CAN DISTANCE HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON PERCEIVED VALUE?

AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHICAL AND CULTURAL

DISTANCE IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY

A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of Cornell University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Hotel Administration

by
Montserrat Gatnau-Vera
August 2020
© 2020 Montserrat Gatnau-Vera
 ABSTRACT

Any tourism experience is characterized by a certain degree of distance, not only

in geographical but also in cultural terms. The existing literature suggests that distance

influences the way in which people perceive events. This thesis examines the impact of

geographical and cultural distance on perceived value in the hospitality industry in two

different consumption stages. The first study examines the impact of distances in the

post-consumption stage analyzing consumers’ satisfaction level through Tripadvisor

reviews. The second study examines the impact of distances in the pre-consumption

stage conducting a hotel choice experiment. The empirical findings prove that

geographical and cultural distances are a relevant factor influencing perceived value.
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Montserrat was born in Palma de Mallorca, Spain. She graduated from the

University of the Balearic Islands with a Bachelor in Tourism and a Master in Tourism

Economics. She worked as a consultant at The Hotel Factory and a as lecturer and

coordinator at the Council on International Educational Exchange.

iii
To the loving memory of my father.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Even though during these last years I have lived the hardest and saddest

moments in my life dealing with the cancer of my dad and mum, when I think of Cornell

I cannot help but smile. I would like to mention my sincere gratitude to my advisor Chris

for guiding me and supporting me during these times. Thanks to Helen for inspiring me

to write this thesis in her wonderful consumer behavior class. Thanks to all my

professors, both at Cornell and at the University of the Balearic Islands, who mentored

me and showed me a world of opportunities, especially to Abel and Juan. Thanks to

Obra Social La Caixa for sponsoring my master in the United States. Thanks to all the

friends that were by my side these last years. Thanks to my mum, my everything.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 5

2.1. Distance and consumer satisfaction............................................................. 5

2.2. Distance and trip choice .............................................................................. 9

3. RESEARCH AGENDA ........................................................................................... 16

4. STUDY 1: THE IMPACT OF DISTANCE IN THE POST-CONSUMPTION

STAGE ......................................................................................................................... 21

4.1. Data............................................................................................................ 21

4.2. Methods ..................................................................................................... 30

4.3. Results ....................................................................................................... 32

5. STUDY 2: THE IMPACT OF DISTANCE IN THE PRE-CONSUMPTION

STAGE ......................................................................................................................... 36

5.1. Data............................................................................................................ 36

5.2. Methods ..................................................................................................... 44

5.3. Results ....................................................................................................... 45

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 50

6.1. Summary of key findings .......................................................................... 50

6.2. Limitations ................................................................................................. 55

6.3. Implications ............................................................................................... 56

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 58

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 65

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Graphical representation of the thesis’ hypotheses ................................... 20

Figure 4.1: Destination countries by geographic market segment ............................... 23

Figure 4.2: Correlation plot for geographical and cultural distance ............................. 29

Figure 4.3: Graphical representation of the interactions .............................................. 35

Figure 5.1: Respondents’ location by ZIP code area .................................................... 39

Figure 5.2: Box plot and mean of geographical distance by destination for American
sample ........................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 5.3: Box plot and mean of geographical distance by destination for European
sample ........................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 5.4: Box plot and mean of cultural distance by destination for American sample
...................................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 5.5: Box plot and mean of cultural distance by country for European sample . 43

Figure 5.6: Log odds to select a hotel as cultural distance increases by novelty seeking
tendency ........................................................................................................................ 47

Figure 5.7: Log odds to select a hotel as review score increases by novelty seeking
tendency ........................................................................................................................ 48

Figure 5.8: Log odds to select a hotel as price increases by cultural distance ............. 48

Figure 5.9: Log odds to select a hotel as hotel review score increases by cultural
distance ......................................................................................................................... 49

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Summary of articles analyzing the relationship between distance and
consumer satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 8

Table 2.2: Summary of articles analyzing the relationship between distance and trip
choice ............................................................................................................................ 15

Table 3.1: Summary table of the thesis’ hypotheses .................................................... 19

Table 4.1: Top destinations visited by market segment by number of reviews ........... 24

Table 4.2: Summary statistics for the quantitative variables ........................................ 27

Table 4.3: Summary statistics for the qualitative variables .......................................... 28

Table 4.4: Correlations between the independent variables ......................................... 29

Table 4.5: Estimation results of the multilevel ordered logit model ............................ 33

Table 5.1: Respondents’ demographic profile.............................................................. 40

Table 5.2: Correlation between the independent variables ......................................... 41

Table 5.3: Estimation results of the conditional logit model........................................ 46

Table 6.1: Hypotheses’ results ..................................................................................... 54

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION

A common denominator of any tourism experience is distance. According to the

World Tourism Organization, tourism is defined as the activities of individuals traveling

to and staying in places outside of their usual environment for less than a consecutive

year for leisure, business or other purposes (UNWTO, 2010). Therefore, a certain degree

of geographical distance from the subject’s usual environment to the destination, is an

intrinsic component of tourism that has to be present in a trip to be considered as a

tourism activity (McKercher & Lew, 2003). Nevertheless, destinations and origins may

be distant from each other not only in geographical terms, but also in cultural, economic

or political dimensions (Berry, Guillén, & Zhou, 2010; Ghemawat, 2001). Cultural

distance, which is one of the most popular constructs in international business literature

(Shenkar, 2001), is recognized as a key factor in tourism (Liu, Li, Cárdenas, & Yang,

2018). Under the scope of international travel, cultural distance can be defined as the

extent to which the national culture of the origin country differs from the culture of the

host country (Reisinger, 2009).

Construal level theory, which is a social psychology theory, posits that

psychological distance changes people’s mental representation of events and influences

how individuals think and make judgements about these events (Trope & Liberman,

2010). The theory argues that seeing something as psychologically distant causes

individuals to think and act in systematically different ways since higher psychological

1
distance requires individuals to process events at higher levels of construal using more

central and abstract features of the events leading thus to abstract representation, even

when concrete information about these distant events is available and reliable (Liberman

& Trope, 1998; Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope, & Liberman, 2006; Rim, Uleman, &

Trope, 2009). Psychological distance is composed of spatial, social, temporal and

hypothetical distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Within the context of tourism, spatial

distance would make reference to the geographical distance between the traveler’s

origin and the visited destination (Park, Yang, & Wang, 2019). Social distance would

make reference to the cultural differences between the guest and the host’s country

(Stamolampros & Korfiatis, 2018). Temporal distance would make reference to the time

lapse between the actual trip and the moment in which the individual thinks about that

trip, which could take place either before or after the actual experience, for example

planning a trip two months in advance or providing a review two months after the trip

experience (Huang, Burtch, Hong, & Polman, 2016). Finally, hypothetical distance

would make reference to the likelihood of doing a specific trip. For example thinking

about a future trip knowing that there is a high probability to do it versus a low

probability (Wakslak, Trope, Liberman, & Alony, 2006).

The impact of psychological distance across the tourism journey is an important

research topic to explore due to the ramifications on the average consumer's value

perception. As construal level theory sustains, geographical distance and cultural

distance can influence the mental representation of the tourism experience

(Stamolampros & Korfiatis, 2018; Park et al., 2019). Consequently, these distances can

have an impact on value perception, not only in the post-consumption stage, but also in

2
the pre-consumption stage (Al-Sabbahy, Ekinci, & Riley, 2003). Value perception is a

highly personal and idiosyncratic concept (Zeithaml, 1988) that can be defined as the

difference between the customer’s evaluation of all the benefits and costs of an offering

and the available perceived alternatives (Kotler, Keller, Brady, Goodman, & Hansen,

2019).

In the post-consumption stage, value perception is linked to customer

satisfaction, which leads to positive word of mouth, higher revenues, and higher loyalty.

According to the confirmation/disconfirmation theory, consumer satisfaction can be

defined as the difference between the customer’s expectations and the customer’s

perception of the actual experience (Oliver, 1977; Oliver, 1980). Satisfied and

dissatisfied customers tend to share their opinions in online review sites such as

TripAdvisor, Booking or Expedia. Peer reviews constitute a new element of the

marketing communication mix that is beyond the control of hoteliers (Chen & Xie,

2008). Electronic word of mouth has the capacity to significantly influence consumers’

purchase decisions since peer reviews are perceived as more trustworthy than the

company’s own marketing communications (Lee & Youn, 2009). Additionally, there

is evidence that customer satisfaction increases profitability. Anderson (2012) found

that an increase of 1% in the review score of hotels, increases average daily rates and

occupancy up to 0.89% and 0.54% respectively, which leads up to an increase of 1.42%

in revenue per available room. Lastly, customer satisfaction leads to loyal customers

(Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000), which constitute a critical factor for the success of

any business organization.

3
 In the pre-consumption stage, value perception is linked to choice, which leads

to bookings. When planning a trip, customers can chose among different destinations

and different accommodation options. According to random utility theory (McFadden,

1974), the chosen option will be the one that provides the customer with the highest

level of utility, and therefore, that the customer perceives as the highest in value

considering the tradeoffs of all its attributes.

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the relationship of distance and perceived

value in the hospitality industry and determine whether distance changes the mental

representation of events as construal level theory suggests (Trope & Liberman, 2010).

On the one hand, I will explore the impact of geographical distance and cultural distance

at the post-consumption stage, that is, after the tourist has experienced the trip and

reports his/her value perception through satisfaction. On the one hand, I will explore the

impact of geographical and cultural distance at the pre-consumption stage, that is, when

the tourist chooses his/her future trip.

4
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Distance and consumer satisfaction

In the recent years, a reduced number of articles have investigated the

relationship between distance and value perception in the hospitality industry at the

post-consumption stage. These articles provide supporting evidence for the existence of

differences in the reported levels of customer satisfaction when different distances are

considered.

Stamolampros & Korfiatis (2018) analyzed the impact of geographical, cultural

and temporal distance on customer satisfaction gathering 215,035 hotel online reviews

of international tourists from Tripadvisor at 1,022 hotels located in London.

Geographical distance was measured calculating the spatial distance between central

London and the reviewer’s self-disclosed location. Cultural distance was measured

through two different indicators. On the one hand, cultural distance between the

reviewer’s home country and the United Kingdom was measured with Kogut & Singh's

(1988) cultural distance index based on Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions, which is

the most popular approach to measure cultural distance in academic research (Ahn &

McKercher, 2015). On the other hand, cultural distance was measured with a dummy

variable indicating whether the text of the review was written in the official language of

the destination, that is English, or in another language, capturing thus a proxy of the

linguistic distance between the reviewer and the destination. Finally, temporal distance

5
was measured through the elapsed months between the review date and the stay month.

Results indicated that geographical distance and temporal distance had a positive

significant effect on review score, whereas cultural distance, either captured through

Kogut & Singh's (1988) index or through the language indicator, had a negative

significant effect on overall review score (Stamolampros & Korfiatis, 2018).

