Impact of Tourists’ Intercultural Interactions

Intercultural Interactions between Tourists and Local Residents

The concept of intercultural interactions can be examined from both the sociopsychological and sociological perspectives. Intercultural interactions are defined as the face-to-face contacts between people from totally different cultural backgrounds (Cusher and Brislin 1996; Muzaini 2006; Tucker and Lynch 2004; Zhang, Inbakaran, and Jackson 2006). It is believed that tourism experiences, activated by international travel, are formulated by these encounters with different cultures (Cusher and Brislin 1996; Huxley 2004; Korzay and Alvarez 2005; Maoz 2006; Thyne, Lawson, and Todd 2006). The sociopsychological view focuses on the intercultural contacts between tourists and hosts, while the sociological view emphasizes the interchangeable relationships between the tourists and local people. The simplest form of tourist encounter occurs through transactions between locals and tourists—the core of “tourism structure” (Di Domenico and Lynch 2007; Huxley 2004; Reisinger and Crotts 2010; Woosnam 2012; Woosnam and Norman 2010). Tourism is seen as a special form of human relations that includes cultural contacts and racial and social class issues (Andriotis 2006; Causevic and Lynch 2009; Jack and Phipps 2005; McNaughton 2006; Tucker and Lynch 2004; Uriely, Maoz, and Reichel 2009).

Tourism is a driving force in developing intercultural relationships among different countries (Fisher and Price 1991; Gomez-Jacinto, Martin-Garcia, and Bertiche-Haud’Huyze 1999; McIntosh and Johnson 2004). Cultural experience, the interactions between tourists and locals, makes tourism appealing and valuable (Crotts and Litvin 2003; Muzaini 2006; Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris 2008). Therefore, an essential aspect of international tourism lies in experiencing intercultural interactions (Jack and Phipps 2005; Reisinger and Crotts 2010). Gomez-Jacinto, Martin-Garcia, and Bertiche-Haud’Huyze (1999) found that cultural backgrounds (value, behavioral characteristics) have an impact not only on the sociocultural interactions but also ultimately on posttrip satisfaction.

Richardson (1996) attempted to identify the meaning and effects of contacts between international tourists and local residents through a qualitative study of international tourism experiences. She interviewed 18 Americans who had traveled overseas. From the subjective experiences of the interviewees, she concluded that intercultural contact accelerated the “discovery of the self” for the tourist. While the study found that the contact between the international tourists and the local residents could be categorized as a “negotiation with home culture” and a “tension of the tourist’s role conflict,” the structural analysis of the respective meaning was insufficient.

MacKay and Fesenmaier (2000) provides multidimensional scaling analyses as a technique for examining cross-cultural image perception and provides an example to illustrate how the number, and interpretation of image dimensions may differ between two cultures. In their cross-cultural research, Crotts and Litvin (2003) discovered that assigning participants’ national culture measures based on their country of residence provides researchers a more robust means to account for cultural differences than does either country of birth or country of citizenship. Reisinger and Crotts (2010) proffer support for Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as a measure of central tendencies of visitors from different nations. They also found international regions that cluster closely together, demonstrating that national cultural differences do not end at national borders.

As one of useful themes in the recent research of the relationship between tourists and local residents, the concept of emotional solidarity, originating in the early works of classical sociology, has taken many forms over the years (de Beer and Koster 2010) from functional, friend, group, intergenerational, etc. in research concerning the emotional bonds of individuals in the context of tourism (Woosnam, Norman, and Ying 2009). Woosnam and Norman (2010) emphasize that the theory of emotional solidarity can contribute in explaining the relationship between tourists and local residents. They developed and validated measurement properties of four scales (shared beliefs, shared behavior, interaction, and emotional solidarity), each measuring a construct within Durkheim’s model. Woosnam (2012) further investigated how the degree of emotional solidarity residents experience with tourists can influence those same residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development. The study applies emotional solidarity as an antecedent of other measures, providing empirical support for the utility of the construct in explaining residents’ attitudes about tourism and development.

