See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/293042181

Cross-cultural tourist behavior: An examination of tourists behavior in guided

tours

Article  in  Tourism and Hospitality Research · February 2016

DOI: 10.1177/1467358415589658

CITATIONS READS

12 3,014

2 authors:

Cansev Özdemir Medet Yolal

Eskisehir Osmangazi University Anadolu University
5 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   397 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mega-Events View project

EXAMINING THE NATURE INVOLVEMENT AND GREEN CONSUMPTION VALUES OF NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY TOURISTS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cansev Özdemir on 09 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Tourism and Hospitality Research
0(0) 1–11
Cross-cultural tourist behavior: ! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
An examination of tourists’ behavior sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1467358415589658

in guided tours thr.sagepub.com

Cansev Özdemir
Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Turkey

Medet Yolal
Anadolu University, Turkey

Abstract
This study attempts to explore behavioral characteristics of international tourists visiting Istanbul in guided tours,
and to examine the differences and similarities among tourists of different nationalities using data provided by
Turkish tour guides. Data were collected utilizing a survey site designed for research for Turkish tour guides
working in Istanbul, Turkey. The results suggest that there are three underlying dimensions of tourists’ behavior
during guided tours, namely, shopping, activities, and social interaction. Significant differences are observed
among seven nationalities. Pair comparisons of the groups belonging to the three dimensions are conducted
for the purpose of revealing similarities and differences. The Japanese are found to be the most distinct tourist
group in comparison to others. Finally, conclusions and implications are discussed at the end of the study.

Keywords
Cross-cultural tourist behavior, national culture, perceptions of tour guides

cultures of specific groups within the same country

Introduction
Interest in cross-cultural research has produced a
plethora of studies across several disciplines such as
anthropology, psychology, geography, education,
political science, and marketing among others
(Ramkisson et al., 2011). It is used as an important
research topic for marketing and consumer studies as a
determinant of production and consumption behavior
of individuals and groups. Since different groups hold
different values and attitudes, individuals’ behaviors
also differ in various cultures (Richardson and
Crompton, 1988). Therefore, culture is assumed to
be one of the most important factors in explaining
human behavior, and cultural differences are very
useful constructs for international tourism marketing.
These analyses can provide accurate criteria for target-
ing and positioning destinations and tourism products
(Reisinger and Turner, 2002).
Cross-cultural studies are conducted to disclose and
compare similarities and differences among the
or among different countries (Clark, 1990; Sussmann
and Rashcovsky, 1997). A number of studies have
addressed cross-cultural differences in tourism in rela-
tion to behavioral characteristics (March, 1997; Kim
and Prideaux, 2003; Kim et al., 2002; Kozak and
Tasci, 2005; Pizam, 1999b; Pizam and Jeong, 1996;
Pizam and Reichel, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann,
1995; Pizam et al., 1997), travel motivations (Kay,
2009; Kozak, 2002; Lee, 2000; You et al., 2000),
information search behavior (Chen, 2000; Gursoy
and Chen, 2000; Gursoy and Umbreit, 2004; Jordan
et al., 2013), travel patterns (Lee and Sparks, 2007;
Sussmann and Rashcovsky, 1997; Xu et al., 2009; Yoo
et al., 2004), satisfaction (Kozak, 2001; Reisinger and
Turner, 1998; Tasci and Boylu, 2010; Turner et al.,
Corresponding author:
Cansev Özdemir, Faculty of Tourism, Eskisehir Osmangazi
University, Meselik Campus, 26480 Eskisehir, Turkey.
Email: caozdemir@ogu.edu.tr

Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016

2 Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
2001; Yu and Goulden, 2006), complaining behavior
(DeFranco et al., 2005; Yuksel et al., 2006), decision-
making process (Correia et al., 2011; Quintal et al.,
2010), attitudes toward environment (Hudson and
Ritchie, 2001; Kang and Moscardo, 2006), and des-
tination image (Kozak et al., 2004; Lee and Lee, 2009;
MacKay and Fesenmaier, 2000).
Since tourist behavior is culturally conditioned,
subjective, and dependent upon time and space
(Reisinger and Turner, 2002), there is still room for
further understanding of cross-cultural tourist behav-
ior in different settings and destinations. Therefore,
this study aims to investigate the behavioral character-
istics of international tourists visiting Istanbul in
guided tours as perceived by Turkish tour guides,
and to examine the differences and similarities when
it comes to underlying factors. It is hoped that this
study can document the cross-cultural differences
and similarities of international tourists, and thus pro-
vide useful insights for tour planners and marketers.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the next
section provides the background of this research by
reviewing existing studies in cross-cultural tourist
behavior. In the Methods section, the design of the
research is explained. Findings are then presented
and discussed. Finally, managerial implications for
tour planners and marketers as well as limitations of
this study and recommendations for future research
are discussed.
Literature review
Culture has been an important factor in explaining
the behaviors of consumers, and a significant consid-
eration for managers and marketers. According to
Geertz (1973: 39), culture is ‘‘a historically trans-
mitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols,
a system of inherited conceptions expressed in sym-
bolic form by means of which men communicate, per-
petuate, and develop their knowledge and attitudes
towards life.’’ Hofstede (2001) defined culture as the
collective programing of the mind that distinguishes
the members of one category of people from those of
another. As such, culture can be referred to as differ-
ences between groups of people who do things differ-
ently and perceive the world differently (Potter, 1989).
In this vein, researchers advocate that different groups
have distinct cultural patterns, and their values
and behaviors are determined by their cultures (Li,
2014). Moreover, culture associated with nationality
has been widely recognized as one of the most influ-
ential factors differentiating peoples’ attitudes, beliefs,
and behaviors (Chen, 2000). Since tourism has an
international character, an understanding of cultural
patterns of tourist groups is a prerequisite in tailoring
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
tourism offerings (Chen and Pizam, 2006). Likewise,
culture is an important factor that determines satisfac-
tion, loyalty, intention to revisit, and holiday expect-
ations (Reisinger and Turner, 2003). Further, tourism
products and services designed on the basis of culture
and cultural differences help destinations and industry
players to gain a competitive edge. As such, an
examination of culture and its impacts on the travel
behaviors of individuals has the potential to yield valu-
able information for destination marketers and organ-
izations (Meng, 2010; Pizam and Jeong, 1996;
Reisinger and Turner, 2002).
Master and Prideaux (2000) argue that culture has
two dimensions. One dimension is to view culture
solely as nonmaterial elements of entity encompassing
values, norms, conventions, and practices. The second
dimension represents material elements including
aspects such as where to travel, what to eat, what to
buy, and how to behave while traveling (Kim et al.,
2002). However, both material and nonmaterial elem-
ents of culture are shaped by the place of origin of a
category of people. Although Jafari (1987) suggests
that the behavior of all participants involved in the
tourism process creates a distinct ‘‘tourism culture,’’
which is distinct from that of their routine and every-
day culture, Ryan (1994 cf. Carr, 2002) notes that the
sociocultural norms and values that influence individ-
uals’ behavior are taken on holiday by tourists. Yet,
national culture can be used to explain variations in
the social behavior of different nationalities, particu-
larly in international settings such as tourism experi-
ences (Kim et al., 2002).
Based on a meta-analysis on cross-cultural research
in the hospitality and tourism area, Li (2014) notes
that academic inquiries into cross-cultural consumer
in hospitality and tourism emerged from comparisons
between highly industrialized cultures (e.g., the
United States and the United Kingdom) and Asian
culture, mostly represented by Japan. The interest in
discovering the ‘‘Eastern Others’’ further expanded to
South Korea and the Greater China area in the late
1990s. After 2000, more and more studies examined
the differences between Chinese culture (as repre-
sented by those for China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong)
and other cultures (Li, 2014).
Kozak (2001, 2002) investigated cultural differ-
ences between English and German tourists visiting
Turkey and Mallorca. He reports that the nationality
of tourists has a significant effect on levels of satisfac-
tion with a destination. Kozak (2002) notes that there
are similarities and differences in four motivational
factors between British and German tourists who
visit Turkey and Mallorca. March (1997) examined
behavior patterns of Indonesian, Taiwanese, Thai,
Korean, and Japanese tourists. Sabiote-Ortiz et al.
Özdemir and Yolal
(2014) compared the perceptions of Spanish and
British tourists in the formation of the overall per-
ceived value of the purchase decision-making process
for a hotel stay. They found that two countries differ in
their cultural dimensions. Kim and Prideaux (2003)
determined significant behavioral differences among
Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and American tourists in
their expectations of availability of in-flight materials,
their food and beverage requests, and duty-free
purchases. Ozdipciner (2009) noted significant differ-
ences between German and Turkish tourists in their
consumption behavior. Likewise, Tayfun and Yildirim
(2010) reported culture being an important variable in
determining the product selection of German and
Russian tourists. Ramkisson et al. (2011) found sig-
nificant differences across the respondents’ behavioral
intentions, perceived authenticity, information search
behavior, and destination image. Significant cultural
differences in relation to information search behavior
among various national groups were also reported
by several studies (Chen, 2000; Gursoy and Chen,
2000; Money and Crotts, 2003). Recently, Lu and
Chen (2014) examined the international travelers’
information search behavior and found that Japanese,
Chinese, and American tourists primarily refer to dif-
ferent sources.
Conducting a series of studies on 20 typical tourist
behaviors according to the perceptions of tour guides
between 1995 and 1997, Pizam made four studies; one
in 1995 with Sussmann from UK, in 1996 with
Reichel from Israel and Jeong from South Korea,
and in 1997 with Jansen-Verbeke and Steel from the
Netherlands. In the study of the Israeli tour guides’
perceptions of American, British, German, and
French tourists, the most different from the other
groups were Americans and the most similar group
to others were the French (Pizam and Reichel,
1996). In South Korea, they compared the Japanese,
South Korean, and American tourists by the percep-
tions of South Korean tour guides (Pizam and Jeong,
1996). Korean tour guides perceived the Americans to
be the most distinct among the three nations.
The Japanese were perceived to be the most similar
to others. The most similar nations to each other
were found to be Koreans and Japanese.
In the Netherlands study, 63 Dutch tour guides
were administered a questionnaire asking their opin-
ions on 20 behavioral characteristics of Japanese,
French, Italian, and American tourists in guided
tours (Pizam et al., 1997). In general, the Americans
were perceived to be the most distinct and the Italians
the most similar to other nations. The behavioral char-
acteristic, on which the greatest differences by nation-
ality turned up, was ‘‘socializing with other tourists.’’
On the other side, the least number of perceived
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
3
differences were in the variables of ‘‘trust in tourist
trades people,’’ and ‘‘letter writing,’’ where all nation-
alities were perceived to be alike.
In all studies, Pizam and associates determined
significant differences in 18 out of 20 typical behav-
iors. These studies confirmed the assumption that
national culture is dominant in determining the tourist
behavior. According to the results of these studies,
differences stem from the national culture rather
than the geographic factors. Although these studies
have yet to explain the effects of national culture on
tourist behavior, internationalization of the tourism
industry suggests further research on the effect of
national culture on tourist behavior. As such, this
study attempts to examine behavioral characteristics
of international tourists visiting Istanbul in guided
tours as perceived by Turkish tour guides. It is
expected that the cross-cultural analysis of behavioral
characteristics across different nationalities will con-
tribute to the existing accumulation of knowledge on
cross-cultural behaviors.
Methods
This study was conducted in Istanbul, which is an
important destination with a 10% increase in annual
tourist arrivals. Istanbul was designated as the
European Capital of Culture in 2010, and one of the
top 20 Global Destination Cities ranking seventh
(Hedrick-Wong and Choong, 2014). Its location as a
connecting point for Europe and Asia, historical, cul-
tural, and artistic attractions, shopping opportunities,
quality venues for meetings, and conventions all
contribute to make Istanbul a candidate for a major
destination city. This is also confirmed by the 11.8
million tourist arrivals by the end of 2014, which com-
prises 32.1% of total arrivals in Turkey (Istanbul
Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism, 2014).
The purpose of this study was to delineate behav-
ioral characteristics of international tourists visiting
Istanbul in guided tours as perceived by tour guides.
The selection of the tour guides as the study subject
can be justified by the fact that tour guides are the
service providers who spend the most time with the
tourists. Since they interact and communicate with
the tourists more intensely, it was assumed that
the tour guides could reveal in-depth information on
the characteristics of the nations in their tours.
For the purpose of the study, the scale developed by
Pizam and Sussmann (1995) was employed. The scale
had 20 behavioral characteristics of tourists on guided
tours. Each behavioral characteristic was measured
utilizing an anchored semantic differential scale
ranging from 1 to 5 (Table 1). Tour guides were
asked to check a number from 1 to 5, which
4 Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
Table 1. Twenty typical tourist behaviors.
5——————————————4——————————————3——————————————2——————————–———1
Interact with other tourists
Socialize with other tourists
Congregate with tourists from other nationalities
Travel in groups
Take long trips
Buy souvenirs
Buy gifts for friends and relatives
Trust tourist-trade people
Interested in people
Prefer local foods and drinks
Visit places in loose and unplanned manner
Shop constantly
Bargain at shopping
Want to see the ‘‘real thing’’
Adventuresome
Active
Interested in novelty
Take photographs
Write letters/postcards
Knowledgeable about the destination and well prepared
represented their opinion about the extent to which
the tourist behavioral characteristic was typical of spe-
cific nations. The instrument was limited to the 20
most significant typical behaviors of the tourists, and
also limited to the evaluation of tour guides. The ori-
ginal scale yielded five dimensions: social interaction,
commercial transaction, activities preferences, bar-
gaining, and knowledge of destination (Pizam and
Sussman, 1995). The scale was used and validated in
further studies by Pizam and Jeong (1996), Pizam and
Reichel (1996), and Pizam et al. (1997). Using a back
translation approach, the scale was translated into
Turkish (Brislin, 1970). Afterwards, a group of tour-
ism experts assessed the content and understandability
of those items. They were asked to edit and improve
those items to enhance their clarity and readability.
After making sure that the survey instrument had rep-
resented the original scale, it was finalized.
Due to limitations to access tour guides, an online
data collection method was utilized to collect data.
The sample of the study comprised 1550 professional
tour guides registered to mail groups of TUREB-
Union of Tourist Guides and IRO-Chamber of
Istanbul Tour Guides. The tour guides were informed
that they could complete more than one survey if they
were to evaluate more than one nation. The question-
naire was uploaded into a survey site designed for
researches and the link of the questionnaire was
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
Keep to themselves
Avoid socializing
Congregate only with tourists from same nationality
Travel by themselves
Take short trips
Do not buy souvenirs
Do not buy gifts for friends and relatives
Suspicious of tourist-trade people
Interested in artifacts
Avoid local foods and drinks
Plan their tours rigidly
Do not shop at all
Pay asking price
Satisfied with ‘‘staged’’ attractions/events
Safe
Passive
Interested in familiar things
Do not take photographs
Do not write letters (postcards)
Not knowledgeable about the destination and well unprepared
electronically mailed to tour guides working in Istanbul
in February 2013. They were reminded of the question-
naire four times until June 2013. A total of 417 question-
naires were saved in the system, but 22 were excluded
due to missing data. Since the number of completed
questionnaires was insufficient for further analysis for
several nations, these were also excluded from further
analysis and a total of 375 usable questionnaires were
taken into consideration. The questionnaires subject to
analysis were responses of 346 tour guides.
Since the purpose of this study was to examine
Turkish professional tour guides’ perceptions of
behavioral characteristics of international tourists vis-
iting Istanbul and to identify the differences and simi-
larities among tourists from different nations, an
exploratory factor analysis was employed to delineate
the underlying dimensions of 20 typical tourist behav-
iors. After identifying the underlying dimensions,
a series of one-way analysis of variance was used to
identify the similarities and differences among those
tourists from different nations. Tukey’s honestly sig-
nificant difference tests (HSD) were carried out to
identify the significant differences (p < 0.05).
Results and discussion
A total of 346 Turkish tour guides participated in the
survey and they completed a total of 375
Özdemir and Yolal
questionnaires. These responses involved seven
nationalities, namely American (72), French (52),
German (51), British (47), Italian (49), Spanish
(48), and Japanese (56). On the basis of the tour
guides’ evaluation of the typical tourist behaviors, the
key characteristics of seven nationalities on the basis of
mean scores are presented below.
American
Interacted with other tourists in the group (4.31) and
with other nations and socialized (4.19); took long
trips (3.97); shopped frequently (3.33) and bought
souvenirs (4.21); wanted to see the real thing (4.26)
and were interested in novelty (4.24); active during the
tour (3.90); were interested in the local food (4.03);
took photos (4.17); and knowledgeable about the
destination (3.94).
Spanish
Interacted with other tourists (4.63) in the group and
socialized more (4.48); did not congregate with other
tourists from other nationalities (2.42); traveled in
groups (4.04); took long trips (3.73) but visited
places in an unplanned manner (3.73); did not shop
constantly (2.44) but bargained rigorously (4.73);
interested in artifacts and novelty (4.04); very active
during tours (4.19); took photographs (4.35); had ade-
quate information about the destination (3.65); and
interested in local food (4.10).
French
Interested in real things (4.17); knowledgeable about
the destination (4.08); interested in local food (4.08);
did not shop much (2.15) but suspicious of tourist-
trade people (1.92); took long trips (3.79) and planned
their tours rigidly; interested in localities rather than
people (2.37); active during the tour (3.67) and inter-
ested in novelties (3.63); interacted with other tourists
(3.88) in the group and socialized (3.73), but congre-
gated with their own nationality (1.94).
German
Interested in real things (4.24); knowledgeable about
the destination (4.24) and took photos (4.24); inter-
acted with other tourists (3.98) and socialized with
other tourists (3.59); did not congregate with other
nationalities (1.96); traveled in groups (3.90) and
planned their tours rigidly; although suspicious of
tourist-trade people (2.10), when they shopped they
bargained (3.65); were active during the tour (3.86)
and interested in novelty (3.86).
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
5
British
Interacted with other tourists in the group (4.06) and
socialized (4.04); rarely congregated with tourists from
other nationalities (2.47); did not shop frequently
(2.02) nor buy souvenirs (2.51); active during the
tour (4.09); interested in localities and novelty
(4.19); not interested in people (2.23); adventuresome
(3.77); took photographs (4.47); and well prepared
about the destination (4.45).
Italian
Interacted with other tourists (4.43) and socialized
much (4.29); did not congregate with tourists from
other nationalities (2.37); traveled in groups (3.96)
and visited places in loose and unplanned manner
(3.86); open to local artifacts and novelty (3.59);
although suspicious of tourist-trade people (2.77),
they shopped constantly (3.34) and bargained heavily
(4.65); active during the tour (4.00); adventuresome
(3.55); took photographs (4.12); and had average
information about the destination (3.18).
Japanese
It could be said that they neither interacted with other
tourists (2.98) nor socialized (2.73), nor congregated
with tourists from other nationalities (1.89); mostly
traveled in groups (4.45); took longer trips (3.84);
shopped heavily bought souvenirs (4.29) and gifts for
their friends and relatives (4.23); passive during the
tour; had average interest in novelties (3.50); not inter-
ested in local food (2.79); took many photographs
(4.98); and not much knowledge about the destination
(2.73).
The study findings suggested that American,
French, German, British, Italian, and Spanish tourists
interacted with other tourists in the group, and they
socialized with other tourists in the group. One excep-
tion to this was the Japanese tourists. However, it was
also seen that the above groups did not congregate
with other tourists from different nationalities during
the tours. This could be attributed to communication
problems arising from language skills. In the same
manner, it could be noted that the reason why
American tourists mixed with other tourists was that
their mother tongue had become an international lan-
guage. On the contrary, British tourists seemed to mix
only with tourists from the same nationality. This
could be explained by the fact that the British were
seen as being rigid and firm by the studies of Pi-
Sunyer (1977 cf. Pizam, 1999a).
Japanese and Spanish tourists preferred to travel in
groups. The Italians and Germans followed this pref-
erence. It had also been confirmed earlier that
6 Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
Japanese preferred to travel in groups (Cho, 1991 cf.
from Meng, 2010). Consequently, the findings of the
current study were coherent with the previous studies.
On the other hand, the American and Japanese tourists
were found to take longer trips, and this could be
explained by the geographical distances of both coun-
tries to reach Turkey. Similarly, Americans and
Japanese seemed to send postcards and letters more
frequently than the other nations. Although the
advances experienced in information and communica-
tion technology diminish the demand for postcards, it
seems that quality-produced postcards are still desired.
According to the perceptions of the tour guides, all
nations, except Americans, were suspicious of Turkish
tourist-trade people. In contrast to this finding, it had
been previously found that both Japanese and
American tourists had higher trust in tourist-trade
people as in the case of South Korea and England
(Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann,
1995). In line with the current study, Italian and
French tourists were also found to be highly suspicious
about tourist-trade people in England. As a result, low
shopping (buying souvenirs and gifts) among all
nations, except for the Japanese and Americans
could be attributed to low levels of trust in Turkish
tourist-trade people. Similar studies revealed that tour-
ist expenditures of Japanese and Americans were com-
parably high (Reisinger and Turner, 2002; Wong and
Lau, 2001). What emerged from the present study was
that the Japanese were the most bargaining nation fol-
lowed by Spanish and Italians, whereas Americans
were found to be the ones paying for the asking
price. Although Japanese hesitated to socialize, they
bargained when doing a transaction which in itself
requires a certain level of socialization. The results
suggest that the tourist-trade people should be edu-
cated about their behaviors when dealing with tourists,
in order to increase and generate their income.
Tour guides thought that Italian, Spanish, and
American tourists were much more interested in resi-
dents, while the others were interested in artifacts.
This finding contradicted the findings of Pizam and
Jeong (1996) in their study conducted in South
Korea, which observed that the Japanese were inter-
ested in people. This showed that the Japanese were
much more interested in people in the destinations
closer to their culture. Hence, it was important to pri-
oritize Japanese culture in places where Japanese vis-
ited frequently, and increase the number of employees
speaking Japanese.
Regarding the local food and drinks, it was seen that
all nations, except the Japanese, preferred Turkish
cuisine. This finding was contradictory to Pizam and
Jeong’s (1996) study in South Korea. This could be
attributed to differences between Turkish and Far East
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
cuisine. This finding revealed the necessity of promot-
ing the Turkish cuisine in tourist markets. As such,
inclusion of quality local restaurants into the tour pro-
grams would increase the familiarity of tourists with
the Turkish food. Moreover, promotion of Turkish
cuisine in foreign markets would also contribute to
the diversification of tourism products and increase
the quality of experience in the country.
Further, the findings suggested that German,
French, and British tourists planned their tours rigidly,
while Spanish and Italian tourists traveled in a loose
and unplanned manner. As such, it is suggested that
the tour plan and its schedule should be strictly abided
to when these nationalities are engaged. In a similar
manner, prior information about the destination
increases the quality of experiences, and it was appar-
ent that all nations except for the Japanese were well
prepared and knowledgeable about the destination.
It can be argued that the Japanese were unable to
reveal their knowledge about the destination due to
their indifference in socializing.
Safety is an important human concern while tra-
veling to unfamiliar places. The Japanese were found
to prefer safety rather than adventuresome behavior.
Money and Crotts (2003) attributed this fact to
uncertainty avoidance that features highly among
the Japanese. Similarly, they were also found to be
passive during the tours. The Japanese were followed
by German tourists in terms of safety quest. The
adventuresome attitude of the German tourists
during guided tours was explained by low uncer-
tainty avoidance by Money and Crotts (2003), but
in the case of the current study, Germans were
found to follow Japanese tourists in terms of security
quest. In an effort to respond to the security quest
of the tourists, tour planners should take all neces-
sary steps and collaborate with the authorities.
Overall, decision makers should strive to maintain
and sustain a secure environment for both the resi-
dents and visitors.
American, British, Spanish, and German tourists
were found to be interested in novelty. However,
Japanese and French tourists looked for familiar
things during tours. Novelty and variety seeking can
be considered as key factors in accounting for trav-
elers’ decisions (Legoherel et al., 2015). Further, var-
iety seeking has a direct effect on medium-term revisit
intentions for a particular destination (Jang and Feng,
2007). Therefore, focusing on novelty and variety
while hosting these nations could help managers and
marketers better tailor their products. Meanwhile, the
literature suggests that taking photographs is the fore-
most characteristic of the Japanese tourists (Pizam and
Reichel, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995; Pizam
et al., 1997; Cho, 1991 cf. Meng, 2010). The findings
Özdemir and Yolal
Table 2. Factor analysis of typical tourist behaviors.
Behaviors
Shopping
Buy gifts for friends and relatives at home
Buy souvenirs
Shop constantly
Trust tourist-trade people
Activities
Want to see the ‘‘real thing’’
Interested in novelty
Active during tour
Prefer local foods and drinks
Social interaction
Socialize with other tourists
Interact with other tourists
Interested in people
Congregate with tourists from other nationalities
Total variance explained
of the current study were also coherent with the
previous studies.
The exploratory factor analysis of 20 typical tourist
behaviors yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1 (Table 2). These factors explained 55.80% of the
variance and were labeled as shopping, activities, and social
interaction. Eight items, which were removed from further
analysis, had loading values of less than .50. The total
Cronbach’s alpha value indicated that the model was
internally reliable (a ¼ .725). The appropriateness
of factor analysis for 12 typical tourist behaviors
was determined by Barlett’s test of sphericity ¼
1,260,558 p < 0.001 and the test Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin
(KMO) ¼ .738, p ¼ .000. The reliability coefficients for
the three dimensions were .786 for shopping, .666 for
activities, and .610 for social interaction confirming
that the individual items under each factor were intern-
ally consistent. These coefficients were higher than .6
recommended by Hair et al. (2006). Unlike the previous
studies, this study resulted in three factors rather than
five. However, these findings still showed consistencies
and similarities with previous studies (Pizam and Jeong,
1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995).
Further, the study used one-way analysis of vari-
ance to examine if the delineated factors varied
among the nations. On the basis of the perceptions
of tour operators who participated in the study, it
was found that there were significant differences
in all three factors among the seven nations. As can
be seen in Table 3, F value for shopping was found to
be 34.944 and the significance level was .000. This
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
7
Variance Cronbach’s
Factor loadings explained Eigenvalues alpha
21.234 3.05 .786
.851
.840
.723
.661
18.130 2.48 .666
.745
.717
.639
.603
16.439 1.15 .610
.765
.763
.552
.548
55.803
revealed that there were significant differences among
nations in shopping dimension. Similarly, F value for
activities dimension was found to be 21.233 and the
significance level was found to be .000. Finally, F value
for social interaction was found to be 24.798 and
the significance level was .000. According to F
values, the biggest differences among three factors
were found in shopping; however, the social inter-
action was the factor that had the most distinct differ-
ence between nationality pairs.
Next, Tukey’s HSD test to correct multiple testing
was used in order to assess which nationalities differ
significantly (see Table 3). Shopping was found to be
the most significant difference between Japanese and
British tourists. On the other hand, the most signifi-
cant similarity in shopping was found between the
Japanese and American tourists. This finding was
coherent with the previous studies reporting the high-
est shopping rates for American and Japanese tourists
(Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995).
The smaller difference was determined in activities
dimension. This apparently contradicted with the find-
ings of Pizam and Jeong (1996) who noted the biggest
differences to be in the activities factor. This difference
could be attributed to their study being limited to
three nations; Japanese, American, and Korean
which means mostly Asian. In line with this, the dif-
ferences in the current study arose from the Japanese
tourists. Reisinger and Turner (1997, 1998) reported
similar findings when it comes to the differences
between Eastern and Western cultures.
 8
Table 3. Differences and similarities in typical behaviors (variance of means/significance).

American French German British Italian Spanish Japanese

Shopping
American 1,23985*/.000 .78105*/.000 1,38889*/.000 .41440*/.025 .36806/.074 .01736/1,000
French 1,23985*/.000 .45880*/.017 .14904,940 .82545* /.000 .87179*/.000 1,25721*/.000
German .78105*/.000 .45880*/.017 .60784*/.000 .3666/5,124 .41299/.055 .79841*/.000
British 1,38889*/.000 .14904/.940 .60784*/.000 .97449*/.000 1,02083*/.000 1,40625*/.000
Italian .41440*/.025 .82545*.000 .36665, 124 .97449*.000 .04634/1,000 .43176*/.029
Spanish .36806/.074 .87179*/.000 .41299/.055 1,02083*/.000 .04634 /1,000
Japanese .01736/1,000 1,25721*/.000 .79841*/.000 1,40625*/.000 .43176*/.029 .38542/.079
Activities
American .21822/.460 .12725/.921 .04913/1,000 .19948/.592 .00174/1,000 1,08085*/.000
French .21822/.460 .09097/.990 .16909/.825 .01874/1,000 .21995/.568 .86264*/.000
German .12725/.921 .09097/.990 .07812/.996 .07223/.997 .12898/.946 .95361*/.000
British .04913/1,000 .16909/.825 .07812/.996 .15035/.899 .05086/1,000 1,03172*/.000
Italian .19948/.592 .01874/1,000 .07223/.997 .15035/.899 .20121/.684 .88138*/.000
Spanish .00174/1,000 .21995/.568 .12898/.946 .05086/1,000 .20121/.684 1,08259*/.000
Japanese 1,08085*/.000 .86264*/.000 .95361*/.000 1,03172*/.000 .88138*/.000 1,08259*/.000
Social interaction
American .73798*/.000 .77757*/.000 .51662*/.001 .09120/.990 .02604/1,000 1,13393*/.000
French .73798*/.000 .03959/1,000 .22136/.646 .64678*/.000 .71194*/.000 .39595*/.034
German .77757*/.000 .03959/1,000 .26095/.454 .68637*/.000 .75153*/.000 .35636/.084
British .51662*/.001 .22136/.646 .26095/.454 .42542*/.030 .49058*/.007 .61731*/.000
Italian .09120/.990 .64678*/.000 .68637*/.000 .42542*/.030 .06516/.999 1,04273*/.000
Spanish .02604/1,000 .71194*/.000 .75153*/.000 .49058*/.007 .06516,999 1,10789*/.000

Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016

Japanese 1,13393*/.000 .39595*/.034 .35636/.084 .61731*/.000 1,04273*/.000 1,10789*/.000
Note: *denotes significant at .05 point level.
Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
Özdemir and Yolal
Finally, the most salient difference was found to
be between American and Japanese tourists in social
interaction. This apparently contradicted with the
findings of Pizam and Jeong (1996) who reported
that Americans and Japanese had similar character-
istics. The biggest similarity was between American
and Spanish tourists. They were followed by Italian,
British, French, and German tourists. It could be
concluded that there were apparent differences
among all seven nations in the study and the
reason seemed to be the differences between
Western and Asian tourists.
Conclusion
In recent years, the study of cross-cultural tourism
behavior has become important as a result of today’s
global economy making tourism a cross-cultural phe-
nomenon. It has been repeatedly shown by the previ-
ous literature that tourist behavior is influenced by not
only motivation, demographics, and lifestyle but also
by the national culture, individuals, and groups hold.
However, there is still need for further justification of
culture’s role in the shaping of tourist behavior. This
study aimed to investigate behavioral characteristics of
international tourists visiting Istanbul in guided tours
as perceived by Turkish tour guides, and to examine
the differences and similarities when it comes to
underlying factors. The findings of the study suggest
that from the professional tour guides’ perspectives,
there are cross-cultural differences among nations,
Japanese being perceived to be the most distinct group.
The findings of this study confirm to a certain
degree the results obtained by previous studies such
as Pizam and Sussmann (1995), Pizam and Jeong
(1996), and Pizam et al. (1997), which demonstrated
that tourist behavior is affected by nationality. Study
results suggest that destination planners, managers,
and marketers should be concerned about the influ-
ence of cultural factors. However, as Pizam and
Sussman (1995) note, nationality is only one variable
that should be considered in predicting variation in
tourist behavior and should not be used as a sole
explanatory variable.
It is apparent that national differences will have a
range of implications for management including
product development, market segmentation, and pro-
motion. Therefore, it may be concluded that the
characteristics of national cultures should be taken
into consideration in planning the tourist offers and
marketing. Expectedly, it is not possible to alter the
settings of the tour programs. However, different
tour programs could be developed for different nations
according to their behavioral characteristics. The find-
ings of this study could also be used to segment the
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
9
tourist market on the basis of similarities and differ-
ences among nationalities. Armed with this informa-
tion on the characteristics of each nation, tour
operators can design culturally homogenous tour
groups in order to create an atmosphere of familiarity.
This would help to increase the quality of tours and
further the satisfaction levels of international tourists.
Similarly, awareness of national differences would
help tour operators to position their tours effectively.
Findings suggest that promotion and advertising cam-
paigns in the seven countries are likely to be more
effective when considering and using knowledge of
cultural differences. In this vein, creating awareness
about the tour offerings and attracting the individuals
would be more effective, and efforts would not be
wasted. However, as suggested by Lu and Chen
(2014), different nations utilized varying information
sources, and these differences should also be
taken into consideration while planning the promo-
tional efforts.
Findings revealed that American, French, German,
British, Italian, and Spanish tourists interact and
socialize with other tourists in the group, but do not
congregate with other tourists from different national-
ities during the tours. The reason for such behavior
could be attributed to communication problems aris-
ing from language skills. Therefore, inclusion of multi-
national tourists into the same tour should be avoided.
Besides the use of mother tongue of the groups, rather
than an international language like English, would be
more convenient for the socialization of the tour
groups. This finding could further be used in planning
the activities, accommodation, transfer services, etc.
during the tour.
This study is limited to tourists from seven nations
visiting Istanbul and participating in the guided tours.
Given the increasing significance of cross-cultural
similarities and differences, further research is
required in order to better understand the cross-
cultural differences and the impact of national cultures
on the tourist behavior. It is clear that the results of the
current study and future studies should be taken into
account for creating better tourist experiences.
Similarly, the same nations could be researched in dif-
ferent destinations in Turkey while they are attending
to different tourism experiences. Further studies are
also needed for understanding the effects of national
culture on other aspects of tourist behavior such as
motivation, satisfaction, or loyalty. Another limitation
of the study is its subjects being the tour guides.
This necessitates further research on the perceptions
of other services suppliers such as hoteliers, trades
people, restaurant employees, etc. Such studies may
help us to create a comprehensive understanding of
cross-cultural tourist behavior.
10
References
Brislin RW (1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research.
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216.
Carr N (2002) A comparative analysis of the behavior of domestic
and international young tourists. Tourism Management 23(3):
321–325.
Chen JS (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 P and Pizam A (2006) Cross-cultural tourism marketing.
In: Buhalis D and Costa C (eds) Tourism Management
Dynamics, Trends, Management and Tools. Oxford: Elsevier
Butterworth, pp. 187–195.
Clark T (1990) International marketing and national character: A
review and proposal for an integrative theory. Journal of
Marketing 54(4): 66–79.
Correia A, Kozak M and Ferradeira J (2011) Impact of culture on
tourist. International Journal of Tourism Research 13(5): 433–446.
Defranco A, Wortman JLT and Countryman C (2005) A cross-cul-
tural comparison of customer complaint behavior in restaurants
in hotels. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 10(2): 173–190.
Geertz C (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic
Books.
Gursoy D and Chen JS (2000) Competitive analysis of cross cultural
information search behavior. Tourism Management 21(6):
583–590.
Gursoy D and Umbreit WT (2004) Tourist information search
behavior: Cross-cultural comparison of European Union
member states. International Journal of Hospitality Management
23(1): 55–70.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2006) Multivariate Data
Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hedrick-Wong Y and Choong D (2014) Mastercard 2014 global
destination cities index. Available at: http://newsroom.master
card.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Mastercard_GDCI_
2014_Letter_Final_70814.pdf (accessed 6 December 2014).
Jafari J (1987) Tourism models: The socio-cultural aspects. Tourism
Management 8(2): 151–159.
Jang SC and Feng R (2007) Temporal destination revisit intention:
The effect of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism
Management 28(2): 580–590.
Jordan EJ, Norman WC and Vogt C (2013) A cross-cultural com-
parison of online travel information search behaviors. Tourism
Management Perspectives 6: 15–22.
Hofstede G (2001) Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations. Culture’s Consequences. California,
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hudson S and Ritchie JRB (2001) Cross-cultural tourist behavior:
An analysis of tourist attitudes towards the environment. Journal
