INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH

Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)

Published online 15 April 2012 in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1886

Tourism and identity-related motivations:

why am I here (and not there)?
Nigel Bond1,* and John Falk2
1
The University of Queensland, School of Tourism, Brisbane, Australia
2
Oregon State University, Department of Science and Math Education, Oregon, USA
ABSTRACT
This paper examines past and present
literature relating to identity development
and identity-related tourism motivation. It
presents a theoretical model of identityrelated tourism motivation that is based on
multidimensional rather than unidimensional
theories of identity as well as acknowledging
both individual and social inuences on
identity development. It is argued that
identity-related motivations are fundamental
to all tourist experiences and vital to
understanding not only why individuals
engage in tourism but what benets they
derive from the experience, suggesting that
tourism is often used by individuals as a
means to explore, maintain and even
disengage from particular aspects of identity.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 18 August 2011; Revised 20 March 2012; Accepted 22
March 2012

Keywords: identity; identity development;

motivation; sociopsychological; tourism.
INTRODUCTION

ithin tourism research circles, identityrelated questions such as who am I?

and where do I t in? are becoming
increasingly accepted as representing key underlying motivations of individuals seeking out
specic tourism or leisure experiences (Desforges,

*Correspondence to: Nigel Bond, School of Tourism, The

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072 Australia.
E-mail: n.bond@uq.edu.au

2000; Maoz, 2007; Cohen, 2010). The desire by

increasing numbers of the public to nd ones self
has even come to be accepted by many tourism
researchers as an important underlying cause for
the growth of many forms of twenty-rst century
leisure and tourism (e.g. Freysinger and Kelly,
2004; Uriely, 2005). Whereas most would accept
that an individuals identity-related desires could
be useful in understanding the motivations underlying tourism experiences such as searching out
ones historical roots, undertaking a religious
pilgrimage or visiting a national war memorial,
fewer would believe that identity-related motivations play an equally important role in determining
how and why individuals engage in more prosaic
and passive tourist experiences such as a visit to a
theme park or watching a dolphin show at an
aquarium.
Although as Davidson highlights, many
researchers are united by a need to understand
how tourists incorporate travel experiences
into their own conception of self-identity
(2005:31), most continue to struggle with how
best to operationalize the term identity within
their research. In fact, there is still considerable
debate within tourism circles as to what exactly
is meant by the concept of identity. This in
itself is not surprising since identity is a
construct that has challenged social scientists of
all types for well over a hundred years. Considerable prior tourism research has sought to
unravel the identity-related motivations behind
particular types of tourism, such as backpacker
tourism (e.g. Maoz, 2007), heritage tourism
(Poria et al., 2004) or dark tourism (e.g. Lennon
and Foley, 2006). Less frequent have been efforts
to investigate the role of identity more broadly
and to attempt to determine how identityrelated motivations might inuence all kinds of
tourist experiences and how these identityrelated motives might directly impact the
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Who am I and Why am I Here. . .and not There?

consumption and production of certain types of
tourism experiences. We would assert that these
challenges in large part stem from long-standing
intellectual traditions that have tended to limit
denitions of identity to relatively stable, core
aspects of an individuals makeup such as place
of birth, religion, race/ethnicity or gender rather
than seeing identity as a more changeable, dynamic aspect of the individual, a quality that
underlies and motivates all aspects of daily life,
including tourist activities.
The purpose of this paper is to present a
review of current identity-focused research and
suggest a more coherent and robust denition
of identity that can be broadly applied to investigations of tourism. Particular attention will be
devoted to understanding and describing the
myriad ways an individuals identity-related
needs and interests might inuence his/her
tourist motivations. As a tool for understanding
and describing the complex interactions of
identity and tourism, we will propose a model
of identity-related tourism motivation based on
current identity-focused literature. We hope to
demonstrate that identity-related motivations
are in fact fundamental to all tourist experiences
and vital to understanding not only why individuals engage in tourism but what benets they
derive from the experience. Across a typical
year, or even day, each person enacts multiple
identities. Some of these identities reect the
individuals identication with more or less
permanent core characteristics such as his/her
race/ethnicity, cultural heritage or gender,
but most involve the persons identication
with and enactment of a whole range of more
ephemeral and dynamic traits such as personal
preferences, interests or personal relationships.
These latter important but rarely investigated
dynamic aspects of individual identity ultimately inuence much of who we perceive we
are and why we are here and not there; they
also inuence why we participate in some kinds
of tourism experiences and not others.
WHO AM I, AND WHY AM I HERE? THE
DEVELOPMENT OF IDENTITY THEORY
Questions of identity continue to challenge
anthropological, sociological and psychological
research discussions (Ashmore and Jussim,
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

431
1997; Lemesianou, 2003). As Heidegger (1987)
notes, identity, the question of being,
continues to elude us in a denitive sense. Yet,
tourism has often been suggested as a tool to
assist individuals in their identity-related quests
(Galani-Mouta, 2000, 2001; Apostolakis, 2003;
Cohen, 2010) as well as explaining variations
in travel motivations and behavior (Pizam and
Sussmann, 1995; Maoz, 2007). However,
much of the identity-focused tourism literature
discusses identity in terms of an individuals
cultural, ethnic or religious identity (e.g. Graburn,
1995; White and White, 2004; Henning, 2006).
Identity is the most basic assumption for
going through life and interacting with others
(Greeneld, 2008). Identity can be reected
in the perspective of ones mind or more
indirectly in the perspective of personality.
The mind can be considered as the rst person
identity (the I) i.e. how a person views him
or herself. Alternatively, personality is the
third-person perspective (the me), i.e. how
others see a person (you) as a direct result of
what you say and do. In other words, identity
is something that attests to how others think
about us, as well as how the Is think about
themselves (Falk, 2009). The distinction
between the multiple conceptions of self was
emphasized by William James as early as
1890. James argued that there are multiple
selves, which are often demonstrated in
different interpersonal roles or relationships.
James also argued that these multiple selves
may contradict or conict with each other
depending on situation or context. He referred
to such conicts as the conict of the different
Mes (James, 1890, in Harter, 1993:129). Despite
being over 100 years old, this multidimensional
denition of identity remains one of the most
comprehensive denitions of identity to date.
Jamess multidimensional model of the self is
supported by over three decades of identity
research. Yet, despite this historical precedent,
throughout the 1950s and 1960s, theorists were
reluctant to endorse Jamess framework
(Gargano et al., 2004). Indeed, there was
considerable resistance to this point of view.
Many traditionalists of the time adopted more
global, integrated representations of self, as
suggested by theorists such as Rogers (1951),
Erikson (1956), Allport (1961), Maslow (1961),
Coopersmith (1967) and Rosenberg (1979).
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

432
The common view held by these theorists was
that the self concerned a persons overall
sense of worth as a person (Harter et al.,
1997). Psychologists such as Epstein (1973,
1981) argued against the multidimensional
model of the self, suggesting that to maintain
integrity and consistency, the self must
establish internal consistency what Epstein
termed the unity principle to avoid feelings
of psychological distress (Epstein, 1981).
The major criticism of this approach is that
unidimensional models of self do not account
for the judgments that people make about their
performance in different areas of their lives.
Current opinion seems to have reverted back
in favor of Jamess multidimensional model of
self. Theorists now contend that the most
valuable theories of the self are those that take
into account the many views of the self that
people put forward in differing circumstances.
These judgments of the self have been
discussed in the literature, under the heading
of self-categorization theory (Turner et al.,
1987; Hogg et al., 1995; Harter et al., 1997).
Accordingly, theorists now understand identity
as a combination of several domains of ones
life including social, familial, employment,
recreational and scholastic and seek to investigate how individuals develop and maintain
their identities within these different realms.
Researchers such as Shavelson et al. (1976)
and later Marsh (1987) and Kleine and Kleine
(2000) classied these different views of self
into a hierarchical structure, with higher-order
and lower-order facets.
According to Cohen (2010), identities are
temporary points of attachment. Identity is
therefore uid or dynamic, and something that
is frequently determined by the immediate
context. It is this multiplicity of identities that
Lifton (1993) once referred to as the protean
self, so called after the Greek god of the sea
Proteus who could appear in multiple forms.
Such a multifaceted view of identity does not
exclude the existence of key or core aspects to
an individuals being. Rather, Gee (2001)
suggests that individuals have a core identity
that is more consistent or stable than other
aspects of identity. Falk (2009:73) refers to these
core identity attributes as the big I identities.
It is evident that most of the recent identityrelated research has focused on these core
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

N. Bond and J. Falk

components of identity. These stable or static
aspects of identity are primarily linked to ones
gender, cultural or ethnic identity or ones core
values, such as religious or sexual identity
(Marsh, 1987, 1989; Triandis, 1989; Stebbins,
1992, 1996; Harter et al., 1997; Gee, 2001; Shavitt
et al., 2009). Certainly, these attributes have been
featured prominently in research examining
identity and tourism motivation (Menzies and
Webster, 1994; Triandis, 1995; Stebbins, 1996;
Gee, 2001; Falk, 2009; Shavitt et al., 2009).
However, as Falk (2009) discusses, it is unlikely
that such core identity attributes provide the
impulse for all or even most tourist activities.
There is evidence to suggest that core identity
attributes may be a primary motivation for
certain types of tourism (such as cultural or
heritage tourism); however, it is unlikely that a
persons cultural or religious identity is the
primary motivator behind a visit to a zoo or a
theme park.
Falk (2009) argues that lower-order identities
have a great impact on day-to-day decision
making, (including those involving leisure).
He refers to these as little i identities. These
aspects of identity are more uid or dynamic
than the core aspects of identity discussed by
Gee (2001) or Marsh (1987, 1989). These aspects
of identity are most likely context-specic or
situated and respond to the needs and
realities of the specic moment and situation.
Although these kinds of identities are often just
as important to our sense of self as our core (big
I) identities, they have received considerably
less attention by social scientists. According to
Falk, little i identities may include ones sense
of being a member of a family, a good friend or
even a valued employee. It is more than likely,
however, that big I identities also play a
signicant role in inuencing the little i identities. For example, particular religious, cultural
or sexual identities would strongly inuence
parental of family-focused little i identities.
Self-aspects: me, myself and I
Collinson and Hockey (2007) dene personal
identities as the meanings individuals attribute
to the self. Beliefs about what constitutes self
parallel an individuals perception of their
own identity (Hattie, 1992; Baumeister, 1999).
Indeed, Jenkins denes self as an individuals
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Who am I and Why am I Here. . .and not There?

reexive sense of his or her own particular
identity (2008:49). Jenkins distinguishes between
the private, internal aspects of the self, and
the public, external person. In separating the
I (self) from the public me (the person),
Jenkins refers to selves or plural selves rather
than self. In this regard, I can be understood
as the sum of multiple, context-specic identities. Social psychologist Bernd Simon (1999,
2004) argued that an individuals concept
of the I comprises a variety of different
self-aspects (Simon and Hastedt, 1999:479).
These self-aspects (a term he borrowed
from Linville, 1985, 1987) can be physical
features (e.g. tall/short), life roles (e.g. parent,
employee), related to particular abilities (e.g.
bilingual, talented artist), behaviors (e.g.
travels a great deal), and tastes (e.g. preference
for Thai food) and generalized psychological
characteristics or traits and attitudes (e.g.
introvert), (Simon and Hastedt, 1999, Simon,
2004). Depending on which self-aspect or
collection of self-aspects serves as the basis of
self-perception in different social environments, different self-descriptions (e.g. parent,
introvert, Thai-food lover or artist) appear to
emerge (Sherman et al., 1989).
The concept of self-aspects has been used to
explain how an individual can possess multiple
identities and can comfortably change from
one type of identity to another, depending on
the situation. Although Linville was interested
primarily in how individuals use multiple
self-aspects as a protective mechanism, Simon
was concerned with how the theory of selfaspects can be used to understand the way
people present or adopt self-aspects in particular social or personal situations. Indeed, Simon
argued for the presence of two variants of selfaspects; the individual or personal-self
and the collective or social-self (Simon and
Hastedt, 1999:479). The idea of a collective self
and a personal self seems one of contradiction.
It infers individuality, i.e. standing apart from a
social group and collectivism, which is dening
oneself in terms of a shared or group history
(Shanahan, 2009). This apparent contradiction
has led to the continuing debate regarding the
degree to which the behavior of individuals
and groups can be attributed to either social
forces (structure) or purposeful intentionality
(agency) (Ct and Levine, 2002).
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

433
Identity, communities of practice and
motivation
Identity-related motivation theories combine
aspects of both structure and agency theory.
They focus on the relationships between
several factors, including commitment, identity
salience and role performance (Burke and
Reitzes, 1981; Stryker, 1987; Charng et al.,
1988, Stryker and Burke, 2000). Stryker and
Burke (2000) suggest that the more important
a role is to an individual the more that individual will commit to it. The stronger this
commitment is, the more salient the role is to
a persons identity. Lastly, the more salient the
role is to that identity, the more a person will
engage in behaviors consistent with the role.
As an individual increasingly identies with a
specic role, others are more likely to view that
person in that role. This results in increased
role identity saliency and an increase in the
behaviors associated with that specic role. For
example, the more an individual self-identies
him/herself as an amateur photographer, the
more likely will others see him/her as a photographer, and thus, the photographer role becomes
more salient to the person. Increasing the
salience of the photographer role also increases
behaviors associated with maintaining that
particular identity.
Relative to this paper, compared with most
other tourists, when an individual possessing a
self-identity as a photographer travels s/he is
much more likely to be motivated to take photographs of his/her environment because doing so
is consistent with his/her identity as an amateur
photographer. Photographers must behave like
photographers. So, during the trip, s/he takes a
lot of photographs, and when s/he gets home,
s/he is motivated to share those photographs
with friends and relatives; the friends and relatives understand their role and praise the photographer for the beauty and quality of the
photos. The result of this feedback is that the
individual is more likely to think of him/herself
as a photographer and invest time and energy
in repeating the experience. The individual may
also decide to enhance his/her skills as a photographer by becoming involved with like-minded
individuals or specialist associations. According
to the above model, identity can be dened as
who one is or who one wishes to become (Kleine
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

434
and Kleine, 2000). Shanahan (2009) stresses that
the desire to be seen to be or to become part of
a social grouping is an important motivation for
behavior. As such, she links identity theory
to Wengers (1998) theory of communities of
practice. Shanahan (2009) suggests that through
the process of interaction, individuals learn about
a particular community of practice and what is
expected of its members. The expectations are
then internalized, and the individual can choose
to act in a way that will gain them membership
into that particular community.
The theory of community of practice is helpful
to our understanding of identity-related tourism
motivation. Applying this theory to tourism
allows us to suggest that an individual who is
interested in hiking and sees him/herself as a
hiker (or would like to become a hiker) is likely
to choose a tourist destination that affords this
pursuit. Furthermore, this same individual may
join a hiking club or link up with other hikers
to rst, become a better hiker and second to
be perceived by his/her peers as a hiker. This
then becomes part of the individuals identity;
both in terms of his/her social world and in
terms of his/her own self-aspects. The fact that
an individual may perceive him/herself as a
hiker does not preclude the possibility of
belonging to other communities of practice nor
of having other salient aspects to their identity.
An important part of this idea is that the selfidentication of the individual as a hiker
contributes to the tourism choices s/he might
consider; only some tourism experiences afford
the opportunity for the individual to enact that
identity. Visiting a national park would be
a tourism choice that supported the hiker
identity-related motivation; an extended ocean
cruise might not be perceived as equally
supporting that identity-related tourism motivation. Importantly, the individual is capable of
justifying both of these types of tourist experiences without internal contradiction.
Identity-based motivation theories such as
those presented above adhere to the belief that
individuals maintain multiple identities indicative of the different roles, positions and responsibilities they encounter across their life. These
multiple identities are assumed to motivate
multiple behaviors dependent on the role or
identity the individual chooses to adopt. Individuals often devise multiple tourism goals to
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

N. Bond and J. Falk

satisfy multiple identity-related needs; sometimes these goals are distributed across separate
tourism experiences, but just as frequently, they
are incorporated into a single experience.
Interestingly, when or how these multiple roles
or identities overlap has not been well examined
in the literature. When and how ones core
identity-related motivations interact with ones
dynamic identity-related motivations is an issue
that needs further research, particularly in the
discipline of tourism. It is likely, e.g. that a person
motivated by a core facet of identity (e.g. cultural
identity or religious identity) may be motivated
to visit sites such as the beaches of Gallipoli or a
holocaust memorial particularly if this person
has some cultural or familial connection to these
sites. Furthermore, visiting such sites may
reinforce the perception (in both the eyes of the
traveler and in the eyes of others) that this person
is a cultural or religious tourist.
However, it is likely that the same individual
discussed above may visit such memorials as
part of a family group, of which not all members
share his/her motivations. Thus, the rst
individual has additional needs beyond the
religious and cultural motivations, e.g. social
bonding needs, that form part of his/her motivational agenda for the trip. Since the tourism
experience is likely to involve multiple days,
the pilgrim to the religious site might also be
motivated by a desire to go bird watching on
one day during the trip. Thus, embedded within
a single tourism experience, the individual takes
on the identity of religious pilgrim, family
member and amateur bird watcher. Although
these seemingly disparate, self-aspects may
appear hard to reconcile within a single, linear
model of tourism motivation, this kind of
complexity is more likely the rule rather than
the exception. Thus, any reasonable tourism
experience model will need to accommodate this
kind of range of identity-related motivations
and the accompanying range of tourism experiences required by each individual tourist to feel
satised by the experience.
Tourism and identity-related motivations:
why am I here (and not there)?
The relationships between tourism and concepts
of self are frequent topics of discussion and
debate within tourism studies (Crompton, 1979;
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Who am I and Why am I Here. . .and not There?

Desforges, 1998, 2000; Bell and Lyall, 2002;
Breathnach, 2006; Cohen, 2010). The tourism
literature has long recognized that a pleasure trip
is rarely the result of a single motive. Tourists
motives are likely to be multiple (Pearce, 1993;
Crompton and McKay, 1997; White and White,
2004; Pearce and Maoz, 2008). The challenge for
researchers attempting to develop a theory of
tourist motivation is to discover a way to represent this pattern of changing and interconnected
motives (Cohen, 2010). Ryan (1997) and Ryan
et al. (2005) suggest that there are only a handful
of tourism motivations. Further, Ryan maintains
that tourist behavior is diverse because the
expression of and means by which such motives
are met vary across human beings. A similar
argument is discussed by Krippendorf (1987),
who maintains that the seemingly contradictory
motives for travel represent the ever-changing
nature of human society and reality. Krippendorf
further suggests that the tourist is a collection of
many characteristics that just cannot be placed
into one category. Whether one believes there
are multiple motives behind tourism journeys or
only a small number that manifest in different
ways, research suggests that identity-related
motivations can be counted upon to gure
prominently in the equation whether this is a
signicant journey such as an extended backpacking vacation or a short two-hour visit to a
museum.
One of the more frequently cited proponents
of identity (with a capital I) related tourism
motives is sociologist Erik Cohen. Cohen
(1979) argues that tourism provides an opportunity to escape from everyday life, to nd
space for reection and either develop a new
sense of self or rediscover some lost sense of
self (Muller and OCass, 2001). These different
modes of travel are often referred to in the
body of literature focusing on what could
be considered transition or transformation
focused tourism. Studies utilizing this kind of
theoretical approach conclude that one of the
primary motivations of many travelers is the
desire to construct a new temporary identity
through the travel experience (Uriely et al.,
2002; Richards and Wilson, 2004; Burns and
Novelli, 2006; Maoz, 2007). In this regard,
through the experience of travel, individuals
hope to become more self-aware and independent (Elsrud, 2001; Gibson and Yiannakis,
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

435
2002; Cohen, 2004). Such journeys have been
shown to play an important role in the
construction of the self (Desforges, 1998, 2000;
Galani-Mouta, 2001; White and White, 2004;
Maoz, 2007). However, as Woodside notes,
(2006) a large portion of an individuals
identity is unknown to the individual before,
during and after her or his experiences.
Tourism and identity-related motivations: an
alternative approach
Falk (2009) suggests that given the degree of
choice and control in deciding which particular
tourist activities to engage in (and when to
engage in them), leisure time activities are
particularly helpful in the task of identity
building. He maintains that we afrm who
we are through the active selection and participation in leisure activities (2009:44) and notes
that the search for identity, through the
medium of leisure, is a pivotal theme in the
twenty-rst century. Falks model of identityrelated motivation is underscored by the
multiple aspects of identity theories put
forward by the likes of Simon (2004) and Gee
(2001); individuals seek to build both their
personal and group identities and use their
leisure time as a means to accomplish this.
Extensive research undertaken in art museums,
zoos, aquariums and science centers by Falk
(2006, 2008, 2009; Falk and Storksdieck, 2010)
suggests that the vast majority of tourists to
these settings arrive with one or more of just
ve broad identity-related visit motivations;
he described these categories as: Explorers
curiosity driven with a generic interest in the
site; Facilitators those who are socially motivated and focus on enabling the experience and
learning in others; Professionals/Hobbyists
those who feel a close tie to the site in relation
to their professional or hobbyist passion;
Experience Seekers those who see the site
as an important destination and satisfaction
derives from having been there and done that
and rechargers those who are primarily
seeking to have a contemplative, spiritual or
restorative experience.
In this paper, we go on to hypothesize that
two additional categories of identity-related
visit motivation likely come into play amongst
tourists to other types of museum-like settings,
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

436
e.g. national shrines/memorials and ethnic
museums, specically: Respectful Pilgrims
those possessing a sense of duty or obligation
to honor the memory of those represented by
the institution/memorial and Community
Seekers those with a strong sense of heritage
and/or personhood. These categories are not
xed or mutually exclusive. The same individual may be motivated by any of these factors
depending on the particular context of a tourist
activity or particular destination visited. An
individual may cultivate or preserve one of
the above identities via the symbolic use of
tourism. In this sense, not only do individuals
use tourism consumption for acquiring or
maintaining a particular aspect of identity, they
may also use it to facilitate identity change.
This can be achieved by temporarily (or
permanently) discarding or disengaging one
aspect of identity in favor of another, as
discussed by Kleine and Kleine, in the Identity
Project Life Cycle (2000, 279285). Even after
casting aside a particular self-aspect, a person
may choose to rebuild or rejuvenate a particular aspect of their identity. Tourism may be
one way in which this rejuvenation can be
achieved.
The complete list of tourist identity-related
motivations is likely much longer than these
seven categories but probably not innite
either. As Falk (2009) argues, the ultimate list
of possible identity-related motivations likely
to be enacted by tourists to specic destinations
is determined only in part by the tourists themselves; it is equally determined by the sociocultural norms of the society. The reason there is
such a short list of dominant identity-related
tourist motivations for tourism activities
worldwide is that worldwide, societies (both
occidental and oriental) have arrived at broad
consensus about what things particular tourist
settings best afford. For example, whether in
China or Columbia, Australia or Germany, it
is generally perceived that museums are good
places for people to go to learn about new
things, express curiosity, learn about ones
personal or national heritage, be a good parent,
etc. The list of acceptable museum affordances
is bounded; the public uses these settings to
satisfy the identity-related needs they possess
that t within these bounds. Similar processes
are at work for all tourism venues. Society
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

N. Bond and J. Falk

determines that tourist venues like X afford
certain opportunities to those who visit.
Tourists seeking to satisfy a specic identityrelated need decide to visit venue X because it
is understood to be a good place for fullling
that need. Rounding out the cycle, the tourist
uses venue X to satisfy his/her identity-related
need, which more often than not occurs. By this
process, venue X becomes reinforced within the
public perception as a good place for satisfying
this type of need and the cycle continues.
A theoretical model of identity-related
tourism motivation
We can surmise that individual self-aspects (big
I and little i identities) can be seen to represent
ones understanding of the self at any given
point in time. Drawing on theories of identity
development put forward by Simon (2004),
identity life cycle (Kleine and Kleine, 2000) and
identity-related motivation (Falk, 2009), we can
propose a revised model for identity-related
tourism motivation. This model theorizes that
an individuals notion of self (e.g. how I see
myself as a photographer, parent, hiker) is
guided by some form of internalized identityrelated ideal (how I believe I should act in this
particular role) and a socially constructed
perception of a specic kind of person (how I
perceive others think individuals like this should
act); there is a strong interaction between the
individuals internalized construct of identity
and his/her perceptions of how society views
individuals of this particular kind. To establish,
maintain or revive a particular self-aspect (or
particular identity ideal), the individual is motivated to undertake particular kinds of activities
or undertake particular tourist journeys. For
example, I choose to visit a particular destination or undertake a particular tourist activity
because I am, I hope to be or I used to be a photographer (or parent, or hiker). Furthermore, to
maintain or enhance a particular identity, the
individual may become involved with particular
communities of practice. Involvement with such
communities is also likely to facilitate particular
tourism activities.
Represented in Figure 1 are the three phases
of the Identity-Related Tourism Motivation
model: Development, Maintenance and Moderation. Facilitating the link between the three
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Who am I and Why am I Here. . .and not There?

437

Identity (re)
Development

Agency
(individual self)

*Self
Aspects

Identity Maintenance

Structure
(collective self)

Communities of
practice

Commitment;
Role salience;
Role
Aspects
Performance,
relevance
Self

TOURISM
(exploration)

Experiences

Identity Moderation/
(dis)Engagement

Self
Redefining

Aspects

Renewal

*Self-Aspects = I & i identities

Figure 1. Theoretical model of identity-related tourism motivation. Bond, N and Falk, J.

components is the Tourism Experience; the

entire model is embedded within the larger
sociocultural context of the individual. This
model brings together a number of theoretical
constructs from current research on identity
development that has been discussed in this
paper (e.g. structure, agency, self-aspects and
communities of practice). The model draws on
discussions on science learning and identity
(e.g. Falk, 2009; Shanahan, 2009; Falk and
Storksdieck, 2010), Kleine and Kleines Identity project life cycle (2000) and identity and
leisure experiences (Falk, 2009). The model
highlights the evolutionary, iterative nature of
identity development that emphasizes an interconnected process of identity development.
Further, the model recognizes the inuence
of social norms and structures, individual
communities of practice and individual free
will. Furthermore, it supports the theory of
multiple aspects of identity, utilizing Simons
term self-aspects and recognizes that a
person has a set of core (socially/culturally
enforced) identity attributes, such as gender
or ethnic identity and a number of more uid
aspects of identity these aspects are often
context and situation-specic.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The model itself is cyclic in that it suggests

that tourism motivations are always strongly
inuenced by identity (although not necessarily
in their totality). Tourism can be used as a means
of maintaining, reconrming or establishing
new aspects of identity. These can either represent core aspects (big I identities) or they may
represent the more dynamic (little i) aspects
of identity. Importantly, how an individual
perceives him or herself as well as how tourism
experiences can and/or are used as vehicles
for identity-related experiences are always a
reection of the sociocultural context in which
both the individual and the tourism venue are
situated. Key dynamic properties of the model
are as follows:
Identity development. Identity development
refers to the development of a particular aspect
of identity. Individuals learn the specic types
of norms, actions and behaviors unique to a
specic social setting or community of practice.
These norms or role schemas (Kleine and
Kleine, 2000:279) are typically internalized,
becoming part of an individuals identity. Such
schemas provide an individual with a set of
guidelines or ideals on what it is to be a
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

438
particular kind of person e.g. a photographer,
a hiker, an art lover or a parent. If an individual
decides that he/she would like to discover
what it is to become a photographer or a hiker,
then action (in this instance tourism) is initiated
to facilitate the discovery of this new self-aspect.
To explore a new or developing self-aspect, the
individual heads off to experience either a
specic destination or undertake a specic
activity. In this sense, tourism is not simply
motivated by the desire for pleasure but is the
medium through which individual and social
identities are negotiated. As a person begins to
internalize a new self-aspect, it becomes more
clearly dened. The person gains a denitive
understanding of what it means to be this kind
of person. As an example, the hobbyist bird
watcher or nature lover gains a deeper understanding of what is required to fulll this role
and undertakes specic steps to maintain this
aspect of the identity i.e. s/he may go hiking
or visit bird parks. Alternatively, a person who
sees his/herself as a spiritual person may choose
to visit a religious site or pilgrimage shrine.
Identity maintenance. Should a person wish to
maintain a particular role or particular aspect
of identity, this component becomes more
clearly dened. The individual develops a
deeper understanding of that identity aspect.
As the individual becomes more aware of
their own skills sets or limitations, they may
also seek out other individuals with similar
interests or with more experience that they
can learn from. This may lead to new social
worlds or new communities of practice. This
skill-seeking behavior may also facilitate
tourist activity, resulting in repeat visitation
and/or undertaking increasingly challenging
activities to maintain a particular identity and
increase the salience of a particular self-aspect.
A photographer may seek new or more remote
areas to photograph; a parent may take his/her
child to experience new or more challenging
learning opportunities. It is also likely that
the social context in which the individual
pursues a particular identity aspect may place
constraints or limitations on an individual.
Other self-aspects of an individuals identity
may also constrain identity-seeking/maintaining
behavior. Specic identity-related tourism roles,
e.g. the role of parent or thrill-seeker, may
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

N. Bond and J. Falk

suggest very different tourism solutions. Taking
a child to a childrens museum for the individual
with the parent motivation makes great
sense, whereas rock climbing in the Himalayas
makes perfect sense for the individual with the
thrill-seeker motivation, but these solutions
might not be interchangeable. Encouraging your
ve-year-old to climb a steep, dangerous rock
face might not be perceived as what a good
parent does with their child, and visiting a
museum and watching small children role play
in a faux grocery store may not be perceived as
a great place to experience thrill-seeking.
Importantly, the individual in question
parent and thrill-seeker could be the exact
same individual just attempting to enact different self-aspects. Also, important to consider is
that the availability/nancial affordability of
particular destinations will also place constraints on an individuals identity-related
behaviors potentially forcing an individual
to seek alternative venues/destinations or
even alternative identity-related needs to fulll
from what might be perceived as initially
optimum or desirable.
Identity moderation and reconstruction. Occasionally, the individual focusing on identity
maintenance may decide to seek out a new or
alternative experience. This may be a result of
a conicting self-aspect or the emergence of a
new identity-related role. This can lead to a
re-imaging of an existing self-aspect or a switch
from identity maintenance into identity
moderation or reconstruction. For example,
a chance encounter with a more experienced
photographer or hiker may lead to a change
in a persons role schema, i.e. what it means
to be a particular kind of person (such as a
photographer or hiker) this in turn can lead
to new behaviors or directions. It may ultimately lead to disengagement with a particular
self-aspect. For example, a skier may meet an
experienced snowboarder and decide to switch
sports. Such a change may also result in the
novice snowboarder associating with new
communities of practice and distancing him/
her self from others. Identity moderation may
also occur when an individual is confronted
with a situation that challenges ones current
self aspects (Rounds, 2006). In his discussion
on identity work, Rounds provides the
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Who am I and Why am I Here. . .and not There?

example of a person visiting a Holocaust
exhibition. In this case, the individual may be
challenged or confronted by one of his/her
own self-aspects (e.g. perhaps I really am a
racist!). Such a confrontation may in fact lead
to the individual choosing to disengage with a
particular aspect of their identity.
A change in ones social or physical environment may also lead to a reconstruction or change
of identity. For example, an individual may retire
from their employment. This, in turn, may lead
to disengagement with a range of identityrelated self-aspects tied to that employment; they
may become a parent or they may nd a new
friend or lover. All of these life changes can lead
to a refocusing of ones identity, and ultimately
for the individual, the adoption of new identity
roles and behaviors; all of which are subject to
change and adaptation. Should previous selfaspects be re-established, it is more than likely
that they will not be exactly as they once were.
For example, the individual who decides that
now that his/her children are all grown up and
have moved out may choose to take up a longabandoned hobby. However, for reasons of age
or life experience, s/he may choose to pursue this
same topic in a quite dissimilar way. For
example, the individual who early in life was
an antique furniture collector and organized
his/her travel around opportunities to purchase
antiques may now see him/herself in the role of
antique teacher or expert and organize their
leisure travel around opportunities where they
can teach workshops on furniture restoration or
act as a mentor to individuals just getting into
antiques.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this paper was to present a
review of the literature pertaining to contemporary theories of identity development and
identity-related tourism motivation. It has also
attempted to draw these theories together and
present a preliminary model of identity-related
tourism motivation. The Identity-Related Tourism Motivation model suggested in this paper
is one way in which tourism can be conceived
as a means of establishing, maintaining and at
times re-creating aspects of ones identity. It
takes into account the multiplicity of roles and
identities an individual may have throughout
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

439
his/her life; some of which are relatively stable
and others of which can be quite ephemeral.
These core (big I) and situationally dynamic
(little i) identities can and do inuence
an individuals decision to undertake a tourism activity whether this is a visit to a
museum or botanic gardens or a life-changing
pilgrimage journey to the temples of Tibet or
the beaches of Gallipoli. The model posits that
tourism experiences are used by individuals
as important mechanisms for enacting identity; all kinds of identity, both profound
and prosaic. This entire identity-enactment
system is situated within the larger sociocultural context of both the individual and
tourism venue.
A main assumption of this model is that ALL
tourist experiences are in some way motivated
by the individuals self-perceived identityrelated needs and their perceptions of destinations and experiences that afford satisfaction
of those needs. Some of the identity-related
needs enacted through tourism fall within the
I identities of national origin, race/ethnicity,
religion and gender, as has been well documented by numerous tourism researchers. But
most tourism experiences are motivated by i
identity-related needs. Even tourism experiences that seemingly are primarily designed
to satisfy hedonistic needs such as relaxation
and stimulation can be understood through
the lens of identity-related motivations. For
example, sitting under a palm tree on a tropical
beach can be viewed as fullling an identityrelated need. One possible explanation may
be that the person in question perceives
that they are a very busy and beleaguered
individual; one whos ability to function as a
productive member of society will be compromised if they do not get some rest and relaxation. Specically, the person perceives that
sitting under a palm tree on a tropical beach
is how successful people like him/her achieve
this goal. Others may be able to do this by
staying at home and watching television, but
from this individuals perspective, successful
people do this by going to a tropical beach
resort where their needs are attended to and
other people like them are doing the same
thing.
Ultimately, the real payoff in viewing
tourism through this lens is not that they allow
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

N. Bond and J. Falk

440
the researcher to create so many more just-so
stories but rather as discovered by Falk and
his colleagues (Falk et al., 2008; Falk, 2009; Falk
and Storksdieck, 2010) that tourists identityrelated visit motivations permit replicable
predictions about classes of resulting behaviors. It provides insight into why individuals choose to visit certain venues and not
others, what behaviors they enact while at
the tourist venue and most importantly,
enable a measure of qualitative prediction
about the nature and extent of perceived
benets that result from the tourism experience. In other words, understanding this
one key aspect of the tourist experience
tourists identity-related needs affords tourist
operators and researchers alike the ability to
describe and, to a degree, predict the outcomes
of the entire tourism experience.
The Identity-Related Tourism Motivation
model presented here represents a rst
attempt to capture within a single, comprehensive model the multidimensional complexity of identity as it applies to tourist
motivations. A key aspect is that the model
reects the cyclic nature of identity development, maintenance and reconstruction. It also
allows for the possibility that aspects of
identity may be set aside as priorities and
circumstances change. In fact, it suggests that
tourism can be one way through which those
aspects of identity that have been previously
cast aside can be rediscovered or re-imaged
in a way that accounts for changes in the
individuals needs, circumstance or context.
As with any new model, this model will
require empirical testing to determine whether
indeed individuals are consciously aware
of the different aspects of their identity, and
if so, whether they do in fact engage with
tourist experiences in the ways suggested
by the model. For example, do individuals
employ tourism as a means of developing
or enhancing, particular (or perhaps) multiple self-aspects? Do an individuals selfaspects change as a consequence of tourism
experiences? We believe this model presents
a useful framework for initiating identityrelated motivation research and for more
robustly exploring how these and other
identity-related issues impact tourism decisions and outcomes.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

REFERENCES
Allport G. 1961. Pattern and Growth in Personality.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston: NY.
Apostolakis A. 2003. The convergence process in
heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30(4):
795812.
Ashmore RD, Jussim L. 1997. Self and identity:
fundamental issues. In Self and Social Identity:
Fundamental Issues, Ashmore RD, Jussim L (eds).
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Baumeister RF. 1999. The nature and structure of the
self. In The Self in Social Psychology, Baumeister RF
(ed). Psychology Press: London; 120.
Bell C, Lyall J. 2002. The Accelerated Sublime: Landscape, Tourism, and Identity. Praeger: Westport.
Breathnach T. 2006. Looking for the real me: locating
the self in heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage
Tourism 1(2): 100120.
Burke PJ, Reitzes DC. 1981. The link between
identity and role performance. Social Psychology
Quarterly 44(2): 8592.
Burns P, Novelli M (eds). 2006. Tourism and Social
Identities: Global Frameworks and Local Realities
Advances in Tourism Research, 1st edn. Boston
Elsevier: Amsterdam.
Charng HW, Piliavin JA, Callero PL. 1988. Role
identity and reasoned action in the prediction of
repeated behaviour. Social Psychology Quarterly
51(4): 303317.
Cohen E. 1979. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology 13: 179201.
Cohen E. 2004. Backpacking: diversity and change.
Tourism and Cultural Change 1(2): 95110.
Cohen SA. 2010. Personal identity (de)formation
among lifestyle travellers: a double-edged sword.
Leisure Studies 29(3): 289301.
Collinson JA, Hockey J. 2007. Working out identity:
distance runners and the management of disrupted
identity. Leisure Studies 26(4): 381398.
Coopersmith S. 1967. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem.
Freeman: San Francisco.
Ct JE, Levine CG. 2002. Identity Formation, Agency
and Culture: A Social Psychological Synthesis.
Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
Crompton JL. 1979. Motivations for pleasure
vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6(4): 408424.
Crompton JL, McKay SL. 1997. Motives of visitors
attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research 24(2): 425439.
Desforges L. 1998. Checking out the planet: global
representations/local identities and youth travel.
In Cool Places. Geographies of Youth Cultures,
Skelton T, Valentine G (eds). Routledge: London;
175192.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Who am I and Why am I Here. . .and not There?

Desforges L. 2000. Traveling the world: identity and
travel biography. Annals of Tourism Research 27(4):
926945.
Elsrud T. 2001. Risk creation in traveling: backpacker adventure narration. Annals of Tourism
Research 28: 597617.
Epstein S. 1973. The self-concept revisited: or a
theory of a theory. American Psychologist 28(4):
404416.
Epstein S. 1981. The unity principle versus the
reality and pleasure principles, or the tale of the
scorpion and the frog. In Self- Concept, Lynch
MD, Norem-Hebeisen AA, Gergen KJ (eds).
Ballinger: Cambridge, Mass.
Erikson EH. 1956. The problem of ego identity.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association
4: 56121.
Falk J. 2006. An identity-centered approach to
understanding museum learning. Curator: The
museum journal 49(2): 151166.
Falk J. 2008. Identity and the art museum visitor.
Journal of Art Education 34(2): 2534.
Falk J. 2009. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek.
Falk J, Heimlich J, Bronnenkant K. 2008. Using
identity-related visit motivations as a tool for
understanding adult zoo and aquarium visitors
meaning making. Curator: the Museum Journal
51(1): 5580.
Falk J, Storksdieck M. 2010. Science learning in a
leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47(2): 194212.
Freysinger VJ, Kelly JR. 2004. 21st Century Leisure:
Current Issues. Venture Publishing: State College,
PA.
Galani-Mouta V. 2000. The self and the other:
traveler, ethnographer, tourist. Annals of Tourism
Research 27(1): 203224.
Galani-Mouta V. 2001. Representing the self and
the other: American college students in Mytilene,
Greece. Journeys: The International Journal of Travel
and Travel Writing 2(1): 88113.
Gargano G, Nagay A, Rowe M. 2004. Identity and
motivation predict behavior and intention of
organ donation. American Journal of Health Studies
19(4): 241245.
Gee JP. 2001. Identity as an analytic lens for research
in education. Review of Research in Education 25:
99125.
Gibson H, Yiannakis A. 2002. Tourist roles: needs
and the lifecourse. Annals of Tourism Research
29(2): 358383.
Graburn N. 1995. The past and the present in
Japan. Nostalgia and Neo-Traditionalism in contemporary Japanese domestic tourism. In Change
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

441
in Tourism. People, Places, Processes, Butler R,
Pearce D (eds). Routledge: London; 4770.
Greeneld S. 2008. The Quest for Identity in the 21st
Century. Sceptre: London.
Harter S. 1993. Visions of self: beyond the me in the
mirror. In Current Theory and Research in Motivation, Jacobs JE (ed). University of Nebraska Press:
Nebraska; 99145.
Harter S, Bresnick S, Bouchy H, Whitesell NR. 1997.
The development of multiple role-related selves
during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology 9(4): 835853.
Hattie J. 1992. Self-Concept. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
Heidegger M. 1987. An Introduction to Metaphysics
(R. Manheim, Trans.). Yale University Press:
New Haven, CT.
Henning GK. 2006. The politics of world heritage:
negotiating tourism and conservation. Tourism
Culture & Communication 6(2): 153154.
Hogg MA, Terry DJ, White KM. 1995. A tale of two
theories: a critical comparison of identity theory
with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 58(4): 255269.
Jenkins R. 2008. Social Identity, 3rd edn. Routledge:
London.
Kleine R, Kleine S. 2000. Consumption and selfschema changes throughout the identity project
life cycle. In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
27. Hoch SJ, Meyer RJ (eds). 279285.
Krippendorf J. 1987. Holiday Makers: Understanding
the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Heinemann:
London.
Lemesianou CA. 2003. Sign matters: the shift in semantic landscapes of the sign "Geberation X"
through time. In Identity Matters, Mokros HB
(ed). New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.; 3155.
Lennon J, Foley M. 2006. Dark Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster. Thomson: London.
Lifton RJ. 1993. The Protean Self. Basic Books: New
York.
Linville P. 1985. Self complexity and affective extremity: dont put all your eggs in one cognitive
basket. Social Cognition 3: 94120.
Linville P. 1987. Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(4):
66676.
Maoz D. 2007. Backpackers motivations the role of
culture and nationality. Annals of Tourism Research
34(1): 122140.
Marsh HW. 1987. The hierarchical structure of selfconcept and the application of hierarchical conrmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational
Measurement 24: 1719.
Marsh HW. 1989. Age and sex effects in multiple
dimensions of self-concept: preadolescence to
Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

442
early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology
81: 417430.
Maslow A. 1961. Peak-experiences as acute identity
experiences. American Journal of Psychoanalysis 21:
547546.
Menzies R, Webster CD. 1994. The dimensions of
dangerousness revisited: assessing forensic predictions about violence. Law and Human Behavior
18: 128.
Muller T, O Cass A. 2001. Targeting the young at
heart: seeing senior vacationers the way they
see themselves. Journal of Vacation Marketing 7:
285301.
Pearce PL. 1993. Fundamentals of tourism
motivation. In Tourism Research: Critiques and
Challenges, Pearce DG, Butler R (eds). Routledge:
London and New York.
Pearce PL, Maoz D. 2008. Novel insights into the
identity changes among backpackers. Tourism
Culture and Communication 8: 2743.
Poria Y, Butler R, Airey D. 2004. Links between
tourists, heritage, and reasons for visiting heritage
sites. Journal of Travel Research 43(1): 1928.
Pizam A, Sussmann S. 1995. Does nationality affect
tourist behavior? Annals of Tourism Research 22:
901917.
Richards G, Wilson J. 2004. Travel writers and writers who travel: nomadic icons for the backpacker
subculture? Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change
2(1): 4668.
Rogers C. 1951. Client-Centered Therapy. Houghton
Mifin Company: Boston.
Rosenberg M. 1979. Conceiving the Self. Basic Books:
NY.
Rounds J. 2006. Doing identity work in museums.
Curator: The Museum Journal 4(2): 133150.
Ryan C. 1997. Similar motivations diverse behaviors.
In The Tourist. Experience: A New Introduction, Ryan
C (ed). Cassell: London.
Ryan RM, LaGuardia JG, Rawsthorne LJ. 2005. Selfcomplexity and the authenticity of self- aspects:
effects on well being and resilience to stressful
events. North American Journal of Psychology 7(3):
431447.
Shanahan MC. 2009. Identity in science learning:
exploring the attention given to agency and
structure in studies of identity. Studies in Science
Education 45(1): 4364.
Shavelson RJ, Hubner JJ, Stanton GC. 1976. Selfconcept: validation of construct interpretations.
Review of Educational Research 46: 407441.
Shavitt S, Torelli CJ, Wong J. 2009. Identity-based
motivation: constraints and opportunities in

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

N. Bond and J. Falk

consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology
16. DOI: 10.1016/jeps.2009.05.009
Sherman SJ, Judd CM, Park B. 1989. Social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 40: 281326.
Simon B. 1999. A place in the world: self and social
categorisation. In The Psychology of the Social Self,
Kramer TR, John OP (eds). Lawrence Erlbaum:
Mahwah, NJ; 4749.
Simon B. 2004. Identity in Modern Society: A Social
Psychological Perspective. Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
Simon B, Hastedt C. 1999. Self-aspects as social
categories: the role of personal importance and
valence. European Journal of Social Psychology 29(4):
479487.
Stebbins R. 1992. Amateurs, Professionals and Serious
Leisure. McGill-Queens University Press: Montreal and Kingston.
Stebbins R. 1996. Identity and cultural tourism.
[Research note]. Annals of Tourism Research 23:
948950.
Stryker S. 1987. Identity theory: developments and
extensions. In Identity: Psychosocial Perspectives,
Yardley K, Hone T (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd:
Chichester, UK; 89103.
Stryker S, Burke PJ. 2000. The past, present, and
future of an identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly 63(4): 284297.
Triandis H. 1989. The self and social behavior in
differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review
96(3): 506520.
Triandis H. C. 1995. Individualism & collectivism.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD,
Wetherell MS. 1987. Rediscovering the Social
Group. A Self-Categorisation Theory. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Uriely N. 2005. The tourist experience: conceptual
developments. Annals of Tourism Research 32(1):
199216.
Uriely N, Yonay Y, Simchai D. 2002. Backpacking
experiences: a type and form analysis. Annals of
Tourism Research 29(2): 520538.
Wenger E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning
Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Woodside AG. 2006. Overcoming the illusion of will
and self-fabrication. Psychology and Marketing 23(3):
257272.
White NR, White PB. 2004. Travel as transition:
identity and place. Annals of Tourism Research
31(1): 200218.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 430442 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr