psychocentric or allocentric tourist

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity: Made easy

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity is one of the best-known theoretical models in the travel and tourism industry. Since Plog’s seminal work on the rise and fall of tourism destinations, back in 1974, a vast amount of subsequent research has been based on or derived from this concept- so it is pretty important! But what  is  Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity?

In this article I will explain, in  simple  language, what this fundamental tourism model is and how it works. I will also show you why it is so important to understand Plog’s work, whether you are a student or whether you are working in the tourism industry.

Are you ready to learn more? Read on…

What is Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity?

How did plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity come about, why destination areas rise and fall in popularity, allocentric tourists, psychocentric tourists, mid-centric tourists, positive aspects of plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, negative aspects of plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, key takeaways about plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity: faqs, to conclude: plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity.

Stanley Plog’s  model of allocentricity and psychocentricity has been widely taught and cited for almost 50 years- wow! And I would hazard a guess that you are studying this too? Why else would you be reading this blog post? Well, worry not- I am confident in the knowledge that by the time you get to the end of this article you will be a Plog expert!

Right, so lets get to the point…. what is Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity?

Plog’s model is largely regarded as a cornerstone of tourism theory. It’s pretty important. This model has provided the foundations for many other studies throughout the past four decades and has helped  tourism industry stakeholders  to better comprehend and manage their tourism provision.

Plog’s work was the precursor to  Butler’s Tourism Area Lifecycle . Plog wanted to examine the way in which tourism destinations develop. How do they grow? How and why do they decline? How can we make (relatively) accurate predictions to help us to better manage the tourism provision at hand?

Plog’s research found that there were (are) distinct correlations between the appeal of a destination to different types of tourists and the rise and fall in popularity of a destination.

Plog essentially delineated these types of tourists according to their personalities. He then plotted these along a continuum in a bell-shaped, normally distributed curve. This curve identified the rise and fall of destinations.

‘You said this would be a  simple explanation ! I still don’t understand?!’

OK, OK- I have my academic jargon fix over with. Lets make this easy…

To put it simply, Plog’s theory demonstrates that the popularity of a destination will rise and fall over time depending on which types of tourists find the destination appealing.

‘OK, I get it. Can I read something else now?’.

Well, actually- no.

If you are going to  really  understand how Plog’s model works and how you can put it into practice, you need a little bit more detail.

But don’t worry, I’ll keep it light… keep reading…

So lets start with a little bit of history. Why did Plog do this research in the first place?

Plog’s research began back in 1967, when he worked for market-research company, Behavior Science Corporations (also known as BASICO). Plog was working on a consulting project, whereby he was sponsored by sixteen domestic and foreign airlines, airframe manufacturers, and various magazines. The intention was to examine and understand the psychology of certain segments of travellers.

During this time, the commercial  aviation industry was only just developing . Airlines wanted to better understand their potential customers. They wanted to turn non-flyers into flyers, and they wanted Plog to help. This saw the birth of Plog’s research into tourism motivation, that later spanned into decades of research into the subject.

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity demonstrated that destinations rise and fall in popularity in accordance with the types of tourists who find the destination appealing.

Essentially, Plog suggested that as a destination grows and develops (and also declines), it attracts different types of people.

Example: Tortuguero versus Kusadasi

Lets take, for example, Tortuguero. Toruguero is a destination in  Costa Rica  that is pretty difficult to reach. I travelled here with my husband and baby to see the turtles lay their eggs, it was pretty incredible. If the area was more developed, the turtles probably wouldn’t choose this area as their breeding ground anymore.

To reach Tortuguero, we had many hours in the car on  unmade roads . We then had to take  a boat , which only left a couple of times a day. This was a small local boat with a small motor. There were only a handful of hotels to choose from.

The only people who were here  wanted  to be here. The journey would put most tourists off.

In contrast, I was shocked at the  overtourism  that I experienced when I visited Kusadasi, in Turkey. The beaches here were some of the busiest I have ever seen. The restaurants were brimming with people.

