an investigation into the impact of vacation travel on the tourist

ABSTRACT

This paper explored the impact of vacation travel on the ‘self’ using a questionnaire survey and interviews. Vacation travel emerged as a form of learning about the self, a journey of self-discovery rather than self-recovery. Travel impacts are predominantly self-centered, producing changes that provide opportunities for personal growth. Experiences leading to these changes are mainly infl uenced by interactions with the ‘other’. Importantly, no signifi cant association was found between personality type and being impacted, and no difference was found between a pleasurable and a miserable experience and being impacted. Both fi ndings offer a contribution to knowledge and a platform for further research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 2 December 2008; Revised 27 January 2010; Accepted 28 January 2010

Keywords: vacation travel; tourist; self; impact; experience; personality.

The purpose in this paper is to explore the extent to which vacation travel changes the individual tourist. Data collected

through the use of a survey questionnaire and subsequent personal interviews, carried out in one neighbourhood of Milton Keynes, England, UK, are presented and discussed in this paper. Some theoretical discourses on the impacts of vacation travel on tourists will be examined.

Consistent with the view expressed by Urry (1991) and Rojek (1995), this paper looks at vacation travel/tourism as a leisure activity, selected by choice, which involves a journey and a short period of stay in a place outside one’s usual environment for the purpose of pleasure. By focusing on vacation travel as a leisure activity, the paper will attempt to shed some light on the neglected topic of the impact of vacation travel on the individual tourist. Notwithstanding the defi nitional problem associated with the term ‘tourist’ (Cohen, 1992), the literature on the concept of ‘self’ is the focus of intense debate among analysts. However, the self is theoretically bound and is articulated within particular theoretical models, including the psychoanalytic self, the social constructed self, the biological self and the experiential self (Stevens, 1996). Mansfi eld (2000, p. 7) points out that although there have been many ‘global theories of the self from Freud to Foucault that have tried to explain what the individual subject is . . . how we have been made to think of ourselves as individual subjects’, none of them are complete models of the subject. He posits that theories are just ‘stepping stones’ to the fi nal explanation of self-development and change (see Mansfi eld, 2000, for a fuller discussion and critique of theories on the self).

In the tourism literature, we fi nd that the humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow has been most infl uential in contributing to our understanding of the experiential self. Maslow’s (1987) theory recognises that the self is not an isolated entity but one that interacts with the other and has the capacity for aware-ness and refl ection. This engagement with the world and refl ection on an experience suggests people, in this case tourists, have a degree of control over their lives and can choose to behave in particular ways. According to Maslow (1954), this behaviour is also infl u-

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 12, 574–590 (2010)Published online 2 March 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.777

An Investigation into the Impact of Vacation Travel on the TouristZoë Alexander*, Ali Bakir and Eugenia WickensBuckinghamshire New University, UK

*Correspondence to: Z. Alexander, Faculty of Design, Media and Management (in care of Dr Ali Bakir’s offi ce), Buckinghamshire New University, Kingshill Road, High Wycombe HP13 5BB, UK.E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Vacation Travel: Impact on the Self 575

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 574–590 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

enced by individual needs arranged in a hier-archy with the physiological needs at the bottom and self-actualisation needs at the top. Maslow’s theory has been applied to tourist’s needs and motivation (Ryan, 1997); it is this theory that informs the discussion of this study. In what follows, the paper examines critically the arguments of diverse thinkers, assesses the strengths and weaknesses of their various positions and explores the concept of the tourist subjective experience to provide a relevant theoretical framework for the analysis of the collected data.

THE IMPACT OF VACATION TRAVEL ON THE TOURIST: LITERATURE REVIEW

Most tourism research focuses on the effects of tourism on host societies and the response of host societies to the impact of tourism (Smith, 1989; Kuvan and Akan, 2005; Stoeckl et al., 2006; Dyer et al., 2007). Much is also written on what motivates people to travel, and a number of typologies have been developed for under-standing the tourist subjective experience (e.g. Cohen, 1972; Smith, 1977; Cohen, 1979; Dann, 1981; Pearce, 1982; Redfoot, 1984; Urry, 1991; Yiannakis and Gibson, 1992; Mo et al., 1993; Plog, 1994; Ryan and Robertson, 1997; Wickens, 2002; Dann, 2003).

Recent studies that focus on the tourist con-tinue generally to look into factors that infl u-ence and motivate people to choose travel destinations (Hayllar and Griffi n, 2005; Nicolau and Más, 2006; Tran and Ralston, 2006; Beerli et al., 2007; Ng et al., 2007).

However, a very small number of studies have investigated the subjective experience from the standpoint of the experiencing tourist (Desforges, 2000; Galani-Moutafi , 2000; Wickens, 2002; Gilbert and Abdullah, 2004; Noy, 2004; Palmer, 2005). Past research shows that there is more chance of experiencing a life-changing event through misery than through pleasure (Rapoport and Castanera, 1994). Nonetheless, it is a contention of this paper that our understanding of the impact of vaca-tion travel on the tourist is limited. In this paper, the impacts of vacation travel on the individual and the types of experiences and infl uences that led to these impacts are explored.

For the purpose of this paper, impact is defi ned as a perceived long-lasting strong effect on the individual tourist. There is a general agreement among academics that the constituents of impact upon the tourist encom-pass an individual’s behaviour, attitudes (including prejudices and stereotypes), morals and values, emotions, confi dence, knowledge or skills (Lindzey et al., 1978; Bilton et al., 1989). It is these constituents that will be discussed in this paper.

Ryan (2002) notes that as tourism brings together people from different cultures, it is inevitable that there will be reciprocating infl u-ences, which Burns (1999, p. 104) refers to as acculturation. For example, Amanda Lamb, a tourist and presenter of ‘A Place in the Sun’, states: ‘I used to live on ready meals at home, but now I make things like fresh tomatoes and mozzarella in olive oil’ (in Top Santé Magazine, April 2006, p. 26). Wickens (2002) looks at similar case studies of tourists visiting Greece for many years and how these visits have left a long-lasting effect on tourists. She discusses a case of a British repeat visitor who changed her religion and her fi rst name to Photini, which means enlightenment in Greek, demonstrating the tourist attempt to embrace the other and how the Greek encounter affected her.

