plog's model tourism

Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity: Made easy

Disclaimer: Some posts on Tourism Teacher may contain affiliate links. If you appreciate this content, you can show your support by making a purchase through these links or by buying me a coffee . Thank you for your support!

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!

Liked this article? Click to share!

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

• 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.

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 Model of Personality-Based Psychographic Traits in Tourism: A Review of Empirical Research

2018, Tourism Planning and Destination Marketing

Empirical research on Plog's psychographic model has yielded varied, inconclusive results, and the postulates of his conceptual framework are still subject to academic scrutiny. While some empirical investigations have corroborated the model, others have found partial or no support for it. Therefore , the purpose of this chapter is to offer an exhaustive review of 26 studies in the literature which have employed Plog´s venturesomeness concept to examine travellers' personality traits, attitudes, and behaviour, as a way to synthetise empirical findings and draw conclusions from the cumulative results. A discussion of the model's contribution to the current body of knowledge and managerial implications for tourism marketing practitioners are presented.

Related Papers

Mervyn Jackson , babu george

Mervyn Jackson

Rosanna Leung

Most commentators agree that human relations are central to tourism and hospitality. Different personalities thus display different reactions to the same task. This article provides an overview of prior studies on personality in the context of tourism and hospitality. Using EBSCOHost's Hospitality & Tourism Index, the largest online database for tourism and hospitality research, we analyzed published articles on the topic. Broadly speaking, prior studies can be grouped into the seven dimensions of disposal, biological, intrapsychic, cognitive, social, and adjustment in personality research, plus brand personality. Interestingly, our results show although the Internet has become one of the major marketing channels for hospitality and tourism, only a small number of published articles are related to consumers' online behavior. We thus propose that this area be further researched in the future.

Sara Dolnicar

Touring travellers represent a significant market in Australia and are expected to play an even larger role in the future. Yet, to date, they are viewed and treated like one large homogeneous market. The aim of the present study is to question this assumption and investigate whether distinct segments exist among touring travellers. Results, based on an empirical study of 430 Australian travellers, indicate that at least two distinct segments can be constructed which differ in travel motivations, socio-demographics and personality characteristics. These findings can be used to segment and harvest the market of tourist travellers through the development of targeted products and marketing messages.

Turizam Znanstveno Strucni Casopis

Vikas Kumar

Although brand personality has long been postulated in the marketing literature to have a significant effect on the consumer purchase process, the use of a personality construct in the tourism field to understand the tourist's preference and intentions is relatively new. The purpose of this study is to examine critically the concept of destination personality (DP). To explore the measurement and conceptualization techniques of destination personality DP, an extended review of destination personality studies has been summarized. In the process, the strengths and weaknesses of procedures used to define and measure destination personality are assessed. Consequently, suggestions for improving the manner in which destination personality is conceptualized and measured are proposed. These suggestions should be helpful to destination marketers building successful branding and positioning strategies for destinations. Arguably, this study is the first attempt to define the meaning and conceptualization of destination personality based on an extensive literature review.

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

UROOJ ZULFIQAR PHA193021 , Ikram Ullah

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Gideon Uboegbulam

Journal of Travel Research

Sameer Hosany

Journal of Sustainable Tourism and Entrepreneurship

Lusy Akhrani

RELATED PAPERS

Stephany Steph

urbe. Revista Brasileira de Gestão Urbana

Fernanda Moscarelli

Carla M. Rodríguez

Gianna Roque

P. Suttiyotin

Experimental Neurology

Robert Veerhuis

Petter Y. Lindgren

José Carlos Mancha Castro

Future Challenges of Cities in Asia

Hendricus andy Simarmata

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

Rodrigo Cardoso da Silva

Pollarise GROUPS

Mljekarstvo

Zvonimir Prpic

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

Sally Ellis

International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences

Hyppolite Agadjihouede

Fair Value: Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Keuangan

Mokhamad Anwar

Dr.(Mrs.)A.H.A Fazeenah

Epistemologia, Lógica e Filosofia da Linguagem (Eduardo Chagas Oliveira, org.)

Benjamim Picado

Jurnal Online Mahasiswa Bidang Pertanian

International Journal of Science and Research Archive

Patrick Bluvi

Pattama Srinamngoen

Mohammed Aziz Elhoumaizi

Frontiers in Public Health

Constanca Paul

Mammal Research

Emiliano Manzo

Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University (Russian philology)

Thomas Rosén

Chemistry – A European Journal

Silvio Decurtins

RELATED TOPICS

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

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, a review of empirical research on plog's psychographics in tourism.

Tourism Planning and Destination Marketing, 2nd Edition

ISBN : 978-1-80455-889-8 , eISBN : 978-1-80455-888-1

Publication date: 16 January 2024

One of the most well-known, seminal models in the tourism field is the one proposed 50 years ago by Stanley C. Plog. His venturesomeness model has been widely cited in journal articles, textbooks, and has also been used as a reference for planning and designing tourism marketing projects. However, empirical research using Plog's psychographics has yielded varied results, some of which have corroborated his model, while others have found partial or no support for some postulates. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to offer an exhaustive review of 47 studies in the literature which have employed Plog's venturesomeness concept to examine travelers' personality traits, attitudes, and behavior, synthetizing empirical findings and drawing conclusions from the cumulative results. A discussion of the model's contribution to the current body of knowledge, managerial implications for tourism practitioners, and directions for future research are presented.

• Venturesomeness
• Allocentrism
• Psychocentrism
• Psychographics
• Personality
• Tourist typology

Cruz-Milán, O. (2024), "A Review of Empirical Research on Plog's Psychographics in Tourism", Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.) Tourism Planning and Destination Marketing, 2nd Edition , Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80455-888-120241001

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024 Oliver Cruz-Milán. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Encyclopedia of Tourism pp 1–2 Cite as

Allocentric and psychocentric, tourism

• Toshiya Hashimoto 3  
• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2015

4596 Accesses

3 Citations

Coined by tourism researcher Plog ( 1974 ), these terms describe two types of personality. Psychocentric tourists are self-inhibiting, nervous, and non-adventurous; they often refuse to travel by air for psychological reasons rather than financial or other practical concerns. In comparison, allocentric tourists are outgoing, self-confident, and adventurous. Sometimes psychocentrics are also referred to as dependables and allocentrics as venturers (Plog 2001 ).

Psychocentric tourists prefer destinations which they can reach by car and select familiar destinations equipped with well-developed tourism amenities, such as hotels, family-type restaurants, and shops. They like comprehensive tour package with well-organized schedules; they expect foreigners to speak their home languages, and they have the habit of purchasing souvenirs. In contrast, allocentrics frequently and often fly to destinations. They prefer less-developed spots to crowded and typical places. They do not pay special...

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

Plog, S. 1974 Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 14(4):55-58.

Article   Google Scholar  

Plog, S. 1991 Leisure Travel: Making it a Growth Market…Again! New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar  

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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Rikkyo University, 171-8501, Toshima-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Toshiya Hashimoto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toshiya Hashimoto .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Hospitality Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin, USA

Jafar Jafari

School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

Honggen Xiao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Hashimoto, T. (2014). Allocentric and psychocentric, tourism. In: Jafari, J., Xiao, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_5-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01669-6_5-1

Received : 02 October 2014

Accepted : 02 October 2014

Published : 19 September 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-01669-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Navigation principale

Plog’s model

The theory of Stanley Plog, known as Plog’s model, was first published in 1974, and then revised by the author in 2001 in the same journal, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. The model attempts to gather information on the relationship between individual tourists and destinations.

A model that establishes a relationship between individuals and tourist destinations

The initial 1974 article was significantly developed, from 4 to 12 pages, in a version published in 2001. The author states that the research work had begun in 1967 leading to an initial oral presentation in 1972. In 2001, he specified, in a statement with which we can only agree, that the first version was developed at a time when short and succinct proposals were still possible in the world of academic publishing: “ The original study provided several research luxuries that are not common in today’s fastpaced, skinnied-down research environment, and those factors facilitated the development of new ideas. We had the freedom to pursue offbeat ideas, the time and money to be as thorough as we needed in testing concepts, and the opportunity to employ several research approaches to ensure that our conclusions were justified.” (2001: p.14)

The model represented in the 2001 publication is based on a version published in 1972 (Plog, 2001: p. 20)

The graphical representation follows a Gauss-Laplace distribution, according to which the largest number of data are positioned around the mean, between the mean minus one standard deviation and the mean plus one standard deviation, while smaller configurations appear on either side. It therefore resembles a bell curve. Along the horizontal axis are destinations ranging from most familiar to most unfamiliar, for a typical individual residing in New York.

Thus, on the right we find Coney Island, a tourist destination near the Big Apple, in Brooklyn, while on the left are Miami-Beach, below the mean minus one standard deviation, then Hawaii, the Caribbean and Europe around the mean, while more unfamiliar destinations are above the mean plus one standard deviation, namely Japan and Asia, then the South Pacific and finally Africa.

Individuals are thus classified into categories: from “psychocentrics”, accustomed to familiar destinations, to “allocentrics”, who venture into increasingly unfamiliar places, with “midcentrics” in between, around the mean. At one end of the spectrum, the “dependables” in 2001 (“psychocentrics” in 1974), are conventional, home-loving, anxious etc., and their economic future is not secure. At the other end, the “venturers”, formerly “allocentrics”, are endowed with inversely symmetrical qualities based on the nine categories of observation.

Then, a link is established with the dynamics of the destinations. Any destination is discovered by “venturers” who then promote it to people in their circles. The latter then decide to embark on the adventure themselves, but as they are “near venturers”, they exert pressure on the destination to adapt to their needs. This second wave then convinces a third, the “centrics”, the most numerous in a given society, who in turn benefit from the adaptations made. Thus, in successive waves, the different categories of tourists follow one another to a place that is increasingly transformed until it is fully adapted to the “dependables” or “psychocentrics”, who are fewer in number, bringing about the decline of the destination. Butler (1980) built on this analysis with his own model .

A breakthrough

This model was a breakthrough. Firstly, it sought to understand the choice of destinations by focusing on tourists, at a time when notions such as a place’s potential and, worse, its vocation were particularly popular explanations. Moreover, the choice to base the analysis on an individual residing in New York effectively eliminates the question of belonging to a cultural group.

Above all, Plog tries to interpret the dynamics of destinations, as the title of his 2001 article emphasises: “Why destinations rise and fall in popularity”. Thus, according to him, the more distant places become accessible to individuals who are largely unused to confronting otherness by developing facilities that reduce this otherness. Conversely, tourists looking for adventure and novelty avoid places that are too crowded for their taste, seeking out the kick of novelty in places that are even further away. This is an initial approach to spatial technologies, explored more recently by Mathis Stock (2008).

Secondly, Plog addresses the issue of the dynamics of tourist destinations. He enriched his model in 2001 by suggesting possible measures by which the operators in these destinations could stop this fatal mechanism. On the one hand, they can implement strategies to curb or even prevent decline.

It is even possible to rekindle interest in a destination or an outdated tourism offer. In particular, he cites the cruise and guided organised tours as examples. Cruises, he argues, have diversified. Originally based solely on rest, they have opened up to various forms of discovery and types of traction, especially sailing. Guided organised tours, by incorporating more free time, less pressure, and new objectives, for example, has even managed to reverse the pattern by reconquering the “venturer” customer segment.

On the other hand, destinations can innovate and trigger events that he calls earthquakes. He cites the particular example of the Atlantic City, which has had casinos from 1976, and Las Vegas, which attracts “venturers” for its architectural eccentricity not for its casinos, like the “dependables”. The idea of a renewal of destinations is therefore very much present in 2001.

But there are limits

However, and although the epistemological modelling choice does in fact tend towards simplification, this approach emphasises individual psychology and personality traits assumed to be innate or in any case immutable.

It does not focus on the learning mechanisms that allow individuals to confront otherness in a gradual way and thus develop dispositions and skills (Guibert, 2016) that allow them to overcome higher degrees of otherness throughout their lives. Similarly, the social question is absent, while access to education, which is unevenly distributed, for example language learning, is an effective tool for addressing disparities. Moreover, this approach is better suited to analysing discovery practices than other practices, particularly rest, for which the question of novelty counts less than that of familiarity.

Similarly, understanding destinations through a government lens unduly narrows the view. Indeed, while it is relatively easy for a city dweller in one of the world’s metropolises, New York in this case, to travel independently in Shanghai or Beijing, smaller cities or the countryside present more of a challenge. In the former case, when using the metro, for example, a degree of convenience is available to visitors (Violier, 2016), particularly information in English. In the latter, tourists can only rely on themselves.

Also, the mechanical relationship between geographical distance and otherness should be questioned: one can also experience strangeness relatively close to home (Jounin, 2014). Alternatively, we can ask the same question in another way: is it not too reductive to consider inhabitants of metropolises as de-socialised entities, with no reference to their belonging, their habits, or their experiences?

Philippe VIOLIER

PRIVACY POLICY ON THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA

This Policy of personal data processing (hereinafter - the Policy) applies to all data that "OLTA Travel" Co. Ltd (hereinafter – Olta Travel) receives from the visitors of website http://www.oltatravel.com (hereinafter "the Website") and explains how it is processing, stored and how the confidentiality is ensured.

1. Processing and use of personal data.

1.1. In this Policy, personal information means any information left by users on the Website of Olta Travel, including Name, Surname, company, email address and other contact information, left in the message.

1.2. The person who left personal data on the Website of Olta Travel, consents to their use, namely:

1.2.1. The inclusion of the email address, name, surname, company name or any other contact information left in the message in the contact database of Olta Travel. The database is hosted in a secure cloud-based customer relationship management service Bitrix 24, as well as on a secure service for newsletters – Unisender.

1.2.2. Receiving email newsletters with news, promotions, special offers and other useful materials, but no more than twice a week. The visitor of the Website at any time has the right to unsubscribe from the mailing list of Olta Travel, by clicking on the unsubscribe link located at the bottom of each letter.

1.2.3. Direct communication with the manager of Olta travel on the treatment of the user.

1.2.4. The use of contact information to show relevant advertisements to users in social networks and the Internet.

1.2.5. For other purposes performed with the individual consent of the user.

2. The collection, storage and protection of personal data.

2.1. All personal data collected on the Website is processed, stored and secured in strict accordance with the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation (Federal law of the Russian Federation of 27 July 2006 № 152-FL "On personal data") and the European Union (The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679).

2.2. Olta Travel is taking the necessary legal, organizational and technical measures to protect personal information from unlawful or accidental access, copying, distribution of personal information, as well as other unlawful actions in relation to personal data of users, which include:

•     secure transfer and storage of personal data on secure servers;

•     automated processing of personal data;

•     identification of possible threats to the security of personal data;

•     limiting the number of persons having access to personal data;

•     application of measures of internal regulation of the procedure of working with personal data (internal regulations for employees of Olta Travel);

•     improving methods of collection, storage and processing of data.

2.3. All data received on the Website of Olta Travel are transmitted via a secure https Protocol and stored on servers in secure, cloud-based customer relationship management service Bitrix 24, as well as in safe service for creating email newsletters Unisender.

3. User rights and obligations of Olta Travel.

3.1. Upon the request from the user Olta Travel should:

•        confirm the fact and methods of storage and processing of personal data of users;

•        inform about the method of obtaining personal data of the user;

•        explain the legal bases, objectives and timing of the processing of personal data;

•        in case of personal data leakage, inform the user about it;

•        make changes or delete users ' personal data from the database to stop storing and processing it;

•        warn about the expected cross-border transfer of personal data.

3.2. The user has the right to request the deletion of his personal data by sending an e-mail to [email protected] as well as the exclusion from the email-mailing by clicking on the "Unsubscribe" button located in the body of each letter.

4. Conditions of termination of processing and storage of personal data:

•       company liquidation;

•       a written request for withdrawal of consent or exclusion from the database;

•       at the request of the user, if the data were obtained illegally.

5. Olta Travel is not responsible for information posted by a visitor on the third party websites, links to which can be posted on the Website of Olta Travel.

6. More information about the collection, storage and processing of personal data by Olta Travel, the user may get by sending an email to [email protected] .