Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 13:123–151, 2012

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1528-008X print/1528-0098 online
DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2012.645201

Determinants of Tourist–Host
Interactions: An Analysis of the
University Student Market

CELESTE A. EUSÉBIO and MARIA JOÃO A. CARNEIRO

GOVCOPP Research Unit, University of Aveiro, Portugal, DEGEI – University
of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, Portugal

This study identifies the determinants related to university student

tourists that influence the tourist–host interaction. A stratified sam-
ple of university students was surveyed and 436 completed ques-
tionnaires were obtained. Several linear regression models were
used to identify determinants of tourist–host interaction in various
contexts of interaction. The results suggest that the socio-demo-
graphic profile, motivations, cultural familiarity and similarity,
travel behavior and tourist perceptions of tourism impacts influ-
ence the tourist–host interaction. Motivations and perceptions of
tourism impacts are the most important determinants of this inter-
action. Theoretical and managerial implications of these findings
are also discussed.

KEYWORDS Determinants, linear regression models, tourist–host

interaction, university student market

INTRODUCTION

The social contact between tourists and residents is a crucial factor in the
development of tourism destinations. Zhang, Inbakaran, and Jackson (2006,
p. 182) reinforce this idea suggesting that “understanding host-guest inter-
action is vital for the sustainable development of tourism.” Tourist–host
interaction may influence tourists’ satisfaction and their intention to return to
the destination and recommend it to others (Murphy, 2001; Pizam, Uriely, &

Address correspondence to Celeste A. Eusébio, Department of Economics, Management

and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitario de Santiago, Aveiro
3810-193, Portugal. E-mail: celeste.eusebio@ua.pt

123
124 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

Reichel, 2000; Reisinger & Turner, 1998; Yoo & Sohn, 2003; Zhang et al.,
2006). On the other hand, such interaction can also contribute to residents’
satisfaction and affect their attitudes towards tourism (Andereck et al., 2005;
Sinkovics & Penz, 2009; Weaver & Lawton, 2001; Zhang et al., 2006). Despite
the relevance of investigating tourist–host interaction there are significant
research gaps in this research area. Several authors (e.g., Reisinger & Turner,
1998; Yoo & Sohn, 2003; Zhang et al., 2006) point to the urgent need for
a well-established theoretical framework in order to understand and predict
tourist–host interaction.
Some of the research published on the interaction between tourists
and hosts focused on the encounters that residents have with tourists (e.g.,
Andereck et al., 2005; McNaugton, 2006; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009; Weaver &
Lawton, 2001). Few studies analyzed the encounters that each tourist has
with residents of tourism destinations.
The present study extends previous research in two areas. First, the
focus of the study is to assess the interactions that university students have
with hosts of tourism destinations during their trips. Although the youth
tourism market is becoming more important (Mintel, 2009; Richards, 2007;
WTO, 2002, 2008) and young people are still in the beginning of a potential
long travel career, limited research has been carried out on the university stu-
dent market (Kim, Oh, & Jogaratnam, 2007a; Phau, Shanka, & Dhayan, 2010;
Thrane, 2008). No specific study has been done to analyze the determinants
of social interaction level between university student tourists and hosts of
tourism destinations. Second, this study also extends previous research by
presenting and empirically testing a research model to identify the deter-
minants of the university student tourist–host interaction level in several
contexts.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The University Students’ Tourism Market
Several authors (e.g., Middleton et al., 2009; Mill & Morrison, 2002) state
that younger and older age groups have more leisure time than people from
other age groups, and, therefore, more opportunities to do tourism trips.
The youth tourism market already is a very important segment of the tourism
market. The WTO (2002) advocated that this market segment accounted for
17% of all the international trips in 2000. This number already increased to
20% in 2008 (WTO, 2008), what suggests an increase in the importance of
this market.
University students correspond to an important segment of the youth
tourism market. Several studies on the university student tourism market
were carried out in the last decades (Chadee & Mattsson, 1996; Kim &
Jogaratnam, 2003; Morgan & Xu, 2009; Phau et al., 2010; Ryan & Zhang,
 Tourist–Host Interactions 125

2007; Thrane, 2008; Wang & Davidson, 2008; Xu, Morgan, & Sons, 2009).
However, most of these studies only focus on international students travel-
ling for studying abroad (Ryan & Zhang, 2007; Shanka, Ali-Knight, & Pope,
2002; Wang & Davidson, 2008) and little attention has been given to leisure
trips of university students.
Some studies report that interacting with local people at destinations is a
major travel motivation for young people (Mintel, 2009; Richards & Wilson,
2003; Richards, 2007) and one of the most appreciated travel activities by
young visitors (Mintel, 2009). As Morgan and Xu’s study (2009) reports,
meeting local people, experiencing a different culture and, specifically, inter-
acting with residents of tourism destinations also correspond to memorable
and meaningful experiences of tourism trips for many university students.
However, as far as interaction with hosts is concerned, the majority of young
visitors’ research (e.g., Murphy, 2001) only focuses on analyzing whether vis-
itors appreciate this kind of interaction. There is a lack of research in order
to characterize the interaction between university students and residents of
tourism destinations and, also, to identify the determinants of this interaction.
Besides the high heterogeneity of the university student group (e.g.,
Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Kim et al., 2007), some trends may be iden-
tified in the leisure travels of these students. Some popular motivations
of this market are: having fun and discovering something new or learn-
ing new things (Chadee & Mattsson, 1996; Morgan & Xu, 2009; Xu et al.,
2009). In the context of learning new things, several researches highlight
the importance assumed by the motivation of knowing more about different
cultures (Chadee & Mattsson, 1996; Morgan & Xu, 2009). Some studies also
reveal, explicitly or implicitly, the importance of socializing (Morgan & Xu,
2009; Thrane, 2008; Xu et al., 2009) and relaxing, for some of the students
participating in leisure trips (Thrane, 2008; Xu et al., 2009).
Regarding travel behavior, these students show a preference for staying
in hotels and in house of friends and relatives (Chadee & Mattsson, 1996;
Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Xu et al., 2009) and, sometimes, in youth hostels
(e.g., Chadee & Mattsson, 1996). The means of transportation used vary
with the type of travel undertaken, with car being one of the means of
transportation more frequently used (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Xu et al.,
2009). University students are also likely to travel in big groups (Kim et al.,
2007) and have a high interest in going to the beach (Kim & Jogaratnam,
2003; Thrane, 2008; Xu et al., 2009), visiting cities (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003;
Thrane, 2008; Xu et al., 2009) and sightseeing (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003;
Morgan and Xu, 2009). Nature activities are appreciated by specific groups
of students (e.g., Xu et al., 2009).
As far as socio-demographic characteristics are concerned, the univer-
sity student market has a low income and encompasses a high proportion of
single people, is quite balanced in terms of gender or reveals a prevalence
of female (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Thrane, 2008; Xu et al., 2009).
126 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

After characterizing the university student market in terms of poten-

tial determinants of interaction with hosts, we will discuss the interaction
construct.

Tourist–host Interaction
This article analyzes the concept of social contact with specific emphasis
on tourist–host interaction. This concept is complex and there are many
definitions of social contact. According to Murphy (2001, p. 51), investi-
gation on social interaction is “basically the study of everyday encounters
with other people.” In tourism, social contact can be defined as “the per-
sonal encounter that takes place between a tourist and a host” (Reisinger &
Turner, 2003, p. 37). According to De Kadt (1979), tourist–host encounters
occur in three main contexts: when tourists purchase products from the res-
idents; when tourists and hosts find themselves side by side, for example,
on a beach or at a monument; and when tourists and hosts come face to
face in order to exchange information and ideas. Reisinger (2009) stresses
that the social contact between tourists and hosts occurs more frequently at
tourist attractions and when tourists buy goods and services from hosts. The
contexts in which tourist–host contact takes place influence the results of
this interaction.
Tourists and hosts have different social status, goals, dreams, experi-
ences, and play different roles (Krippendorf, 1987; Reisinger, 2009). These
characteristics make tourist–host interaction unequal and unbalanced in
terms of its meanings for both sides (Reisinger & Turner, 2003; Reisinger,
2009). The tourist–host contact is, also, frequently, brief, formal, temporary
and non-repetitive (Pearce, 1998; Reisinger & Turner, 2003; Reisinger, 2009).
The tourists usually stay at the destination for a short time, not having, in
the majority of their trips, the opportunity to develop significant relation-
ships with hosts (Reisinger, 2009; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009; Yoo & Sohn,
2003). Additionally, host–tourist interaction is frequently open to deceit,
exploitation and mistrust (De Kadt, 1979; Krippendorf, 1987; Reisinger 2009).
The literature review about social contact in tourism reveals that this
field of research was first developed in Smith’s seminal work (1978) Hosts
and guests: The anthropology of tourism. Although during the last four
decades several studies about host-tourist interaction have been devel-
oped (Andereck et al., 2005; Jaworski et al., 2003; Heuman, 2005; Murphy,
2001; Pizam et al., 2000; Reisinger & Turner, 1998; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009;
Weaver & Lawton, 2001; Zhang et al., 2006; Yoo & Sohn, 2003) signifi-
cant research deficiencies remain in this research area (Zhang et al., 2006).
Moreover, a literature review on tourist–host interaction reveals that there
is a lack of theoretical foundation in modeling this behavior (e.g., Zhang
et al, 2006; Yoo & Sohn, 2003). One of the major difficulties in this field of
research, as suggested by Reisinger and Turner (2003), is that there is not
 Tourist–Host Interactions 127

enough information on how to precisely and successfully measure tourist–

host contact. However, few studies undertaken in this field suggest that
there are several dimensions (e.g., frequency, intensity and type of con-
tact) that can be used to measure social contact in tourism. Reisinger and
Turner (1998) analyzed preferred types of tourist–host contact and satis-
faction with these types of contact. Pizam et al. (2000) used the intensity
to measure social relationships between hosts and working tourists. The
frequency of interaction has been used in some studies (e.g., Andereck
et al., 2005; Weaver & Lawton, 2001) to investigate the tourist–host inter-
action. The empirical study presented in this paper also analyses the context
where the tourist–host interaction occurs. As observed by Murphy (2001),
the environmental settings where the social interaction occurs are important
to understand the tourist–host interaction. Besides context where the inter-
action occurs, the tourist–host interaction also depends of a complex set of
factors that will be described in the next section.

Determinants of Tourist–host Interaction

An overview of previous literature in the area of tourist–host interaction
demonstrates that several factors may determine the intensity and nature
of encounters between tourists and hosts. The existence of an opportunity
for contact, the kind of destination, interpersonal attraction, motivations of
tourists and hosts, rules of social behavior, status of contact participants,
perceived costs and benefits by hosts and tourists, travel arrangements,
and cultural background of both contact participants are referred in the
literature as important factors influencing the tourist–host interaction level
(Ap, 1992; De Kadt, 1979; Pizam et al., 2000; Reisinger 2009, Sinkovics &
Penz, 2009). Despite the importance of evaluating all the determinants of
tourist–host interaction for the sustainable development of tourist destina-
tions, this study investigates only the determinants related to tourists that
influence tourist–host interaction in tourism destinations. These determinants
were categorized into five groups: travel motivations, travel behavior, cul-
tural familiarity and similarity, tourists’ perceptions of tourism impacts and
socio-demographic profile of tourists.

TRAVEL MOTIVATIONS
It has been widely acknowledge that travel motivations affect tourist’s inter-
action with hosts (Murphy, 2001; Pearce, 1998; Reisinger & Turner, 2003;
Reisinger, 2009). Social contact is positively related to social motivators of
tourists (Crompton, 1979). If tourists desire to interact with the host commu-
nity, meet new people and know other cultures, and, thus, stimulate their
cultural enrichment, then, tourist–host interaction is more likely to occur.
Different motivations lead to different frequency of tourist–host interaction.
128 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

As suggested by Reisinger (2009, p. 207) “social interaction between tourists

and hosts also depends upon their motivation to interact.” This relationship
is corroborated by Pearce (1998), who stated that some of these visitors
are strongly interested in interacting with residents, while for others the
local people are little more than a part of the scenery of the destination.
Additionally, the study developed by Murphy (2001) revealed that gain-
ing touristic information is a useful purpose for interacting with others.
Therefore, it was postulated in this research that social motivations positively
influence university student tourist–host interaction frequency.

TRAVEL BEHAVIOR
The characteristics of a tour are seen as an influential part of interaction
between the tourists and the hosts (Powell, Kellert, & Ham, 2004). However,
the literature review shows a large gap in this research area.
Tourism, by nature, brings people together in relatively restricted
regions of space and periods of time (Fennel, 2006). These characteris-
tics influence the opportunity for contact and this opportunity determines
the occurrence of the tourist–host interactions in tourism destinations
(Reisinger & Turner, 2003). If opportunities for contact are provided, the
contact may occur (Crompton, 1979). However, due to the specific nature of
tourism and the unfavorable conditions under which it takes place, tourist–
host interaction is, frequently, superficial and provides little opportunity
for profound social contact between tourist and hosts (Reisinger & Turner,
2003). The opportunity for the tourist–host contact may be related to the
kind of place in which the tourist–host contact occurs (Reisinger & Turner,
2003) and to the length of stay of tourists in the places visited. Usually,
tourists stay in the visited communities for very short and carefully struc-
tured periods of time (Pearce, 1998). Consequently, the limited amount of
time that tourists and hosts spend together, results in limited interactions
(Fennell, 2006).
The nature of the encounters between tourists and hosts and its results
may also vary across different types of travel arrangement (Uriely & Richel,
2000; Pizam et al., 2000). Tourists in organized tours tend to have fewer
opportunities for a direct encounter with hosts when compared with tourists
in independent tours. Additionally, whether they travel alone and indepen-
dently they cannot completely ignore those around them: other tourists and
hosts.
Concerning the influence of kind of accommodation used by tourists
on the social contact that they establish with hosts, the literature review
reveals no empirical evidences. However, based on travel behavior theory it
is considered that the kind of accommodation used has the potential to act as
a gatekeeper to culture contact, constraining or encouraging the tourist–host
interaction.
 Tourist–Host Interactions 129

CULTURAL FAMILIARITY AND SIMILARITY

The tourist–host interaction is determined by cultural factors (Reisinger &
Turner, 1998; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009; Yoo & Sohn, 2003). However, few
studies analyze the impact of cultural differences on tourist–host interac-
tion (Reisinnger & Turner, 2003; Reisinger, 2009). Cultural differences could
be defined as differences between groups of people who do things differ-
ently and perceive the world differently (Potter, 1989, as cited in Reisinger &
Turner, 1998, p. 82). If tourists and hosts are members of different cul-
tural groups, speak different languages and have different cultural values
and perceptions of the world, the tourist–host interaction tends to be less
frequent (Resinger & Turner, 2003; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009).
The interpersonal attraction between the tourist and the host is deter-
mined by perceived similarity in attitudes (Reisinger & Turner, 1998). The
greater the similarities, the more likely people are to interact. According to
Reisinger and Turner (2003), the consequences of the tourist–host contact
are largely dependent on cultural backgrounds, and the conditions under
which they interact. Cultural similarity facilitates the communication and,
consequently, stimulates the social relationship. On the other hand, the dif-
ferences in the cultural background of participants are likely to lead to more
friction, misunderstanding and misinterpretation (Reisinger & Turner, 1998;
Pizam & Reichel, 2000; Uriely & Reichel, 2000). As suggested by Reisinger
and Turner (2003, p. 50) “. . . people prefer to develop social contact with
their own national group, or those with a similar background, who speak
the same language even if they are not their friends, rather than with people
from different countries.” Then, in domestic travels, tourists tend to inter-
act more with hosts than in international travels. As Reisinger and Turner
(2003) and Yoo and Sohn (2003) stated, many tourists find that their inabil-
ity to communicate with local people is enormously frustrating, language
difficulties may also generate considerable stress and, consequently, tourists
may tend to interact less frequently with hosts. Then, based on the evidence
aforementioned, it is postulated in this paper that the number of leisure trips
undertaken by tourists and the number of previous visits to the destination
will have a positive impact on tourist–host social interaction.

TOURISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TOURISM IMPACTS

Literature reveals that research on perceptions of tourism impacts has
focused on hosts’ perceptions (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Byrd et al., 2009;
McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Sharma & Dyer, 2009; Tosun, 2002; Weaver &
Lawton, 2001). Several studies undertaken in this field reveal that hosts
have a strong perception of the economic and socio-cultural benefits of
tourism, together with some perception of the socio-cultural and environ-
mental costs (Haralambopolous & Pizam, 1996; Hillery et al., 2001; Tosun,
2002; Andereck et al., 2005). Few studies have analyzed this topic from the
130 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

tourist perspective. One of the few studies that analyze the tourists’ percep-
tion of tourism impacts was carried out in the rural community of North
Carolina by Byrd et al. (2009).
Studies providing an analysis of the relationship between the
perceptions of tourism impacts and the social contact with hosts in the youth
tourism market are not known. However, as suggested by Pearce (1998),
from the point of view of assessing tourists’ feelings, perceived impacts are
important. Consequently, if tourists believe that there are tourism impacts,
then their behavior will be altered (Pearce, 1998). Then, it seems appro-
priate to assume in this investigation that the university student tourists’
perceptions of tourism impacts may influence the behavior of tourists at the
destination, namely their social contact with hosts.

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF TOURISTS

Tourist characteristics, such as age, gender and education level appear, the-
oretically, to be important for predicting travel behavior, namely tourist–host
interaction (Powell et al., 2004). Several studies analyze travel behavior
differences in terms of socio-demographic profile (e.g., Gordon et al.,
2010; Oh, Cheng, Lehto, & O’Leary, 2004). However, a limited number
of empirical studies (e.g., Heuman, 2005) have been performed in order
to analyze the influence of tourists’ socio-demographic profile on tourist–
host interaction level. One study carried out by Tosun (2002) showed that
interaction between hosts and tourists is influenced by the differences in
socio-demographic profile of hosts. Carstensen (1992) observed differences
on social interaction according to the age. Kim et al. (2007b) highlighted
that men and women being different is already commonly acknowledge in
most societies. Consequently, these gender differences are likely to have
impact on travel behavior, and, in this particular case, on the level of social
interaction that they develop with residents.
Taking into account both the importance of analyzing the social con-
tact in the university students tourism market, and the lack of knowledge
concerning the factors that influence the university student tourist–host inter-
action level, a theoretical model was proposed (Figure 1) based on the
literature previously presented. This model focuses on the potential influ-
ence of university student tourists’ characteristics on the interaction level
with hosts.

METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire Design
A survey questionnaire was created to investigate the interaction level
between university student tourists and hosts, in several contexts, and the
factors that influence that interaction level.
 Tourist–Host Interactions 131

Travel motivations

Travel behavior

University student
Cultural familiarity and similarity tourist–host
interaction level
Tourists’ perceptions of tourism
impacts

Socio-demographic profile of
tourists

FIGURE 1 Theoretical model proposed—factors that influence university student tourist–host

interaction level.

In the first part of the questionnaire, students had to report the num-
ber of trips they had made for leisure purposes in the last three years,
and to characterize one of these trips, and one of the destinations vis-
ited during that trip. Students had to identify whether the destination was
a beach, countryside or city destination, and the country where it was
located. All the other questions to measure the constructs analyzed in this
research are related to the trip and to the destination identified by each
student.
The interaction level at the tourism destination was assessed based on
the university students’ frequency of interaction with hosts of tourism desti-
nations. Students had to report their frequency of interaction with hosts in
several places (food and beverage establishments, other commercial estab-
lishments, discos, clubs, and bars, nature places, monuments, events, and
in the street). The operationalization of this construct was based on the fre-
quency of interaction, similarly to many other studies on host-tourist social
contact (e.g., Andereck et al., 2005; Pizam et al., 2000; Weaver & Lawton,
2001). The university students had to report their level of interaction with
hosts in a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 “very rarely” to 5 “very fre-
quently.” The places of interaction considered in this research aim to reflect
the three main contexts where tourist–host encounters occur, according to
De Kadt (1979).
In order to measure university student tourists’ motivations, a scale of
19 items was used. This scale was developed based on a literature review
(Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Crompton, 1979; Kim et al., 2007a; Mannell & Iso-
Ahola, 1987; Morgan & Xu, 2009; Mintel, 2009; Phau et al., 2010; Richards,
2007; Thrane, 2008; Xu et al., 2009). By using a 5-point Likert-type scale,
ranging from 1 “completely disagree” to 5 “completely agree,” students
should indicate whether they agreed that each travel motivation had been
important for undertaking the travel.
132 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

As far as travel behavior is concerned, students should provide infor-

mation about length of stay, accommodation and means of transport used,
travel arrangement, composition of the travel group, number of previous
visits to the destination and activities undertaken. The questions about these
variables were developed using the recommendations of the WTO (1995).
The questions about activities were also created based on literature on activ-
ities undertaken by young tourists (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Mintel, 2009;
Richards et al., 2003; Richards, 2007; Xu et al., 2009; WTO, 1995).
The university students’ perceptions of tourism impacts were measured
using 26 items. The 26 items were selected based on a literature review on
perceptions of tourism impacts (Andereck et al., 2005; Andriotis & Vaughan,
2003; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996; Kayat, 2002; Mathieson & Wall, 1982;
Pérez & Nadal, 2005; Tosun, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2001) and attempted
to reflect the main social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts.
Respondents had to refer whether they agreed that each impact occurred
by using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 “completely disagree” to 5
“completely agree.”
The university students also had to report their level of difficulty in
interacting with hosts by referring whether they agreed that they felt com-
fortable when dealing with hosts using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1
“completely disagree” to 5 “completely agree.”
The questionnaire ends with several questions on the socio-
demographic profile of the students (e.g., age, place of residence).
To ensure clarity, readability and user-friendliness of the design of the
questionnaire a pilot study of a sample size of 20 was conducted during
a class. As a result, only minor amendments in terms of rewording were
introduced in the questionnaire.

Sampling Approach and Data Collection

The objective of this research is to identify the determinants of the inter-
action level between university student tourists and residents of tourism
destinations. In order to achieve this objective a student survey was con-
ducted, at the University of Aveiro. This University is located in the central
region of Portugal and had 9825 students in 2009. The aim was to interview
480 Aveiro university students, which corresponds to about 5% of the popu-
lation. A stratified probability sampling approach based on gender and area
of study was used to identify the sample. The sample included students from
a wide range of degrees from three areas of study—Social Sciences, Natural
Sciences and Engineering. This method was adopted in order to ensure an
equal proportion of people from different genders and areas of study in the
Aveiro university student population and in the sample.
A total of 434 questionnaires was obtained. A considerably high
response rate was obtained in the global sample (90.4%) and in each of
 Tourist–Host Interactions 133

the six strata identified (always above 92%), except in one stratum—men
studying Social Sciences—where the response rate was only about 70%.
The sample obtained was composed of 46% Social Sciences students, 28%
Natural Sciences students, and 26% Engineering students. In terms of gender,
48% of the respondents were male, while 52% were female.
Data collection was done during two weeks in May 2009. Because of the
nature of the information sought (personal data and perception), university
students completed the questionnaires during class, in the presence of the
researchers.

Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were used to profile the respondents. Two exploratory
Principal Component Analyses (PCAs) were used to extract the main factors
of perceptions of tourism impacts and travel motivations.
Multiple regression analysis was used to identify the main determinants
of the interaction level between university student tourists and hosts in sev-
eral places. Multiple regression analysis is appropriate to predict and explain
a metric-dependent variable based on a set of other independent variables
(Hair et al., 1998). Multiple regression analysis has been used widely in a
number of disciplines to assess a variety of psychological, socio-cultural,
environmental, economic management, and marketing relationships (e.g.,
Powell et al., 2009; Heuman, 2005, Pizam, 1982; Pizam et al., 2000; Tosun,
2002).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Socio-demographic Profile and Motivations
The majority of the students interviewed were Portuguese (95%), and sin-
gle (93%). Most were undergraduate and master’s students (representing
50% and 20% of the respondents, respectively), and their average age was
22.65 years.
Students’ main motivations for traveling were, in a decreasing order:
“being in a different environment” (Mean = 4.17), “avoiding everyday
responsibilities” (M = 3.93), “viewing the scenery” (M = 3.89), “doing dif-
ferent activities” (M = 3.86), “experiencing new things” (M = 3.86), “having
a rest” (M = 3.82), “being with friends” (M = 3.72), “meeting new peo-
ple” (3.58), “getting to know other cultures” (M = 3.53) and “learning new
things/expanding knowledge” (M = 3.46). These data suggest that experi-
encing novelty, escape, rest and socializing play a very important role in
motivating students to visit specific destinations. The possibility of broaden-
ing cultural horizons is also a very important travel motivation, although not
as important as the previous ones. These findings corroborate the results
134 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

of other studies (Chadee & Mattsson, 1996; Morgan & Xu, 2009) regarding
the importance that novelty and, specifically, knowing more about different
cultures, play in motivating university students to travel. As some researches
(Morgan & Xu, 2009; Thrane, 2008; Xu et al., 2009) also highlight, socializ-
ing and relaxing are also very important motivations to the university student
market, although not so important as novelty.
Although several literature (e.g., Richards & Wilson, 2003; Mintel, 2009;
Morgan & Xu, 2009) suggests that interacting with local people at destina-
tions is a major travel motivation for young people, in the empirical study
undertaken in this paper, interacting with local people was only the 14th
most important motivation in the group of the 19 motivations listed in the
questionnaire.

Travel Behavior
The majority of the respondents were likely to use commercial accommoda-
tion (70%) and to travel with friends (55%) or relatives (46%). Corroborating
the findings of other studies (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Xu et al., 2009), stu-
dents were likely to travel in big groups (7 people, on average). Similarly to
what happens in other research (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Xu et al., 2009), a
high percentage of students (50%) used the car. Only a small number were
integrated in a package tour (26%).
The preference for beach and urban destinations already found in other
studies (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2003; Thrane, 2008; Xu et al., 2009) was also
visible in the present study, since the majority of students characterized trips
undertaken to the beach (40%) or city destinations (41%). The group of desti-
nations selected by students showed a balance between destinations already
visited (chosen by 50% of the students) and destinations never visited before.
There was also a balance between foreign and domestic destinations (57%
and 43% of the destinations, respectively).
The average length of stay at the destination was approximately 7 days,
although there was a wide difference in the length of stay among all
students. During their stay students performed several activities, with the
following being mentioned as their preferred ones: visiting nightlife places
(56% of the students), visiting gardens (51%), observing nature and visit-
ing historical sites (both carried out by 50%), going to the beach (47%),
visiting shopping centers (46%), visiting monuments (37%), and visiting
museums (33%).

University Students’ Perceptions of Tourism Impacts

In the destinations visited, students were more likely to perceive the cultural
benefits (such as “the increase in supply of cultural events,” “enhancement
and promotion of traditions” and “promotion of traditional arts”) and the
 Tourist–Host Interactions 135

economic impacts of tourism (such as “the increase in the price level”

and “the increase in the number of jobs”). Respondents highly agreed that
tourism brought environmental costs to the destinations they visited, espe-
cially because it contributed to an “increase in traffic.” Students considerably
agreed that the above mentioned impacts were very likely to occur in
the destinations they visited (with the average level of agreement regard-
ing the occurrence of the impacts being between 3.3 and 3.75 in a scale
from 1 “completely disagree” to 5 “completely agree”). Conversely, stu-
dents were not very likely to recognize the socio-cultural costs of tourism,
such as “the increase in prostitution,” “the increase in criminality,” “changes
in dress styles,” “disturbance of religious practices,” and “loss of cultural
identity.” The average level of agreement of students regarding the occur-
rence of all these impacts was lower than 2.42 in the scale referred to
above.

University Student Tourist–host Interaction

Students reported limited frequency of interaction with hosts in the several
contexts analyzed, corroborating the findings of other studies (e.g., Jaworski
et al., 2003). Higher interaction (above 3.25 in a scale ranging from 1 “very
rarely” to 5 “very frequently”), occurs in food and beverage establishments
and at discos, clubs, and bars. Students also interacted somewhat with res-
idents in other commercial establishments, nature places, and in the street
(in these places the frequency of interaction was between 3 and 3.25). The
frequency of interaction was especially low (lower than 2.5) in monuments
and events (Table 1).
Although students did not frequently interact with hosts in sev-
eral places specified in the questionnaire, they mentioned that they felt
comfortable when interacting with hosts (Table 1).

TABLE 1 University Students’ Interaction with Hosts

Interaction with residents N Mean SD

Level of interaction in several places∗

In food and beverage establishments 429 3.64 1.080
In discos, clubs, and bars 426 3.27 1.362
In nature places (e.g., beaches, protected areas) 425 3.17 1.367
In other commercial establishments 426 3.14 1.221
In the street (when asking residents for information) 429 3.05 1.219
In events (religious, cultural and sportive) 421 2.41 1.292
In monuments 420 2.25 1.257
Feeling comfortable dealing with hosts∗∗ 429 4.00 1.000
SD = Standard deviation.
∗
Scale from 1 “very rarely” to 5 “very frequently.”
∗∗
Scale from 1 “completely agree” to 5 “completely disagree.”
136 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

PCAs of Motivations and University Student

Perceptions of Tourism Impacts
In order to identify a small number of factors that could represent the
group of motivation items included in the questionnaire, a PCA (Principal
Component Analysis) and a varimax rotation were carried out. Two items—
“to do something different” and “to be with relatives”—were excluded from
the analysis due to their low communalities and their low correlation with
all the factors. The following five factors were obtained: cultural enrich-
ment; rest and contact with nature; novelty and taking risks; socialization;
and escape (Table 2).
A similar process was followed for the perceptions of tourism impacts,
with all the items regarding tourism impacts being factor analyzed using a
PCA and a varimax rotation. Two items—“the increase in public security”
and “the increase in supply of cultural events”—were excluded from the
analysis, also because of low communalities and weak correlations with
all the factors. Six factors emerged: cultural changes; loss of authenticity
and quality; socio-economic impacts; social costs—moral conduct changes;
environmental costs; and cultural benefits (Table 3).
Both PCAs seem to meet the requirements suggested for these types of
analyses, given that: KMOs were above .8, the Bartlett’s tests were above
2,000 (having significances lower than .001), communalities were consider-
ably high (almost all higher than .5), almost all Cronbach alphas were higher
than 0.6 (lower values were mainly related to low quantity of items in the
factors) and factor loadings were also considerably high. In both analyses,
the cumulative variance explained was higher than 57%.

REGRESSION MODELS

Multiple regression models were used in order to identify the factors

that influence the youth tourist–host interaction level. For this study,
eight linear regression models were carried out. The dependent vari-
ables of seven of those models represent the university student tourist–
host interaction level in a different context (monuments, events, food
and beverage establishments, other commercial establishments, discos,
clubs, and bars, and also in the street, when visitors ask for informa-
tion). The eighth dependent variable corresponds to the average level
of host-tourist interaction in all contexts. Each model included 24 inde-
pendent variables which were grouped into five categories of factors
that may influence the host-tourist interaction level (i.e., tourist socio-
demographic profile, travel motivations, travel behavior, cultural familiarity
and similarity and tourists’ perceptions of tourism impacts). The theoretical
 TABLE 2 PCA of University Students’ Travel Motivations

Factors

Cultural Rest and contact Novelty and

Attributes Com. enrichment with nature taking risks Socialization Escape

Get to know other cultures 0.647 0.711

Experience new things 0.591 0.709
Be in a different environment 0.623 0.676
Learn new things, expand knowledge 0.706 0.651
Be in a calm environment 0.731 0.826
Be close to nature 0.693 0.810
View the scenery 0.640 0.711
Have a rest 0.559 0.648
Have a experience that involves thrills, 0.580 0.736
take risks

137
Learn more about oneself 0.491 0.640
Develop physical abilities 0.689 0.617
Have an experience that involves 0.584 0.531
surprise
Be with friends 0.541 0.715
Meet new people 0.665 0.412 0.661
Interact with local people 0.619 0.527 0.567
Be free to do what one wants 0.641 0.717
Avoid everyday responsibilities 0.590 0.653
Cronbach alpha 0.732 0.768 0.648 0.566 0.481
Eigenvalue 4.126 2.662 1.478 1.270 1.054
Variance explained (%) 16.186 15.584 12.416 9.162 8.950
Cumulative variance explained (%) 16.186 31.771 44.186 53.348 62.298
N = 415; KMO = 0.802; Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 2,033.683 (p = 0.000).
 TABLE 3 PCA of University Students’ Perceptions of Tourism Impacts

Factors

Loss of Socio- Social costs:

Cultural authenticity/ economic Changes in Environmental Cultural
Attributes Com. changes quality impacts moral conduct costs benefits

Changes in dress styles 0.698 0.804

Disturbance of religious practices 0.621 0.682
Changes of consumption habits 0.545 0.653
Increase in residents’ tolerance to other cultures 0.445 0.569
Changes in language 0.441 0.558
Decrease in authenticity of typical products 0.531 0.705
Decrease in time spent with family/friends 0.597 0.654
Increase in stress 0.518 0.615
Loss of cultural identity 0.597 0.601
Decrease in service quality 0.414 0.545
Increase in the number of jobs 0.610 0.708
Increase in quality of life of the population 0.582 0.655

138
Increase in residents’ income 0.608 0.617
Improvement of infrastructures 0.591 0.604
Increase in the price level 0.612 0.597
Increase in prostitution 0.705 0.753
Increase in sexually transmissible diseases 0.667 0.733
Increase in drugs consumption 0.665 0.682
Increase in criminality 0.590 0.517 0.458
Pollution increase 0.664 0.750
Traffic increase 0.614 0.690
Conservation of built heritage 0.569 0.726
Promotion of traditional arts 0.479 0.689
Enhancement and promotion of traditions 0.496 0.647
Cronbach alpha 0.763 0.746 0.774 0.788 0.677 0.597
Eigenvalue 6.308 2.604 1.704 1.168 1.053 1.022
Variance explained (%) 11.741 10.278 9.870 9.847 8.066 7.938
Cumulative variance explained (%) 11.741 22.020 31.890 41.737 49.803 57.741
N = 391; KMO = 0.882; Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 2,879.57 (p = 0.000).
 Tourist–Host Interactions 139

framework and model specification used is represented by the following

equation:

USTHILij = f (Gi , Ai , PRi , MF1i , MF2i , MF3i , MF4i , MF5i ,

VAi , DVC i , DVBi , LS i , PT i , NV i , NT i , DC i , AFRi , FC i

TIPF1i , TIPF2i , TIPF3i , TIPF4i , TIPF5i , TIPF6i ) (1)

Based on model of equation (1) a multivariate linear regression model

was developed using the following formulation:

USTHILij = a + b1 Gi + b2 Ai + b3 PRi + b4 MF1i + b5 MF2i + b6 MF3i

+ b7 MF4i + b8 MF5i + b9 VAi + b10 DVC i + b11 DVBi + b12 LS i

+ b13 PT i + b14 NV i + b15 NT i + b16 DC i + b17 AFRi + b18 FC i

+ b19 TIPF1i + b20 TIPF2i + b21 TIPF3i + b22 TIPF4i + b23 TIPF5i

+ b24 TIPF6i + εi

Where:

i=l...n- number of university student tourists;

j =l...8- university student tourist–host interaction context
(1 = street; 2 = nature places; 3 = monuments;
4 = events; 5 = food and beverage establishments;
6 = other commercial establishments; 7 = discos,
clubs, and bars; 8 = all places);
USTHIL - dependent variable – university student tourist–host
interaction level;
G- dummy variable (1 = if female and 0 = otherwise);
A- age;
PR - dummy variable (1 = if living in the city and
0 = otherwise);
MF1 - factor loading of cultural enrichment;
MF2 - factor loading of rest and contact with nature;
MF3 - factor loading of novelty and taking risks;
MF4 - factor loading of socialization;
MF5 - factor loading of escape;
VA - dummy variable (1 = if visiting the destination alone
and 0 = otherwise);
DVC - dummy variable (1 = if the region visited is a city and
0 = otherwise);
140 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

DVB - dummy variable (1 = if the region visited is a beach

and 0 = otherwise);
LS - length of stay;
PT - dummy variable (1 = if a package tour was used and
0 = otherwise);
NV - number of previous visits;
NT - number of leisure trips in the last three years;
DC - dummy variable (1 = if Portugal is the destination
country and 0 = otherwise);
AFR - dummy variable (1 = if staying at the house of friends
and relatives and 0 = otherwise);
FC - feeling comfortable dealing with hosts;
TIPF1 - factor loading of cultural changes;
TIPF2 - factor loading of loss of authenticity and quality;
TIPF3 - factor loading of socio-economic impacts;
TIPF4 - factor loading of social costs: moral conduct changes;
TIPF5 - factor loading of environmental costs;
TIPF6 - factor loading of cultural benefits;
ε- residuals.

The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) and the Enter Regression Procedure,
available in SPSS, were used to obtain regression models. Further, the
multivariate regression assumptions, normality of the error term, homogene-
ity of variance, multicollinearity and linearity were analyzed (Hair et al.,
1998). The normality of the residuals was analyzed through the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov (K-S) Test. The results of this test (Tables 4 and 5) suggest that,
with the exception of Model 4, this assumption is not violated. According
to Hair et al. (1998) the presence of heteroscedasticity is one of the most
common assumptions violated. In this study homoscedasticity diagnosis was
made plotting the studentized residuals against the predicted dependent
values and comparing them to the null plot. In the plots obtained, very
slight decreasing trends of studentized residuals emerge. The linearity of the
relationship between dependent and independent variables was also exam-
ined trough two residual plots (one of the residuals standardized against the
dependent variable standardized and the other corresponding to the depen-
dent variable standardized against the dependent variable). The results that
emerged in these plots suggest a linear relationship. To test multicollinearity,
Tolerance Values and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) were analyzed. As can
be seen in Tables 4 and 5, the multiple regression equations do not suffer
from multicollinearity.
The estimated equations in Tables 4 and 5 have high F values, although
their overall predictive value (R2 ) varies among models. Some models
achieved reasonable levels of explanation (models 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) while
others (models 4, 5, and 6) have a low explanation value. Several reasons
 TABLE 4 Results of Regression Analyses for University Student Tourist–Host Interaction Level (Models 1 to 4)

University student tourist–host interaction level

Model 2 Nature
Model 1 Street places Model 3 Monuments Model 4 Events

Variables Beta α Beta α Beta α Beta α

1) Socio-demographic profiles
G: Female −0.002 0.970 −0.009 0.861 −0.024 0.639 0.030 0.604
A: Age 0.076 0.136 0.019 0.707 0.043 0.370 0.025 0.647
PR: Place of residence—city 0.034 0.506 −0.027 0.601 0.002 0.971 −0.059 0.287
2) Motivations
MF1: Cultural enrichment 0.220 0.000∗ −0.015 0.805 0.224 0.000∗ 0.155 0.021∗∗
MF2: Rest and contact with nature 0.110 0.062∗∗∗ 0.216 0.000∗ 0.045 0.417 −0.006 0.923
MF3: Novelty and taking risks 0.143 0.007∗ 0.120 0.024∗∗ 0.172 0.001∗ 0.109 0.054∗∗∗

141
MF4: Socialization 0.145 0.005∗ 0.074 0.155 −0.017 0.732 0.233 0.000∗
MF5: Escape −0.013 0.805 0.135 0.010∗∗ −0.218 0.000∗ −0.077 0.164
3) Travel behavior
VA: To visit the destination alone 0.063 0.228 −0.086 0.103 −0.060 0.212 −0.002 0.966
DVC: Destination visited—city 0.071 0.349 −0.052 0.495 0.129 0.073∗∗∗ 0.023 0.783
DVB: Destination visited— beach 0.012 0.871 0.152 0.034∗∗ −0.050 0.450 −0.060 0.438
LS: Length of stay −0.069 0.187 0.082 0.121 0.015 0.753 0.061 0.278
PT: Package tour 0.055 0.296 −0.011 0.828 −0.001 0.991 0.054 0.339
AFR : Accommodation: house of −0.020 0.703 −0.018 0.742 0.056 0.262 0.054 0.350
friends and relatives
4) Cultural familiarity and similarity
NV: Number of previous visits −0.083 0.138 0.036 0.522 −0.056 0.289 0.054 0.371
NT: Number of leisure trips in the last −0.061 0.255 0.043 0.431 0.038 0.453 0.024 0.684
three years
(Continued)
 TABLE 4 (Continued)

University student tourist–host interaction level

Model 2 Nature
Model 1 Street places Model 3 Monuments Model 4 Events

Variables Beta α Beta α Beta α Beta α

DC: Destination country—Portugal −0.053 0.405 0.037 0.558 −0.068 0.247 0.082 0.226
FC: Feeling comfortable dealing with 0.112 0.038∗∗ 0.096 0.078∗∗∗ 0.123 0.015∗∗ 0.034 0.557
hosts
5) Youth perceptions of tourism
impacts
TIPF1: Cultural changes 0.047 0.371 0.031 0.562 0.030 0.540 −0.040 0.483
TIPF2: Loss of authenticity and quality 0.070 0.172 −0.047 0.365 −0.016 0.741 0.012 0.835
TIPF3: Socio-economic impacts 0.128 0.014∗∗ −0.008 0.875 −0.082 0.091∗∗∗ −0.059 0.292

142
TIPF4: Social costs—moral conduct 0.011 0.826 −0.043 0.411 −0.031 0.528 0.004 0.947
changes
TIPF5: Environmental costs 0.106 0.034∗∗ −0.046 0.356 −0.030 0.527 0.007 0.903
TIPF6: Cultural benefits 0.077 0.135 0.010 0.842 0.186 0.000∗ 0.034 0.540
Constant 2.153 2.086 1.254 1.766
Model diagnostics
R2 0.237 0.227 0.337 0.123
Standard error 1.072 1.261 1.035 1.237
Normality: Kolmogorov-Smirnov 0.485 (0.972) 1.155 (0.139) 0.924 (0.360) 1.507 (0.021)
Test(α)
Multicollinearity
Tolerance (all variables) ≥0.40 ≥0.40 ≥0.39 ≥0.40
VIF (all variables) ≤2.49 ≤2.49 ≤2.54 ≤2.50
∗
p = 0.01.
∗∗
p = 0.05.
∗∗∗
p = 0.10.
 TABLE 5 Results of Regression Analyses for University Student Tourist–Host Interaction Level (Models 5 to 8)

University student tourist–host interaction level

Model 6 Other
Model 5 F&B commercial Model 7 Nightlife
establishments establishments animation places Model 8 All places

Variables Beta α Beta α Beta α Beta α

1) Socio-demographic profile
G: Female 0.027 0.636 0.136 0.015∗∗ −0.029 0.555 0.023 0.549
A: Age −0.005 0.927 −0.022 0.671 −0.050 0.277 0.031 0.875
PR: Place of residence—city −0.050 0.351 −0.033 0.537 −0.031 0.507 −0.040 0.131
2) Motivations
MF1: Cultural enrichment 0.078 0.232 0.084 0.193 0.187 0.001∗ 0.234 0.000∗
MF2: Rest and contact with nature −0.034 0.580 −0.030 0.618 −0.144 0.007∗ 0.045 0.249
MF3: Novelty and taking risks −0.043 0.432 0.013 0.809 −0.006 0.902 0.126 0.005∗

143
MF4: Socialization 0.152 0.005∗ 0.163 0.002∗ 0.440 0.000∗ 0.308 0.000∗
MF5: Escape 0.040 0.456 0.046 0.394 0.165 0.000∗ 0.028 0.068∗∗∗
3) Travel behavior
VA: To visit the destination alone −0.044 0.418 −0.025 0.648 0.037 0.432 −0.032 0.484
DVC: Destination visited—city 0.013 0.867 0.146 0.067∗∗∗ 0.130 0.063∗∗∗ 0.120 0.131
DVB: Destination visited—beach 0.164 0.029∗∗ 0.239 0.001∗ 0.254 0.000∗ 0.183 0.038∗∗
LS: Length of stay 0.001 0.992 0.075 0.171 0.041 0.386 0.058 0.152
PT: Package tour −0.038 0.490 −0.029 0.588 −0.006 0.898 0.010 0.608
AFR : Accommodation: house of −0.065 0.244 0.014 0.801 −0.060 0.211 −0.009 0.861
friends and relatives
4) Cultural familiarity and similarity
NV: Number of previous visits 0.059 0.313 −0.031 0.592 0.045 0.370 0.010 0.987
NT: Number of leisure trips in the 0.070 0.212 0.030 0.589 0.058 0.237 0.052 0.354
last three years
DC: Destination country—Portugal −0.079 0.232 0.017 0.800 0.112 0.050∗∗ 0.026 0.164
(Continued)
 TABLE 5 (Continued)

University student tourist–host interaction level

Model 6 Other
Model 5 F&B commercial Model 7 Nightlife
establishments establishments animation places Model 8 All places

Variables Beta α Beta α Beta α Beta α

FC: Feeling comfortable dealing 0.072 0.205 −0.063 0.259 −0.055 0.266 0.077 0.082∗∗∗
with hosts
5) Youth perceptions of tourism
impacts
TIPF1: Cultural changes 0.045 0.413 −0.065 0.236 −0.010 0.834 0.006 0.403
TIPF2: Loss of authenticity and −0.046 0.395 0.038 0.476 0.037 0.434 0.014 0.168
quality
TIPF3: Socio-economic impacts 0.057 0.296 0.033 0.534 −0.023 0.624 0.002 0.617
TIPF4: Social costs—moral conduct 0.038 0.487 0.070 0.193 0.126 0.008∗ 0.042 0.174

144
changes
TIPF5: Environmental costs 0.066 0.206 0.084 0.106 0.025 0.577 0.051 0.189
TIPF6: Cultural benefits 0.193 0.000∗ 0.148 0.006∗ 0.078 0.097∗∗∗ 0.192 0.000∗
Constant 3.171 2.955 3.250 2.423
Model diagnostics
R2 0.163 0.180 0.374 0.377
Standard error 1.030 1.124 1.104 0.540
F-statistic 2.678 (0.000) 3.014 (0.000) 8.133 (0.000) 8.191 (0.000)
Normality: Kolmogorov-Smirnov 1.184 (0.121) 1.263 (0.082) 0.854 (0.460) 0.473 (0.978)
Test(α)
Multicollinearity
Tolerance (all variables) ≥0.39 ≥0.40 ≥0.40 ≥0.40
VIF (all variables) ≤2.54 ≤2.53 ≤2.52 ≤2.50
∗
p = 0.01.
∗∗
p = 0.05.
∗∗∗
p = 0.10.
 Tourist–Host Interactions 145

could be identified for low R2 , such as, an incomplete model specification

and the possibility that the difference in the tourist–host interaction level,
among university students, may incorporate a large random component.
However, such as suggested by Hair et al. (1998), what corresponds to an
acceptable explanation value depends on the scientific field from which the
data are taken.
Regarding the tourist–host interaction level in the street, when young
visitors ask for information (Model 1), only six of the 24 independent
variables appeared as significant at the α ≤ 0.05 level, contributing to
explain 23.7% of the model’s variance. Three of these variables are fac-
tors obtained in the PCA analysis of the motivations. The youth tourist–host
interaction level in the street is directly related to MF1 (cultural enrich-
ment), MF3 (novelty and taking risks) and MF4 (socialization), indicating
that when young tourists undertake trips to experience new things, to get
to know other cultures, to expand their knowledge, to meet new peo-
ple and to interact with local people, the young tourists are more likely
to interact more with hosts. This finding is also consistent with previous
studies (Crompton, 1979). Additionally, the more tourists feel comfort-
able with hosts, the more encounters between university students and
hosts will occur in street settings. University student’s perceptions of the
socio-economic impacts and the environmental costs of tourism emerge as
factors that positively influence the tourist–host interaction level in the street
(Table 4).
The independent variables of Model 2 (university student tourist–host
interaction level in nature places) explain 22.7% of the model variance.
When the motivations rest and contact with nature, looking for novelty and
taking risks, and escape increase, the university student tourist–host inter-
actions also increase, holding everything else constant. Additionally, young
people who visit the beach have more social encounters with hosts. The
socio-demographic profile of visitors has no influence on the university
student-host interaction level (Table 4).
The regression model that attempted to explain the university student
tourist–host interaction level in monuments (Model 3) also was found to
be statistically significant (F = 6.921; α = 0). Seven of the independent
variables explain 33.7% of the total model variance. Looking for cultural
enrichment and novelty and taking risks positively influence the social con-
tact in monuments. However, an increase in the motivation factor escape
implies a decrease in the interaction level. The negative relationship between
youth perceptions of the socio-economic impacts of tourism and the tourist–
host interaction level was surprising, requiring additional studies. However,
as expected, a positive relationship between the cultural benefits of tourism
perceived by young tourists and the tourist–host interaction level in mon-
uments was obtained. Additionally, those who visit cities interact more
146 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

with residents in monuments than those who visit other types of tourism
destinations. As illustrated in Table 5, a strong relationship between cultural
variables and the interaction level in monuments emerged. The variables
MF1: cultural enrichment and TIPF6: cultural benefits appear to have the
highest positive impact (.224 and .186, respectively) in the dependent
variable, since their standardized regression coefficients are the highest ones
among those of the independent variables (Table 4).
In the case of Model 4 (university student tourist–host interaction level
in events), the independent variables explained only 12.3% of the total
variance. As can be seen in Table 4, only three independent variables
have explanatory power, demonstrating the important role of motivational
factors in the social encounters that take place between tourists and
residents.
Model 5 sought to investigate the university student tourist–host inter-
action level in food and beverage establishments. Only three of all
independent variables were statistically significant, explaining 16.3% of
model variance. Tourist characteristics were again not significant, while the
motivational factor cultural enrichment, the perception of cultural benefits
and the option for a beach destination (DVB) have a significant positive
impact on social contact between tourists and hosts in food and beverage
establishments (Table 5).
The sixth regression model was significant (F = 3.014; α = 0) but
it only explains 18% of the variation of the university student tourist–host
interaction level in other commercial establishments. The women interact
more with residents in these spaces when compared to men. The findings
obtained also reveal a positive relationship between social motivators and
the university student-host interaction level (Table 5).
For the university student tourist–host interaction level in discos, clubs,
and bars (Model 7), the proposed regression model explained 37.4% of
the variance. Social motivators, the type of tourism destination and the
perceptions of cultural benefits of tourism emerged as factors that have a
higher explanation power. In this context of interaction, it was also observed
that the university students who undertake domestic trips interact more
with hosts than the university students who undertake international trips.
This result corroborates the literature review (Reisinger & Turner, 1998;
Reisinger & Turner, 2003; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009, Yoo & Sohn, 2003),
revealing that the existence of a cultural familiarity facilitates tourist–host
interaction (Table 5).
Last but not least, Model 8 attempts to explain the young tourists-host
interaction level in all contexts. This regression model is also significant
(F = 8.191; α = 0) and explains 37.7% of the total variance. Only five
of all the potential determinants (24) have explanation power, considering
α ≤ .050. The motivations emerged, as in the previous models, as the most
important determinants, corroborating the positive relationship suggested
 Tourist–Host Interactions 147

in the literature review between social and cultural motivations and the
tourist–host interaction level (Table 5).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Important insights were obtained, not only concerning the frequency of the
social interaction with hosts in this market, but also regarding the factors
that influence this interaction. Such knowledge is of the utmost impor-
tance, especially because very little contemporary research in the domain
of tourist–host interaction has been developed in the university student mar-
ket. This research is also important, since university students are still in the
initial stage of their travel career. Knowing the specificities of the social con-
tact in this market segment may help those engaged in the development of
tourism destinations to better satisfy young people and to turn them into
loyal customers.
University students have revealed, according to other studies, a high
desire for interacting with residents of tourism destinations. In this study, a
high facility in dealing with hosts has also been observed. However, in the
present study, the level of interaction with hosts is not very high and varies
considerably among the different contexts of interaction. The places where
university students more frequently interacted with hosts were: commercial
establishments, discos, clubs, and bars, and nature places. These findings
may be related to the high number of students who visited discos, clubs,
and bars, gardens, beaches and who also observed nature.
This study examined the simultaneous impacts of five groups of
variables (socio-demographic profile, motivations, travel behavior, cultural
familiarity and similarity, and perceptions of tourism impacts) on the inten-
sity of the interaction between university students and hosts in specific
contexts (street, nature places, monuments, events, food and beverage
establishments, other commercial establishments, and discos, clubs, and
bars). Several key findings are evident in the study. First, these findings
are partially consistent with previous research. As suggested by previous
studies the social motivators are the most important factors that influence
the university student tourist–host interaction level. Secondly, the socio-
demographic profiles of students are not significant in influencing the
tourist–host interaction level in all contexts of interaction, with exception
of the encounters between tourists and hosts in commercial establishments.
Regarding the influence of travel behavior, the results obtained suggest that
the kind of destination visited is the most important determinant of this
set. Additionally, the students’ perceptions of cultural benefits positively
influence the students’ interaction level. In specific places (street and mon-
uments), those university students who declare feeling comfortable when
dealing with hosts tend to interact more with them. The results obtained
148 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

revealed that the role of the independent variables included in the theoretical
model proposed vary with the context where youth tourist–host interaction
occurs.
Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature on social contact
in tourism by proposing a model that permits to explain the simultaneous
influence of several factors in the university student-host social contact in
several contexts. From a practical standpoint, this study may help destination
managers and public decision makers to better understand the factors that
influence the encounters between tourists and hosts.
Considering the positive impact of the social contact between tourists
and hosts on tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty already remarked by several
researches (Murphy, 2001; Pizam et al., 2000; Reisinger & Turner, 1998;
Yoo & Sohn, 2003; Zhang et al., 2006), and the low level of interaction
reported in this study, it is important to provide an environment and atmo-
sphere at the tourism destinations visited by students which encourages
more social interaction. Strategies developed by tourism service providers
in order to promote interaction will benefit the tourism industry as a
whole. Special efforts should be undertaken in order to promote interac-
tion between university students and hosts, particularly in destinations and
contexts where tourist–host interaction was lower. Involving residents in
the provision of tourism services (e.g., as tour guides) could be an appro-
priate strategy to achieve this objective. The goal of the tourism business
should be to give tourists the opportunity to meet and interact with the local
community.
Taking into consideration that students with higher motivations for
socialization and cultural enrichment and those who recognized more cul-
tural benefits of tourism in the destinations were more likely to interact with
hosts, it seems especially important to develop cultural activities at the desti-
nations. This would contribute to stimulate social contact between university
students and hosts.
Despite the interesting results that were obtained in this study, the
study is limited to students of one single university. For a better understand-
ing of the determinants of university student tourist–host interaction level,
more comparative cross-national studies are recommended. Additionally,
the model proposed does not encompass all potential determinants of the
tourist–host interaction level, focusing on the variables related to university
student tourists. Further research is needed to examine the influence of other
factors on social interaction level. Developing models that permit assessing
the indirect effects of the determinants in the magnitude of tourist–host inter-
actions is another important topic of research. The approach adopted here
could also be usefully applied in other tourism markets providing valuable
comparisons in terms of the factors that influence the tourist–host interaction
level. Each of these ideas, as well as other suggestions for further research,
 Tourist–Host Interactions 149

could initiate a rich line of study around the explanation of tourist–host

interaction level.

REFERENCES

Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’
perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32,
1056–1076.
Andriotis, K., & Vaughan, R. D. (2003): Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism
development: The case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 172–185.
Ap, J. (1992). Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19, 665–690.
Byrd, E. T., Bosley, H., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Comparisons of stake-
holder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural Eastern North Carolina. Tourism
Management, 30, 693–703.
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for
socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7(3), 331–338.
Chadee, D. D., & Mattsson, J. (1996). An empirical assessment of customer
satisfaction in tourism. The Service Industries Journal, 16(3), 305–320.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 6(4), 408–424.
De Kadt, E. (1979). Tourism: Passport to development? Perspectives on the social
and cultural effects of tourism in developing countries. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Fennell, D. A. (2006). Evolution in tourism: The theory of reciprocal altruism and
tourist–host interactions. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(2), 105–124.
Gordon, P., Kumar, A., & Richardson, H. W. (2010). Gender differences in
metropolitan travel behavior. Regional Studies, 23(6), 499–510.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The case
of Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 503–526.
Heuman, D. (2005). Hospitality and reciprocity: Working tourists in Dominica.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 407–418.
Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Griffin, G., & Syme, G. (2001). Tourist perception of
environmental impact. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(4), 853–867.
Jaworski, A., Ewen, V. Y.-M., Thurlow, C., & Lawson, S. (2003). Social roles and
negotiation of status in host-tourist interaction: A view from British television
holiday programmes. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(2), 135–163.
Kayat, K. (2002). Power, social exchanges and tourism in Langkawi: Rethinking
resident perceptions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 171–191.
Kim, D.-Y., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007b). Gender differences in online
travel information search: Implications for marketing communication on the
internet. Tourism Management, 28, 423–433.
Kim, K., & Jogaratnam, G. (2003). Activity preferences of Asian international and
domestic American university students: An alternate basis for segmentation.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 260–265.
150 C. A. Eusébio and M. J. A. Carneiro

Kim, K., Oh, I.-K., & Jogaratnam, G. (2007a). College student travel: A revised model
of push motives. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(1), 73–85.
Krippendorf, J. (1987). The holidaymakers: Understanding the impact of leisure and
travel. London, UK, Heinemann.
Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of leisure and tourism
experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 314–331.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.
Oxford, UK: Longman Scientific & Technical.
McGehee, N. G. & Andereck, K. L. (2004): Factors predicting rural residents’ support
of tourism”. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 131–140.
McNaugton, D. (2006). The “host” as uninvited guest: Hospitality, violence, and
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 645–665.
Middleton, V., Fyall, A., Morgan, M., & Ranchhod, A. (2009). Marketing in travel and
tourism. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mill, R. C., & Morrison, A. M. (2002). The tourism system (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Mintel. (2009). Youth travel accommodation—international. Travel and Tourism
Analyst, 10, 1–40.
Morgan, M., & Xu, F. (2009). Student travel experiences: Memories and dreams.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18, 216–236.
Murphy, L. (2001). Exploring social interactions of backpackers. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(1), 50–67.
Oh, J. Y.-J., Cheng, C.-K., Lehto, X. Y., & O’Leary, J. T. (2004). Predictors of tourists’
shopping behaviour: Examination of socio-demographic characteristics and trip
typologies. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(4), 308–317.
Pearce, P. L. (1998). The relationship between residents and tourists: The research
literature and management directions. In W. F. Theobald (Ed.), Global tourism
(2nd ed., pp. 129–147). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pérez, E. A., & Nadal, J. R. (2005). Host community perceptions: A cluster analysis.
Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 925–941.
Phau, I., Shanka, T., & Dhayan, N. (2010). Destination image and choice inten-
tion of university student travellers to Mauritius. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(5), 758–764.
Pizam, A., Uriely, N., & Reichel, A. (2000). The intensity of tourist–host social rela-
tionship and its effects on satisfaction and change of attitudes: The case of
working tourists in Israel. Tourism Management, 21, 395–406.
Powell, R. B., Kellert, S. R., & Ham, S. H. (2009). International theory and the sus-
tainable nature-based tourism experience. Society & Natural Resources, 22(8),
761–776.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1998). 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.W. (2003). Cross-cultural behavior in touri. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
Reisinger, Y. (2009). International tourism: Cultures and behavior Oxford, UK:
Butterworth Heinemann.
 Tourist–Host Interactions 151

Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2003). New horizons in independent youth and student
travel. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. International Student Travel Confederation
(ISTC).
Richards, G. (2007). New horizons II: The young independent traveller 2007.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: WYSE Travel Confederation.
Ryan, C., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Chinese students: Holiday behaviors in New Zealand.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(2), 91–105.
Shanka, T., Ali-Knight, J., & Pope, J. Intrastate travel experiences of international
students and their perceptions of Western Australia as a tourist destination.
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(3), 245–256.
Sharma, B., & Dyer, P. (2009). An investigation of differences in residents’
perceptions on the Sunshine Coast: Tourism impacts and demographic vari-
ables. Tourism Geographies, 11(2), 187–213.
Sinkovics, R. R., & Penz, E. (2009). Social distance between residents and inter-
national tourist–implications for international business. International Business
Review, 18, 457–469.
Smith, V. L. (1978). Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Thrane, C. (2008). The determinants of students’ destination choice for their summer
vacation trip. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4), 333–348.
Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: A comparative tourism study. Annals
of Tourism Research, 29(1), 231–253.
Uriely, N., & Reichel, A. (2000). Working tourists and their attitudes to hosts. Annals
of Tourism Research, 27(2), 267–283.
Wang, Y., & Davidson, M. C. G. (2008). Chinese student travel market to Australia:
An exploratory assessment of destination perceptions. International Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 9(4), 405–426.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. L. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe.
Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 439–458.
WTO. (1995). Concepts, definitions and classifications for tourism statistics. Madrid,
Spain: Author.
WTO. (2002). Youth outbound travel of Germans, the British and the French. Madrid,
Spain: Author.
WTO. (2008). Youth travel matters: Understanding the global phenomenon of youth
travel. Madrid, Spain: OMT.
Xiao, H. (2003). Publications in review of hosts and guests revisited. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30(2), 502–503.
Xu, F., Morgan, M., & Song, P. (2009). Students’ travel behavior: A cross-cultural
comparison of UK and China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11,
255–268.
Yoo, J., & Sohn, D. (2003). The structure and meaning of intercultural interactions
of international tourists. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 14(1), 55–68.
Zhang, F., Inbakaran, R. J., & Jackson, M. (2006). Understanding community attitudes
towards tourism and host-guest interaction in the Urban-Rural Border Region.
Tourism Geographies, 8(2), 182–204.
Copyright of Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.