The proposition that travel vacation affects travellers’ behaviour is also supported by researchers employing the social psychology perspective. There are several studies that show that the behaviour of an individual is infl uenced heavily by the situation (Lindzey et al., 1978, p. 585). Crang (2006) argues that the aim of vacation travel is not merely to experi-ence the host community but to use our travels to explore ourselves. Similarly, Desforges (2000, p. 936) states that ‘there are moments when we take time to “fi nd ourselves” and offer answers to questions we ask about “who we are” at key junctures in our lives’.

Holidays are said to provide the opportunity to ‘confront the self, to test one’s soul, to come to terms with one-self, to measure oneself against others and discover one’s own abilities’ (Krip-pendorf, 1987, p. 28). These sentiments fi nd expression in many travel brochures offering ‘self-development holidays’ and ‘life-changing experiences’. For example, Getaway Spas in Mas-sillon, Ohio, offer ‘escapes to renew your mind,

576 Z. Alexander, A. Bakir and E. Wickens


body and soul, providing an experience like no other’ (Getaway Spas, 2007), and the Alternative Holiday Company advertises a number of differ-ent holidays at its Andalusia residence, includ-ing, the ‘authentic self’, relationships, a path to fulfi lment and living from the heart (Travel Mail, 2007). Davidson (1989) and Wickens (2002) show that although there is evidence that some people are not affected by their travel experiences, many people’s attitudes are changed by holidays and by the people they meet during the course of their travels. This is also supported by Ryan (2002, p. 135), who argues that the tourist experi-ence is a complex phenomenon, a ‘frame of mind, a way of being’, and above all, vacation travel affects an individual’s behaviour.

Urry (1990, p. 58) claims that ‘the shift in public attitude in Britain towards pro-Europeanism in the 1980s is diffi cult to explain without recognising the role played by the European tourism industry and the way in which huge fl ows of visitors have made Europe familiar and unthreatening’. Vacation travel has thus promoted understanding between Europeans and created much closer ties. For instance, McIntosh and Goeldner (1990) discuss the interaction between hosts and guests and fi nd that stereotypes can be broken down when visitors get to know their hosts. Krip-pendorf (1987, p. 61), on the other hand, cites studies on the subject of prejudice that indicate that travel to countries with a totally different culture reinforces rather than diminishes prej-udice. Allport (2004) implies that prejudices and stereotypes can also be changed through vacation travel.

The literature also shows that a traveller’s home life, work and relationships can also be affected by vacation travel. For example, Harry Chandler, a founder member of the Associa-tion of British Travel Agents, states, ‘After my great adventure abroad, it was impossible for me to settle back into the routine of the job in Bradford’ (in Carter, 1985, p. 29). Films such as Shirley Valentine, albeit fi ctitious, indicate the potential of vacation travel for producing life changes. The author of the original play came across many real-life examples. In one case, a former human resource manager of a major British retail chain left her post to become a sailing instructor in the Mediterranean. Ryan (1995a) cites one research study where people

were interviewed in an open-air restaurant in Majorca, and one woman remarked that she was the ‘real’ Shirley Valentine. She had holi-dayed in Majorca a decade previously, returned home to the UK, left her husband and returned to the island to take up a new life. Other researchers, such as Wickens (2002), have iden-tifi ed the Shirley Valentine syndrome as a short-term motive for escape. Ryan (1994, 2002), however, suggests that the experience of tourism and the resulting change reside more in the wider context of the non-holiday daily life of people than simply in the motivation of the tourist. Indeed, Graefe and Vaske (1987) fi nd the tourist experience and any resultant long-lasting changes in a person’s life as the culmination of many factors, such as individ-ual perception, image of the locality and the products consumed.

A small number of other studies discuss the experiences of specifi c forms of tourism and their effects on the individual tourist. For instance, Wearing (2001) focuses specifi cally on volunteer tourism experiences and the potential for changes in the self through social interaction with others. Other studies look at the effect of experiential tourism on the tourist to provide new commercial knowledge (Pine and Gilmore, 1998; Smith, 2006). Similarly, Gonzalez and Bello (2002) and Holloway (2006) discuss vacation travel impacts in terms of tourist’s needs and wants to construct ‘life-styles’ for market segmentation. Clearly, it can be seen from the foregoing analysis of the lit-erature that although there is some evidence of research work on the impact of vacation travel on the individual tourist, further investigation is required to ascertain more fully how visitors are infl uenced by their exposure to the host culture and surroundings.

STUDY METHODS

In order to explore the impacts (i.e. long-last-ing effects) of vacation travel on the tourist, a survey was conducted on a cluster sample of 999 households in the Two Mile Ash neigh-bourhood of Milton Keynes. The profi le of the sample can be viewed in Table 1. The neigh-bourhood of Milton Keynes was chosen because, according to government statistics (Statistics, 2007), it follows a similar distribu-



tion curve to that of England and Wales on age and economic activity as well as on ethnic and religious composition.

Furthermore, the large sample ensured that suffi cient data were obtained to determine valid associations between the variables and to allow inferences to be made (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Quantitative and qualitative data were generated through the use of a questionnaire and personal interviews. The questionnaire (refer to Figure 1) contained a series of open-ended and closed questions and was triangu-lated with data obtained from the subsequent 20 personal interviews. Triangulation of data collection methods was adopted to validate the fi ndings from the questionnaire and to provide further understanding and insights (Bryman,

1998). According to the same source, triangula-tion increases the credibility of the study’s fi ndings. The choice of the mixed approach follows Miles and Huberman’s (1994) sugges-tion that social scientists are likely to exhibit greater confi dence in their fi ndings when these are derived from more than one method of investigation. The trend towards combining different methods in order to validate research is well documented in several studies, e.g. Meeto and Temple (2003).

The fi rst phase of data collection was by means of postal questionnaires over a six-week period. A batch of questionnaires was delivered each week, using a street map of the Two Mile Ash neighbourhood; the responses were col-lected the following week. The questionnaire

Table 1. The profi le of the sample

Category Description

Gender 45% female, 27% male and 28% unspecifi ed.Age The majority (80%) were age 30 plus with the largest number (25%)

falling into the 40–49 age bracket.Occupation Retirees were the largest group (19%), followed by associate

professional and technical jobs (12%), professionals (12%) and managers (9%). The remainder (50%) consisted of administrative and secretarial roles, sales and customer service, home workers, caring, leisure and personal services, students, operatives, drivers, self-employed, skilled and elementary trades.

Destination visited The majority (39%) visited Western Europe followed by the US and Canada (16%), UK (7%), North Africa (7%), and South Africa (7%), and the remaining 24% visited Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Eastern Europe, Tropical Islands, Middle and Far East and South America.

Length of stay The most popular length of stay was 8–14 days (55%), followed by short breaks of 1–7 days (25%).

Type of holiday Just over half of the samples were independent travellers versus package buyers.

Motivation The sample was motivated to travel by the desire to see the country they were travelling to (24%) and needing a break (20%).

Degree of contact with the locals The majority (85%) had considerable contact interacting with the locals at the destination and just over half (58%) were fi rst time visitors to the destination.

Travel companions The majority (61%) travelled with their partners or other family members.

Cost of holiday 53% spent less than £2000 on their holidaySatisfaction with life prior to holiday 91% reported that they were satisfi ed with their lives in general

before they took their holidayPersonality traits Most could be described as confi dent, adventurous, variety

seeking, enjoying the company of others, seeking out the locals and avoiding other tourists.



was carefully designed to encourage comple-tion; the questions were simple and unambigu-ous. As Ryan (1995b) points out, these are important considerations for the successful completion of questionnaires. In the last ques-tion of the questionnaire, respondents were given the choice of participating in a personal interview at a later date. The questionnaire was delivered with a cover letter explaining the research and accompanied with a prize draw incentive designed to increase the response rate. A pilot study was undertaken in one street in the chosen cluster before fi nal issue to check out procedures and the general design of the ques-tionnaire. The pilot phase served to ensure that

the questions were relevant to the study and that they were clearly understood by the respon-dents, thereby increasing reliability and valid-ity. As a result, a number of questions were removed as they were considered irrelevant, misleading or lacked sensitivity. The interview formed the second phase of data collection, fol-lowing the questionnaire, and was designed with the aim of providing more in-depth expla-nations contributing to our understanding of the fi ndings from the questionnaire. For consis-tency and reliability, an interview guide (refer to Figure 2) was designed and informed by the fi ndings from the questionnaire. In total, 20 face-to-face formal and informal interviews

Please describe, in a few sentences, something you have experienced on a particular holiday that has had a big impact on you. If nothing has had an impact on you, please answer question 11) only 1) At the time, was the experience pleasurable or miserable? 2) Please describe, in a sentence, how it affected you? 3) What do you do differently as a result (if anything)? 4) Where did you go (country/countries)? 5) How long were you on vacation? 6) What type of holiday was it (package or independently organized)? 7) Who did you go with? 8) What activities did you do on this particular holiday (walking, reading, sunbathing, swimming, site-

seeing etc)? 9) How satisfied were you with your life before this holiday (Please underline your appropriate choice)? a. Home b. Relationship with partner (if applicable) Very Satisfied Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied c. Work (if applicable) d. Relationship with family Very Satisfied Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied e. Myself f. Life Generally Very Satisfied Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

10) In terms of you on holiday, how would you honestly describe yourself (please tick the appropriate

rating for each characteristic below)? Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 Confident Non adventurous 1 2 3 4 5 Adventurous Seeks familiarity 1 2 3 4 5 Seeks Variety Enjoys being with others 1 2 3 4 5 Seeks solitude Enjoys resort facilities 1 2 3 4 5 Seeks out locals Seeks out other tourists 1 2 3 4 5 Avoids other tourists Seeks physical relaxation 1 2 3 4 5 Seeks activity Generally tense 1 2 3 4 5 Generally relaxed

Figure 1. The questionnaire survey (extract).



were conducted. People were given the choice of receiving the interview questions beforehand so that they had time to refl ect upon them. The interviews were conducted in people’s homes and lasted between 30 minutes and one hour. Data were thus gathered by different proce-dures (questionnaire and interviews) to increase the credibility of the research and also to help reduce interview reactivity. However, social desirability reactivity is always a risk and was considered by conducting the surveys anony-mously and delivering each survey with a cover letter explaining the biography of the researcher and the rationale of the study, which is to gain knowledge, currently lacking, on the topic.

The analysis of data from the questionnaire used both descriptive and inferential statistics (refer to Clegg, 1990) as well as content analy-sis (refer to Stemler, 2001) for some data; the latter systematically identifi ed frequencies in the data and compressed these into themes derived from theory. For other data, the analy-sis involved a constant comparative analysis borrowed from grounded theory (refer to Glaser, 1992). This entailed reviewing, coding, comparing and analysing data, sentence by sentence, to allow relevant themes to emerge. In analysing some of the qualitative data, care was taken to look at similarities and differ-ences in participants’ responses to a given

question and topic and to identify recurring themes found in the existing literature; for other data, a constant comparison process allowed themes to emerge. Comparisons were also made of the qualitative with the quantita-tive responses of the subjects.

The response rate was 23%. This research was therefore based on 172 respondents. Of these, 61 (35%) respondents were prepared to be inter-viewed further if required. Response rates have traditionally been used as indicators of survey quality, but recent studies (Groves et al., 2004) have challenged this practice, having found little relation between variation in response rates and changes in non-response error. These studies suggest that respondents and non-respondents often do not differ on commonly estimated statistics and point out that the stan-dards for acceptable return rates are shaped as much by how many responses a researcher can get as by how many she or he should get (Hager et al., 2003; Groves et al., 2004).

The following section presents and discusses the key fi ndings of this study.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

It is important to note that a small part of the study involved investigating whether certain personality traits make an individual more

With reference to the Questionnaire,

1) Why do you think just over half of people (as oppose to everyone who went on holiday) were impacted by their holiday?

2) Why do you think that changes in the behaviour of the respondent (which ultimately benefited only the self) were the highest impact compared to the other categories (interests & capabilities, behaviour affecting the destination and society, emotions, attitude, behaviour affecting the environment, levels of confidence, stereotypes and prejudices)?

3) Why do you think that experiences to do with people have more of an impact than any other category of experience (scenery, mental/emotional/spiritual, sport/activity, wildlife and physical event)?

4) Why do you think that North Africa and Asia had far more impact on people than The Caribbean and South America?

5) Why do you think that shorter stays (1-7 days) had more of an impact on people than longer stays (8-14 days)?

6) Why do you think that independently organised holidays had more of an impact than package holidays? 7) Why do you think that travelling ‘on your own’ or ‘with friends’ had more of an impact than travelling

with your ‘wife/husband/partner’? 8) Why do you think that cultural activities (experiencing and participating in other lifestyles) were far more

likely to cause an impact than recreational activities? 9) Why do you think that people, who were more dissatisfied with their lives (home, partner, work, family,

themselves and life generally), before their holiday, were more likely to be impacted? 10) Why do you think there was no association between personality traits (such as being a nervous tourist

versus an adventurous one) and being impacted by vacation travel?

