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

net/publication/319533972

Residents' attitude towards domestic tourists explained by contact, emotional

solidarity and social distance

Article  in  Tourism Management · January 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.08.012

CITATIONS READS

23 826

6 authors, including:

Dongoh Joo Asli D. A. Tasci

Texas A&M University University of Central Florida
20 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS    91 PUBLICATIONS   2,325 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Naho Maruyama
Takasaki City University of Economics
21 PUBLICATIONS   213 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Intentions to support cultural heritage preservation in Carthage, Tunisia through a value-belief-norm model. The likely shift in what motivates millennial environmental
volunteers: The mediating role of environmental self-efficacy. View project

Ecological Restoration Volunteering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dongoh Joo on 30 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Residents' attitude towards domestic tourists explained by contact,

emotional solidarity and social distance
Dongoh Joo a, *, Asli D.A. Tasci b, Kyle M. Woosnam c, Naho U. Maruyama d,
Chadley R. Hollas a, Kayode D. Aleshinloye b
a
Texas A&M University, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, College Station, TX 77843-2261, United States
b
University of Central Florida, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, Orlando, FL 32819, United States
c
University of Georgia, Natural Resources Recreation and Tourism, Athens, GA 30602-2152, United States
d
Takasaki City University of Economics, Department of Regional Policy, Takasaki, Gunma 370-0801, Japan

h i g h l i g h t s

A negative relationship was observed between emotional solidarity and social distance.

Different activities resulted in varying levels of emotional solidarity and social distance.

The contact theory was found valid in a domestic tourism setting.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite the fact that emotional solidarity, social distance, and contact theory have been widely used to
Received 3 August 2017 explain resident tourist interaction, these three concepts were never considered in tandem in investi-
Accepted 18 August 2017 gating the intergroup attitude within a domestic tourism setting. To understand what type of interaction
improves emotional solidarity and reduces social distance, and how emotional solidarity affects social
distance, this study sought to measure the factors explaining emotional solidarity and social distance by
Keywords:
focusing on the frequency and the nature of interaction in domestic tourism. Study hypotheses proposed
Contact theory
that frequency of interaction and different types of activities that residents engage in with visitors
Domestic tourism
Emotional solidarity
explain both emotional solidarity and social distance, and emotional solidarity in return explains social
Interaction types distance. All hypotheses were partially supported with the findings, confirming the validity of the contact
Interaction frequency theory in a domestic tourism setting and underscoring the importance of interaction in residents' atti-
Resident attitudes tudes toward tourists.
Social distance © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction pretentious. Somehow it was a lot easier to prejudge people that

“‘Fudgies’ Muttered our crew chief disdainfully. A grin crossed
my face with the sudden revelation … ‘fudgies’ is the northern
Michigan slang for tourists! As I eventually learned, they are so
named because they frequent the innumerable fudge shops
found in the various resort communities. … They did look rather
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: joo.dongoh@tamu.edu (D. Joo), asli.tasci@ucf.edu
(A.D.A. Tasci), woosnam@uga.edu (K.M. Woosnam), nmaruyama@tcue.ac.jp
(N.U. Maruyama), crhollas@gmail.com (C.R. Hollas), kayodealesh@gmail.com
(K.D. Aleshinloye).
I'd never met …” (Havitz, 1991, p. 42, p. 42)
Group attitudes have long been an interest for researchers,
especially in a tourism context where people from different back-
grounds come into contact with one another. Both negative and
positive sociocultural phenomena have been the subject of such
scientific inquiry. Negative sociocultural phenomena such as ster-
eotyping, prejudice, bias, and social distance have been considered
in international tourism contexts where residents and tourists from
different cultural backgrounds view and treat each other with
predispositions (e.g., Pi-Sunyer, 1989) as well as domestic tourism
contexts where residents and tourists share the same culture and
ethnicity (e.g., Var, Kendall, & Tarakcioglu, 1985). Results of such

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.08.012
0261-5177/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
246 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257
work reveal a human tendency to hold biases of others in both
tourism contexts.
Contact theory suggests that interaction under proper condi-
tions can reduce such negative social phenomena (Allport, 1954).
Therefore, researchers have used contact theory to explain the
reduction of negative sociocultural phenomena between residents
and tourists of different cultural backgrounds (e.g., Anastasopoulos,
1992; Milman, Reichel, & Pizam, 1990; Monterrubio, 2016;
Nyaupane, Teye, & Paris, 2008; Pizam, Jafari, & Milman, 1991;
Yilmaz & Tasci, 2015). Among these negative sociocultural phe-
nomena, social distance was studied in relation to different types of
contact or information sources in tourism setting, and findings
revealed that different levels of knowledge gained by varying in-
formation sources reduce social distance in a cross-cultural tourism
context (e.g., Tasci, 2009; Yilmaz & Tasci, 2013; 2015).
A positive sociocultural phenomenon, emotional solidarity, has
also been studied in both international and domestic tourism
contexts. Several researchers identified the determinants and ef-
fects of emotional solidarity in both domestic and international
tourism setting (e.g., Joo, Woosnam, Shafer, Scott, & An, 2017;
Woosnam, 2012; Woosnam, Norman, & Ying, 2009; Woosnam,
Shafer, Scott, & Timothy, 2015). Even though emotional solidarity
is also an intergroup emotional concept likely to be explained by
the frequency and the nature of interaction, this natural link has not
been investigated to date.
Also, the potential relationship between positive and negative
intergroup emotions such as social distance and emotional soli-
darity has also been a void in the literature. It is logical to assume
that both concepts would be affected by interaction through con-
tact, specifically frequency and the nature of interaction, between
residents and tourists, along with an inherent negative relationship
between emotional solidarity and social distance. The current study
investigates these relationships as displayed in Fig. 1 within a do-
mestic tourism setting in a booming Texas Hill Country (U.S.)
destination.
Social distance, emotional solidarity, and contact theory have
been used to explain different phenomena related to domestic or
international tourism; however, these three concepts have never
been considered together in measuring intergroup attitudes within
a domestic tourism setting. Understanding residents' emotional
solidarity with and social distance towards tourists in relation to
their contact with tourists is of utmost importance in ensuring
sustainable destination management. Defining the types of activ-
ities that positively or negatively contributes to emotional solidarity
and/or social distance would enable destination management or-
ganizations as well as individual industry stakeholders to effectively
design optimum tourist activities in order to enhance positive atti-
tudes and circumvent negative attitudes of residents.
Fig. 1. The relationships tested in the study.
2. Literature review
Early studies in tourism have frequently noted the negative at-
titudes that international tourists can possess in regards to com-
munity residents of places they visit (e.g., Pi-Sunyer, 1989), or
negative attitudes of residents towards tourists (e.g., Evans-
Pritchard, 1989; Pi-Sunyer, 1989; Var et al., 1985). Pi-Sunyer
(1989), for example, described international tourists' prejudices
about Catalans' culture in terms of food and sense of time as
opposed to Catalan residents' stereotypes of tourists based on their
ethnicities (e.g., French, German, or Italian) and thus the tendency
to maintain a distance from them. Researchers identified Christian
pilgrims' uneasiness among Arab residents in the Holy Land (Kaell,
2014), and Cancun residents' anxiety with spring breakers
(Monterrubio, 2016). Although resident-tourist prejudice may be
more salient in cross-cultural settings, negative attitudes can exist
between residents and tourists who share a culture and ethnicity
(see Havitz, 1991). In fact, researchers reported unfavorable views
toward tourists in domestic tourism settings as well. For example,
Evans-Pritchard (1989) noted that native Americans considered
white tourists as ignorant and materialistic. Var et al. (1985) re-
ported Turkish residents' lesser favor of Turkish tourists. Literature
thus far has substantiated that negative sociocultural phenomena
are inevitable in resident-tourist interactions, both in international
and domestic tourism contexts.
2.1. Contact and interaction
Contact theory has been primarily used to explain the negative
sociocultural phenomena such as stereotyping, prejudice and social
distance (Allport, 1954). The theory suggests that intergroup con-
tact causes positive change in attitude towards the members of the
‘other’ group when the contact occurs under favorable conditions,
such as perceived equality in status, common goals, intergroup
cooperation, and support for contact (Manstead & Hewstone, 1996;
Pettigrew, 1998).
In a tourism setting, some determinants of positive attitude
change from as a result of contact have been identified. For
example, based on the assumptions of the contact theory, some
antecedents of social distance were identified. Tasci (2009) exam-
ined the relationship between social distance and visual informa-
tion within a quasi-experimental research setting where three
groups of undergraduate students at a university in the United
States received different experimental treatments and rated their
social students towards Turkish people. She found that even though
visual stimuli helped to reduce the social distance when the
country name was unknown to the respondents, they were not
enough to eliminate biases when the country name was provided
 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257 247

to the respondents. Yilmaz and Tasci (2013) tested the relationship permeate through the everyday life of residents, even mundane
between social distance and different information sources, or activities (e.g., grocery shopping) may also initiate thoughts and
modes of contact including internet, travel agency, friends and feelings of association and thus foster a positive change in attitudes.
relatives, prior visit, etc. Their results revealed that even the pseudo However, too much contact, to the point residents do not enjoy
contact through the internet reduced social distance just as well as their own environment and are not able to engage in daily activities
previous visits. The researchers suspected that either this pseudo may have the opposite effect, resulting in burnout, irritation,
contact was good enough to reduce the social distance or contact by antagonism and irritation as explained by Doxey's (1975) Irridex
visit was superficial in nature. Yilmaz and Tasci (2015) found that model. Thus, the interaction that residents engage in within the
European tourists' perceived social distance towards Turkish resi- context of tourist contact may have a differential effect on both
dents was reduced significantly through different indicators of their emotional solidarity with and social distance towards tourists.
contact including the number of visits, having close friendships Thus, the current study will test the relative influence different
with local service providers, and the number of close friendships. activities residents engage in while contacting and interacting with
They also found an opposite effect of the contact for residents; their tourists have on their emotional solidarity with and social distance
number of previous visits to tourists' European countries increased toward tourists as hypothesized below:
their avoidance of European tourists. They concluded that this
H3. Various types of interaction have different levels of influence
perplexing result may actually be normal considering the likely
on residents' emotional solidarity (i.e., welcoming nature, emotional
influence of the inequality in their perceived rolesdresidents as
closeness, and sympathetic understanding) with tourists.
servers and tourists as patrons. The current study assumes that
interaction frequency increases familiarity and thus improves H4. Various types of interaction have different levels of influence
emotional solidarity and reduces social distance as hypothesized on residents' social distance (i.e., affinity and avoidance) towards
below: tourists.
H1. Frequency of interaction positively influences residents'
emotional solidarity (i.e., welcoming nature, emotional closeness,
2.2. Emotional solidarity
and sympathetic understanding) with tourists.
H2. Frequency of interaction negatively influences residents' so- Though research surrounding emotional solidarity within the
cial distance towards tourists (i.e. positively influences affinity and field of tourism has only recently began to develop, origins of the
negatively influences avoidance). emotional solidarity construct and theoretical framework date back
to the turn of the 20th Century. Durkheim (1912), in his book The
Contact and interaction essentially increase familiarity about
Elementary Forms of Religious Life, claimed that individuals forge an
others, which is the essential ingredient for positive change in at-
emotional bond by engaging in sacred beliefs and ritualistic
titudes. Familiarity is known to ease information processing, in-
behavior. Given Durkheim's (1912) work was rooted in the context
crease cognition, reduce uncertainty and risk, induce positive
of an indigenous religion, Woosnam et al. (2009) modified the
feelings or affect, and improve image (Anand, Holbrook, &
construct “sacred beliefs” to rename it “shared beliefs” and “ritu-
Stephens, 1988; Baloglu, 2001; Burch, 1969; Chen & Lin, 2012;
alistic behavior” to “shared behavior.” The theory was further pol-
Prentice & Andersen, 2000; Prentice, 2004; Sonmez & Graefe,
ished by Collins (1975), who added interaction between individuals
1998).
as the third antecedent of emotional solidarity, shaping the current
However, contradicting arguments exist about the influence of
theoretical framework of emotional solidarity. Outside of sociology,
familiarity. For example, Tasci (2009) tested the influence of fa-
support for the emotional solidarity framework has been demon-
miliarity through visual stimuli and identified a dual role of
strated in disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, and
knowledge. She noted that, “Knowledge gained through visual aids
gerontology (Woosnam et al., 2009).
help people develop improved perceptions (while) knowledge of
It was in Woosnam et al.'s (2009) qualitative work that the
the name of the country sets the associated stereotypes, prejudices,
emotional solidarity framework was introduced to the body of
and biases as well” (p. 503). As a result, she deduced that, “cogni-
tourism research. By conducting focus group interviews of coastal
tion comes before affect” (p. 503). What is worse, resident-tourist
destination residents, the researchers confirmed the existence of
interactions are also suspected to be the precursor to some of the
residents' emotional solidarity towards tourists and the applica-
negative phenomena between the two groups (Woosnam,
bility of the framework in tourism settings. Taking a step further,
Maruyama, Boley, & Erul, 2016). In such cases, favorable circum-
Woosnam and Norman (2010) developed a 10-item Emotional
stances such as equal status, positive predispositions and positive
Solidarity Scale (ESS) with three factors (i.e., welcoming nature,
environmental factors for positive attitude change (Manstead &
emotional closeness, and sympathetic understanding); the scale has
Hewstone, 1996) may have been undermined.
demonstrated strong psychometric properties in measuring resi-
Yilmaz and Tasci (2013) suspect that tourism in its conventional
dents' emotional solidarity towards tourists (Woosnam & Norman,
forms may not provide the favorable preconditions for the positive
2010; Woosnam, 2011) as well as tourists' emotional solidarity with
influence of contact in tourism. More specifically, they state that “in
residents (Woosnam, 2011). Since those initial works, the ESS has
their restrictive and superficial settings, tourism activities may not
been found a reliable and valid measure of emotional solidarity in
offer domains of contact strong enough to allow for a significant
studies that examined resident and tourist samples from the United
change in the social distance tourists feel towards different cul-
States (Joo et al., 2017; Woosnam & Aleshinloye, 2013; Woosnam,
tures” (p. 193). However, they also take into account the differential
Dudensing, & Walker, 2015; Woosnam et al., 2015) as well as
impact of different activities rendered by different types of tourism.
other nations, like Cape Verde (Ribeiro, Woosnam, Pinto, & Silva,
Therefore, the nature of interaction in resident-tourist contact
2017), Japan (Woosnam, Aleshinloye, Strzelecka, & Erul, 2016),
also needs to be investigated to pinpoint the types of activities that
Macau (Lai & Hitchcock, 2017; Li & Wan, 2017), Malaysia (Hasani,
lead to positive attitude change and vice-a-versa. Residents' in-
Moghavvemi, & Hamzah, 2016), and Nigeria (Woosnam,
dulgence in tourist activities may initiate thoughts and feelings of
Aleshinloye, & Maruyama, 2016).
association and thus facilitate positive attitude change. In popular
Interestingly, results so far suggest cross-cultural variation in
tourist destinations such as Orlando, where tourist activities
the degree and the influence of emotional solidarity. Brazilians
248 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257
reported higher factors mean scores than their Japanese counter-
parts across all three ESS factors (Woosnam, Maruyama, Boley, &
Erul, 2016). Malyasian residents in Hasani et al.'s (2016) study
were less welcoming than residents Woosnam (2012) sampled
from the U.S. Whether they be residents or tourists, Nigerians
generally demonstrated higher ESS factor means than Americans
(Joo et al., 2017; Woosnam, 2012). In terms of influence, sympathetic
understanding was found least significant in predicting residents'
attitude towards festival (Li & Wan, 2017). Similarly, emotional
closeness was found less influential than the other two factors in
predicting other constructs in studies by Ribeiro et al. (2017) or Lai
and Hitchcock (2017).
Several studies have been undertaken to identify antecedents of
emotional solidarity. Residents' length of residence (Woosnam,
Aleshinloye, Van Winkle, & Qian, 2014), residents' community
attachment (Li & Wan, 2017) and tourists' attachment to a UNESCO
World Heritage Site (Woosnam et al., 2016), tourists' perceived
effectiveness of security forces (Simpson & Simpson, 2016), and
travel distance to a destination (Joo et al., 2017) were found to be
positive predictors of emotional solidarity of residents with tourists
or tourists with residents.
Studies have also revealed consequences of emotional solidarity.
Residents' perception of tourism impacts and support for tourism
in the area (Hasani et al., 2016; Lai & Hitchcock, 2017; Li & Wan,
2017; Woosnam & Aleshinloye, 2015; Woosnam, 2012), tourists'
perception of safety in a border area destination (Woosnam et al.,
2015), tourists' expenditure patterns in a destination (Woosnam
et al., 2015), and tourists' destination loyalty (Ribeiro et al., 2017),
were found to be related to their emotional solidarity. Despite the
growth of emotional solidarity research within the tourism litera-
ture, the relationship of emotional solidarity and social distance has
yet to be examined.
2.3. Social distance
Like emotional solidarity, the concept of social distance was first
conceived in sociology in the early part of 20th Century. To quote
Park (1924), who first coined the term, social distance is defined as
“the grades and degrees of understanding and intimacy which
characterize personal and social relations generally” (p. 339). Park's
conception of social distance was closely associated with the
concept of prejudice (Yilmaz & Tasci, 2015), and this made social
distance a widely-accepted indicator of prejudice (Kidwell & Booth,
1977; Triandis & Triandis, 1960).
Focusing on the affective aspect (i.e., intimacy) of the definition
(Karakayali, 2009), Bogardus (1929, 1933) developed a scale to
measure individuals' willingness to engage in various forms of
interaction with others. The seven types of interaction included in
the scale represent different degrees of closeness, which range from
no distance (i.e., 1 ¼ accepting others as close relative by marriage)
to maximum distance (i.e., 7 ¼ excluding others from entry into
respondents' country). Although other ways to measure social
distance between individuals (e.g., frequency and length of inter-
action, degree of imitation) have been devised, Bogardus' social
distance scale has been widely employed within the sociology (e.g.,
Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005) and often in psychology (e.g., Koulack &
Tuthill, 1972; Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, & Fillenbaum, 1960;
Weaver, 2008) literature.
Since the act of tourism typically accompanies interaction be-
tween individuals from different groups (e.g., residential, de-
