Wellness Pursuit and Slow Life Seeking Behaviors: Moderating Role of Festival Attachment

Abstract

Slow lifestyles have become a way for individuals to reduce the amount of stress in their lives. Moreover, along with wellness and slow food, slow life seeking is emerging as an area of study, though little research has been studied at Slow Life Festivals (SLFs) associated with consumers’ wellness pursuits, slow life seeking, and perceptions of slow food. To address this gap, this study examined visitors’ decision-making processes using an extended theory of planned behavior (ETPB) by incorporating wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perceptions of slow food at an SLF. Thus, this study developed a theoretically comprehensive framework by applying field survey. Results revealed significant impacts of visitors’ wellness pursuits and slow life seeking on their decision-making, indicating that wellness and slow life were important factors to consider for SLF management. The research further identified the perception of slow food as a mediator in predicting behavioral intentions. Results further demonstrated a strong relationship between wellness pursuit and perception of slow food for highly attached visitors while revealing a significant relationship between slow life seeking and perception of slow food for less attached visitors. Consequently, this study shed significant light on our understanding of why visitors intend to revisit SLFs.

1. Introduction

The world is suffering from a fast lifestyle, and it has been suggested society should slow down by paying attention to wellness, slow life, and slow food principles [1,2,3]. Wellness is subjective and has been defined as a positive state that is opposite of illness but more than just an absence of illness [4]. Since consumers tend to perceive healthier foods as integral to their wellness, it is common for food to be marketed as being nutritious and/or healthy [3]. The Slow Life Festival (SLF) in Namyangju, Korea encourages people to share the happiness of daily life by creating slow life values derived from Joseon dynasty scholar, Yak Yong Jong’s (pen name Dasan) (1762–1836) philosophy [5]. The SLF is supported by local, organic farmers and was first held in 2011. The three main values of slow life the SLF promotes include health, environment, and empathy, which have their roots in the philosophy of Dasan [6]. In 2012, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) nominated Dasan as a great world figure and celebrated the 250th anniversary of his birth [6]. To commemorate Dasan’s accomplishments, Namyangju city organized the SLF to reflect his slow life (e.g., happiness, slow food, environment, locality, and empathy).

Living a slow life is traditionally valued in Korea because it proposes a relaxed and comfortable but creative life [7]. According to Baker [8], Dasan, a highly respected Korean scholar, pursued slow life as a life free of rash mistakes and emotional upheavals and as a calm and steady ethical way of living. Dasan’s philosophy involved: slowly observing and appreciating one’s surroundings within the continuity of daily life; maintaining a moderate daily living atmosphere; promoting healthiness by engaging in farming and by managing the residential environment; and pursuit of the common good by enjoying goodness and emphasizing righteousness [5]. Dasan was also a devoted advocate of local farmers and an inventor of farming technologies and machines [5,7,8]. Since slow life living is currently emerging as a potential method to improve people’s quality of life, it may be important to understand how visitors to SLFs form their behavioral intentions.

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is one of the most prominent theoretical frameworks for explaining behaviors across multiple disciplines [9,10]. Including additional constructs to create extended versions of the TPB (ETPB) has consistently been shown to better explain human behavior related to tourism and festivals [11,12,13]. In particular, Ajzen [9] suggested that other variables could be incorporated in the TPB to increase the prediction and the understanding of human behaviors, and numerous studies have successfully done so.

Specifically, Clayton and Griffith [14] extended the TPB by incorporating health belief factors and revealed that they aided the TPB model. Similarly, Lee and Gould [15] showed that the TPB model better predicted congregate food program participation by adding past behavior; Jun and Arendt [16] incorporated two new constructs (prototype and willingness), and increased explanation of healthful food item selections, while Jang et al. [17] discovered that collectivism, perceived consumer effectiveness, and environmental concerns aided the TPB model in understanding customers’ intentions to visit green restaurants.

Each of these ETPBs reveals that the theoretical model can be enhanced by incorporating important factors beyond the TPB for explaining behaviors. Since wellness, slow life, and food perceptions have been found to be important factors related to SLFs, it is believed that their use within the TBP would be beneficial. Thus, this study utilized an ETPB to examine SLF visitors’ wellness pursuits, slow life seeking, and perceptions of slow food to predict their behavioral intentions.

Attachment has consistently been found to be a key factor for market segments in the context of leisure life and tourism [18,19]. Many studies have indicated that understanding how attached people relate to leisure activities allows for better market segmentations (e.g., [20,21,22,23]). Additionally, the moderating role of attachment has been widely used in the understanding and prediction of event visitors’ behaviors [20,21], including the moderating impact of festival quality on behavioral outputs [23] and the influence of festival quality on attendees’ behavioral intentions [22].

Filo et al. [20] demonstrated that higher attachment to a charity sporting event was more related to charitable giving. They advocated that visitors with stronger attachment to a charity sport event were more likely motivated to attend based on high value-laden constructs than participation motives [21]. Further, Kim et al. [22] found that attachment moderated the impact of festival quality on behavioral intentions. Thus, both Filo et al. and Kim et al. [20,22] revealed differential impacts on festival quality depending on participants’ levels of attachment. Despite the likely importance of attachment theory as a moderating role in the context of pro-environmental behaviors [24,25,26], previous research has not given much attention to the moderating effect of attachment related to SLF environments, particularly for festival tourism [27].

In sum, although understanding why and how festival-goers are involved in slow movements is an important issue for tourism scholars and practitioners, scant research has examined this issue theoretically. Thus, to answer the research question, this study investigated the moderating effect of attachment among wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perception of slow food at an SLF, applying ETPB, pro-environmental behavior, and attachment theory. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to better recognize festival-goer behavior by incorporating wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perceptions of slow food using ETPB and environmental literature, as well as to investigate the moderating role of festival attachment according to attachment theory. Consequently, this research contributes to the theoretical knowledge of the role slow life that plays in visitation behaviors. This research also provides practical implications to festival tourism stakeholders.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Background

2.1.1. TPB and ETPB

The TPB has become one of the most commonly used conceptual frameworks for predicting human behaviors [9,10]. Many studies have employed the TPB to predict consumers’ behaviors in hospitality and tourism [13,15,17,28,29]. Further, the inclusion of health belief variables to the TPB has been argued to increase its explanatory power [16]. In an examination of environmentally friendly restaurants, Jang et al. [17] found that the addition of collectivism, consumer effectiveness, and environmental concerns to the TPB (i.e., an ETPB) effectively increased the understanding of customers’ behavioral intentions. Similarly, Meng and Choi [13] advocated that the incorporation of authentic perception into the TPB significantly contributed to the understanding of people’s intentions to participate in slow travel. Subsequently, this research assumes that the proposed ETPB helps explain SLF visitor behaviors.

2.1.2. Attachment Theory in Tourism

According to attachment theory, when an individual is confident that an attachment figure will be available to him whenever he desires it, that person will be much less prone to either intense or chronic fear than will an individual who, for any reason, has no such confidence [30]. Thus, based on Hazan and Shaver [31], attachment theory refers to “the idea that social development involves the continual construction, revision, integration, and abstraction of mental models, portraying theoretically integrative concepts as attitude and physiological arousal” (p. 523). Attachment theory has been used to examine residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, with a significant relationship being found between length of residency and community attachment [32].

Resident place attachment has further been found to be influenced by attitude toward heritage, tourism as a source of potential employment, length of residency, and perceived intrusiveness of tourism, suggesting the importance of the role of heritage in place attachment [33]. Additionally, centrality to lifestyle, attraction, and food/wine have been found to have significant effects on tourist place attachment (dependence and identity), further suggesting the importance of attachment [34].

Pro-environment attitudes have also been found to be enhanced by attachment to the destination [24]. Further, domestic tourists’ place attachment has been found to lead to destination loyalty derived from service quality and satisfaction [35]. Due to the seemingly important role that attachment plays in tourists’ decision-making, this study aims to examine the role of SLF visitors’ festival attachment related to slow movement factors.

2.1.3. Wellness Pursuit

Cowen [36] stated that physical wellness indicates “eating well, sleeping well, and doing one’s mandated life tasks well,” while psychological wellness includes “a sense of control over one’s fate, a feeling of purpose and belongingness, and a basic satisfaction with oneself and one’s existence” (p. 404). Adams et al. [37] defined wellness pursuit as optimism as well as a sense of consistency that positively affects overall well-being, which includes intellectual, emotional, physical, psychological, spiritual, and social elements. Since tourism has been suggested to be a psychologically and physically healthy practice, recent research has begun to examine the wellness benefits of travel experiences [38].

Spa experiences have been found to enhance physical, psychological, and spiritual health, which can lead to satisfaction and behavioral intentions [39]. Similarly, Yoo et al. [40] suggested that festival visitors who value wellness are more likely to be motivated to visit a particular festival and to seek social interaction, family closeness, novelty, natural atmosphere, relaxation, cultural exploration, previous food carnival experience, and healthy foods. Accordingly, this study conceptualized wellness pursuit as a construct including the six factors derived by Adams et al. [37]: emotional, intellectual, physical, psychological, social, and spiritual.

2.1.4. Slow Life Seeking

Slow life seeking refers to looking for sustainable happiness of mankind with sustainable production and consumption of foods while respecting local cultures, conserving the limited natural resources, and contributing to protection of the environment [6]. Thus, the slow food movement emphasizes locally produced foods as well as sustainable farming practices with the goal of slowing down and savoring life while encouraging appreciation of local cultures and environmentally friendly travel [41].

According to lifestyle and habitus, when slow life seekers travel, they consume the same types of cuisine and partake in the same types of food related activities as they would at their own homes [42]. Since slow life seekers are not typically interested in luxury travel, slow life seekers differ significantly from non-slow life seekers in travel-related choices [43]. These choices include the slow ethics of clean, good, and fair food, slow tourism, and environmental gastronomy [44], as well as spiritual (walking) tourism [45].

In line with the literature review above, slow life seeking was conceptualized in the current study as reflecting individuals’ perceived pursuits of conserving natural resources and energy, maintaining a slow life, and contributing to the protection of the environment. Accordingly, this study considers slow life seeking as an important variable in the SLF held in Namyangju, Korea. While other festivals related to slow food have been held in Malaysia [46,47], Italy, New Zealand [48], England [49], and Australia [50], it is believed the SLF in Korea was the first [6].

2.1.5. Perception of Slow Food

Peano et al. [51] stated that slow food emphasizes farm-to-market arrangements that increase sustainability and cultural and socioeconomic capital while conserving the quality and environmental features of food products. Slow food aims to make the world a better place by encouraging the public to choose healthier foods [48]. Additionally, the quality of the programming, food, entertainment, and foods at slow food festivals have been found to impact visitors’ overall experiences and their satisfaction and to contribute to their intentions to revisit [49]. Due in a large part to the quality of the food provided, slow food events have been found to contribute significantly to rural destinations [46,47]. Drawing on the literature above, perception of slow food is conceptualized in the current study as being perceived as healthy, unique, nutritious, and fresh.

For quite some time, there has been a huge movement towards slow food in Europe, particularly in Italy. For example, an ltalian, Carlo Petrini, is believed to have initiated the slow food movement in 1986, seemingly as an international non-profit organization based on the voluntary membership [52]. The Italian slow food movement has been suggested to interpret the emerging need of food consumers linked to the ethical and the social dimensions of eating habits [53] as well as to aim to save the varieties, breeds, and foods threatened by the standardization and homogenization of agriculture—consequences of the widespread use of conventional practices [54]. In Korea, the slow food movement is an emerging trend among tourists as well as consumers [55].

2.2. Hypothesis Development

2.2.1. Relationships among Wellness Pursuit, Slow Life Seeking, and Perception of Slow Food

Wellness pursuit has been defined as “a healthy balance of human mind, body, and spirit which leads to an overall feeling of well-being” [56] (p. 4). Adams et al. [37] identified six factors of wellness pursuit, including “centeredness, intellectual stimulation, physical resilience, psychological optimism, social connectedness, and spiritual life purpose” (p. 166). The term slow life has become a universal label to explain the benefits of doing things at the “right speed.” The term was founded in Italy in the early 1990s to define a lifestyle based on working, living, and playing better [1,2].

Wellness pursuit has been found to be related to the following health related factors—physical, emotional, social, intellectual, job-related, and spiritual—which can influence individuals’ lifestyles [57]. With the use of these wellness factors, individuals can potentially pursue more fulfilling and resilient lives, such as slow life seeking [58]. The pursuit of wellness has been argued to be related to the pursuit of a better quality of life [4], implying that festival-goers’ perceived wellness pursuits influence their slow life seeking. Furthermore, some of the principles related to wellness pursuit include a healthy diet, movement, relaxation, and cultural/spiritual renewal of slow lifestyle [59]. Yoo et al. [40] suggested that as a healthy balance, wellness pursuit of the body, spirit, and mind can result in living a slow life. Thus, it is assumed that wellness pursuit influences slow life seeking. Based on the literature, this research expects that festival visitors’ wellness pursuits have an effect on festival-goers’ slow life seeking in the context of an SLF:

Hypothesis 1.

Wellness pursuit has a positive effect on visitors’ slow life seeking for an SLF.

Slow Food International [60] suggested that slow food involves the interconnection of three codes—good (e.g., quality, flavorsome, healthy diet), clean (e.g., production that does not damage the environment), and fair (accessible prices for buyers and fair conditions and pay for manufacturers). One goal of slow food pursuits is “a world in which all people can eat food that is good for them, good for the people who grow it, and good for the planet” [61] (p. 78). Those who pursue wellness typically perceive slow food to be good, clean, without agri-chemicals, from animals raised with their welfare considered, and sourced from sustainable production systems [62]. Wellness pursuit suggests that food consumption should be elevated beyond purchasing, cooking, and consuming food to a more mindful state that contributes to augmented demand for locally produced products, improves consumer food satisfaction, and preserves local food cultures [63]. Since wellness pursuit is related to healthy food choices [3], it could further be argued that wellness pursuit influences perceptions of slow food. Thus, this research postulates:

Hypothesis 2.

Wellness pursuit has a positive effect on visitors’ perceptions of slow food for an SLF.

Slow lifestyle seekers practice slow food values, buy slow food of small producers, eat local food, visit local markets, purchase cookbooks, and take cooking classes [42]. These slow life aspects are tied to a perception that slow food includes augmenting and conserving the most distinctive features of local culture and inspires less stressful living [64]. Slow lifestyle seeking has further been found to affect individuals’ perceptions of slow food and to make them more likely to participate in food-related activities at tourism destinations [43]. From a slow food festival context, individuals attracted to slow lifestyle are more likely to implement slow food movements in achieving lasting social change [50], and it is assumed that slow life seeking leads to perception of slow food. Thus, this study posits:

Hypothesis 3.

Slow life seeking has a positive effect on visitors’ perceptions of slow food for an SLF.

2.2.2. Relationships among Perception of Slow Food, Attitude, and Behavioral Intentions

Ajzen and Madden [65] defined attitude as “the degree to which performance of the behavior is positively or negatively valued” (p. 454). Ajzen [10] asserted that attitude is predicted by the whole set of available behavioral beliefs related to the behavior. Further, hotel customers’ behavioral beliefs have been found to have a positive effect on their attitude for staying at a green hotel when traveling [66]. From an extended model of goal-directed behavior, hotel consumers’ environmental awareness has also been found to have an impact on attitudes toward choosing an environmentally responsible hotel when traveling [67]. Similarly positive perception towards organic fruits and vegetables have been found to positively influence consumers’ attitudes towards organic foods while negatively affecting their attitudes toward pesticides [68]. Tourists with stronger perceptions of slow food have been found to have better attitudes towards activities related to slow food practices at home as well as at tourism destinations [44]. Thus, this study posits:

Hypothesis 4.

Positive perception of slow food has a positive effect on attitude toward an SLF.

Behavioral intentions for slow travel can include intending to plan, make an effort, and/or invest time and money in traveling slow [13]. It has been found that consumers who have positive perceptions towards organic fruits and vegetables have stronger intentions to purchase organic foods [68]. In addition, individuals’ perceptions of organic food aspects (i.e., nutritious content, ecological well-being, and sensory appeal) can have a significant impact on their intentions to buy organic food [69], Moreover, tourists with positive perceptions of slow food have been found to be more likely to prefer activities related to slow food values when visiting tourism destinations [42,43,44]. Further, slow food festival visitors with higher interests in slow food have been found to have higher revisit intentions [47]. Thus, this study posits:

Hypothesis 5.

Positive perception of slow food has a positive effect on visitors’ behavioral intentions for an SLF.

2.2.3. Relationships among Attitude, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioral Control, and Behavioral Intentions

Based on the TPB, Ajzen and Driver [70] explained that attitude towards a behavior contributes to understanding intentions to engage in recreational activities. In an environmentally friendly festival context, festival-goers’ attitudes toward a festival have been found to have a positive effect on desire, which leads to behavioral intentions to visit the festival [71]. Attitude has also been found to have a positive impact on cruise travelers’ desires and behavioral intentions [72]. Further, research using the TPB has suggested that attitudes can influence behavioral intentions to attend a food/drink event [11]. Similarly, Meng and Choi [73] found that tourists’ attitudes positively influence their desire, which leads to revisit intentions. This suggests that attitudes would influence behavioral intentions in an SLF situation. Thus, this research proposes:

Hypothesis 6.

Positive attitude has a positive effect on visitors’ behavioral intentions for an SLF.

Subjective norms can be defined as the social forces in an individual’s life that influence whether or not the individual will partake in various behaviors [9]. Ajzen [10] asserted subjective norms represent the total set of reachable normative beliefs, which in turn influence behavioral intentions. Consequently, research has shown subjective norms to be related to intention to participate in voluntary carbon offsetting [74], bicycle travelers’ behavioral intentions [75], intentions to revisit food festivals [11], and intentions to follow a nutritious food plan [15]. Hence, this study proposes:

Hypothesis 7.

Subjective norms have a positive effect on visitors’ behavioral intentions for an SLF.

Ajzen [9] defined perceived behavioral control as perceptions one has of one’s ability to complete a certain behavior. Ajzen and Driver [70] proposed that perceived behavioral control is decided by the total set of available control beliefs, which facilitate and/or impede accomplishments of a behavior. Within the TPB, perceived behavioral control has been found to influence intentions to use hygiene in food industries [14] and intentions to visit a restaurant [17]. Perceived behavioral control has further been found to influence behavioral intentions to participate in slow tourism [13]. In particular, slow tourists’ behavioral intentions have been found to be associated with slow food members’ perceived behavioral control [42,43,44], implying that perceived behavioral control has an impact on behavioral intentions in an SLF setting. Drawing upon the literature review mentioned above, this research thus proposes:

Hypothesis 8.

Perceived behavioral control has a positive effect on visitors’ behavioral intentions for an SLF.

2.2.4. Moderating Role of Attachment

Attachment has been defined as “the tendency of human beings to make solid affectional bonds to particular people and objects” [30] (p. 201) and has been found to have both affective and cognitive dimensions [76]. Event attachment has been found to include attachment processes (internal motives, self-concept, and values) and attachment outcomes (enhanced motives, affective, functional, and symbolic meaning, and importance) [20]. Further, recreational event motives, charitable giving motives, and value-laden constructs influence participants’ attachments to a charity occasion, suggesting that value-laden constructs impact event attachment [21]. In this study, attachment to a festival was conceptualized to reflect festival visitors’ perceived importance, value, self-concept, symbols, and functions toward an SLF. It has also been suggested that tourists who consume local foods create positive memories, which can further enhance their attachment to local attractions [77]. Sherif and Hovland [23] suggested attachment moderates the impact of festival quality on behavioral outputs (i.e., revisit intentions) using social judgment theory. In a festival setting, attachment has been found to moderate the impact of festival quality on behavioral intentions, presenting different effects of festival quality depending on one’s degree of attachment [22].

In a tourism context, attachment has been found to moderate the relationship between the trustworthiness of the content of a tourism blog written on a certain tourist destination as well as content review acceptance [19]. Attachment has further been found to moderate degrees of crowding estimations among anglers as well as campers of water based recreationists [18]. Moreover, according to attachment theory, the stronger visitors have pro-environmental behavioral intentions, the higher their place attachment to the destination is [25]. These studies suggest that attachment to an SLF has a moderating role among wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perception of slow food. Thus, this study proposes three hypotheses in an SLF context:

Hypothesis 9.

Attachment plays a moderating role in the relationship between wellness pursuit and slow life seeking of SLF attendees.

Hypothesis 10.

Attachment plays a moderating role in the relationship between wellness pursuit and perceptions of slow food of SLF attendees.

Hypothesis 11.

Attachment plays a moderating role in the relationship between slow life seeking and perceptions of slow food of SLF attendees.

In line with the literature review, Figure 1 exhibits the proposed research model.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Context

The SLF was held from 8 October to 17 October 2015 in Namyangju, Korea to encourage slow life and shared happiness. This festival has been held every two years since 2011, and in 2015, approximately 400,000 visitors from 48 countries participated and shared their unique food and culture [78]. Namyangju is a city in Gyeonggi province, is a mecca for Korean organic farming, and is the hometown of the scholar Dasan from the late Joseon dynasty period. His work suggested how a thoughtful intellectual could engage in multiple levels of discourse on culture, ethics, history, and policy while creating a clear unity within his own philosophy and his own life style [79]. Dasan wrote over five hundred literary works that have influenced Korean people’s lives and values and is one of the most remarkable figures in the Confucian tradition [7]. However, it has been suggested he has not received the attention he deserves for his creative accomplishments and unique lifestyle since he is not well-known outside of Korea [79].

3.2. Measures

Items related to each of the constructs measured were generated after an extensive literature review. Specifically, wellness pursuit was operationalized with six items (i.e., emotional, intellectual, physical, psychological, social, and spiritual factors) adapted from Adams et al. [37]. Slow life seeking was operationalized with five items from [6,42]. Perception of slow food was estimated with five items derived from Frost and Laing, Jang et al., and Williams et al. [48,50], while attachment was operationalized with five items modified from Filo et al. and Filo et al. [20,21]. Further, attitudes and norms were operationalized with four items adjusted from Ajzen and Ajzen [9,10] and Ajzen [65]. Perceived behavioral control was operationalized with four items adapted from Ajzen, and Driver [70] and Clayton and Griffith [14], while behavioral intentions were estimated with four items drawn from Meng and Choi and Jang et al. [13,17].

The survey instrument was first generated in English. The questionnaire was then translated to Korean by three professionals proficient in English and Korean. The survey tool was then back-translated to English, and some discrepancies were remedied between English and Korean expressions and modified to reflect the specific cultural and study contexts [80].

The pre-validated multiple-indicator scales were adapted to an SLF setting. To assure content validity, four tourism academics and two SLF practitioners were asked to assess whether the questions were suitable to measure visitors’ behaviors related to the SLF. As a result, some items were rephrased due to unclear meaning, while others were deleted (one item from slow life seeking and one item from perception of slow food) and added (one additional item for both slow life seeking and perception of slow food to better explain these constructs). In addition, items of general information (i.e., prior knowledge on slow life and food, frequency of visiting the SLF, and information source of the SLF) were included to identify participants’ propensities to behave.

Next, a pilot test was administered to several graduate students majoring in tourism to evaluate whether the items were suitable for an SLF. As a result, minor revisions were made to some questions. A pre-test was then administered to a sample of 20 Korean university students majoring in tourism. Through these procedures, one item from both slow life seeking (regarding simple lifestyle) and perception of slow food (regarding organic food) was deleted, as they were suggested to overlap with other items. Also, several ambiguous items that were related to wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perception of slow food were reworded to improve clarity of meaning. Furthermore, the following measurement items were slightly reworded for clarity and to better reflect the context of an SLF setting: items of attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions. This process resulted in a total of 35 items being assessed on 5-point Likert-type scales with answers ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

3.3. Data Collection and Respondents’ Profiles

Because a majority of attendees to the SLF were Koreans who are also the main market for slow life and food, domestic visitors were the target segment of the study. An on-site with self-administered survey was conducted with SLF visitors at Namyangju in Korea from 8–17 October 2015 using convenience sampling. Prior to starting the survey, ten field surveyors who were educated in the study’s research objectives and sampling methods explained the purpose of the survey to visitors who consented to participate.

Data were systematically collected by location and time frame. The field researchers approached participants at four places: high traffic exhibition areas, the main gate, the slow life experiencing activity section, and the slow food testing center. The survey was administered for ten days from 14:00 to 18:00, as this was the most frequented time period of the festival. A travel kit including a toothbrush and toothpaste was given to respondents who completed the survey as a token of gratitude. The field researchers contacted 494 visitors, and 388 agreed to participate, representing a 78.5% response rate. Twenty three questionnaires were removed from the data because of missing responses, resulting in 365 complete questionnaires.

As shown in

Table 1. Demographic and general characteristics of respondents.

Characteristics	N (365)	% (100)	Characteristics	N (365)	% (100)
Gender			Occupation
Male	131	35.9	Professional/technician	51	14.0
Female	234	64.1	Business owner/self-employed	37	10.1
Age			Service worker	25	6.8
Less than 20 years old	43	11.8	Office worker	35	9.6
20–29	92	25.2	Civil servant	18	4.9
30–39	60	16.4	Home maker	65	17.8
40–49	99	27.2	Student	113	31.1
50–59	49	13.4	Retiree/unemployed	6	1.6
60 and over	22	6.0	Other	15	4.1
Educational level			Prior knowledge on slow life or food
Below or high school	119	32.6	Yes	312	85.5
2-year college	60	16.4	No	53	14.5
University	170	46.6	Frequency of visiting the SLF
Graduate school or higher	16	4.4	1 time	249	68.3
Marital status			2 times	100	27.4
Single	143	39.2	3 times	14	3.8
Married	217	59.4	4 and more times	2	0.5
Other	5	1.4	Information source
Monthly household income			Through acquaintance	183	50.1
Less than 1.00 million KRW *	22	6.0	TV/Newspapers/Radio	18	4.9
1.00–2.99 million KRW *	105	28.8	Internet/Websites/Social network sites	39	10.7
3.00–4.99 million KRW	122	33.4	Public relation materials	77	21.1
5.00–6.99 million KRW	84	23.0	Other	48	13.2
7.00–8.99 million KRW	20	5.5
9.00 and over million KRW	12	3.3

Note: * US$ 1 = 1188 KRW (Korean won). SLF = Slow Life Festival.

, the sample consisted of a majority of female (64.1%) and married respondents (59.4%). More than a fourth of the sample (27.2%) consisted of people 40–49 years old and more than half of the sample was university students or graduates (51.0%). Also, a majority of the sample had prior knowledge of slow life and/or slow food (85.5%), while almost one third (31.7%) had participated in the festival more than twice.

3.4. Data Analysis

Component-based partial least squares (PLS)—structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to analyze the data. PLS-SEM has been widely used for both testing and confirming theory [81], as it allows for analyzing whether relationships exist or not [82]. Additionally, PLS-SEM needs a smaller sample size to validate a model than traditional SEM techniques [83]. Therefore, PLS-SEM has been suggested to be more appropriate for complicated models than traditional SEM [84]. Ordinary least squares regression utilizes simple linear combinations (composites) for the factors and utilizes principal component analysis to examine total variance and assess the factors [82]. As a result, the PLS-SEM algorithm does not provide model fit indices like covariance based (CB) SEM (e.g., AMOS, LSREL). Their model fit measures focus only on how well the parameter evaluations are able to suit the sample covariance and do not focus on how well the latent variables are explained [85,86]. Thus, as suggested by Ringle et al. [87], SmartPLS 3.2.3 was applied to evaluate the measurement and structural models.

Multi-group analysis was utilized to compare the differences between the two models of high and low attachment groups, as suggested by Chin, Chin et al., and Keil et al. [82,86,88]:

$${{\displaystyle t}}_{ij}=\frac{{{\displaystyle p}}_1-{{\displaystyle p}}_2}{\sqrt{\frac{({{\displaystyle n}}_1-{{\displaystyle 1}}_{})\times {{\displaystyle SE}}_1^2+({{\displaystyle n}}_2-{{\displaystyle 1}}_{})\times {{\displaystyle SE}}_2^2}{{{\displaystyle n}}_1+{{\displaystyle n}}_2-{{\displaystyle 2}}_{}}}\times \sqrt{\frac{1}{{{\displaystyle n}}_1}+\frac{1}{{{\displaystyle n}}_2}}},$$

(1)

where p_i is the path coefficient of the structural model of attachment_i, n_i is the sample size of the data set for attachment_i, SEi is the standard error of the path in the structural model for attachment_i, t_ij is the t-statistic with n₁ + n₂; two degrees of freedom, i represents high attachment respondents, and j represents low attachment respondents.

Since respondents were asked to rate all survey questions at once, common method variance was a potential issue. Thus, precautions were undertaken to address common method bias according to Podsakoff et al. [89]. First, the introduction section included a description of the study’s purpose, followed by a statement assuring all respondents anonymity. Second, to decrease respondent apprehension, survey instructions noted there were no right or wrong answers to the questions posed. Third, the definition of each construct was clearly explained at the beginning of the survey to help ensure response validity. Fourth, the survey consisted of three parts—the first part included overall information, the second presented measurement questions for the research model, and the third included personal questions about demographic characteristics.

Harman’s single factor check was conducted to confirm if common method bias was present [90]. That is, all self-reported questionnaire items were entered into an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Applying this process, if a single factor revealed or a factor explained more than half of the variance in the variables, common method bias existed [89]. The EFA results presented that seven factors were delineated (eigenvalue>1), and the first factor accounted for 38.9% of the variance. Subsequent factors explained 9.7%, 6.3%, 5.2%, 4.5%. 3.9%, and 2.9% variance, respectively.

Since the single-factor test has been found to have some limitations [91], a marker variable approach was also employed. Based on Lindell and Whitney [92], SLF visitors’ neuroticism was used as a marker variable. According to Podsakoff and Organ [91], marker variables should have documented evidence of high reliability, be theoretically unrelated to at least one variable, and have multiple items. For the marker variable analysis, a PLS algorithm was applied. Neuroticism, as it related to SLF visitors’ personalities, was used to estimate the correlations between every theoretical construct in the research model. The corrections between the marker variable and all constructs in the research model were small and insignificant, including: wellness pursuit (−0.11), slow life seeking (−0.15), perception of slow food (−0.07), attitude (−0.05), subjective norms (−0.06), perceived behavioral control (−0.08), behavioral intentions (−0.10), and festival attachment (−0.06). The resultant average of the squared multiple corrections was 0.008 for the eight theoretical constructs. Accordingly, both the traditional single-factor check and the marker variable method suggested that common method variance was not a concern [89].

4. Results

4.1. Attachment Groups

Attachment was measured with five items (Cronbach’s α = 0.836) (

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of measurement model.

