Journal of Travel Research
http://jtr.sagepub.com
Casting Off: An Exploration of Cruise Ship Space, Group Tour Behavior, and Social Interaction
Careen Mackay Yarnal and Deborah Kerstetter
Journal of Travel Research 2005; 43; 368
DOI: 10.1177/0047287505274650
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/4/368
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Travel and Tourism Research Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 27 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/4/368
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
MAY 2005 OF TRAVEL RESEARCH
10.1177/0047287505274650
JOURNAL
Casting Off
An Exploration of Cruise Ship Space,
Group Tour Behavior, and Social Interaction
CAREEN MACKAY YARNAL AND DEBORAH KERSTETTER
Growth in tourism during the past 20 years means more
people are using physical spaces away from home for vacation. Yet research on vacation spaces is noticeably absent.
Focusing on a cruise ship, the primary purpose of this article
is to draw attention to how social interaction in a group vacation context intersects with vacation experiences. A secondary purpose is to introduce space and how it can extend
thinking about the role that tourism spaces play in the development of social interaction. The results indicate that individuals use cruise ships to feel at ease and comfortable with
themselves, as well as in control and liberated. They also develop social interactions during a cruise and make “playful”
spaces on the cruise ship. Using these themes, the authors
highlight limitations in current conceptualizations of tourism behavior. The authors also suggest how cruise lines
might use the study to create more meaningful passenger
experiences.
Keywords: cruise tourism; liminality; social relationships; vacation space
With an average annual growth rate of more than 4%,
international tourist arrivals have expanded from fewer than
300 million in 1980 to approximately 700 million in 2001
(World Tourism Organization [WTO], 2002). The significant growth in tourism during the past 20 years means more
people are using a physical space away from home for vacation (Peisley 1996; WTO 1999; World Travel and Tourism
Council et al. 2002). Yet little is known about the role of
space, or “all of the actions that take place at a particular
location” (Domash and Seager 2001, p. xxi), in the vacation
experience (Franklin 2003; Inglis 2000). Gottlieb (1982),
Passariello (1983), and Wickens (2002) used ethnography to
look at individual tourist behavior. The role of space was
noticeably absent from their studies. Others (Bruner 1995;
Foster 1986; Lett 1983; Quiroga 1990) accompanied a group
tour, and again, the contribution space made to understanding tourists’ experience was overlooked. To our knowledge,
there have been no studies using ethnography to explore how
group tour behavior and space intersect with vacation experiences. Furthermore, few researchers have studied how people use vacation space for social interaction (Franklin 2003;
Inglis 2000). This is surprising because several authors theorize that vacation spaces conducive to social interaction may
be one of the primary meanings associated with the tourism
experience (Oldenburg 1999; Pine and Gilmore 1999; Wang
2000).
Among the many types of vacation space, cruise ships are
one of the industry’s most economically vibrant (Cruise
Lines International Association [CLIA], 2003). Cruising
worldwide has grown from 3.5 million cruise tourists in 1990
to more than 9.5 million cruisers in 2003. Annual growth in
cruise tourism has averaged in excess of 8% since 1980,
more than twice the average rate of other forms of tourism
(CLIA 2000, 2003). In the 1990s, the number of cruise ships
increased from 97 to 180, while the number of berths more
than doubled from 68,000 to 158,343. The industry plans to
double capacity again by the year 2005. Research on these
“floating resort spaces” is largely confined to economic analyses (Douglas and Douglas 1997; Dwyer and Forsyth 1998;
Petrick 2004a, 2004b) and environmental impact studies
(Ritter and Schaffer 1998; Wood 2000). Sociological,
anthropological, and geographical perspectives on cruise
travel and their contributions to understanding tourist behavior are sparse, a remarkable oversight given the popularity of
this travel mode (Douglas and Douglas 1997; Wood 2000;
Yarnal 2004).
The primary purpose of this article is to draw attention to
social interaction in a group vacation context and how it
interacts with vacation experiences. A secondary purpose is
to assess the role one vacation space—a cruise ship—plays
in fostering social interaction. The manuscript is separated
into four sections. The first section introduces the literature
informing the study. The second section focuses on a cruise
ship as the backdrop for this study as well as the data collection and data analysis procedures. The third segment highlights themes emerging from participant observation of
cruise tour group members. The final section provides a discussion of findings, limitations of the study, and suggestions
for future research.
Careen Mackay Yarnal is an assistant professor in Recreation,
Park and Tourism Management at Penn State University, Happy
Valley, Pennsylvania. Deborah Kerstetter is an associate professor
in Recreation, Park and Tourism Management at Penn State University, Happy Valley, Pennsylvania.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, May 2005, 368-379
DOI: 10.1177/0047287505274650
© 2005 Sage Publications
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 369
LITERATURE REVIEW
Domash and Seager defined space as “all of the actions
that take place at a particular location” (2001, p. xxi). Using
this definition, national parks, resorts, beaches, and cruise
ships are vacation spaces. Vacation spaces also involve processes. People interact and do things in vacation spaces, like
having dinner with vacationing friends or surfing with a
buddy, because such spaces are “desirable places to socialize
and relax” (Preston-Whyte 2004, p. 353). However, missing
from the literature is an understanding of what goes on in
vacation spaces and why. More specifically, what role does
space play in how individuals interact with one another?
Also, how does being in a vacation space affect people’s
behavior? As a way of looking at these topics, several
authors have argued that interactionism, the way individuals
relate to one another in social contexts, and liminality, a transition space and/or a limbo-like state outside of ordinary life,
offer considerable potential (Crouch 2000; Huan and
Beaman 2003; Preston-Whyte 2004; Shields 1991; Tuan
1997; Turner 1982; Wearing and Deane 2003). Reviews of
the literature on space and social interaction and space and
liminality follow.
Space and Social Interaction
The self (or selves) that an individual presents in a vacation space may not be different only to the self presented in
work or home space—the public self may also be different to
the way the individual thinks of his or her private or inner
self. To complicate matters, the public self that the individual
presents in a vacation space such as a cruise ship may, in reality, be a presentation of a private, or I, side of the individual
normally hidden from view. Kelly (1981) articulated the tension between self-definition, the I, and social identity, the
me, as role identity. Kelly also argued that because leisure is
a space of relative freedom, “it would seem to be a social
space for innovation and experimentation with new role
identities as well as for the recovery and redefining of old
ones with minimal risk to economic and familial roles”
(p. 316). It would also seem to be a space for social interaction.
Interactionism or the interactionist perspective recognizes that “people’s behavior and experience can best be
understood by taking into account both the influence of the
social situation (e.g., the presence and behavior of other people) and the influence of [the personal factors] they bring to
the situation (e.g., attitudes, motives, personality traits)”
(Mannell and Kleiber 1997, p. 22). Researchers have conceptualized interactionism in a multitude of ways, however.
If building off of the work of Gilbert (1992) and Tuomela
(1995), the focus is on the collective group rather than the
individual’s role within the group and a “key basis for group
action . . . is the mutual possession of a sense of ‘us’”
(Bagozzi 2000, p. 389), then theoretically, all members of
the group are predisposed to act on behalf of the group and
they are linked together through obligations that they have to
the group.
A second conceptualization is more interpersonal. Here,
group members are believed to act or react in coordinated
ways, but the assumption is not that their actions or reactions
are because of aspirations for the collective good. Instead, as
Bagozzi and Lee (2002) suggest, they have individual-level
reasons or interpersonal pressure to behave in a certain way
within a group, and they are performing the act by themselves. The extent to which individuals perform an act by
themselves is dependent on how strongly they identify with
their group (Terry and Hogg 1996).
Harvey and Taylor (2000) introduced a third conceptualization of the interactionist perspective. They suggested that
behavior cannot be understood without taking into account
“social space.” Social space represents the physical surroundings or location such as household space, workplace
space, or community space (e.g., social or recreational clubs).
Regardless of which conceptualization one ascribes to, it
is clear that behavior is governed to some extent by individuals’ feelings about the situation, their interaction with others
in a social space, and the personal factors that they bring to
the situation.
With respect to the personal factors individuals bring to
the situation, Wang (2000) speculated that for many individuals, being a tourist has little to do with experiencing an
authentic object or an authentic physical setting. Rather, a
tourist is searching for an authentic self and for authentic
relationships with others—that is, existential authenticity.
Wang subdivided existential authenticity into two related
components: intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity.
Intrapersonal authenticity relates to bodily feelings, selfidentity, and a search for the “true-self” (p. 62). Interpersonal
authenticity involves a search for authentic relationships
with others.
Graburn (2001), Wickens (2002), and Preston-Whyte
(2004) have argued that the true self (or selves) is more likely
to be realized in spaces out of ordinary life, free from the
responsibilities and constraints of home. For example, in the
context of a cruise ship, the relaxation of constraints and the
corresponding distance from ordinary life means that privacy
is obtainable in what is essentially a public space. This sense
of privacy is further enhanced by physically distancing oneself from the home environment. Consequently, the codes of
conduct governing ordinary home life are negotiable. In a
group, not only does a sense of solidarity and communion
emerge from the mutual release of social restraints of home,
but also there is a collective sense of freedom and license,
irresponsibility and impulsiveness, that comes with being
one of many group members acting in a similar fashion for a
temporary period (Shields 1991; Stallybrass and White
1986).
Referred to as “natural sociality” (Maffesoli 1996), “social
experience” (Urry 1990), and “social ambiance” (Wang
2000), Turner (1974) labeled this sense of solidarity and
communion communitas. He argued “as an alternative, more
liberated way of being socially human” (p. 44), communitas
is marked by spontaneous, open, nonordinary behavior and
genial interaction, interest in each other’s activities, and a
sense of belonging. Oldenburg (1999) suggested that some
physical spaces like coffee shops, pubs, bookstores, and
community centers, which are apart from the other two
spaces of home and work, foster communitas. More specifically, with physical designs that promote intangibles like
social interaction, entertainment, and relaxation, these
“third” spaces act as unifiers, where people from all age
groups meet; mixers and assimilators, where people meet old
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
370
MAY 2005
friends and make new ones; sorters, where people make initial casual contacts that may develop into long term associations through repeated encounters; and staging areas, where
people gather in times of crises. Oldenburg also argued “successful third places” (p. 10) are socially accessible.
Significantly, while there is a substantial body of work on
social interaction, there is limited empirical work on the role
that social interaction plays in the travel experience (Bruner
1995; Passariello 1983; Wickens 2002), even less attention
to the space in which interactions occur. As noted earlier, this
is surprising because spaces conducive to social interaction
may be one of the primary meanings of the tourism experience (Pine and Gilmore 1999; Wang 2000; Wearing and
Deane, 2003).
Space and Liminality
Turner (1974) defined liminality as “any condition outside or on the peripheries of everyday life” (p. 47). As a tool
for exploring tourism space, liminality highlights the importance of tourism as a voluntary ritual modern society uses to
escape from obligatory tasks like work. Different to everyday spaces, liminal spaces play an important role in countering the stresses of daily living. They can be can be playful
(e.g., a cruise ship or Walt Disney World) or serious (e.g., a
religious shrine or a national monument). Furthermore,
liminal spaces offer the potential for adopting liminal behaviors and identities that are not “the norm.” For example, people dress differently, eat and drink differently, sleep differently, act differently, play differently, and feel differently in
liminal spaces (Franklin 2003; Preston-Whyte 2004; Shields
1991; Wang 2000).
Chambers (2001) argued there are three conceptual gaps
in tourism literature on liminality. First, although used to
highlight the relationships between hosts and guests (Bruner
1995), the potential of liminality as a tool for exploring the
social interactions among tourists and how these interactions
contribute to a liminal experience remains untapped
(Yiannakis and Gibson 1992). Second, because employees
in tourism spaces are often from distant locations, the
employees themselves are liminal; cruise ship staffs provide
a prime example of this phenomenon. Many staff have multiple roles and multiple identities that may contribute to tourist’s feeling of being in a liminal space (Pine and Gilmore
1999). Third, the role that spaces themselves play in creating
liminal experiences is understudied. For instance, although a
cruise ship is a physical place, the space within it is carefully
crafted to act as a playful conduit for diverse “escapist
experiences” (Pine and Gilmore 1999, p. 34).
A fourth conceptual gap may be that liminal spaces do
not provide a standardized, “one-size-fits-all” experience
(Henderson 1996). On one hand, liminality is a functional
approach to tourism (Graburn 2001); it assumes tourism performs a purpose in life such as escape, relaxation, or change
from ordinary life. Concomitantly, it assumes that tourists
are unthinking, unfeeling, unchanging “intellectually challenged” dolts who let the experience wash over them in a
homogeneous wave of escape or relaxation (Franklin 2003,
p. 30). Several authors argue this conceptualization unrealistically portrays a vacation either as a single, unbroken experience, bereft of change or problems (Franklin 2003; Kelly
and Freysinger 2000; Stokowski 1992, 1994; Wyllie 2000),
or as having the same meaning for all individuals
(Henderson 1996; Wang 2000). Yet choices about what to do
and who to do it with on vacation are not always premeditated and rational, nor can they consistently be explained in
rational terms (Crouch 2000; Wang 2000). Paraphrasing
Franklin (2003), tourists do not have a script dictating how to
behave on vacation (p. 114). Tourists decide as they proceed
through the process. Wang (2000) argued that this is precisely why tourism spaces are popular; they allow tourists to
negotiate and make choices.
In sum, if most vacation experiences are undertaken in
the company of others, it makes sense to realign tourism
behavior research to include contexts and settings where
individuals are mutually influencing one another, like a
group tour. In addition, by highlighting a neglected type of
vacation space such as cruise ships, this study draws attention to the role that space plays in fostering social interaction
and creating meaningful experiences that tourists want to
repeat. Finally, given the dearth of qualitative research on
tourism behavior (Bowen 2002; Riley and Love 1999), especially in the context of cruising, this study elevates the role
that seldom-researched spaces like cruise ships play in
leisure experiences.
METHOD1
A Social Interactionist Perspective
A social interactionist perspective was used in this study
because of its unique strengths (Kelly 2000; Oldenburg
1999; Wearing and Wearing 2000; Wang 2000). First, a
social interactionist perspective fuses the individual with the
social and spatial setting by acknowledging that individuals
do not operate in isolation from others or from their physical
surroundings. Second, the perspective recognizes the individual as a thinking, feeling being who, through language,
social interaction, and role-playing, creates a self-conception
or private self. Third, researchers who adopt this perspective
appreciate and acknowledge that society permeates the individual; influences behavior, values, and attitudes; and creates a public self. Finally, the social interactionist perspective acknowledges that there is more than one self.
Cruising with Boz’s Boaters
Boz’s Boaters (a fictitious name for the study group) participate in a yearly cruise led by an on-air personality from a
local television station and the owner of the travel agency
providing the cruise. The group, which ranges from 90 to 180
travelers annually, included 93 cruisers on this trip and had
members ranging in age from their late teens to early 80s.
Most lived within a 50-mile radius of a small city set in an
inland rural environment. Participants included couples
(retired, employed, and unemployed), single individuals
traveling with friends or relatives, and family groups.
Registered in Panama and built in Finland, the cruise ship
the group sailed on was crewed by approximately 1,000
employees and could carry up to 2,660 passengers. Decorated in art deco style with giant murals, rich woods, brass
accents, and glass elevators, the soaring multilevel atrium
lobby was the main hub of the vessel. From here, cruisers
could wander through the public spaces of the ship. With 19
different interior designs ranging from Gothic to Chinese to
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 371
Napoleonic, one cruiser remarked, “it feels like I’m in a different country every time I shift from one place to another.