mographic, cultural, or ethnic aspects), social distance can be a
useful construct in tourism research in gauging the relationship
that exists between residents and tourists. However, to date, only
limited efforts have been made to utilize the construct or a measure
of the construct (i.e., scale) in a tourism context. Nyaupane et al.
(2008) considered social distance as an antecedent of students'
attitude change following study abroad programs. Surprisingly,
rather than measuring social distance, the authors assumed
different nationalities represented various degrees of social dis-
tance. A similar approach to social distance was found in Thyne,
Lawson, and Todd's (2006) study, in which New Zealand residents
were asked about their level of acceptance to tourists of difference
nationality, types, and ages. At best, such work has used proxy
measures of social distance to determine degrees of the prejudice.
Attempts to measure social distance in tourism contexts are
found in minimal works. The research of Thyne and Lawson (2001)
was among the first to design a social distance scale within the
tourism literature. Based on focus group interviews and a ranking
system, the researchers developed seven items. Following this,
Thyne and Zins (2004) advanced this research in considering multi-
sites in New Zealand and Austria. Returning to Bogardus's (1929,
1933) work, Tasci (2009) utilized a modified social distance scale
to examine social distance of undergraduate students at a university
in the United States towards Turkish people in general. By control-
ling the visual stimuli and country name in a quasi-experimental
setting, she identified that social distance was the smallest when
the visual information was provided and country name was hidden
and the distance was the greatest in opposite situations.
Using a different social distance scale with factors of affinity and
avoidance, Yilmaz and Tasci (2013, 2015) measured the social dis-
tance between European tourists and Turkish residents as well as
its predictors. Questioning if the internet as an information source
reduces European tourists' social distance towards Turkish resi-
dents, the authors used 12 items that Reisinger and Turner (2002)
initially developed. More recently, Yilmaz and Tasci (2015) identi-
fied two factors (i.e., affinity and avoidance) of the social distance
scale. Yilmaz and Tasci (2015) found that both residents' and
tourists' ratings were above the average on the 7-point Likert scale,
the highest rating being provided for ‘to be friends’ (M ¼ 5.52)
while the lowest rating being provided for ‘to have no contact at all’
(M ¼ 1.74), on average. Means for affinity items among tourists
ranged from 4.35 to 5.52, while for residents they ranged from 4.45
to 5.57. Tourists' lowest-rated affinity item was ‘to play sport
together’ (M ¼ 4.35) while residents' lowest-rated item was ‘to be
invited to their homes’ (M ¼ 4.45). Though both residents and
tourists rated ‘to have no contact at all’ on average, lower than 2
(1.60 and 1.74, respectively), residents' ratings on ‘to have only
business contact’ (M ¼ 3.77) was higher on average than that of
tourists' (M ¼ 2.98).
Based on the assumptions of the contact theory, some ante-
cedents and consequences of social distance have been identified in
previous research. Tasci (2009) argued that the directional re-
lationships between social distance and other concepts such as
destination image, destination desirability, and visit intentions can
be “a ‘chicken and the egg’ situation or a case of concurrently
existing human phenomena” (p. 505). However, visual informa-
tionddifferent information sourcesdincluding internet and past
visits, and having friendships with members of the other group in
question, have been found to reduce social distance especially in
cross-cultural tourism settings (Tasci, 2009; Yilmaz & Tasci, 2013,
2015).
Nonetheless, as suspected by Yilmaz and Tasci (2013) tourism
activities may not be strong enough to initiate positive attitude
change and thus need to be considered. However, the nature of
 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257
interaction through different types of activities have not been
tested for their differential influence on social distance. Thus, as
hypothesized above, the current study will test the influence of
different types of interaction (through varying activities in which
tourists and residents have contact) on residents' social distance
towards tourists in a domestic tourism setting.
Additionally, social distance has not been considered in relation
to other sociocultural phenomena such as emotional solidarity
despite their inherently natural relationship. Both of these concepts
are group attitudes, one being positive and one negative. As the
positive concept improves, a reduction in the negative concept is a
natural assumption. More specifically, increased emotional soli-
darity may lead to higher levels of acceptance of members of
another group into intimate relationships. Thus, the current study
will test the influence of residents' emotional solidarity on their
social distance towards tourists in a domestic tourism setting as
hypothesized below:
H5. Residents' emotional solidarity (i.e., welcoming nature,
emotional closeness, and sympathetic understanding) negatively in-
fluences their social distance towards tourists (i.e., positively in-
fluences affinity and negatively influences avoidance).
3. Methods
3.1. Study site, sampling method, and data collection
The town of Fredericksburg, Texas is located approximately 80
miles west of Austin and 70 miles north of San Antonio. Initially
founded by German immigrants, Fredericksburg is known for rich
cultural (e.g., early Texas German architecture and Oktoberfest) and
natural attractions (e.g., Enchanted Rock State Park and wildflower
gardens). More recently, the town, with a population just over
10,000, has become increasingly popular among tourists who come
to visit nearby vineyards, wineries, and orchids. According to
Fredericksburg Convention and Visitor Bureau (CVB), 32% of tour-
ists in 2012 and 2013 picked touring wineries as a prime motivation
for visiting Fredericksburg (2015).
As of late, tourism is playing a substantial role in the city's
economy; Dean Runyan Associates (2016) reported that tourists'
direct spending in 2015 generated $26 million USD in earnings and
supported 910 jobs for the town. According to the Fredericksburg
(2016), lodging revenue and hotel tax collection continued to
grow in 2015, and Oktoberfest alone attracted over 20,000 tourists.
With such a boom in tourism, it makes sense that Fredericksburg
residents would come into contact with tourists on a consistent
basis, making the city an ideal place for this study.
Data for this study was collected from permanent resident
heads of households (or their spouses) in Fredericksburg. During
four weekends from March to May 2016, an onsite self-
administered survey instrument was distributed door-to-door
throughout the town using a multi-stage cluster sampling
method. Fredericksburg was initially divided into several clusters,
from which researchers randomly selected. Within each selected
cluster, households on randomly selected streets, were contacted
by researchers. Questionnaires were left with respondents and
collected later the same day. In addition to contacting residents at
their place of residence, researchers also contacted business
owners (who were also permanent residents) on the town's main
street during the week.
Even though 1831 households and 120 businesses were visited,
a total of 647 homes or businesses were actually contacted, which
249
revealed 482 individuals willing to participate (a 74.5% acceptance
rate). From those, 376 individuals completed a questionnaire (a
78.0% completion rate), thus resulting in an overall response rate of
58.1%.
3.2. Survey instrument and data analysis
In answering research questions, this study adopted the con-
cepts of emotional solidarity (Woosnam & Norman, 2010;
Woosnam et al., 2009) and social distance (Thyne & Lawson,
2001; Yilmaz & Tasci, 2013; 2015) to measure the impact of
different activities on residents' emotional solidarity and social
distance for tourists to the Texas Hill Country destination. The
questionnaire contained many different types of questions; how-
ever, the variables considered in this study pertain to interaction
with tourists (e.g., frequency and types of interaction, emotional
solidarity, and social distance as willingness to interact within
particular activities). Respondents were also asked about their
sociodemographic information.
In regards to residents' interaction with tourists, the researchers
asked how many days per week they interacted with tourists and
how often they engaged in different types of activities alongside
tourists (on a scale of 1 ¼ never to 7 ¼ all the time). Using Woosnam
and Norman (2010) as a reference, nine activities were presented to
cover a range of likely activities (e.g., visiting Enchanted Rock or
other local natural areas, visiting local wineries) in Fredericksburg
with different degrees of interaction (i.e., from passing by to being
on the same tour). These items together were intended to address
quantitative and qualitative aspects of residents' interaction with
tourists.
Residents' emotional solidarity with tourists was measured us-
ing the 10-item Emotional Solidarity Scale (ESS) regarding re-
spondents' emotional closeness and understanding toward tourists
(on a scale of 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree). Research to
date has repeatedly confirmed the three-factor structure (i.e.,
welcoming nature, emotional closeness, and sympathetic under-
standing) of the scale (Woosnam & Aleshinloye, 2013; Woosnam &
Norman, 2010; Woosnam, 2011), so it was deemed unnecessary to
conduct a separate confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for this study.
Residents' social distance was measured by a 12-item scale,
originally drafted by Reisinger and Turner (2002) and refined by
Yilmaz and Tasci (2015). The scale has 12 questions regarding re-
spondents' willingness to participate in different forms of interac-
tion (on a scale of 1 ¼ would not like at all to 7 ¼ would like very
much). The researchers chose the scale over others (e.g., Bogardus'
scale) for two reasons: a) it better accommodates the nature of
interaction in tourism settings (i.e., validity) and b) it has more
items with multiple factors (i.e., reliability). No separate CFA was
conducted as well, given Yilmaz and Tasci (2015) already identified
two factors (i.e., affinity and avoidance) of the scale.
To test the relationship between resident interactions and
emotional solidarity with tourists, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)
multiple regression analysis was undertaken using SPSS 24.0. First,
an OLS multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the
relative influence of different interaction activities on each
Emotional Solidarity factor (i.e., welcoming nature, emotional
closeness, and sympathetic understanding). Second, a similar OLS
multiple regression analysis was undertaken to determine the
relative influence of different interaction activities as well as
emotional solidarity factors on each social distance factor (i.e., af-
finity and avoidance).
250 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257

4. Results frequent contexts of interactions were shopping for groceries

4.1. Sample description
The sample was comprised of slightly more females (n ¼ 229,
61.2%), with an average age of 54.3 years. Overall, respondents were
generally well-educated with at least a bachelor's degree (n ¼ 226,
61.5%) and were members of the middle class (n ¼ 220, 67.8%) with
a household income of at least $50,000. In terms of the length of
residency, respondents (on average) had lived in Fredericksburg for
19.2 years (n ¼ 367, SD ¼ 17.92).
4.2. Descriptive analysis of interaction, emotional solidarity, and
social distance
As can be seen in Table 1, respondents interacted with tourists
3.14 days per week (n ¼ 365, SD ¼ 2.38), on average. On a 7-point
frequency scale (1 ¼ never and 7 ¼ all of the time), the most
(M ¼ 5.81), dining out (M ¼ 4.72), walking around town (M ¼ 4.38),
and participating in festivals (M ¼ 4.11). Interaction occurred least
at local wineries (M ¼ 2.87) and during local tours (M ¼ 2.18).
In terms of residents' emotional solidarity (on a 7-point agree-
ment scale) with tourists to Fredericksburg, overall, items within
the welcoming nature factor generated higher mean scores than
those in emotional closeness or in sympathetic understanding factors
(Table 1). More specifically, highest rated ESS items were those
stating that they treat visitors fairly (M ¼ 6.25), feel the community
benefits from visitors (M ¼ 6.12), appreciate visitors for their
contribution to the economy (M ¼ 5.96), and are proud to have
visitors (M ¼ 5.89). Lowest rated ESS items were those stating that
they feel affection toward visitors (M ¼ 4.50), have a lot in common
with visitors (M ¼ 4.46), and feel close to visitors they met
(M ¼ 4.31). The factor grand mean of welcoming nature (M ¼ 6.07) is
the largest followed by that of sympathetic understanding (M ¼ 4.73)
and emotional closeness (M ¼ 4.59).

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for interaction, emotional solidarity and social distance scales.

Interaction N Min Max Mean SD

a
Frequency of Interaction (Independent variable in regression analysis) 365 1 7 3.14 2.378
Nature of Interactionb (Independent variable in regression analysis)
Shopping at grocery stores 371 1 7 5.81 1.401
Dining in local restaurants 373 1 7 4.72 1.560
Walking around the town 373 1 7 4.38 1.814
Participating in festivals 369 1 7 4.11 1.778
Shopping at local gift shops 371 1 7 3.68 1.786
Visiting historic-cultural sites (i.e., museums, etc.) 369 1 7 3.55 1.716
Visiting Enchanted Rock or other local natural areas 368 1 7 3.37 1.755
Visiting local wineries 371 1 7 2.87 1.914
Taking local tours 370 1 7 2.18 1.572
Valid N (listwise) 357

Emotional Solidarityc N Min Max Mean SD

e
Welcoming nature (Dependent variable in regression analysis) 368 1 7 6.07 1.001
I treat visitors to Fburg fairly 371 1 7 6.25 0.973
I feel the community benefits from having Fburg visitors 370 1 7 6.12 1.151
I appreciate Fburg visitors for contribution they make to local economy 371 1 7 5.96 1.274
I am proud to have visitors come to Fburg 372 1 7 5.89 1.260
Emotional closeness (Dependent variable in regression analysis) 371 1 7 4.59e 1.622
I have made friends with some Fburg visitors 372 1 7 4.87 1.707
I feel close to some visitors I have met in Fburg 371 1 7 4.31 1.697
Sympathetic understanding (Dependent variable in regression analysis) 363 1 7 4.73e 1.400
I understand visitors to Fburg 369 1 7 5.30 1.477
I identify with Fburg visitors 368 1 7 4.64 1.662
I feel affection toward Fburg visitors 369 1 7 4.50 1.593
I have a lot in common with Fburg visitors 370 1 7 4.46 1.646
Valid N (listwise) 355

Social Distanced N Min Max Mean SD

Affinity (Dependent Variable in Regression Analysis) 351 1 7 4.28e 1.286

To chat in public places 364 1 7 5.40 1.394
To be friends 364 1 7 4.73 1.497
To share a meal 364 1 7 4.64 1.574
To share facilities 362 1 7 4.59 1.615
To attend a special event together 364 1 7 4.57 1.498
To take part in family celebrations and parties 360 1 7 3.97 1.686
To have a close personal relationship 363 1 7 3.95 1.612
To exchange gifts and correspondence 361 1 7 3.74 1.655
To be invited into their homes 362 1 7 3.54 1.627
To invite them into my own home 363 1 7 3.54 1.776
Avoidance (Dependent Variable in Regression Analysis) 357 1 7 3.56e 1.299
To have only business contact 357 1 7 4.04 1.527
To have no contact at all 362 1 7 3.08 1.679
Valid N (listwise) 346
a
Number of days per week that respondents interact with tourists to Fredericksburg.
b
Each item was asked on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 ¼ Never and 7 ¼ All of the time.
c
Each item was asked on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 ¼ Strongly disagree and 7 ¼ Strongly agree.
d
Each item was asked on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 ¼ Would not like at all and 7 ¼ Would like very much.
e
Factor grand means used as the dependent variables in regression analyses.
 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257 251

In regards to residents' social distance towards tourists (Table 1),
their willingness to participate (on a 7-point willingness scale) in
specific forms of interaction were highest for chatting in public
places (M ¼ 5.40), to be friends (M ¼ 4.73), and sharing a meal
(M ¼ 4.64). Having no contact at all was the lowest rated item
(M ¼ 3.08) followed by being invited to visitors' homes (M ¼ 3.54)
and inviting visitors to their home (M ¼ 3.54). In general, the factor
grand mean of affinity (M ¼ 4.28) was higher than that of avoidance
(M ¼ 3.56).
4.3. Correlations of emotional solidarity and social distance factors
with interaction frequency and nature of interaction
Table 2, with all variables included in the regression model,
reveal correlations that were positive and nearly all significant (at
the 0.05 or 0.01 level). Correlations ranged between 0.003 for
welcoming nature and frequency of interaction and 0.666 for
shopping at local gift shops and dining in local restaurants.
4.4. Factors explaining emotional solidarity and social distance
The OLS multiple regression analysis was conducted using
emotional solidarity and social distance factors as dependent var-
iables and the frequency and nature of interaction as independent
variables. As can be seen in detail in Table 3 and summarized in
Table 4, the only factor consistently influential in explaining all
emotional solidarity and social distance factors is the constant. The
frequency of interaction explained welcoming nature and emotional
closeness; however, its influence is negative on welcoming nature
and positive on emotional closeness. On the other hand, shopping at
local gift shops has a positive influence on all emotional solidarity
factors. Another unexpected finding is that visiting Enchanted Rock
or other local natural areas also had a negative influence on sym-
pathetic understanding. Participating in festivals had a positive in-
fluence on sympathetic understanding and affinity. Walking around
the town had a positive influence on welcoming nature. Affinity was
positively influenced by emotional closeness and sympathetic un-
derstanding while avoidance was negatively influenced by
welcoming nature and sympathetic understanding. Higher emotional
closeness and sympathetic understanding lead to higher affinity
while higher welcoming nature and sympathetic understanding lead
to lower avoidance. With the highest unstandardized beta value of
the constant, there are other factors to explain both emotional
solidarity and social distance factors. With these findings, H1,2,3,4,5
are all partially supported with the data. Even though these model
test results are significant, the adjusted R2 values are very small.
5. Conclusion and discussion
Even though social distance, emotional solidarity and contact
theory have been used to explain different phenomena related to
domestic or international tourism, these three concepts were never
used to measure the intergroup attitude within a domestic tourism
setting. An understanding of what type of interaction improves
emotional solidarity and reduces social distance and how
emotional solidarity in return affects social distance may yield
important insights for sustainable destination management.
Therefore, this study endeavored to measure the factors explaining
emotional solidarity and social distance by focusing on contact, the
frequency and the nature of contact or interaction, in a domestic
tourism context by studying the residents of Fredericksburg in
Texas Hill Country, U.S.A. Study hypotheses proposed that fre-
quency of interaction and different types of activities that residents
engage in with tourists explain both emotional solidarity and social
distance and emotional solidarity in return explains social distance.
All hypotheses were partially supported with the findings.
Respondents interacted with tourists 3.14 days per week, on
average, which is almost half of their time. This implies that their
daily chores are also interwoven with the tourist activities, which is
also indicated by the most frequent contexts of interactions:
shopping for groceries, dining out, walking around town. Interac-
tion occurred least when residents indulged in tourist activities,
namely, at local wineries and during local tours. High interaction in
both leisure pursuits and mundane undertakings may help inter-
group understanding but also may run the risk of irritating the
residents, due to burnout and obstacles in their day-to-day tasks.
This resident burnout may be implied in emotional solidarity;
overall, items within the welcoming nature factor generated higher
mean scores than those in emotional closeness or in sympathetic
understanding factor, which is the pattern widely witnessed in
existing works on emotional solidarity of residents (Hasani et al.,
2016; Lai & Hitchcock, 2017; Woosnam, 2011; Woosnam et al.,
2016) as well as that of tourists (Joo et al., 2017; Woosnam, 2011)
across different cultures. Such discrepancy among ESS factors may

Table 2
Correlations among interaction, emotional solidarity, and social distance factors.

Days Dining Gift Grocery Natural Winery Festival Historic Walk Tours ES1 ES2 ES3 SD1 SD2

Days per week interacting with Fburg 1

visitors (Days)
Dining in local restaurants (Dining) 0.323** 1
Shopping at local gift shops (Gift) 0.323** 0.666** 1
Shopping at grocery stores (Grocery) 0.208** 0.355** 0.336** 1
Visiting Enchanted Rock or other local 0.289** 0.396** 0.523** 0.241** 1
natural areas (Natural)
Visiting local wineries (Winery) 0.200** 0.387** 0.435** 0.124* 0.515** 1
Participating in festivals (Festival) 0.230** 0.515** 0.531** 0.189** 0.539** 0.595** 1
Visiting historic-cultural sites (Historic) 0.234** 0.397** 0.496** 0.222** 0.642** 0.572** 0.640** 1
Walking around the town (Walk) 0.340** 0.504** 0.644** 0.251** 0.589** 0.501** 0.588** 0.602** 1
Taking local tours (Tours) 0.216** 0.326** 0.467** 0.100 0.506** 0.563** 0.483** 0.605** 0.440** 1
Welcoming nature (ES1) 0.003 0.169** 0.316** 0.112* 0.234** 0.300** 0.300** 0.291** 0.401** 0.258** 1
Emotional closeness (ES2) 0.279** 0.267** 0.363** 0.076 0.261** 0.289** 0.310** 0.295** 0.339** 0.323** 0.468** 1
Sympathetic understanding (ES3) 0.100 0.228** 0.341** 0.098 0.182** 0.300** 0.330** 0.279** 0.326** 0.301** 0.644** 0.638** 1
Affinity (SD1) 0.139* 0.242** 0.284** 0.101 0.223** 0.229** 0.324** 0.230** 0.294** 0.277** 0.422** 0.496** 0.554** 1
Avoidance (SD2) 0.076 -0.111* -0.084 -0.065 -0.119* -0.145** -0.196** -0.151** -0.150** -0.045 -0.309** -0.144** -0.283** -0.282** 1
**
. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*
. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Valid N (listwise) ¼ 321.
252 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257

Table 3
Regression results for relative influence of amount and nature of interaction on emotional solidarity and social distance factors.

Regression model b S.E. ß t p Tol.a VIFb

Model 1: DV ¼ Welcoming nature (ES1) (R2 ¼ 0.205, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.182, F ¼ 8.690, p ¼ 0.000)
(Constant) 5.130 0.240 21.450 0.000
Days per week interacting with Fburg visitors 0.053 0.023 0.123 2.300 0.022 0.823 1.215
Dining in local restaurants 0.063 0.045 0.098 1.409 0.160 0.489 2.043
Shopping at local gift shops 0.092 0.043 0.163 2.146 0.033 0.410 2.438
Shopping at grocery stores 0.000 0.039 0.000 0.007 0.995 0.839 1.192
Visiting Enchanted Rock or other local natural areas 0.043 0.040 0.075 1.096 0.274 0.509 1.965
Visiting local wineries 0.052 0.036 0.098 1.447 0.149 0.511 1.957
Participating in festivals 0.049 0.042 0.085 1.154 0.249 0.434 2.306
Visiting historic-cultural sites (i.e., museums, etc.) 0.020 0.046 0.033 0.433 0.666 0.397 2.520
Walking around the town 0.161 0.041 0.287 3.895 0.000 0.435 2.298
Taking local tours 0.029 0.043 0.045 0.662 0.508 0.521 1.919
2 2
Model 2: DV ¼ Emotional closeness (ES2) (R ¼ 0.216, Adj. R ¼ 0.192, F ¼ 9.289, p ¼ 0.000)
(Constant) 3.260 0.377 8.656 0.000
Days per week interacting with Fburg visitors 0.122 0.036 0.181 3.414 0.001 0.826 1.211
Dining in local restaurants 0.030 0.071 0.029 0.424 0.672 0.490 2.043
Shopping at local gift shops 0.201 0.068 0.223 2.960 0.003 0.408 2.451
Shopping at grocery stores 0.074 0.062 0.063 1.195 0.233 0.842 1.188
Visiting Enchanted Rock or other local natural areas 0.058 0.062 0.062 0.924 0.356 0.508 1.967
Visiting local wineries 0.041 0.056 0.049 0.723 0.470 0.511 1.958
Participating in festivals 0.070 0.066 0.077 1.058 0.291 0.435 2.297
Visiting historic-cultural sites (i.e., museums, etc.) 0.038 0.072 0.040 0.524 0.601 0.397 2.520
Walking around the town 0.028 0.065 0.032 0.436 0.663 0.435 2.297
Taking local tours 0.131 0.068 0.129 1.929 0.055 0.522 1.915
Model 3: DV ¼ Sympathetic understanding (ES3) (R2 ¼ 0.187, Adj. R2 ¼ 0.163, F ¼ 7.673, p ¼ 0.000)
(Constant) 3.430 0.333 10.289 0.000
Days per week interacting with Fburg visitors 0.002 0.032 0.003 0.062 0.951 0.824 1.214
Dining in local restaurants 0.066 0.063 0.075 1.058 0.291 0.487 2.053
Shopping at local gift shops 0.159 0.062 0.203 2.587 0.010 0.395 2.535
Shopping at grocery stores 0.004 0.055 0.004 0.066 0.947 0.835 1.197
Visiting Enchanted Rock or other local natural areas 0.118 0.056 0.148 2.129 0.034 0.503 1.988
Visiting local wineries 0.072 0.050 0.099 1.438 0.151 0.514 1.944
Participating in festivals 0.125 0.059 0.158 2.114 0.035 0.437 2.287
Visiting historic-cultural sites (i.e., museums, etc.) 0.001 0.064 0.001 0.008 0.993 0.392 2.549
Walking around the town 0.092 0.059 0.118 1.549 0.122 0.420 2.381
Taking local tours 0.107 0.060 0.122 1.784 0.075 0.523 1.913
Model 4: DV ¼ Affinity (SD1) (R2 ¼ 0.379, Adj.R2 ¼ 0.353, F ¼ 14.570, p ¼ 0.000)
(Constant) 0.813 0.434 1.872 0.062
Days per week interacting with Fburg visitors 0.003 0.028 0.005 0.102 0.919 0.762 1.313
Dining in local restaurants 0.044 0.053 0.053 0.827 0.409 0.478 2.091
Shopping at local gift shops 0.041 0.052 0.058 0.796 0.427 0.380 2.634
Shopping at grocery stores 0.019 0.046 0.021 0.421 0.674 0.819 1.221
Visiting Enchanted Rock or other local natural areas 0.042 0.048 0.058 0.891 0.374 0.476 2.102
Visiting local wineries 0.047 0.042 0.071 1.126 0.261 0.509 1.965
Participating in festivals 0.105 0.050 0.144 2.127 0.034 0.435 2.298
Visiting historic-cultural sites (i.e., museums, etc.) 0.083 0.053 0.111 1.547 0.123 0.389 2.571
Walking around the town 0.026 0.050 0.036 0.512 0.609 0.398 2.510
Taking local tours 0.072 0.050 0.089 1.439 0.151 0.521 1.921
Welcoming nature (ES1) 0.115 0.080 0.091 1.436 0.152 0.503 1.989
Emotional closeness (ES2) 0.153 0.049 0.191 3.118 0.002 0.531 1.884
ES-Sympathetic understanding (ES3) 0.313 0.064 0.340 4.905 0.000 0.416 2.402
Model 5: DV ¼ Avoidance (SD2) (R2 ¼ 0.151, Adj.R2 ¼ 0.116, F ¼ 4.357, p ¼ 0.000)
(Constant) 6.139 0.512 11.980 0.000
Days per week interacting with Fburg visitors 0.060 0.032 0.109 1.842 0.066 0.763 1.311
Dining in local restaurants 0.068 0.061 0.082 1.104 0.270 0.484 2.066
Shopping at local gift shops 0.091 0.060 0.125 1.510 0.132 0.391 2.561
Shopping at grocery stores 0.024 0.053 0.026 0.459 0.647 0.830 1.205
Visiting Enchanted Rock or other local natural areas 0.042 0.056 0.057 0.760 0.448 0.480 2.083
Visiting local wineries 0.024 0.048 0.036 0.505 0.614 0.516 1.939
Participating in festivals 0.084 0.058 0.113 1.434 0.153 0.431 2.322
Visiting historic-cultural sites (i.e., museums, etc.) 0.042 0.062 0.055 0.665 0.506 0.393 2.545
Walking around the town 0.012 0.059 0.017 0.206 0.837 0.399 2.508
Taking local tours 0.107 0.059 0.130 1.822 0.069 0.524 1.907
Welcoming nature (ES1) 0.239 0.095 0.182 2.524 0.012 0.516 1.939
Emotional closeness (ES2) 0.038 0.058 0.046 0.653 0.514 0.529 1.892
Sympathetic understanding (ES3) 0.180 0.075 0.191 2.400 0.017 0.423 2.364
a
Tolerance is a measure that assesses the degree of multicollinearity in the model. A value of 0.10 is recommended as the minimum level of tolerance by Tabachnick and
Fidell (2013), but stricter standards like 0.20 (Menard, 1995) or 0.25 (Huber & Stephens, 1993) do exist.
b
VIF (variance inflation factor) is another indicator of multicollinearity in the model. It is defined as 1/tolerance; and is always greater than 1. A VIF value greater than 10
strongly evidences high multicollinearity (Ott & Longnecker, 2010).
 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257
Table 4
Summary of regression model test results for ESS and SD factors.
Frequency and nature of interaction Welcoming nature (ES1) Emotional closeness (ES2) Sympathetic understanding (ES3) Affinity (SD1) Avoidance (SD2)
(Constant) þ þ
Days per week interacting with Fburg visitors  þ
Dining in local restaurants
Shopping at local gift shops þ þ
Shopping at grocery stores
Visiting Enchanted Rock or other local natural areas
Visiting local wineries
Participating in festivals
Visiting historic-cultural sites (i.e., museums, etc.)
Walking around the town þ
Taking local tours
Welcoming nature (ES1)
Emotional closeness (ES2)
Sympathetic understanding (ES3)
þ Positive influence at the 0.05 level.
 Negative influence at the 0.05 level.
suggest multilayered nature of emotional solidarity between resi-
dents and tourist, where welcoming nature is more easily man-
ifested than the other two.
Residents welcome tourists may be due to their understanding
of the economic benefits or social norms (i.e., hosts should
welcome guests). However, their emotional closeness and sympa-
thetic understanding are not as equally high perhaps due to burnout
or a shallow nature of interaction. Residents rated items highest
that pertain to fairness, community benefits, appreciating tourists
for economic contributions, and pride from having tourists. Items
dealing with making friends with tourists, understanding tourists,
and those surrounding a friendly demeanor towards tourists (i.e.,
identify with visitors, feel affection toward visitors, have a lot in
common with visitors, and feel close to visitors I met) were not
rated as high. These findings reflect some level of inner-conflict in
residents. They believe that they are friendly and understanding
towards tourists but their feelings towards them do not match their
belief. Such a conflict, even if small, may develop into intergroup
emotive dissonance in the long run.
In regards to respondents' social distance towards tourists,
residents were most willing to chat in public places, be friends, and
share a meal. Having no contact at all was the lowest rated item
followed by being invited to tourists' homes and inviting tourists to
their home. In general, the factor grand mean of affinity was higher
than that of avoidance. These average findings compared to those
Yilmaz and Tasci (2015) display a larger distance between Freder-
icksburg residents towards their fellow American tourists, when
compared to that of Turkish residents towards their European
tourists as well as that of European tourists towards Turkish resi-
dents. Affinity item ratings were almost one point higher for Turkish
residents and European tourists than that of Fredericksburg resi-
dents. Furthermore, the difference concerning avoidance items
were even higher, signaling a much higher social distance between
the Fredericksburg residents towards their fellow American tour-
ists than that between Turkish residents and European tourists.
This may be due to either the resident burnout and irritation or the
common finding in research that people are harder on their own
kind in general (Mok & Armstrong, 1996; Tasci & Severt, 2017;
Weiermair, 2000; Weiermair & Fuchs, 2000; Var et al., 1985). This
finding may also suggest that respondents are utilizing a conflict-
coping strategy (Sinkovics & Penz, 2009) against tourists. Accord-
ing to Sinkovics and Penz (2009), Austrian residents maintained
social distance toward tourists from different countries, so that they
can avoid malfunctioning relationships. Our findings provide
credence for the potential that such defense mechanisms also
operate in a domestic tourism context.
253
þ þ þ
þ

þ þ

þ
þ 
The OLS multiple regression analysis with social distance and
emotional solidarity factors as dependent variables revealed that
the more frequent the interaction, the higher the emotional close-
ness but the lower the welcoming nature. This finding supports the
resident burnout suggested by Doxey (1975); frequent interaction
may lead to developing some friendships but may also develop
avoidance. The famous saying by Benjamin Franklin that “Fish and
visitors stink after three days” delivers the common welcoming
attitude towards tourists in the United States and increasingly in
other places as well. Residents welcome tourists and are willing to
tolerate them for a short period but feel cognitive, emotional and
conative fatigue when that period is prolonged or intensified with
increased number of tourists. This is most certainly the case given
the continued growth of tourists to Fredericksburg over the last few
years (Fredericksburg, 2017).
One of the interaction activities, shopping at local gift shops, has
a positive influence on all emotional solidarity factors. Shopping at
gift shops is a leisure activity that brings residents into a common
tourist space (Snepenger, Snepenger, Dalbey, & Wessol, 2007). This
activity may put residents closer to the mindset of tourists, and thus
increasing the potential to experience increased emotional soli-
darity. Another explanation for this is that much of what is sold at
the local gift shops is merchandise helping to perpetuate the
German heritage that so prevalent throughout Fredericksburg.
Residents' interaction with tourists at these shops may be seen by
the former as a mechanism to strengthen cultural heritage and
forge greater German pride as the latter purchases memorabilia to
commemorate their experiences (Besculides, Lee, & McCormick,
2002; Boley, McGehee, Perdue, & Long, 2014).
Another unexpected finding is that visiting Enchanted Rock
State Park or other local natural areas also had a negative influence
on sympathetic understanding. This is likely a result of the excessive
crowding that is typical at the local natural areas, which is not
supported by residents. Tasci and Severt (2017) warn about sus-
tainable behavior of tourists by stating that, if residents suspect that
tourists are careless with their environment, they may feel that
damage is intentional, even possibly “betrayal, and eventually ha-
tred,” which may become an obstacle for emotional solidarity (p.
725).
Other touristic activities, participating in festival and walking
around the town had a positive influence on emotional solidarity
factors as well as the affinity factor of social distance; even though
these results seem more haphazard than a pattern, engaging in
these activities seem to help residents develop better attitudes
towards tourists. Thus, destination management organizations may
need to take advantage of this relationship by designing local
254 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257
engagement programs where residents indulge in leisure activities
along with tourists (Woosnam & Aleshinloye, 2015).
Emotional solidarity had a significant impact on social distance.
For instance, sympathetic understanding explained both social dis-
tance factors, improving affinity and reducing avoidance. Emotional
closeness only improved affinity while welcoming nature only
reduced avoidance. Higher emotional closeness and sympathetic
understanding lead to higher affinity, while higher welcoming nature
and sympathetic understanding lead to lower avoidance. Residents
with greater emotional solidarity with domestic tourists demon-
strate greater openness (i.e., affinity) and less aversion (i.e., avoid-
ance) to them, which is much in line with what Woosnam (2012) or
Woosnam and Aleshinloye (2015) found.
Nonetheless, the constant in both regression analyses has the
largest contribution and test results are significant with modest R2
values, implying that these selected independent variables may not
be the best explanatory variables (Pindiyck & Rubinfeld, 1981). In
other words, additional factors (other than interaction and activity
engagement) exist that have a potential to explain both emotional
solidarity and social distance with tourists considering the Freder-
icksburg context. Furthermore, other factors exist that can serve to
explain social distance besides emotional solidarity. For example,
factors such as personality (Trope & Liberman, 2010), sense of
community (Wilkinson, 2007), satisfaction with life, degree of own
personal travel (Draper, Woosnam, & Norman, 2011), perceptions of
tourism impacts (Woosnam, 2012) may have larger potential of
explanation and need to be investigated in future research.
5.1. Theoretical implications
This study marks the first attempt to measure residents'
emotional solidarity and social distance towards tourists in a do-
mestic tourism context. Results support the validity of the contact
theory in a domestic tourism setting and reaffirm the importance of
interaction in considering attitudes in a resident-tourist context.
Existing studies on resident-tourist attitudes have exclusively
focused on cross-cultural interaction, where the two groups have
salient cultural or ethnic differences (Evans-Pritchard, 1989;
Monterrubio, 2016; Nyaupane et al., 2008; Pi-Sunyer, 1989; Var
et al., 1985). One possible exception to this was Var et al.'s (1985)
study in Turkey; the authors included questions regarding Turk-
ish residents' preference of different tourist groups, and Turkish
domestic tourists were considered along with other groups of non-
Turkish tourists. However, given their extremely small sample size
(i.e., 114) and simple question structure, Var et al.'s (1985) study is
limited by today's academic standards.
The link between respondents' interaction with domestic tour-
ists and their attitude towards tourists coincides with what earlier
studies have found in cross-cultural settings (e.g. Anastasopoulos,
1992; Milman, Reichel, & Pizam, 1990; Nyaupane et al., 2008;
Pizam et al., 1991; Yilmaz & Tasci, 2015). This study also
expanded the existing framework of emotional solidarity in
tourism. Although individuals' emotional solidarity towards others
has been found powerful predictors of their perceptions and atti-
tudes toward tourism (Simpson & Simpson, 2016; Ribeiro et al.,
2017; Woosnam, 2012), hardly any attention was given to the link
between individuals' emotional solidarity and attitudes towards
others. In this aspect, the findings of this study support the versa-
tility of the emotional solidarity framework in explaining various
tourism phenomena and ultimately providing another significant
outcome of emotional solidarity.
5.2. Practical implications
Above all, this study warns DMOs against the ongoing and
ubiquitous tension between residents and tourists. To date, tourism
research has mostly focused on intergroup attitude that arises from
cultural and ethnic dissimilarity. However, prejudice was also
witnessed in a regional destination like Fredericksburg, where
residents and tourists are relatively homogenous in their culture
and ethnicity. It often appears that tourism researchers are overly
confident about tourism's competence in promoting cross-cultural
understanding and tolerance, that they almost neglect the inerad-
icable nature of prejudice. Considering the effect that residents'
acceptance has on tourists' satisfaction and destination's success
(Pearce, 1980), DMOs should take efforts to improve residents'
attitude towards tourists.
Although it may sound obvious, DMOs should strive to promote
residents' affinity, while reducing their avoidance. As reported
above, different interaction types generate varying degrees of af-
finity and emotional solidarity, hence DMOs should focus on more
efficient ones, such as participating in festivals. Festivals not only
serve to meet the needs of both residents and tourists, but also
provide a natural setting where the two groups can mingle
voluntarily. Unfortunately, many DMOs tend to focus on economic
gain from festivals and pay less attention to their social benefits.
While many destinations already have festivals that are popular
among tourists, only a limited number of residents take a part in
those. For instance, only 6% of the 22,000 attendees at Fredericks-
burg's Oktoberfest in 2015 were residents (Fredericksburg, 2016).
Efforts should be made to promote festivals to residents so they can
see the benefits of socially interacting with others in addition to
perpetuating their heritage and culture. Also, DMOs need to take
necessary precautions to manage visitor numbers and behavior at
certain attractions where tourists' actions may turn off residents for
different reasons. Signage and interpretation need to be used to
sensitize tourists about sites of high importance for residents.
5.3. Limitations and future research opportunities
Fredericksburg is a mature destination where many residents
are involved in tourism or aware of its importance to the city's
economy. Different results can emerge in a destination with
differing degrees of tourism development or where negative views
are prevalent. Also, the negative link between interaction and
prejudice may have been clearer if this study followed a quasi-
experimental research design as (Nyaupane et al., 2008; Tasci,
2009) did. As such, survey-based research employing correla-
tional analyses does not always reveal the entire story as variance in
the outcome measure may be unexplained due to error and other
unforeseen predictor variables (Babbie, 2016). With this study, the
foundation is established to consider additional predictor variables
of attitude (as a means to establish a larger model and explain
greater variance in the construct), which may include variables
internal to residents (i.e., personality, sense of community, satis-
faction with life, degree of own personal travel, perceptions of
tourism impacts, etc.).
Additionally, this study paves the way to test Collins' (1993)
interaction ritual theory in a tourism context. According to Collins
(1993), individuals who experience positive emotional solidarity
are motivated to engage in further interaction activities that would
return the maximum amount of solidarity to them, forming an
interactional ritual chain. While this idea is logical, no one to date
has tested the model in the field of tourism, possibly due to the
short history or conceptual immaturity of Collins' idea. However,
the idea of Collins (1993) sufficiently suggests the possibility of
emotional solidarity prompting further interactions. Also, given the
social distance scale questions speak to behavioral tendencies
(Yilmaz & Tasci, 2015), findings of this study provide support for
considering the emotional solidarity theory and interaction ritual
 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257
theory in tandem.
Furthermore, the current study used OLS multiple regression
analyses since the aim was to identify the individual-level influence
of each activity rather than the conglomerate effect of the latent
factor. Future research may consider using structural equation
modeling (SEM) or path analysis in order to examine the links
among interaction, emotional solidarity, and social distance. This
study has validated the separate connections between all three, but
their covariances were not considered. Consideration should be
given to develop a moderated mediation model as Ribeiro et al.
(2017) did in their study of tourists to Cape Verde as the authors
examined if satisfaction mediated the relationship between
emotional solidarity and loyalty.
Lastly, researchers should consider the possibility of negative
emotional solidarity between residents and tourists. So far, studies
which utilized emotional solidarity have largely revealed positive
emotional solidarity between the two groups. However, as the so-
cial distance scale in this study is composed of two opposite factors
(i.e., affinity and avoidance), emotional solidarity may also have two
extremes (e.g., solidarity and discord). If the ESS can be expanded to
embrace such possibility, the emotional solidarity framework
would become more widely applicable, even to examining desti-
nations suffering from negative consequences of tourism (e.g.,
gambling, drug use, prostitution, etc.).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.08.012.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing.
Anand, P., Holbrook, M. B., & Stephens, D. (1988). The formation of affective judg-
ments: The Cognitive-affective model versus the independence hypothesis.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 386e391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209176.
Anastasopoulos, P. G. (1992). Tourism and attitude change: Greek tourists visiting
Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 629e642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0160-7383(92)90058-W.
Babbie, E. R. (2016). The practice of social research. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index. Tourism Man-
agement, 22(2), 127e133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00049-2.
Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents' perceptions of the
cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303e319. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00066-4.
Bogardus, E. S. (1929). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9,
299e308.
Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, 17,
265e271.
Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., Perdue, R. R., & Long, P. (2014). Empowerment and
resident attitudes toward tourism: Strengthening the theoretical foundation
through a Weberian lens. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 33e50. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.08.005.
Burch, W. R. (1969). The social circles of leisure: Competing explanations. Journal of
Leisure Research, 1(2), 125e147.
Chen, C. C., & Lin, Y. H. (2012). Segmenting mainland Chinese tourists to Taiwan by
destination familiarity: A factor-cluster approach. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 14(4), 339e352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.864.
Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology: Towards an explanatory science. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Collins, R. (1993). Emotional energy as the common denominator of rational action.
Rationality and Society, 5(2), 203e230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1043463193005002005.
Dean Runyan Associates. (2016). The economic impact of travel on Texas: 1994-2015p.
Portland, OR: Dean Runyan Associates.
Doxey, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and
research inferences. In Proceedings from travel and tourism research Association's
(TTRA) 6th annual conference (pp. 195e198). San Diego, CA: TTRA.
Draper, J., Woosnam, K. M., & Norman, W. C. (2011). Tourism use history: Exploring
a new framework for understanding residents' attitudes toward tourism.
Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 64e77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0047287509355322.
Durkheim, E. (1912). The elementary forms of religious life. New York, NY: Free Press.
Evans-Pritchard, D. (1989). How “they” see “us”: Native American images of
255
tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(1), 89e105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0160-7383(89)90032-7.
Fredericksburg, C. V. B. (2015). Annual report 2014. Fredericksburg, TX: Fredericks-
burg CVB.
Fredericksburg, C. V. B. (2016). We're blossoming: Annual report 2015. Fredericks-
burg, TX: Fredericksburg CVB.
Fredericksburg, C. V. B. (2017). The faces of Fredericksburg hospitality: Annual report
2016. Fredericksburg, TX: Fredericksburg CVB.
Hasani, A., Moghavvemi, S., & Hamzah, A. (2016). The impact of emotional solidarity
on residents' attitude and tourism development. PLoS One, 11(6), e0157624.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157624.
Havitz, M. (1991). On fudgies, fishing and track meets: Some thoughts on leisure
travel and travel research. In J. B. Zeiger, & L. M. Caneday (Eds.), Tourism and
leisure: Dynamics and diversity (pp. 41e51). Arlington, VA: National Recreation
and Park Association.
Huber, E., & Stephens, J. D. (1993). Political parties and public pensions: A quanti-
tative analysis. Acta Sociologica, 36(4), 309e325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
000169939303600401.
Joo, D., Woosnam, K. M., Shafer, C. S., Scott, D., & An, S. (2017). Considering Tobler's
first law of geography in a tourism context. Tourism Management, 62, 350e359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.03.021.
Kaell, H. (2014). Walking where Jesus Walked: American Christians and Holy Land
pilgrimage. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Karakayali, N. (2009). Social distance and affective orientations. Sociological Forum,
24(3), 538e562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01119.x.
Kidwell, I. J., & Booth, A. (1977). Social distance and intergenerational relations. The
Gerontologist, 17(5), 412e420.
Koulack, D., & Tuthill, J. A. (1972). Height perception: A function of social distance.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 4(1), 50e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0082289.
Lai, I. K. W., & Hitchcock, M. (2017). Local reactions to mass tourism and community
tourism development in Macau. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(4), 451e470.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1221413.
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational
reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
60(1), 44e51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0044430.
Li, X., & Wan, Y. K. P. (2017). Residents' support for festivals: Integration of
emotional solidarity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(4), 517e535. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1224889.
Manstead, A. S. R., & Hewstone, M. (1996). Blackwell encyclopedia of social psy-
chology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Milman, A., Reichel, A., & Pizam, A. (1990). The impact of tourism on ethnic atti-
tudes: The Israeli-Egyptian case. Journal of Travel Research, 29(2), 45e49. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728759002900207.
Mok, C., & Armstrong, R. W. (1996). Sources of information used by Hong Kong and
Taiwanese leisure travelers. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 3(1),
31e35.
Monterrubio, C. (2016). The impact of spring break behaviour: An integrated threat
theory analysis of residents' prejudice. Tourism Management, 54, 418e427.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.12.004.
Nyaupane, G. P., Teye, V., & Paris, C. (2008). Innocents abroad: Attitude change
toward hosts. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 650e667. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.annals.2008.03.002.
Ott, R. L., & Longnecker, M. T. (2010). An introduction to statistical methods and data
analysis. Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Park, R. E. (1924). The concept of social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 8(5),
339e344.
Parrillo, V. N., & Donoghue, C. (2005). Updating the Bogardus social distance
studies: A new national survey. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 257e271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.011.
Pearce, J. A. (1980). Host community acceptance of foreign tourists: Strategic con-
siderations. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(2), 224e233. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0160-7383(80)90005-5.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1),
65e85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65.
Pi-Sunyer, O. (1989). Changing perceptions of tourism and tourists in a Catalan
resort town. In V. L. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and guests: The anthropology of tourism
(pp. 187e199). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pindiyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1981). Econometric models and economic forecasts.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book.
Pizam, A., Jafari, J., & Milman, A. (1991). Influence of tourism on attitudes: US
students visiting USSR. Tourism Management, 12(1), 47e54. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0261-5177(91)90028-R.
Prentice, R. (2004). Tourism familiarity and imagery. Annals of Tourism Research,
31(4), 923e945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.02.008.
Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2000). Evoking Ireland: Modeling tourist propensity.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 490e516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-
7383(99)00085-7.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2002). Cultural differences between Asian tourist
markets and Australian hosts, Part 1. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 295e315.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728750204000308.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2002). Cultural differences between Asian tourist
markets and Australian hosts: Part 2. Journal of Travel Research, 40(4), 385e395.
256 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287502040004004.
Ribeiro, M. A., Woosnam, K. M., Pinto, P., & Silva, J. A. (2017). Tourists' destination
loyalty through emotional solidarity with residents: An integrative moderated
mediation model. Journal of Travel Research, 1e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0047287517699089.
Simpson, J. J., & Simpson, P. M. (2016). Emotional solidarity with destination se-
