Leisure Tourism: Theory And Application
Critically appraise two of the theories or concepts explored throughout this module. This should be done in the context of specific aspects of tourism considered throughout this module. (Food & Drink Tourism; Tourism Trails; Film Tourism; Heritage Tourism; Dark Tourism; The Trouble with Tourism; The Solo Tourist or Tour Groups). You may discuss any number of aspects, but they should be clearly relevant to the appraised theories/concepts.
Throughout the work, you are required to refer to a wide range of relevant academic literature and appropriate real examples which exist within tourism.
Based on your appraisal, you are required to propose appropriate recommendations which could be of value to relevant destinations or organisations within the tourism industry.
COURSEWORK
Theory / concept : tourist behaviour
Aspect of tourism : solo tourism and group tourism
Module Title: Leisure Tourism: Theory And Application
Brief
Critically appraise two of the theories or concepts explored throughout this module. This should be done in the context of specific aspects of tourism considered throughout this module. (Food & Drink Tourism; Tourism Trails; Film Tourism; Heritage Tourism; Dark Tourism; The Trouble with Tourism; The Solo Tourist or Tour Groups). You may discuss any number of aspects, but they should be clearly relevant to the appraised theories/concepts.
Throughout the work, you are required to refer to a wide range of relevant academic literature and appropriate real examples which exist within tourism.
Based on your appraisal, you are required to propose appropriate recommendations which could be of value to relevant destinations or organisations within the tourism industry.
Ensure your work follows a professional structure – including contents page, executive summary and correctly structured reference list.
In week 10, there will be an opportunity for individual meetings with lecturer to discuss your plans for coursework. In preparation for this you are expected to complete the “Coursework Proposal Pro-forma” which can be found below.
Criteria for Assessment:
Criteria for assessment is outlined in the marking grid below.
Word Length:
3000 – 3500 words
Hand In Arrangements:
CBM831 Coursework Proposal Pro-forma
Note: I suggest you use this form to help plan and develop your thoughts on your courseowk.
1. What are your chosen theories and/or concepts?
Tourist experience and tourist behaviour
2. What specific aspects of tourism do you intend to discuss?
Solo travellers and group travellers
3. Why do you feel these specific aspects are appropriate for your chosen theories and/or concepts?
4. What specific academic literature will you use to underpin your work?
5. What specific examples will you use within your work?
Who is the tourist?
All tourists are different – therefore their behaviour and experiences differ greatly.
Indeed, an individual tourist behaviour and experience may differ depending on a number of variables.
In what we discuss today we must ensure against generalisations and stereotypes
The behaviour of the tourist will impact on their experience – and the experience of others
Tourist Behaviour
Clawson & Knetsch (1966) identified 5 distinct phases of tourists behaviour :-
An anticipation of pre-purchase
A travel to the site segment
An on-site experience
A return travel component
An extended recall and recollection stage
Still valid today?
Another difference between tourist behaviour and normal consumer behaviour is the public/social nature of it.
Crang (1997) states that hotels, airlines, attractions, host communities are all performers on the tourism stage. I would suggest that tourists are also performers.
How does this affect tourist behaviour? (And experience?)
Emic and Etic Concepts (Comes from Research in Anthropology)
Emic – the viewpoint from the perspective of the insider or participant
how would a tourist (backpacker in India, luxury shopper in New York, family in The Algarve) see their own behaviour?
Etic – the viewpoint from the perspective of the outsider
how would another backpacker in India, a shop worker in New York, a family of Portuguese living at The Algarve) see the behaviour of the tourist?
The same behaviour, but seen and experienced from two very different perspectives
The Motivation to Travel – Why do we go on holiday?
Not going to look at in detail here – can be linked to wider consumer behaviour motivation theories and concepts
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Travel career approach (Pearce & Lee, 2005)
tourists have different stages in their travel “career”
Influenced by previous travel experience, demographics, contingency factors
Some motivation factors are of similar importance no matter the career “stage” (e.g. escape, relaxation, self-development)
Some are of more importance to more experienced travellers (e.g. experiencing different cultures, nature related)
Some are of more importance to less experienced travellers (e.g. stimulation, self-actualisation, romance)
s
Numerous studies into tourist motivation.
Some “broad” factors which have been identified within these studies
| Specific Items | |
| Novelty | Having fun; experiencing something different; special atmosphere of a place |
| Escape/Relax | Resting; getting away from stress; giving mind a rest |
| Relationships | Spending time with family & friends; meeting new people with similar interests; casual relationships |
| Autonomy | Being independent; being obliged to see no-one; doing things your own way; enjoying isolation |
| Nature | Viewing or interacting with scenery and wildlife |
| Self-development | Learning new things; experiencing different cultures; developing personal interests; gaining self-confidence |
| Stimulation | Feeling excitement; having unpredictable experiences; exploring the unknown |
Adapted from Pearce, 2005,
pp. 59-60
What motivates you in your holiday choices?
The Social Role of a Tourist
Role – sociological term for the position that a person occupies in society (Bales & Slater, 1955)
Deviation from expected role – how do others respond?
Role ambiguity – not clear what is expected or how to behave
Role distance – expressing individuality by flaunting conventional role behaviour
Altercasting – manipulated/persuaded to take on a specific role due to the strong presence/behaviour of another
Lots of research done in the area of “tourist roles”; from a variety of perspectives.
Some linked to motivations
Some focused on stereotypes of types of tourist
Some specifically linked to ethical behaviour
Some linked to how educated/intelligent a tourist is!
Demographic Factors
Like all studies of consumers, tourist behaviour can be linked to demographic factors
Key Factor Description
Belongingness Travelling in groups and seeking comfort in togetherness
Hierarchical Acknowledgement Behaving in accordance with social status
Concept of Kinen Collecting evidence of travel to prestigious destinations
Risk Avoidance Avoiding adventurous leisure pursuits
Concept of akogare Respect for fashionable Western products and lifestyle
Adapted from Ahmed & Kron, 1992
Classifying Tourists Involved in Tourism Products
Pre Travel Experience and Commitment On-site Style (Behaviour) Post Experience Outcomes Tourist Classifications
High, Committed, Planned Active Achievement Specialists
Immersed Knowledge Serious
Interpretation Skills Interested
Effortful Social Capital Generalists
Low, Casual, Opportunistic
Visual Rejuvenation Incidental
Passive Satiation Dabblers
Receiving Boredom Amateurs
Mindless routine Recognition Disinterested
In this model, no defined link between 2nd and 3rd categories. E..g Active does not necessarily lead to achievement
Adapted from Pearce, 2005 p.46
In this model, no defined link between 3rd and 4th categories. Eg. Achievement is not necessarily experienced by specialists
Social Contact
Social contact with others is core element of this :-
How tourists interact with and see other tourists
How tourists interact with service personnel
How local communities treat and are treated by their visitors
In all these aspects of contact there is potential for harmony or conflict, depending on behaviours and impacting on experience
REMEMBER THE LINK BETWEEN BEHAVIOUR & EXPERIENCE
“Tourists, like other social actors, are not passive bodies pushed from place to place and from group to group by mechanistic internal forces and external factors. Rather, they are best viewed as organisers of their social world and experiences, acting out roles, communicating their identities and purposefully structuring their time” (Pearce, 2005)
Social Contact – The multiple perspectives tourists may have of other tourists (Pearce, 2005)
Other tourist seen as Behaviours
Positive Views Potential close friend Friendly (intimate) contact; learn about them; learn about new culture
Travel companion Partner for activities, socialise, company
Helper Source of information; share costs; lend a hand
Security guard Look after possessions; prevent unwanted contacts
Stimulation Improve atmosphere; excitement
Neutral Views Background scenery Just there; no impact
Negative Views Stranger Minor discomfort; something unfamiliar
Disturber Noise source; adds to crowd; invades privacy; causes conflict
Competitor Competitor for space, access to people, views etc
Tourist-tourist encounter reactions in diverse tourism contexts
Glasson et al (1995)
For example, in a temple, booze cruise, wilderness setting etc
This view is heavily linked to tourist numbers within a setting or experience
Links to Urry’s concept of “the tourist gaze” (Urry & Larsen, 2011)
The romantic gaze – those who appreciate settings/experiences alone or with very small groups of like minded companions
The collective gaze – those seeking socially rich recreational experiences where the presence of others is a positive rather than negative attribute
Tourist Experience
A long established debate regarding what the “tourist experience” actually is
Considered from a number of viewpoints
I will introduce some ideas here – but only a selection!
Experiences, memories and emotions related to specific place (Noy, 2007)
Interaction between tourists and destinations (destinations being the site of the experience and tourists the actors) (Stamboulis and Skayannis, 2003)
An experience has to be significant enough to be stored in long-term memory ((Larsen, 2007)
The individual pursuit of identity and self-realisation (Selstad, 2007)
Everyone experiences activities/places in different ways so the tourist experience is subjective (Pine & Gilmour, 1999)
Tourist Experience
Experience includes all stages including planning, anticipation, the event itself, recollection and communication after the event (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966)
The role of others in the experience – e.g. other tourists and hosts (Mossberg, 2007)
“Influential realm” (elements beyond control of the tourist) AND “personal realm” which the tourist brings to the destination/event (includes motivation, perception, expectation, memory, emotion, self-identity, satisfaction/dissatisfaction) (Quinlan and Carmichael, 2010)
Cohen’s Modes of Tourist Experience (1979)
Mode
Recreational A step outside the normal and ordinary in search of entertainment
Diversionary A step outside the stress of everyday life and pressures
Experiential Aware that everyday life lacks richness, so authentic experience of society, culture and nature is sought
Experimental In danger of losing oneself and feeling alienated in everyday life, the tourist seeks to rediscover themselves in a new context
Existential A feeling that they are living in the wrong time and place, so alienated from ordinary life they seek a better existence
The Co-Creation of Tourism Experience
Strong argument that any experience is influenced by the role of the main actor and others
The experience does not actually exist until it is created when the tourist partakes in it?
In tourism the “others” are other tourists, hosts, ANYBODY present or involved
The “main actor” is the tourist who affects their own experience (and that of others) with
Their personality, expectations, etc
Their level of engagement
A tourist experience can be enhanced through planned opportunity for co-creation
Tourism – The search for “self” or “the other?”
Tourists travel mainly to discover themselves (Moscardo, 2014)
People who don’t travel explain that home gives them everything the need so no need to travel (Pennington-Gray & White, 2001)
Western society puts pressure on people to travel, even if they don’t want to (McKercher, 2009)
People travel because there are alienated from their social groups (MacCannell, 1976)
The tourist self is changed very little by the tour, while the consequences of tourism for the native self are profound (Bruner, 1991)
All tourism experiences are selfish (Moscardo et al, 2014)
Final Thoughts on Tourist Behaviour & Tourist Experience
Behaviour impacts on the experience
Behaviour affected by who travelling companions are?
Culture shock may affect behaviour
Why does a tourist behave the way they do? (Why does anybody behave the way they do?!)
Haven’t covered much here but remember the behaviour of tourists towards host population – and vice versa
Familiar strangers – In a group of strangers in a tourism setting, who would you gravitate to? Consider when you joined the course initially!
References….
Ahmed, Z. and Kron, F. (1992). Understanding the unique consumer behaviour of Japanese tourists. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. 1(3), 73-86
Bales, R.F. and Slater, P.E. (1955) Role differentiation in small-decision making groups. In T.Parsons and R.F.Bates (eds) Family Socialization and Interaction Process (pp.259-306). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Bruner, E. (1991). Transformation of Self in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 18. 238 – 250.
Campos, A, C., Mendes, J., Oom do Valle, P., & Scott.N. (2015). Co-creation of tourist experiences: a literature review. Current Issues in Tourism.
Clawson, M. and Knetsch, J.L. (1966). Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Cohen, E. (1979). A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association. 13(2), 179-201.
Crang,P. (1997). Performing the tourist product. In C.Rojek and J.Urry (eds) Touring Cultures (pp. 137-154). London: Routledge.
Cutler, Q., and Carmichael, B., (2010). The dimensions of the tourist experience. In Morgan, M., Lugosi. P., and Ritchie. B (eds) The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and Managerial Perspectives (pp.3-26). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
De Botton, A. (2003). The Art of Travel. London: Penguin Books.
Glasson, J., Godfrey, K and Goodey, B. (1995). Towards Visitor Impact Management: Visitor Impacts, Carrying Capacity, and Management Responses in Europe’s Historic Towns and Cities. Aldershot: Avebury.
Larsen, S. (2007). Aspects of a psychology of the tourist experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 7-18.
Lengkeek, J. (2001). Leisure Experience and Imagination: Rethinking Cohen’s Modes of Tourist Experience. International Sociology. 16(2) 173-184.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The Tourist. New York: Schocken.
McKercher, B. (2009). Non-travel by Hong Kong Residents. International Journal of Tourism Research. Vol.11, 507 – 519.
Moscardo, G., Dann. G., and McKercher., B. (2014). Do Tourists Travel for the Discovery of “Self” or Search for the “Other”?. Tourism Recreation Research. 39(1), 81-106.
References
Mossberg, L. (2007). A marketing approach to the tourist experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 59-74.
Noy, C. (2007). The poetics of tourist experience: An autoethnography of a family trip to Eilat. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 5(3), 141-157
Pearce, P, L. (2005). Tourist Behaviour: Themes and Conceptual Schemes. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Pennington-Gray, L. and White, E. (2001). The Leisure Behaviour Paradox. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism. 1(4), 77-87.
Pearce, P, L. and Lee, U, I. (2005). Developing the Travel Career Approach to Tourist Motivation. Journal of Travel Research. 43(3), 226-237
Pine, B. J., and Gilmore, J. H., (1999). The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Urry, J. and Larsen, J. (2011). The Tourist Gaze 3.0. London: Sage.
Selstad, L. (2007). The social anthropology of the tourist experience. Exploring the “Middle Role”. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 19-33.
Stamboulis, Y. and Skayannis, P. (2003). Innovation strategies and technology for experience-based tourism. Tourism Management, 24(1), 35-43.
The Rise in Solo Lifestyle
90
of UK adults are comfortable in their own company (OnePoll, 2106)
40% of UK adults would go to the pub alone (OnePoll, 2016)
A third would happily go out for a meal alone (OnePoll, 2016)
The stigma of doing things alone is lessening
Capacity to be alone is a sign of maturity (Storr, 1997)
People living alone make up 28% of all US households (Klinenberg, 2014)
Being alone (or solo activities) is seen by many as a positive lifestyle (both by solo’s themselves and non-solos – jealousy/admiration?!) (Ye-Jin, 2017)
Important to note that solo lifestyle is not always through choice (Putman, 2001)
Impact on social media on solo lifestyle? – Has it brought people together OR pulled them apart?
Does social media make solitary activity easier? Or does it increase the desire for solitary activity?
What is Solo Travel?
If we say “a solo activity is one performed alone without assistance”, is solo travel possible?
This question will be the focus of some of the tutorial
The Rise in Solo Travel
Many travel companies reporting large increases in solo travel bookings (Travelmarketreport, 2014)
Impact on the industry?
Why do people travel alone? (Will discuss in tutorial)
Solo in a group? (will look at in “Tour Group” focus below)
Markets :-
Single retirees
Female travellers
Backpackers? (depends on what we mean by “solo”)
Those at an advanced stage of their “Travel Career?” (Pearce & Lee, 2005)
MINTEL Report; Solo Holidays UK, October 2017 – Key
s
| 15% | of adults take solo holidays | 63% | Meeting people with similar interests was important | |
| 69% | of solo travellers are single people | 36% | Shared dining was important | |
| Of one person households go solo | 85% | You are free to do your own thing more when travelling on your own | ||
| 48% | gave reason as “I just like going on holiday on my own” | 49% | Going on holiday on your own can feel lonely at times | |
| 25% | gave reason as “friends did not/could not go” ( | 20% | 45% | It’s easier to make new friends when holidaying on your own |
| gave reason as “I have different interests/holiday preferences to my family/partner | 33% | It can feel more stressful holidaying on your own (e.g. safety, hassle) | ||
| Have taken a solo city break in last 5 years (why is this type most popular?) |
You can have more of an adventure travelling on your own |
MINTEL Report; Solo Holidays UK, October 2017 – Key Findings
Highlights concept of “pure solo travel”
Indicates that females more interested than males in idea of solo travel – but less likely to have travelled/will travel solo
Those who have been in relationship/married longer are more likely to take a solo holiday than those who have been in relationship/married for a shorter period
In response to how confident you would be doing the following activities on your own:-
71% going to the cinema
62% going on holiday in the UK
59% eating out in a restaurant
50% going on holiday abroad (this was the lowest result of 8 activities)
Motivators and Inhibitors to Solo Travel
Will form part of tutorial
Solo Travel: A Desire for Solitude or (un)Controlled Companionship?
Very little currently written on solo travel – most from a gender perspective
Offers anonymity – is this still the case with social media so prevalent?
Does the solo traveller become a subject of the “tourist gaze?” (Urry and Larssen, 2011)
How does the solo tourist link with Goffman theory of performance?
Possible to experience solitude in crowds (a mental rather than physical state)
Solitude as the positive opposite of loneliness?
An exploratory study of links between individuals’ perceptions of solo tourism and their desires for social interaction and solitude – Literature Review (Some Aspects)
Jordan & Gibson (2005) comment on the unwanted gaze of others in their study of solo women travellers, from a perception of being judged as “sad or lonely” to receiving overtly unwanted sexual attention.
Poria (2006) highlights that tourists can be conscious of others around them and adapt their behaviour accordingly.
Ratner & Hamilton (2015) raised the prospect that an individual may be reluctant to partake in a solitary activity if it was public and they ran the perceived risk of being observed and judged.
It is possible to consider a state of solitude as existing when one is in the presence of others but unobserved (Long & Averill, 2003; Detrixhe et al, 2014).
Those engaging in solo activities can often be stigmatised as lonely (Ratner & Hamilton, 2015)
Can be argued that such individuals are in fact displaying a developed sense of self as they are not in search of immediate social reinforcement (Long et al, 2006)
Velleman (2013) posits that enjoying solitude involves having awareness of enjoying one’s own company. Conscious effort to entertain oneself by keeping busy actually is a distraction from solitude.
There is an evidencable increase in solo lifestyle choices, particularly living alone (Klinenberg, 2012)
Budgeon (2008) notes the importance of choice in validating and embracing singleness.
A distinction must be made between loneliness and solitude, (Goodwin & Lockshin, 1992)
Wang (2006) formalised twenty types of solitude experience, rating them on a scale of desirability (includes self discovery; freedom; boredom and alienation)
It is a reasonable assumption that solo tourists seek different types of solitude perhaps depending on their individual personality and desires
An exploratory study of links between individuals’ perceptions of solo tourism and their desires for social interaction and solitude – Findings & Discussion (Some Aspects)
strongly suggests that a significant majority of individual’s desire some degree of social interaction, no matter the level of solitude they prefer.
The study did not aim to study the degree of solitude in an individuals’ life; rather the degree of solitude they desired.
See paper title for aim of the research
Findings led to a proposed typology of individual’s based on their level of desire for both solitude and social interaction
Next step will be to test this typology by interviewing those who have experience of solo tourism
Proposed Typology Based on Individuals’ Desire for both Solitude and Social Interaction
Social Seekers
Do enjoy solitude but only for short periods
Associated solitude with negative words (difficult, bored, get lonely etc)
It is possible that those such as social seekers are led towards negative thoughts if they lack the capacity to enjoy solitude. (Harris, 2017)
Broadly positive views of solo tourists (brave etc) but some negative (lonely, sad, pointless)
Negative views perhaps linked to age of respondents (Deresiewicz (2009) previously claimed that young people today cannot see the purpose of having time alone. )
Very unlikely to seek a solo tourism experience
Concern over being lonely, nobody to share experience with, unable to speak to new people (Epley and Schroeder (2014) suggest that people struggle to engage with strangers as they believe that others are less keen to connect socially than they themselves are.
Like idea of not compromising (shared with respondents across all populated areas of typology)
Sociable Loners
Exactly half (of 100) respondents in this segment
Possible that individuals within this grouping experience solitude positively as proposed by Lay et al (2019)
A frequent comment in this study shared between both “social seekers” and “social loners” was the opportunity to meet other people as a solo tourist, which links with previous research (Laesser, Beritelli and Bieger,2008; Bianchi, 2016).
Coplan, Ooi and Baldwin (2019) have previously made the case that the lack of a strong desire for social interaction does not necessarily also indicate a preference for solitude. This current research indicates the same may be true for those who do desire social interaction.
Social Ghosts
It is not a surprise that no respondent generally does not significantly desire either solitude or social interaction.
This finding does indicate the likely importance of situational context in the study of desire of social interaction and solitude.
it is possible to visualise a person who enjoys or seeks not to be alone and also desires no social interaction at the same time, in certain circumstances.
Consider the individual who is working on an academic paper but prefers to work in a public area such as a coffee shop rather than enclosed in their office. This individual is making an effort to avoid solitude but is also likely to reject any attempt at social interaction from fellow patrons. Cramer and Lake (1998).
Hwang, Shin and Mattila (2018) suggest that a solo diner for example may find the social connectedness they seek by eating in proximity of other diners who are together as a group.
Isolating Loners
This segment is where a limited number (16%) of participants placed themselves. This grouping displayed a desire for solitude and also a lack of desire for social interaction.
This might include those who are extremely socially anxious and seek solitude in order to avoid social interaction.
However, it might also include those who feel no great need for social interaction as they have a developed sense of self which does not require social reinforcement (Larson, 2016).
Views such as “I greatly enjoy solitude;” “I find interactions difficult and exhausting”; “I love being alone and enjoy my own company”; “I often crave quiet times alone.”
Several respondents within this segment stated they would “struggle” with social interaction with people they did not know during a solo tourism experience.
Travelling in a Tour Group
Appealing to some solo travellers – why?
Is a solo traveller on a tour group what is meant by “non-pure solo travel?” (An alternative to “pure solo travel” as mentioned by Mintel)
Important to note vast differences in “type” of tour group?
Differ in size, target market, behaviour, experience, level of participation, level of immersion, level/type of interaction (within group and with hosts), level of interest in the destination/subject of tour (i.e. specialist through to generalist)
Better or worse for the environment and host population than independent travellers?
Opportunity to meet new people – like minded people?
Importance of group dynamics
As with any tourism experience, managing expectations is important aspect
Experience (and behaviour) heavily linked to previous experience
Proposed Model of Tour Group Experience & Behaviour
C.Leith
Previous Experience & Expectations
Experience of Tour
Behaviour on Tour
Experience of Others on Tour
Others Behaviour on Tour
The Oz Parable..
Uncontrolled Companionship
Controlled Companionship
What is “The Tour Guide”
Information provider
Source of knowledge
Mentor
Surrogate Parent
Leader
Mediator
Culture Broker
Entertainer
Communicator
Conflict Resolver
Organiser
Problem Solver
Decision Maker
Facilitator of Social Bonding
Translator
A fundamental element of the experience (for better or for worse)
This is a list from a number of pieces of research collated in Curtin (2010)
Depending on the circumstances (and tour) some will be more important that others.
Also, the list is not exhaustive
Is the tour guide less important (and less desired now) due to rise in technology and the wish for individual experiences?
Tour Group Examples
Intrepid Travel
Evan Evans Tours – London Tours
Withlocals
Dragoman Overland
References….
Bianchi, C. (2016) “Solo Holiday Travellers: Motivators and Drivers of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 18, No.2, pp 197 – 208.
Bowie, D., & Chang, J.C., (2005). Tourist satisfaction: A view from a mixed international guided package tour. Journal of Vacation Marketing. Vol 11(4).
Budgeon, S. (2008) “Couple Culture and the Production of Singleness”, Sexualities, Vol 11, No. 3, pp 301 – 325.
Coplan, R.J., Ooi,L.L., and Baldwin,D. (2019) “Does it matter when we want to be alone? Exploring developmental timing effects in the implications of unsociability”, New Ideas in Psychology, Vol 53, pp 47 – 57.
Cramer, K.M. and Lake, R.P. (1998) “The Preference For solitude Scale: Psychometric Properties And Factor Structure”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 24. No 2, pp 193 – 199.
Curtin.S., (2010). Managing the Wildlife Tourism Experience: The Importance of Tour Leaders. International Journal of Tourism Research. 12. pg.219-236.
Deresiewicz, W. (2009) “The End of Solitude”, The Chronical of Higher Education
Detrixhe, J.J., Samstag, L.W., Penn, L.S. and Wong, P.S. (2014) “A Lonely Idea: Solitude’s Separation From Psychological Research And Theory”, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol 50, No. 3, pp 310-311.
Epley, N. and Schroeder, J. (2014) “Mistakenly Seeking Solitude”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 143, No. 5, pp 1980 – 1999.
Goodwin, C. and Lockshin, L. (1992) “The Solo Consumer: Unique Opportunity for the Service Marketer”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol 6, No. 3, pp 27 – 36.
Harris.M. (2015). The End of Absence: Reclaiming What We’ve Lost In A World of Constant Connection. Current. New York.
Hwang, Y.H., Shin, J. and Mattila, A.S. (2018) “So private, yet so public: The impact of spatial distance, other diners, and power on solo dining experiences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol 92, pp 36 – 47.
Jordan, F. and Gibson. H. (2005) “We’re Not Stupid…But We’ll Not Stay Home either: Experiences Of solo Women Travelers”, Tourism Review International, Vol 9, pp 195 – 211.
Klinenberg.E. (2014)., Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and surprising Appeal of Living Alone. Duckworth Overlook. London.
Kmet, M., (2014). Going it Alone: Solo Travel is Growing. [online]. Available from: http://www.travelmarketreport.com/articles/Going-it-Alone-Solo-Travel-is-Growing. [Accessed 4 December 2017].
Lay, J.C., Pauly, T., Graf, P., and Biesanz.J.C. (2019) “By myself and liking it? Predictors of distinct types of solitude experiences in daily life”, Journal of Personality, Vol 87, pp 633 – 647.
References….
Laesser, C., Beritelli, P., and Bieger,T. (2008). “Solo Travel: Explorative insights from a mature market (Switzerland)”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol 15, no. 3, pp 217 – 227.
Larson, R.W. (1990) “The Solitary Side of Life: An Examination of the Time People Spend Alone from Childhood to Old Age”, Developmental Review, Vol 10, pp 155 – 183.
Leith, C. (2020) An exploratory study of links between individuals’ perceptions of solo tourism and their desires for social interaction and solitude, International Conference on Tourism Research, pp 132-138.
Long, C.R. and Averill, J.R. (2003) “Solitude: An Exploration of Benefits of Being Alone”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol 33, No.1, pp 21 – 44.
Long, C.R., Seburn, M., Averill, J.R. and More, T.A. (2003) “Solitude Experiences: Varieties, Settings, and Individual Differences”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol 29, No. 5, pp 578-583.
OnePoll., (2016). Intrepid Travel Infographic: Solitary Existence. [online]. Available from http://www.onepoll.com/project/intrepid-travel-infographic-solitary-existence [Accessed 4 December 2017].
Pearce, P, L. and Lee, U, I. (2005). Developing the Travel Career Approach to Tourist Motivation. Journal of Travel Research. 43(3), 226-237
Poria, Y. (2006) “Tourism and spaces of anonymity: An Israeli lesbian woman’s travel experience”, Tourism, Vol 54, No 1, pp 33 – 42.
Putman.R.D., (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster Ltd, New York.
Ratner, R.K. and Hamilton, R.W. (2015) “Inhibited from Bowling Alone”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 42, pp 266 – 283.
Storr.A., (1997). Solitude. Harper Collins. London.
Urry.J. & Larsen.J. (2011). The Tourist Gaze 3.0. Sage.London.
Velleman, J.D. (2013) “Sociality and solitude”, Philosophical Explorations, Vol 16, No. 3, pp 324 – 335.
Wang, J., Zhu, R., and Shiv,B. (2012) “The Lonely Consumer: Loner or Conformer?”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 38, pp 1116 – 1129.
Worthington, J., MINTEL., (2017)., Solo Holidays UK, Mintel Group Ltd.
Ye-jin, K., Asia Today., (2017). Japan Evolving into “Ohitorisama” Nation. [online]. Available from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiatoday/japan-evolving-into-ohito_b_13144474.html [Accessed 4 December 2017].
LEITH,C. 2020. Links between solo tourism perceptions and desires for social interaction and solitude. In Martí-
Parreño, J., Gómez-Calvet, R. and Muñoz de Prat, J. (eds.) ICTR 2020: proceedings of the 3rd International conference
on tourism research 2020, 27-28 March 2020, Valencia, Spain. Reading: ACPI [online]. Available from:
http://academic-bookshop.com/ourshop/prod_7115822
Links between solo tourism perceptions and
desires for social interaction and solitude.
LEITH, C.
2020
This document was downloaded from
https://openair.rgu.ac.uk
http://academic-bookshop.com/ourshop/prod_7115822
An exploratory study of links between individuals’ perceptions of solo tourism and their desires for social
interaction and solitude
Craig Leith
Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland
c.leith1@rgu.ac.uk
Abstract: There is a continuing growth of solo tourism as a significant sector within the tourism industry. This
growth reflects a general growth of solo lifestyle choices in areas such as housing, work, relationships and
leisure pursuits. While reasons for the growth of solitary lifestyles are varied, one factor that has risen to
prominence is the degree of choice available to individuals; the greater the level of choice, the more positive
the perception of solitary experiences. Previous research has suggested studying solitude by placing individuals
along two dimensions; one measuring desire for social interaction and the other measuring desire for solitude.
This paper asked one hundred and three participants to subjectively self-select their perceived placement on
both these dimensions. Despite the growth of solo tourism, there are relatively few papers exploring this
perspective of solo tourism, with research more likely to report issues like gender, safety, and risk in the solo
tourism industry. This exploratory research therefore aimed to identify links between individuals’ perceptions
of solo tourism and their desires for social interaction and solitude. Results allowed for an initial typology to
be proposed according to the desire for solitude/desire for social interaction dimensions. The research also
indicated potential links between individual’s placement within this typology and their general perceptions of
solo tourism and tourists. Further research will aim to test these exploratory findings through study of
individuals who have personal experience of solo tourism. It is hoped outcomes will widen the current
relatively narrow range of solo tourism research.
Key words:- solo tourism (perceptions of); solitude; social interaction; typology
1. Background
Limited research currently exists in the areas of solo tourism, with the main focus to date being on gender.
(Chiang & Jogaratnam, 2006; Yang et al, 2018; Wilson & Little, 2018). McNamara and Prideax (2010) add
context to the idea that female solo travellers have greater concerns over safety by suggesting that this
concern is largely dependent on the destination. Jordan & Gibson (2005) comment on the unwanted gaze of
others in their study of solo women travellers, from a perception of being judged as “sad or lonely” to
receiving overtly unwanted sexual attention. Responses to this gaze varied from feeling judged, altering
behaviour, being frustrated or resisting and rejecting the views of others. Although focused on the travel
experience of lesbian women specifically, Poria (2006) highlights that tourists can be conscious of others
around them and adapt their behaviour accordingly. This self-consciousness is perhaps more common in those
who see themselves as an outsider – such as the solo tourist (Heimtun, 2012). Ratner & Hamilton (2015) raised
the prospect that an individual may be reluctant to partake in a solitary activity if it was public and they ran the
perceived risk of being observed and judged.
It is possible to consider a state of solitude as existing when one is in the presence of others but unobserved
(Long & Averill, 2003; Detrixhe et al, 2014). Viewing solitude as a psychological state (More et al, 2003), the
nature and impact of it can depend on the internal motivations and feelings of the individual rather than the
actual presence, or lack thereof, of others. It is an internal, rather than external, construct. Solitude, when
seen as disengagement from others, can remove inhibitions and give freedom to ones choices in behaviour.
Those engaging in solo activities can often be stigmatised as lonely (Ratner & Hamilton, 2015), or even as a
sign of mental illness (Detrixhe et al, 2014). However, it can be argued that such individuals are in fact
displaying a developed sense of self as they are not in search of immediate social reinforcement (Long et al,
2006) and indeed are demonstrating mature emotional development (Winnicott, 1958 cited in Larson, 1990).
Buchholz & Helbraun,(1999), when considering infants, argue that periods of solitude are psychologically
warranted and as much as part of the developmental process as seeking attachment. Velleman (2013) posits
that enjoying solitude involves having awareness of enjoying one’s own company. Conscious effort to
entertain oneself by keeping busy actually is a distraction from solitude. In this argument, an individual in
physical isolation can not be said to being experiencing solitude if they are actively engaged in any activity,
beyond being aware of their own company. Storr (1988) is firm in the belief that a capacity for solitude is a
signal of emotional maturity rather than a sign of some form of mental deficiency.
There is an evidencable increase in solo lifestyle choices, particularly living alone (Klinenberg, 2012) with “loner
living” being identified as a key global consumer trend for the coming decade and beyond (Euromonitor,
mailto:c.leith1@rgu.ac.uk
2019). Reasons for living alone will vary greatly between individuals and globally, but can include lower
marriage rates, higher divorce rates, and greater employment movement. It may also simply be down to
individual preference. The level of choice will vary considerably, with some individuals seeing it as a desirable
living state, while others may have loner living thrust upon them for particular external, or internal, reasons.
With a focus on a single, rather than couple, lifestyle, Budgeon (2008) notes the importance of choice in
validating and embracing singleness. Santos et al (2017) concluded that a move towards an individualist
society was a global trend, which links with previous expansive USA focused studies by Putnam (2000) which
projected significant negative impacts of the decline of civic and community bonds. Although there is
significant evidence that loneliness is becoming a greater problem within society (Wang, Zhu and Shiv, 2012;
Dijulio et al 2018) this study was not designed to focus on the particular reasons for social interaction or
solitude. Rather, the focus was on the level of desire that participants had for each.
A distinction must be made between loneliness and solitude, (Goodwin & Lockshin, 1992) with the former
being negative and indicating a lack of choice in being alone, while the latter indicates a positive or negative
state, depending on factors including context and level of personal choice. Chua and Koestner (2008) studied
solitary behaviour in the context of self-determination theory and concluded that only when there was a lack
of autonomy in behaviour were there any negative outcomes associated with solitary behaviour. Averill &
Sundararajan (2014) state the importance of choice by defining unwanted isolation as pseudo-solitude while
authentic solitude is achieved through personal choice, while Nguyen et al (2018) also found that choice
played a significant role in positive solitary experiences. Wang (2006) formalised twenty types of solitude
experience, rating them on a scale of desirability; while also addressing potential cultural factors across
Chinese and American samples. Solitary experiences which allowed for self-discovery and freedom were
among those seen as most desirable, while experiences involving loneliness, boredom and alienation
unsurprisingly scored as not desirable. Long et al (2016), describes nine distinct types of solitude. It is a
reasonable assumption that solo tourists seek different types of solitude perhaps depending on their individual
personality and desires, or linked to a range of external and internal factors at a particular moment in time.
For example, a solo tourist may seek solitude as anonymity within a large and busy city. Indeed, as a
counterpoint to the concern that being a solo tourist may bring unwanted, judgemental gaze of others, it can
be argued that solo tourism offers a significant degree of anonymity which may be sought by those seeking
solitude. In her work on city living, Tonkiss (2003) refers to the concept of indifference of a community and the
individual solitude of shared urban living. Other types of solitude as identified by Long et al (2003) can be seen
to apply to the solo tourist, such as solitude as diversion, as inner peace or as self discovery. This typology of
solitude also identified solitude as loneliness which has obvious negative implications for the solo tourist. One
significant aspect of this classification of types of solitude is that it moves beyond the idea that solitude is
purely a physical state of distance from other people.
2. Methodology
The wider area of solo tourism is worthy of further research as it is currently lacking beyond a narrow focus.
Furthermore, this research was aiming to investigate links which have previously not been studied. Therefore,
the research is very much exploratory and aims to inform future studies in the area of solo tourism (Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). A sample of convenience was used of final year undergraduate students. Although
this may narrow the focus of findings, it was felt sufficient for the purpose of this exploratory research
(Cresswell, 1998). The research design took the form of a short qualitative survey consisting of two elements.
The first element questioned participants views on their own individual desire for both solitude and for social
interaction. It also sought their perceptions of both solo tourism and solo tourists. The second element of the
survey adopted the category system used by Burger (1995) which divides people along two distinct
dimensions. One dimension measures an individual’s desire for social interaction and the other dimension
measures their desire for solitude. This current research asked one hundred and three participants to
subjectively self-select their perceived placement on both these dimensions. Three respondents were classed
as invalid as this element was incomplete. It is recognised that the subjective nature of this methodology limits
defined accuracy of findings. Although based on the subjective responses of participants, this does allow for a
proposed typology (Figure 1) in the context of an individual’s wider preferences for both solitude and social
interaction. The qualitative comments were cross referenced with the clustering which informed the final
typology in order to identify possible links between perceptions of solo tourism and individuals’ desires for
social interaction and solitude. Initial findings from the exploratory research are presented in the discussion
below. Furthermore, the findings here have laid the groundwork for future research which is addressed in
section 6. It is important to note that this proposed typology has been developed purely to inform future
study into solo tourism specifically.
3. Discussion
This exploratory study strongly suggests that a significant majority of individual’s desire some degree of social
interaction, no matter the level of solitude they prefer. This reiterates previous work by Leary, Herbst, and
McCrary (2003) who concluded that those who enjoy solitary activities demonstrate a strong orientation
toward solitude rather than indicating weak desire for social interaction.
This research did not attempt to address the reasons why participants placed themselves at particular points
across both dimensions. The reasons for this subjective placement are likely varied, and at the basest level
could be for broadly positive or negative reasons. However, the focus is on the levels of an individuals’ desire
for solitude and social interaction. In terms of the solitude dimension, this desire can be said to indicate an
individuals’ choice in seeking solitude. The study did not aim to study the degree of solitude in an individuals’
life; rather the degree of solitude they desired.
Participants’ were instructed to subjectively place themselves on the dimensions in a general manner in order
to indicate their overall self-perception of desires for both solitude and social interaction. This subjective self-
selection of placement along both dimensions suggested clear clustering sufficient for exploratory purposes.
With the caveat that the individual reasons for desire for both solitude and social interaction were not
investigated, initial terms of classification have been given to each of the four typology segments – “social
seekers”; “sociable loners”, “isolating loners” and “social ghosts.” At this stage of the on-going research, no
great deeper meaning should be read into these chosen terms of classification beyond what is outlined here.
Social seekers are those who broadly seek social interaction, but do not tend to desire solitude. Sociable loners
seek a greater level of solitude, but also seek social interaction. Isolated loners indicate desire for solitude, but
not for social interaction. Finally, social ghosts would be those who seek neither solitude nor social interaction.
Figure 1 – Proposed Typology Based on Individuals’ Desire for both Solitude and Social Interaction
3.1 Social Seekers
A significant proportion of respondents (34%), indicated that generally they did not desire solitude but did
desire social interaction. Although a number of respondents in this segment admitted that they did enjoy some
solitude, it always came with a caveat of only for short periods of time, or to recover briefly from busy social or
work periods. Although not proven within their work, Lay et al (2019) suggested that one’s desire for solitude
may ebb and flow in daily life. Within this “social seekers” grouping there was an overwhelming number of
negative words and phrases associated with times of solitude. (“Difficult”; “bored”; “don’t like”; “makes me
feel sad and withdrawn”; “sink into a vortex of gloom and despair”; “get lonely”; “drives me crazy”). “Being
bored” was by far the most common comment. Harris (2017) notes the potential benefits of solitude which
can lead to the mind wandering and making random connections through thoughts. It is possible that those
such as social seekers are led towards negative thoughts if they lack the capacity to enjoy solitude. This would
suggest that these individuals would be more susceptible to the negativity of loneliness.
When asked about their views and perceptions of solo tourists, it is notable that this segment of respondents
were broadly very positive in their impressions of such tourists. They were seen as “brave”, “confident” and
worthy of “respect” and “admiration.” There were only a few negative comments towards such people, such
as considering them as “lonely”, “sad” and doing something which is “pointless.” This view of the pointlessness
of solo tourism was mentioned by several respondents. It can perhaps be linked to the age group of
participants (early twenties), with Deresiewicz (2009) previously claiming that young people today cannot see
the purpose of having time alone. We need to bear in mind this segment are those who personally do not
desire solitude but do desire social interaction. This self awareness perhaps explains the positive views
towards those who do go on holiday alone, while also a recognition from the respondents that it is a style of
tourism which does not appeal to them personally. On the question of whether they would consider having a
solo tourism experience personally, the responses were strongly negative. The main concerns expressed
involved potential loneliness, spending some time alone, having nobody to share the experience with, feeling
bored, the anxiety of not knowing anyone and the specific concern over how they would actually meet people
to talk to. This final worry indicates a need to meet people even when being a solo tourist, but an awareness
that this need may prove problematic to fulfil. Hill (1987) notes the distinction between wishing interpersonal
contact and the actual ability to achieve this based on an individuals’ social skills. Epley and Schroeder (2014)
suggest that people struggle to engage with strangers as they believe that others are less keen to connect
socially than they themselves are. One respondent raised the interesting point that they would likely miss out
on experiences by staying in hotel as having nobody to encourage them to experience what awaited. They
would then feel frustrated and angry at themselves for the missed opportunity. However, many of the
respondents in this grouping did state that they would potentially enjoy making their own schedule with no
need to compromise or take account of what companions wanted to do. (Mehmetoglu, Dann and Larsen,
2001). This positive desire was shared by a significant majority of respondents across all of the three populated
segments.
3.2 Sociable Loners
Exactly half of valid participants can be categorised as “sociable loners” according to their self-selected
placement across the two dimensions. This grouping, to varying degrees, indicated desire for social interaction
while also wishing solitude. Although further research is required it is possible that individuals within this
grouping experience solitude positively as proposed by Lay et al (2019) who recognise that two distinct types
of solitude exist; one positive and one negative, and that an individual’s confidence in their own social skills
may lend them to experiencing solitude positively.
In the comments specifically about solitude, there were similarities with the “social seekers” grouping in terms
of “enjoying” periods of solitude, but with the caveat of for limited time periods. An analysis of the comments
of this grouping does indicate limitations of the original research design. Although these participants were
significantly drawn towards the “desires solitude” extremity of the dimension, a majority of comments indicate
clear similarities with the “social seekers” grouping who saw themselves at the opposite “does not desire
solitude” extremity of the same dimension. A frequent comment in this study shared between both “social
seekers” and “social loners” was the opportunity to meet other people as a solo tourist, which links with
previous research (Laesser, Beritelli and Bieger,2008; Bianchi, 2016). Furthermore, there were very similar
comments from both groupings regarding their views on solo tourists and solo tourism. Coplan, Ooi and
Baldwin (2019) have previously made the case that the lack of a strong desire for social interaction does not
necessarily also indicate a preference for solitude. This current research indicates the same may be true for
those who do desire social interaction.
3.3 Isolating Loners
This segment is where a limited number (16%) of participants placed themselves. This grouping displayed a
desire for solitude and also a lack of desire for social interaction. This signifies participants who desire solitude
do not desire a large degree of social interaction. This might include those who are extremely socially anxious
and seek solitude in order to avoid social interaction. However, it might also include those who feel no great
need for social interaction as they have a developed sense of self which does not require social reinforcement
(Larson, 2016). As with all four of the identified segments, the actual individual reasons for preference across
both dimensions are difficult to define without further study. However, from the comments provided there
does appear to be a high level of choice for both solitude and limited social interaction by the participants of
this study. This is evidenced by views such as “I greatly enjoy solitude;” “I find interactions difficult and
exhausting”; “I love being alone and enjoy my own company”; “I often crave quiet times alone.” Participants
within the segment do share similar comments as those within the sociable loner segment, in terms of seeking
out periods of solitude. However, broadly their overall views differ by lacking the regular caveat of only for
short periods or recognising the value of spending some time with others. Furthermore, several respondents
within this segment stated they would “struggle” with social interaction with people they did not know during
a solo tourism experience. Although there can be no definite conclusion drawn from these statements, it does
suggest that their desire not to have social interaction is, at least to some degree, linked to their self-
recognised difficulties in social situations with people they do not know. So, not entirely a question of choice,
but rather one brought about by internal circumstances.
3.4 Social Ghosts
The instruction to focus on generality is a potential reason for the lack of any participants to be found in one
segment of the proposed typology. It is not a surprise that no respondent generally does not significantly
desire either solitude or social interaction. However, this finding does indicate the likely importance of
situational context in the study of desire of social interaction and solitude. Although further study is required,
it is possible to visualise a person who enjoys or seeks not to be alone and also desires no social interaction at
the same time, in certain circumstances. This does seem to be a paradox. However, consider the individual
who is working on an academic paper but prefers to work in a public area such as a coffee shop rather than
enclosed in their office. This individual is making an effort to avoid solitude but is also likely to reject any
attempt at social interaction from fellow patrons. The possibility of being solitary in a crowd has been raised
previously by Cramer and Lake (1998). The motivations for this decision may be varied but the key point is that
in a specific situation, the individual is making a conscious decision to avoid both solitude and social
interaction. Hwang, Shin and Mattila (2018) suggest that a solo diner for example may find the social
connectedness they seek by eating in proximity of other diners who are together as a group. However, in this
research it is understandable that no respondents can be found in this “social ghost” typology segment as they
were asked to consider their general views of solitude and social interaction – and not a situation specific
context.
5. Conclusions
There was little intention to reach significant conclusions from this exploratory research. However, it has
provided a starting point for intended future research in the wider, and under studied, area of solo tourism,
with particular focus on an individual’s levels of desire for both solitude and social interaction. The key
conclusion has been the initial identification of a proposed typology which will provide the starting point for
the future research outlined below.
6. Future Research
The priority for future research is a wider and rigorous testing of the desire for solitude/desire for social
interaction typology proposed by this exploratory study. It is fully recognised that a limitation here has been
the subjective nature of placement on both dimensions. Follow up research will focus on individuals who have
experienced solo tourism in order to test the initial findings of this current study.
This research was focused on respondents generalised views on their own desire or need for both solitude and
social interaction. It is suggested that there is a need to focus further research in a situational context based
manner. This seems particularly pertinent when studying solo tourists. Previous research has indicated that
the level of desire for solitude or social interaction may be linked to external considerations such as the activity
being undertaken, the time of day or the level of exposure to others gaze. (Heimtun, 2010; Her and Seo, 2018).
Although this study was not situation specific, some participants, across all populated segments, did comment
that being alone in public such as eating would make them feel uncomfortable and being negatively judged by
others. Furthermore, it is evident that the ubiquitous nature of social media and online communication has
impacted on the level of solitude in our daily lives (Harris, 2014). There is a need for further research as to how
this links to the solo tourist experience. It could be surmised that such invading communication methods
makes solitude more difficult to achieve. However, it is also highly likely that such communication increases
the appeal of solo tourism for those who desire social interaction; those classified here as social seekers and
sociable loners. Finally, it is apparent from wider research that there is debate as to actually defining solitude,
for example in terms of proximity of others, a state of mind and the impact of digital communication on
solitude to highlight three elements. This current study looked upon solitude simply as time alone from other
people. Future research will aim to explore the concept of solitude further, through the specific prism of solo
tourism.
References
Averill, J.R. and Sundararajan, L. (2014) “Experiences of Solitude: Issues of Assessment, Theory and Culture” in
Coplan, R.R. and Bowker, J.C. The Handbook of Solitude: Psychological Perspectives on Social Isolation, Social
Withdrawal, and Being Alone, John Wiley & Sons. pp 90-108.
Bianchi, C. (2016) “Solo Holiday Travellers: Motivators and Drivers of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction”,
International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 18, No.2, pp 197 – 208.
Buchholz, E.S., and Helbraun, E. (1999) “A Psychobiogical developmental model for an “alonetime” need in
infancy”, Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, Vol 63, No. 2.
Budgeon, S. (2008) “Couple Culture and the Production of Singleness”, Sexualities, Vol 11, No. 3, pp 301 – 325.
Burger, J.M. (1995) “Individual Differences in Preference for Solitude”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol
29, pp 85-108.
Chiang, C-H. and Jogaratnam, G. (2006) “Why do women travel solo for purposes of leisure?”, Journal of
Vacation Marketing, Vol 12, No. 1, pp 59-70.
Chua, S.N., and Koestner, R. (2008) “A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on the Role of Autonomy in
Solitary Behaviour”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 148, No.5, pp 645 – 647.
Coplan, R.J., Ooi,L.L., and Baldwin,D. (2019) “Does it matter when we want to be alone? Exploring
developmental timing effects in the implications of unsociability”, New Ideas in Psychology, Vol 53, pp 47 – 57.
Cramer, K.M. and Lake, R.P. (1998) “The Preference For solitude Scale: Psychometric Properties And Factor
Structure”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 24. No 2, pp 193 – 199.
Cresswell, J.W., (1998) Qualitative Inquiry And Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions, SAGE,
California.
Deresiewicz, W. (2009) “The End of Solitude”, The Chronical of Higher Education
Detrixhe, J.J., Samstag, L.W., Penn, L.S. and Wong, P.S. (2014) “A Lonely Idea: Solitude’s Separation From
Psychological Research And Theory”, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol 50, No. 3, pp 310-311.
DiJulio, B., Hamel, L., Munana, C., and Brodie, M. (2018) “Loneliness and Social Isolation in the United States,
the United Kingdom, and Japan: An International Survey”, Henry Kaiser Family Foundation, San Francisco.
Epley, N. and Schroeder, J. (2014) “Mistakenly Seeking Solitude”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 143,
No. 5, pp 1980 – 1999.
Euromonitor. (2019) International Top 10 Global Consumer Trends, Euromonitor International, London.
Fennell, D.D. (2017) “Towards a Model of Travel Fear”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 66, pp 140 – 150.
Goodwin, C. and Lockshin, L. (1992) “The Solo Consumer: Unique Opportunity for the Service Marketer”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol 6, No. 3, pp 27 – 36.
Harris, M. (2014) The End of Absence: Reclaiming What We’ve lost In A World Of Constant Connection, Current,
New York.
Harris, M. (2017) Solitude: In Pursuit of a Singular Life in a Crowded World, Random House, London.
Heimtun, B. (2010) “The holiday meal: eating out alone and mobile emotional geographies”, Leisure Studies,
Vol 29, No. 5, pp 175 – 192.
Heimtun, B. (2012) “The friend, the loner and the independent traveller: Norwegian midlife single women’s
social identities when on holiday”, Gender, Place and Culture, Vol 19, No.1, pp 83 – 101.
Her, E.S., and Seo, S. (2018) “Why not eat alone? The effect of other consumers on solo dining intentions and
the mechanism”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol 70, pp 16 – 24.
Hill, C.A. (1987) “Affiliation Motivation: People Who Need People…But in Different Ways”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 52, No.5, pp 1008 – 1018.
Hwang, Y.H., Shin, J. and Mattila, A.S. (2018) “So private, yet so public: The impact of spatial distance, other
diners, and power on solo dining experiences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol 92, pp 36 – 47.
Jordan, F. and Gibson. H. (2005) “We’re Not Stupid…But We’ll Not Stay Home either: Experiences Of solo
Women Travelers”, Tourism Review International, Vol 9, pp 195 – 211.
Klinenberg, E. (2012) Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone, Duckworth
Overlook, London.
Laesser, C., Beritelli, P., and Bieger,T. (2008). “Solo Travel: Explorative insights from a mature market
(Switzerland)”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol 15, no. 3, pp 217 – 227.
Larson, R.W. (1990) “The Solitary Side of Life: An Examination of the Time People Spend Alone from Childhood
to Old Age”, Developmental Review, Vol 10, pp 155 – 183.
Lay, J.C., Pauly, T., Graf, P., and Biesanz.J.C. (2019) “By myself and liking it? Predictors of distinct types of
solitude experiences in daily life”, Journal of Personality, Vol 87, pp 633 – 647.
Leary, M.R., Herbst, K.C., and McCrary, F. (2003) “Finding pleasure in solitary activities: desire for aloneness or
disinterest in social contact?”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 35, pp 59 – 68.
Long, C.R. and Averill, J.R. (2003) “Solitude: An Exploration of Benefits of Being Alone”, Journal for the Theory
of Social Behaviour, Vol 33, No.1, pp 21 – 44.
Long, C.R., Seburn, M., Averill, J.R. and More, T.A. (2003) “Solitude Experiences: Varieties, Settings, and
Individual Differences”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol 29, No. 5, pp 578-583.
McNamara, K.E. and Prideaux, B. (2010) “A Typology of Solo Independent Women Travellers”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 12, pp 253 – 264.
Mehmetoglu, M., Dann, G.M.S. and Larsen, S. (2001). “Solitary Travellers in the Norwegian Lofoten Islands:
Why Do People Travel On Their Own?”, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol 1, No. 1, pp 19 –
37.
More, T.A., Long, C. and Averill, J.R. (2003) “Solitude, Nature, and Cities”, Paper read at 2003 Northeastern
Recreation Research Symposium.
Nguyem, T.T., Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2018) “Solitude as an Approach to Affective Self-Regulation”,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol 44, No.1, pp 92-106.
Poria, Y. (2006) “Tourism and spaces of anonymity: An Israeli lesbian woman’s travel experience”, Tourism, Vol
54, No 1, pp 33 – 42.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and Schuster,
New York.
Ratner, R.K. and Hamilton, R.W. (2015) “Inhibited from Bowling Alone”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 42,
pp 266 – 283.
Santos, H.C., Varnum, M.E.W., and Grossman, I. (2017) “Global Increases in Individualism”, Association for
Psychological Science, Vol 28, No. 9, pp 1228 – 1239.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill,A. (2012) Research Methods For Business Students, 5th Ed. Pearson,
Harlow.
Storr, A. (1988) Solitude, Harper Collins, London.
Tonkiss, F. (2003) “The ethics of indifference: Community and solitude in the city”, International Journal of
Cultural Studies, Vol 6, No. 3, pp 297 – 311.
Velleman, J.D. (2013) “Sociality and solitude”, Philosophical Explorations, Vol 16, No. 3, pp 324 – 335.
Wang, J., Zhu, R., and Shiv,B. (2012) “The Lonely Consumer: Loner or Conformer?”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol 38, pp 1116 – 1129.
Wilson, E. and Little, D.E. (2008). “ The Solo Female Travel Experience: Exploring the ‘Geography of Women’s
Fear’”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol 11, No. 2, pp 167 – 186.
Yang, E.C.L., Khoo-Lattimore, C., and Arcodia, C., (2018) “Constructing Space and Self through Risk Taking: A
Case of Asian Solo Female Travelers”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 57, No. 2, pp 1 – 13.
- coversheet_conference_single_paper
- LEITH [2020] Links between