INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
Published online 13 October 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.686
Students’ Travel Behaviour:
A Cross-cultural Comparison
of UK and China
Feifei Xu1,*, Michael Morgan1 and Ping Song2
1
School of Services Management, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK
2
Department of Tourism, Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, Nanjing, China
ABSTRACT
This paper compares the travel behaviour
and attitudes of two different nationalities
of undergraduate students from the United
Kingdom and China. The survey did
find some similarities between the two.
Both groups enjoyed beach holidays, and
placed importance on having fun and
relaxing after their studies. Both were
motivated to discover somewhere new and
both preferred to eat the local food of the
destination. In other ways, the two groups
showed significant differences. The Chinese
students thought it more important to see
the famous sights and learn about other
cultures and history, while the British were
more concerned to have fun, to socialise
and enjoy the challenges of outdoor
adventure. These differences were found to
exist in both male and female groups. The
paper discusses the extent to which these
differences could be explained by cultural
factors as opposed to market factors or the
students’ previous experience in their travel
career. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Received 20 December 2007; Revised 18 July 2008; Accepted
14 August 2008
Keywords: student travel; motivation; travel
behaviour; cultural differences; travel career.
*Correspondence to: F. Xu, School of Services Manage-
ment, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern
Barrow, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.
E-mail: fxu@bournemouth.ac.uk
INTRODUCTION
S
chool vacations and extended holidays
have always provided college students
with the time to travel (Mattila et al.,
2001). The advent of student loans has enabled
students to have more spending power and
to become independent of their parents. The
encouragement of gap years by universities,
governments and the holiday industry has also
helped (Mintel, 2006). According to Richards
and Wilson’s (2003) report, around one-fifth of
all tourism journeys in the world are made by
young people aged 15–25 years, among which
students account for a big percentage. The
experiences of young travellers today also
provide an important basis for their travel
decisions later in life. Because of students’
increasing numbers, and their increasing dis-
posable income and mobility nowadays, the
student segment is an attractive one to tourism
marketers, and hence, warrants further research
(Hobson and Josiam, 1992; Chadee and Cutler,
1996; Sung and Hsu, 1996; Josiam et al., 1998;
Field, 1999; Bai et al., 2004).
This paper compares the travel behaviour
and attitudes of two different nationalities of
students, from the UK and China. One is a
long established market with a tradition of
youth travel abroad. UK is the fourth largest
outbound market in world tourism after
USA, Germany and Japan (Office of National
Statistics, 2005), so an insight into the travel
behaviour of the next generation of British
tourists should be of considerable interest to
tourism managers and planners. In contrast,
China is an emerging market where overseas
travel has only recently been permitted and
made affordable to the student generation. By
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
256
2020, China is predicted to become the fourth
largest tourist-generating country in the world
(UNWTO, 2000), therefore, the student market
represents a vast source of potential present
and future income for the tourism industry,
both within China and abroad.
The aims of this research are to compare the
tourism activities, motivations and attitudes
of the students, and by doing so, to explore
the similarities and differences between two
countries with very different cultures, travel
industries and tourism flows. In this explora-
tion, two alternative hypotheses are consid-
ered. One (H0) is that young people anywhere
share similar motivations and patterns of
behaviour towards vacation travel, the other
(H1) is that these motivations and patterns will
vary significantly because of cultural factors
and market conditions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
To understand the students’ travel behaviour,
it is necessary to analyse the decision-making
process. According to widely used models of
the consumer decision-making process (Engel
et al., 1978; Howard and Sheth, 1969; Mouthino,
1987), this will be motivated by particular
needs and desires, which lead to search for
information, the evaluation of alternative and
the choice of product. In the case of tourism,
this product may include attractions and
activities, accommodation and transport, pur-
chased either as a holiday package or bought as
separate elements by an independent traveller.
The individual decision will be influenced by
a range of personal, social, market, economic
and cultural factors.
Tourist motivation
Tourists are motivated by a combination of
internal psychologically derived ‘push’ factors
and the external ‘pull’ of particular attractions
or activities (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1982).
Iso-Ahola (1982) considered that essentially
all travel motivations can be summed up as
escaping (from everyday routine, for example)
or seeking (e.g. new experiences) for either
personal or interpersonal reasons. A similar
approach is found in Beard and Ragheb (1983)
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
F. Xu, M. Morgan and P. Song
Leisure Motivation Scale. This is based on four
elements: intellectual motivation (to learn,
explore, discover new things); social motiva-
tion, which is not only the desire to socialise but
also to derive a sense of identity and belong-
ing; the desire for competence and mastery of
skills and abilities, usually through physically
challenging activities; and stimulus-avoidance
motivations leading to the need to escape, and
seek solitude or relaxation. Their work has
been developed by later tourism researchers
such as Ryan and Gledon (1998).
Whichever of these motivations is dominant
will partly depend on the psychographic profile
or personality traits of the individual. Plog
(1974, 2001) places tourists on a personality
scale between the extremes of Venturers (orig-
inally termed Allocentrics — outer-directed,
curious and confident travellers constantly
seeking new experiences) and Dependables
(originally termed Psychocentrics — inward-
looking, cautious people who prefer familiar
places and faces). Venturers are the first to
visit a new destination which is then taken up
by others until it eventually becomes a safe
choice for the Dependables. However, Smith
(1990) and Pizam et al. (2004) argue that Plog’s
normal distribution of allocentrics, midcentrics
and psychocentrics is not universally applica-
ble to all societies and cultures. Another criti-
cism comes from Pearce (1983, 1991, 2005) who
says that the motivation for travel changes as
the individual gains more experiences. Pearce
and Caltabiano (1983) originally described this
as a travel-career ladder, based on Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs, in which tourists move
up from relaxation and physiological needs to
relationships, status and finally self-fulfilment.
Pearce changed the career ladder in later work
to a career tapestry (1991) or pattern (2005),
emphasising that people start at different levels
and that their dominant needs may change in
either direction during their life.
Information search
According to Crotts (1999), travellers actively
acquire external information primarily from
personal sources, followed by neutral, expe-
riential and marketer-dominated sources of
information. Advice from friends and relatives
generally tops the list as the most frequently
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
UK and China Students’ Travel Behaviour
acquired and influential source of informa-
tion to travellers. Bai et al. (2004, p. 81) cited
Borgerding’s work which showed that ‘inter-
net was the most effective method to reach
and communicate with the college student
market. College students, being receptive to
online promotions and discount deals, used
the internet for travel research more than rec-
ommendations from their friends’.
Cultural influences
Individuals’ motivation and decision-making
will be influenced by their immediate social
reference group and through them, by their
overall cultural environment (Engel et al., 1978;
Mouthino, 1987; Reisinger and Turner, 2003).
Morgan (1996) defines culture as the sum of
the shared attitudes, values and behaviour of
a group. Cultural norms develop to enable
the group to live together with less friction
and conflict (Herbig, 1998). They serve to give
a sense of shared identity distinguishing the
group from others (Leavitt and Bahrami, 1988).
Hofstede (1980) describes this as the collective
programming of the mind. His research into
IBM employees from 53 countries led him to
identify four key dimensions in which national
cultures differ from each other: power dis-
tance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism
and masculinity. Although these were devel-
oped to explain attitudes and behaviour in the
work place, Hofstede claimed that they can
also be applied to behaviour in other contexts
such as politics and driving habits. A number
of writers have examined their application
to leisure and tourism behaviour (Pizam and
Sussman, 1995; Reisinger and Turner, 2003).
Pizam and Sussman (1995) use the ‘uncertainty
avoidance’ dimension to explain the more
cautious behaviour of Japanese tourists com-
pared with Americans, for example, in choice
of activities and food and the preference for
Table 1. UK and China’s score in Hofstede’s culture dimensions
Power distance Individuality
China 80 20
Britain 35 89
Sources: Hofstede, 2001.
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
257
the company of their own nationality. Pizam
(2005) discovered that Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, mascu-
linity/femininity and individualism/collectiv-
ism had an effect on student’s choice of active
versus passive tourist activities.
Hofstede’s original research in the 1970s did
not include the People’s Republic of China as
IBM then did not have offices there, so scores
for Hong Kong and Taiwan were the closest
indications of Chinese cultural attitudes. In the
2001 edition of his book and on his website
(Hofstede 2001), Hofstede now gives scores
for China based on later replication of his
research. These show similar scores as the
earlier results for Hong Kong and Taiwan. In
comparison with Britain, (see Table 1), the sig-
nificant differences are in ‘power distance’ and
‘individuality’.
Both societies appear to share a ‘masculin-
ity orientation’ towards assertiveness, achieve-
ment and success, measured by the outward
trappings of wealth and possession and a low
uncertainty avoidance, taking a pragmatic
approach to life, tolerating competition and
conflicts of opinion. China, however, has the
lowest individuality score in Asia, attributed
by Hofstede to the high level of emphasis on
a collectivist society by the communist regime.
This culture stresses strong relationships with
family or other groups, sharing responsibility
for each other. China also has a high power-
distance score, indicating respect for authority
and an acceptance of inequalities. In contrast,
British culture, according to Hofstede, empha-
sises the freedom of individuals to make their
own decisions and pursue their own needs and
self-development.
Other cultural dimensions that might be
expected to influence tourism motivation
and behaviour include the human relation-
ship with the environment. Schein (1992)
suggests that the dominant western tradition
Masculinity Uncertainty avoidance
66 30
66 35
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
258
is to see the environment as something that
can or should be subjugated and controlled,
although Asian cultures tend to see nature
as something to be accepted and lived in
harmony with (Schneider and Barsourx 1997;
Reisinger and Turner, 2003). Both the cultural
attitudes towards other people and towards
nature are also reflected in and shaped by the
teachings of religion. The Protestant Christian
tradition stresses individual responsibility and
action, while on the contrary Confucian values
emphasise duty towards others and respect for
authority.
In using cultural dimensions to analyse
behaviour, it is important to avoid what
Oslund and Bird (2000) called sophisticated
stereotypes. Within each culture, a wide spec-
trum of different attitudes and behaviour
can be found. Hofstede and McCrae (2004)
found that although there was a correlation
between personality traits and cultural dimen-
sion, each culture contained the full range of
individual personality traits. Hofstede’s (1980)
research also found different scores for males
and females in each country and across the
whole sample. It is also unwise to attribute
every difference in travel behaviour and atti-
tude to deep-rooted cultural values. As Vijver
(1997) warned, though the findings of cross-
national research can be interpreted by means
of cultural dimensions, this is unlikely to be
the full explanation. Other factors need to be
considered. A student’s travel behaviour and
