Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors: A ... - Esan

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors:A Review and Conceptual Framework*Las dimensiones culturales y la conducta turística según Hofstede:análisis y marco conceptualLalita A. Manrai 1Ajay K. ManraiReceived: January 14, 2011Accepted: September 18, 2011AbstractThis paper develops a conceptual framework for analyzing tourist behaviors and identifies three categories of behaviorsbased on the applications of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and the processes underlying these influences. Our findingsindicate that tourist behaviors in the Before-Travel, During-Travel, and After-Travel stages differ significantly in terms ofthe applicability and process through which Hofstede’s cultural dimensions operate. The results of our analysis suggest threecategories of behavioral patterns, namely, “Social Interaction Driven Travel Behaviors,” (SID), “Risk Tendencies DrivenTravel Behaviors,” (RTD), and “Collectivity Orientation Driven Travel Behaviors,” (COD). SID relates to the evaluation oftravel experiences in the after-travel stage. The dominant cultural values associated with SID are Individualism/Collectivism,Masculinity/Femininity, and Power Distance. These three values act either independently or in pairs or all three together.RTD relates to the consumption of travel products in the during-travel stage, and COD relates to the formation of travelpreferences in the before-travel stage. Individualism/Collectivism and Uncertainty Avoidance are associated with bothRTD and COD. However, the underlying processes differ for these two categories of travel behaviors. In addition to theirindependent influences on travel behaviors, these two values associated with RTD and COD also have an interactive effect.For RTD, the Uncertainty Avoidance motive determines the Individualism/Collectivism outcome, whereas, for COD, theopposite is true: the Individualism/Collectivism determines the Uncertainty Avoidance outcome. The paper also discussesthe application of a fifth cultural dimension, Confucian Dynamism (short-term versus long-term orientation), for the studyof tourists’ behaviors.Keywords: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, tourist behaviors, traveller’s behaviors, Confucian Dynamism.* The authors would like to dedicate this paper to Dr. Geert Hofstede whose work inspired this research. We would also like toacknowledge the valuable comments of the two anonymous reviewers and the journal editor in finalizing this manuscript.1. Dr. Ajay K. Manrai and Dr. Lalita A. Manrai are both Professors of Marketing in the Department of Business Administration atthe University of Delaware, Newark. .

24 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011ResumenEn este artículo se desarrolla un marco conceptual de análisis de patrones de conducta del turista e identifica tres categoríasde conducta basadas en las aplicaciones de dimensiones culturales de Hofstede y los procesos subyacentes de estasinfluencias. Nuestros resultados indican que las conductas del turista en los estadios de Antes-del-viaje, Durante-el-viajey Después-del-viaje difieren significativamente en términos de la aplicabilidad y el procesos a través de los cuales las dimensionesculturales de Hofstede operan. El resultado de nuestro análisis sugiere tres categorías de patrones de conducta, asaber, “Conductas de Viaje Dirigidas a Interacción Social” (SID por sus siglas en inglés), “Conductas de Viaje Dirigidas aTendencias de Riesgo” (RTD por sus siglas en inglés), y “Conductas de Viaje Dirigidas a la Orientación Colectiva” (CODpor sus siglas en inglés). SID se relaciona con la evaluación de las experiencias de viaje en la fase posterior al viaje. Losvalores culturales dominantes asociados con SID son Individualismo-Colectivismo, Masculinidad-Feminidad, y Distanciadel Poder. Cada uno de estos tres valores actúa independientemente, en pareja o los tres a la vez. RTD se relaciona con elconsumo de productos de viaje en la fase de la travesía en sí, y COD se relaciona con la formación de las preferencias deviaje en la fase previa al viaje. Las categorías Individualismo-Colectivismo e Incertidumbre-Prevención están asociadastanto con RTD como con COD. Sin embargo, los procesos subyacentes difieren de estas dos categorías de conductas deviaje. Además de las influencias independientes de conductas de viaje, estos dos valores asociados con RTD y COD tambiénejercen efectos interactivos. Para RTD, la motivación Incertidumbre-Prevención determina el resultado de Individualismo-Colectivismo, mientras que para COD sucede lo contrario; es decir, el motivo Individualismo-Colectivismo determina elresultado de Incertidumbre-Prevención. El artículo también argumenta la aplicación de una quinta dimensión cultural,Dinamismo Confuciano (orientación a corto plazo frente a orientación a largo plazo) del estudio de las conductas de losturistas.Palabras claves: Dimensiones culturales de Hofstede, conductas del turista, conductas del viajero, Dinamismo Confuciano.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 25INTRODUCTIONThe subject of cross-cultural differences in consumerbehavior has been the focus of numerous research studiesin the field of marketing (Beatty, Lynn, & Pamela,1991;Mooij & Hofstede, 2011; Manrai & Manrai, 1996, 2011;Plummer, 1977; Watkins & Lin, 1996). The marketingand the consumer behavior textbooks (Kotler & Keller,2009; Schiffman & Kanuk, 2007) widely discussthe implications of culture on different aspects ofconsumer behavior such as consumer decision making,purchase and consumption related behaviors, consumersatisfaction, dissatisfaction, complaining behavior,etc. The influence of cultures on consumer behavior isevident in all areas of services, especially in the fields oftravel and tourism. This is so because in today’s globaleconomy there has been an unprecedented growth inoverseas travel making tourism truly a cross-culturalphenomenon.Travel and tourism, however, is an extremelycomplex product for several reasons. First, it relatesto goods and tangible products (souvenirs, gifts, foodetc.) as well as intangible services (sightseeing tours,cultural performances, etc.). Second, the tourism productconsists of a multitude of these goods and services puttogether and, in turn, there exists a multitude of optionsto choose from within each of the tangible goods andintangible service categories. Third, tourist decisionmaking and behavior are influenced by several factors.Kotler and Keller (2009) present a model in which consumerbehavior is portrayed to result from the cultural,social and personal characteristics of consumers as wellas the consumer psychology. Models of cross-culturalconsumer behavior developed by Manrai and Manrai(1996, 2011) conceptualize these four influences i.e.;cultural, social, personal, and psychological factors in ahierarchical, sequential and nested design with culturebeing the broadest influence. In their models, each ofthe four factors is depicted to have a direct as well as anindirect (through subsequent factors in the hierarchy)influence on consumer behavior.While culture has been defined and classified incountless ways, researchers agree that cultural influencestranscend in terms of the beliefs, norms, traditions,and values of a society (Herkowitz, 1948; Hofstede,1980, 2001; Kluckhohn, 1954; Triandis, 1994). Thefive cultural value dimensions identified by Hofstede(1980, 2001), namely, individualism versus collectivism,power distance, masculinity versus femininity,uncertainty avoidance, and Confucian dynamism (longversus short term orientation) have been widely acknowledgedas the most significant approach to the study ofcross-cultural differences in human behavior. Althoughoriginally identified in the context of a business setting,such as employee values, these five dimensions havebeen studied and proven relevant in a variety of otherdomains including consumer behavior and marketing,as well as travel and tourism research.The objective of the research reported in this paperis to develop a conceptual framework analyzing thedominant cultural values and the processes underlyingthe influence of these values in various domainsof tourist behaviors in the pre-travel, during-travel,and after-travel stages. Based on this analysis, threecategories of tourist behaviors are identified. Thesethree categories are labeled as Social InteractionDriven Travel Behavior (SID) in the post-travel stage,Risk Tendencies Driven Travel Behaviors (RTD) inthe during-travel stage, and Collectivity OrientationDriven Travel Behaviors (COD) in the pre-travel stageas shown in Figure 1.This paper is divided into seven sections. The nextsection summarizes the work of Hofstede and hiscolleagues related to the development of five culturaldimensions. The third section of the paper identifies acomprehensive list of tourist behavior domains in thethree stages (pre, during, and post). Section four ofthe paper provides a literature review of the travel andtourism research applying the five cultural dimensionsto the study of various domains of tourist behavior. Inthe fifth section of the paper, we analyze the patterns inthe application of the five cultural dimensions to varioustourist behavior domains and classify different touristbehaviors into three categories mentioned above thatare SID, RTD, and COD. The sixth section of the paperdiscusses the managerial implications of our conceptualJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

26 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011FIGURE-1A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Tourist Behaviors in the Before-, During-, and After- Travel StagesCollectivity OrientationDriven Travel BehaviorsUncertaintyAvoidance• Preference Formation• Dominant Cultural Values:Individualism/CollectivismUncertainty Avoidance• Mostly Before-Travel• Process: IC and UA actindependently and/orsequentially with IC UARisk Tendencies DrivenTravel BehaviorsIndividualism/CollectivismMasculinity/FemininitySocial Interaction DrivenTravel Behaviors• Experience Evaluation• Dominant Cultural Values:Individualism/CollectivismMasculinity/FemininityPower Distance• Mostly After-Travel• Process: PD, IC, and MFact either independently orin pairs or all three together• Product Consumption• Dominant Cultural Values:Uncertainty AvoidanceIndividualism/Collectivism• Mostly During-Travel• Process: UA and IC actindependently and/orsequentially with UA ICPowerDistanceFigure 1. A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Tourist Behaviors in the Before-, During-,and After- Travel Stagesframework and the final section identifies directions forfuture research.HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONSGeert Hofstede is the most well-known name in the fieldof cross-cultural psychology and business. He startedin 1979 with 40 countries and in 1980 published hislandmark study of work-related values of employees in50 countries and three world regions (Hofstede 1979,1980). The database for this unprecedented researchstudy comprised of questionnaires completed by 100,000employees of IBM, a large multinational corporation.Based on factor analysis of the data, Hofstede extractedfour dimensions on which the different countries/cultures varied. The validity of these four dimensionswas tested using a variety of constructs and theories insocial sciences.Hofstede (1980) labeled these four dimensionsas “Power Distance,” “Uncertainty Avoidance,” “Individualismversus Collectivism” and “Masculinityversus Femininity” respectively. He defined these fourdimensions as follows:• Power Distance:The extent to which the less powerful membersof institutions and organizations accept thatpower is distributed unequally.• Uncertainty Avoidance:The extent to which people feel threatened by ambiguoussituations, and have created beliefs andinstitutions that try to avoid in such situations.• Individualism versus Collectivism:A situation in which people are supposed to lookafter themselves and their immediate family only(Individualism).J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 27A situation in which people belong to in-groupor collectivities, which are supposed to lookafter them, in exchange for loyalty (Collectivism).• Masculinity versus Femininity:A situation in which the dominant values ofsociety are success, money, and things (Masculinity).A situation in which the dominant values of asociety are caring for others and quality of life(Femininity).Hofstede and Bond (1984) discuss the basic anthropologicaland societal issues to which the abovefour dimensions relate. These authors suggest that thepower distance dimension is related to social inequalityand the amount of authority of one person over others.The uncertainty avoidance dimension is consideredrelated to the way a society deals with conflicts andaggressions and as the last resort with life and death.The third dimension, individualism versus collectivism,is portrayed as being related to the individual’sdependence on the group; his or her self-concept as‘I’ or ‘We’. Lastly, the fourth dimension, masculinityversus femininity, is portrayed as being related to thechoice of social sex roles and its effects on people’sself-concepts.Hofstede subsequently added a fifth cultural dimension,which he called “Confucian Dynamism” (referredin the literature also as “Long Term versus Short TermOrientation”). This fifth dimension was added becausenone of the original four cultural dimensions was relatedto national economic growth as demonstrated in caseof several East Asian countries. A second cross-culturalvalue measurement project called “Chinese ValuesSurvey (CVS)” was undertaken to identify valuesmore typical to Asian cultures. CVS comprised of a40-item questionnaire (Bond and the Chinese CulturalConnection 1987) on typical Chinese values and wasadministered in 22 countries, 20 of which overlappedwith IBM study.A comparison of the values identified in the twosurveys, on IBM and CVS provided some very usefulinsights. The results of each of the two surveysexhibited four cultural dimensions but only three ofthem were similar: “Power Distance,” “Individualismversus Collectivism,” and “Masculinity versusFemininity.” The cultural dimensions of “UncertaintyAvoidance” found in the IBM study was missing inCVS and instead the fourth dimension found in CVSstudy comprised of unique items associated with thethinking and philosophy of Confucius. Thus, thisdimension was labeled as “Confucian Dynamism.”Further, the Confucian values included in this dimensionwere both future or long-term oriented as wellas present and past or short-term oriented. Therefore,this fifth dimension is also referred in the literature aslong versus short term orientation.Hofstede and Bond (1988) characterize the threedimensions common to both IBM and CVS studies as“Expected Social Behaviors.” The “Power Distance”dimension captures behaviors toward juniors or seniors;the “Individualism versus Collectivism” dimensioncaptures behavior toward the group and the “Masculinityversus Femininity” dimension captures behavioras a function of one’s social sex roles. The dimensionunique to the IBM study, “Uncertainty Avoidance”,is portrayed as search for “truth,” a typical Westernvalue, whereas the dimension unique to the CVS study(Confucian Dynamism) is portrayed as the search for“virtue,” a typical Eastern value (Hofstede & Bond,1988). The contrast of Eastern versus Western culturalvalues is very powerfully summed up by Hofstede andBond (1988), where Confucius was a teacher of practicalethics, without any religious content. He dealt withVirtue but left the question of Truth open.An overall examination of the cultural average scoresand rankings of the various countries included in theIBM and CVS studies suggests that broadly speakingthe Western countries tend to be low on power distance,low on uncertainty avoidance, high on individualism,mixed on masculinity – femininity and are short-termoriented. In comparison, Eastern countries tend to behigh on power distance, high on uncertainty avoidance,high on collectivism, mixed on masculinity – femininity,and are long-term oriented.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

28 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011TOURIST BEHAVIOR DOMAINSAs discussed earlier in this paper, tourism is a complexglobal phenomenon involving a multitude of decisionsrelated to the purchase and consumption of a variety ofgoods as well as services. Marketing textbooks (Kotler& Keller, 2009) identify five stages of decision making:1) need recognition/purchase motives; 2) informationsearch and information acquisition; 3) evaluation ofalternatives, which involves rating of options and leadsto formation of preferences and formation of behavioralintentions; 4) actual purchase and consumption decision,which involves purchase transaction related decisions(dealer choice, brand choice etc.), as well as consumptionrelated decisions (frequency of purchase, lightversus heavy users etc.); and 5) post-purchase behaviorssuch as consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction, brandloyalty/brand switching, complaining/complementingbehaviors, etc.The above five stages of consumer decision makingand related consumer behaviors are regrouped intothree categories: 1) Before Purchase and Consumption;2) During Purchase and Consumption; and, 3) AfterPurchase and Consumption. The “Before” categoryincludes the first three stages of decision making listedabove, which lead to the formation of preferences andbehavioral intentions. The “During” category includesstage 4 and deals with product purchase and consumptionrelated behaviors. The “After” category includesstage 5 and includes behaviors related to evaluationsof the purchase and consumption experiences by theconsumers. Parallel to this, the tourist behaviors areclassified into three overall domains: 1) Before-Travel;2) During-Travel; and, 3) After-Travel. Next, we identifyseveral specific tourist behavior domains under each ofthese three overall groups. These domains are labeledBT1 to BT14 (for the Before-Travel group), DT1 toDT11 (for the During-Travel group) and AT1 to AT30(for the After-Travel group). All these tourist behaviordomains are listed in Table 1.Tourist Behavior Domains Before-TravelThe first decision which a potential tourist is faced withis whether to travel or not, whether he/she can and/orshould travel or not. There are various reasons for thisdilemma. On the “No” side there may be personal,social, or financial constraints; there may be concernsrelated to the travel risk and safety, and, the individualmay have travel anxiety etc. On the “yes” side, thereis ample evidence documenting the benefits of traveland tourism. It fulfills a variety of personal, social, andrecreational needs providing motives and incentives fortravel. These needs may be triggered by a particularoccasion, event or a life cycle stage. Overall, the prospectivetourist has to carefully weight the advantagesand disadvantages of undertaking the travel and tourismactivity and take that very important first decision. Wecall this first decision “Yes-No to Travel” and label it asBT1. The Yes-No factors taken into account as discussedabove are labeled as follows: On the “yes” side, TravelBenefits and Travel Motivations (BT2), Travel Occasion/Event/LifeCycle (BT3). On the “No” side, TravelRisk and Safety concerns and Travel Anxiety (BT4),Personal/Social/Financial constraints (BT5).The assessment of the advantages and disadvantagesof travel and tourism requires information searchand acquisition. The process of information searchand acquisition continues in case the individual hasdecided to undertake travel. Now he/she needs tosearch and collect information related to a variety ofdecisions such as what destination, what type of travelarrangements etc. There exits a multitude of sourcesfrom which the information can be acquired such astravel agents, internet, relatives and friends etc. Theindividuals also vary in terms of their need for planningand prior arrangements. While the informationsearch and acquisition processes continue throughthe During-Travel stage, a substantial proportion ofinformation search and acquisition activity takes placeprior to travel. The above travel behaviors are labeledas follows: Information Search and Acquisition (BT6),Sources of Information (BT7), Trip Planning/PriorArrangements (BT8).Next, the individuals aggregate the collectedinformation and evaluate their alternatives to formpreferences. The evaluation process takes into accountfour main variables: 1) attributes used for evaluationJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 29Table 1.Index of Tourist Behaviors in the Before-, During-, and After-Travel CategoriesIndex # Tourist Behaviors Index # Tourist BehaviorsBEFORE TRAVELAFTER TRAVELBT1 Yes-No to Travel Decision AT1 Destination Service/Quality EvaluationBT2 Travel Benefits/Travel Motivations AT2 Destination Price/Value EvaluationBT3 Travel Occasion/Event/Travel Life Cycle AT3 Destination Overall Evaluation/ImageBT4 Travel Risk, Safety Concerns and Travel Anxiety AT4 Destination Overall SatisfactionBT5 Personal, Social, Financial Constraints AT5 Destination Revisit IntentionBT6 Information Search and Acquisition AT6 Travel Mode Quality EvaluationBT7 Sources of Information AT7 Travel Mode Price EvaluationBT8 Trip Planning/Prior Arrangements AT8 Travel Mode Overall EvaluationBT9 Travel Mode Preference AT9 Travel Mode Overall SatisfactionBT10 Travel Destination Preference AT10 Travel Mode Repeat Purchase IntentionBT11 Transportation Preference AT11 Transportation Quality EvaluationBT12 Accommodation Preference AT12 Transportation Price EvaluationBT13 Food Preference AT13 Transportation Overall EvaluationBT14 Activities at Destination Preference AT14 Transportation Overall SatisfactionAT15Transportation Repeat Purchase IntentionDURING TRAVEL AT16 Accommodation Quality EvaluationDT1 Travel Mode Choice AT17 Accommodation Price EvaluationDT2 Travel Destination Choice AT18 Accommodation Overall EvaluationDT3 Transportation Choice AT19 Accommodation Overall SatisfactionDT4 Accommodation Choice AT20 Accommodation Repeat Purchase IntentionDT5 Food Choice AT21 Food Quality EvaluationDT6 Activities at Destination Choice AT22 Food Price EvaluationDT7 Number of Destinations in Itinerary AT23 Food Overall EvaluationDT8 Travel Party Size/Travel Companions AT24 Food Overall SatisfactionDT9 Travel Frequency AT25 Food Repeat Purchase IntentionDT10 Trip Duration/Length of Stay AT26 Activities Quality EvaluationDT11 Behavior on Group/Package Tours AT27 Activities Price EvaluationAT28AT29AT30Activities Overall EvaluationActivities Overall SatisfactionActivities Repeat Purchase Intentionof alternatives; 2) perceptions of alternatives on thekey attributes; 3) importance weights the individualsattach to the different attributes; and, 4) method ofaggregating the information on the above three variablesto arrive at overall preferences. The key decisionareas in this stage of preference formation relate to thetravel mode (package/group versus independent/nonpackage),destination, transportation, accommodation,food, and activities. Considering the complexity of thetourism product, many tourists are either not able to ornot willing to make their own arrangements and resortto taking package tours instead of making their ownJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

30 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011independent arrangements. On the other hand, manytourists are willing to deal with making their own arrangementsfor the sake of benefits they see and thecapabilities they have to make these arrangements.Therefore, the research area of determinants of travelmode preference (package versus independent travel) isin itself an important area of tourist behavior research.In fact many tourists rely on their tour operators andtravel agents for suggestions on destinations for consideration.We identify six more travel behaviors inthe “Before-Travel” stage: 1) Travel Mode Preference(BT9); 2) Destination Preference (BT10); 3) TransportationPreference (BT11); 4) Accommodation Preference(BT12); 5) Food Preference (BT13); and, 5) Activitiesat Destination Preference (BT14).Tourist Behavior Domains During-TravelWhile the last set of travel behavior domains identifiedin the “Before-Travel” stage deals with the formationof preferences and behavioral intentions (BT9 toBT14), the travel behaviors discussed in this sectiondeal with choices and behaviors related to purchaseand consumption of travel products. The first set ofDuring-Travel behaviors identified corresponding tothese preferences (BT9 to BT14) describes the followingchoices: Travel Mode Choice (DT1), DestinationChoice (DT2), Transportation Choice (DT3), AccommodationChoice (DT4), Food Choice (DT5), andActivities at Destination Choice (DT6).Each of the above decision areas includes a varietyof sub-decisions on which differences amongst touristsfrom different cultures can be expected. Thesedifferences capture the norms of various societies,individual differences or personal characteristics aswell as the psychological processes underlying traveland tourism behavior. Also, these differences affect thecharacteristics of trips taken by tourists from differentcultural backgrounds. In the current research, followingtrip characteristics are included for study: Numberof Destinations in Itinerary (DT7), Travel Party Size/Travel Companions (DT8), Travel Frequency (DT9),and Trip Duration/Length of Stay (DT10). The topicof Tourist Behavior on Group/Package Tours has alsodrawn a lot of attention in the travel and tourism researchand is included as a separate travel domain inthe during-travel stage (DT11) in the current study.Tourist Behavior Domains After-TravelThis category of travel behaviors relates to the evaluationsof different components of the tourism experiencesubsequent to the purchase and consumption ofthe tourism product. This tourism product is evaluatedon various attributes/criteria. However, two attributesthat are salient to the overall evaluations are qualityand price. We, therefore, include these two variablesseparately in addition to the overall evaluations.Tourist evaluations are followed by a variety ofpost-purchase and consumption processes. These processesinclude tourist satisfaction/dissatisfaction andintention to revisit/repurchase. The satisfaction is basedon expectations, which tourists typically have in the“Before-Travel” stage, and perceived performance orevaluations, which result after the travel experiences inthe “During-Travel” stage. When the perceived performanceexceeds the expectations, it leads to satisfaction;on the other hand, when the perceived performancefalls below the expectations, it leads to dissatisfaction.Typically, the satisfaction is positively related with therepeat visit or repeat purchase intention. Thus, for eachof the six basic components of tourism experience (travelmode, destination, transportation, accommodation, food,and activities at destination) five measures of touristbehavior in the “After-Travel” stage are considered:1) service quality evaluation, 2) price/value evaluation,3) overall evaluation, 4) overall satisfaction, and5) repeat visit/repurchase intention. This results in 30tourist behavior domains in the “After-Travel” stage (6variables X 5 behavioral measures for each). These 30travel behavior domains are identified in the after-travelstage are labeled AT1 to AT30 on Table 1.TOURIST BEHAVIOR STUDIES:LITERATURE REVIEWHofstede’s (1980, 2001) five cultural dimensions havebeen applied to the study of tourist behaviors. This sectionJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 31of the paper summarizes the findings of the researchstudies identifying the specific cultural dimensions usedfor explaining specific tourist behaviors. The literaturereview provided in this section is by and large organizedas per the list of tourist behaviors identified in previoussection and summarized in Table 1.Studies of Tourist Behaviors Before-Travel1. Travel motivations/benefits sought:The subject of travel motivations has been extensivelystudied in travel and tourism research. As a psychologicalfactor explaining human behavior (Kotler & Keller,2009; Manrai & Manrai, 1996, 2011), travel motivationsprovide very significant insights into travel decisionmaking processes and various behaviors during thetravel experience. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions areextremely relevant for the study of travel motivationsbecause cultural values influence all aspects of humanlife including personal factors like lifestyle and psychologicalfactors like motivation (Manrai & Manrai, 1996,2011). For example, a study by Kim and Lee (2000)found that individualistic tourists were more likely toseek novelty whereas the motivation of the collectivistictourists is primarily to be with the family.A study by Prebensen (2005) identified four distinctclusters within a charter tour group of Norwegian touristsheaded for warmer climates. These four clusters werelabeled “Active Sun and Family”, “Cultural Patron”,“Experiencing” and “Sun and Comfort” by the author.The finding of the study indicated that the four segmentsdiffered in terms of their travel motivations, the type ofactivities they engaged in and their planning for the trip.The four segments also showed differences in terms oftheir trip characteristics such as travel group/companionsand trip duration. Further, the tourists’ satisfaction fromthe destination and activities/organization, as well as therevisit intentions, significantly differed across the foursegments. The author explains these results by suggestingthat the cultural values of Individualism prevailsin tourists choice of products and activities despite thedifferent segments being pooled together in a group orcollectivistic setting. The active fun and family segmentindicated higher satisfaction ratings possibly becausethe tourist motivations and type of activities have arelationship with tourist satisfaction.Another study by Prebensen, Larsen, and Abelsen(2003) provides some interesting and useful insights onthe concept of individuality in the tourism context. Thisstudy included 455 German tourists in Norway whowere asked questions related to the tourists’ perceptionof themselves as typical or non-typical German tourists,what constituted a typical German tourist in Norway,as well as the importance of various travel motives andactivities they participated in/plan to participate in. Thelist of travel motivations included two motivations relatedto the knowledge function (beautiful scenery andthe Norwegian culture); one motivation related to thesocial adjustment function (visit family and friends);two motivations related to the value expression function(no mass tourism and the Norwegian mentality);and four motivations related to the utilitarian function(former experience, recommendations from friendsand/or family, good prices, and good offers from travelagency). The findings of the authors indicated that whilenearly 90% of the respondents viewed themselves asnon-typical German tourists, there were no differencesbetween the typical and non-typical tourists onwhat constituted a typical German tourist to Norway,travel motivations and activities they participated in orintended to participate in. The authors conclude fromthese findings that tourists from individualistic countries(like Germany) may have a need to be perceived asindividualists; hence, individuality in tourism contextmay be a matter of self-perception.The notion of individualism applied to a tourist’sself-image was also explored in a study by Litvin and Kar(2003). These authors studied the moderating influenceof Individualism-Collectivism value dimension in predictingthe effect of Self-Image and Destination-Imagecongruity on tourist satisfaction from the destination.Their database was comprised of 189 exit surveys atSingapore airport and included non-business travelers.These authors replicated Chon’s (1992) study supportingSelf-Image and Destination-Image congruityas a determinant of tourist satisfaction. The findingsJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

32 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011of this study supported the hypothesis that touristsatisfaction will be higher when there was congruitybetween tourist’s Self-Image and Destination-Image(both images were individualistic or both images werecollectivistic). Additionally, within the two congruentscenarios, tourist satisfaction was higher when the twoimages were individualistic than when the two imageswere collectivistic. This later result is explained interms of greater hedonistic tendencies on part of theindividualistic tourists.2. Travel occasion/event/travel life cycle:The concept of Travel Life Cycle (TLC) was coined byMarch (2000) and basically implies that, depending uponthe life cycle stage, an individual will take certain typesof institutionalized or group tours. TLC is particularlyuseful for segmenting the traditional, group-orientedcollectivistic societies such as Japan, China, Korea,etc. March compiled data from various sources andidentified eight distinct segments of Japanese tourists.These eight segments, in order of their market share(in 1997), are: Family Trip (25%), Silvers 1 (16%), IncompanyTrip (12%), Honeymooners (2.6%), LanguageStudy (1.5%), School Excursions (0.8%), OverseasWedding (0.5%), and Graduation Trip (0.4%). Basedon industry interviews, the author estimated that theproportion of customers buying group tours was asfollows: 90-100% for school excursions and overseasweddings, 80-90% for In-Company trips, 75-85% forlanguage study, 75-80% for family trip and honeymooners,60-70% for silvers and 50-70% for graduation trips.March describes the collectivity of Japanese societyin no uncertain terms, when states that from early agethe Japanese individual is obliged to adopt culturallyprescribed behavioral patterns for particular socialsituations, either at school, in the workplace, or withinrelationships. The paper discusses the implicationsof the collectivity-driven travel life cycle concept interms of travel companions, travel duration, activitiesand experiences sought, and various purchase relatedbehaviors for each of the eight segments.1The Silvers segment refers to tourists aged 60 years andover.The family trip, or kazokuryoku, includes bothparents and at least one child under 12 years old. Themost preferred destination for this group is Hawaii.However, parents with very young children or babiesprefer nearer destinations such as Guam or Saipan. Anemerging trend noted by March is the three generationgroup where grandparents join the parents and thekids for overseas travel. The two main motivations forfamily trips mentioned by tourists in this group werethe opportunity for kids to experience foreign culturesand the reasonable costs of overseas trips.As mentioned before, the “silvers” segment refersto 60+ years of age tourists. According to JTB (1998),40% of the silvers travel with their spouses, 24% travelwith family members and 20% travel with friends andacquaintances. Almost two-thirds of silvers buy fullpackages and USA is the most preferred destination.This segment stays for longer duration abroad and isboth able and willing to spend more money on overseastravel. They can afford it because of higher disposableincome and they want to prevent their kids from payinghigher inheritance taxes.The “in-company” (shokubaryoku) trip is a Japanesecustom in which company workers take a vacation oncea year with their colleagues. This trip usually lasts anywhere from a few days to a week; it is mostly sponsoredby the company, while employees pay a smallproportion of the cost. The topmost destination for thissegment was the USA.The “overseas wedding” segment is the fastest growingmarket. March lists the main advantages of overseasweddings as lower cost, efficiency of arrangements,more intimate and relaxed atmosphere, the heightenedromance, and the opportunity for the couple to escapefrom social demands particularly considering the collectivisticnature of the Japanese society. Overseasweddings typically include immediate family members/relatives and close friends. The top destination foroverseas weddings was Hawaii and on an average 7-8people accompanied the couple to the overseas wedding.March indicates that the “honeymoon travelers” spendmore on accommodation, meals, tours, and shoppingJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 33than any of the other segments. Honeymooners thereforeare the most lucrative and sought after segment in theJapanese group tour business. The typical length ofstay for this segment is about one week, and the mostpreferred destination is Hawaii.The “school excursions” (shugakuryoku) refersto the organized travel activity undertaken by highschool juniors and seniors. Schools typically choosea particular overseas destination for at least two orthree consecutive years because of the time and moneyinvolved in making new arrangements every year. Thetop three destinations for school excursions are Korea,China, and Australia, in that order. The “graduation trip”(sotsugyoryoku) refers to overseas travel undertakenby university graduates before they begin full timeemployment. Typically graduates travel with a fewclose friends. The average length of these graduationtrips are 8 days and the top three destinations are USA,Hawaii, and Asia. This group of tourists travels on abudget and employ money saving options such as railpasses. They are also the tourists group with the lowestproportion of package tour purchases. Lastly for the“language study” segment, the three top destinationsincluded the three English speaking countries: USA,U.K., and Australia, in that order.3. Travel risk perception, safety concerns, andtravel anxiety:Several researcher studies have addressed the issue ofperceived travel risk (Moutinho 1987; Roehl & Fesenmaier,1992; Ressinger & Mavondo, 2005). Researchershave identified the determinants of risk perception intourism as well as the individual characteristics relatedto personal and psychological factors, such as personality,lifestyles, and motivations (Bello & Etzel, 1985;Carr, 2001), as well as nationality (Seddighi, Nuttall,& Theochaous, 2001) and cultural differences.The perception of travel risk affects a tourist’s assessmentof travel safety and also leads to travel anxiety.The governments of several countries have issued alertsfor their citizens related to the safety concerns in certaininternational travel destinations. While such safety alertsare certainly warranted, they further enhance the safetyconcerns and travel anxiety of international tourists.In turn safety concerns and travel anxiety adverselyinfluence international tourism activities.A study by Ressinger and Mavondo (2005)examined the relationship between cultural orientation,travel motivation, travel safety, travel anxiety andintention to travel internationally. The sample fortheir research study comprised of 246 Australian and336 foreign respondents who were randomly selectedfrom individuals visiting several tourist attractions inMelbourne, Australia and administered a questionnaire.The cultural orientation was measured using itemsrepresenting the four cultural dimensions identifiedby Hofstede (1980), the fifth cultural dimension oflong-term versus short-term orientation identified inBond and the Chinese Cultural Connection (1987),and the concept of low versus high context culturesdeveloped by Hall (1976). The travel motivation wasmeasured using items adapted from Kale, McIntyreand Weir (1987). The perceptions of travel risk weremeasured along 13 dimensions identified in the priortourism literature: crime, cultural, equipment, financial,health, performance, physical, political, psychological,satisfaction, social, terrorism, and time. The safetyperceptions were measured for certain selected regionsand situations. Travel anxiety was measure using 12item bipolar scales capturing feelings of tourists. Theintentions to travel internationally was measuredusing a 100 point scale with 0 = no intention and 100= definite intention. Several relationships between theabove variables were hypothesized.The results of path analysis indicated that for bothAustralian and foreign samples, significant relationshipsexisted between culture and safety, tourism riskand anxiety, socio-cultural risk and anxiety, and anxietyand intention to travel internationally. For the foreignsample only, significant relationships existed betweentravel motivation and health/financial risk, motivationand anxiety, motivation and safety, and safety and intentionsto travel internationally. For the Australian sampleonly, the relationship between culture and socio-culturalrisk was significant.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

34 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 20114. Trip planning/prior arrangements:Considering the complexity of the tourism productsand various risks associated with international travel, itis natural for many tourists to take measures to reducesuch risks. The extent to which a tourist is concernedwith such risk reduction behaviors is a function againof his/her personal and psychological characteristics aswell as cultural orientations. In this context, Hofstede’s(1980) cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidanceis extremely relevant. Tourists from cultures whichare low on uncertainty avoidance are likely to have ahigher threshold for risk and uncertainty and thus willengage in risk reducing behaviors to a lesser extent.Conversely tourists from cultures, which are high onuncertainty avoidance are likely to have a low thresholdfor risk and uncertainty and thus will engage in riskreducing behaviors to a greater extent.Tourists undertake such risk reducing behaviorsboth in before-travel and during-travel stages. Thebefore-travel risk reducing behaviors include extensivetrip planning, use of travel agents and tour operators,making prior travel arrangements, pre-payment fortourism components etc. Two research studies dealingwith these issues are Money and Crotts (2003), andCrotts and Litvin (2003). Both of these studies useda subset of database compiled by the U. S. Departmentof Commerce’s Office of Travel and TourismIndustries (OTTI). Money and Crotts used data set forthe years 1996-1998 and their study included nativeGerman and Japanese discretionary travelers. Crottsand Litvin used data set for the year 2000, and theirstudy included outbound tourists from U. S. whoseplace of birth differed from their nation of citizenship.The participants were born in 74 countries, residedin 81 countries, and were citizens of 68 nations. Thefindings of both studies indicated that tourists fromhigh uncertainty avoidance cultures had taken riskand uncertainty reducing measures such as inclusionof pre-paid tours and pre-booked lodgings to a greaterextent than tourists from low uncertainty avoidancecultures.Studies of Tourist Behaviors During-TravelThis sub-section includes five tourist behavior domains,four of which capture the risk-reducing behaviors relatedto the during-travel stage. These four domains are tripduration/length of stay, number of destinations in theitinerary, travel party size/travel companions, and travelfrequency. The fifth tourist behavior domain included inthis subsection is behavior of tourists on group tours.1. Trip duration, number of destinations in the itinerary,travel party size, travel frequency:The two research studies related to the risk-reducingbehaviors in the before-travel stage discussed earlier(Money & Crotts, 2003; Crotts & Litvin, 2003), alsoexamined several risk-reducing behaviors related to theduring-travel stage. The findings of these two studiesindicated that tourists from the high uncertainty avoidancecultures had taken risk and uncertainty reducingmeasures related to the during-travel stage also to agreater extent compared to the tourists from the lowuncertainty avoidance cultures. Specifically, the findingsof these two studies indicated that tourists from highuncertainty avoidance cultures compared to touristsfrom low uncertainty avoidance cultures had shorterstays in USA, visited fewer destinations in the itinerary,and traveled with a larger party size.An alternate construct used to explain the culturaldifferences in business settings is “Cultural Distance”or the gap between the business cultures of the visitorand the host. Early research by Kogut and Singh(1988), using Hofstede’s four cultural dimensions,yielded inconsistent findings. Subsequently, Hofstede(1989) suggested that the use of uncertainty avoidancedimension to operationalize cultural distance will bemore appropriate because this particular dimensionis more disruptive than the others in the context ofinternational business.Crotts (2004) opertionalized “Cultural Distance”using national uncertainty avoidance scores and studiedthe overseas travel behavior of 302 outbound travelersfrom USA to 26 different countries. Only the U. S. bornJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 35residents traveling abroad for the first time, and primarilytraveling for discretionary purposes (non-business),were included in the survey. This control of the samplewas done to eliminate confounding in the base scoreof participants on Uncertainty Avoidance dimension,which was used for determining the Cultural Distance.All the participants were assigned a base UncertaintyAvoidance score of 43 as per Hofstede’s (1980) study.The cultural distance was compared by subtracting thisbase score of 43 from Uncertainty Avoidance score ofthe host countries to which the participants were headed.Crotts (2004) predicted that the cultural distance willbe positively correlated with risk-reducing behaviorssuch as larger travel groups, less frequent travel, shortertrips, and lower number of destinations in the itinerary.Finding of his study supported these predictions. Whenthe cultural distance was low, Uncertainty AvoidanceIndex of the host country was closer to that of the U.S. A., the international tourists traveled alone, traveledmore often, took longer trips and visited a greaternumber of destinations.2. Behavior of tourists on group tours:The four research studies reported in this subsection(Pizam & Sussmann, 1995; Wong & Lau, 2001; Kim& McKercher, 2011; Meng, 2010) discuss the behaviorof tourists on group tours. The first three studies differfrom each other in three ways, namely, the methodology,the composition of the sample, and the basis ofcultural comparison. First, in terms of the methodology,Pizam and Sussmann (1995) used an indirect methodof assessment, which was based on perceptions of tourguides. Wong and Lau (2001) study directly assessedthe tourist behavior: the tourists completed a surveyquestionnaire. As for Kim and McKercher (2011), theycompared and contrasted the responses of the touristsand service providers relating to expectations of desirabletourist behaviors and the perceptions of actualtourist behaviors.In terms of the composition of the sample, the tourgroup in Pizam and Sussmann (1995) study comprisedof four different nationalities: citizens from the U. S. A.,France, Italy and Japan. The tour groups in the studies ofWong and Lau (2001) and Kim and McKercher (2011)comprised of only Hong Kong Chinese tourists and onlyKorean tourists respectively. The third difference in thethree studies related to the basis of cultural comparison.In Pizam and Sussmann (1995), the behavior of thefour nationalities based subgroups of tourists werecompared with each other. In Wong and Lau (2001),the behavior of the Hong Kong Chinese tourists wasexamined in relation to the Chinese Cultural Values; inthe Kim and McKercher (2011) study, the focus was inunderstanding the differences in the expectations of thedesirable tourist behaviors vis-à-vis perceptions of theactual tourist behaviors. The fourth study reported inthis sub-section on behavior of tourists on group toursis a conceptual article, which develops four researchpropositions for further empirical testing.The respondents in Pizam and Sussmann (1995)study were 123 tour guides in London, U. K., whoregularly guided tours within the city. A total of 252questionnaires were completed by the tour guidesassessing the behavior of U. S., French, Italian, andJapanese tourists during their tour. Thus, on an average,the tour guides completed two different questionnairesfor tourists of two different nationalities. These 252questionnaires included 97 U. S. tourists, 57 Frenchtourists, 43 Italian tourists, and 55 Japanese tourists.The questionnaires included twenty typical tourists’behaviors and the respondent tour guides indicatedtheir assessment of the tourist behaviors by circling anumber from 1 to 5 on each of these 20 arched semanticdifferential scales.The data were analyzed using factor analysis andyielded five factors. These five factors were labeledas follows: “Social Interaction Factor” (SIF), “ActivityPreference Factor” (APF), “Commercial TransactionFactor” (CTF), “Bargaining Factor” (BPF) and“Knowledge of Destination Factor” (KDF). The BPFalso included planning behavior. The ANOVA analysiswas performed for all 20 items included in these fourfactors.The SIF included six items dealing with interaction,socialization, and congregation, focus on peopleJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

36 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011versus artifacts, food preference, and trip length. TheCTF included seven items dealing with souvenir buying,gift buying, trusting tourist trade people, shopping,photography, group travel, and letter writing.The APF included three items regarding adventurousversus safe, active versus passive, and novelty versusfamiliarity. The BPF included two items, the first onedealing with bargaining and the other with planning.The KDF included two items: dealing with authenticityand knowledge about destination. With the exceptionof two out of 20 behavioral variables (novelty versusfamiliarity on APF and the knowledge about destinationon the KDF), the differences in the behavior of touristsfrom four nationalities on the remaining 18 variableswere significant at p

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 37As regards the fourth factor (BPF), the Japaneseand American tourists paid the asking price whereasthe Italian tourists bargained the most compared toother tourist groups. Japanese tourists planned theirtrips the most rigidly; conversely, Italian tourists tookloose and unplanned trips the most compared to othertourist groups. Finally, in Knowledge of DestinationFactor, French, Italian and U. S. tourists wanted to seethe “authentic” things, whereas the Japanese touristswere satisfied with “staged” events. There were no differencesin the four tourist groups on this factor.Many of the results of this research study are explainedby the authors in terms of Hofstede’s (1980)cultural dimensions of Individualism versus Collectivismand Uncertainty Avoidance. U. S., French and Italiancultures are considered as individualistic, whereas theJapanese society is considered collectivistic. U. S.tourists are considered to be low on uncertainty avoidance,whereas French, Italian, and Japanese tourists areconsidered to be high on uncertainty avoidance Theindividualism and low uncertainty avoidance tendenciesof the U. S. tourists explain their travel relatedbehaviors such as preference/choice of local foods andbeverages, taking long trips, preference/choice of actionoriented tourism, wanting to see authentic thingsat destination, etc. On the other hand, the collectivisticand high uncertainty avoidance tendencies of Japanesetourists explain their travel related behaviors such aspreference/choice of own cuisine, traveling in groups,preference/choice of safe activities, rigid planning ofthe trips, satisfaction in seeing “staged” events, etc.Wong and Lau (2001) reported the behavior of 200Hong Kong Chinese tourists on group tour packages inrelation to Chinese cultural values (Bond and the ChineseCultural Connection, 1987). The data were collected byinterviewing respondents in Cantonese language in thebusiest streets of Hong Kong. A bilingual questionnairewas also kept at hand for the reference of respondents.Only the respondents who had prior experience of takinggroup tour packages were included in the survey. Themeasures of tourist’s behavior on group tour packagesincluded 22 items, 20 of which were the same as thoseused in the study of Pizam and Sussmann (1995). Thetwo additional items related to whether or not the touristscomplained for any unsatisfactory issue during the tripand whether or not tourists joined self-paid activities assuggested by the tour. The item related to the complainingbehavior was considered relevant to study becauseChinese people rarely complain in front of others as theywant to avoid loosing “face” or causing others to looseface (Bond & Lee, 1978). Arched semantic differentialscales were used for measurement of tourists’ behavioron these 22 items.In this research study ratings, the participants scoredhigh on the novelty seeking (4.43), desire to see authenticthings (4.31), preference/choice of local foods andbeverages (3.92), taking many photos (3.98), visitingplaces rigidly according to tourist brochures (3.98),traveling in groups (3.80). On the other hand, the participantsscored low on adventure (2.39), writing letters(1.96) and knowledge of destination (2.60). Only 7 ofthe 200 respondents had taken the group tours alone.These results provide insights into the travel motivationand activities preference/choice of Hong Kong tourists.The authors explained some of these results in terms ofthe collectivistic, risk-averse nature of the Hong KongChinese culture. Group tours and traveling with othercompanions is considered a way of reducing the risk,especially when the knowledge of destination is low.Adhering strictly to the itinerary also provides the touristswith a sense of safety and reduced risk.Wong and Lau (2001) also measured the importanceof 13 Chinese Cultural values to the respondents. These13 values were a subset of the 40 item list developedin the Bond and Chinese Cultural Connection (1987)study, and they were selected based on a pretest thatidentified the values relevant to the tourism context.The respondents indicated the extent to which these13 Chinese Cultural Values were important to them bycircling a number on 5-point Likert scale with 1 beingvery unimportant and 5 being very important. These13 Chinese cultural Values included adaptability, beingconservative, contentedness, courtesy, harmony withothers, patience, protecting face, prudence, reciprocity,respect for tradition, thrift, tolerance of others andtrustworthiness.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

38 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011A factor analysis of the data on these 13 ChineseCultural values yielded four factors. The first factorwas labeled “Social Integration” and included five variables:adaptability, contentedness, courtesy, prudence,and trustworthiness (adaptability variable was laterdeleted due to its factor loading of less than 0.50). Thesecond factor was labeled by the authors “ConfucianWork Dynamism” (referred to as “Work Dynamism”in the present research paper) and included three items:patience, respect for tradition and thrift (the thrift variablewas later deleted because the internal reliabilitytest indicated that deleting this variable will increasethe alpha coefficient from 0.58 to 0.62). The third factorwas labeled “Personal Well-Being” and included threeitems: being conservative, protecting face, and reciprocity.The fourth factor was labeled “Moral Discipline”and included two variables: harmony with others andtolerance of other.In order to jointly examine the relationship of HongKong Chinese tourists’ behavior on group tour packageswith Chinese Cultural Values, canonical correlationanalysis was performed. The results yielded four functionsof which two were significant at p1.3% for both travelrelated behavior and Chinese Cultural Values, onlyone of the two functions was used for further analysis.The canonical loadings and canonical cross-loadings ofthis function for each of the 22 travel related variablesand each of the four Chinese Cultural Value factorswere computed. The variables with canonical loadings>0.40 within the same set (travel related behaviors setor Chinese Cultural Values factors set) and canonicalcross-loadings >0.30 between two sets (travel behaviorsset and Chinese Cultural Values factors set) wereidentified.The results of canonical loadings for 22 travel relatedbehaviors indicated that three correlated variableswithin the set of travel behaviors were travel in groupsversus travel by themselves, adventurous versus safeand joining all self-paid activities suggested by tourversus not joining. Hong Kong Chinese tourists takinggroup tours preferred safe activities and they alsopreferred to take all self-paid activities as suggested bytour. The canonical loadings for the four cultural valuefactors indicated that two out of the four factors met thecriterion, Social Integration factor and Personal Well-Being factor, implying that these two factors had greaterrelevance for the cultural values concept compared toother two factors, Work Dynamism factor and MoralDiscipline factor.As regards the results of canonical cross-loadings,only two travel behaviors, travel in groups/travel bythemselves and adventurous versus safe, correlated withSocial Integration and Personal Well-Being. Takinginto consideration the relative importance of the ratingsof different cultural values, the authors conclude thatSocial Integration values, such as courtesy, prudence,and trustworthiness, exert an important influence on thebehavior of tourists on group package tours, whereasPersonal Well-Being values such as being conservativeand protecting face are not as important.The authors further discuss why the four ChineseCultural Value factors were found relevant or irrelevantin their study. The social integration factor explainedthe largest proportion (25.1%) of the variance andthe values included in this factor (courtesy, prudence,trustworthiness, and contentedness) were consideredrelevant for social interaction in a collectivistic settinglike taking a group package tour. The second factor,Work Dynamism, included values such as respect fortradition and patience, and it explained 13.4% of thevariance. The authors suggest that while Work Dynamismvalues are more unconscious and sophisticated,they are less important than social integration valuesand the tourist may not notice these Work Dynamismvalues during the tour. Therefore, this factor was notfound relevant for behavior of tourists on group tourpackages.As regards to the third Chinese Cultural Valuesfactor, labeled Personal Well-Being, it explained 9.8%of the variance and included values such as being conservative,reciprocity and protecting face. These valueswere not considered important on the tour because therelationships of individuals within the group tour aretemporary. Lastly, the fourth factor, Moral Discipline,J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 39explained 9.3% of the variance and the two valuesincluded were tolerance of others and harmony withothers. Again, these values may not have been foundrelevant for the temporary nature of the relationshipsthat exist in a group package tour.The third study reported here is by Kim and McKercher(2011). These authors studied the behavior of345 Korean tourists taking group tour packages inAustralia. The tourist behavior was studied in termsof Korean tourists’ expectations of their desirable behavioras well as Korean tourists’ perceptions of theirown actual behaviors. These expectations of desirabletourist behaviors and actual tourist behaviors werealso measured from the standpoint of the 73 serviceproviders, including hotel employees working in thefront line positions such as front desk staff, customerrelations, food delivery, etc., who had experience withKorean customers.The research instrument consisted of a questionnairewith two parts. In Part I, expectations on 23 differentaspects of desirable tourist behaviors were obtainedfrom tourists themselves as well as from service providers.In Part II, perceptions of actual tourist behaviorwere obtained from tourists themselves as well as fromservice providers on the same set of 23 variables. Thisstudy included four categories of variables: 1) desirabletourist behaviors rated by tourists themselves; 2) desirabletourist behaviors rated by the service providers;3) actual tourist behaviors rated by tourists themselves,and 4) actual tourist behaviors rated by the serviceproviders. The comparisons and contrasts included: C1:1 versus 2; C2: 3 versus 4; C3: 1 versus 3; and C4: 2versus 4. The 23 items included in the research surveywere developed based on review of previous literatureas well as in-depth interviews with five Korean tourguides specializing in Australian market and 10 Koreantourists with prior experience of package tourism inAustralia. The research instrument was pilot tested andmodifications were made.The items included in the survey covered three categoriesof behaviors: the collective actions, the culturaldietary habits, and the insufficient foreign languageskills or lack of understanding of tourist ethics. The 23behaviors covered in the survey included: move aroundthe hotel noisily, move around the hotel in crowds, yieldto others when using the elevator, have meals with otherKorean customers in groups at the hotel restaurant, benoisy in the hotel restaurant, leave food in one’s platein a hotel restaurant, eat slowly in a hotel restaurant,eat meals at set times every day, move seats around ina hotel restaurant, leave litter or cigarette butts aroundthe hotel, make noise in one’s room, tip handsomely,complain to hotel employees on receiving unsatisfactoryservice, express thanks to hotel employees uponreceiving help, ask questions to Australian hotel employeeswhen unaware of hotel facilities or services,use hotel facilities without making a mess, know howto use hotel facilities, drink alcohol in one’s room, eatones national food in one’s room or in hotel restaurant,be unwilling to pay a bill after using the mini bar in theroom, use one’s room in an untidy fashion, take magazinesupon departure from the room, and not return theplastic room key. The Korean tourists and Australianhotel employees gave their responses for desirable andactual tourist behaviors for each of the 23 items on a7-point scale where 1 represented disagreement and 7represented agreement.The results of this study indicated that 11 out of 23comparisons were significant for C1 (expectations ofdesirable tourist behavior – Australian service providerversus Korean tourists). On C2 (perceptions of actualtourist behaviors – Australian service providers versusKorean tourists), 14 out of 23 comparisons were significant.As regards to C3 (desirable versus actual touristbehavior – Korean tourists), 22 out of 23 comparisonswere significant. Finally, for C4 (desirable versus actualtourist behavior – Australian service providers), all 23comparisons were significant. The authors also note that,besides statistical significance, divergence of opinions inthese comparisons provides even more robust insights.Starting with 1 out of 11 statistically significant anddivergent finding for C1, 14 out of 23 findings showeddivergence of opinions at the statistically significantlevels for C4. The number of statistically significantand divergent findings was 5 out of 14 for C2, and 9out of 22 for C3.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

40 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011These results provide some very interesting insightson tourist behavior in terms of the expectations ofdesirable behavior and perceptions of actual behaviorby tourists themselves and by service providers. First,the comparison of the opinions/ratings of the twogroups (tourists themselves and service providers)on expectations of the desirable tourist behavior (C1)showed only 1 out of 23 divergent results. This impliesthat there was a fair amount of agreement between thetwo groups as to what is considered as the desirabletourist behavior. Korean tourists constitute a sizeablepercentage of inbound tourists in Australia and thisfinding conveys that Australian service providers haverelatively good idea of the expected code of conductbased on the cultural norms of the tourists’ culture oforigin (Korean culture). Second, the comparison ofactual versus desirable tourist behaviors, namely C3and C4, showed that both groups gave opinions/ratingsthat indicated a deviant actual behavior comparedto the desirable behavior based on cultural norms oftourists. For C3, comparing the differences withingroup (actual versus desirable tourist behavior ratedby tourists themselves), 22 out of 23 comparisonswere statistically significant. For C4, comparing thedifferences within the group (actual versus desirabletourist behaviors rated by service providers), all 23comparisons were statistically significant. This findingsuggests that Korean tourists on group tours behavequite differently compared to their cultural norms andthis view is shared by both tourists and the serviceproviders.Package tourism is extensively used in China,Japan, and Korea. These are collectivistic societieswhich encourage, and often require, adherence to socialnorms and accepted patterns of collectivistic behaviors,geared towards the larger interests of the society ratherthan the individuals. These group-oriented societiesare also extremely hierarchical and respect authority.Tourism planning and execution of all the arrangementsrequire careful attention to details as well as personal,social, financial, and safety risks. Package tourismoffers a structured mode of travel, minimizes the riskand uncertainty, and provides a platform for collectivesocial interaction.However, typically collectivistic, high power distancesocieties are also extremely competitive and theindividuals feel a need to escape from their stressfulroutine life (Han & Heather, 2001). Therefore, manyindividuals seek novelty through pleasure travel to internationaldestinations. While these tourists may join apackage because of advantage of collectivity, structureand risk reduction, their motivation for pleasure travelto an international destination is often driven by adventureand novelty seeking. Consequently, the behaviorof these tourists on package tours would deviate fromthe norms of their home culture.The authors bring in the concept of “Tourist Culture”(Jafari, 1987) in addition to the “National Culture” toexplain their findings in this study. The “National Culture”is captured through five dimensions of Hofstede(1980, 2001). The authors postulate that the touristbehavior in group tours is a function of national cultureof the tourists and the temporary tourist culture, whichthe individuals may adopt when on a holiday. Accordingto Jafari (1987), tourist culture “…defines andredefines roles, rules, notions, motions, forms, forces,expectations, processes, and the nature of animation”(153). The authors further quote Jafari (1987) on thetransformation of the tourist “…as the emergence intotouristhood deepens, the tourist … is transformed intoa new person with a new identity (the tourist) that heis playing on a new stage (the magnet) and thus he isliving up to the magnet of a new culture (the “touristculture”)” (157). The quest for unusual, out of theordinary experiences, which would not be normallypermitted back home, leads many tourists to embrace“tourist culture” behaviors. Jafari and Way (1994) suggestthat for international tourists, an escape from thenorms of their home culture may in fact provide themwith relief from their ordinary and routine life, andprovide tourists with relaxation and novelty.The findings of Kim and McKercher (2011) suggestthat Korean tourists tend to deviate from their homecultural norms while taking package tours in Australia.They tend to be noisier, rearrange restaurant layouts, eatand drink in their rooms and engage in more extremecollectivistic behaviors. At the same time, they are lessJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 41likely to eat meals at set times, less likely to yield toothers in the elevators and less likely to observe carein use of the hotel facilities. The authors concludefrom these and other findings that the tourist behavioron group tours represents a combination of nationalculture and tourist culture.The fourth study reported in this sub-section is byMeng (2010) and develops four propositions on therelationship between Individualism versus Collectivismwith group travel behavior. The author reviews findingsrelating to different aspects of group travel behavior andfour of the five cultural dimensions of Hofstede: ConfucianDynamism, Individualism versus Collectivism,Power Distance, and Uncertainty Avoidance. Examplesare drawn mainly from collectivistic societies of Asiasuch as China, Japan and Korea. The author proposesa conceptual model in which the individualism versuscollectivism in a culture affects group travel behaviorin conjunction with two other categories of variables(social, political and economic factors) and personalbackground (age, education, income, language skills andpast overseas travel experience). These other categoriesof variables are also conceptualized to moderate therelationship between individualism versus collectivismand group travel behavior.Studies of Tourist Behaviors After-TravelIn this subsection, five types of post-travel behaviorsare included: quality evaluation, price/value evaluation,overall evaluation/image, satisfaction/dissatisfactionand repeat purchase/revisit intention. Each of these fivepost-travel behaviors can be applied to the domains oftravel mode, destination, transportation, accommodation,food, and activities/tours.1. Destination: quality, perceived value, overallevaluation, satisfaction, revisits intention:A large number of studies have compared Asian versusWestern tourists examining behaviors such as servicequality evaluations, perceive value evaluations, performance/overallevaluations, satisfaction/dissatisfactionand repeat travel/visit intentions. Asian tourists in generaltend to have higher expectations and evaluate theservice performance less favorably compared to theirWestern counterparts. These differences are attributedto two cultural values. First, Asian cultures are peopleoriented Collectivistic societies and Asian tourists arelikely to expect greater courtesy and considerationcompared to societies, which are less people orientedand individualistic. Second, Asian cultures are higherin Power Distance and Asian tourists are likely to viewthemselves much more powerful than their serviceproviders compared to Western cultures where suchcontrasts may not exist or may be less extreme. Thus,overall, tourists from Asian countries are stricter in theirperformance evaluations.Hsu and Kang (2003) investigated differences inperception of service quality, perceived value, overallimage/destination attractiveness, satisfaction, and revisitintention between Asian and Western tourists toHong Kong. Their database consisted of 183 non-transitinternational visitors coming from seven major sourcemarkets: Australia, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan,USA, and Western Europe. These visitors had traveledto Hong Kong as family independent travelers (FITs)for vacation/pleasure/family purposes. The findingsof this research study indicated that Western touristsevaluated service quality, perceived values, good valuefor money, satisfaction with the visit and attractivenessof Hong Kong as a tourist destination more favorablycompared to Asian tourists. However, Western touristsindicated a lower likelihood of returning to HongKong for a repeat visit compared to Asian tourists.The authors contemplate that the proximity of HongKong to Asian countries may possibly be the reasonexplaining the higher likelihood of revisit expressedby Asian tourists.2. Transportation: quality evaluation, priceevaluation, repeat purchase intention:Crotts and Erdmann (2000) examine the relationshipbetween the Masculinity versus Femininity dimensionand traveler’s evaluation of airline ticket prices, evaluationof flight and loyalty to airline. They used a subsetof the database compiled by the U.S. Department ofJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

42 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011Commerce’s Office of Travel and Tourism Industries(OTTI) for 1996-98. The countries of origin of the U.S.bound tourists were Brazil, Germany, Japan, Taiwanand the United Kingdom. The findings of these authorsindicate that the respondents from masculine culturesnegatively evaluated the airline ticket prices and overallservice quality. They also responded unfavorably to thequestion related to the loyalty to the airline for repeattravel. These findings were replicated in a subsequentstudy by Crotts and Litvin (2003), which used a subsetof the OTTI data for the year 2000. These two researchstudies explain the findings in terms of the traits ofachievement and aggression associated with masculinecultures. It is, therefore, interpreted that such traits mayresult in higher levels of expectations and/or stricterstandards of evaluations.3. Accommodation: service quality evaluation:A study by Mattila (1999) examined the differencebetween Asian and Western tourists in their perceptionsof the service encounter and service quality evaluationfor two luxury hotels in Singapore. The researchersobserved the encounters between hotels’ front deskemployees and guests after which they asked the gueststo complete a questionnaire. The findings in this studyindicated that Asian tourists rated both the serviceencounter and service quality significantly lower thanWestern tourists. As discussed earlier, these results canbe attributed to the higher levels of expectations of Asiantourists due to the people oriented collectivistic natureof the Asian societies, as well as the inherent socialinequalities, which exist in these high power distancecultures leading to higher levels of expectations. Mattilaalso found that, while Asian tourists gave significantlylower ratings compared to western tourists, their facialexpressions did not reflect their inner feelings.Another study examining the tourists’ after-travelbehaviors related to the evaluation of hotel serviceswas conducted by Tsang and Ap (2007). These authorscompared the Asian and Western tourists’ evaluationsof the relational quality service provided by the guestcontact employees of a hotel in Hong Kong. The findingsof this study indicated that Asian tourists gave significantlylower ratings to the service quality comparedto Western tourists. The authors explain these findingsbased on differences on the cultural dimension of powerdistance between Asian and Western tourists. Further,the authors also found that different factors were takeninto consideration by Asian and Western tourists in theirevaluations. The relevant considerations for the Westerntourists included goal completion, efficiency and timesavings, whereas for Asian tourists the quality of interpersonalrelationship was the key consideration.ANALYSIS OF TOURIST BEHAVIORS: ACONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK BASED ONHOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONSThe literature review discussed in the previous sectionis summarized on Table 2. For each of the 17 studiesdiscussed in the literature review, the relevant touristbehavior(s) studied by the author(s) and Hofstede’s(1980, 2001), five cultural dimensions used to explainthe findings are identified on Table 2. Various touristbehaviors are identified with an index number indicatedon Table-1: BT1 to BT14 for Before-Travel stage, DT1to DT11 for During-Travel stage and AT1 to AT30 forAfter-Travel stage. The cultural dimensions used toexplain the findings are listed under the applicabletourist behavior domains. The following key is usedfor listing the five cultural dimensions: CD= ConfucianDynamism, IC= Individualism/Collectivism, MF=Masculinity/Femininity, PD= Power Distance and UA=Uncertainty Avoidance.An examination of the summary given on Table 2provides with some useful insights on the applicabilityof Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to various touristbehavior domains. There is a very clear pattern interms of which cultural dimensions are applicable onwhich stage of the tourist behavior. The behaviors inthe after-travel stage include only three of the originalfour dimensions and the uncertainty avoidance dimensionis missing in the studies of after-travel behaviors.Similarly, the power distance and masculinity/femininitydimensions are by and large missing for behaviors inthe before and during stages.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 43The analysis summarized on Table 2 shows that onlyindividualism/collectivism and uncertainty avoidancedimensions are applicable in the before and duringstages. We also note that the fifth dimension (ConfucianDynamism) is by and large missing, except in Wongand Lau (2001) study, as a part of the overall index ofculture in Reisinger and Mavondo (2005) study, informulating some propositions in Meng (2010) studyand in the development of some measures in Kim andMcKercher (2011) study. This can be attributed to alarge extent to the fact that the Confucian Dynamismdimension has been discovered much later than the otherfour dimensions. We feel that the Confucian Dynamismdimension has a lot of potential for explaining severaltypes of tourist behaviors, and we discuss some ofthese issues in the next section. In the meanwhile, ourconceptual framework is based on the findings relatedto the original four dimensions of Hofstede (1980) asdiscussed in previous sections, and as summarized onTable 2.Our conceptual framework is based on the insightsdrawn from our analysis of the applicability of Hofstede’scultural dimensions to various domains of travelbehaviors and the processes underlying these applications.Based on these applicability patterns and ourunderstanding of the underlying processes, we identifythree categories of behaviors. These are labeled “CollectivityOrientation Driven Travel Behaviors,” “RiskTendencies Driven Travel Behaviors,” and “SocialInteraction Driven Travel Behaviors.”For the “Social Interaction Driven Travel Behavior”category, the three relevant cultural value dimensionsare individualism/collectivism, power distance andmasculinity/femininity. As previously discussed, thesethree dimensions together were earlier characterized byHofstede and Bond (1988) as expected social behaviorscapturing the behavior of individuals in different socialsituations: behavior towards groups, behavior towardsjuniors and seniors and behavior as a function of anindividual’s social gender roles respectively. It is indeedstriking to note that tourist behaviors, which involveevaluations of their social encounters and experiencessuch as behaviors mostly in the after-travel category,stand out in terms of the application of these threecultural dimensions. The findings of the present studysuggest that these three dimensions may exercise theirinfluence either independently, in pairs or all three atthe same time.As regards the other two categories of behaviors,“Collectivity Orientation Driven Travel Behavior” and“Risk Tendencies Driven Travel Behaviors,” anotherclear pattern was noted based on the results summarizedon Table 2. For both before-travel and during-travelstages, the two dominant dimensions were individualism/collectivismand uncertainty avoidance. Further,for both stages of travel behaviors, these two dimensionsacted independently as well as in conjunctionwith each other.An in depth analysis of research done in this area,however, suggests that the underlying processes, throughwhich the cultural influences work, are very differentfor before and during stages of travel behaviors. Manyof the research studies discussed that tourists resort tomeasures such as group travel, traveling with a largeparty, etc., in order to reduce risk associated with travelingalone in a foreign country. Thus, risk reductionis the objective or motive that leads to a collectivisticaction or outcome on part of many tourists in theduring-travel stage. On the other hand, past researchfindings also indicate that many societies of the East,such as Japan and China, prefer to travel in groups dueto the collectivistic nature of those societies. Thus, inthese cultures collectivism is not an action or outcomeof the risk reduction tendencies; it is an objective ormotive in itself. The individuals in such collectivisticsocieties do receive the benefit of reduced risk associatedwith group travel; however, that is not the mainor only reason why they travel in groups in the firstplace. Instead, collectivism is a preferred way of lifeto most Asian societies, an example being the conceptof Japanese Travel Life Cycle discussed earlier. Thisdistinction between the before and during stages oftravel can be summed up as a sequential motive andoutcome relationship. For the during-travel stage, riskreduction is the motive, which results in a collectivisticoutcome (UA IC) whereas in the before-travel stage,J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

44 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011Table 2. Application of Hofstede’s Five Cultural Dimensions to Tourist Behaviors.Before-Travel Behaviors During-Travel Behaviors After-Travel BehavioursResearch StudyBT1BT2BT3BT4BT8BT9BT10BT13BT14DT1DT2DT5DT6DT7DT8DT9DT10DT11AT1AT2AT3AT4AT5AT11AT12AT15AT16AT291. Pizam and Sussmann (1995)IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC ICUA UA UA UA UA UA UA UA UA2. Mattila (1999)ICPD3. Crotts and Erdmann (2000) MF MF MF4. Kim and Lee (2000) IC5. March (2000) IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC IC6. Wong and Lau (2001) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD7. Crotts and Litvin (2003) UA UA UA UA MF MF MF8. Hsu and Kang (2003)IC IC IC IC ICPD PD PD PD PD9. Money and Crotts (2003) UA UA UA UA10. Prebensen, Larsen andAbelsen (2003)IC11. Crotts (2004) UA UA UA UA12. Litvin and Kar (2004) IC13. Prebensen (2005) IC IC IC IC IC IC IC ICAll14. Reiseinger and Mavondo (2005)5All5PD15. Tsang and Ap(2007)IC IC IC16. Meng (2010)UA UA UACD17. Kim &McKercher (2011)All5Key:CD = Confucian Dynamism, IC = Individualism/Collectivism, MF = Masculinity/Femininity, PD = Power Distance, UA = Uncertainty AvoidanceJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 45collectivism is the motive, which results in risk reductionas an outcome (IC UA).The conceptual framework developed in the currentresearch is presented in Figure 1. This framework depictsthe applicability of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions todifferent categories of tourists’ behaviors labeled “CollectivityOrientation Driven Travel Behaviors,” “RiskTendencies Driven Travel Behaviors,” and “SocialInteraction Driven Travel Behaviors”. The conceptualframework also depicts the processes underlying theapplication of dominant values to these categories oftravel behaviors.DISCUSSIONWe feel that the fifth cultural dimension, ConfucianDynamism, has great potential for application in thetourism research and studies of tourist behaviors, especiallyso in the after-travel category of behaviors,which we have characterized as “Social InteractionDriven Travel Behaviors.” Travel and tourism isessentially an experiential product and, in a largeproportion of these experiences, result from socialinteractions with tourism service providers. Touristexpectations are influenced by the norms and workethics/philosophies applicable in their own culturesand the same are used for evaluating the experiencesand services they received in a foreign culture. TheConfucian Dynamism, which includes values relatingto face, status, tradition, etc., are especially relevantfor understating the behavior of Asian tourists. Someof the discrepancies in the research, discussed earlierin this paper, can be explained using concepts fromthis fifth dimension.The study by Hsu and Kang (2003) contemplatedthat the Asian tourists’ favorable response to the repeatvisit intentions question, despite their unfavorable serviceevaluations, can be explained by the geographicalproximity of Asian countries to Hong Kong. Whilethe distance explanation certainly holds ground, weconjecture that the discrepancy in response to theservice evaluation and repeat visit intention questionscan also be explained based on the ConfucianDynamism dimension. One of the values included inthe Confucian Dynamism dimension is the concept of“face” which, along with other related cultural valuesof Chinese society such as “Harmony,” “External Attribution,”and “Continuity” (Mok & DeFranco, 1999;Yau, 1988), is extremely relevant for understandingthe behavior of tourists from China and other Asiancountries, especially in the after-travel context.The Asian tourist may be dissatisfied and may haveevaluated their travel experience rather negatively, butwhen asked about their intention to revisit, they mayprovide a favorable response because such a responsewill be consistent with the notion of “continuity” inChinese value system 2 . It would also protect the “face”of the service provider who may otherwise loose it ifthe tourist was to discontinue the association. Chinesepeople tend not to complain or take a public action; itwould be considered an extreme behavior and againstthe Chinese value of “Harmony” with others. Often,“external attributions” are made to avoid confrontationalsituations. Indeed, the Confucian Dynamism conceptcan also explain why in Mattila’s study the Asiantourists did not exhibit their feelings of dissatisfactionon their face, despite their unfavorable evaluation ofthe hotel service encounters. Complaining not onlymakes the service provider to loose his/her face, it isembarrassing for the tourist as well, which certainly isnot desirable in many cultures of the world.There are many salient implications of this researchfor travel and tourism marketing. The cultural valuesof Hofstede (1980, 1982, 1983, 2001) are found relevantfor the understanding of tourist behaviors inall categories of the before, during, and after touristexperience. The influence of culture on tourist behaviorspans from basic travel motivation to touristdecision making process involving preference andchoice behaviors, and continues to various aspects ofpost-purchase behaviors such as service quality andperceived value evaluations, satisfaction and revisit2Chinese belief that once a relationship is established it isextremely difficult to break.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

46 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011intentions. Such insights enable the marketers to designeffective strategies related to products and promotionsgeared toward different segments.As discussed earlier, culture is the broadest determinantof human behavior and exerts a direct as well asan indirect (through social, personal, and psychologicalfactors) influence on consumer behavior. Tourism istruly a complex global phenomenon and the influenceof culture on behavior is especially salient in the field oftourism compared to other services. Hofstede’s culturaldimensions are very widely acknowledged and referredin this context, and the current study expands our understandingof the applicability of these dimensions tovarious types of tourist behaviors and the underlyingprocesses through which such influences work.FUTURE RESEARCHThere is a wealth of research done in the field of traveland tourism that acknowledges the importance of cultureand compares the behavior of tourists from differentnationalities. However, the research studies that specificallyuse Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as explanatoryvariables for their findings are rather limited. Therefore,there is ample scope for cross-cultural tourism researchusing theoretical frameworks such as those developed byHofstede and his colleagues. Considering the complexityof culture and the complexity of the field of travel andtourism, it is not surprising therefore that the investigationof mechanisms and theoretical processes underlyingthe influence of culture on tourist behaviors has beenrelatively limited. We feel that there is an immense scopefor developing in-depth theories of cross-cultural touristbehavior. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions have proven aneffective tool for understanding cultural differences in avariety of fields dealing with human behavior; certainly,the field of travel and tourism will benefit a great dealfrom further research related to the extension and applicationsof these cultural dimensions. The conceptualframework developed in our research provides withsome further insights into the relative dominance of thevarious cultural dimensions in different stages of travelbehaviors. The processes suggested here are, however,contemplative and there is room for further developmentand testing of these and other processes underlyingthe influence of various cultural dimensions on touristbehaviors. This suggests need for both conceptual andempirical research on this subject.ReferencesBeatty, S. E., Lynn, R. K., & Pamela, H. (1991). PersonalValues and Gift Giving Behaviors: A study AcrossCultures. Journal of Business Research, 22, 149-157.Bello, D., & Etzel, M. (1985). The Role of Novelty inPleasure Travel Experience. Journal of TravelResearch, 40, 172-183.Bond & the Chinese Cultural Connection (1987). ChineseValues and the Search for Culture-free Dimensionsof Culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,18(2), 143-164.Bond, M. H., & Lee, W.H. (1978). Face Saving in ChineseCulture: A Discussion and Experimental Study ofHong Kong Students. In M. H. Bond (Ed.) SocialLife and Development in Hong Kong. Hong KongChinese University Press.Carr, N. (2001). An Exploratory Study of Gender Differencesin Young Tourists’ Perceptions of Danger withinLondon. Tourism Management, 22, 565-570.Chon, K. S. (1992). Self-image/Destination-image Congruity.Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 360-363.Crotts, J. (2004). The Effect of Cultural Distance onOverseas Travel Behaviors. Journal of TravelResearch, 43(August), 83-88.Crotts, J. & Erdmann, R. (2000). Does National CultureInfluence Consumers’ Evaluation of Travel Services?A Test of Hofstede’s Model of Cross-cultural Differences.Managing Service Quality, 10(5), 410-419.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist Behaviors 47Crotts, J. & Litvin, S. W. (2003). Cross-cultural Research: AreResearchers Better Served by Knowing Tespondents’Country of Birth, Residence, or Citizenship? Journalof Travel Research, 42(November), 186-190.De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). Cross-cultural ConsumerBehavior: A Review of Research Findings.Journal of International Consumer Marketing,23(3/4), 181-192.Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Cultures. New York: Doubleday,Anchor.Han, B., & Heather, J. (2001). Korean Tourists’ Characteristicsin Guam. Journal of Photo-Geographers, 11(1),69-83.Herkowitz, M. (1948). Man and His Work. New York:Knopf.Hofstede, G. (1979). Value System in Forty Countries:Interpretation, Validation, and Consequences forTheory. In L. H. Eckensberger, W. J. Lonner, & Y.H. Poortinga (Eds.) Cross-Cultural Contributionsto Psychology. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets andZeitlinger.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: InternationalDifferences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1982). Dimensions of National Cultures. In R.Rath, H. S. Asthana, D. Sinha, & J. B. H. Sinha (Eds.)Diversity and Unity in Cross-Cultural Psychology.Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of National Cultures inFifty Countries and Three Regions. In J. B.Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.)Expectations in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Lisse,The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.Hofstede, G. (1989). Organizing for Cultural Diversity.European Management Journal, 7(4), 390-397.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences (2 nd Ed.).Thousand Okas, CA: Sage Publications.Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s CultureDimensions: An Independent Validation UsingRokeach’s Value Survey. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 15(4), 417-433.Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. H. (1988). The ConfuciusConnection: From Cultural Roots to EconomicGrowth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.Hsu, C. H. C. & Kang, S. K. (2003). Profiling Asian andWestern Family Independent Travelers (FITs): AnExploratory Study. Asia Pacific Journal of TourismResearch, 8(1), 58-71.Jafari, J. (1987). Tourism Models: The Socio-culturalAspects. Tourism Management, 82(2), 151-159.Jafari, J., & Way, W. (1994). Multicultural Strategies inTourism. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly, 35(6), 72-29.Kale, S., McIntyre, R., & Weir, K. (1987). MarketingOverseas Tour Packages to the Youth Segments:An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Travel Research,25(4), 20-31.Kim, C., & Lee, S. (2000). Understanding the CulturalDifferences in Tourist Motivation between Anglo-American and Japanese Tourists. Journal of Travel& Tourism Marketing, 9(1/2), 153-170.Kim, S. S., & McKercher, B. (2011). The Collective Effectof National Culture and Tourist Culture on TouristBehavior. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,28(2), 145-164.Kluckhohn, C. (1954). Culture and Behavior. New York:Free Press.Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The Effect of NationalCulture on the Choice of Entry Mode. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 19(3), 411-432.Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing Management(13 th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Litvin, S. W., & Kar, G. H. (2003). Individualism/Collectivism as a Moderating Factor to the SelfimageCongruity Concept. Journal of VacationMarketing, 10(1), 23-32.Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. K. (1996). Current Issues inthe Cross-cultural and Cross-national ConsumerResearch. Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, 8(3/4), 9-22.Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. K. (2011). Current Issues inthe Cross-cultural and Cross-national ConsumerJ. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011

48 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative ScienceDecember 2011Research in the Global Economy of the TwentyfirstCentury. Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, 23(3/4), 167-180.March, R. (2000). The Japanese Travel Life Cycle. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(1/2), 185-200.Mattila, A. S. (1999). The Role of Culture and PurchaseMotivation in Service Encounter Evaluations. TheJournal of Services Marketing, 13(4/5), 376-389.Meng, F. (2010). Individualism/Collectivism and GroupTravel Behavior: A Cross-cultural Perspective.International Journal of Culture, Tourism, andHospitality Research, 4(4), 340-351.Mok, C., & De Franco, A. L. (1999). Chinese CulturalValues: Their Implications for Traveland TourismMarketing. Journal of Travel and TourismMarketing, 8(2), 99-114.Money, R., & Crotts, J. (2003). The Effects of UncertaintyAvoidance on Information Search, Planning, andPurchases of International Travel Vacations. TourismManagement, 24(2), 191-202.Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer Behavior in Tourism.European Journal of Marketing, 21(109), 5-44.Pizam, A., & Sussmann, S. (1995). Does Nationality AffectTourist Behavior? Annals of Tourism Research,22(4), 901-917.Plummer, J. T. (1977). Consumer Focus in Cross-nationalResearch. Journal of Advertising, 6(1), 5-15.Prebensen, N. K. (2005). Segmenting the Group TouristHeading for Warmer Weather: A NorwegianExample. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,19(4), 27-40.Prebensen, N. K., Larsen, S., & Abelsen, B. (2003). I’m nota typical Tourist: German Tourists’ Self-perception,Activities, and Motivations. Journal of TravelResearch, 41(May), 416-420.Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel Anxiety andIntentions to Travel Internationally: Implications ofTravel Risk Perception. Journal of Travel Research,43(February), 212-225.Roehl, W., & Fesenmaier, D. (1992). Risk Perceptions andPleasure Travel: An Exploratory Analysis. Journalof Travel Research, 30(4), 17-26.Sakakida, Y., Cole, S. T., & Card, J. A. (2004). A CrossculturalStudy of College Students’ TravelPreferences: A Value-oriented Perspective. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 16(1), 35-41.Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. (2007). Consumer Behavior(9 th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Seddighi, H. M., Nuttall, M., & Theochaous, A. (2001).Does Cultural Background of Tourist Influencethe Destination Choice? An Empirical Study withSpecial Reference to Political Instability. TourismManagement, 22, 181-191.Triandis, H. C. (1994). Cultural and Social Behavior. NewYork: McGraw Hill.Tsang, N. K., & Ap, J. (2007). Tourists’ Perceptions of RelationalQuality Service Attributes: A Cross-culturalStudy. Journal of Travel Research, 45(February),355-363.Watkins, H. S., & Lin, R. (1996). Collectivism, Individualism& In-group Membership: Implications for ConsumerComplaint Behavior in Multicultural Context.Journal of International Consumer Marketing,8(3/4), 69-96.Wong, S., & Lau, E. (2001). Understanding the Behaviorof Hong Kong Chinese Tourists on Group TourPackages. Journal of Travel Research, 40(August),57-67.Yau, O. H. M. (1988). Chinese Cultural Values: TheirDimensions and Marketing Implications. EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 22(5), 44-57.J. econ. finance adm. sci., 16(31), 2011