Figure 2. The interview guide (extract).



prone to being impacted by vacation travel. An interval scale was used as part of the question-naire to collect data on various personality traits (refer to Figure 1, question 10). These traits were pooled from Plog’s (1994) allocentric (variety seeking, adventurous and confi dent) and psychocentric (self-inhibited, nervous and non-adventurous) and Cohen’s (1972) drifter (seeks new experiences and variety, enjoys being with local people) and organised mass tourist (seeks familiar reminders of home, pur-chases ready-made packages) classifi cations. Respondents were asked to describe them-selves in terms of their behaviour on holiday. The scale ranged from exhibiting one kind of behaviour (e.g. being nervous) on holiday to an opposite kind of behaviour (e.g. being con-fi dent). The responses were counted and complex chi-square tests were carried out on the responses to tentatively test whether there was an association between personality traits and being impacted by vacation travel. More-over, the study provisionally looked into Rapoport and Castanera’s (1994) contention that miserable experiences are more likely to impact the tourist than pleasurable ones. A chi-square test was carried out on the responses in an attempt to determine whether there was a difference between a pleasurable and a miser-able experience and being impacted.

VACATION TRAVEL: IMPACTS AND EXPERIENCES

A key fi nding of this study shows that over half of the respondents (53%) were affected by their holiday experiences. Respondents reported that they found that upon their home return, they behaved differently, such as ‘making regular contributions to charity’, ‘now always buying organic, farmed local produce’, ‘taking time to sit down and switch off’, ‘I visit my parents more regularly now’ and ‘I decided to take a year off work and have a career break’. Some reported changes in attitude: ‘My outlook on life has changed — there is always light at the end of the tunnel’; ‘I now realise that the best things in life are free’, ‘I will never use Ryanair again’; ‘I now have a tainted view of Americans’; and ‘I see most things as opportu-nities and am not afraid to take them’. Some

respondents said their confi dence had increased: ‘I have a go at more things’; ‘I am more confi dent in travelling alone’; and ‘I now play the piano in concerts’. Other respondents acknowledged emotional changes: ‘I see life as something to enjoy’; ‘I take time to notice the atmosphere of places’; ‘I stay calm and respect-ful when things don’t go to plan’; and ‘I feel different’. Respondents also noted their increased knowledge or skills (learning): ‘I now have a huge interest in New York’; ‘I think more about world events’; and ‘My holiday kindled a passion for the history of cinema and modern 20th century design’. Nevertheless, there is also some evidence that suggests that not all respondents who went on holiday were affected by the experience. Refl ecting upon their holiday experiences, some respondents retorted:

We have been on so many holidays and traveled such a lot that maybe that is why we haven’t been impacted by our holi-days; We returned to the same place and chose the same type of holiday each year, and after a couple of days we were no longer stimulated by the surroundings and experiences and at the end of our holiday we did not feel impacted.

Type of impact

Following Bilton et al. (1989) and Lindzey et al. (1978), the impacts reported by respondents were analysed for content and grouped into the following categories: behaviour, attitudes (including prejudices and stereotypes), emo-tions, confi dence, and knowledge or skills (learning) (see Table 2). Changes in behaviour were the highest (56%, 47 respondents), followed by changes in attitude (19%, 16 respondents), emotions (11%, 9 respondents), knowledge or skills (7%, 6 respondents) and confi dence (7%, 6 respondents) (refer to Table 3).

Respondents’ experiences

The types of experience that emerged from the data that led to the impacts were grouped according to what they were a result of or to do with; an extract is shown in Table 4.



Table 2. Classifi cation of impacts (extract)

Impact (what is being done differently?) Category (who benefi ts/loses out? what changes?)

Have a balanced view of life and lifestyles AttitudeNo longer assume that western cultures are so advanced AttitudeSee most things as opportunities and not afraid to take them AttitudeEnvironmental awareness and appreciation of space and wilderness AttitudeNever use Ryanair and always take out insurance AttitudeWould think twice about going to a Greek island again AttitudeA tainted view of Americans AttitudeSplit up with partner BehaviourSave what I earn because never want to be poor like the Romanians BehaviourGive money to children’s charities BehaviourMonthly donation to Oxfam BehaviourSupport a relative in Thailand who is working as a missionary BehaviourPlay the piano in concerts Confi denceHave a go at more things Confi denceMore confi dence to travel alone Confi denceTake time to notice the atmosphere of places EmotionsGet excited before fl ying EmotionsUse the memory as a trigger to feel calm when under stress EmotionsI now have a huge interest in New York Knowledge or skillsGreater interest in Italian automotive and motorcycle companies Knowledge or skillsTook up canoeing at a competitive level Knowledge or skills

Table 3. The type of impact

Type of impact No. impacted %

Behaviour 47 56Attitude/stereotypes and

prejudices16 19

Emotions 9 11Knowledge or skills 6 7Confi dence 6 7Total 84 100

Respondents reported experiences to do with people: ‘We had quality family time together’; ‘I realised my partner was unsuitable’; ‘I saw how people live with nature’; and ‘I met Uros Indians living on fl oating islands on Lake Titi-caca’. Other respondents were impacted by wildlife experiences: ‘I saw a whale’; ‘I saw animals in their natural environment on a safari’; ‘I was stung by a jelly fi sh in the sea’; and ‘I spent time under water and saw lots of variety of fi sh’. Some respondents pointed to natural scenic experiences: ‘We cruised around the Norwegian Fjords’; ‘I visited a remote, untouched and unspoilt area’; and ‘I saw the beauty of South Africa and want to spend more

time there’. Other experiences included emo-tional and spiritual ones: ‘I felt a strangeness of distance (from home) while in France’; ‘I expe-rienced a very heavy storm resulting in a long power cut’; and ‘I entered a fantastically peace-ful room in a ruin in Malta’. There were also man-made scenic experiences: ‘I stayed in a sumptuous hotel’; ‘I felt happy visiting sites in Turin especially Mole Anteliana’; and ‘I went to places in New York City that were in the movies’. Sport/activity experiences also had an impact: ‘I experienced physical challenges on a sailing holiday’; ‘I did a lot of new activities’; and ‘I woke up in the sea on a quad bike’. Also, experiences to do with events were also men-tioned: ‘I got married on holiday’; ‘We missed the last ferry due to a plane delay and took a run-down fi shing boat to the island instead’; and ‘Our bus driver forgot to stop at the border post when leaving Malaysia’.

The experiences that respondents claimed led to their impact were most often due to interac-tion with people (39% of respondents), followed by wildlife experiences (14%), natural scenery (13%), emotional and spiritual experiences (10%), man-made scenery (9%), and sport and



activity (9%), and least likely to do with events (6%) (refer to Table 5). In elaborating why people experiences were most common in causing an impact, respondents stated:

Humans interact with other humans and most of the fi ve senses are utilised whereas purely scenic holidays, such as bird watching, only stimulate one or two of the senses and would have less impact.

I try and relate to people on holiday, I try to imagine where I would fi t-in in that society — would I be planting rice, a tour guide or managing a hotel complex? I try

to establish the intelligence of the people I meet, ignoring education, and think, would this person be doing such a menial job if he or she had an education?

The results show that interactions with people on holiday have the potential to infl uence us as tourists. In this study, most of the interactions with people were to do with understanding cul-tural and lifestyle differences at the destination, followed by spending time with one’s partner, friends and family. A smaller number of interac-tions were to do with service experiences both positive and negative. These interactions can lead to behavioural changes, and these changes can extend beyond the self to others, for example, ‘I give money to children’s charities’; ‘I pay a monthly donation to Oxfam’; ‘I support a relative in Thailand who is working as a missionary’; and ‘I take a more positive approach to staff motiva-tion and service delivery’. These changes can be explained by Maslow’s (1954) self-actualization theory in that they were satisfying higher level psychological needs. Maslow argues that people’s meta-needs (growth needs) must be

Table 4. Classifi cation of experience which led to impacts (extract)

The experience (what happened?) Type of experience (happenings are a result of/to

do with . . .)

High security and a sense of danger after bombing in a resort An eventHad luggage stolen at airport (JFK) on route to a wedding in New York An eventMissed last ferry due to plane delay and took run down fi shing boat An eventSaw how the Zimbabwean people struggled PeopleSaw the willingness of people to help and converse in contrast to London PeopleLost temper in public due to the rudeness of reception staff at the hotel PeopleNoticed the variety of culture and scenery in Turkey People and sceneryThe Bayans were so warm and friendly and the island so beautiful People and scenerySeeing the two temples at Abu Simbel for the fi rst time and tomb SceneryWent to places, in NYC, that were in the movies SceneryThe beauty of SA and wanting to spend more time there SceneryCruised around the Norwegian Fjords SceneryWatched the sunset at Ayres Rock SceneryWent paragliding 200 m over water Sport/activityExperienced physical challenges on a sailing holiday Sport/activityExhilarated by skiing for the fi rst time Sport/activityAnimals ran across roof at night WildlifeSaw dolphins, whales, etc., in real life as oppose to on TV WildlifeSaw animals in their natural environment on a safari WildlifeWalking in a game reserve and feeling the danger of wild animals Emotional/spiritualWent to Germany and they didn’t cater for vegetarians Emotional/spiritualEntered a fantastically peaceful room in a ruin in Malta Emotional/spiritual

Table 5. The type of experiences

Type of experience No. impacted %

People 38 39Wildlife 14 14Scenery — natural 13 13Emotional and spiritual 10 10Scenery — man made 9 9Sport and activity 9 9An event 6 6



properly satisfi ed before a person can grow into a completely developed human being, someone who is self-actualised who can then look beyond the self. Thus, our self develops through interac-tion, and our actions are shaped through our social interaction with others (Goffman, 1971, 1991). Lindzey et al. (1978) recognise the exis-tence of a psychological need to be with people, the need for assistance, cooperation and survival. This may partly explain why most travel experi-ences (67%) described in the survey were plea-surable memories. This fi nding contrasts with Rapoport and Castanera’s (1994, p. 5) contention that there is more chance of experiencing a life-changing event through misery than through pleasure. Signifi cantly, the chi-square test shows no difference between a pleasurable and a miser-able experience and being impacted (refer to Table 6).

FACTORS INFLUENCING IMPACT

Factors that were found to infl uence whether or not tourists were likely to be impacted by their holidays include the following.

Destination’s culture

Although the most frequented destination was Western Europe, North Africa had the highest impact, followed by Asia. The destinations

with the lowest impact were South America and The Caribbean. A respondent explained, ‘Tourists may see more poverty in Africa and Asia’; other respondents elaborated:

South American people are generally European descendents, have little or no culture and so are not particularly inter-esting. Scenically, South America is not that interesting and architecturally is similar to Europe. There are lots of Carib-bean people in London and other cities so there is no fascination with their culture. However, trips to North Africa make one visualise how life was thousands of years ago, as many things have not changed. Asia is the same.

The Caribbean holiday is essentially sun, sand and sea, albeit a more exotic beach holiday destination than, for example, Spain. The Caribbean is there-fore not as comprehensively different an experience as visiting North Africa or Asia, which have different cultures, lan-guages, ethnic types, economies, reli-gions, architecture and scenery. Even South America was colonised by the Europeans, so the lifestyle and ethnicity are familiar to the tourist.

Past research (e.g. Inskeep, 1991) suggests that the magnitude of the socio-cultural impact

Table 6. A 2 X 2 contingency table, showing the relationship between pleasurable and miserable experiences and being impacted by vacation travel

Trait Not impacted Impacted Total

Observed frequency

Expected frequency

Observed frequency

Expected frequency

Observed

Pleasurable 27.00 26.90 53.00 53.10 80.00Miserable 11.00 11.10 22.00 21.90 33.00Total 38 75 113

Difference between observed and expected frequency minus 0.5

Cell values squared and divided by expected frequency

Cell A −0.40−0.40−0.40−0.40

0.01Cell B 0.00Cell C 0.01Cell D 0.01

Total X2 0.03

Note: The obtained value of 0.03 does not exceed the tabulated value of 2.706 (to be signifi cant for a two-tailed test). Therefore, the null hypothesis must be accepted. A chi-square test, carried out on the data obtained, was not signifi cant (χ2 = 0.03, d.f. = 1), and so it is concluded that there is no difference between pleasurable and miserable experiences and being impacted.



is infl uenced by the extent of the difference in socio-cultural characteristics between hosts and guests. Furthermore, when tourists from the industrial world visit the developing world, the differences are much greater and more apparent and the potential for confl ict corre-spondingly higher (see Brown, 1998). She adds that the resentment felt by local people is well known, but there has been little attempt to study this from the tourist’s point of view. Des-tination experiences also create stereotypes and prejudices.

The responses show that it is not necessarily industrial world meeting developing world that could give rise to confl ict, as incidents of preju-dice against and stereotypes of Western Europe and the USA were also found: ‘I have a tainted view of Americans because of the rudeness of reception staff at the hotel’; ‘I would think twice about going to a Greek Island again because I felt ripped off after a car hire company refused to refund me’. These experiences were negative, and, to borrow a phrase from Lindzey et al. (1978, p. 591), ‘if people are exposed to negative incidents related to another group, they like those people less’. Nevertheless, Zajonc (1968) and more recently Wickens (2002) show that repeated positive contact produces a more favourable attitude. A respondent concurs: ‘I saw the willingness of people to help and con-verse in the USA in contrast to London, which has given me a better general outlook on life which is applied to work too’. This and other responses suggest that prejudices and stereo-types may change by travel, and that negative incidents reinforce prejudices and stereotypes whereas positive ones diminish them. However, more research is needed to shed light on this particular aspect.

Shorter vacation breaks versus longer breaks

The duration of stay was classifi ed according to government travel statistics, and it was found that the most common length of stay was 8–14 days, but in terms of the impact of the length of stay, 1–7 day stays had the highest impact and 30–90 day stays had the least impact. Respondents explain:

Short holidays are likely to be more intense experiences than longer holidays.

Each day is probably spent exploring a new situation, resulting in sensory over-load and leaving the mind reeling and heavily stimulated.

We form attitudes and opinions very early in our holiday, as with a fi rst impres-sion when you meet people, and during the second week you become less sensi-tive to things and therefore things are less memorable.

Psychological research on memory recall suggests that our long-term memory holds our happy and sad experiences, and the likelihood of a particular experience being recalled depends strongly on its serial input position (Lindzay et al., 1978). The primacy effect concept suggests that experiences at the begin-ning of a holiday are recalled well. Loftus and Loftus (1976) argue that interference can cause people to forget their experiences further into their holiday, especially if there are a number of similar experiences. Relaying her experi-ence, a respondent stated:

Everything is fresh in the fi rst seven days. After this it becomes familiar. Towards the end of a three week tour of Mayan sites in Mexico and Peru, the interest waned and we were calling temples ‘poors’ (piles of old rocks). Visits around the ruins became shorter due to the heat and the similarity of places. A similar thing happened on a tour from Bangkok to Bali overland. After two weeks with the hill-tribes in northern Thailand and three weeks travelling to Bali, arriving there was nothing special and it was boring compared to my memo-ries of Bangkok. Had I started my holiday in Bali it probably would have been a bril-liant place.

Independently organised holidays versus package holidaysIndependently organised holidays had the highest impact and package holidays the lowest impact. Respondents commented:

An independently organised holiday caters for the organisers, so they are not obliged to mix desirable with undesirable elements in their holiday. If all elements



of a holiday have been planned to satisfy the self then it should have a higher impact because it was aimed at fulfi lling most of their needs. An independently organised holiday generates less of a feeling of being one of the herd and more of a feeling of being special.

One is closer to the locals when you are on your own and you go to local shops and use local amenities, and indepen-dently organised holidays have more interaction with locals and are designed to go off the tourist track.

This fi nding concurs with past research that independent travellers penetrate ‘backstage’ by establishing contact with local people and are therefore more likely to experience long-lasting change (Pearce, 1982; Wickens, 2002). This was supported by the questionnaire responses, which showed that 49% of indepen-dent travellers said they had ‘a lot’ of contact with the locals compared with 26% of package travellers.

Activities at destination

The activities undertaken at the destination were classifi ed using Smith’s (1977) categories of tourism. Cultural activities, experiencing and participating in the other’s lifestyles, were more likely to result in long-lasting change than recreational activities, such as spas, reading, site seeing, sunbathing and sports. Respondents retorted: ‘recreational activities can be done anywhere and the degree of enjoy-ment will be compared to other places, whereas cultural activities tend to be unique to the area’ and‘cultural activities involve interaction with people’.

Travelling on one’s own or with friends

The most common category was travelling ‘with wife/husband/partner’ followed by ‘with family’. However, ‘travelling on own’ had the highest impact followed by ‘with friends’. The categories which showed the lowest impact were travelling with ‘wife/husband/partner’ and with ‘other’ (work or sports colleagues). A respondent reported:

Travelling on one’s own is more stressful, there is nobody to share worries with or share responsibility with and the stress is likely to give higher emotional highs and lows. However, there is a greater sense of adventure and probably a greater sense of achievement from a holiday spent trav-elling alone and this would result in a higher impact.

Another respondent who travels on his own stated:

It forces you to interact with local people and other travellers. This makes you look forward to and make the effort to meet new people. Friends travelling together are also impacted because they try to form friendships with people of the oppo-site sex whereas spouses stay together and mix with other couples rather than single people. They may view strangers as a threat to their relationship.

A respondent who travelled with her friends elaborated: ‘you have more fun with your friends, are less stressed and you try more things’.

Satisfaction with life prior to holiday

People who were more satisfi ed with their lives before their holiday were less likely to be impacted; the opposite was true for those impacted. Respondents elaborated:

It’s escapism; getting away as far as pos-sible for something better. A holiday is a dream. You research what you want to do, spend a year saving for it and after all the effort, make sure that you enjoy it, and therefore more likely to be impacted by it.

One is more likely to actively seek some-thing or be more subconsciously open to change (when dissatisfi ed), in order to change the life we currently have.

People who are dissatisfi ed with life are seen to seek a state of psychological equilibrium



(see Holden, 2006). The optimal-arousal theory and drive-reduction theory offer theoretical explanations for why people who are dissatis-fi ed with their life before their holiday are more likely to be impacted by it. The optimal-arousal theory rests on the assumption that people search for a level of interaction with their environment that maintains their psycho-logical equilibrium (see Holden, 2006). Apply-ing the drive-reduction theory to explain the seeking of a state of psychological equilibrium, Fodness (1994) fi nds that perceived psycho-logical needs and the resulting tension encour-age an individual to take action to release the state of anxiety, for example, through travel-ling as a tourist.

