Korea Tourism Research Association

Current issue

International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research - Vol. 31 , No. 10

[ Article ]
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research - Vol. 31, No. 10, pp.33-43
ISSN: 1738-3005 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Oct 2017
Received 22 Aug 2017 Revised 10 Sep 2017 Accepted 13 Sep 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21298/IJTHR.2017.10.31.10.33

The effect of reality program viewing motivation on outdoor recreation behavioral intention
: Focusing on the Korean travel reality program “Dad! Where are we going?”
Jinok Susanna Kim* ; Robert John Hart ; Hee-Ja An**
*Lecturer, College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Republic of Korea (s2924@khu.ac.kr)
**Researcher, Korea Culture & Tourism Institute, Seoul, 07511, Republic of Korea (heeja21@kcti.re.kr)

Correspondence to : Assistant professor, College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, e-mail: robhart@khu.ac.kr


Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine how viewing motivations for a reality program influence potential outdoor recreation participants’ attitudes and behavioral intention. The data were collected from May 20 to June 4, 2013. Out of 422 collected questionnaires, 385 questionnaires were used for empirical analysis with SPSS 21.0 Frequency analysis, exploratory factor analysis, regression analysis, and Sobel test were performed. As a result of the analyses, potential outdoor recreation participants’ motivations (learning, amusement, and character) had significant positive effects on attitude and behavioral intention. Attitude had a significant positive effect on behavioral intention. In, addition, attitude had a partial mediating effect on motivation. However, character had no significant effect. Thus, the study results shown that tourism reality programs can be important in the outdoor recreation decision-making process.


Keywords: Reality program, Viewing motivation, Outdoor recreation, Dad! Where we are going?

Ⅰ. Introduction

Since the mass media significantly affects the tourism industry, tourist destinations featured in the mass media draw a lot of attention (Hudson & Ritchie, 2006; O'Connor, Flanagan & Gilbert, 2008; Rittichainuwat & Rattanaphinanchai, 2015; Yoon, Kim, & Kim, 2015; Zhang, Ryan & Cave, 2016). This phenomenon belongs mainly to the area of film tourism and is mostly found in the filming sites of movies or dramas (Chan, 2007; Gong & Tung, 2016; Kim & Wang, 2012; Kim, 2012; Spears, Josiam, Kinley, & Pookulangara, 2013). As reality programs have become more popular around the world, they have greatly affected the tourism industry (Fu, Ye, & Xiang, 2016; Kim & Kim, 2016; Tessitore, Pandelaere, & Van Kerckhove, 2014). In South Korea the number of tourism-related reality programs has increased with the diversification of broadcasting due to the launch of comprehensive programming channels in 2011. In addition, outdoor recreation activities have considerably increased due to the interaction of the mass media and social culture, resulting in the rapid growth of related industries (Kim & Kim, 2016; Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2014). Among others, it was found that the industries for hiking and auto-camping have grown extensively, with auto-camping being especially popular with families (Kim & Kim, 2013). When camping activities with fathers was broadcast in reality programs, the number of fathers camping with children in increased in imitation of the show (Kim & Kim, 2013; Lee, Ko, & Kim, 2014).

A tourism reality program is a program in which the detailed information about the destinations is shown to viewers as the show participants travel around the featured areas, unlike dramas or movies where certain destinations serve only as background to the stories. Therefore, viewers of a reality program are more motivated to visit the destinations as they are a significant feature of the program than are viewers of movies or dramas, which are the main genres of conventional film tourism study (Fu, Ye, & Xiang, 2016; Kim & Kim, 2016; Tessitore, Pandelaere, & Van Kerckhove, 2014). Consequently, tourism researchers are beginning to pay more attention to the reality show genre. In addition, while the focus of studies on the film tourism have focused on the featured destinations, the focus of studies on reality programs, which expose a variety of outdoor recreation activities, can be directed toward the decision-making process of thosesaid activities. In particular, tourism reality programs provide detailed information about tourist attractions explored by the cast. Therefore, all the cast who are active in the featured travel spots affect potential tourists. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of tourism reality programs, which is a genre other than film and drama, on the decision-making process.

This study investigates the future decision-making process to engage in outdoor recreation activities of viewers of the reality program “‘Dad! Where are we going,” which highlights various outdoor recreation activities at different destinations. More specifically, this study attempts to examine the influence of the motivations to watch the program (learning, amusement, and character) on attitude and behavioral intention toward outdoor recreation participation by viewers. This study is different from most film tourism research as it focuses on the recreation participation of viewers and not on the destination. In addition, this study is thought to be of helpful for the outdoor recreation industry, which has been significantly growing through the influence of the mass media.