Here you could find all of the home comforts you wanted. There was a 5D cinema, every fast food chain I have ever known, fun fair rides, water parks, water sports and much more. The area was highly developed for tourism.

Plog pointed out that as a destination reaches a point in which it is widely popular with a well-established image, the types of tourist will be different from those who will have visited before the destination became widely developed. In other words, the mass tourism market attracts very different people from the niche and non-mass tourism fields.

Plog also pointed out that as the area eventually loses positioning in the tourism market, the total tourist arrivals decrease gradually over the years, and the types of tourists who are attraction to the destination will once again change.

Plog’s tourist typology

OK, so you get the gist of it, right? Now lets get down to the nitty gritty details…

Plog developed a typology. A typology is basically a way to group people, or classify them, based on certain characteristics. In this case, Plog classifies tourists based on their motivations.

Note: Plog has suggested the updated terms ‘dependables’ and ‘venturers’ to replace pscychocentric and allocentric, but these have not been generally adopted in the literature

Plog examined traveller motivations and came up with his classifications of tourists. He came up with two classifications (allocentric and psychocentric), which were then put at the extremes of a scale.

As you can see in the diagram above, psychocentric tourists are placed on the far left of the scale and allocentric tourists are placed at the far right. The idea is then that a tourist can be situated at any place along the scale.

‘OK, so I understand the scale. But what do these terms  actually  mean?’

Don’t worry, I am getting there! Below, I have outlined what is meant by the terms allocentric and psychocentric.

In Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, the allocentric tourist is most likely associated with destinations that are un(der)developed. These tourists might be the first tourists to visit an area. They may be the first intrepid explorers, the ones brave enough to travel to the ‘unknown’. The types of people who might travel to Torguero- the example I gave previously.

Allocentric tourists like adventure. They are not afraid of the unknown. They like to explore.

No familiar food? ‘Lets give it a try!’

Nobody speaks English? ‘I’ll get my with hand gestures and my translation app.’

No Western toilets? ‘My thighs are as strong as steel!’

Allocentric tourists are often found travelling alone. They are not phased that the destination they are visiting doesn’t have a chapter in their guidebook. In fact, they are excited by the prospect of travelling to a place that most people have never heard of!

Allocentric tourists enjoy  cultural tourism , they are ethical travellers and they love to learn.

Research has suggested that only 4% of the population is predicted to be purely allocentric. Whilst many people do have allocentric tendencies, they are more likely to sit further along Plog’s scale and be classified as near or centric allocentics.

OK, so lets summarise some of the common characteristics associated with allocentric travellers in a neat bullet point list (I told you I would make this easy!)

Allocentric tourists commonly:

• Independent travellers
• Excited by adventure
• Eager to learn
• Likes to experience the unfamiliar
• Is put off by group tours, packages and mass tourism
• Enjoys  cultural tourism
• Are ethical tourists
• Enjoy a challenge
• Are advocates of  sustainable tourism
• Enjoys embracing  slow tourism

Psychocentric tourists are located at the opposite end of the spectrum to allocentric tourists.

In Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, psychocentric tourists are most commonly associated with areas that are well-developed or  over-developed for tourism . Many people will have visited the area before them- it has been tried and tested. These tourists feel secure knowing that their holiday choice will provide them with the comforts and familiarities that they know and love.

What is there to do on holiday? ‘I’ll find out from the rep at the welcome meeting’

Want the best spot by the pool? ‘I’ll get up early and put my towel on the sun lounger!’

Thirsty? ‘Get me to the all-inclusive bar!’

Psychocentric tourists travel in organised groups. Their holidays are typically organised for them by their  travel agent . These travellers seek the familiar. They are happy in the knowledge that their holiday resort will provide them with their home comforts.

The standard activity level of psychocentric tourists is low. These tourists enjoy holiday resorts and  all inclusive packages . They are components of  enclave tourism , meaning that they are likely to stay put in their hotel for the majority of the duration of their holiday. These are often repeat tourists, who choose to visit the same destination year-on-year.