Phillips, Antonio, de Almeida, & Nunes (2020) gathered 34,622 hotel online

reviews from Tripadvisor and Booking at 56 hotels in Portugal to analyze the impact of

psychic and geographical distance on consumer satisfaction. Psychic distance can be

defined as a construct capturing the distance between two countries that can include

multiple dimensions (Håkanson & Ambos, 2010). Dow & Karunaratna (2006)

developed a psychic distance stimuli indicator following Kogut & Singh's (1988)

approach. Their index accounted for cultural differences, which were also measured

through Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions, together with linguistic, religious,

educational and political differences. Phillips et al. (2020) used Dow & Karunaratna's

(2006) psychic distance stimuli measure and a geographical distance measure, which

both were converted into categorical variables, to analyze the influence of distances on

review score. Results indicated that reviewers with lower levels of distance, both in

terms of geographical and psychic distance, provided lower ratings than reviewers with

higher levels of distance (Phillips et al., 2020). Therefore, geographical and psychic

distance had a positive effect on consumer satisfaction.

Park et al. (2019) focused on the relationship between geographical distance and

satisfaction for domestic travelers analyzing 36,818 hotel online reviews from

6
Tripadvisor at 1,006 hotels located in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and San

Antonio. The authors reported a non-linear relationship between hotel service

satisfaction and geographical distance as travel distance increased consumer satisfaction

up to an inflexion point, after which, the relationship became negative (Park et al.,

2019).

Other authors analyzed online reviews at restaurants and reported similar results

regarding the impact of distance on consumer satisfaction. On the one hand, Huang et

al. (2016) analyzed 166,215 restaurant reviews from Tripadvisor in the United Sates and

found that geographical distance and temporal distance had a positive significant effect

on review scores. On the other hand, Hong, Ye, Xu, & Jin, (2018) analyzed online

reviews of Chinese restaurants on Dianping, which is considered as one of the most

popular review websites in China (Hong et al., 2018). Their dataset contained 87,669

reviews of residents and tourists. Residents were defined as those reviewers that

revealed in their profile that their residence was in the same city where the reviewed

restaurant was located, whereas tourists were those whose residence was located in a

different city. Hong et al. (2018) found that tourists were more likely to provide higher

ratings than resident reviewers. Additionally, the authors reported that tourists were also

more likely to provide enriched reviews with pictures (Hong et al., 2018).

In conclusion, the reviewed literature provides supporting evidence for the

existence of a relationship between distance and consumer satisfaction, as construal

level theory suggests. All the authors reported a positive significant effect of

geographical distance on satisfaction (Stamolampros & Korfiatis, 2018; Phillips et al.,

7
2020; Park et al., 2019; Huang et al. 2016; Hong et al., 2018), even though Park et al.

(2019) note that this positive effect reaches an inflection point, after which the

relationship becomes negative. Stamolampros & Korfiatis (2018) reported a negative

effect of cultural distance on satisfaction, whereas Phillips et al. (2020) reported a

positive effect of psychic distance on satisfaction, which includes cultural, linguistic,

religious, educational and political distance. Table 2.1 provides a summary of all the

studies.

Table 2.1: Summary of articles analyzing the relationship between distance and
consumer satisfaction

Authors Year Findings Data Methods

Reviewers with lower
distance, both in geographic
Phillips, and psychic terms (culture,
Antonio, de language, religion, education
2020
Almeida, & and political system) tend to
Nunes be less satisfied than
reviewers with higher
distance.
Geographical distance
increases satisfaction up to
Park, Yang &
2019 an inflection point, after
Wang
which the relationship
becomes negative.
Geographical distance and
temporal distance increase
Stamolampros
2018 satisfaction. Cultural
& Korfiatis
distance decreases
satisfaction.
Tourists are more likely to
Hong, Ye,
2018 provide higher ratings than
Xu, & Jin
residents.
Geographical distance and
Huang,
temporal distance increase
Burtch, Hong 2016
satisfaction. Both distances
& Polman
have a boosting effect.
34,622 hotel reviews from
Kruskal-
Tripadvisor & Booking
Wallis test, &
from July 2015 to
Pairwise
November 2016 from
comparisons
Portugal
36,818 hotel reviews from
Tripadvisor from July 2015
Multilevel
to June 2016 from New
Ordinal Logit
York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago & San Antonio
215,035 hotel reviews from
Ordinal Logit
Tripadvisor from London
87,669 restaurant reviews
from Dianping from July
Ordinal Logit
2004 to 2017 from 10 large
cities in China
166,215 restaurant reviews OLS, Ordinal
from Tripadvisor from 2003 Logit,
to 2014 from Chicago, Restaurant
Houston, Los Angeles, New fixed effects,
York, Phoenix, Seattle & & Reviewer
Philadelphia fixed effects

8
2.2. Distance and trip choice

In the last decades, an abundant number of articles have investigated the

relationship between distance and value perception in the hospitality industry at the pre-

consumption stage. These articles analyze the impact of distance on destination choice

and tourism demand, and provide supporting evidence for the existence of differences

in the likelihood to visit a destination as distance increases.

In 1970 geographer Waldo Tobler established the first law of geography when

he wrote that “everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related

than distant things” (Tobler, 1970, p.236). Research has found that tourism follows this

law presenting a distance-decay pattern as demand exponentially decreases when

distance between the tourist’s origin country and the destination country increases

(McKercher, 2018).

McKercher, Chan, & Lam (2008) confirmed the distance-decay pattern

analyzing 77.3% of total global tourism movements in 2002, which included tourism

flows between 41 origin countries and 146 destinations. The authors reported that 80%

of all international trips occurred within 1,000 kilometers of distance between the

tourist’s home country and the destination, and that with each increase of 1,000

kilometers, absolute aggregate demand decreased around 50% (McKercher et al., 2008).

Even though geographical distance might not be considered a deterministic predictor of

destination choice, it can be considered as a proxy variable accounting for other factors

that determine the attractiveness of a particular destination such as temporal or monetary

costs (Ordóñez, Ordóñez, & Torres, 2010; Prideaux, 2000; McKercher et al., 2008).

9
 Technological advances in transportation reduce the temporal and monetary

costs of travel and might distort the distance-decay pattern. To shed light regarding the

stability of the distance-decay pattern across time, Lee, Guillet, Law, & Leung (2012)

examined outbound trips of Hong Kong residents from 2001 to 2010. Results confirmed

that the distance-decay pattern did not present significant changes and remained stable

across the examined decade.

The distance-decay pattern has been empirically tested not only in regards to

geographical distance but also cultural distance. Yang, Liu, & Li (2019) analyzed

international tourism flows between 94 countries from 1995 to 2012 and reported that

both cultural distance and geographical distance had a significant negative effect on

bilateral tourism flows. Three different measures of cultural distance were computed

following Kogut & Singh's (1988) cultural distance index using Hofstede’s (1980),

Schwartz's (1999), and the World Values Survey (Inglehart, 2004) dimensions. Yang et

al. (2019) argued that as information and communication technology advances, the

negative effect of cultural distance over destination choice should be reduced over time,

as easier access to cultural information should reduce uncertainty and perceived risks of

visiting culturally distant destinations. Their assumption was confirmed as time

positively moderates the negative effect of cultural distance over tourism demand.

Specifically, the negative effect of cultural distance on tourism flows started to decline

since 2005 (Yang et al., 2019). Additionally, colonial links were found to positively

moderate the negative effect of cultural distance, whereas geographic contiguity and

language similarity were found to positively influence tourism flows (Yang et al., 2019).

10
 Along the same line, Fourie & Santana-Gallego (2013) analyzed tourism flows

from 1995 to 2008 among 159 countries (for 1,500 origin/destination combinations) and

found that tourism arrivals were significantly higher among countries with shared

cultural identity, which was measured through a world migration matrix created by

Putterman & Weil (2010) that records the share of each country’s population that

descended from people that were living in other countries in the year 1500, capturing

thus historical migration patterns. Additionally, the authors reported that colonial links,

common language, and common currency have a positive and significant effect over

tourism flows, whereas geographical distance has a negative significant effect.

Other scholars investigated the impact of language and religious similarity

between the traveler’s country and the destination country. Vietze (2012) analyzed

inbound tourism arrivals to the USA from 208 different countries from 2001 to 2005,

and Cheung & Saha (2015) analyzed inbound tourism flows to Australia from 42

different outbound countries in 2010. Both studies reported that language similarity and

religious similarity increased the number of tourist arrivals, whereas geographical

distance had a negative effect over tourist arrivals (Vietze, 2012; Cheung & Saha, 2015).

Ng, Lee, & Soutar (2007) took a different approach and conducted a survey to

analyze the relationship between perceived cultural distance and likelihood to visit a

particular destination. Their survey was answered by 200 permanent residents in

Australia, who were asked to rate on a Likert scale how similar they believed that their

background was to the culture of 11 different countries, and how likely they were to

consider visiting each of these countries in the next year for a holiday trip. A negative

11
and significant correlation was found between perceived cultural distance and

likelihood to visit the destination. Additionally, Ng et al. (2007) tested the relationship

between the perceived cultural distance (at the individual level) and traditional measures

of cultural distance (at the country level), which included Kogut & Singh's (1988)

cultural distance index based on Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. Ng et al. (2007)

reported a strong and positive correlation between the cultural distances at the country

level and the perceived cultural distance that respondents provided. Therefore, the

authors confirmed the negative impact of cultural distance over destination choice

introducing a new variable capturing each respondent’s perceived cultural distance, and

validated the appropriateness of widely used country level cultural measures as

predictors of tourism demand. Two years later, Ng, Lee, & Soutar (2009) analyzed the

impact of perceived cultural similarity and intention to visit New Zealand through a

survey answered by 262 Americans, 202 Germans, and 205 Chinese. As in their

previous study, results indicated that cultural distance decreases the likelihood to visit

the destination. Furthermore, their study revealed that respondents’ previous

international travel experience and novelty seeking tendency positively influenced the

likelihood to visit New Zealand for American and German respondents (Ng et al., 2009).

The reviewed literature indicates that not only geographical distance but also

cultural distance decreases the likelihood to visit a destination (McKercher et al., 2008;

Lee et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2019; Fourie & Santana-Gallego 2013; Vietze, 2012;

Cheung & Saha, 2015; Ng et al. 2007; Ng et al., 2009). Nevertheless, some authors

argue that distance can also be a positive factor in destination choice (Nicolau & Más,

2006; Liu et al., 2018). As Lee & Crompton (1992) said “people may travel because

12
they want to experience something new and different” (Lee & Crompton, 1992, p.733).

Even though most tourists need something familiar to be present in their trips, the

essence of tourism consists in experiencing novelty and strangeness, and therefore,

tourists are interested in destinations with sights and cultures that are different from their

own “precisely because they are different” (Cohen, 1972, p.165). A change in the

environment or routine is regarded as a primary motivation to travel (Crompton, 1979).

