Aim: The presented research aims to study the relationship between judgements of risks to oneself as a tourist as compared to risks to ‘typical tourists’, ‘average tourists’ and ‘typical tourist from your home country’.
Methods: Altogether, 1,892 tourists visiting Norway (summer 2010) filled in a questionnaire on aspects of being a tourist. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Group 1 was asked about risk to themselves; Group 2 was asked to indicate their thoughts about ‘risk to typical tourists’; Group 3 indicated risks for ‘average tourists’; and Group 4 was asked about risks for typical tourists from their home country.
Results: Results show that all risks were judged to be low, but significantly higher risks were attributed to the typical and average tourist than to ‘self’.
Conclusions: The results are interpreted in terms of social cognitive processes such as the ‘optimistic bias’.
CohenE. Tourism crises: A comparative perspective. International Journal of Tourism Policy2010; 3: 281–96
2.
BöckerAHanfCH. Confidence lost and – partially – regained: Consumer response to food scares. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization2000; 43: 471–85
3.
HudsonPKWalleyH. Food safety issues and children’s lunchboxes. Perspectives in Public Health2009; 129: 77–84
4.
FeldmanCNothsteinGSomaiyaCK. An exploratory investigation of the risk of pathogenic contamination at selected New Jersey skilled nursing and assisted living residences. Perspectives in Public Health2011; 131: 85–8
5.
GriffithCJHewediMM. The role of risk analysis within crisis management in the tourism and hospitality industries: An overview. In EdwardsJSAHewediMM (eds) Culinary Arts and Sciences III. Bournemouth, UK: Worshipful Company of Cooks, 2001
6.
HowardM. Food poisoning and perceptions of risk in the UK. In EdwardsJSAGustafssonI-B (eds) Culinary Arts and Sciences IV. Bournemouth, UK: Worshipful Company of Cooks, 2003
7.
HowardM. The distribution of responsibility for safety management in catering kitchens in the UK. In EdwardsJSAHewediMM (eds) Culinary Arts and Sciences III. Bournemouth: Worshipful Company of Cooks, 2001
8.
BeckU. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage, 1992
9.
BeckUBeck-GernsheimE. Individualization and ‘precarious freedoms’: Perspectives and controversies of a subject-oriented sociology. In ElliottA (ed) Contemporary Social Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999
10.
BonannoGABrewinCRKaniastyK.La GrecaAM. Weighing the costs of disaster: Consequences, risks, and resilience in individuals, families, and communities. Psychological Science in the Public Interest2010; 11; 1–49
11.
LeppAGibsonH. Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research2003; 30: 606–24
12.
CallanderMPageSJ. Managing risk in adventure tourism operations in New Zealand: A review of the legal case history and potential for litigation. Tourism Management2003; 24: 13–23
13.
CavlekN. Tour operators and destination safety. Annals of Tourism Research2003; 29: 478–96
14.
CarterS. Tourists’ and travellers’ social construction of Africa and Asia as risky locations. Tourism Management1998; 19: 349–58
15.
ElsrudT. Risk creation in travelling: Backpacker adventure narration. Annals of Tourism Research2001; 28: 597–617
16.
LarsenSBrunWØgaardT. What tourists worry about: Construction of a scale measuring tourist worries. Tourism Management2009; 30: 260–5
17.
UrielyN. Drugs and risk-taking in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research2006; 33: 339–59
18.
LarsenSBrunWØgaardTSelstadL. Subjective food risk, tourist roles and cross-national differences. In HansenKVLarsenSEdwardsJSA (eds) Culinary Arts and Sciences VI. London: Worshipful Company of Cooks, 2008
19.
WeinsteinND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1980; 39: 806–20
20.
KrugerJDunningD. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1999; 77: 1121–34
21.
AlickeMDKlotzMLBreitenbecherDLYurakTJVredenburgDS. Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1995; 68: 804–25
22.
ProninELinDYRossL. The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin2002; 28: 369–81
23.
KlarYGiladiEE. No one in my group can be below the group’s average: A robust positivity bias in favor of anonymous peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1997; 73: 885–901
24.
KlarYMeddingASarelD. Nonunique invulnerability: Singular versus distributional probabilities and unrealistic optimism in comparative risk judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes1996; 67: 229–45
25.
TverskyAKahnemanD. Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. In GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000
26.
LarsenSBrunWØgaardTSelstadL. Subjective food-risk judgments in tourists. Tourism Management2007; 28: 1555–9
27.
TverskyAKahnemanD. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology1973; 5: 207–32
