Journal of Travel Research2014, Vol. 53(3) 336 –352© 2013 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0047287513500580jtr.sagepub.com

Research Article

Introduction

Drawing more than 35.7 million foreign tourists in 2012 Turkey is now ranked seventh in the world in terms of inter-national tourist arrivals. With a respectable 15.4% (UNWTO 2013), Germans constitute the largest tourist group who spend their vacations in Turkey (Turkish Statistics Institute 2012, p. 5). Located on the southern Mediterranean coast of Turkey, Antalya is a well-known sun-sea-sand destination popular with German and Russian tourists. Via its all-inclu-sive mega resorts and golf courses, tourism is the main source of income of the region (Ozturk and Eraydin 2010). The region hosts about 31% of all foreign tourists entering the country (Turkish Statistics Institute 2012, p. 5). In a country where tourism has become a major source of foreign exchange, and exhibits signs of maturity by drawing large numbers of repeat tourists from Germany (as high as 65%), existing negative perceptions of all-inclusive German tour-ists are troubling for the tourism industry and policy makers. Common sense and the evidence, though not conclusive, illustrate that tourism “can act as a cross-cultural conduit to promote civility between societies” (Gunce 2003, p. 181), create goodwill and mutual understanding and not friction, misunderstanding, or hatred (D’Amore 1988). Such asser-tions and research topics are not new; many established and emerging tourism researchers have asked the same question

in the past three decades (see Chen, Lin, and Petrick 2012; Litvin 2003; Milman, Reichel, and Pizam 1990; Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris 2008; Pearce 1980; Pizam, Uriely, and Reichel 2000). So far, the positive evidence on this topic is anecdotal or a wish list at best, with many studies providing inconsistent evidence as to the efficacy of tourism experi-ences in changing reciprocal attitudes of hosts and guests. The fundamental question that begs for an answer is whether tourism experiences in general play a role in conflict resolu-tion or contributing to and increasing intercultural under-standing, and if so, what circumstances might be responsible for such outcomes? More specifically, under what conditions do tourism experiences help form positive or by corollary, negative attitudes? Thus, the purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) to evaluate the impact of trip experiences of all-inclusive German tourists on their postvacation attitudes toward their Turkish host using classical (overt) and modern

500580 JTRXXX10.1177/0047287513500580Journal of Travel ResearchSirakaya-Turk et al.research-article2013

1The University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA2Arizona State University, AZ, USA3Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, University of South Carolina, Carolina Coliseum 109-A, Columbia, SC 29210, USA. Email: ercan@gwm.sc.edu

Guests and Hosts Revisited: Prejudicial Attitudes of Guests toward the Host Population

Ercan Sirakaya-Turk1, Gyan Nyaupane2, and Muzaffer Uysal3

AbstractThis study evaluates the impact of all-inclusive trip experiences of tourists on their prejudicial attitudes toward their host. All-inclusive German travelers were probed for their attitudes toward their host at the time of arrival and before departure. Reasons for the differences between arrival and departure attitude scores were explored via multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and regression analyses. As opposed to the intergroup contact hypothesis that tourism would reduce prejudice and increase cross-cultural understanding, the findings indicate that structured, all-inclusive tour experiences of this sample of tourists increase prejudicial attitudes toward their host. Exploring potential reasons for such differences in pre- and post-arrival scores, the study reports that overall satisfaction with the vacation, service quality factors and the nature of all-inclusive tour might be responsible for such results. Enhanced with qualitative data from key informants, likely reasons are cautiously speculated using contact hypothesis and the notion of “cultural bubble.”

Keywordshost–guest relationships, tourist attitudes, prejudice, tourism’s impact, cultural bubble

Sirakaya-Turk et al. 337

(covert) prejudice scales, and (2) to seek potential sources of explanation for similarity or differences found in pre- and postvacation attitudes; to this end, satisfaction with the over-all trip along with sociodemographic variables have been used to capture the effect of such influences. The study uses a before-and-after design, which is “the most important non-experimental design” when combined with complementary information and can provide valuable insights into a phe-nomenon and mitigate the treats to internal validity (Robson et al. 2001, p. 13).

Prejudicial Attitudes, Conflict, and Tourism

Despite two World Wars and four decades of Cold War, the world is still facing global and regional confrontations in the form of ethnic conflicts and wars that are largely rooted in social, religious, cultural, and ideological differences (Butler and Baum 1999; Kaul 1980). Some known examples include decades-old tension in the Middle East, recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tensions between India and Pakistan, ter-rorism stemming from radical religiosity and many other regional and ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and around the world. Germany’s treatment of its ethnic minorities and lack of their integration into the mainstream German society are examples that drew attention to the treatment of ethnic minorities in various societies (Kaya 2002, p. 46). We now know well that cultural differences between different groups of people often result in misunderstanding, stereotypes, prej-udice, intolerance, and discrimination (Loentz 2006; Riordan 1978). While the major source of these conflicts may be simple misunderstandings among different groups of people or misinterpretations of each other’s worldviews, these are often politicized, escalated, and turned into violence, riot, ethnic cleansing, separation of nations, and sometimes wars.

The contact theory within the literature on cross-cultural relationships asserts that a positive intercultural interaction can help decrease people’s prejudices, mitigate discrimina-tion, reduce stereotyping and conflict, and increase toler-ance and acceptance (Allport 1954; Riordan 1978). Tourism as a social phenomenon provides such a setting within which people from different cultural and religious backgrounds interact with each other to the extent where the wall of hatred between people and nations might be broken, thus opening the door for understanding and reconciliation (D’Amore 1988).

There is a growing body of literature about the role of tourism in peace and promotion of cross-cultural understand-ing between peoples. Despite the optimistic hypothesis and assertions by influential tourism scholars, the existing empir-ical research demonstrates mixed findings. While a number of studies indicate an increase in the level of cultural under-standing of participants, with more positive attitudes dis-played toward the other culture after the trip (Carlson and Widaman 1988; Taft 1977), other studies suggest opposite

findings, with tourism having a negative effect on posttrip attitudes (Anastasopoulos 1992; Ap and Var 1990; Krippendorf 1982; Litvin 2003; Pizam, Jafari, and Milman 1991; Milman, Reichel, and Pizam 1990; Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris 2008; Pearce 1980). It is still unknown, although developing in the recent literature (see Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris 2008), which factors play major roles in changing such attitudes if at all, or what type of structural settings need to be offered to the traveling public so positive attitude changes can take place. The role of all-inclusive tourism in changing travelers’ attitudes has particularly received scant, if any, attention in the literature.

Despite the importance of this topic to the field of tourism studies, with a few exceptions (e.g., Milman, Reichel, and Pizam 1990; Chen, Lin, and Petrick 2012), the majority of studies and professional projects were conducted with college students studying abroad, possibly because the funding that drives such research is scarce or because student samples are easier to identify. Rarely will one find studies or projects done on a grander scale for representative tourist populations or studies measuring and comparing arrival (prevacation) and departure (postvacation) attitudes. Even so, studies that tackle the issue of prejudice openly in tourism literature are few at best. The fact remains that the study abroad populations are different from general tourists as they represent only youth populations and are guided by their restrictive itinerary of their educational institutions and controlled visitations, which might obscure the results. Moreover, there is no one univer-sally acceptable validated scale measuring prejudicial atti-tudes. Thus, in order to better understand the relationship between tourism and its role in cultural understanding, there is a need to develop and test measurements of various aspects of attitude, prejudice or discrimination with broader groups of tourist populations (Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris 2008; Sonmez and Apostolopoulos 2000) as well as to conduct studies with more representative populations.

The current study is different from many of its predeces-sors on three main aspects: (1) time: the focus is on three different times of measurement (immediately at arrival and immediately before departure, then again four months after returning home on a small subsample; (2) prejudicial atti-tudes: using an attitude scale that was specifically developed for immigrant groups in Europe helps tackle a politically sensitive issue within the context of all-inclusive tourism; and (3) study setting and the sample: near experimental set-ting of the study via field observation and key informant interviews to supplement the quantitative data. In this regard, the findings of the study reveal that there might be a connec-tion to the nature of the trip and setting in which the whole inclusive trip takes place. To that end, the differences in atti-tude scores were regressed to a variety of satisfaction indica-tors related to the characteristics of all-inclusive trips and overall satisfaction with vacationing in the subject country. Moreover, all-inclusive tourism is the way how tourism is

338 Journal of Travel Research 53(3)

marketed in Turkey during the past 15 years, and the nega-tive effects associated with it are especially prevalent around the Mediterranean city of Antalya. All-inclusive tourists behave differently from a typical independent tourist; they spend much of their time in accommodations rarely ventur-ing outside to explore the region and interact with local pop-ulations. When these tourists do venture out into the region, they do it with their fellow tourists in a structured setting. Consequently, this type of tourism receives strong criticism from local restaurant owners, shops, and other local busi-nesses (Koc 2006). In this sense, this study further contrib-utes to the understanding of the impact of all-inclusive tourism on preexisting attitudes.

