. doi: 10.1108/02651339110003952. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Nikjoo A, Markwell K, Nikbin M, Hernandez-Lara AB. The flag-bearers of change in a patriarchal Muslim society: narratives of Iranian solo female travelers on Instagram. Tour Manag Perspect. 2021;38:100817. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100817. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Nguyen HN (2018) An Investigation into Female Solo Travelers: Solo Travel Exposure and Perceived Constraints, Personal Development, Authentic Personality and Self-Esteem (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University).
  71. Ngwira C, Tse S, Vongvisitsin T (2020) Negotiation Strategies and Constraints For Solo Female Travelers in Africa. Tour Cult Commun 20(1):35–47. 10.3727/109830420X15859302993081
  72. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
  73. Pan J, Chiu CY, Wu KS. Leader-member exchange fosters nurses’ job and life satisfaction: the mediating effect of job crafting. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0250789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Pavlou PA, Fygenson M. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q. 2006;30(1):115–143. doi: 10.2307/25148720. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Pearce P (1988) The Ulysses factor: Evaluation visitors in tourist settings. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY
  76. Pearce PL. Developing travel career approach to tourist motivations. J Travel Res. 2005;43(3):227–237. doi: 10.1177/0047287504272020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Pearce PL, Lee UI. Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. J Travel Res. 2005;43:226–237. doi: 10.1177/0047287504272020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Pereira V, Gupta JJ, Hussain S. Impact of travel motivation on tourist’s attitude toward destination: evidence of mediating effect of destination image. J Hosp Tour Res. 2022;46(5):946–971. doi: 10.1177/1096348019887528. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Pereira A, Silva C. Women solo travellers: motivations and experiences. Millenium. 2018;2(6):99–106. doi: 10.29352/mill0206.09.00165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Pitts R, Woodside A. Personal values and travel decisions. J Travel Res. 1986;25:20–25. doi: 10.1177/004728758602500104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Pizam A, Mansfeld Y (1999) Consumer behaviour in travel and tourism. The Haworth Hospitality Press, London, UK
  82. Pizam A, Neumann Y, Reichel A. Tourist satisfaction: uses and misuses. Ann Tour Res. 1979;6(2):195–197. doi: 10.1016/0160-7383(79)90146-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manage. 1986;12(4):531–544. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Prayag G. Senior travelers’ motivations and future behavioral intentions: the case of Nice. J Travel Tour Mark. 2012;29(7):665–681. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2012.720153. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Prentice DA (1987) Psychological correspondence of possessions, attitudes, and values. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(6):993–1003. 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.993
  86. Reisinger Y, Mavondo F. Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: implications of travel risk perception. J Travel Res. 2005;42(3):212–224. doi: 10.1177/0047287504272017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Robinson P, Heitmann S, Dieke PUC (2011) Research themes for tourism. CABI, London. pp. 31–44. ISBN: 978-184593684
  88. Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. The Free Press, New York
  89. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 Countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1992;25:1–65. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Schwab K (2019) “Seriously, shit has to change.” Spatial Constraint Negotiation among Solo Female Travelers" (2019). Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. 96. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2019/research_papers/96
  91. Sebova L, Pompurova K, Marcekova R, Albertova A (2021) Solo female travelers as a new trend in tourism destinations. In: Culture and tourism in a smart, globalized, and sustainable world. Springer, Cham. pp. 311–323
  92. Sekaran U, Bougie R, (2010) Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons: Haddington, UK.
  93. Seow D, Brown L. The solo female Asian tourist. Curr Issues Tour. 2018;21(10):1187–1206. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2017.1423283. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Seyfi S, Hall CM, Vo-Thanh T. The gendered effects of statecraft on women in tourism: economic sanctions, women’s disempowerment and sustainability? J Sustain Tour. 2022;30(7):1736–1753. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1850749. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  95. Solo Traveler (2019) Retrieved November 21, 2020, from https://solotravelerworld.com/about/solo-travel-statisticsdata/
  96. Su CP, Wu TC. The dark side of solo female travel: negative encounters with male strangers. Leis Sci. 2020;42(3-4):375–392. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2020.1712277. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Taiwan Tourism Bureau (2020) Tourism statistics database/outbound travelers. Retrieved from https://admin.taiwan.net.tw/English/infoEN (Accessed on 8 Sept 2022)
  98. Talwar S, Dhir A, Kaur P, M€antym€aki M. Why do people purchase from online travel agencies (OTAs)? A consumption values perspective. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020;88:102534. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102534. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Tan E, Abu Bakar B, Lim T, Nair S (2018) Hijababes travel: Insights from Asian female Muslim millennial travelers.CAUTHE 2018: Get Smart: Paradoxes and Possibilities in Tourism, Hospitality and Events Education and Research, 653.
