Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Towards a Model of Travel Fear

David A. Fennell
Department of Geography and Tourism Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this paper was to identify and better understand factors and conditions related
Received 16 November 2016 to fear in travel. A review of literature on concepts such as constraints, shock, panic, risk,
Revised 13 March 2017 anxiety, and worry provided the necessary content from which to both summarize the
Accepted 10 July 2017
tourism literature on fear, and also formulate a Model of Travel Fear. This model, developed
through content analysis of the literature, and student trip summaries, is comprised of six
main components. These include Characteristics of the tourist, Fear-inducing factors of a
Keywords:
trip, Strategies to reduce (or amplify) fear, Travel stage, Fear intensity, and Fear responses.
Fear
Travel stage
Suggestions were made for future research, particularly empirical testing of the model, and
Fear-inducing factors for applications of the model in the tourism industry.
Fear intensity Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Fear responses

Introduction

Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self interest
[Napolean Bonaparte]
Fear is an emotion that manifests in several different ways and at different stages during travel. Anticipation of the travel
event presents its own set of fears, as does travel to the site, the on-site experience, travel home, and even recollection. How-
ever, despite what is a central component of the travel experience, tourism research on fear is lacking despite the number of
fear-inducing events such as natural disasters, epidemics and terrorist attacks (Gold & Revill, 2003; Mansfeld & Pizam, 2006;
Santana, 2003).
A possible reason for the lack of an intensive research agenda on fear in tourism studies is the confusion over related
terms such as anxiety, panic, shock, worry, or risk (Santana, 2003). Crisis management has emerged in tourism as a tool
to prepare for disasters and mitigate consequences (Avraham, 2004), but how does it connect with the aforementioned
terms? Many studies on crises fail to mention fear or anxiety at all (Carson & Liburd, 2007; Faulkner, 2001; Mansfeld,
1999; Ritchie, 2004), while other studies mention these terms only in passing (Barton, 1994; Hitchcock & Darma Putra,
2005; Sönmez, Apostolopoulos, & Tarlow, 1999). Some theorists have used fear-related terms interchangeably. For example,
Kingsbury and Brunn (2004) make no differentiation between anxiety, risk, safety, and fear (Lepp, 2004). Some studies use
risk as the defining characteristic of fear (Dolnicar, 2005). To be sure, it is not just tourism studies where research is scarce.
Fear is a topic that is decidedly underdeveloped in general (Gold & Revill, 2003).
Given the dearth of academic work on fear in tourism, the purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive model of
travel fear to stimulate more intensive research in this area. This includes a review of interdisciplinary research on fear; a
survey of current research in tourism on fear and related terms such as constraints, shock, panic, anxiety, and worry; and
development of the model.

E-mail address: dfennell@brocku.ca

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.07.015
0160-7383/Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150 141

Interdisciplinary research on fear

Research has shown that ordinary people know a lot about emotions. Study subjects can reliably name emotions; they
can identify emotions of people photographed; and can report and agree upon antecedents of emotions (Shaver,
Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987). What is less settled in the literature, however, is agreement on whether: (a) there is
a set of so-called basic or universal emotions (prototypes or schemes); and (b) if there are such sets, which emotions are
the ones that are in fact basic.
Examples of (a) and (b), above, are numerous. Ekman, Friesen, and Hager (2002) argue that there are six basic emotions,
including anger, happiness, surprise, disgust, sadness, and fear, all of which are manifest in facial expressions (Batty & Taylor,
2003). Plutchik (2002) reasoned that there are eight basic emotions, including anger, fear, sadness, disgust, surprise, antic-
ipation, trust, and joy. Research by Ekman, Friesen, and Ellsworth (1982) isolated six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, joy,
sadness, and surprise); Izard (1971) lists anger, contempt, disgust, distress, fear, guilt, interest, joy, shame and surprise;
while Shaver et al. (1987) argue that there are six basic emotions: love, joy, surprise, anger, sadness, and fear. What is impor-
tant to the present work is the near universal agreement that fear is one of a few basic emotions.
Fear is a primitive emotion shared by all sentient beings (Gold & Revill, 2003), and it has adaptive value because the
capacity to feel or experience fear allows us to avoid dangerous situations (Skre, Onstad, Torgersen, Lygren, & Kringlen,
2000). Fear is ‘‘an organism’s defensive response to a present threat.” (Cisler, Olatunji, & Lohr, 2009, p. 35). Recent studies
on state and trait emotions provide greater depth into our understanding of fear. Sylvers, Lilienfeld, and LaPrairie (2011) con-
tend that state emotions ‘‘refer to affective adaptations to specific situations” (p. 124). By contrast, trait emotions ‘‘refer to
affective characteristics of a person across time and situation” (p. 124). Following Epstein (1972) and Barlow (2002), Sylvers
et al. (2011) offer the following detailed definition of state and trait fear:
State fear is an aversive emotional state during which an organism is motivated to escape a specific and imminent threat.
The characteristics of state fear include short-lived arousal that quickly dissipates after the threat is avoided. Trait fear,
therefore, is the persistent and pervasive experience of state fear across situations. In colloquial terms, a ‘‘scaredy cat” is a
vivid description of a trait fearful individual, who avoids taking risks that most perceive as relatively benign but does not
appear distressed when these risks are absent.
Fear differs from the closely related concept of anxiety in that the latter is ‘‘an organism’s preparatory response to con-
texts in which a threat may occur” (Cisler et al., 2009, p. 35). Differences between fear and anxiety are briefly outlined in
Table 1.
Like emotions research in general, theorists have also isolated specific types of fear, again, with no universal acceptance of
one model or approach. Based on a summary of almost 1000 titles using ‘‘fear” as a keyword, Gold and Revill (2003) found
that fear can be linked to eight prominent sub-types: anxiety, awe, phobia, insecurity and uncertainty, threat, hate, loathing,
and trauma. Reiss (1991) argues that there are three fundamental fears, including fear of injury, fear of anxiety, and fear of
negative evaluations. Skre et al. (2000) divide fear into five different types, including: (a) agoraphobic fear, where certain
environments are felt to be dangerous with an urge to escape to safer confines (e.g., wilderness setting); social fear; (c) fear
of animals; (d) nature and situational fears, such as storms, heights, and water, fear of vehicles, flying, or tight spaces; and (e)
blood-injection-injury fears.
The study by Shaver et al. (1987), mentioned above, is useful not only in identifying basic or universal emotions, but also
for the methodology used to determine such. Based on a hierarchical cluster analysis of 135 emotion terms, the authors cat-
egorised each basic emotion into a tree structure of primary, secondary and tertiary emotions (see Fig. 1 in reference to fear).
The categorisation provided an effective way in which to disentangle the many terms that are closely related to the more
general emotion ‘‘fear”. The two secondary emotions of horror and nervousness describe well the various tertiary emotions
that fall into both, as supported by other research.