Contact Theory, Prejudicial Attitudes, and Tourism

Tourism is a social phenomenon by which intergroup inter-actions may lead to cross-cultural understanding, host–guest mutual respect, tolerance, and liking (Bocher 1982) and reduce negative stereotypes (Robinson and Preston 1976). This assumption is based on the contact theory put forth by Allport (1954). He indicated that by assembling people of different race, color, religion, or national origin, we can destroy stereotypes and develop friendly attitudes. He further described:

Prejudice (unless deeply rooted in the character structure of the individual) may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e., by law, custom or local atmosphere), and provided it is of a sort that leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of the two groups. (p. 267)

The outcomes of contact, however, do not always flow in a positive direction; favorable conditions tend to reduce prej-udice, but unfavorable conditions increase prejudice (Amir 1969). The effects of contacts depend on various conditions and variables. In order to enhance the positive outcomes, Allport adopted a “positive factors” approach that is com-posed of four key conditions, including equal status, com-mon goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support of authorities, laws, or custom (Allport 1954; Amir 1969; Riordan 1978). Although it is challenging to define equal status, it is commonly assumed that both groups should expect and perceive equal status in the contact situation (Pettigrew 1998). A study of black and white racial groups showed that the contacts with outgroup members of lower status led to negative effects on racial attitudes (Jackman and Crane 1986). Effective contact also requires an active effort toward a common goal shared by the groups (Pettigrew and Tropp 2005). An example would be an athletic team with different racial backgrounds playing together. In this case,

the common goal is winning the game. The third condition is intergroup cooperation, in which the common goals should be an interdependent effort based on cooperation rather than competition (Pettigrew and Tropp 2005). The case of two sport teams of two different racial backgrounds playing against each other would not fulfill this condition. The con-tact should be supported by institutions (authorities, laws, and customs) to have more positive effects. Civil-rights leg-islation and antiracial and antiprejudicial laws and norms are examples of such conditions. Situational factors, including voluntary contact, intimate contact, preexisting attitude, location of contacts, language, and intergroup friendship have been added to the list of optimal conditions by contact theorists (Pettigrew 1998; Allport 1954). Among them, pre-existing attitudes are the major limiting conditions to posi-tive outcomes, because many societies and countries have deeply rooted conflicts as remnants of the past, and conse-quently prejudiced people or people who are in conflict tend to avoid contact in the first place (Amir and Ben-Ari 1985; Pettigrew et al. 2011).

Over the past half-century, the contact theory guided and inspired research and practice to tackle domestic and interna-tional social problems including racial and religious violence (Kenworthy et al. 2005). The studies on intergroup contacts have been expanded to a wide range of target groups beyond race and ethnicity, including the elderly, homosexual, men-tally ill, people with disability, and victims of AIDS (Pettigrew 1998). Although some studies showed that contact between groups may cause conflict, in a recent meta-analysis of 515 studies, Pettigrew et al. (2011) found that intergroup contact reduces prejudice. Further, the study showed that the four optimal conditions originally proposed by Allport (1954) are only facilitators but not necessary conditions.

In tourism, however, empirical studies have reported mixed findings (Maoz 2006; Pizam, Uriely, and Reichel 2000; Pearce 1980). Taft’s (1977) study of a group of Australian student teachers and staff members who partici-pated in an educational visit to Israel demonstrated that after the trip the participants became more tolerant toward other people and cultures. Building on previous stereotyping and contact research, Pearce (1980)—one of the pioneering scholars in tourism—has reported the findings of two inde-pendent studies that measured the effects of travel on tourists visiting Morocco and Greece. Contrary to Taft’s findings, Pearce’s study showed that the tourists’ evaluations after their travel to Morocco showed unfavorable opinions of the host; the travelers believed that the Moroccans were greed-ier, more mercenary, and more talkative than they thought prior to their holiday. Although the results were based on limited sample sizes, they revealed an interesting phenome-non regarding travel’s impact: counter to the optimistic thinking that tourism experiences promote positive intercul-tural relationships, tourism did not result in improving favor-ability of the host. After three decades, in his latest paper, Pearce (2010) made similar observations when discussing

Sirakaya-Turk et al. 339

past research regarding attitudes. He argues that attitude is “a psychological commodity able to be raised or lowered by [actual] experiences” (p. 252).

Pizam, Jafari, and Milman (1991) conducted a study of U.S. students visiting the former USSR and compared the attitudes toward the Soviet people before and after the trip. The results between pre- and posttrip attitudes did not pro-vide any evidence of a positive attitude change. Out of 41 items tested, only 2 items showed a positive change in atti-tude. A study of students traveling from Singapore to Egypt and Israel showed mixed results as well, as the attitudes toward the Egyptian people changed negatively, and the atti-tudes toward Israelis changed positively (Litvin 2003), indi-cating a differential impact of travel in countries visited. It is quite possible that country specific models might need to be developed and calibrated to take into account exogenous variables that are left out from current models. Similarly, Milman, Reichel, and Pizam (1990) did a study of Israeli tourists visiting Egypt and found that their attitude either remained the same or negatively changed after the visit. More specifically, they found a two-way impact of attitude change as a result of visiting Egypt. Positive pretrip attitudes were reconfirmed and strengthened while negative pretour attitudes were also reconfirmed and strengthened.

In a similar but more recent study adding insights to the contact hypothesis, Uriely, Maoz, and Reichel (2009) have studied interactions between Israeli tourists and Egyptian service providers in the Sinai Peninsula. Conceptualized as a two-party “bubble of serenity” the authors argued that tour-ism can be an appropriate tool for starting normalization pro-cesses between countries with a history of conflict. “The [tourism] bubble created in Sinai is detached from the reality of its surroundings and provides those inside it with protec-tive walls from potentially unpleasant experiences” (p. 518). The bubble is created because of mutually beneficial tourism relationships and it can burst after external shocks like terror-ist attacks. Time, however, can restore the bubble of host–guest relationships to its original status. The findings of their study further highlighted the significance of social climate in shaping both negative and positive attitudes among guests and hosts. They argue that “the results of contact hypothesis studies depend on situational circumstances that shape the participants’ attitudes at a specific point in time. Thus, exter-nal factors that shape the social climate of the encounter between guests and hosts should be taken into consideration in future research that employs the contact hypothesis approach” (p. 520).

Anastasopoulos (1992) studied a group of Greek tourists visiting Turkey and found that the travel had a negative impact on the perceptions of Greek tourists toward the Turkish host. More recently, Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris (2008) conducted a study with the U.S. study abroad students to Austria, Netherlands, Australia, and Fiji. Their study showed a moderation effect of country in that attitude changes were positive toward Europeans, negative toward

Australians, and mixed toward Fijians. In this context, tour-ism’s social space allows interactions and gazing between hosts and guests, in doing so “everybody gazes at everybody, the host and guest are both the mad who stand behind bars that separate them sharply, and both gaze at each other. The former acts according to the tourist gaze, while the latter acts according to the local gaze and to what is expected of them by the host, who manipulates them. The mutual gaze makes both sides seem like puppets on a string, since it regulates their behavior. It results in mutual avoidance, remoteness, and negative attitudes and behavior” (Maoz 2006, p. 225).

A few of the aforementioned aspects of contact theories have been examined by the intercultural or tourism literature. For example, Amir and Ben-Ari (1985) found that the direc-tion of attitude change after the trip depends on the direction of the original attitude. Chen, Lin, and Petrick (2012) found that when two countries are in conflict, tourism experiences do not improve the images of the host country. This notion is further supported by Andsager and Drzewiecka (2002) who maintain that if tourists have prior stereotypes, destination experiences do not improve the preexisting attitudes; rather, they exacerbate negative feelings as tourists only see what they expect to see. Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris’s (2008) study examined the effect of prior expectation, experience during the trip, and social distance (cultural status) on attitude change. Their study found if the prior attitude is skewed toward positive, their expectations are not met by the trip, which results in a decline of posttrip attitude. In terms of the effects of experience during the trip, the study suggests that non-tourism-related services play a crucial role in tourists’ attitude toward the hosts. The social distance hypothesis (Milman, Reichel, and Pizam 1990), however, was not sup-ported in their study. Despite a few attempts to analyze the contradictory results in tourism, many studies suggest that the direction of attitude change depends on the country that is being visited, which demonstrates the atheoretical nature of the studies and the moderation impact of country. The com-plexity of interactions that takes place in tourism instigates further examination of theoretical gaps in tourism studies regarding attitude change with broader populations, sound measurements, and further examination of the “positive fac-tors” or “negative factors” of the contact theory (Milman, Reichel, and Pizam 1990; Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris 2008). Extant research in tourism seems to outline a dilemma, namely, “Are all prejudices toward hosts racial by defini-tion?” The authors of this paper consider attitudes, prejudice, and race as related constructs irrespective of the tone used by previous studies. Therefore, the current study focuses on the-oretical aspects of tourism’s contribution to prejudicial atti-tude change by using a validated scale developed particularly for immigrant populations in Europe and including other exogenous variables (e.g., sociodemographic variables, trip satisfaction) that were not used by previous studies. Previous discussion can be summarized and displayed as a conceptual framework; accordingly, Figure 1 displays the conceptual

340 Journal of Travel Research 53(3)

model that guided this study. According to the model, the all-inclusive trip is the treatment variable that causes changes in prejudicial attitude scores as measured by four different fac-tors (Classic Prejudice, Classic/Antagonism, Mixed Prejudice, and Denial of Continuing Discrimination). The associated null hypothesis for this is as follows: the all-inclusive trip will not cause changes in racial attitude scores of tourists as mea-sured by four factors (Y

1-4). Similarly, in order to shed light

onto the reasons for change between pre- and postvacation scores, if such change is found, the difference scores between time 1 (onset-of-the-trip) and time 2 (after-the-trip) are mod-eled as a function of service quality evaluations (measured by four factors) and overall trip satisfaction after controlling for sociodemographic variables. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that these five explanatory variables will have no effect on changes of four attitudinal scores.

Racial Prejudice and Tourism

Similar to other population movements, such as migration, global mobilities of people and their objects take place in tourism. Many scholars view tourism as a powerful form of mobility, which involves “the relational mobilizations of memories and performances, gendered and racialized bodies, emotions and atmosphere” (Sheller and Urry 2004, p. 1).

Although tourism movement is temporary and distinct in terms of duration, frequency, and seasonality from other types of mobilities, its social phenomena can be studied within the framework of wider population movements (Bell and Ward 2000). Therefore, in this paper, the concept of racial prejudice that has been widely used in migration stud-ies has been applied in a tourism context.

Racial prejudice in Europe is not a new phenomenon; however, blatant racial hatred and intolerance manifested in attacks against immigrants by a few extremists may not be reflective of collective emotional response of a larger popu-lation (Akrami, Ekehammar, and Araya 2000). Contrary to recent media reports that classical or overt racism in Europe is on the rise, some experts claim that overall a classical (overt) racist behavior is in decline since World War II. Recent studies conducted among immigrant groups in Sweden seem to paint a different picture; for example, immi-grant groups think that their host communities are indeed racists. A study by Lange in 1995 (cited in Akrami, Ekehammar, and Araya 2000), for example, found that indi-viduals from four major ethnic groups—70% of Africans, 36% of Arabs, 60% Asians and 51% ex-Yugoslavs—believe that Sweden is a racist country. Accordingly, perceived dis-crimination or racial prejudice by these immigrant groups is a serious problem. European Union’s annual reports since

Figure 1. Conceptual frameworks guiding the study.

Sirakaya-Turk et al. 341

2004 consistently warn that racism and racist discrimination is becoming mainstream in almost all European countries. The reader may want to refer to reports by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2007). Just recently, Germany has been sharply criticized for violent crimes and discrimination against foreigners in the job and housing mar-kets and not doing enough for preventing such blatant dis-plays of violence and crime since the World War II era, especially against minorities from Muslim and Asian coun-tries. As of November 12, 2012, Der Spiegel, a popular German newsmagazine, noted that “everyday racism in the general population is just as much an issue as right-wing extremism” (retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,502471,00.html).

Much of such prejudicial behavior is, however, covert (modern racism) or aversive because many people tend to respond in a politically and socially “correct” way and are thus reluctant to express their prejudice openly (Dovidio et al. 2002). Moreover, many countries such as the USA legally sanction overtly racist behavior. Nonetheless, the rel-evant literature in this area suggests that racism in a classical sense has disguised itself in much more emotionally subtle responses. Dovidio et al. (2002, p. 90) argue that aversive racism “represents a subtle, often unintentional form of bias that characterizes many Whites who possess strong egalitar-ian values and who believe that they are nonprejudiced.” The authors argue that an averse racist will never openly disclose his/her negative feelings maybe because they are not aware of their racist feelings but experience anxiety and uneasiness toward the minority race. Aversive racists will unintention-ally discriminate if they think that they can justify their behavior based on factors other than race. As such, often-times, negative response or reaction toward immigrants are justified based on seemingly rational factors other than race; examples might be given as “immigrants are taking our jobs,” “our population will become a minority within such and such period of time,” and so on.

The questions begging to be addressed are: Can tourism be used as a modifier to prejudicial behavior? To what extent can tourism change prejudicial biases prevalent in societies in general and in Europe in particular? Obviously, there are various strategies available to a nation when dealing with a historically established country image and politically sensi-tive issues. Indeed, active media campaigns, positive public relations campaigns, positive roles assumed in international politics, student exchange programs, and increased levels of cultural contact via tourism are all tactics that can be used to influence public opinion (D’Amore 1988; Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris 2008; Var et al. 1989).

Methods

Using a two-part (short and long) survey instrument, the data were collected from the customer base of a well-known tour

operator in bringing vacationers to the Mediterranean region of Turkey (Antalya), which is oftentimes described as the Turkish Riviera. Two separate survey instruments in German (short and long versions) were developed that contained the study’s variables that probed the vacationers’ attitudes immediately after arrival and before the onset of their vaca-tion, and then again after their trip. Enhanced by complemen-tary information (e.g., customer satisfaction, sociodemographic information), a before-and-after nonexperimental design was deployed. This approach is reputed to be among the strongest nonexperimental designs since it can alleviate the problems encountered due to threats to internal validity. For example, the relatively short term required between the pre- and post-tests (six nights only) and the exposure of tourists to the same experiences (e.g., the same tour guides, same hotels, same restaurants, same shopping trips) throughout the trip helped strengthen the results of this study.

The survey instrument contained the study variables along with other information requested by the company. The questionnaires were first translated into German by profes-sional translators and then back to English by one of the authors who is bilingual. The translation was then checked for accuracy, meaning, and grammar by a select group of company tour guides who are fluent in German. Adjustments were made as necessary to iron out language problems before the final German version was approved for the data collec-tion. The shorter version of the questionnaire contained questions related to the main variables of the current study along with scale items that measured the social desirability bias that might be prevalent in the sample. The second, lon-ger version of the questionnaire contained variables that had the same items as the short part but also contained other information requested by the company. In order to identify and match each respondent, both the short and long versions received the same matching codes.

At the company headquarters, tour guides participated in training seminars during which data collection procedures were explained, and half of the promised monetary incentive (100 euros) for their role in collecting data was dispersed. The guides were instructed to distribute the short survey instrument as soon as their guests were picked up from the airport and loaded to designated buses before departure to their hotels. They were further instructed to distribute the questionnaires based on a unique coding that matched both versions of the instrument. At the end of the seven-day stay (six nights), immediately before departure from Turkey to Germany, the tour guides distributed and collected back a longer version of the instrument to the same individuals who completed the first part. A systematic random sampling pro-cedure was employed when selecting the tour buses. Each day, the company receives around 3–10 busloads of all-inclusive vacationers (ranging from 15 to 40 people) from Germany. The researchers were given the list of the arrival and pick-up times according to inbound flight schedules of the company’s chartered airplanes. Although a statistically

342 Journal of Travel Research 53(3)

random method of sample selection process has been intended via alternating the pick-up days and times, a ran-domization in the true statistical sense has not been possible because of the shorter time frame of the data collection (two months) and varying volume of tourist arrivals during each season. Moreover, since the tour guides could not have been controlled in terms of how they distributed and collected the instruments, the randomization process might have been biased. Such events happening beyond the control of researchers might have caused the intended sampling scheme to not be fully deployed. Thus, the obtained surveys may not truly represent all passengers of the company within a year; also the reader is reminded that generalizability of the results was never intended because the study revolves around test-ing the general hypothesis that attitudes of same individuals are affected by time and their trip experiences. Participation in the study was completely voluntary and anonymous. Incentives were also offered to participant vacationers, and tourists were automatically entered into a drawing for a mini vacation (airfare and accommodation only) in Turkey for a week during the following year; rewards were later distrib-uted via a notarized drawing. Overall, 500 all-inclusive vaca-tioners have participated in the study with an effective response rate of 74%, which is an acceptable rate for similar studies. After cleaning the data from multivariate and uni-variate outliers, statistical analyses were conducted using 365 completed surveys.

In order to assess the presence of a time-lag effect, a small subsample consisting of 30 vacationers who provided their contact information were later asked to participate in tele-phone interviews. The telephone interviews were conducted by a subcontractor after 10–12 weeks of the vacationers’ returning to their normal lives in Germany. Although not rep-resentative of the whole group, this small group also provided important clues as to how the setting and the trip experience itself might have played a role in changing attitudinal scores.

