(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 42, pp. 108–129, 2013
0160-7383/$ - see front matter  2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.01.005

PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE IN THE

HERITAGE EXPERIENCE
Francesco Massara
IULM University, Italy
Fabio Severino
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Abstract: This paper introduces the concept of psychological distance as it relates to the lit-
erature on heritage tourism. The framework puts identity and the personal meaning of her-
itage at the heart of the heritage experience, showing how the concrete experience at the site
is affected by the psychological distance. The concept of psychological distance and the
underlying dimensions (i.e., experiential, spatial and socio-cultural) are shown to influence
the level of construal that changes the experience of the heritage site. High psychological dis-
tance produces more general and abstract internal representations of the object of heritage,
while low psychological distance produces more concrete and contextual conceptualizations.
A discussion of the managerial and research implications is presented. Keywords: psycholog-
ical distance, heritage experience, heritage site, construal, self.  2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Investigating the literature on heritage tourism, we identify two ma-
jor areas of research. The first area provides a perspective that priori-
tizes the peculiar aspects of heritage management, with papers
focusing on issues such as sustainability and funding (Garrod & Fyall,
2000; McDonald, 2010), overcrowding and spatial pressure (Li, Wu, &
Cai, 2008) and community involvement (Giovanardi, 2011). The sec-
ond area approaches heritage tourism from a marketing perspective,
and the motivations and experience of tourists visiting a heritage site
are deeply studied (Goulding, 2001; McCain & Ray, 2003; McIntosh
& Prentice, 1999). The first portrays a product-centric interpretation
of heritage sites, while the second adopts a customer-centric view
(Poria, Reichel, & Biran, 2006).

Francesco Massara, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Iulm University (Depart-

ment of Economics and Marketing, Via Carlo Bo’ 1, 20143 Milano, Italy. Email
Æfrancesco.massara@iulm.itæ). His main research interests include consumer psychology
and buying behavior. Fabio Severino, MA, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer of Arts Management at
Sapienza University of Rome and Vice-President of the Italian Association of Cultural
Economics. His main research interests is the management of heritage and the arts in
tourism.

108
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 109

This second view is useful to gain insight into how to create value for
the tourist. We pursue this second view, beginning with the tourist-
centric perspective proposed by Timothy (1997) and the invitation to
focus on the existence of different layers of the heritage experience
(i.e., world, national, local, personal) (Poria et al., 2006).
In particular, we focus on the cognitive processes that characterize
the heritage experience, providing a psychological distance interpreta-
tion to the different layers. Using a psychological distance framework
(Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007), we formulate hypotheses about
the causes and the consequences of psychological distance. We explore
the literature related to the heritage experience, shedding light on
many unstated examples of how psychological distance affects the level
of construal at the heritage site. By exploring this structure, our aim is
to extend the existing knowledge on heritage tourism by providing
both a framework and an interpretation with empirical evidence that
enriches how we view the heritage experience. We show supporting evi-
dence to this argument and discuss the practical and theoretical
implications.

Review of the Literature on the Heritage Experience

We refer to heritage in the broadest sense, including tangible ob-
jects, from own possessions, to public sites and intangibles (Chronis
2005a). In the remainder of this paper, we will refer to these
interchangeably.
To date, there is a substantial amount of information on how people
engage with heritage; nonetheless, we lack a unifying view. We wish to
propose a framework that can be used to systematize the large amounts
of evidence produced in the literature. We begin with the phenomeno-
logical view that the core of a heritage experience lies in the intimate
relationship that the person experiences with the heritage.
This view is largely agreed upon in the literature. For example, it has
been suggested that understanding behaviors at sites requires explor-
ing the link between the person and the space visited (Poria et al.,
2006); Voase (2007) discusses an interaction between the tourist back-
ground and the site; Herbert (2001) highlights that the experience is a
co-creation and that the tourist is active rather than passive; and
Chronis (2005a) states that the result of a visit to a site is a ‘‘cultural
narrative that is formed by the information provided in the exhibition and is en-
riched and completed by the consumers’ historical knowledge and their personal
struggle to follow this narrative through imagination’’ (p. 219).
Such a perspective was asserted even earlier by McIntosh and
Prentice (1999), who show that tourists produce their own experience
by selectively attending and matching the information gained with per-
sonal knowledge and past experiences. Subsequently, Prentice and
Andersen (2007) find that what consumers bring with them in terms
of cultural capital influences the heritage experience. To further
understand heritage tourism, it is essential to understand the processes
 Author's personal copy

110 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

or elaborations in which tourists engage and which shape their rela-

tionship with the site.
Our starting point is therefore the intimate relationship between the
tourist and heritage. McIntosh and Prentice (1999) describe three pro-
cesses: comparison between present and past, knowledge acquisition
and thinking about one’s own experience in the past (provided, of
course, that the tourist’s past includes the heritage). These processes,
however, are not clearly distinct from one another and may overlap.
Goulding (2001), for example, finds that a comparison between the
present and the past together with emerging memories and other per-
sonal factors makes the individual willing to escape into the past to
experience nostalgia. The same author shows that knowledge acquisi-
tion happens through aesthetic appreciation, but knowledge acquisi-
tion together with aesthetic appreciation and escape into the past
are three distinct experiential facets that are identified by Chronis
(2005a).
As these processes emerge from phenomenological investigations,
they appear to be closer to surface processes, instrumental to some
deeply rooted benefit that constitutes the true essence of the heritage
experience. A deeper motivation emerging from the literature on the
meaning of possessions is that the objects of the past support the sense
of self against the caducity and impermanence of life: ‘‘People do not and
cannot simply live, savor, or endure each moment as it passes. We are impelled
to make sense of our experience beyond the sort of practical calculations necessary
to survival’’ (Tuan, 1980, p. 463). Thoughts and feelings evoked in the
relationship with an object of the past gain permanence, while much of
the rest—including the relationship with ordinary objects—is absorbed
into the daily routine or ‘‘mere life’’ and fades away from memories.
Thus, Tuan (1980) suggests that the objects of the past extend the
oeuvre of men in time and space, allowing those who experience these
objects in the present to relive their sense of frailty. With this view, the
heritage becomes a successful embodiment of the emotions, thoughts
and work of other men that represents a gateway to ancient cultures
and values that one can aspire to or, at least, connect with (Voase,
2007). To make sense of the present, people need comparison with
the past in the many forms in which it can be experienced (Timothy,
1997), for example, in terms of culture, nature, family heritage and tra-
ditions, or even one’s personal objects. Experiencing contact with
these objects contributes to the sense of self through a process called
contagion: ‘‘Just as we seek to extend our selves by incorporating or owning
certain objects, we may still seek the sympathetic magic (contagion) of possessions
that retain a part of the extended self of valued others’’ (Belk, 1988, p. 149).
Even if we do not formally possess a heritage site, we can still learn to
regard it as part of the self by experience and knowledge; in fact, one
of the ways in which ‘‘objects become a part of self is by knowing them. Whether
the object known is a person, place or thing’’ (1988, p. 150).
Experience is thus a form of possession insofar as it allows one’s
knowledge to be extended, from which it can be deduced that the
experience of a heritage site contributes to the sense of self, which is
the first pillar of the heritage experience. Sense of self is directly
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 111

related to one’s identity and so are the objects on which the sense of
self is extended, such as a heritage that is a direct part of one’s own past
and identity. Researchers developed a scale to measure the personal
meaning of heritages and, in particular, the extent to which a site re-
lates to one’s personal identity, finding that considering the site as part
of the personal heritage correlates positively with the motivation to vis-
it, emotional involvement and the need for intimacy (Poria et al.,
2006).
While we agree that identity is at the core of heritage tourism (Poria,
Butler, & Ariely, 2003), heritage is, however, more a matter of collective
rather than personal identity. Since we exist not just as individuals but
also as collectivities, an important aspect is the collective conception of
ourselves, in other words, how we regard ourselves as part of the vari-
ous groups to which at various levels we belong (e.g., local communi-
ties, regions, nations, ethnicities). We notoriously define our
collective identity through shared symbolic meaning and the consump-
tion of symbols (Belk, 1988) or stories (Chronis, 2005b), and heritage
sites are, by definition, elected as shared symbols by the community.
We extend our collective self over the heritage that is representative
of our culture, but the attitudinal posture and the degree of possessive-
ness change with respect to the distance from the self, becoming light-
er towards the outer layers. We are very possessive and jealous of what
we consider our own possessions, as well as of family legacies (Belk,
1988) with both a promotion and a prevention or conservation focus.
At the community level, the extent of the self-extension is still manifest
with both a promotion and a prevention focus, for example, with pride
and interest for future development (Aas, Ladkin, & Fletcher, 2005;
Cave, Ryan, & Panakera, 2007; Jimura, 2011) but also with conservation
concerns and a negative attitude towards tourism development
(Besculides, Lee, & McCormick, 2002; Mason & Cheyne, 2000), espe-
cially when this implies cultural commoditization (Jordan, 1980). At
the national level, the extension loses momentum and the prevention
focus seems to become weak, or at least no research indicating a pre-
vention focus on a national heritage has been identified in literature.
National heritage is, however, still a vehicle of unity, pride and integra-
tion (Chronis, 2005b; Park, 2010). Finally, at the outermost level, the
extension is rather abstract and idealized, and answers existential ques-
tions (Gonzalez, 2007). Thus, self-extension at the innermost level is
more likely to have a concrete and tangible reference, while self-exten-
sion at the outermost level is likely to refer to more abstract and intan-
gible heritages. We can therefore state that the individual’s personal
and collective identities lie at the heart of the heritage experience.

Conceptual Study on the Effects of Psychological Distance on the Heritage

Experience
The concept of psychological distance relates to the perceived dis-
tance of an object or event in time, space, culture and probability, its
main implication being the level of construal of the reality (Trope
 Author's personal copy

112 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

et al., 2007). Since the concept of psychological distance is not entirely

novel in tourism research, we conducted a systematic analysis of the lit-
erature to understand how and where the concept was applied. Table 1
shows a classification of 42 papers in tourism research that are, directly
or indirectly, related to the psychological distance construct and to the
heritage experience. The papers were selected from the top three
ranked journals in tourism research (McAleer & Chang, 2011) on a
30-year time frame. The list of papers is not intended to be exhaustive
of course, but constitutes a nexus of important contributions that re-
late to the role of psychological distance in the heritage experience
in tourism research.
Reading Table 1, it appears evident that the incidence of psycholog-
ical distance in tourism research increases markedly after the year
2000. The former studies conceptualize cognitive distance as the differ-
ence between estimated and real distance. These studies are more fo-
cused on spatial or geographical distance and its positive relationship
with travel costs.
The construct of cognitive distance is also found to be negatively re-
lated to knowledge or experience. Ancomah, Crompton, and Baker
(1996) are the first to include socio-cultural factors in the perception
of distance. With some exceptions (Nuryanti, 1996; Teo & Yeoh
1997), the perspective remains latent until the contribution of Poria,
Butler, and Airey (2003), who show that identification with a heritage
(and thus socio-cultural distance) affects the emotional experience at
the site.
Although these authors do not address psychological distance di-
rectly, the role of socio-cultural differences has gained momentum
since then and become central to the construct of psychological dis-
tance in relation to the heritage experience (Ng, Lee, & Soutar,
2007). Three main dimensions clearly emerge from the literature: so-
cio-cultural, spatial and experiential. The spatial dimension also in-
cludes an economic aspect.
These three dimensions are consistent with the dimensions emerg-
ing from consumer psychology literature (Trope et al., 2007). The lit-
erature also considers both spatial and socio-cultural distance as
related to the experiential distance, in the sense that socio-cultural
and experiential distance are circularly and positively related (Cui &
Ryan, 2011; Hunter & Suh, 2007; Prentice, 2006; San Martin &
Rodriguez del Bosque, 2008; Teo & Yeoh, 1997), while experiential
distance has been shown to improve the knowledge of spatial distance
(Walmsley & Jenkins, 1992). Of course, socio-cultural and spatial dis-
tance are related positively (Peleggi, 1996; Ryan, 2002), although the
literature has focused more on the counter-intuitive contrasts between
the two (Gelbman & Timothy, 2011; Hou, Lin, & Morais, 2006; Ng
et al., 2007).
Finally, the literature presents several examples, bolded in Table 1,
that latently show supporting evidence as regards the influence of psy-
chological distance on the level of construal of the experience.
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 113

Table 1. A systematic review of the literature on psychological distance based

on top tourism journals

Authors Year Findings SOC SPA EXP SOC/SPA CON

Cook McLeary 1983 Distortion between cognitive X X

and real distance is
influenced by knowledge
and experience.
Culpan 1987 Perceived spatial distance is X
related to travel costs which,
in turn, reduces visits and
increases cognitive distance.
Ankomah 1992 Objects within the same X X
Crompton categories are perceived as
being ‘‘closer’’ than those
between categories.
Walmsley 1992 Tourists included fewer X X X
Jenkins features on their cognitive
maps compared to residents.
Familiarity increases the
level of detail of the visual
representations of the place.
Light Prentice 1994 Regional tourism flows are X
related to physical
proximity.
Ankomah 1996 Cognitive distance is given by X X X
Crompton internal (knowledge and
Baker memory) and external
information (socio-cultural
differences).
Nuryanti 1996 Scale of attraction X
(international, national,
regional or local) of a
heritage influences tourist
choices.
Peleggi 1996 Domestic demand for heritage X
and cultural sites outweighs
international demand.
McKay 1997 High familiarity with the place X
Fesenmayer correlates with affect and
with a more realistic image
of the place
Teo Yeoh 1997 Tourists apply a top-down X X
model assimilating the
heritage to their
knowledge or stereotypes
about the local cultural
model. Locals apply a
bottom-up model, that is
they possess richer
knowledge of the place
and look for details.
Line missing
 Author's personal copy

114 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Authors Year Findings SOC SPA EXP SOC/SPA CON

Prentice Guerin 1998 Older people are most X

McGugan knowledgeable before
visiting a heritage site but
the least likely to assimilate
new knowledge.
McIntosh 1999 An older interviewee recalls X X
Prentice specific historical facts in
more detail compared to a
younger one.
Young 1999 Domestic/international X X
tourists have more detailed/
symbolic cognitive maps of
the place.
Crompton Kim 2001 Confirms principle findings of X X X
Ankomah Crompton &
Baker 1996.
Kerstetter 2001 Specialized tourists use more X X
Confer specific knowledge to
Graefe interpret the site.
Besculides Lee 2002 Identification with local X
McCormick cultural heritage fostered
concern for management
and preservation.
Ryan 2002 Spatial proximity flattens X
perceived cultural
difference. Cultural distance
persists nonetheless.
Chhabra Healy 2003 Distance traveled and income X
Sills are found to be highly
correlated.
Poria Butler 2003 Identification with the heritage X
Airey site changes the emotional
experience and future
intentions to revisit.
Poria Butler 2004 Identification affects reasons X
Airey for visiting and changes the
emotional experience.
Suh Gartner 2004 Shorter/higher socio-cultural X X
distance increased interests
for the tangible/intangible
attributes of the location.
Chronis 2005b Older generations/ X
experienced people are
considered themselves part
of the heritage.
Hou Lin Morais 2005 Tourists with the same X
nationality but different
ethnicities perceived
different cultural distances.
Poria Reichel 2006 Identification with the heritage X
Biran site influences the need for
intimacy and onsite emotional
and learning experience.
Line missing
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 115

Table 1 (continued)

Authors Year Findings SOC SPA EXP SOC/SPA CON

Prentice 2006 Greater familiarity with the place X X X

(due to cultural proximity) is
associated to more detailed
imagery of the place.
Hunter Suh 2007 Residents have more vivid X X X
perceptual memory (they
draw more detailed images)
of local heritage sculptures
than tourists.
Ng Lee Soutar 2007 Cultural similarity and spatial X
distance influence a tourist’s
intention to visit a country.
Prentice 2007 National visitors had more X X
Andersen concrete memories of the
experience - international
had more abstract
memories.
Li Wu Cai 2008 Spatial distance is related to X
tourist volume pressure on
heritage sites.
San Martin 2008 Shorter cultural distance X X
Rodriguez del implies more favourable
Bosque affect/cognition (because
low adaptation effort).
Gonzalez 2008 Finds that intangible heritage X
can be staged far away from
the origin and still be
perceived highly authentic.
Goulding 2009 An older interviewee recalls X X
Domic specific historical facts in
more detail compared to a
younger one.
Poria Biran 2009 Cultural distance affects X
Reichel interpretation at the site.
Tasci 2009 Acquisition of information (via X X
movie) without activation of
a stereotype reduces the
social distance.
Camarero 2010 Local and regional visitors X
Garrido show higher attachment to
Vicente the heritage than national
visitors.
Yang Lin Han 2010 Spatial distance and number of X
visitors at heritage sites
negatively related because of
transportation costs.
Biran Poria 2011 Tourist who perceive a strong X
Oren personal attachment
experience more intense
emotional involvement and
understanding.
Line missing
 Author's personal copy

116 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Authors Year Findings SOC SPA EXP SOC/SPA CON

Cui Ryan 2011 Sense of place correlates with X X

age and with duration of
residence.
Gelbman 2011 Exclaves present more X
Timothy differences than similarities.
Huang Tsaur 2012 Spatial distance is negatively X
Yang related to number of visitors
because of transportation
cost (economic or
psychological).
Lin Morgan 2012 Stronger/weaker socio-cultural X X
Coble attachment results in a
lower/higher overall
abstractness ratio.
Sheng Chen 2012 Older museum visitors expect X
historical reminiscences

Note. The search was conducted on Google Scholar, and focused on the journals: Annals of
Tourism Research, Tourism Management and Journal of Travel Research. The keywords used
in the search were: 1 fixed related to the context of interest (i.e., Heritage Experience), 3
first-level rotating synonyms related to psychological distance (Proximity, Distance, Differ-
ence), and a set of 10 second-level rotating adjectives as possibly related to the underlying
dimensions of the psychological distance construct (i.e., Identity, Social, Cultural, Spatial,
Geographical, Local, Regional, National, International, Generational, Chronological). For
example, the first set of keywords included the words ‘‘Heritage, Experience, Proximity,
Identity’’; the second set included ‘‘Heritage, Experience, Proximity, Social’’ and so on.
These were entered, space-separated, in the Google Scholar search engine, and the results
had to ‘‘include all the words’’. Overall, 90 different queries were conducted. The first three
pages of each search were browsed. SOC: The study relates to socio-cultural distance. SPA: the
study relates to spatial distance. EXP: the study relates to experiential distance. SOC/SPA: the
study compares or contrasts socio-cultural and spatial distance. CON: the study contains
(implicit) evidence of the relationship between psychological distance and construal level.

HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE DRIVES THE HERITAGE

EXPERIENCE
The literature reveals that a definition of distance incorporating the
three dimensions of time, space and culture (Trope et al., 2007) is par-
ticularly suited to explain the experience of an object of heritage lo-
cated at increasing distance from the core self. Following construal
level theory, a closer psychological distance implies a more concrete
and low-level psychological construal of reality, while a greater psycho-
logical distance implies a more abstract and high-level construal.
Low-level construal is unstructured and contextualized and makes
use of peripheral features and details of the environment, while high
construals are schematic representations that extract the essence out
of the available information. While construal level theory is used to
understand how individuals think of and evaluate objects or events,
we consider the effect of construal-level activation on the experience
of heritage sites. We suggest that each level of construal enables a
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 117

particular frame of reality that makes the knowledge of that specific

frame more accessible, affecting the experience of an object of heritage.
Theoretical Development
We expect that the experience will be less and less focused on
peripheral or incidental features of the site and more on higher level
construal as one moves further from the core self. For example, at a
historical site, a local tourist might be more attracted and pay more
attention to the particular features of the site such as a tomb, a statue
or a monument. An international tourist, on the other hand, might
evaluate the experience at a higher level, for example, appreciating
the general qualities of the place, such as its historical value or beauty.
Psychological distance has four underlying factors: time, space, cul-
ture and probability. Consistently with the literature, we consider that
at least the first three of these factors relate to the concept of distance
as it applies to the experience of a heritage. As far as probability is con-
cerned (i.e., a more probable event is closer than a less probable
event), in terms of heritage, it could be considered as the probability
of visiting a site, which is easily assimilated to an economic distance
(i.e., a more affordable site is closer than a non affordable site) and
could therefore be subsumed under the spatial dimension.
First and foremost, objects or events are evaluated as being more dis-
tant if they are located in the distant past or in the future with respect
to the present time. Construal level theory usually addresses future
events because choice does not relate to the past, but heritage relates
by definition to an earlier period, so the process of construal at a site
must refer to the past. For example, the same historic location can be
visited for different reasons by tourists of different generations. Tour-
ists from older generations might go to remember, while younger ones
view the visit from a totally different perspective (Poria et al., 2006).
Podoshen and Hunt (2011) have recently conceptualized psychologi-
cal distance as chronological distance (i.e., in terms of recentness of
the heritage site).
Psychological distance is therefore to be defined accordingly, with a
shorter time distance from the heritage, allowing a low level of constru-
al as opposed to a longer time distance. Empirical evidence for this
argument emerges from the literature and, in particular, on reading
the following excerpt of an interview with an elderly woman reported
by McIntosh and Prentice (1999). The interview concerns the visit to
a representation of the 19th century ‘‘High Victorian’’ period of the
British history:
I grew up living with my grandmother in a cottage not far from here, so I
remember what it was like. I can remember being bathed in a tin tub; I remem-
ber the mangle and the grate, and my granny cooking fresh bread and home
made jam... I picked out things I could remember. I sat in the school classroom
and it felt so realistic; the school had the same desks as we used to have in our
school; I couldn’t do all the sums on the board, though. A little girl skipping in
the yard brought back incredible memories; fond memories. It takes you back to
your childhood; it reminds you of a part of your life that you’d forgotten about
(1999, p. 604).
 Author's personal copy

118 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Clearly, the site awakened vivid images of the youth of the old lady.
Now, compare this excerpt with the experience of a younger woman
visiting a similar location:
I gained a view of what the world was like then, in very vivid terms; a real
feeling of what it was like; it was very authentic. The surprise is the biggest
thing. It taught me about a way of life I knew nothing about. I knew about
the Industrial Revolution, but not about the life conditions. I feel I’ve learnt
a lot and identified with their hardships. It’s remarkable at my age to learn;
I suppose we’re never too old to learn. It’s insight into the past so that we
can appreciate it more; otherwise we tend to forget (1999, p. 603).
The two experiences are markedly different in terms of construal le-
vel and knowledge generated and accessed: fine details and lucid
images in the former case and abstract thoughts about life conditions
in the latter. A very similar example was cited by Goulding and Domic
(2009) who report an interview with an older interviewee who recalls
specific historical facts more in detail compared to a younger one.
Familiarity is also found to increase the detail of the visual recollec-
tion of the place (Walmsley & Jenkins, 1992) and specific knowledge of
a heritage, when available, is found to influence interpretation at the
site (Kerstetter, Confer, & Graefe, 2001). Thus, increased cognitive
accessibility induced by familiarity affects the experience with the her-
itage to a greater extent through construal level. In this respect, we pro-
pose the following formal statement:

Proposition 1. The closer (further) the experiential distance between the tourist
and the heritage, the lower (higher) the psychological distance and the lower
(higher) the level of construal that characterizes the experience of a heritage.

Evidence of spatial distance on construal is rarer in literature, and

more linked to visual representations. For example, Walmsley and
Jenkins (1992) find that tourists tended to include fewer features on
their cognitive maps compared to residents. Similarly, Young (1999)
finds that domestic tourists have more detailed cognitive maps in terms
of spatial elements while international tourists tend to have more ab-
stract impressions of the place.

Proposition 2. The closer (farther) the spatial distance between the tourist
and the heritage, the lower (higher) the psychological distance and the lower
(higher) the level of construal that characterizes the experience of the object of
heritage.

Evidence of the socio-cultural distance on the level of construal

abounds. With respect to the experiential distance, socio-cultural dis-
tance has to do with identification (Poria et al., 2003), and is not lim-
ited to the experience that can be acquired by mere exposure. An
increase in familiarity, in fact, does not coincide with a reduction of
cultural distance. As an example, New Zealanders are highly familiar
with the Maori heritage, but they do not identify with it (Ryan, 2002).
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 119

Prentice and Andersen (2007) studied national (i.e., Danish) and

international (i.e., non-Danish) impressions on a major heritage (i.e.,
The Old Town at Århus, in the Jutland peninsula). A content analysis
of the interviews verbatim as well as single word summaries of the her-
itage experience revealed that international tourists were more likely to
use descriptions of general qualities, for example, using words such as
authentic, nice, beautiful, romantic, interesting and so on. Thus,
increasing the socio-cultural distance is likely to enact a higher level
construal of the heritage experience.
Similar findings can be attributed to Suh and Gartner (2004), who
discovered that socio-cultural proximity increased interests for the tan-
gible attributes of the location while socio-cultural distance increased
interest for intangible attributes of the location. Prentice (2006) finds
cultural proximity associated to higher detailed imagery of the place
and Hunter and Suh (2007) find that residents can draw more detailed
images of local heritage sculptures than tourists. Finally, stronger socio-
cultural attachment resulted in a lower overall abstractness index – a
measure of the abstractness of the concepts – compared to a weaker
socio-cultural attachment (Lin, Morgan, & Coble, 2012).

Proposition 3. The closer (farther) the socio-cultural distance between the

tourist and the heritage, the lower (higher) the psychological distance and the
lower (higher) the level of construal that characterizes the experience of the
object of heritage.

Tourists can be true experts relative to a regional heritage: in this

case, experiential similarity should enact a lower level construal.
Evidence in this regard can be found in the research by Herbert
(2001), who compares the experience of two literary sites located in
the UK. One of the sites (i.e., the Jane Austen House) located near
London, attracts tourists from the entire United Kingdom and a size-
able portion of international tourists as well (approximately 18% of
450 interviewees). A considerable portion of the tourists interviewed
(over 60%) in this first location were very knowledgeable of the life
and works of the artist, and almost half of them stated that they were
fans of the writer.
We posit that this specialization had likely inspired their apprecia-
tion of the details of the house (Kerstetter et al., 2001). In fact, when
the tourists were asked to pinpoint the features of the site that were
most of interest to them, they named Jane Austen’s personal details
‘‘such as letters, a lock of hair, her own room, and details of her illness; [while]
many others referred to her family and to the house’’ (Herbert, 2001, p. 327).
By contrast, the tourists to a literary Welsh site (i.e., the Dylan Thomas
Boathouse), who were mostly regional tourists (approximately 55%)
and much less literate and erudite in comparison to the Jane Austen
fans, returned answers such as: ‘‘the spirit of the place, atmosphere of the
town, place where so much happened, [... ], spiritual experience of house and
area, evocative, empathy, breathing in atmosphere’’ (2001, p. 328).
 Author's personal copy

120 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Thus, experiential distance, when at odds with spatial distance, can

influence the psychological distance to a greater extent. Of course,
experiential distance and spatial distance can be hypothesized to be
strongly associated, but when this is not the case, then experiential dis-
tance tends to prevail. The supremacy of experiential distance is also
likely to be valid with respect to socio-cultural distance. Also in such
a case, we could expect a correlation (Cui & Ryan 2011). For example,
with respect to the example of the Victorian representation reported
above (see § 2.1), we expect that the experience of a young historian
of the Industrial Revolution would be more similar to the older lady,
who had a low construal experience, rather than to the younger lady,
who, vice versa, experienced a high construal. We thus propose the
following:

Proposition 4a. Experiential distance to the object of heritage should be

positively related to the socio-cultural distance. When this is not the case,
experiential distance exerts a stronger influence.
Proposition 4b. Experiential distance to the object of heritage should be pos-
itively related to the spatial distance. When this is not the case, experiential
distance exerts a stronger influence.

Another exception that needs to be considered concerns the rela-

tionship between socio-cultural distance and spatial distance. Although
the two may generally be considered as being correlated, socio-cultural
effects have been found to prevail in several circumstances. For exam-
ple, tourists with the same nationality (i.e., same spatial distance) but
different ethnicities perceived different cultural distances (Besculides
et al. 2002; Hou, Lin, & Morais, 2005). It has also been shown that,
generally speaking, culturally proximal destinations are preferred to
culturally distant destinations irrespective of the physical distance
(Ng et al. 2007) and that cultural differences persist despite very close
spatial proximity (Gelbman & Timothy 2011). Hence the following
proposition ensues:

Proposition 5. Socio-cultural distance to the object of heritage should be

positively related to the spatial distance. When this is not the case, socio-
cultural distance exerts a stronger influence.

The relationships discussed above are depicted in the model in Fig-

ure 1. The rest of this paper presents a partial test of propositions 2 and
3 within a natural setting.

Study Method
The hypothesized relationship between psychological distance and
the construal level of the experience of a heritage is corroborated by
an experiment conducted in a natural setting. A systematic quasi-ran-
dom sampling procedure (Biran, Poria, & Oren, 2011) was applied
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 121

Socio-cultural
distance

P3 Consequences
P4a • Perceived authenticity
P5
• Onsite spending
behavior
Experiential Psychological Level of
distance P1 distance Construal • Affective and
cognitive experience
at the site
P4b • Satisfaction with the
P2 site

Spatial
distance

Figure 1. A process model of the antecedents and consequences of psycho-

logical distance
to intercepted groups of tourists visiting three World Heritage Sites in
the area of Rome (Italy). The tourist experiences were compared to
test the hypothesized influence of the psychological distance on the
heritage experience, with particular reference to the level of construal
enacted at the site.

The Sites. The three sites that serve as settings for this study are the
Roman Forum in the center of Rome and the two Etruscan necropolis-
es of Tarquinia and Cerveteri located in the provinces of Viterbo and
(greater) Rome, respectively. The three sites share some characteris-
tics. Firstly, they are all World Heritage Sites and they are all located
in the same greater area (i.e., the Italian region Latium). Secondly,
each of the sites is composed of an archaeological section and a related
museum.
Being located in the very heart of Rome, which alone attracts over
five million international tourists per year (i.e., about half of the total
number of tourists in the city), the Roman Forum is the most interna-
tionally appealing site of the three.
The two necropolises are the most important Etruscan sites in Italy.
Since 1997, the sites of Tarquinia and Cerveteri have been inscribed on
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
World Heritage List (UNESCO, 2012). Unlike the Roman Forum,
these two sites are located far from the city of Rome—specifically, they
are found in the provinces of Viterbo (Tarquinia) and Rome
(Cerveteri). The presence of Italian tourists in the two regional sites
adds up to over 90% of the total tourist flow, and approximately half
of this flow comes from within the region. Thus, while very important
for locals, the two necropolises of Tarquinia and Cerveteri can both be
considered to be secondary sites for international tourists.

Procedure, Measures and Sample Characteristics. The tourists were inter-

cepted for the interviews at the end of their visit to the sites. When pos-
sible, a maximum of two tourists per hour were interviewed on a time
schedule from 9am to 5pm, for 3 days (2 working days and 1 weekend
 Author's personal copy

122 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

day) in each of the three locations. The interviewees responded to the

same set of questions. After a generic part of the questionnaire contain-
ing general questions about the visit (e.g., logistics, motivation) was
administered, the core of the interview was dedicated to gathering
information on their experience of the site.
In particular, the tourists were asked to sum up what had impressed
them most and what they would remember best from their visit to the
site. This question came immediately after the one assessing satisfac-
tion with the visit and was posed to prompt the tourists to recall the
most salient aspects of their experience. The answers to this question
were then content-analyzed for the purpose of synthetically measuring
the construal level at the site. This processing was carried out
independently by two trained judges who were blind to the research
hypotheses. Interjudge agreement was as high as 96.4%.
The criterion adopted to discern between high and low level of con-
strual was the level of abstractness of the recollection. Reference to
material and physical objects (e.g., jewels, tombs, a statue, a monument,
etc.), details of or judgments on the objects (e.g., orange and black dec-
orations on vases, the beauty of the antiques) and features of the servic-
escape (organization, exhibits, personnel, etc.), denoting concreteness,
were considered to be indicative of a low construal process during the
experience. In contrast, the use of abstract and general descriptors
(e.g., beauty, magnificence, grandness, history of the place, glory)
and even the identifiers ‘‘all’’ and ‘‘everything’’, denoting abstractness,
were considered to represent a high construal process during the expe-
rience of the site (Bar-Anan, Lieberman & Trope, 2006).
Out of a total of 114 interviewees across the sites, 11 were not cate-
gorized as either high or low because the answer was evasive or vague
(i.e., 7 said ‘‘nothing’’ or ‘‘don’t remember’’, 4 were not clearly classi-
fiable as either high or low construal), leaving us with a total of 103
usable answers. The age and gender statistics of the sample are re-
ported in Table 2.

Table 2. Sample statistics

Site Origin of tourists Total

Local Regional National International

Roman Forum
Interviewees 8 3 15 23 49
% Females 38% 67% 80% 65% 62%
Avg. Age 42 50 52 62 51

Cerveteri and Tarquinia

Interviewees 12 23 15 4 54
% Females 58% 40% 60% 50% 52%
Avg. Age 32 44 30 56 41
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 123

We use the origin of the tourist as a proxy for measuring psycholog-

ical distance. We divide the sample into four types of origin: local, re-
gional, national and international. The locals are people who come
from the city where the heritage is located, which is Rome for the
Roman Forum and the cities of Cerveteri and Tarquinia for the nec-
ropolises. The regional tourists are people who come from the Latium
region, excluding those already counted as locals. The national tourists
are people who come from outside the Latium region but inside the
Italian national border. Finally, international tourists are those who
come from countries other than Italy.
We observe that, as could be expected, the percentage of interna-
tional tourists was much higher at the Roman Forum (47% vs. 7%)
and that the presence of local and regional tourists was higher at the
regional sites (22% vs. 65%). Another characteristic of the sample that
is worth mentioning is that the presence of females and the age of the
entire sample were both slightly higher at the Roman Forum. The age
of the international tourists was also higher at both sites; this could be
expected given the nature of the sites, which might be less appealing to
young international tourists.

RESULTS
With the available data, we wish to see whether psychological distance
can predict the construal level of the heritage experience. In particular,
consistent with the propositions, we expect that higher psychological
distance will be a significant predictor of a high level of construal.
We run a logistic regression with our measure of psychological dis-
tance as a predictor of the level of construal. We also include as predic-
tors the sites, gender and age. The fit of the model is good (v2
(9) = 34.87; p < 0.01; Pseudo R2 = 0.25). Table 3 shows the results of
the regression and reports the log odds and significance levels for each
of the predictors on the outcome ‘‘high construal’’.
The results show that international tourists were significantly more
likely than local tourists to report a high construal of the heritage expe-
rience. The same result, but less strong and marginally significant,
holds when comparing international and regional tourists. Finally,
the heritage experience of the international tourists did not differ in
terms of the construal level with respect to that of national tourists.
We thus find support for the claim that, generally speaking, psycholog-
ical distance influences the level of construal. More specifically, we
show an almost monotonic increase in the likelihood of a high constru-
al experience going hand in hand with each additional ‘‘level’’ of
psychological distance.
The site approaches significance level as a predictor of a high
construal, with the Roman Forum experience being more likely to
be related to a high construal. While a more emotional, holistic and
high construal experience can understandably be related more to
the major than to the peripheral heritages (See theoretical
 Author's personal copy

124 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Table 3. Logistic regression predicting ‘‘high construal’’ for the heritage

experience

Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>z

Psychological Distance
Intl. vs. Local 7.33** 5.67 2.58 0.01
Intl. vs. Regional 4.25  3.37 1.83 0.07
Intl. vs. National 1.42 1.04 0.48 0.63
Site
Roman Forum vs. Necropolises 2.79  1.51 1.90 0.06
Gender
Males vs. Females 1.75 0.90 1.09 0.28
Age Class
>65 vs. 0-24 21.15* 29.04 2.22 0.03
>65 vs. 25-34 3.83 4.79 1.07 0.28
>65 vs. 35-54 6.51 7.98 1.53 0.13
>65 vs. 55-64 5.89 7.53 1.39 0.17

Note.  p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01. N = 103. The latter outcomes of the coded variables are used
as the baseline for the prediction (i.e., the numerator in the odds ratio). In particular, for the
levels of psychological distance, 1 identifies the local tourists, 2 the regional tourists, 3 the
national tourists and 4 the international tourists. For the site variable, 0 identifies the nec-
ropolises and 1 identifies the Roman Forum. Finally, 1 identifies males, and age classes were
defined using a standard coding (0-24; 25-34; 35-54; 55-64; >65).

development), in this specific case, the result is likely due to the struc-
ture of the sample across the sites. In particular, it could be related to
the higher number of international tourists at the Forum and, vice ver-
sa, to the higher number of local and regional tourists at the
necropolises.
This observation is supported by analyzing the psychological distance
as a mediator of the direct relationship between site and level of con-
strual, in particular by observing a weakening of the relationship both
in terms of odds ratios (4.84 vs. 2.87) and significance level (p < 0.01 vs.
p < 0.05) when psychological distance is entered into the model. The
same weakening of the relationship is not observed (i.e., significance
levels are not affected) when the site is studied as a mediator of the di-
rect relationship between psychological distance and level of construal.
Psychological distance is thus a stronger factor than the site for
explaining the construal effects.
Finally, gender is not shown to affect the level of construal, but we
find an effect for age. In particular, the oldest age class (i.e., people
over 65) is found to be more likely to resort to a high construal than
the youngest age class. This effect is again explained by the structure
of the sample, being that the average age of the international tourists
is higher than that of the other tourists (see Table 1). Again, a
mediation analysis of the psychological distance between age and con-
strual level shows a deterioration of the odds ratios (10.50 vs. 9.78) and
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 125

significance level (0.04 vs. 0.08) for the oldest relative to the youngest
age class. Here again, a deterioration of the relationship is not ob-
served when age is studied as a mediator of the direct relationship be-
tween psychological distance and the level of construal. Psychological
distance is thus a stronger factor than age for explaining the construal
effects.

CONCLUSION
Based on the literature, this paper advances knowledge of the heri-
tage experience. The relationship between the heritage and the self
is central to understanding the role of psychological distance in the
heritage experience. The paper pinpoints a result concerning the
strength of the connection between a heritage and a tourist and the ef-
fect that this strength has on the experience, based on a psychological
distance interpretation.
We find support for the claim that a higher psychological distance
increases the probability of the experience being characterized by a
higher (i.e., more abstract) construal of the reality. On the contrary,
a lower psychological distance increases the salience of, and shifts
the attention to, the details. Interestingly, this result was latent but al-
ready present in the heritage studies (See Table 1 and theoretical
development) reporting evidence of the existence of different constru-
al levels related to the psychological distance. Thus a corpus of
evidence emerged from the analysis of the literature that fit very well
with the proposed framework.
The principle contribution of this study is, therefore, that it shows
the existence of this construal level effect with reference to the heri-
tage experience. This is particularly relevant since the literature
presented a wide but sparse set of latent evidences of the level of con-
strual. These evidences were not addressed before, but they can now be
recognized and attributed to the effect of psychological distance.
Psychological distance itself was not understood within a unifying
framework but through a set of different – and at times contradictory
– findings on cultural, generational and geographical difference. An-
other contribution of the paper is thus to present a framework to
understand the antecedents of psychological distance, and a model
to more precisely tap into the relationship among the single constitu-
ents. Furthermore, we highlight the relative strength of each of the psy-
chological distance antecedents, with experiential distance exerting
the strongest effects, followed by socio-cultural distance and, finally,
spatial distance.
A limitation of this study is the restricted sample and the distribution
of age and origin of the tourists (i.e., our measure of psychological dis-
tance) at the different sites. Although the mediation analyses reveal
that the effect of the psychological distance is stronger and that it
persists across sites and age classes, more robust evidence would be
provided if the effect were to be observed with a more balanced distri-
bution of ages and origin across the sites.
 Author's personal copy

126 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

While an inherent limitation from the perspective of theory testing,

this unbalanced distribution is nonetheless consistent with the natural
setting.
An additional limitation is that although, as confirmed by existing re-
search in tourism (San Martin & Rodriguez del Bosque, 2008), place of
origin works better than other measures as a proxy of psychological dis-
tance, spatial and cultural distance remain indistinct causes. A neater
distinction between the effects of the different antecedents of psycho-
logical distance remain to be addressed by future research.
As far as the method is concerned, a natural field experiment is an
experiment that investigates tasks in an environment where the sub-
jects naturally undertake these tasks and where the subjects do not
know that they are in an experiment (Harrison & List, 2004). While
there is an obvious advantage in terms of external validity of the set-
ting, in such cases random sampling cannot occur and conclusions
about causality need to be very cautious. More extensive research
(on a wider database) would thus be needed to better corroborate
the results in the face of the limits endemic to the sampling procedure.
Future studies could take into account the psychological distance
dimension, scrutinizing more in detail the effects that it has on behav-
ior (see Figure 1).
An extremely relevant issue concerning the heritage experience that
has not been taken into account here, due to focus and space limita-
tions, is authenticity. There are several cues that link authenticity
and psychological distance. For example, the finding that residents
have more authentic experiences than tourists (Jordan, 1980; Waitt,
2000; Yang & Wall, 2009) implies that psychological distance and
authenticity should be inversely related. A research question that re-
mains to be addressed is what the psychological mechanisms are and
why this happens. An intriguing approach could be to look at how
knowledge is applied (Ankomah, Crompton, & Baker, 1996). A top-
down approach, when with poor categories (e.g., stereotypes) typical
of the non-expert, should exert a stronger negative influence on
authenticity.
For example, it is already known that the experience of heritage
sites, the extent of learning and even the reasons for the visit are af-
fected by psychological distance. Particularly interesting is that a richer
and more thorough experience at the heritage site is related to higher
satisfaction (Kerstetter et al., 2001).
From a managerial perspective, more knowledgeable visitors should
already be able to experience a low construal by themselves. Less spe-
cialized tourists may, on the other hand, need more interactive or edu-
cational support and should be encouraged to abandon stereotypes
that they would otherwise tend to use. They may therefore need more
tangible elements in order to compensate for their lack of knowledge.
Generally, from a managerial perspective, it might be interesting to see
whether the construal level can be successfully used to communicate
effectively with tourists.
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 127

In conclusion, we hope that future research will build upon the

framework, further exploring its limits, refining its mechanisms and
extending its boundaries.

REFERENCES
Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage
management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28–48.
Ankomah, P. K., & Crompton, J. L. (1992). Tourism cognitive distance. A set of
research propositions. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 323–342.
Ankomah, P. K., Crompton, J. L., & Baker, D. (1996). Influence of cognitive
distance in vacation choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 138–150.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between
psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit
association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135(4), 609–622.
Belk, W. R. (1988). Possession and the extend self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(2), 139–168.
Besculides, A., Lee, M. E., & McCormick, P. J. (2002). Residents’ perceptions of the
cultural benefits of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 303–319.
Biran, A., Porta, Y., & Oren, G. (2011). Sought experiences at (dark) heritage sites.
Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 820–841.
Camarero, C., Garrido, M. J., & Vicente, E. (2010). Components of art exhibition
brand equity for internal and external visitors. Tourism Management, 31(4),
495–504.
Cave, J., Ryan, C., & Panakera, C. (2007). Cultural tourism product: Pacific island
migrant perspectives in New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4),
435–443.
Chhabra, D., Healy, R., & Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 702–719.
Chronis, A. (2005a). Our Byzantine heritage: Consumption of the past and its
experiential benefits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 213–222.
Chronis, A. (2005b). Coconstructing heritage at the Gettysburg storyscape. Annals
of Tourism Research, 32(2), 386–406.
Cook, R. L., & Mcclearly, K. W. (1983). Redefining vacation distances in consumer
minds. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 31–34.
Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. (2001). The influence of cognitive distance in vacation
choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 512–515.
Cui, X., & Ryan, C. (2011). Perceptions of place, modernity and impacts of tourism
– differences among rural and urban residents of Ankang, China: A likelihood
ratio analysis. Tourism Management, 32(3), 604–615.
Culpan, R. (1987). International tourism model for developing economies. Annals
of Tourism Research, 14(4), 541–552.
Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27(3), 682–708.
Gelbman, A., & Timothy, D. J. (2011). Border complexity, tourism and interna-
tional exclaves. A case study. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 100–131.
Giovanardi, M. (2011). Producing and consuming the painter Raphael’ birthplace.
Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(1), 53–66.
Gonzalez, M. V. (2007). Intangible heritage tourism and identity. Tourism
Management, 29(4), 807–810.
Goulding, C., & Domic, D. (2009). Heritage, identity and ideological manipula-
tion: The case of Croatia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 85–102.
Goulding, C. (2001). Romancing the past: Heritage visiting and the nostalgic
consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 18(6), 565–592.
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic
Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.
Herbert, D. (2001). Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28(2), 312–333.
 Author's personal copy

