Assess the importance of nationality in understanding tourist behaviour

assess the importance of nationality in understanding tourist behaviour
BEMM371 Tourism behaviour: Theory and Practice

When talking about international tourism, it is about the movement of people around the world that keeps on growing for the past decades. According to the statistics by the World Tourism Organisation (2016), the number of international tourist arrivals (including overnight visitors) in 2015 increased by 4.6% to reach a total of 1186 millions worldwide. Given that impressive growth of international tourist, there is an interest in studying about the cultural differences in travel behaviour, as stated in Correia, Kozak and Ferradeira (2011), the concept of national culture is among one of the most researched areas in the field of tourism research. In terms of tourist behaviour, there has been a number of literature that have attempted to clarify the term. In Pizam and Sussmann (1995) research, tourist behaviour characteristics are divided into five components: social interactions, commercial transitions, activities preferences, bargaining and knowledge of destination. Another viewpoint of tourist behaviour can be seen under Manrai and Manrai (2009) research where they identified the behaviour as before-travel, during travel and after travel. This essay will evaluate the importance of nationality in understanding tourist behaviour according to those three different stages.

Hofstede (1980) research about national culture is very influential and his work is still being mentioned and referenced in the recent literature. He suggested five dimensions of national culture that helps to understand basic value differences and distinguish culture which are individualism/collectivism, power distance, long-term orientation, masculinity/femininity and uncertainty avoidance. Since understanding about different culture makes it easier to differentiate nationality, many literature has highlighted the importance of nationality in understanding about tourist behaviour.
Putting in the before travelling phrase, a variety of research through different samples and methods, have assessed the importance of nationality in the process of decision making, motivation, information search and other related issues before visiting a destination. For instance, Kozak (2002) large-scale study examined British and German tourists in Spain and Turkey in determining the differences in motivation, behaviour and destination choice among nationalities found that tourist motivations are different regarding their nationalities. The German tourists are more motivated by cultural and nature aspects than British tourists while British are more interested in having fun and mixing with other tourists. However, for certain type of behaviour which is the motivation for beaches and relaxation was the same across nationality types. This aspect also links with work by Krippendorf (1987), Plog (1974) and Ryan (1997). Prayag and Ryan (2010) research about the process of image making and nationalities, through using qualitative research technique have indicated that nationality has a significant influence on the way visitors interpret the destination environment with respect to cognitive and affective components, and also praised the tourists as active seeker of knowledge rather than passive participant about the destination and relationships within that place.
Other studies use cross-cultural approach through applying Hofstede’s five cross-cultural dimensions in analysing the differences in nationalities affect their behaviour. For example, Money and Crotts (2004), An (2014), Ortiz, Jamilena and Garcia (2014), and Correia, Kozak and Ferradeira (2011) studies applied the uncertainty avoidance and individualism/collectivism on different nationalities. The studies showed that national culture plays a crucial role in tourists’ external vacation information search, their decision-making styles and the tourist's overall attitudes are significantly difference among nationalities despite their study bases on different subjects. While Money and Crotts (2004) studied the effect of uncertainty avoidance on informational search and planning of vacation found different behaviours between Japanese tourists with high uncertainty avoidance culture and low uncertainty culture like German tourists; An (2014) study on the perceptions of and attitude towards medical tourism in Korea by American, Russian, Chinese and Japanese tourists found that there are both similarities and differences existed in the effects of medical services, convenience and risks factors on attitudes across four nations.
In the during travelling phase, there is a cluster of literature that assessed the importance of nationalities through the viewpoint of the tour guide on certain packaged tour and about hotel perception on investigating the tourist trip characteristics, travel mode and destination choice, transportation, accommodation, food and beverage, activities at destination choices, travel party size and length of stay. For example, Fomaitti (2008) study of nationality and personality types based on 25 tour guides perceptions of different nationalities of tourists found certain differences that exist in the expectation and activities chosen of each nationality, and the crucial role of national culture in predisposing the tourist groups to a certain types of expectations and if the destination meets their expectations, the tourists will eventually experience satisfaction. Pizam (1995) in a more limited study using the perceptions of London tourist guides found a significant difference in 18 out of 20 perceived behavioural characteristics of British, Italian, French and Japanese tourists with Japanese tourists are perceived as being the most different. Pizam (2000) expanded his tour guide study on the broader range of nationality and also found the same results. However, one limitation appears with regards to the perceived not actual differences in nationalities are being measured, thus limits the validity of the study. Not only that, Farahani and Mohamed (2013) studied about Middle East tourists behaviour according to their nationalities from the tour guide perspective also give out some interesting findings. This research also supports other studies with regards to nationality did affect tourist behaviour in terms of interactions, activities, knowledge, expenditure, time arrangement, facilities preferences and appearances.
With regards to hospitality service, an array of literature has focused on evaluating the tourist perception, satisfaction and their expectation of hotel hospitality business with respects to difference nationalities. For instance, Danaher and Arweiler (1996) research on the cross-cultural differences among tourists when evaluating satisfaction levels with their vacations in New Zealand found that tourist perception of service quality in the hospitality business, as well as tourist satisfaction and dissatisfaction, vary from one nationality to another between Australia, USA, German and others. Ariffin (2011) study on different aspect of tourist behaviour which is their expectation of hotel hospitality for both Malaysian and non-Malaysian nationalities suggested that nationality isn’t the only determinant that affects the level of expectations the tourists have on hotel hospitality but it goes alongside with other three factors: gender, purpose of stay and private hospitality. Another study of Tazun and Devarni (2010) applied one dimension of Hofstede’s national culture which is individualism/collectivism in assessing the link between hotel attributes and customer satisfaction with a sample of 386 customers from diverse cultural backgrounds in Ankara and Turkey, suggested that there is a difference in the factors determining the overall satisfaction levels. While “staff service quality” is considered to be significant component influencing the satisfaction of collectivist culture, “hotel image” is the most significant in the context of individualist consumers.
The last domain of tourist behaviour study is the after travel behaviour, which includes the overall evaluation and satisfaction about price, values, transportation, accommodation, food and beverages, activities etc. and repeats purchase. For instance, Pantouvakis and Patsiouras (2016) study about whether or not nationality is considered as a parameter that will affect the choice of destination by the tourists regarding the features and the benefits of the destination as well as the motivations of the tourists found that tourists who visited Thessaloniki based on their nationality show differences in destination’s selection criteria. However, when considering alongside with tourism destination selection factors such as customs procedures, the cultural and historical attractions, the low crime rate, the constant political environment etc., there appeared to be some differences with respect to the nationality of the tourists. Other research such as Maoz (2006) and Yagi (2001) focused on those areas where little research has been paid little attention to, which are the backpackers’ motivations and the tourists-tourists encounter respectively. Both studies illustrated that to the certain extent, nationalities did affect the tourist behaviours. While Maoz (2006) suggested that backpackers shouldn’t be considered as single entity in understanding about their behaviour because there are differences among backpackers from different countries in their perception of freedom, escapism and moratorium in their travel motivations, as well as in their interactions with other tourists; Yagi (2001) study which based on 120 samples of online travelogues written by Japanese and Americans found a difference in language ability, nationality culture, home environment, motive and types of travel arrangement that show that Japanese and Americans see other tourists differently.
In those three typical stages of tourist behaviour domains, the importance of nationality in understanding tourist behaviour also reflects through the implication it has on the tourism authorities and businesses. Understanding about different national culture would help the marketers to better segment their markets, from that they can tailor their service according to the tourist needs and desires, not only in terms of destination management and e-marketing but also in helping the public sector to control the impact of tourists from certain countries by knowing their during trip behaviour (Farahani and Mohamed, 2013; Pantouvakis and Patsiouras, 2016; Maoz, 2006). A majority of research about the perception of tourists actually has an important implication on the overall tourist satisfaction. The more positive perceptions, the more likely tourists will visit again. Not only that, some research also stressed the importance of the tour guide in the success of a group package in terms of he or she didn’t just provide information and direction about the certain place but they also assisted the cultural understanding between the tourists and the host destination (Fomiatti, 2008). Thus, it is crucial for the tour guide to be trained in order to complete their knowledge about tourists that they are dealing with.
While the majority of studies have highlighted the importance of nationality in understanding tourist behaviour, some research criticised the issue of using nationality as the sole discriminating variable in explaining the differences found in the behaviour of tourists. Dann (1993) viewed nationality either as an important determinant of behaviour or merely one that is part of a far more complex and changing situation. His conclusion based on four observations, which are the rising globalisation leads to many tourists having multiple nationalities and their country of birth may be different than their country of origin, from that the cultural differences may exist between people with the same nationality; it doesn’t make sense to speak of national identification in the society with newly formed political order; the country that is built on immigrants from various countries couldn’t be viewed as single entity; and many tourist receiving countries are pluralistic in their culture. Dann (1993) suggested other factors that should be considered when evaluating tourist behaviour which are personality, lifestyle, tourist roles, social class and culture. The value system of each society is another factor besides nationalities that causes the differences in the travel behavioural patterns between countries as stated in Whang, Yong and Ko (2016) research. Li and Cai (2011) study on the outbound Chinese tourists also criticised the problem using nationality as a sole determinant in tourist behaviour because many countries contain subgroups made up of different ethnicities, social classes, lifestyle and forms of behaviour. Trinh & Ryan (2016) study about the motive and involvement of visitors to heritage sites through using textual analysis to find similarities and differences between Australian, Chinese, German, and New Zealand visitors to a Maori cultural site in New Zealand shared the same viewpoint. They argue that although any tourist evaluation of place is partly shaped by the tourist’ s own culture, the differences of evaluations may be overemphasised if the research concentrates solely on the variable of nationality. These are the physical characteristics of place, the interpretation offered and other features such as the level of crowding all have a role to place.
Another point of criticism comes from the study designing process since a number of studies when using different methods and measurement scales can affect the validity across studies. For instance, Arana & Leon (2013) conducted their research about the problem inducing in the responses to tourist satisfaction scales when comparing tourists from different nationalities and backgrounds as they might use different internal scale interpretations to assess their satisfaction level in a survey. The results gave empirical evidence that the scale responses aren’t homogenous across tourists from different nationalities which are Germany, UK, Nordic countries, Spain and others. Thus, they suggested the correction for scale differences through the technique of anchoring vignettes can lead to an evaluation of tourist satisfaction that more accurately facilitates improvement in policy decisions at tourist destinations.
In conclusion, when analysing nationalities on three different stages of tourist behaviour domains, cultural differences appear to be a crucial pillar in distinguishing between different nationalities, from that giving out implication for tourism authorities and businesses about the tourist behaviour so that they can enhance their strategies in better meeting the demand and desires of the tourists. However, there is still a lack of research in the aspects of analysing the differences in behaviour of people from the same culture and country, and due to a variety of research using different methods and techniques, it may lead to the inconsistency in the getting the certain results of the effect of nationalities on the behaviour of the tourists. Therefore, those uncertain results lead to the fact that nationality shouldn’t be considered as the only determinant in understanding tourist behaviour, instead, other variables such as demographic information, the travel patterns etc. should be taken into consideration as well.