According to the preceding discussion, the factors influencing contact opportunities, the type of contact and the contact outcome in travel settings, can be grouped in several categories: (i) factors pertaining to the nature and
extent of the travel organization; (ii) factors relating to the nature of a destination in terms of the cultural distance, language barriers and the travellers’ own familiarity with that destination; (iii) the travellers’ own interest in interacting with local people (expressed through their travel motivation); (iv) the travellers’
personality characteristics such as their cognitive complexity, mental rigidity and tolerance to ambiguity, as well as their self-esteem and extroversion; (v) particular attitudes towards host nationals and their country (in terms of their direction and strength); and (vi) socio-cultural attitudes of tourists that are rooted deeply in their personality structure, such as ethnocentrism, prejudice or nationalism versus cosmopolitanism, intercultural tolerance and international orientation. This set of relationships is summarized in the model presented in Fig. 2.1.
Several of these factors present a departure from the standard contact hypothesis. The first departure from the standard approach in testing the hypothesis is the need to ascertain contact opportunities. The empirical evidence (Steinkalk and Taft, 1979; Pizam et al., 1991; Anastasopoulos, 1992; Tomljenovic´ and Faulkner, 1999, 2000; Tomljenovic´, 2002) demonstrates that relying on indicators such as the degree of travel organization or the nature of the accommodation establishment are unreliable estimators
Fig. 2.1. A model of the contact hypothesis in tourist–host interactions.
either of the contact opportunities or, for that matter, the type of contact itself.
It is more likely that the travellers’ familiarity with the destination, their length of stay and their activity pattern, that is the number and variety of activities engaged in while at a destination, have a significant bearing on the contact opportunities.
The second departure is introduced by the need to redefine the notion of the quality contact in tourism settings. Traditionally, quality contact is assumed achieved where there was intimacy between participants of equal status, and common goals within a supportive social atmosphere. Critics argue that these conditions are absent in the tourism setting. However, in the few studies where contact was actually measured (Fisher and Price, 1991; Gomez-Jacinto et al., 1999; Tomljenovic´ and Faulkner, 1999, 2000; Pizam et al., 2000; Tomljenovic´, 2002), the results were supportive of the contact hypothesis, indicating that favourable contact conditions are, in some form, present in the tourism settings or operate in different ways in such settings. It is likely that travellers are aware of the limitations imposed by their role as a temporary visitor to the host country and will redefine a notion of contact intimacy as a result. In such circumstances even short conversations where travellers have an opportunity to obtain first-hand experience of the local people and customs, and deepen their understanding of the hosts’ way of life may be considered as ‘intimate’ by travellers.
The third departure is the proposition that other conditions of the contact – the existence of common goals and equality of status – will have limited influence on the perceived contact quality in tourism settings. What is important in the travel setting is the extent to which the immediate travel party supports or discourages contact with hosts. Although it is partly determined by the social norms governing contact with a particular group, encouraging or discouraging the contact may be independent of the social attitudes towards the hosts. This might be the case when a travel party is focused on building up their relationships, when parents of teenage children restrict contact for the fear of their safety, or when an introverted partner inhibits the other in contact with locals.
However, the nature of the travel arrangements still needs to be taken into consideration. These factors have an influence on the amount of the perceived contact opportunities but have a little bearing on the quality of the contact itself.
However, both the contact opportunities and the contact itself is affected by the nature of a destination, including its familiarity, cultural distance and language barriers. Cultural distance and language barriers are likely to have an adverse effect on the quality of the contact itself. Although it may be argued that perceived cultural differences, embedded partly in linguistic differences, might influence contact opportunities, it is more likely that they will have a stronger effect on the quality of the contact. A traveller may recognize contact opportunities, but may not be able to act upon them due to the lack of common language while the cultural differences may limit the scope of commonality between the host and guest leading to the quick exhaustion of the conversational topics.
Finally, the fourth addition to the classical contact hypothesis is the inclusion of motivational forces underlying the travellers’ destination choice.
Higher socio-cultural motivation leads to a desire for contact and an identification of contact opportunities that could facilitate fulfilment of these needs.
Furthermore, these motives are more prevalent in the general tourist population than is often assumed, and the trend is likely to continue in the future.
The extent to which travellers seek out encounters with locals and turn these into rewarding, quality contacts also depends on personality characteristics such as their self-esteem, social anxiety and style of cognitive functioning.
These have an effect on the contact, on the travellers’ initial attitudes as well as on their socio-cultural orientation in terms of prejudice or ethnocentrism. In particular, self-esteem and social anxiousness are likely to impinge on the quality of contact, while the style of cognitive functioning will affect the way information obtained from the contact is processed and whether initial attitudes are retained or modified. Individuals with cognitive functioning characterized by mental rigidity, intolerance to ambiguity and low level of cognitive complexity are likely to find support for their initial position. The extent to which contact takes place and influences post-trip attitudes depends on the direction and strength of initial attitudes. In general, the attitudes that change the most are those held with less conviction. Extremely negative attitudes are likely to lead to the avoidance of contact or would, at best, affect the contact quality.
Empirical evidence indicates that these attitudes could be worsened in the absence of contact while, providing that the contact actually takes place, they are moved towards a more favourable end of the spectrum. The extent of this shift is proportional to the nature of the contact.
The next group of variables relates to social attitudes deeply rooted in the personality structure, such as prejudice, ethnocentrism or nationalism. Amount and quality of contact will be proportional to a person’s socio-cultural orientation in terms of their attitudes to people different from themselves (ethnocentrism and prejudice). Contact improves these further. Change in these attitudes depends on the strength with which individual travellers hold them, with the biggest change expected from those moderately ethnocentric, intolerant and prejudiced in response to the travel experience itself but, more likely, the contact with host nationals.
Finally, besides the improvements in post-trip attitudes and those deeply rooted socio-cultural orientations such as prejudice, discrimination or racism, the extent of overall satisfaction with the travel experience is an equally important outcome in tourism setting. This is especially so as this dimension has important consequences for both the tourism destination and for tourism product planners. Empirical evidence indicates that those reporting contact with local residents returned home not only with improved post-trip attitudes but also more satisfied with their overall travel experience. Contact is one of the factors influencing satisfaction with the overall travel experience. To the extent that the contact has facilitated the overall satisfaction, it is expected that the travellers’ post-trip attitudes be improved.