128 F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129

Hou, J., Lin, C., & Morais, D. B. (2005). Antecedents of attachment to a cultural
tourism destination: The case of Hakka and non Hakka Taiwanese visitors to
Pei-Pu, Taiwan. Journal of Travel Research, 44(2), 221–233.
Huang, C., Tsaur, J., & Yang, C. (2012). Does world heritage list really induce more
tourists? Evidence from Macau. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1450–1457.
Hunter, W. C., & Suh, Y. K. (2007). Multimethod research on destination image
perception: Jeju standing stones. Tourism Management, 28(1), 130–139.
Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local
communities – A case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism
Management, 32(2), 288–296.
Jordan, W. J. (1980). The summer people and the natives. Some effects of tourism
in a Vermont vacation village. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(1), 34–55.
Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., & Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the
specialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 39(3), 267–274.
Li, M., Wu, B., & Cai, L. (2008). Tourism development of World Heritage Sites in
China: A geographic perspective. Tourism Management, 29(2), 308–319.
Light, D., & Prentice, R. (1994). Market-based product development in heritage
tourism. Tourism Management, 15(1), 27–36.
Lin, H., Morgan, M., & Coble, T. (2012). Remember Alamo: A cross-cultural
analysis of visitors meanings. Journal of Travel Research, 20(10), 1–14.
MacKay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1997). Pictorial element of destination in
image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 557–565.
Mason, P., & Cheyne, J. (2000). Residents’ attitudes to proposed tourism
development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391–411.
McAleer, M., & Chang, C. (2011). Citations and impact of ISI tourism and
hospitality journals. KIER Working Papers 781, Kyoto University, Institute of
Economic Research.
McCain, G., & Ray, N. M. (2003). Legacy tourism: The search for personal meaning
in heritage travel. Tourism Management, 24(6), 713–717.
McDonald, H. (2010). Understanding the antecedents to public interest and
engagement with heritage. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), 780–804.
McIntosh, A. I., & Prentice, R. C. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming
cultural heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589–612.
Ng, S. I., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Tourists’ intention to visit a country:
The impact of cultural distance. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1497–1506.
Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
23(2), 249–260.
Park, H. Y. (2010). Heritage tourism, emotional journeys into nationhood. Annals
of Tourism Research, 37(1), 116–135.
Peleggi, M. (1996). National heritage and global tourism in Thailand. Annals of
Tourism Research, 23(2), 432–448.
Podoshen, J. S., & Hunt, J. M. (2011). Equity restoration, the Holocaust and
tourism of sacred sites. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1332–1342.
Poria, Y., Birian, A., & Reichel, A. (2009). Visitors’ preferences for interpretation at
heritages sites. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 92–105.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2003). The core of heritage tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30(1), 238–254.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2004). Links between tourists, heritage and
reasons for visiting heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 19–28.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2006). Heritage site management. Motivations
and expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 162–178.
Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2007). Interpreting heritage essentialisms: Familiarity
and felt history. Tourism Management, 28(3), 661–676.
Prentice, R. (2006). Evocation and experiential seduction: Updating choice-sets
modelling. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1153–1170.
Prentice, R., Guerin, S., & McGugan, S. (1998). Visitor learning at a heritage
attraction: A case study of Discovery as a media product. Tourism Management,
19(1), 5–23.
Ryan, C. (2002). Tourism and cultural proximity. Examples from New Zealand.
Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 952–971.
 Author's personal copy

F. Massara, F. Severino / Annals of Tourism Research 42 (2013) 108–129 129

San Martin, H., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. A. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-
affective nature of destination image and the role of psychological factors in
its formation. Tourism Management, 29(2), 263–277.
Sheng, C., & Chen, M. (2012). A study of experience expectations of museum
visitors. Tourism management, 33(1), 53–60.
Suh, Y. K., & Gartner, W. C. (2004). Preferences and trip expenditures - a conjoint
analysis of visitors to Seoul, Korea. Tourism Management, 25(1), 127–137.
Tasci, A. D. A. (2009). The missing link in the loop of movies, destination, image,
and tourism behavior?. Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), 494–507.
Teo, P., & Yeoh, B. S. A. (1997). Remaking local heritage for tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24(1), 192–213.
Timothy, D. J. (1997). Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24(4), 751–754.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological
distance. Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95.
Tuan, Y. (1980). The significance of the artifact. Geographical Review, 70(4),
462–472.
UNESCO. World heritage list. (2012). UNESCO Web site: <http://www.whc.une-
sco.org/en/list> Retrieved 09.06.12.
Voase, R. (2007). Visiting a cathedral: The consumer psychology of a ‘rich
experience’. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 13(1), 41–55.
Waitt, G. (2000). Consuming heritage. Perceived historical authenticity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 22(4), 835–862.
Walmsley, D. J., & Jenkins, J. M. (1992). Tourism cognitive mapping of unfamiliar
environments. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 268–286.
Yang, L., & Wall, G. (2009). Ethnic tourism: A framework and an application.
Tourism Management, 30(4), 559–570.
Yang, C., Lin, H., & Han, C. (2010). Analysis of international tourist arrivals in
China: The role of World Heritage Sites. Tourism Management, 31(6), 827–837.
Young, M. (1999). Cognitive maps of nature based tourists. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(4), 817–839.

Submitted 25 June 2012. Final version 14 November 2012. Accepted 15 January 2013.
Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Svein Larsen