Nicolau & Más (2006) reported that the inhibiting role of geographical distance

is moderated by tourists’ motivations. The authors analyzed a sample of 2,127 Spanish

residents that took holidays during the last year (data was collected in 1995 by the

Spanish Center of Sociological Research) and found that distance, measured in

kilometers and in travelling time, decreased the likelihood of choosing a destination.

However, this relationship was moderated by tourists’ motivations. When tourists were

motivated to travel to discover new places, visit family and friends, or in search for

climate, the relationship between geographical distance and destination choice became

positive. In contrast, when tourists were motivated to travel to search for tranquility, the

relationship between distance and choice was even more negative.

Similar results were reported by Liu et al. (2018) in regards to cultural distance.

The authors conducted a survey asking 345 Chinese residents who planned to take an

international trip in the next two years to rate on a Likert scale their perceived cultural

distance and familiarity between China and 15 different destination countries, and to

select which of the 15 destinations they would visit. Participants were also asked to rate

on a Likert scale their cultural motivation, that is, their interest in exploring different

13
cultures. The results indicated that perceived cultural distance by itself was not a

significant predictor of destination choice, however, when cultural motivation was

introduced as a moderator, perceived cultural distance became a significant predictor of

destination choice. Respondents with a higher level of cultural motivation had a higher

probability to choose destinations that they perceived as culturally distant, whereas

those with a lower level of cultural motivation had a higher probability to choose

destinations that they perceived as less culturally distant to their origin country (Liu et

al., 2018). McKercher & du Cros (2003) also reported an underlying correlation

between travel motivation and cultural distance since travelers visiting culturally similar

destinations were more likely to travel for hedonist motivations such as recreation or

refreshment, whereas those visiting culturally different destinations were more likely to

travel for self-development purposes. Table 2.2 provides a summary of the reviewed

studies analyzing the relationship between distance and trip choice.

14
Table 2.2: Summary of articles analyzing the relationship between distance and trip
choice

Authors Year Findings Data Methods

Geographical and cultural distance

have a significant negative effect International tourism flows
Yang, Liu, Gravity
2019 on bilateral tourism flows, but the from 1995 to 2012 between
& Li model
negative effect of cultural distance 94 countries
started to decline since 2005.

Cultural motivation moderates the Survey to 345 residents in

Liu, Li,
relationship between perceived China who planned to take an Conditional
Cárdenas, & 2018
cultural distance and likelihood to international trip in the next logit
Yang
visit. two years

Language and religious similarity

International tourism arrivals
Cheung & increase tourism arrivals, whereas Gravity
2015 to Australia from 42 origin
Saha geographical distance decreases model
countries in 2010
tourism arrivals.
Shared cultural identity International tourism flows
Fourie &
significantly increases tourism from 1995 to 2008 between Gravity
Santana- 2013
arrivals, whereas geographical 159 countries (1,500 origin- model
Gallego
distance decreases tourism arrivals. destination pairs)
The geographical distance-decay Outbound trips of Hong Kong
Lee, Guillet, Aggregated
pattern did not present significant residents from 2001 to 2010
Law, & 2012 distance
changes and remained stable (data collected through a
Leung decay curve
across the examined decade. survey)
Language and religious similarity
International tourism arrivals
increase tourism arrivals, whereas Gravity
Vietze 2012 to the USA from 208 origin
geographical distance decreases model
countries from 2001 to 2005
tourism arrivals.
Perceived cultural distance Survey to 262 residents in the
Ng, Lee, & Multiple
2009 decreases the likelihood to visit a USA, 202 in Germany, and
Soutar regression
destination. 205 in China
80% of all international trips International tourism flows in
McKercher, occurred within 1,000 kilometers, 2002 between 41 origin OLS &
Chan, & 2008 and each increase of 1,000 countries and 146 Stepwise
Lam additional kilometers, decreased destinations (1,915 origin- regression
absolute demand around 50%. destination pairs)
Perceived cultural distance
Ng, Lee, & Survey to 200 residents in Spearman
2007 decreases the likelihood to visit a
Soutar Australia correlations
destination.
Multinomial
The inhibiting role of geographical Survey to 2,127 residents in
Nicolau & logit with
2006 distance is moderated by tourists’ Spain that took holidays
Más random
motivations. during the last year
coefficients

15
 3. RESEARCH AGENDA

This thesis attempts to analyze the impact of geographical and cultural distance

on perceived value in the hospitality industry during the post-consumption and the pre-

consumption stage. According to construal level theory, distance changes people’s

mental representation of events and influences how individuals think and make

judgements about these events (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Higher levels of distance

between the subject’s self and the experience involve an abstract representation of the

event, which blurs specific and incidental details leaving only general and essential

features (Maglio, 2020). Consequently, the judgments and decisions regarding distant

events are systematically shifted as a result of the abstract representation (Maglio,

2020). Based on this theory and the supporting findings reported in the literature review,

it is expected that the mental representations of the tourism experience, in the post-

consumption and the pre-consumption stage, are influenced by the level of distance that

the subject experiences, not only in geographical but also in cultural terms.

The first hypothesis of this thesis is that geographical distance significantly

influences the perceived value of a tourism experience. Two sub-hypotheses are derived

from this hypothesis, H1.1 and H1.2, each one for a different consumption stage.

According to the findings reported by Stamolampros & Korfiatis (2018), Phillips et al.

(2020), Huang et al. (2016), and Hong et al. (2018), it is expected that during the post-

consumption stage, geographical distance has a positive significant effect over

perceived value, which can be measured through consumer satisfaction. Further support

16
for this hypothesis comes from Williams, Stein, & Galguera's (2014) work. These

authors investigated the influence of distance on affect-based evaluation and found out

that abstract thinking, which is a consequence of higher levels of distance, increases

positivity improving evaluations for both positive and negative experiences alike

(Williams et al., 2014). According to the findings reported by McKercher et al. (2008),

Lee et al. (2012), Yang et al. (2019), Fourie & Santana-Gallego (2013), Vietze (2012),

and Cheung & Saha (2015), it is expected that during the pre-consumption stage,

geographical distance has a negative significant effect over perceived value, which can

be measured through likelihood to visit. Based on the fact that higher levels of

geographical distance generally require individuals to invest higher amounts of time and

money in a trip, longer distances would discourage visiting destinations located in far

away places (Ordóñez et al., 2010).

The second hypothesis of this thesis is that cultural distance significantly

influences the perceived value of a tourism experience. As in the first hypothesis, two

sub-hypotheses are likewise derived from this hypothesis, H2.1 and H2.2, each one for

a different consumption stage. Even though Phillips et al. (2020) reported that psychic

distance, which includes cultural distance together with linguistic, religious, educational

and political differences, has a positive significant effect over perceived value during

the post-consumption stage, it is expected that cultural distance has a negative

significant effect over consumer satisfaction as Stamolampros & Korfiatis's (2018)

results suggest. According to Liberman, Trope, & Wakslak (2007), in-groups are

perceived as more positive than out-groups, and therefore cultural distance would

reduce positivity. Moreover, tourists visiting culturally distant destinations may

17
experience a culture shock (Ng et al., 2007). Culture shocks are associated with

misunderstandings and feelings of stress, anxiety and uncertainty, which lead to

negative perceptions and dissatisfaction (Reisinger & Turner, 1998). In the pre-

consumption stage, it is expected that cultural distance has a negative significant effect

over perceived value according to the findings reported by Yang et al. (2019), Fourie &

Santana-Gallego (2013), Vietze (2012), Cheung & Saha (2015), Ng et al. (2007), and

Ng et al. (2009). This hypothesis is further supported by Byrne’s (1971) similarity

attraction principle, which posits that people feel attracted to others who are similar

rather than dissimilar to themselves.

The third hypothesis of this thesis is that the impact of distances over perceived

value can be moderated by individual level characteristics. According to Yoo,

McKercher, & Mena (2004) tourists’ behavior varies according to country of origin and

cultural background. Galati & Galati (2019) analyzed Tripadvisor reviews from

Americans, Chinese, and Italians and found significant cross-country differences in

customers’ perceptions. Hypothesis H3.1 will test whether the origin area of the tourists

moderates the impact of distance on consumer satisfaction, both in geographical and

cultural terms. This hypothesis will shed light on whether the impact of distance over

perceived value could depend on geographical market segment, as different geographic

market segments might present different individual level characteristics. A remarkable

individual level characteristic that influences tourists’ behavior is novelty seeking

tendency, which can be defined as “a disposition toward changing, new, or unexpected

experiences versus a disposition to avoid these experiences” (Pearson, 1970, p.199).

According to Ng et al. (2009), novelty seeking tendency has a positive effect on the

18
likelihood to visit a distant destination. Hypothesis H3.2 will test whether the

individual’s novelty seeking tendency moderates the impact of distances, both in

geographical and cultural terms, over likelihood to visit.

Two different studies will be conducted in order to test the thesis’ hypotheses.

Firstly, I will analyze the impact of distance on perceived value in the post-consumption

stage through secondary data from Tripadvisor. In this study, hypotheses H1.1, H2.1

and H3.1 will be tested. Secondly, I will analyze the impact of distance on perceived

value in the pre-consumption stage through primary data collected through a survey. In

this study, hypotheses H1.2, H2.2 and H3.2 will be tested. A summary of all the

hypotheses is provided in table 3.1 and a graphical representation in figure 3.1.

Table 3.1: Summary table of the thesis’ hypotheses

H1: Geographical distance significantly influences the perceived value of a tourism

experience.
H1.1: In the post-consumption stage, geographical distance has a positive significant effect
over perceived value, which can be measured through consumer satisfaction.
H1.2: In the pre-consumption stage, geographical distance has a negative significant effect
over perceived value, which can be measured through likelihood to visit.
H2: Cultural distance significantly influences the perceived value of a tourism
experience.
H2.1: In the post-consumption stage, cultural distance has a negative significant effect over
perceived value, which can be measured through consumer satisfaction.
H2.2: In the pre-consumption stage, cultural distance has a negative significant effect over
perceived value, which can be measured through likelihood to visit.
H3: Individual level variables moderate the impact of geographical and cultural
distance over perceived value.
H3.1: In the post-consumption stage, the subject’s geographic market segment moderates
the impact of geographical and cultural distance on consumer satisfaction.
H3.2: In the pre-consumption stage, the subject’s novelty seeking tendency moderates the
impact of geographical and cultural distance on likelihood to visit.

19
Figure 3.1: Graphical representation of the thesis’ hypotheses

20
 4. STUDY 1: THE IMPACT OF DISTANCE IN THE POST-

CONSUMPTION STAGE

4.1. Data

Secondary data from Tripadvisor was used to conduct the first study of this

thesis and test the impact of distance on perceived value in the post-consumption stage.