Study Variables and Measures

The independent variables—vacationers’ evaluation of qual-ity of tour operations—were measured using a 36-item, 5-point Likert-type scale. The tourists were asked to consider their prior expectations of the trip quality and indicate the extent of the tour operators’ performance related to their expectations. The scale ranged from 1 = [the item] performed worse than my expectation to 5 = [the item] performed better than my expectation. Another explanatory variable was the tourists’ overall satisfaction with their trip (OTS), which was operationalized by asking respondents to indicate the extent of their agreement with six questions regarding the overall vacation experience (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The scale was composed of six questions: Vacation in Turkey . . . “gave me unique or special moments,” “had special meaning to me,” “was as good as I expected,” “was satisfying to me,” “stands out as one of my best experiences,” and “was worth the price I paid for it.” The dependent

variable was composed of racial prejudice scale items that were adopted from Akrami, Ekehammar, and Araya’s (2000) study (see Table 4 for item descriptions). The reader will notice that in the original study by Akrami, Ekehammar, and Araya (2000), attitude scales contained eight classical items along with 11 modern attitudinal items. This study obtained four meaningful factors with only 12 items (see Table 4).

Statistical Analyses

Data analyses consisted of several steps. First, data were explored for errors, distribution, and outliers; and the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents were obtained. Second, the principal component extraction method with Varimax rotation (exploratory factor analysis) was used to delineate the underlying constructs of racial prejudice scale, tour quality, and overall satisfaction with the vacation. Third, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated to test the reliability of three scales (Churchill 1979). Fourth, com-posite scores for prejudice scale, along with tour operation evaluation dimensions, and an overall vacation satisfaction scale were computed as model variables. Fifth, differences between pretest and posttest attitude scores were computed and saved to be used in multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) and general linear models (GLM) (multiple regression with multiple dependent variables). Furthermore, it is important to mention that in order to further understand the differences between the pre- and postvacation test results and how these results may have been influenced or moder-ated by demographic and trip variables, MANCOVA analy-sis was performed. In other words, it was used to examine the effect of independent variables (tour quality and overall trip satisfaction) on racial attitude scores holding other covari-ates such as age, income, and education constant. MANCOVA tests if the changes in the mean scores of factors from pre- to posttests would still exist while controlling for significant variables, including education, income, and gender. Finally, the difference scores between pre- and postvacation were regressed against quality determinants of all inclusive trips and overall satisfaction with vacationing using GLM that allows a researcher to construct and test a multiple regression model with more than one dependent variable.

Profile of Respondents

The sample of the tourist respondents was composed of 45.4% males and 54.6% females, and the majority of the respondents were middle-aged or senior people (43.3% were 46–64 years of age, and 31% were 65 years or older), with a median age of 56. Half of the respondents (51.7%) were employed and 36.8% were retired. About 48% of the respon-dents held less than 13 years of education, and 66.1% of them had an annual household income of less than US$51,000 (only 7.8% made US$102,000 yearly or more). Most respon-dents were on a 7-day all-inclusive trip to Turkey, and they were experienced international tourists with an average of

Sirakaya-Turk et al. 343

five international trips within the past 5 years (see Table 1). Close to half (46.1%) of the sample consisted of repeat visi-tors who visited Turkey on an average of 2.7 times in the past. Judging by the demographic profile of the sample, the sample seems a little biased; however, this is the typical composition of the traveling population across most tour operators in Antalya, especially during the winter season (Turkish Tourism Statistics Institute 2011, p. 26; anonymous inter-view with the CEO of the participating tour company) who are attracted to Turkey because of low prices. As of December 2012, one could book an all-inclusive one-week vacation for 99 euros with Dooyoo, an online travel company.

Analysis and Results

Service Quality Evaluation of Tour Operations

Principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation was used to determine the underlying dimensions of the 36 items

measuring service quality of tour operations (See Table 2). A cut-off point of 0.45 was used to include items in the inter-pretation of a factor. Seven attribute items were eliminated from the scale because of insufficient loadings of less than 0.45 or cross-loadings. As a result, four factors were identi-fied and labeled as Empathy/Friendliness, Staff/Tour Guides Behavior, Tourist Facilities/Amenities, and Local Tour/Attitudes, respectively. The four factors explained 57.94% of the total variance, and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coeffi-cients were moderately high, ranging from 0.69 to 0.92. Factor 1, Empathy/Friendliness (α = 0.92), explained 40.42% of the variance in the model. Factor 2, Staff/Tour Guides Behavior (α = 0.92), explained 7.77% of the variance. Factor 3, Tourist Facilities/Amenities (α = 0.77), explained 5.37% of the variance, whereas Factor 4, Local Tour/Attitudes (α = 0.69), explained an additional 4.39% of the variance in the data set. A composite score was calculated for each of the factors by averaging the scale items for the subsequent regression analysis that examined the impact of service qual-ity evaluations of the tour operators on racial attitude scores.

Overall Trip Satisfaction

Factor analysis with principal component extraction method was used to extract the overall vacation satisfaction scale from six items. A cut-off point of 0.45 was used to include items in the interpretation of the factor. All items loaded on one factor reflecting the homogeneity of satisfaction descrip-tors. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .86, and these items explained nearly 58.6% of the total error variance in the original data set with an eigenvalue of 3.52. The grand mean of 3.64 for these items indicated that respon-dents were overall in a moderately satisfactory state when they were evaluating their overall vacation satisfaction (Table 3). Again, a composite score was calculated to be used in the subsequent analyses.

Prejudicial Attitude Scale

Tourist’s prejudicial attitudes were obtained using a factor analysis with a Varimax rotation. Two sets of attitudinal items were used to construct the domains. In the original study by Akrami, Ekehammar, and Araya (2000), classical attitude scales containing eight items along with eleven mod-ern attitudinal items were factor analyzed independently. Running the same procedure this study has not been able to recreate domains comparable to the original study; thus, a full exploratory factor analysis was employed by letting all items fall out according to their factor loadings and Eigenvalues above 1. Hence, only 12 items loaded in four meaningful domains leaving 7 items out of the overall analy-sis. Arguably, we have obtained partial confirmation of the original scale. We renamed the original scale domains according to the content of the item descriptors: Factor 1- Classic Prejudice, Factor 2- Classic/Antagonism, Factor 3-Mixed Prejudice and Factor 4- Denial of Continuing

Table 1. Demographics and Travel Characteristics of the Respondents (N = 317).

Characteristics Sample Statistics

Gender (%) Male 45.4 Female 54.6Age (%) 16–29 years 8.0 30–45 years 17.7 46–64 years 43.3 65 years and older 31.0Annual household income (before taxes, in €) (%) Less than 9,999a 14.5 10,000–29,999 51.6 30,000 - 59,999 25.2 60,000 or more 8.7Education level (%) Less than high school 37.2 High school degree 10.5 Learned professionb 28.9 Technical school 11.8 Four-year college or university degree 7.6 Graduate degree 2.3 Other 1.6Employment status (%) Employed 51.7 Full-time homemaker 5.2 Retired 36.8 Unemployed 3.3 Student 2.9Average (median) international trips taken in the past 5 years

5

Average (median) nights spent in Turkey 7

a. The exchange rate is US$1.00 = €0.71.b. Three to 4 years of professional education after +10 years of basic education.

344 Journal of Travel Research 53(3)

Discrimination. The factor domains collectively explained 55.5% of the variance in the data set. The Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from a low .64 to a high of .70 indicating an acceptable but lower than traditionally accepted reliability coefficients (Table 4).

Means Difference Test

A series of t-tests were conducted for factor scores to exam-ine the differences between pre- and posttrip attitudes using

two different times, onset of travel (pretest) and end of the trip (posttest). According to the results illustrated in Table 4, three out of four factor domains showed differences in mean scores. Classical prejudice (Factor 1), mixed prejudice (Factor 3), and denial of continuing discrimination (Factor 4) scores were statistically higher at the end of the trip, indicat-ing that in this particular study tourism experiences worsen the prejudicial attitudes. (The reader is reminded that higher scores mean higher racial prejudice.) For Factor 2, the classic/antagonism scores did not change. In other words, the

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Service Quality of Tour Operators.