How fun is that?” The brightly colored, luxurious ship is representative of many of the larger cruise vessels plying international waters. The ship included an expansive casino complete with slot machines, tables for roulette, blackjack, and
poker; 16 bars and lounges ranging from intimate spaces
with soft piano music to soaring, multilevel spaces, with
massive hieroglyphics and an orchestra; four swimming
pools, including one with a retractable dome for inclement
weather; a two-level water slide; several dining options
including an ice cream parlor, a cafeteria (open 24 hours a
day), an elaborate formal dining room with a circular staircase, and a skylight supper club located in the ship’s funnel; a
state-of-the-art 3-level health club with soaring picture windows; a children’s playroom and daycare; a teen disco;
numerous shops with products from fine art to plastic trinkets; a wedding chapel; a library; a 3-level theatre with surround sound; and a fully equipped infirmary with medical
staff. Longer than two football fields and towering more than
20 stories, the ship also had free activities on board that
ranged from active to passive, from escapist to educational.
They included lectures, trivia contests, needlework lessons,
bingo, a rejuvenating spa, wet T-shirt contests, ballroom
dancing lessons, karaoke sessions, eating heartily, and programs to lose weight.
A 9-day, 8-night circuit was made of the Caribbean, leaving and returning from a departure port in Florida. Members
of the group tour purchased an “all-inclusive” package covering bus transfer from their hometown to the departure airport, a roundtrip flight from the origin airport to the departure port, and bus transportation to the ship. The cruise
included the selected cabin, four ports of call, 5 days at sea,
all meals, and most entertainment onboard the ship. “Extras”
included alcoholic beverages gambling, items of a personal
nature (e.g., over-the-counter medications, magazines, camera film), specialty restaurant charges for the supper club,
and the cost of shore excursions.
Data Collection
Data were collected through participant observation. Participant observation is particularly suited to exploring and
learning about a cultural group, such as Boz’s Boaters, where
“not much has been written about the topic or the population
being studied and the researcher seeks to listen to participants and build an understanding based on their ideas”
(Creswell 2003, p. 30). Data collection ranged from (1)
observation, where the lead investigator observed group
members in various contexts and settings, to (2) participant
observation, where the lead investigator observed and at the
same time participated in various group activities, to (3) participation, where the lead investigator became completely
immersed in the context or setting. Typical of participant
observation, at times, she consciously chose to spend time
with a particular subgroup or individuals. In contrast, there
were periods when both observation and participation were
unstructured. Using this approach ensured the flexibility
necessary to capture emergent themes and unanticipated
information (Creswell 1998). As she was also involved in the
study as a participant, conversation was unstructured and followed everyday interactions that would typically occur
among fellow travelers. The lead investigator did not intentionally direct dialogue unless an opportunity presented
itself, which it often did simply because of the shared nature
of the travel activity. This sharing of information formed a
central axis for rapport in part because group members could
interact with and ask questions of her at the same time that
she interacted with and provided information to them
(Denzin and Lincoln 2000).
It should be noted that foundational steps for becoming
immersed in the group were undertaken prior to accompanying Boz’s Boaters on their annual cruise tour. These steps
included an exploratory study involving qualitative interviews at home with 18 individuals or couples who were previous participants with Boz’s Boaters (Morais, Kerstetter,
and Mackay Yarnal, forthcoming), “hanging out” for
extended periods of time at the travel agency; interviewing
the two group tour leaders as key informants, going to the
annual group tour picnic reunion, attending the annual
reunion dinner, and meeting and socializing with many
group members (i.e., “old timers”).
Formal data collection for this study began at the parking
lot in the town where individuals boarded the bus for a late
winter departure to the airport about 4 hours away. The study
ended at the same parking lot after the trip was completed.
The group leader introduced the lead investigator to the
group at the point of departure. Participants were informed
about the study and provided the opportunity to ask questions. Release forms were collected from all individuals 18
years of age and older (n = 86). One hundred percent of the
sample consented to be part of the study. In the interest of
confidentiality, demographic data were not collected.
The decision to adopt an overt rather than covert
approach to data collection was made for a number of reasons (see Bowen [2002] and Denzin and Lincoln [2000] for a
discussion of options for participant observation). First,
based on the lead investigator’s relationship with the group
members and the group leader, she was comfortable that the
cruise experience would not be manipulated. Second, given
the foundational steps employed in this study, the lead investigator was not concerned that her access to group participants would be minimized. Third, management had a vested
interest in learning about their group members and as such
provided complete access to the lead investigator. Last, the
investigators were bound by their university’s Office for
Research Protection that required they adopt an overt
approach to data collection.
Given the focus of the study, events and settings were
used as units of analysis. The lead investigator balanced
maximum variation of events and settings through purposeful selection. For example, she varied her routine each day.
Some mornings she got up at 5 a.m. to catch early risers
drinking coffee, walking the deck, using the gym, and staring
out to sea. Other days, she stayed up until 3 a.m. to “hang
out” with the groups who enjoyed late night gambling, dancing, the bar scene, and karaoke. At times, she listened to discussions or became involved in conversations. At other
times, she remained detached and observed group members
from a distance (Creswell 2003). In addition, the lead
researcher looked for confirming and disconfirming evidence of, and contrasts in, social processes and interactions
(Denzin and Lincoln 2000; Marshall and Rossman 1995;
Strauss and Corbin 1994; Turner and Bruner 1986). For
example, contrasts included, but were not limited to, unusual
behavior or social exchanges, emotional outbursts, complaining, different perspectives on having fun, and input
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
372
MAY 2005
TABLE 1
VERIFICATION PROCEDURES RECOMMENDED BY CRESWELL (1998) FOR A QUALITATIVE STUDY
Procedurea
Prolonged engagement/
persistent observation
Triangulation
Peer debriefing
Negative case analysis
Clarification of researcher
bias
Member checks
Rich, thick description
External audit
Examples
Worked for extended periods in different contexts and settings prior to, during, and after
active data collection phase to build trust, learn about group, and minimize distortion
Triangulated using multiple information sources and methods including, statistics, theoretical
perspectives, findings from other ethnographic studies, oscillation from observer to participant to participant observer, interaction with gatekeepers and panel of advisors comprised of dissertation committee members and key informants, and poststudy member
checks
Regularly interacted with panel of advisors and key informants; undertook poststudy member
checks
Paid attention to contexts and settings providing disconfirming evidence (e.g., “not fun”);
used these incidents to adjust thinking to account for outliers
Stated position, biases, and assumptions clearly in text
Asked group leader and three other randomly selected cruise group members to provide
feedback for incorporation in study
Provided detailed descriptions of context, setting, theoretical perspectives, transcripts, and
data analysis
No external audit; time/financial constraints
a. Creswell (1998) recommends adopting at least two of the eight procedures listed below.
from crewmembers on individuals in the group. Based on the
lead investigator’s own experience as a cruiser as well as
information gained from group leaders, certain events made
sense to participate in and/or observe (e.g., social events such
as the Boz’s Boaters cocktail party, dinner, afternoon tea,
shore excursions, playing bridge, and craft activities). Settings included the pool, bars, shopping, the gym, the casino,
and the main atrium.
The primary method for documenting the data was field
notes (Bernard 1994). Although the lead investigator did not
write notes or tape record in public settings, she carried a
small notebook in her pocket, which she used to write preliminary field notes in private spaces such as stairwells or the
bathroom. Hence, quotes are not verbatim.
Data Analysis
Transcription involved three steps. First, three times a
day, preliminary field notes, thoughts, and mental images
were transformed into text. The lead investigator took the
second step of editing the initial text on her return home. In
situations where notes were brief, she spent time fleshing out
the notes from memory. To preserve anonymity of group
members, she removed inadvertent identifiers and deleted
notes considered compromising to group members.
Coding involved several steps. Following the procedures
recommended by Creswell (1998, 2003), Emerson, Frantz,
and Shaw (1995), and Wolcott (1999), the lead investigator
used both open coding and focused or axial coding to identify phrases, words, and ideas that were later funneled into
broad themes. This process continued until saturation was
reached and no new themes emerged (Morse 1994). Diagrams were also used as a crosscheck to work backwards
from the themes. Starting with the theme, the lead investigator made sure that the specific ideas, phrases, and words
belonged under a particular thematic umbrella. The diagrams
enabled her to make visual linkages (i.e., conceptual
clusters) by shifting words, phrases, and ideas within
focused themes (Miles and Huberman 1994). These models
helped clarify her thinking about patterns and relationships
and provided a framework for linking to the theoretical
literature.
Credibility
In an interpretive paradigm, a study has credibility if it is
plausible, trustworthy, transferable, and has multiple, documented sources of information that can be confirmed
(Babbie 2001). Several interrelated steps were taken in the
planning, implementation, data recording, coding and analysis, write up, and confirmation phases of this study that provide a firm foundation for a credible study (see Table 1).
These steps involved flexibility, adaptation, and ethical and
moral reflection on the lead investigator’s part as she struggled to (re)present the findings in a way that would not compromise the trust and rapport that she established with the
group cruise tour members during the course of the study
(Creswell 1998; Denzin and Lincoln 2000; Wolcott 1999).
FINDINGS
The immediate goal of the study was to observe and document the social interactions of individuals engaged in a
group cruise tour. Several themes emerged: notions of self,
developing social interactions during a cruise, and making
vacation spaces on a cruise ship. Using interactionism and
liminality as guides to interpretation, the following sections
expand on the three themes.
Notions of Self
Expressed through “feeling states” (Wickens 2002, p.
843), group members indicated that they were relaxed, at
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 373
ease, and comfortable with themselves as well as in control
and liberated. They also felt self-indulgent and impulsive.
For many, not only was it a different way of looking at the
world, but also, for a short period, it was a different way of
being in the world.
Ease, relaxation, and comfort. One of the most universal
responses to going on vacation, and a different way of being
in the world, is to vividly change outward appearance. For
many members of the group, donning “cruise wear” put them
in a relaxed, comfortable frame of mind. From the brightly
colored group T-shirt, which group members were encouraged to wear for the first few days of the trip as a “way of getting to know one another” to “outrageous” sun hats to
“risqué” dresses (“can you see me in all this glitter at home”)
to the ritual of hauling out “old favorites” like a well-loved
Hawaiian shirt, many said cruise wear was playful and belonged only on cruises. For example, both men and women
remarked they would “not be caught dead in a swimsuit at
home.” Several added that they only wore swimsuits on
cruises. “I find it embarrassing to begin with. But everyone
else is doing it, and there are lots of other saggy bodies. So I
get over it fast.” Another individual, who lost her luggage at
the outset of the trip, called the cruise “8 days and 7 nights
from purgatory.” When asked why, she said that one of the
pleasures of going on a cruise was wearing “cruise wear.”
She remarked that without her cruise clothing, and even with
some financial compensation from the cruise line, it was impossible for her to relax and feel comfortable with her self. In
contrast, however, this same individual remarked that she
felt more at ease with the group than she had ever felt before.
She enjoyed the concern fellow cruisers had expressed about
her lost baggage and the numerous offers for clothes she had
received.
For others, “getting a tan” was another way of changing
appearance that made them feel at ease and relaxed: “I love to
be able to show off my tan in the dead of winter when I go
home,” and “Having a tan just makes me feel better about
myself and anyway I just love the feeling of warmth on my
skin.” Indeed, after 2 days of rough seas and clouds at the
beginning of the cruise, “I hate when it’s cloudy and I can’t
lie out,” “I don’t pay for rain,” and “Where’s the sun” were
sentiments expressed by group members who used cruise
ship space to tan. In essence, even with a myriad of alternative activities on board, spending a quarter of the vacation in
the shade was not conducive to their ideas of a “fun” vacation. Many sun lovers expressed that discomfort, fatigue, and
hassles were tolerable on the way to and from the ship
because, once on board, they got down to the “serious business of cruising,” which meant warmth and sun.
Control and liberation. Physical, social, and emotional
separation from the day-to-day realities of home translated
into feelings of being more in control of life than at home and
a sense of liberation normally absent from daily life. From
the chance to focus on the self to the opportunity to spend
time with friends, from having the ability to do everything to
having the opportunity to do nothing, feelings of control and
liberation were central to the experience for many group
members. Expressing a sentiment voiced by many individuals, one group member said, “I know I am going to be well
looked after [by the group leader], so I have time to consider
other aspects of my life. . . . Like me, for instance, and what I
want out of life. I just don’t have time for that at home. I have
too many other people to think of.” Coupled with this sense
of freedom from the complexities of home life, many individuals noted that being with the group gave them a chance
to focus on a few immediate factors that were integral to their
own feelings of pleasure and self-worth such as food, laughter, conversation, and camaraderie. “Somehow, all the trivial
stuff just seems to fall away. I just seem to shed all my worries and I really feel free here. I feel good about myself.” Underscored by others, the overriding sentiment revolved
around the immediacy of the moment and having fun in the
presence of other group members. Indeed, many expressed
that there were so many things to do in the space of the cruise
ship that it would be “ridiculous” not to have fun. As one
individual put it, “there must be something wrong with you if
you can’t have fun with this group.”
Others’ control and liberation came from the challenges
that traveling presented. Framed as a sense of strength that
came from having to cope with unexpected situations, these
individuals felt traveling made them self-reliant and independent even in the presence of many other people. “I love to
travel. It makes me feel good about myself—to know that I
can do it.” The critical distinction is that although the majority of group members have traveled in other contexts and settings, most emphasized the “comfort” and “security” that
goes along with being a member of the cruising group.
Indeed, several equated traveling alone or in a twosome with
tedium and isolation: “it would probably be boring if we
were by ourselves. I think we’d feel very lonely.” In short,
not only did the presence of other group members provide a
social and emotional safety net that was of central importance to many individuals, it also served to reinforce relationship ties among group members.
Group members also indicated that their feelings of liberation came from their sense of control over time. “We have
such hectic lives at home, both socially and at work. We have
no time to think, and this is our chance to let loose. A chance
for intimate time for each other and a chance to spend
time with friends.” Thus, the group experience provided an
opportunity for many individuals to slip into a different
sequence of time. Reordering time, it became hazier, less
structured, and more flowing. “I don’t take a watch. When
I’m on vacation, I don’t need a watch. Whatever time it is,
that’s good. It’s going to be that time whether I have a watch
or not. So this is kind of therapy for me.” Individuals who
had participated in several cruises conveyed a sense of being
at ease with their time as cruisers. No longer compelled to
“do everything,” these group members expressed a sense of
being more in control of themselves, a sense of being less
influenced by the external needs and requirements of others
such as “buying for the grandkids or all the relatives.”
Finally, others remarked that being part of the tour group
was liberating because it allowed them time not to think.
Whether for social, emotional, or employment-related reasons, these individuals remarked that their situations at home
were high pressured. Consequently, the experience of “being
led around by the nose” or “being spoiled and pampered”
was paramount to their enjoyment of the experience. Others
expressed not thinking in terms of emotional and social
detachment, of freedom from the social and emotional constraints of a mundane life, such as being a mother, a parent,
or an employee. Not thinking provided an opportunity to
explore alternative experiences, a space to extend beyond
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
374
MAY 2005
prescribed social norms: “I enjoy being a Dad, but here I
have time to play other roles as well. I can be a golfer or a
gambler.”
Self-indulgence and impulsiveness. The relaxation of
constraints and the corresponding distance from ordinary life
means that privacy on a cruise ship is obtainable in what is
essentially a public space. Consequently, codes of conduct
governing ordinary home life are negotiable. As one individual noted, “Nobody really knows anybody and nobody is going to remember you after this week is over so you can let it
all hang out.” Another indicated, “It’s a chance for an adventure” and this cruise provides an opportunity “to let your hair
down.” The cruise ship is a space where participants feel at
ease both with themselves and with their identities as group
members. Sentiments expressed by the majority included, “I
like being one of the gang” and “It’s a great group to hang out
with, there’s always someone to talk to or to do things with, if
you want to. Everyone is very friendly. It’s a fun group.”
Several recognized that the space was safe from judgment by family members and acquaintances at home. The
freedom to engage in what was readily, and at times proudly,
acknowledged as childlike, irresponsible, impulsive behavior was a significant source of enjoyment for many individuals. Indeed, the improbability of engaging in similar experiences at home was often a topic of discussion among group
members serving to reinforce their sense of belonging and
group identity. Couched in terms such as “goofing around,”
“watching the scenery,” “playing around,” and “being mischievous,” these playful behaviors spanned a wide spectrum
of activities, contexts, and meanings. For some, “letting your
hair down,” meant drinking two glasses of wine at dinner
instead of one. For others, it spanned a spectrum from drinking alcohol before noon, gambling beyond self-imposed limits, joking with crewmembers, and ordering three different
desserts at a meal. From simple overindulgence in food or
alcohol to lying out in the sun too long to overspending in the
casino to having the opportunity to gossip for extended periods, many individuals took delight in the ship as a space for
pleasure and indulgence. Most group participants stressed
the presence of others and “having someone to share the joke
with” as central to their enjoyment of these playful activities.
While for the most part their behavior was not outrageous or
harmful, on occasion, they flirted with the boundaries of
acceptable behavior to the point that one of the cruise tour
group members commented, “There is a group [part of Boz’s
Boaters] I don’t understand. I think they were soused half the
time. I don’t know how they can enjoy the cruise. I thought
‘they have to be hung over,’ but I think they really loved it. I
always wonder why they go on a cruise when they can do that
at home.”
Yet the sense of pleasure gained from indulgence was not
without cost for many individuals. For example, many
women and several men spoke of how they had dieted “religiously” before coming on the cruise. In contrast to the
planned deprivation of home, many felt that the cruise was a
slice of time that justified “eating what I want.” Sentiments
such as “I refuse to think about the consequences” and “I
deserve this” were typical justifications for suspending the
realities of home life.
Developing and Negotiating Social Relationships
During a Cruise
Many individuals built on the themes of friendship, sense
of belonging, and how being with the group translated into
extended time with people they enjoyed being with and
learning about. At home, their schedules meant contact with
other group members was limited or nonexistent. On the
cruise, relationships blossomed from acquaintances to
friends, particularly through repeat participation in the tour.
“We really are friends,” was a common sentiment. Handshaking and backslapping were common among group members, as were other forms of physical contact such as hugging, cheek kissing, arm touching, and handholding.
Individuals were comfortable with one another, and this
comfort translated into a sense of ease in approaching one
another; barriers were easily overcome. “If you see someone
from Boz’s Boaters, you know you can just go right over and
talk to them” and “There’s just a great feeling of camaraderie
with this group” were common sentiments. Communal talking points for this type of open-ended, free-flowing socializing revolved around vacations, “travel horror stories,” what
individuals did that day, food, family, health, and politics. In
essence, for many group members, the value of Boz’s
Boaters came from having time to connect with others in a
meaningful way.
Being manipulated by cruise line staff was also a significant component of the experience. Using phrases like
“That’s half the fun,” and “It’s all part of the game,” this
group enjoyed when staff “hammed it up for the passengers.”
For example, conga lines, singing, tabletop magic tricks, and
telling jokes and stories by wait staff all contributed to making the evening experience in the formal dining room akin to
a theatrical performance. Boz’s Boaters tables vied to cheer
the loudest when their wait staff danced by during a conga
line. Not only did these types of activities foster interaction
among passengers—“hey, our guy is way better than
yours”—they also helped cement social bonds between
passengers and wait staff.
Many women remarked that they enjoyed the multiple
spaces of the cruise ship because they presented opportunities for self-expression and self-care. For example, several
referred to concerns with body image and the toll that aging
took on the body. Sitting with a group of seven others at the
daily “beachhead” established around a pool space, one
woman told a humorous story that recounted her history with
weight concerns and how it had played into her self-image
through the years. She traced how certain events in her life,
such as the birth of her children, had caused weight gain and
how she reached a pivotal point where she decided that she
had to do something about it. For her, weight gain was a constant battle as she struggled to balance her self-image with
societal expectations about women’s bodies. She remarked
that a vacation such as this was not only “time out” from the
battle, it was also a space where she “didn’t give a damn.”
Other women in the group were sympathetic and supportive
of her viewpoints, remarking that they too were tired of the
unrelenting emphasis on body image and weight. This laughter filled tales of self-disclosure and vulnerability that led to
prolonged, serious discussion about future health issues,
concerns with their own aging, sexuality, desirability as
women, and the broader topics of their families’ health and
welfare.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 375
The meanings of this storytelling session were numerous.
First, the daily “beachhead” space gave these women an
opportunity to share concerns and intimate details with others who readily understood the issues under discussion and
who could relate, provide solace, and offer advice. Second, it
acted as a place in which women could express frustration
about their multiple roles as wives, mothers, and employees.
By using phrases like “Men have it so easy” and “Just let
them go through what we go through,” these women were
able to give both time and voice to issues of concern. Third, it
brought the women closer together emotionally by cementing friendship bonds through empathy for the issues women
face in their efforts to balance self-image with social expectations. Finally, as one woman remarked, the space allowed
for self-care: “I don’t have time to mope like this at home.
It’s so wonderful to have people to listen and talk with. You
have no idea what a tonic this is for me.”
In contrast, the space of the cruise ship also allowed some
individuals and subgroups to distance from each other. In
other words, although they occupied the same Cartesian
space on the ship, the range of places and activities within the
ship allowed for a wide variety of experiences where individuals and subgroups felt they “fit in.” The sentiment expressed by some members of the group was, “He does his thing,
and I do mine.” For one retired couple, abundant time spent
together at home translated into the cruise ship as space for
escaping from each other, for example. When asked if they
like to spend time apart on the cruise, the emphatic response
was, “Oh my, yes.” Others underscored this sentiment by
voicing that although they loved their spouses, family members, and loved ones, they did not want or need to spend
every minute of their vacation together.
Making Vacation Spaces on a Cruise Ship
For many group members, one of the primary attractions
of the cruise ship was its distinctive, safe, and comfortable
“play” space. Characterized by many as comparable to being
in a shopping mall, cafeteria, or front porch for an extended
time, Boz’s Boaters felt safe and comfortable on the ship. In
turn, this sense of comfort allowed them to relax and play:
“unless you fall overboard, there really isn’t much that can
happen to you.” In addition, Boz’s Boaters created “hangouts” and “beachheads” in various spaces throughout the
ship. Particular favorites were the 24-hour cafeteria, the
swimming pool, and the main lobby area. For example, a
group of Boz’s Boaters were frequently found at the cafeteria
relaxing and socializing together at all hours of the day and
night. Characterized by fluidity, the space was manipulated
to accommodate the number of individuals. Tables were
pulled together, seats were added and subtracted, decks of
cards appeared, as did dominoes, knitting, crocheting, magazines, books, and “toys” bought for the trip like cameras and
family photographs. Passing Boz’s Boaters were encouraged
to “set a while” and “put up your feet and share some quality
time.” Stories were shared, gossip spun, and plans hatched
for upcoming ports of call: “we know this great taxi driver on
the island, so why don’t you ride with us?” Similarly, the
main lobby area served as a “hangout” for many events. With
it’s comfortable chairs, coffee tables, bar stools, and other
perching spots like stairs, Boz’s Boaters frequently gathered
in the main lobby. From meeting for a predinner drink to
using the grandiose stairway for taking group pictures to
assembling for shore excursions, several members remarked
that they liked the fact that there was always someone around
from the group. “I don’t sleep so good. The other night I got
up at 2 a.m., went to lobby and there was Joe, reading the
paper.”
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The primary purpose of this article was to draw attention
to social interaction in a group vacation context and how it
intersects with vacation experiences. A secondary purpose
was to introduce the concept of space and how it can be used
to extend thinking about the role that leisure spaces—such as
cruise ships—play in the development of opportunities for
social interaction. Building on the theoretical frameworks of
interactionism and liminality, three themes—notions of self,
developing and negotiating social relationships during a
cruise, and making vacation spaces on a cruise ship—emerged
and served as guides to interpretation of results.
An Authentic “We” Relationship in a Liminal
Space
The processes involved in being a member of a group
tour fostered “feeling states” that contributed to both intrapersonal and interpersonal authenticity (Wang 2000). Feeling states revolving around “I” and “me” contributed to feelings of relaxation, security and control, self-indulgence and
impulsiveness, and pleasure and contentment. Feeling states
revolving around “we” and “us,” like belonging, friendship,
and familiarity, fostered relationships with others and were
contagious sources of communitas and “emotional community.” Because individuals felt good about themselves and
were expansive toward group members, positive feelings
were reinforced. In essence, we found support for Kelly’s
(1981) contention that the quality of interaction with and the
processes of relating to others is one of the valuable outcomes of a leisure experience. Furthermore, this finding supports Chamber’s (2001) argument that liminality requires
more than just being physically removed from the home
environment; the processes involved in interacting with
other group members also contributed to the feeling of being
in a liminal space. Additionally, the results supported Kelly’s
(1981), Oldenburg’s (1999), and Wearing’s (1998) contention that leisure is a social space not only for establishing
relationships but also for working on them. It was evident
that one of the fundamental reasons the cruise group was successful was because members had the immediate opportunity
to develop intimate relationships and/or to further their
“cruising friendships.” The shared experience of traveling
together as a group provided a common thread for conversation and engaging in various activities, providing support for
the interpersonal conceptualization of interactionism
(Bagozzi and Lee 2002; Terry and Hogg 1996). More importantly, the tour also provided for extended time for working
on friendship and relationship bonds, which many voiced as
difficult to achieve at home. It is time, as Wang (2000, p. 69)
suggested, that provides “a chance for a primary tourist
group, such as a family, to achieve or reinforce a sense of
authentic togetherness and an authentic ‘we-relationship.’”
This finding emphatically challenges Oldenburg’s (1999, p.
26) contention that “commercially contrived” spaces like
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
376
MAY 2005
cruise ships and malls are “meaningless,” hedonistic and of
little value to society.”
Bruner (1995, p. 237) theorized that individuals who
travel as members of a group “become passive and dependent, and this is what gives them the feeling of relaxation.”
This is a limited view of group tour behavior. Many Boz’s
Boaters used the experience to expand their behaviors and
actions in ways that they readily admitted they did not “routinely” engage in at home, whether indulging in three desserts at dinner, drinking alcohol during the day, or doing
something they had not done in years—several men, for
example, had fun together doing “arts and crafts” and
remarked that this was something they did not engage in at
home. It was the sense of comfort, belonging, and ease that
provided a secure base from which group members could
explore themselves and their relationships with others.
Although alterations spanned a wide spectrum of behaviors,
the important point is that the space of the cruise ship
allowed for, and even encouraged, a shift in codes of normal
conduct. For many, it was a space of relative freedom, a
space apart from ordinary life. Yet as Wearing and Deane
suggested (2003), and as this study found, vacation spaces
have implications that extend beyond the time and place of
the trip. “Cruising friends,” “travel horror stories,” and playful recollection of events were significant sources of meaning for many Boz’s Boaters (Harvey and Taylor 2000;
Yarnal 2004).
Cruise Ships: A Space for Communitas
Although often overlooked as a contributing factor in trying to understand tourism behavior (Knox and Marston
2001; Wood 2000), the physical space of the cruise ship
played a central role in group members’ enjoyment of the
experience. We found strong support for Oldenburg’s (1999)
contention that “third places are the core settings for informal
public life, they are places where people can meet old
friends, make new acquaintances, discuss the important
issues of the day, and temporarily throw off the weight of the
world that can drag them down” (p. 44). Familiar enough for
comfort, yet physically far enough removed from paramount
reality for social and emotional distance, this space was used
for both escape and interaction. In fact, many voiced that
although they took other vacations throughout the year, their
enjoyment of this experience came from a fusion of extended
time with friends in whom they could confide with the
chance to simply “have fun together” pursuing a range of
activities and pastimes that were immediately available and
easily accessible in the space. Indeed, Oldenburg (1999)
contended that “successful” third spaces are built on the
foundation that group tour members frequently referred to
when talking about the spaces of the cruise ship, namely,
convenience, spaces that provide opportunities for individuals to converse and to get to know one another; comfort,
spaces that are clean, safe, and attractive; access, spaces that
are walkable and sitable; and useable, spaces that are fun,
filled with activities, and provide opportunities to gather
with individuals from a variety of age groups but who nonetheless have shared interests.
In addition, by showing that the range of behaviors and
emotions exhibited by group members was diverse, the
results of this study build on Wang’s (2000) notion that tourism spaces are successful because they allow for a range of
experiences and emotions. From impulsive delight in overindulging to depression about the level of poverty on the
Caribbean islands to listening sympathetically while friends
unburdened themselves, the findings indicate that the meaning of the experience comes as much from contrast and difference as it does from simply enjoying oneself and having
fun.
What makes this group “successful” is a constellation of
factors. Not only did physical distance from home play an
important role, but also being at sea in the space of a cruise
ship added to the sense of distancing that may not be present
with land-based destinations. As one cruiser put it, “we are a
floating island.” Furthermore, the presence of others, including the group leader, provided a psychological and emotional
safety net for group members. Indeed, the group leader was
careful to stress to group members that “I’m always here if
you need me.” Additionally, the playful qualities of cruise
ship space fostered social interaction and the opportunity to
spend extended time with like-minded individuals. When
coupled with decreased influence from the home environment, the space provided an opportunity to explore, if not
reorder, personal priorities. Often combined and expressed
in different ways, this reordering or exploration enabled a
shift toward self-expression and fulfillment of personal
desires that contributed to allegiance with the group and the
motivation to return. “I mean it’s just a fun group to be with.
You can do whatever, everything, or nothing. You can hang
out, or be by yourself, it’s really up to you.”
Also notable is the partial support our results provide for
the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) Model. The SOR
model consists of three components: (1) a set of stimuli
(e.g., interior design, lighting), (2) an organism component
(i.e., employees and customers), and (3) a set of response
or outcomes (pleasure-displeasure, arousal-nonarousal,
dominance-submissiveness; Turley and Millman 2000;
Spangenberg, Crowler, and Hasty 1996). While the SOR
Model has been used primarily to address the relationship
between the manipulation of the “environment” (i.e., atmospherics) and shopping behavior, it does have some relevance
to our study findings. Our results provide partial support for
two of the three conceptualizations of the SOR Model—
“architectural determinism” (Bell et al. 1990) and “environmental probabilism” (Strange and Banning 2001).
Bell et al. (1990) suggested that there is a link between
the constructed environment and individuals’ behavior
within it (i.e., architectural determinism). In this study, the
constructed environment allowed for the development or
maintenance of friendships, the pursuit of familiar as well as
new activities, feelings that may only be attainable while on
vacation, and much more. Some of these behavioral
responses were expected given the probabilistic relationship
between physical environments and behavior (i.e., environmental probabilism; Strange and Banning 2001). Others
(e.g., donning cruise wear, acting liberated, pursuing new
adventures) were surprising and challenged traditional
notions about how individuals behave in a vacation space.
Environmental psychology models such as the SOR
Model, regardless of conceptualization, the Servuction
Model (see Langeard et al. 1981), and frameworks such as
“servicescape” (Bitner 1992) have generally ignored the
influence other customers have on an individual’s relationship with his or her environment, especially in a travel setting. This is problematic. Our results clearly show that
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 377
interacting with others in a cruise ship space affects, for
example, individuals’ ability to “let go” of day-to-day pressures, enjoyment of amenities, and the degree to which they
engage in conversation, develop camaraderie, and take
pleasure in impulsive behavior.
Finally, Chambers (2001) argued there are conceptual
gaps in the tourism literature on liminality. This study has
helped eliminate these gaps by providing empirical evidence
for (1) liminality as a valuable tool for exploring relationships among tourists and how development of relationships
contributes to meaningful experiences, (2) employees as
integral to feelings of liminality experienced by tourists, and
(3) the role that physical and relational space play in fostering liminal experiences. This study also deepens our understanding of liminality by showing that a “one-size-fits-all”
approach to liminal spaces may be conceptually narrow. The
space of the cruise ship allowed, and even encouraged, individuals to explore themselves and their relationships with
others. In essence, we found support for Wang’s (2000)
argument that tourism spaces are popular because they allow
tourists chances to negotiate their way through the vacation
process and to choose whom to be with and when. Tuan
(1997) has consistently argued that focusing on space as a
product to be measured in terms of satisfaction or perceived
value is misplaced. Rather, the social dimensions of space as
a process, how it comes to be known, appreciated, and cherished, and how and why people make friends in different
spaces are critical to understanding the meaning of space in
people’s lives. We found strong support for Tuan’s argument
in our study.
How can our findings be used by the cruise industry?
Clearly, if group tour members feel that the vacation space
afforded by cruise lines leads to feelings of relaxation, comfort, and ease, the industry should recognize this fact in their
promotions. They should also work with travel agents to promote the benefits of group cruise travel. As one group member noted, being looked after by the group tour leader
allowed for self-reflection, a luxury not available at home.
Additionally, a spin on the “fun ship” theme promoted by
various cruise lines could be extended to focus on the fun,
unregulated “spaces” available aboard a cruise ship, especially when in the company of friends and family (i.e., the
“group”).
In terms of product development, our sample relished the
fact that they had the freedom to do and “be” as they
pleased—a notion contradictory to the idea of group travel.
Thus, group cruise tour leaders would be well advised to
develop “places” for their group members to gather, not an
unrelenting schedule of activities. Furthermore, many individuals reflected on the time they had available to work on
friendship and relationship bonds. If this “time” could be
extended beyond the actual cruise, the importance of maintaining an ongoing relationship with the provider could be
emphasized.
STUDY LIMITATIONS AND
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
We acknowledge a number of possible limitations in this
study. First, this study focused on members of a travel group
who have a long history together. This may have contributed
to the behaviors documented, and as a result, our portrait
may not reflect all group cruise tours. Furthermore, the group
leaders were exceptional in their ability to create solidarity
among the group members. Again, this may have affected
the results. Second, the external environment (e.g., ship,
staff, weather) affects the way people behave. Hence, this
experience may not encompass all the ways in which groups
will behave in a cruise-based setting. Third, this study was an
ethnography that used participant observation of a large
group of individuals in a short amount of time. We recognize
that the time frame of a group cruise tour (9 days) does not
mesh with the time frame of most ethnographic studies (Bernard 1994). We also recognize that our discussion is based
on observation of behavior rather than direct questioning.
Furthermore, although significant foundational steps were
undertaken to establish rapport with participants prior to the
tour, the lead researcher may have impacted group member
interaction and use of space on the trip. We also acknowledge that because data collection was not recorded, data collection may have been limited by researcher memory. However, in a vacation context, pleasure trips are often short, and
thus, the method used was deemed appropriate, albeit limiting (Bowen 2003; Passareillo 1983; Ryan 1995).
Despite the potential limitations associated with this
study, further investigation of the role that vacation spaces—
like cruise ships—play in individual’s lives is needed. We
make this claim for several reasons. First, this study has
clearly shown that a social interactionist perspective
strengthens our understanding of tourist behavior, especially
in a group context. Hence, future studies should adopt this
perspective. Second, we found that individuals’ true selves
may have been realized aboard the cruise ship—in a space
outside ordinary life. Future research should address whether
this same alteration occurs in spaces that are not as distinct or
removed from ordinary life such as a theme park. Also,
researchers should assess how difficult it is for individuals to
transition back to what is deemed “ordinary” and, if it is difficult, how they “cope” with the transition. Third, we found
that a sense of solidarity or communion existed among Boz’s
Boaters. Future research should determine to what extent
individuals search for similar communitas on their return
home. For example, do individuals exposed to the benefits of
“belonging” seek similar experiences in their ordinary life?
Fourth, Crouch (2000, p. 65) argued that for tourists, there
are three types of space: close-up space, or space surrounding tourist’s bodies; felt space, which can be sensed through
touch or smell, such as walking in the sand or sniffing a pungent odor; and distant space, or space accessible only by
vision or sound, such as a view or approaching friends. He
argued that the marketing of tourism spaces has neglected the
importance of close-up space and the role it plays in creating
meaningful tourism experiences. Researchers might want to
explore this idea. Last, layered with activities and amenities
aimed at appealing to a variety of tastes and ages, a cruise
ship is not one place; it includes “multiple spaces within a
place” (Pine and Gilmore 1999, p. 51). Thus, consideration
should be given to exploring which spaces within a cruise
ship are successful and why. For example, what made Boz’s
Boaters establish “beachheads” in some spaces and not
others?
In closing, one of the problems in academic research on
tourism behavior is a sense of elitism that assumes that mass
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
378
MAY 2005
spaces like cruise ships contribute little to extending tourism
theory (Aramberri 2001). In essence, we think tourism
behavior theoreticians have got it backward; we need more
work on mass tourism context and settings rather than less.
After all, 9.5 million cruise tourists cannot all be having
meaningless experiences, can they?
NOTE
1. Additional discussion on methods also appears in
Yarnal (2004).
REFERENCES
Aramberri, J. (2001). “The Host Should Get Lost: Paradigms in the Tourism
Theory.” Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (3): 738–61.
Babbie, E. (2001). The Practice of Social Research. 9th ed. Belmont, NY:
Wadsworth.
Bagozzi, R. (2000). “On the Concept of Intentional Social Action in Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3): 388–96.
Bagozzi, R., and K. Lee (2002). “Multiple Routes for Social Influence: The
Role of Compliance, Internalization, and Social Identity.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 65 (3): 226–47.
Bell, P., J. Fischer, A. Baum, and T. Greene (1990). Environmental Psychology. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bernard, H. (1994). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bitner, M. (1992). “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on
Customers and Employees.” Journal of Marketing, 56 (2): 57–71.
Bowen, D. (2002). “Research through Participant Observation in Tourism:
A Creative Solution to the Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction/
Dissatisfaction among Tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 41: 4–14.
Bruner, E. (1995). “The Ethnographer/Tourist in Indonesia.” In International Tourism: Identity and Change, edited by M. Lanfant, J. Allcock,
and E. Bruner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 225–41.
