Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

 
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition 
379
travelers whose response strategy involved denial of the threat were the least likely to cancel travel plans (only 7% 
did so) contrasted with those travelers whose response involved loss reduction—37% of that group canceled travel 
plans. Across a number of these variables a common pattern is evident. The denial group was least likely to cancel 
or change plans, the loss reduction group was the most likely to cancel or change plans, and members of the other 
two groups, acceptance and mitigation, expressed behaviors between the two extremes. Interestingly, there were no 
statistically significant group differences regarding Summer 2002 travel plans. While one would expect the travel 
plans of the acceptance or denial group members to be unaffected, behavior changes among travelers with mitigation 
or loss reduction strategies may be too nuanced to be seen in a travel more—travel less—travel the same amount 
context. Anxiety differences across the four groups are also noteworthy. As expected, members of the denial group 
are the least anxious about becoming a victim of terror. In contrast very few people following the mitigation 
response strategy are not worried at all and close to a majority, 49%, are very or somewhat worried. Perhaps that is 
one of the costs of this strategy: heightened awareness of surroundings, being on a constant look-out for people or 
packages that appear out of place (mitigation strategies) may increase anxiety.