Download - According to Personality Types based on MBTI and Big Five ...

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
, 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
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
() (%)
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) .
.
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
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: , ,
.
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
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
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.
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.