Chambers, E. (2001). Native Tours: The Anthropology of Travel and Tourism. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
——— (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crouch, D. (2000). “Places Around Us: Embodied Geographies in Leisure
and Tourism.” Leisure Studies, 19 (1): 63–76.
Cruise Lines International Association (2000). CLIA Reports Record 5.9
million North Americans Cruised in 1999; Nine Percent Increase
Forecast for 2000. Available at http://www.cruising.org/ (accessed
April 9, 2000).
——— (2003). Kids at Sea: Cruise Lines Create Quality Time for Families.
Available at http://www.cruising.org/press/press-kits/kits/pko-53.cfm
(accessed Retrieved March 10, 2001).
Denzin, N., and Y. Lincoln, eds. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Domash, M., and J. Seager (2001). Putting Women in Place; Feminist Geographers Make Sense of the World. New York: Guildford.
Douglas, N., and N. Douglas (1997). “Cruise Consumer Behavior: A Comparative Study.” In Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, edited
by A. Pizam and Y. Mansfield. Binghamton, NY: Haworth, pp. 369–
92.
Dwyer, L., and P. Forsyth (1998). “The Economic Significance of Cruise
Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (2): 393–435.
Emerson, R., R. Frantz, and S. Shaw (1995). Writing Ethnographic Field
Notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Foster, G. (1986). “South Seas Cruise: A Case Study of a Short-Lived Society. Annals of Tourism Research, 13 (2): 215–38.
Franklin, A. (2003). Tourism: An Introduction. London: Sage.
Gilbert, M, (1992). On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Gottlieb, A. (1982). “American’s Vacations.” Annals of Tourism Research,
9 (1): 165–87.
Graburn, N. (2001). “Secular Ritual: A General Theory of Tourism. In Hosts
and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, edited by V.
Smith and M. Brent. New York: Cognizant Communication, pp. 42–
52.
Harvey, A., and M. Taylor (2000). “Activity Settings and Travel Behavior:
A Social Contact Perspective.” Transportation, 27(1): 53–73.
Henderson, K. (1996). “One Size Doesn’t Fit All: The Meaning of Women’s
Leisure.” Journal of Leisure Research, 28 (3): 139–54.
Huan, T., and J. Beaman (2004). “Contexts and Dynamics of Social Interaction and Information Search in Decision Making for Discretionary
Travel.” Tourism Analysis, 8 (2-4): 177–82.
Inglis, F. (2000). The Delicious History of the Holiday. New York:
Routledge.
Kelly, J. (1981). “Leisure Interaction and the Social Dialectic.” Social
Forces, 60 (2): 304–21.
——— (2000). “The ‘Real World’ and the Irrelevance of Theory Based Research.” Journal of Leisure Research, 32 (1): 74–78.
Kelly, J., and V. Freysinger (2000). 21st Century Leisure Current Issues.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Knox, P., and S. Marston (2001). Places and Regions in Global Context: Human Geography. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Langeard, E., J. Bateson, C. Lovelock, and P. Eigler (1981). Marketing of
Services: New Insights from Consumers and Managers. Report No.
81-104. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Lett, J. (1983). “Ludic and Liminoid Aspects of Charter Yacht Tourism in
the Caribbean.” Annals of Tourism Research, 10 (1): 35–56.
Maffesoli, M. (1996). The Time of Tribes. London: Sage.
Mannell, R., and D. Kleiber (1997). A Social Psychology of Leisure. State
College, PA: Venture.
Marshall, C., and G. Rossman (1995). Designing Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M., and A. Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Sourcebook of New Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morais, Kerstetter, and Yarnal. (Forthcoming). “The love triangle: Loyal relationships among providers, customers, and their friends.” Journal of
Travel Research.
Morse, J. (1994). “Designing Funded Qualitative Research.” In Handbook of
Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 222–35.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Berkley, CA: Marlowe.
Passariello, P. (1983). “Never on a Sunday? Mexican Tourists at the Beach.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 10 (1): 109–22.
Peisley, T. (1996). The World Cruise Ship Industry to 2000. New York:
Travel and Tourism Intelligence.
Petrick, J. (2004a). “First Timers’ and Repeaters’ Perceived Value.” Journal
of Travel Research, 43 (1): 29–38.
——— (2004b). “The Roles of Quality, Value, and Satisfaction in Predicting Cruise Passenger’s Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research, 42 (4): 297–407.
Pine, B., and J. Gilmore (1999). The Experience Economy. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Preston-Whyte, R. (2004). “The Beach as a Liminal Space.” In A Companion to Tourism, edited by A. Lew, M. Hall, and A. Williams. Malden,
MA: Blackwell, pp. 349–59.
Quiroga, I. (1990). “Characteristics of Package Tours in Europe.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 17 (2): 185–207.
Riley, R., and L. Love (1999). “The State of Qualitative Tourism Research.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 10 (2): 164–88.
Ritter, W., and C. Schaffer (1998). “Cruise Tourism: A Chance of
Sustainability.” Tourism Recreation Research, 23 (1): 65–71.
Ryan, C. (1995). Learning about Tourists from Conversations: The over 55’s
in Majorca. Tourism Management, 16 (1): 207–15.
Shields, R. (1991). Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. New York: Routledge.
Spangenberg, E., A. Crowley, and P. Hasty (1996). “Improving the Store Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behaviors?”
Journal of Marketing, 60: 67–80.
Stallybrass, P., and A. White (1986). The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. London: Methuen.
Stokowski, P. (1992). “Social Networks and Tourist Behavior.” American
Behavioral Scientist, 36 (2): 212–21.
——— (1994). Leisure in Society: A Network Structural Perspective. New
York: Mansell.
Strange, C., and J. Banning (2001). Education by Design: Creating Campus
Learning Environments that Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin (1994). “Grounded Theory Methodology: An
Overview.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin
and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 273–85.
Terry, D., and M. Hogg (1996). “Group Norms and the Attitude-Behavior
Relationship: A Role for Group Identification.” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22: 776–93.
Tuan, Y. (1997). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tuomela, R. (1995). The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of the Basic Social Notions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Turley, L., and R. Millman (2000). “Atmospheric Effects on Shopping Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Business
Research, 49 (2): 193–211.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 379
Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
——— (1982). From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play.
New York: Performing Arts Journal.
Turner, V., and E. Bruner, eds. (1986). The Anthropology of Experience.
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Society. London: Sage.
Wang, N. (2000). The Sociology of Tourism. New York: Sage.
Wearing, B. (1998). Leisure and Feminist Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Wearing, S., and B. Wearing (2000). “Conceptualizing the Selves of Tourism.” Leisure Studies, 20 (1): 143–59.
Wearing, S., and B. Deane (2003). Seeking Self: Leisure and Tourism on
Common Ground. World Leisure, 45 (1): 4–12.
Wickens, E. (2002). “The Sacred and the Profane.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (3): 834–51.
Wolcott, H. (1999). Ethnography: A Way of Seeing. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira.
Wood, R. (2000). “Caribbean Cruise Tourism: Globalization at Sea.” Annals
of Tourism Research, 27 (2): 345–70.
World Tourism Organization (1999). Tourism Generating Markets: Overview and Country Profiles. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism
Organization.
———. (2002). Tourism Market Trends. Madrid, Spain: Word Tourism Organization.
World Travel and Tourism Council, International Hotel & Restaurant Association, International Federation of Tour Operators, and International
Council on Cruise Lines (2002). Industry as a Sustainable Partner for
Development: Tourism. Report produced for the United Nations Development Program. London: Beacon.
Wyllie, R. (2000). Tourism and Society: A Guide to Problems and Issues.
State College, PA: Venture.
Yarnal, C. (2004). “Missing the Boat? A Playfully Serious Look at a Group
Cruise Tour Experience.” Leisure Sciences, 21 (3): 349–72.
Yiannakis, A., and H. Gibson (1992). “Roles Tourists Play.” Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (1): 287–303.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.