Factor Loadings

Scales Meana SD Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 α

Factor 1: Empathy/Friendliness 32.02 6.07 .92 Attending my needs promptly 3.40 0.83 .75 Interested in solving my problems 3.43 0.84 .74 Understanding my specific needs 3.38 0.83 .73 Staff made traveling more enjoyable 3.71 0.83 .68 Coach (guides attendance, guides interpretation, coach’s seating

arrangement, etc.)3.74 0.97 .68

Pretour briefing (references to shopping, food, fees, etc.) 3.33 1.02 .67 Visiting scenic spots (manner and content of the guide’s interpretation of

scenic spots, additions or deductions of scenic spots).3.76 0.98 .67

Got things right first time 3.40 0.76 .66 Staff (travel guide) never too busy to respond 3.87 0.83 .64 Factor 2: Staff/Tour Guides Behavior 35.97 5.96 .92 Delivered services on time 3.52 0.72 .74 Knowledgeable staff 3.71 0.77 .72 Staff consistently courteous 3.83 0.78 .72 Behavior of staff gave confidence 3.52 0.75 .62 Staff made me feel secure 3.63 0.74 .62 Staff always willing to help 3.81 0.72 .62 Travelers’ best interests at heart 3.58 0.80 .59 Individualized attention to travelers 3.45 0.83 .55 Staff kept customers informed 3.40 0.80 .50 No excessive waiting time 3.51 0.87 .48 Factor 3: Tourist Facilities/Amenities 21.07 3.22 .77 Transfers (to and from airport, hotels etc.) 3.67 0.74 .68 Accommodations (hotel rooms, hotel facilities) 3.53 0.83 .66 Restaurants (quality, consideration to dietary habits, etc.) 3.51 0.85 .62 Good facilities 3.65 0.74 .59 Bus was highly suitable 3.54 0.79 .53 Airplane’s seating arrangement (custom and immigration procedures; baggage

handling etc.)3.19 0.81 .45

Factor 4: Local Tour/Attitudes 12.49 5.01 .69 Optional tour (content and addition of optional tours, treatment of

nonparticipating customers, fees, etc.)2.94 0.89 .69

Attitude of locals toward visitors 3.33 0.84 .63 Individual shopping (quality, availability, manner of shopping, product refunds, etc.). 3.19 0.79 .61 Tips (the manner of tip collection by the guide etc.) 3.04 0.63 .59 Eigenvalue 11.72 2.25 1.56 1.27 Explained variance by factors (%) 40.42 7.77 5.37 4.39

Note: KMO measure of sampling adequacy = .94; Barlett’s test of significance p = .001. Total variance extracted by the four factors is 57.94%. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.a. Items measured on a 5-point Likert scale and were adopted from a number of sources, including Hudson, Hudson, and Miller (2004), Duke and Persia (1996), Geva and Goldman (1991), Lam and Zhang (1999), Truong and Foster (2006), Zhang and Chow (2004) and consultation with the tour company.

Sirakaya-Turk et al. 345

Table 3. Factor Analysis of Overall Trip Satisfaction Items (N = 303).

Factor Factor Loading Mean Scorea Eigenvalue Explained Variance α

Factor: Overall Trip Satisfaction 3.52 58.58% .86Vacation in Turkey . . . was as good as I expected .822 3.72 was worth the price I paid for it. .772 3.64 stands out as one of my best experiences. .756 3.12 was satisfying to me. .752 3.77 had special meaning to me. .750 3.68 gave me unique or special moments. .738 3.90 Grand mean 3.64 Total variance explained 58.58% KMO = .845 Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p = .000

Note: KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.a. Items measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Prejudicial Attitude Scale and the Comparison between Pre- and Posttrip Attitudes (n = 283–310).

Means of Factor Loadings for Two Groups

Domain Structures Pretrip Mean Posttrip Mean Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Significance

Factor 1: Classic Prejudice (α = .70) 7.19a 8.10a .001* Many Turks do not keep their homes tidy. 2.57 2.90 .84 .001* Many Turks do not take care of their personal

hygiene.2.38 2.7 .82 .001*

Turks are generally not very intelligent. 2.23 2.49 .65 .001*Factor 2: Classic/Antagonism (α = .69) 8.37a 8.42a .117 Immigrant Turks get too little attention in the

German media.b3.20 3.15 .75 .412

I favor full integration of Germans and Turks in Germany.b,c

2.61 2.69 .64 .115

It is easy to understand immigrant Turks’ demands for equal rights in Germany.b

2.58 2.63 62 .279

Factor 3: Mixed Prejudice (α = .64) 8.23a 8.59a .001* In Germany, immigrant camps should be placed far

out in the countryside away from large population centers.c

2.43 2.58 .76 .002*

Immigrant Turks are getting too demanding in the push for equal rights.

3.07 3.28 .58 .001*

A multicultural Germany would be good.b 2.76 2.74 -.50 .637Factor 4: Denial of Continuing Discrimination (α = .67) 8.10a 8.75a .001* Racist groups are no longer a threat toward

immigrant Turks in Germany.2.63 2.84 .74 .001*

Discrimination against Turks is no longer a problem in Germany.

2.74 2.85 .73 .046*

There have been enough programs designed to create jobs for immigrants like Turks in Germany.

2.75 3.07 .54 .001*

Eigenvalue 2.62 1.64 1.38 1.02 Explained variance by factors (%) 21.82 13.63 11.47 8.48 KMO .870 Bartlett’s test of significance .000

Note: Total variance extracted by the four factors is 55.4%. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.a. Grand mean of multiple-item scale.b. Items are reverse coded.c. Cross-loaded.*Significant at the 0.05 alpha level.

346 Journal of Travel Research 53(3)

findings indicate a negative effect; tourism seems to increase prejudice among this group of tourists in this particular case. The results of the interview with the small subsample of 30 travelers indicate (see Table 5) that two items in Factor 1, one item in Factor 3, and one in Factor 4 turned out to be signifi-cant. Although not representative of the total sample, these differences in scores between immediately after trip–before departure and four months after departure might point out to an enduring effect. A larger, longitudinal time series study might reveal the true nature of the attitudes. Nevertheless, the results of the larger sample and hints from telephone inter-views suggest that at least this trip for this particular sample has not resulted in positive changes in attitudes.

Since the purpose of the study was not to assess general levels of prejudice among German tourists to Turkey, but to determine whether tourism had any impact on racial attitudes toward the hosting Turkish community, we arrive at a rather surprising result. As opposed to the prestudy postulation that tourism would decrease tourists’ prejudicial tendencies, the findings indicated that tourism, in this instance with a pre-packaged tour, would increase those tendencies significantly. MANCOVA was run to understand whether such differences stem from variations in income, age, and gender. According to the results, the general patterns remained the same across variables with some statistically insignificant mean score changes. MANCOVA results are not included here because of nonsignificant changes in scores. In other words, none of the changes indicated in means scores stem from differences

in gender, income, and age, indicating that differences could have been attributed to tourism experiences only and the set-ting in which these experiences took place.

In order to explain changes in pre- and posttrip scores, five null hypotheses were constructed and tested using general linear modeling (GLM). GLM allows a researcher to build a multiple regression model for multiple depen-dent variables. According to the model, the differences between pre- and postvacation scores in four attitudinal factor scores are a function of trip satisfaction and four tour quality factors. It is hypothesized that these five explanatory variables will have no effect on changes of four attitudinal scores.

Hence the regression equation can be written as Yt1

– Y

t2 = α + βX

1 + β

2X

2 + β

3X

3 + β

4X

4 + β

5X

5 + ε,

where Yt1

– Yt2

= prevacation minus postvacation racial attitude scores in four factors

α = constant (intercept)β = regression weightsX

1 = Factor 1, Empathy/Friendliness

X2 = Factor 2, Staff/Tour Guides Behavior

X3 = Factor 3, Tourist Facilities/Amenities

X4 = Factor 4, Local Tour/Attitudes

X5 = Overall satisfaction with the trip

ε = error.

Table 5. Comparison of Attitude Scores after Four Months Using the Same Participants.

Domain Structures Pretrip MeanMean Score 4 Months after

Departure Significance

Factor 1: Classic Prejudice Many Turks do not keep their homes tidy. 2.37 2.94 0.04* Many Turks do not take care of their personal hygiene. 2.06 2.71 0.07* Turks are generally not very intelligent. 1.93 2.29 n/sFactor 2: Classic/Antagonism Immigrant Turks get too little attention in the German media.a 2.64 2.47 n/s I favor full integration of Germans and Turks in Germany.a 3.94 3.58 n/s It is easy to understand immigrant Turks’ demands for equal rights in

Germany.a2.58 2.63 n/s

Factor 3: Mixed Prejudice In Germany, immigrant camps should be placed far out in the countryside

away from large population centers.2.00 1.76 n/s

Immigrant Turks are getting too demanding in the push for equal rights. 2.88 3.35 0.06* A multicultural Germany would be good.a 3.65 3.34 n/sFactor 4: Denial of Continuing Discrimination Racist groups are no longer a threat toward immigrant Turks in Germany. 3.52 2.94 0.05* Discrimination against Turks is no longer a problem in Germany. 3.29 3.00 n/s There have been enough programs designed to create jobs for immigrants

like Turks in Germany.2.82 3.00 n/s

Note: n/s: not significant.a. Items are reverse coded.*Significant at the <0.05 level.

Sirakaya-Turk et al. 347

Table 6 displays the models’ parameter estimates result-ing from GLM analysis. According to Table 6, three out of four models were statistically significant. Empathy/friendliness, tourist facilities/amenities, locals’ attitudes and overall satis-faction with the trip were significant predictors for Model 1 as scores in these variables have decreased whereas the scores in classical prejudicial attitudes have increased. For Model 2, Staff/Tour Guides Behavior, Tourist Facilities/Amenities, and Overall Trip Satisfaction were significant predictors that explained the changes in classic/antagonism scores. For Model 4, only one variable (Local Tour/Attitudes) was a significant predictor of the changes in denial of con-tinuing discrimination.

