roles tourists play

# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Jo-Ann Foo is a research consulDirector, Academic Programs & Qu6145, Parramatta Delivery Center, Nconducts research on the psycholochoices. Andrew Yiannakis, DirectoUniversity of Connecticut, focusesimpacts, and forecasting.

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 408–427, 2004

Printed in Great Britain0160-7383/$30.00

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.002

ROLES TOURISTS PLAYAn Australian Perspective

Jo-Ann FooEureka Strategic Research, Australia

Robyn McGuigganSydney Graduate School of Management, Australia

Andrew YiannakisUniversity of Connecticut, USA

Abstract: Understanding leisure behavior is extremely important in the marketing activi-ties of tourism organizations. Researchers in the United States have developed a tourist rolepreference scale to measure 15 distinguishable patterns of behavior among leisure tourists.This article reports the findings of a replication study undertaken in Australia based on theAmerican typology, to determine its intercultural applicability. The findings verify the rel-evance of the tourist roles in the Australian context and support the use of multi-dimensional scaling to define role characteristics. The results lend credence to thesuggestion that optimal destination characteristics are requisite for people to enact theirpreferred roles. Keywords: leisure tourist, role, multidimensional scaling, crossculturalanalysis. # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: Les roles joues par les touristes : une perspective australienne. La comprehen-sion des loisirs est extremement important aux activites de marketing des organisations detourisme. Des chercheurs aux Etats-Unis ont developpe une echelle de preferences desroles touristiques pour mesurer quinze patrons de comportement qui se distinguent parmiles touristes de loisirs. Le present article rapporte les resultats d’une etude de reproductionentreprise en Australie et basee sur la typologie americaine afin de determiner applicabiliteinterculturelle de celle-ci. Les resultats verifient l’importance des roles touristiques pour lecontexte australien et soutiennent l’utilisation d’une echelle multidimensionnelle pourdefinir les caracteristiques des roles. Les resultats ajoutent foi a l’idee que les caracteris-tiques optimales de destination sont requises pour que les gens jouent leurs roles preferes.Mots-cles: touriste de loisirs, role, echelle multidimensionnelle, analyse interculturelle.# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism is generally regarded as the short-term movement of peoplefrom one place to another for leisure, business, or other purposes

tant for Eureka Strategic Research. Robyn McGuiggan,ality, Sydney Graduate School of Management (PO BoxSW 2150, Australia. Email <[email protected]>)

gical influences affecting consumer tourism and leisurer of the Laboratory for Leisure, Tourism & Sport at theon the sociopsychological aspects of touristic behavior,

408

FOO, MCGUIGGAN AND YIANNAKIS 409

(WTO 1996). This definition regards all travelers as tourists, whereasmany people would only perceive themselves as partaking in ‘‘touristicactivity’’ if the main purpose of the trip is for leisure. One of the majordifferences between travel for leisure and for work-related purposes isthat the derivation of pleasure from the journey is of primary concernfor the leisure tourist (Cohen 1974; Iso-Ahola 1983). Choices are madeto satisfy intrinsic motivations. They are non-instrumental, reflectingpersonal preferences.

Leisure tourists represent the largest proportion of the travelingpopulation, accounting for 62.1% globally (WTO 1998) and 55.4% inAustralia (BTR 1999). The development of a more comprehensiveunderstanding of tourist behavior would allow organizations to betteridentify potential target markets through segmentation. This in turnshould lead to the evolution of more appropriate products and mar-keting strategies for the chosen segments. However, to do so, it isnecessary to distinguish relatively stable patterns of behavior: clustersof people who exhibit similar behaviors in various vacation situations.

TOURIST ROLES

Cohen (1972) was one of the first researchers to suggest that tour-ists could be classified on the basis of similar observable behaviors.He describes four categories: the independent mass tourist, the orga-nized mass tourist, the drifter, and the explorer. He bases the classi-fication on preferences for novelty and familiarity, reliance on the‘‘environmental bubble’’ of their own culture, and the extent towhich they deal with the organizational side of the tourism system:the institutional setting of the trip. In developing this categorization,Cohen suggests that the enactment of tourist roles reflects a relation-ship between a tourist’s motivation and the resultant behavior. He fur-ther expands these ideas demonstrating the use of fuzzy set theoryand incorporating the notion of a ‘‘touristic experience’’, or thesearch for one’s ‘‘spiritual center’’ (Cohen 1974, 1979). His work sub-sequently inspired numerous other researchers (Dalen 1989; Morrison,Hsieh and O’Leary 1994; Perrault, Darden and Darden 1979; Plog1987; Smith 1989; Urry 1990) to develop various touristic typologies.

Early typologies resulted from phenomenological research (Cohen1979) and non-empirical conceptualizations (Smith 1977). Pearce(1982), recognizing this limitation, undertook one of the earliestcomprehensive quantitative studies of tourist roles. Based on Cohen’s(1979) fuzzy-set study and previous typologies, he developed 15 roles(the tourist, traveler, holidaymaker, jet-setter, businessman, migrant,conservationist, explorer, missionary, overseas student, anthropologist,hippie, international athlete, overseas journalist, and religious pil-grim) assessing each on 20 dimensions or constructs such as ‘‘buyssouvenirs’’, ‘‘searches for the meaning of life’’. Examining therelationship among the 15 roles using multidimensional scaling, heidentified five major clusters: environmental, high contact, spiritual,pleasure first, and exploitative travel.

410 ROLES TOURISTS PLAY

While Pearce’s (1982) work had a significant impact on the studyand understanding of tourist behavior, he did not distinguishbetween that of an expressive, leisure-based nature and that of aninstrumental kind. As already noted, such a distinction is crucial, dueto the different underlying motivational influences of both groups.