Tripadvisor is the world’s largest platform for travelers with more than 859 million

reviews of 8.6 million accommodations, restaurants, experiences, airlines and cruises

(US Press Center, 2020). User generated content provides real data and alleviates the

laboratory effect of traditional methods covering a more representative sample based on

customers with actual experiences at the analyzed hotels (Liu, Teichert, Rossi, Li, &

Hu, 2017). The database was facilitated by Radojevic, Stanisic, & Stanic (2017) and is

available on Mendeley.

The original dataset contains 3,488,473 Tripadvisor reviews for 13,410 hotels

across the world located in 80 different capital cities. Most reviewers reported their

origin or home location in their profile. In total, the database contained reviews from

210 different countries. According to the purpose of this study, and in order to alleviate

potential over-fitting problems (Fan, Han, & Liu, 2014), only reviews provided by

Americans, Chinese and Europeans visiting international destinations were considered.

Americans and Chinese are all the reviewers that identified their origin as either the

United States or China respectively, whereas Europeans are all the reviewers that

21
identified their origin in any of the 27 countries that belong to the European Union,

which are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia,

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,

Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,

Spain and Sweden (Europa.eu, 2020). Only reviews for leisure trips were considered,

which are the ones in which the reviewers identified the trip type as either couple,

family, friends or solo, removing thus all the reviews that identified business as the trip

type. The submission date of reviews ranged from the 31st of August 2002 to the 15th of

May 2015. In order to reduce within-hotel variation across the research period, only the

reviews that were posted during the last whole year were selected, that is from 1st

January 2014 to 31st December 2014. Finally, only complete reviews for hotels with at

least 10 reviews were considered. After all the above mentioned selections, the dataset

was reduced to a total of 150,985 complete reviews for 4,003 hotels located at 66

destinations.

The variables of interest in this study are the level of satisfaction reported by the

reviewer, and the geographical and cultural distance from the reviewer’s origin to the

destination. The dataset contained the country of origin of the reviewer and the country

where the reviewed hotel was located. Figure 4.1 presents an overview of the location

of all the hotels that were reviewed by each market segment, whereas table 4.1 provides

a summary of the top 15 destinations visited by each geographic market segment. The

dataset covers an extensive geographic area, and across markets, the United Kingdom

and Thailand are ranked in the top five destinations by number of reviews.

22
Figure 4.1: Destination countries by geographic market segment

23
Table 4.1: Top destinations visited by market segment by number of reviews

Americans Chinese Europeans

Destination Percentage Destination Percentage Destination Percentage
(Freq.) (Freq.) (Freq.)
United Kingdom 18% (9,112) Thailand 23% (791) United Kingdom 20% (18,982)
Italy 11% (5,439) Singapore 10% (346) Czechia 7% (7,200)
France 8% (4,083) Hong Kong 9% (321) Netherlands 7% (6,705)
Netherlands 5%(2,636) United Kingdom 8% (276) Italy 7% (6,598)
Thailand 5%(2,453) Taiwan 7% (242) Thailand 7% (6,353)
Czech Republic 5%(2,424) South Korea 6% (225) Hungary 6% (5,680)
Ireland 4%(1,871) Japan 6% (210) Austria 5% (4,924)
Greece 4%(1,782) Malaysia 5% (185) France 4% (3,951)
Hungary 3%(1,667) Vietnam 4% (156) Germany 4% (3,834)
Spain 3%(1,444) Netherlands 2% (67) Portugal 4% (3,581)
Austria 3%(1,331) France 2% (65) Spain 2% (2,401)
Japan 2%(1,201) Italy 2% (62) Greece 2% (2,057)
Iceland 2%(1,060) India 2% (53) Ireland 2% (1,773)
Argentina 2%(908) Czechia 1% (51) Sweden 2% (1,513)
Vietnam 2%(881) Austria 1% (39) Belgium 1% (1,442)
Others 25% Others 11% Others 20%
(12,562) (395) (19,653)
Total 100% Total 100% Total 100%
(50,854) (3,484) (96,647)

RStudio was used to compute the geographical distance between the reviewers’

country of origin and the destination country. The latitude and longitude coordinates of

the capital cities of each country were gathered using the maps package (Becker, Wilks,

Brownrigg, Minka, & Deckmyn, 2018), and the geosphere package (Hijmans, 2019)

was used to compute the shortest geographical distance between each pair of

coordinates.

24
 Cultural distance between the origin country and the destination was computed

following Kogut & Singh's (1988) cultural distance index based on Hofstede’s (1980)

cultural dimensions. In 1980, social psychologist Geert Hofstede published a

groundbreaking study in which he created four cultural dimensions describing a

country’s culture based on a survey that IBM employees filled in more than seventy

countries around the world (Hofstede, 1980). The study was later expanded and updated

introducing a fifth and a sixth measure in 1991 and 2010, respectively (Hofstede, 1991;

Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Hofstede’s cultural measures are the most

popular framework in cross-cultural research (Berry et al., 2010) and have been widely

used in a variety of domains including consumer behavior, marketing, and travel and

tourism (Manrai & Manrai, 2011). Hofstede is one of the most cited authors in social

sciences (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006) and, in 2008, he was ranked as the sixteenth

most influential business thinkers of the twentieth century by a Wall Street ranking

(Minkov & Hofstede, 2011).

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions address basic problems that all societies have to

deal with (Minkov & Hofstede, 2011). The first dimension is called “Power Distance

Index” and captures “the extent to which the less powerful members of a society accept

and expect that power is distributed unequally”. The second dimension is called

“Individualism versus Collectivism” and captures whether the society has a “preference

for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are expected to take care of

only themselves and their immediate families”. The third dimension is called

“Masculinity versus Femininity” and captures whether the society has “a preference for

achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material rewards for success”. The fourth

25
dimension is called “Uncertainty Avoidance Index” and captures “the degree to which

the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity”. The fifth

dimension is called “Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative Orientation”

and captures whether people “prefer to maintain time-honored traditions and norms

while viewing societal change with suspicion… or prefer to take a more pragmatic

approach… encouraging thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for

the future”. The sixth and last dimension is called “Indulgence versus Restraint” and

captures whether the society “allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural

human drives related to enjoying life and having fun… or suppresses gratification of

needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms” (Hofstede, n.d.).

Kogut & Singh (1988) used Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to create a

composite index to measure the degree of cultural distance between countries. This

index has been the most popular approach to measure cultural distance across countries

and academic fields (Ahn & McKercher, 2015). By 2007, 75% of studies involving the

measurement of cultural distance or cultural similarity used Kogut & Singh's (1988)

cultural index (Ng et al., 2007). Kogut & Singh's (1988) cultural distance index is

computed based on the arithmetic average of the variance-corrected difference along

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions between two countries:

%
$
' 𝐼#! − 𝐼#" *
𝐶𝑑!" = %( )/𝑛 (4.1)
𝑉#
#&'

26
where 𝐶𝑑!" is the cultural distance of the jth country from the ith country, 𝐼#! the

Hofstede’s score for the kth cultural dimension of the ith country, 𝐼#" the Hofstede’s

score for the kth cultural dimension of the jth country, 𝑉# the variance of the index on

the kth dimension, and 𝑛 the number of cultural dimensions (Kogut & Singh, 1988).

Descriptive statistics for the variables of interest, together with other control

variables that will be included in the analysis, are reported in the following tables. Table

4.2 presents the summary statistics for the quantitative variables of geographical

distance, cultural distance, and hotel price, whereas table 4.3 presents the frequencies

of the qualitative variables of review score, trip type, reviewer rank, and hotel stars. The

average geographical distance for American reviews is well above the mean of the

sample, whereas the average for European reviews is well below.

Table 4.2: Summary statistics for the quantitative variables

Americans Chinese Europeans Total

Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.)
Geographical 7,676.048 4,252.086 2,445.475 4,248.898
distance (2,852.491) (2,665.529) (3,088.604) (3,879.256)
Cultural 1.672 1.798 1.504 1.567
distance (1.052) (1.062) (0.948) (0.991)
Hotel price 223.358 175.803 167.492 186.500
(139.139) (125.906) (106.774) (121.965)

27
Table 4.3: Summary statistics for the qualitative variables

Americans Chinese Europeans Total

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)
Rating
1 863 (0.39%) 69 (0.47%) 2,528 (0.64%) 3,460 (0.55%)
2 1,483 (1.34%) 119 (1.62%) 4,190 (2.13%) 5,792 (1.84%)
3 4,807 (6.52%) 394 (8.02%) 14,101 (10.76%) 19,302 (9.21%)
4 15,599 (28.21%) 1,268 (34.43%) 39,285 (39.98%) 56,152 (35.71%)
5 28,102 (63.53%) 1,634 (55.46%) 36,543 (46.48%) 66,279 (52.69%)
Trip type
Couple 24,898 (48.96%) 1,362 (39.09%) 50,127 (51.87%) 76,387 (50.59%)
Family 12,415 (24.41%) 983 (28.21%) 22,628 (23.41%) 36,026 (23.86%)
Friends 7,828 (15.39%) 658 (18.89%) 17,617 (18.23%) 26,103 (17.29%)
Solo 5,713 (11.23%) 481 (13.81%) 6,275 (6.49%) 12,469 (8.26%)
Reviewer rank
Beginner 7,858 (15.45%) 1,027 (29.48%) 21,762 (22.52%) 30,647 (20.3%)
Reviewer 6,389 (12.56%) 448 (12.86%) 12,728 (13.17%) 19,565 (12.96%)
Senior Reviewer 7,179 (14.12%) 417 (11.97%) 13,030 (13.48%) 20,626 (13.66%)
Contributor 8,108 (15.94%) 423 (12.14%) 15,127 (15.65%) 23,658 (15.67%)
Senior Contributor 10,956 (21.54%) 603 (17.31%) 18,980 (19.64%) 30,539 (20.23%)
Top Contributor 10,364 (20.38%) 566 (16.25%) 15,020 (15.54%) 25,950 (17.19%)
Hotel stars
1 59 (0.12%) 3 (0.09%) 466 (0.48%) 528 (0.35%)
1.5 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 33 (0.03%) 34 (0.02%)
2 1,293 (2.54%) 55 (1.58%) 6,014 (6.22%) 7,362 (4.88%)
2.5 474 (0.93%) 82 (2.35%) 1,681 (1.74%) 2,237 (1.48%)
3 9,636 (18.95%) 604 (17.34%) 26,294 (27.21%) 36,534 (24.2%)
3.5 2,307 (4.54%) 326 (9.36%) 4,392 (4.54%) 7,025 (4.65%)
4 21,578 (42.43%) 945 (27.12%) 40,591 (42%) 63,114 (41.8%)
4.5 2,509 (4.93%) 331 (9.5%) 4,052 (4.19%) 6,892 (4.56%)
5 12,997 (25.56%) 1,138 (32.66%) 13,124 (13.58%) 27,259 (18.05%)

28
 The correlations among the independent variables by market segment are

presented in table 4.4 and the visualization of the correlation between geographical

distance and cultural distance is presented in figure 4.2. In the whole dataset,

geographical distance and cultural distance have a correlation of 0.396. However, the

American and Chinese market segments present a higher correlation between these two

variables.

Table 4.4: Correlations between the independent variables

Americans Chinese Europeans Total

(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)
(1) Geographical distance 1 1 1 1
(2) Cultural distance 0.578 1 0.638 1 0.284 1 0.396 1
(3) Hotel price -0.262 -0.294 0.250 0.147 -0.178 0.003 -0.195 -0.098

Figure 4.2: Correlation plot for geographical and cultural distance

29
4.2. Methods

Tripadvisor data presents a hierarchical structure that must be taken into account

in the estimation of the model as reviews are nested within hotels. Specifically, the

150,985 reviews of the sample are nested within 4,003 hotels. Multilevel modelling is

an appropriate framework to deal with the structure of the data as it accounts for the

non-independence of observations within hotels and captures hotel-specific factors that

are related to satisfaction in a statistically appropriate and efficient way (Park et al.,

2019; Diez-Roux, 2002). The dependent variable, review score, is a Likert scale that

contains five values; 1 (terrible), 2 (poor), 3 (average), 4 (good), and 5 (excellent).

Consequently, a multilevel ordinal model will be estimated to test the hypotheses. The

econometric specification of the model is as follows (Bauer & Sterba, 2011):

𝛾!" ∗ = 𝑥!" 𝛽 + 𝜇" + 𝜀!"

(4.2)
𝛾!" = m if τ()' ≤ 𝛾!" ∗ ≤ τ( for 𝑚 = 1,2,3,4,5

where 𝛾!" ∗ is the latent outcome that is linked with the observed ordinal response 𝛾!"

from review i (which is the lower-level observation) for hotel j (which is the higher-

level observation) by the cut-points 𝜏' through 𝜏* to be estimated after assuming 𝜏+ =

−∞ and 𝜏, = +∞, 𝑥!" is a row vector including the variables specified in equation 4.3,

𝜇" denotes the hotel-specific effect of hotel j that captures unobserved characteristics,

and they are realizations from a multivariate normal distribution with mean 0 and

30
variance matrix Σ, 𝜀!" is an error distributed as a logistic distribution that is independent

of 𝜇" .

𝑥!" = 𝛽' 𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑝𝑎ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 + 𝛽$ 𝐶𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒

+ T 𝛽-# 𝑆𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
#&'

+ 𝛾' (𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑝𝑎ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑆𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)

+ 𝛾$ (𝐶𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑆𝑒𝑔𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡)

+ 𝛿' 𝐻𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒

(4.3)
/

+ T 𝛿$. 𝐻𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑠

.&'

- ,

+ T 𝛿-( 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 + T 𝛿*% 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘

(&' %&'

''

+ T 𝛿,0 𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
0&'

where 𝛽 corresponds to the direct effects of the distances and the geographical market

segments, 𝛾 corresponds to the interaction effects and 𝛿 corresponds to the coefficients

of the control variables. Following standard procedure, the distance variables were

standardized in order to compute the interaction terms (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken,

2003). As reported in table 4.4, the average geographical distance was significantly

different for each market segment, being 7,676 kilometers for Americans, 4,252

kilometers for Chinese and 2,445 kilometers for Europeans. Therefore, geographical

31
distance was standardized according to the market segment in order to capture the

differences in geographical distances for the respective markets, which are a direct

consequence of territorial and geographic issues. The model will be estimated using a

maximum likelihood estimator.

4.3. Results

Table 4.5 presents the estimation results of the multilevel ordinal model. The

second column presents the results of the model that tests hypotheses H1.1 and H2.1,

whereas the third column presents the results of the model that tests hypothesis H3.1

incorporating the interaction terms.

The main model reveals that geographical distance and cultural distance have a

significant impact on review score. Geographical distance significantly increases the

likelihood to provide a higher rating on Tripadvisor (𝛽' = 0.043, p <0.001). Therefore,

hypothesis H1.1 is accepted. Specifically, for an increase of one standard deviation on

the average of the geographical distance of the reviewer’s compatriots, the odds of a

higher compared lower rating outcome is 4.39% higher (exp(0.043)-1). Cultural

distance also significantly increases the likelihood to provide a higher rating (𝛽$ = 0.029,

p <0.001). For an increase of one standard deviation on the average of cultural distance,

the odds of a higher compared lower rating outcome is 2.94% higher (exp(0.029)-1).

However, the hypothesis was that the effect of distance on review score would be

negative. Therefore, hypothesis H2.1 is rejected. Regarding geographic market

segments, it is observed that both Chinese and European travelers are more prone to

provide lower ratings in comparison to American travelers.

32
Table 4.5: Estimation results of the multilevel ordered logit model

Main effects Interaction effects

Geographical distance 0.043*** (0.011) 0.033. (0.017)
Cultural distance 0.029*** (0.006) 0.065*** (0.014)
Chinese (vs. American ) -0.532*** (0.04) -0.487*** (0.044)
European (vs. American) -0.335*** (0.013) -0.333*** (0.013)
Geographical distance * Chinese -0.097. (0.051)
Geographical distance * European 0.049** (0.016)
Cultural distance * Chinese -0.107* (0.046)
Cultural distance * European -0.045** (0.016)
Family (vs. couple) -0.013 (0.013) -0.011 (0.013)
Friends (vs. couple) -0.007 (0.014) -0.007 (0.014)
Solo (vs. couple) -0.017 (0.02) 0.005 (0.02)
Reviewer (vs. beginner) -0.166*** (0.019) -0.168*** (0.019)
Senior reviewer (vs. beginner) -0.304*** (0.019) -0.303*** (0.019)
Contributor (vs. beginner) -0.381*** (0.018) -0.386*** (0.018)
Senior contributor (vs. beginner) -0.507*** (0.017) -0.509*** (0.017)
Top contributor (vs. beginner) -0.668*** (0.018) -0.676*** (0.018)
Hotel price 0.002*** (0) 0.002*** (0)
Hotel stars1.5 (vs.1 star) -0.239 (0.784) -0.293 (0.783)
Hotel stars 2 (vs.1 star) 0.56** (0.211) 0.544* (0.213)
Hotel stars 2.5 (vs.1 star) 0.857*** (0.232) 0.854*** (0.234)
Hotel stars 3 (vs.1 star) 1.131*** (0.202) 1.097*** (0.204)
Hotel stars 3.5 (vs.1 star) 1.55*** (0.211) 1.516*** (0.213)
Hotel stars 4 (vs.1 star) 1.672*** (0.202) 1.652*** (0.204)
Hotel stars 4.5 (vs.1 star) 2.031*** (0.216) 2.003*** (0.219)
Hotel stars 5 (vs.1 star) 2.477*** (0.208) 2.456*** (0.21)
Log-Likelihood -162,452.18 -162,435.57
AIC 324,978.36 324,953.14
N (hotels) 4,003 4,003
N (reviews) 150,985 150,985

Notes: .p<0.1, *p <0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; Robust standard errors are in parentheses; The
model controls for month of review, however estimates are not presented for purposes of
brevity.

33
 The interaction terms between geographical distance and geographical market

segment indicate that the impact of distance is moderated by segment. Even though the

first interaction does not fully support H3.1 since it is only marginally significant

(𝛾' 23!%454 = -0.097, p<0.1), the second interaction term indicates that there are

significant differences in the impact of geographical distance for Americans and

Europeans reviewers (𝛾' 678094:% = 0.049, p<0.01). In regards to cultural distance, both

Chinese and Europeans present differences in comparison to Americans (𝛾$ 23!%454 = -

0.107, p<0.05; 𝛾$ 678094:% = -0.045, p<0.01). Therefore, hypothesis H3.1 is accepted.

Figure 4.3 shows the predicted probabilities of providing each rating score as

distance increases by geographical market segment setting all the control variables to

the mean or mode. The first graph shows that as geographical distance increases, the

probability of providing a review score of 5 increases for Americans and Europeans,

whereas it decreases for Chinese, even though the difference between Chinese and

Americans is only marginally significant (p<0.1). The probability of providing a score

of 5 experiencing a geographical distance 2 standard deviations below the mean of the

compatriots is around 50% for an American, 40% for a European, and 43% for a

Chinese. However, experiencing a geographical distance 2 standard deviations above

the mean of the compatriots, the probability increases for an American and a European

to 54% and 48% respectively, but decreases for a Chinese to 37%.

The second graph of figure 4.3 shows that as cultural distance increases, the

probability of providing a score of 5 increases for Americans and Europeans, whereas

it decreases for Chinese, as happens with geographical distance. For example, the

34
probability of providing a score of 5 experiencing a cultural distance 2 standard

deviations below the mean is around 49% for an American, 43% for a European, and

42% for a Chinese, whereas experiencing a cultural distance 2 standard deviations

above the mean, increases the probability for an American and a European to 55% and

45% respectively, but decreases for a Chinese to 38%.

Figure 4.3: Graphical representation of the interactions

35
 5. STUDY 2: THE IMPACT OF DISTANCE IN THE PRE-

CONSUMPTION STAGE

5.1. Data

Primary data was collected through an online survey to conduct the second study

of this thesis and test the impact of distance on perceived value in the pre-consumption

stage. The survey was implemented on Qualtrics and was designed to provide

respondents with a series of choice sets with several hotel alternatives to choose from,

which were characterized by different levels of geographical and cultural distance.

A total of 9 touristic island destinations were selected across the globe. These

were Hawaii, Cuba, Jamaica, Mallorca, Capri, Santorini, Seychelles, Sri Lanka and Bali.

Each respondent was asked to select two destinations from the list. Firstly, he/she was

asked to select the destination that he/she perceived as the most similar to his/her own

cultural background. Secondly, he/she was asked to select the destination that he/she

perceived as the most different to his/her own cultural background. These questions

included a list of links to the official tourism webpage of each destination to allow

respondents to learn more about each destination they were not familiar with. Survey

logic rules were implemented in order to only include in the following sections of the

survey the two destinations that the respondent selected as the most similar and the most

different ones. The purpose was that each respondent would always be faced with a

hotel option located in a destination that he/she perceived as culturally similar and

36
another hotel option located in a destination that he/she perceived as culturally distant,

enhancing thus variation in cultural distance.

The survey allowed to estimate measures at the individual level, which are

expected to outperform the country level measures of cultural distance and geographical

market segment that were used in the first study (Ng et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2018). The

perceived cultural distance score for the most similar and the most distant destination

was computed for each respondent through a nine item scale adapted from Lee, Chen,

Liou, Tsai, and Hsieh (2018) asking respondents to rate how different they think that

they would find a series of items at the selected destinations in comparison to their own

cultural background using a 5-point Likert scale. These items included environment,

lifestyle, food and eating habits, cleaning habits, modes of transportation, religious

beliefs, relationships, social norms, and values.

Respondents’ novelty seeking tendency was estimated through an eight item

scale adapted from Lee & Crompton's (1992) scale to measure novelty seeking tendency

in tourism contexts. The scale asked respondents to rate using a 5-point Likert scale the

extent to which they agreed with the following items: I enjoy experiencing a sense of

danger on a vacation trip, I enjoy activities that offer thrills, I seek adventure on my

vacation, I want to experience new and different things on my vacation, I want to

experience customs and cultures different from those in my own environment on

vacation, I want a sense of discovery to be involved as part of my vacation, I want to

travel to relieve boredom, and I don’t like to plan a vacation trip in detail because it

takes away some of the unexpectedness.

37
 The second part of the survey implemented a discrete choice experiment.

Respondents were primed to make them assume they were going to take a one week

leisure trip during the next year with their significant other (or friend) to an island where

they would enjoy a combination of cultural and relaxing activities including visiting

national heritage, trying typical cuisine, experiencing the culture and traditions, and

enjoying the natural landscape of the destination. Each respondent was presented with

a total of 6 choice sets, each one with 3 alternatives and a no purchase option, and had

to choose his/her preferred alternative in each of the choice sets. The alternatives were

hotels with four attributes, which were destination, hotel price, hotel Tripadvisor score,

and number of Tripadvisor reviews. The values for the attributes of price, score and

reviews were randomly generated for each alternative that each respondent faced with

the purpose of having random variation in these variables. Price levels were adapted to

the average price for a double room in a mid-range hotel at the destination. That is, each

alternative was programmed to show a price that was computed through the average

price at that destination and a random multiplier, which was programmed to range from

0.65 to 1.35. In each choice set, the respondent was informed of the average price of

hotels at the destinations to allow him/her to compare prices. Tripadvisor review score

and number of reviews were also generated randomly for each alternative. Review score

and number of reviews were programmed to range from 3 to 5, and from 1 to 2,500,

respectively.

The third part of the survey asked respondents’ demographic information such

as their country of birth, age, gender, marital status, household income, and formal

education. Respondents were also asked for the total number of leisure trips taken to an

38
international destination during the last 5 years, their proficiency level in English as well

as in the official languages of the destinations that they selected as the most culturally

similar and dissimilar. Additionally, respondents were asked to provide their ZIP code

with the purpose of then obtaining the latitude and longitude of their location and

compute their exact geographical distance to the destinations following the same

procedure as in study 1. A complete copy of the survey is provided in the appendix.

After Cornell’s Institutional Review Board for Human Participant Research

granted exemption to this project, a beta version of the survey was tested with 50

graduate students from Cornell University, after which some technical improvements

were implemented. The target population of the study were Americans and Europeans.

Respondents were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk and were paid $1 as a

compensation for participating in the study. In total 197 responses were collected

between the 26th of May and the 2nd of June 2020. A total of 100 respondents were from

the United States and 97 from any of the 27 countries that comprise the European Union.

Figure 5.1 presents an overview of the location of all respondents according to their ZIP

code area, and table 5.1 presents their demographic profile.

Figure 5.1: Respondents’ location by ZIP code area

39
Table 5.1: Respondents’ demographic profile

Americans Europeans Total

Freq. (Percentage) Freq. (Percentage) Freq. (Percentage)
Gender
Male 55 (55%) 69 (71.13%) 124 (62.94%)
Female 45 (45%) 28 (28.87%) 73 (37.06%)
Age
25 or younger 13 (13%) 20 (20.62%) 33 (16.75%)
26 - 35 47 (47%) 35 (36.08%) 82 (41.62%)
36 - 45 23 (23%) 27 (27.84%) 50 (25.38%)
46 - 55 10 (10%) 12 (12.37%) 22 (11.17%)
56 - 65 5 (5%) 3 (3.09%) 8 (4.06%)
66 or older 2 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.02%)
Marital status
Unmarried 49 (49%) 66 (68.04%) 115 (58.38%)
Married 49 (49%) 25 (25.77%) 74 (37.56%)
Other 2 (2%) 6 (6.19%) 8 (4.06%)
Household income
Less than $25,000 16 (16%) 34 (35.05%) 50 (25.38%)
$25,000 – $49,999 28 (28%) 48 (49.48%) 76 (38.58%)
$50,000 - $74,999 23 (23%) 14 (14.43%) 37 (18.78%)
$75,000 - $100,000 21 (21%) 1 (1.03%) 22 (11.17%)
Over $100,000 12 (12%) 0 (0%) 12 (6.09%)
Formal education
Middle school 0 (0%) 2 (2.06%) 2 (1.02%)
High school 27 (27%) 34 (35.05%) 61 (30.96%)
Bachelor 58 (58%) 38 (39.18%) 96 (48.73%)
Graduate (Master or PhD) 15 (15%) 23 (23.71%) 38 (19.29%)
Level of English
Understand a little bit 0 (0%) 2 (2.06%) 2 (1.02%)
Medium 1 (1%) 21 (21.65%) 22 (11.17%)
Very fluent 9 (9%) 59 (60.82%) 68 (34.52%)
Native/Bilingual 90 (90%) 15 (15.46%) 105 (53.30%)
Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.)
Leisure trips in last 5 years 2.280 (3.479) 4.278 (3.843) 3.264 (3.788)

Novelty seeking tendency 3.480 (0.718) 3.562 (0.618) 3.520 (0.670)

40
 Each respondent was presented with 6 choice sets, and each choice set contained

3 alternatives and a no purchase option. Therefore, each respondent was faced with 18

alternatives with attributes and 6 opt out alternatives, one per choice set. Following

Aizaki & Nishimura (2008), the attributes of the opt out alternatives were all given a

score of 0 in order to normalize the representative component of utility to 0. The

correlations among the alternative specific variables, without considering the no

purchase option, are presented in table 5.2. Additionally, the correlation with the

individual’s novelty seeking tendency is also presented in table 5.2. Geographical

distance and cultural distance have a correlation of 0.477, whereas the other alternative

specific variables have very low correlations, as these were randomly generated. Note

that the price variable is the multiplier of the average price for a double room in a mid-

range hotel at the destination, allowing thus the analysis of the price effect for each

alternative independently of the level of prices at the destination.

Table 5.2: Correlation between the independent variables

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) Geographical distance 1
(2) Cultural distance 0.477 1
(3) Hotel price 0.017 0.007 1
(4) Hotel reviews score -0.022 -0.020 0.007 1
(5) Hotel number of reviews -0.012 -0.016 -0.009 -0.020 1
(6) Novelty seeking tendency -0.088 0.084 -0.007 -0.004 0.007 1

Figures 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 present a series of box plots showing the range and

mean of geographical and cultural distance for each destination by geographic market

41
segment. In regards to geographical distance, Cuba and Jamaica are the closest

destinations for Americans, whereas Capri, Mallorca and Santorini are the closest

destinations for Europeans. In regards to cultural distance Hawaii is the closest

destination for Americans, whereas Capri and Mallorca are the closest for Europeans.

Figure 5.2: Box plot and mean of geographical distance by destination for American
sample

Figure 5.3: Box plot and mean of geographical distance by destination for European
sample

42
Figure 5.4: Box plot and mean of cultural distance by destination for American sample

Figure 5.5: Box plot and mean of cultural distance by country for European sample

43
5.2. Methods

Discrete choice experiments are a stated preference method based on random

utility theory. Random utility postulates that when an individual chooses an alternative

from a specific choice set, he/she selects the alternative that provides the highest level

of utility among all the available options (McFadden, 1974). When choosing an

alternative, the utility that respondent i obtains from alternative j is:

𝑈!" = 𝑥!" 𝛽 + 𝜀!" (5.1)

where 𝑥!" is a row vector including the variables specified in equation 5.2, which capture

the systematic observable component of utility and 𝜀!" is the random unobservable

component of utility, which is assumed to be independent and following the Extreme

Value Type I distribution. The conditional logit model is:

𝑥!" = 𝐴𝑆𝐶 + 𝛽' 𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑝𝑎ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 + 𝛽$ 𝐶𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒

+ 𝛾' (𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑝𝑎ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑁𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 )

+ 𝛾$ (𝐶𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑁𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 ) (5.2)

+ 𝛿' 𝐻𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 + 𝛿$ 𝐻𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒

+ 𝛿- 𝐻𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠

where 𝐴𝑆𝐶 represents the alternative specific constant, 𝛽 corresponds to the direct

effects of the distances, 𝛾 corresponds to the interaction effects, and 𝛿 corresponds to

the coefficients of the control variables. As in study 1, variables were standardized in

44
order to compute the interaction terms (Cohen et al. 2003), and geographical distance

was standardized by market segment (Americans vs. Europeans) as the average

geographical distance was again significantly different.

5.3. Results

Table 5.3 presents the estimation results of the conditional logit model, which

takes into account not only the attributes of the selected option but also the attributes of

the other alternatives in each choice set. The second column presents the results of the

model that only includes alternative specific variables and tests hypotheses H1.2 and

H2.2, the third column presents the results of the model that tests hypothesis H3.2

incorporating the interaction terms, and the fourth column presents the results of a model

that additionally tests interactions of novelty seeking and distance with hotels’

attributes, which according to a likelihood ratio test, significantly improve the model

(𝜒 $ (6)= 32.152, 𝑝<0.000).

The model that only includes the alternative specific variables reveals that the

coefficient for geographical distance is not significant (𝛽' = 0.075, p =0.271), whereas

the coefficient for cultural distance is significant (𝛽$ = 0.223, p <0.05). Therefore,

geographical distance to the destination where the hotel is located does not affect the

likelihood to choose that hotel, however cultural distance does significantly increase the

likelihood to choose it. Consequently, hypotheses H.1.2 and H.2.2 are rejected.

Regarding the hotels’ attributes, it is observed that price significantly decreases the

45
likelihood to choose the hotel, whereas review scores and number of reviews

significantly increase the likelihood to choose the hotel.

Table 5.3: Estimation results of the conditional logit model

Main Interaction Additional

effects effects interaction
hypotheses effects
Alternative specific constant -2.932*** -2.936*** 1.219
Geographical distance 0.075 0.074 0.063
Cultural distance 0.223* 0.239** -0.343*
Hotel price -0.583*** -0.587*** -0.777***
Hotel reviews score 2.202*** 2.226*** 1.95***
Hotel number of reviews 0.153*** 0.156*** 0.148***
Novelty seeking tendency * Geographical distance 0.055 0.038
Novelty seeking tendency * Cultural distance 0.194* 0.331***
Novelty seeking tendency * Hotel price 0.115
Novelty seeking tendency * Hotel reviews score -0.29**
Novelty seeking tendency * Hotel number of reviews -0.036
Cultural distance * Hotel price 0.346*
Cultural distance * Hotel reviews score 0.666***
Cultural distance * Hotel number of reviews 0.024
Log-Likelihood -1,317.4 -1300.5 -1,284.5
N (respondents) 197 197 197
N (choice sets) 1,182 1,182 1,182
N (alternatives) 4,728 4,728 4,728

Notes: .p<0.1, *p <0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

The second model reveals that novelty seeking tendency does not moderate the

impact of geographical distance over hotel choice (𝛾' = 0.055, p=0.436), but does

moderates the impact of cultural distance (𝛾$ = 0.194, p<0.05). Therefore hypothesis

H3.2 is partially accepted. The third model indicates that novelty seeking tendency also

moderates the impact of hotel review score over hotel choice, however, it does not

46
moderate the effect of price and number of reviews. Additionally, the third model

reveals that cultural distance significantly moderates the impact of hotel price and hotel

reviews score, but not of hotel number of reviews. Figures 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9 present

the graphical representation of the interactions.

Figure 5.6 shows the log odds of selecting a hotel according to novelty seeking

tendency as cultural distance increases setting all the other variables to the mean. For

high novelty seekers, the likelihood of selecting a hotel does not change as cultural

distance increases, however, for low novelty seekers, the likelihood of selecting a hotel

decreases as cultural distance increases.

Figure 5.6: Log odds to select a hotel as cultural distance increases by novelty seeking
tendency

Figure 5.7 shows the log odds of selecting a hotel according to novelty seeking

tendency as the hotel’s review score increases. Higher review scores increase the

likelihood to select a hotel for both high novelty seekers and low novelty seekers,

47
however, review scores above the mean have a higher impact on low novelty seekers

than high novelty seekers.

Figure 5.7: Log odds to select a hotel as review score increases by novelty seeking
tendency

Figure 5.8 shows the log odds of selecting a hotel according to cultural distance

to the destination as hotel’s price increases. Lower prices only increase significantly the

likelihood to select the hotel for individuals with low levels of cultural distance to the

destination.

Figure 5.8: Log odds to select a hotel as price increases by cultural distance

48
 Finally, figure 5.9 shows the log odds of selecting a hotel according to cultural

distance to the destination as hotel’s review score increases. Higher review scores

increase the likelihood to select the hotel for all the individuals, however, the effect is

larger for individuals with higher cultural distance to the destination where the hotel is

located.

Figure 5.9: Log odds to select a hotel as hotel review score increases by cultural
distance

49
 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

6.1. Summary of key findings

The purpose of this thesis was to analyze the impact of geographical and cultural

distance on perceived value in the hospitality industry in the post-consumption and pre-

consumption stages to determine whether distance changes the mental representation of

events as construal level theory suggests (Trope & Liberman, 2010). The first study

tested the impact of geographical and cultural distance on perceived value in the post-

consumption stage analyzing 150,985 Tripadvisor hotel reviews from Americans,

Chinese and Europeans. The second study tested the impact of geographical and cultural

distance on perceived value in the pre-consumption stage analyzing the results of a

discrete choice experiment in which 197 subjects were presented with 6 choice sets with

3 hotel alternatives and a no purchase option to choose from, where each alternative was

characterized by differing levels of distance and random control attributes of hotel price,

hotel review score, and hotel number of reviews.

The first hypothesis of the thesis was that geographical distance significantly

influences the perceived value of a tourism experience. According to the literature

review, H1.1 hypothesized that geographical distance would have a positive significant

effect on consumer satisfaction. The results of the first study support the hypothesis

revealing that geographical distance significantly increases the likelihood to provide a

higher rating on Tripadvisor. H1.2 hypothesized that geographical distance would have

50
a negative significant effect over the likelihood to choose a hotel. The results of the

second study do not support the hypothesis as the coefficient of geographical distance

is not statistically significant. Therefore, the results of both studies suggest that

geographical distance influences the perceived value during the post-consumption

stage, but not during the pre-consumption stage.

The second hypothesis of the thesis was that cultural distance significantly

influences the perceived value of a tourism experience. According to the literature

review, H2.1 hypothesized that cultural distance would have a negative significant

effect over consumer satisfaction. The results of the first study do not support the

hypothesis as cultural distance turned out to have a positive significant effect over

consumer satisfaction, as geographical distance did. H2.2 hypothesized that cultural

distance would have a negative significant effect over the likelihood to choose a hotel.

The results of the second study do not support the hypothesis as the coefficient of

cultural distance turned out to have a positive significant effect over the likelihood to

choose a hotel. Therefore, the results of both studies suggest that cultural distance

positively influences the perceived value both during the post-consumption stage, and

the pre-consumption stage.

The third hypothesis of the thesis was that individual level variables could

moderate the impact of geographical and cultural distance over perceived value. H3.1

hypothesized that the subject’s geographic market segment could moderate the impact

of distances over consumer satisfaction. The first study introduced an interaction

between each distance and the geographical market segment of the reviewers, America,

51
Europe, or China. Results indicate that the geographical market segment moderates the

impact of distance on review score. Higher levels of distance increase the probability of

providing a review score of 5 for Americans and Europeans, whereas it decreases the

probability for Chinese reviewers. As geographical distance increases, Europeans

experience a steeper increase to the likelihood of providing a review score of 5, whereas

Americans experience a steeper increase here when cultural distance increases. H3.2

hypothesized that the subject’s novelty seeking tendency could moderate the impact of

distances over the likelihood to choose a hotel. The second study introduced an

interaction between each distance and the subject’s novelty seeking tendency, which

was estimated through an eight item scale adapted from Lee & Crompton's (1992) scale

to measure novelty seeking tendency in tourism contexts. Results indicate that novelty

seeking tendency moderates the impact of cultural distance over likelihood to choose a

hotel, whereas it does not moderate the impact of geographical distance, which was

neither significant in the main effects model. As cultural distance increases, the

likelihood to select a hotel decreases for low novelty seekers, whereas it remains stable

for high novelty seekers. Consequently, the impact of cultural distance over perceived

value is negative for low novelty seekers. Gören (2017) argued that novelty seeking

traits are associated to a dopamine D4 receptor gene, and therefore, novelty seeking

tendency could be heritable to some extent (Cesarini, Dawes, Johannesson,

Lichtenstein, & Wallace, 2009; Zhong et al., 2009). Gören (2017) created a proxy

variable to capture novelty seeking tendency at the country level based on Gören's

(2016) study of the worldwide distribution of the dopamine D4 exon III 2- and 7-repeat

allele frequency (𝐷𝑅𝐷4;$;< ). According to Gören's (2017) results, Americans are

52
higher than Chinese in novelty seeking traits, as the 𝐷𝑅𝐷4;$;< is 0.2636 for the United

States and 0.2008 for China. This could explain why in study 1 the impact of distance

over perceived value is negative for Chinese reviewers, whereas it is positive for

American reviewers. A summary table with the thesis hypotheses, the empirical results

and the outcomes is presented in table 6.1.

53
Table 6.1: Hypotheses’ results

Hypothesis Empirical results Outcome

H1: Geographical distance significantly influences the perceived value of a Partially
tourism experience. supported
H1.1: In the post-consumption stage, geographical Geographical distance has a Supported
distance has a positive significant effect on positive significant effect on
perceived value, which can be measured consumer satisfaction
through consumer satisfaction.
H1.2: In the pre-consumption stage, geographical Geographical distance has a Rejected
distance has a negative significant effect on positive but not significant
perceived value, which can be measured effect on likelihood to visit
through likelihood to visit.
H2: Cultural distance significantly influences the perceived value of a Supported
tourism experience.
H2.1: In the post-consumption stage, cultural Cultural distance has a Rejected
distance has a negative significant effect on positive significant effect
perceived value, which can be measured over consumer satisfaction
through consumer satisfaction.
H2.2: In the pre-consumption stage, cultural Cultural distance has a Rejected
distance has a negative significant effect on positive significant effect
perceived value, which can be measured over likelihood to visit
through likelihood to visit.
H3: Individual level variables moderate the impact of geographical and Partially
cultural distance over perceived value. supported
H3.1: In the post-consumption stage, the subject’s Higher levels of Supported
geographic market segment moderates the geographical and cultural
impact of geographical and cultural distance distance increase the
on consumer satisfaction. probability of providing a
score of 5 for Americans and
Europeans, whereas it
decreases the probability for
Chinese reviewers.
H3.2: In the pre-consumption stage, the subject’s Lower levels of cultural Partially
novelty seeking tendency moderates the distance increase the supported
impact of geographical and cultural distance likelihood to visit for low
on likelihood to visit. novelty seeking individuals.

54
6.2. Limitations

The first study presents a series of limitations that could hamper the

generalizability of the results. On the one hand, distance variables are at the country

level and consequently might not properly reflect the actual geographical and cultural

distance that the reviewer experienced in the trip. Geographical distance was computed

as the spatial distance from the capital of the reviewer’s country to the capital of the

destination country. Consequently the geographical distance for an American traveling

to Mexico is estimated as the geographical distance from Washington D.C. to Mexico

City, which is 3,032 kilometers. Even though all the hotels are located in the capital of

the destination, in this particular case Mexico City, the reviewer might live in a closer

location, such as Houston, and his/her real distance to the destination could be 1,281

kilometers. Regarding cultural distance, also all Americans are assumed to have the

same cultural distance to Mexico based on Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions, even

though it could be the case that the reviewer is descendant of Mexicans and

consequently would probably perceive a lower cultural distance to the destination. On

the other hand, data from Tripadvisor might arise a self-selection bias problem due to

the voluntary nature to provide online reviews (Han & Anderson, 2020).

The second study also presents some limitations to bear in mind. On the one

hand, respondents were only presented with a limited set of nine destinations to pick the

one that they perceived as the most culturally similar and the most culturally different

to their own cultural background. The list of destinations was selected with the aim of

providing a set of destinations that would probably be perceived as culturally similar for

55
Americans and Europeans, such as Hawaii and Mallorca, respectively, as well as

dissimilar, such as Seychelles or Bail. Nevertheless, it would have been convenient to

extend the choice set to allow respondents to choose other destinations that they might

perceive as more or less similar to their own cultural background. On the other hand,

stated preference methods might pose additional challenges to the generalizability of

results as consumers’ self-reported intentions might not perfectly predict future

purchase behavior (Chandon, Morwitz, & Reinartz, 2005).

6.3. Implications

On the one hand, the results of this thesis contribute to the academic literature

providing additional supporting evidence for the existence of differences in the

perceived value of tourism experiences according to the level of distance experienced

by the subject, not only in geographical but also in cultural terms. On the other hand,

these findings provide managerial implications for hotels.

According to study 1, geographical and cultural distance to the destination

significantly increase the review score provided on Tripadvisor. Consequently, hotel

managers should encourage reviews from customers coming from countries that are

farther, in geographical and cultural terms, to the destination where the hotel is located.

Additionally, managers should pay special attention to customers coming from closer

countries and find ways to enhance their experience and increase their satisfaction level.