Constructs	Factor Loading	t-Values	Mean	SD a
Wellness pursuit
In general, I am confident in my abilities.	0.703	16.65	3.545	0.806
I found that intellectual challenge in the past was vital to my overall well-being.	0.757	22.70	3.584	0.810
I hope that I am always physically healthy.	0.783	31.34	4.212	0.780
In the past, I expected the best.	0.646	11.99	3.737	0.921
My friends are willing to help me when I need their assistance.	0.767	20.55	3.912	0.751
I believe I have real goal for my life.	0.794	22.85	3.896	0.778
Slow life seeking
I walk, bike, or use public transportations as much as I can.	0.584	9.98	3.603	1.099
I keep my slow life	0.693	14.47	3.337	0.916
I prefer environmentally friendly products.	0.766	20.59	3.501	0.850
It is important for me to be mindfulness.	0.821	35.38	3.726	0.862
Perception of slow food
Slow food is healthy.	0.864	41.37	3.742	0.889
Slow food is unique.	0.843	38.47	3.414	0.906
Slow food is nutritious.	0.900	64.67	3.540	0.930
Slow food is fresh.	0.867	37.73	3.605	0.922
Attitude
Participating in the SLF is an affirmative behavior.	0.901	54.44	3.667	0.860
Participating in the SLF is a beneficial behavior.	0.954	145.15	3.647	0.857
Participating in the SLF is a valuable behavior.	0.933	72.81	3.595	0.868
Participating in the SLF is a righteous behavior.	0.914	71.60	3.553	0.868
Subjective norm
Most people who are close to me agree with my participation in the SLF.	0.918	66.57	3.641	0.861
Most people who are close to me support with my participation in the SLF.	0.941	78.28	3.619	0.835
Most people who are close to me understand my participation in the SLF.	0.929	68.60	3.690	0.839
Most people who are close to me think my participation in the SLF is valuable.	0.908	69.77	3.649	0.850
Perceived behavioral control
If I want I can participate in the SLF.	0.838	48.31	3.515	0.968
I have enough time to participate in the SLF.	0.867	48.42	3.310	0.961
I have enough resources (money) to participate in the SLF.	0.783	20.33	3.227	0.917
I have enough opportunities to participate in the SLF.	0.848	41.67	3.186	0.971
Behavioral intentions
In the future, I plan to participate in the SLF.	0.911	68.82	3.110	1.024
I intend to participate in the next SLF.	0.945	104.50	3.230	1.036
I will visit the SLF again.	0.962	177.94	3.192	1.023
I have an intention to invest my time and money to participate in the SLF in the future.	0.913	71.85	3.137	1.007
Festival attachment
The SLF is very important to me.	0.862	48.62	2.778	0.853
Being a participant in the SLF is very meaningful to me	0.882	62.61	2.954	0.903
Participating in the SLF says a lot about who I am	0.894	66.47	2.693	0.928
Participating in the SLF gives a glimpse of the type of person I am	0.873	44.82	2.710	0.928
Participating in the SLF tells something about me	0.899	69.44	2.679	0.922

Note: ^a Standard deviation.

). The five attachment items were summed, and respondents were split into two groups using a cut-off point set at the median score of 3.00, with those responding with a 3 (n = 84) being excluded [93]. High attachment respondents (n = 109) had a mean attachment value of 3.64 with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.41, while low attachment respondents (n = 172) had a mean attachment value of 2.09 with a SD of 0.52.

4.2. Measurement Model

Component-based PLS-SEM was employed to analyze the data. First, the convergent and discriminant validity of 30 indicators was examined [94]. Both convergent and discriminant validity were confirmed, as all factor loadings exceeded 0.5 and no items of each construct shared high levels of residual variance for other constructs (Table 2). Next, the measurement model for the entire group was evaluated to validate the reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity of the constructs (

Table 3. Reliability and discriminant validity.

Model	Construct	Cronbach’s α	Composite Reliability	AVE	Correlation of the Constructs
					(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Entire group	(1) Wellness pursuit	0.839	0.881	0.553	0.744
	(2) Slow life seeking	0.688	0.810	0.520	0.434	0.721
	(3) Perception of slow food	0.892	0.925	0.755	0.330	0.484	0.869
	(4) Attitude	0.944	0.960	0.857	0.396	0.440	0.636	0.926
	(5) Subjective norms	0.943	0.959	0.854	0.351	0.352	0.579	0.703	0.924
	(6) Perceived behavioral control	0.855	0.902	0.696	0.313	0.310	0.422	0.462	0.554	0.835
	(7) Behavioral intentions	0.950	0.964	0.870	0.268	0.258	0.510	0.561	0.581	0.527	0.933

Note: The diagonal elements in boldface in the correlation of constructs matrix are the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE).

). Specifically, all constructs were deemed reliable, as their Cronbach’s alphas [95] and their composite reliability scores were all greater than 0.70 [83]. Convergent validity was also deemed acceptable, as the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was larger than 0.50 [84].

Discriminant validity between constructs was evaluated [96] that the square root of AVE for each construct must be greater than the correlations between the construct and corresponding constructs. As shown in Table 3, the highest correlation between constructs in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model was 0.703 between attitude and subjective norms. This was smaller than the lowest square root of AVE among all constructs, which was 0.721 (for slow life seeking). Therefore, discriminant validity was confirmed [94].

4.3. Structural Model

This research assessed three discrete models using PLS-SEM—the whole group, the high attachment group, and the low attachment group. Differences were then checked between the high and the low respondents. To estimate the prediction of the structural model, the R² (variance explained) for slow life seeking, perception of slow food, attitude, and behavioral intentions were calculated. Bootstrapping was used to analyze the path assessments and t-statistics for the hypotheses because the data did not meet the criteria of multivariate normality [84].

Figure 2 displays the PLS results for the total model. The eight propositions were supported. Specifically, wellness pursuit was found to significantly influence slow life seeking (γ = 0.434, t-value = 6.730, p < 0.001) and perception of slow food (γ = 0.147, t-value = 2.213, p < 0.05), and slow life seeking was found to significantly affect perception of slow food (β = 0.420, t-value = 5.833, p < 0.001) which had significant effects on attitude (β = 0.636, t-value = 15.926, p < 0.001) and behavioral intentions (β = 0.149, t-value = 2.357, p < 0.05). Finally, behavioral intentions related to the SLF were found to be significantly influenced by attitude (γ = 0.202, t-value = 2.963, p < 0.01), subjective norms (γ = 0.209, t-value = 3.412, p < 0.001), and perceived behavioral control (γ = 0.255, t-value = 3.878, p < 0.001).

H₉, H₁₀, and H₁₁ were also verified in order to examine the moderating role of attachment (

Table 4. Comparison of the path coefficients between the high and low attachment groups.

H	Path	High Group (A)	Low Group (B)	t-Value (A–B)	p-Value (A–B)	Test Results
H9	Wellness pursuit → Slow life seeking	0.391 ***	0.408 ***	−1.714	n.s.	Not supported
H10	Wellness pursuit → Perception of slow food	0.279 **	0.146	12.783	<0.001	Supported
H11	Slow life seeking → Perception of slow food	0.326 ***	0.361 ***	−3.000	<0.01	Supported
R2(variance explained):
The high group: Slow life seeking (15.3%); Perception of slow food (25.5%)
The low group: Slow life seeking (16.6%); Perception of slow food (19.5%)

Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01. n.s. = non-significant.

). When examining groups, prior studies have advocated comparing models’ variance explained (R²) [83]. Comparison of the variances revealed that differences between the two models existed. For example, the structural model explained a 1.3% higher variance for slow life seeking in the low attachment model compared to the high attachment model. Conversely, the model predicted a 6.0% higher variance for perception of slow food for high attached respondents compared to low attached respondents.

PLS was employed to perform multi-group analysis of the two proposed models in order to compare the research model between high and low attached visitors. It was found that the coefficients of the paths between wellness pursuit and perception of slow food and between slow life seeking and perception of slow food with respect to the high and low attachment respondents were different. With regard to the high attachment group, the magnitude of the coefficient from wellness pursuit to perception of slow food was significantly greater than it was for low attachment respondents (high attachment group = 0.279 > low attachment group = 0.146). Therefore, H₁₀ was supported. Additionally, the coefficient from slow life seeking to perception of slow food (high attachment group = 0.326 < low attachment group = 0.361) was more significant for low attachment respondents than for high attachment respondents. Thus, H₁₁ was supported.

4.4. Mediating Effects

Additional analyses on the mediating roles of slow life seeking, perception of slow food, and attitude were conducted in order to investigate whether they mediate wellness pursuit and perception of slow food, wellness pursuit and attitude, wellness pursuit and behavioral intentions, slow life seeking and attitude, slow life seeking and behavioral intentions, and perception of slow food and behavioral intentions within the model. As shown in

Table 5. Direct, indirect, and total effects.

Path	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Total Effect
Wellness pursuit → Slow life seeking	0.434 ***		0.434 ***
Wellness pursuit → Perception of slow food	0.147 *	0.183 ***	0.330 ***
Wellness pursuit → Attitude		0.210 ***	0.210 ***
Wellness pursuit → Behavioral intentions		0.091 **	0.091 **
Slow life seeking → Perception of slow food	0.420 ***		0.420 ***
Slow life seeking → Attitude		0.267 ***	0.267 ***
Slow life seeking → Behavioral intentions		0.117 ***	0.117 ***
Perception of slow food → Attitude	0.636 ***		0.636 ***
Perception of slow food → Behavioral intentions	0.149 ***	0.128 **	0.277 ***
Attitude → Behavioral intentions	0.202 **		0.202 **
Subjective norms → Behavioral intentions	0.209 ***		0.209 ***
Perceived behavioral control → Behavioral intentions	0.255 ***		0.255 ***

Note: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

, wellness pursuit had significantly positive indirect effects on perception of slow food (γ = 0.183, t-value = 4.316, p < 0.001), attitude (γ = 0.210, t-value = 4.314, p < 0.001), and behavioral intentions (β = 0.091, t-value = 2.876, p < 0.01). Also, slow life seeking had significant and positive indirect impacts on attitude (β = 0.267, t-value = 4.876, p < 0.001) as well as behavioral intentions (β = 0.117, t-value = 3.606, p < 0.001). Furthermore, perception of slow food had a significantly positive indirect impact on behavioral intentions (β = 0.128, t-value = 2.866, p < 0.01).

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Discussions

Slow lifestyles have become a way for individuals to reduce the amount of stress in their lives. Moreover, along with wellness and slow food, slow life seeking is emerging as an area of study, though little research has been studied at SLFs associated with consumers’ wellness pursuits, slow life seeking, and perceptions of slow food. To address this gap, this study examined visitors’ decision-making processes using an ETPB by incorporating wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perceptions of slow food at an SLF. Thus, this study developed a theoretical framework of the relationships among wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perception of slow food for an SLF using ETPB.

Results revealed significant impacts of visitors’ wellness pursuits and slow life seeking on their decision-making, indicating that wellness and slow life were important factors to consider for SLF management. The research further identified the perception of slow food as a mediator in predicting behavioral intentions. Results further demonstrated a strong relationship between wellness pursuit and perception of slow food for highly attached visitors, while revealing a significant relationship between slow life seeking and perception of slow food for less attached visitors. Consequently, it is believed this study shed significant light on our understanding of why visitors intend to revisit SLFs.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

Theoretically, the findings identified wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perceptions of slow food as additional variables that assist the ETPB in explaining behavioral intentions to attend an SLF. Specifically, this study claimed a significant relationship between wellness pursuit and slow life seeking, which extended prior research on the relationship between wellness as being related to healing and fulfilling lifestyles [58]. Thus, the current results extended the ETPB’s ability to explain behavioral intentions for a SLF. Visitors’ wellness pursuits were further found to significantly influence perceptions of slow food. This was partially consistent with McMahon et al. [3], who advocated that wellness and well-being are associated with food-related messages. Additionally, it was found that slow life seeking had a significant effect on perception of slow food, which was similar to Lee et al. [43]. Moreover, results discovered that attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control were significantly related to behavioral intentions to attend the SLF, supporting previous studies Meng and Choi as well as Meng and Choi [13,73]. Thus, the findings from the ETPB suggest that attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are significant elements for understanding festival visitors’ intentions to attend an SLF in the future.

This research also investigated the moderating role of festival attachment. Wellness pursuit for the high attachment group was found to have a greater impact on perception of slow food than it did for the low attachment group. Wellness has been suggested to be a positive state and an absence of illness [4], and wellness pursuers have been found to perceive healthier foods as integral to their wellness [3]. Therefore, it is expected that wellness pursuers who are more attached to an SLF will have better perceptions of slow food. According to the current results, attendees who had higher degrees of attachment to the SLF were more likely to have higher perceptions of slow food than attendees with lower levels of attachment to the SLF. The results of this study revealed that the more positively respondents perceived the slow food, the more attached they were to the SLF.

Yet, slow life seeking was found to have a larger effect on perception of slow food for the low attachment respondents than the high attachment respondents. Slow lifestyles have been suggested to be relaxed, comfortable, creative, and unrestrictive living psychologically and physically within one’s own free will [7,8]. Thus, it is possible that someone who is seeking a slow life may be less likely to be attached to objects even though they perceive slow food better. These findings expanded upon Lee et al. [42], who revealed a relationship between slow food members’ behavioral intentions and their attachment to a slow lifestyle. Lee et al. [42] revealed that people attending slow lifestyles were mostly motivated by being independent and not by the activities available at the tourism destination. This suggests that slow life seekers tend to prefer autonomy and activities beyond the festival programming.

This study also demonstrated that perception of slow food influenced attitude. This extended the work of Lee et al. [44], who claimed that perceptions of slow food were positively related to attitude towards practicing slow lifestyles at home as well as tourism destinations. Also similar to Lee et al. [44], this study suggested that perception of slow food had a significant effect on behavioral intentions as well. Similar Horng et al. [12], it was further found that attitude had an important role in predicting visitors’ intentions to revisit. Finally, similar to Lee and Gould [15], subjective norms were found to positively influence intentions to visit the SLF, and perceived behavioral control was found to significantly influence intentions to revisit the SLF [13]. Thus, the findings contribute to the improvement of the TPB by incorporating the variables of wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perception of slow food associated with the SLF.

Outside of the realm of ETPB, the current study supported previous research on slow festival-goers’ social change [50], as this study found festival-goers’ slow life pursuits had a significant effect on slow food awareness. Also consistent with past research conducted in Han and Yoon and Han et al. [66,67], the results demonstrated that slow food conscientiousness was the most important factor for explaining festival goers’ attitudes toward the SLF. The findings further indicated that levels of attachment to the festival significantly moderated the relationships among festival goers’ slow movement factors (i.e., wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perceptions of slow food), verifying previous attachment theory literature regarding pro-environmental behaviors [24,25,26].

5.3. Practical Implications

Regarding practical contributions, the findings imply that festival stakeholders (local governments and communities as well as festival tourism organizers and marketers) should be concerned with visitors’ wellness pursuits, as it was found to significantly impact the behaviors of SLF visitors. Accordingly, festival tourism practitioners may want to encourage attendees to share their experience via electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM), as suggested by Semrad and Rivera [97]. Given that slow life seeking was found to significantly influence SLF visitors’ behaviors, festival tourism managers should send messages to potential visitors through online websites informing that the SLF provides slow life experiences. In particular, the impact of perception of slow food on visitors’ behaviors implies that festival tourism stakeholders should promote good, clean, and fair diets through acquaintances and public relation materials.

The findings of this study suggest that the local government and hosts should emphasize slow living along with slow food, happiness, the environment, the locality, and the empathy of the festival through online and offline promotions and advertisements. Also, the results of this study imply that SLF organizers (e.g., local governments, local communities, festival tourism marketers) should focus on visitors’ slow life seeking, as it was found to significantly impact their perceptions of slow food. Moreover, festival tourism organizers should promote via WOM that low-synthetic foods, organic foods, vegetables, and health foods are good for one’s health, whereas carbonated drinks or instant foods are harmful.

Since the impact of perception of slow food was found to be strongly significant on visitors’ attitudes, it is recommended that festival tourism stakeholders should promote slow food to festival-goers. That is, local governments and communities could help increase the positive attitude of visitors by promoting messages about the advantages of slow food (e.g., organic, local, healthy, fair). Also, with perception of slow food having a significant effect on attitude and behavioral intentions, it is also likely important for local governments and communities to foster visitors’ slow food perceptions in order to boost SLF visitors’ attitudes and behavioral intentions. That is, local governments and communities should encourage visitors’ perceptions of slow food by promoting slow food as being healthy, unique, nutritious, and fresh.

Also, in order to enhance festival visitors’ behavioral intentions, festival tourism hosts and businesses should stimulate visitors’ attitudes and subjective norms. This could be done by promoting the positive benefits of slow lifestyles to both individuals and those important to them (i.e., normative groups). Additionally, since the best indicator of behavioral intentions was perceived behavioral control, festival tourism organizers should further determine what barriers are most impeding for SLF visitors to assist their ability to attend SLFs in the future. As these barriers are identified, ways to negotiate and/or reduce them would likely assist potential visitors in attending future SLFs. These barriers can be related to low desire, deficiency of opportunities, not enough time, and lack of money to participate in the SLF. In order to reduce the barriers, festival tourism stakeholders should make efforts to increase potential visitors’ desires and opportunities to participate in SLFs by using active advertising campaigns. Festival tourism organizers should also choose the festival site as close and convenient to the general public and provide the festival tickets, services, and products at affordable prices for visitors.

Finally, since differences between low and high attachment respondents were found in wellness pursuit, slow life seeking, and perception of slow food, different strategies might be needed for these two groups in relation to offering products, marketing activities, and providing experiences. That is, festival tourism marketers should likely emphasize wellness as it relates to perceptions of slow food to target high attachment groups and slow life seeking to target low attachment groups. To foster higher levels of attachment for slow life seekers and ultimately revisit intentions, festival tourism practitioners should focus marketing efforts on creating positive attitudes toward slow food, promoting group activities (social norms), and reducing various constraints to visiting (perceived behavioral control). Additionally, festival tourism organizers should attempt to increase slow life seekers’ intentions to revisit the SLF by creating their festivals on the postulation of slow life seeking while providing foods that satisfy their pursuit of wellness.

5.4. Limitations and Future Study Directions

Although the findings of this research have pertinent theoretical and practical contributions to the field, some limitations offer opportunities for future study directions. Since the current research used a convenience sampling method, it is suggested that future studies employ probability sampling methods to enhance the generalizability of the findings. It is also suggested for future study that the model be applied in other cultures or countries to determine if cultural differences contribute to understanding the model examined. Future researchers could also further identify the differences between wellness pursuit and perception of slow food for highly attached visitors in comparison to visitors who are less attached. Moreover, future studies should elaborate the linkage between slow life seekers and perception of slow food based on festival attachment.

Since the current sample included only Korean visitors, future research should administer surveys to visitors from other countries in order to better understand international SLF attendees’ behaviors. Future researchers should also apply new theories to examine slow consumer behavior, such as social identify theory, social cognitive theory, social judgment/involvement theory, or pro-environmental food consumption literature. Lastly, it is suggested that a qualitative study (e.g., in-depth interviews with slow festival attendees) should be designed such that the decision-making processes of slow festival visitors can better be understood.