The Society of Convergence Knowledge Transactions Vol.8, No.2,
pp.21-32, 2020
Research Article, pISSN : 2287-8920
MBTI Big Five
1, 2, 3
1 , 2 , 3
A Study on the Recommendation of Tourism using Topic Map According
to Personality Types based on MBTI and Big Five Models
Ki-Hwan Ryu1, Su-Hyun Youn2, and Seok-Jae Moon3
1Professor, KwangWoon University, Graduate School of Smart
Convergence, Institute of Tourism Industry 2KwangWoon University,
Graduate School of Smart Convergence, Institute of Tourism Industry
3Professor, KwangWoon University, Institute of Information
Technology
3 Corresponding author:
[email protected]
Received May 13, 2020; Revised May 25, 2020; Accepted June 16,
2020
ABSTRACT
,
, MBTI Big Five
. , IT
.
, .
.
5 . ,
. . , (-NT)
. , (-NF) . ,
(-SJ) . , (-SP) .
.
This study found that tourists can recommend customized tourist
attractions to tourists if they identify and analyze the
tourists'
psychology and tourism motivation because the paradigm of travel
changes and tourists pursue and prefer more diverse tourist
attractions. Accordingly, MBTI and Big Five models were applied to
analyze how tourists' personality types and tourism motives
affect each other. In addition, as the importance of applications
has grown in line with the recent development of the IT industry,
the
application was proposed as a keyword-based web app type by
applying a topic map based on personality type and propensity.
This
provides practical information by analyzing and mapping the link
between the nature of tourists and their motives. This is a
departure
from the uniformity of existing tourism applications, and can
create interest by adding the element of personality and
recommend
tourist attractions suitable for individual tourists. Five types of
tourists presented in this study were analyzed for their
characteristics
and how tourist motives affect each other. First, there was no
significant difference between the factors of daily escape and rest
among
the factors of tourism motivation. This means that daily escape and
relaxation are the basic factors in tourism. Second,
rationalization
2020 by The Society of Convergence Knowledge. This is an Open
Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution
Non-Commercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction
in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
22 The Society of Convergence Knowledge Vol.8, No.2, 2020
(-NT) among personality types showed significant differences in
curiosity factors. Third, the ideal type (-NF) among personality
types
showed significant differences in empirical factors. Fourth, among
personality types, the guardian type (-SJ) showed a
significant
difference in family harmony factors. Fifth, among personality
types, artist-type (-SP) showed significant differences in the
factors of
amusement. Based on the results of this study, a hybrid app-based
tourism recommendation system was implemented.
Keywords: Korea tourism, Type of personality, Motivation for
tourism, Recommendation system, Hybrid Web/App
1.
. 1 1 , ,
. .
, , .
. . ,
.
[1]. ,
, .
[2].
.
,
, MBTI Big Five
. , IT
MBIT + Big Five
. ,
. ,
MBTI Big Five 16 Personalities ,
.
, , .
2 . 3 , 4
. 5 6 .
2.
(Personality traits) ,
. . paul T Robert (1995)
, , [3]. John Naumann Soto (2008)
[4]. .
MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), 5(Big Five Model),
· · / MBTI Big Five 23
(Enneagram) . MBTI (Index)
[5]. MBTI 4 (1) (Extrovert)
(Introvert), (2) (Sensing) (Intuitive), (3) (Thinking) (Sensing),
(4) (Judging) (Perceiving)
[6]. , (Extrovert) (Introvert) .
.
. , (Sensing) (Inutuitive) ( ).
.
[7]. , (Thinking) (Sensing) (, ) .
. ‘’ . , (Judging) (Perceiving)
. .
[8]. , Big Five Model
. Big Five Model 5, OCEAN .
. Allport, Cattell, Guilford, Eysenck
,
[9,10]. Goldberg 1892 Big Five Model [12, 13].
, Cost McCrae 5 Costa McCrae (1985) , , NEO-PI
(NEO-Personality Inventory) , 1992 NEO-PI-R (Neo-Personality
Inventory Revised)
5 [14]. , ,
[15]. ,
. , ,
.
.
, .
3.
3.1 /
.
.
.
. ,
.
. 6 , , , , ,
16 Personalities (https://www.16personalities.com/ko)
. . 18
24 The Society of Convergence Knowledge Vol.8, No.2, 2020
, 12 . ‘
’ 1 ‘ ’ 5 5 . MBTI
‘’ INTJ, INTP, ENTJ, ENTP –T –A (NT) , INFJ, INFP,
ENFJ, ENFP –T –A (NF) . ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ESFJ –T –A
(SJ) , ISTP, ISFP, ESTP, ESFP –T –A (SP) .
. , 209
. 2020 2 1 2 10, ,
. Table 1 .
Table 1. Sample Setting and Investigation Method
209
2020 2 1~ 2020 2 10
3.2 :
Table 2 . 135(64.6%) 74(35.4%) ,
20~29 123(61.7%) , 30~39 40(19.1%). 40~49. 50~59 13(6.2%), 20
10(4.8%), 60 2(1.0%) . 180(86.1%) 29(13.9%).
200~300 91(43.5%) , 100~200 68(32.5%), 100 34(16.3%),
300~400 15(7.2%), 400 1(0.5%) . 100(47.8%) ,
/ 43(20.6%) / 19(9.1%). 4(1.9%)
. () 83(39.7%) . 61(29.2%), 41(19.6%), 19
(9.1%), 5(2.4%) .
() (%)
74 35.4
20 10 4.8
20~29 129 61.7
30~39 40 19.1
40~49 15 7.2
50~59 13 6.2
60 2 1.0
· · / MBTI Big Five 25
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of those surveyed
(Continue)
() (%)
29 13.9
400 1 0.5
Table 3 . 16 Personalities
(https://www.16personalities.com/ko)
209 71 (NF), 51 (SP), 46 (SJ), 42 (NT),
. (NF) INFP-A 20(9.6%) . (NF) ENFP-A
(SP) ISFP-A 15(7.2%) , (SP) ISTP-T 13(6.2%). (NF) ENFJ-A 11
(5.3%) . 10 .
Table 3. Types of personality of the person under
investigation
() (%)
26 The Society of Convergence Knowledge Vol.8, No.2, 2020
Table 3. Types of personality of the person under investigation
(Continue)
() (%)
4.
.
, , , , .
. (Scheffe’s post-hoc analysis) ,
(13.32) (13.52) .
(12.40) , (13.29) .
(14.93) . .
. Table 4
(NT), (NF), (SJ), (SP) .
.
· · / MBTI Big Five 27
Table 4. Differences in Daily Escape by Personality
F p
46 14.52 1.03
45 14.69 0.85
Table 5 . (NT)>(NF)>(SP)>(SJ)
(NT) . (NT) ,
.
Table 5. Differences in curiosity according to character
F p
46 7.04 3.13
45 7.89 3.21
Table 6 (SJ)>(NT)>(NF)>(SP) (SJ)
. (SJ) .
.
Table 6. Differences in Family Harmony by Personality
F p
46 13.52 2.83
45 6.76 2.86
Table 7 (NT) .
(NT) .
.
Table 7. differences in rest according to character
F p
46 14.39 1.13
45 14.58 0.97
28 The Society of Convergence Knowledge Vol.8, No.2, 2020
Table 8 (NF)>(NT)>(SP)>(SJ) (NF)
. (NF) .
.
46 6.30 2.44
45 6.69 2.67
Table 9 (SP)>(NT)>(NF)>(SJ) . (SP)
. .
Table 9. Differences in Family Harmony by Personality
F p
46 7.76 2.68
45 13.29 2.59
5.1
Fig. 1 MBIT + Big Five .
,
.
- : MBTI + BIG FIVE 32 4 (
, , , ) .
- : SNS 6(, , , , , ) .
- :
, .
- : PC
.
- Data-Storage: , ,
.
· · / MBTI Big Five 29
Fig. 1. Construction of a tourism recommendation system using a
hybrid web app-based topic map
.
.
Fig. 2
. ,
. , Data-Storage .
Data-Storage ,
. ,
. , ,
. . ,
Data-Storage .
Fig. 2. System-wide flow chart
30 The Society of Convergence Knowledge Vol.8, No.2, 2020
5.2
,
. , , (implicit)
, , ,
.
.
•, , , , .
•, , .
• .
, ,
. 2019 2 1
2019 2 10 42,389 .
3,971
. Fig. 4 (a) . 1( ) INTJ, INTP, ENTJ, ENTP, INFJ,
INFP, ENFJ, ENFP, ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTP, ISFP, ESTP, ESFP .
2( ) ,
, , , , . 3( ) , , ,
.
Fig. 3 (b) . INTP
, , , , , , , ,
, , . Fig. 4 .
(a) Result of topic map for tourism recommendation (b) Relationship
between topics based on tourism keywords
Fig. 3. Topic map composition for tourist recommendation
· · / MBTI Big Five 31
Fig. 4. Personality tourism type web app interface based on hybrid
web app
6.
MBTI Big Five Model .
. , ,
.
, .
. , (-NT)
. (-NT)
. , (-SJ) . (-SJ)
. ,
(-NF) . (-NF)
. , (-SP) . (-SP)
. (-NT), (-NF), (-SJ),
(-SP) .
, IT
. ,
.
.
Acknowledgement
References
1. H.-J. Lee, Y.-H. Lee, “Vision and Tasks of Inter-Korean Social
and Cultural Cooperation”, Hyundai Research Institute, No. 3,
pp.
1-15, 2018.
32 The Society of Convergence Knowledge Vol.8, No.2, 2020
2. S.-J. Hong, “The direction of inter-Korean tourism cooperation”,
Korea Tourism Policy, Vol. 71, pp. 60-64, 2014.
3. https://www.unwto.org/
4. D.-J. Lee, J.-U. Won, Y.-J. Kwon, M.-R. Kim, “A Study on the
Customer Satisfaction of Delivery Companies Based on Social
Network Big Data”, Journal of Electronic Trade Association of
Korea, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 55-67, 2016.
5.
https://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=1526243&cid=42171&categoryId=42180
6.
https://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=1821142&cid=46629&categoryId=46629
7. H.-T. Kim, “Strategies for the Promotion of Peace and Physical
Exchange and Cooperation between South and North Korea”,
North Korea Research Society, 2018.
8. D.-J. Jeong, S.-J. Kim, H.-J. Kim, Y.-W. Na, I.-C. Moon, Y.-H.
Song, K.-B. Choi, K.-H. Lim, J.-O. Lee, 2018 Unification
Ceremony Survey, Institute of Unification and Peace at Saul
University, Unification Studies, 2019.
9. B.-H. Lee, H.-J. Lee, Y.-H. Lee, The Meaning and Challenges of
the 19th Anniversary of the Mt. Kumgang Tour - According to a
survey conducted by experts on inter-Korean relations, Hyundai
Research Institute, 2018.
10. https://www.unikorea.go.kr/unikorea/
11. K.-S. Ko, A Study on the Evaluation of Attractiveness by the
Type of Tourist Destination, Ph.D. thesis at Cheju National
University, 2006.
12. S.-Y. Han, J.-Y. Yoon, J.-Y. Lee, “The impact of the
attractiveness of overseas travel on perceived benefits, attitudes
and
behavior”, Tourism Leisure Research, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 125-145,
2011.
13. S. Y. Cho, K. S. Ko, “A Analysis of Demographic Difference of
North Korea Tourism Destination”, Knowledge industry
research,
Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 35-54, 2019.
14. H.-K. Noh, Y.-G. Chae, “The study of perception about unofoed
tourism of Korean peninsula through qualitative research”,
Jorunal of Hospitality & Tourism Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.
16-28, 2019.
15. Ramalho, José Carlos, Giovani Rubert Librelotto, and Pedro
Rangel Henriques. “Metamorphosis–a topic maps based
environment
to handle heterogeneous information resources”, International
Conference on Topic Map Research and Applications. Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005.