  100. Terziyska I (2021) Solo female travellers: the underlying motivation. In: Gender and tourism. Emerald Publishing Limited
  101. Thomas TK, Mura P (2019) The ‘normality of unsafety’-foreign solo female travellers in India. Tour Recreat Res 44(1):33–40.10.1080/02508281.2018.1494872
  102. Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D (2013) The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. J Occup Health Psychol 18(2):230–240. 10.1037/a0032141. [DOI] [PubMed]
  103. Uatay G, Reid EL, Lee HY. The impact of female travelers’ travel constraints on attitude toward solo travel and travel intention. Culin sci hosp res. 2019;25(9):102–110. doi: 10.20878/cshr.2019.25.9.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Uysal M, Li X, Sirakaya-Turk E (2008) Push-pull dynamics in travel decisions. In: Oh H, Pizam A (eds), Handbook of hospitality marketing management. Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 412–439
  105. Wantono A, McKercher B. Backpacking and risk perception: the case of solo Asian women. Tour Recreat Res. 2020;45(1):19–29. doi: 10.1080/02508281.2019.1636180. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Wen J, Huang S. The effects of push and pull travel motivations, personal values, and destination familiarity on tourist loyalty: a study of Chinese cigar tourists to Cuba. Asia Pacific J Tour Res. 2019;24(8):805–821. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2019.1635504. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Wen J, Kozak M, Yang S, Liu F. COVID-19: potential effects on Chinese citizens’ lifestyle and travel. Tour Rev. 2020;76(1):74–87. doi: 10.1108/TR-03-2020-0110. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Wilson E, Little DE. A “relative escape”? The impact of constraints on women who travel solo. Tour Rev Int. 2005;9(2):155–175. doi: 10.3727/154427205774791672. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  109. Wilson E, Harris C. (2006) Meaningful travel: Women, independent travel and the search for self and meaning. Tourism 54(2): 161–172. https://hrcak.srce.hr/161466
  110. Wong BKM, Musa G, Taha AZ. Malaysia my second home: the influence of push and pull motivations on satisfaction. Tour Manag. 2017;61:394–410. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.03.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. Woosnam KM, McElroy KE, Van Winkle CM (2016) Using values to predict tourist motivation: An application to special events in cultural tourism at the Winnipeg Fringe Theatre Festival. Travel and Tourism Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally, 71. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2007/Presented_Papers/71
  112. Yang ECL, Khoo-Lattimore C, Arcodia C. A narrative review of Asian female travellers: Looking into the future through the past. Curr Issues Tour. 2017;20(10):1008–1027. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2016.1208741. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  113. Yang ECL, Khoo-Lattimore C, Arcodia C. Power and empowerment: how Asian solo female travellers perceive and negotiate risks. Tour Manag. 2018;68:32–45. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Yang ECL, Khoo-Lattimore C, Arcodia C. Constructing space and self through risk taking: a case of Asian solo female travelers. J Travel Res. 2018;57(2):260–272. doi: 10.1177/0047287517692447. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  115. Yang ECL, Lai MY, Nimri R. Do constraint negotiation and self‐construal affect solo travel intention? The case of Australia. Int J Tour Res. 2022;24(3):347–361. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2506. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Yang ECL, Yang MJH, Khoo-Lattimore C. The meanings of solo travel for Asian women. Tour Rev. 2019;74(5):1047–1057. doi: 10.1108/TR-10-2018-0150. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Yoon Y, Uysal M. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tour Manag. 2005;26(1):45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  118. Yusof HM, Mustapha R, Malik Syed Mohamad SA, Bunian MS (2012). Measurement model of employability skills using confirmatory factor analysis. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 56(8): 348–356. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.663

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Humanities & Social Sciences Communications are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES