CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST
RESEARCH: A META-ANALYSIS
Mimi Li
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
It is widely recognized that tourism is becoming more and more international as a result
of globalization, and since the 20th century, marketers have confronted increasingly
multicultural marketplaces. This trend necessitates cross-cultural research in the hospitality and tourism area. The current study provides a state-of-art assessment of journal
publications on cross-cultural tourist research. In this study, various aspects of crosscultural tourist research are reviewed, addressing conceptual and methodological issues
associated with the extant research. Existing studies are largely limited to Englishspeaking countries and data equivalence issues were not addressed properly, which may
lead confounding explanations. It is suggested that future studies should be grounded in
solid theoretical foundation and employ a more rigorous research design.
KEYWORDS: cross-cultural research; tourist; meta-analysis
Marketers have confronted increasingly multicultural marketplaces since
the 20th century. The growing number of migrants and transcontinental communication media are producing multicultural populations in domestic markets, and consumers are gradually exposing alternative needs and wants. This
group of multicultural consumers, together with the globalization of markets
and international competition, are forcing firms to operate in a multicultural
environment. This change creates opportunities and challenges for business
and government. One reason for these challenges is that consumer behavior is
culturally bound. Cultural researchers argue that behavior differs from culture
to culture because different cultural groups hold different values (Legoherel,
Dauce, Hsu, & Ranchhold, 2009).
Culture encompasses elements as shared values, beliefs, and norms, which
collectively distinguish particular groups of people from one another (Pizam,
Jansen-Verbeke, & Steel, 1997). These widely shared values are subtly programmed into individuals from an early age (Otaki, Durrett, Richards, Nyquist,
& Pennebaker, 1986) and prove resistant to change (Hofstede, 1997). A solid
understanding of cross-cultural consumer behavior is, therefore, more crucial
than ever. In addition, the study of cross-cultural consumer behavior helps
Author’s Note: This study was supported by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Grant
No. A-PB0U).
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. XX, No. X, Month XXXX, xx-xx
DOI: 10.1177/1096348012442542
© 2012 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
1
2 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
assess the generalizability of empirical findings, assess if the findings differ
from one cluster to another, understand the behavior of people living in a different culture (Costa & Bamossy, 1995), and identify the cultural dimensions or
contextual factors that cause the differences (Earley & Singh, 1985). This backdrop necessitated cross-cultural management research and cross-cultural consumer research as early as the 1950s.
No one would challenge the fact that tourism is becoming more and more
international as the world flattens. However, tourism and hospitality researchers
were extremely slow to recognize this fact (Dimanche, 1994), and the study of
cross-cultural consumer behavior in hospitality and tourism saw limited action
in the late 1980s (e.g., Richardson & Crompton, 1988). Since then, a growing
number of studies have discussed the similarities and/or differences in tourist
behavior across nations and cultures. Despite the growing amount of crosscultural tourist research, the paucity of systematic reviews of the body of knowledge has failed to synthesize previous studies and identify future research
trends. The purpose of the study is, therefore, to systematically review and
synthesize cross-cultural tourist research. The results will provide reference
points and future directions for scholars interested in cross-cultural research in
hospitality and tourism.
CROSS-CULTURAL CONSUMER RESEARCH
Culture can be either etically or emically defined. From an etic approach,
culture is defined by Hofstede (1997) as “the collective programming of the
mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from
another” (p. 5). This definition focuses on the comparison of one culture with
another and is typical for cross-cultural consumer behavior research. Researchers
who follow an etic approach look for universal or culture-free theories by
searching for variables and constructs common to all cultures to discover the
differences and similarities between cultures.
From the emic perspective, culture is defined as
the “lens” through which all phenomena are seen. It determines how these phenomena are apprehended and assimilated . . . culture is the “blueprint” of human activity. It determines the coordinates of social action and productive activity, specifying
the behaviors and objects that issue from both. (McCracken, 1988, p. 73)
Emic approaches promote a complete understanding of culture through thick
description, instead of directly comparing two or more different cultures.
Therefore, studies from an emic perspective provide culture-rich information
rather than culture-free measures that can be directly compared.
The choice of etic versus emic approaches depends on the nature of the
research question, the researcher’s resources and training, and the purpose of
the study (Luna & Gupta, 2001). The component elements of culture include
language(s), nationality, education (general), country of residence, profession
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 3
(specialized education), groups (ethnicity), religion, family, gender, social class,
and corporate or organizational culture (Legoherel et al., 2009; Usunier, 2000).
Hofstede (1997) suggested that culture influences behavior through four
manifestations: values, heroes, rituals, and symbols. A value has been described
by Rokeach (1968) as a “centrally held, enduring belief which guides actions
and judgments across specific situations and beyond immediate goals to more
ultimate end-states of existence” (p. 16). Values are the forms that store and
express culturally determined knowledge. Values are regarded as the deepest of
the four manifestations of culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005), because they
are the basis on which attitudes, cognition, emotions, and behavior evolve
(Hills, 2002). Values are abstract forms of social cognition that serve as powerful explanations of, and influences on, human behavior (Homer & Kahle, 1988).
Value can also be defined etically or emically. McCracken’s (1988) interpretation of cultural principles demonstrated an emic understanding of value.
Individual behavior embodies and expresses cultural principles, according to
which phenomena are organized, evaluated, and constructed. Hofstede’s (1991)
landmark study of the dimensions of culture exemplified an etic approach.
Based on an enormous database of the behavior of residents from 85 countries,
Hofstede (1991) portrayed the differences in national culture with five distinct
culture elements. They are power distance, individualism versus collectivism,
masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation
(Hofstede, 1991). Because of his extensive examination of cross-cultural behavior, consumer behavioral researchers have frequently adopted his conceptual
framework for empirical studies.
Rituals are “expressive, symbolic activity constructed of multiple forms of
behavior that occur in a fixed, episodic sequence, and that tend to be repeated
over time” (Rook, 1985, p. 252). Rituals are pervasive, being constantly performed by all members of a society. Rituals are important for consumer behavior.
On the one hand, rituals originate the cognitive schemata and scripts of consumers, which can subsequently reinforce ritualistic behavior. On the other hand,
rituals involve the consumption of goods and services (Luna & Gupta, 2001).
Heroes are “persons, alive or dead, real or imaginary, who possess characteristics which are highly prized in a culture, and who thus serve as models for
behavior” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 8). The concept of hero can also include reference
groups and opinion leaders. Heroes may influence consumer behavior through
their association with certain products and brands.
Symbols are “words, gestures, pictures or objects that carry a particular
meaning which is only recognized by those who share the culture” (Hofstede,
1997, p. 7). They are a broad category of processes and objects that carry meanings unique to a particular group of people (Geertz, 1973). Symbols can be
easily developed and copied, and they are, therefore, the most superficial level
of culture.
Culture in its various manifestations has significant impact on tourist behavior, and studying the topic of cross-cultural tourist behavior is pertinent because
tourism is an international industry. The importance of examining cultural
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
4 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
differences is twofold. On one hand, the increasing mobility and the growth of
transcontinental communication media has accelerate the globalization of the
tourism and travel industry in the past decade. The whole industry has gradually
shifted from Western-dominant to be more internationalized (Reisinger &
Turner, 2003). In this sense, the cross-cultural differences not only act as tourist
attractions but also pose challenges to the practitioners. It is therefore imperative for the managers to understand cross-cultural issues in tourism and hospitality industry to respond promptly in policy making and compete successfully
for market share.
On the other hand, from the perspective of tourists, their behavior is culturally bound. Individuals are programmed with the cultural values rooted in their
normal environment and the cultural traits become part of their personality
(S. Kim & McKercher, 2011), which will influence their behavior. It was generally assumed by some researchers and tourism practitioners that tourist holiday
experience and satisfaction is determined by material and physical needs and
derives from operational buying motives such as the level of service provision
(Reisinger & Turner, 2003). However, the ability to attract and satisfy certain
markets is actually highly dependent on the tourists’ cultural interpretation of
the product, and different societies hold varied explanations of the product provided due to cultural diversity. Therefore, it is critical to analyze the cultural
differences to understand which of the differences have the most influence.
In the realm of cross-cultural consumer behavior research, historical reviews
of the methodological approaches have suggested that existing studies have yet
to resolve many conceptual and methodological issues (Lenartowicz & Roth,
1999). Additionally, the assessment or identification of a proper cultural unit,
which was identified as a vital issue of cross-cultural research by Rick, Toyne,
and Martinez (1990), remains largely unexplored. Recognizing the aforementioned limitations, based on a review and evaluation of current culture assessment approaches, Lenartowicz and Roth (1999) identified four basic approaches
to culture assessment: ethnological description, use of proxies (validated
regional affiliation), direct values inference, and indirect values inference.
An ethnological approach generically refers to qualitative approaches used
to identify and/or compare cultures. This approach, which guides emic studies
of culture, provides a descriptive appraisal of cultures. The core concept of this
approach is that cultures are so complex that they cannot be measured but
merely observed and described. Through the thorough description of cultural
groupings and cultural characteristics, ethnological description can provide rich
information that is often extremely useful in formulating research hypotheses.
This approach can help identify the unit of analysis of culture, which is fundamental to cultural studies. Examples of the ethnological approach include Hall’s
classification of high- and low-context cultures and Gannon’s cultural metaphor
approach (see, Soares, Farhangmehr, & Shoham, 2007). This approach has been
rarely used in hospitality and tourism studies.
Grounded in the concept of national character and the premise that core cultural values are learned during childhood, the second approach, involving the
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 5
use of proxies or validated regional affiliation, defines culture based on characteristics that reflect and resemble culture (Lenartowicz & Roth, 1999). The
common proxies that are used include nationality, place of birth, and country of
residence. This approach can be used at different levels of culture, including
group levels, organizational levels, national levels, or a group of nations, such
as the European Union, Asian nations, or Western nations. Using those proxies
to operationalize culture is very common in business as well as tourism and
hospitality literature because nationality, place of birth, or country of residence
can be easily identified along clear geographic boundaries. For example,
Sussmann and Rashcovsky (1997) studied the cross-cultural differences on
general travel behavior between English-speaking and French-speaking
Canadian using language as cultural proxy. Yu and Ko (2012) examined the
perception of and possible participation in medical tourism among Chinese,
Japanese, and Korean respondents with nationality as surrogate for culture.
However, this approach has been criticized for the absence of measures to
test hypothesized relationships between the dependent variables and culture.