II. Literature review
1. Tourism reality programs

A reality program is a program that adds fun and interesting elements to a realistic story. It can take a variety of forms by denying formality (Kilborn, 1994). Reality programs can show everything within the lives or activities of individuals within the frame of the cameras and can provide entertainment with lower production costs than traditional scripted programs (Gardyn, 2001; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2007).

The tourism reality program is a broadcasting genre that introduces travel spots and follows the cast as they travel there. Recently, as TV channels have diversified, broadcasting companies have greatly increased the number of tourism reality programs. This tendency is because modern tourists choose tourism destinations or activities by previewing various tourism opportunities through the mass media (Kim & Kim, 2014; Urry & Larsen, 2011). The kinds of tourism reality programs are various, including those that focus on wilderness survival, entertainment, lifestyle, and cooking.

Traditional television programs featuring tourism destinations often covered places such as world heritage sites usingor used the documentary format. In recent years, however, the number of programs has increased along with the number, of viewers. Tourism reality programs meet the tourism need of viewers as they realistically describe tourist destinations from the viewpoint of tourists and provide abundant travel information. For this reason, studies on tourism reality programs have been conducted from the perspective of tourism (Fu et al., 2016; Kim & Kim, 2016; Tessitore et al., 2014).

For example, Tessitore et al. (2014) found that a reality program can change the destination image of the place in which the reality program is set. Fu et al. (2016) studied the relationship between audience involvement through a reality program, image (affective and cognitive), and behavioral intentions. The results showed that audience involvement and image were important factors in behavioral intention.

2. Viewing motivation

Motivation helps individuals decide future actions as it affects their behavior or activity through their desires (Dann, 1981). Motivation is also a variable to explain individuals’ behavior because it helps the individuals decide how to behave (Fodness, 1994; Richards, 2002). Therefore, the viewing motivation of individuals is a variable to explain the behavior of the individuals to view certain programs. Many scholars have examined the various motives of viewers (e.g., enjoyment, social learning, relaxation, passing time, entertainment, companionship, amusement, escapism) of viewers to watch certain programs (Aubrey, Olson, Fine, Hauser, Rhea, Kaylor, & Yang, 2012; Conway & Rubin, 1991; Tiggemann, 2005). In addition, many studies have been carried out on the motivations to watch reality programs by a number of scholars (Godlewski & Perse, 2010; Kumar & Arulchelvan, 2015; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2007; Woods & Ebersole, 2007).

For example, Aubry et al. (2015) investigated such viewing motivations of reality programs as relaxation, passing time, entertainment, companionship, arousal, social interaction, and information. Godlewski and Perse (2010) found motivations for watching reality programs to be social learning, excitement, entertainment, habit, passing time, voyeurism, and relax-escape. Woods and Ebersole (2007) isolated such motivations as personal identification with real characters, entertainment, mood change, passing time, and vicarious participation. Kumar and Arulchelvan (2015) found that viewing motivations included opportunities and confidence, talent-showcase, reward, and competitiveness.

In many previous studies, viewing motivation influenced future decision making. Lee and Chung (2011) investigated the influence of TV sports program viewing motivations on attitude and behavioral intention regarding a physical education. Chung and Choi (2007) found that TV viewing motivation positively affected attitude through behavioral intention in university students. Yang and Lee (2012) found that TV viewing motivations significantly affected attitude and behavioral intention, and Lee and Chun (2013) found that TV viewing motivations positively affected attitude and participant intention. Thus, in this study it was hypothesized that:

H1: Viewing motivation has a positive effect on outdoor recreation attitude.

H2: Viewing motivation has a positive effect on outdoor recreation behavioral intention.

3. Attitude and behavioral intention

Attitude is a continuous assessment of beliefs in and feelings about certain objects (Bettinghaus & Cody, 1987; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), while behavioral intention is an intention to conduct certain behaviors according to individuals’ experience and knowledge (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (2005) suggested that attitude is the subject of assessment (people, products, organizations, policies, etc.) and behavioral intention is the anticipation of the situation to be acted upon for the subjects given their beliefs and norms. In this context, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) suggested the theory of reasoned action (TRA) by adding subjective norms to attitude and behavioral intention. Afterwards, Ajzen (1991) developed the theory of planned behavior (TPB) by supplementing perceived behavioral control, which considers the external environment to the theory of reasoned action. In the tourism industry, studies have been actively conducted to investigate behavioral intention through attitude because it is essential to understand the decision making of tourists (Han, Hsu, & Sheu, 2010; Han, Lee, & Lee, 2011; Lam & Hsu, 2004; March & Woodside, 2005; Quintal, Lee, & Soutar, 2010; Shah Alam & Mohamed Sayuti, 2011).