Effects of Intercultural Interactions

Previous studies into the effects of intercultural interactions have employed the sociopsychological contact model focusing on identifying the relationship between the essence and attitude of the intercultural interactions between the international tourists and the local residents (Jack and Phipps 2005; Woosnam 2012). Contact theory is a sociologist’s theory on how to minimize stereotyping and discrimination. It posits that if people of different races, ethnicities, or religion make contact/interact with one another on an equal level then less stereotyping occurs. One of the views is that the social contacts between tourists and local residents from different cultural backgrounds enhance positive attitudes and mutual understanding toward each other (Amir and Ben-Ari 1985; Nyaupane, Teye, and Paris 2008; Pearce 2010; Pizam, Uriely, and Reichel 2000; Tucker and Lynch 2004).

Alternatively, another view suggests that these contacts could produce negative outcomes, such as prejudice, fixed ideas, and a distrust of the other culture (Anastasopoulos 1992; McNaughton 2006; Milman, Reichel, and Pizam 1990; Thyne, Lawson, and Todd 2006). Pizam, Uriely, and Reichel (2000) argue that closer relationships between international tourists and local residents make the tourists feel more favorably toward local residents and thus lead to more positive attitudes toward them and the destination. In particular, close social relationships between the two parties were found to increase the satisfaction of international tourists with their travel experiences at the destination. Conversely, Amir and Ben-Ari (1985) insist that the intergroup contacts through tourism do not always guarantee a positive change of attitude; thus, situational and individual elements should be taken into consideration.

Anastasopoulos (1992) evaluated the attitude change of 97 Greek tourists towards the Turkish people, inclusive of their political beliefs and institutions, as a result of their visit to Turkey. He discovered that the travel to Turkey had a negative impact on the Greek tourists’ perceptions of the host population. Pizam, Uriely, and Reichel’s (2000) study with 388 working tourists in Israel demonstrates that the higher the intensity of the social relationship between the hosts and the working tourists, the more favorable were the tourists’ feelings towards their hosts. In addition, the higher the intensity of the social relationship between the hosts and the tourists, the higher was the satisfaction of these tourists with their stay and experiences. Uriely, Maoz, and Reichel (2009) explored the interactions between tourists and service employees in countries that have, historically, been hostile to each other. Based on research with Israeli tourists and Egyptian service providers in the Sinai Peninsula, their study exposed five practices through which both parties emphasize the constructive elements of interaction and avoid the possible obstruction of peaceful encounters. The study found that practices of the involved parties were provisionally abandoned after terrorist attacks in this region and then were gradually reinstated.

According to Reisinger and Turner (1998) and McNaughton (2006), intercultural interactions are characterized by the opportunities for contact, cultural exchange, language sharing, and attitude change. The individual characteristics (individual elements) of the international tourists include nationality, past experiences of overseas stays and existing attitudes (Korzay and Alvarez 2005; Lee and Lee 2009; Loentz 2006; McNaughton 2006; Milman, Reichel, and Pizam 1990; Ng, Lee, and Soutar 2007). The situational elements consist of the frequency and closeness of the interactions with the locals, and the number of interactions focusing on the equal status of tourists and locals.

One of the most comprehensive views of the variables involved in the interactions was suggested by Richardson (1996), who classified the variables into social and cultural, structural and spatial, and individual. Social and cultural variables are composed of cultural attitudes toward travel, receptiveness to strangers, and intercultural contacts. Structural and spatial variables embrace the level of the tourism infrastructure, the existence of a “tourist zone,” and the number of tourists in a particular area. Situational variables include the duration of the contacts between the international tourists and local residents and their closeness, while individual variables are the motives for the travel, the desire to get involved with tourism-related activities, ethnocentrism, and the language competency of the local residents. Precedent studies have focused on identifying the variables that influence the intercultural interactions. However, this is insufficient for learning how to promote interactions between international tourists and local residents. To achieve this, it is important to understand how these variables are related to one another and how they affect the interactions.

