08832323.2010.482949
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Using Typologies to Interpret Study Abroad
Preferences of American Business Students:
Applying a Tourism Framework to International
Education
Peter W. Cardon , Bryan Marshall & Amit Poddar
To cite this article: Peter W. Cardon , Bryan Marshall & Amit Poddar (2011) Using Typologies
to Interpret Study Abroad Preferences of American Business Students: Applying a Tourism
Framework to International Education, Journal of Education for Business, 86:2, 111-118, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
Published online: 23 Dec 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 170
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:13
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 111–118, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
Using Typologies to Interpret Study Abroad
Preferences of American Business Students:
Applying a Tourism Framework to International
Education
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
Peter W. Cardon
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
Bryan Marshall and Amit Poddar
Georgia College and State University, Milledgeville, Georgia, USA
The authors describe research that applies a tourist framework to study abroad attitudes and
preferences. A total of 371 university business students in the Southern region of the United
States completed a survey that included the International Tourist Role scale and study abroad
attitudes and preferences. These students were grouped into one of 4 international tourist
typologies: familiarity seekers, controlled exposure seekers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekers,
and cultural dissimilarity seekers. Identifying the combination of travel preferences held by
members of these 4 typologies can help business educators and study abroad professionals
design, develop, and market study abroad programs for business students.
Keywords: global business education, international education, program marketing, study
abroad, tourist typologies
INTRODUCTION
In a 2000 survey of college-bound American students, half of
students stated that they wanted to study abroad. Ultimately,
only 5% of them did, which has been labeled a “frustrated
ideal” (American Council on Education [ACE], 2008, p. 1).
In the most recent round of this survey in 2007, 81% of
respondents stated that they wanted to study abroad, and 55%
were certain or fairly certain that they would study abroad.
The authors stated that their survey research
Demonstrate[s] conclusively that the interest of collegebound students in international learning experiences is extraordinarily high. The nature of the international experiences
they seek is expansive, including not only study abroad, but
also internships, cultural immersions, and fluency in a foreign
language. (p. 1)
Correspondence should be addressed to Peter W. Cardon, University of
South Carolina, Integrated Information Technology Program, 120 Carolina
Coliseum, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
In an attempt to avoid the frustrated ideal of high desire to
study abroad yet low participation in study abroad, we conducted this research project to categorize business students
by their study abroad preferences. Because study abroad is a
tourism activity, we applied a tourism framework to identify
typologies of study abroad preferences. We believe this approach can lead to more effective program development and
marketing for study abroad programs, which in turn can lead
to higher participation rates. Throughout this paper, we use
the term study abroad professionals loosely, not just referring
to staff members of formal study abroad offices. Rather, we
use the term to also refer to business college administrators,
faculty members, and other staff members who are actively
involved in the design, promotion, and implementation of
study abroad programs.
Literature Review
The World Tourism Organization (1995) defined tourism
as “the activities of persons traveling to and staying in
places outside their usual environment for not more than one
consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes”
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
112
P. W. CARDON ET AL.
(p. 1). Because study abroad is a form of tourism, utilizing
tourism frameworks can be a helpful means of analyzing
study abroad. Tourism literature contains many fields that
could be of interest to study abroad professionals and business educators, such as destination management and destination marketing.
Although study abroad is tourism, tourism frameworks
have rarely been used to examine study abroad (Cohen,
2003; Michael, Armstrong, & King, 2004). There are several explanations for this. First, most study abroad professionals have little or no background in the tourism field.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the term tourism has
a negative connotation among some study abroad professionals because it conjures up images of merely visiting tourist
sites, gaining little if any cultural immersion, and generally
obtaining superficial experiences. For this reason, the term
glorified tourism has at times been used as a pejorative in
international education circles (i.e., Janes, 2008). In fact,
tourism literature provides well-developed instruments that
can be applied to advance understanding of how potential
study abroad participants select study abroad destinations and
programs.
One of the classic tourism frameworks in which to classify
international tourists is along the familiarity–novelty continuum. This means that tourists prefer varying degrees of
familiarity—some prefer experiences that are similar to their
home environments whereas others prefer experiences vastly
different from their home environments. Cohen (1972) was
the first tourism scholar to classify tourists along this continuum. He identified the following types of tourists: (a) the
organized mass tourist, (b) the individual mass tourist, (c) the
explorer, and (d) the drifter. The organized mass tourist seeks
group tours that are scheduled carefully and with little or no
real exposure to the authentic life of locals. Individual mass
tourists are also largely dependent on travel agents and tour
guides to define their travel experiences, yet they exercise
some control of their travel activities. Explorers attempt to
get off the beaten path and interact with locals, but they also
prefer the option to step back into the confines of comfortable hotels, restaurants, and other familiar situations. Drifters
attempt to completely integrate themselves into the lives of
locals.
In the tourism literature, it has been recognized for over
three decades that psychographic variables are better predictors of travel behavior than are demographic variables
(Woodside & Pitts, 1976). In other words, demographic variables such as gender and income are less predictive of travel
behaviors than psychographic classifications that rely on
lifestyle preferences. In order to assess lifestyle preferences
relevant to tourism, a number of traveler typologies have been
developed. Several sets of researchers have developed scales
of traveler typologies (Lee & Crompton, 1992; Mo, Howard,
& Havitz, 1993). These scales focus group travelers based on
underlying motivations for travel rather than by demographic
variables (Keng & Cheng, 1999).
Prior studies of study abroad preferences have focused
on differences based on demographic variables (Kashlak & Jones, 1996) or students’ majors (Toncar, Reid, &
Anderson, 2005). In many cases, this has yielded either none
or small differences in study abroad preferences. In some
cases, scholars have advocated one-size-fits-all study programs as a result. For example, Toncar et al. (2005) examined the study abroad motivations and preferences of business
versus nonbusiness students. They found that although there
were slight differences in motivations, there were virtually
no differences in study abroad preferences, thus concluding “their study-abroad needs may be satisfied by a single,
carefully designed program” (Toncar et al., p. 61). Although
empirical research does not exist to demonstrate the need for
different types of programs, many study abroad professionals
recognize the need for diverse programs (Kelley, 2007; Koernig, 2007). In fact, many study abroad professionals believe
there is increasingly a gap between what study abroad programs offer and what study abroad programs should provide
(Vande Berg, 2007). We believe that study abroad program
developers could benefit from segmentation of university students along psychographic rather than just demographic variables. Such analysis may yield useful ways of developing and
marketing various types of programs to meet diverse needs
of students.
METHOD
The primary purpose of our research was to cluster business
students based on international travel preferences (psychographic variable) and identify corresponding study abroad
preferences and intentions. The study was modeled after
the recent work of Keng and Cheng (1999), who used the
International Tourist Role (ITR) scale, developed by Mo
et al. (1993), to cluster types of international travelers in
Singapore. We are unaware of any efforts to cluster university students based on their international travel preferences;
however, clustering has been used in the international
education literature. For example, Albers-Miller, Sigerstad,
and Straughan (2000) clustered business recruiters based
on their preferences for international and study abroad
experience among potential employees.
Our survey included several sections. In the first section,
we collected background information about the university
students, including demographic variables and prior international experience. In the second section, we asked students
about their study abroad preferences related to destinations
of choice, price acceptability, length of program, and so on.
In the final section, students took the 20-item ITR survey as
constructed by Mo, Howard, and Havitz (1993).
As far as destinations of choice, students chose their top
three countries. We then grouped the countries chosen by
the students into the following regions: Western Europe,
Other Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Asia, Latin America,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
STUDY ABROAD FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS
Caribbean, Africa, Oceania, and Americas. For the most part,
these classifications follow conventions of the United Nations
(UN) with several exceptions. First, Australia and Oceania
is one geographic region in the UN classification. We divided this region into Australia/New Zealand and Oceania
because Australia and New Zealand are strong preferences
for study abroad, whereas the remaining Oceania locations
are not and reflect a vastly different study abroad environment in terms of cultural differences and tourism infrastructure. Second, we divided Europe into two regions: Western
Europe and Other Europe. In Western Europe, we combined
the UN subregions of Western Europe, Southern Europe, and
the United Kingdom. This reflects many common groupings
of Western Europe and includes the most common tourist
and study abroad destinations in Europe. The Western European countries also share common cultural and political
heritage with the United States. Recent studies show the
strong preference for Western European countries for Americans studying abroad. In 2007, 57% of all American study
abroad students went to Europe (primarily Western Europe),
followed by 15% to Latin America, 10% to Asia, 6% to
Oceania (including Australia), 4% to Africa, and 1% to the
Middle East. For countries, the top 10 destinations were the
United Kingdom (32,705), Italy (27,831), Spain (24,005),
France (17,233), China (11,064), Australia (10,747),
Mexico (9,461), Germany (7,355), Ireland (5,785), and Costa
Rica (5,383; Bhandari & Chow, 2008).
We also made groupings of countries based on strategic
business and political interests. We grouped the top 5 and
top 10 trading partners of the United States based on 2008
data. We also grouped the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia,
India, China) due to their rising importance in international
commerce. The BRIC countries, which collectively account
for approximately 40% of the world’s population, have only
recently started integrating with Western economies. Within
the past one or two decades, political and economic reforms
have accelerated the growth of these economies. The BRIC
economies are estimated to be larger than those of the G8
countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia) within 40 years (Wilson &
Purushothaman, 2003). We also grouped Muslim and Arabic
countries due to their important role in international political issues and the deficiency of qualified professionals with
cultural and language background in these countries. Finally,
we included a grouping of English-speaking countries. We
did this to in part because we were interested in the issue of
novelty. Presumably, countries with English as the primary
language have more similar cultures. We also did this because
we believe many students are fearful of studying abroad in
non-English-speaking locations. In our experience recruiting
students for international programs, we frequently encounter
students who are concerned about not being able to adjust
in non-English environments. Our experience is primarily in
the Southern United States.
113
We surveyed business and management students from one
university in South Carolina and one university in Georgia.
We were able to survey a wide range of students because we
administered the surveys in classes that were required of all
business majors. The survey was conducted anonymously online and students were offered extra credit to take the survey
(students could demonstrate that they had taken the survey
by providing information contained on a web site they were
directed to upon completion of the survey—there was no possibility of the researchers knowing the students’ identity). A
total of 371 students took the survey out of 381 students in the
courses, yielding a participation rate of 97.4%. There were
218 (58.8%) men and 153 women (41.2%) who took the survey. In terms of class standing, most respondents were juniors
(42.9%) or seniors (34.8%), with freshman, sophomores, and
graduate students comprising 2.4%, 17.5%, and 2.4% of the
sample, respectively. Students in the sample represented a
broad range of business and management disciplines with
the leading majors being management (24.5%), marketing
(17.5%), and management of information systems (15.9%).
About two thirds of the students (65.0%) self-identified as
coming from upper middle income families, and about one
quarter (26.7%) self-identified as coming from lower middle
income families. Few students self-identified as coming from
low- or high-income families (2.4% and 5.7%, respectively).
Generally speaking, these two universities are reflective of
middle- to upper-class students in the Southern United States.
RESULTS
We present our findings in four sections. First, we provide
descriptive statistics about prior international travel experience and preferred destinations for study abroad. Second, we
describe our cluster analysis based on the ITR scale. Third,
we describe demographic composition within each cluster.
Finally, we examine differences in study abroad preferences
and attitudes based on cluster membership.
Prior International Travel and Preferred
Destinations for Study Abroad
Overall, approximately 71% of our respondents had travelled internationally. The most common destinations were
the Caribbean (37%) and Mexico (32%). Excluding travel
to the Caribbean, Mexico, and Canada, approximately 38%
of students had traveled internationally. Outside of North
America, the primary destination of travel was Western
Europe (30%). Few students had traveled to destinations in
Latin America (excluding Mexico; 10%), Asia (7%), and
Africa (3%).
The top five first choices of participants for a study abroad
location by country were Australia (21%), Italy (15%),
Spain (10%), the United Kingdom (6%), and France (6%).
114
P. W. CARDON ET AL.
TABLE 1
Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation
Factor
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
1
2
3
4
5
Eigenvalue
% of variance
Cumulative %
5.07
3.57
1.86
1.14
1.00
17.91
13.45
13.09
9.91
8.81
17.91
31.36
44.46
54.37
63.18
Collectively, these five countries accounted for nearly 60%
of all first choices. Furthermore, the vast majority of respondents (74%) chose Western Europe or Australia/New Zealand
as their first choice. Notably, other regions held little interest
for the vast majority of respondents. Just 7% of respondents
indicated that a country in Asia would be their first choice,
6% for Latin America, and 3% for Africa. Just 5% of respondents chose BRIC countries, and just under 2% chose Arab
countries.
Cluster Analysis of International Travel
Preferences
Similar to Keng and Cheng’s (1999) use of the ITR scale to
cluster international tourists in Singapore, we first conducted
a factor analysis of the ITR scale. We derived five factors
as did Keng and Cheng in their study, and as a result, we
adopted their factor names for this study: a social contact dimension (SCD), a tourist infrastructure dimension (TID), a
travel services dimension (TSD), a culture similarity dimension (CSD), and a pretrip planning dimension (PPD). The
SCD refers to the degree to which tourists want to interact
with locals. The TID refers to the degree to which tourists
prefer a similar tourist infrastructure (i.e., hotel chains and
transportation systems) to their home countries. The TSD
refers to the degree to which tourists want others (i.e., travel
agencies or tour guides) to control their experience. The CSD
refers to the degree to which tourists prefer cultures similar
to their own. The PPD refers to the degree to which tourists
want to have preplanned itineraries. These dimensions factored just as did Keng and Cheng’s with the exception of
items 10 and 11, which factored into the TID dimension in
their study. In our study, these items factored into the TSD
dimension. Sampling adequacy was demonstrated with the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure, which equaled .843, χ 2(190,
N = 367) = 2559.09, p = .00. Cumulatively, the five factors
accounted for 63% of the variance (see Table 1). Alpha reliability coefficients ranged from .683 to .856, and all items
were retained because they each had factor loadings above
.4 (see Table 2).
TABLE 2
Factor Analysis of ITR Items
Social contact dimension (SCD)
I prefer to associate with the local people when traveling in a foreign country. (3)
I prefer to live the way the people I visit do, by sharing their shelter, food, and customs during my stay. (6)
I prefer to seek excitement of complete novelty by engaging in direct contact with a wide variety of new and
different people. (9)
If I find a place that particularly pleases me, I may stop there long enough for social involvement in the life of
the place to occur. (13)
I prefer to make friends with the local people when traveling in a foreign country. (17)
I prefer to have as much contact with the local people as possible when traveling in a foreign country. (19)
Tourist infrastructure dimension (TID)
I prefer to travel to countries where there are international hotel chains. (7)
I prefer to travel to countries where they have the same transportation system as in my country. (14)
I prefer to travel to countries that are popular tourist destinations. (16)
I prefer to travel to countries with well-developed travel industries. (20)
Travel services dimension (TSD)
I prefer to be on a guided tour when traveling in a foreign country. (2)
I prefer to make all my major travel arrangements through travel agencies when traveling in a foreign country. (5)
I prefer to have travel agencies take complete care of me, from beginning to end, when traveling in a foreign
country. (8)
I prefer to travel to countries where they have the same tourist infrastructure as in my country. (10)
I prefer to travel to countries where there are restaurants familiar to me. (11)
Culture similarity dimension (CSD)
I prefer to travel to countries where the people are of the same ethnic group as mine. (1)
I prefer to travel to countries where the culture is similar to mine. (4)
I put high priority on familiarity when thinking of travel destinations. (18)
Pretrip planning dimension (PPD)
I prefer to start a trip with no preplanned or definite timetable when traveling in a foreign country. (12)
I prefer to start a trip with no preplanned or definite routes when traveling in a foreign country. (15)
M
SD
Factor
loading
Reliability
coefficient
5.09
4.46
4.04
1.23
1.42
1.50
.788
.665
.775
.856
4.88
1.18
.655
5.01
4.90
1.28
1.31
.818
.832
4.53
3.97
4.47
4.68
1.16
1.29
1.24
1.19
.741
.504
.634
.693
.727
4.28
4.28
4.04
1.51
1.35
1.50
.714
.727
.720
.737
3.89
3.75
1.15
1.46
.597
.625
3.66
3.75
3.97
1.41
1.32
1.27
.765
.790
.422
.683
3.62
3.52
1.72
1.65
.896
.882
.791
115
STUDY ABROAD FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS
TABLE 3
Cluster Analysis of Respondents
Cluster
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
1
2
3
4
Name
Familiarity seekers (FS)
Controlled exposure seekers (CES)
Spontaneous dissimilarity seekers (SDS)
Culture dissimilarity seekers (CDS)
%
n
13.4
36.0
32.7
18.0
49
132
120
66
Next, we conducted cluster analysis in order to segment
students into tourist typologies. We used K-means clustering based on individual-level mean scores for each of the
five factors. We considered a four-factor solution the most
appropriate classification due to theoretical rationale. Prior
tourist typologies have typically segmented travelers into
four groups, and Keng and Cheng’s (1999) clustering of international travelers based on the ITR scale also used four
clusters.
The four cluster groups include familiarity seekers (13%),
controlled exposure seekers (36%), spontaneous dissimilarity seekers (33%), and culture dissimilarity seekers (18%;
see Table 3). We use the terms familiarity seekers and culture dissimilarity seekers as did Keng and Cheng (1999) as
extremes in the familiarity–novelty continuum. However, we
created distinct labels for our two middle groups, as they
showed unique characteristics compared to the sample of
Singaporean tourists in their study. Familiarity seekers are
similar to Cohen’s (1972) organized mass tourist. They seek
familiarity in every regard except social contact. In other
words, they seek to travel to international destinations with
similar cultures and tourist infrastructures in a highly controlled manner. Controlled exposure seekers seek the least social contact but also seek cultures dissimilar to their own more
so than familiarity seekers. Compared to familiarity seekers,
they are also less concerned about pretrip planning, tourist infrastructure, and infrastructure travel services. Spontaneous
dissimilarity seekers are similar to controlled exposure seekers in terms of wanting similar tourist infrastructures and
travel services; however, they want more social contact with
less similar cultures. Perhaps the trait that most distinguishes
this group is their strong aversion to pretrip planning. Compared to any other group, they do not want to be bound to
itineraries and schedules, thus their travel preferences are
highly spontaneous. The final group is culture dissimilarity
seekers, who most strongly desire going to destinations with
highly dissimilar cultures, tourist infrastructures, and travel
services. In other words, they desire a truly novel experience.
Similar to familiarity seekers, however, they desire a lot of
pretrip planning.
All factors significantly influenced membership in clusters as shown in the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in
Table 4. Furthermore, each cluster contained at least three
of the five dimensions that were significantly different than
all other clusters. Thus, the clusters can be considered distinct
typologies of international travel preferences.
Demographic Composition of Clusters
We examined the demographic composition of each cluster
in terms of gender, academic class, and income. The only
significant difference was gender. Women tended to be more
on the novelty end of the continuum. Although there were
essentially similar numbers of cultural dissimilarity seekers
among women (18%) and men (18%), women were much
more likely to be in the spontaneous dissimilarity seekers
cluster (43% compared to 26% for men), whereas men were
more likely to be in the controlled exposure (40% to 31% for
women) and familiarity seekers (17% to 9%) clusters (see
Table 5).
Study Abroad Preferences and Attitudes Based
on Cluster Membership
For most of the items about the impact of study abroad on
careers and study abroad preferences, there were significant
differences among clusters. For career-related beliefs, familiarity seekers and cultural dissimilarity seekers tended to
TABLE 4
ANOVA of ITR Mean Scores, by Cluster
1 (FS)
Variable
Social contact
Culture similarity
Pretrip planning
Tourist infrastructure
Travel services
2 (CES)
3 (SDS)
4 (CDS)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F
p
5.47
4.82
5.96
5.66
5.35
0.86c
1.19d
1.14c
0.61c
0.69c
4.35
4.03
3.90
4.33
4.12
0.70a
0.66c
0.78b
0.58b
0.62b
4.95
3.68
1.90
4.47
4.01
0.96b
0.91b
0.74a
0.82b
0.83b
5.71
2.76
4.87
3.58
3.00
0.74c
0.84a
1.24c
0.73a
0.78a
48.64
59.09
220.49
83.43
96.4
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
Note. Means with the same superscripts are not different based on Tukey post hoc tests. Superscripts with lower letters indicate lower endorsement, whereas
superscripts with higher letters indicate higher endorsement. Higher mean scores indicate more agreement: in all cases except culture similarity, this indicates
less novelty-seeking preferences.
∗ p < .05.
∗∗ p < .01.
116
P. W. CARDON ET AL.
TABLE 5
Demographic Characteristics, by Cluster
1 (FS)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
Variable
Gender
Male
Female
Class
Freshman/sophomore
Juniors
Seniors/graduate
Income
Low income/lower middle income
Upper middle income
High income
2 (CES)
3 (SDS)
4 (CDS)
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
16.8
8.5
36
13
39.7
30.7
85
47
25.7
42.5
55
65
17.8
18.3
38
28
13.5
9.6
17.5
10
15
24
35.1
39.7
32.1
26
62
44
32.4
30.1
35.8
24
47
49
18.9
20.5
14.6
14
32
20
16.7
12.2
9.5
18
29
2
31.5
36.6
52.4
34
87
11
29.6
34.9
23.8
32
83
21
22.2
16.4
14.3
24
39
3
believe more strongly that studying abroad would help them
get jobs, be helpful in their careers, and that working with
members of other cultures is important in their future industries. These two groups were also more likely to want a study
abroad program of one semester or longer. Not surprising,
cultural dissimilarity seekers were less likely than all other
groups to be nervous about studying abroad (see Table 6).
Interestingly, the unique aspect of familiarity seekers and
cultural dissimilarity seekers is their desire for social contact with locals. Perhaps it is this dimension that is related
to their stronger belief that studying abroad is helpful in
their careers. Ironically, it is these groups that comprise the
smallest clusters (13% and 18%, respectively). All groups
with the exception of cultural dissimilarity seekers (which
account for just one fifth of respondents) exhibited strong
anxiety to studying where English is not the first language.
As far as destination choices broken down by region,
country, trading relationships, emerging economies, and sev-
χ2
p
14.34
.00∗∗
6.79
.34
6.30
.39
eral other categories, a number of trends emerge. Familiarity
seekers and cultural dissimilarity seekers were more likely to
place Asia in their top choices, less likely to place European
countries among their top choices, and less likely to select
English-speaking countries among their top choices. Cultural dissimilarity seekers were least likely to select a top 10
trading partner of the United States among their top choices.
Familiarity seekers were most likely to place predominantly
Muslim countries among their top countries (albeit at just
16%).
As far as first-choice study abroad countries, cultural dissimilarity seekers were the only cluster not to select Australia
as their top choice. Rather, by a 2:1 margin, they chose Italy
over Australia. Furthermore, cultural dissimilarity seekers
were the only group to have a country from Asia (Japan),
Latin America (Costa Rica), and Oceania (Fiji) among their
top five overall choices and were the only group to select
countries in which there were non-European languages.
TABLE 6
ANOVA of Study Abroad Statements, by Cluster
1 (FS)
Survey item
Studying abroad will help me get a job.
Studying abroad will be helpful for my career.
I want to study abroad while I am a university
student.
Studying abroad is too expensive for me.
It is important for people in my (future) industry to
be able to work with members of other cultures.
I would be nervous studying abroad in places
where English is not the first language.
I would prefer a study abroad program that is one
semester or longer.
I would prefer a study abroad program that is part
of a group from my school.
2 (CES)
3 (SDS)
4 (CDS)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F
p
4.942
5.352
4.944
1.56
1.55
1.94
4.231,4
4.551,4
4.563,4
1.23
1.29
1.58
4.524
5.00
5.162
1.41
1.52
1.90
5.142,3
5.552
5.771,2
1.36
1.41
1.33
7.86
8.49
7.70
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
4.86
5.962
1.53
1.11
4.49
5.244
1.46
1.45
4.50
5.68
1.88
1.40
4.54
6.352
1.71
0.92
0.65
11.45
.58
.00∗∗
5.064
1.56
4.454
1.53
4.534
1.81
3.441,2,3
1.87
9.86
.00∗∗
4.532,3
1.56
3.791,4
1.38
3.741,4
1.75
4.552,3
1.39
6.74
.00∗∗
5.37
1.52
4.89
1.40
5.07
1.52
4.88
1.23
1.60
.19
Note. Superscripts indicate the cluster numbers for which there are statistical differences based on Tukey post-hoc tests by cluster.
< .05.
∗∗ p < .01.
∗p
STUDY ABROAD FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
FIGURE 1
continuum.
Study abroad typologies along the familiarity–novelty
DISCUSSION
One challenge that university personnel managing study
abroad must address is how to develop and promote programs that appeal to various students. An understanding of
typologies of international travel preferences can allow study
abroad professionals to develop and promote far more effective study abroad programs. This study showed that business
students in the Southern United States can be clustered into
four distinct typologies of travel preferences. In this section,
we discuss each of these four typologies and conclude with
how study abroad professionals might integrate this understanding into how they develop and promote programs.
The familiarity–novelty continuum, often used in tourism
literature, is a useful tool for analyzing the typologies. In
terms of this continuum, we arranged the groups in the following order: familiarity seekers, controlled exposure seekers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekers, and culture dissimilarity seekers. In this scheme, three of the five dimensions
move progressively from familiarity to novelty along the continuum: culture similarity, tourist infrastructure, and travel
services. These dimensions identify the degree to which societal differences are sought in international travel. Two of
the five dimensions form parabolas along the continuum of
cluster groups with familiarity seekers and dissimilarity seekers most desiring social contact with locals and most desiring
extensive pre-trip planning (see Figure 1). Roughly one third
of business students were controlled exposure seekers and
one third were spontaneous dissimilarity seekers. Therefore,
about two thirds of students were in the middle ground of
the continuum on most travel dimensions. Far fewer students
comprised the extremes on the scale, with familiarity seekers preferring familiarity and culture dissimilarity seekers
hoping for novelty.
Some unanticipated results from this study were the many
similarities between the two groups on each end of the
familiarity–novelty continuum. Cultural dissimilarity seekers, who seek novelty in nearly all aspects of international
travel, seek for familiarity in pretrip planning to the same
117
degree as familiarity seekers. On the other hand, familiarity seekers, who seek familiarity for nearly every dimension,
seek maximum novelty for social contact on par with cultural
dissimilarity seekers. For study abroad attitudes and preferences, these two groups likewise exhibited several common
tendencies. They most strongly believed that study abroad
would positively influence their careers and were most likely
to want semester or longer study abroad programs. Both
groups were also more likely to choose Asia among their top
choices, less likely to choose Europe among their top choices,
and less likely to choose English-speaking countries among
their top choices.
In determining how to promote and develop various programs, we begin with discussing some of the ironies and unexpected combinations of preferences. To identify how these
unanticipated findings may influence study abroad participation, we generalize most American study abroad programs.
The majority of programs, particularly those provided by
external providers, aim to provide some exposure to other
cultures in a highly organized manner. They are designed to
allow some interaction with locals but are generally tightly
controlled: they provide housing for American students to
stay together; they are guided, taught, or mediated through
an American professor or bicultural local professional; and
are scheduled precisely (beginning and end dates, excursions). Of course, there is some variation, particularly for
students studying a foreign language. These students are far
more likely to have a less tightly designed program and are
more likely to be immersed in the local culture.
We did not anticipate that the typologies on either end of
the familiarity–novelty spectrum would have commonalities
in terms of social contact and pretrip planning. Furthermore,
we did not anticipate that these groups would share so many
study abroad attitudes and preferences. In fact, this shatters
some common stereotypes among study abroad professionals. For example, many of these professionals view the most
adventurous of students (cultural dissimilarity seekers) as
flexible in every regard—not wanting to be confined to set
dates and places for their travels. The typical image of this
type of students it that of the backpacker. Yet, our results show
the opposite. As another example of unexpected results, most
study abroad professionals view those students least interested in other cultures (familiarity seekers) as those that need
the most convincing to study abroad. Yet, this group along
with culture dissimilarity seekers most believed that study
abroad programs would benefit their careers, most wanted to
study abroad for more than a semester, and most wanted to
become immersed in the local culture. For these two groups,
the primary mismatch of most programs is social contact.
Both groups want maximum novelty in meeting and spending time with locals. Yet, most study abroad programs are
not designed to meet this strong desire.
Second, we were surprised that the majority of students,
who tend to be in the middle of the familiarity–novelty continuum on most dimensions (controlled exposure seekers and
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
118
P. W. CARDON ET AL.
spontaneous dissimilarity seekers), were so adverse to pretrip planning. Generally speaking, it is to these two groups
that most programs most match needs. For these two groups,
however, one of their travel preferences is generally unmet,
particularly by external providers. Both of these groups prefer
less pretrip planning—they prefer flexibility in travel dates.
It is possible that the lack of perceived flexibility of study
abroad programs contributes to the frustrated ideal.
Study abroad professionals can use the typologies in other
ways of increasing program effectiveness. In terms of marketing, it may make sense to develop and market various
types of programs that fit the various typologies and advertise accordingly. Advertising should focus on emphasizing
those program aspects that most appeal to a particular typology and explicitly identifying how the program deals with
the associated concerns and worries. For example, a program
designed for culture dissimilarity seekers could emphasize
the novel aspects of the culture, its infrastructure, its travel
services, and the abundant opportunity for social contact.
However, the advertising would be incomplete without emphasizing the carefully and precisely planned nature of the
study abroad trip, which is what this group most worries
about. Furthermore, most study abroad professionals provide some type of pre- and posttrip training and orientation for students. These sessions can be most effective by
considering the strongest worries and concerns. For controlled exposure seekers, there may be anxiety about not
being in a group of their own culture and interacting extensively with locals. For familiarity seekers, this is not a
concern. Rather, they are more concerned about issues such
as living in a similar culture with similar infrastructure and
services.
In terms of further research, we recommend that this research be replicated in other contexts, particularly in other
cultures (we focused on the Southern region of the United
States). Of particular interest in future studies would be identifying explanations about why cultural dissimilarity seekers
and familiarity seekers had so many common study abroad
attitudes and beliefs. We recommend the continued use of
tourism research instruments to enhance understanding of
study abroad interests and intentions. Using tourism constructs, such as tourist typologies, can enhance the ability
of study abroad professionals to deliver meaningful study
abroad experiences to and increase study abroad participation among business students.
SUMMARY
This article has described research that applies a tourist
framework to study abroad attitudes and preferences. We
found that business students can be grouped into one of
four international tourist typologies: familiarity seekers, con-
trolled exposure seekers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekers,
and cultural dissimilarity seekers. The familiarity–novelty
continuum is a useful means of categorizing these groups for
preferences in culture similarity, tourist infrastructure, and
travel services. Identifying the combination of travel preferences held by members of these four typologies can help
study abroad professionals design, develop, market, and train
for study abroad programs.
REFERENCES
Albers-Miller, N. D., Sigerstad, T. D., & Straughan, R. D. (2000). Internationalization of the undergraduate curriculum: Insight from recruiters.
Journal of Teaching in International Business, 11(4), 55–80.
American Council on Education, Art & Science Group, & the College
Board. 2008. College-bound students’ interests in study abroad and other
international learning activities. Washington, DC: Author.
Bhandari, R., & Chow, P. (2008). Open doors 2008: Report on international educational exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International
Education.
Cohen, E. H. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social
Research, 39, 164–182.
Cohen, E. H. (2003). Tourism and religion: A case study—visiting students
in Israeli universities. Journal of Travel Research, 42(1), 36–47.
Janes, D. (2008). Beyond the tourist gaze? Cultural learning on an American ‘semester abroad’ programme in London. Journal of Research in
International Education, 7(1), 21–35.
Kashlak, R. J., & Jones, R. M. (1996). Internationalizing business education: Factors affecting student participation in overseas study programs.
Journal of Teaching in International Business, 8(2), 57–75.
Kelley, C. A. (2007). Assessing the trends and challenges of teaching marketing abroad: A Delphi approach. Journal of Marketing Education, 29,
201–209.
Keng, K. A., & Cheng, J. L. L. (1999). Determining tourist role typologies: An exploratory study of Singapore vacationers. Journal of Travel
Research, 37, 382–390.
Koernig, S. K. (2007). Planning, organizing, and conducting a 2-week study
abroad trip for undergraduate students: Guidelines for first-time faculty.
Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 210–217.
Lee, T. H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 732–751.
Michael, I., Armstrong, A., & King, B. (2004). The travel behavior of
international students: The relationship between studying abroad and their
choice of tourist destinations. Journal of Vacation of Marketing, 10(1),
57–66.
Mo, C. M., Howard, D. R., & Havitz, M. E. (1993). Testing an international
tourist role typology. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 319–335.
Toncar, M. F., Reid, J. S., & Anderson, C. E. (2005). Perceptions and
preferences of study abroad: Do business students have different needs?
Journal of Teaching in International Business, 17(1/2), 61–80.
Vande Berg, M. (2007). Intervening in the learning of U.S. students abroad.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 392–399.
Wilson, D., & Purushothaman, R. (2003). Dreaming with the BRICs: The
path to 2050. Global Economics Paper No: 99. Goldman Sachs. Retrieved
from http://www2.goldmansachs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf
Woodside, A. G., & Pitts, R. E. (1976). Effects of consumer lifestyles, demographics and travel activities on foreign and domestic travel behavior.
Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 287–303.
World Tourism Organization. (1995). Collection of tourism expenditure
statistics. Madrid, Spain: Author.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Using Typologies to Interpret Study Abroad
Preferences of American Business Students:
Applying a Tourism Framework to International
Education
Peter W. Cardon , Bryan Marshall & Amit Poddar
To cite this article: Peter W. Cardon , Bryan Marshall & Amit Poddar (2011) Using Typologies
to Interpret Study Abroad Preferences of American Business Students: Applying a Tourism
Framework to International Education, Journal of Education for Business, 86:2, 111-118, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
Published online: 23 Dec 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 170
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:13
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 86: 111–118, 2011
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
Using Typologies to Interpret Study Abroad
Preferences of American Business Students:
Applying a Tourism Framework to International
Education
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
Peter W. Cardon
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
Bryan Marshall and Amit Poddar
Georgia College and State University, Milledgeville, Georgia, USA
The authors describe research that applies a tourist framework to study abroad attitudes and
preferences. A total of 371 university business students in the Southern region of the United
States completed a survey that included the International Tourist Role scale and study abroad
attitudes and preferences. These students were grouped into one of 4 international tourist
typologies: familiarity seekers, controlled exposure seekers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekers,
and cultural dissimilarity seekers. Identifying the combination of travel preferences held by
members of these 4 typologies can help business educators and study abroad professionals
design, develop, and market study abroad programs for business students.
Keywords: global business education, international education, program marketing, study
abroad, tourist typologies
INTRODUCTION
In a 2000 survey of college-bound American students, half of
students stated that they wanted to study abroad. Ultimately,
only 5% of them did, which has been labeled a “frustrated
ideal” (American Council on Education [ACE], 2008, p. 1).
In the most recent round of this survey in 2007, 81% of
respondents stated that they wanted to study abroad, and 55%
were certain or fairly certain that they would study abroad.
The authors stated that their survey research
Demonstrate[s] conclusively that the interest of collegebound students in international learning experiences is extraordinarily high. The nature of the international experiences
they seek is expansive, including not only study abroad, but
also internships, cultural immersions, and fluency in a foreign
language. (p. 1)
Correspondence should be addressed to Peter W. Cardon, University of
South Carolina, Integrated Information Technology Program, 120 Carolina
Coliseum, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
In an attempt to avoid the frustrated ideal of high desire to
study abroad yet low participation in study abroad, we conducted this research project to categorize business students
by their study abroad preferences. Because study abroad is a
tourism activity, we applied a tourism framework to identify
typologies of study abroad preferences. We believe this approach can lead to more effective program development and
marketing for study abroad programs, which in turn can lead
to higher participation rates. Throughout this paper, we use
the term study abroad professionals loosely, not just referring
to staff members of formal study abroad offices. Rather, we
use the term to also refer to business college administrators,
faculty members, and other staff members who are actively
involved in the design, promotion, and implementation of
study abroad programs.
Literature Review
The World Tourism Organization (1995) defined tourism
as “the activities of persons traveling to and staying in
places outside their usual environment for not more than one
consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes”
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
112
P. W. CARDON ET AL.
(p. 1). Because study abroad is a form of tourism, utilizing
tourism frameworks can be a helpful means of analyzing
study abroad. Tourism literature contains many fields that
could be of interest to study abroad professionals and business educators, such as destination management and destination marketing.
Although study abroad is tourism, tourism frameworks
have rarely been used to examine study abroad (Cohen,
2003; Michael, Armstrong, & King, 2004). There are several explanations for this. First, most study abroad professionals have little or no background in the tourism field.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the term tourism has
a negative connotation among some study abroad professionals because it conjures up images of merely visiting tourist
sites, gaining little if any cultural immersion, and generally
obtaining superficial experiences. For this reason, the term
glorified tourism has at times been used as a pejorative in
international education circles (i.e., Janes, 2008). In fact,
tourism literature provides well-developed instruments that
can be applied to advance understanding of how potential
study abroad participants select study abroad destinations and
programs.
One of the classic tourism frameworks in which to classify
international tourists is along the familiarity–novelty continuum. This means that tourists prefer varying degrees of
familiarity—some prefer experiences that are similar to their
home environments whereas others prefer experiences vastly
different from their home environments. Cohen (1972) was
the first tourism scholar to classify tourists along this continuum. He identified the following types of tourists: (a) the
organized mass tourist, (b) the individual mass tourist, (c) the
explorer, and (d) the drifter. The organized mass tourist seeks
group tours that are scheduled carefully and with little or no
real exposure to the authentic life of locals. Individual mass
tourists are also largely dependent on travel agents and tour
guides to define their travel experiences, yet they exercise
some control of their travel activities. Explorers attempt to
get off the beaten path and interact with locals, but they also
prefer the option to step back into the confines of comfortable hotels, restaurants, and other familiar situations. Drifters
attempt to completely integrate themselves into the lives of
locals.
In the tourism literature, it has been recognized for over
three decades that psychographic variables are better predictors of travel behavior than are demographic variables
(Woodside & Pitts, 1976). In other words, demographic variables such as gender and income are less predictive of travel
behaviors than psychographic classifications that rely on
lifestyle preferences. In order to assess lifestyle preferences
relevant to tourism, a number of traveler typologies have been
developed. Several sets of researchers have developed scales
of traveler typologies (Lee & Crompton, 1992; Mo, Howard,
& Havitz, 1993). These scales focus group travelers based on
underlying motivations for travel rather than by demographic
variables (Keng & Cheng, 1999).
Prior studies of study abroad preferences have focused
on differences based on demographic variables (Kashlak & Jones, 1996) or students’ majors (Toncar, Reid, &
Anderson, 2005). In many cases, this has yielded either none
or small differences in study abroad preferences. In some
cases, scholars have advocated one-size-fits-all study programs as a result. For example, Toncar et al. (2005) examined the study abroad motivations and preferences of business
versus nonbusiness students. They found that although there
were slight differences in motivations, there were virtually
no differences in study abroad preferences, thus concluding “their study-abroad needs may be satisfied by a single,
carefully designed program” (Toncar et al., p. 61). Although
empirical research does not exist to demonstrate the need for
different types of programs, many study abroad professionals
recognize the need for diverse programs (Kelley, 2007; Koernig, 2007). In fact, many study abroad professionals believe
there is increasingly a gap between what study abroad programs offer and what study abroad programs should provide
(Vande Berg, 2007). We believe that study abroad program
developers could benefit from segmentation of university students along psychographic rather than just demographic variables. Such analysis may yield useful ways of developing and
marketing various types of programs to meet diverse needs
of students.
METHOD
The primary purpose of our research was to cluster business
students based on international travel preferences (psychographic variable) and identify corresponding study abroad
preferences and intentions. The study was modeled after
the recent work of Keng and Cheng (1999), who used the
International Tourist Role (ITR) scale, developed by Mo
et al. (1993), to cluster types of international travelers in
Singapore. We are unaware of any efforts to cluster university students based on their international travel preferences;
however, clustering has been used in the international
education literature. For example, Albers-Miller, Sigerstad,
and Straughan (2000) clustered business recruiters based
on their preferences for international and study abroad
experience among potential employees.
Our survey included several sections. In the first section,
we collected background information about the university
students, including demographic variables and prior international experience. In the second section, we asked students
about their study abroad preferences related to destinations
of choice, price acceptability, length of program, and so on.
In the final section, students took the 20-item ITR survey as
constructed by Mo, Howard, and Havitz (1993).
As far as destinations of choice, students chose their top
three countries. We then grouped the countries chosen by
the students into the following regions: Western Europe,
Other Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Asia, Latin America,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
STUDY ABROAD FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS
Caribbean, Africa, Oceania, and Americas. For the most part,
these classifications follow conventions of the United Nations
(UN) with several exceptions. First, Australia and Oceania
is one geographic region in the UN classification. We divided this region into Australia/New Zealand and Oceania
because Australia and New Zealand are strong preferences
for study abroad, whereas the remaining Oceania locations
are not and reflect a vastly different study abroad environment in terms of cultural differences and tourism infrastructure. Second, we divided Europe into two regions: Western
Europe and Other Europe. In Western Europe, we combined
the UN subregions of Western Europe, Southern Europe, and
the United Kingdom. This reflects many common groupings
of Western Europe and includes the most common tourist
and study abroad destinations in Europe. The Western European countries also share common cultural and political
heritage with the United States. Recent studies show the
strong preference for Western European countries for Americans studying abroad. In 2007, 57% of all American study
abroad students went to Europe (primarily Western Europe),
followed by 15% to Latin America, 10% to Asia, 6% to
Oceania (including Australia), 4% to Africa, and 1% to the
Middle East. For countries, the top 10 destinations were the
United Kingdom (32,705), Italy (27,831), Spain (24,005),
France (17,233), China (11,064), Australia (10,747),
Mexico (9,461), Germany (7,355), Ireland (5,785), and Costa
Rica (5,383; Bhandari & Chow, 2008).
