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

Abstract

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

Keywords

Cross-cultural tourist behavior national culture perceptions of tour guides

Introduction

Interest in cross-cultural research has produced a plethora of studies across several disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, geography, education, political science, and marketing among others (Ramkisson et al., 2011). It is used as an important research topic for marketing and consumer studies as a determinant of production and consumption behavior of individuals and groups. Since different groups hold different values and attitudes, individuals’ behaviors also differ in various cultures (Richardson and Crompton, 1988). Therefore, culture is assumed to be one of the most important factors in explaining human behavior, and cultural differences are very useful constructs for international tourism marketing. These analyses can provide accurate criteria for targeting and positioning destinations and tourism products (Reisinger and Turner, 2002).

Cross-cultural studies are conducted to disclose and compare similarities and differences among the cultures of specific groups within the same country or among different countries (Clark, 1990; Sussmann and Rashcovsky, 1997). A number of studies have addressed cross-cultural differences in tourism in relation to behavioral characteristics (March, 1997; Kim and Prideaux, 2003; Kim et al., 2002; Kozak and Tasci, 2005; Pizam, 1999b; Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Reichel, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995; Pizam et al., 1997), travel motivations (Kay, 2009; Kozak, 2002; Lee, 2000; You et al., 2000), information search behavior (Chen, 2000; Gursoy and Chen, 2000; Gursoy and Umbreit, 2004; Jordan et al., 2013), travel patterns (Lee and Sparks, 2007; Sussmann and Rashcovsky, 1997; Xu et al., 2009; Yoo et al., 2004), satisfaction (Kozak, 2001; Reisinger and Turner, 1998; Tasci and Boylu, 2010; Turner et al., 2001; Yu and Goulden, 2006), complaining behavior (DeFranco et al., 2005; Yuksel et al., 2006), decision-making process (Correia et al., 2011; Quintal et al., 2010), attitudes toward environment (Hudson and Ritchie, 2001; Kang and Moscardo, 2006), and destination image (Kozak et al., 2004; Lee and Lee, 2009; MacKay and Fesenmaier, 2000).

Since tourist behavior is culturally conditioned, subjective, and dependent upon time and space (Reisinger and Turner, 2002), there is still room for further understanding of cross-cultural tourist behavior in different settings and destinations. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the behavioral characteristics of international tourists visiting Istanbul in guided tours as perceived by Turkish tour guides, and to examine the differences and similarities when it comes to underlying factors. It is hoped that this study can document the cross-cultural differences and similarities of international tourists, and thus provide useful insights for tour planners and marketers. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the next section provides the background of this research by reviewing existing studies in cross-cultural tourist behavior. In the Methods section, the design of the research is explained. Findings are then presented and discussed. Finally, managerial implications for tour planners and marketers as well as limitations of this study and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Literature review

Culture has been an important factor in explaining the behaviors of consumers, and a significant consideration for managers and marketers. According to Geertz (1973: 39), culture is “a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge and attitudes towards life.” Hofstede (2001) defined culture as the collective programing of the mind that distinguishes the members of one category of people from those of another. As such, culture can be referred to as differences between groups of people who do things differently and perceive the world differently (Potter, 1989). In this vein, researchers advocate that different groups have distinct cultural patterns, and their values and behaviors are determined by their cultures (Li, 2014). Moreover, culture associated with nationality has been widely recognized as one of the most influential factors differentiating peoples’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Chen, 2000). Since tourism has an international character, an understanding of cultural patterns of tourist groups is a prerequisite in tailoring tourism offerings (Chen and Pizam, 2006). Likewise, culture is an important factor that determines satisfaction, loyalty, intention to revisit, and holiday expectations (Reisinger and Turner, 2003). Further, tourism products and services designed on the basis of culture and cultural differences help destinations and industry players to gain a competitive edge. As such, an examination of culture and its impacts on the travel behaviors of individuals has the potential to yield valuable information for destination marketers and organizations (Meng, 2010; Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Reisinger and Turner, 2002).

Master and Prideaux (2000) argue that culture has two dimensions. One dimension is to view culture solely as nonmaterial elements of entity encompassing values, norms, conventions, and practices. The second dimension represents material elements including aspects such as where to travel, what to eat, what to buy, and how to behave while traveling (Kim et al., 2002). However, both material and nonmaterial elements of culture are shaped by the place of origin of a category of people. Although Jafari (1987) suggests that the behavior of all participants involved in the tourism process creates a distinct “tourism culture,” which is distinct from that of their routine and everyday culture, Ryan (1994 cf. Carr, 2002) notes that the sociocultural norms and values that influence individuals’ behavior are taken on holiday by tourists. Yet, national culture can be used to explain variations in the social behavior of different nationalities, particularly in international settings such as tourism experiences (Kim et al., 2002).