Last but not least, managers should keep in mind that the main effects are not consistent

across markets and should differentiate their clients by geographical market segment,

56
as distance increased the level of satisfaction for American and European reviewers, but

not for Chinese.

According to study 2, cultural distance significantly increases the likelihood to

choose a hotel. Therefore, hotel managers would benefit highlighting in their marketing

activities the cultural traits that differentiate the destination from the source market in

order to raise awareness of cultural differences that can act as a pull factor for potential

guests. However, they must bear in mind that this strategy would have a negative effect

for individuals low in novelty seeking tendency.

57
 REFERENCES

Ahn, M. J., & McKercher, B. (2015). The Effect of Cultural Distance on Tourism: A
Study of International Visitors to Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 20(1), 94–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2013.866586
Aizaki, H., & Nishimura, K. (2008). Design and Analysis of Choice Experiments
Using R: A Brief Introduction. Agricultural Information Research, 17(2), 86–94.
https://doi.org/10.3173/air.17.86
Al-Sabbahy, H. Z., Ekinci, Y., & Riley, M. (2003). An examination of perceived value
dimensions in the hospitality industry. Proceedings of the Travel & Tourism
Research Association Conference. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.197.8277&rep=rep1&t
ype=pdf
Anderson, C. K. (2012). The Impact of Social Media on Lodging Performance.
Cornell Center For Hospitality Research Report, 12(15).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766712449366
Bauer, D. J., & Sterba, S. K. (2011). Fitting Multilevel Models With Ordinal
Outcomes: Performance of Alternative Specifications and Methods of Estimation.
Psychological Methods, 16(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025813
Becker, R. A., Wilks, A. R., Brownrigg, R., Minka, T. P., & Deckmyn, A. (2018).
maps: Draw Geographical Maps. Retrieved from https://cran.r-
project.org/package=maps
Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. (2010). An institutional approach to cross-
national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9), 1460–1480.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.28
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2009).
Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk taking. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 124(2), 809–842. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.809
Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict
behavior? self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of
Marketing, 69(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.2.1.60755
Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2008). Online consumer review: Word-of-mouth as a new
element of marketing communication mix. Management Science, 54(3), 477–491.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0810
Cheung, Y. H., & Saha, S. (2015). Exploring the nexus between tourism demand and

58
 cultural similarity. Tourism Analysis, 20(2), 229–241.
https://doi.org/10.3727/108354215X14265319207551
Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research,
39(1), 164–182.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, N.J.: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 6(4), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)90004-5
Diez-Roux, A. V. (2002). A glossary for multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 56(8), 588–594. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.8.588
Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. (2006). Developing a multidimensional instrument to
measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies,
37(5), 578–602. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400221
Europa.eu. (2020). The 27 member countries of the EU. Retrieved February 28, 2020,
from https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en#the-27-member-
countries-of-the-eu
Fan, J., Han, F., & Liu, H. (2014). Challenges of Big Data analysis. National Science
Review, 1(2), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwt032
Fourie, J., & Santana-Gallego, M. (2013). Ethnic reunion and cultural affinity.
Tourism Management, 36, 411–420.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.002
Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial
distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17(4),
278–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01698.x
Galati, F., & Galati, R. (2019). Cross-country analysis of perception and emphasis of
hotel attributes. Tourism Management, 74(November 2018), 24–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.011
Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance Still Matters. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137–
147. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5134712&site
=ehost-live
Gören, E. (2016). The biogeographic origins of novelty-seeking traits. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 37, 456–469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.005
Gören, E. (2017). The persistent effects of novelty-seeking traits on comparative
economic development. Journal of Development Economics, 126, 112–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.12.009
Håkanson, L., & Ambos, B. (2010). The antecedents of psychic distance. Journal of

59
 International Management, 16(3), 195–210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2010.06.001
Han, S., & Anderson, C. K. (2020). Customer Motivation and Response Bias in
Online Reviews. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 61(2), 142–153.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965520902012
Hijmans, R. J. (2019). geosphere: Spherical Trigonometry. Retrieved from
https://cran.r-project.org/package=geosphere
Hofstede, G. (n.d.). The 6-D model of national culture. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from
https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-hofstede/6d-model-of-
national-culture/
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-
related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind (3rd ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hong, H., Ye, Q., Xu, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Travel and Online Review Behavior.
PAICS 2018 Proceedings, 3.
Huang, N., Burtch, G., Hong, Y., & Polman, E. (2016). Effects of multiple
psychological distances on construal and consumer evaluation: A field study of
online reviews. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(4), 474–482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.03.001
Inglehart, R. (2004). Human Beliefs and Values: A Cross- Cultural Sourcebook Based
on the 1999-2002 Values Surveys. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Kandampully, J., & Suhartanto, D. (2000). Customer loyalty in the hotel industry : the
role of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 12(6), 346–351.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s
consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural
values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry
mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432.
Kotler, P., Keller, K. L., Brady, M., Goodman, M., & Hansen, T. (2019). Marketing
Management. Pearson Education.
Lee, C. H., Chen, H. S., Liou, G. B., Tsai, B. K., & Hsieh, C. M. (2018). Evaluating
international tourists’ perceptions on cultural distance and recreation demand.
Sustainability, 10, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124360
Lee, H. ‘Andy,’ Guillet, B. D., Law, R., & Leung, R. (2012). Robustness of Distance

60
 Decay for International Pleasure Travelers: A Longitudinal Approach.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 14, 409–420.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr
Lee, M., & Youn, S. (2009). Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): How eWOM
platforms influence consumer product judgement. International Journal of
Advertising, 28(3), 473–499. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048709200709
Lee, T. H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 19(4), 732–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90064-
V
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of Feasibility and Desirability
Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal
Construal Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 113–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70017-7
Liu, H., Li, X. (Robert), Cárdenas, D. A., & Yang, Y. (2018). Perceived cultural
distance and international destination choice: The role of destination familiarity,
geographic distance, and cultural motivation. Journal of Destination Marketing
and Management, 9, 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.03.002
Liu, Y., Teichert, T., Rossi, M., Li, H., & Hu, F. (2017). Big data for big insights:
Investigating language-specific drivers of hotel satisfaction with 412,784 user-
generated reviews. Tourism Management, 59, 554–563.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.012
Maglio, S. J. (2020). Psychological distance in consumer psychology: Consequences
and antecedents. Consumer Psychology Review, 3(1), 108–125.
https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1057
Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. K. (2011). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Tourist
Behaviors: A Review and Conceptual Framework. Journal of Economics,
Finance and Administrative Science, 16(31), 23–48.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior.
Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–142.
McKercher, B. (2018). The impact of distance on tourism: a tourism geography law.
Tourism Geographies, 20(5), 905–909.
McKercher, B., Chan, A., & Lam, C. (2008). The Impact of Distance on International
Tourist Movements. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 208–224.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287508321191
McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 5(1), 45–58.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.417
McKercher, B., & Lew, A. A. (2003). Distance decay and the impact of effective

61
 tourism exclusion zones on international travel flows. Journal of Travel
Research, 42, 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287503254812
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross
Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 10–20.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601111104269
Ng, S. I., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Tourists ’ intention to visit a country :
The impact of cultural distance. Tourism Management, 28, 1497–1506.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.11.005
Ng, S. I., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). The Influence of Cultural Similarity and
Individual Factors on Visitation. TEAM Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 6(1),
68–81.
Nicolau, J. L., & Más, F. J. (2006). The influence of distance and prices on the choice
of tourist destinations: The moderating role of motivations. Tourism
Management, 27(5), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.09.009
Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure
product evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 62(4), 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.4.480
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3150499
Ordóñez, J. M., Ordóñez, M. del C., & Torres, J. L. (2010). Distance Matters: an
assessment of international tourism demand in Spain. Tourism Analysis, 15, 183–
196. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354210X12724863327687
Park, S., Yang, Y., & Wang, M. (2019). Travel distance and hotel service satisfaction:
An inverted U-shaped relationship. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 76, 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.05.015
Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationships between global and specified measures of novelty
seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34(2), 199–204.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029010
Phillips, P., Antonio, N., de Almeida, A., & Nunes, L. (2020). The Influence of
Geographic and Psychic Distance on Online Hotel Ratings. Journal of Travel
Research, 59(4), 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519858400
Prideaux, B. (2000). The role of the transport system in destination development.
Tourism Management, 21, 53–63.
Putterman, L., & Weil, D. N. (2010). Post-1500 population flows and the long-run
determinants of economic growth and inequality. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 125(November), 1627–1682.
Radojevic, T., Stanisic, N., & Stanic, N. (2017). Inside the Rating Scores: A
Multilevel Analysis of the Factors Influencing Customer Satisfaction in the Hotel
Industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58(2), 134–164.

62
 https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965516686114
Reisinger, Y. (2009). International Tourism: Cultures and Behavior. In Butterworth-
Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
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(2), 175–187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00107-0
Rim, S. Y., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and
construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait
thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1088–1097.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.015
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for
Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23–47.
Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural Distnace Revisited: Towards a More Rigorous
Conceptualization and Measurement of Cultural Differences. Journal of
International Business Studies, 32(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069495
Stamolampros, P., & Korfiatis, N. (2018). Exploring the behavioral drivers of review
valence: The direct and indirect effects of multiple psychological distances.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(10), 3083–
3099. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2017-0239
Tobler, W. R. (1970). A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit
Region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240. https://doi.org/10.2307/143141
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance.
Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
UNWTO. (2010). International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008. In
International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008.
https://doi.org/10.18111/9789217302305
US Press Center. (2020). About Tripadvisor. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from
https://tripadvisor.mediaroom.com/US-about-us
Vietze, C. (2012). Cultural effects on inbound tourism into the USA : a gravity
approach. Tourism Economics, 18(1), 121–138.
https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2012.0100
Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when
entry is unlikely: Probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 641–653.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.641
Williams, L. E., Stein, R., & Galguera, L. (2014). The Distinct Affective
Consequences of Psychological Distance and Construal Level. Journal of
Consumer Research, 40(6), 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.1086/674212

63
Yang, Y., Liu, H., & Li, X. (Robert). (2019). The World Is Flatter? Examining the
Relationship between Cultural Distance and International Tourist Flows. Journal
of Travel Research, 58(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517748780
Yoo, J. J.-E., McKercher, B., & Mena, M. (2004). Examining the Mediating Role of
Experience Quality in a Model of Tourist Experiences. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 16(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v16n01_07
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-
End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1251446
Zhong, S., Chew, S. H., Set, E., Zhang, J., Xue, H., Sham, P. C., … Israel, S. (2009).
The heritability of attitude toward economic risk. Twin Research and Human
Genetics, 12(1), 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1375/twin.12.1.103

64
APPENDIX

SURVEY

65
For the next sections of the survey, it is assumed that the
respondent selects Hawaii as the most similar destination

66
For the next sections of the survey, it is assumed that the
respondent selects Seychelles as the most different destination

67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75