According to Table 6, the difference scores in classical racism (Model 1) were affected by the changes in scores of Tourist Facilities/Amenities (–2.68, < .008), Local Tour and Locals’ attitudes (–2.11, <.036), Overall Trip Satisfaction (2.06, <.041), and Empathy/Friendliness (–1.75, <.082). For Model 2, Classical/Antagonism, means differences in attitude factors between time 1 and time 2 were due to the changes in Staff/Tour Guides’ behavior (–3.09, p < .002), Overall Trip Satisfaction (t = 2.711, p < .007) and Tourist

Facilities/Amenities (–1.80, P < .074) scores. None of the factors were significant predictors of Model 3 and Model 4 at the .05 alpha level.

Conclusion and Implications

They [tourists] come here only because we have beautiful beaches, lots of sunshine, good food and cheap beer. They complain virtually about everything they see. Sometimes, I would encounter one or two who would openly call us crooks [Gauner] or even “Kanake” [a German derogatory term used against immigrants of Turkish descent in Germany (Loentz 2006)] (Anonymous interview with a local tour guide).

This is a typical comment one would hear from some of the tour guides in Antalya region, whose almost entire liveli-hoods depend on all-inclusive tourism from Germany. From the tourists’ perspective, the results of this study indicate that this trip experience negatively affected the German tourists’ attitude toward the Turkish host when the attitudes are mea-sured immediately at the end of their trip. Among the four dimensions of prejudice scales, two dimensions, classical

Table 6. Summary of Regression Results Using GLM to Explain Changes in Pre- and Posttrip Prejudice Attitudes.

Models for Dependent VariablesTour Quality/Satisfaction

Variables B Standard Error t Significance

Model 1. Difference scores for Factor 1: Classic Prejudice (F = 2.57, p < .028)

Intercept –2.866 .975 –2.940 .004*Empathy/Friendliness –.298 .170 –1.746 .082**Staff/Tour Guides Behavior –.172 .167 –1.034 .303Tourist Facilities/Amenities –.399 .149 –2.681 .008*Local Tour/Attitudes –.346 .163 –2.114 .036*Overall Trip Satisfaction .090 .044 2.055 .041*

Model 2. Difference scores for Factor 2: Classic/Antagonism (F = 3.06; p < .011)

Intercept –2.236 .872 –2.565 .011*Empathy/Friendliness –.172 .152 –1.128 .261Staff/Tour Guides Behavior –.461 .149 –3.093 .002*Tourist Facilities/Amenities –.239 .133 –1.795 .074**Local Tour/Attitudes .031 .146 .212 .833Overall Trip Satisfaction .107 .039 2.711 .007*

Model 3. Difference scores for Factor 3: Mixed Prejudice (not significant)

Intercept –.735 .724 –1.015 .311Empathy/Friendliness .176 .127 1.390 .166Staff/Tour Guides Behavior –.092 .124 –.740 .460Tourist Facilities/Amenities –.171 .110 –1.545 .124Local Tour/Attitudes –.089 .121 –.736 .463Overall Trip Satisfaction .021 .033 .629 .530

Model 4. Difference scores for Factor 4: Denial of Continuing Discrimination (model not significant)

Intercept –1.838 .894 –2.056 .041*Empathy/Friendliness .106 .156 .677 .499Staff/Tour Guides Behavior –.020 .153 –.133 .895Tourist Facilities/Amenities –.091 .136 –.670 .503Local Tour/Attitudes –.325 .150 –2.167 .032*Overall Trip Satisfaction .048 .040 1.201 .231

*Significant at the 0.05 alpha level.**Significant at the 0.10 alpha level.

348 Journal of Travel Research 53(3)

prejudice and mixed prejudice, were significantly higher after the trip. The results do not support the assumption that tourism helps to reduce prejudice in all cases. Further analy-sis revealed that the change in prejudice was intensified by their unsatisfactory experience with tour guides and the shopping experiences. A few comments by the tourists explain their state of mood and feelings:

Das ist ja Unverschämtheit. Sie könnten so was in Deutschland nicht tuen. I kann’s nicht glauben was wir uns alles gefallen lassen hier. Ich habe nichts gegen die Türken aber these Türken sind ja alle Gauner. [Translation: This is shameful. They could not do something like this in Germany. I can’t believe what we put up with everything here. I don’t have anything against the Turks, but these Turks are indeed all crooks].

There might be some explanations for having negative experience with tour guides. First, the nature of a prepack-aged group is such that it puts much stress on both the tourists and the hosting tour companies; usually tourists are required to travel extensively from site to site in a hurried manner with less than optimum conditions (Anastasopoulos 1992; Pettigrew 1998). Since a prepack-aged tour is relatively inexpensive and involves no-frills type of experience, the tour companies rely on their cli-ents’ (tourists’) extra purchases of locally made goods such as carpets, jewelry, and leather as a supplemental income through commission or kickbacks (called “hanut”). In other words, the nature of the tourism experience is almost entirely shaped by the settings that are rather staged in order to facilitate shopping and spending. Such an envi-ronmental bubble in Eric Cohen’s terms (Noy and Cohen 2005, p. 16) might not be healthy for host–guest relation-ships. The summary of a few tour guides’ comments reveal the existing perceptions and feelings toward the visitors from Germany:

The worst tourists are the East-Germans [Ostdeutsche]; for example, they pay almost nothing to come here; 99 euro for a half-pension (one meal and/or one breakfast) resort trip in a five star hotel. . . .

They have probably never have been to a five-star hotel before but an unemployed person can come to Turkey and stay in a five star, dream hotel. But the minute they arrive, they start complaining almost about everything. I know why. First they either will try to get a refund when they go back to Germany or because they want to ditch the shopping part of the trip-which is actually a must-our company is already losing money on them, and shopping is the only way to recuperate some of it back. . . .

They sign off of this when they decide to come to visit Turkey. Oh one more thing: you should see how some of them steal from the lunch buffet to cover their dinner or from breakfast buffet to cover their lunches. When I confront them, they call me names and racial slurs. . . .

This is not the end: Unashamed, they also complain about our Azan, Islamic call for daily prayers.

The mood that is created in such settings may have some bearing on the responses of German tourists to the survey questions as well. Some tourists may have used the opportu-nity to implicitly express their feelings about their overall experiences. The clients are being guided to local shops where they spend quite a bit of time, which might be leading to dis-satisfaction among those who are not in a shopping mood. Thus, their responses may be biased because of their experi-ences with shopping. In other words, the unhealthy structure/nature of the inexpensive package tour program that carried all the survey respondents might have been a strong factor/cata-lyst for the outcome of the survey. Indeed, further, a correla-tion analysis between satisfaction with the trip and tourists’ attitudes revealed that such a possibility might be one of the potential explanations for this outcome (see Table 3). Another explanation is that most German tourists traveling to Turkey come from low-income classes, and the nature of how the Turkish tourism product is being marketed to this market might play a role in explaining these findings. Bringing clients from relatively low-income, low-education class of a German society with a packaged tour may create group dynamics that would collectively enhance their negative responses.

Once, I heard the racial comments by a few in the bus, I was already jittery because they had bought nothing that day and I had stopped talking. That’s how it is if they haven’t bought anything that day; when they buy, I am like a bird, the nightingale, I sing. Anyhow, I have asked the driver to stop the bus and kicked those racists out of the bus. As soon as they had realized I was indeed leaving them right in the middle of nowhere, they almost cried, apologized and schmoozed the entire week after that; they even offered me help and so on.

Such qualitative and anecdotal comments by the tour guides indicate that there are always tourists who do make blatant racist comments because of either the already exist-ing attitudes or the travel circumstances imposed on them via prepackaged tours. Note that these circumstances might have had an effect on the completion of survey instruments and in addition to how the scale items were evaluated.

However, regardless of this assumption, there is a prob-lem that Turkish tourism authorities and tour companies should address. Some German tourists do not leave Turkey with good impressions as it can be seen from very low post-trip prejudice scores. The Turkish product itself might be drawing already “prejudicially inclined” groups of tourists, and their unsatisfactory experiences with their travel might enhance their already preconceived ideas about Turkish peo-ple. The study reported here was not based on a truly random sample; thus the result cannot be generalized a larger group of German travelers to Turkey. It would be unfair to assume that all German tourists respond in similar ways or change their attitudes as a result of their experiences with Turkey

Sirakaya-Turk et al. 349

and Turkish culture. Indeed, telephone interviews with a vol-unteer sample that was contacted after four months indicate that time might play a role in mitigating the intensity of trip evaluations. Within the context of this limited study, we can conclude that either the wrong segments of tourists are attracted or tourists’ experiences are interfering with their emotional responses to some of the questions asked. To alle-viate such biased outcome, more studies are needed, of course, to understand the group dynamics, the extent to which such cultural exchanges occur in such limited circum-stances as in prepackaged, limited, or no contact environ-ments. Another point that may have some relevance to the findings is that we have no way of knowing how much and if these German tourists have had any interactions with the Turks living in Germany before they visited Turkey on an all-inclusive tour. An independent tourist who perhaps encounters local population in more relaxed noncommercial environments might change their negative preconceived ideas about Turkey and Turks. In addition, such independent tourism would not be subjected to a managed or controlled setting, where a tourist would have almost no freedom to exercise his/her will in forming the tourism experience. The degree of control that is exerted on inclusive tours may then influence the nature of the tourism experience, and this in turn may also affect the nature of the responses to a given set of questions. The question becomes how can the tourism industry improve the quality of the contact between guests and hosts, given the tendency of (especially) organized tours to become a “tourist environmental bubble”?