Yiannakis and Gibson (1992) addressed this issue, specifically devis-ing a comprehensive classification of leisure tourists. Basing theirwork on the previous research and conceptualizations of Cohen(1979) and Pearce (1982, 1985), they undertook a number of quanti-tative studies in order to develop a typology to describe the natureand dimensions of leisure-based tourist roles and their major beha-vioral indicators. Their initial work (Yiannakis and Gibson 1992),using principal components analysis, permitted them to identify13 roles (the sun lover, action seeker, anthropologist, archaeologist,organized mass tourist, thrill seeker, explorer, jetsetter, seeker, inde-pendent mass tourist, high class tourist, drifter, and escapist). Further

Table 1. A Typology of Fifteen Leisure-based Tourist Rolesa

Sun Lover: Interested in relaxing and sunbathing in warm places with lots of sun,sand and oceanAction Seeker: Mostly interested in partying, going to night clubs and meetingthe opposite sex for uncomplicated romantic experiencesAnthropologist: Mostly interested in meeting local people, trying the food andspeaking the languageArchaeologist: Mostly interested in archaeological sites and ruins; enjoys studyinghistory of ancient civilizationsOrganized Mass Tourist: Mostly interested in organized vacations, package tours,taking pictures and buying lots of souvenirsThrill Seeker: Interested in risky, exhilarating activities which provide emotionalhighs, such as sky divingExplorer: Prefers adventure travel, exploring out of the way places and enjoyschallenges involved in getting thereJetsetter: Vacations in elite world class resorts, goes to exclusive night clubs, andsocializes with celebritiesSeeker: Seeker of spiritual and/or personal knowledge to better understand selfand meaning of lifeIndependent Mass Tourist: Visits regular tourist attractions but makes own travelarrangements and often ‘‘plays it by ear’’High Class Tourist: Travels first class, stays in the best hotels, goes to shows, anddines at the best restaurantsDrifter: Drifts from place to place living a hippie style existenceEscapist: Enjoys taking it easy and getting away from it all in quiet and peacefulplacesSport Tourist: Primary emphasis while on vacation is to remain active engaging infavorite sportsEducational Tourist: Participates in planned study programs or education orien-ted vacations, primarily for study and/or acquiring new skills and knowledge

a Adapted from Yiannakis and Gibson (1992).


analysis, using both principal components analysis and multi-dimensional scaling with a three dimensional solution, prompted theaddition of the sport lover. More recent research (Gibson 1994) hasled to the creation of the educational tourist and the renaming of thesport lover to the sport tourist. Thus, the latest typology contains 15tourist roles as presented in Table 1.

To measure the representativeness of the 15 leisure tourist roleswithin a sample and empirically determine their underlying structure,Yiannakis and Gibson (1992) designed their Tourist Role PreferenceScale (TRPS) (Dimanche and Havitz 1994). The development of thescale involved a number of phases and was tested extensively toensure the instrument demonstrated acceptable levels of validity andreliability (Yiannakis and Gibson 1992). For the individual touristroles, test-retest scores over a three-week period provided reliabilitycoefficients ranging from 0.66 to 0.84. Cronbach’s alpha internal con-sistency scores ranged from 0.82 to 0.87. In the TRPS, each role ismeasured using two variables, demonstrating both high loading onthe appropriate factor and close proximity in three-dimensionalspace. Their analysis utilizing multidimensional scaling led Yiannakisand Gibson to suggest that ‘‘people enact preferred tourist roles indestinations which provide an optimal balance of familiarity-strangeness,stimulation-tranquility, and structure-independence’’ (1992:287).

They propose that the positioning of each role in this three-dimensional space (Table 2) is reflective of the optimal destinationcharacteristics and relative behavior with reference to all others. Inresponse to previous research (Pearce 1982, 1985; Yiannakis and

Table 2. The Three Dimensions of the TRPS

Stimulation–Tranquillity: Explains an individual’s need for active stimulationfrom his/her surrounding holiday environment. Simulation manifests itselfthrough a desire for high levels of interaction with surrounding environments.This may be through physical (for example partaking in adventure activities) orspiritual (searching for the meaning of life in different cultures) stimulation.Those roles preferring more tranquil environments have little interaction withtheir surroundings, taking relaxing holidays to ‘‘get away from it all’’Strangeness–Familiarity: Indicates the level of novelty preferred in the holidayenvironment. Those roles scoring high on strangeness prefer holidays with lowenvironmental predictability, enjoying destinations that are markedly differentfrom their usual ‘‘environmental bubble’’. Those with a preference for familiarityconversely prefer familiar destinations with societies similar to their home cultureStructure–Independence (high structure-low structure): Refers to the level oforganization and planning undertaken in order to travel. Roles preferringstructured travel arrangements have a large number of dealings with tourismoperators, liking to have their holiday fully planned before departure. Personsenacting high structure roles are not averse to packaged holidays. Low structureindividuals prefer spontaneity and are happy to make their own travel arrange-ments during their holiday


Gibson 1988) suggesting gender was influential in tourist preference,they undertook a comparison of the dimensions of the roles by gen-der. The results reveal profile similarity rather than dissimilaritybetween males and females, with the overall multidimensional pat-terns indicating a high degree of congruency.