So, here is my summary of the main characteristics associated with psychocentric tourists.

Psychocentric tourists commonly:

• Enjoy familiarity
• Like to have their home comforts whilst on holiday
• Give preference to known brands
• Travel in organised groups
• Enjoys organised tours, package holidays and all-inclusive tourism
• Like to stay within their holiday resort
• Do not experience much of the local culture
• Do not learn much about the area that they are visiting or people that live there
• Pay one flat fee to cover the majority of holiday costs
• Are regular visitors to the same area/resort

The reality is, not many tourists neatly fit into either the allocentric or psychocentric categories. And this is why Plog developed a scale, whereby tourists can be placed anywhere along the spectrum.

As you can see in the diagram above, the largest category of tourists fall somewhere within the mid-centric category on the spectrum. Tourists can learn towards allocentric, or pyschocentric, but ultimately, they sit somewhere in the middle.

Mid-centric tourists like some adventure, but also some of their home comforts. Perhaps they book their holiday themselves through dynamic packaging, but then spend the majority of their time in their holiday resort. Or maybe they book an organised package, but then choose to break away from the crowd and explore the local area.

Most tourists can be classified as mid-centric.

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity has been widely cited throughout the academic literature for many years. It is a cornerstone theory in travel and tourism research that has formed the basis for further research and analysis in a range of contexts.

Plog’s theory preceded that of Butler, which is subsequently intertwined with Plog’s model, as demonstrated in the image below. As you can see, Butler was able to develop his  Tourism Area Lifecycle  based in the premise of the rise and fall of destinations as prescribed by Plog.

Plog’s theory has encouraged critical thinking throughout the tourism community for several decades and it is difficult to find a textbook that doesn’t pay reference to his work.

Whilst Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity is widely cited, it is not without its critique. In fact, many academics have questioned it’s ‘real-world’ validity over the years. Some common criticisms include:

• The research is based on the US population , which may not be applicable for other nations
• The concepts of personality, appeal and motivation are subjective terms that may be viewed different by different people. This is exemplified when put onto the global stage, with differing cultural contexts.
• Not all destinations will move through the curved continuum prescribed by Plog, in other words- not all destinations will strictly follow this path
• It is difficult to categorise people into groups- behaviours and preferences change overtime and between different times of the year and days of the week. People may also change depending on who they are with.

So, what are the key takeaways about Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity? Lets take a look…

• Psychocentrics are the majority of travelers who prefer familiar destinations, mainstream attractions, and predictable experiences. They tend to seek comfort, security, and convenience in their travels and are less likely to take risks or seek out new experiences.
• Allocentrics, on the other hand, are a minority of travelers who seek out unique and exotic destinations, adventure, and novelty. They are more willing to take risks and venture into unfamiliar territories in pursuit of new experiences.
• Plog’s model suggests that people’s travel preferences are determined by their personality traits, values, and life experiences.
• The model also proposes that travelers may move along a continuum from psychocentric to allocentric as they gain more experience and exposure to travel.
• Plog’s model has been criticized for oversimplifying travel motivations and not accounting for the diversity of motivations and preferences within each category.
• Despite its limitations, Plog’s model remains a useful tool for understanding tourist behavior and designing marketing strategies that target specific types of travelers.

Finally, lets finish up this article about Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity by addressing some of the most commonly asked questions.

Do you understand Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity now? I certainly hope so!

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity is important theory in tourism is a core part of most tourism management curriculums and has helped tourism professionals understand, assess and manage their tourism provision for decades, and will continue to do so for decades to come, I’m sure.

If you found this article about Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity then please do take a look around the website, because I am sure there will be plenty of other useful content!

Plog’s Tourist Motivation Model

Plog’s tourist motivation model (1974) is a popular framework widely referred to in tourism studies . According to the model tourists can be divided into two broad categories: allocentrics and psychocentrics. Allocentrics usually choose exotic destinations and unstructured tours and vacations they prefer to get involved with local culture to a great extent. Psychocentrics, on the other hand, choose familiar destinations and they usually engage in tourism via packaged tours in a conventional manner (Plog, 1974).

The terms of allocentrics and polycentric were later replaced by Plog (1974) to the terms of venturer and dependable respectively, in order to make them more ‘reader-friendly’ (Hudson, 2008).

Plog’s (1974) Psychographic Personality Types

Source: Hudson (2008), adapted from Plog (1974) and Plog (2002)

As it is evident from figure above, according to Plog’s tourist motivation model the majority of tourists can be classified as mid-centric, i.e. they do not belong to neither psychocentric or allocentric categories. Plog’s (1974) Psychographic Personality Types has been criticised for being difficult to be applied because individuals may travel motivated by different factors in different occasions (Hudson, 2008). In other words, an individual may choose an exotic destination for tourism and get closely involved with local culture, yet it may not be appropriate to brand the individual as allocentric because the same person may purchase a conventional tourism package the following year.

Hudson, S. (2008) “Tourism and Hospitality Marketing: A Global Perspective” SAGE Publications

Plog, S.C. (1974) “Why Destination areas rise and fall in popularity” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly , Vol.14, Issue:4

Plog, S.C. (2002) “The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness” Journal of Travel Research , Vol.40

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Plog’s and Butler’s Models: a critical review of Psychographic Tourist Typology and the Tourist Area Life Cycle

2018, Turizam

This paper attempts to examine the two popular cited theories in tourism studies, Psycho-graphic Tourist Typology by Stanley Plog and the Tourism Area Life Cycles (TALC) by Richard Butler, which have been widely accepted and applied by scholars worldwide and have retained their relevance more than three decades as the pioneer concepts in Tourism. By capturing and reviewing scholarly articles, this paper identifies some key absent issues that should be concerned when use theories in future tourism research.

Related Papers

Sport i Turystyka. Środkowoeuropejskie Czasopismo Naukowe

Karolina Korbiel

In theoretical studies on the typology of tourists, various criteria for their identification can be found. A drawback of this approach is the lack of one common concept of tourist division, which would allow for comparing research results at various academic and marketing centers. There is a definition problem of tourism and the tourist themselves, the concepts often differing from each other, thus, there is no common ground on which the theories of the separation and division of tourists can be built. In the presented publication, a review of selected, varying tourist types have been conducted. Typologies of tourists are based on various criteria, ranging from sociological and psychological to demographic, geographic, economic, marketing and others often having an interdisciplinary basis. First of all, attempts were made to show the diversity of typological concepts presented in the world. They are used in scientific research but only refer to a small group of respondents and it i...

Elvina Daujotaite

girish prayag

Holly Donohoe

Claudia Poletto

Alan A Lew , C. Michael Hall

As comprehensive and far-reaching as this volume has been, in many ways it only scratches the surface of the geographic approach to understanding tourism. It is not a comprehensive state-of-the-art review of tourism geography, let alone tourism studies. It was also not an attempt to delineate the complex evolution of tourism studies, nor to define an agenda for research. Finally, it was not an attempt to provide a rationale for the way tourism is, or should be, structured for academic study.

Antonio Miguel Nogués-Pedregal

Several authors have noted that tourism has always been quite an undisciplined endeavour, and as such, a transdisciplinary topic of scientific research (Xiao, Jafari, Cloke, & Tribe, 2013). In one way or another, this perspective upon tourism has led to comprehensive discussions on epistemological issues. Rather than engage in endogamic self-reflection on the nature and structure of tourism studies and consequently the type of knowledge produced by these academic networks, we should prioritize ontology (Tribe, 2010).

Annals of Tourism Research

Stephen Lea

Jess Ponting

Ute Jamrozy

RELATED PAPERS

Vindicatoria de Albors i Rèpliques Anarquistes

Diego L Fernández

Sergey Abashin

Julita Makaro

Dominic Wilkinson

Proceedings of the Oceanology International'99 Pacific Rim

Filipina Sotto

Procesos industriales en la curtiembre, Parte I

Luis Alfonso Lescano San Martin

The Proceedings of Conference of Kansai Branch

Tsutomu Umeda

Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Revista Brasileira de Educação e Saúde

Liliane do Nascimento

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Stephanie Smiley

Current Medicinal Chemistry

Jacques Van Snick

Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research

Essam Al shamahi

Aquaculture International

Wilson Wasielesky

Educación XX1

Gloria Curbelo Serrano

Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice

Imran Morhason-bello

Geodetski vestnik

Nevena Novaković

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Tourism Management Tutorial
• Tourism Management - Home
• Tourism Basics
• Tourism Management - Introduction
• Tourism Management - Types
• Tourism Management - Terminology
• Tourism Management - Factors
• Tourism Management - Demand
• Tourism Mngmt - Motivation Factors
• Maslow's Pyramid of Motivation
• Consumer Behavior in Tourism
• Tourism Management - Plog's Model
• About Tourism Destinations
• Destination Awareness
• Tourism Management - Milieus
• Tourism Management Destination
• Tools for Destination Management
• Managing Tourism
• Tourism Management - Supply
• Tourism Functional Management
• Business Departments
• Market Segmentation
• Tourism Mngmt - Marketing Mix
• Tourism Mngmt - Products & Services
• Developing Product
• Product Development Phases
• Tourism Impacts, Trends, & Future
• Tourism Management - Impacts
• Tourism Mngmt - Trends & Future
• Tourism Management Resources
• Tourism Management - Quick Guide
• Tourism Management - Resources
• Tourism Management - Discussion
• Selected Reading
• UPSC IAS Exams Notes
• Developer's Best Practices
• Questions and Answers
• Effective Resume Writing
• HR Interview Questions
• Computer Glossary

Plog’s Model of Tourists Behavior

Plog classifies tourists into three categories as described below −

Allocentric (The Wanderers) − A tourist who seeks new experiences and adventure in a wide range of activities. This person is outgoing and self-confident in behavior. An allocentric person prefers to fly and to explore new and unusual areas before others do so. Allocentrics enjoy meeting people from foreign or different cultures. They prefer good hotels and food, but not necessarily modern or chain-type hotels. For a tour package, an allocentric would like to have the basics such as transportation and hotels, but not be committed to a structured itinerary. They would rather have the freedom to explore an area, make their own arrangements and choose a variety of activities and tourist attractions.

Psychocentric (The Repeater) − A tourist falling in this category is usually non-adventuresome. They prefer to return to familiar travel destinations where they can relax and know what types of food and activity to expect. Such tourists prefer to drive to destinations, stay in typical accommodations, and eat at family-type restaurants.

Midcentric (Combination) − This category of tourists covers the ones who swing between the above said two types.

Henley Centre Model of Holidaymaking

A British Consultancy of Futurology, Henley Center has divided the tourists into four phases −

Phase I- Bubble Travelers − They do not have much money as well as knowledge. They prefer packaged tours. They long to observe different cultures without being a part of it. They travel mostly out of curiosity.

Phase II- Idealized Experience Seekers − They are confident tourists with the experience of foreign tours. They are flexible and comfortable. They prefer tour offers made for individuals.

Phase III- Seasoned Travelers − These tourists are more affluent than the idealized-experience seekers. They are more confident to experiment and experience different places and environments. They are more adventurous and prefer individualistic tours.

Phase IV- Complete Immersers − These tourists have an intention of immersing completely into the foreign culture, heritage, culinary experience, and language. Their holidaying is well-planned but not well-structured.

In the above phases, the tourist goes through different phases and therefore also seeks different tourism options or destinations.

Understanding Psychographics in Tourism: A Tool for Segmenting Tourists

• First Online: 01 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Sumedha Agarwal 3 &
• Priya Singh 3  

632 Accesses

3 Citations

Psychographic segmentation is related to people’s interests, personality, lifestyle, values and attitude. It is considered vital as it provides a narrower and targeted approach to study the consumers. The takeaways from the chapters are: the concept of psychographics and its applicability in the tourism industry, the importance of psychographic segmentation in tourism marketing, Psychographic Segmentation and Activities, Interests and Opinions (AIO), consumer delight and its relationship with market segmentation, and the psychographic behaviour of future tourists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

An Assessment of Decision-Making Styles: An Abstract

TourExponomy: Development of a Conceptual Model of the Relationship Between the Tourist Experience at the Destination and Destination Image

Consumer Tribes: A Tourism Perspective on Shared Experiences, Emotions, and the Passion for a Specific Interest

Crimp, M. (1985). The marketing research process . Prentice-Hall International.

Google Scholar  

Füller, J., & Matzler, K. (2008). Customer delight and market segmentation: An application of the three-factor theory of customer satisfaction on lifestyle groups. Tourism Management, 29 (1), 116–126.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hafner, H., & Grabler, M. K. (2015). Psychographic segmentation and its application in the hospitality industry. Retrieved from: https://www.coursehero.com/file/90581842/Psychographic-segmentation-and-its-application-in-pdf/ . Accessed 20 Jul 2020.

Jeong-Yeol, & (Sha, S. C. J. (2013). Psychographics: Static or dynamic? International Journal of Tourism Research, 16 (4), 351–354.

Liu, H., Huang, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, K., Hu, X., & Wang, W. (2019). Personality or value: A comparative study of psychographic segmentation based on an online review enhanced recommender system. Applied Sciences, 9 (10), 1992.

Ma, J., Gao, J., Scott, N., & Ding, P. (2013). Customer delight from theme park experiences. The Antecedents of Delight based on Cognitive Appraisal Theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 42 , 359–381.

Magnini, V. P., Crotts, J. C., & Zehrer, A. (2011). Understanding customer delight: An application of travel blog analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 50 (5), 535–545.

Plog, S. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: An update of a Cornell Quarterly Classic. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (3), 13–24.

Sarli, A., & Huam, H. T. (2011). Attracting consumers by finding out their psychographic traits. International Journal of Fundamental Psychology & Social Sciences, 1 (1), 6–10.

Schewe, C. D., & Calantone, R. J. (1978). Psychographic segmentation of tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 16 (3), 14–20.

Silent, N. D., Ndivhuwo, T., &Tondani, M. (2018). The Psychographic and Behavioural Descriptors of Ecotourists at Capricorn District Municipality: Segmentation Study. EuroEconomica, 37 (2), 119–132.

Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21 (3), 3–8.

Tipton, P. (1972). Psychographics—How can we use them? Admap, 8 (12), 394–397.

Torres, E. N., Fu, X., & Lehto, X. (2014). Are there gender differences in what drives customer delight? Tourism Review, 69 (4), 297–309.

Tynan, A. C., & Drayton, J. (1987). Market segmentation. Journal of Marketing Management, 2 (3), 301–335.

Wells, W. D. (1968). Backward segmentation. In J. Arndt (Ed.), Insights into consumer behaviour (pp. 85–100). Allyn and Bacon Inc.

Wells, W. D. (1975). Psychographics: A critical review. Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (2), 196–213.

Wind, Y. (1978). Issues and advances in segmentation research. Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (3), 315–337.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

Sumedha Agarwal & Priya Singh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Commerce and Management, University of Kota, Kota, Rajasthan, India

Anukrati Sharma

Tourism Consultants Network, The Tourism Society, London, UK

Azizul Hassan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Agarwal, S., Singh, P. (2021). Understanding Psychographics in Tourism: A Tool for Segmenting Tourists. In: Sharma, A., Hassan, A. (eds) Future of Tourism in Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1669-3_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1669-3_12

Published : 01 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-16-1668-6

Online ISBN : 978-981-16-1669-3

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research