Description
The article aims to discuss the relationship of culture and tourist behavior. The focus of the
study is to propose an extended research framework related to individualism/collectivism culture and
group travel intention. The article seeks to argue that group travel intention and behavior is not only
influenced by the cultural background of individualism or collectivism, but also a function of several
factors including social, political, and economic influence, as well as personal background of individual
travelers.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: a cross-cultural perspective
Fang Meng
Article information:
To cite this document:
Fang Meng, (2010),"Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: a cross-cultural perspective", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 340 - 351
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081514
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2889 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Luiz Moutinho, (1987),"Consumer Behaviour in Tourism", European J ournal of Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss 10 pp. 5-44http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000004718
J ohn C. Crotts, Ron Erdmann, (2000),"Does national culture influence consumers’ evaluation of travel services? A test of
Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences", Managing Service Quality: An International J ournal, Vol. 10 Iss 6 pp. 410-419 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520010351167
Songshan (Sam) Huang, Cathy H.C. Hsu, (2009),"Travel motivation: linking theory to practice", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 4 pp. 287-295http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910994505
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Special section paper
Individualism/collectivism and group travel
behavior: a cross-cultural perspective
Fang Meng
Abstract
Purpose – The article aims to discuss the relationship of culture and tourist behavior. The focus of the
study is to propose an extended research framework related to individualism/collectivism culture and
group travel intention. The article seeks to argue that group travel intention and behavior is not only
in?uenced by the cultural background of individualism or collectivism, but also a function of several
factors including social, political, and economic in?uence, as well as personal background of individual
travelers.
Design/methodology/approach – The article investigates the major current research and
methodological issues in cross-cultural tourist behavior studies. By reviewing and assessing
important concepts related to this particular theoretical topic, the study proposes a conceptual
framework based on the extensive literature review and discussion.
Findings – The study proposes that personal background, as well as social, political, and economic
factors all moderate the relationship between culture and group travel behavior, making tourist behavior
in collectivism or individualism cultures more similar or different from one another. The research also
tests whether social conditions of marginality contribute to the differences.
Practical implications – The study helps avoid the stereotypes of individualism/collectivism culture
related to group travel behavior, and provides better understanding of the function of various personal,
social, political, and economic factors on tourist behavior.
Originality/value – Cross-cultural studies in tourismare limited, especially in the tourist behavior sector.
The article offers insights into the cultural differences and tourist behaviors on a more detailed market
basis.
Keywords Cross-cultural studies, Individual behaviour, Collectivism, Group behaviour, Travel
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
International tourism has emerged and developed as a promising and fast growing industry
in today’s global economy. To achieve successful international tourism development,
industry professionals need to understand the cultural differences among international
tourists themselves, as well as between tourists and the host society. Cultural differences
in?uence tourist behavior in many aspects and have signi?cant impact on tourism policy,
planning, development, management and marketing (Reisinger and Turner, 2003). In recent
years, an increasing number of scholars have started to investigate the interrelationship
between culture and tourist behavior. Speci?cally, these studies attempt to understand how
culture explains and in?uences patters of travel behavior (Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam
and Reichel, 1996; Pizam and Sussman, 1995, Money and Crotts, 2003).
Research of cross-cultural tourism has widely applied the cultural dimension concept
proposedby Hofstede (1980, 1997, 2001) (Money and Crotts, 2003; Crotts, 2004; Litvin et al.,
PAGE 340
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010, pp. 340-351, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181011081514
Fang Meng is based at
Ohio University, Athens,
Ohio, USA.
The author would like to thank
Dr Muzaffer Uysal for his
suggestions on the research,
and acknowledge the
manuscript editing help of Dr
Arch Woodside and Francis
McFadden
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
2004; Litvin and Kar, 2003). Some studies suggest that tourists with ‘‘collectivism’’ cultural
background – in most cases, Asian culture – are very much likely to take group travel and
involve in group activities during their visit (Cho, 1991; Wong and Lau, 2001; Reisinger and
Turner, 2002). The focus of this study is to propose an extended research framework related
to individualism/collectivism culture and group travel intention. The study argues that group
travel intention and behavior is not only in?uenced by the cultural background of
individualism or collectivism, but also a function of several factors including social, political,
and economic in?uence, as well as personal background of individual travelers.
Research background: major current issues
Culture and tourist behavior
Culture, as the complex abstract and material elements created by a society, means
‘‘values, ideas, attitudes and meaningful symbols, as well as artifacts elaborated in a
society’’ (Moutinho, 2000). In cross-cultural tourism study, culture commonly refers to ‘‘a
stable and dominant cultural character of a society shared by most of its individuals and
remaining constant over long periods of time’’ (Reisinger and Turner, 2002). People from
different cultures have different cultural values, rules of social behavior, perceptions, and
social interaction, which consequently in?uence their lifestyle, work, leisure, and consumer
behavior patterns (Richardson and Crompton, 1988).
In the tourism ?eld, the study of consumer behavior examines many aspects of the tourists,
trying to explain why they do what they do (Gunn, 1994). The differences in tourist behaviors
among various cultures and/or nationalities exist within tourists’ motivation (Yuan and
McDonald, 1990); destination choice (Richardson and Crompton, 1988); decision-making
process, including information search and planning process (Money and Crotts, 2003);
image and perception (MacKay and Fesenmaier, 2000); satisfaction (Weiermair, 2000); and
trip characteristics such as travel party and length of travel (Money and Crotts, 2003), food
importance (Sheldon and Fox, 1988), service requirement (Reisinger and Turner, 2002),
complaining behavior (Watkins and Liu, 1996), and many other aspects (Harrison-Hill, 2001;
Chadee and Cutler, 1996; Pizam, 1999; Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Reichel, 1996;
Pizam and Sussman, 1995).
The greatest cultural differences appear among Asian and Western cultures (Reisinger and
Turner, 2003). In de?ning different cultures, Hofstede (1980, 1989, 1997, 2001) and his
colleagues (Hofstede and Bond, 1988) propose ?ve most widely utilized dimensions of
culture from their instrument entitled the Values Survey Module (VSM). Speci?cally, the ?ve
culture dimensions are:
1. power distance (a tolerance for class differentials in society);
2. individualism (the degree to which welfare of the individual is more valued than the
group);
3. masculinity (achievement orientation, competition, and materialism);
4. uncertainty avoidance (intolerance of risk); and
5. the Confucian dynamic, or long-term orientation (stability, thrift, respect for tradition and
the future).
According to Hofstede, many Asian countries demonstrate collectivism cultures, comparing
to the individualism-culture in Western countries. Asian people value social harmony,
cooperation and shared responsibility, role compliance and conformity to the group,
courtesy, tolerance, and moral discipline. With regard to tourist behavior, for example,
Japanese tourists tend to travel in groups, bowto everybody, spend heavily and photograph
constantly (Cho, 1991). They are likely to take short holidays to avoid separation with the
family, and typically expect the infrastructure for larger groups (Ritter, 1987). Similarly,
Koreans are loyal to their socio-cultural identity, unwilling to accept non-Korean ways of
living, fond of Confucian philosophy, traveling in groups, and spending freely (Cho, 1991).
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 341
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
As in a collectivismsociety, Chinese tourists report to prefer all-inclusive package tour, travel
in groups, especially in an unfamiliar environment (Wong and Lau, 2001).
Asian countries also present high uncertainty avoidance in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
Money and Crotts (2003) suggest that a relationship exits between the cultural dimension of
uncertainty avoidance and travel behavior. According to their study, Japanese tourists, who
show higher level of uncertainty avoidance than German travelers, use formal information
channel (e.g. travel agent), purchase pre-packaged tours, travel in larger groups, and stay a
shorter time and visit fewer destinations. Litvin et al. (2004) further validate and extend the
research results of uncertainty avoidance and travel behavior by using another broad
sample population which visited the USA representing 58 nations.
The investigation of tourists’ cultures has signi?cant managerial and marketing implications
on the tourism industry. Reisinger and Turner (2002) conduct an extensive research on
revealing cultural differences between Asian tourist markets and Australian hosts. The study
presents the typical Asian cultural characteristics: high context communication,
family-oriented, group loyalty and harmony, self-reserved, implicit feeling display on
satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction, and high-standard service perception. Based on the
above cultural characteristics, the study promotes themes of hosting Asian tourists as:
developing close human relations between Asian tourists and Australian residents. The
research also recommends a detailed list of marketing implications as speci?c guidelines:
show respect to hierarchy and senior system and their social etiquette; pay attention to face
saving; organize family-oriented tour and group activities; offer high-standard service and
small gifts; and show respect to Asian culture and kindness to tourists. By investigating the
cultural differences between Asian tourists and Australia hosts, tourism providers will have a
better understanding on how to design the products and services, resulting in a better
destination image, higher level of tourist satisfaction, and increased economic bene?t.
Methodology dif?culties in cross-cultural tourism studies
Cross-cultural studies in tourism research are limited (Pizam, 1999). Plog (1990, p. 43)
indicates that ‘‘cross-cultural research, particularly related to travel behavior, is quite rare’’.
Dimanche (1994) emphasizes that tourism-based cross-cultural market research is scarce
and hindered by issues such as ethnocentrism, lack of resources, and high requirement of
language and cross-cultural skills. Sin et al. (1999) also argue that cross-cultural studies are
often subject to severe ethnocentrism. The majority of existing tourist behavior research still
take place in several western countries, especially in the USA, and the theories and
practices developed are limited to the white middle-class American culture and lack
generalization or speci?c applications to other cultural settings (Burnett et al., 1991).
Pizam (1999) discusses both direct and indirect research methods on different nationality
and tourist behavior studies. Direct methods include diary method (tourists record their own
behavior during visitation), survey method (survey completed by tourists, ex post facto), and
researchers’ observation. Using direct methods, researchers could empirically discover
what differences actually exist in the behavior of tourists of various nationalities. Indirect
methods mainly use surveys of residents’ perception of tourists or tourism practitioners’
perception of tourists to detect the different tourist behavior based on nationality. Sin et al.
(1999) recommend that researchers should consider multiple methods in data collection to
avoid single method bias.
Researchers commonly observe that due to the special characteristics of cross-cultural
studies, methodology in cross-cultural studies is of special importance to ensure the
reliability and validity of research results (Becker and Murrmann, 2000; Dimanche, 1994; Sin
et al., 1999). Three critical issues in conducting valid multicultural research are in need of
consideration: equivalence (including language equivalence, experiential/functional and
conceptual equivalence, measurement equivalence), sampling, and data analysis
(Dimanche, 1994).
Dimanche (1994) reports a thorough review on the equivalence issues related to
cross-cultural studies in the tourism ?eld. According to his comments, language
PAGE 342
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
equivalence requires the translation to be equivalent with the original language when
dealing with cross-cultural studies. Dimanche (1994) further recommends combining
different translation methods such as back-translation, bilingual technique, committee
approach, and pre-test procedures to help achieve language equivalence. Experiential
(functional) equivalence means that the terms utilized must refer to the real things and real
experiences and serve the same functions across all cultures examined in the research
(Becker and Murrmann, 2000; Sechrest et al., 1972). Conceptual equivalence exists when
the meaning of research concepts is equivalent across cultures. Measurement (scalar)
equivalence requires that scale items and response categories are universally identical for
respondents across cultures. Cross-cultural comparison is meaningful only when the
numbers on the response scales have the same meaning across cultures (Sin et al., 1999).
A few scholars also have examined the sampling and data analysis concerns related to
cross-cultural studies (Becker andMurrmann, 2000; Sin et al., 1999). They propose that when
using broad samples to provide valid assessments of cultural differences, these samples
must be representative of entire populations in each of the countries under study. The primary
samplingconcerniswhether or not thesamplefromeachcultureiscomparable, soastoavoid
attributing cross-cultural difference to dissimilar sample characteristics. To achieve this goal,
researchers need to apply similar sampling frames and sampling methods in all cultural
groups under study (Becker and Murrmann, 2000; Sin et al., 1999).
Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: a new thought
Tourism researchers have not paid enough attention to the role of cultural differences in
determining tourist behavior (Pizam, 1999), and all-English approach is dominant in the
existing literature (Dimanche, 1994). As Asian tourist market becomes increasingly
important in the world, research on cultural differences between Asian travelers and Western
host countries is in demand to help better understanding and serving the tourists from
collectivism cultures. However, the current research on cross-cultural tourist behavior all
take tourists in one culture as a whole, assuming no variation exists inside the culture, with
scarce further insight provided on the characteristics of speci?c market segments within the
national culture. Super?cial interpretation or stereotype images assigned to the culture
difference and the corresponding tourist behavior often negatively affect the data integrity
(citation).
In addition to the current research of general cross-cultural tourist behavior between Asian
and Western markets, further studies are in need to explore more detailed segments, for
example, age groups. Tourist behavior is not only in?uenced by culture, but also relates to
personal characteristics such as personality, personal background such as age, education
level, language skills, cultural awareness, and past travel experience. Social economic
factors, such as government policy and domestic travel pattern, also in?uence tourists’
behavior in international tourism. Therefore, tourists who have the same cultural
backgrounds may have different travel behaviors. Investigating cross-cultural tourist
behavior would be more meaningful and accurate if based on demographic characteristics
and other market segmentation features.
The proposed framework
The study tries to make an initial exploration on the relationship of individualism/collectivism
cultural dimension and group travel behavior under the impact of personal, social, political,
and economic factors. The study includes a conceptual framework (see Figure 1).
Speci?cally, the main objective of the proposed model is to examine whether differences
exist between two groups of travelers, who represent typical collectivism and individualism
cultures, with respect to group travel behavior. Personal background and social, political
and economic factors, as proposed, are the moderating variables which may impact the
relationship between culture and tourists’ group travel behavior. These factors, at the same
time, serve as independent variables which directly relate to group travel behavior. The
model also attempts to test whether social conditions of marginality contributes to the
differences in travel behavior between tourists of individualism and collectivism cultures.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 343
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Individualism versus collectivism
Individualism versus collectivism dimension of culture has become one of the major means
of comparison between societies in cross-cultural psychology and other comparative
disciplines. Scholars seek to explain the differences between Eastern and Western countries
on tourist behavior and why these differences exist, which undoubtedly have the social and
practical implications of understanding this particular dimension of human activity.
Hofstede’s (1980, 1997, 2001) work is one of the most cited sources regarding the cultural
dimension of individualism and collectivism.
According to Hofstede (1980, 1997, 2001), individualism stands for a society in which the
ties between individuals are loose: everyone has strong sense of self and needs to look after
him/herself and his/her family only; whereas collectivismstands for a society in which people
from birth onwards are part of strong, cohesive groups, which throughout a person’s lifetime
continue to protect him/her in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. People in individualism
and collectivism societies possess different social norms in their life, thus showing different
types of social behavior.
In an individualism culture, the social norm is that everyone takes care of him- or herself and
his or her immediate family only; people show ‘‘I’’ consciousness and self-orientation; the
individual’s identity emphasizes independence, individual initiative and achievement;
people value autonomy, variety, pleasure, and individual ?nancial security. Whereas in
collectivism culture, people have strong connection to their extended families or clans,
which protect them in exchange for loyalty; people show ‘‘we’’ consciousness and
collectivity orientation; the identity emphasize interdependence, group success and
belonging; people value expertise, order, duty, and security provided by organization or clan
(Hofstede, 1980, 1997, 2001).
Researchers observe that tourists of collectivism culture prefer group travel patterns. The
research ?ndings demonstrate that Japanese, Korean, and Chinese tourists are group
oriented and hierarchical, emphasize belongingness and relationships, and travel in groups
(Sirakaya et al., 2003; Ritter, 1987; Cho, 1991; Wong and Lau, 2001).
However, the adaptive nature of culture allows changes over time. Rapid social and
economic changes may lead to changes in the traditional value system. With the
development of globalization, many Asian countries, to some extent, are experiencing
changes on value system and social norms. Such changes would be due to the in?uence of
Western culture, modernization, migration, and economic development (Tan, 1981).
Hofstede (1980, 1997, 2001) identi?es different cultures on the basis on nationalities.
However, Dann (1993) criticizes the practice of using nationality as a discriminate variable
for explaining the differences in tourist behavior, because many tourists possess multiple
nationalities, and their country of birth may be different from their country of nationality. In
Figure 1 Proposed conceptual model
PAGE 344
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
identifying respondents’ national culture, Crotts and Litvin (2003), drawing from a database
composed of 847 international travelers whose country of birth, place of residence, and
national citizenship differed, replicate two recent studies to ascertain the measure best
explained traveler attitudes and behavior. They conclude that assigning respondents’
national culture measures based on their country of residence provides a more robust
means to account for cultural differences than does either country of birth or country of
citizenship. Furthermore, according to Hofstede (1997), the imprint of culture in the family
during childhood serves as one’s ‘‘mental program’’ and continuous reinforcement occurs
during the years in schools and organizations., Once ‘‘programmed’’ (generally be the age
of ten), the culture will remain relatively immune to change over the course of one’s lifetime.
Therefore, identifying one’s national culture based on his country of birth, country of
residency, and his parents’ country of residency seems to be more suitable and accurate
(Crotts and Litvin, 2003).
Group travel behavior
Tourists’ travel patterns typically consist of two categories: package group (including
complete package and partial package) and fully independent tour (Wang et al., 2000;
Yamamoto and Gill, 1999). Group package tour (GPT) refers to a group trip planned and
paid for in a single price in advance, covering commercial transportation, accommodation,
meals, sightseeing, and entertainment, and escorted by a tour leader/tour guide during the
trip (Morrison, 1989; Mok and Armstrong, 1995). Philips and Webster (1983) emphasize that
group travel may include ten or more persons traveling to one or more destinations, or on
about the same dates, with the same apparent reasons. Group tourist behaviors include
major consumption actions such as dinning, sightseeing, shopping, and other activities, all
taking place in a group manner.
In many Asian countries and areas, such as Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and China,
group package tour is one of the main modes of outbound travel. Group package tour
behavior of Asian tourists re?ects the deep Asian collectivism cultural values and high
uncertainty avoidance preference to ensure security and reduce perceived risk (Mok and
Armstrong, 1995, Wong and Lau, 2001)
However, emerging trends have shown that independent tour, to some extent, has gradually
replaced the group package tour worldwide, including Asia. According to World Tourism
Organization (World Tourism Organization, 1993, p. 21):
[. . .] the homogeneous group package tour developed so extensively during the 1960’s, 1970’s
and into the 1980’s . . . has become outmoded. It is not in line with the trend toward individual
expression.
Quest (1990, p. 137) claims that ‘‘the decline of the package tour may be due to the fact that
it has become unfashionable . . . and as more people travel overseas . . . they become more
sophisticated in their demands, more importantly, they have the con?dence to travel
independently.’’ Poon (1993) suggests that changing demographic and lifestyles have
resulted in greater demand for choice and ?exibility in vacations. Poon describes a growing
group of new tourists, ‘‘consumers who are ?exible, independent, and experienced
travelers, whose values and lifestyle are different from those of the mass tourists’’ (Poon,
1993, p. 114). Hyde and Lawson (2003) examine the nature of independent travel, indicating
that the new tourist differ from the mass tourists in the last several decades in the motivation,
information search, travel planning and decision making. Searching for a sense of freedom
and novelty and self-determination become the major motivations of independent tourists.
Yamamoto and Gill (1999) reveal the emerging trends in Japanese tourism and indicate that
despite the overall growth of Japanese tourism, the relative importance of package tours has
dropped from 80 per cent to 68 per cent between the period of 1986 to 1988 and 1992 to
1994. They indicate that the decline of mass package tourism and subsequent rise of more
individual forms of tourism is an inevitable tendency in contemporary tourism, re?ecting
more individuated, customized, and symbolic ‘‘postmodern’’ consumption of goods and
services. The study results report that the Japanese tourist market is undergoing a
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 345
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
substantial qualitative change: tourists are becoming more mature, independent, and
diverse in their travel preferences. Individualism is changing to be a more important
philosophy in the Japanese society, which is noticeable in trends of Japanese overseas
travel. Moeran (1983) also argues that an increasing desire has emerged for Japanese
tourists to seek more authentic experiences, such as being in touch with the lives of the local
people, rather than just touring popular destination.
Limited academic research has emerged on the potential impacts of the changing trend
from collectivism to individualism philosophy in the Chinese society. However, the
fast-growing independent travel in both Chinese domestic and international tourism gives
the support that the above-mentioned trend has appeared in China, especially in many large
and middle-sized cities (China National Tourism Administration, 2008, 2009). The Chinese
government reports that the growth rate of independent travel has exceeded the packaged
group travel in the Chinese outbound tourism market in 2008 (China National Tourism
Administration, 2008).
Personal background and social economic factors
Moutinho (1987) identi?es two basic factors that shape travel and tourism behavior: social
in?uence and personal traits. Social factors are forces outside the individual and include the
in?uence of other people, culture, subculture, and social class. Personal traits concern their
individual and their relation to the environment.
In this study, personal background refers to the individual’s personal characteristics such as
age, income, education level, language skills, and past overseas travel experience.
Researchers have reported that differences in personal background and demographic
characteristics have impact on people’s travel behavior. Cha et al. (1995) conclude that age
and education are statistically signi?cant predictors in their study of Japanese overseas
travelers’ behavior. Yamamoto and Gill (1999) examine the distinguishing characteristics
between Japanese package tourists and Japanese non-package tourists. Signi?cant
differences emerge in many of the socio-demographic attributes between the package (PK)
and non-package groups (NPK). The NPK tourists are younger in age, more likely to be male
tourists, have better English language skills and middle income, have more past travel
experience, etc.
According to Hsieh et al. (1994), the UK tourists’ choice between the independent and
package travel mode is subject to socio-demographic characteristics (such as age, gender,
education, income of the traveler), travel characteristics (such as length of stay, size of travel
party, and previous travel experience), country of origin, and travel destination. Morrison
et al. (1994) examine the travel arrangements of international travelers from France,
Germany, and the UK and ?nd that tourists’ choice of travel pattern signi?cantly differ in
terms of age, marital status, education, language ability, and length of travel. They report that
young tourists between age 18 and 35 prefer travel independently, while older people (over
55) prefer escorted package tour; tourists prefer escort package tour if they cannot speak
the language of destination area; independent travelers take longer trips than group
package tour; and group package tourists tend to have lower education (for French tourists).
Part of the reason, if not all, is that younger generation now has more opportunities to receive
higher level of education, obtain better foreign language skills and culture awareness, as
well as higher level of income than the older generation. These factors consequently
enhance their ability and con?dence to search more travel information from various means
and travel individually overseas. Furthermore, the younger generation is more likely to
absorb western values and norms, thus making preference for more fashionable,
independent, and ?exible independent tour to seek the sense of freedom and novelty.
Kim and Jogaratnam (2003) conclude from their research that travel activity preferences of
Asian and American university students are surprisingly similar.
Thevariables of personal backgroundincludeage, educationlevel, income, foreignlanguage
skills, andpast overseas travel experience. This study proposes that theabovevariables have
negative relationships with group travel behavior. In other words, tourists at young age, with
PAGE 346
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
high education level, high income, good foreign language skills, and past overseas travel
experience are less likely to choose group package tour or prefer group tour activities.
In addition to personal factors, some social-political factors such as government policy also
in?uence tourists’ behaviors, especially in developing countries. Edgell (1994) indicates that
governmental policies affecting outbound tourists are common and widespread, particularly
policies related to the imposition of restrictions such as exit visa requirements, restricted
allowances for foreign travel services, limited access to foreign currency, and limitations on
the value of goods returning residents can import free of duty. China, for example, adopted
certain policies that may affect and regulate tourists’ activities in overseas travel. Chinese
citizens could travel to selected countries, which have received the Approved Destination
Status (ADS) from the Chinese government, for leisure travel purposes arranged in group
travel format. Special regulations apply to the Chinese citizens bringing more than $2,000 for
overseas tour spending (China National Tourism Administration, 2002). These restrictions
could in?uence the Chinese tourists’ travel behavior such as travel pattern, expenditure,
length of stay, and other activities.
With regard to the variables related to the group travel behavior, two questions are in need to
identify the group tourist behavior preference. They are ‘‘if you could make your own choice
without any government restriction, how likely would you choose group package tour when
you travel overseas?’’, and ‘‘to what degree do you prefer group activities during the trip, that
is, do you prefer going shopping, photographing, dinning, having entertainment with the
package tour group?’’
Marginality and ethnicity
Marginality and ethnicity hypothesis are two explanations of the difference of tourism and
leisure behavior between blacks and whites (Washburne, 1978). Marginality hypothesis
suggests that the travel preferences of blacks are different from whites because of their
marginal position in society in terms of income and social class. The ethnicity hypothesis
indicates that the differences in tourism participation are due to the differences in taste that
originate in culture. The basis of the marginality hypothesis is that ethnic minorities are
marginalized by low incomes and cannot afford holidays, that if blacks and whites had equal
access to the same recreational activities andtravel opportunities, their participation patterns
wouldbesimilar. Theassumptionof theethnicityhypothesisisthat tourismchoiceswill varywith
race and ethnic identity, and that the differences between blacks and whites in recreation
participation may be due to the differences in their value systems, social organization and
norms (Washburne, 1978; Klemm, 2002; Floyd, 1998; Floydet al., 1994). Although continuous
discussions with empirical evidence exist to support or falsify the hypothesis, marginality and
ethnicity could be a useful tool to test whether differences still exist between two cultures or
ethnicswhencontrollingsomeimportant variablessuchasincome, educationlevel, andsoon.
Research propositions
Based on the discussion of the above constructs and literature review, as well as the
proposed theoretical framework, the study lists four major research propositions for further
empirical testing.
P1. Tourists from collectivism culture in general are more likely to present group travel
behavior than those from individualism culture.
P2. Social, political, and economic factors affect tourists’ group travel behavior.
P3. Controlling for government policy variable, tourists from collectivism culture but
hold ‘‘high-level’’ personal background (young age, high education and income,
good language skills, past overseas travel experience) will be less likely to present
group travel behavior than tourists with ‘‘low-level’’ personal background.
P4. Controlling for government policy variable, tourists from collectivism culture with
‘‘high-level’’ personal background are likely to show similarity in travel behavior as
the tourists in individualism culture.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 347
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The study also proposes to test the speci?c hypotheses of culture and tourist behavior by
comparing two countries, namely China and the USA, which represent typical collectivism
and individualism culture respectively. Several reasons exist why China and the USA are the
two appropriate countries for the empirical hypothesis testing. According to the World
Tourism Organization, by the year of 2020, China will become the largest international
tourism destination and the fourth largest tourist generating country in the world, whereas
the USA will rank the 2nd and 3rd in terms of inbound and outbound tourism respectively by
2020 (World TourismOrganization, 2000). Researchers reveal signi?cant cultural differences
between Asian and Western cultures, in which China and the USA represent two typical
collectivism and individualism cultures in the world. According to Hofstede (2001), with
regard to the index of individualism and collectivism culture, the scores of China and the
USA are 20 and 91 respectively, which may indicate the two extremes of the degree of
individualism and collectivism. Therefore, using these two countries is appropriate for
empirical testing of the research framework.
Conclusion
Scant research exists on cross-cultural tourist behavior, which has received increasing
attention in the academic ?eld in recent years. Cross-cultural tourist behavior studies
examine the in?uence of culture on tourists’ behavior in international tourismcontext, such as
motivation, destination choice, decision-making process, image and perception,
satisfaction, and so on. Researchers observe that several major dif?culties can cause the
research limitation in cross-cultural studies, including ethnocentrism, lack of resources, high
requirement of language and cultural skills. Methodology is another essential concern since
equivalence, sampling, and data analysis issues all need special consideration. This study
proposes an extended conceptual framework to examine the relationship of culture and
group tourist behavior under the impact of personal and social factors. The present paper
also reviews relevant literature to examine the main approach in individualism versus
collectivism culture, group package tour, and personal, social, political, and economic
factors, which may in?uence the tourist behavior and the relationship between culture and
group travel behavior. Age, education level, income, language skills, and past travel
experience, as well as government policy all moderate the relationship between culture and
group tourist behavior, making tourist behavior from collectivism or individualism cultures
more similar or different from each other. The study also intends to test whether social
conditions of marginality contribute to the differences. The article presents propositions for
future empirical test so as to further verify or falsify the propositions and hypotheses. The
study provides insights into the cultural differences and tourist behavior on a more detailed
market basis. This particular research would help avoid the stereotypes of
individualism/collectivism culture related to group travel behavior, and provide better
understanding of the function of various personal, social, political, and economic factors on
international tourism patterns.
References
Becker, C. and Murrmann, S. (2000), ‘‘Methodological considerations in multicultural research’’, Tourism
Analysis, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
Burnett, G.W., Uysal, M. and Jamrozy, U. (1991), ‘‘Articles on international themes in the Journal of Travel
Research’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 47-50.
Cha, S., McCleary, K. and Uysal, M. (1995), ‘‘Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers:
a factor-cluster segmentation approach’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 33-9.
Chadee, D.D. and Cutler, J. (1996), ‘‘Insights into international travel by students’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 75-81.
China National Tourism Administration (2002), ‘‘The regulations of carrying foreign currency to Chinese
outbound tourists’’, China National Tourism Administration, 30 April, available at www.cnta.gov.cn/html/
2008-6/2008-6-2-14-36-36-8643.html (accessed 22 April 2009).
PAGE 348
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
China National Tourism Administration (2008), ‘‘The growth rate of Chinese independent travel
exceeded the package group tour in the outbound tourism market’’, China National Tourism
Administration, 25 November, available at www.cnta.gov.cn/html/2008-11/2008-11-25-17-35-68353.
html (accessed 12 January 2009).
China National TourismAdministration (2009), ‘‘The newemerging trend of independent travel in China’s
tourism’’, China National Tourism Administration, 11 February, available at www.cnta.gov.cn/html/2009-
2/2009-2-11-14-46-35849.html (accessed 22 April 2009).
Cho, S.Y. (1991), ‘‘The ugly Koreans are coming?’’, Business Korea, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 25-31.
Crotts, J. (2004), ‘‘The effect of cultural distance on overseas travel behaviors’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 83-8.
Crotts, J. and Litvin, S. (2003), ‘‘Cross-cultural research: are researchers better served by knowing
respondents’ country of birth, residence, or citizenship?’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 186-90.
Dann, G. (1993), ‘‘Limitation in the use of nationality and country of residence variables’’, in Pearce, D.
and Butler, R. (Eds), Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, Routledge, London.
Dimanche, F. (1994), ‘‘Cross-cultural tourismmarketing research: an assessment and recommendations
for future studies’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 Nos 3-4, pp. 123-34.
Edgell, D. (1994), ‘‘The formation of tourism policy: a managerial framework’’, in Ritchie, B. and
Goleldner, C. (Eds), Travel, Tourismand Hospitality Research, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 23-33.
Floyd, M. (1998), ‘‘Getting beyond marginality and ethnicity: the challenge for race and ethnic studies in
leisure research’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Floyd, M., Shinew, K., McGuire, F. and Noe, F. (1994), ‘‘Race, class, and leisure activity preferences:
marginality and ethnicity revisited’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 158-69.
Gunn, A. (1994), ‘‘A perspective on the purpose and nature of tourism research methods’’, in Ritchie, J.
and Goleldner, C. (Eds), Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
pp. 56-78.
Harrison-Hill, T. (2001), ‘‘How far is a long way? Contrasting two cultures’ perspectives of travel
distance’’, Asia Paci?c Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 3-17.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1989), ‘‘Organizing for cultural diversity’’, European Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 390-7.
Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988), ‘‘The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic
growth’’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Hsieh, S., O’Leary, J. and Morrison, A. (1994), ‘‘A comparison of package and non-package travelers
from the United Kingdom’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 Nos 3-4, pp. 79-100.
Hyde, K. and Lawson, R. (2003), ‘‘The nature of independent travel’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Kim, K. and Jogaratnam, G. (2003), ‘‘Activity preferences of Asian international and domestic American
university students: an alternate basis for segmentation’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 260-70.
Klemm, M. (2002), ‘‘Tourism and ethnic minorities in Bradford: the invisible segment’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 85-91.
Litvin, S.W. and Kar, G.H. (2003), ‘‘Individualism/collectivism as a moderating factor to the self-image
congruity concept’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Litvin, S.W., Crotts, J.C. and Hefner, F.L. (2004), ‘‘Cross-cultural tourist behavior: a replication and
extension involving Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension’’, The International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 29-37.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 349
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
MacKay, K.J. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2000), ‘‘An exploration of cross-cultural destination image
assessment’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 417-23.
Moeran, B. (1983), ‘‘The language of Japanese tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 10,
pp. 93-108.
Mok, C. and Armstrong, R. (1995), ‘‘Leisure travel destination choice criteria of Hong Kong residents’’,
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 99-104.
Money, R.B. and Crotts, J.C. (2003), ‘‘The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search,
planning, and purchases of international travel vacations’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 191-202.
Morrison, A. (1989), Hospitality and Travel Marketing, Delmar, Albany, NY.
Morrison, A., Hsieh, S. and O’Leary, J. (1994), ‘‘A comparison of the travel arrangements of international
travelers from France, Germany and the UK’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 451-63.
Moutinho, L. (1987), ‘‘Consumer behavior in tourism’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10,
pp. 1-44.
Moutinho, L. (2000), ‘‘Consumer behavior’’, in Moutinho, L. (Ed.), Strategic Management in Tourism,
CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 41-78.
Philips, R. and Webster, S. (1983), Group Travel, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Pizam, A. (1999), ‘‘The American group tourist as viewed by British, Israeli, Korean, and Dutch tour
guides’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 119-26.
Pizam, A. and Jeong, G. (1996), ‘‘Cross-cultural tourist behavior: perceptions of Korean tour guides’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 277-86.
Pizam, A. and Reichel, A. (1996), ‘‘The effect of nationality on tourist behavior: Israeli tour guides’
perceptions’’, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 23-49.
Pizam, A. and Sussman, S. (1995), ‘‘Does nationality affect tourist behavior?’’, Annals of Tourism
Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 901-17.
Plog, S.C. (1990), ‘ ‘A carpenter’s tools: an answer to Stephen L.J. Smith’s review of
psychocentrism/allocentrism’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 43-5.
Poon, A. (1993), Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, CAB International, Wallingford.
Quest, M. (1990), Howarth Book of Tourism, Macmillan, London.
Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L.W. (2002), ‘‘Cultural differences between Asian tourist markets and Australian
hosts, part I’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 295-315.
Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L.W. (2003), Cross-cultural Behavior in Tourism: Concepts and Analysis,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Richardson, S. and Crompton, J. (1988), ‘‘Cultural variations in perceptions of vacation attributes’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 128-36.
Ritter, W. (1987), ‘‘Styles of tourism in the modern world’’, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 3-8.
Sechrest, L., Fay, T.L. and Zaidi, S.M.H. (1972), ‘‘Problems of translation in cross-cultural research’’,
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Sheldon, P.J. and Fox, M. (1988), ‘‘The role of foodservice in vacation choice and experience:
a cross-cultural analysis’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 9-16.
Sin, L., Cheung, G. and Lee, R. (1999), ‘‘Methodology in cross-cultural consumer research: a reviewand
critical assessment’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 75-96.
Sirakaya, E., Uysal, M. and Yoshioka, C.F. (2003), ‘‘Segmenting the Japanese tour market to Turkey’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 293-305.
Tan, E. (1981), ‘‘Culture bond syndromes among overseas Chinese’’, in Kleineman, A. and Lin, T. (Eds),
Normal and Abnormal Behavior in Chinese Culture, Reidel, Dordrecht.
PAGE 350
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Wang, K., Hsieh, A. and Huan, T. (2000), ‘‘Critical service features in group package tour: an exploratory
research’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp. 177-89.
Washburne, R. (1978), ‘‘Black under-participation in wildland recreation: alternative explanations’’,
Leisure Sciences, Vol. 1, pp. 175-89.
Watkins, H. and Liu, R. (1996), ‘‘Collectivism, individualism and in-group membership: implications for
consumer complaining behaviors in multicultural contexts’’, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 8 Nos 3-4, pp. 69-94.
Weiermair, K. (2000), ‘‘Tourists’ perceptions towards and satisfaction with service quality in the
cross-cultural service encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism management’’, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 397-408.
Wong, S. and Lau, E. (2001), ‘‘Understanding the behavior of Hong Kong Chinese tourists on group tour
packages’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
World Tourism Organization (1993), Tourism to the Year 2000: Qualitative Aspects Affecting Global
Growth, World Tourism Organization Publishing, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2000), World Tourism 2020 Vision: East Asia and Paci?c, World Tourism
Organization Publishing, Madrid.
Yamamoto, D. and Gill, A. (1999), ‘‘Emerging trends in Japanese package tourism’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 134-43.
Yuan, S. and McDonald, C. (1990), ‘‘Motivational determinates of international pleasure time’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 42-4.
Further reading
Heung, V. and Chu, R. (2000), ‘‘Important factors affecting Hong Kong consumers’ choice of a travel
agency for all-inclusive package tours’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 52-9.
Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y. (1999), Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, Haworth Hospitality Press,
New York, NY.
Uysal, M. (1994), Global Tourist Behavior, International Business Press, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Fang Meng can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 351
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Hsuan Hsuan Chang. 2015. Which one helps tourists most? Perspectives of international tourists using different navigation
aids. Tourism Geographies 1-20. [CrossRef]
2. Youfang Lin, Huaiyu Wan, Rui Jiang, Zhihao Wu, Xuguang Jia. 2015. Inferring the Travel Purposes of Passenger Groups for
Better Understanding of Passengers. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 16, 235-243. [CrossRef]
3. Heesup Han, Sunghyup Sean Hyun, Wansoo Kim. 2014. In-Flight Service Performance and Passenger Loyalty: A Cross-
National (China/Korea) Study of Travelers Using Low-Cost Carriers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31, 589-609.
[CrossRef]
4. Heesup Han, Jinsoo Hwang. 2013. Multi-dimensions of the perceived benefits in a medical hotel and their roles in international
travelers’ decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management 35, 100-108. [CrossRef]
5. Carmen M. Sabiote, Dolores M. Frías, J. Alberto Castañeda. 2013. The moderating effect of culture on overall perceived value
in the online purchasing process. Service Business 7, 83-102. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_508459012.pdf
The article aims to discuss the relationship of culture and tourist behavior. The focus of the
study is to propose an extended research framework related to individualism/collectivism culture and
group travel intention. The article seeks to argue that group travel intention and behavior is not only
influenced by the cultural background of individualism or collectivism, but also a function of several
factors including social, political, and economic influence, as well as personal background of individual
travelers.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: a cross-cultural perspective
Fang Meng
Article information:
To cite this document:
Fang Meng, (2010),"Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: a cross-cultural perspective", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 340 - 351
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081514
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2889 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Luiz Moutinho, (1987),"Consumer Behaviour in Tourism", European J ournal of Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss 10 pp. 5-44http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000004718
J ohn C. Crotts, Ron Erdmann, (2000),"Does national culture influence consumers’ evaluation of travel services? A test of
Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences", Managing Service Quality: An International J ournal, Vol. 10 Iss 6 pp. 410-419 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520010351167
Songshan (Sam) Huang, Cathy H.C. Hsu, (2009),"Travel motivation: linking theory to practice", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 Iss 4 pp. 287-295http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180910994505
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Special section paper
Individualism/collectivism and group travel
behavior: a cross-cultural perspective
Fang Meng
Abstract
Purpose – The article aims to discuss the relationship of culture and tourist behavior. The focus of the
study is to propose an extended research framework related to individualism/collectivism culture and
group travel intention. The article seeks to argue that group travel intention and behavior is not only
in?uenced by the cultural background of individualism or collectivism, but also a function of several
factors including social, political, and economic in?uence, as well as personal background of individual
travelers.
Design/methodology/approach – The article investigates the major current research and
methodological issues in cross-cultural tourist behavior studies. By reviewing and assessing
important concepts related to this particular theoretical topic, the study proposes a conceptual
framework based on the extensive literature review and discussion.
Findings – The study proposes that personal background, as well as social, political, and economic
factors all moderate the relationship between culture and group travel behavior, making tourist behavior
in collectivism or individualism cultures more similar or different from one another. The research also
tests whether social conditions of marginality contribute to the differences.
Practical implications – The study helps avoid the stereotypes of individualism/collectivism culture
related to group travel behavior, and provides better understanding of the function of various personal,
social, political, and economic factors on tourist behavior.
Originality/value – Cross-cultural studies in tourismare limited, especially in the tourist behavior sector.
The article offers insights into the cultural differences and tourist behaviors on a more detailed market
basis.
Keywords Cross-cultural studies, Individual behaviour, Collectivism, Group behaviour, Travel
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
International tourism has emerged and developed as a promising and fast growing industry
in today’s global economy. To achieve successful international tourism development,
industry professionals need to understand the cultural differences among international
tourists themselves, as well as between tourists and the host society. Cultural differences
in?uence tourist behavior in many aspects and have signi?cant impact on tourism policy,
planning, development, management and marketing (Reisinger and Turner, 2003). In recent
years, an increasing number of scholars have started to investigate the interrelationship
between culture and tourist behavior. Speci?cally, these studies attempt to understand how
culture explains and in?uences patters of travel behavior (Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam
and Reichel, 1996; Pizam and Sussman, 1995, Money and Crotts, 2003).
Research of cross-cultural tourism has widely applied the cultural dimension concept
proposedby Hofstede (1980, 1997, 2001) (Money and Crotts, 2003; Crotts, 2004; Litvin et al.,
PAGE 340
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010, pp. 340-351, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181011081514
Fang Meng is based at
Ohio University, Athens,
Ohio, USA.
The author would like to thank
Dr Muzaffer Uysal for his
suggestions on the research,
and acknowledge the
manuscript editing help of Dr
Arch Woodside and Francis
McFadden
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
2004; Litvin and Kar, 2003). Some studies suggest that tourists with ‘‘collectivism’’ cultural
background – in most cases, Asian culture – are very much likely to take group travel and
involve in group activities during their visit (Cho, 1991; Wong and Lau, 2001; Reisinger and
Turner, 2002). The focus of this study is to propose an extended research framework related
to individualism/collectivism culture and group travel intention. The study argues that group
travel intention and behavior is not only in?uenced by the cultural background of
individualism or collectivism, but also a function of several factors including social, political,
and economic in?uence, as well as personal background of individual travelers.
Research background: major current issues
Culture and tourist behavior
Culture, as the complex abstract and material elements created by a society, means
‘‘values, ideas, attitudes and meaningful symbols, as well as artifacts elaborated in a
society’’ (Moutinho, 2000). In cross-cultural tourism study, culture commonly refers to ‘‘a
stable and dominant cultural character of a society shared by most of its individuals and
remaining constant over long periods of time’’ (Reisinger and Turner, 2002). People from
different cultures have different cultural values, rules of social behavior, perceptions, and
social interaction, which consequently in?uence their lifestyle, work, leisure, and consumer
behavior patterns (Richardson and Crompton, 1988).
In the tourism ?eld, the study of consumer behavior examines many aspects of the tourists,
trying to explain why they do what they do (Gunn, 1994). The differences in tourist behaviors
among various cultures and/or nationalities exist within tourists’ motivation (Yuan and
McDonald, 1990); destination choice (Richardson and Crompton, 1988); decision-making
process, including information search and planning process (Money and Crotts, 2003);
image and perception (MacKay and Fesenmaier, 2000); satisfaction (Weiermair, 2000); and
trip characteristics such as travel party and length of travel (Money and Crotts, 2003), food
importance (Sheldon and Fox, 1988), service requirement (Reisinger and Turner, 2002),
complaining behavior (Watkins and Liu, 1996), and many other aspects (Harrison-Hill, 2001;
Chadee and Cutler, 1996; Pizam, 1999; Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Reichel, 1996;
Pizam and Sussman, 1995).
The greatest cultural differences appear among Asian and Western cultures (Reisinger and
Turner, 2003). In de?ning different cultures, Hofstede (1980, 1989, 1997, 2001) and his
colleagues (Hofstede and Bond, 1988) propose ?ve most widely utilized dimensions of
culture from their instrument entitled the Values Survey Module (VSM). Speci?cally, the ?ve
culture dimensions are:
1. power distance (a tolerance for class differentials in society);
2. individualism (the degree to which welfare of the individual is more valued than the
group);
3. masculinity (achievement orientation, competition, and materialism);
4. uncertainty avoidance (intolerance of risk); and
5. the Confucian dynamic, or long-term orientation (stability, thrift, respect for tradition and
the future).
According to Hofstede, many Asian countries demonstrate collectivism cultures, comparing
to the individualism-culture in Western countries. Asian people value social harmony,
cooperation and shared responsibility, role compliance and conformity to the group,
courtesy, tolerance, and moral discipline. With regard to tourist behavior, for example,
Japanese tourists tend to travel in groups, bowto everybody, spend heavily and photograph
constantly (Cho, 1991). They are likely to take short holidays to avoid separation with the
family, and typically expect the infrastructure for larger groups (Ritter, 1987). Similarly,
Koreans are loyal to their socio-cultural identity, unwilling to accept non-Korean ways of
living, fond of Confucian philosophy, traveling in groups, and spending freely (Cho, 1991).
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 341
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
As in a collectivismsociety, Chinese tourists report to prefer all-inclusive package tour, travel
in groups, especially in an unfamiliar environment (Wong and Lau, 2001).
Asian countries also present high uncertainty avoidance in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
Money and Crotts (2003) suggest that a relationship exits between the cultural dimension of
uncertainty avoidance and travel behavior. According to their study, Japanese tourists, who
show higher level of uncertainty avoidance than German travelers, use formal information
channel (e.g. travel agent), purchase pre-packaged tours, travel in larger groups, and stay a
shorter time and visit fewer destinations. Litvin et al. (2004) further validate and extend the
research results of uncertainty avoidance and travel behavior by using another broad
sample population which visited the USA representing 58 nations.
The investigation of tourists’ cultures has signi?cant managerial and marketing implications
on the tourism industry. Reisinger and Turner (2002) conduct an extensive research on
revealing cultural differences between Asian tourist markets and Australian hosts. The study
presents the typical Asian cultural characteristics: high context communication,
family-oriented, group loyalty and harmony, self-reserved, implicit feeling display on
satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction, and high-standard service perception. Based on the
above cultural characteristics, the study promotes themes of hosting Asian tourists as:
developing close human relations between Asian tourists and Australian residents. The
research also recommends a detailed list of marketing implications as speci?c guidelines:
show respect to hierarchy and senior system and their social etiquette; pay attention to face
saving; organize family-oriented tour and group activities; offer high-standard service and
small gifts; and show respect to Asian culture and kindness to tourists. By investigating the
cultural differences between Asian tourists and Australia hosts, tourism providers will have a
better understanding on how to design the products and services, resulting in a better
destination image, higher level of tourist satisfaction, and increased economic bene?t.
Methodology dif?culties in cross-cultural tourism studies
Cross-cultural studies in tourism research are limited (Pizam, 1999). Plog (1990, p. 43)
indicates that ‘‘cross-cultural research, particularly related to travel behavior, is quite rare’’.
Dimanche (1994) emphasizes that tourism-based cross-cultural market research is scarce
and hindered by issues such as ethnocentrism, lack of resources, and high requirement of
language and cross-cultural skills. Sin et al. (1999) also argue that cross-cultural studies are
often subject to severe ethnocentrism. The majority of existing tourist behavior research still
take place in several western countries, especially in the USA, and the theories and
practices developed are limited to the white middle-class American culture and lack
generalization or speci?c applications to other cultural settings (Burnett et al., 1991).
Pizam (1999) discusses both direct and indirect research methods on different nationality
and tourist behavior studies. Direct methods include diary method (tourists record their own
behavior during visitation), survey method (survey completed by tourists, ex post facto), and
researchers’ observation. Using direct methods, researchers could empirically discover
what differences actually exist in the behavior of tourists of various nationalities. Indirect
methods mainly use surveys of residents’ perception of tourists or tourism practitioners’
perception of tourists to detect the different tourist behavior based on nationality. Sin et al.
(1999) recommend that researchers should consider multiple methods in data collection to
avoid single method bias.
Researchers commonly observe that due to the special characteristics of cross-cultural
studies, methodology in cross-cultural studies is of special importance to ensure the
reliability and validity of research results (Becker and Murrmann, 2000; Dimanche, 1994; Sin
et al., 1999). Three critical issues in conducting valid multicultural research are in need of
consideration: equivalence (including language equivalence, experiential/functional and
conceptual equivalence, measurement equivalence), sampling, and data analysis
(Dimanche, 1994).
Dimanche (1994) reports a thorough review on the equivalence issues related to
cross-cultural studies in the tourism ?eld. According to his comments, language
PAGE 342
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
equivalence requires the translation to be equivalent with the original language when
dealing with cross-cultural studies. Dimanche (1994) further recommends combining
different translation methods such as back-translation, bilingual technique, committee
approach, and pre-test procedures to help achieve language equivalence. Experiential
(functional) equivalence means that the terms utilized must refer to the real things and real
experiences and serve the same functions across all cultures examined in the research
(Becker and Murrmann, 2000; Sechrest et al., 1972). Conceptual equivalence exists when
the meaning of research concepts is equivalent across cultures. Measurement (scalar)
equivalence requires that scale items and response categories are universally identical for
respondents across cultures. Cross-cultural comparison is meaningful only when the
numbers on the response scales have the same meaning across cultures (Sin et al., 1999).
A few scholars also have examined the sampling and data analysis concerns related to
cross-cultural studies (Becker andMurrmann, 2000; Sin et al., 1999). They propose that when
using broad samples to provide valid assessments of cultural differences, these samples
must be representative of entire populations in each of the countries under study. The primary
samplingconcerniswhether or not thesamplefromeachcultureiscomparable, soastoavoid
attributing cross-cultural difference to dissimilar sample characteristics. To achieve this goal,
researchers need to apply similar sampling frames and sampling methods in all cultural
groups under study (Becker and Murrmann, 2000; Sin et al., 1999).
Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: a new thought
Tourism researchers have not paid enough attention to the role of cultural differences in
determining tourist behavior (Pizam, 1999), and all-English approach is dominant in the
existing literature (Dimanche, 1994). As Asian tourist market becomes increasingly
important in the world, research on cultural differences between Asian travelers and Western
host countries is in demand to help better understanding and serving the tourists from
collectivism cultures. However, the current research on cross-cultural tourist behavior all
take tourists in one culture as a whole, assuming no variation exists inside the culture, with
scarce further insight provided on the characteristics of speci?c market segments within the
national culture. Super?cial interpretation or stereotype images assigned to the culture
difference and the corresponding tourist behavior often negatively affect the data integrity
(citation).
In addition to the current research of general cross-cultural tourist behavior between Asian
and Western markets, further studies are in need to explore more detailed segments, for
example, age groups. Tourist behavior is not only in?uenced by culture, but also relates to
personal characteristics such as personality, personal background such as age, education
level, language skills, cultural awareness, and past travel experience. Social economic
factors, such as government policy and domestic travel pattern, also in?uence tourists’
behavior in international tourism. Therefore, tourists who have the same cultural
backgrounds may have different travel behaviors. Investigating cross-cultural tourist
behavior would be more meaningful and accurate if based on demographic characteristics
and other market segmentation features.
The proposed framework
The study tries to make an initial exploration on the relationship of individualism/collectivism
cultural dimension and group travel behavior under the impact of personal, social, political,
and economic factors. The study includes a conceptual framework (see Figure 1).
Speci?cally, the main objective of the proposed model is to examine whether differences
exist between two groups of travelers, who represent typical collectivism and individualism
cultures, with respect to group travel behavior. Personal background and social, political
and economic factors, as proposed, are the moderating variables which may impact the
relationship between culture and tourists’ group travel behavior. These factors, at the same
time, serve as independent variables which directly relate to group travel behavior. The
model also attempts to test whether social conditions of marginality contributes to the
differences in travel behavior between tourists of individualism and collectivism cultures.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 343
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Individualism versus collectivism
Individualism versus collectivism dimension of culture has become one of the major means
of comparison between societies in cross-cultural psychology and other comparative
disciplines. Scholars seek to explain the differences between Eastern and Western countries
on tourist behavior and why these differences exist, which undoubtedly have the social and
practical implications of understanding this particular dimension of human activity.
Hofstede’s (1980, 1997, 2001) work is one of the most cited sources regarding the cultural
dimension of individualism and collectivism.
According to Hofstede (1980, 1997, 2001), individualism stands for a society in which the
ties between individuals are loose: everyone has strong sense of self and needs to look after
him/herself and his/her family only; whereas collectivismstands for a society in which people
from birth onwards are part of strong, cohesive groups, which throughout a person’s lifetime
continue to protect him/her in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. People in individualism
and collectivism societies possess different social norms in their life, thus showing different
types of social behavior.
In an individualism culture, the social norm is that everyone takes care of him- or herself and
his or her immediate family only; people show ‘‘I’’ consciousness and self-orientation; the
individual’s identity emphasizes independence, individual initiative and achievement;
people value autonomy, variety, pleasure, and individual ?nancial security. Whereas in
collectivism culture, people have strong connection to their extended families or clans,
which protect them in exchange for loyalty; people show ‘‘we’’ consciousness and
collectivity orientation; the identity emphasize interdependence, group success and
belonging; people value expertise, order, duty, and security provided by organization or clan
(Hofstede, 1980, 1997, 2001).
Researchers observe that tourists of collectivism culture prefer group travel patterns. The
research ?ndings demonstrate that Japanese, Korean, and Chinese tourists are group
oriented and hierarchical, emphasize belongingness and relationships, and travel in groups
(Sirakaya et al., 2003; Ritter, 1987; Cho, 1991; Wong and Lau, 2001).
However, the adaptive nature of culture allows changes over time. Rapid social and
economic changes may lead to changes in the traditional value system. With the
development of globalization, many Asian countries, to some extent, are experiencing
changes on value system and social norms. Such changes would be due to the in?uence of
Western culture, modernization, migration, and economic development (Tan, 1981).
Hofstede (1980, 1997, 2001) identi?es different cultures on the basis on nationalities.
However, Dann (1993) criticizes the practice of using nationality as a discriminate variable
for explaining the differences in tourist behavior, because many tourists possess multiple
nationalities, and their country of birth may be different from their country of nationality. In
Figure 1 Proposed conceptual model
PAGE 344
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
identifying respondents’ national culture, Crotts and Litvin (2003), drawing from a database
composed of 847 international travelers whose country of birth, place of residence, and
national citizenship differed, replicate two recent studies to ascertain the measure best
explained traveler attitudes and behavior. They conclude that assigning respondents’
national culture measures based on their country of residence provides a more robust
means to account for cultural differences than does either country of birth or country of
citizenship. Furthermore, according to Hofstede (1997), the imprint of culture in the family
during childhood serves as one’s ‘‘mental program’’ and continuous reinforcement occurs
during the years in schools and organizations., Once ‘‘programmed’’ (generally be the age
of ten), the culture will remain relatively immune to change over the course of one’s lifetime.
Therefore, identifying one’s national culture based on his country of birth, country of
residency, and his parents’ country of residency seems to be more suitable and accurate
(Crotts and Litvin, 2003).
Group travel behavior
Tourists’ travel patterns typically consist of two categories: package group (including
complete package and partial package) and fully independent tour (Wang et al., 2000;
Yamamoto and Gill, 1999). Group package tour (GPT) refers to a group trip planned and
paid for in a single price in advance, covering commercial transportation, accommodation,
meals, sightseeing, and entertainment, and escorted by a tour leader/tour guide during the
trip (Morrison, 1989; Mok and Armstrong, 1995). Philips and Webster (1983) emphasize that
group travel may include ten or more persons traveling to one or more destinations, or on
about the same dates, with the same apparent reasons. Group tourist behaviors include
major consumption actions such as dinning, sightseeing, shopping, and other activities, all
taking place in a group manner.
In many Asian countries and areas, such as Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and China,
group package tour is one of the main modes of outbound travel. Group package tour
behavior of Asian tourists re?ects the deep Asian collectivism cultural values and high
uncertainty avoidance preference to ensure security and reduce perceived risk (Mok and
Armstrong, 1995, Wong and Lau, 2001)
However, emerging trends have shown that independent tour, to some extent, has gradually
replaced the group package tour worldwide, including Asia. According to World Tourism
Organization (World Tourism Organization, 1993, p. 21):
[. . .] the homogeneous group package tour developed so extensively during the 1960’s, 1970’s
and into the 1980’s . . . has become outmoded. It is not in line with the trend toward individual
expression.
Quest (1990, p. 137) claims that ‘‘the decline of the package tour may be due to the fact that
it has become unfashionable . . . and as more people travel overseas . . . they become more
sophisticated in their demands, more importantly, they have the con?dence to travel
independently.’’ Poon (1993) suggests that changing demographic and lifestyles have
resulted in greater demand for choice and ?exibility in vacations. Poon describes a growing
group of new tourists, ‘‘consumers who are ?exible, independent, and experienced
travelers, whose values and lifestyle are different from those of the mass tourists’’ (Poon,
1993, p. 114). Hyde and Lawson (2003) examine the nature of independent travel, indicating
that the new tourist differ from the mass tourists in the last several decades in the motivation,
information search, travel planning and decision making. Searching for a sense of freedom
and novelty and self-determination become the major motivations of independent tourists.
Yamamoto and Gill (1999) reveal the emerging trends in Japanese tourism and indicate that
despite the overall growth of Japanese tourism, the relative importance of package tours has
dropped from 80 per cent to 68 per cent between the period of 1986 to 1988 and 1992 to
1994. They indicate that the decline of mass package tourism and subsequent rise of more
individual forms of tourism is an inevitable tendency in contemporary tourism, re?ecting
more individuated, customized, and symbolic ‘‘postmodern’’ consumption of goods and
services. The study results report that the Japanese tourist market is undergoing a
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 345
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
substantial qualitative change: tourists are becoming more mature, independent, and
diverse in their travel preferences. Individualism is changing to be a more important
philosophy in the Japanese society, which is noticeable in trends of Japanese overseas
travel. Moeran (1983) also argues that an increasing desire has emerged for Japanese
tourists to seek more authentic experiences, such as being in touch with the lives of the local
people, rather than just touring popular destination.
Limited academic research has emerged on the potential impacts of the changing trend
from collectivism to individualism philosophy in the Chinese society. However, the
fast-growing independent travel in both Chinese domestic and international tourism gives
the support that the above-mentioned trend has appeared in China, especially in many large
and middle-sized cities (China National Tourism Administration, 2008, 2009). The Chinese
government reports that the growth rate of independent travel has exceeded the packaged
group travel in the Chinese outbound tourism market in 2008 (China National Tourism
Administration, 2008).
Personal background and social economic factors
Moutinho (1987) identi?es two basic factors that shape travel and tourism behavior: social
in?uence and personal traits. Social factors are forces outside the individual and include the
in?uence of other people, culture, subculture, and social class. Personal traits concern their
individual and their relation to the environment.
In this study, personal background refers to the individual’s personal characteristics such as
age, income, education level, language skills, and past overseas travel experience.
Researchers have reported that differences in personal background and demographic
characteristics have impact on people’s travel behavior. Cha et al. (1995) conclude that age
and education are statistically signi?cant predictors in their study of Japanese overseas
travelers’ behavior. Yamamoto and Gill (1999) examine the distinguishing characteristics
between Japanese package tourists and Japanese non-package tourists. Signi?cant
differences emerge in many of the socio-demographic attributes between the package (PK)
and non-package groups (NPK). The NPK tourists are younger in age, more likely to be male
tourists, have better English language skills and middle income, have more past travel
experience, etc.
According to Hsieh et al. (1994), the UK tourists’ choice between the independent and
package travel mode is subject to socio-demographic characteristics (such as age, gender,
education, income of the traveler), travel characteristics (such as length of stay, size of travel
party, and previous travel experience), country of origin, and travel destination. Morrison
et al. (1994) examine the travel arrangements of international travelers from France,
Germany, and the UK and ?nd that tourists’ choice of travel pattern signi?cantly differ in
terms of age, marital status, education, language ability, and length of travel. They report that
young tourists between age 18 and 35 prefer travel independently, while older people (over
55) prefer escorted package tour; tourists prefer escort package tour if they cannot speak
the language of destination area; independent travelers take longer trips than group
package tour; and group package tourists tend to have lower education (for French tourists).
Part of the reason, if not all, is that younger generation now has more opportunities to receive
higher level of education, obtain better foreign language skills and culture awareness, as
well as higher level of income than the older generation. These factors consequently
enhance their ability and con?dence to search more travel information from various means
and travel individually overseas. Furthermore, the younger generation is more likely to
absorb western values and norms, thus making preference for more fashionable,
independent, and ?exible independent tour to seek the sense of freedom and novelty.
Kim and Jogaratnam (2003) conclude from their research that travel activity preferences of
Asian and American university students are surprisingly similar.
Thevariables of personal backgroundincludeage, educationlevel, income, foreignlanguage
skills, andpast overseas travel experience. This study proposes that theabovevariables have
negative relationships with group travel behavior. In other words, tourists at young age, with
PAGE 346
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
high education level, high income, good foreign language skills, and past overseas travel
experience are less likely to choose group package tour or prefer group tour activities.
In addition to personal factors, some social-political factors such as government policy also
in?uence tourists’ behaviors, especially in developing countries. Edgell (1994) indicates that
governmental policies affecting outbound tourists are common and widespread, particularly
policies related to the imposition of restrictions such as exit visa requirements, restricted
allowances for foreign travel services, limited access to foreign currency, and limitations on
the value of goods returning residents can import free of duty. China, for example, adopted
certain policies that may affect and regulate tourists’ activities in overseas travel. Chinese
citizens could travel to selected countries, which have received the Approved Destination
Status (ADS) from the Chinese government, for leisure travel purposes arranged in group
travel format. Special regulations apply to the Chinese citizens bringing more than $2,000 for
overseas tour spending (China National Tourism Administration, 2002). These restrictions
could in?uence the Chinese tourists’ travel behavior such as travel pattern, expenditure,
length of stay, and other activities.
With regard to the variables related to the group travel behavior, two questions are in need to
identify the group tourist behavior preference. They are ‘‘if you could make your own choice
without any government restriction, how likely would you choose group package tour when
you travel overseas?’’, and ‘‘to what degree do you prefer group activities during the trip, that
is, do you prefer going shopping, photographing, dinning, having entertainment with the
package tour group?’’
Marginality and ethnicity
Marginality and ethnicity hypothesis are two explanations of the difference of tourism and
leisure behavior between blacks and whites (Washburne, 1978). Marginality hypothesis
suggests that the travel preferences of blacks are different from whites because of their
marginal position in society in terms of income and social class. The ethnicity hypothesis
indicates that the differences in tourism participation are due to the differences in taste that
originate in culture. The basis of the marginality hypothesis is that ethnic minorities are
marginalized by low incomes and cannot afford holidays, that if blacks and whites had equal
access to the same recreational activities andtravel opportunities, their participation patterns
wouldbesimilar. Theassumptionof theethnicityhypothesisisthat tourismchoiceswill varywith
race and ethnic identity, and that the differences between blacks and whites in recreation
participation may be due to the differences in their value systems, social organization and
norms (Washburne, 1978; Klemm, 2002; Floyd, 1998; Floydet al., 1994). Although continuous
discussions with empirical evidence exist to support or falsify the hypothesis, marginality and
ethnicity could be a useful tool to test whether differences still exist between two cultures or
ethnicswhencontrollingsomeimportant variablessuchasincome, educationlevel, andsoon.
Research propositions
Based on the discussion of the above constructs and literature review, as well as the
proposed theoretical framework, the study lists four major research propositions for further
empirical testing.
P1. Tourists from collectivism culture in general are more likely to present group travel
behavior than those from individualism culture.
P2. Social, political, and economic factors affect tourists’ group travel behavior.
P3. Controlling for government policy variable, tourists from collectivism culture but
hold ‘‘high-level’’ personal background (young age, high education and income,
good language skills, past overseas travel experience) will be less likely to present
group travel behavior than tourists with ‘‘low-level’’ personal background.
P4. Controlling for government policy variable, tourists from collectivism culture with
‘‘high-level’’ personal background are likely to show similarity in travel behavior as
the tourists in individualism culture.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 347
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The study also proposes to test the speci?c hypotheses of culture and tourist behavior by
comparing two countries, namely China and the USA, which represent typical collectivism
and individualism culture respectively. Several reasons exist why China and the USA are the
two appropriate countries for the empirical hypothesis testing. According to the World
Tourism Organization, by the year of 2020, China will become the largest international
tourism destination and the fourth largest tourist generating country in the world, whereas
the USA will rank the 2nd and 3rd in terms of inbound and outbound tourism respectively by
2020 (World TourismOrganization, 2000). Researchers reveal signi?cant cultural differences
between Asian and Western cultures, in which China and the USA represent two typical
collectivism and individualism cultures in the world. According to Hofstede (2001), with
regard to the index of individualism and collectivism culture, the scores of China and the
USA are 20 and 91 respectively, which may indicate the two extremes of the degree of
individualism and collectivism. Therefore, using these two countries is appropriate for
empirical testing of the research framework.
Conclusion
Scant research exists on cross-cultural tourist behavior, which has received increasing
attention in the academic ?eld in recent years. Cross-cultural tourist behavior studies
examine the in?uence of culture on tourists’ behavior in international tourismcontext, such as
motivation, destination choice, decision-making process, image and perception,
satisfaction, and so on. Researchers observe that several major dif?culties can cause the
research limitation in cross-cultural studies, including ethnocentrism, lack of resources, high
requirement of language and cultural skills. Methodology is another essential concern since
equivalence, sampling, and data analysis issues all need special consideration. This study
proposes an extended conceptual framework to examine the relationship of culture and
group tourist behavior under the impact of personal and social factors. The present paper
also reviews relevant literature to examine the main approach in individualism versus
collectivism culture, group package tour, and personal, social, political, and economic
factors, which may in?uence the tourist behavior and the relationship between culture and
group travel behavior. Age, education level, income, language skills, and past travel
experience, as well as government policy all moderate the relationship between culture and
group tourist behavior, making tourist behavior from collectivism or individualism cultures
more similar or different from each other. The study also intends to test whether social
conditions of marginality contribute to the differences. The article presents propositions for
future empirical test so as to further verify or falsify the propositions and hypotheses. The
study provides insights into the cultural differences and tourist behavior on a more detailed
market basis. This particular research would help avoid the stereotypes of
individualism/collectivism culture related to group travel behavior, and provide better
understanding of the function of various personal, social, political, and economic factors on
international tourism patterns.
References
Becker, C. and Murrmann, S. (2000), ‘‘Methodological considerations in multicultural research’’, Tourism
Analysis, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
Burnett, G.W., Uysal, M. and Jamrozy, U. (1991), ‘‘Articles on international themes in the Journal of Travel
Research’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 47-50.
Cha, S., McCleary, K. and Uysal, M. (1995), ‘‘Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers:
a factor-cluster segmentation approach’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 33-9.
Chadee, D.D. and Cutler, J. (1996), ‘‘Insights into international travel by students’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 75-81.
China National Tourism Administration (2002), ‘‘The regulations of carrying foreign currency to Chinese
outbound tourists’’, China National Tourism Administration, 30 April, available at www.cnta.gov.cn/html/
2008-6/2008-6-2-14-36-36-8643.html (accessed 22 April 2009).
PAGE 348
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
China National Tourism Administration (2008), ‘‘The growth rate of Chinese independent travel
exceeded the package group tour in the outbound tourism market’’, China National Tourism
Administration, 25 November, available at www.cnta.gov.cn/html/2008-11/2008-11-25-17-35-68353.
html (accessed 12 January 2009).
China National TourismAdministration (2009), ‘‘The newemerging trend of independent travel in China’s
tourism’’, China National Tourism Administration, 11 February, available at www.cnta.gov.cn/html/2009-
2/2009-2-11-14-46-35849.html (accessed 22 April 2009).
Cho, S.Y. (1991), ‘‘The ugly Koreans are coming?’’, Business Korea, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 25-31.
Crotts, J. (2004), ‘‘The effect of cultural distance on overseas travel behaviors’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 83-8.
Crotts, J. and Litvin, S. (2003), ‘‘Cross-cultural research: are researchers better served by knowing
respondents’ country of birth, residence, or citizenship?’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 186-90.
Dann, G. (1993), ‘‘Limitation in the use of nationality and country of residence variables’’, in Pearce, D.
and Butler, R. (Eds), Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, Routledge, London.
Dimanche, F. (1994), ‘‘Cross-cultural tourismmarketing research: an assessment and recommendations
for future studies’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 Nos 3-4, pp. 123-34.
Edgell, D. (1994), ‘‘The formation of tourism policy: a managerial framework’’, in Ritchie, B. and
Goleldner, C. (Eds), Travel, Tourismand Hospitality Research, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 23-33.
Floyd, M. (1998), ‘‘Getting beyond marginality and ethnicity: the challenge for race and ethnic studies in
leisure research’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Floyd, M., Shinew, K., McGuire, F. and Noe, F. (1994), ‘‘Race, class, and leisure activity preferences:
marginality and ethnicity revisited’’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 158-69.
Gunn, A. (1994), ‘‘A perspective on the purpose and nature of tourism research methods’’, in Ritchie, J.
and Goleldner, C. (Eds), Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
pp. 56-78.
Harrison-Hill, T. (2001), ‘‘How far is a long way? Contrasting two cultures’ perspectives of travel
distance’’, Asia Paci?c Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 3-17.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1989), ‘‘Organizing for cultural diversity’’, European Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 390-7.
Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988), ‘‘The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic
growth’’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Hsieh, S., O’Leary, J. and Morrison, A. (1994), ‘‘A comparison of package and non-package travelers
from the United Kingdom’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 Nos 3-4, pp. 79-100.
Hyde, K. and Lawson, R. (2003), ‘‘The nature of independent travel’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Kim, K. and Jogaratnam, G. (2003), ‘‘Activity preferences of Asian international and domestic American
university students: an alternate basis for segmentation’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 260-70.
Klemm, M. (2002), ‘‘Tourism and ethnic minorities in Bradford: the invisible segment’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 85-91.
Litvin, S.W. and Kar, G.H. (2003), ‘‘Individualism/collectivism as a moderating factor to the self-image
congruity concept’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Litvin, S.W., Crotts, J.C. and Hefner, F.L. (2004), ‘‘Cross-cultural tourist behavior: a replication and
extension involving Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension’’, The International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 29-37.
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 349
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
MacKay, K.J. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2000), ‘‘An exploration of cross-cultural destination image
assessment’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 417-23.
Moeran, B. (1983), ‘‘The language of Japanese tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 10,
pp. 93-108.
Mok, C. and Armstrong, R. (1995), ‘‘Leisure travel destination choice criteria of Hong Kong residents’’,
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 99-104.
Money, R.B. and Crotts, J.C. (2003), ‘‘The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search,
planning, and purchases of international travel vacations’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 191-202.
Morrison, A. (1989), Hospitality and Travel Marketing, Delmar, Albany, NY.
Morrison, A., Hsieh, S. and O’Leary, J. (1994), ‘‘A comparison of the travel arrangements of international
travelers from France, Germany and the UK’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 451-63.
Moutinho, L. (1987), ‘‘Consumer behavior in tourism’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10,
pp. 1-44.
Moutinho, L. (2000), ‘‘Consumer behavior’’, in Moutinho, L. (Ed.), Strategic Management in Tourism,
CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 41-78.
Philips, R. and Webster, S. (1983), Group Travel, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Pizam, A. (1999), ‘‘The American group tourist as viewed by British, Israeli, Korean, and Dutch tour
guides’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 119-26.
Pizam, A. and Jeong, G. (1996), ‘‘Cross-cultural tourist behavior: perceptions of Korean tour guides’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 277-86.
Pizam, A. and Reichel, A. (1996), ‘‘The effect of nationality on tourist behavior: Israeli tour guides’
perceptions’’, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 23-49.
Pizam, A. and Sussman, S. (1995), ‘‘Does nationality affect tourist behavior?’’, Annals of Tourism
Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 901-17.
Plog, S.C. (1990), ‘ ‘A carpenter’s tools: an answer to Stephen L.J. Smith’s review of
psychocentrism/allocentrism’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 43-5.
Poon, A. (1993), Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies, CAB International, Wallingford.
Quest, M. (1990), Howarth Book of Tourism, Macmillan, London.
Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L.W. (2002), ‘‘Cultural differences between Asian tourist markets and Australian
hosts, part I’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 295-315.
Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L.W. (2003), Cross-cultural Behavior in Tourism: Concepts and Analysis,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Richardson, S. and Crompton, J. (1988), ‘‘Cultural variations in perceptions of vacation attributes’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 128-36.
Ritter, W. (1987), ‘‘Styles of tourism in the modern world’’, Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 3-8.
Sechrest, L., Fay, T.L. and Zaidi, S.M.H. (1972), ‘‘Problems of translation in cross-cultural research’’,
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Sheldon, P.J. and Fox, M. (1988), ‘‘The role of foodservice in vacation choice and experience:
a cross-cultural analysis’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 9-16.
Sin, L., Cheung, G. and Lee, R. (1999), ‘‘Methodology in cross-cultural consumer research: a reviewand
critical assessment’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 75-96.
Sirakaya, E., Uysal, M. and Yoshioka, C.F. (2003), ‘‘Segmenting the Japanese tour market to Turkey’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 293-305.
Tan, E. (1981), ‘‘Culture bond syndromes among overseas Chinese’’, in Kleineman, A. and Lin, T. (Eds),
Normal and Abnormal Behavior in Chinese Culture, Reidel, Dordrecht.
PAGE 350
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Wang, K., Hsieh, A. and Huan, T. (2000), ‘‘Critical service features in group package tour: an exploratory
research’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp. 177-89.
Washburne, R. (1978), ‘‘Black under-participation in wildland recreation: alternative explanations’’,
Leisure Sciences, Vol. 1, pp. 175-89.
Watkins, H. and Liu, R. (1996), ‘‘Collectivism, individualism and in-group membership: implications for
consumer complaining behaviors in multicultural contexts’’, Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 8 Nos 3-4, pp. 69-94.
Weiermair, K. (2000), ‘‘Tourists’ perceptions towards and satisfaction with service quality in the
cross-cultural service encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism management’’, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 397-408.
Wong, S. and Lau, E. (2001), ‘‘Understanding the behavior of Hong Kong Chinese tourists on group tour
packages’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
World Tourism Organization (1993), Tourism to the Year 2000: Qualitative Aspects Affecting Global
Growth, World Tourism Organization Publishing, Madrid.
World Tourism Organization (2000), World Tourism 2020 Vision: East Asia and Paci?c, World Tourism
Organization Publishing, Madrid.
Yamamoto, D. and Gill, A. (1999), ‘‘Emerging trends in Japanese package tourism’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 134-43.
Yuan, S. and McDonald, C. (1990), ‘‘Motivational determinates of international pleasure time’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 42-4.
Further reading
Heung, V. and Chu, R. (2000), ‘‘Important factors affecting Hong Kong consumers’ choice of a travel
agency for all-inclusive package tours’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 52-9.
Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y. (1999), Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, Haworth Hospitality Press,
New York, NY.
Uysal, M. (1994), Global Tourist Behavior, International Business Press, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Fang Meng can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 4 NO. 4 2010
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 351
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Hsuan Hsuan Chang. 2015. Which one helps tourists most? Perspectives of international tourists using different navigation
aids. Tourism Geographies 1-20. [CrossRef]
2. Youfang Lin, Huaiyu Wan, Rui Jiang, Zhihao Wu, Xuguang Jia. 2015. Inferring the Travel Purposes of Passenger Groups for
Better Understanding of Passengers. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 16, 235-243. [CrossRef]
3. Heesup Han, Sunghyup Sean Hyun, Wansoo Kim. 2014. In-Flight Service Performance and Passenger Loyalty: A Cross-
National (China/Korea) Study of Travelers Using Low-Cost Carriers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31, 589-609.
[CrossRef]
4. Heesup Han, Jinsoo Hwang. 2013. Multi-dimensions of the perceived benefits in a medical hotel and their roles in international
travelers’ decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management 35, 100-108. [CrossRef]
5. Carmen M. Sabiote, Dolores M. Frías, J. Alberto Castañeda. 2013. The moderating effect of culture on overall perceived value
in the online purchasing process. Service Business 7, 83-102. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
1
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_508459012.pdf