TRAVEL IMPACT AND PERSONALITY TYPE

Tables 7 and 8 show the results of the complex chi-square tests carried out with the respon-dents’ personality traits. In each case, the fi nd-ings suggest that they were not signifi cant. The analysis indicates that there was no difference between Plog’s psychocentric and allocentric and being impacted by vacation travel. Simi-larly, there was no difference between Cohen’s drifter and organised mass tourist. Although there was no association between personality traits and being impacted by travel, respon-dents felt that people choose a type of holiday based on their traits. Plog (1994) also fi nds that

Table 7. A complex chi square showing the relationship between Plog’s personality traits and being impacted by vacation travel

Trait Not Impacted Impacted Total

Observed frequency

Expected frequency

Observed frequency

Expected frequency

Observed

Nervous(P) 7.50 10.84 15.50 12.16 23Confi dent(A) 66.50 63.65 68.50 71.35 135Non-Adventurous(P) 26.00 22.39 21.50 25.11 47.5Adventurous(A) 48.00 51.15 60.50 57.35 108.5Seeks familiarity(P) 16.50 17.44 20.50 19.56 37Seeks variety(A) 58.50 57.52 63.50 64.48 122Total 223 250 473

P, psychocentricA, allocentric

Difference between observed and expected frequency


Cell A 3.342.853.613.150.940.983.342.853.613.150.940.98

1.03Cell B 0.13Cell C 0.58Cell D 0.19Cell E 0.05Cell F 0.02Cell G 0.92Cell H 0.11Cell I 0.52Cell J 0.17Cell K 0.05Cell L 0.01

Total X2 3.79

Note: The obtained value of 3.79 does not exceed the tabulated value of 9.236 (to be signifi cant for a two-tailed test). Therefore, the null hypothesis must be accepted. A chi-square test, carried out on the data obtained, was not signifi cant (χ2 = 3.79, d.f. = 5), and so it is concluded that there is no difference in Plog’s personality traits of people and being impacted by vacation travel.



certain types of people will choose particular types of holidays or destinations.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of this small-scale study suggests that vacation travel has the potential to impact the tourist — changing behaviours, attitudes, emotions, knowledge or skills, and levels of confi dence — and in so doing may provide opportunities for personal growth and devel-opment. The study fi ndings show that travel experiences that might have led to these changes were mainly infl uenced by interac-tions with others, and the impact appeared to be greater the greater the cultural difference of the tourist to the host community. They also suggest that stereotypes and prejudices result-ing from cultural differences seemed to dimin-ish with positive encounters and reinforced with negative encounters with the locals. The

factors that appear to have facilitated cultural interactions with the host community and pro-duced the greatest impact include indepen-dently organised holidays, participation in the cultural activities of others, and travelling on one’s own or with friends. The study also points to a number of other infl uences that might have impacted the tourists; these included shorter vacation breaks due to the novelty of the experience and easier memory recall, and a degree of dissatisfaction with life prior to the holiday. The study offers a number of potential contributions to knowledge: It pro-vides empirically derived insights into the impacts of travel on the tourist; it provisionally displays no difference between pleasurable and miserable experiences and being impacted, and thus it appears to contradict Rapoport and Castanera’s (1994) contention that miserable experiences are more likely to impact the tourist than pleasurable ones. Moreover, the

Table 8. A complex chi square showing the relationship between Cohen’s personality traits and being impacted by vacation travel

Trait Not Impacted Impacted Total

Observed frequency

Expected frequency

Observed frequency

Expected frequency

Observed

Enjoys Resorts(O) 28.00 28.46 32.00 31.54 60Seeks out Locals(D) 48.00 47.91 53.00 53.09 101Seeks out Tourists(O) 25.00 24.19 26.00 26.81 51Seeks familiarity(O) 16.50 17.55 20.50 19.45 37Seeks variety(D) 58.50 57.88 63.50 64.12 122Total 176 195 371

O, organised mass touristD, drifter

Difference between observed and expected frequency


Cell A 0.460.090.811.050.620.460.090.811.050.62

0.01Cell B 0.00Cell C 0.03Cell D 0.06Cell E 0.01Cell F 0.01Cell G 0.00Cell H 0.02Cell I 0.06Cell J 0.01

Total X2 0.20

Note: The obtained value of 0.20 does not exceed the tabulated value of 7.779 (to be signifi cant for a two-tailed test). Therefore, the null hypothesis must be accepted. A chi-square test, carried out on the data obtained, was not signifi cant (χ2 = 0.20, d.f. = 4), and so it is concluded that there is no difference in Cohen’s personality traits of people and being impacted by vacation travel.



fi ndings tentatively suggest that there is no signifi cant association between certain person-ality traits and being impacted by vacation travel. However, it should be noted that this study is only exploratory, and therefore further investigation should be undertaken into testing personality traits with a larger sample employ-ing multi-variant analyses to establish whether people with different personality traits are impacted differently. In addition, despite the measures taken to mitigate against ‘social desirability reactivity’, as explained in the methodology section, there is always the risk that survey respondents will colour the truth; after all, they are being asked to report and refl ect upon their own behaviour and motiva-tions in an area ridden with cultural ‘value’ — evaluation of one’s behaviour while on holiday. Furthermore, as the study was not longitudi-nal, it was not possible to investigate how long the impact lasted and whether it was a tempo-rary or permanent change to the individual tourist. Nevertheless, the study has contrib-uted to our understanding of how vacation travel impacts the tourist and may provide a stimulus and a platform for further research.

REFERENCES

Allport G. 2004. On the Character of Prejudices. Proster: Prague.

Beerli A, Meneses G, Gil S. 2007. Self-congruity and destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research 34: 571–587.

Bilton T, Bonnett K, Jones P, Stanworth M, Sheard K, Webster, A. 1989. Introductory Sociology. Mac-millan Education Ltd.: New York.

Brown F. 1998. Tourism Reassessed — Blight or Bless-ing? Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.

Bryman A. 1988. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. Routledge: London.

Bryman A, Bell E (eds). 2007. Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Burns P. 1999. An Introduction to Tourism and Anthro-pology. Routledge: London.

Carter J. 1985. Chandler’s Travels — a Tour of the Life of Harry Chandler. Quiller Press Ltd.: London.

Clegg F. 1990. Simple Statistics. Cambridge Univer-sity Press: Cambridge.

Cohen E. 1972. Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research 39: 164–182.

Cohen E. 1979. A phenomenology of tourist experi-ences. Sociology 13: 179–201.

Cohen E. 1992. Pilgrimage and tourism: conver-gence and divergence. In Sacred Journeys: The Anthropology of Pilgrimage. Morinis A (ed). Green-wood Press: Westport; 47–61.

Crang M. 2006. Cultural Geographies of Tourism. Durham University: Durham.

Dann G. 1981. Tourism motivation: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8: 187–219.

Dann G. 2003. Noticing tourism to order. Annals of Tourism Research 30: 465–484.

Davidson R. 1989. Tourism. Pitman Publishing: London.

Desforges L. 2000. Traveling the world: identity and travel biography. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 926–945.

Dyer P, Gursoy D, Sharma B, Carter J. 2007. Structural modeling of resident perceptions of tourism and associated development on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Tourism Management 28: 409–422.

Fodness D. 1994. Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research 21: 555–581.

Galani-Moutafi V. 2000. The self and the other trav-eler, ethnographer, tourist. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 203–224.

Getaway Spas. 2007. Available at http://www.get-awayspas.com/ [accessed 20 July 2007].

Gilbert D, Abdullah J. 2004. Holiday taking and the sense of well-being. Annals of Tourism Research 31: 103–121.

Goffman E. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Harper and Row: New York.

Goffman E. 1991. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situ-ation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Penguin: Harmondworth.

Gonzalez A, Bello L. 2002. The construct ‘lifestyle’ in market segmentation: the behaviour of tourist consumers. European Journal of Marketing 36: 51–85.

Graefe A, Vaske J. 1987. A framework for managing quality in the tourist experience. Journal of Travel Research 14: 390–404.

Groves R, Presser S, Dipko S. 2004. The role of topic interest in survey participation decision. Public Opinion Quarterly 68: 2–31.

Glaser B. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emergence vs. Forcing. Sociology Press: Mill Valley, CA.

Hager M, Wilson S, Pollak T, Rooney P. 2003. Response rates for mail surveys of nonprofi t organizations: a review and empirical test. Non-profi t and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32: 252–267.

Holden A. 2006. Tourism Studies and the Social Sci-ences. Routledge: Oxon.

Holloway J. 2006. The Business of Tourism. Pearson Education Ltd.: Harlow.



Hayllar B, Griffi n T. 2005. The precinct experience: a phenomenological approach. Tourism Manage-ment 26: 517–528.

Inskeep E. 1991. Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.

Krippendorf J. 1987. The Holiday Makers. Heinmann: London.

Kuvan Y, Akan P. 2005. Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: the case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management 26: 691–706.

Lindzey G, Hall C, Thompson R. 1978. Psychology. Worth Publishers Inc.: New York.

Loftus G, Loftus E. 1976. Human Memory: The Pro-cessing of Information. Erlbaum Press: Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Mansfi eld N. 2000. Theories of the Self. New York Press: New York.

Maslow A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper: New York.

Maslow A (ed). 1987. Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row: New York.

McIntosh R, Goeldner C. 1990. Tourism: Principles, Practices and Philosophies. Riley: New York.

Meeto D, Temple, B. 2003. Issues in multi-method research: constructing self-care. Journal of Qualita-tive Methods 2: 1–21.

Miles M, Huberman A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analy-sis. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, California.

Mo C, Howard D, Havitz M. 1993. Testing an inter-national tourist role typology. Annals of Tourism Research 20: 319–335.

Ng S, Lee J, Soutar G. 2007. Tourists’ intention to visit a country: the impact of cultural distance. Tourism Management 28: 1497–1506.

Nicolau J, Más F. 2006. The infl uence of distance and prices on the choice of tourist destinations: the moderating role of motivations. Tourism Man-agement 27: 982–996.

Noy C. 2004. This trip really changed me: backpack-ers’ narratives of self-change. Annals of Tourism Research 31: 78–102.

Palmer C. 2005. An ethnography of Englishness: experiencing identity through tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 32: 7–27.

Pearce P. 1982. The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour — International Series in Experimental Psychology, Vol. 3. Pergamon Press: Oxford.

Pine B, Gilmore J. 1999. The Experience Economy. Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge.

Plog S. 1994. Developing and using psychographics in tourism research. In Travel Tourism and Hospi-tality Research. Brent Ritchie J, Goeldner C (eds). John Wiley and Sons: New York; 432–444.

Rapoport R, Castanera M. 1994. I Should Have Stayed Home. RDR Books: California.

Redfoot D. 1984. Tourist authenticity, touristic angst, and modern reality. Qualitative Sociology 74: 291–309.

Rojek C. 1995. Decentring Leisure: Rethinking Leisure Theory. Sage: London.

Ryan C, Robertson E. 1997. New Zealand student-tourists: risk behaviour and health. In Tourism and Health: Risks, Research and Responses. Clift S, Grabowski P (eds). Pinter: London.

Ryan C. 1994. Leisure and tourism: the application of leisure concepts to tourist behaviour: a pro-posed model. In Tourism: The State of the Art. Seaton A (ed). Wiley: Chichester; 294–307.

Ryan C. 1995a. Learning about tourists from con-versations: The over 55’s in Majorca. Tourism Management 16: 207–216.

Ryan C. 1995b. Researching Tourist Satisfaction. Issues, Concepts, Problems. Routledge: London.

Ryan C. 1997. The Tourist Experience: A New Introduc-tion. Cassell: London.

Ryan C. 2002. The Tourist Experience. Continuum Books: London.

Smith V. 1977. Hosts and Guests. University of Penn-sylvania Press: Philadelphia.

Smith V. 1989. Hosts and Guests — The Anthropology of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.

Smith W. 2006. Experiential tourism around the world and at home defi nitions and standards. International Journal Services and Standards 2: 1–14.

Statistics. 2007. Neighbourhood Statistics. Available at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ [accessed 6 January 2007].

Stemler S. 2001. An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 7(17). http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17 [accessed 7 November 2009].

Stevens R. 1996. Understanding the Self. Sage Publi-cations: London.

Stoeckl N, Greiner R, Mayocchi C. 2006. The com-munity impacts of different types of visitors: an empirical investigation of tourism in North-West Queensland. Tourism Management 27: 97–112.

Tran X, Ralston L. 2006. Tourist preferences infl u-ence of unconscious needs. Annals of Tourism Research 33: 424–441.

Travel Mail. 2007. Creative Getaways and Personal Development Holidays. Available at http://www.travelmail.co.uk/ [accessed 7 December 2007].

Urry J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze. Sage: London.Urry J. 1991. The sociology of tourism. In Progress

in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Vol. 3. Cooper C (ed). Belhaven Press: London.



Wearing S. 2001. Volunteer Tourism: Experiences that Make a Difference. CABI Publishing: Sydney.

Wickens E. 2002. The sacred and the profane: a tourist typology. Annals of Tourism Research 29: 834–851.

Yinannakis A, Gibson H. 1992. Roles tourists play. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 287–303.

Zajonc R. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9: 1–29.

an investigation into the impact of vacation travel on the tourist

Documents