Exploring the terrain of travel fears

The tourism studies literature is replete with terms and approaches that touch upon travel fear, i.e., emotional responses
to crises, uncertainties, or other calamities of a subjective or collective nature in the way it has been conceptualised above.
Some of the earliest studies in tourism emphasised the link to psychology through fear. For example, Plog (1974) investi-

Table 1
Experiential characteristics of fear and anxiety.

Dimension Fear Anxiety

Emotional valenc Negative Negative
Temporal focus Present-focused Future-focused
Duration of arousal Phasic (brief) Tonic (sustained)
Defensive direction Avoidance (escape) Approach
Specificity of threat Specific Diffuse

Adapted from Sylvers et al. (2011).

142 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150

Basic emotion Secondary emotion Tertiary emotions

Fear Horror Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic,
hysteria, mortification
Nervousness Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness,
apprehension, worry, distress, dread
Source: Shaver et al. (1987)

Fig. 1. Tree structure of fear.

gated the ‘‘psychology of people who travel” (p. 55), by testing why they were fearful or anxious about flying. His psycho-
graphic traveller is marked by self-inhibition, nervousness and a general state of non-adventure in their travel decisions. By
contrast, the allocentric traveller actively seeks novelty in their choices to travel, through enjoyment in meeting people from
other cultures and the types of facilities and attractions of interest. Cohen (1972), too, explored notions of novelty and arou-
sal through his typology of tourism types. Explorers and drifters step away from the environmental bubble by efforts to tap
into the unique features of the local culture and environment. For the organized mass tourist, ‘‘familiarity is at a maximum,
novelty at a minimum” (p. 167).
Following Shaver et al. (1987), this section explores tourism research on the secondary fear-related emotions of nervous-
ness (referred to here as Type 1 Fear) and horror (Type 2 Fear), and associated tertiary emotions. These tertiary emotions
include anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry, distress, and dread (with an added section on con-
straints as a term relevant to the tourism literature) in reference to nervousness; and alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror,
panic, hysteria, and mortification (with an added section on risk) in reference to horror. An exhaustive search of these terms
identified in the tourism studies literature was undertaken for the dual purpose of disentangling terms from one another,
and identifying fear-related terms and categories deemed essential in developing the proposed model.

Fear as nervousness (Type 1)

Anxiety
Anxiety is in all of us and cannot be avoided (Brown, 2013). The onset of anxiety in tourism may emerge in several dif-
ferent ways, including the type tourism, situational factors, or personal characteristics. The following few examples serve to
illustrate the variability of anxiety in tourism.
Tourism attractions are often designed to intensify anxiety, especially some dark tourism sites (Stone & Sharpley, 2008).
Ingram (2002) writes that operators themselves are often anxious over safety and property issues, including the welfare of
animals. Cohen and Avieli (2004) suggest that food tourists in Asia often feel anxious over the type of meat they are served.
Culturally unacceptable meat and polluting meat such as reptile or dog can cause anxiety episodes; issues compounded by
communication difficulties with food providers. Noble, Farquharson, O’Dwyer, and Behrens (2013) investigated travellers’
anxiety over receiving an injection. Results indicate that almost 40% of travellers were afraid of receiving an injection,
and their anxiety was reduced significantly after consultation. Kingsbury, Crooks, Snyder, Johnston, and Adams (2012)
observe that medical tourists, i.e., patients travelling from the USA to non-Westernized countries, experience anxiety
because of Otherness (exoticism) according to uncertain boundaries between ‘‘us” and ‘‘them,” ‘‘clean and dirty,” and
‘‘ordered and disordered.” Page (2004) comments on the heightened anxiety tourists experience at the most hazardous
points of air travel, including take-off and landing.
A more detailed analysis of anxiety and tourism comes from Minnaert (2014) on social tourism inexperience and uncer-
tainty—social tourism defined as, ‘‘initiatives that aim to include groups into tourism that would otherwise be excluded from
it” (Minnaert, 2014, p. 283). Anxiety was experienced for social tourists according to: preparations for the holiday, financial
uncertainty, transport issues, not knowing the destination, not knowing what to do while at the destination, accommodation
check-in, feeling safe, and individual (non-group-oriented) holidays. A general conclusion offered by Minnaert is that
reduced uncertainty leads to reduced anxiety. The onset of anxiety is thus a function of category or type (i.e., type of person
or type of tourist). A further example includes work by Darcy (2002) on the anxiety that physically disabled people experi-
ence while travelling.

Worry
While studies often discuss worry in a secondary fashion, i.e., worry over tourism growth (Brau, Lanza, & Pigliaru, 2007),
or worry over anti-tourism sentiments (Haywood, 1988), Larsen, Brun, and Øgaard (2009) make it a central theme. Worry,
the authors observe, is more a cognitive act than an emotional one, with the recognition that both are difficult to separate.
Worry is defined as ‘‘the individual’s attempt to engage in mental problem solving regarding tourist trip-related issues where
outcomes are thought to be uncertain and contain possibilities for negative results (Larsen et al., 2009, p. 261). The authors also
distinguish worry from risk perception. While some tourists judge a destination as risky, they may not worry about it. By
contrast, others may judge the same destination as not risky at all, but may still worry about it. Larsen et al. (2009) developed
and implemented a Tourist Worry Scale (TWS), Likert in its composition, with a principal finding that people at home worry
more about a trip than those who are actually taking part in the trip. Wolff and Larsen (2013) provided further refinement of
 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150 143

the TWS according to worries on vacation in general, and worries on specific vacations, with the original TWS focusing on
specific vacations. Worry, nervousness, and apprehension are often treated as synonymous with anxiety. Carnicelli-Filho,
Schwartz and Tahara (2010), for example, make this connection in discussing arousal of the body in cases of adventure
tourism.

