As of late, more of an interest in emotional solidarity has been shown translation - As of late, more of an interest in emotional solidarity has been shown Indonesian how to say

As of late, more of an interest in

As of late, more of an interest in emotional solidarity has been shown in family studies research, with Gronvold (1988) creating the affectional solidarity scale consisting of five items (e.g., understanding, trust, fairness, respect, and affec-tion). Interestingly within this same work, Gronvold claims that single-item measures of the construct would be more suitable for data collection given the exploratory nature of the scale development. However, Churchill (1979) argues that “no single item is likely to provide a perfect representation of the concept [in question]” (p. 68). Currently, common single items of emotional solidarity that have been used include degree of closeness, identification, and agreement (Bahr, Mitchell, Li, Walker, and Sucher 2004; Harwood 2000). Even though emotional solidarity research is still being con-ducted in family studies, no model of the construct has been tested. Furthermore, emotional solidarity has yet to be exam-ined in a tourism context. In fact, Durkheim’s work overall has only been briefly mentioned in tourism work (see Mac-Cannell 1999; Rojek 2000). This is likely a function of the more widely accepted sociological conflict theory models used in tourism research.

The three main antecedents in Durkheim’s framework (i.e., shared beliefs, shared behavior, and interaction) are minimally mentioned within the literature in the context of residents and tourists. Such beliefs have taken the form of concern for environmental impacts on the local community, functionality of a destination, and religious perspectives. Hernandez, Cohen, and Garcia (1996) found that residents of Puerto Rico held similar perspectives to tourists in that they both believed a proposed resort may have negative conse-quences for local resources. Escape from modernity and urban life were similar beliefs both residents and tourists sought in rural destinations of Australia (Sherlock 2001) and Thailand (Cohen 2004). Reverence for Native American rites and ritu-als were shared among Pueblos and tourists in New Mexico (Laxson 1991). In fact, such reverence was exhibited through engaging in public ceremonies and dances.

Shared behaviors are more apparent than beliefs as they are more readily observable and quantifiable. Participation in festivals and special events has been one common form of shared behavior in the literature (Derrett 2003; Fredline and Faulkner 2002; Snepenger, Reiman, Johnson, and Snepenger 1998). According to Derrett (2003), such events can serve to bring people together in a way they move toward greater understanding of one another. Prentice, Witt, and Wydenbach (1994) examined shared behavior through common recre-ational activities such as walking on the beach, swimming, sightseeing, and the like. Sharing a space for shopping and dining is another form of shared behavior between residents and tourists that almost always present in a destination (Snepenger et al. 1998, 2003). What Snepenger et al. (2003) found was that the use of a downtown space for shopping was not intended primarily for tourists, and in fact served as a forum for residents to socialize and interact with tourists on a regular basis.

Of the three predictor variables in the Durkheim model, interaction has received the most attention. In an earlier study of residents and transients in Delaware, Rothman (1978) focused on interactions using a one-item measure assessing intimacy of interactions (from “almost no contact” to “guest in my home”), which is comparable to the social distance conceptualization used by Tasci (2009). Others have exam-ined interaction based on frequency such as number of days residents interacted with tourists per week (Sirakaya, Teye, and Sonmez 2002) and how often they spoke with tourists during an average week in the peak season (Akis, Peristianis, and Warner 1996). Such operationalizations of interaction focusing on when and frequency were closely allied with Collins’ (1975) conceptualizations of the construct in his work amending Durkheim’s (1995 [1915]) model. Empirical research testing Durkheim’s model and examining the rela-tionship between emotional solidarity and its antecedents (i.e., shared beliefs, shared behavior, and interaction) is lack-ing in the field. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to test the model of emotional solidarity to determine if residents’ shared beliefs, shared behavior, and interaction with tourists is related to their level of emotional solidarity with tourists. More specifically, three hypotheses exist for this study:

Hypothesis 1: Residents’ perceived level of shared beliefs with tourists will significantly predict the level of emotional solidarity they feel with said tourists.

Hypothesis 2: Residents’ perceived level of shared beha­ vior with tourists will significantly predict the level of emotional solidarity they feel with tourists.

