Description
Tourists’ special possessions are under-studied in consumer research despite their
importance in self-identity development. Furthermore, extant studies about tourist souvenirs fail in
providing an extensive and in-depth view of souvenirs, and in exploring both their functional and
symbolic dimensions. This paper aims to better and deeply understand the symbols and meanings
attached to tourist souvenirs as well as the functions they fulfil in contemporary consumption.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
“This is a piece of coral received from captain Bob”: meanings and functions of tourist souvenirs
Alain Decrop J ulie Masset
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alain Decrop J ulie Masset , (2014),"“This is a piece of coral received from captain Bob”: meanings and functions of tourist souvenirs",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 22 - 34
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-08-2013-0051
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 667 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
J uergen Gnoth, Xavier Matteucci, (2014),"A phenomenological view of the behavioural tourism research literature", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 3-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-01-2014-0005
Ian Phau, Vanessa Quintal, Tekle Shanka, (2014),"Examining a consumption values theory approach of young tourists toward destination
choice intentions", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 125-139 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-12-2012-0090
Defang Zhao, Ingrid Y. Lin, (2014),"Understanding tourists’ perception and evaluation of inter-cultural service encounters: a holistic mental
model process", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 290-309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-09-2013-0070
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
‘‘This is a piece of coral received from
captain Bob’’: meanings and functions of
tourist souvenirs
Alain Decrop and Julie Masset
Abstract
Purpose – Tourists’ special possessions are under-studied in consumer research despite their
importance in self-identity development. Furthermore, extant studies about tourist souvenirs fail in
providing an extensive and in-depth view of souvenirs, and in exploring both their functional and
symbolic dimensions. This paper aims to better and deeply understand the symbols and meanings
attached to tourist souvenirs as well as the functions they ful?l in contemporary consumption.
Design/methodology/approach – A naturalistic interpretive approach has been privileged. A total of
19 informants have been interviewed and observed at home in a triangulation perspective. Interview
transcripts, ?eld notes, and pictorial material were analyzed and interpreted through the grounded
theory approach.
Findings – A new typology of four types of symbolic souvenirs including touristic trinkets, destination
stereotypes, paper mementoes, and picked-up objects is developed. The typology is grounded on four
major functions souvenirs may ful?l in terms of meanings and identity construction, that is:
categorization, self-expression, connectedness, and self-creation.
Originality/value – This study contributes to a better knowledge of tourist souvenirs, which is a typical
case of consumers’ special possessions that may be central in self-identity processes. Considered as
powerful ‘‘messengers of meaning’’, tourist souvenirs help consumers to maintain material links with
cherished past experiences and to convey individual and cultural meanings to their broader existence.
Typologies such as the one developed in this paper are crucial not only for researchers but also for
marketers and retailers.
Keywords Interpretive research, Special possessions, Symbolic consumption, Tourist souvenirs
Paper type Research paper
Souvenirs have existed for thousands of years, and as long as people continue to travel, they will
continue to be an important element of the experience (Swanson and Timothy, 2012, p. 497).
Introduction
Shopping is one of the prevailing contemporary tourist rituals (Belk, 1997). As underlined by
Timothy (2005, p. 69), tourism shopping involves ‘‘the expenditure of tangible goods by
tourists either for consumption in the destination (excluding food and beverage items) or for
export to their home countries/regions.’’ Tourism shopping represents a major business for
many retailers and destinations. According to the International Passenger Survey 2011, 71
per cent of international holiday visitors went shopping for clothes/accessories and
souvenirs in the UK (VisitBritain, 2011). Still in 2011, the US Of?ce of Travel and Tourism
Industries indicated that shopping is the ?rst concern for 91.5 per cent of all international
leisure travellers (OTTI, 2011). Chinese and Taiwanese tourists dedicate up to 61 per cent of
their total travel budget to shopping while American, European, or Australian tourists spend
between 30 and 37 per cent on this (Timothy, 2005). Gifts and souvenirs constitute a
substantial part of these tourist expenditures (Lehto et al., 2004; Littrell et al., 1994). In 2011,
PAGE 22
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014, pp. 22-34, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-08-2013-0051
Alain Decrop is Full
Professor of Marketing and
Julie Masset is a Research
Assistant, both based at the
Department of
Administration, University of
Namur, Namur, Belgium.
Received 1 August 2013
Revised 1 August 2013
Accepted 3 November 2013
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
international tourists visiting the USA spent 23.6 per cent of their budget on gifts and
souvenirs while their spending on lodging and food/beverages was respectively 25.2 per
cent and 19.7 per cent (OTTI, 2011).
Some souvenirs are bought; others are just picked up or received from the local population.
This paper focuses on material souvenirs and does not consider the memories in tourists’
minds nor their pictures or videos taken during the vacation experience. There are two
reasons for this: ?rst, in the literature de?nitions of souvenirs underline their material or
tangible nature. According to Cohen’s (2000, p. 548) de?nition, souvenirs are ‘‘material
objects which serve as reminders of people, places, events or experiences of signi?cance in
a person’s biography.’’ Anderson and Littrell (1995, p. 328) add that a souvenir is ‘‘a tangible
symbol and reminder of an experience that differs from daily routine and that otherwise
would remain intangible, such as memories of people, places, and events.’’ Second, Belk
and Yeh (2011, p. 348) emphasise that:
[. . .] although photographic and videographic evidences may be cues to call forth memories,
they do not perform the work of recollection themselves and cannot reproduce all of the actual
experience. Moreover, because we selectively take, select, and preserve these images, they
present a distorted, more polished, and more positive set of evidences than does the experience
itself.
The objective of this study is to understand better and more deeply the symbolic meanings
attached to tourist souvenirs as well as their functions. More speci?cally, it addresses the
following research questions: What are the symbols and meanings related to the purchase
and consumption of souvenirs? What roles/functions do souvenirs ful?l in postmodern
consumption?
The paper contributes to ?lling in some of the gaps in extant literature. First, the ?eld of
tourists’ special possessions has been insuf?ciently studied in consumer research despite
its importance for self-identity development. Indeed, as highlighted by McCracken (1988)
and Belk (1988), consumers confer importance on possessions that may be a re?ection of
their self and their identity. Second, souvenir research lacks depth (Swanson and Timothy,
2012). Many previous studies fail to provide an extensive in-depth view of souvenirs that
explores both their functional and symbolic dimensions. These studies remain descriptive,
traditionally focusing on the types, uses, and functionalities of souvenirs (Gordon, 1986)
rather than on the meanings conferred on them (Love and Sheldon, 1998). In contrast with
many previous studies on tourist souvenirs, we use a naturalistic interpretive perspective.
We interview tourists and observe souvenirs in the very place where they are consumed.
Unlike Love and Sheldon (1998), we do not ask informants to bring samples of their
souvenirs with them but we consider these objects in their full spatial, cultural, and temporal
context. In the same way, we do not focus on a particular category of souvenirs as certain
other authors have done (e.g. Littrell limited her study to textile crafts only). Finally, through
the functional typology of symbolic souvenirs developed in this paper, we offer new insights
into souvenir research and speci?cally, into the ?eld of consumers’ special possessions, by
underlining the signi?cant role of souvenirs in self-identity processes.
Before presenting the major results of our study, we review extant literature on special
possessions and souvenirs and present the methodology. The last part of the paper
provides managerial implications and presents the limitations of this research.
Literature review
Meanings of special possessions
Referring to the symbolism of consumer goods, Levy (1959, p. 118) underlines that people
go beyond the practical considerations of products, also buying them ‘‘for what they mean.’’
In their ‘‘consumer behaviour odyssey,’’ Wallendorf et al. (1988, p. 529) highlight that
consumers often attach deep meanings to possessions that may become central to their
lives. A study on the meanings of favourite objects reveals that 60 per cent of an American
sample considers an object as favourite mainly because it is a ‘‘remembrance of a close
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 23
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
relation, a vacation journey, or an event in the informant’s past’’ and not because of its
functionalities (Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988, p. 537). Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton (1981, p. 239) assert that ‘‘things are cherished not because of the
material comfort they provide, but for the information they convey about the owner and his or
her ties to others.’’ Consumers may experience a strong attachment to tourist souvenirs in
the same way as they do for a broad range of cherished possessions: a trophy won during
an important competition, a gift received from a relative, a family photo album, a wedding
dress, or a ?rst car. The meanings of such special possessions principally stem from
symbolic person-, event-, or place-attachments rather than from utilitarian or hedonistic
features. According to Belk (1988), deep meanings may be developed due to a series of
conditions associated to the object (e.g. a pleasant travel experience, an achievement, a gift
received from signi?cant others, a family heirloom, etc.).
In order to examine the process through which deep meanings are given to possessions,
Wallendorf et al. (1988) turn to sociology and anthropology. They borrow four themes of
which two are crucial in this research: the extended-self and the sacred-profane continuum.
First, individuals give meanings to possessions that re?ect their identity and encompass a
part of themselves (Belk, 1988; McCracken, 1988). The extended-self helps consumers to
transcend their lives as human beings and to confer unique and sacred meanings on their
possessions. Possessions participate in the de?nition of who we are:
[. . .] men and women make order in their selves (i.e. retrieve their identity) by ?rst creating and
then interacting with the material world. The nature of such a transaction will determine, to a great
extent, the kind of person that emerges. Thus the things that surround us are inseparable from
who we are (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, 1981, p. 16).
Therefore, consumers often express emotion-laden words, such as ‘‘tragedy’’ or ‘‘violation of
self’’, when they lose cherished possessions (Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988).
Second, the sacred status of special possessions lies at the origin of most deep attachment
to them:
Sacred objects are seen as mystical, powerful, and deserving of reverential behaviour, as
opposed to the ordinary, common, and mundane behaviour accorded to profane commodities
(Wallendorf et al. 1988, p. 529).
Furthermore, owners may be symbolically connected with their environment through the
relationships with their special household objects (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton,
1981; Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988). Two fundamental self-development processes are
observed when dealing with valued possessions: differentiation, ‘‘separating the owner from
the social context, emphasizing his or her individuality’ ’ (Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton, 1981, p. 38), and integration, where ‘‘the object symbolically expresses
the integration of the owner with his or her social context’’ (Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton, 1981, p. 39). Finally, possessions can act as instruments for improving
self-con?dence and showing the self-concept to others (Belk, 1988; Wallendorf and Arnould,
1988).
Meanings of souvenirs
(Some) tourist souvenirs are often considered as special possessions to which consumers
assign deep meanings (Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988; Belk, 1997). A small number of
researchers have attempted to interpret the meanings of such souvenirs more extensively
(Baker et al., 2006; Decrop and Masset, 2011; Gordon, 1986; Littrell, 1990; Littrell et al.,
1993; Love and Sheldon, 1998; Shenhav-Keller, 1993).
Baker et al. (2006) explore the symbolic meanings attached to children’s vacation souvenirs.
They show that many-layered and closely related meanings exist between children, places,
and souvenirs.
In her research on textile crafts souvenirs’ meanings, Littrell (1990) distinguishes ?ve pro?les
of tourist consumers (i.e. shopping oriented, authenticity seeking, special trips, textiles for
enjoyment, and apparel oriented) who may convey a large variety of meanings to their
PAGE 24
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
souvenirs (i.e. reversal of everyday life experience, authenticity, expansion of world vision,
differentiation from others, integration with others, development of feelings of
self-con?dence, expression of self-creativity, and aesthetic pleasure).
While exploring travel stories, Love and Sheldon (1998) highlight the ?uidity of meanings
given to souvenirs. These meanings evolve independently of the travel experience and
simultaneously with de?nitions of the Self and the Other[1]. However, the source of meanings
may vary according to experience. Less experienced/familiar travellers will be more likely to
base their meanings on straight features of visited destinations whereas the meanings
assigned by more experienced/familiar tourists will stemto a larger extent fromrelationships,
people, and events.
Other authors enhance the role of authenticity in the sense making of souvenirs. MacCannell
(1976) contends that the search for authenticity ‘‘in other times and other places which are
signi?cantly different fromeveryday life’’ is the tourist’s main motivation (In Jafari, 2000, p. 484).
Cohen (2000, p. 548) presents souvenirs as ‘‘one expression of the tourist’s quest for the
authentic’’ and he adds that authenticity is ‘‘a socially constructed concept and its social
connotation is, therefore, not given, but negotiable’’ (Cohen, 1988, p. 374). According to Littrell
et al. (1993, p. 200), an authentic souvenir relates to the connection between the tourist and a
travel destination ‘‘evoking a simpler life rich in meaning.’’ Finally, in her paper on the Israeli
souvenir, Shenhav-Keller (1993) emphasises the power of souvenirs, considered as authentic
reminders of a speci?c place, and as indicators of ideological meanings.
The ?rst typology of tourist souvenirs was published by Gordon (1986). Her classi?cation
includes ?ve categories: pictorial images (e.g. postcards, photographs, illustrated books,
etc.), pieces-of-the-rock (i.e. items gathered from the natural environment), symbolic
shorthand (i.e. out of scale items that stand for the destination;, e.g. an Empire State Building
from New York), markers (i.e. objects with no reference to any speci?c situation or event, but
with inscriptions that locate them in space and time;, e.g. a mug marked with Cayman
Islands), and local products (e.g. olive oil from Greece, vodka from Russia, a Mexican tortilla
press, a French beret, etc.). According to Gordon, a souvenir ful?ls two major functions, i.e. ‘‘a
material reminder’’ and ‘‘a living messenger of the extraordinary.’’ Considering the motivations
for buying and consuming tourist souvenirs, Decrop and Masset (2011) proposed another
typology of four types of souvenirs: the symbolic souvenir (i.e. objects described as typical,
emblematic, and unique;, e.g. a key ring with an Eiffel tower or lavender from Provence), the
hedonistic souvenir (i.e. items related to pleasure, happiness, and affective contentment such
as food items), the utilitarian souvenir (i.e. souvenirs bought for their functional purpose;,
e.g. plates and pots), and the souvenir as a gift (i.e. objects purchased for relatives or friends
who stayed at home, or items received from the local population).
Methodology
In order to address our research questions, we used a naturalistic interpretive approach.
Souvenirs were observed at home and discussed in the time and place context where they
were acquired and consumed. Naturalistic research aims to apprehend the occurrence of
natural phenomena in their naturally occurring conditions (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Lutz,
1989). To achieve such an idiosyncratic understanding, immersing oneself in the ?eld is
required to generate thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973).
A total of 19 Belgian informants were involved in a series of 13 interviews. Ages vary from 26
to 78 years and both genders are equally represented. All informants go on vacation at least
once a year and have varied occupations (e.g. retired, secretary, logopedist, etc.) and
household structures (i.e. single, couple, widow, and family with children). Because
information richness rather than quantity or representativeness is important here, informants
were recruited according to theoretical sampling (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). This means
that informants were selected in order to maximize opportunities for theory development.
Ritchie et al. (2003, p. 108) consider theoretical sampling as ‘‘a particular kind of purposive
sampling in which units are selected speci?cally on the basis of their potential contribution to
the theory.’’
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 25
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Regarding data collection methods, we combined in-depth interviews, projective
techniques, and participant observation. The following interview topics were addressed:
motives for travelling/vacationing, vacation experience, uses, rituals, symbols, and
meanings attached to material souvenirs. Projective techniques such as sentence
completion and unconstrained associations were also included in the interviews. Finally,
informants’ vacation souvenirs were observed at home. We took pictures in order to support
these observation sessions. Through this triangulation perspective, we collected information
from different sources and methods ‘‘to corroborate, elaborate, or illuminate the research
problem’’ (Decrop, 2004, p. 162).
Interview transcripts, ?eld notes, and pictorial material were analysed and interpreted
through the grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin,
1990), which ‘‘uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived
grounded theory about a phenomenon’’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 24). Through different
levels of coding (from straight description of the data to abstract layers of meanings), this
approach allows to develop theoretical insights emerging from the data rather than trying to
?t the data to the theory.
Findings: a functional typology of symbolic souvenirs
While travelling or vacationing, almost every tourist buys or picks up a broad range of
souvenirs to bring back home. These include commercial goods (e.g. hats/caps, mugs,
jewels), typical local merchandise (e.g. food and liquor items, statues, and other crafts),
documents (e.g. entrance and ?ight tickets, city maps), and objects gathered along the way
(e.g. stones, coral). When telling about their favourite souvenir(s), be they bought or picked
up, informants often express the same word: typical. When probed, they associate ‘‘typical’’
with unique, original, representative, emblematic, symbolic, or distinctive.
The analysis and interpretation of our data at different levels of abstraction allow us to
develop a typology of four types of symbolic souvenirs, i.e. tourist trinkets, destination
stereotypes, paper mementoes, and picked-up objects. Needless to say, not all souvenirs
are symbolic; some of them only ful?l utilitarian or hedonistic functions and such souvenirs
are not considered in the paragraphs below. Besides their intrinsic features, our typology
highlights four major functions souvenirs may ful?l in terms of consumers’ meanings and
identity construction: categorisation, self-expression, connection, and self-creation.
Inspired by Hoyer and MacInnis (2004), Figure 1 presents the four types of symbolic
souvenirs and their respective functions along two major dimensions.
Figure 1 Types and functions of symbolic souvenirs
PAGE 26
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The ?rst (horizontal) dimension represents the source of the meanings attached to souvenirs,
i.e. cultural vs personal. The meanings of tourist’s possessions can derive from the culturally
constituted world that comprises cultural categories and principles regarding time, place,
space, and people (McCracken, 1986)[2]. However, tourist consumers may also develop
their own personal meanings related to their possessions. This ?rst axis is also related to the
work of Richins (1994, p. 505) on public and private meanings. Public meanings are
considered as ‘‘subjective meanings assigned to an object by outside observers
(non-owners) of the object, that is, by members of society at large.’’ whereas private or
personal meanings are ‘‘the sumof the subjective meanings that object holds for a particular
individual. Such meanings may include elements of the object’s public meanings, but the
owner’s personal history in relation to the object also plays an important role’’ (Richins, 1994,
p. 506).
The second (vertical) dimension de?nes the role of the souvenir in identity construction:
collective vs individual. Souvenirs can help consumers to de?ne themselves as members of
a group/the tourist subculture or as full-?edged individuals/singular tourists. As symbols of a
collective identity, touristic objects can be used to classify consumers in relation to others; as
such, they help to af?liate them (with the considered group) or differentiate them (from other
groups) (Holt, 1995). Souvenirs can be a means for consumers to show their belongingness
and integration with a group of travellers. These needs can be related to the social needs of
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970). Conversely, tourist souvenirs can help
consumers to distinguish themselves from the group and to emphasise their individual
identity. In other words, they may support tourist singularisation and self-development.
The following sections describe in detail the four types of souvenirs presented in Figure 1.
Tourist trinkets: categorization
Tourist trinkets represent a ?rst category of souvenirs that includes small trinkets or gadgets
(e.g. mugs, key rings, hats/caps, pencils, and tee-shirts) featuring the visited place(s). They
are cheap and bought in souvenir shops during each holiday as illustrated in the following
pictures (Figure 2).
Although these objects can be found in the home country or elsewhere in the world, they are
printed with the name or a drawing of the destination and serve as a marker of the trip as
highlighted by the following informants:
From the United States, we came back with tee-shirts. Yes, we came back with a lot of little
trinkets, little souvenirs, but not something [special]. It is often little trinkets (Jean-Claude and
Dominique, M/F, 56/48).
Figure 2 Souvenir shops in New York and Oxford
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 27
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Tourist trinkets often ful?l a categorization function with public meanings. For example, when
seeing a mug or ashtray with the logo ‘‘I Love NY’’ in a tourist’s house, visitors will likely
conclude that the owner indeed visited New York. Moreover, consumers use these objects to
symbolize their belongingness to a group of travellers or to the broader tourist sub-culture.
Through the acquisition of such souvenirs, tourists tend to resemble or to get closer to other
tourists. Such a need for integration is expressed in the following quote:
We are sometimes encouraged to buy. When we went to Gibraltar, we were in a package tour by
bus. When we got off the bus, a guy took pictures of each tourist. At the end of the tour, the same
guy proposed us key rings and ashtrays with a photo of Gibraltar and us. Almost every tourist
bought this souvenir. We bought a key ring. In fact, we were pushed into buying it because
everybody stayed to buy one... so, we bought one too (Rene´ e and Willy, F/M, 50/50).
Destination stereotypes: self-expression
Destination stereotypes are a second category of souvenirs. A majority of informants usually
bring at least one typical object back fromtheir holiday destination depicted as the specialty
of the place (e.g. Russian dolls, Egyptian papyrus and golden cartouche, Andalusia
castanets and dresses, Greek discobolus, and Tunisian nargilehs and djellabas). Although
they are aware that most of those objects bought in the so-called souvenir shops are not
unique and are mass-produced, informants still purchase them because they stand for the
destination.
These objects have a public meaning derived from culture. For example, most people know
that the typical souvenir from New York is a Statue of Liberty while from Paris it’s an Eiffel
Tower:
For example, if I wanted to go to Paris and to bring something back for someone, I would feel like
bringing an Eiffel Tower. Because it is true that for them, this is what they know; Paris is the Eiffel
Tower (Myre` se, F, 27).
Furthermore, these souvenirs help tourist consumers to distinguish themselves fromanother
group or the tourist subculture and so, to de?ne themselves as individuals. In other words,
they serve ego-enhancement and self-expression functions as underlined by the following
informant:
The persons who went there [New York], they must think that the Statue of Liberty is a souvenir for
them. But I have the feeling that it is more to communicate to others ‘‘I have been to New York.’’ It
is the same as if you went to Paris and bought an Eiffel Tower. It means ‘‘I have been to
Paris’’(Fre´ de´ rique, F, 27).
Moreover, tourists often conspicuously exhibit destination stereotypes in the public rooms of
the house (e.g., living-room, hallway) in order to show visiting relatives and friends that ‘‘I/we
was/were there’’ as the following quotes illustrate:
And if you display it in a living-room... in a living-room, it is for you but it is also for the people who
visit you (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
I am convinced that there are people who display all their vacation souvenirs to show off, to show
that they have been to Paris, to Copenhagen, to here and there (Willy, M, 50).
Such a conspicuous display may be interpreted as human beings’ need to stabilize the
signi?cation of their deep self through material objects (Tuan, 1980).
Paper mementoes: connection
Paper mementoes represent a third type of souvenir, which includes entrance tickets,
guidebooks, phone cards, trip brochures, city/country maps, or ?ight/luggage tickets
(Figure 3).
This category of souvenirs clearly shows a connection function. First, it represents the
tourist’s connection with other travellers. In the following quote, Yvette is inclined to express,
through her guidebook, her af?liation with the group of former teachers sharing her travelling
experience:
PAGE 28
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The friend who organized the trip, she knew all the participants, and it is always well prepared
because. . . Look, she made us a guidebook with all the things that we were going to see and their
description. Because the group was made up of former teachers like me and we like to know
where we go and set up all the details (Yvette, F, 63).
Second, these souvenirs symbolize the personal connections with signi?cant people,
events, or experiences in the tourist’s life as underlined in the following quote:
The Dominican Republic is signi?cant for us. It was our honeymoon. And this is the island map. It
was the famous island we visited on the ?rst day (Sophie and Fre´ de´ ric, F/M, 27/26).
As a result, these paper mementoes have personal and private meanings attached to them.
Tourists keep them because they connect them with a person, a particular destination, a
special trip/travel experience, a memorable vacation event, purchase or activity as
illustrated by the following quote:
I have taken back the booklet of the trip organization. I have kept the ?ight tickets as well. There is
also the ?ight plan made by the stewardess and signed by the captain for my son who had his
birthday on board (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
This sense of connection can also provide informants with a whiff of nostalgia that may lead
to positive or negative feelings:
You know. . . I have been a widower for eight years. When I look at my vacation souvenirs, I
remember the things we did together, the beautiful places and memories that we lived together...
with my wife (Jean, M, 74).
Picked-up objects: self-creation
Finally, picked-up objects (e.g. stones from New York and Brest, sand from Tunisia, coral
from Mauritius, and lavender fromProvence) are the type of souvenirs informants mentioned
with most enthusiasm. These represent something more typical and distinctive in travellers’
eyes and are often favoured when compared to other types of souvenirs. Moreover, an
affective or symbolic value rather than an economic one is attached to such souvenirs.
Stones are a typical illustration frequently mentioned in our data. A personal event or an
anecdote of particular importance is associated with the majority of these picked-up objects
such as this bottle of Tunisian sand:
That is the only thing I remember exactly how I brought it back home. It was during of a trip with
friends. Just before coming back, I was running and I fell ?at on the sand. We laughed so much
that I got the idea to take some of the sand that sent me ?ying (Gilles, M, 20).
Figure 3 Some paper mementoes
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 29
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Picked-up objects exchanged between a local (i.e. the host) and a tourist (i.e. the guest)
may also be ?lled with extraordinary power. In one of our informants’ eyes, the piece of coral
received from an inhabitant is simply priceless:
Look, this is a piece of coral from captain Bob – it comes from the coral reef, from Mauritius. He
gave it to us, he did not buy it. It was really something that touched me because that came from
someone very simple, very kind. He picked it up on the beach and he offered us the coral as a
souvenir of him (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
Even though picked-up objects portray the visited destination (sand is representative of
Tunisia, coral of Mauritius), their meaning is only obvious for the tourist who brought them
back. These objects are unique only in their owner’s eyes. ‘‘Outsiders’’ pay no attention to
them because they are inexpensive and mundane.
Furthermore, the private meanings derived from such objects help consumers to stand out
from others and af?rm their uniqueness and individuality as expressed by one of our
informants:
Maybe anyone can bring a stone fromthe Statue of Liberty, but this one, I picked it up myself. This
stone is just a stone. . . But I wanted to take a piece of the United States back home. It does not
have [an economic value] but for me, it means that I have something from the United States at
home (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
This type of souvenir contributes to self-creation and development because it reminds the
owner of a unique and personal experience. While having no monetary/intrinsic value,
picked-up objects possess a symbolic value. Tourists cherish thembecause they have been
symbolically contaminated (Belk, 1988; Belk et al., 1991) as illustrated by the previous quote
in which the stone is imbued with the ‘‘power’’ of Statue of Liberty.
As illustrated in Figure 4 and by the following quote, these souvenirs are often displayed in
more private/sacred rooms of the house (e.g. bedrooms, of?ce):
The stone from the Statue of Liberty, it is in my of?ce. But once again, in my of?ce, it is very... very
private, it is not decoration. At home, my of?ce is my territory (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
The depth of meanings
Beyond their role in identity construction, souvenirs also reveal different levels of consumer
attachment or ‘‘depth’’ of meanings. These levels of attachment may be paralleled with the
sacred-profane continuum (Belk et al., 1991; Wallendorf et al., 1988) where meanings are
deep/sacred vs shallow/profane. As highlighted by Belk et al. (1991, p. 6), the ‘‘extraordinary
sacred is de?ned by its opposition to the ordinary profane.’’ Tourist souvenirs may become
Figure 4 A stone from the Statue of Liberty
PAGE 30
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
sacralised when they are symbolically contaminated, hold extraordinary or magical power,
are part of a collection, or are received as a gift from a signi?cant person. Tourists are more
likely to be deeply attached to such souvenirs because they carry strong emotional and
affective meanings. Actually, tourists tend to keep and/or reinforce the sacred status of such
items by separating them from profane spaces and collecting them in ‘‘shrines’’ such as
special shelves or display cabinets. However, when tourists are not strongly attached to
souvenirs, their potential loss is not experienced as a tragedy as quoted by the following
informant:
[All the little trinkets that I brought back, they do not mean anything for me]. I like to bring back
little things such as key rings but if I lose them, I don’t care (Fre´ de´ rique, F, 27).
Despite such an obvious distinction between deep/sacred and shallow/profane meanings,
both meanings can be present within the same type of souvenir and lead to various levels of
attachment depending on the individual concerned. One of our interviewed couples shows
opposed meanings and attachments towards the castanets located in their hallway. The
husband completely forgot about them and did not know they were still there while the wife
gives them importance and is nostalgic whenever she sees them.
The sacredness of a souvenir is intrinsically related to the story the individual associates with
the object; this does not necessarily manifest itself to everyone. In that sense, tourist
souvenirs are a perfect illustration of a hierophany. As Belk et al. (1991, p. 64) highlights, ‘‘a
sacred stone continues to appear like other stones except to those who believe it has
revealed itself to them as unique, supernatural or ganz andere (totally other).’’
Conclusion
This study provides an in-depth understanding of the meanings and functions of souvenirs
through the development of a typology of symbolic souvenirs. Such an exploration of the
functional and symbolic dimensions of souvenirs adds value to the descriptive view of
Gordon’s (1986) typology and to the motivational typology of Decrop and Masset (2011).
Moreover, our typology extends Gordon’s presentation of the souvenir as ‘‘a material
reminder’’ and ‘‘a living messenger of the extraordinary,’’ by highlighting four major functions
souvenirs may ful?l in terms of consumers’ meanings and identity construction.
By enhancing the role of souvenirs in self-identity development, our typology also
contributes to the ?eld of consumers’ special possessions. Many souvenirs bought or picked
up by tourists participate in the de?nition of their identity. The meanings underlying
picked-up objects and destination stereotypes are in line with the concept of the
extended-self (Belk, 1988). Picked-up objects are incorporated into the tourist’s self since
they are connected with a personal meaningful event or experience. In the same way,
destination stereotypes help tourists’ self-expression when tourists recount their travel
experience to others, testifying to their presence at the destination. The sacred-profane
dimension (Belk et al., 1991; Wallendorf et al., 1988) also adds depth to our understanding.
Of course, our typology is not exclusive. The same souvenir can ful?l several functions at the
same time. For example, a key ring with an Eiffel Tower can ful?l not only a categorisation
function because it is a tourist trinket, but also a self-expression function as a destination
stereotype.
Typologies are also important to better understand the market and implement
merchandising strategies (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Overall, our typology highlights
the power of tourist souvenirs as messengers of symbolic meanings which may help
consumers to convey individual/cultural meanings to their broader existence and which can
play a signi?cant role in their individual/social identity construction. Therefore, managerial
efforts to propose typical, unique, emblematic, and symbolic souvenirs should be a constant
concern. Two additional managerial implications can be suggested to marketers,
producers, and retailers. On the one hand, symbolic contamination may confer added
value to souvenirs. For example, souvenirs signed by a local artist could be sold at a higher
price. On the other hand, as tourist souvenirs may be exposed in public rooms of the house,
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 31
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
they can act as ambassadors for a destination. We would thus advise destination marketers
and souvenir producers to combine forces to develop distinctive souvenirs able to catch
tourists’ attention and enhance a destination’s image.
Finally, tourist souvenirs facilitate the transition between the extraordinary environment,
i.e. the unique and sacred (leisure) experience and the ordinary sphere, i.e. the mundane
and profane (work) existence (Belk, 1997; Belk et al., 1991; Gordon, 1986; Graburn, 1989;
MacCannell, 1976). Nevertheless, tourists are often frustrated when they arrive home with
their souvenirs: the Tunisian djellaba seems ridiculous, the Egyptian papyrus does not ?t into
the house, the tee-shirt printed with Bahamas and a coco palm is considered kitsch and the
?ight tickets appear irrelevant. These examples enhance the role of the context and
atmosphere surrounding consumption. Actually, the meanings attached to souvenirs are not
static but dynamic; they evolve over time and space. Hence, it would be interesting to
extend this study by following the evolution of meanings attached to the different types of
souvenirs. For example, future research could investigate the in?uence of context on the
meanings attached to souvenirs and the evolution of souvenirs over time. Moreover, the role
of culture in shaping preferences for different types of souvenirs and their attached
meanings, deserves closer scrutiny since the sample of this study was limited to Belgian
vacationers.
Notes
1. As stated by Love and Sheldon (1998, p. 174), the Other ‘‘might represent another culture, another
person, or the Self at another point in time’’.
2. As de?ned by Hoyer and MacInnis (2004, p. 451), cultural categories are ‘‘the natural grouping of
objects that re?ect our culture’’ while the de?nition of cultural principles is ‘‘ideas or values that
specify how aspects of our culture are organized and/or how they should be perceived or
evaluated’’.
References
Anderson, L.F. and Littrell, M.A. (1995), ‘‘Souvenir-purchase behavior of women tourists’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 328-348.
Baker, S.M., Kleine, S.S. and Bowen, H.E. (2006), ‘‘On the symbolic meaning of souvenirs for children’’,
Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 213-252.
Belk, R.W. (1988), ‘‘Possessions and the extended self’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 139-168.
Belk, R.W. (1997), ‘‘Been there, done that, bought the souvenirs: of journeys and boundary crossing’’,
in Brown, S. and Turley, D. (Eds), Consumer Research: Postcards from the Edge, Routledge, London,
pp. 22-45.
Belk, R.W. and Yeh, J.H-Y. (2011), ‘‘Tourist photographs: signs of self’’, International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 345-353.
Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, J.F. Jr (1991), ‘‘The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior:
theodicy on the odyssey’’, in Belk, R.W. (Ed.), Highways and Buyways: Naturalistic Research from the
Consumer Behavior Odyssey, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 59-101.
Cohen, E. (1988), ‘‘Authenticity and commoditization in tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 371-386.
Cohen, E. (2000), ‘‘Souvenir’’, in Jafari, J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Tourism, Routledge, London and New
York, pp. 547-548.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981), The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and
the Self, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Decrop, A. (2004), ‘‘Trustworthiness in qualitative tourism research’’, in Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L.
(Eds), Qualitative Research in Tourism, Routledge, London, pp. 156-169.
PAGE 32
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Decrop, A. and Masset, J. (2011), ‘‘I want this Ramses’ statue: motives and meanings of tourist
souvenirs’’, in Kozak, M. and Kozak, N. (Eds), Sustainability of Tourism: Cultural and Environmental
Perspectives, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 17-41.
Geertz, C. (1973), ‘‘Deep play: notes on the Balinese cock?ght’’, in Geertz, C. (Ed.), The Interpretation of
Cultures, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 412-453.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.S. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Gordon, B. (1986), ‘‘The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary’’, Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 135-146.
Graburn, N.H.H. (1989), ‘‘Tourism: the sacred journey’’, in Smith, V. (Ed.), Hosts and Guests:
The Anthropology of Tourism, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 21-36.
Holt, D.B. (1995), ‘‘How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Hoyer, W.D. and MacInnis, D.J. (2004), Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., Houghton Mif?in Company, Boston,
MA.
Jafari, J. (2000), Encyclopedia of Tourism, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Lehto, X.Y., Cai, L.A., O’Leary, J.T. and Huan, T-C. (2004), ‘‘Tourist shopping preferences and
expenditure behaviours: the case of the Taiwanese outbound market’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 320-332.
Levy, S.J. (1959), ‘‘Symbols for sale’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 117-124.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Littrell, M.A. (1990), ‘‘Symbolic signi?cance of textile crafts for tourists’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 228-245.
Littrell, M.A., Anderson, L.F. and Brown, P.J. (1993), ‘‘What makes a craft souvenir authentic?’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 197-215.
Littrell, M.A., Baizerman, S., Kean, R., Gahring, S., Niemeyer, S., Reilly, R. and Stout, J. (1994),
‘‘Souvenirs and tourism styles’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Love, L.L. and Sheldon, P.S. (1998), ‘‘Souvenirs: messengers of meaning’’, in Alba, J.W. and Wesley, J.
(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 170-175.
Lutz, R.J. (1989), ‘‘Presidential address positivism, naturalism and pluralism in consumer research:
paradigms in paradise’’, in Srull, T.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 1-8.
MacCannell, D. (1976), The Tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class, Schocken Books, New York, NY.
McCracken, G. (1986), ‘‘Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement
of the cultural meaning of consumer goods’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
McCracken, G. (1988), Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of
Consumption Goods and Activities, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Of?ce of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI) (2011), Pro?les of overseas travelers to the United States:
2011 inbound, available at: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/inbound.general_information.
inbound_overview.html (accessed 11 January 2013).
Richins, M.L. (1994), ‘‘Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 504-521.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. and Elam, G. (2003), ‘‘Designing and selecting samples’’, in Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J.
(Eds), Qualitative Research Practice-A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage,
London, pp. 77-108.
Shenhav-Keller, S. (1993), ‘‘The Israeli souvenir: its text and context’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 182-196.
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 33
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Swanson, K.K. and Timothy, D.J. (2012), ‘‘Souvenirs: icons of meaning, commercialization and
commoditization’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 489-499.
Timothy, D.J. (2005), Shopping Tourism, Retailing, and Leisure, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Tuan, Y.F. (1980), ‘‘The signi?cance of the artifact’’, Geographical Review, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 462-472.
VisitBritain (2011), Activity pivot 2011, available at: www.visitbritain.org/insightsandstatistics/
inboundvisitorstatistics/aboutvisitors/activities.aspx (accessed 11 January 2013).
Wallendorf, M. and Arnould, E.J. (1988), ‘‘My favorite things: a cross-cultural inquiry into object
attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 531-547.
Wallendorf, M., Belk, R.W. and Heisley, D. (1988), ‘‘Deep meaning in possessions: the paper’’,
in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 528-530.
About the authors
Alain Decrop is Dean of the Faculty of Economics, Social Sciences and Business
Administration, and Full Professor of Marketing at the University of Namur, Belgium. He is
also a member of Centre for Research on Consumers and Marketing Strategy (CCMS). He
holds Master degrees in Modern History and Economics, and a PhD in Business
Administration. His research interests include consumer decision making, interpretive
consumer research (CCT), qualitative methods, and leisure/tourism marketing. He is the
author of Vacation Decision Making (CABI, 2006) and co-editor of the Handbook of Tourist
Behavior (Routledge, 2009). His other works have appeared in a number of books and
academic journals, including Advances in Consumer Research, Annals of Tourism
Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Tourism Management.
Julie Masset is a researcher (ICM Fellow) and doctoral student in Marketing at the University
of Namur, Belgium. She holds a Master in Business Engineering. Her PhD project aims at
better understanding the consumption of special possessions in their context. And more
speci?cally, she is interested in the in?uence of the context in time, space and the social
environment on the evolution of the perceptions and meanings of special possessions. Julie
Masset is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 34
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Ady Milman. 2015. Preserving the cultural identity of a World Heritage Site: the impact of Chichen Itza’s souvenir vendors.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 9:3, 241-260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_901702238.pdf
Tourists’ special possessions are under-studied in consumer research despite their
importance in self-identity development. Furthermore, extant studies about tourist souvenirs fail in
providing an extensive and in-depth view of souvenirs, and in exploring both their functional and
symbolic dimensions. This paper aims to better and deeply understand the symbols and meanings
attached to tourist souvenirs as well as the functions they fulfil in contemporary consumption.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
“This is a piece of coral received from captain Bob”: meanings and functions of tourist souvenirs
Alain Decrop J ulie Masset
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alain Decrop J ulie Masset , (2014),"“This is a piece of coral received from captain Bob”: meanings and functions of tourist souvenirs",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 22 - 34
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-08-2013-0051
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 667 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
J uergen Gnoth, Xavier Matteucci, (2014),"A phenomenological view of the behavioural tourism research literature", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 3-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-01-2014-0005
Ian Phau, Vanessa Quintal, Tekle Shanka, (2014),"Examining a consumption values theory approach of young tourists toward destination
choice intentions", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 125-139 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-12-2012-0090
Defang Zhao, Ingrid Y. Lin, (2014),"Understanding tourists’ perception and evaluation of inter-cultural service encounters: a holistic mental
model process", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp. 290-309 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-09-2013-0070
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
‘‘This is a piece of coral received from
captain Bob’’: meanings and functions of
tourist souvenirs
Alain Decrop and Julie Masset
Abstract
Purpose – Tourists’ special possessions are under-studied in consumer research despite their
importance in self-identity development. Furthermore, extant studies about tourist souvenirs fail in
providing an extensive and in-depth view of souvenirs, and in exploring both their functional and
symbolic dimensions. This paper aims to better and deeply understand the symbols and meanings
attached to tourist souvenirs as well as the functions they ful?l in contemporary consumption.
Design/methodology/approach – A naturalistic interpretive approach has been privileged. A total of
19 informants have been interviewed and observed at home in a triangulation perspective. Interview
transcripts, ?eld notes, and pictorial material were analyzed and interpreted through the grounded
theory approach.
Findings – A new typology of four types of symbolic souvenirs including touristic trinkets, destination
stereotypes, paper mementoes, and picked-up objects is developed. The typology is grounded on four
major functions souvenirs may ful?l in terms of meanings and identity construction, that is:
categorization, self-expression, connectedness, and self-creation.
Originality/value – This study contributes to a better knowledge of tourist souvenirs, which is a typical
case of consumers’ special possessions that may be central in self-identity processes. Considered as
powerful ‘‘messengers of meaning’’, tourist souvenirs help consumers to maintain material links with
cherished past experiences and to convey individual and cultural meanings to their broader existence.
Typologies such as the one developed in this paper are crucial not only for researchers but also for
marketers and retailers.
Keywords Interpretive research, Special possessions, Symbolic consumption, Tourist souvenirs
Paper type Research paper
Souvenirs have existed for thousands of years, and as long as people continue to travel, they will
continue to be an important element of the experience (Swanson and Timothy, 2012, p. 497).
Introduction
Shopping is one of the prevailing contemporary tourist rituals (Belk, 1997). As underlined by
Timothy (2005, p. 69), tourism shopping involves ‘‘the expenditure of tangible goods by
tourists either for consumption in the destination (excluding food and beverage items) or for
export to their home countries/regions.’’ Tourism shopping represents a major business for
many retailers and destinations. According to the International Passenger Survey 2011, 71
per cent of international holiday visitors went shopping for clothes/accessories and
souvenirs in the UK (VisitBritain, 2011). Still in 2011, the US Of?ce of Travel and Tourism
Industries indicated that shopping is the ?rst concern for 91.5 per cent of all international
leisure travellers (OTTI, 2011). Chinese and Taiwanese tourists dedicate up to 61 per cent of
their total travel budget to shopping while American, European, or Australian tourists spend
between 30 and 37 per cent on this (Timothy, 2005). Gifts and souvenirs constitute a
substantial part of these tourist expenditures (Lehto et al., 2004; Littrell et al., 1994). In 2011,
PAGE 22
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014, pp. 22-34, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-08-2013-0051
Alain Decrop is Full
Professor of Marketing and
Julie Masset is a Research
Assistant, both based at the
Department of
Administration, University of
Namur, Namur, Belgium.
Received 1 August 2013
Revised 1 August 2013
Accepted 3 November 2013
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
international tourists visiting the USA spent 23.6 per cent of their budget on gifts and
souvenirs while their spending on lodging and food/beverages was respectively 25.2 per
cent and 19.7 per cent (OTTI, 2011).
Some souvenirs are bought; others are just picked up or received from the local population.
This paper focuses on material souvenirs and does not consider the memories in tourists’
minds nor their pictures or videos taken during the vacation experience. There are two
reasons for this: ?rst, in the literature de?nitions of souvenirs underline their material or
tangible nature. According to Cohen’s (2000, p. 548) de?nition, souvenirs are ‘‘material
objects which serve as reminders of people, places, events or experiences of signi?cance in
a person’s biography.’’ Anderson and Littrell (1995, p. 328) add that a souvenir is ‘‘a tangible
symbol and reminder of an experience that differs from daily routine and that otherwise
would remain intangible, such as memories of people, places, and events.’’ Second, Belk
and Yeh (2011, p. 348) emphasise that:
[. . .] although photographic and videographic evidences may be cues to call forth memories,
they do not perform the work of recollection themselves and cannot reproduce all of the actual
experience. Moreover, because we selectively take, select, and preserve these images, they
present a distorted, more polished, and more positive set of evidences than does the experience
itself.
The objective of this study is to understand better and more deeply the symbolic meanings
attached to tourist souvenirs as well as their functions. More speci?cally, it addresses the
following research questions: What are the symbols and meanings related to the purchase
and consumption of souvenirs? What roles/functions do souvenirs ful?l in postmodern
consumption?
The paper contributes to ?lling in some of the gaps in extant literature. First, the ?eld of
tourists’ special possessions has been insuf?ciently studied in consumer research despite
its importance for self-identity development. Indeed, as highlighted by McCracken (1988)
and Belk (1988), consumers confer importance on possessions that may be a re?ection of
their self and their identity. Second, souvenir research lacks depth (Swanson and Timothy,
2012). Many previous studies fail to provide an extensive in-depth view of souvenirs that
explores both their functional and symbolic dimensions. These studies remain descriptive,
traditionally focusing on the types, uses, and functionalities of souvenirs (Gordon, 1986)
rather than on the meanings conferred on them (Love and Sheldon, 1998). In contrast with
many previous studies on tourist souvenirs, we use a naturalistic interpretive perspective.
We interview tourists and observe souvenirs in the very place where they are consumed.
Unlike Love and Sheldon (1998), we do not ask informants to bring samples of their
souvenirs with them but we consider these objects in their full spatial, cultural, and temporal
context. In the same way, we do not focus on a particular category of souvenirs as certain
other authors have done (e.g. Littrell limited her study to textile crafts only). Finally, through
the functional typology of symbolic souvenirs developed in this paper, we offer new insights
into souvenir research and speci?cally, into the ?eld of consumers’ special possessions, by
underlining the signi?cant role of souvenirs in self-identity processes.
Before presenting the major results of our study, we review extant literature on special
possessions and souvenirs and present the methodology. The last part of the paper
provides managerial implications and presents the limitations of this research.
Literature review
Meanings of special possessions
Referring to the symbolism of consumer goods, Levy (1959, p. 118) underlines that people
go beyond the practical considerations of products, also buying them ‘‘for what they mean.’’
In their ‘‘consumer behaviour odyssey,’’ Wallendorf et al. (1988, p. 529) highlight that
consumers often attach deep meanings to possessions that may become central to their
lives. A study on the meanings of favourite objects reveals that 60 per cent of an American
sample considers an object as favourite mainly because it is a ‘‘remembrance of a close
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 23
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
relation, a vacation journey, or an event in the informant’s past’’ and not because of its
functionalities (Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988, p. 537). Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton (1981, p. 239) assert that ‘‘things are cherished not because of the
material comfort they provide, but for the information they convey about the owner and his or
her ties to others.’’ Consumers may experience a strong attachment to tourist souvenirs in
the same way as they do for a broad range of cherished possessions: a trophy won during
an important competition, a gift received from a relative, a family photo album, a wedding
dress, or a ?rst car. The meanings of such special possessions principally stem from
symbolic person-, event-, or place-attachments rather than from utilitarian or hedonistic
features. According to Belk (1988), deep meanings may be developed due to a series of
conditions associated to the object (e.g. a pleasant travel experience, an achievement, a gift
received from signi?cant others, a family heirloom, etc.).
In order to examine the process through which deep meanings are given to possessions,
Wallendorf et al. (1988) turn to sociology and anthropology. They borrow four themes of
which two are crucial in this research: the extended-self and the sacred-profane continuum.
First, individuals give meanings to possessions that re?ect their identity and encompass a
part of themselves (Belk, 1988; McCracken, 1988). The extended-self helps consumers to
transcend their lives as human beings and to confer unique and sacred meanings on their
possessions. Possessions participate in the de?nition of who we are:
[. . .] men and women make order in their selves (i.e. retrieve their identity) by ?rst creating and
then interacting with the material world. The nature of such a transaction will determine, to a great
extent, the kind of person that emerges. Thus the things that surround us are inseparable from
who we are (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, 1981, p. 16).
Therefore, consumers often express emotion-laden words, such as ‘‘tragedy’’ or ‘‘violation of
self’’, when they lose cherished possessions (Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988).
Second, the sacred status of special possessions lies at the origin of most deep attachment
to them:
Sacred objects are seen as mystical, powerful, and deserving of reverential behaviour, as
opposed to the ordinary, common, and mundane behaviour accorded to profane commodities
(Wallendorf et al. 1988, p. 529).
Furthermore, owners may be symbolically connected with their environment through the
relationships with their special household objects (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton,
1981; Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988). Two fundamental self-development processes are
observed when dealing with valued possessions: differentiation, ‘‘separating the owner from
the social context, emphasizing his or her individuality’ ’ (Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton, 1981, p. 38), and integration, where ‘‘the object symbolically expresses
the integration of the owner with his or her social context’’ (Csikszentmihalyi and
Rochberg-Halton, 1981, p. 39). Finally, possessions can act as instruments for improving
self-con?dence and showing the self-concept to others (Belk, 1988; Wallendorf and Arnould,
1988).
Meanings of souvenirs
(Some) tourist souvenirs are often considered as special possessions to which consumers
assign deep meanings (Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988; Belk, 1997). A small number of
researchers have attempted to interpret the meanings of such souvenirs more extensively
(Baker et al., 2006; Decrop and Masset, 2011; Gordon, 1986; Littrell, 1990; Littrell et al.,
1993; Love and Sheldon, 1998; Shenhav-Keller, 1993).
Baker et al. (2006) explore the symbolic meanings attached to children’s vacation souvenirs.
They show that many-layered and closely related meanings exist between children, places,
and souvenirs.
In her research on textile crafts souvenirs’ meanings, Littrell (1990) distinguishes ?ve pro?les
of tourist consumers (i.e. shopping oriented, authenticity seeking, special trips, textiles for
enjoyment, and apparel oriented) who may convey a large variety of meanings to their
PAGE 24
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
souvenirs (i.e. reversal of everyday life experience, authenticity, expansion of world vision,
differentiation from others, integration with others, development of feelings of
self-con?dence, expression of self-creativity, and aesthetic pleasure).
While exploring travel stories, Love and Sheldon (1998) highlight the ?uidity of meanings
given to souvenirs. These meanings evolve independently of the travel experience and
simultaneously with de?nitions of the Self and the Other[1]. However, the source of meanings
may vary according to experience. Less experienced/familiar travellers will be more likely to
base their meanings on straight features of visited destinations whereas the meanings
assigned by more experienced/familiar tourists will stemto a larger extent fromrelationships,
people, and events.
Other authors enhance the role of authenticity in the sense making of souvenirs. MacCannell
(1976) contends that the search for authenticity ‘‘in other times and other places which are
signi?cantly different fromeveryday life’’ is the tourist’s main motivation (In Jafari, 2000, p. 484).
Cohen (2000, p. 548) presents souvenirs as ‘‘one expression of the tourist’s quest for the
authentic’’ and he adds that authenticity is ‘‘a socially constructed concept and its social
connotation is, therefore, not given, but negotiable’’ (Cohen, 1988, p. 374). According to Littrell
et al. (1993, p. 200), an authentic souvenir relates to the connection between the tourist and a
travel destination ‘‘evoking a simpler life rich in meaning.’’ Finally, in her paper on the Israeli
souvenir, Shenhav-Keller (1993) emphasises the power of souvenirs, considered as authentic
reminders of a speci?c place, and as indicators of ideological meanings.
The ?rst typology of tourist souvenirs was published by Gordon (1986). Her classi?cation
includes ?ve categories: pictorial images (e.g. postcards, photographs, illustrated books,
etc.), pieces-of-the-rock (i.e. items gathered from the natural environment), symbolic
shorthand (i.e. out of scale items that stand for the destination;, e.g. an Empire State Building
from New York), markers (i.e. objects with no reference to any speci?c situation or event, but
with inscriptions that locate them in space and time;, e.g. a mug marked with Cayman
Islands), and local products (e.g. olive oil from Greece, vodka from Russia, a Mexican tortilla
press, a French beret, etc.). According to Gordon, a souvenir ful?ls two major functions, i.e. ‘‘a
material reminder’’ and ‘‘a living messenger of the extraordinary.’’ Considering the motivations
for buying and consuming tourist souvenirs, Decrop and Masset (2011) proposed another
typology of four types of souvenirs: the symbolic souvenir (i.e. objects described as typical,
emblematic, and unique;, e.g. a key ring with an Eiffel tower or lavender from Provence), the
hedonistic souvenir (i.e. items related to pleasure, happiness, and affective contentment such
as food items), the utilitarian souvenir (i.e. souvenirs bought for their functional purpose;,
e.g. plates and pots), and the souvenir as a gift (i.e. objects purchased for relatives or friends
who stayed at home, or items received from the local population).
Methodology
In order to address our research questions, we used a naturalistic interpretive approach.
Souvenirs were observed at home and discussed in the time and place context where they
were acquired and consumed. Naturalistic research aims to apprehend the occurrence of
natural phenomena in their naturally occurring conditions (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Lutz,
1989). To achieve such an idiosyncratic understanding, immersing oneself in the ?eld is
required to generate thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973).
A total of 19 Belgian informants were involved in a series of 13 interviews. Ages vary from 26
to 78 years and both genders are equally represented. All informants go on vacation at least
once a year and have varied occupations (e.g. retired, secretary, logopedist, etc.) and
household structures (i.e. single, couple, widow, and family with children). Because
information richness rather than quantity or representativeness is important here, informants
were recruited according to theoretical sampling (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). This means
that informants were selected in order to maximize opportunities for theory development.
Ritchie et al. (2003, p. 108) consider theoretical sampling as ‘‘a particular kind of purposive
sampling in which units are selected speci?cally on the basis of their potential contribution to
the theory.’’
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 25
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Regarding data collection methods, we combined in-depth interviews, projective
techniques, and participant observation. The following interview topics were addressed:
motives for travelling/vacationing, vacation experience, uses, rituals, symbols, and
meanings attached to material souvenirs. Projective techniques such as sentence
completion and unconstrained associations were also included in the interviews. Finally,
informants’ vacation souvenirs were observed at home. We took pictures in order to support
these observation sessions. Through this triangulation perspective, we collected information
from different sources and methods ‘‘to corroborate, elaborate, or illuminate the research
problem’’ (Decrop, 2004, p. 162).
Interview transcripts, ?eld notes, and pictorial material were analysed and interpreted
through the grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin,
1990), which ‘‘uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived
grounded theory about a phenomenon’’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 24). Through different
levels of coding (from straight description of the data to abstract layers of meanings), this
approach allows to develop theoretical insights emerging from the data rather than trying to
?t the data to the theory.
Findings: a functional typology of symbolic souvenirs
While travelling or vacationing, almost every tourist buys or picks up a broad range of
souvenirs to bring back home. These include commercial goods (e.g. hats/caps, mugs,
jewels), typical local merchandise (e.g. food and liquor items, statues, and other crafts),
documents (e.g. entrance and ?ight tickets, city maps), and objects gathered along the way
(e.g. stones, coral). When telling about their favourite souvenir(s), be they bought or picked
up, informants often express the same word: typical. When probed, they associate ‘‘typical’’
with unique, original, representative, emblematic, symbolic, or distinctive.
The analysis and interpretation of our data at different levels of abstraction allow us to
develop a typology of four types of symbolic souvenirs, i.e. tourist trinkets, destination
stereotypes, paper mementoes, and picked-up objects. Needless to say, not all souvenirs
are symbolic; some of them only ful?l utilitarian or hedonistic functions and such souvenirs
are not considered in the paragraphs below. Besides their intrinsic features, our typology
highlights four major functions souvenirs may ful?l in terms of consumers’ meanings and
identity construction: categorisation, self-expression, connection, and self-creation.
Inspired by Hoyer and MacInnis (2004), Figure 1 presents the four types of symbolic
souvenirs and their respective functions along two major dimensions.
Figure 1 Types and functions of symbolic souvenirs
PAGE 26
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The ?rst (horizontal) dimension represents the source of the meanings attached to souvenirs,
i.e. cultural vs personal. The meanings of tourist’s possessions can derive from the culturally
constituted world that comprises cultural categories and principles regarding time, place,
space, and people (McCracken, 1986)[2]. However, tourist consumers may also develop
their own personal meanings related to their possessions. This ?rst axis is also related to the
work of Richins (1994, p. 505) on public and private meanings. Public meanings are
considered as ‘‘subjective meanings assigned to an object by outside observers
(non-owners) of the object, that is, by members of society at large.’’ whereas private or
personal meanings are ‘‘the sumof the subjective meanings that object holds for a particular
individual. Such meanings may include elements of the object’s public meanings, but the
owner’s personal history in relation to the object also plays an important role’’ (Richins, 1994,
p. 506).
The second (vertical) dimension de?nes the role of the souvenir in identity construction:
collective vs individual. Souvenirs can help consumers to de?ne themselves as members of
a group/the tourist subculture or as full-?edged individuals/singular tourists. As symbols of a
collective identity, touristic objects can be used to classify consumers in relation to others; as
such, they help to af?liate them (with the considered group) or differentiate them (from other
groups) (Holt, 1995). Souvenirs can be a means for consumers to show their belongingness
and integration with a group of travellers. These needs can be related to the social needs of
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970). Conversely, tourist souvenirs can help
consumers to distinguish themselves from the group and to emphasise their individual
identity. In other words, they may support tourist singularisation and self-development.
The following sections describe in detail the four types of souvenirs presented in Figure 1.
Tourist trinkets: categorization
Tourist trinkets represent a ?rst category of souvenirs that includes small trinkets or gadgets
(e.g. mugs, key rings, hats/caps, pencils, and tee-shirts) featuring the visited place(s). They
are cheap and bought in souvenir shops during each holiday as illustrated in the following
pictures (Figure 2).
Although these objects can be found in the home country or elsewhere in the world, they are
printed with the name or a drawing of the destination and serve as a marker of the trip as
highlighted by the following informants:
From the United States, we came back with tee-shirts. Yes, we came back with a lot of little
trinkets, little souvenirs, but not something [special]. It is often little trinkets (Jean-Claude and
Dominique, M/F, 56/48).
Figure 2 Souvenir shops in New York and Oxford
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 27
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Tourist trinkets often ful?l a categorization function with public meanings. For example, when
seeing a mug or ashtray with the logo ‘‘I Love NY’’ in a tourist’s house, visitors will likely
conclude that the owner indeed visited New York. Moreover, consumers use these objects to
symbolize their belongingness to a group of travellers or to the broader tourist sub-culture.
Through the acquisition of such souvenirs, tourists tend to resemble or to get closer to other
tourists. Such a need for integration is expressed in the following quote:
We are sometimes encouraged to buy. When we went to Gibraltar, we were in a package tour by
bus. When we got off the bus, a guy took pictures of each tourist. At the end of the tour, the same
guy proposed us key rings and ashtrays with a photo of Gibraltar and us. Almost every tourist
bought this souvenir. We bought a key ring. In fact, we were pushed into buying it because
everybody stayed to buy one... so, we bought one too (Rene´ e and Willy, F/M, 50/50).
Destination stereotypes: self-expression
Destination stereotypes are a second category of souvenirs. A majority of informants usually
bring at least one typical object back fromtheir holiday destination depicted as the specialty
of the place (e.g. Russian dolls, Egyptian papyrus and golden cartouche, Andalusia
castanets and dresses, Greek discobolus, and Tunisian nargilehs and djellabas). Although
they are aware that most of those objects bought in the so-called souvenir shops are not
unique and are mass-produced, informants still purchase them because they stand for the
destination.
These objects have a public meaning derived from culture. For example, most people know
that the typical souvenir from New York is a Statue of Liberty while from Paris it’s an Eiffel
Tower:
For example, if I wanted to go to Paris and to bring something back for someone, I would feel like
bringing an Eiffel Tower. Because it is true that for them, this is what they know; Paris is the Eiffel
Tower (Myre` se, F, 27).
Furthermore, these souvenirs help tourist consumers to distinguish themselves fromanother
group or the tourist subculture and so, to de?ne themselves as individuals. In other words,
they serve ego-enhancement and self-expression functions as underlined by the following
informant:
The persons who went there [New York], they must think that the Statue of Liberty is a souvenir for
them. But I have the feeling that it is more to communicate to others ‘‘I have been to New York.’’ It
is the same as if you went to Paris and bought an Eiffel Tower. It means ‘‘I have been to
Paris’’(Fre´ de´ rique, F, 27).
Moreover, tourists often conspicuously exhibit destination stereotypes in the public rooms of
the house (e.g., living-room, hallway) in order to show visiting relatives and friends that ‘‘I/we
was/were there’’ as the following quotes illustrate:
And if you display it in a living-room... in a living-room, it is for you but it is also for the people who
visit you (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
I am convinced that there are people who display all their vacation souvenirs to show off, to show
that they have been to Paris, to Copenhagen, to here and there (Willy, M, 50).
Such a conspicuous display may be interpreted as human beings’ need to stabilize the
signi?cation of their deep self through material objects (Tuan, 1980).
Paper mementoes: connection
Paper mementoes represent a third type of souvenir, which includes entrance tickets,
guidebooks, phone cards, trip brochures, city/country maps, or ?ight/luggage tickets
(Figure 3).
This category of souvenirs clearly shows a connection function. First, it represents the
tourist’s connection with other travellers. In the following quote, Yvette is inclined to express,
through her guidebook, her af?liation with the group of former teachers sharing her travelling
experience:
PAGE 28
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The friend who organized the trip, she knew all the participants, and it is always well prepared
because. . . Look, she made us a guidebook with all the things that we were going to see and their
description. Because the group was made up of former teachers like me and we like to know
where we go and set up all the details (Yvette, F, 63).
Second, these souvenirs symbolize the personal connections with signi?cant people,
events, or experiences in the tourist’s life as underlined in the following quote:
The Dominican Republic is signi?cant for us. It was our honeymoon. And this is the island map. It
was the famous island we visited on the ?rst day (Sophie and Fre´ de´ ric, F/M, 27/26).
As a result, these paper mementoes have personal and private meanings attached to them.
Tourists keep them because they connect them with a person, a particular destination, a
special trip/travel experience, a memorable vacation event, purchase or activity as
illustrated by the following quote:
I have taken back the booklet of the trip organization. I have kept the ?ight tickets as well. There is
also the ?ight plan made by the stewardess and signed by the captain for my son who had his
birthday on board (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
This sense of connection can also provide informants with a whiff of nostalgia that may lead
to positive or negative feelings:
You know. . . I have been a widower for eight years. When I look at my vacation souvenirs, I
remember the things we did together, the beautiful places and memories that we lived together...
with my wife (Jean, M, 74).
Picked-up objects: self-creation
Finally, picked-up objects (e.g. stones from New York and Brest, sand from Tunisia, coral
from Mauritius, and lavender fromProvence) are the type of souvenirs informants mentioned
with most enthusiasm. These represent something more typical and distinctive in travellers’
eyes and are often favoured when compared to other types of souvenirs. Moreover, an
affective or symbolic value rather than an economic one is attached to such souvenirs.
Stones are a typical illustration frequently mentioned in our data. A personal event or an
anecdote of particular importance is associated with the majority of these picked-up objects
such as this bottle of Tunisian sand:
That is the only thing I remember exactly how I brought it back home. It was during of a trip with
friends. Just before coming back, I was running and I fell ?at on the sand. We laughed so much
that I got the idea to take some of the sand that sent me ?ying (Gilles, M, 20).
Figure 3 Some paper mementoes
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 29
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Picked-up objects exchanged between a local (i.e. the host) and a tourist (i.e. the guest)
may also be ?lled with extraordinary power. In one of our informants’ eyes, the piece of coral
received from an inhabitant is simply priceless:
Look, this is a piece of coral from captain Bob – it comes from the coral reef, from Mauritius. He
gave it to us, he did not buy it. It was really something that touched me because that came from
someone very simple, very kind. He picked it up on the beach and he offered us the coral as a
souvenir of him (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
Even though picked-up objects portray the visited destination (sand is representative of
Tunisia, coral of Mauritius), their meaning is only obvious for the tourist who brought them
back. These objects are unique only in their owner’s eyes. ‘‘Outsiders’’ pay no attention to
them because they are inexpensive and mundane.
Furthermore, the private meanings derived from such objects help consumers to stand out
from others and af?rm their uniqueness and individuality as expressed by one of our
informants:
Maybe anyone can bring a stone fromthe Statue of Liberty, but this one, I picked it up myself. This
stone is just a stone. . . But I wanted to take a piece of the United States back home. It does not
have [an economic value] but for me, it means that I have something from the United States at
home (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
This type of souvenir contributes to self-creation and development because it reminds the
owner of a unique and personal experience. While having no monetary/intrinsic value,
picked-up objects possess a symbolic value. Tourists cherish thembecause they have been
symbolically contaminated (Belk, 1988; Belk et al., 1991) as illustrated by the previous quote
in which the stone is imbued with the ‘‘power’’ of Statue of Liberty.
As illustrated in Figure 4 and by the following quote, these souvenirs are often displayed in
more private/sacred rooms of the house (e.g. bedrooms, of?ce):
The stone from the Statue of Liberty, it is in my of?ce. But once again, in my of?ce, it is very... very
private, it is not decoration. At home, my of?ce is my territory (Jean-Claude, M, 56).
The depth of meanings
Beyond their role in identity construction, souvenirs also reveal different levels of consumer
attachment or ‘‘depth’’ of meanings. These levels of attachment may be paralleled with the
sacred-profane continuum (Belk et al., 1991; Wallendorf et al., 1988) where meanings are
deep/sacred vs shallow/profane. As highlighted by Belk et al. (1991, p. 6), the ‘‘extraordinary
sacred is de?ned by its opposition to the ordinary profane.’’ Tourist souvenirs may become
Figure 4 A stone from the Statue of Liberty
PAGE 30
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
sacralised when they are symbolically contaminated, hold extraordinary or magical power,
are part of a collection, or are received as a gift from a signi?cant person. Tourists are more
likely to be deeply attached to such souvenirs because they carry strong emotional and
affective meanings. Actually, tourists tend to keep and/or reinforce the sacred status of such
items by separating them from profane spaces and collecting them in ‘‘shrines’’ such as
special shelves or display cabinets. However, when tourists are not strongly attached to
souvenirs, their potential loss is not experienced as a tragedy as quoted by the following
informant:
[All the little trinkets that I brought back, they do not mean anything for me]. I like to bring back
little things such as key rings but if I lose them, I don’t care (Fre´ de´ rique, F, 27).
Despite such an obvious distinction between deep/sacred and shallow/profane meanings,
both meanings can be present within the same type of souvenir and lead to various levels of
attachment depending on the individual concerned. One of our interviewed couples shows
opposed meanings and attachments towards the castanets located in their hallway. The
husband completely forgot about them and did not know they were still there while the wife
gives them importance and is nostalgic whenever she sees them.
The sacredness of a souvenir is intrinsically related to the story the individual associates with
the object; this does not necessarily manifest itself to everyone. In that sense, tourist
souvenirs are a perfect illustration of a hierophany. As Belk et al. (1991, p. 64) highlights, ‘‘a
sacred stone continues to appear like other stones except to those who believe it has
revealed itself to them as unique, supernatural or ganz andere (totally other).’’
Conclusion
This study provides an in-depth understanding of the meanings and functions of souvenirs
through the development of a typology of symbolic souvenirs. Such an exploration of the
functional and symbolic dimensions of souvenirs adds value to the descriptive view of
Gordon’s (1986) typology and to the motivational typology of Decrop and Masset (2011).
Moreover, our typology extends Gordon’s presentation of the souvenir as ‘‘a material
reminder’’ and ‘‘a living messenger of the extraordinary,’’ by highlighting four major functions
souvenirs may ful?l in terms of consumers’ meanings and identity construction.
By enhancing the role of souvenirs in self-identity development, our typology also
contributes to the ?eld of consumers’ special possessions. Many souvenirs bought or picked
up by tourists participate in the de?nition of their identity. The meanings underlying
picked-up objects and destination stereotypes are in line with the concept of the
extended-self (Belk, 1988). Picked-up objects are incorporated into the tourist’s self since
they are connected with a personal meaningful event or experience. In the same way,
destination stereotypes help tourists’ self-expression when tourists recount their travel
experience to others, testifying to their presence at the destination. The sacred-profane
dimension (Belk et al., 1991; Wallendorf et al., 1988) also adds depth to our understanding.
Of course, our typology is not exclusive. The same souvenir can ful?l several functions at the
same time. For example, a key ring with an Eiffel Tower can ful?l not only a categorisation
function because it is a tourist trinket, but also a self-expression function as a destination
stereotype.
Typologies are also important to better understand the market and implement
merchandising strategies (Swanson and Timothy, 2012). Overall, our typology highlights
the power of tourist souvenirs as messengers of symbolic meanings which may help
consumers to convey individual/cultural meanings to their broader existence and which can
play a signi?cant role in their individual/social identity construction. Therefore, managerial
efforts to propose typical, unique, emblematic, and symbolic souvenirs should be a constant
concern. Two additional managerial implications can be suggested to marketers,
producers, and retailers. On the one hand, symbolic contamination may confer added
value to souvenirs. For example, souvenirs signed by a local artist could be sold at a higher
price. On the other hand, as tourist souvenirs may be exposed in public rooms of the house,
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 31
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
they can act as ambassadors for a destination. We would thus advise destination marketers
and souvenir producers to combine forces to develop distinctive souvenirs able to catch
tourists’ attention and enhance a destination’s image.
Finally, tourist souvenirs facilitate the transition between the extraordinary environment,
i.e. the unique and sacred (leisure) experience and the ordinary sphere, i.e. the mundane
and profane (work) existence (Belk, 1997; Belk et al., 1991; Gordon, 1986; Graburn, 1989;
MacCannell, 1976). Nevertheless, tourists are often frustrated when they arrive home with
their souvenirs: the Tunisian djellaba seems ridiculous, the Egyptian papyrus does not ?t into
the house, the tee-shirt printed with Bahamas and a coco palm is considered kitsch and the
?ight tickets appear irrelevant. These examples enhance the role of the context and
atmosphere surrounding consumption. Actually, the meanings attached to souvenirs are not
static but dynamic; they evolve over time and space. Hence, it would be interesting to
extend this study by following the evolution of meanings attached to the different types of
souvenirs. For example, future research could investigate the in?uence of context on the
meanings attached to souvenirs and the evolution of souvenirs over time. Moreover, the role
of culture in shaping preferences for different types of souvenirs and their attached
meanings, deserves closer scrutiny since the sample of this study was limited to Belgian
vacationers.
Notes
1. As stated by Love and Sheldon (1998, p. 174), the Other ‘‘might represent another culture, another
person, or the Self at another point in time’’.
2. As de?ned by Hoyer and MacInnis (2004, p. 451), cultural categories are ‘‘the natural grouping of
objects that re?ect our culture’’ while the de?nition of cultural principles is ‘‘ideas or values that
specify how aspects of our culture are organized and/or how they should be perceived or
evaluated’’.
References
Anderson, L.F. and Littrell, M.A. (1995), ‘‘Souvenir-purchase behavior of women tourists’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 328-348.
Baker, S.M., Kleine, S.S. and Bowen, H.E. (2006), ‘‘On the symbolic meaning of souvenirs for children’’,
Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 10, pp. 213-252.
Belk, R.W. (1988), ‘‘Possessions and the extended self’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 139-168.
Belk, R.W. (1997), ‘‘Been there, done that, bought the souvenirs: of journeys and boundary crossing’’,
in Brown, S. and Turley, D. (Eds), Consumer Research: Postcards from the Edge, Routledge, London,
pp. 22-45.
Belk, R.W. and Yeh, J.H-Y. (2011), ‘‘Tourist photographs: signs of self’’, International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 345-353.
Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, J.F. Jr (1991), ‘‘The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior:
theodicy on the odyssey’’, in Belk, R.W. (Ed.), Highways and Buyways: Naturalistic Research from the
Consumer Behavior Odyssey, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 59-101.
Cohen, E. (1988), ‘‘Authenticity and commoditization in tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 371-386.
Cohen, E. (2000), ‘‘Souvenir’’, in Jafari, J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Tourism, Routledge, London and New
York, pp. 547-548.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981), The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and
the Self, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Decrop, A. (2004), ‘‘Trustworthiness in qualitative tourism research’’, in Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L.
(Eds), Qualitative Research in Tourism, Routledge, London, pp. 156-169.
PAGE 32
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Decrop, A. and Masset, J. (2011), ‘‘I want this Ramses’ statue: motives and meanings of tourist
souvenirs’’, in Kozak, M. and Kozak, N. (Eds), Sustainability of Tourism: Cultural and Environmental
Perspectives, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 17-41.
Geertz, C. (1973), ‘‘Deep play: notes on the Balinese cock?ght’’, in Geertz, C. (Ed.), The Interpretation of
Cultures, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 412-453.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.S. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Gordon, B. (1986), ‘‘The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary’’, Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 135-146.
Graburn, N.H.H. (1989), ‘‘Tourism: the sacred journey’’, in Smith, V. (Ed.), Hosts and Guests:
The Anthropology of Tourism, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 21-36.
Holt, D.B. (1995), ‘‘How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Hoyer, W.D. and MacInnis, D.J. (2004), Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., Houghton Mif?in Company, Boston,
MA.
Jafari, J. (2000), Encyclopedia of Tourism, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Lehto, X.Y., Cai, L.A., O’Leary, J.T. and Huan, T-C. (2004), ‘‘Tourist shopping preferences and
expenditure behaviours: the case of the Taiwanese outbound market’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 320-332.
Levy, S.J. (1959), ‘‘Symbols for sale’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 117-124.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Littrell, M.A. (1990), ‘‘Symbolic signi?cance of textile crafts for tourists’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 228-245.
Littrell, M.A., Anderson, L.F. and Brown, P.J. (1993), ‘‘What makes a craft souvenir authentic?’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 197-215.
Littrell, M.A., Baizerman, S., Kean, R., Gahring, S., Niemeyer, S., Reilly, R. and Stout, J. (1994),
‘‘Souvenirs and tourism styles’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Love, L.L. and Sheldon, P.S. (1998), ‘‘Souvenirs: messengers of meaning’’, in Alba, J.W. and Wesley, J.
(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,
pp. 170-175.
Lutz, R.J. (1989), ‘‘Presidential address positivism, naturalism and pluralism in consumer research:
paradigms in paradise’’, in Srull, T.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, Association for
Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 1-8.
MacCannell, D. (1976), The Tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class, Schocken Books, New York, NY.
McCracken, G. (1986), ‘‘Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement
of the cultural meaning of consumer goods’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
McCracken, G. (1988), Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of
Consumption Goods and Activities, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, 2nd ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Of?ce of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI) (2011), Pro?les of overseas travelers to the United States:
2011 inbound, available at: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/inbound.general_information.
inbound_overview.html (accessed 11 January 2013).
Richins, M.L. (1994), ‘‘Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 504-521.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. and Elam, G. (2003), ‘‘Designing and selecting samples’’, in Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J.
(Eds), Qualitative Research Practice-A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage,
London, pp. 77-108.
Shenhav-Keller, S. (1993), ‘‘The Israeli souvenir: its text and context’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 182-196.
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 33
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Swanson, K.K. and Timothy, D.J. (2012), ‘‘Souvenirs: icons of meaning, commercialization and
commoditization’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 489-499.
Timothy, D.J. (2005), Shopping Tourism, Retailing, and Leisure, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Tuan, Y.F. (1980), ‘‘The signi?cance of the artifact’’, Geographical Review, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 462-472.
VisitBritain (2011), Activity pivot 2011, available at: www.visitbritain.org/insightsandstatistics/
inboundvisitorstatistics/aboutvisitors/activities.aspx (accessed 11 January 2013).
Wallendorf, M. and Arnould, E.J. (1988), ‘‘My favorite things: a cross-cultural inquiry into object
attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 531-547.
Wallendorf, M., Belk, R.W. and Heisley, D. (1988), ‘‘Deep meaning in possessions: the paper’’,
in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 528-530.
About the authors
Alain Decrop is Dean of the Faculty of Economics, Social Sciences and Business
Administration, and Full Professor of Marketing at the University of Namur, Belgium. He is
also a member of Centre for Research on Consumers and Marketing Strategy (CCMS). He
holds Master degrees in Modern History and Economics, and a PhD in Business
Administration. His research interests include consumer decision making, interpretive
consumer research (CCT), qualitative methods, and leisure/tourism marketing. He is the
author of Vacation Decision Making (CABI, 2006) and co-editor of the Handbook of Tourist
Behavior (Routledge, 2009). His other works have appeared in a number of books and
academic journals, including Advances in Consumer Research, Annals of Tourism
Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Tourism Management.
Julie Masset is a researcher (ICM Fellow) and doctoral student in Marketing at the University
of Namur, Belgium. She holds a Master in Business Engineering. Her PhD project aims at
better understanding the consumption of special possessions in their context. And more
speci?cally, she is interested in the in?uence of the context in time, space and the social
environment on the evolution of the perceptions and meanings of special possessions. Julie
Masset is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 34
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2014
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Ady Milman. 2015. Preserving the cultural identity of a World Heritage Site: the impact of Chichen Itza’s souvenir vendors.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 9:3, 241-260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
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
:
2
4
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_901702238.pdf