Individuals' interpretation of constraints: a new perspective on existing theory (2001)

The travel decision-making process is influenced by number of factors. One of the most important yet infrequently studied factors is Nearly decade ago Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) developed framework to guide constraints research. Numerous authors have utilized this framework but results have suggested that individuals' perceptions of constraints differ based on study setting and method of data collection (e.g., questionnaire vs. interview). Hence, the purpose of this study was to use multi-method approach (both quantitative and qualitative) to assess perceived constraints to visitation among sample of Pennsylvania residents. Results indicated that individuals' are not consistent in their response to constraint questions and that their interpretation of constraining item varies. The information presented in this paper will challenge traditional notions about constraints. Why Study Constraints? As consumers go through the decision-making process they are influenced by number of factors. According to Norman (1995), one of the most important yet infrequently studied factors is Constraints, according to Jackson (1988), are a subset of reasons for not engaging in particular behavior. Further, he suggested that the value of leisure constraints research may be summarized into two main areas: improving the understanding of participation by classifying nonparticipants, describing their characteristics and documenting their constraints; and improving constraints measurement techniques. Constraints research can also provide benefits such as policy development and program planning to recreation practitioners (Searle & Jackson, 1985b). Norman (1995) concluded that incorporating perceived constraints into market segmentation/tourism research offers researchers and practitioners better understanding of the complex nature of the travel decision process. What is Constraint? Constraints are factors that inhibit or prohibit individuals' participation and enjoyment in leisure (Jackson, 1991). Norman (1995) defined travel constraints as constraints, inhibitors, obstacles, or restraining factors, perceived or real, that influence an individual's preference for and participation in leisure activity. ~ i s h n (1994) stated that perceived constraints might have stronger influence on leisure activity participation than true constraints. Jackson (1988), in survey of past research on leisure constraints, found that all researchers agreed in principle that constraints inhibit people's ability to participate in leisure activities. However, individuals do overcome and cope with constraints when participating in leisure activities (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). In fact, some researchers believe that leisure participation is dependent not on the absence of constraints but on negotiation through them (Jackson, Crawford, & Godbey, 1993). Constraints and Travel Constraints are important factors in the travel decision making process (Tian, Crompton, & Witt, 1996; Um & Crompton, 1992). McIntosh and Goeldner (1990) listed constraints to travel as cost, lack of time, health limitations, family stage, lack of interest, fear and safety. If the motivation to travel is sufficiently strong, they argued, any of the above constraints may be overcome and travel will take place. However, the perception of or actual travel constraints will affect the destination selection process (McIntosh & Goeldner, 1990). Um and Crompton (1992), in their study of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in . pleasure travel destination decisions, indicated that travel decision making is constraints driven rather than benefits driven. Norman (1995), in his research of perceived constraints as basis for travel market segmentation, identified groups of respondents that were considered relatively high level constrained but continued to participate at an unconstrained level. Similarly, interview respondents in Kay and Jackson's (1991) study reported that perceived constraints did not reduce their level of participation. The Hierarchical Constraint Model In 1991 Crawford et al. proposed that individuals negotiate their way thrqugh three types of constraints (i.e., structural, intrapersonal and interpersonal). These constraints are hierarchical in nature, with intrapersonal constraints (e.g., stress, depression, anxiety, perceived self-skill) being the first and most difficult level of constraints to negotiate. At the second level, represented by interpersonal constraints (e.g., constraints resulting from interrelationships such as finding suitable activity partner), constraints intercede between preference and participation in leisure activities. If this type of constraint is overcome, structural constraints (e.g., family life-cycle stage, family financial resources, season, climate, work scheduling, availability of opportunity) begin to be encountered. This model is hierarchical in terms of the order in which constraints are encountered, but also with respect to level of importance. Empirical verification of the hierarchical constraints model by Crawford et al. (1991) is lacking, however (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997). Hawkins, Peng, Hsieh and Eklund (1999) conducted replication and extension of their work and verified that the constraint categories can be replicated and extended with subtle distinctions. Six years earlier, Raymore, Godbey, Crawford and von Eye (1993) documented that the three categories of constraints did exist when studied with an adolescent population.