preferences will be influenced, not only by his
own previous travel experience as suggested
by Pearce’s (1991, 2005) travel career concept,
but also by the experiences of his family and
friends. Market factors such as the products
promoted by the local travel industry, eco-
nomic influences on the disposable income to
fund the trip and any restrictions on visas to
particular destinations may also be part of the
explanation.
For example, Britain has a long tradition of
leisure travel and students are likely to have
had regular experience of travelling abroad
on family holidays. In 2004, UK residents
took 44.2 million holidays abroad, mainly to
European countries. Just under half (43%)
of these were package holidays. In compari-
son, 75.5 million holidays were taken within
the UK by UK residents (Office of National
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
F. Xu, M. Morgan and P. Song
statistics, 2005). In China, in 2005, more than
1.2 billion domestic trips took place (CNTO,
2006), rising to over 1.4 billion in 2006 (Mintel,
2008). In 2004, there were 29 million Chinese
mainland residents visiting other countries
(People’s Daily, 2005) which rose to 34.5 million
in 2006 (People’s Daily, 2007). There has been a
rapid growth rate for both domestic and out-
bound travel in recent years in China (Zhang
and Heung, 2002).
METHODOLOGY
The research aimed to identify the similarities
and the significant differences between the two
groups in terms of motivation, behaviour and
attitudes towards holiday travel. It was under-
taken in Nanjing, China and Bournemouth, UK
at the same time in 2007. Quota samples were
taken in two universities. From 16–30 April
2007, 300 questionnaires were distributed into
three different majors (tourism management,
sports management, retail management) in the
School of Services Management, Bournemouth
University in the UK, and 239 responses
were collected. At the same time, 300 question-
naires were distributed to three different majors
(tourism management, business management
and accounting) in the School of Management
in Nanjing University of Finance and Econom-
ics in China, and 284 responses were collected.
Statistics Package for Social Sciences v.15 was
used to analyse the data. The general character-
istics of the sample can be found in Table 2.
The students were asked to rate the likeli-
hood of their using a range of accommoda-
tion-type transport modes and information
sources. They were asked to rate their prefer-
ences for different types of tourist activity and
for types of food, for example, fast food, local
style or internationally branded restaurants or
self-prepared food. Questions on their motiva-
tions for travel drew on the Beard and Ragheb
(1983) classifications. Respondents were asked
to rate the importance of a number of motiva-
tions: discovery, seeing famous sights, learn-
ing about other cultures, challenge, escape,
relaxation and fun, and socialising (expressed
as doing things with friends and family or
meeting old and new friends). They were also
asked to signify their level of agreement with
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
UK and China Students’ Travel Behaviour
Table 2. Profile of samples
Percentage of total
Profile UK UK sample (%) China
Male 82 34.3 59
Female 157 65.7 225
Total 239 100 284
Age From 16 to 32
CH, Chinese.
statements that reflected cautious or adven-
turous attitudes to travel, travelling individu-
ally or with a group, package or independent.
These questions were based on Plog’s (1974,
2001) personality traits and Hofstede’s (1980)
cultural dimensions of uncertainty avoidance
and individualism.
Likert scales (5 = very much, 3 = neutral,
1 = not at all) were used to measure the rela-
tive importance of each attribute, enabling
more detailed analysis and comparison. The
questionnaire was first written in English and
then translated into Chinese. A back transla-
tion method (Werner and Campbell, 1973) was
used in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
A pilot questionnaire was used among 20 stu-
dents to see if there were any misunderstand-
ings, after which modifications were made to
make the questions more clearly understood.
The questions asked were about the students’
travel in general, not mentioning foreign or
domestic trips, as few Chinese students have
been on foreign holidays, although they are
commonplace to British students. The purpose
of the survey was to discover their motiva-
tions and attitudes towards travel, not towards
particular types of destination. The question-
naires were only conducted with undergradu-
ate students in both countries, and only those
whose nationalities were British and Chinese
were included.
When analyzing the data, the mean value
and the frequencies of each variable were
tested and reported first, as used by many
other researchers (e.g. Shoham et al., 2004).
The Mann–Whitney test was then used to test
for differences between the two independent
groups and an interval variable, as the data
obtained in this research is ordinal and there-
fore non-parametric. This is the equivalent to
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
259
Percentage of total Percentage of
CH sample (%) Total UK&CH sample (%)
20.8 141 26.5
79.2 382 73.5
100 523 100
From 18 to 25
the parametric t test of independent samples
(Field 2005), but instead of comparing the
means of the two groups, the Mann–Whitney
test compares medians (Pallant, 2001). More
specifically, ‘it compares the number of times a
score from one of the samples is ranked higher
than a score from the other sample’ (Bryman
and Cramer, 2001, p. 133). The significant
value for rejecting the null hypothesis is 0.05
(Balnaves and Caputi, 2001; Bryman and
Cramer, 2001; Pallant, 2001).
FINDINGS
Motivations
As Figure 1 and Table 3 show, there were sig-
nificant differences in the answers to the moti-
vation questions. Although both nationalities
rated all the factors as important (Mean > 3),
UK students placed higher importance than
the Chinese on having fun, doing things with
friends and family, escaping from boredom
and enjoying a new challenge. Conversely,
the Chinese placed higher importance than
the British on seeing famous sights and learn-
ing about other cultures and history. The only
motivations where there were no significant
differences between the two groups, using the
Mann–Whitney test, were those motivations of
discovering someplace new and relaxing after
their studies.
Activities
The answers to the questions on what they
preferred to see and do show a very similar
pattern of differences between the two nation-
alities. Both showed a strong preference for
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
260 F. Xu, M. Morgan and P. Song

