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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions an
Page 3 and 4: Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hof
Page 15: Vol. 16, Nº 31Manrai & Manrai: Hof

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?