IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcitxx/v18y2015i2p175-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison between Asian and Australasia backpackers using cultural consensus analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Cody Morris Paris
  • Ghazali Musa
  • Thinaranjeney Thirumoorthi

Abstract

This study tests the differences in the shared understanding of the backpacker cultural domain between two groups: backpackers from Australasia and backpackers from Asian countries. A total of 256 backpackers responded to a questionnaire administered in Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Krabi Province (Thailand). Cultural consensus analysis (CCA) guided the data analysis, to identify the shared values and the differences in the backpacker culture of the two groups. The findings revealed that while the two groups share some of the backpacker cultural values, some other values are distinctively different from one another. The study provides the first empirical evidence of the differences in backpacking culture between the two groups using CCA. Based on the study findings, we propose some marketing and managerial implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Cody Morris Paris & Ghazali Musa & Thinaranjeney Thirumoorthi, 2015. "A comparison between Asian and Australasia backpackers using cultural consensus analysis," Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 175-195, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcitxx:v:18:y:2015:i:2:p:175-195
    DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2014.920771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13683500.2014.920771
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13683500.2014.920771?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rcitxx:v:18:y:2015:i:2:p:175-195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.