Beyond social exchange theory: Attitudes Toward Tourists

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 1556–1569, 20110160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.02.005www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

BEYOND SOCIAL EXCHANGETHEORY

Attitudes Toward Tourists

Colleen WardVictoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Tracy BernoUniversity of the South Pacific, Fiji

Abstract: Although social exchange theory has been used to predict and explain attitudestoward tourists, it has been criticized for lacking theoretical sophistication. This research goesbeyond social exchange theory to test a predictive model of attitudes toward tourists, incor-porating the contact hypothesis and Integrated Threat Theory. It was hypothesized that posi-tive attitudes toward tourism would be predicted by employment in industry, country ofresidence, and positive perceptions of tourism impacts. It was further hypothesized that morefrequent and satisfying intercultural contact, lower perceptions of threat, more positive ste-reotypes and less intergroup anxiety would predict positive attitudes. Hierarchical regressionanalysis supported all hypotheses. The utility of Integrated Threat Theory in predicting atti-tudes is discussed, and recommendations for future research proposed. Keywords: tourists,threat, social exchange, contact, attitudes, stereotypes. � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rightsreserved.

INTRODUCTION

Perceptions of tourists, attitudes toward tourism development, andrelations between tourists and hosts have been identified as key factorsin the tourism industry and critical issues for governments, policy mak-ers and industry (Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004). Although a number offactors, such as the type and extent of tourist-host interaction, eco-nomic reliance on the tourism industry, and level of tourist develop-ment in the community, has been examined as predictors ofattitudinal outcomes, over-arching theoretical frameworks to interpretand synthesize research findings have been scarce. Zhang, Inbakaran,and Jackson (2006) highlighted this lack of theoretical foundation ininvestigating community responses to tourism and suggested that

Colleen Ward has a PhD from Durham University (UK). Her major research interests are inacculturation and intercultural relations. She is currently President of the InternationalAcademy for Intercultural Research. Tracy Berno is a tourism researcher and consultant witha PhD in Psychology (Cross-cultural) from the University of Canterbury. Her interests are insustainable tourism planning and development in the South Pacific region. (PO Box 84,Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand. Email <[email protected]>).

1556

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.02.005

C. Ward, T. Berno / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 1556–1569 1557

attempts to predict and explain residents’ attitudes have been relativelysimplistic. They articulated an urgent need to establish theoreticalmodels suitable for predicting how hosts interact with tourists.

A major exception to the dearth of theoretical grounding in tourismstudies has been the application of social exchange theory to the inves-tigation of tourist-host relations (Chen & Raab, 2009; Choi & Murray,2010; Nunkoo, Gursoy, & Juwaheer, 2010; Nunkoo & Ramkissoon,2010a, 2010b; Teye, Sonmez, & Sirakaya, 2002). Social exchange the-ory, rooted in economic theory and modified by Thibaut and Kelley(1959) for the study of the social psychology of groups, focuses onthe perceptions of the relative costs and benefits of relationships andtheir implications for relationship satisfaction. Comparison is animportant component of social exchange and provides the standardagainst which all relationships are judged. Comparative standards aresubjective and vary across individuals and groups. From a tourism per-spective, social exchange theory proposes that individuals’ attitudes to-wards tourism and their subsequent level of support for itsdevelopment will be influenced by their evaluations of the outcomesof tourism for themselves and their communities (Andereck, Valen-tine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005).

As such, social exchange theory has provided a conceptual base forthe examination of the inter-relationships among perceptions of costsand benefits, positive and negative impacts, and support for tourism(Choi & Murray, 2010; Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Nunkoo &Ramkissoon, 2010a, 2010b; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990). At the indi-vidual level, social exchange theory has offered an explanation for therobust finding that those employed in the tourism sector, who receivemore direct benefits from the industry, have more positive attitudes to-ward tourists and tourism development (Haley, Snaith, & Miller, 2005;Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996). At the community level, costs andbenefits in economic, environmental and sociocultural domains havebeen identified as significant influences on attitudes toward tourismdevelopment (Andriotis & Vaughan, 2003; Gursoy & Rutherford,2004), and research has shown that those who regard tourist impactsin these areas more positively also have more favorable attitudes towardtourists (Ryan & Montgomery, 1994).

The processes used in the analysis of the costs and benefits of tour-ism may also be extended to the national level and used to explaincross-country differences in attitudes toward tourists. For example,Pizam, Milman and King’s (1993) comparative study of the perceptionsof tourism in Fiji and the United States revealed that the economic im-pact of tourism was viewed positively by both groups but that Fijiansperceived the benefits to be greater than their American counterparts.This is not surprising given that tourism comprises a major part of theeconomy in many less developed countries. It is the principle export ina third of all developing countries, and among the least developedcountries, it is the primary source of foreign exchange (World TourismOrganization, 2005). Furthermore, the reliance on tourism as a meansfor economic development has been steadily increasing over the lastthree decades in developing countries (Croes, 2006), and research

1558 C. Ward, T. Berno / Annals of Tourism Research 38 (2011) 1556–1569

has shown that net economic gain is a strong predictor of positive atti-tudes towards tourism (Lindberg & Johnson, 1997). Under these con-ditions, it would be expected that residents of developing countrieswould perceive greater economic benefits from tourism and would,therefore, hold more favorable attitudes toward tourists.

Beyond social exchange theory, there is a range of conceptual frame-works arising from social psychology that can be applied to the study oftourist-host relations. The contact hypothesis is of obvious relevanceand has been previously explored in the context of tourism (e.g.,Anastasopoulos, 1992; Teye et al., 2002). However, other influentialintergroup theories, such as Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan & Ste-phan, 1996), the Unified Instrumental Model of Group Conflict (Esses,Jackson, Dovidio, & Hodson, 2005) and Intergroup Emotion Theory(DeVos, Silver, Mackie, & Smith, 2002), have been largely overlooked.More broadly, the potential of a mutually beneficial partnershipbetween social psychology and tourism studies has not been systemati-cally explored. While social psychology provides sound theoreticalgrounding for the study of intergroup relations, international tourismoffers the most common setting for face-to-face intercultural contactand a natural laboratory for testing intergroup theories (Berno &Ward, 2005; Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001; Zhang et al., 2006).These conditions provide a springboard for the current research.

Accordingly, this paper incorporates Integrated Threat Theory intothe domain of tourist studies with the dual objectives of offering anew theoretical paradigm for exploring attitudes toward tourists anda real world setting for examining the external and ecological validityof an intergroup theory. Integrated Threat Theory was chosen becauseof its inherent relevance to tourism research. Its focus on realistic andsymbolic threat intersects with research on the perceptions of negativeimpacts of tourism (e.g., Berno, 1999; King, Pizam, & Milman, 1993),and its inclusion of stereotypes reflects related research in the tourismliterature (e.g., Reisinger & Turner, 2003). In addition, IntegratedThreat Theory incorporates an emotional dimension of integroup rela-tions, identified to be an important experiential component of tourist-host interactions (McIntosh & Johnson, 2004).

Integrated Threat Theory

Classic social psychological theories of intergroup relations empha-size the role of threat and competition in predicting intergroup atti-tudes (LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sears, 1988), and empiricalresearch has consistently borne out their negative consequences ininternational and multicultural research (Jackson, Brown, Brown, &Marks, 2001; Quillian, 1995). Threat may be perceived and interpretedin a number of ways. Integrated Threat Theory posits that there arefour fundamental threats: realistic threat, symbolic threat, negativestereotypes and intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1996, 2000),and each of these has been shown to be significant predictors ofattitudes toward outgroups, including responses to immigrants, ethnic


minorities and national groups (Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999;Stephan, Ybarra, Martınez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998).

Realistic threats include perceived threats to the welfare of a groupand its members. The threats may be social, economic or politicaland generally involve competition over limited resources. Symbolicthreats are associated with values, beliefs and attitudes and refer toperceived threats to the worldview of a group. Both realistic and sym-bolic threat have been identified in the tourism literature in relationto factors such as crowding, increased cost of living, environmentaldestruction, changing family values, sexual permissiveness, and thecommercialization of cultural practices (Brunt & Courtney, 1999; Perez& Nadal, 2005; Teye et al., 2002). Furthermore, research has shownthat perceptions of the sociocultural impacts of tourism are directlylinked to evaluations of threat (Berno, 1999, 2003).

Negative stereotypes have been described by Stephan, Diaz-Loving,and Duran (2000) as implied threats because they lead individuals toanticipate and fear unpleasant consequences of intergroupinteractions. Negative stereotyping of people from other countrieshas been found to underpin prejudiced attitudes in multinationaland cross-cultural research (Stephan & Stephan, 1996; Stephan et al.,1996). Although discussions of ethnic and national stereotypes occurin the tourism literature (Brewer, 1984; Pizam & Sussman, 1995;Reisinger & Turner, 2003), stereotypes have rarely been quantitativelyassessed or systematically related to attitudes toward tourists and tour-ism development.

The last ingredient of Integrated Threat Theory is intergroup anxi-ety. Stephan and colleagues have argued that people feel threatenedin connection with intercultural interactions, as they fear being re-jected, embarrassed, ridiculed or exploited due to their inability tointeract effectively with members of an out-group (Stephan & Stephan,1985; Stephan et al., 2000). Although intergroup anxiety has beenshown to predict mutually prejudicial attitudes in international groups(Stephan et al., 2000), it has been largely overlooked in tourism re-search. Nevertheless, the significance of emotion and effective intercul-tural communication for tourist-host relations has been highlighted inthe tourist literature (Erb, 2004; McIntosh & Johnson, 2004), and train-ing for tourism professionals to prevent negative outcomes in intercul-tural encounters has been advocated (Bochner & Coulson, 1997;Pearce, 1995).

The Contact Hypothesis

Despite the utility of Integrated Threat Theory, Stephan and col-leagues have acknowledged that it is not a comprehensive theory ofprejudice and have suggested that threat mediates the impact of moredistal variables, including intercultural contact, on attitudes towardout-groups (Stephan et al., 2000, 2002). This was borne out in recentresearch by Ward and Masgoret (2006, 2008), suggesting that the con-tact hypothesis would be a useful adjunct to Integrated Threat Theory


in predicting attitudes toward tourists. Indeed, Pettigrew and Tropp’s(2006) meta-analysis, based on over 500 studies of the contact hypoth-esis, found that contact per se had beneficial effects in reducing preju-dice, but its effects were stronger when optimal conditions (e.g., equalstatus, voluntary, pleasant, intimate, cooperative contact) were appar-ent (see Allport, 1954).

Overall, the results of research on tourist-host contact and out-groupattitudes have been equivocal. Greater intercultural contact has beenassociated with positive (San Martın Garcia & Gomez Jacinto, 1998),negative (Anastasopoulos, 1992; Milman, Reichel, & Pizam, 1990),mixed (Amir & Ben-Ari, 1985) and insignificant (Teye et al., 2002) out-comes. This is not surprising due to the differing conceptualizationsand measurements of contact. First, there is a distinction betweeninterpersonal contact and community contact, which is often assessedin terms of tourist density; both of these have been assessed in tourismstudies (Ap, 1990; Teye et al., 2002). Secondly, there is the issue as towhether the investigation of contact must include both frequency andquality dimensions. We contend that measures of individual-level con-tact are more precise and that contact measures that include a qualitydimension are more likely to produce positive outcomes in survey re-sponses (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

Current Research: Objectives and Hypotheses

This research tests a predictive model of attitudes toward tourists in aless developed country (Fiji) and a developed country (New Zealand).Despite the inherent physical, cultural and economic differences be-tween these two countries, both have well developed and mature tour-ism industries. In 2009, Fiji received 539,405 international arrivals andNew Zealand 2.45 million. With populations of 846,000 and 4.36 mil-lion respectively, both countries have similar host-to-tourist ratios. BothFiji and New Zealand share Australia as their largest in-bound tourismmarket (42% and 44% of arrivals, respectively) (Fiji Islands Bureau ofStatistics, 2010; Ministry of Tourism, 2010; Reserve Bank of Fiji, 2010;Sustainable Tourism Development Consortium, University of theSouth Pacific, & the Ministry of Tourism, 2007). Tourists to both coun-tries rate the beauty of the environment and the friendliness of thepeople as the most salient attributes of their tourist experiences(Angus & Associates, 2006; Sustainable Tourism Development Consor-tium et al., 2007). Notwithstanding these similarities, it is hypothesizedthat respondents from less developed Fiji will manifest more positiveattitudes towards tourists than those from developed New Zealand.

The broad objectives of the investigation are to explore a new theo-retical framework that can be applied in research on tourist-host rela-tions (Zhang et al., 2006) and to address the paucity of studies onattitudes toward tourists in developing countries (Teye et al., 2002).At the more specific level the research goes beyond social exchangetheory to test a model of attitudes toward tourists based on IntegratedThreat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) and the contact hypothesis


(Allport, 1954). Of particular interest is the extent to which IntegratedThreat Theory and the contact hypothesis can add to the prediction ofattitudes toward tourists beyond the explanatory power of social ex-change theory. The hypotheses are:

1) positive attitudes toward tourists will be predicted by employment inthe tourism industry, residence in a less developed country, positiveperceptions of tourism impacts, more frequent and satisfying con-tact with tourists, positive stereotypes, low perceptions of threatand low levels of intergroup anxiety; and,

2) contact and threat variables will explain additional variance in atti-tudes toward tourists over and above that accounted for by employ-ment in the tourism industry, country of residence and perceivedimpacts of tourism.

ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISTS

Study Methods

The study was based on the responses of 663 research participants,384 from Fiji and 279 from New Zealand. The Fijian sample was51.5% male and had an ethnic distribution of 44.4% Fijian, 28.2%Indo-Fijian, 6% European, 5% Chinese, and 16.4% others. Ages ran-ged from 12–65 years (M = 29.94, SD = 9.95). The respondents wererelatively well educated with 44% having secondary qualifications,24.9% post-secondary, and 21.2% degrees. Thirty-nine per cent ofthe participants had jobs dependent on tourism. Participants weredrawn from areas of high (the Sigatoka-Nadi-Lautoka corridor), med-ium (Rakiraki, Suva and Savusavu) and low (Labasa and Levuka)tourist density.

The New Zealand sample was largely female (67.9%) and describedthemselves as New Zealand Europeans (73.5%) but also includedMaori (5%), Asian (5%), Pasifika (1%) and others (15%). Their agesranged from 14–77 years (M = 36.84, SD = 15.16). Twenty six per centof the participants had completed secondary qualifications, 33%post-secondary, and 34% degrees. Fifty-four per cent of the NewZealand sample had jobs dependent on tourism. Participants residedin both the North and South Islands and were drawn from areas ofhigh (Queenstown and Rotorua), medium (Wellington and Christ-church) and low (Wairarapa, Kapiti and Methven) tourist density.

The research was conducted using survey methods. In addition todemographic information, the survey instrument included measuresof tourism impacts, contact, threat, stereotypes, intergroup anxiety,and attitudes toward tourists. The surveys were distributed by studentresearch assistants in 2006–7. In both Fiji and New Zealand assistantswere instructed to secure responses from both those who did anddid not work in the tourism industry. Participation in the researchwas anonymous and voluntary.


Unless otherwise specified, the measures were devised by theauthors. Perceived impact was tapped in four domains: social, cultural,economic and environmental. In each domain participants were askedto evaluate the impact of tourism in Fiji or New Zealand on a one (verynegative) to five (very positive) scale. The four items were summed andaveraged with higher scores reflecting more positive impact. Contactwas measured by two items, which tapped both the frequency and qual-ity of contact. First participants indicated the frequency on a five-pointscale (endpoints: not at all-very much) in response to: ‘‘How often do youcome into contact with tourists?’’ Second, they rated the quality of theinteraction on a five-point scale (endpoints: very unpleasant-very pleasant).These items were summed and averaged with higher scores indicatingmore frequent and pleasant contact.

The measurements of four threats (realistic and symbolic threat,negative stereotypes and intergroup anxiety) were developed with ref-erence to work by Stephan et al. (1998, 2000, 2002). A seven-item per-ceived intergroup threat scale incorporated elements of both realistic(e.g., Tourists cause drug problems.) and symbolic (e.g., Tourists arenot good for the quality of life in Fiji/New Zealand.) threat. Each state-ment was targeted to Fiji or New Zealand, and responses were made ona five-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).Items were summed and averaged; higher scores indicate stronger feel-ings of intergroup threat. Stereotypes were assessed in six domains(rude, generous, unfriendly, clever, responsible and respectful). Ineach case respondents were asked to indicate their agreement/dis-agreement on five-point scales (endpoints: strongly disagree/strongly agree)to statements prefaced ‘‘Tourists are. . .’’ Items were reversed scored,where appropriate, summed and averaged so that higher scores indi-cate more positive stereotypes. An intergroup anxiety measure com-prised of four items (confident, comfortable, irritated, nervous) wasadapted from Stephan et al. (1998) to assess how respondents wouldfeel when asked to imagine they were interacting with a group of tour-ists. A sample item is, ‘‘How nervous do you think you would feel?’’Respondents were asked to indicate their reactions using five-point rat-ing scales ranging from Not at all (1) to Very (5). Items were summedand averaged with higher scores indicating a greater level of anxiety.

Finally, the measure of attitudes towards tourists was based on 11statements about tourists and tourism, e.g., Tourists have made animportant contribution to Fiji/New Zealand and Fiji/New Zealandwould be better off without tourists. Each statement was rated on afive-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree(5) with higher averaged scores indicating more positive attitudes to-ward tourists.

Study Results

The psychometric properties of the scales are reported in Table 1.The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the measures assessingthreat, stereotypes and attitudes toward tourists all demonstrated a

Table 1. Psychometric Properties of the Measurement Scales

Scale No. of items Mean SD a

Tourist impacts 4 3.80 0.56 .63Contact 2 3.82 0.81 –Threat 7 2.21 0.69 .80Stereotypes 6 3.52 0.59 .76Intergroup Anxiety 4 1.89 0.68 .62Attitudes toward Tourists 11 3.99 0.58 .83


high level of internal consistency, ranging from .76 to .83. The alphasfor tourism impacts and intergroup anxiety were somewhat lower(.62–.63), but still demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consis-tency given the small number of items for the scales. This was con-firmed by the calculation of the mean inter-item correlations, whichin each case fell between the optimal range of .2 to .4 as recommendedby Briggs and Cheek (1986). As the contact measure contained onlytwo items, the intercorrelations were examined in lieu of Cronbach al-phas. Pearson r fell within the recommended range at .36 (p < .001).

The predictive model of attitudes toward tourists was constructed byhierarchical regression. To control for the effects of demographic fac-tors, age and gender were entered in the first block along with employ-ment in the tourism industry. This was followed by country of residencein the second step and perceptions of tourism impacts in the thirdstep. Finally, contact, threat, stereotypes and intergroup anxiety wereadded to the equation.

Regression analysis estimates the explanatory power of predictivevariables on a criterion measure (in this case attitudes toward tourists).The hierarchical regression technique permits the analysis of the con-tribution of each block of variables (demographic factors, country ofresidence, tourist impacts, and contact and threats) and each variablewithin blocks to the prediction of attitudes toward tourists. The hierar-chical approach is suitable for examining the incremental predictivepower of each successive block of variables and is therefore a particu-larly appropriate technique for testing our second hypothesis. Stan-dardized beta weights, which represent the magnitude of therelationship between the predictor and criterion measures, are re-ported in Table 2. The r2 change shows the amount of additional var-iance explained in the criterion measure in each step of the regressionanalysis, and the r2 indicates the amount of cumulative varianceexplained.

Each step of the regression equation was significant and in line withthe hypotheses. First, demographic factors predicted attitudes towardtourists; F (3, 572) = 5.46, p < .001. Older people (ß = .11) and thoseemployed in the tourism industry (ß = �.12) had more positive atti-tudes toward tourists. Second, country of origin (ß = �.23) affectedthe outcome measure with Fijians having more positive attitudes to-ward tourists than New Zealanders; Fchange (1, 571) = 29.28, p < .001.

Table 2. The Prediction of Attitudes toward Tourists: Hierarchical Regressionwith Standardized Beta Weights

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Gender .02 .05 .08* .06*

Age .11** .17*** .10** �.01Employment �.12** �.16*** �.06 .00Country �.23*** �.17*** �.12***

Tourist impacts .48*** .23***

Contact .14***

Threat �.16***

Stereotypes .41***

Intergroup anxiety �.09**

R2 .028*** .075*** .289*** .507***

R2 change .028*** .047*** .213*** .219***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.


Third, more positive perceptions of tourism impacts (ß = .48) predictedmore favorable responses to tourists and appeared to mediate the effectsof employment in the tourism industry; Fchange (1,570) = 170.883,p < .001. Finally, contact (ß = .14), threat (ß = �.16), stereotypes(ß = .41) and intergroup anxiety (ß = �.09) significantly explained addi-tional variance in the attitudinal outcome; Fchange (4, 566) = 62.80,p < .001. As hypothesized, more contact, less intergroup anxiety, lowerperceptions of threat and more positive stereotypes were associated withmore favorable attitudes toward tourists. In total these factors explained50.7% of the variance in the outcome.

Discussion of Results

The paper explored the prediction of attitudes toward tourists in Fijiand New Zealand combining social exchange theory with IntegratedThreat Theory and the contact hypothesis. The results indicated thatemployment in the tourist industry, country of residence, perceptionsof tourism impacts, contact and threat, including negative stereotypingand intergroup anxiety, were significant predictors of attitudinal out-comes. Furthermore, contact and threat variables explained additionalvariance in attitudes over and above that accounted for by demo-graphic factors and tourism impacts, highlighting the utility of the inte-grative theoretical framework for understanding, explaining andpredicting attitudes toward tourists.

The research corroborates the utility of social exchange theory,widely used in tourism studies to explain attitudes toward tourismand tourism development. In this instance, those who work in the tour-ism sector and those who reside in a developing country have more po-sitive attitudes toward tourists. The finding that industry employeeshave more favorable responses to tourists is common (Haley et al.,2005; Haralambopoulos & Pizam, 1996), and along with attitudinal


differences found between residents of Fiji and New Zealand, can beinterpreted in terms of relative economic benefits for individuals andcommunities. Pizam et al.’s (1993) research found that industry work-ers in Fiji viewed the economic benefits of tourism more positively thantheir American counterparts, and King et al. (1993) reported that Fi-jian residents in a high density tourism area, where many people arereliant on tourism for employment, strongly supported tourism andits expansion. Although Fijians acknowledged some negative impacts,they held generally positive views of tourism. In contrast, Lawson,Williams, Young, and Cossens’ (1998) research in New Zealand notedthat although residents agreed that tourism was good for their localeconomies, they were less certain that it benefited them in a personalway, suggesting more ambivalence in their attitudes toward tourists.

Also in accordance with social exchange theory, the findings re-vealed that those who see more benefits of tourism across social, cul-tural, economic and environmental domains have more positiveattitudes toward tourists. Chen’s (2001) analysis similarly demonstratedthe influences of perceived economic benefits, social costs, culturalenrichment and environmental deterioration on attitudes toward tour-ist development, and more recently Chen and Raab (2009) found thatperceived general and personal benefits of tourism development in-creased positive attitudes, particularly when tourism was seen to benefitthe general community. Our results are also consistent with work byNunkoo and Ramkissoon (2010a, 2010b), Akis, Peristianis, and Warner(1996) and Besculides, Lee, and McCormick (2002), which highlightedthe role of economic and cultural impacts in the prediction of supportfor tourism. However, the results of these studies additionally indicatedthat social exchange theory is not adequate on its own to explain andinterpret attitudes toward tourists and tourism.

The contact hypothesis and Integrated Threat Theory also contrib-ute to the prediction of attitudes and explain additional variance notaccounted for by social exchange theory. With respect to contact, ashypothesized, more frequent and satisfying interpersonal contact withtourists leads to more positive attitudes. This finding is consistent withintergroup theory and research and corroborates the external validityof the contact hypothesis in the domain of tourism. It also brings a psy-chological perspective to tourism research where contact has oftenbeen operationalized in terms of level of tourism development or tour-ist density in the community (e.g., Akis et al., 1996) rather than at theindividual and interpersonal level.

In addition, as predicted by Integrated Threat Theory, greater per-ceived realistic and symbolic threat, negative stereotypes and inter-group anxiety predicted negative attitudes toward tourists. IntegratedThreat Theory has already been shown to be effective in predicting atti-tudes toward ethnic majorities and minorities, immigrants and na-tional groups Stephan et al. (1996, 1998, 2000, 2002). Its utility hasbeen further validated in this research by its extension to the studyof attitudes toward tourists, an application that has been noticeably ab-sent both in psychological studies of intergroup relations and in thetourism literature.


Finally, the study suggests future avenues for research on attitudestoward tourists. The addition of contact and threat to a predictive mod-el derived from social exchange theory demonstrated incrementalexplanatory power; furthermore, taken together, these factors cumula-tively explained over half of the variance in the attitudinal outcome.This points to the limits of social exchange theory and the merits ofa more integrated approach derived from social psychological theoriesof intergroup relations. Future research should systematically explorethese theoretical frameworks in both longitudinal and comparativestudies. In addition, the potential applications of Integrated ThreatTheory for enhancing tourist-host relations through strategies de-signed to diminish perceived threat, reduce negative stereotyping oralleviate intergroup anxiety, should be evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the research has adopted an integrative approach tointergroup relations, drawing on social exchange theory, IntegratedThreat Theory and the contact hypothesis, and applying these to thenovel context of tourism. The results corroborated both the utilityand limitations of social exchange theory. The findings showed thatdemographic factors, including employment in the tourist industryand residence in a developing country, and perceived positive impactsof tourism predicted more favorable attitudes toward tourists; however,results also revealed that contact with tourists and low levels of per-ceived threats exerted incremental, positive influences on these atti-tudes. The findings have important implications for both tourismand intergroup researchers. In the first instance, a new theoretical per-spective is presented to a field that has often been criticized as operat-ing in an atheoretical fashion. In the second instance, the researchoffers a new context for intergroup research and demonstrates theexternal and ecological validity of key social psychological theories. Fu-ture research should adopt a more integrated approach to the predic-tion of attitudes toward tourists and explore the potential applicationsof Integrated Threat Theory for the tourist industry.

Acknowledgements—The research was funded by New Zealand Royal Society’s InternationalScientific and Technological Linkages Fund and Victoria University of Wellington, Facultyof Science and School of Psychology.

REFERENCES

Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ attitudes to tourismdevelopment: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Management, 17, 481–494.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Amir, Y., & Ben-Ari, R. (1985). International tourism, ethnic contact, and attitude

change. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 105–116.


Anastasopoulos, P. G. (1992). Tourism and attitude change: Greek tourists visitingTurkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 629–642.

Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32,1056–1076.

Andriotis, K., & Vaughan, R. D. (2003). Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourismdevelopment: The case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 172–185.

Angus & Associates (2006). Regional visitor monitor (November 2005–September 2006)-National benchmark report prepared for the Ministry of Tourism. Wellington: Angus& Associates.

Ap, J. (1990). Residents’ perceptions: Research on the social impacts of tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 610–616.

Berno, T. (1999). When is a guest a guest?: Cook Islanders conceptualize tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 565–675.

Berno, T. (2003). Local control and the sustainability of tourism in the Pacific. InD. Harrison (Ed.), Pacific island tourism (pp. 94–109). London: CognizantPublications.

Berno, T., & Ward, C. (2005). Innocence abroad: A pocket guide to psychologicalresearch on tourism. American Psychologist, 60, 593–600.

Besculides, A., Lee, M., & McCormick, P. (2002). Residents’ perceptions of thecultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 303–319.

Bochner, S., & Coulson, L. (1997). A culture assimilator to train Australianhospitality industry workers serving Japanese tourists. Journal of Tourism Studies,8, 8–17.

Brewer, J. D. (1984). Tourism and ethnic stereotypes: Variations in a Mexicantown. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 487–501.

Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the developmentand evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148.

Brunt, P., & Courtney, P. (1999). Host perceptions of sociocultural impacts. Annalsof Tourism Research, 26, 493–515.

Chen, J. S. (2001). Assessing and visualizing tourist impacts from urban residents’perspectives. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 25, 235–250.

Chen, S. C., & Raab, C. (2009). Measuring resident reactions to communitytourism development: A pilot study of a new conceptual framework. Proceedingsof the Hospitality and Tourism Management International CHRIE Conference,University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Retrieved 24 May 2010 from theUniversity of Massachusetts Scholarworks website: http://scholar-works.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=refereed.

Choi, H. C., & Murray, I. (2010). Resident attitudes toward sustainable communitytourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4), 575–594.

Croes, R. (2006). A paradigm shift to a new strategy for small island economies:Embracing demand side economics for value enhancement and long termeconomic stability. Tourism Management, 27, 453–465.

DeVos, T., Silver, L. A., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2002). Experiencingintergroup emotions. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice tointergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 111–134). NewYork: Psychology Press.

Erb, M. (2004). Miscommunication and cultural values in conflict: Reflections onmorality and tourism in Labuan Bajo, Flores, Indonesia. Tourism, 52(1), 21–37.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G. (2005). Instrumentalrelations among groups: Group competition, conflict and prejudice. In J. F.Dovidio, P. S. Glick, & A. L. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice. Fifty yearsafter Allport (pp. 227–243). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics (2010). Visitor arrivals. Retrieved 29 May 2010 fromthe Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics website:.http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/Key%20-Stats/Tourism%20&%20Migration/12.8Visitor%20arrv%20by%20cntry%20of%20res.pdf.

Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host attitudes toward tourism: Animproved structural model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 495–516.

Haley, A. J., Snaith, T., & Miller, G. (2005). The social impacts of tourism: A casestudy of Bath, UK. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 647–668.

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=refereed

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=refereed

http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/Key%20Stats/Tourism%20&%20Migration/12.8Visitor%20arrv%20by%20cntry%20of%20res.pdf




Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism. The caseof Samos. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 503–526.

Jackson, J. S., Brown, K. T., Brown, T. N., & Marks, B. (2001). Contemporaryimmigration policy orientations among dominant group members in WesternEurope. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 431–456.

Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents’ attitudes towardtourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 296–312.

King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism. Annals ofTourism Research, 20, 650–655.

Lawson, R. W., Williams, J., Young, T., & Cossens, J. (1998). A comparison ofresidents’ attitudes towards tourism in 10 New Zealand destinations. TourismManagement, 19, 247–256.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnicattitudes and group behaviour. New York: Wiley.

Lindberg, K., & Johnson, R. (1997). Modelling resident attitudes towards tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 402–424.

McIntosh, A., & Johnson, H. (2004). Exploring the nature of the Maori experiencein New Zealand: Views of hosts and tourists. Tourism, 52(2), 117–129.

Milman, A., Reichel, A., & Pizam, A. (1990). The impact of tourism on ethnicattitudes: The Israeli-Egyptian case. Journal of Travel Research, 29, 5–9.

Ministry of Tourism (2010). Summary of international visitor arrivals by country ofresidence and purpose. Wellington: Ministry of Tourism. Retrieved 28 May 2010from the Ministry of Tourism website: http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz/Documents/IVA/Key%20Data/2009/AnnualSumDec09.xls.

Nunkoo, R., Gursoy, D., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2010). Island residents’ identities andtheir support for tourism: An integration of two theories. Journal of SustainableTourism, 18(5), 675–693.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2010a). Small island urban tourism: A residents’perspective. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(1), 37–60.

Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2010b). Community perceptions of tourism insmall island states: A conceptual framework. Journal of Policy Research inTourism, Leisure & Events, 2(1), 51–65.

Pearce, P. L. (1995). From culture shock and cultural arrogance to cultureexchange: Ideas towards sustainable sociocultural tourism. Journal of Sustain-able Tourism, 3, 143–154.

Perdue, R., Long, P., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism develop-ment. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 586–599.

Perez, E. A., & Nadal, J. R. (2005). Host community perceptions: A cluster analysis.Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 925–941.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contacttheory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.

Pizam, A., Milman, A., & King, B. (1993). The perceptions of tourism employeesand their families towards tourism: A cross-cultural comparison. TourismManagement, 15(1), 53–61.

Pizam, A., & Sussman, S. (1995). Does nationality affect tourist behaviour?. Annalsof Tourism Research, 22, 901–917.

Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Populationcomposition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. AmericanSociological Review, 60(4), 586–611.

Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2003). Cross-cultural behaviour in tourism: Concepts andanalysis. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Reserve Bank of Fiji (2010). Economic Review, 27(1), 1–3.Ryan, C., & Montgomery, D. (1994). The attitudes of Bakewell residents to tourism

and issues of community responsive tourism. Tourism Management, 15(5),358–369.

San Martın Garcia, J., & Gomez Jacinto, L. (1998). Influencia del turismo en elcambio de actitud: Una perspectiva intergrupal [The influence of tourism inattitude change: An intergroup perspective]. Revista de Psicologia SocialAplicada, 8, 5–18.

Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminatingracism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53–84). New York: Plenum.

http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz/Documents/IVA/Key%20Data/2009/AnnualSumDec09.xls

http://www.tourismresearch.govt.nz/Documents/IVA/Key%20Data/2009/AnnualSumDec09.xls


Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice.In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–46).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K. S., Jackson, L.A., McNatt, P. S., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racialattitudes of blacks and whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9),1242–1254.

Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory andintercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-culturalPsychology, 31, 240–249.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues,41, 157–175.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Intergroup relations. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., Abalakina, M., Ageyev, V., Blanco, A., Bond, M.,Saito, I., Turcinovic, P., & Wenzel, B. (1996). Dictinctiveness effects inintergroup perception: An international study. In J. Georgas, A. Blanco, & H.Grad (Eds.), Key issues in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 298–308). Lisse, theNetherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants:An integrated threat theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237.

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martınez, C., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa (1998).Prejudice towards immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theoryanalysis. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576.

Sustainable Tourism Development Consortium, University of the South Pacific, &the Ministry of Tourism. (2007). Tourism–Fiji’s opportunity: Tourism developmentplan 2007–2016. Suva, Fiji: GRM.

Teye, V., Sonmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents’ attitudes toward tourismdevelopment. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 668–688.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York:Wiley.

Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock.London: Routledge.

Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes towardimmigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671–682.

Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2008). Attitudes toward immigrants, immigration andmulticulturalism in New Zealand: A social psychological analysis. InternationalMigration Review, 42, 222–243.

World Tourism Organization, (2005). Cultural tourism and poverty alleviation: TheAsia-Pacific perspective. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

Zhang, J., Inbakaran, R. J., & Jackson, M. S. (2006). Understanding communityattitudes towards tourism and host-guest interaction in the urban-rural borderregion. Tourism Geographies, 8(2), 182–204.

Submitted 15 June 2010. Final version 25 November 2010. Accepted 15 February 2011.Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Svein Larsen