Assessing Space Tourism Propensity: A New Questionnaire for Future Space Tourists
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Rationale and Main Hypotheses
- Psychological distance, which is the subjective experience of distance/proximity between oneself and an event or object, in terms of its temporal, spatial, social, and/or hypothetical aspects in the present moment [11]. We focused on social distance (SD), in terms of concern for different social groups’ wellbeing. Psychological distance and, specifically, social distance, indeed, can influence decision making [12].
- Risky behaviors, such as substance abuse or unprotected sexual activity, are considered potential threats to health or even life, and their actuation is linked to impulsivity [14]. We assessed risky behaviors’ frequency to determine if impulsivity plays a role in predicting the propensity for ST, considering its effect on decision making [15].
- Personality traits from the Big Five model [16,17,18], in line with Mehran’s framework [10]. Specifically, we focused on “Conscientiousness” and “Openness to Experience” subscales because they were the most interesting aspects for our research purposes. Conscientiousness is characterized by a disposition to be disciplined, responsible, and reliable [19]. Openness to experience is linked to the readiness to explore and interact with diverse and unfamiliar environmental stimuli, such as new ideas, individuals, cultures, and sensations [20].
- Trait anxiety is a stable characteristic of perceiving external or internal stimuli as threatening and experiencing mostly negative emotions (fear and anxiety) in most situations [21,22]. We assessed trait anxiety because highly anxious individuals exhibit reduced sensitivity to novelty [23], so anxiety might negatively predict ST propensity.
- Temporal perspective (TP), that is, the way we divide the flow of our social and personal experiences into distinct temporal categories, i.e., past, present, and future [24,25]. TP can be considered a personality trait affecting the human functioning, including actions, judgments, and emotions [26,27]. Considering the role of TP styles in travel research and travel choice [28], we wanted to explore whether the propensity for ST could be predicted by TP, and in particular by an index that calculates the distance from an ideal, balanced time profile, i.e., the DBTP [26,29,30].
- Pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) are those actions taken by people to protect the environment [31], such as purchasing sustainable products (e.g., local food), conserving water and energy, and changing habits [32]. As climate change has become an urgent issue, PEBs are defined as any behaviors that individuals can adopt to mitigate the hazardous impacts of climate change, resulting in dual benefits of its mitigation and sustainability [33]. Sustainability is a crucial aspect of the ST field [34], if we consider that the expansion of ST is predicted to increase emissions of black carbon into the stratosphere.
- (a)
- Sociodemographic variables could predict propensity for ST; specifically, younger and single men may be more inclined toward ST [3].
- (b)
- Social distance may affect the propensity toward ST, as it does with decision-making processes [37]. Our purpose in this case was exploratory, as we hypothesized that the direction of the effect relied on participants’ ethical and social evaluations of ST. Practically, SD might predict the propensity for ST either positively or negatively, depending on how individuals perceive its impact (as beneficial or detrimental to humanity).
- (c)
- We expected higher levels of sensation seeking to positively predict ST propensity, in line with the literature [3,10]. Space tourism, like any new and exciting experience, may particularly appeal to individuals who are more adventurous. Similarly, higher frequency of risky behaviors, denoting impulsivity, could predict it too.
- (d)
- In general, “openness to experience” (OE) is positively associated with curiosity for novelty [38] and sensation seeking [39], while “conscientiousness” (CO) is negatively associated with risk-taking inclinations [40]. Recently, a study by Joseph and Zhang [41] found that OE directly predicts recreational risk taking, while CO inversely predicts it. Based on the literature, we hypothesized that OE positively predicts propensity for engaging in risky recreational events, such as space tourism (ST), while CO is expected to have a negative prediction.
- (e)
- We posited that trait anxiety may negatively predict the propensity for space tourism, as individuals with higher levels of anxiety are typically more apprehensive about engaging in new and potentially risky experiences [42], such as space travel.
- (f)
- We suggested that an imbalanced temporal perspective, as measured by the DBTP index, would positively predict ST propensity. Specifically, individuals who exhibit a disproportionate focus on hedonistic aspects of the present, compared to other temporal perspectives, are likely to demonstrate a greater interest in risk taking across various domains [43].
- (g)
- We postulated that individuals with higher PEB-Q scores would exhibit heightened environmental concerns, which, in turn, might negatively predict ST propensity, particularly if participants are aware of the environmental impact associated with ST [44].
- (h)
- We believed that gender differences may exist among the predictors of the STP-Q and STW, considering gender differences in risk perception [45]. Our purpose in this case was exploratory.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
3.2. Procedure
4. Materials
4.1. The ad hoc Questionnaire for Space Tourism
4.2. Social Distance (SD) Scale
4.3. Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS-8)
4.4. Risk Behavior Scale (RBS)
4.5. The Big Five Inventory (BFI)
4.6. Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y)
4.7. Short Version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI) and the DBTP Index
4.8. Questionnaire for Pro-Environmental Behaviors (PEB-Q)
5. Data Analysis
6. Results
6.1. Descriptive Analysis
6.2. PCA and Reliability of the Space Tourism Propensity Questionnaire (STP-Q)
6.3. Correlation and Regression Analyses for the STP-Q
6.4. Correlation and Logistic Regression Analyses for the STW Item
7. Discussion and Conclusions
7.1. Practical Implications
- -
- Targeted marketing. Our findings provide a solid basis for implementing concrete strategies and actions in the ST sector, enabling a more targeted and effective approach to attracting and meeting the needs of potential space tourists. Knowing the factors that influence the propensity for ST can help the development of targeted marketing strategies. Companies in this industry can adopt differentiated approaches for men and women, using messages and communication channels specific to each target group.
- -
- Development of tourism packages. The results of our study can guide the development of customized tourism packages to meet the different needs and preferences of potential space tourists. For example, if sensation seeking is a key factor, campaigns could emphasize the excitement, adventure, and unique experience offered by ST.
- -
- Education and information. Given the assumption that participants may lack adequate information about ST, it is important to provide appropriate training and education on the participants. Travel agencies, space companies, and tourism organizations can play a key role in disseminating correct knowledge about ST, eliminating any information gaps.
- -
- Partnerships and collaborations. Companies in the ST sector can consider strategic partnerships with other organizations or brands that share similar values or cater to the same target groups. These collaborations can expand the reach of marketing initiatives and increase the attractiveness of ST to target audiences.
7.2. Limitations and Future Directions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Henderson, I.L.; Tsui, W.H.K. The Role of Niche Aviation Operations as Tourist Attractions. In Air Transport: A Tourism Perspective; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 233–244. ISBN 978-0-12-812857-2. [Google Scholar]
- Spector, S. Delineating Acceptable Risk in the Space Tourism Industry. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2020, 45, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, M.V.; Nica, M.; Wilkes, K. Space Tourism: Research Recommendations for the Future of the Industry and Perspectives of Potential Participants. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 1093–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cater, C.I. Steps to Space; Opportunities for Astrotourism. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 838–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerster, M.; Crawley, E.; de Neufville, R. Commercial Viability Evaluation of the Suborbital Space Tourism Industry. New Space 2019, 7, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seedhouse, E. Tourists in Space; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; ISBN 978-3-319-05037-9. [Google Scholar]
- Olya, H.; Han, H. Emerging Space Tourism Business: Uncovering Customer Avoidance Responses and Behaviours. J. Vacat. Mark. 2023, 29, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, L. Progress in Space Tourism Studies: A Systematic Literature Review. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2022, 47, 372–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatti, M.; Palumbo, R.; Di Domenico, A.; Mammarella, N. Affective Health and Countermeasures in Long-Duration Space Exploration. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mehran, J.; Olya, H.; Han, H. Psychology of Space Tourism Marketing, Technology, and Sustainable Development: From a Literature Review to an Integrative Framework. Psychol. Mark. 2023, 40, 1130–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N. Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 117, 440–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, E.; Marsh, J.E.; Richardson, B.H.; Ball, L.J. A Systematic Review of the Psychological Distance of Climate Change: Towards the Development of an Evidence-Based Construct. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 81, 101822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuckerman, M. Sensation Seeking and Risk Taking. In Emotions in Personality and Psychopathology; Izard, C.E., Ed.; Emotions, Personality, and Psychotherapy; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1979; pp. 161–197. ISBN 978-1-4613-2892-6. [Google Scholar]
- Bakhshani, N.-M. Impulsivity: A Predisposition Toward Risky Behaviors. Int. J. High. Risk Behav. Addict. 2014, 3, e20428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, L.E.; Potts, G.F. Impulsivity in Decision-Making: An Event-Related Potential Investigation. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2009, 46, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, A.; Bagoj, E.; Monaco, M.; Zabberoni, S.; De Rosa, S.; Papantonio, A.M.; Mundi, C.; Caltagirone, C.; Carlesimo, G.A. Standardization and Normative Data Obtained in the Italian Population for a New Verbal Fluency Instrument, the Phonemic/Semantic Alternate Fluency Test. Neurol. Sci. 2014, 35, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.T., Jr.; McCrae, R.R. The Five-Factor Model, Five-Factor Theory, and Interpersonal Psychology. In Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, Research, Assessment, and Therapeutic Interventions; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 91–104. ISBN 978-0-470-47160-9. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, P.; McCrae, R.R. A Five-Factor Theory of Personality. Five-Factor. Model. Personal. Theor. Perspect. 1999, 2, 51–87. [Google Scholar]
- McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T. Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality across Instruments and Observers. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 52, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T. Chapter 31—Conceptions and Correlates of Openness to Experience. In Handbook of Personality Psychology; Hogan, R., Johnson, J., Briggs, S., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 825–847. ISBN 978-0-12-134645-4. [Google Scholar]
- Elwood, L.S.; Wolitzky-Taylor, K.; Olatunji, B.O. Measurement of Anxious Traits: A Contemporary Review and Synthesis. Anxiety Stress. Coping 2012, 25, 647–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gidron, Y. Trait Anxiety. In Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine; Gellman, M.D., Turner, J.R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; p. 1989. ISBN 978-1-4419-1005-9. [Google Scholar]
- Pedersen, W.S.; Muftuler, L.T.; Larson, C.L. Disentangling the Effects of Novelty, Valence and Trait Anxiety in the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis, Amygdala and Hippocampus with High Resolution 7T fMRI. Neuroimage 2017, 156, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carstensen, L.L. The Influence of a Sense of Time on Human Development. Science 2006, 312, 1913–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimbardo, P.; Sword, R.; Sword, R. The Time Cure: Overcoming PTSD with the New Psychology of Time Perspective Therapy; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-118-20567-9. [Google Scholar]
- Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application: Essays in Honor of Philip G. Zimbardo; Stolarski, M.; Fieulaine, N.; Van Beek, W. (Eds.) Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 978-3-319-07367-5. [Google Scholar]
- Stolarski, M.; Fieulaine, N.; Zimbardo, P.G. Putting Time in a Wider Perspective: The Past, the Present and the Future of Time Perspective Theory. In The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Volume I: The Science of Personality and Individual Differences; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 592–625. ISBN 978-1-5264-4517-9. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, J.; Hung, K.; Wang, L.; Schuett, M.; Hu, L. Do Perceptions of Time Affect Outbound-Travel Motivations and Intention? An Investigation among Chinese Seniors. Tour. Manag. 2016, 53, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rönnlund, M.; Åström, E.; Carelli, M.G. Time Perspective in Late Adulthood: Aging Patterns in Past, Present and Future Dimensions, Deviations from Balance, and Associations with Subjective Well-Being. Timing Time Percept. 2017, 5, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimbardo, P.; Boyd, J. The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life; Atria Books: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-1-4165-4199-8. [Google Scholar]
- Krajhanzl, J. Environmental and Pro-Environmental Behavior. In School and Health; 2010; Volume 21, pp. 251–274. ISBN 978-80-210-5259-8. Available online: https://www.ped.muni.cz/z21/knihy/2011/36/36/texty/eng/krajhanzl.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2023).
- Carman, J.P.; Zint, M.T. Defining and Classifying Personal and Household Climate Change Adaptation Behaviors. Glob. Environ. Change 2020, 61, 102062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masud, M.M.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; Junsheng, H.; Ahmed, F.; Yahaya, S.R.; Akhtar, R.; Banna, H. Climate Change Issue and Theory of Planned Behaviour: Relationship by Empirical Evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padhy, A.K.; Padhy, A.K. Legal Conundrums of Space Tourism. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 184, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.-W. A Preliminary Examination of the Relationship between Consumer Attitude towards Space Travel and the Development of Innovative Space Tourism Technology. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 20, 1431–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olya, H.G.T.; Han, H. Antecedents of Space Traveler Behavioral Intention. J. Travel. Res. 2020, 59, 528–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, H.; Song, H.; Liu, Y.; Xu, K.; Shen, H. Social Distance Modulates the Process of Uncertain Decision-Making: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2019, 12, 701–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jani, D. Big Five Personality Factors and Travel Curiosity: Are They Related? Anatolia 2014, 25, 444–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aluja, A.; García, Ó.; García, L.F. Relationships among Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Sensation Seeking. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2003, 35, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.M.; Xu, B.B.; Zhang, S.J.; Chen, Y.Q. Influence of Personality and Risk Propensity on Risk Perception of Chinese Construction Project Managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1294–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, E.D.; Zhang, D.C. Personality Profile of Risk-Takers: An Examination of the Big Five Facets. J. Individ. Differ. 2021, 42, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, E.M.; Bowen, R.; Balbuena, L. Mood Instability and Trait Anxiety as Distinct Components of Eysenckian Neuroticism With Differential Relations to Impulsivity and Risk Taking. J. Personal. Assess. 2020, 102, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jochemczyk, Ł.; Pietrzak, J.; Buczkowski, R.; Stolarski, M.; Markiewicz, Ł. You Only Live Once: Present-Hedonistic Time Perspective Predicts Risk Propensity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 115, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, M.N.; Jones, K.L. Implications of a Growing Spaceflight Industry: Climate Change. J. Space Saf. Eng. 2022, 9, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, E.C.L.; Khoo-Lattimore, C.; Arcodia, C. A Systematic Literature Review of Risk and Gender Research in Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2017, 58, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qualtrics.com. Available online: https://www.qualtrics.com/it/ (accessed on 7 November 2022).
- Holm, S. Declaration of Helsinki. In The International Encyclopedia of Ethics; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–4. ISBN 978-1-4443-6707-2. [Google Scholar]
- Sankovic, S. The Analysis of Potential Space Tourism Market. Master’s Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hoyle, R.H.; Stephenson, M.T.; Palmgreen, P.; Lorch, E.P.; Donohew, R.L. Reliability and Validity of a Brief Measure of Sensation Seeking. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2002, 32, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrando, P.J.; Chico, E. The Construct of Sensation Seeking as Measured by Zuckerman’s SSS-V and Arnett’s AISS: A Structural Equation Model. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2001, 31, 1121–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephenson, M.T.; Velez, L.F.; Chalela, P.; Ramirez, A.; Hoyle, R.H. The Reliability and Validity of the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS-8) with Young Adult Latino Workers: Implications for Tobacco and Alcohol Disparity Research. Addiction 2007, 102, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephenson, M.T.; Hoyle, R.H.; Palmgreen, P.; Slater, M.D. Brief Measures of Sensation Seeking for Screening and Large-Scale Surveys. Drug Alcohol. Depend. 2003, 72, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buzzi, C.; Cavalli, A.; Lillo, A.D. Giovani Verso il Duemila. Quarto Rapporto Iard Sulla Condizione Giovanile in Italia; Il Mulino: Bologna, Italy, 1997; ISBN 978-88-15-06216-1. [Google Scholar]
- John, O.P.; Donahue, E.M.; Kentle, R.L. Big Five Inventory (BFI). APA PsycTests. 1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ubbiali, A.; Chiorri, C.; Hampton, P.; Deborah6donati. Italian Big Five Inventory. Psychometric Properties of the Italian Adaptation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). BPA Appl. Psychol. Bull. (Boll. Di Psicol. Appl.) 2013, 59, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Spielberger, C.; Gorsuch, R.; Lushene, R.; Vagg, P.; Jacobs, G. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y1–Y2); Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1983; Volume IV. [Google Scholar]
- Zimbardo, P.G.; Boyd, J.N. Putting Time in Perspective: A Valid, Reliable Individual-Differences Metric. In Time Perspective Theory; Review, Research and Application: Essays in Honor of Philip G. Zimbardo; Stolarski, M., Fieulaine, N., van Beek, W., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 17–55. ISBN 978-3-319-07368-2. [Google Scholar]
- Al, J.; Klicperova, M.; Lukavska, K.; Lukavsky, J. Short Version of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI-Short) with and without the Future-Negative Scale, Verified on Nationally Representative Samples. Time Soc. 2015, 25, 169–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rönnlund, M.; Koudriavtseva, A.; Germundsjö, L.; Eriksson, T.; Åström, E.; Carelli, M.G. Mindfulness Promotes a More Balanced Time Perspective: Correlational and Intervention-Based Evidence. Mindfulness 2019, 10, 1579–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stolarski, M.; Bitner, J.; Zimbardo, P.G. Time Perspective, Emotional Intelligence and Discounting of Delayed Awards. Time Soc. 2011, 20, 346–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceccato, I.; La Malva, P.; Di Crosta, A.; Palumbo, R.; Gatti, M.; Momi, D.; Logrieco, M.G.M.; Fasolo, M.; Mammarella, N.; Borella, E.; et al. “When Did You See It?” The Effect of Emotional Valence on Temporal Source Memory in Aging. Cogn. Emot. 2022, 36, 987–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Jiang, J. An Unpredictable Environment Reduces Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Dynamic Public Goods Experiment on Forest Use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 78, 101702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuriev, A.; Dahmen, M.; Paillé, P.; Boiral, O.; Guillaumie, L. Pro-Environmental Behaviors through the Lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Scoping Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1980; ISBN 978-0-13-936435-8. [Google Scholar]
- Sousa, V.D.; Rojjanasrirat, W. Translation, Adaptation and Validation of Instruments or Scales for Use in Cross-Cultural Health Care Research: A Clear and User-Friendly Guideline. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2011, 17, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.-G. Statistical Power Analyses Using G*Power 3.1: Tests for Correlation and Regression Analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bujang, M.A.; Sa’at, N.; Sidik, T.M.I.T.A.B.; Joo, L.C. Sample Size Guidelines for Logistic Regression from Observational Studies with Large Population: Emphasis on the Accuracy Between Statistics and Parameters Based on Real Life Clinical Data. Malays. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 25, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Cohen, P.; Chen, S. How Big Is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 2010, 39, 860–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1988; ISBN 978-0-203-77158-7. [Google Scholar]
- Shaukat, S.S.; Rao, T.A.; Khan, M.A. Impact of Sample Size on Principal Component Analysis Ordination of an Environmental Data Set: Effects on Eigenstructure. Ekológia 2016, 35, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomeroy, C.; Calzada-Diaz, A.; Bielicki, D. Fund Me to the Moon: Crowdfunding and the New Space Economy. Space Policy 2019, 47, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crouch, G.I.; Devinney, T.M.; Louviere, J.J.; Islam, T. Modelling Consumer Choice Behaviour in Space Tourism. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 441–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, L.; Hutchinson, J.C.; Mullin, E.M. In the Zone: An Exploration of Personal Characteristics Underlying Affective Responses to Heavy Exercise. J. Sport. Exerc. Psychol. 2018, 40, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vries, R.E.; de Vries, A.; Feij, J.A. Sensation Seeking, Risk-Taking, and the HEXACO Model of Personality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2009, 47, 536–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gowen, R.; Filipowicz, A.; Ingram, K.K. Chronotype Mediates Gender Differences in Risk Propensity and Risk-Taking. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, C.; Yue, C.; Avitt, A.; Chen, Y. A Systematic Review Approach to Find Robust Items of the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 627578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
STK | STW | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | Yes | No | χ2 | Yes | No | χ2 | ||
Gender | Female | 190 | 57.1% | 92 | 98 | 6.28 * | 180 | 10 | 0.20 |
48.4% | 51.6% | 94.7% | 5.3% | ||||||
Male | 143 | 42.9% | 89 | 54 | 137 | 6 | |||
62.2% | 37.8% | 95.8% | 4.2% | ||||||
Marital status | Single | 184 | 55.3% | 96 | 88 | 0.79 | 177 | 7 | 0.90 |
52.2% | 47.8% | 96.2% | 3.8% | ||||||
In a relationship | 149 | 44.7% | 85 | 64 | 140 | 9 | |||
57% | 43% | 93.9% | 6.1% |
Items | Factor Loading | Alpha (If Removed) |
---|---|---|
Item 2 | 0.554 | 0.799 |
Item 3 | 0.691 | 0.788 |
Item 5 | 0.523 | 0.799 |
Item 6 | 0.621 | 0.794 |
Item 7 | 0.615 | 0.789 |
Item 8 | 0.737 | 0.781 |
Item 9 | 0.652 | 0.786 |
Item 10 | 0.629 | 0.790 |
Item 11 | 0.530 | 0.804 |
Item 12 | 0.500 | 0.803 |
Item 13 | 0.608 | 0.803 |
STP-Q | |||
---|---|---|---|
Pearson’s r | 95% CI | ||
Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||
Gender | −0.108 * | −0.21 | −0.00 |
Age | −0.029 | −0.14 | 0.08 |
Marital status | −0.036 | −0.14 | 0.07 |
SD | −0.137 * | −0.24 | −0.03 |
RBS | 0.104 | −0.00 | 0.21 |
BSSS | 0.353 ** | 0.26 | 0.44 |
BFI CO | 0.114 * | 0.01 | 0.22 |
BFI OE | 0.07 | −0.04 | 0.18 |
STAI | −0.07 | −0.18 | 0.04 |
DBTP | −0.124 * | −0.23 | −0.02 |
PEB-Q | 0.053 | −0.06 | 0.16 |
Predictors | B | SE | β | t | p | 95% CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||
Gender | −3.046 | 1.906 | −0.085 | −1.598 | 0.111 | −6.80 | 0.70 |
SD | −1.994 | 0.668 | −0.156 | −2.984 | 0.003 | −3.31 | −0.68 |
BSSS | 8.141 | 1.210 | 0.345 | 6.727 | <0.001 | 5.76 | 10.52 |
BFI CO | 3.226 | 1.516 | 0.115 | 2.128 | 0.034 | 0.24 | 6.21 |
DBTP | −1.003 | 1.081 | −0.050 | −0.927 | 0.354 | −3.13 | 1.12 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gatti, M.; Ceccato, I.; Di Crosta, A.; La Malva, P.; Bartolini, E.; Palumbo, R.; Di Domenico, A.; Mammarella, N. Assessing Space Tourism Propensity: A New Questionnaire for Future Space Tourists. Aerospace 2023, 10, 1018. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10121018
Gatti M, Ceccato I, Di Crosta A, La Malva P, Bartolini E, Palumbo R, Di Domenico A, Mammarella N. Assessing Space Tourism Propensity: A New Questionnaire for Future Space Tourists. Aerospace. 2023; 10(12):1018. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10121018
Chicago/Turabian StyleGatti, Matteo, Irene Ceccato, Adolfo Di Crosta, Pasquale La Malva, Emanuela Bartolini, Rocco Palumbo, Alberto Di Domenico, and Nicola Mammarella. 2023. "Assessing Space Tourism Propensity: A New Questionnaire for Future Space Tourists" Aerospace 10, no. 12: 1018. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10121018