Yiannakis and Gibson’s classification has been cited as the mostcomprehensive to date (Dimanche and Havitz 1994). Their researchhas made a significant contribution to the understanding of leisuretourist behavior in the United States by building on the work of pre-vious researchers and developing descriptions of leisure tourist rolecharacteristics in a three-dimensional, interactive form. However, inorder for their typology to be of greater use internationally, furtherresearch must demonstrate its applicability to other countries. A studyundertaken in Greece by Yiannakis, Leivadi and Apostolopoulos(1990) suggests the roles were generally applicable to the Greek sam-ple, but evidence of slight cultural variance, particularly in relation togender, was identified.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether Yiannakis andGibson’s leisure tourist roles are applicable within the Australian con-text. Theories and models need to be tested in various settings andpopulations to ensure their generalizability. If the model holds in thenew setting, the theory gains significant credence. If it does not hold,then questions need to be raised as to the validity of the original stu-dies (Goldsmith and Litvin 1999). Three specific questions areaddressed in this study. Do the 15 leisure tourist roles devised by Yian-nakis and Gibson exist in the Australian context? Are the three-dimensional structures of the roles similar to those of the US study?What differences exist in relation to gender: within the Australiansample and in comparison with the US sample?

Study Methods

As this study replicates Yiannakis and Gibson’s research, the meth-odology and analysis followed are as per the original study. The TRPSused in the original study comprised 26 short statements, actually 13pairs, each question within the pair measuring a different aspect orbehavior of the same role. Respondents indicate the degree to whicheach statement reflects their actual tourist behavior on a five-pointLikert scale from 1 ‘‘never like me’’ to 5 ‘‘always like me’’. A sum-mation of the values given to the two questions for each role allows acomposite score to be calculated. An individual’s dominant touristrole(s) is determined by those that comparatively exhibit the highestcomposite scores. As previously discussed, subsequent research byYiannakis and Gibson led to the addition of two roles and their corre-sponding composite measures to the TRPS. The final preference scaleutilized in this study contained 30 questions, two questions measuringeach of the 15 tourist roles (Table 1).

A self-completion written survey instrument comprising the TRPSquestions and standard demographic lines relating to gender, maritalstatus, household structure and income, education, occupation,


country of origin, and age was mailed to a sample of 1,156 house-holds in the Sydney metropolitan area. A reminder letter was sentthree weeks after the initial mail out to encourage participation. Atthe completion of the data collection phase, a response rate of 19%was achieved, resulting in a final sample size of 207.

The sample consisted of 61% male and 39% female respondentsranging in age from 18–65+ years with the mean falling in the 40–44range. Among the respondents, 69% were born in Australia and70.5% had obtained additional qualifications after leaving school. Ofthe 69% who were working, 53% worked full-time and 16% part-time,contributing to an average annual household income of US$ 27,600.In comparison with the general population, the sample was skewedtowards males, those who were married or living with their partnersand to households with children. There was a high number of man-agers within the sample, and the respondents on average had highereducational levels. This may have been due in part to the greater rep-resentation of older persons—the average age 40–44 years, with onequarter over 60. This may also have contributed to the greater com-parative number of non-working people in the sample, as many ofthis latter group were retirees.

To facilitate a comparison between the present sample and itscounterpart, the demographic characteristics of both were compared.The average age of Yiannakis and Gibson’s (1992) respondents was37.5 years, slightly lower than the mean age for the present study(falling in the 40–44 age group). Of the US sample, 54% fell into the18–41 age bracket, while 47% of the total sample reported having hadfour years of college study. The Australian sample comparatively had25.7% in the 20–39 years bracket, and although 70.5% reported hav-ing post-highschool qualifications, only 19.8% of these had com-pleted a University degree. Yiannakis and Gibson’s male to femaleratio was 0.64, compared with 1.59 in the present study. The demo-graphic composition of the two samples is different and this must betaken into account when comparing the role structures. However,Goldsmith and Litvin (1999) point out that if results can be repli-cated across non-matched samples, then confidence as to the general-izability of the results is further enhanced.

Study Results

Data analysis procedures were performed in three stages. First, aconfirmatory factor analysis was performed using LISREL VII to deter-mine the model fit of Yiannakis and Gibson’s typology to the Aus-tralian sample. Second, the three-dimensional structure of the touristroles within the total Australian sample was ascertained using multi-dimensional scaling. Finally, the sample was split according to genderand the multidimensional scaling procedures repeated on the result-ing two subsamples. To facilitate a comparison of tourist role dimen-sions between the Australian and US samples, the two latterprocedures emulated the method of analysis used in the originalYiannakis and Gibson study.


The Leisure Tourist Roles. To determine whether the 15 leisure touristroles devised by Yiannakis and Gibson existed in the Australian con-text, a confirmatory factor analysis specifying a 15-factor solution wasperformed. The results indicate that all items of the TRPS, with theexception of the second composite item for the escapist (Q2,factor loading ¼ 0:31), exceed the minimum factor loading criteriavalue of 0.40 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black 1998). This indi-cates that they are significant in representing the tourist roles theyare intended to measure.

Reliability estimates for the 15 roles range from 0.52 to 0.86,exceeding the cut off value of 0.5 as recommended by Nunnally(1967). Variance extracted values, which are a measure of convergentvalidity, approximate the 0.5 recommended level with the exceptionof the action seeker and independent mass tourist (variance extractedvalues of 0.38 and 0.36 respectively). Discriminant validity was exam-ined and the results suggest that the roles are not as distinct asrequired for the specification of a structural model. These findingswere expected as the theoretical descriptions, and Yiannakis and Gib-son’s three-dimensional structure, infer that certain characteristicswill be shared among roles.