Research Design—Naturalistic Inquiry

While the positivistic approach is the objective examination of the truth, the naturalistic inquiry hypothesizes that the truth, as a social construction, takes various shapes. The main focus of this study is the tourism phenomenon (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Tourism intrinsically embraces touristic activities and experiences, and the tourism experience represents the construction of the subjective experiences of the tourists. From this perspective, the naturalistic approach was expected to provide a better understanding of how international tourists organize their experiences. Naturalistic inquiry is a postpositivistic methodology (Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989; Ritchie and Lewis 2003; Yoo 2000) that has been largely employed in consumer behavior research to grasp the types, processes, and definitions of consumption. This methodology describes and analyzes the cultures and behaviors of individuals or groups of individuals from the interviewee’s perspective. The characteristics of the naturalistic inquiry include a natural setting, the human instrument, use of tacit knowledge, use of qualitative methods, purposive sampling, inductive data analysis, establishment of grounded theory and emergent design.

Ethnographic Interview

The ethnographic interview is conducted from the interviewees’, rather than from the researcher’s, point of view (Spradley 1979). The interview is carried out using topics of interest to the interviewee. In this process, the interviewee’s culture and language are involved and a situational interpretation is rendered. In this sense, the ethnographic interview is different from the positivistic in-depth interview conducted with predetermined questions, because it provides the views of the interviewees and allows for intuition. Because the ethnographic interview is characterized by persistent observation and prolonged engagement, a detailed description of the real experience is possible—appropriate for naturalistic research.

Five separate interviews were conducted with each respondent. During the first interview, general and comprehensive questions were asked to identify the respondent’s characteristics, topics of interest, and special experiences. After analyzing the first interview, during the second interview, the researcher asked the respondent questions to identify each domain based on the respondent’s experiences and people he or she had met. In the third interview, questions were asked to identify the structure and relationship for each domain, based on the results of the second interview. The following interview sought the differences in each domain to clarify each component of the domain and its relevant meanings. Finally, topics were derived and described synthetically from previous interviews. Newly found items were returned to the relevant step of the interview and included in the research process. Although a five-stage approach (five interviews at different occasions with each interviewee) was applied with most interviewees, some interviews were repeated to deepen the analysis (in cases where a respondent had deeper experiences and impression of overseas travel) and some stages were combined when a respondent did not have enough time for five separate interviews.

Following this five-stage approach, this study conducted systematic and structural interviews with eight respondents over a six-month period according to Spradley’s ethnographic interview method. Regarding the number of interviewees (sample number), Yoo (2000) argues that naturalistic research conducts repetitive interviews in detail to gain an in-depth understanding rather than covering a large sample size. Previous studies based on the naturalistic research principle have various sample sizes depending on the number of researchers. For example, Mick and Buhl (1992) selected three interviewees to study customers’ subjective experience of advertisements. Thompson, Locander, and Pollio (1990) conducted interviews with 10 interviewees to study married women’s daily consumption experiences.

Potential respondents were identified from the free independent traveler (FIT) or backpacker customer database of two leading Korean travel agencies (Hana Tour Company and Sejong Travel Company). Those who reported more frequent contacts and more interactive experiences with local people while they were traveling overseas were selected. Different occupations and travel experiences were also recruited with snowball sampling. This sampling process continued until the information overlapped. The interviews were conducted by the researcher, with one assistant to record each interview. All analysis was done by the researcher.

Interviewees

Purposive sampling, a nonprobability sampling method, was used to select the interviewees. Purposive sampling selects representative cases that promise the most cogent information about the topic. The focus is not on broad generalizations, but on critical cases that are particularly important under the given settings (Ritchie and Lewis 2003). This kind of sampling is conducted to gain in-depth information from the best (most informative) respondents. Eight Korean interviewees were selected.

The continuous relationship maintained with the interviewees allowed a more insightful and in-depth understanding to emerge. The interviewees were as follows: Gender (Male: three, Female: five); Destination (United States: two; Europe: two; Oceania: two; Japan: one; Southeast Asia: one), Duration of trip (one week to three months), Occupation (Student: four; Office clerk: two; Housewife: one; Unemployed: one), Education (High school graduate: three; University graduate: five), Purpose of trip (Pleasure-seeking), and Motivation for trip (Cultural heritage).

The identities of the respondents are not disclosed; the respondents are represented by a letter and number. P1 is a 32-year-old worker who has twice visited Australia and New Zealand. The interviews with P1 involved his experiences during his second visit to Australia (a backpacking trip). P1 had a wealth of local experiences including work experience on farms, backpacker accommodation, and language training. P1 helped the researcher with the member checking and card sorting. Member checking is a technique used by researchers to help improve the accuracy, credibility, validity, and transferability of a qualitative study. Member checking can be done during the interview process, or at the conclusion of the survey. The interviewer strived to build rapport with the interviewees in order to obtain honest and open responses. During an interview, the researcher restated and summarized information and then asked the participant to determine accuracy. Member checking allows interview participants to critically analyze the findings and comment on them. Card sorting is a reliable method for identifying systematic patterns in survey content. These two methods allowed the researcher to double-check the reliability and validity of the study.

P2 is a 31-year-old housewife who had a two-week trip to Australia and used mainly city and package tours. Because she had previously traveled to Southeast Asia and the United States, she described her travel to Australia by comparing it to her previous international travel experiences. P2 was selected as a distinct case in this study because her travel involved relatively limited contact with local residents. Because she had graduated from university with a major in psychology, she helped to elucidate the psychological aspects of the travel experience.

P3 is a 28-year-old male university student who had had two months of backpacking in the United States. He worked as an international camp counselor for children, in addition to traveling for more than a month around the United States. He is social, proficient in English, and is someone who sought multinational experiences. He had rich experiences from a home stay, camping, visiting various cities, and contacting many people. P4 is a 25-year-old female university student who backpacked in Europe as her first international travel. She visited the main tourist attractions with a friend. The people she met during her travels were mainly the local residents on the street and service providers. She is a curious person with limited English ability. Through interviewing P4, the researcher was able to gain an understanding of the experiences of a typical student backpacker, visiting several countries during a short schedule.

A trip to Europe was the first international travel for P5, a 28-year-old male student in his third year at university, who backpacked in Europe for one month. In addition to attending a conference in Germany, he visited tourist attractions and cities in five countries. He interacted with tourists from around the world. P5 provides an insight into the characteristics of the relationship between international tourists. P6 is a 27-year-old female worker who backpacked in Southeast Asia for a week. She traveled alone and had frequent contacts with local residents. She is an active person and shared her experiences and thoughts in detail with the researcher. P7 does not have a job and had backpacked for one month in Japan. He is fluent in Japanese, so he could communicate freely with local Japanese and also had a good relationship with tourists from other countries. Lastly, P8 has worked since graduating from high school and has basic English conversation skills. He experienced local life and culture through a home stay in the United States. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the eight interviewees.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Attributes of Interviewees.

	Gender	Age	Occupation	Destination	Duration	Type	Number of Interviews a
P1	M	32	Office clerk	Australia and New Zealand	3 months	Backpacker	7
P2	F	31	Housewife	Australia	2 weeks	FIT	6
P3	M	28	Student	Unites States	2 months	Backpacker	5
P4	F	25	Student	Europe	1 month	Backpacker	6
P5	M	28	Student	Europe	1 month	FIT	4
P6	F	27	Office clerk	Southeast Asia	1 week	FIT	5
P7	F	28	Unemployed	Japan	1 month	FIT	4
P8	F	29	Student	Unites States	2 months	Backpacker	3

Note: FIT = free independent traveler.

a.

Irrespective of number of interviews the five-stage approach was followed.

Interview Process

The interviews were tape-recorded if the respondents agreed; otherwise, handwritten notes were taken. All information recorded was transcribed. It took one to two months to complete the five stages of interviews with each of the eight interviewees. All interviews were completed in six months. The interviews were undertaken as everyday conversations as suggested by Spradley (1979). After each interview, the data were immediately analyzed. The researcher noted the parts of the data requiring clarification to ask at the next interview.

The first-stage interview, after asking about the interviewee’s demographic characteristics, asked about any particularly impressive experiences during the travel. During the second-stage interview, descriptive questions were asked to identify the main topics of interest relating to intercultural interactions: for example, What kind of people did you meet during your trip? In your opinion, what is (are) the important attribute(s) in developing interpersonal relationships with local residents?. As a result, the meaning, process, and elements of the intercultural interactions and the effect of posttrip attitudes were tentatively selected as topics.

The third-stage interview was conducted using structural questions: for example, You said that ___ is (are) important attribute(s) in building relationships with local residents. Is (are) there any other attribute(s)? Can you elaborate on the sense of “unity” that you mentioned as an attribute?. Based on the results of the interviews, domain analysis identified each domain (a category of knowledge and thought related to an interviewee’s tourism experience) and its interrelationships. The analysis was carried out using the universal semantic relationship suggested by Spradley (1979).

Both structural and contrast questions were asked in the fourth-stage interview: What is the difference between “being assimilated” and “expansion of openness?. Contrast and componential questions were used to identify the relationship among domains: How different is the status do you think between the local domestic tourists and international tourists at tourist destinations you visited?. A taxonomic analysis was conducted on results of this stage to identify the internal structure of each domain, that is, the differences and relationships among the features in each domain. A case of taxonomic analysis is presented in Table 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Characteristics of the Interaction Relations when Meeting Different People.

Role	Classification	Characteristics	Subclassification	Characteristics of Interaction
Local	Local residents (general host)Hospitality personnel (professional host)Foreigners	a) Strong diffidence as a strangerb) Low expectation of kind attitudesc) Different level of impressiond) Potential to be developed into more meaningful relationship/interaction/exchangea) High expectation of kind attitudesb) Kindness is taken for grantedc) Difficult to be developed into meaningful relationshipsWeak diffidence as a stranger/foreigner	Local residents	Meaningful and useful contact is possible with various conversation topics
			Korean residents living overseas	Low frequency in contact, but in-depth conversation is available.
			Non-Korean immigrants	Perceiving themselves as the same “strangers” in the society.
				Understanding the backstage of a society.
			Indigenous people	Experiencing difficulty in building relationship (social minority, living in limited/controlled area, temporary contact, relationship is interrupted).
			Local residents	High frequency in contact but superficial conversation.
				Mainly focused to gain concrete information.
			Korean residents living overseas	Low frequency in contact but in-depth conversation is available.
			Non-Korean immigrants	Hard to contact but in-depth interaction is possible.
			Indigenous people	Hard to contact and only superficial interaction exists.
			Discussing cultural differences.
			Providing opportunities to understand other cultures in the global stage.
Tourist	Koreans	No diffidence as a stranger/foreigner	Pursuing for sharing personal culture, more individual information and building friendship.
	Local domestic tourists	Weak diffidence as a stranger/foreigner	Considering them rather as tourists, not as local residents.

Finally, a member check was carried out in the fifth-stage interview to enhance validity and reliability. The analysis for each interview was shown to interviewees to reduce bias. To complete the interviews, the card-sorting method of Spradley (1979) was conducted on the structure of two interviewees (P1 and P2) to confirm and modify the structure analyzed by the researcher. In this technique, each domain and component is written on a card for sorting by the interviewees. Many parts were modified by this method and this technique also helped to reflect the perspective of the interviewees. After the detailed descriptions of the selected topics were completed, a member check was carried out, again by two selected interviewees (P1 and P2).

Interview Analysis and Flow of Survey

Based on the categories of interactions studied by Holmberg (1980), only the transactional contact was dealt with in this study. Transactional contact indicates “act–react” patterns taking place when each partner exchanges interactions more than once. Conversely, one-way contact, not included in the research, is an unsuccessful interaction that is observable by the partner but receives neither reaction nor attention (Holmberg 1980). The structure of the survey is diagrammatically represented in Figure 1. The collected data from the ethnographic interviews underwent technical, scope, structure, and component analyses and led to the formation of the grounded theory to be used for establishing a comprehensive model of intercultural interaction. The theory was continuously checked during the interviews until it had stabilized.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Structure of the survey.