Constraints
Constraints refer to the factors that prevent tourists from being tourists (Chen, Chen, & Okumus, 2012). There is general
agreement in the literature that these constraints occur in a hierarchy from intrapersonal, to interpersonal, and finally struc-
tural (Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey, 1991), and several of these constraints have either a direct or indirect relationship to
fear, broadly conceived, as explained below.
Intrapersonal constraints include lack of interest, religiosity, stress, depression, anxiety, risk, perceived self-skill, and
physical and cognitive state. Fear was a key intrapersonal constraint reported by Botha, Crompton, and Kim (1999) in the
context of a setting (South Africa) perceived as unsafe. Fear of injury was one of the most important constraints reported
by Gilbert and Hudson (2000) in reference to non-skiers.
Interpersonal constraints in tourism refer mainly to the lack of a travel partner, i.e., friends, family member, or partner(s)
in general. The interpersonal constraint, travel companionship, has been discussed liberally in the tourism literature, with a
main focus on female solo international tourists. Women reported feeling fear in relation to others’ perceptions, susceptibil-
ity to vulnerability, feelings of restricted access, and a feeling of conspicuousness (Wilson & Little, 2008). Solo women’s travel
was also the focus of work by Heimtun (2010), who found that the tour group was a surrogate for companionship while trav-
elling. For older solo women travellers, tour groups provide a comfortable environment in which to have fun, be self-
expressive, and social, in experiencing positive emotions and wellbeing (Liechty, Ribeiro, & Yarnal, 2009).
Structural constraints include family lifecycle, cost, time, age, money, seasonality, proximity to supply, bad weather, and
opportunity (Alegre, Meteo, & Pou, 2010; Nyuapane & Andereck, 2007; Nyuapane, Morais, & Graefe, 2004; Pennington-Gray
& Kerstetter, 2002). Socio-economic and demographic variables have been widely used to assess tourist demand constraints
(Kattiyapornpong & Miller, 2009; Mansfeld, 1992), but with mixed results on the predictability of these variables.

Fear as horror (Type 2)

Shock
Shock is a theme that has been discussed liberally in tourism studies. Examples include demand shock, measurements on
the sharp rises or falls in tourism demand in specific nations (Bozkurt & Bahar, 2015; Cheshire, 1985); future shock, where
preparation for the Rio de Janeiro Olympics was said to have created shock at the time because of urban reengineering, pop-
ulation control and pacification (de La Barre, 2016); as well as culture shock. Culture shock, defined as ‘‘a series of related
psychological reactions developing over time with continued exposure to the alien culture” (Cort & King, 1979, p. 212;
Torbiorn, 1982), occurs when individuals feel a sense of anxiety or frustration due to a loss of familiar signs and symbols
(Oberg, 1960). It is often expressed through depression, withdrawal, hostility towards locals, altered sense of time, and
anxiety.
Cort and King’s (1979) study of American tourists visiting East Africa identified a number of variables that explain the
onset of culture shock. These include (a) personality, including the cognitive aspects of internal/external locus of control,
and intolerance of ambiguity; (b) behavioural outcomes like withdrawal, hostility towards local, over-identification with
home; (c) experiential variables, including tourists’ prior travel experience (Floyd, Gibson, Pennington-Gray, & Thapa,
2003; McKercher & Lui, 2013; Weaver, Weber, & McCleary, 2007); and (d) age. Cort and King (1979) found that more travel
experience does not lead to less culture shock; tourists with greater external locus of control were not more culture shocked
than internals; and those hypothesized as having a greater degree of intolerance of ambiguity were in fact more culture
shocked. Furnham (1984) found that the conditions that characterise the onset of culture shock include: (a) language com-
munication difficulties; (b) demographic variables such as nationality, age, education, sex; (c) previous travel experience; (d)
situational variables such as attitudes of locals to tourists, tourist density, exposure and comfort with rural or urban settings,
and social network of tourists; and (e) time spent at the destination, with the more time spent, the greater the chance to
experience culture shock.
Other examples of studies on tourism and culture shock include personal travel blogs (Malleus & Slattery, 2014); strate-
gies for minimising culture shock through education and training (Furnham & Bochner, 1986; Hu, Martin, & Yeh, 2002;
Pearce, 1995); studies on the integration and adaption of students travelling abroad (Laporte, 2003; Townsend & Lee,
2004); reverse culture shock of students travelling abroad (Gaw, 2000); and research on specific travel types such as back-
packers (Wilson & Richards, 2008). In this latter example, Wilson and Richards found taking refuge in a backpacker enclave
abates culture shock. Pearce (1982) argues that not only do local people have an effect on tourists, but the opposite also holds
true. Both groups can experience culture shock. (Both Hottola, 2004 and Moufakkir, 2013, have developed critical views of
culture shock theory.)
Shock and horror are emotions evoked by Holocaust locations, along with feelings of sadness, empathy, sympathy and
vengeance (Krakover, 2005). These forms of shock and horror are different than those induced by ‘dark fun factories’, where
fiction and entertainment are more important (Kang, Scott, Lee, & Ballantyne, 2011).
144 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150

Shock has also been investigated from the perspective of environment. Pearce (1981) found that the environment has an
effect on tourists’ experience, moods, and health within a destination. Environment shock symptoms such as ear complaints,
rashes, stings, burns, allergies, asthma, sinus problems and tiredness tend to rise during the holiday period. Fear of being
stranded in the wilderness or specific animals such as snakes and bears, builds emotional tension (Williams & Soutar,
2009). Overcoming these challenges lessens the tensions and leads to positive emotional outcomes.

Risk
Risk, and the perception of risk, applies to many aspects of the tourism experience. The link between risk and fear is
emphasised by Dolnicar (2005), who used risk as a proxy for fear in her research (discussed more at length below).
McKercher and Lui (2013) outlined nine safeties akin to the tourist environmental bubble, in reference to protection and
the perception of risk. These include safety of: the guide, hotel and its immediate environs, bus, group, going second, the
known, habit, and a hybrid of industry and group. Risk reduction takes place though the use of internationally branded
hotels, native-language guides, familiar food, pre-departure information, and group tours. Yüksel and Yüksel (2007) inves-
tigated risk associated with shopping, finding that tourists were often fearful of being ripped-off or mugged. Wickens (2002)
found that risks associated with security and safety abated for those tourists staying as package tourists, and where industry
representatives took care of everything. Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) identified seven risk categories: equipment risk
(breakdown), financial risk (value for money), physical risk (injury or sickness), psychological risk (vacation does not reflect
the tourist’s self-image or personality), satisfaction risk (vacation is not personally satisfying), social risk (vacation will affect
others’ opinion of tourist), and time risk (too much time or waste of time).
Fuchs and Reichel (2011) found that tourists perceive different levels of risk depending on the amount of travel experi-
ence. First-time visitors were subject to higher degrees of human-induced risk, socio-psychological risk, food safety risk, and
weather risk. By contrast, repeat tourists were subject to more destination-specific risk factors of a financial, service quality,
natural disaster, and transportation nature. Pearce’s travel career model illustrates that security was a higher priority for
inexperienced tourists than it was for experienced (Pearce & Lee, 2005). Sönmez and Graefe (1998) found that past travel
to specific destinations not only increases intentions to travel to these places, but also decreases intentions to avoid certain
risky areas. Wong and Yeh (2009) report that although risk perception influences hesitation to visit a destination, knowledge
is a key to moderating the relationship between risk and hesitation. Risk has also been investigated according to an assess-
ment of the destination as well as travel stage. Mansfeld (1992) argues that even before the assessment of a destination’s
value, tourists first assess the region from the perspective of their own range of limitations and constraints. Mansfeld
(2006) has also configured risk perception along a travel consumption sequence. the four stages of this sequence include
(1) prior to choice of destination, (2) after choice but before departure, (3) during the trip, and (4) after returning home
(see also Jonas & Mansfeld, 2015).
Adventure tourism operators must grapple with the complex nature of risk. In the event that someone gets seriously
injured, or indeed dies, the media can have a tremendous effect. For example, Cater (2006) observes that in the wake of raft-
ing deaths in Austria in 1999, the BBC cancelled the screening of the movie, The Wild River. Ertuna and Ertuna (2009) found
differences between British and German tourists in reference to news shocks about Turkey. They conclude, ‘‘the impact of
negative news on German tourists’ decisions about visiting Turkey is stronger than the impact of positive news” (p. 25).
What complicates matters, as Santana (2003) observes, is that media often heightens fear and the perception of risk, with
a resultant effect on other neighbouring regions (see Donaldson & Ferreira, 2009, who found that more than one-third of
tourists worried about their safety before travelling to South Africa).
Researchers have also found that perceived risk can be abated through a number of risk reduction approaches. Important
strategies include the purchase of travel insurance, reading travel reviews, obtaining travel agent advice, watching television
programs on the intended destination, and studying guidebooks (Mitchell & Vassos, 1997).

Fear
The tourism studies literature using fear explicitly, i.e., using the term ‘‘fear” directly, has a tradition built around risk, as
noted above. One of the most comprehensive treatments of fear in tourism studies research comes from Dolnicar (2005). The
theoretical nature of her work is hinged upon risk, especially perceived risk, in defining the nature of fear. Categories that
emerged from Dolnicar’s work include political risk, environmental risk, health risk, planning risk, and property risk. Specific
perceived risk factors stated by respondents include: risk of contagious disease, risk of being a victim of terrorism, the trip as
bad value for money, getting sick, feeling socially uncomfortable, insecurity, risks associated with hostile environments,
injury, people forming a bad opinion of tourists, undertaking thrilling activities, bad weather, the vacation might not reflect
the a tourists’ personality, the trip may not be satisfying, the trip may cause environmental damage, risk of not having a good
time, the risk that the trip may be a waste of time.
The link between fear and risk is emphasised strongly in the adventure tourism literature (Faullant, Matzler, & Mooradian,
2011; Morgan, 2000), as providers attempt to tap into feelings of exhilaration and excitement (Williams & Soutar, 2009).
Important to this discussion is Cater’s (2006) view that adventure tourism is really not so much about risk as it is about
the pursuit of fear. While risk has an element of calculation to it, fear is more incalculable. In adventure tourism, ‘‘partici-
pants play with their fears”, in the search for authentic capital (Cater, 2006, p. 322). What also emerges important to Cater
is the notion of control. The more that locus of control remains outside our reach, the more fearful we are of the situation or
 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150 145

event. Moments of greatest fear occur just before the event, with the cognitive aspect of imagination playing an important
role, i.e., when we imagine the worst possible scenario (Carnicelli-Filho et al., 2010).
In mountaineering, push and pull factors, personality, lifestyles, and perceptions of risk and adventure are said to have a
dramatic affect on climbers. Pomfret (2006) illustrated that novice climbers can be both timid and fearful (Priest, 1999),
whilst hard core mountaineers often go through long periods of boredom and brief periods of terror (Loewenstein, 1999).
Pomfret (2006) also observed that emotional states experienced through mountaineering have links to theories such as flow,
optimal arousal, and peak experience. In the case of the latter, a peak emotional experience is characterised by intense feel-
ings of happiness and fulfilment, when ‘‘all fears, all inhibitions, all weaknesses were left behind” (Maslow, 1967, p. 9, cited
in Pomfret, 2006). Faullant Matzler and Mooradian (2011) found that fear and joy were heavily influenced by neuroticism
and extraversion in the context of mountaineering (trait theory). Neuroticism was found to relate to fear and increased dis-
satisfaction, while extraversion related to joy and enhanced levels of satisfaction.
Researchers have also explored fear in studies on dark tourism. Stone’s (2006) dark tourism spectrum focuses more on the
categorization of dark tourism products, and less on the emotional outcomes of these experiences (Stone & Sharpley, 2008).
Dann (1998) examined motives for participation in dark tourism sites, and argued that a main attraction is the need to over-
come the fears of childhood.
Other examples of fear in tourism include the fear of being a victim of crime (Brunt, Mawby, & Hambly, 2000); the fear of
flying and of travelling in general (Korstanje, 2011), which has significance in relation to the globalization of fear (Bianchi,
2007) and the risk-fear continuum around security and terrorism (Mawby, 2000); fear of natural disasters, especially those
that are inescapable (Huan, Beaman, & Shelby, 2004), and resident fears about excessive tourism development and the
impacts such will have on the environment (Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004).

Panic
Panic is defined as a ‘‘condition, episode, person or group of persons that society defines as a threat to societal values and
interests” (Goode & Nachman, 1994, p. 24 as cited in Dobson, 2006), which is ‘‘predicated on an exaggerated fear, taking
alarm without due cause” (p. 111). Panic has been used in the tourism literature to describe the negative feelings that tour-
ists and local people have towards each other. In Agra, for example, package tourists venturing outside enclaves panicked
over interactions (barter, physical contact, and so on) with the need to return to the safe confines of the enclave
(Edensor, 2000). In Goa, villagers reached a state of panic over the influence that hippie culture had on Goan youngsters
(Saldanha, 2002). Panic was used to describe shark tourism, where high levels of media coverage, particularly, the ‘‘anthro-
pophagus nature” of sharks has induced a sense of moral panic amongst tourists and local people (Dobson, 2006, p. 17).
Panic has also been discussed in reference to major global health risks. McKercher (2003) argued that the sense of panic
stimulated by SARS (McKercher also refers to this as hysteria, viewed as irrational thought around new diseases) carried a
much greater threat to Hong Kong and Asia more broadly than the virus itself. Unfortunate effects are the many thousands of
jobs lost because of the panic brought on by media exposure (see also Henderson, 2003 in reference to lost jobs as a result of
the media reports surrounding the Bali bombings). Panic has been incited in reference to dark tourism sites through media
reports of often dubiously verified stories (Wight, 2006). Panic has also been discussed with respect to the negative balance
of payments in The Netherlands. Government officials reached a state of panic because of a 2.5 billion gulden deficit, when
projections for the same year had been so much higher (van Delft & Tideman, 1979).

Development of the model

Fig. 2, Model of Travel Fear, emerged through a content analysis of fear-related terms or ideas, drawn from the literature.
The model has is also informed by the results of journals kept by 11 students travelling abroad over a period of nine days in
May 2016. The author asked these students to record any fears or anxieties they felt according to the five stages of travel
model (all summarised in Table 2). Following the conceptual approach developed by Shaver et al. (1987), these terms, con-
cepts and student self-reflective observations were organised thematically into broader fear factors, and ultimately into two
main organisational categories in Table 2: Characteristics of the tourist, and Fear-inducing factors of a trip. Methods around
the development of these categories, and their respective sub-categories, are discussed in more detail below.
The first main category, (I) Characteristics of the tourist, included the subjective aspects that define the nature of the tour-
ist. After identifying terms from the literature as well as assessing student observations, sub-categories were identified
including socio-demographics, health and skill, a composite category that includes resources, interest, responsibility, and
opportunity and preparedness, and a final sub-category on the fearfulness of the individual. For example, the fearfulness
sub-category is comprised of a number of primary terms and concepts, such as recognition of the general susceptibility
to, and coping abilities/strategies of, fear, stress, anxiety, risk, & safety. It is also possible that an individual is rarely if at
all fearful of travel, so would not be susceptible to fear in general or fear-inducing factors of a destination. This is indicated
in Fig. 2 by the shaded triangle at the middle-top of the model.
The second main organisational category, (II) Fear-inducing factors of a trip, emerged from terms and observations speci-
fic to the trip (or a trip) itself. Focus was on material that discussed fear, anxiety, constraints, shock, panic, risk, and worry.
Like the first component, ‘‘Characteristics of the tourist,” all relevant content was drafted into a list, and from this list, dis-
crete sub-categories (fear factors) emerged (Table 2). For example, the basic fear inducer ‘‘social/cultural” emerged from an
146 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150

No fear
I. Characteristics of the Tourist II. Fear-Inducing Factors of a Trip

Socio- Health & skill Economic External Personal/psychologica

demographics l

Resources/interest Environmental Sectoral Social/cultural

/responsibility Fearfulness

Fear

III. Travel Stage & IV. Fear Intensity

Anticipation Travel to site On-site Travel back Recollection

Learning/training/ Companionship
experience

Type 1 Fear: Type 2 Fear: Choosing familiar

Taking precautions
Nervousness Horror

V. Strategies to Reduce (or Amplify) Fear

VI. Fear Response

Type 1: Type 2: Type 3:

Riddance of fear Coping with fear Terminate activity or trip

Fig. 2. Model of Travel Fear.

analysis of all relevant terms and concepts around social and cultural fears. These include, for example, companionship,
panic over interactions with local people, overcrowding/density of people, and fear of crime. The same process was followed
for the other five basic fear inducers (economic, personal/psychological, environmental, sectoral, and external).
The encircled portion of the model is conceptualised as dynamic, and is an amalgam of four different components: (III)
Travel stage, (IV) Strategies to reduce or amplify fear, (V) Type of fear, and (VI) Fear response. Travel stage is a central feature
of the model. It follows from Clawson and Knetsch (1978), who recognised that the act of travel goes well beyond simply the
onsite experience, by including five stages: anticipation, travel to the site, on-site experiences, travel home, and recollection.
The importance of different stages of the experience is emphasised by other scholars (see Mansfeld (2006), above). Cater
(2006), for example, argued for the inclusion of multi-phasic methods in investigating fear and risk in adventure tourists,
i.e., previous experiences, the period just before an adventure activity, and the period after. Hottola (2004) writes that
euphoria is perhaps highest during the pre-travel stage, where there is the anticipation of pleasure. While expectations
are high, there are also fears: ‘‘Will the visit fulfil my expectations? Will I stay healthy? Will my friend water my plants while
I am away?” (p. 456; Nyaupane, Morris Parris, & Teye, 2011). Hottola (2004) further adds that the plane, while uncomfort-
able, is also nurturing and familiar. It is when tourists step off the plane that they must confront the ‘‘incalculable other”.
As the analysis advanced, a number of Strategies to reduce (or amplify in rare cases) fear emerged from the content, i.e.,
strategies that tourists could use to mitigate fears that manifested during travel. Using the same content analysis approach,
these strategies were collapsed into four sub-categories (Table 3), including learning/training/experience (e.g., reading a
guidebook), taking precautions (e.g., getting an inoculation), choosing familiar (e.g., hotel), and companionship (e.g., travel-
ling with another).
The category ‘‘Type of fear” emerged as a consequence of the combination of Characteristics of the tourist, Fear-inducing
factors, Stage of travel, and Strategies to reduce fear. The blend of these components results in two emotional states: Type 1
fear (nervousness), and Type 2 fear (horror). These two states are reflective of the categories developed by Shaver et al.
(1987), discussed above. As such, either of these states may emerge at any stage of travel. For example, where anticipation
of the travel episode may not induce fear whatsoever, travel to the site may emerge as either nervousness or horror.
The final component of the model is Fear response (VI). The amalgam of all the previous stages of the Model will lead to
three outcomes: Type 1 (riddance of fear), Type 2 (coping with fear), or Type 3 (termination of the activity or of the trip).
Riddance of fear can occur as a result of the constellation of strategies at hand to reduce fear. These include learning/train-
ing/experience, taking precautions, companionship, and choosing familiar, where the emotional response to fear is removed.
As such, riddance takes place when coping mechanisms have been totally effective. If tourists cannot remove fear through
 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150 147

Table 2
Organization of fear terms drawn from the literature and student diaries.1

Primary terms/concepts drawn from literature and student journals Fear factors Organizational
category
Poor health, depression, lack of mental/physical skill, isolation as a result of mobility/ability Health & skill Characteristics of
Age, nationality, education, sex, income, religion, family lifecycle, lifestyle, marital status, Socio-economic the tourist
occupation
Lack of interest, time constrained, financial/cost constraints, opportunity, preparedness, Resource,
responsibilities at home/work, limited information Responsibilities,
opportunities
General susceptibility to & coping abilities/strategies of fear, stress, anxiety, perceptions of risk, & Fearfulness
perceptions of safety (e.g., being on time, Passport, directions, etc.) that have to do with
personality, locus of control, etc., deliberate attempts to pursue fear or tame it, existential fear of
death, fear of heights1, being out of one’s comfort zone at home1
Financial costs associated with the trip itself; value for money, the price for package tours; how Economic Fear-inducing
much money to bring1, flights, accommodation, attractions, and activities; food & beverage, factors of a trip
other goods and services
Companionship (lack travel partner), terrorism, overcrowding /density of people, interactions with Social/cultural
local people1, vulnerability, conspicuousness, intolerance to others, language communication
difficulties1, attitudes to locals, need to return to enclave, fear of crime/being attacked,
socialising with other people1, otherness/exoticism, negative evaluations, opinions of others,
military conflict, fear of theft, socially uncomfortable, trip may cause social or cultural damage.,
fear of losing touch with friends made on trip1
Fear of certain environments like wilderness (agoraphobia), fear of blood-injection-injury, fear of Environmental
animals (snakes, sharks), fear of nature and situations (storms, natural disasters, planes,
epidemics), proximity to supply/distance to destination, not knowing the destination, global
health risks like epidemics, not knowing what to do at destination, fear of getting lost, hostile/
exotic environment, poor weather1, my trip may cause environmental damage
Seasonality, lack of or poor/risky transportation, take-off and landing, restricted access, specific Sectoral
types of tourism (dark), being away from guide, hotel, bus, package vs. individual travel, food
safety, type of food1, service quality, lodging check-in, faith in marketing, travel intermediaries
like travel agents, breakdown of equipment, unreliable airline, inexperienced operator, lost
luggage, poor health care at destination, getting sick, going through customs1, missing the
flight1, jet lag, rough waters on boats1, fear of being bored1
Media, electronic media, print media, books, movies, and television shows, other people (word of External
mouth), which have an impact on the tourist
1
Denotes a travel fear identified in student journals (these may also have been drawn from the literature).

Table 3
Strategies identified to reduce fear.

Primary terms/elements Theme

Learning/education about the destination, previous travel experience, previous travel to the destination, reading travel Learning/training/experience
reviews, travel agent advice, studying guidebooks, pre-departure information
Purchase of travel insurance, getting inoculations, taking pills Taking precautions
Internationally branded hotels, native language guides, familiar food Choosing familiar
Taking group tours, travelling with friends or family Companionship

the use of the strategies outlined in the Model, they must cope or manage them (Type 2). There is the risk that the experience
may be diminished because of the persistence of fear. Tourists would then need to balance costs (fear) against the benefits of
continued travel. A Type 3 response includes termination of an activity during the trip or the overall trip itself. Too much fear
of a whitewater-rafting excursion, for example, may induce the tourist to pull out of the rafting activity, but not the rest of
the trip. In other cases, the fear may be so intense that the tourist would terminate the trip entirely. These responses feed-
back into the heart of the model (double arrow) and would apply to successive stages and circumstances of the travel event.
There is a second feedback arrow that connects upwards to the Characteristics of the tourist box, suggesting that the sub-
jective nature of the tourist would be influenced by these new experiences.

Conclusion

Research has shown that people recognise fear when they see it or experience it. Studies have also established that there
are different categories and sub-categories of fear. Horror (e.g., panic, shock, and fright), as a secondary emotion, is a different
type of fear than nervousness (e.g., anxiety, uneasiness, and worry); a finding established empirically by Shaver et al. (1987).
Fear in tourism is a constellation of different intensities and kinds because of the nature of the individual and of the expe-
rience itself. However, despite the significance of fear in tourism, no attempt has been made to conceptualize it in a com-
prehensive fashion. The Model of Travel Fear attempts to redress this gap through the incorporation of six key
148 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150

components, including Characteristics of the tourist, Fear-inducing factors of a trip, Travel stage, Fear intensity, Strategies to
reduce (or amplify) fear, and Fear response. The model is built not only from tourism research, but also from science outside
the tourism domain, emphasising the value of an interdisciplinary approach in moving tourism studies research in new
directions.
The model illustrates that anticipation fears may be different than travel to the site, the on-site experience, travel home,
and recollection. These travel stages are dynamic in how they connect with the Fear intensity, Strategies to reduce fear (e.g.,
taking precautions, choosing the familiar), and fear response For those who experience fear, responses include riddance of
fear, coping, and termination of the activity or trip altogether.
Future studies should endeavour to focus on testing the model empirically, with initial attempts geared towards testing
certain parts of the model rather than the entire scheme. Several testable propositions should be identified around the prin-
ciple components of the model (Characteristics of the tourist, Fear-inducing factors, Travel stage, Fear intensity, Strategies to
reduce fear, and Responses), and the relationships that exist between each. Furthermore, the Model of Travel Fear may com-
plement existing studies. For example, for those tourists deliberately pursuing fear at dark tourism sites, the model may help
better understand the relationship between type of attraction and type of fear. There is also scope for collaboration with
scholars who focus on fear as a primary research area. Such an approach would provide many advantages in advancing this
theme in the tourism studies field.
The model is also thought to hold practical utility. Service providers in all facets of the tourism system (e.g., attractions
and transportation), as well as those that support this system (e.g., health and medical), may benefit from a more holistic
understanding of the factors and stages that lead to fear. Using the example of dark tourism, tourism providers might use
fear-related stimuli at all five stages of the travel experience. Information could be sent to tourists on a dark tourism site
before the trip (anticipation and travel to the site), as well as after the trip through email or social media links. Furthermore,
new policies and programs designed to educate tourists may help to alleviate those factors which interfere with enjoyment,
whether they be people, environments, or other factors, which take away from the fun and enjoyment of travel episodes.
Again, tourists travelling to sites that may be perceived as fearful, may have their fears alleviated through regular online
messages on the human and environmental conditions of the places they are about to visit.

References

Alegre, J., Meteo, S., & Pou, L. (2010). An analysis of households’ appraisal of their budget constraints for potential participation in tourism. Tourism
Management, 31, 45–56.
Avraham, E. (2004). Media strategies for improving an unfavourable city image. Cities, 21(6), 471–479.
Barton, L. (1994). Crisis management: Preparing for and managing disasters. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 59–65.
Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. New York: Guilford Press.
Batty, M., & Taylor, M. J. (2003). Early processing of the six basic facial emotional expressions. Cognitive Brian Research, 17, 613–620.
Bianchi, R. (2007). Tourism and the globalisation of fear: Analysing the politics of risk and (in)security in global travel. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(1),
64–74.
Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S.-S. (1999). Developing a revised competitive position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37,
341–352.
Bozkurt, K., & Bahar, O. (2015). Demand shocks: An analysis for Turkish tourism sector. Anatolia, 26(1), 29–41.
Brau, R., Lanza, A., & Pigliaru, F. (2007). How fast are small tourism countries growing? Evidence from the data for 1980–2003. Tourism Economics, 13,
603–613.
Brunt, P., Mawby, R., & Hambly, Z. (2000). Tourist victimisation and the fear of crime on holiday. Tourism Management, 21, 417–424.
Brown, L. (2013). Tourism: A catalyst for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 176–190.
Carnicelli-Filho, S., Schwartz, G. M., & Tahara, A. K. (2010). Fear and adventure tourism in Brazil. Tourism Management, 31, 953–956.
Carson, J. C., & Liburd, J. J. (2007). Developing a research agenda for tourism crisis management, market recovery and communications. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 23(2/3/4), 265–276.
Cater, C. I. (2006). Playing with risk? Participant perceptions of risk and management implications in adventure tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 317–325.
Chen, H.-J., Chen, P.-J., & Okumus, F. (2012). The relationship between travel constraints and destination image: A case study of Brunei. Tourism Management,
35, 198–208.
Cheshire, B. (1985). Nepal learns to live with the fruits of tourism. Contours, 2(2), 6–10.
Cisler, J. M., Olatunji, B. O., & Lohr, J. M. (2009). Disgust, fear, and the anxiety disorders: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 34–46.
Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1978). Economics of outdoor recreation (4th ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 164–182.
Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in tourism: Attraction and impediment. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 755–778.
Cort, D. A., & King, M. (1979). Some correlates of culture shock among American tourists in Africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 211–225.
Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309–320.
Dann, G. (1998). The dark side of tourism. Etudes et Rapports, Série L. Aix-en-Provence: Centre International de Recherches et d’Etudes Touristiques.
Darcy, S. (2002). Marginalised participation: Physical disability, high support needs and tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9(1), 61–72.
de La Barre, J. (2016). Future shock: Mega-events in Rio de Janeiro. Leisure Studies, 35(3), 352–368.
Dobson, J. (2006). Sharks, wildlife tourism, and state regulation. Tourism in Marine Environments, 3(1), 15–23.
Dolnicar, S. (2005). Understanding barriers to leisure travel: Tourist fears as a marketing basis. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(3), 197–206.
Donaldson, R., & Ferreira, S. (2009). (Re-)creating urban destination image: Opinions of foreign visitors to South Africa on safety and security? Urban Forum,
29, 1–18.
Edensor, T. (2000). Staging tourism: Tourists as performers. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 322–344.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1982). What emotion categories or dimensions can observers judge from facial behaviour? In P. Ekman (Ed.),
Emotion in the human face (pp. 39–55). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Hager, J. C. (Eds.). (2002). Facial action coding system: Investigators guide. Salt Lake City, UT: Network Research Information.
Epstein, S. (1972). The nature of anxiety with emphasis upon its relationship to expectancy. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.). Anxiety: Current trends in theory and
research (Vol. 2, pp. 291–337). New York: Academic Press.
Ertuna, C., & Ertuna, Z. I. (2009). The sensitivity of German and British tourists to news shocks. Tourism Review, 64(3), 19–27.
Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management, 22, 135–147.
 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150 149

Faullant, R., Matzler, K., & Mooradian, T. A. (2011). Personality, basic emotions, and satisfaction: Primary emotions in the mountaineering experience.
Tourism Management, 32, 1423–1430.
Floyd, M. F., Gibson, H., Pennington-Gray, L., & Thapa, B. (2003). The effect of risk perceptions on intentions to travel in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15, 19–38.
Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2011). An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a
highly volatile destination. Tourism Management, 32, 266–276.
Furnham, A. (1984). Tourism and culture shock. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 41–57.
Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1986). Culture shock: Psychological reactions to unfamiliar environments. London: Methuen & Co.
Gaw, K. F. (2000). Reverse culture shock in students returning from overseas. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 83–104.
Gilbert, D., & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints: A skiing participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 906–925.
Gold, J. R., & Revill, G. (2003). Exploring landscapes of fear: Marginality, spectacle and surveillance. Capital & Class, 27(2), 27–50.
Haywood, K. M. (1988). Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management, 9(2), 105–118.
Heimtun, B. (2010). The group package tour and sociability: Contested meanings. Tourism Review International, 14, 3–15.
Henderson, J. C. (2003). Terrorism and tourism: Managing the consequences of the Bali bombings. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(1), 41–58.
Hitchcock, M., & Darma Putra, I. N. (2005). The Bali bombings: Tourism crisis management and conflict avoidance. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(1), 62–76.
Hottola, P. (2004). Culture confusion: Intercultural adaptation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 447–466.
Hu, W. T. T., Martin, L., & Yeh, J. M. R. (2002). Cross-cultural impact and learning needs for expatriate hotel employees in Taiwan lodging industry. Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 1(3), 31–45.
Huan, T.-C., Beaman, J., & Shelby, L. (2004). No-escape natural disaster: Mitigating impacts on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 255–273.
Ingram, G. (2002). Motivations of farm tourism hosts and guests in the South West Tapestry Region, Western Australia: A phenomenological study. Indo-
Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 2(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20797222.2002.11433872.
Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Jonas, A., & Mansfeld, Y. (2015). Exploring the interplay between the use of risk-related information, risk perception formation, and the stages of travel
product consumption. Current Issues in Tourism. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1024104.
Jurowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 296–312.
Kang, E.-J., Scott, N., Lee, T. J., & Ballantyne, R. (2011). Benefits of visiting a ‘dark tourism’ site: The case of the Jeju April 3rd Peace Park, Korea. Tourism
Management, 33, 257–265.
Kattiyapornpong, U., & Miller, K. E. (2009). Socio-demographic constraints to travel behavior. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 3, 81–94.
Kingsbury, P. T., & Brunn, S. D. (2004). Freud, tourism, and terror. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(2–3), 39–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J073v15n02_03.
Kingsbury, P. T., Crooks, V. A., Snyder, J., Johnston, R., & Adams, K. (2012). Narratives of emotion and anxiety in medial tourism: On State of the Heart and
Larry’s Kidney. Social & Cultural Geographies, 13(4), 361–378.
Korstanje, M. E. (2011). The fear o travelling: A new perspective for tourism and hospitality. Anatolia, 22(2), 222–233.
Krakover, S. (2005). Attitudes of Israeli visitors towards the Holocaust remembrance site of Yad Vashem. In G. Ashworth & R. Hartmann (Eds.), Horror and
human tragedy revisited: The management of sites of atrocities for tourism. Sydney: Cognizant Communication Corporation, pp. 108e117.
Laporte, S. (2003). Travelling young women: A Tunisian experience. Téoros, Revue de Recherche en Tourisme, 22(1), 29–35.
Larsen, S., Brun, W., & Øgaard, T. (2009). What tourists worry about – construction of a scale measuring tourist worries. Tourism Management, 30, 260–265.
Lepp, A. (2004). Tourism in a rural Ugandan village: Impacts, local meaning and implications for development Doctoral dissertation. USA: University of Florida.
Liechty, T., Ribeiro, N. F., & Yarnal, C. M. (2009). ‘‘I travelled alone, but never felt alone”: An exploration of the benefits of an older women’s group tour
experience. Tourism Review International, 13, 17–29.
Loewenstein, G. (1999). Because it is there: the challenge of mountaineering Ellipsis for utility theory. KYKLOS, 52(3), 315–344.
Malleus, R., & Slattery, E. (2014). Personal travel blogs as texts for studying intercultural interactions: A pilot test case study of an American sojourner’s
blogs from Zimbabwe. SpringerPlus, 3(211). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-211.
Mansfeld, Y. (1999). Cycles of war, terror, and peace: Determinants and management of crisis and recovery of the Israeli tourism industry. Journal of Travel
Research, 38, 30–36.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 399–419.
Mansfeld, Y. (2006). The role of security information in tourism crisis management: The missing link. In Y. Mansfeld & A. Pizam (Eds.), Tourism Security and
Safety. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinenmann, pp. 271–290.
Mansfeld, Y., & Pizam, A. (2006). Tourism, security and safety: From theory to practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mawby, R. I. (2000). Tourists perceptions of security: The risk-fear paradox. Tourism Economics, 6(2), 109–121.
McKercher, B. (2003). SIP (Sars Induced Panic) a greater threat to tourism than SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). E-Review of Tourism Research
(eRTR), 1(1), 17–18.
McKercher, B., & Lui, S. I. (2013). The nine safeties: How inexperienced tourists manage the strangeness of China. Journal of China Tourism Research, 9,
381–394.
Minnaert, L. (2014). Social tourism participation: The role of tourism experience and uncertainty. Tourism Management, 40, 282–289.
Mitchell, V. W., & Vassos, V. (1997). Perceived risk and risk reduction in holiday purchases: A cross-cultural and gender analysis. Journal of Euromarketing, 6
(3), 47–69.
Morgan, D. (2000). Adventure tourism activities in New Zealand: Perceptions and management o client risk. Tourism Recreation Research, 25(3), 79–89.
Moufakkir, O. (2013). Culture shock, what culture shock? Conceptualizing culture unrest in intercultural tourism and assessing its effect on tourists’
perceptions and travel propensity. Tourist Studies, 13(3), 322–340.
Noble, L. M., Farquharson, L., O’Dwyer, N. A., & Behrens, R. H. (2013). The impact of injection anxiety on education of travellers about common risks. Journal
of Travel Medicine, 21(2), 86–91.
Nyuapane, G. P., & Andereck, K. L. (2007). Understanding travel constraints: Application and extension of a leisure constraints model. Journal of Travel
Research, 46, 433–439.
Nyuapane, G. P., Morais, D. B., & Graefe, A. R. (2004). Nature tourism constraints: A cross-activity comparison. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 540–555.
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to neo-cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 17, 177–182.
Page, S. (2004). Transport and tourism. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), A companion to tourism (pp. 146–158). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Pearce, P. L. (1995). From culture shock and culture arrogance to culture exchange: Ideas towards sustainable socio-cultural tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 3(3), 143–154.
Pearce, P. L. (1982). Tourists and their hosts: Some social and psychological effects of inter-cultural contact. In L. S. Bochner (Ed.), Cultures in Contact. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Pearce, P. L. (1981). ‘‘Environment shock”: A study of tourists’ reactions to two tropical islands. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(3), 268–280.
Pearce, P. L., & Lee, U. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 226–237.
Pennington-Gray, L. A., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2002). Testing a constraints model within the context of nature-based tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 40,
416–423.
Plog, S. C. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly (February), 55–58.
Plutchik, R. (2002). Emotions and life: Perspectives from psychology, biology, and evolution. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pomfret, G. (2006). Mountaineering adventure tourists: A conceptual framework for research. Tourism Management, 27, 113–123.
150 D.A. Fennell / Annals of Tourism Research 66 (2017) 140–150

Priest, S. (1999). The adventure experience paradigm. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
Reiss, S. (1991). Expectancy model of fear, anxiety, and panic. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 141–153.
Ritchie, B. W. (2004). Chaos, crisis and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 25, 669–683.
Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 17–26.
Saldanha, A. (2002). Identity, spatiality and post-colonial resistance: Geographies of the tourism critique in Goa. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(2), 94–111.
Santana, G. (2003). Crisis management and tourism: Beyond the rhetoric. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(4), 299–321.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(6), 1061–1086.
Skre, I., Onstad, S., Torgersen, S., Lygren, S., & Kringlen, E. (2000). The heritability of common phobic fear: A twin study of a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 14(6), 549–562.
Sönmez, S. F., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Tarlow, P. (1999). Tourism in crisis: Managing the effects of terrorism. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 13–18.
Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel behaviour from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel
Research, 37, 171–177.
Stone, P. R. (2006). A dark tourism spectrum: Towards a typology of death and macabre related tourist sites, attractions and exhibitions. Tourism, 54(2),
145–160.
Stone, P., & Sharpley, R. (2008). Consuming dark tourism: A thanatological perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 574–595.
Sylvers, P., Lilienfeld, S. O., & LaPrairie, L. L. (2011). Differences between trait fear and trait anxiety: Implications for psychopathology. Clinical Psychology
Review, 31, 122–137.
Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living abroad: Personal adjustment and personnel policy in an overseas setting. Chichester: Wiley.
Townsend, P., & Lee, C. (2004). Cultural adaptation: A comparative analysis of tertiary students’ international education experience. Tourism Review
International, 8(2), 143–152.
van Delft, F., & Tideman, M. C. (1979). Panic about the foreign tourist traffic. Recreatie, 17(2), 25–28.
Weaver, P. A., Weber, K., & McCleary, K. W. (2007). Destination evaluation: The role of previous travel experience and trip characteristics. Journal of Travel
Research, 45, 333–344.
Wickens, E. (2002). The sacred and the profane: A tourist typology. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 834–851.
Wight, A. C. (2006). Philosophical and methodological praxes in dark tourism: Controversy, contention and the evolving paradigm. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 12(2), 119–129.
Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction and behavioural intentions in an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3),
413–438.
Wilson, E., & Little, D. E. (2008). The solo female travel experience: Exploring the ‘Geography of Women’s Fear’. Current Issues in Tourism, 11, 167–186.
Wilson, J., & Richards, G. (2008). Suspending reality: An exploration of enclaves and the backpacker experience. Current issues in Tourism, 11(2), 187–202.
Wolff, K., & Larsen, S. (2013). Tourist worries – Here and now vs. there and then: The effect of item wording in the Tourist Worry Scale. Tourism Management,
35, 284–287.
Wong, J.-Y., & Yeh, C. (2009). Tourist hesitation in destination decision making. Annals of Tourism Research, 36, 6–23.
Yüksel, A., & Yüksel, F. (2007). Shopping risk perceptions: Effects on tourists’ emotions, satisfaction and expressed loyalty intentions. Tourism Management,
28, 703–713.

David Fennell PhD researches mainly in the areas of ecotourism, tourism ethics, and moral issues tied to the use of animals in the tourism industry. Fennell
is the founding Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Ecotourism and is an active member on editorial boards of many academic journals.