The proxies can only serve as nominal data. Lenartowica and Roth (1999) suggested that the use of the regional affiliation should be granted by two conditions. First, the sociodemographic variables should be controlled through either
sample design or the use of covariates. Second, the respondents should spend
their childhood in the country of interest if the research includes individuallevel measures.
Direct values inference assumes a values-based conceptualization of culture.
This approach reflects the idea that culture is a set of learned characteristics
shared by a particular group of people. There are a number of different values
models in the literature to support the direct values inference approach to cultural
assessment. In addition to Hofstede’s five value dimensions of culture, Rokeach
(1973) developed the Rokeach Values Survey (RVS), which consists of 18 instrumental values (ideal modes of behavior) and 18 terminal values (ideal end-states
of existence). Kahle (1983) developed a shorter version of RVS, called List of
Values, to address the problem of ranking and relevance to daily life. RVS is the
value model used the most in tourism and hospitality literature. For example,
Luk, de Leon, Leong, and Li (1993), using RVS, examined tourist expectations
for the quality of organized tour service. Visitors were grouped by three value
factors: sociability, ability, and creativity.
Lenartowica and Roth (1999) suggested three methodological considerations
with respect to direct values inference. First, sociodemographic variables should
be controlled or large samples must be used to randomize sociodemographic
effects. Second, value model instruments should be relevant and understandable
to the subjects. Finally, due to the fact that empirically there might be multiple
combinations of relatively homogenous groups, direct values inference is insufficient for defining cultural groups.
Indirect values inference uses secondary data to ascribe characteristics of cultural
groupings. The cultural characteristics identified in other studies are extrapolated to
the subjects after their culture is classified by one of the aforementioned proxies.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
6 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Table 1
Summary of Methods to Assess Culture
Method Measures Provided
ED
N/A
VRA
Nominal
DVI
Internal
IVI
Interval
Major Weakness
Major Strengths
Quantitative measures are not devel- Theoretical support
oped
Time consuming
Group identification
Validity
Convenience
Confounding factors
Group identification
Sampling
Internal measures
Confounding factors
Intellectual level of subjects
Group identification
Secondary data
Convenience
Potential measurement error
One measure per culture only
Source: Lenartowica and Roth (1999).
Note: ED = ethnographic description; VRA = validated regional affiliation; DVI = direct
value inference; IVI = indirect value inference.
Hofstede’s cultural dimension scores are the most commonly used benchmarks and
are widely adopted in tourism and hospitality cross-cultural studies. For example,
Quintal, Lee, and Soutar (2010) investigated the cross-cultural differences of tourists’
information search behavior along Hofstede’s cultural dimension of uncertainty
avoidance. Tourists from Japan, Australia, and China were selected to represent high
uncertainty avoidance, medium uncertainty avoidance, and low uncertainty avoidance, respectively.
The major concern with this approach is the potential measurement error
arising from sampling: the characteristics of the group assessed by the benchmark study may differ from the surveyed sample. To address this problem,
the sample size of the benchmark study and the undertaken study should be
large enough to randomize the effects of variables influencing the values, or
the research sample characteristics should be congruent with the benchmark
studies. Because the samples of the existing benchmark studies (e.g., Hofstede,
1980) are not representative of the population, the first alternative validating
means is not viable, and the remaining alternative is to follow the benchmark’s sampling design (Lenartowicz & Roth, 1999). Lenartowica and Roth
(1999) summarized the strengths and weaknesses of the four approaches, as
shown in Table 1.
Another key methodological concern in cross-cultural research is data equivalence. The comparability of respondent data is critical, regardless of whether the
research is conducted in one country or simultaneously in a number of countries
(Bahalla & Lin, 1987). However, traditional approaches in marketing research
have typically concentrated only on linguistic equivalence. Scholars in comparative social psychology have suggested four types of equivalence: construct
equivalence, operationalization
equivalence,
scalar
equivalence,
and linguistic
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com
at PENNSYLVANIA
STATE UNIV
on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 7
equivalence (e.g., Anastasi, 1982; Berry, 1976). In addition, some scholars (e.g.,
Aulakh & Kotabe, 1993) suggested that the sample equivalence, which is concerned with whether or not the sample from each culture is comparable, should
be ensured. Linguistic equivalence refers to the consistent meanings and ideas of
instruments across cultures. This type of equivalence is often satisfied by backtranslation.
Construct equivalence is concerned with whether the studied construct
exhibits similar meaning across different cultures, using three distinct components. The first is conceptual equivalence, which refers to the interpretation that
people in different cultures place on the construct. The second component is
functional equivalence, which depicts the similarity of behavioral goals across
different cultures. The third one is category equivalence, which represents the
grouping of objects, stimuli, and behaviors (Douglas & Craig, 1983). Construct
equivalence could be satisfied through different techniques. For example,
Mattila and Patterson (2004) used university sample to ensure the functional
equivalence and in-depth interview to meet the requirement for conceptual
equivalence.
Operationalization equivalence, also called measurement equivalence, is
concerned with whether the construct is measured the same way across different
cultures. Operationalization equivalence closely connects with item equivalence, which is a more concrete and microlevel perspective. To establish item
equivalence, the construct should be measured by the same instrument. Gilbert,
Veloutsou, Goode, and Moutinho (2004), in their study examining the service
satisfaction of fast-food establishment in four English-speaking countries,
checked the measurement equivalence by conducting four-factor analyses in
different country samples. The factors extracted were compared among nations.
Scalar equivalence, also called metric equivalence, examines whether the psychometric properties of data from various cultures exhibit the same coherence
and structure. Cross-cultural comparison is meaningful only when the numbers
on the response scales have the same meaning across cultures (Sin, Cheung, &
Lee, 1999). Nonequivalence can be detected by structural equation modeling,
optimal scaling, regression analysis, or by comparing the standard deviations
and means of the subject responses over a large number of items across cultures
(Sin et al., 1999). The structural equation modeling is the method used the most
by scholars in hospitality and tourism (e.g., Quintal et al., 2010; Tsaur, Lin, &
Wu, 2005).
Considering these aforementioned theoretical and methodological concerns,
this study will first provide an overview of published articles, then examine the
cultural assessment approach used and check the data equivalence, and, finally,
provide recommendations for the future study of cross-cultural consumer
behavior in hospitality and tourism.
METHOD
For the purpose of this study, cross-cultural tourist research is defined as any
study that investigates
tourist behavior in more than one culture/subculture. This
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
8 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
research domain corresponds to “comparative articles” in Alder (1983) or “comparative international” studies in Alder and Bartholomew (1992). The articles
were drawn from four major databases: Hospitality and Tourism Complete,
Sage Journals Online, ScienceDirect, and Emerald Insights.
“Cross-culture/cultural,” “cross-nation/national,” “tourism,” “hospitality,”
“hotel,” and “restaurant” were used as key words, and only the articles with
“cross-culture/cultural” and/or “cross-nation/national” in the title, abstract, or
key words were selected. After retrieving the articles from the database, two
researchers first read the abstracts to ensure the appropriateness for the current
study and then read the texts if the abstracts did not provide enough information. This procedure resulted in a total of 91 articles.
A preliminary coding sheet was then prepared to evaluate each article along
the following dimensions: cultural assessment approach, topic studied, data
equivalence, research design, and methods of analysis. The evaluative criteria
were derived from a comprehensive review of the cross-cultural methodology
literature (e.g., Alder, 1983; Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973; Green &
White, 1976; Malhotra, Agarwal, & Peterson, 1996; Triandis & Berry, 1980).
CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST BEHAVIOR STUDIES
Number of Articles Published
A total of 91 articles were selected for this study. Detailed accounts of the
articles selected are presented in Table 2. Selected articles were published in 21
refereed journals (Table 3). The number of articles published in each journal
varied from a low of 1 article to a high of 21 articles. Tourism Management
published the largest number of cross-cultural consumer studies in tourism and
hospitality, followed by Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing (10) and
International Journal of Hospitality Management (8). The articles reviewed
covered a period of 24 years, from 1988 to 2011 (Table 4). The 21st century has
exhibited an increasing interest in cross-cultural study from academia. Among
the 91 articles analyzed, 79% were published after 2000 (Table 4).
Cultural Assessment Approach
The approach of cultural assessment is shown in Table 5. Except for the three
conceptual studies, validated regional association has been widely employed to
operationalize culture. A total of 70 out of 91 (76.9%) articles used nationality
(49), region (7), country of residence (7), ethnicity (4), or language (3) as a surrogate for culture. The largest number of studies compared cultural differences
as reflected in tourists’ behavior across Asian, European, and American countries (14), followed by between Asian countries and American countries (13),
between European countries and American countries (8), and among European
countries (7). Several studies investigated cultural differences among Asian
countries (6).
To establish a valid comparison of consumer behaviors between different
cultures, cultures should be selected on a theoretical basis. However, the articles
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
9
1995
1996
7. Pizam &
Sussman
8. Pizam &
Reichel,
1996
JHLM
ATR
JTTM
TM
1993
1993
LS
1990
6. Luk, de
Leon, Leong,
& Li, 1993
JPRA
1990
3. Uysal,
McDonald, &
Reid, 1990
4. Irwin,
Gartner, &
Phelps, 1990
5. Kau, 1993
JTR
LS
1988
1. Sheldon &
Fox, 1988
Journala
2. Richardson & 1988
Crompton,
1988
Year
Author
The relationship between food service
and tourism, both in destination
choice and in the vacation
experience
Latent demand for visiting selected
vacation destinations and the relative
influence of cultural compared to
socioeconomic antecedents on latent
demand
Information search behavior of
travelers from four countries to the
United States
Camping behavior, preference for
camp site design
Research Topic
VRA (Nationality: United States,
United Kingdom, Germany, France)
VRA (Nationality: Japanese, French,
Italian, and American)
DVI (Rokeach Value Survey)
Behavioral difference as perceived by
Israeli tour guides
Tourist expectations for the quality of
organized tour service and the
influences of cultural values on
quality expectations
Behavioral difference as perceived by
British tour guides
VRA (Ethnicity: Caucasian and Asian) Perception about and visit intention to
a theme park
VRA (Ethnicity: Mexican American
and Anglo American)
VRA (Nationality: German, French,
British, Japanese)
VRA (Ethnicity: English and French
Canadian)
VRA (Nationality: Japan, Canada,
United States)
Cultural Assessmentb
N/A
N/A
N/A
LE: direct
translation
LE: direct
translation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
Table 2
Summary of Cross-Cultural Consumer Research in Hospitality and Tourism
Frequency
t test
Kruskall–Wallis
procedure
Data Analysis
Mail survey with
British tour
guides (123)
Questionnaire
survey with
Israeli tour
guides (124)
(continued)
EFA, ANOVA
EFA, ANOVA
Questionnaire
Chi-square
survey with
analysis
camper (58)
Questionnaire
Descriptive
survey with
analysis
tourists (1,000)
Questionnaire
Factor analysis,
survey with
MANOVA
tourist (322)
Secondary data
Secondary data
Mail survey with
visitors to
Hawaii (750)
Research
Design
10 Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
16. Reisinger &
Turner, 1997
TM
IJHM
1997
1997
JIHLTM
IJHM
1997
1997
JIHLTM
1997
12. Chiang,
Hsieh,
Bahniuk, &
Liu, 1997
13. Iverson
14. Pizam,
JansenVerbeke, &
Steel, 1997
15. Sussmann &
Rashcovsky
IJHM
1997
11. Armstrong,
Mok, Go &
Chan
TM
JSM
1996
9. Pizam &
Jeong, 1996
Journala
10. M. Lee &
1997
Ulgado, 1997
Year
Author
VRA (Region: Indonesian and
Australian)
VRA (Language: English and French
Canadian)
N/A
LE: backtranslation
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
Amount of travel, sources of
information, ratings of
accommodation attributes, and
ratings of destination attributes
Cultural differences between Australia
and Indonesia
N/A
N/A
Travel expenditure, sociodemographics, N/A
travel characteristics, travel activities,
travel philosophies, travel benefit
sought
Differences of trip planning time
N/A
between Koreans and Japanese
The impact of expectations on service
quality perception in the HK hotel
industry
Fast-food customers’ expectations and
perceptions of an international fastfood chain
Behavioral difference as perceived by
Korean tour guides
Research Topic
VRA (Nationality: Japan, France, Italy, Behavioral difference as perceived by
United States)
Dutch tour guides
VRA (Nationality: Korea Japan)
VRA (Nationality: Taiwan, the
Netherland)
VRA (Nationality: three cultural
groups composed of 28 countries:
European, Asian, English heritage)
VRA (Nationality: United States,
South Korea)
VRA (Nationality: Japan, United
States, Korea)
Cultural Assessmentb
Table 2 (continued)
ANOVA, chi-square
ANOVA
t test, regression
EFA, ANOVA
Data Analysis
Conceptual
research
(continued)
Exit surveys
Chi-square,
conducted in
regression
Guam with
tourists (3,101)
Questionnaire
ANOVA, EFA
survey with
Dutch tour
guides (63)
Questionnaire
t test, chi-square
survey with
tourists (189)
Questionnaire
survey with
Korean tour
guides (86)
Questionnaire
survey with
students (104
United States,
89 Korea)
Questionnaire
survey with
hotel guests
(325)
Secondary data
Research
Design
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
11
1998
1999
2000
2000
19. Mattila, 1999
20. Mattila, 2000
21. Choi & Chu,
2000
1998
17. Reisinger &
Turner,
1998a
18. Reisinger &
Turner,
1998b
Year
Author
IJQRM
JHTR
JHLM
JBR
JTTM
Journala
VRA (Region: Asian [China, Japan,
South Korea, South-East Asia] and
Western [Europeans, North
Americans, Australians, and New
Zealanders])
VRA (Region: Western [United
States, Canada, Australia,
Scandinavia], Asians [Singapore,
HK, Taiwan, Japan, Mainland,
Korea])
VRA (Region: Asian and Western)
DVI (Rokeach Value Survey)
DVI (Rokeach Value Survey)
Cultural Assessmentb
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
Satisfaction with hotel
N/A
Cultural differences between Mandarin- N/A
speaking tourists and Australian
hosts; the cultural items that were
different among the two countries
were then factor analyzed; the
cultural factor that caused
dysfunction between the host and
guest was then identified
Underlying values that influence
N/A
business traveler motivations for
staying in luxury hotels
Culture-based biases in the evaluation N/A
of service encounters in a hotel and
restaurant setting
The cultural differences between
Korean tourists and Australian
service providers; the cultural items
that were different among the two
countries were then factor analyzed
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
Data Analysis
Quasiexperiment
with tourists
visiting
Singapore and
dining in a fine
restaurant (75
at hotel, 74 at
restaurant)
Questionnaire
survey (540)
Personal
interview (60)
(continued)
EFA, regression
Two-way
multivariate
analyses of
variance
Means-end
hierarchy
Questionnaire
Mann–Whitney U
survey with
test, EFA, SEM
Korean visitors
(172) and
Australian
service
providers (250)
Questionnaire
Mann–Whitney U
survey with
test, EFA, SEM
tourists (130)
and host (250)
Research
Design
12 Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
2000
22. Lee
IJHM
TM
MSQ
IJHTA
JTTM
24. Chen &
2000
Gursoy, 2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
25. Gursoy &
Chen, 2000
26. Crotts &
Erdmann,
2000
27. You, O’Leary,
Morrison, &
Hong, 2000
28. C. Kim &
Lee, 2000
29. Weiermair,
2000
MSQ
JHTR
TM
Journala
2000
23. Chen, 2000
Year
Author
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
Individualism vs. collectivism)
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
individualism vs. collectivism)
VRA (Country of residence: German,
United Kingdom, France)
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
masculine vs. feminine)
VRA (Country of residence: Japan,
Korean, Australia)
VRA (Country of residence: German,
United Kingdom, France)
VRA (Nationality: Korea, Japan,
America, Europe)
Cultural Assessmentb
A destination value chain was depicted
to capture the possible influence of
culture and cultural values on
tourism behavior
Differences of travel motivation
between individualist and collectivist
Influence of national culture on
consumer evaluations of travel
services
Travel motivation
External information search behavior
External source of information used by
first-time and repeat travelers
External information search behavior
A comparison of event motivation
between Caucasian and Asian
visitors
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
LE: backtranslation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LE: direct
translation
Data
Equivalencec
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (374)
Conceptual
research
Secondary data
Secondary data
Secondary data
Secondary data
Secondary data
Questionnaire
survey with
festival tourists
to Korea (758)
Research
Design
(continued)
Factor analysis,
Duncan’s
multiple-range
tests, ANOVA.
Sample size is
not equivalent
(552, 72, 61, 26)
Correspondence
analysis
Logit analysis,
correspondence
analysis
Correspondence
analysis
ANOVA, canonical
discriminant
analysis
ANOVA, factor
analysis,
discriminant
analysis
MANOVA
Data Analysis
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
13
2001
2001
JSR
2001
34. Turner,
Reisinger, &
McQuilken,
2001
35. Liu, Furrer, &
Sudharshan,
2001
36. Pikkemaat &
Weiermair,
2001
JTTM
2001
33. Hudson &
Ritchie, 2001
JQAHT
JTTM
TM
2001
32. Dewar,
Meyer & Li
TM
TM
2001
2001
30. Seddighi,
Nuttall &
Theocharous
Journala
31. M. Kozak,
2001
Year
Author
DVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimensions)
VRA (Language: English, Japanese,
Mandarin)
VRA (Nationality: Canada, United
States, United Kingdom)
VRA (Nationality: China, Jordan,
United States)
VRA (Nationality: United Kingdom,
German)
VRA (Nationality: United Kingdom,
Germany, France, Italy, Netherland,
Switzerland)
Cultural Assessmentb
LE: direct
translation
LE: backtranslation
Data
Equivalencec
Determinants in the cross-cultural
setting of service encounters in
tourism
Environmental awareness and
knowledge, willingness to pay for
environmentally friendly skiing
products
How cultural values influence the
importance of service attributes and
consumer satisfaction in the tourism
industry
The influences of culture on behavioral
intentions toward services
SE
LE: backtranslation
N/A
Motivation for visiting the Harbin ice
LE: backLantern and Snow Festival,
translation
determining the reliability of the
instrument in different cultural festival
situations
Tourist satisfaction with destination
performance
Differences of the perceptions of travel
agents concerning the impact of
political instability on tourism
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
Data Analysis
ANOVA
Questionnaire
survey with
MBA students
(285)
Conceptual
research
(continued)
Regression
Questionnaire
Factor analysis, t
survey with
test
tourists (1,961)
Questionnaire
Chi-square
survey. Study
conducted in
China was
compared with
that done in
the United
States and
Jordan
Questionnaire
Contingent
survey with
valuation
skiers (332)
method, chisquare
Questionnaire
SEM
survey with
tourists (900)
Questionnaire
survey with
travel agent
(722)
Research
Design
14 Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
43. M. Kozak,
2003
Bigne, &
Andreu, 2003
JQAHT
JVM
TM
2003
2003
TG
2003
42. Litvin & Goh,
2003
IJHM
2003
39. Mueller,
Palmer, &
Mcmullan,
2003
40. Bowden,
2003
41. Money &
Crotts, 2003
TM
TM
2002
2002
37. M. Kozak,
2002
Journala
38. Kim,
Prideaux &
Kim
Year
Author
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
Individualism vs. collectivism)
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
uncertainty avoidance)
VRA
VRA (Nationality: United States,
Ireland)
VRA (Nationality: Japanese, Korean
residents abroad, Chinese,
Westerners, and others)
VRA (Nationality: United Kingdom,
Germany)
Cultural Assessmentb
A literature review on cross-cultural
customer satisfaction research in
tourism
Distinctive characteristics of the spatial
behavior of tourists in China
Relationship between the cultural
dimension of uncertainty avoidance
with information search, trip planning
time horizons, travel party
characteristics, and trip
characteristics
Cultural influence on self-image
congruity
Effects of failure and recovery
strategies in the restaurant sector
Casino employee perception on the
behavior of casino guests from
different cultural background
Differences of motivation between
tourists from the same country
visiting two different geographical
destinations and across those from
two different countries visiting the
same destination
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (196)
Conceptual
research
Secondary data
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists to two
different
destinations
(Turkey and
Mollorca)
(1,872)
Questionnaire
survey with
casino
employees
(230)
Questionnaire
survey with
restaurant
customer (729)
Secondary data
Research
Design
(continued)
Pearson correlation
Discriminant
analysis, ANOVA
G-index
t test
General linear
model
Chi-square,
content analysis,
factor analysis, t
test
Data Analysis
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
15
JSM
2004
48. Gilbert,
Veloutsou,
Goode, &
Moutinho,
2004
T
JTTM
2004
46. Moscardo,
2004
T
TM
Journala
47. Sakakida,
2004
Cole, & Card,
2004
2004
2004
44. Becken &
Gnoth, 2004
45. Fuchs &
Reichel,
2004
Year
Author
Tourist consumption pattern
Research Topic
VRA (Nationality: Jamaica, Scotland,
United States, Wales)
Service satisfaction of fast-food
establishments in four Englishspeaking countries
VRA (Nationality: United States/
Destination risk perception, and riskCanada, France, Germany, Western
reduction strategies
Europe, South America, Africa,
Asia, Eastern Europe), Religion
(Catholic, Protestant, other
Christian groups, Jewish, Muslim,
no religion)
VRA (Nationality: Japan, China,
Sociodemographic factors, behavioral
United Kingdom, United States)
patterns, expected benefits, trip
planning, perceived constraints,
satisfaction
VRA (Nationality: Japan and United
Travel preference
States)
VRA (Nationality: United States,
Germany, Australia)
Cultural Assessmentb
Table 2 (continued)
OE
LE: backtranslation
LE: backtranslation
LE: backtranslation
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
Cluster analysis,
ANOVA, chiSquare
ANOVA, Pearson
correlation
Data Analysis
(continued)
Questionnaire
t test, correlation
survey with
college
students (324)
Questionnaire
EFA
survey with
customers who
patronized five
globally
franchised
fast-food chain
(Jamaica
1,581;
Scotland, 585;
USA 2,399;
Wales 572)
Questionnaire
ANOVA, chi-square
survey with
tourists (2,215)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (776)
Secondary data
Research
Design
16 Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
2004
49. Pizam et al.,
2004
2004
54. Mattila &
Patterson,
2004
55. Cheung,
2004
Murrmann,
Murrmann, &
Becker, 2004
56. Laing &
2005
Crouch, 2005
2004
53. Litvin, Tan,
Tay, & Aplin,
2004
50. Yoo,
2004
McKercher, &
Mena, 2004
51. M. Kozak,
2004
Bigne,
Gonzalez, &
Luisa, 2004
52. Gursoy &
2004
Umbreit
Year
Author
JVM
JHTR
JSR
VRA (Nationality: United States,
United Kingdom, Australia)
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
individualism vs. collectivism)
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
uncertainty avoidance)
VRA (Nationality: 15 EU members)
IJHM
IJTR
VRA (Nationality: Belgian, British,
French, German, Netherland)
VRA (Nationality: Gabon, Germany,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Korea,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain, South
Africa, and United States)
VRA (Nationality: China and United
States)
Cultural Assessmentb
Book
JTTM
JTR
Journala
N/A
LE: direct
translation
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
Relationship between the cultural
N/A
dimension of uncertainty avoidance
with information search, trip planning
time horizons, travel party
characteristics, and trip
characteristics
Impact of compensation and
LE: backexplanation on customers’
translation,
postrecovery perceptions in a crossCE, OE
cultural context
A new method of statistical analysis in
cross-cultural research in hospitality
and tourism, using restaurant service
expectation as a study context
Motivation of frontier tourists
N/A
External information search behavior of N/A
tourists from the EU member states
Destination image
International visitor trip characteristics
Effect of risk-taking and sensation
seeking on the travel behavior and
preferred tourist activities
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
Data Analysis
Interviews with
tourists (6)
Experiment with
561 university
students
Secondary data
Secondary data
(continued)
Content analysis
ANOVA
Kruskal–Wallis
test,
correspondence
analysis
Chi-square, t test
Questionnaire
MANOVA
survey with
young adult
tourists (1,429)
Secondary data Chi-square, binary
logistic
regression
Secondary data ANOVA,
correspondence
analysis
Research
Design
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
17
2005
57. Rosenbaum
& Spears,
2005
58. S. Kim &
Prideaux,
2005
2005
2006
63. Yu &
Goulden
TM
JHLM
IJHTA
2005
62. Tsaur, Lin, &
Wu, 2005
APJTR
2005
60. DeFranco,
Wortman,
Lam, &
Countryman,
2005
61. Lord,
Putrevu, &
Zheng, 2005
JHTM
2005
TM
JVM
Journala
59. White &
Scandale,
2005
2005
Year
Author
VRA (Region: Europe, United States,
Japan, and other Asia/Pacific)
IVI (Hofstede’s grouping: European,
Asian, and English heritage)
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
individualism/collectivism and
uncertainty avoidance)
VRA (Country of residence: Hong
Kong and Houston)
VRA (Nationality: United States and
Italy)
VRA (Nationality: United States,
Canada, Japan, China, Korea,
Australia/New Zealand)
VRA (Nationality: United States,
Australia, Japan, Mainland China,
and Hong Kong)
Cultural Assessmentb
LE: backtranslation
Data
Equivalencec
International tourist satisfaction
Factors influencing consumers
perception of the attractiveness of a
neighboring country as a dining
venue and satisfaction with dining
experience
Perceptions of service quality and
behavioral intention
Consumer complaint behavior in hotel
restaurants
LE: backtranslation;
ME: SEM
LE: direct
translation
SE
N/A
Motivation, preferred tourist resources, N/A
length of planning before traveling,
information sources used, and length
of stay
Relationships between emotion,
N/A
destination attractiveness, and visit
intention
Planned product and service
consumption patterns
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
Data Analysis
Questionnaire
survey with
potential
tourists (348)
Questionnaire
survey with
hotel
restaurant
guests (323)
Questionnaire
survey with
cross-border
student diners
(635)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (282)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (530)
ANOVA
ANOVA
(continued)
Factor analysis,
regression
Factor analysis
Factor analysis,
regression
Questionnaire
MANOVA
survey with
tourists (1,056)
Questionnaire
EFA, ANOVA,
survey with
correspondence
tourists (838)
analysis
Research
Design
18 Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Year
DVI (Cultural distance measured by
the understanding of Chinese
culture, ethnicity, and maintaining
harmony)
VRA (Region: China and Western)
APJTR
TG
JPRA
VRA (Nationality: Australia, United
Kingdom, Korea)
SJHT
67. Matzler,
2006
Renzl, &
Rothenberger,
2006
68. Kang &
2006
Moscardo,
2006
2006
69. Bowden,
2006
70. Li, Lai, Chick, 2007
Zinn, &
Graefe, 2007
VRA (Nationality: Austria, Germany,
Italy, and others)
IJHM
66. Baek, Ham,
2006
& Yang, 2006
VRA (Nationality: Mainland China,
Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia,
United States, Australia, Western
Europe excluding United Kingdom)
VRA (Nationality: Korea, Philippines)
VRA (Nationality: Turkey, the
Netherlands, Britain, Israel)
Cultural Assessmentb
JTTM
TM
Journala
2006
65. McCleary,
Weaver, &
Hsu, 2006
64. Yuksel, Kilinc, 2006
& Yuksel,
2006
Author
N/A
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
N/A
N/A
Relationship between culture and
LE: backservice quality, satisfaction, and
translation
behavioral intentions in the context of
a country park
Main destination choice of international N/A
tourists in China’s main gateway
cities
Tourists’ attitude toward eco-tourism
Dimensionality of service and price
satisfaction, as well as the impact on
loyalty
College student perceptions of the fast- LE: direct
food restaurant selection criteria with
translation
respect to the attributes they feel are
important
Satisfaction, perceived value, service
quality, intent to return
Hotel customers’ attitudes toward
complaining and their complaining
behaviors
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
Questionnaire
survey with
park visitors
(639)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (754)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (212)
Questionnaire
survey with
college
students (303
Korean, 329
Filipino)
Secondary data
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (125
Turkish, 102
Dutch, 98
Israeli, 95
British)
Secondary data
Research
Design
SEM
(continued)
Logistic regression
ANOVA, factor
analysis
Factor analysis,
SEM
Conjoint analysis
MANOVA
Chi-square,
ANOVA, EFA
Data Analysis
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
19
2007
2007
75. Funk &
Bruun, 2007
76. Lee &
Sparks
77. Jo &
2007
Sarigollu,
2007
78. K. Lee, Khan, 2008
& Ko, 2008
2007
74. Ortega &
Rodriguez,
2007
2007
72. N. Kozak,
2007
2007
2007
71. Tsang & Ap,
2007
73. D. Kim &
Park, 2007
Year
Author
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
individualism vs. collectivism)
VRA (Nationality: United States and
Korea)
JTTM
VRA (Country of residence: Korean
live in Korea vs. Australia)
VRA (Country of residence: New
Zealand and Japan)
VRA (Country of residence: United
Kingdom, Germany, France, United
States, Spain)
VRA (Nationality: United States and
China)
VRA (Nationality: visitors from 39
countries visiting Turkey)
VRA (Region: Asian and Western)
Cultural Assessmentb
JICM
TM
TM
JBR
JHLM
IJHTA
JTR
Journala
Perceptions of service recovery and
impacts of service recoveries on
loyalty
Relationship between price and
perceived quality with tour packages
Cultural influences on travel lifestyle: A
comparison of Korean Australians
and Koreans in Korea
Cultural influences on knowledge and
culture dimension
Importance of information available at
tourism destinations: pamphlets
provided in the hotel reception area,
and films available on the TV
Customers’ perceptions of and
satisfaction with a crowded
environment in a restaurant
Influence of external information
search behavior of tourists
Tourists’ perceptions of relational
quality service attributes
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
LE: backtranslation,
SE
SE
LE: backtranslation,
SE
LE: backtranslation
N/A
CE
N/A
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (792)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists
(15,000)
Experimental
study with
student sample
(103)
Postal survey
with
international
tourists (1,800)
and interview
with domestic
tourists (1,200)
Questionnaire
survey with
sports tourists
(239)
Questionnaire
survey with
immigrants
and tourists
(554)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (370)
Questionnaire
survey with
students (325)
Research
Design
(continued)
Chi-square, t test,
ANOVA
Contrast analysis,
ANOVA
Factor analysis,
cluster analysis,
chi-square test
SEM, MANOVA
Z test, t test
t test, regression
analysis
Factor analysis,
logistic
regression, t test
Chi-square,
Correspondence
analysis
Data Analysis
20 Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
2010
2010
83. Levy, 2010
84. D. Kim, Wen,
& Doh, 2010
87. Hudson,
Wang, & Gil,
2011
2011
85. Hudson,
2010
Hinch, Walker,
& Simpson,
2010
86. Quintal, Lee, 2010
& Soutar,
2010
2009
82. Kay, 2009
2009
80. G. Lee &
Lee, 2009
2009
2009
79. Lee, Kim
Seock & Cho
81. Osti, Turner,
& King, 2009
Year
Author
VRA (Nationality: United States,
Canada, Spain)
IVI (Hofstede’s cultural dimension:
uncertainty avoidance)
IJTR
IJTR
VRA (Ethnicity: Chinese-Canadian
and Anglo-Canadian)
VRA (Nationality: United States,
China)
VRA (Region: Asian and Western)
VRA (Language: English, Japanese,
Chinese)
VRA (Nationality: Japan, China,
Korea, United States, Canada)
VRA (Nationality: Korea, Japan)
VRA (Nationality: United States,
Korea, China)
Cultural Assessmentb
JST
JHTR
IJHM
JHMM
JVM
TM
TM
Journala
LE: backtranslation
LE: backtranslation
LE: backtranslation
LE: backtranslation
Data
Equivalencec
Immediate impacts of a film on the
perceptions of viewers
Differential impact of risk and
uncertainty avoidance on information
search
Constraints to sport tourism
N/A
LE: backtranslation;
ME: SEM
N/A
Effect of managerially facilitated
SE
consumer-to-consumer interactions
on Asian and Western consumer
evaluations (enjoyment and
satisfaction) and behavioral intentions
Customer perceptions of congestion
N/A
and attribution in a crowded
restaurant environment setting
Evaluation of and purchase intentions
toward tourism souvenirs (Korean textiles
and apparel-related cultural products)
Cognitive image of and behavioral
characteristics in Guam by Korean
and Japanese tourists
Information search behavior and need
as reflected in the information
requirements from travel guidebooks
Motivation to attend cultural events
Research Topic
Table 2 (continued)
Content analysis
t test, Pearson
correlation, path
analysis
t test, ANOVA
EFA, CFA,
invariance testing
Mann–Whitney
U test, PCA
Perception
Correlation
analysis
Data Analysis
(continued)
Questionnaire
SEM
survey using
commercial
online panel
(985)
Experimental
CFA, ANOVA
design. Canada
(74), United
States (141),
Spain (67)
Experiment with
undergraduate
students
(59 American,
44 Chinese)
Interview, focus
group
Questionnaire
with panel
(700)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (481)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (1,096)
Questionnaire
survey with
tourists (961)
Quasiexperiment
with 133
students
Research
Design
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
21
2011
91. Wang &
Walker, 2011
VRA (Nationality: China and Canada)
VRA (Nationality: China, Japan,
Korea)
VRA (Nationality: Korea and Taiwan,
China)
VRA (Nationality: Korea)
Cultural Assessmentb
The effect of face concerns on leisure
travel
The product–character association
model in a cross-cultural setting. The
influence of cultural proximity on
potential tourists’ attitudes toward a
destination
Factors related to perceptions of and
possible participation in medical
tourism
Effect of “tourist culture” on national
culture and the expected and actual
tourist behavior
Research Topic
SE; LE: backtranslation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data
Equivalencec
Data Analysis
Questionnaire
survey with
medical
tourists (677)
Questionnaire
survey with
university
students (295)
EFA, ANOVA,
MANOVA
EFA, ANOVA
Questionnaire
t test
survey with
tourist (345)
and frontline
hotel employee
(70)
Questionnaire
Correlation,
survey (218)
regression
Research
Design
a. APJTR = Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research; ATR = Annals of Tourism Research; IJHM = International Journal of Hospitality Management; IJHTA = International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration; IJQRM = International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management; IJTR = International Journal of Tourism Research; JBR =
Journal of Business Research; JHLM = Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing (JHMM = Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management); JHTM = Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management; JHTR = Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research; JICM = Journal of International Consumer Marketing; JIHLTM = Journal of
International Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism Management; JLR = Journal of Leisure Research; JPRA = Journal of Park and Recreation Administration; JST = Journal of Sport
and Tourism; JQAHT = Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism; JSM = Journal of Services Marketing; JTR = Journal of Travel Research; JTTM = Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing; JVM = Journal of Vacation Marketing; LS = Leisure Sciences; MSQ = Managing Service Quality; SJHT = Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism; T = Tourism; TG = Tourism Geography; TM = Tourism Management.
b. ED = ethnographic description; VRA = validated regional affiliation; DVI = direct value inference; IVI = indirect value inference.
c. LE = linguistic equivalence; CE = construct equivalence; OE = operationalization equivalence; ME = metric/scalar equivalence; SE = sampling equivalence.
JLR
TM
2011
90. Yu & Ko, in
press
JTTM
TM
2011
88. S. Kim &
McKercher,
2011
Journala
89. Su, Huang,
2011
Brodowsky, &
Kim, 2011
Year
Author
Table 2 (continued)
22 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Table 3
Publication Journalstc
Number of Articles
Retrieved
Journal
Tourism Management
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
International Journal of Hospitality Management
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management (Journal of
Hospitality & Leisure Marketing)
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research
Journal of Vacation Marketing
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration
International Journal of Tourism Research
Journal of Travel Research
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research
Journal of Business Research
Journal of International Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism Management
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism
Journal of Services Marketing
Leisure Sciences
Managing Service Quality
Tourism
Tourism Geography
Annals of Tourism Research
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management
Journal of International Consumer Marketing
Journal of Leisure Research
Journal of Sport and Tourism
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
21
10
8
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 4
Year of Publication
Year
Number of Articles
Year
Number of Articles
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
2
7
2
1
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
10
7
2
5
12
7
7
8
1
4
4
5
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 23
Table 5
Cultural Assessment Approach
Assessment
Approach
VRA
DVI
IVI
ED
Method
Nationality
Region
Country of residence
Ethnicity
Language
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
Rokeach Value Survey
Hofstede’s cultural dimension
Number
of Articles
Percentage
49
7
7
4
3
8
3
8
1
53.8
7.7
7.7
4.4
3.3
8.8
3.3
8.8
1.1
Note: ED = ethnological description; VRA = validated regional affiliation; DVI = direct values inference; IVI = indirect values inference.
reviewed lacked an apparent process or underlying theory for the selection of
countries. Countries were largely chosen due to convenience and availability
of data. The most studied countries/regions were, not surprisingly, the United
States (34), followed by Japan (25), the Greater China area (including Hong
Kong and Taiwan; 24), the United Kingdom (23), and South Korea (16).
Table 6 chronologically summarizes the number of articles for each country/
region. Scrutinizing the correlation between countries/regions studied and year
of publication reveals that academic inquiries into cross-cultural consumer in
hospitality and tourism started from comparisons between highly industrialized
cultures (e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom) and Asian culture,
represented by Japan. The curiosity about the “Eastern Others” from Western
society further expanded to South Korea and the Greater China area in late
1990s. After 2000, more and more studies investigated the differences between
Chinese culture (as represented by Mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, or Hong
Kongese) and other cultures. All but nine articles included English-speaking
countries as study objects.
Five articles used direct values inference (5.5%) to assess culture. Two articles used Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Bowden, 2006; Liu, Furrer, &
Sudharshan, 2001), and another three applied the RVS (Luk et al., 1993;
Reisinger & Turner, 1998a, 1998b). Eleven studies (Crotts & Erdmann, 2000;
Jo & Sarigollu, 2007; C. Kim & Lee, 2000; Litvin & Goh, 2003; Litvin, Tan,
Tay, & Aplin, 2004; Lord, Putrevu, & Zheng, 2005; Mattila & Patterson, 2004;
Money & Crotts, 2003; Quintal et al., 2010; Tsaur et al., 2005; You, O’Leary,
Morrison, & Hong, 2000) employed Indirect Values Inference, and they all
adopted Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to assess culture. Among the articles
that used Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, the most widely adopted dimension
was individualism/collectivism (6), followed by uncertainty avoidance (4). The
ethnography approach has yet to be adopted to assess culture.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
24 Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1990 1995 1996 1997
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1998
3
6
3
4
0
3
3
2
1
0
0
1
3
2
1
0
1
3
0
2
3
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
2000 2001
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2002
2
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003
7
1
2
5
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
0
7
3
2
2
0
2004
4
1
3
1
1
0
3
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
4
3
4
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
0
2
4
7
1
1
0
2
2
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2005 2006 2007 2009
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2010
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2011
Note: China = includes Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan; NA = North America; A = other Asian countries, including Indonesia, Singapore,
Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia; SA = South American countries, including Brazil and Jamaica.
United States
Japan
China
United Kingdom
Korea
Germany
Australia
France
Canada
Netherland
Italy
New Zealand
Europe
A
SA
Africa
NA
1988
Table 6
Countries/Regions Studied
34
25
24
23
16
14
14
10
9
5
4
4
19
20
4
3
1
Total
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 25
Table 7
Range of Topics
Topic
Service quality
Travel motivation
Tourist information search behavior
Travel behavior
Destination/restaurant selection
Perception/image
Attitude/behavioral intention
Tourist behaviors as perceived by
employees
Number of Articles
Percentage
24
9
8
8
7
7
7
5
26.4
9.9
8.8
8.8
7.7
7.7
7.7
5.5
Range of Topics
A majority of the studies explored cross-cultural impacts on tourist behavior
in the context of tourism, and only seven studies were conducted in the context
of hotels and/or restaurants (Table 7). A wide range of research topics were
investigated in a cross-cultural context. The most popular topic was service
quality. Twenty-four out of 91 articles (26.4%) investigated cross-cultural
impact on tourist expectations of, evaluation of, and satisfaction with service
quality. Other topics included tourism motivation (9), tourist information search
behavior (8), travel behavior (e.g., trip characteristics, expenditure and trip planning; 8), cross-cultural impact on destination/restaurant selection (7), perception/
image (7), attitude/behavioral intention (7), and tourist behavior as perceived by
employees (5).
Research Method
Cross-cultural tourist behavior researchers have most widely used survey
research (n = 60 or 65.9% of the studies). Other designs, used less frequently,
include secondary data (n = 17 or 18.7% of the studies), experiment (n = 6 or
6.6%), and interview (n = 3 or 3.3%). The overreliance on survey research is
consistent with the general methodological trend in tourism marketing and tourist behavior research.
Table 8 shows the data equivalence check. Of the 67 studies requiring translation, 24 studies used back-translations in the instrument design (26.4% of the
studies), whereas the remaining studies either employed direct translation (n = 7
or 7.7%) or did not report a language equivalence procedure. Seven studies
(7.7%) examined sampling equivalence, two studies (2.2%) used techniques to
test for metric equivalence, and another two studies (2.2%) checked construct
equivalence. There were two articles that checked operationalization equivalence.
With regard to the analytical techniques employed in empirical research, a
wide range of statistical techniques were adopted in the studies reviewed, varying from cross-tabulation to ANOVA to covariance structural analysis. Most of
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
26 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Table 8
Data Equivalence Check
Data Equivalence
Number of Articles
Percentage
LE
Back-translation
Direct translation
N/A
SE
ME
CE
OE
24
7
36
7
2
2
1
26.4
7.7
39.6
7.7
2.2
2.2
1.1
Note: LE = linguistic equivalence; CE = construct equivalence; OE = operationalization
equivalence; ME = metric/scalar equivalence; SE = sampling equivalence; N/A = not
applicable.
the studies employed more than one statistical technique for analysis. The most
widely used analytical techniques were factor analysis and ANOVA.
Key Contributors
Although a large number of scholars dabbled in the area of cross-cultural
tourist research, only a few of them made continuous effort to the subject and
demonstrated leadership in this area. Table 9 showed the list of scholars who led
more than one article, as well as the research topics and year of publication.
Three types of contributions can be identified from Table 9. The first is to replicate similar research in different cross-cultural contexts. Articles included in
this group are Chen’s (2000, 2000) and Gursory’s (2000, 2000) studies on external information sources, Pizam’s (1995, 1996, 1997) studies on tour guides’
perception on tourists behavior, and Reisinger’s (1997, 1998) comparative studies on cultural differences between tourists and Australian hosts. Scholars in the
second category extensively explored the cross-cultural differences of varied
behavioral constructs. Most of the key contributors belong to this category,
including M. Kozak (2001, 2002, 2004), Hudson (2001, 2010, 2011), S. Kim
(2002, 2005, 2011), Bowden (2003, 2006), and Litvin (2003, 2004). In the third
category, scholars (D. Kim & Park, 2007; D. Kim, Wen, & Doh, 2010; Mattila,
1999, 2000; Mattila & Patterson, 2004) intensively explored different aspects of
certain behavioral construct, and therefore made significant and incremental
contributions to the area of interest.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Recognizing the increasing attention to cross-cultural tourist behavior from
academia and industry, this study reviewed 91 cross-cultural tourist behavior
articles. Given the growing importance of understanding the effects of culture
in tourist behavior as well as cross-cultural comparison, it was expected that
there would be an upward trend in the number of cross-cultural tourist behavior
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 27
Table 9
Analysis of Lead Author
Lead
Author
Number of
Articles
Percentage
Research Topic
Pizam
5
5.5
Kozak
4
4.4
Mattila
3
3.3
Hudson
3
3.3
Reisinger
3
3.3
Behavioral difference as perceived by
British tour guides (1995)
Behavioral difference as perceived by
Korean tour guides (1996)
Behavioral difference as perceived by
Israeli tour guides (1996)
Behavioral difference as perceived by
Dutch tour guides (1997)
Effect of risk-taking and sensation seeking
on the travel behavior and preferred
tourist activities (2004)
Tourist satisfaction with destination
performance (2001)
Tourism motivation (2002)
Literature review on cross-cultural
customer satisfaction (2003)
Destination image (2004)
Business travelers’ motivation for staying in
luxury hotels (1999)
Evaluation of service encounters in hotel
and restaurant setting (2000)
Impact of compensation and explanation on
customers’ postrecovery perceptions
(2004)
Environmental awareness and knowledge,
willingness to pay for environmentally
friendly skiing products (2001)
Constraints to sport tourism (2010)
Immediate impacts of a film on the
perceptions of viewers (2011)
Cultural differences between Australian and
Indonesian (1997)
The cultural differences between Korean tourists
and Australian service providers (1998)
Cultural differences between Mandarinspeaking tourists and Australian hosts
(1998)
S. Kim
3
3.3
Casino employee perception on the
behavior of casino guests (2002)
Motivation, preferred tourist resources,
length of planning before traveling,
information sources used, and length of
stay (2005)
Effect of “tourist culture” on national culture
and the expected and actual tourist
behavior (2011)
(continued)
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
28 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Table 9 (continued)
Lead
Author
Number of
Articles
Percentage
Research Topic
Chen
2
2.2
Bowden
2
2.2
Gursoy
2
2.2
D. Kim
2
2.2
Litvin
2
2.2
External source of information used by
first-time and repeat travelers (2000)
External information search behavior
(2000)
Distinctive characteristics of the spatial
behavior of tourists in China (2003)
Main destination choice of international
tourists in China’s main gateway cities
(2006)
External information search behavior
(2000)
External information search behavior
(2004)
Customers’ perceptions of and satisfaction
with a crowded environment in a
restaurant (2007)
Customer perceptions of congestion and
attribution in a crowded restaurant
environment setting (2010)
Cultural influence on self-image congruity
(2003)
Information search, trip planning time
horizons, travel party characteristics, and
trip characteristics (2004)
studies appearing in major hospitality and tourism journals. However, the findings of this study did not support that assumption. Although research on generic
marketing and consumer behavior has shifted significantly over the past decade
toward global or international topics, cross-cultural consumer research in hospitality and tourism remains largely neglected in the scholarly journals, despite
the fact that travel and tourism is an international phenomenon. The findings of
the current study revealed that the first cross-cultural tourist behavior study was
published in 1988, and there have been only 91 articles published since, contributing to a very small percentage of the overall publications in hospitality and
tourism journals.
Cross-cultural tourist behavior research has received more attention from
academia since 2000, with more than 79% of the articles published since that
year. Tourism Management published the most cross-cultural tourist studies.
Among the 91 studies, 76.9% operationalized culture by regional affiliations,
including nationality, region, language, country of residence, and ethnicity.
Thirty-four articles included the United States as one of the study objects.
Hofstede’s landmark study of the cultural dimensions was widely adopted in
studies using Direct Value Inference or Indirect Value Inference to assess
culture. Of the 11 articles that adopted direct values inference to assess culture,
seven employedDownloaded
Hofstede’s
work.
from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 29
Service quality received the most attention from cross-cultural tourist behavior researchers. A total of 96.7% of the published are empirical studies, although
theoretical work remains at a consistently low level of 3.3% of published articles. Questionnaire surveys were the most widely adopted means of data collection. This finding is consistent with trends in generic cross-cultural consumer
behavior research. Despite the fact that more than 40% of the studies in consumer research employed experimentation, only 9.4% used experiments,
whereas the majority (72.7%) used questionnaire surveys. The high percentage
of surveys in cross-cultural consumer research may be attributed to the efficiency of the method (Sin et al., 1999). Data equivalence was not extensively
addressed in the current literature.
Despite contributions to the understanding of tourist behavior in different
cultural contexts, existing studies suffer from the absence of theoretical framework and a lack of methodological rigor. Most of the cross-cultural tourist
behavior studies did not mention which definition of the term culture was
adopted, showing that the concept of culture has yet to be properly operationalized. Although there are many categorizations of culture or cultural dimensions,
only two (i.e., Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and the RVS) have seen limited
application in cross-cultural tourist research. Cross-cultural tourist research has
been hampered by the common use of nationality as a surrogate for cultural
affiliation, and the terms culture, country, nation, and society are often used
interchangeably. The use of those collective cultural proxies as discriminating
variables for explaining differences in tourist behavior assumes that cultural
homogeneity exists within national or ethnic boundaries. Such operationalization, however, overlooked layers of culture and shortchanges the richness of the
cultural concept. Observed differences may be due to many effects other than
culture, such as contextual factors, which leads to erroneous conclusions
(Nakata & Pokay, 2004).
In addition, as pointed out by Craig and Douglas (2006), culture is no longer
a phenomenon defined by geographic or political boundaries because the world
is becoming increasingly deterritorialized and penetrated by elements from
other cultures. These forces result in cultural contamination, cultural pluralism,
and hybridization. It is therefore suggested that future study must carefully
specify and define the appropriate unit of analysis and move beyond national
culture to incorporate other important cultural components. These factors
include the abstracts of intangible elements of culture, such as values and belief
systems; the communication links that bind and perpetuate a cultural system;
and the material aspects of culture, such as symbols and rituals.
Cross-cultural studies are often subject to severe manifestations of ethnocentrism (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991), and cross-cultural tourist studies are no
exception. Despite the attention paid to linguistic issues in instrument development via back-translation, the instrument may yet measure different attributes
across cultures due to nonequivalent conceptualizations in the construct. Existing
studies include an a priori assumption that the measures used will be universally
applicable to other cultures (van Raajj, 1978). Currently, many measurement
scales used in cross-cultural
studiesat PENNSYLVANIA
were developed
inMaythe
United States and
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com
STATE UNIV on
17, 2016
30 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
translated into local languages to measure the construct in culturally diverse
groups. However, in addition to the linguistic problems in the translation process (Ellis, 1989), whether the measurement used was interpreted in the same
way among culturally diverse groups is still questionable. Because meaningful
comparisons across groups must be based on common measurements, validity
of the instrument and measurement equivalence must be established in each
culture before conducting cross-cultural studies. Otherwise, similarities and differences across cultures are open to alternative discussions.
Only two studies in this review addressed metric or scalar equivalence. The
responses of participants to rating scales tend to be culturally bounded and
affected by social norms of responding and the cultural background (Hui &
Triandis, 1985). The same rating scales could be interpreted differently, and the
same numerical value on the measurement scale may represent different levels
of the constructs across cultures. Sampling equivalence is another area ignored
by cross-cultural tourist researchers, with only seven studies assessing sampling
equivalence. The cross-cultural differences may therefore be attributed to dissimilar samples.
Cross-cultural research is not merely an extension of domestic research, and
researchers face several complex methodological issues, with nonequivalence
as the most critical. Failure to address the equivalences adequately can lead to
confounding explanations and severely limit the validity and reliability of the
study. Future study on cross-cultural tourist research should therefore make the
cross-cultural equivalence as prerequisite for comparisons across cultural and
ethnic boundaries and employ varied techniques to address different types of
data equivalence. For example, the measurement equivalence could be assessed
by multisample confirmatory factor analysis, as suggested by Steenkamp and
Baumgartner (1998), and the sampling equivalence could be assured by using
the same sampling frame (e.g., student samples) or employing more rigorous
sampling methods.
Current studies covered a wide array of topics with an emphasis on service
quality mainly in the context of destinations, whereas hotels and restaurants
have been largely ignored with only few exceptions (e.g., D. Kim & Park, 2007;
D. Kim et al., 2010; Mattila, 1999, 2000). Future studies are therefore suggested
to carry out in the settings of hotels and/or restaurants where intensive crosscultural host–guest and guest–guest encounters exist. In addition, there is a lack
of continuous effort of investigation and research lines that examine similar
topics from different perspectives have yet been established as most of existing
studies were conducted based on convenience and data availability. Future studies are warranted to address this limitation with more rigorous research design
particular for the cross-cultural issues. With regard to the research topics, it was
found from the review that previous studies focused more on tourists’ experience in the destination/hotel/restaurant, whereas the previsit decision-making
process has only been investigated by a handful of researchers (e.g., Kay, 2009;
M. Kozak, 2002; Laing & Crouch, 2005). Investigations into previsit behavioral
constructs such as motivation or expectation are therefore called for.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 31
The current study highlighted and discussed theoretical and methodological
issues in cross-cultural tourist study, also making recommendations for future
research regarding the interplay of culture and tourist behavior. This study, to
the best knowledge of the author, is one of the first attempts to provide an overall review of this increasingly important topic and herein the contribution to the
body of knowledge of cross-cultural tourist research. There are, of course, some
limitations in this study that could be addressed by future research of similar
nature. First of all, this review study was limited to journal articles, and book
chapters were excluded. In addition, although four major databases containing
hospitality and tourism journals were consulted, the search for relevant journal
articles may not be complete because some journal articles may not indicate the
nature of study in their titles, keywords, or abstracts. Given the limited
resources, however, it is difficult to implement a journal-by-journal and articleby-article search to include all relevant articles. Second, this study limits its
scope to English publications. However, due to the nature of the topic, many
insights might be found in publications in other languages.
With globalization and technology innovation, the world is diversifying culturally. In addition, cultural boundaries are being deterritorialized and blurred.
These phenomena necessitate cross-cultural research in tourism and hospitality
because human behavior is culturally biased. However, the review of the extant
literature shows that cross-cultural tourist research is still in its infancy.
Investigations into how tourists behave differently across cultures and how
previously developed theoretical models are interpreted by tourists from different cultural background will have tremendous potential for developing insights
into the tourist behavior literature. However, future research should be more
conscious of adequately addressing the absence of a theoretical framework and
the lack of methodological rigor, as identified by this review study.
REFERENCES
Alder, N. (1983). Cross-national management research: The ostrich and the trend.
Academy of Management Review, 8(April), 226-232.
Alder, N., & Bartholomew, S. (1992). Academic and professional communities of discourse: Generating knowledge on transnational human resource management. Journal
of International Business Studies, 23(3), 551-569.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Armstrong, R., Mok, C., & Go, F. (1997). The importance of cross-cultural expectations
in the measurement of service quality perceptions in the hotel industry. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(2), 181-190.
Aulakh, P., & Kotabe, M. (1993). An assessment of theoretical and methodological
development in international marketing: 1982-1990. Journal of International
Marketing, 1(2), 5-28.
Baek, S., Ham, S., & Yang, I. (2006). A cross-cultural comparison of fast food restaurant
selection criteria between Korean and Filipino college students. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 25, 683-698.
Bahalla, G., & Lin, L. (1987). Cross-cultural marketing research: A discussion of equivalence issues and measurement strategies. Psychology and Marketing, 4(4), 275-285.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
32 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Becken, S., & Gnoth, J. (2004). Tourist consumption systems among overseas visitors:
reporting on American, German, and Australian visitors to New Zealand. Tourism
Management, 25(3), 375-385.
Berry, J. (1976). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology,
4, 119-128.
Bowden, J. (2003). A cross-national analysis of international tourist flows in China.
Tourism Geographies, 5(3), 257-279.
Bowden, J. (2006). A logistic regression analysis of the cross-cultural differences of the
main destination choices in international tourists in China’s main gateway cities.
Tourism Geographies, 8(4), 403-428.
Boyacigiller, N., & Adler, J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a
global context. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262-290.
Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New
York: Wiley.
Chen, J. (2000). Cross-cultural differences in travel information acquisition among tourists from three pacific-rim countries. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
24(2), 239-251.
Chen, J., & Gursoy, D. (2000). Cross-cultural comparison of the information sources
used by first-time and repeat travelers and its marketing implications. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 19, 191-203.
Cheung, G., Murrmann, K., Murrmann, S., & Becker, C. (2004). Noninvariant measurement versus traditional approaches for studying cultural differences: A case of service
expectations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 28(4), 375-390.
Chiang, D., Hsieh, S., Bahniuk, M., & Liu, F. (1997). A comparison of pleasure travelers
from the Netherlands and Taiwan. Journal of International Hospitality, Leisure &
Tourism Management, 1(2), 67-96.
Choi, T., & Chu, R. (2000). Levels of satisfaction among Asian and Western travelers.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 17(2), 116-131.
Costa, J., & Bamossy, G. (1995). Marketing in a Multicultural World. USA: Sage.
Craig, S., & Douglas, S. (2006). Beyond national culture: Implications of cultural
dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing Review, 23(3), 322-342.
Crotts, J., & Erdmann, R. (2000). Does national culture influence consumers’ evaluation
of travel service? A test of Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences. Managing
Service Quality, 10(6), 410-419.
DeFranco, A., Wortman, J., Lam, T., & Countryman, C. (2005). A cross-cultural comparison of customer complaint behavior in restaurants in hotels. Asia Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research, 10(2), 173-190.
Dewar, K., Meyer, D., & Li, W. (2001). Harbin, lanterns of ice, sculptures of snow.
Tourism Management, 22(5), 523-532.
Dimanche, F. (1994). Cross-cultural tourism marketing research: An assessment and
recommendations for future study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
6(3), 123-134.
Douglas, S., & Craig, C. (1983). International Marketing Research. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Earley, P., & Singh, H. (1985). International and intercultural management research:
What’s next. Academy of Management Review, 38, 327-340.
Ellis, B. (1989). Differential item functioning: Implications for test translations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74, 912-921.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 33
Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2004). Cultural differences in tourist destination risk perception: An exploratory study. Tourism, 52(1), 21-38.
Funk, D., & Bruun, T. (2007). The role of socio-psychological and culture-education
motives in marketing international sport tourism: A cross-cultural perspective.
Tourism Management, 28(3), 806-819.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, G., Veloutsou, C., Goode, M., & Moutinho, L. (2004). Measuring customer
satisfaction in the fast food industry: A cross-national approach. Journal of Services
Marketing, 18(5), 371-383.
Green, R., & White, P. (1976). Methodological considerations in cross-national consumer research. Journal of International Business Studies, 7(2), 167-179.
Gursoy, D., & Chen, J. (2000). Competitive analysis of cross cultural information search
behavior. Tourism Management, 21(6), 583-590.
Gursoy, D., & Umbreit, W. (2004). Tourist information search behavior: Cross-cultural
comparison of European union member states. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 23, 55-70.
Hills, M. (2002). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s values orientation theory. Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture, from http://www.wwu.edu/culture/Hills.htm
Hills, M. (2002). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s values orientation theory. In W. Lonner,
D. Dinnel, S. Hayes & D. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture.
Bellingham, Washington: Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington
University.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. New York: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Organization and Cultures: Software of the Mind. New York:
McGrawHill.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Culture and Organizations: Software of the mind
(2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Homer, P., & Kahle, L. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior
hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638-646.
Hudson, S., & Ritchie, J. (2001). Cross-cultural tourist behavior: An analysis of tourist
attitudes towards the environment. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
10(2/3), 1-22.
Hudson, S., Hinch, T., Walker, G., & Simpson, B. (2010). Constraints to sport tourism:
A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 15(1), 71-88.
Hudson, S., Wang, Y., & Gil, S. (2011). The influence of a film on destination image and
the desire to travel: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 13, 177-190.
Hui, H., & Triandis, H. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and
comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(2), 131-152.
Irwin, P., Gartner, W., & Phelps, C. (1990). Mexican-American/Anglo cultural differences as recreation style determinants. Leisure Sciences, 12, 335-348.
Iverson, T. (1997). Decision timing: A comparison of Korean and Japanese travelers.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(2), 209-219.
Jo, M., & Sarigollu, E. (2007). Cross-cultural differences of price-perceived quality
relationships. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 19(4), 59-74.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
34 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Kahle, L. (1983). Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America. New
York: Praeger.
Kang, M., & Moscardo, G. (2006). Exploring cross-cultural differences in attitudes
towards responsible tourist behavior: A comparison of Korean, British and Australian
tourists. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11(4), 303-320.
Kau, A. (1993). Evaluating the attractiveness of a new theme park: A cross-cultural
comparison. Tourism Management, 14(3), 202-210.
Kay, P. (2009). Cultural experience tourist motives dimensionality: A cross-cultural
study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18, 329-371.
Kim, C., & Lee, S. (2000). Understanding the cultural differences in tourist motivation
between Anglo-American and Japanese tourists. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 9(1/2), 153-170.
Kim, D., & Park, S. (2007). Customers’ responses to crowded restaurant environments:
Cross-cultural differences between American and Chinese. Journal of Hospitality &
Leisure Marketing, 16(1/2), 137-157.
Kim, D., Wen, L., & Doh, K. (2010). Does cultural difference affect customer’s response
in a crowded restaurant environment? A comparison of American versus Chinese
customers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 34(1), 103-123.
Kim, S., & McKercher, B. (2011). The collective effect of national culture and tourist
culture on tourist behavior. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 28, 145-164.
Kim, S., & Prideaux, B. (2005). Marketing implications arising from a comparative
study of international pleasure tourist motivations and other travel-related characteristics of visitors to Korea. Tourism Management, 26(3), 347-357.
Kim, S., Prideaux, B., & Kim, S. H. (2002). A cross-cultural study on casino guests as
perceived by casino employees. Tourism Management, 23(5), 511-520.
Kozak, M. (2001). Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations
across two nationalities. Tourism Management, 22 (4), 391-401.
Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations. Tourism Management, 23(3), 221-232.
Kozak, M., Bigne, E., & Andreu, L. (2003). Limitations of cross-cultural customer satisfaction research and recommending alternative methods. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 4(3/4), 37-59.
Kozak, M., Bigne, E., Gonzalez, A., & Luisa, A. (2004). Cross-cultural behavior research
in tourism: A case study on destination image. In A. Woodside, G. Crouch, J.
Mazanec, M. Oppermann & M. Sakai (Eds.), Consumer Psychology of Tourism,
Hospitality and Leisure (pp. 303-317). New York: CABI Publishing.
Kozak, N. (2007). External information search behavior of visitors to Turkey.
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(3), 17-33.
Laing, J., & Crouch, G. (2005). Extraordinary journeys: An exploratory cross-cultural
study of tourists on the frontier. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(3), 209-223.