For example, Han et al. (2011) studied the relationship between the expectation of receiving a tourist visa exemption through Chinese tourists’ intention to visit South Korea. The results of the study show that the expectation of a tourist visa exemption significantly affected visit intention and attitude. Shah Alam and Mohamed Sayuti (2011) examined halal food purchasing behavioral intention in Malaysia. The results of their study show that attitude had a significant positive influence on halal food purchasing intention. Han et al. (2010) found that attitude had a significant positive influence on green hotel visit intention. Also, Quintal et al. (2010) investigated the relationship between attitude and Australia visit intention in Koreans and Chinese. Lo and Qu (2015) examined the relationship between Hong Kong shopping and behavioral intentions for Chinese tourists. Han, Meng, and Kim (2017) investigated the relationship between bicycle touring attitude and behavioral intention for Chinese bicycle clubs.

In many previous studies, attitudes were found to influence behavioral intention. In addition, hypotheses were established to clarify the mediating role of attitude in the influence relationship between viewing motivation and behavioral intention. Thus, in this study it was hypothesized that:

H3: Outdoor recreation attitude has a positive effect on behavioral intention.

H4: Outdoor recreation attitude plays a mediating role between viewing motivation and behavioral intention.


III. Methodology
1. Research model

This study aimed to reveal how tourism reality program viewing motivation affects attitude and outdoor recreation behavioral intention. Therefore, the research models and hypotheses were formulated on the basis of previous studies (Han et al., 2011; Kim & Kim, 2014; Lam & Hsu, 2004; March & Woodside, 2005; Quick, Morgan, LaVoie, & Bosch, 2014; Shim, Oh, Song, & Lee, 2015; Ward & Friedman, 2006). In addition, the research model was set up as shown in <Figure 1> to verify the mediating effect (Çabuk, Tanrikulu, & Gelibolu, 2014; Lin, 2014; Prayag, Hosany, Nunkoo, & Alders, 2013; Shanmugam, Savarimuthu, & Wen, 2014) of attitude on the influence relationship between viewing motivation and behavioral intention.


Figure 1. 
Research model

2. Measurement

The scale for motivation was extracted in two ways. First, motivation items posted on a message board for viewers were collected. At the same time, the questions related to the viewing motives were posted on a private Internet café. Then, the items from the café that overlapped with the motive items on the message board were extracted as the final measurement items. Second, viewing motivation was measured through a scale used in previous research (Kim & Kim, 2014; Godlewski & Perse, 2010; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2007; Woods & Ebersole, 2007). Third, the final items consisted of learning, amusement, and character factors. After confirming the validity of the extracted items with the researcher and relevant academics, reliability was confirmed through reliability analysis.

Equally, attitude and behavioral intention were assessed through a scale based on previous research (Han et al., 2010; Han et al., 2011; Lam & Hsu, 2004; March & Woodside, 2005; Quintal, Lee, & Soutar, 2010; Shah Alam & Mohamed Sayuti, 2011). All measurement elements were measured with a seven-point Likert- type scale (1. Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Somewhat disagree, 4. Neither agree or disagree, 5. Somewhat agree, 6. Agree, 7. Strongly agree).

3. Data collection and data analysis

For this study data were collected from May 20 to June 4, 2013, from the Seoul metropolitan areabased on the audience rating of the media research company Nielsen Korea. Quota sampling was conducted based on the audience ratings of area residents by the media research company Nielsen Korea. For this purpose, 22 master’s and doctoral students majoring in tourism in H and K universities surveyed adults who had experienced watching the “Dad! Where are we going?” reality program. In the pilot survey, understanding of outdoor recreation was low, so the researchers explained the type and scope of outdoor recreation to respondents. Out of 422 collected questionnaires, 385 questionnaires were used for empirical analysis.

SPSS 21.0 was used for frequency analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Also, regression analysis and Sobel test (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982, 1986) were done. In the first stage, regression analysis was executed to identify the Beta and test the hypotheses of the research model. Second, three-step regression and Sobel test were executed to identify the mediating effects and test the hypotheses.


Ⅳ. Results
1. Respondents’ demographic characteristics

The demographic characteristics of respondents can be seen in <Table 1>. The majority of respondents were female (62.9%). Marital status was 62.6% single and 37.4% married. As for the age of the respondents, the largest group was 19-29 years-old (34.0%), followed by 30~39 years-old (32.2%), 40-49 years-old (24.2%), 50-59 years-old (7.8%), and 60 years-old (1.8%). The level of education of respondents showed 18.4% for high school or less, 26.8% for junior college, 41.8% for university, and 13.0% for graduate school or above. In occupation, professionals accounted for 17.1%, 10.4% for business, 20.5% for service, 15.1% for clerical, 1.6% for government official, 4.9% for house wife, 27.3% for student, .8% for the unemployed, and 2.3% for other. In the monthly household income, .5% of respondents earned less than 1 million Korean won, 40.5% checked1-2.99 million won, 31.9% checked 3-4.99 million won, 17.1% checked 5-6.99 million won, and 9.9% claimed over 7 million won.

Table 1. 
Demographic characteristics of respondents
Characteristics Sample % Characteristics Sample %
Gender Male 143 37.1 Marital
status
Single 241 62.6
Female 242 62.9 Married 144 37.4
Education High school or less 71 18.4 Age 19 ~ 29 131 34.0
Junior college 103 26.8 30 ~ 39 124 32.2
University 161 41.8 40 ~ 49 93 24.2
Graduate school 50 13.0 50 ~ 59 30 7.8
Occupation Professional 66 17.1 Over 60 7 1.8
Business 40 10.4 Monthly
household
income
Less than 1 million won 2 .5
Service 79 20.5 1-2.99 million won 156 40.5
Clerical 58 15.1 3-4.99 million won 123 31.9
Government official 6 1.6 5-6.99 million won 66 17.1
House wife 19 4.9 Over 7 million won 38 9.9
Student 105 27.3
Unemployed 3 .8
Other 9 2.3
Total 385 100% Total 385 100%
Note: * US$1 = 1,138 KRW (Korean Won)

2. Exploratory factor analysis

As shown in Table 2, three underlying dimensions from the EFA were confirmed from the 11 viewing motivation variables based on factor loadings of .5 or higher, communality of .4 or higher, eigenvalue of above 1.0, and Cronbach’s alpha of .6 or higher. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test of sphericity chi-squared were .850 and 2476.644 (p<.001), respectively. The first factor consists of the four variables of reality program impact: “Because I can learn something that I haven’t tried before,” “Because I can learn in advance something that hasn’t happened to me,” “Because I feel like I have the same experience as the participants,” and “Because I can feel a vicarious satisfaction through the participants.,” This factor is named “Learning,” and it explains 48.05% with an eigenvalue of 5.29. The second factor includes four variables: “Because the program provides interesting entertainment,” “Because it is fun and touching,” “Because it gives a pleasant rest,” and “Because it makes me relax.” This factor is named “Amusement,” and it explains 15.33% with an eigenvalue of 1.69. The third factor includes three variables: “Because of the troubled parenting of the dads,” “Because of the innocent behavior of the children,” and “Because I can feel love for my family.”. This factor, named “Character,” explains 9.50% with an eigenvalue of 1.05. One underlying dimension from the EFA was confirmed from the four outdoor recreation attitude variables based on a factor loading of .5 or higher, communality of .4 or higher, eigenvalue of 2.99, and Cronbach’s alpha of .885. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test of sphericity chi-squared were .808 and 888.525 (p<.001), respectively. This factor, named “Attitude,” explains 74.70% with an eigenvalue of 2.98. Lastly, one underlying dimension from the EFA was confirmed from the four outdoor recreation behavioral intention variables based a factor loading of .5 or higher, communality of .4 or higher, eigenvalue of 3.31, and Cronbach’s alpha of .930. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test of sphericity chi-squared were .859 and 1263.010 (p<.001), respectively. This factor, named “behavioral intention,” explains 82.71% with an eigenvalue of 3.31.

Table 2. 
Results of exploratory factor analysis
Constructs and items λ C EV VE α
Motivation- Learning 5.286 48.052 .882
Because I can learn something that I haven’t tried before .874 .792
Because I can learn in advance something that hasn’t happened to me .872 .777
Because I feel like I have the same experience as the participants .784 .756
Because I can feel a vicarious satisfaction through the participants .744 .689
Motivation- Amusement 1.686 15.329 .844
Because the program provides interesting entertainment .729 .579
Because it is fun and touching .730 .699
Because it gives a pleasant rest .840 .809
Because it makes me relax .754 .684
Motivation-Character behavioral 1.045 9.497 .814
Because of the troubled parenting of the dads .865 .798
Because of the innocent behavior of the children .846 .804
Because I can feel love for my family .664 .630
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin: .850, Bartlett’s test of sphericity: 2476.644(p7lt;.001), Total variance explained: 72.878
Attitude 2.988 74.701 .885
1 I think outdoor recreation is valuable. .867 .752
2 I think outdoor recreation is attractive. .875 .765
3 I think outdoor recreation is positive. .903 .815
4 I think outdoor recreation is joyful. .810 .656
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin: .808, Bartlett’s test of sphericity: 888.525(p<.001), Total variance explained: 74.701
Behavioral intention 3.309 82.717 .930
1 I have a plan to participate in outdoor recreation in the near future. .892 .795
2 I will make an effort to participate in outdoor recreation in the near future. .928 .861
3 I have an intention to participate in outdoor recreation in the near future. .932 .869
4 I’m willing to invest time and money to travel overseas in the near future. .885 .783
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin: .859, Bartlett’s test of sphericity: 1263.010(p<.001), Total variance explained: 82.717
Notes: ⋋: Factor loading, C: Communality, EV: Eigenvalue, VE: Variance explained, α: Cronbach’s alpha

3. Hypothesis testing
1) Results of regression analysis

In this study, results of the regression analysis are indicated in Table 3. Results show that learning motivation (LM) (βLM→AT=.122, t=2.467, p<.05), amusement motivation (AM) (βAM→AT=.185, t=3.713, p<.001), and character motivation (CM) (βCM→AT=.098, t=1.971, p<.05) had a significant effect on attitude (AT). Thus, H1-1, H1-2, and H1-3 are supported. In addition, learning motivation (LM) (βLM→BI=.160, t=3.277, p<.01), amusement motivation (AM) (βAM→BI=.197, t=4.035, p<.001), and character motivation (CM) (βCM→BI=.168, t=3.451, p<.01) had a significant effect on behavioral intention (BI). Thus, H2-1, H2-2, and H2-3 are supported. Finally, attitude (AT) had a significant effect on behavioral intention (BI) (βAT→BI=.599, t=14.655, p<.001), thus supporting H3.

Table 3. 
Results of regression analysis
Hypothesis Model Unstandardized
coefficients
Standardized
coefficients
t Sig.
Independent Dependent B Std. Error Beta
H1-1
H1-2
H1-3
Learning
amusement
character
Attitude .122
.185
.098
.050
.050
.050
.122
.185
.098
2.461
3.713
1.971
.014
.000
.049
F=7.909(p<.001), R2=.242, =.051, Adj. R2=.051
H2-1
H2-2
H2-3
Learning
amusement
character
Behavioral
intention
.160
.197
.168
.049
.049
.049
.160
.197
.168
3.277
4.035
3.451
.001
.000
.001
F=12.975(p<.001), R2=.304, =.093, Adj. R2=.086
H3 Attitude Behavioral
intention
.599 .041 .599 14.655 .000
F=214.763(p<.001), R2=.599, =.359, Adj. R2=.358

2) Results of mediating effects

In this study, Hypothesis 4 was established to confirm the mediating effect between independent variables and dependent variables. The significance of the mediating effect should be confirmed in three steps (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The independent variables must have a significant effect on the mediator variable and the independent variables must have a significant effect on the dependent variable. Lastly, the mediator variables must have a significant effect on the dependent variables. In addition, the Sobel test was conducted to verifying the significance of the mediating effects (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Sobel, 1982, 1986). Table 4 shows the results of the mediating effects. Results show that all of them have a partial mediating effect (ML→AT→BI: indirect effect .073, MA→AT→BI: indirect effect .111, MC→AT→BI: indirect effect .059). However, MC→AT→BI has no significant effect (Sobel test Z value: Above 1.96).

Table 4. 
Results of regression analysis
Hypothesis Path Factor 3step regression equations Mediating
effect
Standardized
indirect effect
Sobel
test
X→M X→Y XM→Y
H4 MO→AT→BI Learning
Amusement
Character
Attitude
.122*
.185***
.098*
.160**
.197***
.168**
.091*
.094*
.114**
.560
Partial
Partial
Partial
.073
.111
.059
2.407
3.587
1.943
.051 .086 .381
Notes: MO: Motivation, AT: Attitude, BI: Behavioral intention


V. Conclusion and implications

Since the tourism industry is one of the industries most significantly affected by the mass media, destinations featured through the media have drawn a lot of attention as tourist sites. Outdoor recreation activities have considerably increased due to the mass media, resulting in the rapid growth of the related industries in South Korea. Viewers of a reality program are more motivated to visit then featured destinations as they are more prominently shown in the program, unlike the exposure of images in movies or dramas, which are the main genres of conventional film tourism. Therefore, this study aims to investigate how the programs that show various outdoor recreation activities affect the decision-making process to engage in outdoor recreation.

As a result of the analysis, potential outdoor recreation participants’ motivations (learning, amusement, and character) have significant positive effects on attitude and behavioral intention. Attitude has a significant positive effect on behavioral intention. In addition, although attitude has a partial mediating effect on behavioral intention, motivation has no significant effect.

In this study, results verify that a reality program can be important to the decision-making process to engage in outdoor recreation. This study has theoretical importance as it investigates motivations in the decision-making process for outdoor recreation activities featured in a reality programs at a time when such activities are increasing in Korea,usual focus on movies and dramas by film tourism studies. The results of this study support the idea that audience motivation affects the decision-making process (Chung & Choi, 2007; Lee & Chun, 2013; Lee & Chung, 2011; Yang & Lee, 2012).

The practical implications of this research are as follows. People in today’s world often indirectly experience tourist destinations through the mass media, not by actually visiting them (Feifer, 1985; Judd, 2003; Urry& Larsen, 2011). This indirect experience can significantly affect their future behavioral intention (Kim & Kim, 2014; Laffont & Prigent, 2011; Tessitore et al., 2014). Post tourists get information about destinations and tourism activities through the mass media and decide on future actions through this information (Christopherson & Rightor, 2010; Kim & Kim, 2014). Therefore, it is important for the tourism industry and tourism promotion policy to conduct marketing for destination and tourism activities using the mass media, which is the main information source of tourists in modern society.

Broadcasting companies in Korea produce programs by inserting indirect advertisements to generate revenue due to the diversification of broadcasting channels. In terms of marketing the destinations, a measure to attract viewers to the destinations is prepared from the planning stage through partnership and sponsorship between the broadcasting company and the production company for the production of the reality programs, which can contain information about the tourist destinations. This type of exposure is very effective because viewers can obtain information from the viewpoint of tourists due to the realistic and specific information provided, compared to dramas or movies. In terms of the outdoor recreation industry, the brand exposure through outdoor activities can have a higher imprinting effect on viewers than an advertisement in the unit of seconds for world class outdoor companies as well as domestic outdoor industries in the fierce competition of the Korean market. In addition, a predominant position can be obtained by creating the unique image of a brand according to the characteristics of the reality programs through a new outdoor culture.

The limitation of this study is the fact that it is difficult to generalize the results of this research to the entire reality programs genre because the study was conducted on a certain reality program. With the increasing number of tourism reality programs around the world, it is thought to be meaningful for future studies to analyze how the decision-making process is affected by various reality programs.