Tourism’s role goes beyond the mere economic benefits as many scholars and international organizations, including the United Nations, recognize that tourism contributes to broader social goals including peace through cross-cultural understanding. However, it is clear from the contact hypoth-esis and empirical research that simple contact between host and guest would not necessarily improve prejudice. Allport (1954) noted that “contact must reach below the surface in order to be effective in altering prejudice” (p. 276). In addi-tion, the “positive factors” should be created and maintained to produce positive outcomes from intergroup contact (Pettigrew and Tropp 2005). Tourism institutions and indus-tries should therefore invest to improve the quality of the contact between the hosts and guests, and facilitate the “posi-tive factors” and create an experience environment that could mitigate possible negative factors that may either contribute to or intensify negative emotional responses. In addition, if the Turkish authorities want to change the attitude of European tourists toward Turkey and Turkish people, they need to invest resources to understand tourists’ experiences with Turkish culture in order to design strategies that would help improve the public’s image in Germany, especially when one considers the fact that most German tourists who travel to Turkey with packaged tours are repeat tourists. Thus, creating an environment and tourism experience that would challenge overt racism and overt racists’ seemingly

rational ideas about tourism experiences may create good-will and contribute to the formation of more positive images among the German population at large. Based on this study, one cannot dismiss the idea that tourism may contribute to peace and intercultural understanding and elimination of racial barriers among the people of various cultures, thus contributing to the elimination of covert (modern) racism.

Despite all limitations related to the lack of a truly random sample, this study makes an important contribution to the literature of tourism and peace by investigating the role tour-ism plays in cross-cultural understanding in three different time points. First, although this study did not support the contact hypothesis that interactions between race, color, and religion or national origin do not always reduce prejudice and foster peace, it supports the assumption that unfavorable conditions intensifies prejudice (Amir 1969). One of the major unfavorable conditions in this case is unsatisfactory experience with the package tour and tour guides, which underscores the role of tour guides in tourism experience and attitude change. Another explanation is that some of the other conditions of the contact hypothesis (Allport 1954; Pettigrew 1998) were not met in this case. The contact between German tourists and Turkish tour guides was casual, not intimate, as there was no voluntary contact between the Turkish hosts and German guests; however, the interactions were mediated by tour guides. Had the study’s sample con-sisted of alternative tourists, including backpackers, the results might have been different (Hitchcock 1997, pp. 94-95). “Backpackers, drifters, wanderers, and working tourists are usually seen as people who have more opportu-nity for direct and meaningful encounters with hosts than do institutionalized mass tourists, ensconced in [Cohen’s] ‘envi-ronmental bubble’” (Maoz 2006, p. 221). In other words, in comparison to other groups of tourists who are FIT in their 20s/30s/40s, highly educated, higher-than-average income with relatively professional occupation traveling in a cultural/archeological/historical heritage sites (as a first-time visitor to a destination), the outcome of this survey would have been significantly different; thus, comparative studies are needed to investigate this point.

German tourists had substantially negative preexisting attitudes, which supports the assumption that if the original attitude is too negative, the effect of interaction could be even more negative (Allport 1954; Amir and Ben-Ari 1985; Pearce 1980; Riordan 1978). This study adds a new element to contact theory, as tourism contact is much more compli-cated than normal contact between different races in neigh-borhoods and cities. First, tourists sought positive outcomes (quality experience) from their trips as they invested a sig-nificant amount of time and money for their trip and there are many players and providers involved in this process. If tour-ists’ experiences are negative with any group or tourism amenities, their attitudes toward the country will likely be negative. In this study, German tourists were not satisfied with the tourists’ facilities and amenities, which have also

350 Journal of Travel Research 53(3)

contributed to their prejudice, particularly classical preju-dice. This makes the contact even more delicate in a tourism context, which needs further research to understand other factors (facilitating and unfavorable) influencing prejudice. The current study was a before-and-after nonexperimental study and did not control for the extent to which German tourists had any good or bad experiences with the Turks liv-ing in Germany. Future studies can be improved when con-trol groups with prior dispositions are introduced.

The findings of this study are perhaps both a little antago-nizing and, to some minds, no doubt depressing. The results serve to provide information that runs counter to the line of optimistic thinking that tourism and travel experiences pro-mote positive intercultural relationships. It is crucial, how-ever, for social science investigation that the possibility be entertained and, in fact, accepted when the evidence suggests so, that the outcomes of tourist local contact can increase negative views of the interacting parties. It seems that there is a negative influence from the cultural and experiential bubble in which the budget-controlled tourists from Germany are ensconced. It has all the hallmarks of a mini-closed soci-ety where group dynamics and a loss of control reinforce less positive images. This notion might be worth exploring more in depth in future studies.

This manuscript reports on a specific set of interacting parties—Germans visiting Turkey—and concludes that prej-udicial attitudes are enhanced rather than reduced by the con-tact. As the paper develops, it is apparent that this set of findings is not really surprising given the types of tourism encounters revealed in the study and the history of the inter-acting parties. Given the kind of forced tourism guiding experiences endured by the participant travelers, not surpris-ingly, this study confirms much of the conclusions of previ-ous research by Allport (1954) and Amir (1969). Similarly, one of the first pioneering studies by Pearce (1980) who worked with the same kinds of pre–post measures of tourist attitudes made the same points.

It is also important to reemphasize the nature of tourism experiences as they are influenced, to some extent, by the setting in which tourism activities are offered. As a result, experiences constructed by tourists as personal narratives may be reflective of their subjective interpretation. It seems that the consequences of the interactions and the contact in the setting, in this case the tour experiences as product for-mulations, to a large extent influence the nature of outcome experiences. Tourists’ unpleasant experiences of the moments throughout the duration of the tour combined with the incongruence between what they have experienced ver-sus what they may have been promised for the tour package is strongly manifested in the degree to which tourists expressed their dissonance and dissatisfaction in responses. One wonders if these outcomes are “partially a function of the fact that we are talking of mass tourism, wherein the emphasis is on volume, low profit margins, and constantly trying to minimize costs” (anonymous reviewer comment).

Hence, the results might be quite different in a more upscale tourism environment. If we accept this premise, it says some-thing about the development of mass tourism as another fac-tor in our model. Had the experience been in a setting that was free of pressure tactics from the tour guide and/or the company that organized the tour, the experience would have manifested itself in a different manner. Consequently, the setting in which tourism experience-values are created can certainly influence the degree to which one’s perception of the place or the culture may be positively or negatively affected.

From the perspective of the company, the motive is finan-cially driven; from the perspective of the “captive audience,” the motive is to have a pleasant cultural experience. Most tourists usually travel to destinations with some precon-ceived notion and perception of the destination—negative, positive, or neutral—to begin with. Thus, service providers at a destination do have a greater role in influencing and shaping the value and perception of that tourism experience. Making this experience less pleasant or unpleasant or gener-ating a feeling of “being cheated” would certainly not posi-tively reinforce the preconceived notion of the culture or the place with which they are to interact. It is clear that the goal or expectation incongruence with a tour product can also become a potential source of conflict and dissonance between the providers and tourists. How this possible conflict goal incongruence is managed and shaped could influence the experience outcomes. Given the nature of the results of our study, one may argue that we do have some support for this supposition.

Pearce (2010, p. 256) states, “the role of tourism and tour-ism experiences in contributing to social representations remains a potential area for further work. This kind of work would involve time spent with travelers, seeking to unravel how their travel experiences persist over time, and how the views formed and the stories told and retold work in framing their overall view of others.” Although, the type of method adopted (e.g., measurement of attitudes via scales) in this study is useful, recent advances in attitude and destination image research suggest that story-telling can be an effective research tool. Typically, story-telling tourists describe their key experiences within a destination or the interaction they had with locals, which allows a researcher “to detect individ-ual predispositions towards others” and “to assess the positiv-ity or negativity of the encounter” (Pearce 2010, p. 256).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) have received funding for the study from the University of

Sirakaya-Turk et al. 351

South Carolina the College of HRSM and European Union Center of Texas A&M University.

References

Akrami, N., B. Ekehammar, and T. Araya. (2000). “Classical and Modern Racial Prejudice: A Study of Attitudes toward Immigrants in Sweden.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 30:521-32.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Amir, Y. (1969). “Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations.” Psychological Bulletin, 71 (5): 319-42.

Amir, Y., and R. Ben-Ari. (1985). “International Tourism, Ethnic Contact and Attitude Change.” Journal of Social Issues, 41 (3): 105-15.

Anastasopoulos, P. R. (1992). “Tourism and Attitude Change: Greek Tourists Visiting Turkey.” Annals of Tourism Research, 19:629-42.

Andsager, J. L., and J. A. Drzewiecka. (2002). “Desirability of Differences in Destinations.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (2): 401-21.

Ap, J., and T. Var. (1990). “Does Tourism Promote World Peace?” Tourism Management, 11 (3): 267-73.

Bell, M., and G. Ward. (2000). “Comparing Temporary Mobility with Permanent Migration.” Tourism Geographies, 2 (1): 97-107.

Bocher, S. (1982). Cultures in Contact: Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction. New York: Pergamon.

Butler, R. W., and T. Baum. (1999). “The Tourism Potential of the Peace Dividend.” Journal of Travel Research, 38 (1): 24-29.

Carlson, J. S., and K. F. Widaman. (1988). “The Effects of Study Abroad During College on Attitudes toward Other Cultures.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12 (1): 1-17.

Chen, C., Y. Lin, and J. F. Petrick. (2012). “Social Biases of Destination Perceptions.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (2): 240-52.

Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979). “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1): 64-73.

D’Amore, L. J. (1988). “Tourism: A Vital Force for Peace.” Tourism Management, 9 (2): 151-54.

Dovidio, J. F., S. L. Gaertner, K. Kawakami, and G. Hodson. (2002). “Why Can’t We Just Get Along? Interpersonal Biases and Interracial Distrust.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8 (2): 88-102.

Duke, C. R., and M. A. Persia. (1996). “Performance-Importance Analysis of Escorted Tour Evaluations.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 53: 207-23.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2007). Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU (TK-AK-07-002-EN-C). Budapest: Elanders Hungary Kft.

Geva, A., and A. Goldman. (1991). “Satisfaction Measurement in Guided Tours.” Annals of Tourism Research, 18:177-85.

Gunce, E. (2003). “Tourism and Local Attitudes in Girne, Northern Cyprus.” Cities, 20 (3): 181-95.

Hitchcock, R. (1997). “Cultural, Economic and Environmental Impacts of Tourism among Kalahari Bushmen.” In Tourism

and Culture: An Applied Perspective, edited by E. Chambers. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 93-128.

Hudson, S., P. Hudson, and G. A. Miller. (2004). “The Measurement of Service Quality in the Tour Operating Sector: A Methodological Comparison.” Journal of Travel Research, 42:305-12.

Jackman, M. R., and M. Crane. (1986). “Some of My Best Friends Are Black . . . : Interracial Friendship and Whites’ Racial Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 50 (4): 459-86.

Kaul, R. N. (Ed.). (1980). Dynamics of Tourism. New Delhi: Sterling.

Kaya, A. (2002). “Aesthetics of Diaspora: Contemporary Minstrels in Turkish Berlin.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28 (1): 43-62.

Kenworthy, J. B., R. N. Turner, M. Hewstone, and A. Voci. (2005). “Intergroup Contact: When Does It Work, and Why?” In On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport, edited by P. Glick, and J. F. Dovidio. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 278-92.

Koc, E. (2006). “Total Quality Management and Business Excellence in Services: The Implications of All-Inclusive Pricing System on Internal and External Customer Satisfaction in the Turkish Tourism Market.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17 (7): 857-77.

Krippendorf, J. (1982). “Towards New Tourism Policies: The Importance of Environmental and Sociocultural Factors.” Tourism Management, 3 (3): 135-48.

Lam, T., and H. Q. Zhang. (1999). “Service Quality of Travel Agents: The Case of Travel Agents in Hong Kong.” Tourism Management, 20:341-49.

Lange, A. (1995). Invandrare om Diskriminering. En Enkät Och Intervjuundersökning Om Etnisk Diskriminering På Uppdrag Av Diskrimineringsombudsmannen (DO) [Immigrants on discrimination]. Stockholm, Sweden: CEIFO, Stockholm University.

Litvin, S. W. (2003). “Tourism and Understanding: The MBA Study Mission.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1): 77-93.

Loentz, E. (2006). “Yiddish, Kanak Sprak, Klezmer, and HipHop: Ethnolect, Minority Culture, Multiculturalism, and Stereotype in Germany.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, 25 (1): 33-62.

Maoz, D. (2006). “The Mutual Gaze.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1): 221-39.

Milman, A., A. Reichel, and A. Pizam. (1990). “The Impact of Tourism on Ethnic Attitudes: The Israeli- Egyptian Case.” Journal of Travel Research, 29 (2): 45-49.

Noy, C., and E. Cohen. (2005). Israeli Backpackers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Nyaupane, G. P., V. Teye, and C. Paris. (2008). “Innocents Abroad: Attitude Change toward Hosts.” Annals of Tourism Research, 35 (3): 650-67.

Ozturk, H. E., and A. Eraydin. (2010). “Environmental Governance for Sustainable Tourism Development: Collaborative Networks and Organization Building in the Antalya Tourism Region.” Tourism Management, 31 (1): 113-24.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annual Review of Psychology, 49:65-85.

Pettigrew, T. F., and L. R. Tropp. (2005). “Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its History and Influence.” In On the

352 Journal of Travel Research 53(3)

Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport, edited by P. Glick and J. F. Dovidio. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 262-77.

Pettigrew, T. F., L. R. Tropp, U. Wagner, and O. Christ. (2011). “Recent Advances in Intergroup Contact Theory.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35:271-80.

Pearce, P. L. (1980). “A Favourability-Satisfaction Model of Tourist’s Evaluations.” Journal of Travel Research, 19 (1): 13-17.

Pearce, P. L. (2010). “New Directions for Considering Tourists’ Attitudes towards Others.” Tourism Recreation Research, 35 (3): 251-58.

Pizam, A., J. Jafari, and A. Milman. (1991). “Influence of Tourism on Attitudes: US Students Visiting USSR.” Tourism Management, 12 (1): 47-54.

Pizam, A., N. Uriely, and A. Reichel. (2000). “The Intensity of Tourist-Host Social Relationship and Its Effect on Satisfaction and Change of Attitudes: The Case of Working Tourists in Israel.” Tourism Management, 21 (4): 395-406.

Der Spiegel. (2007). “Racism Alive and Well: After Attack on Indians, Germany Fears for Its Reputation.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/racism-alive-and-well-after-attack-on-indians-germany-fears-for-its-reputation-a-501352-druck.html (accessed November 12, 2012).

Riordan, C. (1978). “Equal-Status Interracial Contact: A Review and Revision of the Concept.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2 (2): 161-85.

Robinson, J., and J. Preston. (1976). “Equal Status Contact and Modification of Racial Prejudice: Reexamination of the Contact Hypothesis.” Social Forces, 54:911-24.

Robson, L. S., H. S. Shannon, L. M. Goldenhar, and A. R. Hale. (2001). Guide to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Work Injuries. Cincinnati, OH: Department of Health and Human Services DHHS (NIOSH). Publication No. 2001-119.

Sheller, M., and J. Urry. (2004). “Places to Play, Places to Play.” In Tourism Mobilities: Places to Play, Places to Play, edited by M. Sheller and J. Urry. London: Routledge, pp. 1-10.

Sonmez, S. F., and Y. Apostolopoulos. (2000). “Conflict Resolution through Tourism Cooperation? The Case of the Partitioned Island-State of Cyprus.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 9 (3): 35-48.

Taft, R. (1977). “Coping with Unfamiliar Cultures.” In Studies in Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 1), edited by N. Warren. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 97-126.

Truong, T. H., and D. Foster. (2006). “Using HOLSAT to Evaluate Tourist Satisfaction at Destinations: The Case of Australian Holidaymakers in Vietnam.” Tourism Management, 27 (5): 842-55.

Turkish Statistics Institute. (2012). Tourism Statistics 2011. Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Statistics Institute Printing Division.

UNWTO. (2013). “Tourism Highlights” Madrid, Spain: UNWTO, 16 pp.

Uriely, N., D. Maoz, and A. Reichel. (2009). “Israeli Guests and Egyptian Hosts in Sinai: A Bubble of Serenity.” Journal of Travel Research, 47 (4): 508-22.

Var, T., R. Schluter, P. Ankomah, and T. Lee. (1989). “Tourism and World Peace: The Case of Argentina.” Annals of Tourism Research, 16 (3): 431-43.

Zhang, H. Q., and I. Chow. (2004). “Application of Importance-Performance Model in Tour Guides’ Performance: Evidence from Mainland Chinese Outbound Visitors in Hong Kong.” Tourism Management, 25 (1): 81-91.

Author Biographies

Ercan Sirakaya-Turk, PhD, is the associate dean for research, grants, and graduate programs in the College of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management, University of South Carolina. He teaches graduate-level research methods, marketing and tourism seminar classes, conducts workshops in grant writing, and SEM and SPSS text analytics. His current research interests center on destination branding and sustainable tourism.

Gyan Nyaupane, PhD, is an associate professor and graduate program director in the ASU School of Community Resources and Development. His overarching research theme includes the interactions between the environment, culture, and tourism, particularly in the arenas of nature-based/ecotourism/sustainable tourism and heritage tourism.

Muzaffer Uysal, PhD, is a professor of tourism in the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management–Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech. His current research interests center on tourism demand/supply interaction, tourism development and mar-keting, and QOL research in tourism.