Cited by 112Diverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchDigital Marketing and Social MediaHospitality and Tourism Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 26 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Push and Pull Travel Motivation: Segmentation of the Greek Market for Social Media Marketing in Tourism

Open access

Abstract

The intense competition in the tourism sector increasingly pushes tourism destination marketers to seek more effective promotional practices, so that they remain competitive and attract more visitors. The fast expansion of the Internet and social media provides the opportunity for destination marketers to approach potential tourists in a simple and cost-effective way. While managing the official pages of destinations on social media, the basic question that arises is the configuration of the content, and how attractive this content could be for potential tourists. The purpose of this study is to investigate what elements of a destination, when displayed on social media, could be attractive factors for tourists. Through the analysis of push and pull tourism motivation factors in particular, this study focuses on the segmentation of the Greek market for those traveling abroad and the emergence of the basic elements that could attract each segment through social media. The respondents have been classified into four segments, according to the motives that more greatly influence their desire to travel. This analysis also shows the important relationships between these segments and the pull motivation factors on social media. The study concludes with findings and suggestions that can contribute to the planning of an effective social media marketing plan.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study segments Greek travelers by push travel motivations and tests how those segments relate to pull destination content they prefer on social media. It finds most hypothesized push-pull relationships hold, with activities/sports content appealing across all four segments and novelty/adventure not predicting nature/outdoor content.

Key findings

  • Four push segments emerged: knowledge/intellectual, novelty/adventure, escape/entertainment/prestige, and sports. H1 was supported: knowledge/intellectual positively predicted culture/history content (Beta = 0.6, p < 0.001), and education also had a positive relationship (Beta = 0.14, p < 0.01).
  • H2 and H3 were supported: sports predicted activities/sports content (Beta = 0.35, p < 0.001), and novelty/adventure predicted activities/sports content (Beta = 0.18, p < 0.05). Activities/sports content was also positively related to knowledge/intellectual (Beta = 0.16, p < 0.001) and escape/entertainment/prestige (Beta = 0.17, p < 0.05), meaning all four segments were attracted to it.
  • H4 was not supported: novelty/adventure did not significantly predict nature/outdoor content (Beta = 0.15, p > 0.05). Nature/outdoor content was positively related to knowledge/intellectual (Beta = 0.24, p < 0.001) and sports (Beta = 0.22, p < 0.001).
  • H5 was supported: escape/entertainment/prestige predicted safety/luxury content (Beta = 0.59, p < 0.001). The models explained 44% of culture/history, 42% of activities/sports, 22% of nature/outdoors, and 28% of safety/luxury variability, as reported.

Methods

  • Quantitative online questionnaire with 221 respondents in Greece, collected 6–26 June 2019. The sample was 58.4% female, 75.1% aged 18–30, 48.9% with higher education, and 38.9% with postgraduate education.
  • Measures were based on Oh et al.: 18 push and 18 pull items rated on a 1–5 Likert scale, with pull items framed as social media content about destinations. A pilot study used 10 experts.
  • Analysis used SPSS v.23; Cronbach’s alpha was greater than 0.70 for all push and pull factors. Four two-step hierarchical regressions used push motivations as independent variables, demographics (sex, age, education) as covariates, and pull factors as dependent variables.

Limitations

  • Stated: the sample is concentrated in the young 18–30 age group, and the research was conducted only for the Greek market, so different populations may produce different segments or push factors.
  • Stated: pull items were selected from prior studies of tangible destination elements and adapted to social media; future qualitative research could define more pull items and factors.
  • Evident: the cross-sectional, self-report online survey limits causal inference, and the young, single-country sample limits generalizability beyond Greek travelers.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su12114770

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 26 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 46 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 26
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14
37 of 37
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The topic of the content is the most significant aspect for marketing experts.

    “Apart from the type, timing, and length of the content posted on social media, the most significant aspect for marketing experts is considered to be the topic of the content, which means all the creative elements that either portray or describe a feature of a destination.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The role of social media has been neglected in the stream of research on push and pull travel motivation.

    “The role of social media has been neglected in the stream of research on push and pull travel motivation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 'instagrammability' of a physical location is the most important factor for millennials in choosing a holiday destination.

    “The”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Age effect on activities/sports has the opposite sign in Table 6

    Minor

    The prose says older respondents are less likely to be influenced, but reports a positive beta of 0.16. Table 6 instead gives the age coefficient for the activities/sports model as −0.16; it also marks it ** (p < 0.01), rather than *** (p < 0.001).

  • Maslow citation points to a different reference

    Minor

    The text cites reference 51 for Maslow's theory, but reference 51 is by Dann; Maslow's book is listed as reference 52.

  • Reported R2 values are adjusted R2 values

    Minor

    The four values described as R2 match the adjusted R2 row of Table 6. The R2 values for the corresponding models are 0.46, 0.44, 0.24, and 0.31, not 0.44, 0.42, 0.22, and 0.28.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 69 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Uysal, 1993, Motivation of pleasure travel and tourism, Enc. Hosp. Tour., 21, 798
  2. Manap, K.A., and Adzharudin, N.A. (2013, January 16–19). The role of user generated content (UGC) in social media for tourism sector. Proceedings of the 2013 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings, Istanbul, Turkey.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–111 of 111

Metadata

Authors
Katsikari, C., Hatzithomas, L., Fotiadis, T., & Folinas, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Macedonia (GR)
  • Democritus University of Thrace (GR)
  • International Hellenic University (GR)
Corresponding author
Hatzithomas, Leonidas
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-06-11
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
4770
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3034831319
Cited by
112
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 3
FWCI
18.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management › Diverse Aspects of Tourism Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management › Hospitality and Tourism Education
Keywords
push and pull motivation, tourist motivation, tourist segmentation, social media marketing, tourism promotion, Greek tourism, tourist attraction factors, outbound tourism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review