Hypothesis 3: Residents’ perceived level of interaction with tourists will significantly predict the level of emot
0/5000
From: -
To: -
Results (Indonesian) 1: [Copy]
Copied!
As of late, more of an interest in emotional solidarity has been shown in family studies research, with Gronvold (1988) creating the affectional solidarity scale consisting of five items (e.g., understanding, trust, fairness, respect, and affec-tion). Interestingly within this same work, Gronvold claims that single-item measures of the construct would be more suitable for data collection given the exploratory nature of the scale development. However, Churchill (1979) argues that “no single item is likely to provide a perfect representation of the concept [in question]” (p. 68). Currently, common single items of emotional solidarity that have been used include degree of closeness, identification, and agreement (Bahr, Mitchell, Li, Walker, and Sucher 2004; Harwood 2000). Even though emotional solidarity research is still being con-ducted in family studies, no model of the construct has been tested. Furthermore, emotional solidarity has yet to be exam-ined in a tourism context. In fact, Durkheim’s work overall has only been briefly mentioned in tourism work (see Mac-Cannell 1999; Rojek 2000). This is likely a function of the more widely accepted sociological conflict theory models used in tourism research.The three main antecedents in Durkheim’s framework (i.e., shared beliefs, shared behavior, and interaction) are minimally mentioned within the literature in the context of residents and tourists. Such beliefs have taken the form of concern for environmental impacts on the local community, functionality of a destination, and religious perspectives. Hernandez, Cohen, and Garcia (1996) found that residents of Puerto Rico held similar perspectives to tourists in that they both believed a proposed resort may have negative conse-quences for local resources. Escape from modernity and urban life were similar beliefs both residents and tourists sought in rural destinations of Australia (Sherlock 2001) and Thailand (Cohen 2004). Reverence for Native American rites and ritu-als were shared among Pueblos and tourists in New Mexico (Laxson 1991). In fact, such reverence was exhibited through engaging in public ceremonies and dances.Shared behaviors are more apparent than beliefs as they are more readily observable and quantifiable. Participation in festivals and special events has been one common form of shared behavior in the literature (Derrett 2003; Fredline and Faulkner 2002; Snepenger, Reiman, Johnson, and Snepenger 1998). According to Derrett (2003), such events can serve to bring people together in a way they move toward greater understanding of one another. Prentice, Witt, and Wydenbach (1994) examined shared behavior through common recre-ational activities such as walking on the beach, swimming, sightseeing, and the like. Sharing a space for shopping and dining is another form of shared behavior between residents and tourists that almost always present in a destination (Snepenger et al. 1998, 2003). What Snepenger et al. (2003) found was that the use of a downtown space for shopping was not intended primarily for tourists, and in fact served as a forum for residents to socialize and interact with tourists on a regular basis.Of the three predictor variables in the Durkheim model, interaction has received the most attention. In an earlier study of residents and transients in Delaware, Rothman (1978) focused on interactions using a one-item measure assessing intimacy of interactions (from “almost no contact” to “guest in my home”), which is comparable to the social distance conceptualization used by Tasci (2009). Others have exam-ined interaction based on frequency such as number of days residents interacted with tourists per week (Sirakaya, Teye, and Sonmez 2002) and how often they spoke with tourists during an average week in the peak season (Akis, Peristianis, and Warner 1996). Such operationalizations of interaction focusing on when and frequency were closely allied with Collins’ (1975) conceptualizations of the construct in his work amending Durkheim’s (1995 [1915]) model. Empirical research testing Durkheim’s model and examining the rela-tionship between emotional solidarity and its antecedents (i.e., shared beliefs, shared behavior, and interaction) is lack-ing in the field. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to test the model of emotional solidarity to determine if residents’ shared beliefs, shared behavior, and interaction with tourists is related to their level of emotional solidarity with tourists. More specifically, three hypotheses exist for this study:Hypothesis 1: Residents’ perceived level of shared beliefs with tourists will significantly predict the level of emotional solidarity they feel with said tourists.Hypothesis 2: Residents’ perceived level of shared beha­ vior with tourists will significantly predict the level of emotional solidarity they feel with tourists.Hypothesis 3: Residents’ perceived level of interaction with tourists will significantly predict the level of emot
Being translated, please wait..
 
Other languages
The translation tool support: Afrikaans, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Basque, Belarusian, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Cebuano, Chichewa, Chinese, Chinese Traditional, Corsican, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Detect language, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Estonian, Filipino, Finnish, French, Frisian, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Haitian Creole, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Icelandic, Igbo, Indonesian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Klingon, Korean, Kurdish (Kurmanji), Kyrgyz, Lao, Latin, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Malagasy, Malay, Malayalam, Maltese, Maori, Marathi, Mongolian, Myanmar (Burmese), Nepali, Norwegian, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Samoan, Scots Gaelic, Serbian, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Spanish, Sundanese, Swahili, Swedish, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Turkmen, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Welsh, Xhosa, Yiddish, Yoruba, Zulu, Language translation.

Copyright ©2025 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: