Backpacker Personal Development,Generalized Self-Efficacy,and Self-Esteem: Testing a Structural Model

Abstract

Guided by self-determination theory (SDT), this study aims to advance the theoretical understanding of backpacker personal development (BPD) by examining its relationships with two important social-psychological constructs, that is, generalized self-efficacy (GSE) and self-esteem (SE). Using two samples from different cultural groups (Chinese backpackers, n=230; Western backpackers, n=242) and applying the partial least squares structural equation modeling, the study found that among Chinese backpackers, skill development positively influenced GSE while worldview changes negatively influenced SE. For Western backpackers, capability development and emotional adjustment positively influenced their GSE. The positive effects of GSE on SE were confirmed in both samples. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords

backpacker personal development (BPD)generalized self-efficacy (GSE)self-esteem (SE)partial least squares (PLS)Chinese backpackers Western backpackers

Introduction

In the past decade, various forms of travel and tourism benefits (e.g., happiness, quality of life, life satisfaction, subjective well-being, learning and education, and relationship and family) have been researched in the tourism literature (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; Y. Chen, Lehto, and Cai 2013; de Bloom et al. 2011; Durko and Petrick 2013; Sirgy et al. 2011; Stone and Petrick 2013). Backpacking is a particular travel style taken by travelers who typically prefer low-budget accommodation, longer holidays, itinerary flexibility, meeting other travelers, and social and participatory holiday activities (Pearce and Foster 2007; Pearce, Murphy, and Brymer 2009). Backpacking has been found to contribute to an individual’s personal growth and changes in many different domains (e.g., Pearce and Foster 2007; Scarinci and Pearce 2012; Thatcher 2010; Tsaur, Yen, and Chen 2010; Zhou 2014; Zhu 2007). Furthermore, contributions of backpacking to personal growth have displayed differences across nationality and cultural groups (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Paris, Musa, and Thirumoorthi 2015; Zhu 2007).

Specifically, G. Chen, Bao, and Huang (2014a) and G. Chen and Huang (2017) conceptualized backpacker personal development (BPD) as a unique adult learning and development construct, and further developed and validated a measurement scale (BPD scale or BPDS) in both Chinese and Western contexts. The confirmed BPD domains include skill, capability, emotion, self-consciousness, and worldview (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017).

According to self-determination theory (SDT), personal development through backpacking can be related to the satisfaction of backpackers’ travel needs (motivations), such as self-cognition and self-improvement (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014b), social interaction (e.g., Pearce and Foster 2007), experiencing local culture (e.g., Zhou 2014), and escape and relaxation (e.g., Pearce and Foster 2007). SDT posits that an individual is born with an intrinsic motivation to explore, absorb, and master his surroundings (Deci and Ryan 1995; Ryan and Deci 2000). The satisfaction of such basic psychological needs would positively contribute to the person’s various forms of self-development (e.g., Deci and Ryan 1995; Kasser and Ryan 1996; La Guardia 2009; Sheldon and Kasser 1998). Moreover, the modes and degrees of such developments through life experiences may vary across contexts and different cultures (Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000). Therefore, the effects of BPD on other related development constructs, such as self-esteem and self-efficacy, which are believed to aid in determining an individual’s mental and physical well-being and life quality (e.g., Chang et al. 2012; WHO 2016), seem to be in dire need of research; such research can greatly enhance the understanding of the ways BPD as a development form outside the formal education system contribute to human life and well-being.

As such, the current study aims to advance the theoretical understanding of BPD by examining its relationships with other important human development and social-psychological outcomes (i.e., generalized self-efficacy [GSE] and self-esteem [SE]). It should be noted that GSE and SE were chosen for investigation because they have been confirmed to be important human development constructs which affect an individual’s mental health, well-being and life quality (e.g., Chang et al. 2012; G. Chen, Gully, and Eden 2004; Judge, Erez, and Bono 1998; WHO 2016). To test the structural relationships among BPD, GSE and SE, two backpacker samples were used. Specifically, Chinese and Western backpackers were chosen as they come from collectivist and individualistic cultures, respectively. As a research design, using culturally different samples to test theory-driven relationships would effectively attest the validity of the research.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Backpackers’ Personal Development (BPD)

Backpacker personal development (BPD) has been broadly defined as “a series of changes as perceived by backpackers themselves during and after their backpacking travels” (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a, p. 525). It has recently been a popular research topic within the tourism literature (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Paris, Musa, and Thirumoorthi 2015; Pearce and Foster 2007; Zhu 2007). According to G. Chen and Huang (2017), tourism scholars have sporadically investigated the following five BPD domains: capability, skill, emotion, worldview, and self-consciousness.

Specifically, capability has been defined as the personal quality of being capable, and the ability to perform or achieve certain actions or outcomes (Vincent 2008; Ye, He, and Liang 2004). Tourism scholars have confirmed that backpackers can enhance their personal capabilities during and after backpacking (Pearce, Murphy, and Brymer 2009). These personal capabilities include effective communication (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; Pan 2012; Pearce and Foster 2007; Scarinci and Pearce 2012; Xu, Di, and Wu 2014), decision making (e.g., Pearce and Foster 2007), adaptability (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; Pearce and Foster 2007; Thatcher 2010; Scarinci and Pearce 2012; Xu, Di, and Wu 2014; Zhou 2014), and capability to identify and resolve problems (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; Xu, Di, and Wu 2014).

In the psychology literature, skills have been referred as learnt and acquired techniques through training and repeated practice to perform certain tasks (Ye, He, and Liang 2004). Tourism researchers have confirmed that backpackers can experience development in such skills as money and time management (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Pearce and Foster 2007), stress management (e.g., Pan 2012, 2017), self-motivation (Pearce and Foster 2007), and language and everyday life (e.g., Bui, Wilkins, and Lee 2013a, 2013b; Prideaux and Shiga 2007).

Emotions refer to short-lived, intense, and conscious responses of human beings to environmental stimuli (Nawijn et al. 2013), and have been increasingly investigated in tourist behavior studies (e.g., X. Huang 2015; Mitas et al. 2012; Steyn, Saayman, and Nienaber 2004). Particularly, emotional changes of backpackers during and after their backpacking trips, such as adjustment of negative emotions and relief of anxiety and stress, have been examined (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; C.-Y. Hsu, Lee, and Chen 2017).

Multiple aspects of backpackers’ worldview changes have been identified. These include value changes, moral standard enhancement (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Miao 2016; Zhu 2007), transformations in views and attitudes toward life (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Noy 2004; Wilson and Harris 2006; Zhou 2014), freedom (e.g., Kanning 2008), family (e.g., Kanning 2008; Zhou 2014), marriage (e.g., Kanning 2008), money (e.g., Kanning 2008), friendship (e.g., Kanning 2008; Wilson and Harris 2006; Zhou 2014), and even the whole world (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Kanning 2008; Zhou 2014).

Self-consciousness has been found to involve two basic aspects of a person’s self: private self and public self (Simon 2004). Tourism researchers have examined at least three basic aspects of self-consciousness in backpacker personal development (G. Chen and Huang 2017). These include changes in self-knowledge and self-identity (e.g., Bui, Wilkins, and Lee 2013a, 2013b; P. Huang, Wang, and Zhang 2014; Noy 2004; O’Reilly 2006; Wilson and Harris 2006; Yu and Shen 2013), increased self-confidence (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Noy 2004; Pearce and Foster 2007; Thatcher 2010), and improved self-control or self-discipline (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Holloway, Green, and Holloway 2011; Pan 2017; Zhu 2007).

In the backpacker literature, local culture immersion (e.g., Pearce and Foster 2007; Zhou 2014), escape and relaxation (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014b; Pearce and Foster 2007), and social interaction (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014b; Pearce and Foster 2007) have been commonly identified as important driving forces (internal needs) of backpacking. Additionally, backpacker personal development (i.e., skill, capability, emotion, self-consciousness, and worldview) can be based on the satisfaction of backpackers’ travel needs (motivations).

As a macro theory of human motivation and personality that concerns people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs, self-determination theory (SDT) contends that people are born with psychological needs to explore, absorb, and master their surroundings (Deci and Ryan 1995, 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000). In turn, the satisfaction of such basic psychological needs (i.e., competence, relatedness, and autonomy) can positively facilitate their self-growth (e.g., Kasser and Ryan 1996), self-esteem (e.g., Deci and Ryan 1995), identity formation (e.g., La Guardia 2009), and well-being (e.g., Sheldon and Kasser 1998). Furthermore, SDT suggests that the patterns and strengths of such relationships are possibly different across cultures and contexts (Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000). Following the assumptions of SDT, it is reasonable to postulate that personal development as a result of backpackers’ satisfaction of their travel needs can lead to psychological outcomes that eventually benefit backpackers’ mental health and psychological well-being (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017).

In the psychology literature, generalized self-efficacy (GSE) and self-esteem (SE) have arguably been the mostly researched constructs of people’s self-evaluations that are closely related to their mental health (e.g., Chang et al. 2012; G. Chen, Gully, and Eden 2004; Judge, Erez, and Bono 1998; WHO 2016). As such, it is believed to be important to examine the relationships between BPD dimensions and these constructs.

Relationships between BPD Constructs and Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE)

Generalized self-efficacy has been defined as “individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of different situations” (Judge, Erez, and Bono 1998, p. 170). In the literature of educational and organizational studies, researchers have sporadically investigated the relationships between personal development/growth domains (e.g., capability, skills, self-consciousness, emotional state, and worldview) and self-efficacy (both GSE and context-specific self-efficacy). Generally, education researchers have identified four major sources of people’s self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura 1986; van Dinther, Dochy, and Segers 2011): mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal and social persuasions (e.g., encouragement from parents, teachers, and peers), and emotional and physiological states (e.g., anxiety, stress, fatigue, and mood). Gist and Mitchell (1992) established a matrix/typology of determinants of people’s self-efficacy by employing locus of determinant (external vs. internal) and variability of determinant (high vs. low) as segmenting variables. For instance, in the low-variability / internal category, determinants of self-efficacy have been found to include ability, knowledge, and skills.

Scholars have investigated the relationships between a variety of personal development/growth domains and self-efficacy. For instance, Schunk and Gunn (1986) found that students’ mathematics ability, among other factors, such as effort and luck, exerted the strongest influence on their self-efficacy. Mitchell et al. (1994) found that during skill acquisition people reported reductions in their cognitive processing for making self-efficacy judgments. Similarly, Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005) found that Master of Business Administration (MBA) students’ perceived learning from entrepreneurship-related courses influenced their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Regarding self-consciousness, Okech and Harrington (2002) identified a positive relationship between African American men’s black consciousness and their academic self-efficacy, which indicated that high black consciousness is associated with high academic self-efficacy.

Backpacking has been regarded as a “university of travel” (Pearce and Foster 2007; Scarinci and Pearce 2012) that parallels the formal education system in promoting backpackers’ personal development (BPD; i.e., capability, skill, emotion, worldview, and self-consciousness) (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017). However, tourism scholars have rarely investigated the relationships between backpackers’ personal development constructs and their GSE. One exception was a recent study by G. Chen and Huang (2017). They used GSE (the New Generalized Self-efficacy Scale; see G. Chen, Gully, and Eden 2001) as a criterion variable to cross-culturally verify the concurrent criterion validity of the BPD scale (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017). It was found that four out of the five BPD dimensions (i.e., capability, emotion, worldview, and self-consciousness) were significantly and positively correlated with GSE (G. Chen and Huang 2017). Based on the preceding discussions and following self-determination theory (SDT), the following hypotheses were developed.

Hypothesis 1: Backpackers’ skill development positively influences their GSE.

Hypothesis 2: Backpackers’ capacity development positively influences their GSE.

Hypothesis 3: Backpackers’ emotional changes positively influence their GSE.

Hypothesis 4: Backpackers’ self-consciousness changes positively influence their GSE.

Hypothesis 5: Backpackers’ worldview changes positively influence their GSE.

Relationships between BPD Constructs and Self-Esteem (SE)

Self-esteem has been defined as an overall appraisal of one’s self-worth (Rosenberg 1965). Similar to the general situation in self-efficacy studies as elaborated above (e.g., Gist and Mitchell 1992; Mitchell et al. 1994; Zhao, Seibert, and Hills 2005), researchers have only sporadically investigated the relationships between personal development/growth domains and SE. For instance, Riggio, Throckmorton, and Depaola (1990) found that social skills/social competence was positively correlated with SE in the setting of undergraduate learning in the USA. With regard to self-consciousness, Belgrave et al. (1994) found that, among African American fifth-graders, Africentric values were negatively correlated to SE, while black identity was positively correlated to SE. Similarly, Rowley et al. (1998) confirmed that African American college students’ private regard (An example item is “I am happy that I am black”) was positively related to their personal SE; and racial centrality (An example item is “Being black is an important reflection of who I am”) moderated such a relationship. Regarding worldviews, Major et al. (2007) found that worldviews moderated the relationship between perceived discrimination against the self and SE. Specifically, for Latino American and female participants who rejected a meritocracy worldview, perceived discrimination against their ethnic or gender group was found to lead to higher SE.

Building on the studies reviewed above, and following the propositions of SDT, it is reasonable to postulate the existence of relationships between backpackers’ personal development (BPD) constructs and their SE. However, in the backpacker tourism literature, with two exceptions, tourism researchers have rarely investigated such relationships. As an exception, G. Chen, Bao, and Huang (2014a) used SE (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale [RSES]; see Rosenberg 1965) as a criterion variable in their effort to develop a BPD scale. They found that three out of the five BPD dimensions (i.e., capability, skill, and emotion) as well as BPD as a whole were significantly and positively correlated with SE (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a). However, in a further study to cross-culturally validate this measurement scale with Western backpackers, G. Chen and Huang (2017) demonstrated that neither the five BPD dimensions nor BPD as a whole was significantly correlated with SE. Such inconsistencies in the results warrant further examinations of the issue in a cross-cultural context. Based on the above discussions, the following hypotheses were developed:

Hypothesis 6: Backpackers’ skill development positively influences their SE.

Hypothesis 7: Backpackers’ capacity development positively influences their SE.

Hypothesis 8: Backpackers’ emotional changes positively influence their SE.

Hypothesis 9: Backpackers’ self-consciousness changes positively influence their SE.

Hypothesis 10: Backpackers’ worldview changes positively influence their SE.

Relationships between Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE) and Self-Esteem (SE)

Numerous studies have investigated the relationships between GSE and SE (e.g., Gao, Jiang, and Huang 2014; Gardner and Pierce 1998; D. Li et al. 2008; Lightsey et al. 2006; Zheng and Zhao 2015). For instance, when investigating Chinese residents’ well-being, Gao, Jiang, and Huang (2014) confirmed the determination effect of Chinese residents’ GSE on their SE. Studying Internet altruistic behaviors, Zheng and Zhao (2015) found that Chinese middle school students’ GSE was a predictor to their SE. Similar conclusions were also drawn in D. Li et al.’s (2008), Wang and Miao’s (2012), and Lightsey et al.’s (2006) studies in which Chinese and American college students’ GSE was found to predict their SE. Furthermore, in an organizational setting in the USA, Gardner and Pierce (1998) discovered that employees’ GSE was a predictor of their organization-based self-esteem (OBSE).

In the tourism and hospitality literature, most prior studies have focused on the impacts of GSE and SE on job-related variables, such as job engagement, job satisfactions, job performance, person–job fit, organizational commitment, and career choice (e.g., Hallak, Assaker, and O’Connor 2014; Leung and Law 2010), yet the relationship between GSE and SE per se has seldom been examined. As elaborated earlier, backpacking can be a very important way for backpackers’ personal development (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Pearce and Foster 2007). It is therefore believed to be important to test the relationship between GSE and SE in the backpacking context. As such, the following hypothesis was developed.

Hypothesis 11: Backpackers’ GSE positively influences their SE.

Figure 1 depicts the proposed model with the hypothesized relationships.

Figure 1.

Proposed model with hypothesized paths.

Method

Measures

Following previous backpacker studies (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a, 2014b; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Pearce and Foster 2007; Reichel, Fuchs, and Uriely 2007; Scarinci and Pearce 2012; Zhang et al. 2017) and cross-cultural tourist behavior research (e.g., Kim 2013; M. Li 2014; Paris, Musa, and Thirumoorthi 2015), a quantitative approach for data collection and analysis was employed. Specifically, a questionnaire survey was carried out for data collection. The questionnaire consisted of four parts. The first part was designed with choice questions and open questions to screen qualified respondents and record eligible respondents’ trip characteristics and sociodemographic information. The other three parts consisted of questions measuring BPD, GSE and SE, respectively.

The Chinese and English versions of the Backpacker Personal Development Scale (BPDS; a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) were used to record Chinese and Western respondents’ perceptions of their personal development, respectively. The BPDS scale in both language versions have been previously validated (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017). Similarly, the Chinese (Dai 2010) and English version (Rosenberg 1965) of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) were employed to record Chinese and Western respondents’ self-worth evaluations.

Regarding the measurement of GSE, the English version of the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (NGSES; a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 [strongly disagree] to 5 [strongly agree]; see G. Chen, Gully, and Eden 2001) was employed to record Western respondents’ GSE perceptions. Following Sin, Cheung, and Lee’s (1999) suggestions, translation and back-translation were managed on the NGSES (G. Chen, Gully, and Eden 2001) from English to Chinese. No deviation of meanings of the items was identified. Therefore, the Chinese version of the NGSES from G. Chen, Gully, and Eden (2001) was used to record Chinese respondents’ GSE perceptions. The item statements are displayed in the appendix.

Data Collection

Following previous studies (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a, 2014b; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Zhang et al. 2017), backpackers in this study were technically defined as independent travelers mostly staying in hostels and using a backpack as their main travel luggage. This study targeted both Chinese and Western backpackers staying in international youth hostels (IYHs) in China as respondents. Data were collected from March 2016 and March 2017, by 15 college students (in four groups), who were allocated to 10 IYHs in three backpacker destinations in China (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Zhu 2007), namely, Guangzhou (March 2017), Guilin (March 2016, June 2016, February 2017), and Yangshuo (March 2016, June 2016, February 2017). Guilin and Yangshuo were chosen as data collection sites because they have been confirmed to be popular destinations for both Chinese and Western backpackers (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a, 2014b; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Su and Ma 2009; Xu, Di, and Wu 2014; Zhu 2007). Guangzhou was chosen as it is a gateway city for Chinese and Western backpackers (Su and Ma 2009; Zhu 2007). Furthermore, the 10 IYHs were specifically chosen as they received a significant number of backpackers according to the on-site observations by the student investigators prior to the formal questionnaire survey. Student interviewers approached potential respondents in public areas of the IYHs and asked them to fill in the questionnaire.

Data Analysis

To test the hypothesized relationships (Figure 1), the partial least squares (PLS) path modeling method (Hair et al. 2012; Shiau 2016) was applied and the SmartPLS 3.24 software was used (Shiau 2016). PLS is a component-based structural equation modeling (SEM) technique and has been suggested to have fewer identification issues than covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) techniques (Shiau 2016). As this study represents an attempt to theoretically explore the psychological consequences of BPD, PLS was considered to be an appropriate data analysis technique.

Results

Respondents

Two hundred fifty Chinese questionnaires and 250 English questionnaires were distributed through convenience sampling. A total of 472 returned questionnaires (Chinese respondents: 230, 92.0%; Western respondents: 242, 96.8%) were deemed usable. The profile of respondents is shown in Table 1. Male respondents (Chinese sample: 60.9%; Western sample: 58.8%) outnumbered their female counterparts in both samples and most respondents were in the age group of 21 to 35 (Chinese sample: 78.7%; Western sample: 71.9%). In both samples, the majority of respondents reported an education level of undergraduate degree or above (Chinese sample: 64.9%; Western sample: 82.1%). As for occupation, both samples had a relatively higher proportion of students (Chinese sample: 35.2%; Western sample: 35.1%) than others. In both samples, more than half of the respondents (Chinese sample: 59.5%; Western sample: 53.1%) had made more than three backpacking trips when being surveyed.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Profiles and Trip Characteristics of Respondents.

Variable	Category	Frequency (Percentage)
Variable	Category	Chinese Backpackers(Valid n = 211–230)	Western Backpackers(Valid n = 227–242)
Gender	Male	140 (60.9)	141 (58.8)
Gender	Female	90 (39.1)	99 (41.3)
Age Group	≤20	22 (9.6)	34 (14.0)
	21–35	181 (78.7)	174 (71.9)
	36–50	25 (10.9)	20 (8.3)
	51–64	1 (0.4)	10 (4.1)
	≥65	1 (0.4)	4 (1.7)
Education Level	Junior high school and below	11 (4.8)	6 (2.5)
	Senior high school	33 (14.5)	25 (10.4)
	Junior college	36 (15.8)	12 (5.0)
	Undergraduate	117 (51.3)	76 (31.7)
	Graduate and above	31 (13.6)	121 (50.4)
Personal Income*	<1,500 (monthly, RMB)/≤15,000 (annually, US dollars)	57 (27.0)	101 (44.5)
	1,500–3,000 (monthly, RMB) /15,001–24,999 (annually, US dollars)	23 (10.9)	55 (24.2)
	3,001–4,500 (monthly, RMB) /25,000–34,999 (annually, US dollars)	34 (16.1)	27 (11.9)
	4,501–6,000 (monthly, RMB) /≥35,000 (annually, US dollars)	33 (15.6)	44 (19.4)
	6,001–7,500 (monthly, RMB)	9 (4.3)	NA
	>7,501 (monthly, RMB)	55 (26.1)	NA
Occupation	Enterprise staff	52 (23.7)	38 (15.9)
	Private business owner	24 (11.0)	9 (3.8)
	Student (e.g., high school student, college and university student, and graduate student)	77 (35.2)	84 (35.1)
	Government staff/civil servant	20 (9.1)	15 (6.3)
	Teacher	6 (2.7)	20 (8.4)
	Freelance	NA	18 (7.5)
	Others	40 (18.3)	55 (23.0)
Status when backpacking (When taking this trip, I currently [am])	Resigned	26 (11.4)	7 (2.9)
	Graduated	33 (14.5)	45 (18.7)
	A student	60 (26.3)	71 (29.5)
	On a vacation with pay from a full-time job	41 (18.0)	36 (14.9)
	Retired	2 (0.9)	8 (3.3)
	On a vacation from a self-employment career	41 (18.0)	15 (6.2)
	On a vacation without pay from a full-time job	18 (7.9)	21 (8.7)
	Unemployed	7 (3.1)	38 (18.8)
Number of prior backpacking trips	1–3	81 (40.5)	107 (46.9)
	4–6	58 (29.0)	67 (29.4)
	7–10	33 (16.5)	27 (11.8)
	11 and above	28 (14.0)	27 (11.8)

Note: The percentages were rounded up to one decimal point. Therefore, the percentage may not add to 100.0 because of rounding errors.

The estimates in “(monthly, RMB)” were used for Chinese respondents and “(annually, US dollars)” for Western respondents, respectively.

Moreover, among those Western respondents who had indicated their places of usual residence (n=240), 20.6% of them were residing in mainland China, followed by those residing in the UK (16.8%), the USA (10.1%), Germany (6.3%), Canada (5.0%), and France (4.6%). Among those who indicated their nationalities, 18.8% were British, followed by American (17.5%), French (8.3%), German (7.5%), Dutch (5.0%), Spanish (4.2%), and Polish (4.2%). The above sample characteristics regarding respondents’ places of usual residence and nationalities were very similar to what was reported in G. Chen and Huang (2017).

Measurement Model Test

The PLS measurement model results are reported in Tables 2 and Table 3. Following Carmines and Zeller (1979) and Hulland (1999), in order to obtain an acceptable measurement model, in the Chinese sample, five items (i.e., RSES_8, RSES_2, RSES_4, RSES_6, and RSES_10, in the order of loading values; see item statements in the appendix) were removed one by one because of their low loadings. Similarly, in the Western sample, five items (i.e., NGSE_7, RSES_3, RSES_4, RSES_5, and RSES_8) were removed. It is believed that the removal of these items (owing to low loadings) would not cause significant impacts on the measurements of GSE and SE as both are designated as reflective constructs in their measurements and after removal of the low loading items, there are still a sufficient number of highly reliable items (e.g., Carmines and Zeller 1979; Loureiro and González 2008; Shiau 2016; Wu 2013; also see item statements in the appendix).

Table 2.

Assessment of the Measurement Model: Reliability, Convergent and Discriminant Validity (Chinese Sample).

Latent Construct	Indicators	Loading	t Values(>1.64)	CR(>0.7)	AVE(>0.5)	Cronbach’s Alpha (>0.6)	R-Square(>0.1)
Capability	BPD_1	0.938	65.573	0.935	0.896	0.896	–
	BPD_2	0.910	34.268
	BPD_3	0.882	23.976
Emotion	BPD_4	0.841	15.647	0.889	0.818	0.818	–
	BPD_5	0.883	28.124
	BPD_6	0.835	22.379
Skill	BPD_7	0.874	32.260	0.899	0.747	0.834	–
	BPD_8	0.852	21.574
	BPD_9	0.868	29.525
Worldview	BPD_10	0.907	13.565	0.930	0.816	0.888	–
	BPD_11	0.922	31.335
	BPD_12	0.881	19.804
Self-consciousness	BPD_13	0.708	6.034	0.896	0.685	0.858	–
	BPD_14	0.872	17.300
	BPD_15	0.856	14.039
	BPD_16	0.863	13.961
GSE	NGSE_1	0.728	17.987	0.928	0.618	0.911	0.151
	NGSE_2	0.824	36.026
	NGSE_3	0.712	12.307
	NGSE_4	0.741	23.286
	NGSE_5	0.846	40.390
	NGSE_6	0.801	30.255
	NGSE_7	0.807	29.230
	NGSE_8	0.817	29.375
SE	RSES_1	0.732	15.421	0.829	0.493	0.743	0.428
	RSES_3	0.736	13.091
	RSES_5	0.708	11.079
	RSES_7	0.679	9.033
	RSES_9	0.652	9.475

Note: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; GSE = general self-efficacy; SE = self-esteem; NGSE = New General Self-Efficacy Scale (G. Chen, Gully, and Eden 2001); RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg 1965). See statements of items in the appendix.

Table 3.

Assessment of the Measurement Model: Reliability, Convergent and Discriminant Validity (Western Sample).

Latent Construct	Indicators	Loading	t Values(>1.64)	CR(>0.7)	AVE(>0.5)	Cronbach’s Alpha (>0.6)	R-Square(>0.1)
Capability	BPD_1	0.813	12.654	0.842	0.640	0.718	–
	BPD_2	0.821	23.591
	BPD_3	0.763	14.902
Emotion	BPD_4	0.781	18.579	0.864	0.680	0.768	–
	BPD_5	0.830	23.700
	BPD_6	0.862	31.108
Skill	BPD_7	0.715	7.844	0.846	0.650	0.736	–
	BPD_8	0.892	31.363
	BPD_9	0.804	14.699
Worldview	BPD_10	0.816	11.094	0.883	0.717	0.801	–
	BPD_11	0.908	25.631
	BPD_12	0.812	12.384
Self-consciousness	BPD_13	0.617	3.495	0.831	0.557	0.775	–
	BPD_14	0.666	4.141
	BPD_15	0.858	17.286
	BPD_16	0.831	12.195
GSE	NGSE_1	0.684	14.997	0.882	0.518	0.844	0.199
	NGSE_2	0.661	10.235
	NGSE_3	0.763	20.077
	NGSE_4	0.679	14.505
	NGSE_5	0.749	23.605
	NGSE_6	0.739	24.617
	NGSE_8	0.756	25.648
SE	RSES_1	0.724	15.989	0.859	0.505	0.804	0.242
	RSES_2	0.721	14.079
	RSES_6	0.704	12.662
	RSES_7	0.763	17.879
	RSES_9	0.664	10.101
	RSES_10	0.682	11.991

Subsequently, convergent validity, discriminant validity, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for the latent constructs (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011) were examined. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, in both samples, the composite reliability scores of all latent constructs are greater than the threshold value of 0.70 (Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009), suggesting sufficient internal consistency of the measurements. In both samples, most AVE values exceeded the threshold value of 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Fornell and Larcker 1981). The one exception was with SE in the Chinese sample, which was only marginally below 0.50 (0.493). As AVE has been argued to be a very conservative measure and it has been suggested to evaluate convergent validity together with composite reliability (Fornell and Larcker 1981), the above findings generally indicate adequate convergent validity for all the constructs in both samples.

Discriminant validity can be established if different concepts or constructs are found to have a low correlation with each other, but have a high association with their respective measurement items. Discriminant validity has typically been examined based on the square root of AVE (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Specifically, the square root of the AVE of each latent construct should be higher than the construct’s highest correlation with any other latent construct. The correlation matrix of the constructs together with the square root of the AVEs is displayed in Table 4. In both samples, the indicators for all the constructs met this requirement, showing sufficient discriminant validity.

Table 4.

Correlations for the Constructs and the Square Root of AVE (Chinese and Western Samples).

	GSE		SE		Capability		Emotion		SC		Skill		World-View
	Chinese	Western	Chinese	Western	Chinese	Western	Chinese	Western	Chinese	Western	Chinese	Western	Chinese	Western
GSE	0.786	0.720
SE	0.638	0.439	0.702	0.710
Capability	0.287	0.391	0.246	0.158	0.910	0.800
Emotion	0.298	0.346	0.248	0.171	0.578	0.388	0.853	0.825
SC	0.278	0.303	0.203	0.194	0.362	0.515	0.365	0.533	0.828	0.746
Skill	0.338	0.267	0.283	0.156	0.520	0.495	0.528	0.367	0.535	0.536	0.864	0.806
World-View	0.211	0.237	0.085	0.096	0.507	0.543	0.416	0.353	0.615	0.605	0.489	0.369	0.903	0.847

Note: AVE = average variance extracted; GSE = general self-efficacy; SE = self-esteem; SC = self-consciousness. The bold numbers in the diagonal are square roots of the average variance extracted.

Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

As mentioned earlier, PLS_SEM was applied to estimate the causal relationships among BPD, GSE, and SE. In PLS_SEM, path coefficients and R-square (R²) are used to measure the strength of relationships among latent variables. In the PLS algorithm, a central criterion to assess the explanatory power of a structural model is the variance explained (R²). According to Chin (1998, 323), R² values of 0.19, 0.33, and 0.67 for endogenous latent constructs demonstrate “weak,” “moderate,” or “substantial” explanatory power of the model, respectively. In addition to Tables 2 and 3, the overall results of hypotheses testing are also shown in Figure 2 (Chinese sample) and Figure 3 (Western sample). The results are summarized in Table 5.

Figure 2.

Partial least squares results of the structural model (Chinese sample).

Figure 3.

Partial least squares results of the structural model (Western sample).

Table 5.

Results of Hypothesis Testing.

Hypotheses	Supported?
Hypotheses	Chinese Sample	Western Sample
Hypothesis 1: Skill→ GSE	√	×
Hypothesis 2: Capability→ GSE	×	√
Hypothesis 3: Emotion→ GSE	×	√
Hypothesis 4: Self-consciousness→ GSE	×	×
Hypothesis 5: Worldview→ GSE	×	×
Hypothesis 6: Skill→ SE	×	×
Hypothesis 7: Capability→ SE	×	×
Hypothesis 8: Emotion→ SE	×	×
Hypothesis 9: Self-consciousness→ SE	×	×
Hypothesis 10: Worldview→ SE	×	×
Hypothesis 11: GSE→ SE	√	√

Note: GSE = general self-efficacy; SE = self-esteem; √ = supported; × = not supported.

For the Chinese sample, in terms of the explanatory power of the structural model (R²), the five BPD constructs (i.e., skill, capability, emotions, self-consciousness, and worldview) explained 15.1% of the variance in GSE; the model explained 41.1% of the variance in SE.

Regarding the relationships between BPD constructs and GSE, only skill was found to (β=0.174, p<0.05) positively influence GSE, while capability, emotion, self-consciousness, and worldview did not (Figure 2). Regarding the relationships between BPD constructs and SE, unexpectedly, worldview (β=−0.185, p<0.05) was found to negatively influence SE (Figure 2). In addition, GSE was found to positively influence SE (β=0.598, p<0.001). Finally, following Baron and Kenny (1986), the mediating role of GSE was tested. It was found that GSE fully mediated the effect of skill on SE.

With the Western sample, a slightly different pattern was identified. Specifically, the five BPD constructs altogether explained 20.5% of the variance in GSE; the model explained 21.9% of the variance in SE. Regarding the relationships between BPD constructs and GSE, only capability (β=0.284, p<0.001) and emotion (β=0.203, p<0.001) were found to positively influence GSE (Figure 3). Regarding the relationships between BPD constructs and SE, no BPD constructs were found to significantly influence SE (Figure 3). Furthermore, GSE was found to positively influence SE (β=0.461, p<0.001). Finally, following Baron and Kenny (1986), the mediating role of GSE was tested. It was found that GSE did not mediate the effect of capability/emotion on SE.

On the basis of the results, hypotheses 1–3 were partially supported. Specifically, hypothesis 1 was supported only with the Chinese sample, while hypotheses 2 and 3 were only supported with the Western sample. Hypothesis 11 was supported in both samples, indicating that the relationships between GSE and SE were generally consistent across the two cultural groups of backpackers.

Discussions

As self-determination theory (SDT) posits, people’s satisfaction with their basic psychological needs of exploring, absorbing, and mastering their surroundings would positively contribute to their various self-developments (e.g., Deci and Ryan 1995; La Guardia 2009; Ryan and Deci 2000; Sheldon and Kasser 1998). Backpacker personal development (i.e., the specific personal developments enabled by backpacking; BPD) (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017) can be related to the satisfaction of backpackers’ various travel needs (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014b; Pearce and Foster 2007; Zhou 2014). Therefore, according to SDT, it is reasonable to postulate the effects of BPD on other related development constructs. However, the extant literature is limited in elucidating BPD’s direct effects on backpackers’ general psychological constructs (e.g., self-esteem and self-efficacy). As such, employing SDT as a supporting theory, the current study aimed to fill in this research gap by examining the relationships between BPD constructs, GSE and SE. The test was done with both Chinese and Western backpackers.

Theoretical Implications

This study enriched the theoretical understandings of the general positive psychological outcomes contributed by BPD, through an examination with two different cultural groups of backpackers. More importantly, it advanced the theory building of BPD (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017) by examining relationships between BPD and general positive psychological outcomes. Particularly, considering BPD as a new form of personal development in parallel to the formal education system (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Pearce and Foster 2007), the current study provides initial empirical evidence testifying the societal and health benefits of BPD across two different cultural groups of backpackers. Furthermore, both samples demonstrated a positive influence of GSE on SE, which is consistent with many previous studies in nontourism contexts (e.g., Gao, Jiang, and Huang 2014; Gardner and Pierce 1998; Lightsey et al. 2006). To sum up, findings of this study indicated the robustness of the structural relationships between BPD, GSE and SE.

The study found that BPD in its skill dimension played a marginal but significant role in influencing Chinese backpackers’ GSE (R²=15.1%). Similarly, BPD dimensions of capability and emotion played a marginal but significant role in influencing Western backpackers’ GSE (R²=20.5%). Except for the negative effect of worldview on SE among the Chinese respondents, none of the BPD dimensions were found to influence backpackers’ SE. Therefore, BPD appears to be more influential on GSE than on SE. This also suggests that personal development through backpacking may be more functional (as reflected in GSE) than attitudinal (as in SE). Nevertheless, the weak relations between BPD dimensions and GSE/SE indicated that other forms of personal growth may explain GSE and SE more significantly. The findings also echoed previous studies (e.g., G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Miao 2016; Pearce and Foster 2007) that suggested a weak link between BPD and general psychological development.

Among Chinese backpackers, only skill was found to positively influence GSE, while none of the BPD constructs were found to positively influence SE. However, skill development indirectly contributed to SE via the mediation of GSE. These findings are consistent with G. Chen, Bao, and Huang (2014a) in that Chinese backpackers’ skill development was positively associated with their SE. Regarding Western backpackers, this study demonstrates that only capability development and emotional adjustment positively contributed to their GSE, and that GSE did not mediate either relationship between capability development and SE or that between emotional adjustment and SE. None of the BPD constructs were found to directly influence Western backpackers’ SE. These findings partly echo G. Chen and Huang (2017) in that capability and emotion were positively correlated with GSE while none of the BPD constructs were associated with SE.

The above differences may be explained with respect to the different stages of backpacking development in and outside China in terms of backpackers’ maturity, that is, travel duration, independence, sensitivity to crisis event (e.g., Luo and Huang 2016; Zhu 2007). Specifically, previous literature has shown that Chinese backpackers tend to travel for a shorter period of time, compared with Western backpackers, due to cultural reasons and holiday policies in China (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014b; G. Chen and Huang 2017; Luo, Huang, and Brown 2015; Luo and Huang 2016; Zhu 2007). This difference was also found in our present study. The average length (planned days) of backpacking among Chinese respondents was about 24 days, while for Western respondents it was about 61 days (M_Chinese=23.6878; M_Western=60.8805; Mean difference=−37.19275; t=–4.216; p<0.001). In addition, the Chinese society is typically more collectivistic (C. H. Hsu and Huang 2016) and Chinese backpackers indeed showed distinct “group” or “collectivistic” characteristics as well as a lack of independence in their behaviors, compared with their Western counterparts (e.g., Luo, Huang, and Brown 2015; Shepherd 2009; Zhu 2007). Specifically, in their netnographic analysis of Chinese backpackers, Luo, Huang, and Brown (2015) found that more than 80% of the online narrative cases identified that the travel was organized in group; more than half of the online narrative cases reported on-road intra-group interactions. Similarly, Zhu (2007) found that independent Chinese backpackers accounted for less than 10% of the respondents. With regard to sensitivity, Zhu (2007) revealed that Chinese backpackers were more sensitive to crisis events than their Western counterparts.

The above situations have suggested that backpacking in China may be still at its early stage (e.g., Luo and Huang 2016; Mezirow 2000; Zhu 2007). Therefore, for relatively inexperienced and less mature Chinese backpackers, skills acquired in backpacking may be more dominant in influencing their GSE and SE. However, for relatively more experienced and mature Western backpackers, they may have already passed the stages of seeing skills as a dominant development form and more likely are in a stage of viewing capability development and emotional adjustment as dominant forms for GSE.

Finally, it is worth noting that Chinese backpackers’ changes in worldview were found to negatively influence their SE, which may also be explained with respect to their backpacking experience levels. According to attachment theory and terror management theory, human behavior is directed toward maintaining a sense of psychological security (Hart, Shaver, and Goldenberg 2005). As a result, worldview changes may represent a threat to a person’s psychological security, which in turn may cause cultural and identity anxiety and reduce self-belief and self-worth evaluations (Major et al. 2007). However, as transformative learning theory posits, people learn and change as a result of their experiences in varying stages and levels of learning (e.g., Coghlan and Gooch 2011; Mezirow 2000; Pearce and Foster 2007; Reisinger 2013). Therefore, in backpacking setting, worldview changes of backpackers in different stages with different levels of backpacking experiences are likely to have varying effects on SE. Consequently, for relatively less experienced Chinese backpackers, as they may still be in the stage of disillusion in the transformative learning process via backpacking (e.g., Coghlan and Gooch 2011; Mezirow 2000), it is more likely that their worldview changes will negatively affect their SE. However, for more experienced Western backpackers, as they may have already been through the disillusion stage of a transformative learning enabled by backpacking, it is less likely that their worldview change will affect their SE.

Practical Implications

This study generates practical implications for educational and health institutions, as well as backpackers seeking generalized personal development (i.e., GSE and SE). Backpacking has been commonly recognized as a very important approach to personal development (G. Chen, Bao, and Huang 2014a; G. Chen and Huang 2017). BPD’s contributions to individuals’ psychological well-being developments have been marginally confirmed in this study. Specifically, skill was found to positively influence Chinese backpackers’ GSE, and capability and emotion were found to positively influence Western backpackers’ GSE. Educational and health institutions, as well as backpackers seeking GSE and SE development, should be cautious and realistic on the overall effect of BPD on GSE and SE. Attention should be paid to specific BPD domains that were found to influence GSE and SE.

Specifically, as skill development was found to be the most important BPD domain for Chinese backpackers’ GSE and SE development, specialized programs, such as outdoor development training activities, professional schools, and seminars can be designed by travel facilitating businesses to target Chinese backpackers. Similarly, for Western backpackers, capability development and emotional adjustments were found to contribute to their GSE development. Accordingly, selective activities can be developed to target the Western backpacker market to promote their emotional adjustments and capability enhancement. These activities may be around thrilling and challenging sports (i.e., bungee jumping, white water rafting, and jungle adventure), calming and mind-opening attractions (e.g., meditation), as well as volunteering experiences.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of the current study should be acknowledged. First, following G. Chen and Huang (2017), our study used a “general” Western backpacker sample. We therefore caution that the findings based on the Western sample may not be generalizable to backpackers from any specific Western subculture. Fellow researchers are therefore encouraged to conduct further examinations on backpackers from specific Western cultures, such as British, American, German, French, Dutch, and Spanish backpackers. Meanwhile, given that backpackers from Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan have been increasing in number, future studies could verify the findings of the study with samples from these countries and regions. Second, given the exploratory nature of the study, only GSE and SE as core self-evaluation constructs were included in the model. Future studies could incorporate more relevant self-evaluation constructs, such as locus of control and neuroticism to advance the theoretical developments regarding BPD. Third, because of sampling convenience consideration, data collection of the study was completed only in three popular backpacker destinations in China. Future research could use samples collected from other popular backpacker destinations in China, such as Tibet, Qinghai, Sichuan, Guizhou, and Yunnan to further verify the findings of the current study. Meanwhile, future studies can also consider collecting cross-cultural samples in backpacker destinations outside China.

Footnotes

Appendix

Measurement Items.

Constructs	Code	Item Statements
Capability	BPD_1	My adaptive capability to environments has been improved.
	BPD_2	My capability to identify and resolve problems has been improved.
	BPD_3	My communication capability has been improved.
Emotion	BPD_4	My negative emotions have been well adjusted.
	BPD_5	My anxiety and stress has been relieved.
	BPD_6	My prior frustration has been well responded to.
Skill	BPD_7	My time management skills have been upgraded.
	BPD_8	My money management skills have been upgraded.
	BPD_9	My material (etc., daily-use goods) management skills have been upgraded.
Worldview	BPD_10	My view toward the world has been changed.
	BPD_11	My view toward life has been changed.
	BPD_12	My view of value has been changed.
Self-consciousness	BPD_13	The backpacking experiences have made me feel I am different.
	BPD_14	The view of people around toward me has been changed.
	BPD_15	My confidence has been increased.
	BPD_16	My self-discipline and self-control have been intensified.
Generalized Self-efficacy	NGSE_1	I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself.
	NGSE_2	When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them.
	NGSE_3	In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me.
	NGSE_4	I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set my mind.
	NGSE_5	I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges.
	NGSE_6	I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.
	NGSE_7	Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well.
	NGSE_8	Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.
Self-esteem	RSES_1	I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
	RSES_2	I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
	RSES_3	All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
	RSES_4	I am able to do things as well as most other people.
	RSES_5	I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
	RSES_6	I take a positive attitude toward myself.
	RSES_7	On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
	RSES_8	I wish I could have more respect for myself.
	RSES_9	I certainly feel useless at times.
	RSES_10	At times I think I am no good at all.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the research student investigators and backpackers who participated in the questionnaire surveys.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41501154) and Tourism Youth Expert Training Program of the China National Tourism Administration (Grant No. TYETP201542).

Author Biographies

Ganghua Chen, PhD, is an associate professor in tourism management in the School of Tourism Management and a member of the Center for Tourism Planning and Research at Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. His research interests include tourist behaviors, destination marketing, backpacker tourism, resort governance, and resort environment restorativeness.

Songshan (Sam) Huang, PhD, is a professor of tourism & services marketing, School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University. His research interests include tourist behaviors, destination marketing, tour guiding, and various Chinese tourism and hospitality issues.

Xianyang Hu, PhD, is a lecturer in the School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, China. His research interests are tourist behaviors and tourism geographies.

References

Bagozzi

R. P.

1988. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1): 74–94.

Bandura

1986. “The Explanatory and Predictive Scope of Self-Efficacy Theory.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4 (3): 359–73.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–82.

Belgrave

F. Z.

Cherry

V. R.

Cunningham

Walwyn

Letdaka-Rennert

Phillips

1994. “The Influence of Africentric Values, Self-Esteem, and Black Identity on Drug Attitudes among African American Fifth Graders: A Preliminary Study.” Journal of Black Psychology 20 (2): 143–56.

Bui

H. T.

Wilkins

H. C.

Lee

Y.-S.

2013a. “The Social Identities of Japanese Backpackers.” Tourism Culture & Communication 13 (3): 147–59.

Bui

H. T.

Wilkins

H. C.

Lee

Y.-S.

2013b. “The ‘Imagined West’ of Young Independent Travellers from Asia.” Annals of Leisure Research 16 (2): 130–48.

Carmines

E. G.

Zeller

R. A.

1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chang

C. H.

Ferris

D. L.

Johnson

R. E.

Rosen

C. C.

Tan

J. A.

2012. “Core Self-Evaluations: A Review and Evaluation of the Literature.” Journal of Management 38 (1): 81–128.

Chen

Bao

Huang

S. S.

2014a. “Developing a Scale to Measure Backpackers’ Personal Development.” Journal of Travel Research 53 (4): 522–36.

10.

Chen

Bao

Huang

S. S.

2014b. “Segmenting Chinese Backpackers by Travel Motivations.” International Journal of Tourism Research 16 (4): 355–67.

11.

Chen

Gully

S. M.

Eden

2001. “Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale.” Organizational Research Methods 4 (1): 62–83.

12.

Chen

Gully

S. M.

Eden

2004. “General Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem: Toward Theoretical and Empirical Distinction between Correlated Self-Evaluations.” Journal of organizational Behavior 25 (3): 375–95.

13.

Chen

Huang

S. S.

2017. “Toward a Theory of Backpacker Personal Development: Cross-Cultural Validation of the BPD Scale.” Tourism Management 59:630–39.

14.

Chen

Lehto

X. Y.

Cai

2013. “Vacation and Well-Being: A Study of Chinese Tourists.” Annals of Tourism Research 42:284–310.

15.

Chin

W. W.

1998. “The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling.” In Modern Methods for Business Research, edited by Marcoulides

G. A.

, 295–358. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Coghlan

Gooch

2011. “Applying a Transformative Learning Framework to Volunteer Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19 (6): 713–28.

17.

Dai

2010. A Handbook of Common Psychometric Scales. Beijing: People’s Military Medical Press.

18.

de Bloom

Geurts

S. A.

Sonnentag

Taris

de Weerth

Kompier

M. A.

2011. “How Does a Vacation from Work Affect Employee Health and Well-Being?” Psychology & Health 26 (12): 1606–22.

19.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

1995. “Human Autonomy: The Basis for True Self-Esteem.” In Efficacy, Agency, and Self-esteem, edited by Kemis

, 31–49. New York: Plenum.

20.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

2000. “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior.” Psychological Inquiry 11 (4): 227–68.

21.

Durko

A. M.

Petrick

J. F.

2013. “Family and Relationship Benefits of Travel Experiences: A Literature Review.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (6): 720–30.

22.

Fornell

Larcker

1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.

23.

Gao

Jiang

Huang

2014. “General Self-Efficacy and Well-Being Index: Self-Esteem as a Mediator.” Psychological Research 7 (2): 62–67.

24.

Gardner

D. G.

Pierce

J. L.

1998. “Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy within the Organizational Context: An Empirical Examination.” Group & Organization Management 23 (8): 48–70.

25.

Gist

M. E.

Mitchell

T. R.

1992. “Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability.” Academy of Management Review 17 (2): 183–211.

26.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

2011. “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (2): 139–51.

27.

Hair

J. F.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Mena

J. A.

2012. “An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing Research.” Journal of the Academy Marketing Science 40:414–33.

28.

Hallak

Assaker

O’Connor

2014. “Are Family and Nonfamily Tourism Businesses Different? An Examination of the Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy—Entrepreneurial Performance Relationship.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 38 (3): 388–413.

29.

Hart

Shaver

P. R.

Goldenberg

J. L.

2005. “Attachment, Self-Esteem, Worldviews, and Terror Management: Evidence for a Tripartite Security System.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (6): 999–10132.

30.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sinkovics

R. R.

2009. “The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing.” In Advances in International Marketing, edited by Sinkovics

Ghauri

P. N.

, 277–320. Bingley: Emerald.

31.

Holloway

Green

Holloway

2011. “The Intratourist Gaze: Grey Nomads and ‘Other Tourists.’” Tourist Studies 11 (3): 235–52.

32.

Hsu

C. H.

Huang

S. S.

2016. “Reconfiguring Chinese Cultural Values and Their Tourism Implications.” Tourism Management 54:230–42.

33.

Hsu

C.-Y.

Lee

W.-H.

Chen

W.-Y.

2017. “How to Catch Their Attention? Taiwanese Flashpackers Inferring Their Travel Motivation from Personal Development and Travel Experience.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 22 (2): 117–30.

34.

Huang

Wang

Zhang

2014. “Backpacker Online: Seeking Identification from Mobility.” Tourism Tribune 29 (11): 87–94.

35.

Huang

2015. “A Study of Tourists’ Emotional Experience Process Based on Space-Time Path: A Case Study of Ocean Park in Hong Kong.” Tourism Tribune 30 (6): 39–45.

36.

Hulland

1999. “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies.” Strategic Management Journal 20 (2):195–204.

37.

Judge

T. A.

Erez

A. E.

Bono

J. E.

1998. “The Power of Being Positive: The Relation between Positive Self-Concept and Job Performance.” Human Performance 11 (2/3): 167–87.

38.

Kanning

2008. “Influence of Overseas Travel Experiences on the Worldviews of U.S. Backpackers.” Unpublished PhD diss., Clemson University, United States-South Carolina.

39.

Kasser

Ryan

R. M.

1996. “Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22 (3): 280–87.

40.

Kim

J.-H.

2013. “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Memorable Tourism Experiences of American and Taiwanese College Students.” Anatolia 24 (3): 337–51.

41.

La Guardia

J. G

. 2009. “Developing Who I Am: A Self-Determination Theory Approach to the Establishment of Healthy Identities.” Educational Psychologist 44 (2): 90–104.

42.

Leung

Law

2010. “A Review of Personality Research in the Tourism and Hospitality Context.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 27 (5): 439–59.

43.

Wang

Zhang

2008. “The Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem of College Students.” China Journal of Health Psychology 16 (4): 403–4.

44.

2014. “Cross-Cultural Tourist Research: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 38 (1): 40–77.

45.

Lightsey

O. R.

Burke

Ervin

Henderson

Yee

2006. “Generalized Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, and Negative Affect.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 38 (1): 72–80.

46.

Loureiro

S. M. C.

González

F. J. M.

2008. “The Importance of Quality, Satisfaction, Trust, and Image in Relation to Rural Tourist Loyalty.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 25 (2): 117–36.

47.

Luo

Huang

S. S.

2016. “A Comparative Study between Chinese and Western Backpackers: Seeing with the Host Gaze.” Tourism Tribune 31 (11): 32–41.

48.

Luo

Huang

S. S.

Brown

2015. “Backpacking in China: A Netnographic Analysis of Donkey Friends’ Travel Behavior.” Journal of China Tourism Research 11 (1): 67–84.

49.

Major

Kaiser

C. R.

O’Brien

L. T.

McCoy

S. K.

2007. “Perceived Discrimination as Worldview Threat or Worldview Confirmation: Implications for Self-esteem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (6): 1068–86.

50.

Mezirow

2000. “Learning to Think Like an Adult: Core Concepts of Transformative Theory.” In Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspective on a Theory in Progress, edited by J. Mezirow and Associates, 3–33. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

51.

Miao

2016. “The Role of Self-Reflection in Backpackers’ Personal Development: An Auto-ethnographic Perspective.” Tourism Tribune 31 (11): 22–31.

52.

Mitas

Yarnal

Adams

Ram

2012. “Taking a ‘Peak’ at Leisure Travelers’ Positive Emotions.” Leisure Sciences 34 (2): 115–35.

53.

Mitchell

T. R.

Hopper

Daniels

George-Falvy

James

L. R.

1994. “Predicting Self-Efficacy and Performance during Skill Acquisition.” Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (4): 506–17.

54.

Nawijn

Mitas

Lin

Kerstetter

2013. “How Do We Feel on Vacation? A Closer Look at How Emotions Change over the Course of a Trip.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (2): 265–74.

55.

Noy

2004. “This Trip Really Changed Me: Backpackers’ Narratives of Self-Change.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (1): 78–102.

56.

Okech

A. P.

Harrington

2002. “The Relationships among Black Consciousness, Self-Esteem, and Academic Self-Efficacy in African American Men.” Journal of Psychology 136 (2): 214–24.

57.

O’Reilly

C. C.

2006. “From Drifter to Gap Year Tourist: Mainstreaming Backpacker Travel.” Annals of Tourism Research 33 (4): 998–1017.

58.

Pan

T. J.

2012. “Motivations of Volunteer Overseas and What Have We Learned—The Experience of Taiwanese Students.” Tourism Management 33 (6): 1493–501.

59.

Pan

T. J.

2017. “Personal Transformation through Volunteer Tourism: The Evidence of Asian Students.” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 41 (5): 609–34.

60.

Paris

C. M.

Musa

Thirumoorthi

2015. “A Comparison between Asian and Australasia Backpackers Using Cultural Consensus Analysis.” Current Issues in Tourism 18 (2): 175–95.

61.

Pearce

P. L.

Foster

F. A.

, 2007. “‘University of Travel’: Backpacker Learning.” Tourism Management 28 (5): 1285–98.

62.

Pearce

P. L.

Murphy

Brymer

2009. Evolution of the Backpacker Market and the potential for Australian Tourism. Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd.

63.

Prideaux

Shiga

2007. “Japanese Backpacking: The Emergence of a New Market Sector—A Queensland Case Study.” Tourism Review International 11:45–56.

64.

Reichel

Fuchs

Uriely

2007. “Perceived Risk and the Non-institutionalized Tourist Role: The Case of Israeli Student Ex-backpackers.” Journal of Travel Research 46 (2): 217–26.

65.

Reisinger

2013. “Transformation and Transformational Learning Theory.” In Transformational Tourism: Tourist Perspectives, edited by Reisinger

, 17–26. Boston: CABI.

66.

Riggio

R. E.

Throckmorton

Depaola

1990. “Social Skills and Self-Esteem.” Personality and Individual Differences 11 (8): 799–804.

67.

Rosenberg

1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

68.

Rowley

S. J.

Sellers

R. M.

Chavous

T. M.

Smith

M. A.

1998. “The Relationship between Racial Identity and Self-Esteem in African American College and High School Students.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (3): 715–24.

69.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78.

70.

Scarinci

Pearce

P. L.

2012. “The Perceived Influence of Travel Experiences on Learning Generic Skills.” Tourism Management 33 (2): 380–86.

71.

Schunk

D. H.

Gunn

T. P.

1986. “Self-Efficacy and Skill Development: Influence of Task Strategies and Attributions.” Journal of Educational Research 79 (4): 238–44.

72.

Sheldon

K. M.

Kasser

1998. “Pursuing Personal Goals: Skills Enable Progress, but Not All Progress Is Beneficial.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (12): 1319–31.

73.

Shepherd

2009. “Cultural Preservation, Tourism and ‘Donkey Travel’ on China’s Frontier.” In Asia on Tour: Exploring the Rise of Asian Tourism, edited by Winter

Teo

Chang

T. C.

, 253–63. London: Routledge.

74.

Shiau

W. L.

2016. Statistical Analysis: SPSS Chinese Edition and SmartPLS 3 (PLS_SEM). Taipei: GoTop Information Inc.

75.

Simon

2004. Identity in Modern Society: A Social Psychological Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

76.

Sin

L. Y. M.

Cheung

W. G.

Lee

1999. “Methodology in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research and Critical Assessment.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 11 (4): 75–96.

77.

Sirgy

J. M.

Stephanes

P. K.

Lee

D. J.

G. B.

2011. “How Does a Travel Trip Affect Tourists’ Life Satisfaction?” Journal of Travel Research 50 (3): 261–75.

78.

Steyn

Saayman

Nienaber

2004. “The Impact of Tourist and Travel Activities on Facets of Psychological Well-Being.” South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation 26 (1): 97–106.

79.

Stone

M. J.

Petrick

J. F.

2013. “The Educational Benefits of Travel Experiences: A Literature Review.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (6): 731–44.

80.

2009. “On Spatial Travel Flow Pattern of International Backpackers Visiting China.” Tourism Tribune 24 (1): 61–65.

81.

Thatcher

C. A.

2010. “International Learning Adventures: A Phenomenological Exploration of International Backpacker Style Study Abroad.” Unpublished PhD diss., Prescott College, Arizona.

82.

Tsaur

S. H.

C. H.

Yen

Chen

C. L.

2010. “Independent Tourist Knowledge and Skills.” Annals of Tourism Research 37 (4): 1035–54.

83.

van Dinther

Dochy

Segers

. 2011. “Factors Affecting Students’ Self-Efficacy in Higher Education.” Educational Research Review 6 (2): 95–108.

84.

Vincent

2008. “Differentiating Competence, Capability and Capacity.” http://www.innovationsthatwork.com/pdf/June08newsltr.pdf (accessed January 5, 2016).

85.

Wang

Miao

2012. “The Research on the Relationship among Academic Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem and Learning Burnout of the University Student.” Journal of Northeast Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 1:192–96.

86.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2016. “Mental Health: Strengthening Our Response.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs220/en/ (accessed August 19, 2017).

87.

Wilson

Harris

2006. “Meaningful Travel: Women, Independent Travel and the Search for Self and Meaning.” Tourism 54 (2): 161–72.

88.

2013. Structural Equation Modeling: Advanced Application with AMOS. Chongqing: Chongqing University Publishing House.

89.

2014. “A Study of the Changes of Backpackers’ Generic Skills Based on Tourist Interaction.” Tourism Science 28 (1): 1–13; 21.

90.

Y. Q.

C. D.

Liang

N. J.

2004. General Psychology. Shanghai: East China Normal University Publishing House.

91.

Shen

2013. “A Study on the Construction of Self-Identification in Backpackers’ Travel Experience.” Tourism Science 11:9–14.

92.

Zhang

Morrison

A. M.

Tucker

2017. “Am I a Backpacker? Factors Indicating the Social Identity of Chinese Backpackers.” Journal of Travel Research 57 (4): 525–39.

93.

Zhao

Seibert

S. E.

Hills

G. E.

2005. “The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (6): 1265–72.

94.

Zheng

Zhao

2015. “Relationship between Internet Altruistic Behavior and Hope of Middle School Students: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem.” Psychological Development and Education 31 (4): 428–36.

95.

Zhou

2014. “Transformational Tourism: The Example of Backpackers in Tibet.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

96.

Zhu

2007. “Backpacker Tourism: Theoretical and Empirical Study Based on China.” Unpublished PhD diss., East China Normal University, Shanghai.