Lee, C. (2000). A comparative study of Caucasian and Asian visitors to a cultural expo
in an Asian setting. Tourism Management, 21(2), 169-176.
Lee, G., & Lee, C. (2009). Cross-cultural comparison of the image of Guam perceived
by Korean and Japanese leisure travelers: Importance-performance analysis. Tourism
Management, 30(6), 922-931.
Lee, K., Khan, M., & Ko, J. (2008). A cross-national comparison of consumer perceptions of service recovery. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 24(1), 1-16.
Lee, M., & Ulgado, F. (1997). Consumer evaluations of fast food services: A crossnational comparison. Journal of Services Marketing, 11(1), 39-52.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 35
Lee, S., & Sparks, B. (2007). Cultural influence on travel lifestyle: A comparison of
Korean Australians and Koreans in Korea. Tourism Management, 28(2), 505-518.
Lee, Y., Kim, S., Seock, Y., & Cho, Y. (2009). Tourists’ attitudes towards textiles and
apparel-related cultural products: A cross-cultural marketing study. Tourism
Management, 30(5), 724-732.
Legoherel, P., Dauce, B., Hsu, C., & Ranchhold, A. (2009). Culture, time orientation, and
exploratory buying behavior. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21,
93-107.
Lenartowicz, T., & Roth, K. (1999). A framework for culture assessment. Journal of
International Business Studies, 30(4), 781-798.
Levy, S. (2010). The hospitality of the host: A cross-cultural examination of managerially
facilitated consumer-to-consumer interactions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29, 319-327.
Li, C., Lai, P., Chick, G., Zinn, H., & Graefe, A. (2007). Cross-cultural models of customer service: A case of country park recreation in Hong Kong. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 25(3), 41-66.
Litvin, S., & Goh, H. (2003). Individualism/collectivism as a moderating factor to the
self-image coungruity concept. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(1), 23-32.
Litvin, S., Tan, P., Tay, J., & Aplin, K. (2004). Cross-cultural differences: An influence
on tourism ethics. Tourism, 52(1), 39-50.
Liu, B., Furrer, O., & Sudharshan, D. (2001). The relationships between culture and
behavioral intentions toward services. Journal of Service Research, 4(2), 118-129.
Lord, K., Putrevu, S., & Zheng, S. (2005). Cross-border restaurant patronage: Cultural
determinants of perception and satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Administration, 6(4), 33-47.
Luk, S., de Leon, C., Leong, F., & Li, E. (1993). Value segmentation of tourists’ expectations of service quality. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(3), 23-38.
Luna, D., & Gupta, S. (2001). An integrative framework for cross-cultural consumer
behavior. Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior, 18(1), 45-69.
Malhotra, N., Agarwal, J., & Peterson, M. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-cultural marketing research: A state-of-the-art review. International Marketing Review,
13(5), 7-43.
Mattila, A. (1999). An analysis of means-end hierarchies in cross-cultural context: What
motivates Asian and Western business travelers to stay at luxury hotels. Journal of
Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 6(2), 19-28.
Mattila, A. (2000). The impact of culture and gender on customer evaluations of service
encounters. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24(2), 263-273.
Mattila, A., & Patterson, P. (2004). Service recovery and fairness perceptions in collectivist and individualist contexts. Journal of Service Research, 6(4), 336-346.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., & Rothenberger, S. (2006). Measuring the relative importance of
service dimensions in the formation of price satisfaction and service satisfaction: A
case study in the hotel industry. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,
6(3), 179-196.
McCleary, K., Weaver, P., & Hsu, C. (2006). The relationship between international leisure travelers’ origin country and product satisfaction, value, service quality, and
intent to return. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 21(2/3), 117-130.
McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic
Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
36 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
Money, R., & Crotts, J. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information
search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism
Management, 24(2), 191-202.
Moscardo, G. (2004). East versus west: A useful distinction or misleading myth.
Tourism, 52(1), 7-20.
Mueller, R., Palmer, A., & Mcmullan, R. (2003). Service in the restaurant industry: An
American and Irish comparison of service failures and recovery strategies.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22, 395-418.
Nakata, C., & Pokay, Y. (2004). Culture studies in the global marketing literature:
Current state and future directions. Journal of International Marketing and Marketing
Research 29(3), 111-130.
Ortega, E., & Rodriguez, B. (2007). Information at tourism destination. Importance and
cross0cultural differences between international and domestic tourists. Journal of
Business Research, 60, 146-152.
Osti, L., Turner, L., & King, B. (2009). Cultural differences in travel guidebooks information search. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(1), 63-78.
Otaki, M., Durrett, M., Richards, P., Nyquist, L., & Pennebaker, J. (1986). Maternal and
infant behavior in Japan and America. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(3),
251-268.
Pikkemaat, B., & Weiermair, K. (2001). The importance of cultural distance in the
perception of evaluation of service quality. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism, 2(1/2), 69-87.
Pizam, A., & Jeong, G. (1996). Cross-cultural tourist behavior: Perceptions of Korean
tour-guides. Tourism Management, 17(4), 277-286.
Pizam, A., & Reichel, A. (1996). The effect of nationality on tourist behavior: Israeli
tour-guides’ perceptions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 4(1),
23-49.
Pizam, A., & Sussmann, S. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behavior? Annals of
Tourism Research, 22(4), 901-917.
Pizam, A., Jansen-Verbeke, M., & Steel, L. (1997). Are all tourists alike regardless of
nationality? The perceptions of Dutch tour-guides. Journal of International
Hospitality, Leisure & Tourism Management 1(1), 19-40.
Pizam, A., Jeong, G., Reichel, A., Boemmel, H., Lusson, J., Steynberg, L., et al. (2004).
The relationship between risk-taking, sensation-seeing, and the tourist behavior
of young adults: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Travel Research, 42(February),
251-260.
Quintal, V., Lee, J., & Soutar, G. (2010). Tourists’ information search: the differential
impact of risk and uncertainty avoidance. International Journal of Tourism Research,
12, 321-333.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in tourism: Indonesian
tourists in Australia. Tourism Management, 18(3), 139-147.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1998a). Cross-cultural differences in tourism: A strategy for
tourism marketers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 7(4), 79-106.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1998b). Cultural differences between Mandarin-speaking
tourists and Australian hosts and their impact on cross-cultural tourist-host interaction.
Journal of Business Research, 42, 175-187.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (2003). Cross-Cultural Behavior in Tourism. Concepts and
Analysis. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
Li / CROSS-CULTURAL TOURIST RESEARCH 37
Richardson, S., & Crompton, J. (1988). Latent demand for vacation travel: A crosscultural analysis of French- and English-speaking residents of Ontario and Quebec.
Leisure Sciences, 10, 17-26.
Rick, D., Toyne, B., & Martinez, Z. (1990). Recent developments in international
management research. Journal of Management, 16(2), 219-253.
Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization and change in value-attitude systems.
Journal of Social Issues, 24(1), 13-33.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Value. New York: Free Press.
Rook, D. (1985). The ritual dimension of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(December), 251-264.
Rosenbaum, M., & Spears, D. (2005). Who buys what? Who does what? Analysis of
cross-cultural consumption behaviors among tourists in Hawaii. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 11(3), 235-247.
Sakakida, Y., Cole, S., & Card, J. (2004). A cross-cultural study of college students’
travel preferences: A value-oriented perspective. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 16(1), 35-41.
Seddighi, H., Nuttall, M., & Theocharous, A. (2001). Does cultural background of tourists
influence the destination choice? An empirical study with special reference to political
instability. Tourism Management, 22(2), 181-191.
Sheldon, P., & Fox, M. (1988). The role of foodservice in vacation choice and experience:
A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 27(2), 9-15.
Sin, L., Cheung, G., & Lee, R. (1999). Methodology in cross-cultural consumer research:
A review and critical assessment. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
11(4), 75-96.
Soares, A., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A. (2007). Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in
international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research, 60, 277-284.
Steenkamp, J., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-107.
Su, H., Huang, Y., Brodowsky, G., & Kim, H. (2011). The impact of product placement
on TV-induced tourism: Korean TV dramas and Taiwanese viewers. Tourism
Management, 32(4), 805-814.
Sussmann, S., & Rashcovsky, C. (1997). A cross-cultural analysis of English and French
Canadian’s vacation travel patterns. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
16(2), 191-208.
Triandis, H., & Berry, J. (1980). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 2).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tsang, N., & Ap, J. (2007). Tourists’ perceptions of relational quality service attributes:
A cross-cultural study. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 355-363.
Tsaur, S., Lin, C., & Wu, C. (2005). Cultural differences of service quality and behavioral
intention in tourist hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 13(1), 41-63.
Turner, L., Reisinger, Y., & McQuilken, L. (2001). How cultural differences cause
dimensions of tourism satisfaction. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 11(1),
79-101.
Usunier, J. (2000). Marketing Across Cultures (3rd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson
Education.
Uysal, M., McDonald, C., & Reid, L. (1990). Sources of information used by international visitors to US parks and natural areas. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration 8(1), 51-59.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
38 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
van Raajj, W. (1978). Cross-cultural research methodology as a case of construct validity. In H. Hunt (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 5, pp. 693-701). Ann
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Wang, X., & Walker, G. (2011). The effect of face concerns on university students’
leisure travel: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(1),
133-147.
Weiermair, K. (2000). Tourists’ perception towards and satisfaction with service quality
in the cross-cultural service encounter: Implications for hospitality and tourism management. Managing Service Quality, 10(6), 397-409.
White, C., & Scandale, S. (2005). The role of emotions in destination visitation intentions: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
12(2), 168-178.
Yoo, J., McKercher, B., & Mena, M. (2004). A cross-cultural comparison of trip characteristics: International visitors to Hong Kong from Mainland China and USA.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 16(1), 65-77.
You, X., O’Leary, J., Morrison, A., & Hong, G. (2000). A cross-cultural comparison of
travel push and pull factors: United Kingdom vs. Japan. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 1(2), 1-26.
Yu, J., & Ko, T. (2012). A cross-cultural study of perceptions of medical tourism among
Chinese, Japanese and Korean tourists in Korea. Tourism Management, 33(1), 80-88.
Yuksel, A., Kilinc, U., & Yuksel, F. (2006). Cross-national analysis of hotel customers’
attitudes toward complaining and their complaining behaviors. Tourism Management,
27(1), 11-24.
Submitted July 5, 2011
Accepted February 12, 2012
Refereed Anonymously
Mimi Li, PhD ([email protected]), is an assistant professor in the School of Hotel
and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon,
Hong Kong SAR.
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016