The overall fit of the TRPS to the sample was determined using anumber of measures. The chi-square statistic of 556.25 (301 df) hadan associated probability of 0.00 which suggests that the specified 15-factor model is not confirmed by the data. However, chi-square hasbeen noted to be unreliable (Hughes, Price and Marrs 1996), so sev-eral other measures were employed to assess model fit. As the good-ness of fit index, the adjusted goodness of fit index, the Tucker-Lewisindex and the comparative fit index are all close to the advocatedlevel of 0.90 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black 1998) and exceedthe corresponding values generated for the null model, the confirma-tory factor analysis indicates that the factor model is an acceptablefit to the data. Therefore, model fit is established and Yiannakis andGibson’s typology of 15 leisure tourist roles is supported in the Aus-tralian context to the extent that further analysis is justified.

The Three-Dimensional Structure of the Roles. To determine whether thestructure was similar to that of the US study, multidimensional scaling(SPSS program ALSCAL) was utilized to derive a three-dimensionalsolution for the total sample. This yielded a stress value of 0.04 and asquared correlation coefficient of 0.99. The stress value is a goodnessof fit measure between the data and the solution, with values from0.00 to 0.15 indicating good fit (Stalans 1995). The coefficient is acomplementary concept measuring the proportion of variance notaccounted for by the configuration. Values above 0.85 are generallyaccepted as indicating a good fit (Yiannakis and Gibson 1992). Bothmeasures indicate that the data was satisfactorily represented by thethree-dimensional solution.

The configuration was interpreted by plotting the coordinates inthree-dimensional space. The selected framework for the derived sol-ution was based on Yiannakis and Gibson’s study. The coordinatesfrom the multidimensional solution for each tourist role were


considered with regard to the theoretical role descriptions and thefindings from their analysis. Each dimension was reviewed by attempt-ing to ensure that roles found at the extreme ends of each dimensionwere placed on the same corresponding end of the scale. In so doing,the solution depicted in Figure 1 provided the best possible match ofthe tourist roles in the sample with their underlying theoreticaldescriptions.

The results show that on the strangeness-familiarity dimension,roles such as the archaeologist and seeker prefer strange environ-ments, while the sport tourist at the opposite end of the X-axis pre-fers more familiar environments. On the Y-axis, several rolescharacterize individuals who enjoy stimulating environments, such asthe thrill seeker and the explorer. At the opposite extreme, the orga-nized mass tourist favors tranquil environments. High–low structure, asrepresented by the Z-axis, is typified by the jetsetter, drifter and actionseeker at the high structure end and the independent mass tourist,anthropologist, escapist, and sun lover at the low structure end.

The three-dimensional characteristics of the sport tourist and edu-cational tourist—the two previously unexplored roles developed by

Figure 1. Tourist Roles in Three-dimensional Space (n ¼ 207)


Yiannakis and Gibson since their original research—appear to sup-port the descriptions. The former within the sample evidence theneed for high levels of stimulation and familiarity which is in linewith their primary emphasis on vacation being the desire to ‘‘remainactive engaging in favorite sports’’ (Yiannakis and Gibson 1992:291).They show a slight preference for low structure environments, per-haps reflecting the desire for a certain level of spontaneity and inde-pendence in their sporting activities, and balancing their need forfamiliar yet stimulating environments. The educational tourists, incontrast, prefer environments of relatively high tranquility, high levelsof unfamiliarity, and structured vacations. This supports their roledescription which indicates the propensity to partake in plannedstudy programs of what would usually be considered unfamiliar or dif-ferent cultures.

The results would appear to support the conclusion that the under-lying dimensions of the tourist roles are the same in both the Aus-tralian and US samples. In order to determine if the comparability ofthe multidimensional structures in both samples, the roles were stud-ied. Since multidimensional scaling space identifies the tourist roleswith regard to their perceived relationship with each other, by obtain-ing the relative rankings for each in each sample, the results from thetwo samples may be compared with some objectivity. The relativerankings for the 13 comparable roles are presented in Tables 3 to 5,

Table 3. Relative Rankings of Tourist Roles for Strange-Familiar Dimension

Ranking
US Sample Yiannakisand Gibson (1992)
Number of RankingPositions Difference

AustralianSample

1 Strange
ARC 0 ARC 2 ANT 2 SKR 3 SKR 1 DTR 4 OMT&IMT 7a&1 ANT 5 DTR 2 IMT 6 EXL 0 EXL 7 ESC 4 JST 8 TRS 2 HCT 9 ACT 0 ACT 10 SNL 3 TRS 11 JST 4 ESC 12 HCT 4 OMT 13 Familiar – SNL
SNL sun lover, ACT action seeker, ANT anthropologist, ACR archaeologist, OMT orga-nized mass tourist, TRS thrill seeker, EXP explorer, JST jetsetter, SKR seeker, IMTindependent mass tourist, HCT high class tourist, DTR drifter, ESC escapist, SPT sporttourist, EDT educational tourist.Note: Difference in ranking position is calculated using the rank of the US role as thebase figure. 0a Denotes a significant difference in perceived behavior between the samples.


but the sport tourist and educational tourist are excluded, as thesewere not examined in the original study.

Roles are considered to be similar on a dimension if they are withinfour ranking positions of each other and indicate the same prefer-ence for it. A visual comparison of the diagrams for each samplereveals that those more than four ranking places apart appear todepict a notable difference in spatial position. A comparison of thetourist roles in both samples reveals more similarities than differ-

Table 4. Relative Rankings for the Stimulation-Tranquility Dimensiona

Ranking

AustralianSample

1 Stimulating
DTR 2 TRS 2 TRS 1 EXK 3 ACT 2 DTR 4 SKR 6a IMT 5 EXL 3 ACT 6 JST 3 ANT 7 ANT 1 ESC 8 HCT 4 SNL 9 ARC 2 JST 10 SNL 2 SKR 11 OMT&IMT 2&7a ARC 12 ESC 5a HCT 13 Tranquil – OMT
a See footnotes of Table 3.

Table 5. Relative Rankings for the High-Low Structure Dimensiona

Ranking

AustralianSample

1 High
HCT 4 JST 2 JST 1 DTR 3 SKR 3 ACT 4 ARC 5a TRS 5 ANT&EXL 5a&3 HCT 6 TRS 2 SKR 7 OMT 0 OMT 8 ACT 5a EXL 9 SNL 1 ARC 10 IMT 3 SNL 11 DTR 9a ESC 12 ESC 1 ANT 13 Low – 3 IMT
a See footnotes of Table 3.


ences. Only one role, the organized mass tourist, exhibits a differencein relation to the strangeness-familiarity dimension. It evidences ahigher preference for familiar surroundings in both samples, effec-tively making it a better representation of expected behavior for theAustralian group. In the original classification of an organized masstourist (Cohen 1972), it was described as being highly dependent onone’s ‘‘environmental bubble’’, with experiences being dominated bythe over-riding desire for familiarity, with novelty virtually non-existent (Lowyck, Langenhove and Bollaert 1992). As Yiannakis andGibson’s typology is derived in part from Cohen’s work, a greaterlevel of familiarity indicates a better fit to the conceptualization ofthis role.

With regard to the stimulation-tranquility dimension (Table 4),three of the roles in the Australian sample display behavior differingfrom their respective counterparts. These are the independent masstourist and escapist, who prefer more stimulating environments, andthe seeker, skewed towards the tranquil end of the dimension. Theindependent mass tourist’s need for stimulation may be the result oftheir nature. Although they are still considered to be an institutiona-lized form of tourist (Cohen 1972), as they frequent ‘‘regular touristattractions’’ (Yiannakis and Gibson 1992:291), the element of inde-pendence suggests that they seek stimulation elsewhere. It is possiblethat the ‘‘play it by ear’’ aspect of this role may represent a greaterdesire for stimulation by Australian tourists.

The present study’s findings indicate that the Australian escapistprefers stimulation to tranquility. This is in stark contrast to the beha-viors evidenced and predicted by Yiannakis and Gibson. In theirthree-dimensional representation, the escapist was at the extreme endof the stimulation-tranquility dimension, denoting a high level of pre-ferred tranquility. This reflects one’s desire to ‘‘take it easy and getaway from it all in quiet and peaceful places’’ (Yiannakis and Gibson1992:291). The adjectives ‘‘quiet’’ and ‘‘peaceful’’ could be consideredto be synonymous with ‘‘tranquil’’, so at first glance the Australianfindings seem unusual. Consideration of the confirmatory factoranalysis reveals a possible explanation for this deviation. The resultsshow that while the reliability of the escapist role is acceptable, thefactor loadings of the individual items making up this role didpresent an anomaly. The two composite measures (escapist Q1 andQ2) appear to measure different forms of behavior. It seems that Q1(factor loading ¼ 0:99) alone may better represent the role in theAustralian sample, reflecting a preference for stimulation in the formof social contact. The implication here is that the isolationist, tranquilnotions of Q2 (factor loading ¼ 0:31) are not applicable to the rolewithin this sample.

The third role indicating a difference on the stimulation-tranquilitydimension is the seeker. The preference for tranquil rather than sti-mulating environments in this study places the role at the oppositeend of the stimulation-tranquilly dimension when compared to theAmerican study. For the Australians, the search for ‘‘spiritual and/orpersonal knowledge to better understand self and meaning of life’’


(Yiannakis and Gibson 1992:291) takes place in more tranquil set-tings. This stimulation avoidance may provide a better means to‘‘understand self’’ without material disruptions, such as the desire forluxury, the need to interact with local people, or buying souvenirs(Pearce 1982). Further, this preference for tranquility may balancethe seeker preference for strange environments, by enabling thesearch for the individual’s ‘‘spiritual center’’ (Cohen 1979) to takeplace outside the usual environment. It is posited that in relative tran-quility, spiritual and personal knowledge can be drawn from withinthe individual, subsequently fulfilling the objective of this role.

For high-low structure environments, four roles in the Australiansample demonstrate a contrasting preference in terms of the desiredlevel of structure, when compared to their counterparts (Table 5).The anthropologist and archaeologist were found to prefer lowerlevels of structure. Yiannakis and Gibson suggest that these two rolesmost closely align with Cohen’s (1979) conceptualization of theexperiential mode of travel. This involves the tourist experiencing thelives of the cultures they are visiting. The low structure positioning ofthe two roles in the present sample may better reflect their experien-tial nature than the high structure preference of their US counter-parts. Enacting their roles in low structured environments providesthe anthropologist and archaeologist with more freedom to experi-ence the local culture resulting in optimal role behavior.

The preference for a higher level of structure by Australian actionseekers indicates that they have a greater desire to plan and organizetheir travel and accommodation, possibly to allow themselves moretime to concentrate on their holiday activities. Being a group that isgenerally dominated by younger males (under 40), perhaps the highstructure preference reflects the popularity of the ‘‘18–35s packagetours’’ which are well known for their ‘‘party atmosphere’’ and pro-motion of such behavior.

The fourth tourist role that exhibits a difference on this dimensionis the drifter. The high structure preference found is contrary to thatpredicted by Yiannakis and Gibson who found that the drifter prefers‘‘relatively unstructured conditions, where planning, organization andschedules are kept to a minimum’’ (1992:296), thus reassertingCohen’s (1972) suggestion that the drifer is a non-institutionalizedrole. Certainly the description—‘‘drifts from place to place living ahippie style existence’’ (Yiannakis and Gibson 1992:291)—wouldseem to support these theoretical notions. Perhaps the age skew ofthe Australian sample may have affected the interpretation of thisrole behavior (older persons may have a different notion of ‘drifting’than younger individuals). However, based on the theory, no coher-ent explanation can be offered. Therefore, the anomalous results ofthe drifter in this study need to be clarified with further research.

Gender and Tourist Role BehaviorFollowing the same process as Yiannakis and Gibson in examining

the tourist type profiles, the data were analyzed using multi-dimensional scaling for each gender. This allowed investigation of


whether the roles varied by gender in the Australian sample and whe-ther they were comparable across the two samples. Figure 2 depictsthe tourist role pattern exhibited for males and females. The resultsare illustrated in two-dimensional space for easier reading (z-axishigh-low structure not shown) (Yiannakis and Gibson 1992).

An examination of the role positions for males and females indi-cates greater profile similarity than dissimilarity. Comparing thegenders, nine of the 15 roles are within a 0.50 range of each other onthe strange-familiar and tranquil-stimulating dimensions. The othersix are separated by a spatial distance greater than 1.0, which isdeemed to represent a significant difference in profile. No notabledifference between the genders was found on the dimension of struc-ture-independence. Four roles display differences on only one of thetwo dimensions depicted.

For both the thrill seeker and sport tourist, the results indicate thatfemales prefer more familiar environments than males. In later work,based on an American sample using time series analysis, Gibson and

Figure 2. Tourist Rolea Pattern for Males and Females within the Australian Sample


Yiannakis demonstrated a link between several tourist roles andpsychological needs. In the case of the sport tourist, the US studyindicates that psychological needs drive the selection of this role.

For males, the needs ‘‘driving’’ the distribution are unsatisfied needs forplay(�), sexual (�) and home and family (�) in combination with satisfiedneeds for having clear goals (+) and control over their life (+). Forfemales the findings suggest that the selection of the Active Sport Tour-ist role is a function of the joint effects of satisfied needs for home andfamily, and to get away from it all, combined with unsatisfied needs forcontrol over their lives, and unsatisfied sexual and health needs (Gibsonand Yiannakis 2002:68).

On the stimulation-tranquility dimension, females prefer morestimulation enacting the sun lover role, but prefer tranquility withregard to the drifter role when compared to males. Two roles denotemarked difference on both dimensions. Male archaeologists have agreater preference for stimulating and strange environments thanfemales, and male organized mass tourists also prefer strange environ-ments but in more tranquil settings than females.

The differences between males and females on the strangeness-familiarity dimension indicate that the latter prefer more familiarenvironments than the former for the organized mass tourist andarchaeologist roles, but prefer more strange environments for thethrill seeker and sport tourist roles. This suggests that in the case oforganized mass and archaeologist tourists, males are more inclined toforay outside their ‘‘environmental bubble’’ than females (Cohen1972). Quiroga (1990) provides an explanation with regard to the for-mer by suggesting that ‘‘the majority choosing this role tend to beolder (40+) and female’’ (Yiannakis and Gibson 1992:297). The find-ings affirm that older persons select this role for safety, while youngerpersons see it as an opportunity for social contact (Yiannakis andGibson 1992). Thus, a sense of familiarity is represented by theirneed for safety, or familiar social surroundings. While no specificwork has been performed examining archaeologist-like behavior, thebroad implications from this study are that females prefer the safetyand social opportunities available in familiar environments, whereasmales favor greater levels of novelty. This may be attributed to thegeneral fact that males have wider leisure opportunities (Bessant andWatts 1999) that subsequently take place in a range of unfamiliarenvironments, than females. Kinnard and Hall (1994) suggest that‘‘women’s and men’s differential experience of various recreationalactivities, and the socialization of girls and boys to enjoy and partici-pate in gender-specific activities, have an influence on motivation andbehavior’’ (Frew and Shaw 1998). Female leisure activity tends to bemore passive in familiar surroundings, whereas this for males oftenoccurs in less familiar environments (Kelly and Freysinger 2000) andthis is reflected in their tourist behavior.

In contrast, the sport tourist and thrill seeker roles indicate thatfemales prefer more novel environments than males. Davidson


and McKercher (1993) found that ‘‘commercial adventure travel’’appealed to women because of the elements of ‘‘convenience, safety,and assured social opportunities’’ (Lynch and Veal 1996:338). It issuggested that perhaps females perceive ‘‘commercial adventure tra-vel’’ as implicitly satisfying their need for familiarity so, in order toachieve optimal role behavior, they require more stimulating environ-ments than males to provide the required level of physical activity tosatisfy their needs.

The level of stimulation-tranquility for both groups appears to pro-vide balance to the strangeness-familiarity preference. Cunningham(1994:7) found that for women ‘‘the focus was on the restorativeexperience—a comfortable space in which they could experience asense of harmony’’ (Lynch and Veal 1996:338). However, this ‘‘senseof harmony’’ is enacted in different surroundings. For the femalearchaeologist and drifter, harmony is achieved in more tranquil sur-roundings, but in more stimulating environments for the female sunlover and organized mass tourist.

Figures 3 and 4 present the comparative positions of the touristroles for males and females, respectively, for both the Australian andUS samples. Again, a spatial distance of more than 1.0 was deemed to

Figure 3. Comparison of Australian and US Tourist Rolea Pattern for Males


represent a significant difference in role profile. The escapist andorganized mass tourist were found to differ for both males andfemales. The former was inclined more toward stimulating environ-ments for both subsamples in the Australian group. This reflects thefindings of the general sample comparisons and may be attributed tothe poor factor loading on escapist Q2 as previously discussed.

The male organized mass tourists in the Australian sample favormore tranquil environments than their US counterparts. This may bethe result of different sample demographics rather than anything else(the latter group was on the whole younger, and younger males mayprefer higher levels of stimulation, whereas the older males in theAustralian sample prefer tranquility). This is reflective of the declinein energy levels over an individual’s lifetime. For female organizedmass tourists the discrepancy was evidenced in the strangeness-famili-arity dimension. They prefer more familiarity than their US counter-parts. This is in line with the theory and is further explained by thefact that the majority of persons choosing this role in the Australiansample were females. Thus, the effect may be magnified to a larger

Figure 4. Comparison of Australian and US Tourist Rolea Pattern for Females


extent for females, creating the illusion of a distinct difference instimulation level between the two female samples, but not the male.

Three other significant differences in role behavior were identifiedin relation to female archaeologist, drifter, and sun lovers. Withinthe Australian sample, the first group prefers more familiarity andtranquility, and the second evidences a greater need for tranquility,than their US counterparts. Both roles involve giving meaning to thepresent, either through gaining insights from ancient cultures orfrom living in a hippie-like existence. For these roles, Australianfemales gain these experiences in a more harmonious environmentof tranquility and (for the archaeology tourist) familiarity.

Australian females in the sun lover category require a higher levelof stimulation within the holiday environment when compared withthe US counterpart. This could be due to a difference in activitiesneeded for relaxation. The ‘‘I mostly relax and sunbathe’’ (Yiannakisand Gibson 1992, sunlover, Q1:TRPS) measure of the role could be apoint of difference between the samples. In particular, the referenceto ‘‘sunbathing’’ may have been given less consideration as a charac-teristic in the current study. Several respondents indicated their con-cern for the inclusion of this activity with an exclamation mark, whileothers simply crossed it out to indicate that they had ignored thatparticular reference. Much media attention in Australia has focusedon the adverse effects of sunbathing, so that it has become less of anengaged in activity than in the past. While the factor loading for sun-lover Q1 does not indicate a significant deviation from its ability tomeasure the behavior, it is proposed that more focus has been placedon the ‘‘relax’’ element rather than the ‘‘sunbathe’’ aspect. Australianfemale sunlover tourists may exhibit a greater preference for stimulat-ing surroundings in order to balance this reduced concentration onsunbathing (instead of sunbathing, they may favor more stimulatingactivities to compensate). Certainly, more research needs to be done,but with the TRPS being almost ten years old, some changes in per-ceptions of popular culture (like sunbathing) are to be expected.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this replication study support the existence of Yian-nakis and Gibson’s 15 leisure tourist roles in the Australian contextand reaffirm the ability of the TRPS to operationalize Cohen’s (1979)and Pearce’s (1982, 1985) work. An examination of the underlyingdimensions of the roles further demonstrates the applicability of thetypology, revealing that the Australian and American roles are similarin structure. The majority were alike on all three underlying dimen-sions. On the strangeness-familiarity dimension, 92% of the roles areof a similar preference, for stimulation-tranquility 77%, and for high-low structure environments 69% are comparable.

Between males and females in the Australian sample, 60% of theroles are of the same structure. The differences that exist in role char-acteristics between genders suggest that differing socialization pro-


cesses for males and females in regards to leisure experiences appearto affect tourist behavior. A comparison of the results for the gendersbetween the two samples also reveals more similarities than differ-ences, with 85% of the role characteristics being comparable formales between the samples, and 62% of the tourist role patterns forfemales being similar.

This study provides an exploratory analysis of leisure tourist roleswithin the Australian context. From its results, several areas for fur-ther research can be highlighted. First, a refinement of the TRPSmeasures could be undertaken to improve the reliability and validityof the instrument for the Australian context. Individual items shouldbe examined for their ability to measure each role to optimize factorloadings (for example in the case of the escapist). It also suggests thatthe items be updated to reflect current behavior, for example chan-ging the wording of Q1 of the sunlover from ‘‘I mostly relax and sun-bathe’’ to ‘‘I mostly relax in the sun’’. This would maintain the focusof the role as a ‘‘sunseeker’’ without the increasingly socially unac-ceptable connotation of sunbathing. In addition, further study coulddetermine whether any other tourist roles exist, or have developed,since Yiannakis and Gibson’s study. Cross-cultural testing of the TRPSin non-Western cultures may provide more insight into tourist beha-vior and determine the applicability of the TRPS internationally, orlead to improvement in the current 15-factor model.

Finally, while this study provides information regarding the beha-vior of leisure tourists, as a typology study, it merely describes, withoutproviding reasons for, or motivations behind it. Further knowledge ofthe psychological motivations behind the selection of roles would pro-vide an insight into why tourists behave the way they do. Such aninsight is also necessary for the development of a comprehensiveunderstanding of tourist behavior. This is particularly pertinent forthe study of the leisure group, as the core of the tourism phenom-enon is the individual’s experience (Pearce 1987). Demand for lei-sure tourism results more from the intrinsic needs (that serve as pushfactors) rather than from destinational pull factors (Sharpley 1994).

Gibson and Yiannakis have paved the way in this regard by demon-strating an empirical link between the preferences of the anthropol-ogist and the sport tourists and psychological needs. They state thattheir study

provides tentative statistical evidence in support of what has so far beenprimarily a theoretical contention that tourist role preference is indeeda function of psychological needs. Further, it provides statistical supportfor the contention that tourist roles serve as vehicles through whichvacationers may satisfy or enhance deficit or growth needs (2002:378).

To fully understand tourist behavior, further research requires aninterdisciplinary approach to examine the psychological determinantsof such tourist role behavior. A


Acknowledgements—This paper is based on work completed for the honors dissertation of Jo-Ann Foo (2001).

REFERENCES

Bessant, J., and R. Watts1999 Sociology Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Bureau of Tourism Research1999 International Visitors by Main Purpose of Journey 1990–1999

<www.btr.gov.au/statistics/Datacard/dcpurp.html> (visited 18 August 2001).Cohen, E.

1972 Towards a Sociology of International Tourism. Social Research 39:164–182.

1974 Who is a Tourist?: A Conceptual Clarification. Sociological Review22:527–553.

1979 A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13:179–201.Cunningham, J.

1994 Who Gets the Lucky Break in the Lucky Country? In Australian Leisure,1996. R. Lynch and A. Veal, eds., pp. 338. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Long-man.

Dalen, E.1989 Research into Values and Consumer Trends in Norway. Tourism Man-

agement 10:183–186.Davidson, P., and B. McKercher

1993 Gender Issues and Commercial Adventure Travel: Do CommercialOpportunities Help Overcome Gender Constraints for Women? In AustralianLeisure, 1996. R. Lynch and A. Veal, eds., pp. 338–339. Melbourne: AddisonWesley Longman.

Dimanche, F., and M. Havitz1994 Consumer Behavior and Tourism: Review and Extension of Four Study

Areas. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 3 (3):37–57.Foo, Jo-Ann

2001 Roles Tourists Play: A Study of Leisure Tourist Roles and the Effect ofMBTI Personality Dimensions on Tourist Role Preference in an Austrlian Con-text. Honors dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney.

Frew, E., and R. Shaw1998 The Relationship between Personality, Gender, and Tourism Behaviour.

In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Con-ference, pp. 82–94. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research.

Gibson, H.1994 Some Predictors of Tourist Role Preference for Men and Women over

the Adult Life Course. PhD dissertation in sport, leisure, and exercisescience, University of Connecticut.

Gibson, H., and A. Yiannakis2002 Tourist Roles, Needs and the Life Course. Annals of Tourism Research

29:358–383.Goldsmith, R., and S. Litvin

1999 Heavy Users of Travel Agents: A Segmentation Analysis of Vacation Tra-velers. Journal of Travel Research 38:127–133.

Hair, J., Jr., R. Anderson, R. Tatham, and W. Black1998 Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hughes, M., R. Price, and D. Marrs1996 Linking Theory Construction and Theory Testing Models with Multiple

Indicators of Latent Variables. Academy of Management Review 11:128–144.Iso-Ahola, S.

1983 Towards a Social Psychological Theory of Recreational Travel. LeisureStudies 2:45–56.

Kelly, J., and V. Freysinger2000 21st Century Leisure. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.


Kinnard, V., and D. Hall1994 Tourism: A Gender Analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.

Lowyck, E., L. Langenhove, and L. Bollaert1992 Typologies of Tourist Roles. In Choice and Demand in Tourism, P. John-

son and B. Thomas, eds., pp. 13–32. London: Mansell.Lynch, R., and A. Veal

1996 Australian Leisure. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.Morrison, A., S. Hsieh, and J. O’Leary

1994 Segmenting the Australian Domestic Travel Market by Holiday ActivityParticipation. Journal of Tourism Studies 5 (1):39–56.

Nunnally, J.1967 Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Pearce, P.1982 The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour. Oxford: Pergamon Press.1985 A Systematic Comparison of Travel-related Roles. Human Relations

38:1001–1010.1987 Psychological Studies of Tourist Behaviour and Experience. Australian

Journal of Psychology 39:173–182.Perreault, W., K. Darden, and W. Darden

1979 A Psychographic Classification of Vacation Life Styles. Journal of LeisureResearch 8:208–224.

Plog, S.1987 Understanding Psychographics in Tourism Research. In Travel, Tourism

and Hospitality Research, B. Brent-Richie and C. Goeldner, eds., pp. 203–213. New York: Wiley.

Quiroga, I.1990 Characteristics of Package Tours in Europe. Annals of Tourism Research

17:185–207.Sharpley, R.

1994 Tourism, Tourists & Society. Huntingdon: Elm Publications.Smith, V.

1977 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Press.

1989 Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism (2nd ed.). Philadel-phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Stalans, L.1995 Multidimensional Scaling. In Reading and Understanding Multivariate

Statistics, L. Grimm and P. Yarnold, eds., pp. 99–136. Washington DC: Amer-ican Psychological Association.

Urry, J.1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Society. London:

Sage.World Tourism Organization

1996 Yearbook of Tourism Statistics. Madrid: WTO.1998 International Tourism by Purpose of Visit <http://www.world-tour-

im.org> (visited 18 August 2001).Yiannakis, A., and H. Gibson

1988 Tourist Role Preference and Need Satisfaction: Some Continuities andDiscontinuities over the Life Course. Paper presented at the InternationalConference of Leisure Studies Association, Brighton, England.

1992 Roles Tourist Play. Annals of Tourism Research 19:287–303.Yiannakis, A., S. Leivadi, and Y. Apostolopoulos

1990 Some Cross-cultural Patterns in Tourist Role Preferences: A Study ofGreek and American Tourist Behaviors. Paper presented at the 12th WorldCongress of Sociology, Madrid, Spain.

Submitted 23 October 2001. Resubmitted 16 March 2003. Accepted 25 September 2003.Final version 6 October 2003. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Tom Selwyn

roles tourists play

Documents

tourist roles

tourism research

leisure behavior

roles joues

theirpreferred roles

leisure tourists

eureka strategic research

research consultant