We also made groupings of countries based on strategic
business and political interests. We grouped the top 5 and
top 10 trading partners of the United States based on 2008
data. We also grouped the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia,
India, China) due to their rising importance in international
commerce. The BRIC countries, which collectively account
for approximately 40% of the world’s population, have only
recently started integrating with Western economies. Within
the past one or two decades, political and economic reforms
have accelerated the growth of these economies. The BRIC
economies are estimated to be larger than those of the G8
countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia) within 40 years (Wilson &
Purushothaman, 2003). We also grouped Muslim and Arabic
countries due to their important role in international political issues and the deficiency of qualified professionals with
cultural and language background in these countries. Finally,
we included a grouping of English-speaking countries. We
did this to in part because we were interested in the issue of
novelty. Presumably, countries with English as the primary
language have more similar cultures. We also did this because
we believe many students are fearful of studying abroad in
non-English-speaking locations. In our experience recruiting
students for international programs, we frequently encounter
students who are concerned about not being able to adjust
in non-English environments. Our experience is primarily in
the Southern United States.
113
We surveyed business and management students from one
university in South Carolina and one university in Georgia.
We were able to survey a wide range of students because we
administered the surveys in classes that were required of all
business majors. The survey was conducted anonymously online and students were offered extra credit to take the survey
(students could demonstrate that they had taken the survey
by providing information contained on a web site they were
directed to upon completion of the survey—there was no possibility of the researchers knowing the students’ identity). A
total of 371 students took the survey out of 381 students in the
courses, yielding a participation rate of 97.4%. There were
218 (58.8%) men and 153 women (41.2%) who took the survey. In terms of class standing, most respondents were juniors
(42.9%) or seniors (34.8%), with freshman, sophomores, and
graduate students comprising 2.4%, 17.5%, and 2.4% of the
sample, respectively. Students in the sample represented a
broad range of business and management disciplines with
the leading majors being management (24.5%), marketing
(17.5%), and management of information systems (15.9%).
About two thirds of the students (65.0%) self-identified as
coming from upper middle income families, and about one
quarter (26.7%) self-identified as coming from lower middle
income families. Few students self-identified as coming from
low- or high-income families (2.4% and 5.7%, respectively).
Generally speaking, these two universities are reflective of
middle- to upper-class students in the Southern United States.
RESULTS
We present our findings in four sections. First, we provide
descriptive statistics about prior international travel experience and preferred destinations for study abroad. Second, we
describe our cluster analysis based on the ITR scale. Third,
we describe demographic composition within each cluster.
Finally, we examine differences in study abroad preferences
and attitudes based on cluster membership.
Prior International Travel and Preferred
Destinations for Study Abroad
Overall, approximately 71% of our respondents had travelled internationally. The most common destinations were
the Caribbean (37%) and Mexico (32%). Excluding travel
to the Caribbean, Mexico, and Canada, approximately 38%
of students had traveled internationally. Outside of North
America, the primary destination of travel was Western
Europe (30%). Few students had traveled to destinations in
Latin America (excluding Mexico; 10%), Asia (7%), and
Africa (3%).
The top five first choices of participants for a study abroad
location by country were Australia (21%), Italy (15%),
Spain (10%), the United Kingdom (6%), and France (6%).
114
P. W. CARDON ET AL.
TABLE 1
Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation
Factor
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
1
2
3
4
5
Eigenvalue
% of variance
Cumulative %
5.07
3.57
1.86
1.14
1.00
17.91
13.45
13.09
9.91
8.81
17.91
31.36
44.46
54.37
63.18
Collectively, these five countries accounted for nearly 60%
of all first choices. Furthermore, the vast majority of respondents (74%) chose Western Europe or Australia/New Zealand
as their first choice. Notably, other regions held little interest
for the vast majority of respondents. Just 7% of respondents
indicated that a country in Asia would be their first choice,
6% for Latin America, and 3% for Africa. Just 5% of respondents chose BRIC countries, and just under 2% chose Arab
countries.
Cluster Analysis of International Travel
Preferences
Similar to Keng and Cheng’s (1999) use of the ITR scale to
cluster international tourists in Singapore, we first conducted
a factor analysis of the ITR scale. We derived five factors
as did Keng and Cheng in their study, and as a result, we
adopted their factor names for this study: a social contact dimension (SCD), a tourist infrastructure dimension (TID), a
travel services dimension (TSD), a culture similarity dimension (CSD), and a pretrip planning dimension (PPD). The
SCD refers to the degree to which tourists want to interact
with locals. The TID refers to the degree to which tourists
prefer a similar tourist infrastructure (i.e., hotel chains and
transportation systems) to their home countries. The TSD
refers to the degree to which tourists want others (i.e., travel
agencies or tour guides) to control their experience. The CSD
refers to the degree to which tourists prefer cultures similar
to their own. The PPD refers to the degree to which tourists
want to have preplanned itineraries. These dimensions factored just as did Keng and Cheng’s with the exception of
items 10 and 11, which factored into the TID dimension in
their study. In our study, these items factored into the TSD
dimension. Sampling adequacy was demonstrated with the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure, which equaled .843, χ 2(190,
N = 367) = 2559.09, p = .00. Cumulatively, the five factors
accounted for 63% of the variance (see Table 1). Alpha reliability coefficients ranged from .683 to .856, and all items
were retained because they each had factor loadings above
.4 (see Table 2).
TABLE 2
Factor Analysis of ITR Items
Social contact dimension (SCD)
I prefer to associate with the local people when traveling in a foreign country. (3)
I prefer to live the way the people I visit do, by sharing their shelter, food, and customs during my stay. (6)
I prefer to seek excitement of complete novelty by engaging in direct contact with a wide variety of new and
different people. (9)
If I find a place that particularly pleases me, I may stop there long enough for social involvement in the life of
the place to occur. (13)
I prefer to make friends with the local people when traveling in a foreign country. (17)
I prefer to have as much contact with the local people as possible when traveling in a foreign country. (19)
Tourist infrastructure dimension (TID)
I prefer to travel to countries where there are international hotel chains. (7)
I prefer to travel to countries where they have the same transportation system as in my country. (14)
I prefer to travel to countries that are popular tourist destinations. (16)
I prefer to travel to countries with well-developed travel industries. (20)
Travel services dimension (TSD)
I prefer to be on a guided tour when traveling in a foreign country. (2)
I prefer to make all my major travel arrangements through travel agencies when traveling in a foreign country. (5)
I prefer to have travel agencies take complete care of me, from beginning to end, when traveling in a foreign
country. (8)
I prefer to travel to countries where they have the same tourist infrastructure as in my country. (10)
I prefer to travel to countries where there are restaurants familiar to me. (11)
Culture similarity dimension (CSD)
I prefer to travel to countries where the people are of the same ethnic group as mine. (1)
I prefer to travel to countries where the culture is similar to mine. (4)
I put high priority on familiarity when thinking of travel destinations. (18)
Pretrip planning dimension (PPD)
I prefer to start a trip with no preplanned or definite timetable when traveling in a foreign country. (12)
I prefer to start a trip with no preplanned or definite routes when traveling in a foreign country. (15)
M
SD
Factor
loading
Reliability
coefficient
5.09
4.46
4.04
1.23
1.42
1.50
.788
.665
.775
.856
4.88
1.18
.655
5.01
4.90
1.28
1.31
.818
.832
4.53
3.97
4.47
4.68
1.16
1.29
1.24
1.19
.741
.504
.634
.693
.727
4.28
4.28
4.04
1.51
1.35
1.50
.714
.727
.720
.737
3.89
3.75
1.15
1.46
.597
.625
3.66
3.75
3.97
1.41
1.32
1.27
.765
.790
.422
.683
3.62
3.52
1.72
1.65
.896
.882
.791
115
STUDY ABROAD FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS
TABLE 3
Cluster Analysis of Respondents
Cluster
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
1
2
3
4
Name
Familiarity seekers (FS)
Controlled exposure seekers (CES)
Spontaneous dissimilarity seekers (SDS)
Culture dissimilarity seekers (CDS)
%
n
13.4
36.0
32.7
18.0
49
132
120
66
Next, we conducted cluster analysis in order to segment
students into tourist typologies. We used K-means clustering based on individual-level mean scores for each of the
five factors. We considered a four-factor solution the most
appropriate classification due to theoretical rationale. Prior
tourist typologies have typically segmented travelers into
four groups, and Keng and Cheng’s (1999) clustering of international travelers based on the ITR scale also used four
clusters.
The four cluster groups include familiarity seekers (13%),
controlled exposure seekers (36%), spontaneous dissimilarity seekers (33%), and culture dissimilarity seekers (18%;
see Table 3). We use the terms familiarity seekers and culture dissimilarity seekers as did Keng and Cheng (1999) as
extremes in the familiarity–novelty continuum. However, we
created distinct labels for our two middle groups, as they
showed unique characteristics compared to the sample of
Singaporean tourists in their study. Familiarity seekers are
similar to Cohen’s (1972) organized mass tourist. They seek
familiarity in every regard except social contact. In other
words, they seek to travel to international destinations with
similar cultures and tourist infrastructures in a highly controlled manner. Controlled exposure seekers seek the least social contact but also seek cultures dissimilar to their own more
so than familiarity seekers. Compared to familiarity seekers,
they are also less concerned about pretrip planning, tourist infrastructure, and infrastructure travel services. Spontaneous
dissimilarity seekers are similar to controlled exposure seekers in terms of wanting similar tourist infrastructures and
travel services; however, they want more social contact with
less similar cultures. Perhaps the trait that most distinguishes
this group is their strong aversion to pretrip planning. Compared to any other group, they do not want to be bound to
itineraries and schedules, thus their travel preferences are
highly spontaneous. The final group is culture dissimilarity
seekers, who most strongly desire going to destinations with
highly dissimilar cultures, tourist infrastructures, and travel
services. In other words, they desire a truly novel experience.
Similar to familiarity seekers, however, they desire a lot of
pretrip planning.
All factors significantly influenced membership in clusters as shown in the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in
Table 4. Furthermore, each cluster contained at least three
of the five dimensions that were significantly different than
all other clusters. Thus, the clusters can be considered distinct
typologies of international travel preferences.
Demographic Composition of Clusters
We examined the demographic composition of each cluster
in terms of gender, academic class, and income. The only
significant difference was gender. Women tended to be more
on the novelty end of the continuum. Although there were
essentially similar numbers of cultural dissimilarity seekers
among women (18%) and men (18%), women were much
more likely to be in the spontaneous dissimilarity seekers
cluster (43% compared to 26% for men), whereas men were
more likely to be in the controlled exposure (40% to 31% for
women) and familiarity seekers (17% to 9%) clusters (see
Table 5).
Study Abroad Preferences and Attitudes Based
on Cluster Membership
For most of the items about the impact of study abroad on
careers and study abroad preferences, there were significant
differences among clusters. For career-related beliefs, familiarity seekers and cultural dissimilarity seekers tended to
TABLE 4
ANOVA of ITR Mean Scores, by Cluster
1 (FS)
Variable
Social contact
Culture similarity
Pretrip planning
Tourist infrastructure
Travel services
2 (CES)
3 (SDS)
4 (CDS)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F
p
5.47
4.82
5.96
5.66
5.35
0.86c
1.19d
1.14c
0.61c
0.69c
4.35
4.03
3.90
4.33
4.12
0.70a
0.66c
0.78b
0.58b
0.62b
4.95
3.68
1.90
4.47
4.01
0.96b
0.91b
0.74a
0.82b
0.83b
5.71
2.76
4.87
3.58
3.00
0.74c
0.84a
1.24c
0.73a
0.78a
48.64
59.09
220.49
83.43
96.4
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
Note. Means with the same superscripts are not different based on Tukey post hoc tests. Superscripts with lower letters indicate lower endorsement, whereas
superscripts with higher letters indicate higher endorsement. Higher mean scores indicate more agreement: in all cases except culture similarity, this indicates
less novelty-seeking preferences.
∗ p < .05.
∗∗ p < .01.
116
P. W. CARDON ET AL.
TABLE 5
Demographic Characteristics, by Cluster
1 (FS)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
Variable
Gender
Male
Female
Class
Freshman/sophomore
Juniors
Seniors/graduate
Income
Low income/lower middle income
Upper middle income
High income
2 (CES)
3 (SDS)
4 (CDS)
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
16.8
8.5
36
13
39.7
30.7
85
47
25.7
42.5
55
65
17.8
18.3
38
28
13.5
9.6
17.5
10
15
24
35.1
39.7
32.1
26
62
44
32.4
30.1
35.8
24
47
49
18.9
20.5
14.6
14
32
20
16.7
12.2
9.5
18
29
2
31.5
36.6
52.4
34
87
11
29.6
34.9
23.8
32
83
21
22.2
16.4
14.3
24
39
3
believe more strongly that studying abroad would help them
get jobs, be helpful in their careers, and that working with
members of other cultures is important in their future industries. These two groups were also more likely to want a study
abroad program of one semester or longer. Not surprising,
cultural dissimilarity seekers were less likely than all other
groups to be nervous about studying abroad (see Table 6).
Interestingly, the unique aspect of familiarity seekers and
cultural dissimilarity seekers is their desire for social contact with locals. Perhaps it is this dimension that is related
to their stronger belief that studying abroad is helpful in
their careers. Ironically, it is these groups that comprise the
smallest clusters (13% and 18%, respectively). All groups
with the exception of cultural dissimilarity seekers (which
account for just one fifth of respondents) exhibited strong
anxiety to studying where English is not the first language.
As far as destination choices broken down by region,
country, trading relationships, emerging economies, and sev-
χ2
p
14.34
.00∗∗
6.79
.34
6.30
.39
eral other categories, a number of trends emerge. Familiarity
seekers and cultural dissimilarity seekers were more likely to
place Asia in their top choices, less likely to place European
countries among their top choices, and less likely to select
English-speaking countries among their top choices. Cultural dissimilarity seekers were least likely to select a top 10
trading partner of the United States among their top choices.
Familiarity seekers were most likely to place predominantly
Muslim countries among their top countries (albeit at just
16%).
As far as first-choice study abroad countries, cultural dissimilarity seekers were the only cluster not to select Australia
as their top choice. Rather, by a 2:1 margin, they chose Italy
over Australia. Furthermore, cultural dissimilarity seekers
were the only group to have a country from Asia (Japan),
Latin America (Costa Rica), and Oceania (Fiji) among their
top five overall choices and were the only group to select
countries in which there were non-European languages.
TABLE 6
ANOVA of Study Abroad Statements, by Cluster
1 (FS)
Survey item
Studying abroad will help me get a job.
Studying abroad will be helpful for my career.
I want to study abroad while I am a university
student.
Studying abroad is too expensive for me.
It is important for people in my (future) industry to
be able to work with members of other cultures.
I would be nervous studying abroad in places
where English is not the first language.
I would prefer a study abroad program that is one
semester or longer.
I would prefer a study abroad program that is part
of a group from my school.
2 (CES)
3 (SDS)
4 (CDS)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F
p
4.942
5.352
4.944
1.56
1.55
1.94
4.231,4
4.551,4
4.563,4
1.23
1.29
1.58
4.524
5.00
5.162
1.41
1.52
1.90
5.142,3
5.552
5.771,2
1.36
1.41
1.33
7.86
8.49
7.70
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
.00∗∗
4.86
5.962
1.53
1.11
4.49
5.244
1.46
1.45
4.50
5.68
1.88
1.40
4.54
6.352
1.71
0.92
0.65
11.45
.58
.00∗∗
5.064
1.56
4.454
1.53
4.534
1.81
3.441,2,3
1.87
9.86
.00∗∗
4.532,3
1.56
3.791,4
1.38
3.741,4
1.75
4.552,3
1.39
6.74
.00∗∗
5.37
1.52
4.89
1.40
5.07
1.52
4.88
1.23
1.60
.19
Note. Superscripts indicate the cluster numbers for which there are statistical differences based on Tukey post-hoc tests by cluster.
< .05.
∗∗ p < .01.
∗p
STUDY ABROAD FOR BUSINESS STUDENTS
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
FIGURE 1
continuum.
Study abroad typologies along the familiarity–novelty
DISCUSSION
One challenge that university personnel managing study
abroad must address is how to develop and promote programs that appeal to various students. An understanding of
typologies of international travel preferences can allow study
abroad professionals to develop and promote far more effective study abroad programs. This study showed that business
students in the Southern United States can be clustered into
four distinct typologies of travel preferences. In this section,
we discuss each of these four typologies and conclude with
how study abroad professionals might integrate this understanding into how they develop and promote programs.
The familiarity–novelty continuum, often used in tourism
literature, is a useful tool for analyzing the typologies. In
terms of this continuum, we arranged the groups in the following order: familiarity seekers, controlled exposure seekers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekers, and culture dissimilarity seekers. In this scheme, three of the five dimensions
move progressively from familiarity to novelty along the continuum: culture similarity, tourist infrastructure, and travel
services. These dimensions identify the degree to which societal differences are sought in international travel. Two of
the five dimensions form parabolas along the continuum of
cluster groups with familiarity seekers and dissimilarity seekers most desiring social contact with locals and most desiring
extensive pre-trip planning (see Figure 1). Roughly one third
of business students were controlled exposure seekers and
one third were spontaneous dissimilarity seekers. Therefore,
about two thirds of students were in the middle ground of
the continuum on most travel dimensions. Far fewer students
comprised the extremes on the scale, with familiarity seekers preferring familiarity and culture dissimilarity seekers
hoping for novelty.
Some unanticipated results from this study were the many
similarities between the two groups on each end of the
familiarity–novelty continuum. Cultural dissimilarity seekers, who seek novelty in nearly all aspects of international
travel, seek for familiarity in pretrip planning to the same
117
degree as familiarity seekers. On the other hand, familiarity seekers, who seek familiarity for nearly every dimension,
seek maximum novelty for social contact on par with cultural
dissimilarity seekers. For study abroad attitudes and preferences, these two groups likewise exhibited several common
tendencies. They most strongly believed that study abroad
would positively influence their careers and were most likely
to want semester or longer study abroad programs. Both
groups were also more likely to choose Asia among their top
choices, less likely to choose Europe among their top choices,
and less likely to choose English-speaking countries among
their top choices.
In determining how to promote and develop various programs, we begin with discussing some of the ironies and unexpected combinations of preferences. To identify how these
unanticipated findings may influence study abroad participation, we generalize most American study abroad programs.
The majority of programs, particularly those provided by
external providers, aim to provide some exposure to other
cultures in a highly organized manner. They are designed to
allow some interaction with locals but are generally tightly
controlled: they provide housing for American students to
stay together; they are guided, taught, or mediated through
an American professor or bicultural local professional; and
are scheduled precisely (beginning and end dates, excursions). Of course, there is some variation, particularly for
students studying a foreign language. These students are far
more likely to have a less tightly designed program and are
more likely to be immersed in the local culture.
We did not anticipate that the typologies on either end of
the familiarity–novelty spectrum would have commonalities
in terms of social contact and pretrip planning. Furthermore,
we did not anticipate that these groups would share so many
study abroad attitudes and preferences. In fact, this shatters
some common stereotypes among study abroad professionals. For example, many of these professionals view the most
adventurous of students (cultural dissimilarity seekers) as
flexible in every regard—not wanting to be confined to set
dates and places for their travels. The typical image of this
type of students it that of the backpacker. Yet, our results show
the opposite. As another example of unexpected results, most
study abroad professionals view those students least interested in other cultures (familiarity seekers) as those that need
the most convincing to study abroad. Yet, this group along
with culture dissimilarity seekers most believed that study
abroad programs would benefit their careers, most wanted to
study abroad for more than a semester, and most wanted to
become immersed in the local culture. For these two groups,
the primary mismatch of most programs is social contact.
Both groups want maximum novelty in meeting and spending time with locals. Yet, most study abroad programs are
not designed to meet this strong desire.
Second, we were surprised that the majority of students,
who tend to be in the middle of the familiarity–novelty continuum on most dimensions (controlled exposure seekers and
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 22:13 11 January 2016
118
P. W. CARDON ET AL.
spontaneous dissimilarity seekers), were so adverse to pretrip planning. Generally speaking, it is to these two groups
that most programs most match needs. For these two groups,
however, one of their travel preferences is generally unmet,
particularly by external providers. Both of these groups prefer
less pretrip planning—they prefer flexibility in travel dates.
It is possible that the lack of perceived flexibility of study
abroad programs contributes to the frustrated ideal.
Study abroad professionals can use the typologies in other
ways of increasing program effectiveness. In terms of marketing, it may make sense to develop and market various
types of programs that fit the various typologies and advertise accordingly. Advertising should focus on emphasizing
those program aspects that most appeal to a particular typology and explicitly identifying how the program deals with
the associated concerns and worries. For example, a program
designed for culture dissimilarity seekers could emphasize
the novel aspects of the culture, its infrastructure, its travel
services, and the abundant opportunity for social contact.
However, the advertising would be incomplete without emphasizing the carefully and precisely planned nature of the
study abroad trip, which is what this group most worries
about. Furthermore, most study abroad professionals provide some type of pre- and posttrip training and orientation for students. These sessions can be most effective by
considering the strongest worries and concerns. For controlled exposure seekers, there may be anxiety about not
being in a group of their own culture and interacting extensively with locals. For familiarity seekers, this is not a
concern. Rather, they are more concerned about issues such
as living in a similar culture with similar infrastructure and
services.
In terms of further research, we recommend that this research be replicated in other contexts, particularly in other
cultures (we focused on the Southern region of the United
States). Of particular interest in future studies would be identifying explanations about why cultural dissimilarity seekers
and familiarity seekers had so many common study abroad
attitudes and beliefs. We recommend the continued use of
tourism research instruments to enhance understanding of
study abroad interests and intentions. Using tourism constructs, such as tourist typologies, can enhance the ability
of study abroad professionals to deliver meaningful study
abroad experiences to and increase study abroad participation among business students.
SUMMARY
This article has described research that applies a tourist
framework to study abroad attitudes and preferences. We
found that business students can be grouped into one of
four international tourist typologies: familiarity seekers, con-
trolled exposure seekers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekers,
and cultural dissimilarity seekers. The familiarity–novelty
continuum is a useful means of categorizing these groups for
preferences in culture similarity, tourist infrastructure, and
travel services. Identifying the combination of travel preferences held by members of these four typologies can help
study abroad professionals design, develop, market, and train
for study abroad programs.
REFERENCES
Albers-Miller, N. D., Sigerstad, T. D., & Straughan, R. D. (2000). Internationalization of the undergraduate curriculum: Insight from recruiters.
Journal of Teaching in International Business, 11(4), 55–80.
American Council on Education, Art & Science Group, & the College
Board. 2008. College-bound students’ interests in study abroad and other
international learning activities. Washington, DC: Author.
Bhandari, R., & Chow, P. (2008). Open doors 2008: Report on international educational exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International
Education.
Cohen, E. H. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social
Research, 39, 164–182.
Cohen, E. H. (2003). Tourism and religion: A case study—visiting students
in Israeli universities. Journal of Travel Research, 42(1), 36–47.
Janes, D. (2008). Beyond the tourist gaze? Cultural learning on an American ‘semester abroad’ programme in London. Journal of Research in
International Education, 7(1), 21–35.
Kashlak, R. J., & Jones, R. M. (1996). Internationalizing business education: Factors affecting student participation in overseas study programs.
Journal of Teaching in International Business, 8(2), 57–75.
Kelley, C. A. (2007). Assessing the trends and challenges of teaching marketing abroad: A Delphi approach. Journal of Marketing Education, 29,
201–209.
Keng, K. A., & Cheng, J. L. L. (1999). Determining tourist role typologies: An exploratory study of Singapore vacationers. Journal of Travel
Research, 37, 382–390.
Koernig, S. K. (2007). Planning, organizing, and conducting a 2-week study
abroad trip for undergraduate students: Guidelines for first-time faculty.
Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 210–217.
Lee, T. H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 732–751.
Michael, I., Armstrong, A., & King, B. (2004). The travel behavior of
international students: The relationship between studying abroad and their
choice of tourist destinations. Journal of Vacation of Marketing, 10(1),
57–66.
Mo, C. M., Howard, D. R., & Havitz, M. E. (1993). Testing an international
tourist role typology. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 319–335.
Toncar, M. F., Reid, J. S., & Anderson, C. E. (2005). Perceptions and
preferences of study abroad: Do business students have different needs?
Journal of Teaching in International Business, 17(1/2), 61–80.
Vande Berg, M. (2007). Intervening in the learning of U.S. students abroad.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 392–399.
Wilson, D., & Purushothaman, R. (2003). Dreaming with the BRICs: The
path to 2050. Global Economics Paper No: 99. Goldman Sachs. Retrieved
from http://www2.goldmansachs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf
Woodside, A. G., & Pitts, R. E. (1976). Effects of consumer lifestyles, demographics and travel activities on foreign and domestic travel behavior.
Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 287–303.
World Tourism Organization. (1995). Collection of tourism expenditure
statistics. Madrid, Spain: Author.