return”) and the mean likelihood for those who knew someone who has experi-
enced such thefts was 5.52. Both groups had expressed a relatively high likelihood
to visit or revisit destinations in which they or their friends/relatives experienced
an incidence of theft.
Relationship between length of time since theft occurred and likelihood
to travel to the affected destinations
To test for this relationship, a Pearson product moment correlation was conducted
between the length of time since the theft occurred and the likelihood to travel to
affected destinations. The results indicate that there was no statistically significant
correlation (r = .07) between the two variables (p = .34). Hence, the length of time
since a theft occurred does not seem to influence the likelihood of visiting or revis-
iting the affected destination.
Differences between respondents who have
experienced or knew others
who have experienced “thefts off one’s person” and those who have
experienced or knew others who have experienced “thefts not off one’s
person,” and likelihood to travel to the affected destinations
To test for the above difference, an independent t-test was performed comparing the
type of theft—whether “off one’s person” or “not off one’s person”—and the likeli-
hood to travel to the destination where the theft occurred. Those who experienced
or knew of someone who experienced a theft “not off their person” (i.e., hotel room
or tourist attraction) had a mean likelihood to visit or revisit the affected destina-
tions of 5.52 as compared to a mean of 6.00 for those
who experienced or knew
someone who experienced a theft “off their person” (t =
−
1.972; p = .06).
Relationship between the perceived theft severity and likelihood to
travel to the affected destinations
One would normally expect that the more severe the incidence of theft that occurred
to a person or his/her friends or relatives while traveling, the lower the likelihood
would be of revisiting or visiting the affected destination. But the results of the
Pearson product moment correlation indicate no significant correlation (r =
−
.09;
p = .17) between the two variables. In an effort to determine if both groups (those
who experience a theft and those who knew someone else who experienced a theft)
would produce the same results, a Pearson product moment correlation was sepa-
rately run for only the group of respondents who experienced
personal theft them-
selves. The results were similar to the one with both groups and showed no
significant correlation (r =
−
.12; p = .35) between the perceived severity of the theft
and the likelihood to travel to the affected destination.
Relationship between satisfaction with the manner in which the
authorities handled the reporting of the theft and the likelihood to
travel to the affected destinations
To test for above the relationship a Pearson product moment correlation was con-
ducted. The results showed that the relationship is positive and statistically signif-
Does Theft Affect Tourist Destination Decisions?
119
H7898_Ch06.qxd 8/24/05 8:07 AM Page 119
icant (r = .46; p = .003). Therefore it is possible to infer that the better the crime
was perceived to
be handled by the authorities, the higher the expressed likelihood
to travel to the destination where the theft occurred. In other words satisfactory
handling of theft reports tends to increase the likelihood of visiting or revisiting a
destination where a theft occurred.
Relationship between previous victimization and likelihood to visit or
revisit a tourist destination where a theft occurred to tourists or their
friends or relatives
The results of the t-test comparing those who have been previous victims of crime
in their own communities (“not while traveling”) and those who have not been vic-
tims of crime in their own communities indicate that there
was no significant dif-
ference between those who have been a previous victim of crime (mean likelihood
to visit or revisit = 5.42) as compared to those who have not been a victim of crime
(mean likelihood to visit or revisit = 5.52; t =
−
.12; p = .91). Thus it is possible to
conclude that previous crime victimization has no effect on the likelihood to visit
or revisit a destination where a theft occurred.
The relationships among (1) passage of time since a theft occurred;
(2) learning of someone’s positive experience at a destination where
tourists or their friends or relatives experienced an incidence of theft
in the past; and (3) learning from the
media about the efforts to
improve security at the affected destination and the likelihood to visit
or revisist this destination
As shown elsewhere, of the 215 respondents in this study only 49 (22.8%) indi-
cated that they would choose not to return to the destination. With this subset of 49
respondents, a one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the above three vari-
ables (passing of time; learning of someone’s positive experience; and learning
from the media of efforts to make the destination safer) as well as a fourth variable
(nothing would change their minds). A post hoc SNK (Student-Neumann-Keuls)
test found no statistically significant difference between each of the four groups on
their likelihood to visit or revisit the affected destination. All
four groups fell into
one subset. As can be seen from Table 5, it is possible to conclude that for those
who had decided not to return to the destination, the passing of time, learning of
someone’s positive experience, or learning from the media of efforts to make the
destination safer would have no differential effects on changing the respondents’
minds about not returning to the destination where a theft occurred.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
