How far is a long way? Contrasting Two Cultures, Perspectives of Travel Distances

An examination of the tourism literature shows little cross-cultural research, particularly in the context of tourist behaviour. This is disconcerting as more tourism bodies are seen to be developing global or multi-country promotional campaigns. This paper will compare and contrast the perceptions of travel distance held by tourists from Australia and the United States, two cultures that are often clustered together by researchers and marketers and regarded as similar. The study investigated the relationship of cognitive distance, actual distance and prior travel experience. Data was collected using survey methodology from 224 US respondents and 230 Australian respondents. Findings report that US respondents have significantly more unrealistic perceptions of long-haul travel distances than do Australian respondents. Combined with a higher importance placed on travel time by US respondents, the implications for destination marketers are that localized strategies may be preferable. Introduction Within the tourism literature there has been a recent interest in the perception of distance and its relationship to destination decisions by individual tourists (Ankomah and Crompton 1992; Walmsley and Jenkins 1992; Ankomah, Crompton and Baker 1996). These authors have suggested that subjective or cognitive distance may be a better indicator than actual distance when investigating decision making processes by tourists. In addition to being an important evaluation criterion used by tourists, cognitive distance is important to destination marketers as its impact may be able to be influenced. Cognitive distance is a mental representation of actual distance moulded by an individual’s social, cultural and general life experiences. A substantial number of researchers have reported findings indicating that cognitive distance estimates significantly differ from actual distance measures (Bratfisch 1969; Brown and Broadway 1981; Cadwallader 1981; Cook and McCleary 1983; Downs and Stea 1977; McNamara 1986). E rror in cognitive distance estimates by tourists will result in false perceptions being used in their decision making process. Overestimation of distance by tourists can lead to a perception of inflated costs, extended travel time and increased risk, all of which decrease the likelihood of travel. Underestimation of distance by tourists will initially increase the attractiveness of the destination, and increase the likelihood of travel. However, underestimation can be problematic if this leads to unrealistic expectations of a destination. When the tourist’s experience does not equate with those expectations, dissatisfaction may result (Ankomah and Crompton 1992). Indeed when distance and travel time are regarded as important factors within the choice of a destination, this dissatisfaction may be amplified and the likelihood of negative word of mouth being passed on to other potential travellers is increased. Determining the cause of consumers’ distortion of distance has been the subject of a significant body of research. However, most of this research has concentrated on the urban environment (Briggs 1973; Brown and Broadway 1981; Cadwallader 1981; Canter and Tagg 1975; Golledge and Spector 1978; Lloyd and Heivly 1987). Ankomah and Crompton (1992) provide a comprehensive list of propositions on the transference of findings from these urban studies to the tourism setting. Yet, transferring findings from these reported studies must be done with caution for two reasons. Firstly, the distance relationships being measured are relatively short when compared to the distances within a tourism setting. Secondly, the purpose and frequency of travel within the urban setting can be quite different to that of tourism. Within the tourism literature the research has been less extensive and noticeably focused upon domestic destinations. One exception was a study conducted by Mayo, Jarvis and Xander (1988) which examined the relationship between cognitive distance, physical distance and attractiveness. Otherwise, there has been a lack of research into the influence of cognitive distance upon destination decisions for overseas vacations. Moreover, there are very few studies referring to decision making for long haul[1] travel. This apparent lack of empirical research into the factors influencing long haul destination choice is curious given the increase in long haul travel that has accompanied the growth of mass tourism on a global scale, and that distance is a much talked about problem for destinations in attracting long haul tourists (Hall 1991; Smith 1989; Burkhart and Medlik 1981; Mayo and Jarvis 1981). Long haul overseas travel presents the tourist with a somewhat different set of issues than that of short haul travel. “The most obvious of these differences are the increased cost and increased time of travel raising the monetary and psychological barriers to travel” (Crouch 1994, 3). Yet within the literature, a contrasting factor has also reported. Several authors (Crouch 1994; Mayo, Jarvis and Xander 1988; Baxter 1979) have suggested that distance also acts to facilitate long haul travel. Despite the general belief that distance acts as an impediment to travel, the attractiveness of destinations has been found to increase with distance (Mayo, Jarvis and Xander 1988). We are therefore confronted with a conundrum. On the one hand, the literature suggests that the attractiveness of a destination increases with distance. However, on the other hand, the factors that contribute to the "friction of distance" (Mayo, Jarvis and Xander 1988), which operate to deter the act of travelling, have been suggested as also increasing with this distance. The relationship between the distance to the destination and desire to travel to that destination is further distorted by the notion that, as pointed out by Ankomah and Crompton (1992, p.324), "subjective distance rather than actual distance may best depict what goes on in individuals' minds when they are making travel decisions". Cognitive Distance Literature Review The literature identifies numerous factors that contribute to the discrepancy between cognitive and actual distances. These will be discussed in two sections: (1) Processing of Information about the Environment; and (2) Source and Method of Information Acquisition.