Based on a meta-analysis on cross-cultural research in the hospitality and tourism area, Li (2014) notes that academic inquiries into cross-cultural consumer in hospitality and tourism emerged from comparisons between highly industrialized cultures (e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom) and Asian culture, mostly represented by Japan. The interest in discovering the “Eastern Others” further expanded to South Korea and the Greater China area in the late 1990s. After 2000, more and more studies examined the differences between Chinese culture (as represented by those for China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong) and other cultures (Li, 2014).

Kozak (2001, 2002) investigated cultural differences between English and German tourists visiting Turkey and Mallorca. He reports that the nationality of tourists has a significant effect on levels of satisfaction with a destination. Kozak (2002) notes that there are similarities and differences in four motivational factors between British and German tourists who visit Turkey and Mallorca. March (1997) examined behavior patterns of Indonesian, Taiwanese, Thai, Korean, and Japanese tourists. Sabiote-Ortiz et al. (2014) compared the perceptions of Spanish and British tourists in the formation of the overall perceived value of the purchase decision-making process for a hotel stay. They found that two countries differ in their cultural dimensions. Kim and Prideaux (2003) determined significant behavioral differences among Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and American tourists in their expectations of availability of in-flight materials, their food and beverage requests, and duty-free purchases. Ozdipciner (2009) noted significant differences between German and Turkish tourists in their consumption behavior. Likewise, Tayfun and Yildirim (2010) reported culture being an important variable in determining the product selection of German and Russian tourists. Ramkisson et al. (2011) found significant differences across the respondents’ behavioral intentions, perceived authenticity, information search behavior, and destination image. Significant cultural differences in relation to information search behavior among various national groups were also reported by several studies (Chen, 2000; Gursoy and Chen, 2000; Money and Crotts, 2003). Recently, Lu and Chen (2014) examined the international travelers’ information search behavior and found that Japanese, Chinese, and American tourists primarily refer to different sources.

Conducting a series of studies on 20 typical tourist behaviors according to the perceptions of tour guides between 1995 and 1997, Pizam made four studies; one in 1995 with Sussmann from UK, in 1996 with Reichel from Israel and Jeong from South Korea, and in 1997 with Jansen-Verbeke and Steel from the Netherlands. In the study of the Israeli tour guides’ perceptions of American, British, German, and French tourists, the most different from the other groups were Americans and the most similar group to others were the French (Pizam and Reichel, 1996). In South Korea, they compared the Japanese, South Korean, and American tourists by the perceptions of South Korean tour guides (Pizam and Jeong, 1996). Korean tour guides perceived the Americans to be the most distinct among the three nations. The Japanese were perceived to be the most similar to others. The most similar nations to each other were found to be Koreans and Japanese.

In the Netherlands study, 63 Dutch tour guides were administered a questionnaire asking their opinions on 20 behavioral characteristics of Japanese, French, Italian, and American tourists in guided tours (Pizam et al., 1997). In general, the Americans were perceived to be the most distinct and the Italians the most similar to other nations. The behavioral characteristic, on which the greatest differences by nationality turned up, was “socializing with other tourists.” On the other side, the least number of perceived differences were in the variables of “trust in tourist trades people,” and “letter writing,” where all nationalities were perceived to be alike.

In all studies, Pizam and associates determined significant differences in 18 out of 20 typical behaviors. These studies confirmed the assumption that national culture is dominant in determining the tourist behavior. According to the results of these studies, differences stem from the national culture rather than the geographic factors. Although these studies have yet to explain the effects of national culture on tourist behavior, internationalization of the tourism industry suggests further research on the effect of national culture on tourist behavior. As such, this study attempts to examine behavioral characteristics of international tourists visiting Istanbul in guided tours as perceived by Turkish tour guides. It is expected that the cross-cultural analysis of behavioral characteristics across different nationalities will contribute to the existing accumulation of knowledge on cross-cultural behaviors.

Methods

This study was conducted in Istanbul, which is an important destination with a 10% increase in annual tourist arrivals. Istanbul was designated as the European Capital of Culture in 2010, and one of the top 20 Global Destination Cities ranking seventh (Hedrick-Wong and Choong, 2014). Its location as a connecting point for Europe and Asia, historical, cultural, and artistic attractions, shopping opportunities, quality venues for meetings, and conventions all contribute to make Istanbul a candidate for a major destination city. This is also confirmed by the 11.8 million tourist arrivals by the end of 2014, which comprises 32.1% of total arrivals in Turkey (Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism, 2014).

The purpose of this study was to delineate behavioral characteristics of international tourists visiting Istanbul in guided tours as perceived by tour guides. The selection of the tour guides as the study subject can be justified by the fact that tour guides are the service providers who spend the most time with the tourists. Since they interact and communicate with the tourists more intensely, it was assumed that the tour guides could reveal in-depth information on the characteristics of the nations in their tours.

For the purpose of the study, the scale developed by Pizam and Sussmann (1995) was employed. The scale had 20 behavioral characteristics of tourists on guided tours. Each behavioral characteristic was measured utilizing an anchored semantic differential scale ranging from 1 to 5 (Table 1). Tour guides were asked to check a number from 1 to 5, which represented their opinion about the extent to which the tourist behavioral characteristic was typical of specific nations. The instrument was limited to the 20 most significant typical behaviors of the tourists, and also limited to the evaluation of tour guides. The original scale yielded five dimensions: social interaction, commercial transaction, activities preferences, bargaining, and knowledge of destination (Pizam and Sussman, 1995). The scale was used and validated in further studies by Pizam and Jeong (1996), Pizam and Reichel (1996), and Pizam et al. (1997). Using a back translation approach, the scale was translated into Turkish (Brislin, 1970). Afterwards, a group of tourism experts assessed the content and understandability of those items. They were asked to edit and improve those items to enhance their clarity and readability. After making sure that the survey instrument had represented the original scale, it was finalized.

Table 1.

Twenty typical tourist behaviors.

5——————————————4——————————————3——————————————2——————————–———1
Interact with other tourists	Keep to themselves
Socialize with other tourists	Avoid socializing
Congregate with tourists from other nationalities	Congregate only with tourists from same nationality
Travel in groups	Travel by themselves
Take long trips	Take short trips
Buy souvenirs	Do not buy souvenirs
Buy gifts for friends and relatives	Do not buy gifts for friends and relatives
Trust tourist-trade people	Suspicious of tourist-trade people
Interested in people	Interested in artifacts
Prefer local foods and drinks	Avoid local foods and drinks
Visit places in loose and unplanned manner	Plan their tours rigidly
Shop constantly	Do not shop at all
Bargain at shopping	Pay asking price
Want to see the “real thing”	Satisfied with “staged” attractions/events
Adventuresome	Safe
Active	Passive
Interested in novelty	Interested in familiar things
Take photographs	Do not take photographs
Write letters/postcards	Do not write letters (postcards)
Knowledgeable about the destination and well prepared	Not knowledgeable about the destination and well unprepared

Due to limitations to access tour guides, an online data collection method was utilized to collect data. The sample of the study comprised 1550 professional tour guides registered to mail groups of TUREB-Union of Tourist Guides and IRO-Chamber of Istanbul Tour Guides. The tour guides were informed that they could complete more than one survey if they were to evaluate more than one nation. The questionnaire was uploaded into a survey site designed for researches and the link of the questionnaire was electronically mailed to tour guides working in Istanbul in February 2013. They were reminded of the questionnaire four times until June 2013. A total of 417 questionnaires were saved in the system, but 22 were excluded due to missing data. Since the number of completed questionnaires was insufficient for further analysis for several nations, these were also excluded from further analysis and a total of 375 usable questionnaires were taken into consideration. The questionnaires subject to analysis were responses of 346 tour guides.

Since the purpose of this study was to examine Turkish professional tour guides’ perceptions of behavioral characteristics of international tourists visiting Istanbul and to identify the differences and similarities among tourists from different nations, an exploratory factor analysis was employed to delineate the underlying dimensions of 20 typical tourist behaviors. After identifying the underlying dimensions, a series of one-way analysis of variance was used to identify the similarities and differences among those tourists from different nations. Tukey’s honestly significant difference tests (HSD) were carried out to identify the significant differences (p < 0.05).

Results and discussion

A total of 346 Turkish tour guides participated in the survey and they completed a total of 375 questionnaires. These responses involved seven nationalities, namely American (72), French (52), German (51), British (47), Italian (49), Spanish (48), and Japanese (56). On the basis of the tour guides’ evaluation of the typical tourist behaviors, the key characteristics of seven nationalities on the basis of mean scores are presented below.

American

Interacted with other tourists in the group (4.31) and with other nations and socialized (4.19); took long trips (3.97); shopped frequently (3.33) and bought souvenirs (4.21); wanted to see the real thing (4.26) and were interested in novelty (4.24); active during the tour (3.90); were interested in the local food (4.03); took photos (4.17); and knowledgeable about the destination (3.94).

Spanish

Interacted with other tourists (4.63) in the group and socialized more (4.48); did not congregate with other tourists from other nationalities (2.42); traveled in groups (4.04); took long trips (3.73) but visited places in an unplanned manner (3.73); did not shop constantly (2.44) but bargained rigorously (4.73); interested in artifacts and novelty (4.04); very active during tours (4.19); took photographs (4.35); had adequate information about the destination (3.65); and interested in local food (4.10).

French

Interested in real things (4.17); knowledgeable about the destination (4.08); interested in local food (4.08); did not shop much (2.15) but suspicious of tourist-trade people (1.92); took long trips (3.79) and planned their tours rigidly; interested in localities rather than people (2.37); active during the tour (3.67) and interested in novelties (3.63); interacted with other tourists (3.88) in the group and socialized (3.73), but congregated with their own nationality (1.94).

German

Interested in real things (4.24); knowledgeable about the destination (4.24) and took photos (4.24); interacted with other tourists (3.98) and socialized with other tourists (3.59); did not congregate with other nationalities (1.96); traveled in groups (3.90) and planned their tours rigidly; although suspicious of tourist-trade people (2.10), when they shopped they bargained (3.65); were active during the tour (3.86) and interested in novelty (3.86).

British

Interacted with other tourists in the group (4.06) and socialized (4.04); rarely congregated with tourists from other nationalities (2.47); did not shop frequently (2.02) nor buy souvenirs (2.51); active during the tour (4.09); interested in localities and novelty (4.19); not interested in people (2.23); adventuresome (3.77); took photographs (4.47); and well prepared about the destination (4.45).

Italian

Interacted with other tourists (4.43) and socialized much (4.29); did not congregate with tourists from other nationalities (2.37); traveled in groups (3.96) and visited places in loose and unplanned manner (3.86); open to local artifacts and novelty (3.59); although suspicious of tourist-trade people (2.77), they shopped constantly (3.34) and bargained heavily (4.65); active during the tour (4.00); adventuresome (3.55); took photographs (4.12); and had average information about the destination (3.18).

Japanese

It could be said that they neither interacted with other tourists (2.98) nor socialized (2.73), nor congregated with tourists from other nationalities (1.89); mostly traveled in groups (4.45); took longer trips (3.84); shopped heavily bought souvenirs (4.29) and gifts for their friends and relatives (4.23); passive during the tour; had average interest in novelties (3.50); not interested in local food (2.79); took many photographs (4.98); and not much knowledge about the destination (2.73).

The study findings suggested that American, French, German, British, Italian, and Spanish tourists interacted with other tourists in the group, and they socialized with other tourists in the group. One exception to this was the Japanese tourists. However, it was also seen that the above groups did not congregate with other tourists from different nationalities during the tours. This could be attributed to communication problems arising from language skills. In the same manner, it could be noted that the reason why American tourists mixed with other tourists was that their mother tongue had become an international language. On the contrary, British tourists seemed to mix only with tourists from the same nationality. This could be explained by the fact that the British were seen as being rigid and firm by the studies of Pi-Sunyer (1977 cf. Pizam, 1999a).

Japanese and Spanish tourists preferred to travel in groups. The Italians and Germans followed this preference. It had also been confirmed earlier that Japanese preferred to travel in groups (Cho, 1991 cf. from Meng, 2010). Consequently, the findings of the current study were coherent with the previous studies. On the other hand, the American and Japanese tourists were found to take longer trips, and this could be explained by the geographical distances of both countries to reach Turkey. Similarly, Americans and Japanese seemed to send postcards and letters more frequently than the other nations. Although the advances experienced in information and communication technology diminish the demand for postcards, it seems that quality-produced postcards are still desired.

According to the perceptions of the tour guides, all nations, except Americans, were suspicious of Turkish tourist-trade people. In contrast to this finding, it had been previously found that both Japanese and American tourists had higher trust in tourist-trade people as in the case of South Korea and England (Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995). In line with the current study, Italian and French tourists were also found to be highly suspicious about tourist-trade people in England. As a result, low shopping (buying souvenirs and gifts) among all nations, except for the Japanese and Americans could be attributed to low levels of trust in Turkish tourist-trade people. Similar studies revealed that tourist expenditures of Japanese and Americans were comparably high (Reisinger and Turner, 2002; Wong and Lau, 2001). What emerged from the present study was that the Japanese were the most bargaining nation followed by Spanish and Italians, whereas Americans were found to be the ones paying for the asking price. Although Japanese hesitated to socialize, they bargained when doing a transaction which in itself requires a certain level of socialization. The results suggest that the tourist-trade people should be educated about their behaviors when dealing with tourists, in order to increase and generate their income.

Tour guides thought that Italian, Spanish, and American tourists were much more interested in residents, while the others were interested in artifacts. This finding contradicted the findings of Pizam and Jeong (1996) in their study conducted in South Korea, which observed that the Japanese were interested in people. This showed that the Japanese were much more interested in people in the destinations closer to their culture. Hence, it was important to prioritize Japanese culture in places where Japanese visited frequently, and increase the number of employees speaking Japanese.

Regarding the local food and drinks, it was seen that all nations, except the Japanese, preferred Turkish cuisine. This finding was contradictory to Pizam and Jeong’s (1996) study in South Korea. This could be attributed to differences between Turkish and Far East cuisine. This finding revealed the necessity of promoting the Turkish cuisine in tourist markets. As such, inclusion of quality local restaurants into the tour programs would increase the familiarity of tourists with the Turkish food. Moreover, promotion of Turkish cuisine in foreign markets would also contribute to the diversification of tourism products and increase the quality of experience in the country.

Further, the findings suggested that German, French, and British tourists planned their tours rigidly, while Spanish and Italian tourists traveled in a loose and unplanned manner. As such, it is suggested that the tour plan and its schedule should be strictly abided to when these nationalities are engaged. In a similar manner, prior information about the destination increases the quality of experiences, and it was apparent that all nations except for the Japanese were well prepared and knowledgeable about the destination. It can be argued that the Japanese were unable to reveal their knowledge about the destination due to their indifference in socializing.

Safety is an important human concern while traveling to unfamiliar places. The Japanese were found to prefer safety rather than adventuresome behavior. Money and Crotts (2003) attributed this fact to uncertainty avoidance that features highly among the Japanese. Similarly, they were also found to be passive during the tours. The Japanese were followed by German tourists in terms of safety quest. The adventuresome attitude of the German tourists during guided tours was explained by low uncertainty avoidance by Money and Crotts (2003), but in the case of the current study, Germans were found to follow Japanese tourists in terms of security quest. In an effort to respond to the security quest of the tourists, tour planners should take all necessary steps and collaborate with the authorities. Overall, decision makers should strive to maintain and sustain a secure environment for both the residents and visitors.

American, British, Spanish, and German tourists were found to be interested in novelty. However, Japanese and French tourists looked for familiar things during tours. Novelty and variety seeking can be considered as key factors in accounting for travelers’ decisions (Legoherel et al., 2015). Further, variety seeking has a direct effect on medium-term revisit intentions for a particular destination (Jang and Feng, 2007). Therefore, focusing on novelty and variety while hosting these nations could help managers and marketers better tailor their products. Meanwhile, the literature suggests that taking photographs is the foremost characteristic of the Japanese tourists (Pizam and Reichel, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995; Pizam et al., 1997; Cho, 1991 cf. Meng, 2010). The findings of the current study were also coherent with the previous studies.

The exploratory factor analysis of 20 typical tourist behaviors yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (Table 2). These factors explained 55.80% of the variance and were labeled as shopping, activities, and social interaction. Eight items, which were removed from further analysis, had loading values of less than .50. The total Cronbach’s alpha value indicated that the model was internally reliable (α = .725). The appropriateness of factor analysis for 12 typical tourist behaviors was determined by Barlett’s test of sphericity = 1,260,558 p < 0.001 and the test Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) = .738, p = .000. The reliability coefficients for the three dimensions were .786 for shopping, .666 for activities, and .610 for social interaction confirming that the individual items under each factor were internally consistent. These coefficients were higher than .6 recommended by Hair et al. (2006). Unlike the previous studies, this study resulted in three factors rather than five. However, these findings still showed consistencies and similarities with previous studies (Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995).

Table 2.

Factor analysis of typical tourist behaviors.

Behaviors	Factor loadings	Variance explained	Eigenvalues	Cronbach’s alpha
Shopping		21.234	3.05	.786
Buy gifts for friends and relatives at home	.851
Buy souvenirs	.840
Shop constantly	.723
Trust tourist-trade people	.661
Activities		18.130	2.48	.666
Want to see the “real thing”	.745
Interested in novelty	.717
Active during tour	.639
Prefer local foods and drinks	.603
Social interaction		16.439	1.15	.610
Socialize with other tourists	.765
Interact with other tourists	.763
Interested in people	.552
Congregate with tourists from other nationalities	.548
Total variance explained		55.803

Further, the study used one-way analysis of variance to examine if the delineated factors varied among the nations. On the basis of the perceptions of tour operators who participated in the study, it was found that there were significant differences in all three factors among the seven nations. As can be seen in Table 3, F value for shopping was found to be 34.944 and the significance level was .000. This revealed that there were significant differences among nations in shopping dimension. Similarly, F value for activities dimension was found to be 21.233 and the significance level was found to be .000. Finally, F value for social interaction was found to be 24.798 and the significance level was .000. According to F values, the biggest differences among three factors were found in shopping; however, the social interaction was the factor that had the most distinct difference between nationality pairs.

Table 3.

Differences and similarities in typical behaviors (variance of means/significance).

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

Note: *denotes significant at .05 point level.

Next, Tukey’s HSD test to correct multiple testing was used in order to assess which nationalities differ significantly (see Table 3). Shopping was found to be the most significant difference between Japanese and British tourists. On the other hand, the most significant similarity in shopping was found between the Japanese and American tourists. This finding was coherent with the previous studies reporting the highest shopping rates for American and Japanese tourists (Pizam and Jeong, 1996; Pizam and Sussmann, 1995).

The smaller difference was determined in activities dimension. This apparently contradicted with the findings of Pizam and Jeong (1996) who noted the biggest differences to be in the activities factor. This difference could be attributed to their study being limited to three nations; Japanese, American, and Korean which means mostly Asian. In line with this, the differences in the current study arose from the Japanese tourists. Reisinger and Turner (1997, 1998) reported similar findings when it comes to the differences between Eastern and Western cultures.

Finally, the most salient difference was found to be between American and Japanese tourists in social interaction. This apparently contradicted with the findings of Pizam and Jeong (1996) who reported that Americans and Japanese had similar characteristics. The biggest similarity was between American and Spanish tourists. They were followed by Italian, British, French, and German tourists. It could be concluded that there were apparent differences among all seven nations in the study and the reason seemed to be the differences between Western and Asian tourists.

Conclusion

In recent years, the study of cross-cultural tourism behavior has become important as a result of today’s global economy making tourism a cross-cultural phenomenon. It has been repeatedly shown by the previous literature that tourist behavior is influenced by not only motivation, demographics, and lifestyle but also by the national culture, individuals, and groups hold. However, there is still need for further justification of culture’s role in the shaping of tourist behavior. This study aimed to investigate behavioral characteristics of international tourists visiting Istanbul in guided tours as perceived by Turkish tour guides, and to examine the differences and similarities when it comes to underlying factors. The findings of the study suggest that from the professional tour guides’ perspectives, there are cross-cultural differences among nations, Japanese being perceived to be the most distinct group.

The findings of this study confirm to a certain degree the results obtained by previous studies such as Pizam and Sussmann (1995), Pizam and Jeong (1996), and Pizam et al. (1997), which demonstrated that tourist behavior is affected by nationality. Study results suggest that destination planners, managers, and marketers should be concerned about the influence of cultural factors. However, as Pizam and Sussman (1995) note, nationality is only one variable that should be considered in predicting variation in tourist behavior and should not be used as a sole explanatory variable.

It is apparent that national differences will have a range of implications for management including product development, market segmentation, and promotion. Therefore, it may be concluded that the characteristics of national cultures should be taken into consideration in planning the tourist offers and marketing. Expectedly, it is not possible to alter the settings of the tour programs. However, different tour programs could be developed for different nations according to their behavioral characteristics. The findings of this study could also be used to segment the tourist market on the basis of similarities and differences among nationalities. Armed with this information on the characteristics of each nation, tour operators can design culturally homogenous tour groups in order to create an atmosphere of familiarity. This would help to increase the quality of tours and further the satisfaction levels of international tourists.

Similarly, awareness of national differences would help tour operators to position their tours effectively. Findings suggest that promotion and advertising campaigns in the seven countries are likely to be more effective when considering and using knowledge of cultural differences. In this vein, creating awareness about the tour offerings and attracting the individuals would be more effective, and efforts would not be wasted. However, as suggested by Lu and Chen (2014), different nations utilized varying information sources, and these differences should also be taken into consideration while planning the promotional efforts.

Findings revealed that American, French, German, British, Italian, and Spanish tourists interact and socialize with other tourists in the group, but do not congregate with other tourists from different nationalities during the tours. The reason for such behavior could be attributed to communication problems arising from language skills. Therefore, inclusion of multinational tourists into the same tour should be avoided. Besides the use of mother tongue of the groups, rather than an international language like English, would be more convenient for the socialization of the tour groups. This finding could further be used in planning the activities, accommodation, transfer services, etc. during the tour.

This study is limited to tourists from seven nations visiting Istanbul and participating in the guided tours. Given the increasing significance of cross-cultural similarities and differences, further research is required in order to better understand the cross-cultural differences and the impact of national cultures on the tourist behavior. It is clear that the results of the current study and future studies should be taken into account for creating better tourist experiences. Similarly, the same nations could be researched in different destinations in Turkey while they are attending to different tourism experiences. Further studies are also needed for understanding the effects of national culture on other aspects of tourist behavior such as motivation, satisfaction, or loyalty. Another limitation of the study is its subjects being the tour guides. This necessitates further research on the perceptions of other services suppliers such as hoteliers, trades people, restaurant employees, etc. Such studies may help us to create a comprehensive understanding of cross-cultural tourist behavior.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Cansev Özdemir is a research assistant and PhD candidate in Faculty of Tourism at Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Turkey. Her areas of research interest include tourism marketing, tourist behavior, and cross-cultural studies.

Medet Yolal, PhD, is an associate professor in Faculty of Tourism at Anadolu University, Turkey. His areas of research interest include tourism marketing, consumer behavior, and event management and marketing.

References

Brislin

(1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216.

Carr

(2002) A comparative analysis of the behavior of domestic and international young tourists. Tourism Management 23(3): 321–325.

Chen

(2000) Cross-cultural differences in travel information acquisition among tourists from three Pacific-rim countries. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 24(2): 239–251.

Chen

Pizam

(2006) Cross-cultural tourism marketing. In: Buhalis

Costa

(eds) Tourism Management Dynamics, Trends, Management and Tools, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth, pp. 187–195.

Clark

(1990) International marketing and national character: A review and proposal for an integrative theory. Journal of Marketing 54(4): 66–79.

Correia

Kozak

Ferradeira

(2011) Impact of culture on tourist. International Journal of Tourism Research 13(5): 433–446.

Defranco

Wortman

JLT

Countryman

(2005) A cross-cultural comparison of customer complaint behavior in restaurants in hotels. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 10(2): 173–190.

Geertz

(1973) The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.

Gursoy

Chen

(2000) Competitive analysis of cross cultural information search behavior. Tourism Management 21(6): 583–590.

10.

Gursoy

Umbreit

(2004) Tourist information search behavior: Cross-cultural comparison of European Union member states. International Journal of Hospitality Management 23(1): 55–70.

11.

Hair

Black

Babin

(2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

12.

Hedrick-Wong Y and Choong D (2014) Mastercard 2014 global destination cities index. Available at: http://newsroom.mastercard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Mastercard_GDCI_2014_Letter_Final_70814.pdf (accessed 6 December 2014).

13.

Jafari

(1987) Tourism models: The socio-cultural aspects. Tourism Management 8(2): 151–159.

14.

Jang

Feng

(2007) Temporal destination revisit intention: The effect of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management 28(2): 580–590.

15.

Jordan

Norman

Vogt

(2013) A cross-cultural comparison of online travel information search behaviors. Tourism Management Perspectives 6: 15–22.

16.

Hofstede

(2001) Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Culture’s Consequences, California, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

17.

Hudson

Ritchie

JRB

(2001) Cross-cultural tourist behavior: An analysis of tourist attitudes towards the environment. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 10(2–3): 1–22.

18.

Istanbul Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism (2014) http://www.istanbulkulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,92428/istanbul-turizm-istatistikleri—2014.html (accessed 23 March 2015).

19.

Kang

Moscardo

(2006) Exploring cross-cultural differences in attitudes towards responsible tourist behaviour: A comparison of Korean, British and Australian tourists. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 11(4): 303–320.

20.

Kay

(2009) Cultural experience tourist motives dimensionality: A crosscultural study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 18(4): 329–371.

21.

Kim

Prideaux

(2003) A cross-cultural study of airline passengers. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2): 489–492.

22.

Kim

Prideaux

Kim

(2002) A cross-cultural study on casino guests as perceived by casino employees. Tourism Management 23(5): 511–520.

23.

Kozak

(2001) Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two nationalities. Tourism Management 22(4): 391–401.

24.

Kozak

(2002) Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations. Tourism Management 23(3): 221–232.

25.

Kozak

Bigne

Gonzales

(2004) Cross-cultural behaviour research in tourism a case study on destination image. Tourism Analysis 8(2–4): 253–257.

26.

Kozak

Tasci

(2005) Perceptions of foreign tourists by local service providers: The case of Fethiye, Turkey. International Journal of Tourism Research 7(4–5): 261–277.

27.

Lee

(2000) A comparative study of Caucasian and Asian visitors to a cultural expo in an Asian setting. Tourism Management 21(2): 169–176.

28.

Lee

(2009) Cross-cultural comparison of the image of Guam perceived by Korean and Japanese leisure travelers: Importance performance analysis. Tourism Management 30(6): 922–931.

29.

Lee

Sparks

(2007) Cultural influences on travel lifestyle: A comparison of Korean Australians and Koreans in Korea. Tourism Management 28(2): 505–518.

30.

Legoherel

Hsu

CHC

Dauce

(2015) Variety-seeking: Using the CHAID segmentation approach in analyzing the international traveler market. Tourism Management 46(1): 359–366.

31.

(2014) Cross-cultural tourist research: A meta-analysis. Journal of Hospitality Tourism Research 38(1): 40–77.

32.

ACC

Chen

(2014) Information search behaviour of independent travelers: A cross-cultural comparison between Chinese, Japanese, and American travelers. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 23(8): 865–884.

33.

MacKay

Fesenmaier

(2000) An exploration of cross-cultural destination image assessment. Journal of Travel Research 38(4): 417–423.

34.

March

(1997) Diversity in Asian outbound travel industries: A comparison between Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16(2): 231–238.

35.

Master

Prideaux

(2000) Culture and vacation satisfaction: A study of Taiwanese tourists in South East Queensland. Tourism Management 21(5): 445–449.

36.

Meng

(2010) Special section paper individualism/collectivism and group travel behaviour: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 4(4): 340–351.

37.

Money

Crotts

(2003) The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism Management 24(2): 191–202.

38.

Ozdipçiner

(2009) Turistlerin satın alma kararlarındaki kuültuürel farklılıklar: Tuürk -Alman karşılaştırılması (Cultural differences on tourists’ purchasing decisions: Turkish-German comparison). Ege Akademik Bakış 9(4): 1295–1311.

39.

Pizam

(1999a) Cross-cultural tourist behavior. In: Pizam

Mansfeld

(eds) Consumer Behaviour in Travel and Tourism, Binghamton, NY: Haworth Hospitality Press, pp. 393–412.

40.

Pizam

(1999b) The American group tourists as viewed by British, Israeli, Korean and Dutch tour guides. Journal of Travel Research 38(2): 119–126.

41.

Pizam

Jansen-Verbeke

Steel

(1997) Are all tourists alike, regardless of nationality? Journal of International Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism Management 1(1): 19–40.

42.

Pizam

Jeong

(1996) Cross-cultural tourist behaviour: Perceptions of Korean tour-guides. Tourism Management 17(4): 277–286.

43.

Pizam

Reichel

(1996) The effect of nationality on tourist behaviour: Israeli tour guides’ perceptions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 4(1): 23–49.

44.

Pizam

Sussmann

(1995) Does nationality affect tourist behaviour? Annals of Tourism Research 22(4): 901–917.

45.

Potter

(1989) What is culture: And can it be useful for organizational change agents? Leadership and Organization Development Journal 10(3): 17–24.

46.

Quintal

Lee

Soutar

(2010) Risk, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism example. Tourism Management 31(6): 797–805.

47.

Ramkisson

Uysal

Brown

(2011) A cross-cultural comparison of tourists’ cultural behavioural intentions. E-Review of Tourism Research 9(5): 190–219.

48.

Reisinger

Turner

(1997) Cross-cultural differences in tourism: Indonesian tourists in Australia. Tourism Management 18(3): 139–147.

49.

Reisinger

Turner

(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.

50.

Reisinger

Turner

(2002) Cultural differences between Asian tourist markets and Australian hosts, Part 1. Journal of travel Research 40(3): 295–315.

51.

Reisinger

Turner

(2003) Cross-Cultural Tourist Behavior, Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

52.

Richardson

Crompton

(1988) Vacation patterns of French and English Canadians. Annals of Tourism Research 15(3): 430–435.

53.

Sabiote-Ortiz

Frias-Jamilena

Castaneda-Garcia

(2014) Overall perceived value of a tourism service delivered via different media: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Travel Research. Publication ahead of print 28 May 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0047287514535844.

54.

Sussmann

Rashcovsky

(1997) A cross-cultural analysis of English and French Canadians vacation travel patterns. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16(2): 191–208.

55.

Tasci

Boylu

(2010) Cultural comparison of tourists’ safety perception in relation to trip satisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research 12(2): 179–192.

56.

Tayfun

Yildirim

(2010) Turistlerin tuüketim davranışları kuültuüre/milliyete goüre farklılık goüsterir mi? Alman ve Rus turistler uüzerine bir araştırma (Does the consumption behavior of tourists differ by culture/nationality? A Study into German and Russian tourists). Journal of Business Research 2(2): 43–64.

57.

Turner

Reisinger

McQuilken

(2001) How cultural differences cause dimensions of tourism satisfaction. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 11(1): 79–101.

58.

Wong

Lau

(2001) Understanding the behaviour of Hong Kong Chinese tourists on group tour packages. Journal of Travel Research 40(1): 57–67.

59.

Morgan

Song

(2009) Students’ travel behaviour: A cross-cultural comparison of UK and China. International Journal of Tourism Research 11(3): 255–268.

60.

Yoo

Mckercher

Mena

(2004) A cross-cultural comparison of trip characteristics: International visitors to Hong Kong from Mainland China and USA. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 16(1): 65–78.

61.

You

Leary

Morrison

(2000) A cross-cultural comparison of travel push and pull factors: United Kingdom vs. Japan. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 1(2): 1–26.

62.

Goulden

(2006) A comparative analysis of international tourists’ satisfaction in Mongolia. Tourism Management 27(6): 1331–1342.

63.

Yuksel

Kılınc

Yuksel

(2006) Cross-national analysis of hotel customers’ attitudes toward complaining and their complaining behaviours. Tourism Management 27(1): 11–24.