Discover somewhere new

5
4.5
Enjoy a new challenge 4 See famous sights
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Make new friends/visit old friends 1 Learn other culture
0.5
UK Mean
0
Chinese Mean

Do things with friends/family Relax

Escape from boredom Have fun

Figure 1. Importance of motivations for travel: comparison of means for UK and Chinese students (5 = very
important).

Table 3. Mann–Whitney test results for importance of motivation questions

1 UK versus 2 UK M 3 CH M 4 UK versus 5 UK versus
CH total versus F versus F CH males CH females
Characteristics Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig.
Discover somewhere new 0.664 0.134 0.650 0.464 0.898
See famous sights 0.000* 0.197 0.343 0.000* 0.000*
Learn other culture 0.000* 0.443 0.508 0.003* 0.000*
Relax 0.132 0.000* 0.124 0.882 0.016
Have fun 0.000* 0.849 0.649 0.000* 0.000*
Escape from boredom 0.000* 0.767 0.719 0.000* 0.000*
Do things with friends/family 0.000* 0.000* 0.621 0.000* 0.000*
Make new friends/old friends 0.000* 0.635 0.937 0.053 0.000*
Enjoy a new challenge 0.000* 0.320 0.815 0.008* 0.017*

* Indicates a significant difference between the two groups at the level of 0.05 tested by Mann–Whitney U test.
1, comparison of total samples UK and CH; 2, comparison of UK males and females; 3, comparison of CH males and
females; 4, comparison of UK and CH males; 5, comparison of UK and CH females; Sig, significance; CH, Chinese;
M, male; F, female.

beaches, but there were significant differ-
ences in all the other activities. The British
rated outdoor activities, cities, shopping and
entertainment higher than the Chinese, who
conversely showed a significantly higher pref-
erence for cultural and historical attractions,
and nature and scenery than the British (see
Figure 2 and Table 4).
The answers were then analysed by gender,
first testing with the Mann–Whitney test for
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
significant differences between males and
females within each nationality, and then com-
paring the genders across the nationalities —
e.g. Chinese females with British females, etc.
As Table 3 shows, there were no significant dif-
ferences between Chinese males and Chinese
females, although British females only showed
higher preference for relaxing and socialising
than British males. In contrast, Chinese and
British males differed on everything except
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
UK and China Students’ Travel Behaviour 261

nature and scenery

5
4.5
4
3.5
entertainment Cultural &historical
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
UK Mean
0
Chinese Mean

shopping beaches

outdoor/sports cities

Figure 2. Preferred holiday activities: comparison means for UK and Chinese students (5 = enjoy very
much).

Table 4. Mann–Whitney test results for preferred activities questions

1 UK versus 2 UK M 3 CH M 4 UK versus 5 UK versus
CH total versus F versus F CH males CH females
Characteristics Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig.
Nature and scenery 0.000* 0.159 0.644 0.000* 0.000*
Cultural and history 0.000* 0.399 0.947 0.000* 0.000*
Beaches 0.122 0.036* 0.001* 0.035* 0.176
Cities 0.000* 0.108 0.005* 0.000* 0.000*
Outdoor/sports 0.000* 0.001* 0.807 0.000* 0.001*
Shopping 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000*
Entertainment 0.000* 0.022* 0.159 0.004* 0.000*

* Indicates a significant difference between the two groups at the level of 0.05 tested by Mann–Whitney U test.
1, comparison of total samples UK and CH; 2, comparison of UK males and females; 3, comparison of CH males and
females; 4, comparison of UK and CH males; 5, comparison of UK and CH females; Sig, significance; CH, Chinese;
M, male; F, female.

discovering new places and relaxing; Chinese
and British females differed on everything
except discovering new places and relaxing.
Table 4 shows similar results for preferred
activities. Again, there were only a few dif-
ferences within the national groups: Chinese
females showed higher preferences than
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Chinese men for beaches, cities and shopping,
while the men showed a higher preference
for outdoor adventure/sports, while British
females showed higher preferences for shop-
ping than British men, who in turn showed
higher preference for outdoor adventure/
sport. In contrast, Chinese and British males
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
262
differed on everything except beaches and
Chinese and British females also differed on
everything except beaches.
Thus, the results were similar regardless
of whether the comparison between nation-
alities was made for the whole sample, or just
between males or between females from the
two countries. Although some obvious dif-
ferences in preferences can be found between
males and females within the same country,
they nevertheless have more in common with
each other than they have with people of the
same gender from the other country.
These results show that although the two
groups of students share some similar moti-
vations and activities, they are very different
in some fundamental ways. What the results
cannot show is the extent to which these dif-
ferences are caused by the current state of the
two tourism markets and the extent to which
they reflect longer lasting cultural factors.
British students are characteristically moti-
vated by individual pleasure, to have fun,
to socialise with friends, to enjoy shopping
and enjoy entertainment. The Chinese place
a higher importance on learning about cul-
tures, history and seeing the famous sights.
Hofstede’s dimensions (1980) could be used to
explain the reason the collectivist, high power-
distance Chinese want to see the famous
culturally approved sights in deference to the
accepted cultural norms. This in turn could
be related to Confucian values of respect
for education and the wisdom of the older
generation.
Another difference that might have a cul-
tural explanation is the attitude towards
nature. The Chinese are attracted by nature and
scenery, and they are motivated by a desire to
escape to the peace and harmony of nature.
For the British, the outdoors mean activities
and adventures, supporting the concept of
Westerners’ attempt to control and express
mastery over nature (Schein, 1992).
However, there may be more immediate
reasons for these differences in behaviour.
The British students come from the pleasant
suburbs of Southern England and may take
nature for granted, while on the other hand,
the Chinese may value nature as a contrast to
the noise and pollution of city life. British stu-
dents may have done plenty of sightseeing on
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
F. Xu, M. Morgan and P. Song
school trips or family holidays, whereas it may
still be a new experience for the Chinese.
Attitudes
Another set of questions aimed to find dif-
ferences in attitudes towards travel between
the nationalities (see Figure 3 and Table 5).
Among the significant differences here were
that the Chinese students were more likely to
choose to visit well-known destinations and to
spend a holiday in their own country, whereas
the British were more likely to try new things.
However, an explanation of these answers in
terms of seeing the British as allocentric and
the Chinese as psychocentric (Plog) is refuted
in other answers where the British are more
likely to return to the same destination, and
to pay extra for comfort and cleanliness, while
the Chinese are more likely to enjoy speak-
ing foreign languages, and regard the journey
as part of the fun and risk of hitch-hiking.
Both nationalities preferred to travel with
other people but tended not to agree with the
question ‘I prefer to take a package tour’.
Both said they preferred to eat local-style food
while travelling. Overall, the answers to these
questions support the view of both nationali-
ties as low-uncertainty-avoidance cultures.
Again, there were some gender variations.
Compared with their male countrymen,
Chinese females were more likely to enjoy other
languages and to travel with other people but
less likely to hitch-hike or spend a holiday in
their own country. Similarly, English females
also were more likely to enjoy languages and
less likely to hitch-hike than English males.
Nevertheless, when Chinese and British males
were compared, there were significant differ-
ences on everything except package tours and
returning to the same destinations. Females
from the two countries differed in every answer
except for preference for package tours and
preferring to travel with other people. Again,
the major differences between the nationalities
were found among both genders.
Aside from these differences in motivation
and purpose, there were also significant differ-
ences in the way in which the holidays were
arranged and paid for, and in the types of
accommodation and transport used.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
UK and China Students’ Travel Behaviour 263

prefer a package tour

4.5
4
journey is part of fun well-known destination
3.5
3
2.5
2

hitch-hike 1.5 travel with other people

1
0.5
UK Mean
0
CH Mean

holiday in own country visit same destination

enjoying foreign language try new things

extra for clean/comfortable room

Figure 3. Attitudes to travel: comparison of the mean scores for UK and Chinese (CH) students (5 = strongly
agree).

Table 5. Mann–Whitney test results for attitude to travel questions

1 UK versus 2 UK M 3 CH M 4 UK versus 5 UK versus
CH total versus F versus F CH males CH females
Characteristics Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig.
Package tour 0.177 0.552 0.848 0.211 0.433
Well-known destination 0.000* 0.095 0.161 0.000* 0.000*
Travel with other people 0.214 0.234 0.009* 0.045* 0.489
Visit same destination 0.007* 0.628 0.971 0.231 0.013*
Try new things 0.001* 0.164 0.130 0.019* 0.003*
Extra for clean/comfortable room 0.000* 0.014* 0.064 0.016* 0.000*
Enjoy foreign language 0.001* 0.005* 0.090 0.019* 0.035*
Holiday in own country 0.000* 0.254 0.001* 0.000* 0.000*
Hitch-hike 0.000* 0.000* 0.005* 0.032* 0.000*
Journey is part of fun 0.000* 0.974 0.019* 0.001* 0.000*

* Indicates a significant difference between the two groups at the level of 0.05 tested by Mann–Whitney U test.
1, comparison of total samples UK and CH; 2, comparison of UK males and females; 3, comparison of CH males and
females; 4, comparison of UK and CH males; 5, comparison of UK and CH females; Sig, significance; CH, Chinese;
M, male; F, female.

Sources of funding percentage is more than 100%). This sup-

Results showed that part-time jobs were
the most common source of funding for UK
students’ travel (named by 77.3%), followed
by family support (46.2%) and student loans
(32.9%; as this is a multiple choice, the total
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ports Mintel’s (2006) findings on the impor-
tance of student loans in the growth of UK
student travel. In contrast, in China, the major
source of money for travel was from family
(89.4%), followed by part-time jobs (36.6%) and
scholarships (16.9%).
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
264
How the travel is funded may well be an
important influence on travel behaviour. As
British students’ main source of money is what
they have earned themselves, they are therefore
able to please themselves by how they spend
it. In contrast, the Chinese students’ funding
is mainly from their families and therefore
they may need to demonstrate to them that
they have gained educational benefits from
the trip. However, it could be also argued that
this is a reflection of deeper culture differences.
In a collective culture such as China, family
members are closely linked together, sharing
responsibility for each other (Hofstede, 1980),
while in the UK and other individualist cul-
tures, young people seek independence from
parents at an earlier age.
Sources of information
For both countries, the most important sources
of information were from friends and inter-
net (mean = 4.18 and 4.24 for UK and China
respectively), while the least used were adver-
tisements (mean = 2.80 and 2.67 respectively).
This confirms Baloglu and McCleary’s (1999)
findings that tourists always start information
searching from informal sources such as from
family and friends, and Richards and Wilson’s
(2003) report on student travel which showed
the main information sources used in planning
the trip were the Internet (71%) and friends and
family (70%). It also confirms Mintel’s (2006)
finding that the Internet is students’ most used
information source.
Significant differences were that guide
books, magazines and newspapers were more
likely to be used as a source of information in
China than in the UK, while travel agents/tour
operators were less likely to be used in China
than in the UK. This could be explained by
the fact that there are few travel agents/tour
operators which offer student travel products
Table 6. How far in advance do they book? (% of students in each time-band)
Within one Two to four
week weeks
UK students 0.5 7.6
Chinese 14.1 52.5
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
F. Xu, M. Morgan and P. Song
in China. In contrast in the UK, organisations
such as the Student Travel Association offer a
wide range of products from full package tours
to flight-only offers and have travel agencies
on university campuses to simplify travel
purchasing further (Sakakida et al., 2004).
This shows that in the UK, student travel is
an established market which is well served by
specialist travel agencies and tour operators,
while in China, it is just an emerging market,
which has not yet been fully exploited by the
travel industry.
It should be noted that this question was
‘how important as a source of information
are travel agents/tour operators?’ — thus,
grouping the two types of travel intermediary
together. As another question showed a low
level of preference for package tours among
both British and Chinese students, it is likely
that British students use travel intermediaries
as a source of information for flights rather
than to book fully inclusive tours.
Planning in advance
Significant differences were also found in
how far in advance the students planned their
trips.
As Table 6 shows, the British tend to plan
several months in advance, while the Chinese
made their decision only weeks ahead of
the trip. There were no significant gender
differences here.
This difference could be partly a consequence
of their travel modes. UK students travel by
plane, which may explain their need to book
anything from one to six months in advance,
particularly to get the best fares from low-cost
carriers. Chinese students travel by train or
coach and decide only weeks in advance, as
there is no promotional incentive for early
booking in China. However, it might also
be a reflection of culture, as in western
One to three Three to More than
months six months six months
50 32.9 9
27.8 2.8 2.8
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
UK and China Students’ Travel Behaviour 265

monochronic and future-orientated cultures differences are probably best explained by

(Hall, 1983; Usunier, 2000), people plan busi-
ness and holidays in advance, while in poly-
chronic and present-orientated cultures such
as China, people change their plans all the time
and wait till the last minute to make decisions.
There is a famous saying in China ‘Changes
always go beyond plans’.
Accommodation and transport
Table 7 shows significant differences in the two
nationalities’ preferred modes of transport and
accommodation. The only common result is
that neither group rate campsites very highly.
Serviced accommodation is preferred by both,
followed by staying with friends. The most
interesting differences are that the Chinese
are more likely to choose youth hostels than
the British, who conversely, are more likely to
stay in self-catering accommodations. These
availability, price and disposable income.
Table 7 also suggests that there are statisti-
cally significant differences in the preference
for each mode of transport. In terms of ranking
of mean value (Table 7), in the UK group,
plane is the most used mode, followed by car
and train. In the Chinese group, train is the
most used mode, followed by coach/bus and
car. The explanation might be partly because
Britain is an island, and also because travel by
low-cost airlines is sometimes cheaper than by
train and car, whereas in China, travel by train
is much cheaper than by plane and car. There
were no significant differences between male
and female groups in these answers.
CONCLUSIONS
To summarise, the survey did find some
similarities between the travel attitudes and

Table 7. Mean and standard deviation and Mann–Whitney test for preferred accommodation, transporta-
tion and food questions
Mann–Whitney test
UK Chinese UK Chinese
mean mean mean mean
Items (ranking) SD (ranking) SD rank rank U test Z score Sig.
Accommodation
Hotel/B&B 4.39 (1) 0.900 3.85 (1) 1.100 295.77 222.70 22776.000 −5.969 0.000*
Youth hostel 2.56 (4) 1.273 3.36 (3) 1.176 204.85 293.66 20686.500 −6.942 0.000*
Camp site 2.49 (5) 1.194 2.43 (5) 1.274 259.97 250.19 30583.000 −0.769 0.442
With friends 4.07 (2) 0.954 3.64 (2) 1.164 284.39 230.92 25112.000 −4.258 0.000*
Self-catering 3.79 (3) 1.096 2.69 (4) 1.352 319.03 203.60 17352.500 −9.012 0.000*
Transportation
Plane 4.25 (1) 1.019 2.79 (5) 1.304 340.38 187.36 12740.000 −12.001 0.000*
Train 3.05 (3) 1.143 4.19 (1) 0.942 177.00 315.62 14449.000 −10.955 0.000*
Car 3.92 (2) 1.070 3.36 (3) 1.282 290.05 226.46 23845.000 −5.008 0.000*
Boat/ship 2.53 (4) 1.108 2.84 (4) 1.189 232.32 270.06 26821.500 −2.972 0.003*
Bike 1.79 (6) 1.998 2.13 (6) 1.272 233.91 267.86 27162.500 −2.769 0.006*
Bus/coach 2.50 (5) 1.184 3.44 (2) 1.261 194.89 297.13 18565.000 −8.000 0.000*
Food
Fast food 2.25 (4) 1.064 3.39 (2) 1.179 177.30 305.03 149000.500 −10.067 0.000*
Local style 4.51 (1) 0.642 4.40 (1) 0.794 260.81 250.40 30643.500 −0.900 0.368
Brand restaurant 3.22 (2) 1.001 2.73 (4) 1.207 285.31 224.03 23153.500 −4.883 0.000*
Self-prepared 3.16 (3) 1.132 3.04 (3) 1.232 261.26 246.57 29556.000 −1.158 0.247

* Indicates a significant difference between the two groups at the level of 0.05 tested by Mann–Whitney U test.
SD, standard deviation; Sig, significance.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
266
behaviour of students in Britain and China.
Both groups enjoy beach holidays, and place
importance on having fun and relaxing after
their studies. Both are motivated to discover
somewhere new and both prefer to eat the
local food of the destination. Both prefer to
travel with others but are not very likely to
take a package tour. In both cases, the main
sources of information used in planning the
trip are the Internet, and friends and family.
The results are consistent with Richards and
Wilson’s (2003) international student study.
In other ways, however, the two groups
showed very significant differences. The
Chinese students thought it more important
to see the famous sights and learn about other
cultures and history, while the British were
more concerned about having fun, socialising
and enjoying the challenges of outdoor adven-
ture. It is important to stress that these are
only differences in the way the two nation-
alities rated the importance and preferences
given to these activities, and not to use them to
construct polarised stereotypes. The Chinese
do also have fun and the British do also like
to learn about culture.
Nevertheless, the results do appear to invite
a cultural interpretation. As discussed earlier,
the Chinese’s desire to see the famous sights
could be explained in terms of Hofstede’s
collectivism and high power-distance dimen-
sions in their culture, or as a sign of Confucian
respect for the wisdom of the older generation.
This respect may also be because of the fact
that their families are paying for their travels,
but that too is a manifestation of culture.
An alternative explanation is that this desire
to tick off the ‘must-see’ places is more because
the Chinese students have less experience of
travel than the British, or as Pearce would put
it, are at an earlier stage of their travel career.
This is supported by the differences in travel
behaviour. The Chinese are still mainly domes-
tic travellers using trains and buses and staying
in cheap hostel accommodations, whereas the
British regularly fly and prefer to stay in hotels
or self-catering accommodations.
Returning to the initial hypothesis, the
results confirm that the two groups of students
have different motivations and patterns of
behaviour, and these motivations and patterns
vary because of cultural factors and market
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
F. Xu, M. Morgan and P. Song
conditions. In other words, the null hypothesis
(H0) is rejected and the alterative hypothesis
(H1) is accepted.
The extent, to which these differences in
motivation and behaviour will change as
the Chinese economy continues to grow and
foreign travel becomes more common, will
have a powerful impact on the world travel
markets of the future. Will the next generation of
Chinese students become more like their afflu-
ent and experienced British counterparts? Or
will the cultural and family influences remain
strong? The extent to which global market
forces lead to cultural convergence is still a
matter of strong debate (Levitt, 1983; Usunier,
2000). According to De Mooij (2000) ‘The more
discretionary income people have, the more
they start to express themselves according to
their own culturally rooted values’.
For those involved in managing and mar-
keting student travel products, the results of
this research confirm the view of Richards and
Wilson (2003) that the global student market
should not be viewed as a homogenous group.
Each nationality requires its own adapted
marketing mix strategies and communica-
tions channels. Guide books, magazines and
newspapers should be given more emphasis in
China, although travel agencies have a greater
role in marketing to the UK students. When
promoting tourism products to British stu-
dents, beach resorts, outdoor sports, shopping
and entertainment should be the emphasis,
while to the Chinese students, the focus should
be given to natural surroundings and cultural
education benefits. The results also suggest
different timescales for marketing campaigns
in the two countries. In the UK, the best time
for marketing is one to three months before
the peak travel season; while in China, the best
time for marketing is two to four weeks before
the busy travel period begins.
However, as this research only studied two
countries, UK and China, further research
could compare other nationalities of students,
which would not only identify the culturally
specific elements but also help to build an
understanding of those common to all nation-
alities. As travel behaviour is influenced by a
wide range of factors, such as motivation, life-
style and psychological characteristics, further
research could investigate the strength of these
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
UK and China Students’ Travel Behaviour
influences compared with cultural factors
in determining student travel behaviour. To
explore the extent of cultural and situational
factors, it would also be interesting to compare
the motivations and attitudes of the native
British and Chinese groups with those of the
Chinese who were brought up in the UK and
exposed to both UK and Chinese cultural
influences.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks to the anonymous referees for
their precious advices. Thanks also go to Dr.
John Beavis and Dr. Lorraine Brown from
Bournemouth University for their numerous
advice for the earlier draft. Thanks to Ms. Wei
Wang for her help in processing the Chinese
data.
REFERENCES
Bai B, Hu C, Elsworth J, Countryman C. 2004. Online
travel planning and college students: the spring
break experience. Journal of travel & Tourism Mar-
keting (Special issue: E-consumer behaviour in hospi-
tality and tourism: advancing the research) 17(2/3):
79–91.
Balnaves M, Caputi P. 2001. Introduction to
Quantitative Research Methods: An Investigative
Approach. SAGE: London.
Baloglu S, McCleary KW. 1999. US international
pleasure traveler’s image of four Mediterra-
nean destinations: a comparison of visitors and
nonvisitors. Journal of Travel Research 38(2): 144–
152.
Beard J, Ragheb MG. 1983. Measuring leisure moti-
vation. Journal of Leisure Research 15(3): 219–228.
Bryman A, Cramer D. 2001. Qualitative Data
Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows. Taylor
& Francis: East Sussex.
CNTO. (2006) Major Statistics of Domestic Tourism
2005. China National Tourist Office US. Avail-
able at http://www.cnto.org/chinastats.asp#5
(accessed 12 November 2007).
Chadee DD, Cutler J. 1996. Insights into interna-
tional travel by students. Journal of Travel Research
35(2): 75–80.
Crompton J. 1979. Motivation for pleasure vaca-
tions. Journal of Tourism Research 6(4): 408–429.
Crotts J. 1999. Consumer decision making and
prepurchase information search. In Consumer
Behaviour in Travel and Tourism, Mansfield Y,
Pizam A (eds). Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY;
149–168.
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
267
Dann G. 1982. Tourism motivation: an appraisal.
Annals of Tourism Research 8(2): 187–219.
De Mooij M. 2000. The future is predictable for
international marketers. International Marketing
Review 17(2): 103–113.
Engel JF, Blackwell RD, Kollat DT. 1978. Consumer
Behaviour. Dryden Press: Hinsdale, IL.
Field A. 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS.
SAGE: London.
Field AM. 1999. The college student market
segment: a comparative study of travel behav-
iors of international and domestic students at a
southeastern university. Journal of Travel Research
37(4): 375–381.
Hall ET. 1983. The Dance of Life. Anchor Press/
Doubleday: New York.
Herbig PA. 1998. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Market-
ing. The Halworth Press, Inc.: New York.
Hobson JSP, Josiam B. 1992. Spring break student
travel — an exploratory study. Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing 1(3): 87–97.
Hofstede G. 2001. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions.
Itim International. Available at http://www.
geert-hofstede.com (accessed 11 December
2007).
Hofstede G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: Inter-
national Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage:
London.
Hofstede G, McCrae R. 2004. Personality and culture
revisited: linking traits and dimensions of culture.
Cross-Cultural Research 38(1): 52–88.
Howard DJL, Sheth JN. 1969. The Theory of Buyer
Behaviour. John Wiley: New York.
Iso-Ahola S. 1982. Towards a social psychology of
tourist motivation: a rejoinder. Annals of Tourism
Research 9: 256–261.
Josiam BM, Hobson JSP, Dietrich UC, Smeaton
G. 1998. An analysis of the sexual, alcohol and
drug related behavioral patterns of students on
spring break. Tourism Management 19(6): 501–
514.
Leavitt HJ, Bahrami H. 1988. Managerial Psy-
chology — Managing Behaviour in Organizations.
5th Ed. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
Levitt T. 1983. The globalization of markets. Harvard
Business Review 61(3): 92–102.
Mattila AS, Apostolopoulos Y, Sonmez S, Yu L,
Sasidharan V. 2001. The impact of gender and
religion on college students’ spring break behav-
iour. Journal of Travel Research 40(2): 193–200.
Mintel. 2006. Youth Travel Market — International.
Mintel International Group, London. Available at
http://academicmintel.com/sinatra/academic/
search_results/show&&type-RCItem&page-0
&noaccess_page-0/display/id-187850 (accessed 10
November 2007).
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
268
Mintel. 2008. Travel and Tourism — China. Mintel
International Group: London, UK. Available at
http://academic.mintel.com/sinatra/oxygen_
academic/search_results/show&/display/
id=294907 (accessed 02 September 2008).
Morgan M. 1996. Marketing for Leisure and Tourism.
Prentice Hall: Hemel Hempstead.
Mouthino L. 1987. Consumer behaviour in tourism.
European Journal of Marketing 21(10): 5–7.
Office of National Statistics. 2005. Travel Trends.
Office of National Statistics: London.
Oslund J, Bird A. 2000. Beyond Sophisticated
Stereotyping: A Contextual Model of Cultural Sense
making. Academy of Management Executive 14.1.
San Diego, CA: 64–79.
Pallant J. 2001. SPSS Survival Manual. Open
University Press: Buckingham.
Pearce P. 1991. Travel stories: an analysis of self-
disclosure. Australian Pscychologist 26(3): 172–
175.
Pearce P, Caltabiano M. 1983. Inferring travel
motivation from travellers’ experiences. Journal
of Travel Research 22(2): 16–20.
Pearce P, Lee U. 2005. Developing the travel career
approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel
Research 43(3): 226–237.
People’s Daily. 2005. Stronger RMB to benefit out-
bound Chinese travellers. People’s Daily online, 29
July 2005. Available at http://english.peopledaily.
com.cn/200507/29/eng20050729_199059.html
(accessed 02 September 2008).
People’s Daily. 2007. Outbound travellers from
Chinese mainland increase 11 pct in 2006. Peo-
ple’s Daily online, 15 January 2007. Available at
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200701/15/
eng20070115_341349.html (accessed 02 Septem-
ber 2008).
Pizam A, Jeong GH, Reichel A, Boemmel HV,
Lusson JM, Steynberg L, State-Costache O, Volo S,
Kroesbacher C, Kucerrova J, Montmany N. 2004.
The relationship between risk-taking, sensation-
seeking, and the tourist behavior of young adults:
a cross-cultural study. Journal of Travel Research
42(3): 251–260.
Pizam A. 2005. The relationship between cultural
characteristics and reference for active vs. passive
tourist activities. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing 12(4): 2–25.
Pizam A, Sussman S. 1995. Does nationality affect
tourist behavior? Annals of Tourism Research 22(2):
901–917.
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
F. Xu, M. Morgan and P. Song
Plog S. 1974. Why destination areas rise and fall in
popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adminis-
tration Quarterly 14(4): 55–58.
Plog S. 2001. Why destination areas rise and fall
in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 42(3): 13–24.
Reisinger Y, Turner LW 2003. Cross-Cultural
Behaviour in Tourism: Concepts and Analysis.
Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford.
Richards G, Wilson J. 2003. New Horizons in Inde-
pendent Youth and Student Travel. A report for
the International Student Travel Confederation
(ISTC) and the Association of Tourism and Leisure
Education (ATLAS). International Student Travel
Confederation: Amsterdam.
Ryan C, Gledon I. 1998. Application of leisure moti-
vation scale to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
25(1): 169–184.
Sakakida Y, Cole ST, Card JA. 2004. A cross-cultural
study of college students’ travel preferences: a
value-oriented perspective. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing 16(1): 35–41.
Schein EH 1992. Organisational Culture and
Leadership. Jossey-Bass Inc: San Francisco.
Schneider SC, Barsourx J. 1997. Managing Across
Cultures. Prentice Hall: New York.
Shoham A, Schrage C, Eeden S. 2004. Student travel
behaviour: a cross-national survey. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing 17(4): 1–10.
Smith SLJ. 1990. A test of Plog’s allocentric/
psychocentric model: evidence from seven
nations. Journal of Travel Research 28(4): 40–43.
Sung S, Hsu CHC. 1996. International students’
travel characteristics: an exploratory study. Journal
of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5(3): 277–283.
UNWTO. 2000. Tourism 2020 Version East Asia and
Pacific. World Tourism Organization: Madrid.
Usunier J-C. 2000. Marketing across cultures. Prentice
Hall Europe: Harlow UK; 177–193.
Vijver FVD. 1997. Meta-analysis of cross-cultural
comparisons of cognitive test performance.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28: 678–
709.
Werner O, Campbell DT. 1973. Translating, working
through interpreters, the problem of decentering.
In A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology,
Naroll R, Cohen R (eds). Columbia University
Press: New York; 398–410.
Zhang H, Heung V. 2002. Guest editorial: special
issues on China. Journal of Vacation Marketing.
8(1): 5–6.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 11, 255–268 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr