Revisiting Plog's model of allocentricity and psychocentricity ... one more time.(Stanley Plog)

Stanley Plog's model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, a seminal tourism model, has been widely cited in the tourism literature and is included in virtually every hospitality and tourism text. At the same time, it has been scrutinized by a host of critics who questioned aspects of the model's applicability and validity. This study of travelers' vacation histories seeks to add to the research regarding this important model. The results present an interesting dichotomy, indicating that although the model does not really help to predict where travelers are likely to visit, it is highly effective in suggesting where they would ideally like to visit. These findings should be of significant value to tourism marketers and researchers attracted to Plog's model.

Keywords: tourist preferences; Plog tourism model; Singapore travel preferences

Stanley Plog's model of allocentricity and psychocentricity, tourism's first traveler-typology model, was the focus of the 1974 Cornell Quarterly article titled "Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity." (1) Plog's model delineates travelers' personality types along a continuum that approximates a normally distributed curve. For discussion's sake, the continuum can be divided into five segments. At one extreme are psychocentric travelers, described by Plog as "self inhibited, nervous, and non-adventuresome," preferring the "familiar" in vacation-travel destinations. At the other end are the outgoing and self-confident allocentrics, who "want to see and do new things, [and] to explore the world." (2) In between, we find the majority of travelers, classified by Plog as mid-centric, along with near-psychocentric and near-allocentric travelers. Mid-centric travelers lean in neither the tried-and-true direction of the psychocentrics nor the variety-seeking direction of the allocentrics. Those with near-allocentric tendencies are among the first major wave of adopters, after a destination has been found by the allocentrics, while the near psychocentrics are most likely to try a destination after it has been well traveled. It is worth noting that Plog's research began in the late 1960s as an investigation of why certain travelers were unwilling to travel by air (and what could be done to encourage them to try air travel). Plog's model further indicated that destinations exhibit characteristics similar to those of their visitors. (3) For example, in 2001 he proposed Nepal and Tibet as examples of allocentric destinations (which he had renamed "venturer"). At that time, Orlando and Myrtle Beach fell at the psychocentric end of his spectrum (redubbed "dependable"). (4)

Plog's model has attracted considerable interest through the years. It is regularly referenced in tourism research, it is included in virtually every tourism textbook, (5) and his terms allocentric and psychocentric have become standard lingo in the field. Simultaneously, however, his model has spurred numerous critics who have questioned aspects of its real-world applicability. Among criticisms, various authors have noted that

* While compelling as a theory, the concept has been subject to little independent empirical verification. (6)

* The concept fails to account for the fact that tourists travel with different motivations on different occasions. For example, a vacationer may take a winter ski vacation to an allocentric destination, followed later in the year by a main holiday to a psychocentric destination. (7)

* While travelers may be allocentric in nature, financial or other factors may cause them to demonstrate mid-centric or near-psychocentric travel patterns. (8)

* People are complex, and it may not be possible to place travelers in a "single simple category." (9)

* The theory was designed for U.S.-based travelers and does not work well for other nationalities. (10)

* While Plog noted that with travel experience people are likely to become more allocentric, (11) it has been countered that it would be more likely that travel to unfamiliar places would force travelers further into their shells. (12)

* Finally, while the model presents an interesting concept, it "neither ... predicts nor explains a large percentage of all tourism behavior," and is thus impractical for use by tourism marketers. (13)

Empirical questions. Perhaps the most interesting discussion …