Psychological distance in the heritage experience

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 42, pp. 108–129, 2013 0160-7383/$ - see front matter  2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.005

PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE IN THE HERITAGE EXPERIENCE Francesco Massara IULM University, Italy Fabio Severino Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Abstract: This paper introduces the concept of psychological distance as it relates to the literature on heritage tourism. The framework puts identity and the personal meaning of heritage at the heart of the heritage experience, showing how the concrete experience at the site is affected by the psychological distance. The concept of psychological distance and the underlying dimensions (i.e., experiential, spatial and socio-cultural) are shown to influence the level of construal that changes the experience of the heritage site. High psychological distance produces more general and abstract internal representations of the object of heritage, while low psychological distance produces more concrete and contextual conceptualizations. A discussion of the managerial and research implications is presented. Keywords: psychological distance, heritage experience, heritage site, construal, self.  2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Investigating the literature on heritage tourism, we identify two major areas of research. The first area provides a perspective that prioritizes the peculiar aspects of heritage management, with papers focusing on issues such as sustainability and funding (Garrod & Fyall, 2000; McDonald, 2010), overcrowding and spatial pressure (Li, Wu, & Cai, 2008) and community involvement (Giovanardi, 2011). The second area approaches heritage tourism from a marketing perspective, and the motivations and experience of tourists visiting a heritage site are deeply studied (Goulding, 2001; McCain & Ray, 2003; McIntosh & Prentice, 1999). The first portrays a product-centric interpretation of heritage sites, while the second adopts a customer-centric view (Poria, Reichel, & Biran, 2006).

Francesco Massara, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Iulm University (Department of Economics and Marketing, Via Carlo Bo’ 1, 20143 Milano, Italy. Email Æ[email protected]æ). His main research interests include consumer psychology and buying behavior. Fabio Severino, MA, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer of Arts Management at Sapienza University of Rome and Vice-President of the Italian Association of Cultural Economics. His main research interests is the management of heritage and the arts in tourism. 108

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

109

This second view is useful to gain insight into how to create value for the tourist. We pursue this second view, beginning with the touristcentric perspective proposed by Timothy (1997) and the invitation to focus on the existence of different layers of the heritage experience (i.e., world, national, local, personal) (Poria et al., 2006). In particular, we focus on the cognitive processes that characterize the heritage experience, providing a psychological distance interpretation to the different layers. Using a psychological distance framework (Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007), we formulate hypotheses about the causes and the consequences of psychological distance. We explore the literature related to the heritage experience, shedding light on many unstated examples of how psychological distance affects the level of construal at the heritage site. By exploring this structure, our aim is to extend the existing knowledge on heritage tourism by providing both a framework and an interpretation with empirical evidence that enriches how we view the heritage experience. We show supporting evidence to this argument and discuss the practical and theoretical implications. Review of the Literature on the Heritage Experience We refer to heritage in the broadest sense, including tangible objects, from own possessions, to public sites and intangibles (Chronis 2005a). In the remainder of this paper, we will refer to these interchangeably. To date, there is a substantial amount of information on how people engage with heritage; nonetheless, we lack a unifying view. We wish to propose a framework that can be used to systematize the large amounts of evidence produced in the literature. We begin with the phenomenological view that the core of a heritage experience lies in the intimate relationship that the person experiences with the heritage. This view is largely agreed upon in the literature. For example, it has been suggested that understanding behaviors at sites requires exploring the link between the person and the space visited (Poria et al., 2006); Voase (2007) discusses an interaction between the tourist background and the site; Herbert (2001) highlights that the experience is a co-creation and that the tourist is active rather than passive; and Chronis (2005a) states that the result of a visit to a site is a ‘‘cultural narrative that is formed by the information provided in the exhibition and is enriched and completed by the consumers’ historical knowledge and their personal struggle to follow this narrative through imagination’’ (p. 219). Such a perspective was asserted even earlier by McIntosh and Prentice (1999), who show that tourists produce their own experience by selectively attending and matching the information gained with personal knowledge and past experiences. Subsequently, Prentice and Andersen (2007) find that what consumers bring with them in terms of cultural capital influences the heritage experience. To further understand heritage tourism, it is essential to understand the processes

110

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

or elaborations in which tourists engage and which shape their relationship with the site. Our starting point is therefore the intimate relationship between the tourist and heritage. McIntosh and Prentice (1999) describe three processes: comparison between present and past, knowledge acquisition and thinking about one’s own experience in the past (provided, of course, that the tourist’s past includes the heritage). These processes, however, are not clearly distinct from one another and may overlap. Goulding (2001), for example, finds that a comparison between the present and the past together with emerging memories and other personal factors makes the individual willing to escape into the past to experience nostalgia. The same author shows that knowledge acquisition happens through aesthetic appreciation, but knowledge acquisition together with aesthetic appreciation and escape into the past are three distinct experiential facets that are identified by Chronis (2005a). As these processes emerge from phenomenological investigations, they appear to be closer to surface processes, instrumental to some deeply rooted benefit that constitutes the true essence of the heritage experience. A deeper motivation emerging from the literature on the meaning of possessions is that the objects of the past support the sense of self against the caducity and impermanence of life: ‘‘People do not and cannot simply live, savor, or endure each moment as it passes. We are impelled to make sense of our experience beyond the sort of practical calculations necessary to survival’’ (Tuan, 1980, p. 463). Thoughts and feelings evoked in the relationship with an object of the past gain permanence, while much of the rest—including the relationship with ordinary objects—is absorbed into the daily routine or ‘‘mere life’’ and fades away from memories. Thus, Tuan (1980) suggests that the objects of the past extend the oeuvre of men in time and space, allowing those who experience these objects in the present to relive their sense of frailty. With this view, the heritage becomes a successful embodiment of the emotions, thoughts and work of other men that represents a gateway to ancient cultures and values that one can aspire to or, at least, connect with (Voase, 2007). To make sense of the present, people need comparison with the past in the many forms in which it can be experienced (Timothy, 1997), for example, in terms of culture, nature, family heritage and traditions, or even one’s personal objects. Experiencing contact with these objects contributes to the sense of self through a process called contagion: ‘‘Just as we seek to extend our selves by incorporating or owning certain objects, we may still seek the sympathetic magic (contagion) of possessions that retain a part of the extended self of valued others’’ (Belk, 1988, p. 149). Even if we do not formally possess a heritage site, we can still learn to regard it as part of the self by experience and knowledge; in fact, one of the ways in which ‘‘objects become a part of self is by knowing them. Whether the object known is a person, place or thing’’ (1988, p. 150). Experience is thus a form of possession insofar as it allows one’s knowledge to be extended, from which it can be deduced that the experience of a heritage site contributes to the sense of self, which is the first pillar of the heritage experience. Sense of self is directly

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

111

related to one’s identity and so are the objects on which the sense of self is extended, such as a heritage that is a direct part of one’s own past and identity. Researchers developed a scale to measure the personal meaning of heritages and, in particular, the extent to which a site relates to one’s personal identity, finding that considering the site as part of the personal heritage correlates positively with the motivation to visit, emotional involvement and the need for intimacy (Poria et al., 2006). While we agree that identity is at the core of heritage tourism (Poria, Butler, & Ariely, 2003), heritage is, however, more a matter of collective rather than personal identity. Since we exist not just as individuals but also as collectivities, an important aspect is the collective conception of ourselves, in other words, how we regard ourselves as part of the various groups to which at various levels we belong (e.g., local communities, regions, nations, ethnicities). We notoriously define our collective identity through shared symbolic meaning and the consumption of symbols (Belk, 1988) or stories (Chronis, 2005b), and heritage sites are, by definition, elected as shared symbols by the community. We extend our collective self over the heritage that is representative of our culture, but the attitudinal posture and the degree of possessiveness change with respect to the distance from the self, becoming lighter towards the outer layers. We are very possessive and jealous of what we consider our own possessions, as well as of family legacies (Belk, 1988) with both a promotion and a prevention or conservation focus. At the community level, the extent of the self-extension is still manifest with both a promotion and a prevention focus, for example, with pride and interest for future development (Aas, Ladkin, & Fletcher, 2005; Cave, Ryan, & Panakera, 2007; Jimura, 2011) but also with conservation concerns and a negative attitude towards tourism development (Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002; Mason & Cheyne, 2000), especially when this implies cultural commoditization (Jordan, 1980). At the national level, the extension loses momentum and the prevention focus seems to become weak, or at least no research indicating a prevention focus on a national heritage has been identified in literature. National heritage is, however, still a vehicle of unity, pride and integration (Chronis, 2005b; Park, 2010). Finally, at the outermost level, the extension is rather abstract and idealized, and answers existential questions (Gonzalez, 2007). Thus, self-extension at the innermost level is more likely to have a concrete and tangible reference, while self-extension at the outermost level is likely to refer to more abstract and intangible heritages. We can therefore state that the individual’s personal and collective identities lie at the heart of the heritage experience. Conceptual Study on the Effects of Psychological Distance on the Heritage Experience The concept of psychological distance relates to the perceived distance of an object or event in time, space, culture and probability, its main implication being the level of construal of the reality (Trope

112

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

et al., 2007). Since the concept of psychological distance is not entirely novel in tourism research, we conducted a systematic analysis of the literature to understand how and where the concept was applied. Table 1 shows a classification of 42 papers in tourism research that are, directly or indirectly, related to the psychological distance construct and to the heritage experience. The papers were selected from the top three ranked journals in tourism research (McAleer & Chang, 2011) on a 30-year time frame. The list of papers is not intended to be exhaustive of course, but constitutes a nexus of important contributions that relate to the role of psychological distance in the heritage experience in tourism research. Reading Table 1, it appears evident that the incidence of psychological distance in tourism research increases markedly after the year 2000. The former studies conceptualize cognitive distance as the difference between estimated and real distance. These studies are more focused on spatial or geographical distance and its positive relationship with travel costs. The construct of cognitive distance is also found to be negatively related to knowledge or experience. Ancomah, Crompton, and Baker (1996) are the first to include socio-cultural factors in the perception of distance. With some exceptions (Nuryanti, 1996; Teo & Yeoh 1997), the perspective remains latent until the contribution of Poria, Butler, and Airey (2003), who show that identification with a heritage (and thus socio-cultural distance) affects the emotional experience at the site. Although these authors do not address psychological distance directly, the role of socio-cultural differences has gained momentum since then and become central to the construct of psychological distance in relation to the heritage experience (Ng, Lee, & Soutar, 2007). Three main dimensions clearly emerge from the literature: socio-cultural, spatial and experiential. The spatial dimension also includes an economic aspect. These three dimensions are consistent with the dimensions emerging from consumer psychology literature (Trope et al., 2007). The literature also considers both spatial and socio-cultural distance as related to the experiential distance, in the sense that socio-cultural and experiential distance are circularly and positively related (Cui & Ryan, 2011; Hunter & Suh, 2007; Prentice, 2006; San Martin & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2008; Teo & Yeoh, 1997), while experiential distance has been shown to improve the knowledge of spatial distance (Walmsley & Jenkins, 1992). Of course, socio-cultural and spatial distance are related positively (Peleggi, 1996; Ryan, 2002), although the literature has focused more on the counter-intuitive contrasts between the two (Gelbman & Timothy, 2011; Hou, Lin, & Morais, 2006; Ng et al., 2007). Finally, the literature presents several examples, bolded in Table 1, that latently show supporting evidence as regards the influence of psychological distance on the level of construal of the experience.

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

113

Table 1. A systematic review of the literature on psychological distance based on top tourism journals Authors

Year

Findings

Cook McLeary

1983

Culpan

1987

Ankomah Crompton

1992

Walmsley Jenkins

1992

Light Prentice

1994

Ankomah Crompton Baker

1996

Nuryanti

1996

Peleggi

1996

McKay Fesenmayer

1997

Teo Yeoh

1997

Distortion between cognitive and real distance is influenced by knowledge and experience. Perceived spatial distance is related to travel costs which, in turn, reduces visits and increases cognitive distance. Objects within the same categories are perceived as being ‘‘closer’’ than those between categories. Tourists included fewer features on their cognitive maps compared to residents. Familiarity increases the level of detail of the visual representations of the place. Regional tourism flows are related to physical proximity. Cognitive distance is given by X internal (knowledge and memory) and external information (socio-cultural differences). X Scale of attraction (international, national, regional or local) of a heritage influences tourist choices. Domestic demand for heritage and cultural sites outweighs international demand. High familiarity with the place correlates with affect and with a more realistic image of the place X Tourists apply a top-down model assimilating the heritage to their knowledge or stereotypes about the local cultural model. Locals apply a bottom-up model, that is they possess richer knowledge of the place and look for details.

Line missing

SOC SPA EXP SOC/SPA CON X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

114 Authors

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 Year

Findings

Older people are most knowledgeable before visiting a heritage site but the least likely to assimilate new knowledge. McIntosh 1999 An older interviewee recalls Prentice specific historical facts in more detail compared to a younger one. Young 1999 Domestic/international tourists have more detailed/ symbolic cognitive maps of the place. Crompton Kim 2001 Confirms principle findings of Ankomah Crompton & Baker 1996. Kerstetter 2001 Specialized tourists use more Confer specific knowledge to Graefe interpret the site. Besculides Lee 2002 Identification with local McCormick cultural heritage fostered concern for management and preservation. Ryan 2002 Spatial proximity flattens perceived cultural difference. Cultural distance persists nonetheless. Chhabra Healy 2003 Distance traveled and income Sills are found to be highly correlated. Poria Butler 2003 Identification with the heritage Airey site changes the emotional experience and future intentions to revisit. Poria Butler 2004 Identification affects reasons Airey for visiting and changes the emotional experience. Suh Gartner 2004 Shorter/higher socio-cultural distance increased interests for the tangible/intangible attributes of the location. Chronis 2005b Older generations/ experienced people are considered themselves part of the heritage. Hou Lin Morais 2005 Tourists with the same nationality but different ethnicities perceived different cultural distances. Poria Reichel 2006 Identification with the heritage Biran site influences the need for intimacy and onsite emotional and learning experience.

SOC SPA EXP SOC/SPA CON

Prentice Guerin 1998 McGugan

Line missing

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

115

Table 1 (continued) Authors

Year

Findings

SOC SPA EXP SOC/SPA CON

Prentice

2006

X

X

X

Hunter Suh

2007

X

X

X

Ng Lee Soutar

2007

Prentice Andersen

2007

Li Wu Cai

2008

Greater familiarity with the place (due to cultural proximity) is associated to more detailed imagery of the place. Residents have more vivid perceptual memory (they draw more detailed images) of local heritage sculptures than tourists. Cultural similarity and spatial distance influence a tourist’s intention to visit a country. National visitors had more concrete memories of the experience - international had more abstract memories. Spatial distance is related to tourist volume pressure on heritage sites. Shorter cultural distance implies more favourable affect/cognition (because low adaptation effort). Finds that intangible heritage can be staged far away from the origin and still be perceived highly authentic. An older interviewee recalls specific historical facts in more detail compared to a younger one. Cultural distance affects interpretation at the site. Acquisition of information (via movie) without activation of a stereotype reduces the social distance. Local and regional visitors show higher attachment to the heritage than national visitors. Spatial distance and number of visitors at heritage sites negatively related because of transportation costs. Tourist who perceive a strong personal attachment experience more intense emotional involvement and understanding.

San Martin 2008 Rodriguez del Bosque Gonzalez

2008

Goulding Domic

2009

Poria Biran Reichel Tasci

2009 2009

Camarero Garrido Vicente

2010

Yang Lin Han

2010

Biran Poria Oren

2011

Line missing

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

116

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Authors

Year

Findings

Cui Ryan

2011

Gelbman Timothy Huang Tsaur Yang

2011

Lin Morgan Coble

2012

Sheng Chen

2012

Sense of place correlates with X age and with duration of residence. Exclaves present more differences than similarities. Spatial distance is negatively related to number of visitors because of transportation cost (economic or psychological). Stronger/weaker socio-cultural X attachment results in a lower/higher overall abstractness ratio. Older museum visitors expect historical reminiscences

2012

SOC SPA EXP SOC/SPA CON X

X X

X

X

Note. The search was conducted on Google Scholar, and focused on the journals: Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management and Journal of Travel Research. The keywords used in the search were: 1 fixed related to the context of interest (i.e., Heritage Experience), 3 first-level rotating synonyms related to psychological distance (Proximity, Distance, Difference), and a set of 10 second-level rotating adjectives as possibly related to the underlying dimensions of the psychological distance construct (i.e., Identity, Social, Cultural, Spatial, Geographical, Local, Regional, National, International, Generational, Chronological). For example, the first set of keywords included the words ‘‘Heritage, Experience, Proximity, Identity’’; the second set included ‘‘Heritage, Experience, Proximity, Social’’ and so on. These were entered, space-separated, in the Google Scholar search engine, and the results had to ‘‘include all the words’’. Overall, 90 different queries were conducted. The first three pages of each search were browsed. SOC: The study relates to socio-cultural distance. SPA: the study relates to spatial distance. EXP: the study relates to experiential distance. SOC/SPA: the study compares or contrasts socio-cultural and spatial distance. CON: the study contains (implicit) evidence of the relationship between psychological distance and construal level.

HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE DRIVES THE HERITAGE EXPERIENCE The literature reveals that a definition of distance incorporating the three dimensions of time, space and culture (Trope et al., 2007) is particularly suited to explain the experience of an object of heritage located at increasing distance from the core self. Following construal level theory, a closer psychological distance implies a more concrete and low-level psychological construal of reality, while a greater psychological distance implies a more abstract and high-level construal. Low-level construal is unstructured and contextualized and makes use of peripheral features and details of the environment, while high construals are schematic representations that extract the essence out of the available information. While construal level theory is used to understand how individuals think of and evaluate objects or events, we consider the effect of construal-level activation on the experience of heritage sites. We suggest that each level of construal enables a

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

117

particular frame of reality that makes the knowledge of that specific frame more accessible, affecting the experience of an object of heritage. Theoretical Development We expect that the experience will be less and less focused on peripheral or incidental features of the site and more on higher level construal as one moves further from the core self. For example, at a historical site, a local tourist might be more attracted and pay more attention to the particular features of the site such as a tomb, a statue or a monument. An international tourist, on the other hand, might evaluate the experience at a higher level, for example, appreciating the general qualities of the place, such as its historical value or beauty. Psychological distance has four underlying factors: time, space, culture and probability. Consistently with the literature, we consider that at least the first three of these factors relate to the concept of distance as it applies to the experience of a heritage. As far as probability is concerned (i.e., a more probable event is closer than a less probable event), in terms of heritage, it could be considered as the probability of visiting a site, which is easily assimilated to an economic distance (i.e., a more affordable site is closer than a non affordable site) and could therefore be subsumed under the spatial dimension. First and foremost, objects or events are evaluated as being more distant if they are located in the distant past or in the future with respect to the present time. Construal level theory usually addresses future events because choice does not relate to the past, but heritage relates by definition to an earlier period, so the process of construal at a site must refer to the past. For example, the same historic location can be visited for different reasons by tourists of different generations. Tourists from older generations might go to remember, while younger ones view the visit from a totally different perspective (Poria et al., 2006). Podoshen and Hunt (2011) have recently conceptualized psychological distance as chronological distance (i.e., in terms of recentness of the heritage site). Psychological distance is therefore to be defined accordingly, with a shorter time distance from the heritage, allowing a low level of construal as opposed to a longer time distance. Empirical evidence for this argument emerges from the literature and, in particular, on reading the following excerpt of an interview with an elderly woman reported by McIntosh and Prentice (1999). The interview concerns the visit to a representation of the 19th century ‘‘High Victorian’’ period of the British history: I grew up living with my grandmother in a cottage not far from here, so I remember what it was like. I can remember being bathed in a tin tub; I remember the mangle and the grate, and my granny cooking fresh bread and home made jam... I picked out things I could remember. I sat in the school classroom and it felt so realistic; the school had the same desks as we used to have in our school; I couldn’t do all the sums on the board, though. A little girl skipping in the yard brought back incredible memories; fond memories. It takes you back to your childhood; it reminds you of a part of your life that you’d forgotten about (1999, p. 604).

118

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Clearly, the site awakened vivid images of the youth of the old lady. Now, compare this excerpt with the experience of a younger woman visiting a similar location: I gained a view of what the world was like then, in very vivid terms; a real feeling of what it was like; it was very authentic. The surprise is the biggest thing. It taught me about a way of life I knew nothing about. I knew about the Industrial Revolution, but not about the life conditions. I feel I’ve learnt a lot and identified with their hardships. It’s remarkable at my age to learn; I suppose we’re never too old to learn. It’s insight into the past so that we can appreciate it more; otherwise we tend to forget (1999, p. 603).

The two experiences are markedly different in terms of construal level and knowledge generated and accessed: fine details and lucid images in the former case and abstract thoughts about life conditions in the latter. A very similar example was cited by Goulding and Domic (2009) who report an interview with an older interviewee who recalls specific historical facts more in detail compared to a younger one. Familiarity is also found to increase the detail of the visual recollection of the place (Walmsley & Jenkins, 1992) and specific knowledge of a heritage, when available, is found to influence interpretation at the site (Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe, 2001). Thus, increased cognitive accessibility induced by familiarity affects the experience with the heritage to a greater extent through construal level. In this respect, we propose the following formal statement: Proposition 1. The closer (further) the experiential distance between the tourist and the heritage, the lower (higher) the psychological distance and the lower (higher) the level of construal that characterizes the experience of a heritage.

Evidence of spatial distance on construal is rarer in literature, and more linked to visual representations. For example, Walmsley and Jenkins (1992) find that tourists tended to include fewer features on their cognitive maps compared to residents. Similarly, Young (1999) finds that domestic tourists have more detailed cognitive maps in terms of spatial elements while international tourists tend to have more abstract impressions of the place. Proposition 2. The closer (farther) the spatial distance between the tourist and the heritage, the lower (higher) the psychological distance and the lower (higher) the level of construal that characterizes the experience of the object of heritage.

Evidence of the socio-cultural distance on the level of construal abounds. With respect to the experiential distance, socio-cultural distance has to do with identification (Poria et al., 2003), and is not limited to the experience that can be acquired by mere exposure. An increase in familiarity, in fact, does not coincide with a reduction of cultural distance. As an example, New Zealanders are highly familiar with the Maori heritage, but they do not identify with it (Ryan, 2002).

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

119

Prentice and Andersen (2007) studied national (i.e., Danish) and international (i.e., non-Danish) impressions on a major heritage (i.e., The Old Town at A˚rhus, in the Jutland peninsula). A content analysis of the interviews verbatim as well as single word summaries of the heritage experience revealed that international tourists were more likely to use descriptions of general qualities, for example, using words such as authentic, nice, beautiful, romantic, interesting and so on. Thus, increasing the socio-cultural distance is likely to enact a higher level construal of the heritage experience. Similar findings can be attributed to Suh and Gartner (2004), who discovered that socio-cultural proximity increased interests for the tangible attributes of the location while socio-cultural distance increased interest for intangible attributes of the location. Prentice (2006) finds cultural proximity associated to higher detailed imagery of the place and Hunter and Suh (2007) find that residents can draw more detailed images of local heritage sculptures than tourists. Finally, stronger sociocultural attachment resulted in a lower overall abstractness index – a measure of the abstractness of the concepts – compared to a weaker socio-cultural attachment (Lin, Morgan, & Coble, 2012). Proposition 3. The closer (farther) the socio-cultural distance between the tourist and the heritage, the lower (higher) the psychological distance and the lower (higher) the level of construal that characterizes the experience of the object of heritage.

Tourists can be true experts relative to a regional heritage: in this case, experiential similarity should enact a lower level construal. Evidence in this regard can be found in the research by Herbert (2001), who compares the experience of two literary sites located in the UK. One of the sites (i.e., the Jane Austen House) located near London, attracts tourists from the entire United Kingdom and a sizeable portion of international tourists as well (approximately 18% of 450 interviewees). A considerable portion of the tourists interviewed (over 60%) in this first location were very knowledgeable of the life and works of the artist, and almost half of them stated that they were fans of the writer. We posit that this specialization had likely inspired their appreciation of the details of the house (Kerstetter et al., 2001). In fact, when the tourists were asked to pinpoint the features of the site that were most of interest to them, they named Jane Austen’s personal details ‘‘such as letters, a lock of hair, her own room, and details of her illness; [while] many others referred to her family and to the house’’ (Herbert, 2001, p. 327). By contrast, the tourists to a literary Welsh site (i.e., the Dylan Thomas Boathouse), who were mostly regional tourists (approximately 55%) and much less literate and erudite in comparison to the Jane Austen fans, returned answers such as: ‘‘the spirit of the place, atmosphere of the town, place where so much happened, [... ], spiritual experience of house and area, evocative, empathy, breathing in atmosphere’’ (2001, p. 328).

120

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Thus, experiential distance, when at odds with spatial distance, can influence the psychological distance to a greater extent. Of course, experiential distance and spatial distance can be hypothesized to be strongly associated, but when this is not the case, then experiential distance tends to prevail. The supremacy of experiential distance is also likely to be valid with respect to socio-cultural distance. Also in such a case, we could expect a correlation (Cui & Ryan 2011). For example, with respect to the example of the Victorian representation reported above (see § 2.1), we expect that the experience of a young historian of the Industrial Revolution would be more similar to the older lady, who had a low construal experience, rather than to the younger lady, who, vice versa, experienced a high construal. We thus propose the following: Proposition 4a. Experiential distance to the object of heritage should be positively related to the socio-cultural distance. When this is not the case, experiential distance exerts a stronger influence. Proposition 4b. Experiential distance to the object of heritage should be positively related to the spatial distance. When this is not the case, experiential distance exerts a stronger influence.

Another exception that needs to be considered concerns the relationship between socio-cultural distance and spatial distance. Although the two may generally be considered as being correlated, socio-cultural effects have been found to prevail in several circumstances. For example, tourists with the same nationality (i.e., same spatial distance) but different ethnicities perceived different cultural distances (Besculides et al. 2002; Hou, Lin, & Morais, 2005). It has also been shown that, generally speaking, culturally proximal destinations are preferred to culturally distant destinations irrespective of the physical distance (Ng et al. 2007) and that cultural differences persist despite very close spatial proximity (Gelbman & Timothy 2011). Hence the following proposition ensues: Proposition 5. Socio-cultural distance to the object of heritage should be positively related to the spatial distance. When this is not the case, sociocultural distance exerts a stronger influence.

The relationships discussed above are depicted in the model in Figure 1. The rest of this paper presents a partial test of propositions 2 and 3 within a natural setting. Study Method The hypothesized relationship between psychological distance and the construal level of the experience of a heritage is corroborated by an experiment conducted in a natural setting. A systematic quasi-random sampling procedure (Biran, Poria, & Oren, 2011) was applied

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

121

Socio-cultural distance Consequences

P3 P4a

Experiential distance

• Perceived authenticity P5

Psychological distance

P1 P4b

P2

Level of Construal

• Onsite spending behavior • Affective and cognitive experience at the site • Satisfaction with the site

Spatial distance

Figure 1. A process model of the antecedents and consequences of psychological distance

to intercepted groups of tourists visiting three World Heritage Sites in the area of Rome (Italy). The tourist experiences were compared to test the hypothesized influence of the psychological distance on the heritage experience, with particular reference to the level of construal enacted at the site. The Sites. The three sites that serve as settings for this study are the Roman Forum in the center of Rome and the two Etruscan necropolises of Tarquinia and Cerveteri located in the provinces of Viterbo and (greater) Rome, respectively. The three sites share some characteristics. Firstly, they are all World Heritage Sites and they are all located in the same greater area (i.e., the Italian region Latium). Secondly, each of the sites is composed of an archaeological section and a related museum. Being located in the very heart of Rome, which alone attracts over five million international tourists per year (i.e., about half of the total number of tourists in the city), the Roman Forum is the most internationally appealing site of the three. The two necropolises are the most important Etruscan sites in Italy. Since 1997, the sites of Tarquinia and Cerveteri have been inscribed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage List (UNESCO, 2012). Unlike the Roman Forum, these two sites are located far from the city of Rome—specifically, they are found in the provinces of Viterbo (Tarquinia) and Rome (Cerveteri). The presence of Italian tourists in the two regional sites adds up to over 90% of the total tourist flow, and approximately half of this flow comes from within the region. Thus, while very important for locals, the two necropolises of Tarquinia and Cerveteri can both be considered to be secondary sites for international tourists. Procedure, Measures and Sample Characteristics. The tourists were intercepted for the interviews at the end of their visit to the sites. When possible, a maximum of two tourists per hour were interviewed on a time schedule from 9am to 5pm, for 3 days (2 working days and 1 weekend

122

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

day) in each of the three locations. The interviewees responded to the same set of questions. After a generic part of the questionnaire containing general questions about the visit (e.g., logistics, motivation) was administered, the core of the interview was dedicated to gathering information on their experience of the site. In particular, the tourists were asked to sum up what had impressed them most and what they would remember best from their visit to the site. This question came immediately after the one assessing satisfaction with the visit and was posed to prompt the tourists to recall the most salient aspects of their experience. The answers to this question were then content-analyzed for the purpose of synthetically measuring the construal level at the site. This processing was carried out independently by two trained judges who were blind to the research hypotheses. Interjudge agreement was as high as 96.4%. The criterion adopted to discern between high and low level of construal was the level of abstractness of the recollection. Reference to material and physical objects (e.g., jewels, tombs, a statue, a monument, etc.), details of or judgments on the objects (e.g., orange and black decorations on vases, the beauty of the antiques) and features of the servicescape (organization, exhibits, personnel, etc.), denoting concreteness, were considered to be indicative of a low construal process during the experience. In contrast, the use of abstract and general descriptors (e.g., beauty, magnificence, grandness, history of the place, glory) and even the identifiers ‘‘all’’ and ‘‘everything’’, denoting abstractness, were considered to represent a high construal process during the experience of the site (Bar-Anan, Lieberman & Trope, 2006). Out of a total of 114 interviewees across the sites, 11 were not categorized as either high or low because the answer was evasive or vague (i.e., 7 said ‘‘nothing’’ or ‘‘don’t remember’’, 4 were not clearly classifiable as either high or low construal), leaving us with a total of 103 usable answers. The age and gender statistics of the sample are reported in Table 2.

Table 2. Sample statistics Site

Origin of tourists

Total

Local

Regional

National

International

Roman Forum Interviewees % Females Avg. Age

8 38% 42

3 67% 50

15 80% 52

23 65% 62

49 62% 51

Cerveteri and Tarquinia Interviewees % Females Avg. Age

12 58% 32

23 40% 44

15 60% 30

4 50% 56

54 52% 41

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

123

We use the origin of the tourist as a proxy for measuring psychological distance. We divide the sample into four types of origin: local, regional, national and international. The locals are people who come from the city where the heritage is located, which is Rome for the Roman Forum and the cities of Cerveteri and Tarquinia for the necropolises. The regional tourists are people who come from the Latium region, excluding those already counted as locals. The national tourists are people who come from outside the Latium region but inside the Italian national border. Finally, international tourists are those who come from countries other than Italy. We observe that, as could be expected, the percentage of international tourists was much higher at the Roman Forum (47% vs. 7%) and that the presence of local and regional tourists was higher at the regional sites (22% vs. 65%). Another characteristic of the sample that is worth mentioning is that the presence of females and the age of the entire sample were both slightly higher at the Roman Forum. The age of the international tourists was also higher at both sites; this could be expected given the nature of the sites, which might be less appealing to young international tourists. RESULTS With the available data, we wish to see whether psychological distance can predict the construal level of the heritage experience. In particular, consistent with the propositions, we expect that higher psychological distance will be a significant predictor of a high level of construal. We run a logistic regression with our measure of psychological distance as a predictor of the level of construal. We also include as predictors the sites, gender and age. The fit of the model is good (v2 (9) = 34.87; p < 0.01; Pseudo R2 = 0.25). Table 3 shows the results of the regression and reports the log odds and significance levels for each of the predictors on the outcome ‘‘high construal’’. The results show that international tourists were significantly more likely than local tourists to report a high construal of the heritage experience. The same result, but less strong and marginally significant, holds when comparing international and regional tourists. Finally, the heritage experience of the international tourists did not differ in terms of the construal level with respect to that of national tourists. We thus find support for the claim that, generally speaking, psychological distance influences the level of construal. More specifically, we show an almost monotonic increase in the likelihood of a high construal experience going hand in hand with each additional ‘‘level’’ of psychological distance. The site approaches significance level as a predictor of a high construal, with the Roman Forum experience being more likely to be related to a high construal. While a more emotional, holistic and high construal experience can understandably be related more to the major than to the peripheral heritages (See theoretical

124

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Table 3. Logistic regression predicting ‘‘high construal’’ for the heritage experience

Psychological Distance Intl. vs. Local Intl. vs. Regional Intl. vs. National Site Roman Forum vs. Necropolises Gender Males vs. Females Age Class >65 vs. 0-24 >65 vs. 25-34 >65 vs. 35-54 >65 vs. 55-64

Odds Ratio

Std. Err.

z

P>z

7.33** 4.25  1.42

5.67 3.37 1.04

2.58 1.83 0.48

0.01 0.07 0.63

2.79 

1.51

1.90

0.06

1.75

0.90

1.09

0.28

21.15* 3.83 6.51 5.89

29.04 4.79 7.98 7.53

2.22 1.07 1.53 1.39

0.03 0.28 0.13 0.17

Note.  p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01. N = 103. The latter outcomes of the coded variables are used as the baseline for the prediction (i.e., the numerator in the odds ratio). In particular, for the levels of psychological distance, 1 identifies the local tourists, 2 the regional tourists, 3 the national tourists and 4 the international tourists. For the site variable, 0 identifies the necropolises and 1 identifies the Roman Forum. Finally, 1 identifies males, and age classes were defined using a standard coding (0-24; 25-34; 35-54; 55-64; >65).

development), in this specific case, the result is likely due to the structure of the sample across the sites. In particular, it could be related to the higher number of international tourists at the Forum and, vice versa, to the higher number of local and regional tourists at the necropolises. This observation is supported by analyzing the psychological distance as a mediator of the direct relationship between site and level of construal, in particular by observing a weakening of the relationship both in terms of odds ratios (4.84 vs. 2.87) and significance level (p < 0.01 vs. p < 0.05) when psychological distance is entered into the model. The same weakening of the relationship is not observed (i.e., significance levels are not affected) when the site is studied as a mediator of the direct relationship between psychological distance and level of construal. Psychological distance is thus a stronger factor than the site for explaining the construal effects. Finally, gender is not shown to affect the level of construal, but we find an effect for age. In particular, the oldest age class (i.e., people over 65) is found to be more likely to resort to a high construal than the youngest age class. This effect is again explained by the structure of the sample, being that the average age of the international tourists is higher than that of the other tourists (see Table 1). Again, a mediation analysis of the psychological distance between age and construal level shows a deterioration of the odds ratios (10.50 vs. 9.78) and

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

125

significance level (0.04 vs. 0.08) for the oldest relative to the youngest age class. Here again, a deterioration of the relationship is not observed when age is studied as a mediator of the direct relationship between psychological distance and the level of construal. Psychological distance is thus a stronger factor than age for explaining the construal effects. CONCLUSION Based on the literature, this paper advances knowledge of the heritage experience. The relationship between the heritage and the self is central to understanding the role of psychological distance in the heritage experience. The paper pinpoints a result concerning the strength of the connection between a heritage and a tourist and the effect that this strength has on the experience, based on a psychological distance interpretation. We find support for the claim that a higher psychological distance increases the probability of the experience being characterized by a higher (i.e., more abstract) construal of the reality. On the contrary, a lower psychological distance increases the salience of, and shifts the attention to, the details. Interestingly, this result was latent but already present in the heritage studies (See Table 1 and theoretical development) reporting evidence of the existence of different construal levels related to the psychological distance. Thus a corpus of evidence emerged from the analysis of the literature that fit very well with the proposed framework. The principle contribution of this study is, therefore, that it shows the existence of this construal level effect with reference to the heritage experience. This is particularly relevant since the literature presented a wide but sparse set of latent evidences of the level of construal. These evidences were not addressed before, but they can now be recognized and attributed to the effect of psychological distance. Psychological distance itself was not understood within a unifying framework but through a set of different – and at times contradictory – findings on cultural, generational and geographical difference. Another contribution of the paper is thus to present a framework to understand the antecedents of psychological distance, and a model to more precisely tap into the relationship among the single constituents. Furthermore, we highlight the relative strength of each of the psychological distance antecedents, with experiential distance exerting the strongest effects, followed by socio-cultural distance and, finally, spatial distance. A limitation of this study is the restricted sample and the distribution of age and origin of the tourists (i.e., our measure of psychological distance) at the different sites. Although the mediation analyses reveal that the effect of the psychological distance is stronger and that it persists across sites and age classes, more robust evidence would be provided if the effect were to be observed with a more balanced distribution of ages and origin across the sites.

126

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

While an inherent limitation from the perspective of theory testing, this unbalanced distribution is nonetheless consistent with the natural setting. An additional limitation is that although, as confirmed by existing research in tourism (San Martin & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2008), place of origin works better than other measures as a proxy of psychological distance, spatial and cultural distance remain indistinct causes. A neater distinction between the effects of the different antecedents of psychological distance remain to be addressed by future research. As far as the method is concerned, a natural field experiment is an experiment that investigates tasks in an environment where the subjects naturally undertake these tasks and where the subjects do not know that they are in an experiment (Harrison & List, 2004). While there is an obvious advantage in terms of external validity of the setting, in such cases random sampling cannot occur and conclusions about causality need to be very cautious. More extensive research (on a wider database) would thus be needed to better corroborate the results in the face of the limits endemic to the sampling procedure. Future studies could take into account the psychological distance dimension, scrutinizing more in detail the effects that it has on behavior (see Figure 1). An extremely relevant issue concerning the heritage experience that has not been taken into account here, due to focus and space limitations, is authenticity. There are several cues that link authenticity and psychological distance. For example, the finding that residents have more authentic experiences than tourists (Jordan, 1980; Waitt, 2000; Yang & Wall, 2009) implies that psychological distance and authenticity should be inversely related. A research question that remains to be addressed is what the psychological mechanisms are and why this happens. An intriguing approach could be to look at how knowledge is applied (Ankomah, Crompton, & Baker, 1996). A topdown approach, when with poor categories (e.g., stereotypes) typical of the non-expert, should exert a stronger negative influence on authenticity. For example, it is already known that the experience of heritage sites, the extent of learning and even the reasons for the visit are affected by psychological distance. Particularly interesting is that a richer and more thorough experience at the heritage site is related to higher satisfaction (Kerstetter et al., 2001). From a managerial perspective, more knowledgeable visitors should already be able to experience a low construal by themselves. Less specialized tourists may, on the other hand, need more interactive or educational support and should be encouraged to abandon stereotypes that they would otherwise tend to use. They may therefore need more tangible elements in order to compensate for their lack of knowledge. Generally, from a managerial perspective, it might be interesting to see whether the construal level can be successfully used to communicate effectively with tourists.

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

127

In conclusion, we hope that future research will build upon the framework, further exploring its limits, refining its mechanisms and extending its boundaries. REFERENCES Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28–48. Ankomah, P. K., & Crompton, J. L. (1992). Tourism cognitive distance. A set of research propositions. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 323–342. Ankomah, P. K., Crompton, J. L., & Baker, D. (1996). Influence of cognitive distance in vacation choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 138–150. Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135(4), 609–622. Belk, W. R. (1988). Possession and the extend self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents’ perceptions of the cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303–319. Biran, A., Porta, Y., & Oren, G. (2011). Sought experiences at (dark) heritage sites. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 820–841. Camarero, C., Garrido, M. J., & Vicente, E. (2010). Components of art exhibition brand equity for internal and external visitors. Tourism Management, 31(4), 495–504. Cave, J., Ryan, C., & Panakera, C. (2007). Cultural tourism product: Pacific island migrant perspectives in New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 435–443. Chhabra, D., Healy, R., & Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 702–719. Chronis, A. (2005a). Our Byzantine heritage: Consumption of the past and its experiential benefits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 213–222. Chronis, A. (2005b). Coconstructing heritage at the Gettysburg storyscape. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 386–406. Cook, R. L., & Mcclearly, K. W. (1983). Redefining vacation distances in consumer minds. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 31–34. Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. (2001). The influence of cognitive distance in vacation choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 512–515. Cui, X., & Ryan, C. (2011). Perceptions of place, modernity and impacts of tourism – differences among rural and urban residents of Ankang, China: A likelihood ratio analysis. Tourism Management, 32(3), 604–615. Culpan, R. (1987). International tourism model for developing economies. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(4), 541–552. Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 682–708. Gelbman, A., & Timothy, D. J. (2011). Border complexity, tourism and international exclaves. A case study. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 100–131. Giovanardi, M. (2011). Producing and consuming the painter Raphael’ birthplace. Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(1), 53–66. Gonzalez, M. V. (2007). Intangible heritage tourism and identity. Tourism Management, 29(4), 807–810. Goulding, C., & Domic, D. (2009). Heritage, identity and ideological manipulation: The case of Croatia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 85–102. Goulding, C. (2001). Romancing the past: Heritage visiting and the nostalgic consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 18(6), 565–592. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055. Herbert, D. (2001). Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 312–333.

128

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Hou, J., Lin, C., & Morais, D. B. (2005). Antecedents of attachment to a cultural tourism destination: The case of Hakka and non Hakka Taiwanese visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan. Journal of Travel Research, 44(2), 221–233. Huang, C., Tsaur, J., & Yang, C. (2012). Does world heritage list really induce more tourists? Evidence from Macau. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1450–1457. Hunter, W. C., & Suh, Y. K. (2007). Multimethod research on destination image perception: Jeju standing stones. Tourism Management, 28(1), 130–139. Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – A case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32(2), 288–296. Jordan, W. J. (1980). The summer people and the natives. Some effects of tourism in a Vermont vacation village. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1), 34–55. Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the specialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 39(3), 267–274. Li, M., Wu, B., & Cai, L. (2008). Tourism development of World Heritage Sites in China: A geographic perspective. Tourism Management, 29(2), 308–319. Light, D., & Prentice, R. (1994). Market-based product development in heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 15(1), 27–36. Lin, H., Morgan, M., & Coble, T. (2012). Remember Alamo: A cross-cultural analysis of visitors meanings. Journal of Travel Research, 20(10), 1–14. MacKay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1997). Pictorial element of destination in image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 557–565. Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391–411. McAleer, M., & Chang, C. (2011). Citations and impact of ISI tourism and hospitality journals. KIER Working Papers 781, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research. McCain, G., & Ray, N. M. (2003). Legacy tourism: The search for personal meaning in heritage travel. Tourism Management, 24(6), 713–717. McDonald, H. (2010). Understanding the antecedents to public interest and engagement with heritage. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), 780–804. McIntosh, A. I., & Prentice, R. C. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming cultural heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589–612. Ng, S. I., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Tourists’ intention to visit a country: The impact of cultural distance. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1497–1506. Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 249–260. Park, H. Y. (2010). Heritage tourism, emotional journeys into nationhood. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 116–135. Peleggi, M. (1996). National heritage and global tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 432–448. Podoshen, J. S., & Hunt, J. M. (2011). Equity restoration, the Holocaust and tourism of sacred sites. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1332–1342. Poria, Y., Birian, A., & Reichel, A. (2009). Visitors’ preferences for interpretation at heritages sites. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 92–105. Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 238–254. Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2004). Links between tourists, heritage and reasons for visiting heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 19–28. Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site management. Motivations and expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 162–178. Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2007). Interpreting heritage essentialisms: Familiarity and felt history. Tourism Management, 28(3), 661–676. Prentice, R. (2006). Evocation and experiential seduction: Updating choice-sets modelling. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1153–1170. Prentice, R., Guerin, S., & McGugan, S. (1998). Visitor learning at a heritage attraction: A case study of Discovery as a media product. Tourism Management, 19(1), 5–23. Ryan, C. (2002). Tourism and cultural proximity. Examples from New Zealand. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 952–971.

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

129

San Martin, H., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. A. (2008). Exploring the cognitiveaffective nature of destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism Management, 29(2), 263–277. Sheng, C., & Chen, M. (2012). A study of experience expectations of museum visitors. Tourism management, 33(1), 53–60. Suh, Y. K., & Gartner, W. C. (2004). Preferences and trip expenditures - a conjoint analysis of visitors to Seoul, Korea. Tourism Management, 25(1), 127–137. Tasci, A. D. A. (2009). The missing link in the loop of movies, destination, image, and tourism behavior?. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), 494–507. Teo, P., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (1997). Remaking local heritage for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 192–213. Timothy, D. J. (1997). Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 751–754. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance. Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. Tuan, Y. (1980). The significance of the artifact. Geographical Review, 70(4), 462–472. UNESCO. World heritage list. (2012). UNESCO Web site: Retrieved 09.06.12. Voase, R. (2007). Visiting a cathedral: The consumer psychology of a ‘rich experience’. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 13(1), 41–55. Waitt, G. (2000). Consuming heritage. Perceived historical authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 835–862. Walmsley, D. J., & Jenkins, J. M. (1992). Tourism cognitive mapping of unfamiliar environments. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 268–286. Yang, L., & Wall, G. (2009). Ethnic tourism: A framework and an application. Tourism Management, 30(4), 559–570. Yang, C., Lin, H., & Han, C. (2010). Analysis of international tourist arrivals in China: The role of World Heritage Sites. Tourism Management, 31(6), 827–837. Young, M. (1999). Cognitive maps of nature based tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 817–839. Submitted 25 June 2012. Final version 14 November 2012. Accepted 15 January 2013. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Svein Larsen