References
1. Ajzen, I., (1991), The theory of planned behaviour, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), p179-211.
2. Ajzen, I., (2005), Attitudes, personality, and behavior, Berkshire, McGraw-Hill Education.
3. Aubrey, J. S., Olson, L., Fine, M., Hauser, T., Rhea, D., Kaylor, B., & Yang, A., (2012), Investigating personality and viewing-motivation correlates of reality television exposure, Communication Quarterly, 60(1), p80-102.
4. 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), p1173-1182.
5. Bettinghaus, E. P., & Cody, M. J., (1987), Persuasive communication, holt, Rinehart and Winston.
6. Çabuk, S., Tanrikulu, C., & Gelibolu, L., (2014), Understanding organic food consumption: attitude as a mediator, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(4), p337-345.
7. Chan, B., (2007), Film-induced tourism in Asia: A case study of Korean television drama and female viewers' motivation to visit Korea, Tourism Culture & Communication, 7(3), p207-224.
8. Christopherson, S., & Rightor, N., (2010), The creative economy as 'big business': Evaluating state strategies to lure film makers, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(3), p336-352.
9. Chung, B. K., & Choi, J. P., (2007), The effects of motivation of seeing and hearing in TV on viewing attitude and viewing behavior at TV soccer hook up, The Korea Journal of Sports Science, 16(2), p323-335.
10. Conway, J. C., & Rubin, A. M., (1991), Psychological predictors of television viewing motivation, Communication Research, 18(4), p443-463.
11. Dann, G, M, S., (1981), Tourist motivation: An appraisal, Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), p187-219.
12. Feifer, M., (1985), Going places, London, Macmillan.
13. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I., (1975), Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Boston, Addison-Wesley Pub.
14. Fodness, D., (1994), Measuring tourist motivation, Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), p555-581.
15. Fu, H., Ye, B. H., & Xiang, J., (2016), Reality TV, audience travel intentions, and destination image, Tourism Management, 55, p37-48.
16. Godlewski., L. R, & Perse., E. M., (2010), Audience activity and reality television: Identification, online activity, and satisfaction, Communication Quarterly, 58(2), p148-169.
17. Gong, T., & Tung, V. W. S., (2016), Impact of tourism mini-movies on destination image, CAUTHE 2016: The Changing Landscape of Tourism and Hospitality: The Impact of Emerging Markets and Emerging Destinations, p420-436.
18. Han, H., Hsu, L. T. J., & Sheu, C., (2010), Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities, Tourism Management, 31(3), p325-334.
19. Han, H., Lee, S., & Lee, C. K., (2011), Extending the theory of planned behavior: Visa exemptions and the traveller decision-making process, Tourism Geographies, 13(1), p45-74.
20. Han, H., Meng, B., & Kim, W., (2017), Emerging bicycle tourism and the theory of planned behavior, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(2), p292-309.
21. Hudson, S., & Ritchie, J. B., (2006), Promoting destinations via film tourism: An empirical identification of supporting marketing initiatives, Journal of Travel Research, 44(4), p387-396.
22. Judd, D. R., (2003), Visitors and the spatial ecology of the city, Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Markets, and City Space, 1, p23-38.
23. Kim, J. O., & Kim, N. J., (2013), An analysis of structural relationships between motivation, values, satisfaction, and loyalty for auto camping participants’, Korea Journal of Tourism Research, 38(5), p157-183.
24. Kim, J. O., & Kim, N. J., (2014), The structural relationships between the post tourist’s gaze and their outdoor recreation participation on decision making process, Journal of Tourism Sciences, 38(5), p157-183.
25. Kim, J. O., & Kim, N. J., (2016), A study on the perception of elderly leisure of the reality program ‘Grandpa over Flowers’ older generation viewers: Focusing on the middle class, Journal of Tourism Sciences, 40(7), p11-29.
26. Kim, J. O., Lee, J. E., & Kim, N. J., (2014), An Influence of outdoor recreation participants’ perceived restorative environment on wellness effect, satisfaction and loyalty, In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 12, p. 01082). EDP Sciences.
27. Kim, S., (2012), Audience involvement and film tourism experiences: Emotional places, emotional experiences, Tourism Management, 33(2), p387-396.
28. Kim, S., & Wang, H., (2012), From television to the film set: Korean drama Daejanggeum drives Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese and Thai audiences to screen-tourism, International Communication Gazette, 74(5), p423-442.
29. Kumar, V. V., & Arulchelvan, S., (2015), Motivation and impact of viewing reality television programme: An audience study, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(27), p1-9.
30. Laffont, G. H., & Prigent, L., (2011), Paris transformed into an urban set: Dangerous liaisons between tourism and cinema, Teoros, Revue de Recherche en Tourisme, 30(1), p108-118.
31. Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H., (2004), Theory of planned behavior: Potential travelers from China, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28(4), p463-482.
32. Lee, D, H., & Chun, K. Y., (2013), The relationship between viewing motivation, receiving attitude and sport participation among media sports viewers, The Korea Journal of Sports Science, 22(1), p77-87.
33. Lee, C. K., Ko, S. K., & Kim, J. O., (2014), Examining structural relationships among horseback riding motivation, value, satisfaction, and behavioral intention, Tourism Research, 28(6), p203-226.
34. Lee, J. G., & Chung, T. W., (2011), The impact of middle school students’ motivation of watching TV sports program on satisfaction of watching, word-of mouth intention, and attitude toward physical education class, Journal of Education Culture, 17(3), p333-352.
35. Lin, J., (2014), The effects of gratifications on intention to read citizen journalism news: The mediating effect of attitude, Computers in Human Behavior, 36, p129-137.
36. Lo, A., & Qu, H., (2015), A theoretical model of the impact of a bundle of determinants on tourists’ visiting and shopping intentions: A case of mainland Chinese tourists, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, p231-243.
37. March, R., & Woodside, A. G., (2005), Testing theory of planned versus realized tourism behavior, Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), p905-924.
38. O'Connor, N., Flanagan, S., & Gilbert, D., (2008), The integration of film-induced tourism and destination branding in Yorkshire, UK, International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(5), p423-437.
39. Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. L., (2007), An exploratory study of reality appeal: Uses and gratifications of reality TV shows, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(2), p355-370.
40. Papacharissi, Z., & Mendelson, A. L., (2007), An exploratory study of reality appeal: Uses and gratifications of reality TV shows, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51(2), p355-370.
41. Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Nunkoo, R., & Alders, T., (2013), London residents' support for the 2012 Olympic Games: The mediating effect of overall attitude, Tourism Management, 36, p629-640.
42. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F., (2008), Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models, Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), p879-891.
43. Price, E., (2011), The Illusory Everyday: Narratives of Pleasure in Australian ‘Reality TV’, Deakin University, Victoria.
44. Quick, B. L., Morgan, S. E., LaVoie, N. R., & Bosch, D., (2014), Grey’s Anatomy viewing and organ donation attitude formation: Examining mediators bridging this relationship among African Americans, Caucasians, and Latinos, Communication Research, 41(5), p690-716.
45. Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N., (2010), Risk, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism example, Tourism Management, 31(6), p797-805.
46. Richards, G., (2002), Tourism Attractions System: Exploring Cultural Behavior, Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4), p1048-1064.
47. Rittichainuwat, B., & Rattanaphinanchai, S., (2015), Applying a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative design in explaining the travel motivation of film tourists in visiting a film-shooting destination, Tourism Management, 46, p136-147.
48. Shah Alam, S., & Mohamed Sayuti, N., (2011), Applying the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in halal food purchasing, International Journal of Commerce and Management, 21(1), p8-20.
49. Shanmugam, A., Savarimuthu, M. T., & Wen, T. C., (2014), Factors affecting Malaysian behavioral intention to use mobile banking with mediating effects of attitude, Academic Research International, 5(2), p236-253.
50. Shim, H., Oh, P., Song, H., & Lee, Y., (2015), An exploration of motivations for two screen viewing, social interaction behaviors, and factors that influence viewing intentions, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(3), p158-164.
51. Sobel, M. E., (1982), Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models, Sociological Methodology, 13, p290-312.
52. Sobel, M. E., (1986), Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models, Sociological Methodology, 16, p159-186.
53. Spears, D. L., Josiam, B. M., Kinley, T., & Pookulangara, S., (2013), Tourist see tourist do: The influence of Hollywood movies and television on tourism motivation and activity behavior, Hospitality Review, 30(1), p4.
54. Tessitore, T., Pandelaere, M., & Van Kerckhove, A., (2014), The amazing race to India: Prominence in reality television affects destination image and travel intentions, Tourism Management, 42, p3-12.
55. Tiggemann, M., (2005), Television and adolescent body image: The role of program content and viewing motivation, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(3), p361-381.
56. Urry, J., & Larsen, J., (2011), The Tourist Gaze 3.0, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
57. Ward, L. M., & Friedman, K., (2006), Using TV as a guide: Associations between television viewing and adolescents' sexual attitudes and behavior, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(1), p133-156.
58. Woods., R., & Ebersole., S., (2007), Motivations for viewing reality television: A uses and gratifications analysis, Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 23(1), p23-42.
59. Yang, J, K., & Lee, D. J., (2012), The relationship among viewing motivation, sport attitude and sport participation of TV sports relay, The Korea Journal of Sports Science, 21(1), p183-192.
60. Yoon, Y., Kim, S. S., & Kim, S. S., (2015), Successful and unsuccessful film tourism destinations: From the perspective of Korean local residents' perceptions of film tourism impacts, Tourism Analysis, 20(3), p297-311.
61. Zhang, X., Ryan, C., & Cave, J., (2016), Residents, their use of a tourist facility and contribution to tourist ambience: Narratives from a film tourism site in Beijing, Tourism Management, 52, p416-429.