curity forces. Journal of Travel Research, 1e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0047287516675063.
Sinkovics, R. R., & Penz, E. (2009). Social distance between residents and interna-
tional tourists-Implications for international business. International Business
Review, 18(5), 457e469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.06.002.
Snepenger, D., Snepenger, M., Dalbey, M., & Wessol, A. (2007). Meanings and con-
sumption characteristics of places at a tourism destination. Journal of Travel
Research, 45(3), 310e321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287506295909.
Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel behavior from past
travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research,
37(2), 171e177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728759803700209.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, F. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Tasci, A. D. A. (2009). Social distance: The missing link in the loop of movies,
destination image, and tourist behavior? Journal of Travel Research, 47(4),
494e507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287508326534.
Tasci, A. D. A., & Severt, D. (2017). A triple lens measurement of host-guest per-
ceptions for sustainable gaze in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(6),
711e731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1225746.
Thyne, M. A., & Lawson, R. (2001). The design of a social distance scale to be used in
the context of tourism. In P. M. Tidwell, & T. E. Muller (Eds.), AP-Asia pacific
advances in consumer research (Vol. 4, pp. 102e107). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Thyne, M., Lawson, R., & Todd, S. (2006). The use of conjoint analysis to assess the
impact of the cross-cultural exchange between hosts and guests. Tourism
Management, 27(2), 201e213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.09.003.
Thyne, M., & Zins, A. H. (2004). Validating a Guttman-type social distance scale for
explaining residents' attitudes towards tourism. In G. I. Crouch, R. R. Perdue,
H. J. P. Timmermans, & M. Uysal (Eds.), Consumer psychology of tourism, hospi-
tality and leisure (pp. 33e49). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Triandis, H. C., & Triandis, L. M. (1960). Race, social class, religion, and nationality as
determinants of social distance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
61(1), 110e118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0041734.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychological Review, 117(2), 440e463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018963.
Var, T., Kendall, W., & Tarakcioglu, E. (1985). Resident attitudes towards tourists in a
Turkish resort town. Annals of Tourism Research, 12(4), 652e658. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(85)90086-6.
Weaver, C. N. (2008). Social distance as a measure of prejudice among ethnic groups
in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 779e795. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00326.x.
Weiermair, K. (2000). Tourists' perceptions towards and satisfaction with service
quality in the cross-cultural service encounter: Implications for hospitality and
tourism management. Managing Service Quality, 10(6), 397e409. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09604520010351220.
Weiermair, K., & Fuchs, M. (2000). The impact of cultural distance on perceived
service quality gaps: The case of alpine tourism. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality and Tourism, 1, 59e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J162v01n02_04.
Wilkinson, D. (2007). The multidimensional nature of social cohesion: Psycholog-
ical sense of community, attraction, and neighboring. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 40(3e4), 214e229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-
007-9140-1.
Woosnam, K. M. (2011). Testing a model of Durkheim's theory of emotional soli-
darity among residents of a tourism community. Journal of Travel Research,
50(5), 546e558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287510379163.
Woosnam, K. M. (2011). Comparing residents' and tourists' emotional solidarity
with one another an extension of Durkheim's model. Journal of Travel Research,
50(6), 615e626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287510382299.
Woosnam, K. M. (2012). Using emotional solidarity to explain residents' attitudes
about tourism and tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3),
315e327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287511410351.
Woosnam, K. M., & Aleshinloye, K. D. (2013). Can tourists experience emotional
solidarity with residents? Testing Durkheim's model from a new perspective.
Journal of Travel Research, 52(4), 494e505. Doi: 0047287512467701.
Woosnam, K. M., & Aleshinloye, K. D. (2015). Residents' emotional solidarity with
tourists explaining perceived impacts of a cultural heritage festival. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 1e19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1096348015584440.
Woosnam, K. M., Aleshinloye, K. D., & Maruyama, N. (2016). Solidarity at the Osun
Osogbo sacred grove - a UNESCO world heritage site. Tourism Planning &
Development, 13(3), 274e291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
21568316.2015.1104380.
Woosnam, K. M., Aleshinloye, K. D., Strzelecka, M., & Erul, E. (2016). The role of place
attachment in developing emotional solidarity with residents. Journal of Hos-
pitality & Tourism Research, 1e9. Doi: 1096348016671396.
Woosnam, K. M., Aleshinloye, K. D., Van Winkle, C., & Qian, W. (2014). Applying and
expanding the theoretical framework of emotional solidarity in a festival
context. Event Management, 18(2), 141e152. http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/
152599514X13947236947428.
Woosnam, K. M., Dudensing, R. M., & Walker, J. R. (2015). How does emotional
solidarity factor into visitor spending among birders in the lower rio grande
valley of Texas? Journal of Travel Research, 54(5), 645e658. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0047287514522884.
Woosnam, K. M., Maruyama, N., Boley, B. B., & Erul, E. (2016). Stereotypes and
perceived solidarity in ethnic enclave tourism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural
Change, 1e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2016.1242596.
Woosnam, K. M., & Norman, W. C. (2010). Measuring residents' emotional solidarity
with tourists: Scale development of Durkheim's theoretical constructs. Journal
of Travel Research, 49(3), 365e380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0047287509346858.
Woosnam, K. M., Norman, W. C., & Ying, T. (2009). Exploring the theoretical
framework of emotional solidarity between residents and tourists. Journal of
Travel Research, 48(2), 245e258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287509332334.
Woosnam, K. M., Shafer, C. S., Scott, D., & Timothy, D. J. (2015). Tourists' perceived
safety through emotional solidarity with residents in two MexicoeUnited
States border regions. Tourism Management, 46, 263e273. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.022.
Yilmaz, S. S., & Tasci, A. D. A. (2013). Internet as an information source and social
distance: Any relationship? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 4(2),
188e196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-10-2012-0026.
Yilmaz, S. S., & Tasci, A. D. A. (2015). Circumstantial impact of contact on social
distance. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 13(2), 115e131. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2014.896921.
Dongoh Joo is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of
Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M
University. He holds a M.S. in applied economics and
statistics from Clemson University and a B.B.A in Tourism
Management from Kyung Hee University in South Korea.
His primary academic interest is in investigating resident-
visitor interaction and community-based tourism from
economic and sociological viewpoints; more specifically,
how emotion influences individual intention and behavior
in tourism context. Dongoh Joo has presented his works at
multiple conferences and published in journals like
Tourism Management and Community Development.
Asli D.A. Tasci (Asli.Tasci@ucf.edu) is an Associate Profes-
sor of tourism and hospitality marketing in the Depart-
ment of Tourism, Events & Attractions at the Rosen
College of Hospitality Management at the University of
Central Florida. Her research interests include tourism and
hospitality marketing, particularly consumer behavior.
She completed a number of studies measuring destination
image and branding with a cross-cultural perspective.
Kyle M. Woosnam is an Associate Professor in Natural
Resources Recreation and Tourism in the Warnell School
of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of
Georgia, USA. Kyle's research interests concern social-
cultural and economic impacts of tourism, resident-
tourist interactions within tourist destinations, and sus-
tainable tourism development and planning. Over the
course of the last 15 years he has undertaken numerous
research projects focusing on community-level tourism
impacts (e.g., social, cultural, and economic). As of 2017,
Kyle has conducted research in 15 different countries
including the United States.
Naho U. Maruyama is an Associate Professor in Regional
and Tourism Policy at Takasaki City University of Eco-
nomics, Japan. Her research interest includes tourism and
globalization, tourism and ethnic minorities, residents'
perception to ethnic tourism, and anthropology of
tourism. She has published several articles regarding
representation of ethnic culture to tourists as well as
tourists' sense of ethnic identity. Her current research
focuses on residents' attitudes towards tourism in Korean
and Brazilian neighborhoods throughout Japan.
 D. Joo et al. / Tourism Management 64 (2018) 245e257
Kayode D. Aleshinloye is a Lecturer within the Rosen
College of Hospitality Management at the University of
Central Florida. His main line of research focuses on
community cultural festivals and events, cross-cultural in-
teractions, and social impacts of tourism in the context of
indigenous cultures and world heritage sites.
View publication stats
257
Chadley R. Hollas is a Master's degree candidate in
Tourism Resource Development in the Department of
Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M
University, USA. Chadley's research interests concern the
social-cultural impacts of tourism, visitor and corporate
responsibility in vulnerable destinations, and sustainable
tourism development and planning. For over 5 years,
Chadley has been professionally active in hospitality,
events, and travel management across the United States.