of Travel & Tourism Marketing 10(2–3): 1–22.
Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism (2014)
http://www.istanbulkulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,92428/istanbul-
turizm-istatistikleri—2014.html (accessed 23 March 2015).
Kang M and Moscardo G (2006) Exploring cross-cultural differ-
ences in attitudes towards responsible tourist behaviour: A com-
parison of Korean, British and Australian tourists. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research 11(4): 303–320.
Kay P (2009) Cultural experience tourist motives dimensionality: A
crosscultural study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management 18(4): 329–371.
Kim SS and Prideaux B (2003) A cross-cultural study of airline
passengers. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2): 489–492.
Kim SS, Prideaux B and Kim SH (2002) A cross-cultural study on
casino guests as perceived by casino employees. Tourism
Management 23(5): 511–520.
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
Tourism and Hospitality Research 0(0)
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, Gonzales A, et al. (2004) Cross-cultural behav-
iour research in tourism a case study on destination image.
Tourism Analysis 8(2–4): 253–257.
Kozak M and Tasci AD (2005) Perceptions of foreign tourists by
local service providers: The case of Fethiye, Turkey. International
Journal of Tourism Research 7(4–5): 261–277.
Lee CK (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 and Lee CK (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 SH and Sparks B (2007) Cultural influences on travel lifestyle:
A comparison of Korean Australians and Koreans in Korea.
Tourism Management 28(2): 505–518.
Legoherel P, Hsu CHC and Dauce B (2015) Variety-seeking: Using
the CHAID segmentation approach in analyzing the inter-
national traveler market. Tourism Management 46(1): 359–366.
Li M (2014) Cross-cultural tourist research: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Hospitality Tourism Research 38(1): 40–77.
Lu ACC and Chen BT (2014) Information search behaviour of
independent travelers: A cross-cultural comparison between
Chinese, Japanese, and American travelers. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management 23(8): 865–884.
MacKay KJ and Fesenmaier DR (2000) An exploration of cross-
cultural destination image assessment. Journal of Travel Research
38(4): 417–423.
March R (1997) Diversity in Asian outbound travel industries: A
comparison between Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea
and Japan. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16(2):
231–238.
Master H and Prideaux B (2000) Culture and vacation satisfaction:
A study of Taiwanese tourists in South East Queensland. Tourism
Management 21(5): 445–449.
Meng F (2010) Special section paper individualism/collectivism and
group travel behaviour: A cross-cultural perspective.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
4(4): 340–351.
Money RB and Crotts JC (2003) The effect of uncertainty
avoidance on information search, planning, and purchases of
international travel vacations. Tourism Management 24(2):
191–202.
Ozdipc?iner N (2009) Turistlerin satın alma kararlarındaki kuül-
tuürel farklılıklar: Tuürk -Alman kars?ılas?tırılması (Cultural dif-
ferences on tourists’ purchasing decisions: Turkish-German
comparison). Ege Akademik Bakıs¸ 9(4): 1295–1311.
Pizam A (1999a) Cross-cultural tourist behavior. In: Pizam A and
Mansfeld Y (eds) Consumer Behaviour in Travel and Tourism.
Binghamton, NY: Haworth Hospitality Press, pp. 393–412.
Pizam A (1999b) The American group tourists as viewed by British,
Israeli, Korean and Dutch tour guides. Journal of Travel Research
38(2): 119–126.
Pizam A, Jansen-Verbeke M and Steel L (1997) Are all tourists alike,
regardless of nationality? Journal of International Hospitality,
Leisure and Tourism Management 1(1): 19–40.
Pizam A and Jeong GH (1996) Cross-cultural tourist behaviour:
Perceptions of Korean tour-guides. Tourism Management 17(4):
277–286.
 Özdemir and Yolal
Pizam A and Reichel A (1996) The effect of nationality on tourist
behaviour: Israeli tour guides’ perceptions. Journal of Hospitality
and Leisure Marketing 4(1): 23–49.
Pizam A and Sussmann S (1995) Does nationality affect tourist
behaviour? Annals of Tourism Research 22(4): 901–917.
Potter CC (1989) What is culture: And can it be useful for organ-
izational change agents? Leadership and Organization Development
Journal 10(3): 17–24.
Quintal VA, Lee JA and Soutar GN (2010) Risk, uncertainty and the
theory of planned behavior: A tourism example. Tourism
Management 31(6): 797–805.
Ramkisson H, Uysal M and Brown K (2011) A cross-cultural com-
parison of tourists’ cultural behavioural intentions. E-Review of
Tourism Research 9(5): 190–219.
Reisinger Y and Turner LW (1997) Cross-cultural differences in
tourism: Indonesian tourists in Australia. Tourism Management
18(3): 139–147.
Reisinger Y and Turner LW (1998) Cultural differences between
Mandarin speaking tourists and Australian hosts and their
impact on cross-cultural tourist-host interaction. Journal of
Business Research 42(2): 175–187.
Reisinger Y and Turner LW (2002) Cultural differences between
Asian tourist markets and Australian hosts, Part 1. Journal of
travel Research 40(3): 295–315.
Reisinger Y and Turner LW (2003) Cross-Cultural Tourist Behavior.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Richardson SL and Crompton J (1988) Vacation patterns of French
and English Canadians. Annals of Tourism Research 15(3):
430–435.
Sabiote-Ortiz CM, Frias-Jamilena DM and Castaneda-Garcia JA
(2014) Overall perceived value of a tourism service delivered
via different media: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of
Travel ResearchPublication ahead of print 28 May 2014. DOI:
10.1177/0047287514535844.
Sussmann S and Rashcovsky C (1997) A cross-cultural analysis of
English and French Canadians vacation travel patterns.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 16(2): 191–208.
Tasci A and Boylu Y (2010) Cultural comparison of tourists’ safety
perception in relation to trip satisfaction. International Journal of
Tourism Research 12(2): 179–192.
Tayfun A and Yildirim A (2010) Turistlerin tuüketim davranıs?ları
kuültuüre/milliyete goüre farklılık goüsterir mi? Alman ve Rus
Downloaded from thr.sagepub.com at ANADOLU UNIV on February 7, 2016
View publication stats
11
turistler uüzerine bir aras?tırma (Does the consumption behavior
of tourists differ by culture/nationality? A Study into German
and Russian tourists). Journal of Business Research 2(2): 43–64.
Turner L, Reisinger Y and McQuilken L (2001) How cultural dif-
ferences cause dimensions of tourism satisfaction. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 11(1): 79–101.
Wong S and Lau E (2001) Understanding the behaviour of Hong
Kong Chinese tourists on group tour packages. Journal of Travel
Research 40(1): 57–67.
Xu F, Morgan M and Song P (2009) Students’ travel behaviour: A
cross-cultural comparison of UK and China. International
Journal of Tourism Research 11(3): 255–268.
Yoo JJ, Mckercher B and Mena M (2004) A cross-cultural compari-
son of trip characteristics: International visitors to Hong Kong
from Mainland China and USA. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 16(1): 65–78.
You X, Leary JO, Morrison A, et al. (2000) A cross-cultural com-
parison of travel push and pull factors: United Kingdom vs.
Japan. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration 1(2): 1–26.
Yu L and Goulden M (2006) A comparative analysis of international
tourists’ satisfaction in Mongolia. Tourism Management 27(6):
1331–1342.
Yuksel A, Kılınc U and Yuksel F (2006) Cross-national analysis of
hotel customers’ attitudes toward complaining and their com-
plaining behaviours. Tourism Management 27(1): 11–24.
Author Biographies
Cansev Özdemir is a research assistant and PhD can-
didate in Faculty of Tourism at Eskisehir Osmangazi
University, Turkey. Her areas of research interest
include tourism marketing, tourist behavior, and
cross-cultural studies.
Medet Yolal, PhD, is an associate professor in Faculty
of Tourism at Anadolu University, Turkey. His areas of
research interest include tourism marketing, consumer
behavior, and event management and marketing.