Procedure for Determining Reliability and Validity of Research

To determine the reliability and validity of a study, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest credibility, transferability, dependability, and “confirmability.”. Efforts to obtain reliability are continuously made in naturalistic research. Reliability is mainly based on persistent observation and prolonged engagement in naturalistic inquiry. In other words, data gained from persistent observation and prolonged engagement may derive a high reliability, and subjective perspective may be minimized through triangulation, member checks, and auditing with professional experts in the field.

First, credibility corresponds to internal validity in the sense that it reflects the gap between the data and the actual situation. While positivistic research pursues internal validity, naturalistic research focuses on obtaining veracity from the interviewees on the spot by means of prolonged engagement and persistent observation. This study conducted progressive interviews and analyses. Many parts indicating the researcher’s subjectivity and prejudice were modified by this method, which ensured that the perspective of the interviewees was obtained. Conducting card sorting parallel with the structural questions enabled the interviewee’s classification to be grasped. It strengthened the interview analysis and interpretations.

Second, the results of naturalistic research suggest that hypothesis and theory are only applicable to phenomena in a certain situation at a certain time. In contrast to positivistic research that pursues external validity, naturalistic research suggests transferability between similarities in two situations. A “thick description” of the research situation is required to ensure transferability. A situation is made up of multiple layers of semantic structures where each structure is intertwined in a complex way. Ethnographic description exists in the hierarchical semantic structures between thin description and thick descriptions (Geertz 1973). An auditor was involved in this study who constantly examined the survey focusing on naturalistic research principles, impartiality of the research process and the ethnographic interview method to ensure transferability.

Third, dependability is the possibility of obtaining identical results when the research is separately conducted in a similar situation or with a similar person. Most of interviews (33 out of 40) were tape-recorded to ensure dependability and the research followed the naturalistic research process (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Ritchie and Lewis 2003).

Finally, confirmability conducts auditing in data, results, and interpretation to ensure that the results are not biased by the researcher’s subjective interpretation, interests, or motivation. This study was continuously discussed with an academic advisor to ensure confirmability. The academic advisor monitored the impartiality of this study and provided various perspectives for a broader interpretation. In addition, the construction of the research model and the validity of the theoretical evidence were thoroughly explored. The researcher maintained a reflective subjectivity against possible bias and documented interview notes to record the research processes and to solve any relevant problems (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Structure and Meanings of Intercultural Interactions of Tourists

As a result of the ethnographic interviews, the experiential structure of the intercultural interactions between the international tourists and local residents was classified into two, cultural negotiation and tourist role conflict. Cultural negotiation is recognized as the process of adaptation to the challenges of cultural differences:

If I have realized something from it (my visit), it is that I have experienced an overseas nation and lots of people, and met different people who have different values from me. Also, I now think that I need to think flexibly and differently. Something that I thought obvious from my point of view is impossible for them in their situation. For instance, I thought a small local convenience shop should be open until 9 pm (as in Korea) but they closed at 6 pm. I mean they have their own style. I was embarrassed at first but I think now we need to act like “when in Rome, do as Romans do.” (interview case 1, P5)

It is also the process whereby international tourists achieve their goals and desires relating to travel:

I love to meet people from different backgrounds. I can learn about different cultures and it always makes me reach the conclusion that all people are basically the same. When I talk to different people, I am curious (rather than simply feeling a sense of difference) to discuss cultural difference. (interview case 2, P7)

The negotiation starts with the recognition of the cultural differences and that those things taken-for-granted at home do not apply in foreign destinations; new cultural norms must be learnt to achieve travel goals:

In my opinion, we think differently because we are from different cultures. Even though we often refer to the world as a global village, there are still not many people frequently moving around the world. I had difficulty accepting different cultures in other countries. (interview case 3, P4)

Because of the differences in lifestyle or way of thinking . . . well, I think people usually don’t understand why people in different countries think differently until they meet foreigners, especially in a foreign country. After visiting other countries, I can figure them out about 70% to 80% of the time when we talk to each other. Before, I could not understand why people had a cultural gap depending on where they came from, but I am getting better at understanding via these contact experiences with them. (interview case 5, P3)

The tourist role conflict was found to arise when tourists recognized, first, the circumstantial limitations of relationships with local residents:

To begin with, tourists are situated in an unfamiliar and strange environment. They might get lost or they don’t know where good restaurants are located. . . . Tourists also think of unexpected risk and danger in a strange place. (interview case 7, P2)

second, themselves as objects of commercialism:

Maybe because it is where tourism is so popular and developed, most people in shops and restaurants were very kind, but no more than that. I mean they did not show any special further interest in me. (interview case 11, P2)

and finally, the feeling of diffidence arising from their status as strangers:

Some Koreans show less respect to tourists from less-developed countries. . . . Those tourists from less-developed countries may be from the upper class of their society or can be very wealthy; they are usually discriminated against by Koreans. But for those from industrialized and rich countries, although they don’t have to be wealthy to visit Korea, most of them are treated with more respect just because they are from a rich country. (interview case 12, P1)

We usually get a first impression or judge foreigners by where they are from unless we know them well individually. We tend to evaluate a person individually later. When we meet a stranger without knowing their personal information, we usually form an idea about them initially by their nationality or something like that. (interview case 13, P2)

These results indicate that the conventional meanings and rules of daily life can be changed by tourism activities, made unavailable or even reversed within the tourism environment.

Effects of the Intercultural Interactions of Tourists

The study found that the process of cultural negotiation experienced by the international tourist at a destination brought about three distinctive experiences: first, the reflective experience in relation to the individual discovery of the self:

If I stay at home, there are certain roles which I am expected to fill, for example as a daughter or friend. There are certain behaviors or roles expected according to my age, role, occupation and status at home which does not vary easily. But when I travel abroad, it can make me escape from these stereotypes and react differently. That is, it leads me into new ways to find myself with realizations such as, “Have I got this type of attitude, attribute, or personality inside of me?” (interview case 14, P2)

In a tourist destination, we might run into a lot of new situations or unexpected environments. Going through new circumstances, I can discover very diverse aspects of myself with realizations such as “Do I have such personality, ability, characteristics?” or “I just learned I could sort out things the way I have done, in this type of situation.” (interview case 15, P3)

second, the comparative experience developed by the recognition of cultural differences between the home country and destination:

When I visited the Versailles Palace in France, I repeatedly compared it with Gyeongbokgung Palace (most popular royal palace in Korea rebuilt in the 19th century) in Seoul, Korea. The Palace was made of marble . . . and many cultural properties were well preserved. I envy the French people as they have successfully preserved their cultural historic heritage. (interview case 19, P5)

and third, the comprehensive experience reflecting the extended perception of the international environments beyond the tourist’s home culture:

My trip has made me see more of life and think more flexibly. I don’t cling to trivialities any more since and I came to understand things more generally with more open-minded attitude. (interview case 22, P8)

I think my trip had a clear impact on my values and view of the future. (interview case 23, P7)

I made friends while traveling and established a good view of the world from the relationship with friends. It sounds like something big, but it let me understand their society by understanding them. (interview case 25, P3)

The study indicates that this process led tourists to change their perceptions and, eventually, influenced their attitudes towards the destination and its people (Table 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Experiential Structure and Characteristics of Intercultural Interaction.

Experience	Characteristics	Cognitive Viewpoint
Reflective experience (Individual aspect)	a) Experiencing discovery of the selfb) Enhanced by the process of adaptation and challenge to new cultures	Extending perception of the self → Enhanced by discovery of the “new” self
Comparative experience (National aspect)	a) Rediscovering of home countryb) Recognizing the significance of economic and political power of home countryc) Accelerated by ignorance and distortion of home country from foreigners	Extending perception of the country→ Boosted by recognition of the cultural differences between two countries (home and visiting)
Comprehensive experience (Global aspect)	a) Globalized way of thinking	Extending perception of the world→ Developed by recognizing universal cultural homogeneity
	b) Recognizing the whole world is “one”
	c) Discover the “back stage” of a foreign country
	d) Promoted by extending the scope of life

The results also show that intercultural interactions, particularly through tourism, influence the removal of biased ideas or prejudices and could result in attitude change:

When we usually think of America, we tend to think of tall buildings, a bustling street, cutting-edge high technology, wealth and high crime risk. Actually this is just a part of it and there are no big differences between life in America and that in Korea. The basics of life are the same although there is more of a mixture of races and the ways of living are different. (respondent 27, P8)

I thought there would be a big difference from my country before visiting there, because I approached them with only positive images of the country. But, after visiting, I felt people are basically the same all over the world. (interview case 28, P4)

I feel new in many ways when traveling abroad. I mean, it makes it easier to escape from the existing frame . . . I can get out of my daily routine. For this, I can acquire something new and feel much more freedom and diversity. (interview case 30, P3)

Interactions with local people acted not only as a crucial element for attitude change, but also as an element to overcome negative critical incidents likely to take place in the course of travel. The significant quality of the attitude change is that this change also affects attitudes towards people in outgroups. Thus, extended forms of attitude changing within a wider scope are possible, because the tourists make active contacts with other tourists from various cultural backgrounds in addition to contacts with local residents. According to the study, the main attributes of the intercultural interactions of tourists were identified as:

trust,

Once I think I can trust what people say and behave in a country, I feel very comfortable and I no longer feel nervous or insecure when I visit the country. (interview case 36, P3)

I think it is really necessary to trust each other in a destination first but, above all, what is most important is my own effort . . . I guess you have to keep yourself open-minded to all. (interview case 37, P1)

hospitality,

Usually we expect something nice and kind from service employees. Because offering gentle service is a key part of their job, we usually take it for granted. In short, it is expected for money paid. But it is totally different when local residents are kind to me. Because it is unexpected and in a way an unnecessary kindness, it is more impressive and it made me build a closer relation with locals with better understanding. (interview case 39, P1)

language,

Language might cause the biggest conflicts at first. There is a limitation to being familiar with one another because of difficulties in communication. (interview case 41, P3)

As I can speak Japanese, lots of people in Japan asked me questions like where I learned Japanese or how long I have stayed in Japan. Also they used to tell me about their trip to Korea or Korean friends. (interview case 42, P7)

sense of equality,

It is like feeling that someone is not unfriendly and is open-minded to a foreigner. I usually expect to be treated equally by them as everything in there seems new and unfamiliar to me. (interview case 49, P2)

Frankly speaking, I think there is a difference between the attitude of foreigners toward Japanese and that of Koreans. One of the reasons why Asians are well treated in Western countries is influenced by the Japanese people, I think. (interview case 53, P3)

No matter what ethnicity people are, no matter where they come from, we do not discriminate against anyone based on race or country of background. It is not important if they are from Korea or any other country. Just treating everyone equally is needed for tourists regardless of their race or country. (interview case 54, P1)

and ethnocentrism. Trust and hospitality stimulate relationships, whereas inequality and ethnocentrism worked as limitations to relationships. Language was found to be both a stimulant and a limitation. In particular, the sense of equality indicated a new variable not previously identified in studies examining European and American tourists. Equality here does not simply mean an equal relationship between tourists and local people, but the perception concerning whether tourists will be as fairly treated by the local residents as they expect. It is more a focus on the qualitative aspect of how local people make efforts to treat international tourists equally.

Integrated Model

The model suggested by Yoo and Sohn (2003) merely focuses on the relationship between international tourists and local residents. The new model builds on this earlier model by including the main agents, relationships, influencing variables, process, and outcome of the intercultural interactions. The model of intercultural interaction of international tourists is composed of two parts, the structure (interactions between the subject and the object and their variables) and the effects (experience and attitude) of the interaction (Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Model of the intercultural interaction of the international tourists.

The variables for the interaction include trust, hospitality, language, equality, and ethnocentrism. As the subject of the interaction, a tourist experiences the role conflicts that are accelerated by recognizing the circumstantial limitations, commercial tourism environments and the feeling of diffidence arising from their status as a stranger. It was found that tourists try to overcome the limitations of the tourism environment and the commercial systems to approach being “existential tourists” seeking “communitas” with the local residents. The international tourists develop a more comprehensive understanding of cultures through their unique experiences of the intercultural interactions that ultimately influence a change of attitudes toward local people and their culture.