1 Introduction

The supply of enriching tourism experiences is a crucial factor for the competitiveness of tourism destinations. Satisfying encounters among visitors and between hosts and visitors can have an important role in creating rewarding and memorable tourism experiences. Social interaction in tourism is a very complex concept that has been analysed both from the perspective of visitors (e.g. Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Fan, Zhang, Jenkins, & Tavitiyaman, 2017; Kastenholz, Carneiro, & Eusébio, 2018; Pizam, Uriely, & Reichel, 2000) and of residents (e.g. Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). However, a limited number of published studies analyse the encounters that each visitor has with residents and with other visitors in a tourism destination (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Fan et al., 2017). Moreover, although the literature (e.g. Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Pizam et al., 2000; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009) highlights the existence of several factors influencing the intensity, type and nature of social encounters in tourism, a limited number of studies has analysed these factors empirically.

Several theories related to social contact in tourism suggest that encounters between people of different characteristics and cultural backgrounds may result in positive outcomes (e.g. cultural enrichment, mutual appreciation, understanding, tolerance). However, these encounters may also generate negative outcomes (e.g. development of negative attitudes, increase in tension and hostility, development of stereotypes) (Reisinger & Turner, 2003). The type and nature of the outcomes are strongly related to the intensity and nature of the social encounters. The great challenge for the agents responsible for the planning and management of a tourism destination is the implementation of strategies to maximize the positive outcomes and minimize the negatives outcomes of social encounters. To design these strategies, it is of utmost relevance to have insights from empirical studies regarding the factors influencing social interactions and also the outcomes of these interactions.

The youth tourism market is recognized as a very important tourism segment that is at the beginning of a long travel career (Eusébio & Carneiro 2012, 2015). The intensity and the types of social interaction in this market have received little attention in the tourism literature (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012). Moreover, the identification of the factors influencing these interactions and also the identification of outcomes of these interactions have been almost neglected in published studies.

The present chapter extends the previous studies carried out on social interaction in tourism in the youth tourism market in three areas. First, different types and intensities of social encounters between visitors and residents and between visitors and other visitors in a tourism destination are analysed. Second, both positive and negative consequences of these encounters for young visitors are examined. Third, the direct and indirect effects of several travel motivations of the young visitors on various types of social encounters and on the consequences of these social encounters are analysed through a structural equation model.

In order to accomplish the above-mentioned objectives, the present chapter is structured into six sections. After this introduction, a literature review on social contact in tourism is presented in terms of concepts, characteristics and relevance to the youth market. In section three, the research model proposed is described, specifically analysing the determinants of social contact in tourism and the potential consequences (outcomes) of these interactions. The methodology of the empirical study carried out is presented in section four, concerning data collection and analysis methods. The results obtained from tests of the model proposed are presented and discussed in section five. Finally, the chapter ends with the theoretical and practical contributions of this research and also with some limitations and recommendations for further research to extend knowledge in this under researched area.

2 Social Contact in the Youth Tourism Market

Social contact in tourism is a complex construct influenced by several factors and with various consequences, namely for satisfaction of both residents and visitors. During a trip, each visitor may interact with other visitors and with hosts and consequently social contact has the power of influencing visitors’ behaviours and the visitors’ attitudes and perceptions toward the destination (Fan et al., 2017; Kastenholz et al., 2018; Pizam et al., 2000; Sharpley, 2014). Although the study of the effects of intergroup contact, mainly between groups with different cultural background, has a long history in the social psychology field, in the scope of tourism this issue has been almost neglected (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Fan et al., 2017; Pizam et al., 2000). However, in recent years, the literature in this field has increased.

Various definitions of social contact have been used in the tourism literature. De Kadt (1979) was one of the first authors who analysed host-tourist encounters, reporting that these encounters occur in three main contexts: when visitors purchase products from the hosts; when visitors and hosts find themselves side by side in a tourism attraction or facility; and when visitors and hosts come face-to-face with the objective of exchanging information and ideas. Different outcomes will result from these different kinds of encounters. Reisinger and Turner (2003, p. 37) define social contact in tourism as “the personal encounter that takes place between a tourist and a host”. However, during a trip, a visitor may interact not only with the local population but also with other visitors. Fan et al. (2017) adopted the concept of cross-cultural social contact proposed by Cushner and Brislin (1996) and Yu and Lee (2014). This concept is defined as “the face-to-face contacts between people of different cultural backgrounds” (Fan et al., 2017, p. 358). In this line of thought, in this chapter social contact is defined as the face-to-face contact that occurs during a tourism trip between visitors and hosts and between visitors and other visitors. To date, some studies have applied social contact from the perspective of visitors (Eusébio & Carneiro 2012, 2015; Fan et al., 2017; Kastenholz et al., 2018). However, a limited number of studies simultaneously analyses tourist-host interactions and interactions between tourists (e.g. Kastenholz et al., 2018).

In the majority of tourism destinations, visitors stay for a short and well-structured period of time (Fan et al., 2017). Consequently, encounters between visitor and host tend to be more formal, superficial, brief, unbalanced, limited in terms of spontaneity, unequal and transitory (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Reisinger & Turner, 2003; Reisinger, 2009; Sharpley, 2014). De Kadt (1979) and Krippendorf (1987) highlight that in some situations interactions are frequently open to deceit, exploitation and mistrust. However, in some types of tourism and contexts, encounters tend to be more informal, close and intense. Different outcomes will be obtained from these different kinds of interactions.

Social encounters between visitors and hosts and between visitors and other visitors tend to provide positive and negative outcomes, mainly when these encounters occur between people from different cultural backgrounds. According to Reisinger and Turner (2003), contact hypotheses express that social contact between individuals from different cultures may originate mutual appreciation, understanding, respect, tolerance and positive attitudes and reduce ethnic prejudices, stereotypes and racial tension. Fan et al. (2017) also point out that social encounters in tourism tend to reduce anxiety, enhance understanding of others, reduce misunderstandings and stereotypes, further improve intergroup relations and enhance empathy between people. However, social encounters in tourism may also contribute, according to Reisinger and Turner (2003, p. 39), to the development of “negative attitudes, stereotypes, prejudices and increase tension, hostility, suspicion and often violent attacks”. Some studies reveal the existence of a positive relationship between the intensity and quality of interaction and the occurrence of positive outcomes (Reisinger & Turner, 2003). Therefore, in order to maximize positive and minimize negative outcomes, the agents responsible for the planning and management of tourism destinations should implement strategies to stimulate pleasant encounters in tourism. However, the studies that examine the outcomes of social encounters in tourism are very limited. Moreover, few empirical studies analyse the factors influencing these outcomes.

The youth market is, nowadays, an important and growing segment that has time to travel (Eusébio & Carneiro 2012, 2015). In 2020, it is expected that there will be about 300 million international youth trips per year (UNWTO & WYSE w.d.). Moreover, these individuals are in the initial stage of their travel career (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012). Furthermore they are highly resilient (Tourism Research & Marketing, 2013; UNWTO & WYSE w.d.), are not easily discouraged from travelling by terrorism or natural disasters, and are pioneers in discovering new destinations (UNWTO & WYSE w.d.), and so have an important role in the development of tourism destinations.

The results of some research also suggest that young people may want to socialize during tourism trips. The study of Morgan and Xu (2009) showed that, for 23% of the students surveyed, having fun with family and friends was the reason for having memories of their holidays. In the research undertaken by Tourism Research and Marketing (2013) on youth travellers, meeting local people emerged as one important motivation for travel, being mentioned by about 80% of respondents. Appreciating or exploring new cultures also emerged as important travel behaviours for young people (Morgan & Xu, 2009; Tourism Research & Marketing, 2013), which may also indicate that young visitors will be likely to contact the residents of tourism destinations to know their culture better. Given that young visitors seek to meeting new people, be with friends, expand knowledge and experience a different culture in their travels (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Morgan & Xu, 2009; Tourism Research & Marketing, 2013) there is a high probability of their engagement in encounters with local people and with other visitors to satisfy these travel motivations. Knowing the travel behaviour of this segment, mainly social encounters with local people and other visitors, the outcomes of these social encounters and the factors influencing these outcomes is of utmost relevance to better satisfy this segment and to turn young visitors into loyal customers. However, the few empirical studies on social contact in the youth market (e.g. Eusébio & Carneiro 2012, 2015) showed a limited frequency of interaction. The model proposed in this research may provide important insights in this scope. The model will be presented in more detail in the next section.

3 Conceptual Model Proposed

In order to thoroughly understand the crucial role of social interaction in tourism and what tends to influence this kind of contact, it is essential to analyse the determinants and the outcomes of this interaction. Several factors may influence the intensity, type and nature of social contact in tourism. The characteristics of both parties involved in the process (visitors and hosts), type of tourism destination, travel behaviour and travel motivations (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Pizam et al., 2000; Sinkovics & Penz, 2009) are the factors more frequently referred to. However, only a limited number of studies analyses the influence of these factors on intensity of social interaction from the perspective of visitors (e.g. Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012). Moreover, positive and negative outcomes may occur in consequence of social contact between visitors and both hosts and other visitors. However, this topic is highly neglected in the empirical research. In order to expand the knowledge in these fields, a conceptual model is proposed in the next sections in order to examine the relationships between travel motivations, interactions with other visitors and hosts and also visitors’ perceptions of the outcomes of these interactions.

3.1 Travel Motivations as Determinants of Social Interaction

Travel motivations are thus one crucial determinant of social contact in tourism. In fact, when one need arises leading to a disequilibrium in the motivational systems of visitors, this drives visitors to act in order to satisfy that need (Crompton, 1979). A motivation is, therefore, a state where people feel certain needs that lead them to act in such a way that they believe they will become satisfied (Moutinho 1987). According to Iso-Ahola (1982) a tourism motivation corresponds to “a meaningful state of mind which adequately disposes an actor or a group of actors to travel” (p. 257). In some instances, visitors’ interaction with other people at the destination—either local residents or other visitors—is important to reach an equilibrium and satisfy the visitors’ needs. However, several motivations can originate different intensities and types of interaction (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Reisinger, 2009).

Several researchers (e.g. Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Crompton, 1979; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996) proposed diverse categorizations of motivations for engaging in leisure and tourism which may provide important insights on motivations for undertaking leisure trips. Increase knowledge, challenge, novelty and escape are among the most frequently mentioned dimensions of motivations in these categorizations.

Expand knowledge is one of the most important motivations for engaging in leisure trips. Educational motivations such as learning about things or satisfying curiosity or, more specifically, learning about things around or about other cultures are recognized as important motivators of leisure trips (Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Manfredo et al., 1996).

Underlying the leisure trip is also frequently a motivation for novelty. This motivation is often expressed as a desire to see something different, discover something new and have a new experience (Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Crompton, 1979; Manfredo et al., 1996). Many people specifically express the wish to meet new people, other people or even to meet new people from outside the usual environment (including local people and other visitors) (Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Crompton, 1979; Manfredo et al., 1996).

Tourism, involving trips to destinations outside the usual environment of the visitor, offers good opportunities to go to places with different characteristics, namely with different natural environments and cultural atmospheres, enabling new information to be gathered, perspectives to be enlarged and knowledge to be expanded in some areas. When staying in destinations with different characteristics from the usual environment, visitors have also more possibilities of experiencing new atmospheres, discovering new things and living new experiences. As remarked by White and White (2008), a full understanding of the destination is not possible without the visitors’ contact with local residents and the help of the local community. Manfredo et al. (1996) also remark that, in this context, some important motivations for engaging in leisure are to observe and talk to other people, probably because, among other reasons, this is a way to obtain more information and, thus, to expand knowledge, or to have a different experience. Both hosts’ and other visitors’ advice can also be very useful for exploring the destination (Su, Long, Wall, & Jin, 2016; White & White, 2008). However, the empirical research in this field is mostly scarce. Nevertheless, some reveals that the visitors’ interaction with other visitors and the local populations enriches the visitors’ understanding of the destination (White & White, 2008) and that those visitors wanting to thoroughly explore the destination tend to have very intense contact with hosts (Fan et al., 2017).

Challenge seems to be also an important motivation for carrying out leisure activities. Some visitors report that they want to engage in tourism to challenge their abilities (Beard & Ragheb, 1983), to test their abilities and develop skills (Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Manfredo et al., 1996). Some researchers highlight that some visitors even want to have thrills and take risks (Manfredo et al., 1996). Frequently, social contact in tourism involves challenge, due to the existing differences between the visitors and both the hosts and other visitors, often associated with the provenance from different contexts frequently with different cultural backgrounds (Fan et al., 2017; Reisinger & Turner, 2003). Even communication with other visitors and hosts can imply challenge given that different languages are often used by both parties in contact. Considering this literature, it is expected that visitors most motivated for this challenge are also those who are more likely to contact hosts and other visitors, given the challenge involved in much of this kind of contact.

On another hand, escape has also emerged as an important motivation for undertaking leisure trips. In fact, many people participate in these trips to be in a calm environment (Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Manfredo et al., 1996) and to experience tranquillity and peace (Manfredo et al., 1996). These visitors want to avoid crowds or escape from stressful environments, avoiding the hustle and bustle of daily life (Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Iso-Ahola, 1982). Some of these visitors express the desire to get away from other people, and even to have more privacy and be isolated (Manfredo et al., 1996). Taking into account that visitors with more motivations for escape are most likely to visit destinations with a quiet environment, probably with not many people, and tend to search for more privacy, it is considered that these visitors are likely to have a lower intensity of interactions with other visitors and hosts than those with fewer motivations for escape.

Despite recognizing that motivations may play a crucial role as determinants of visitors’ interactions with hosts and other visitors, as already mentioned, few studies analyse this kind of influence. Eusébio and Carneiro (2012) already found that motivations other than those of escape had a positive influence on young visitors’ interaction with residents in all the places considered in the study. Nevertheless, this positive influence was not observed in all the specific places analysed, escape motivations did not show any significant influence on interaction and the study is confined to interaction with residents. Therefore, more research is needed in this scope. Nevertheless, the previous literature review leads us to posit the following:

  • H1—Travel motivations influence the intensity of visitors’ interactions with other visitors and hosts

  • H1a—The travel motivations of knowledge, challenge and novelty have a positive effect on the intensity of visitors’ interactions with other visitors and hosts

  • H1b—The travel motivation of escape has a negative effect on the intensity of visitors’ interactions with other visitors and hosts.

3.2 The Outcomes of Social Interaction

As already discussed in section two, social interaction in the context of tourism may have several distinct outcomes. Several theories related to social contact in tourism suggest that encounters between people of different cultural backgrounds may result in negative outcomes (e.g. development of negative attitudes, increase in tension and hostility, development of stereotypes) (Reisinger & Turner, 2003) but may also originate positive outcomes (e.g. cultural enrichment, mutual appreciation, understanding, respect, tolerance). Some research (e.g. White & White, 2008) also reveals that visitors’ interaction with other visitors and with the local community have played a crucial role in the visitors’ touristic experience, providing comfort while at the destination—a place perceived as unknown and hostile. These outcomes are strongly related to the intensity, type and nature of the social encounters. In this context, the great challenge of the tourism industry is the implementation of strategies to maximize the positive outcomes and minimize the negative outcomes of social encounters. Nevertheless, empirical research on the consequences of visitors’ interactions with other visitors and with hosts is extremely scarce.

Although recognizing that social contact between visitors and both visitors and hosts can have either positive or negative outcomes, these encounters will always involve some negotiation. According to social exchange theory, when people perceive that the costs of the contact outweigh its benefits, they do not establish contact or try to end it (Sharpley, 2014). Bimonte and Punzo (2016) also argue that visitors, when interacting with others, will try to maximize their wellbeing. Furthermore, it is also posited that, when interaction increases, it will contribute to mutual understanding (Su et al., 2016). Considering all these arguments it is hypothesized that:

  • H2—The intensity of visitors’ interactions with other visitors and hosts contributes to increasing the positive outcomes of the interaction

  • H3—The intensity of visitors’ interactions with other visitors and hosts contributes to decreasing the negative outcomes of the interaction.

Based on the literature reviewed, a research model is proposed (Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1
figure 1

Proposed research model

Full size image

4 Methodology

A questionnaire survey was carried out among undergraduate and graduate students of the University of Aveiro (Portugal). Respondents were selected using a quota sampling approach based on the area of studies and gender. Students were asked to consider the longest trip made in the last three years and to answer questions about it. Respondents were asked to state whether they agreed that 12 features, selected from previous research (Kim et al., 2007; Richards, 2007), motivated their trip, using a scale from 1 “completely disagree” to 7 “completely agree”. Students had to report how often they had specific types of interactions (e.g. sharing meals, exchanging gifts) with local residents and other visitors and had contact with them in different places (e.g. in the street, in monuments), using a scale from 1 “very rarely” to 7 “very frequently”. A total of 24 items (from De Kadt, 1979; Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Reisinger & Turner, 1998) were used. Respondents were also required to report positive and negative effects of the interaction expressing their agreement with eight items (based on Reisinger & Turner, 2003), using the same Likert-type scale adopted for motivations. Finally, the questionnaire included questions on sociodemographic characteristics.

A pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted with 18 students. In consequence of the pilot test, few changes were introduced in the questionnaire in order to improve its clarity and content validity. The final version of the questionnaire was administered face-to-face in March and April 2013.

In order to analyse data, first a descriptive analysis was carried out. Then, three Principal Component Analyses (PCA) were undertaken—one on motivations for travel, other on interactions with other visitors and local residents and, another on the positive and negative effects of these interactions. Finally, a partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS_SEM) was carried out to test the conceptual model proposed.

5 Analysis and Discussion of Results

5.1 Characterization of the Sample

The sample was composed by students (N = 399) with an average of 21 years old and by only slightly more women (54%). Four dimensions of motivations emerged from the PCA—knowledge, challenge, escape and novelty. There was a prevalence of novelty motivations (5.64 in average) but people also showed very high knowledge and escape motivations, with 4.97 and 4.81 on average, respectively. Challenge motivations were considerably lower (4.00).

The PCA on interactions permitted six dimensions of interactions to be identified: close interaction with residents, interaction with visitors at recreational attractions and facilities, close interaction with visitors, interaction with residents at recreational attractions and facilities, interaction in cultural attractions and interaction to obtain information. Visitors’ interaction with local residents and other visitors is low. The interactions with residents, both in facilities (4.09 in average) and to obtain information (3.82), are the most frequent. The least frequent interactions are close interactions with residents (2.49) and interaction in cultural attractions (2.90).

The PCA on the outcomes of interaction generated two factors, one representing positive outcomes (e.g. visitors’ enrichment, ability of interaction, increase in respect) and another the negative outcomes (e.g. increase in stress, development of feelings of inferiority). The interaction has more positive outcomes (4.39) than negative (2.16).

5.2 Testing the Model Proposed

The PLS estimation assessment comprises two stages: the evaluation of the estimation (outer model), which refers to the connection between the indicators and the constructs, and the analysis of the structural (inner model), which concerns the hypothesized relationships amongst constructs.

First, when assessing the reliability and validity of the outer model, the requirements were clearly met: composite reliability (>0.7, varying from 0.79 to 0.92), outer loadings (>0.6), average variance extracted (>0.5, ranging from 0.55 to 0.75) (Table 5.1). Furthermore, the discriminant validity of all constructs was also established, with the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations <0.85 (Table 5.2).

Table 5.1 Measurement model assessment
Full size table
Table 5.2 Discriminant validity of the constructs—Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
Full size table

Then, once the outer model was validated, the inner model estimates were examined, considering the path coefficients and corresponding significance levels. The indirect and total effects of the independent constructs on the dependent ones were also analysed.

Regarding the impact of motivations on interaction (hypotheses H1a and H1b), knowledge motivations stand out, showing a positive significant influence on all interaction dimensions (Table 5.3 and Fig. 5.2), corroborating what is discussed by Fan et al. (2017), Reisinger and Turner (2003), Su et al. (2016) and White and White (2008). Challenge motivations and novelty motivations only have a significant direct influence on a small number of dimensions of interaction, but this effect is always positive. Therefore, H1a is strongly supported.

Table 5.3 Hypotheses testing
Full size table
Fig. 5.2
figure 2

Structural model assessment

Full size image

As far as escape motivations are concerned, these motivations only have a negative influence on one kind of interaction—close interaction with visitors (β = –0.139, p < 0.01). These results reveal that when people travel in order to escape from their usual environments, they are less likely to have close encounters with other visitors, as expected. Therefore, H1b is slightly supported.

Three of the six interaction dimensions exercise a statistically significant impact on both outcomes of interaction (positive and negative) (hypotheses H2 and H3). As expected, interaction to obtain information registers a negative impact on negative outcomes (β = −0.216, p < 0.001) and a positive one on positive outcomes (β = 0.233, p < 0.001), while close interaction with residents and interaction in cultural attractions show contradictory impacts (contributing to an increase in both positive and negative outcomes). Since the majority of the dimensions of interaction (four in six) have a significant contribution to the positive outcomes of interaction and these contributions are positive, H2 is strongly supported. These findings provide empirical evidence to support what is suggested by Bimonte and Punzo (2016), Reisinger and Turner (2003), Sharpley (2014) and Su et al. (2016).

The influence of interaction on negative outcomes is not so clear. While close interaction with residents and interaction in cultural attractions have a positive influence, leading to negative outcomes, only interaction with residents seems to reduce potential negative outcomes of interaction, as posited. Consequently, H3 is only slightly supported. These results suggest that additional researched is required in order to analyse why, when the intensity of certain kinds of interaction increase, negative outcomes occur. These findings also suggest that an appropriate management of these types of interaction, to promote pleasant encounters that lead to positive outcomes, is needed. However, it is worth noticing that the close interaction with residents and interaction in cultural attractions are still very low, corresponding to the least frequent types of interaction. This low frequency of interaction can lead to superficial encounters that do not fulfil the expectations of young visitors and that can even result in misunderstandings and stereotypes.

Beyond the results presented above, indirect effects should also be analysed (Table 5.4). Only knowledge motivations, with influence on both positive and negative outcomes (β = 0.237, p < 0.001 and β = 0.107, p < 0.01, respectively), and challenge motivations, on positive effects of interaction (β = 0.087, p < 0.01), register a statistically significant indirect impact on outcomes of interaction. Knowledge motivations stand out again as the most influential of the model.

Table 5.4 Direct, indirect and total effects
Full size table

The coefficients of determination (R 2) range from 0.106 (interaction in cultural attractions) to 0.396 (positive outcomes of interaction), indicating that the model has moderate predictive value and is capable of explaining endogenous constructs (Fig. 5.2).

6 Conclusion and Implications

The study suggests that the interaction of young visitors with hosts and other visitors during tourism trips is still low. Motivations are important determinants of the interactions of young visitors, with motivations for increasing knowledge being the most likely to induce interaction with both hosts and visitors. This research corroborates previous research, showing that superficial contact tends to occur more frequently than close interaction (Eusébio & Carneiro, 2012; Reisinger, 2009). Nevertheless, close interactions with visitors and contact with residents to obtain information are the most powerful in increasing positive outcomes of interaction. Findings also remark that the intensity of interaction has more impact in increasing the positive outcomes of the interaction than in decreasing the negative ones. Moreover, the social contact of young visitors tends to have more positive outcomes than negative, which highlights the important role that interaction during tourism trips may have in the life of young visitors.

This study provides important theoretical and practical contributions. From a theoretical perspective, three important contributions may be highlighted in an under-researched area. First, this study gives more thorough knowledge concerning the influence of travel motivations on visitors’ interactions with hosts and other visitors. Second, important insights are provided in terms of different kinds of interactions that take place in the youth market during a tourism trip. Finally, the impact of both travel motivations and different kinds of interactions on visitors’ perceptions of outcomes of these interactions are analysed through a structural equation model.

The findings obtained in this research also provide important guidelines for public and private agents responsible for the planning and management of tourism destinations to design strategies to maximize positive outcomes of social interactions. In this context, it is of utmost relevance to promote opportunities of interaction between young visitors and both local residents and other visitors in the scope of tourism trips and manage these interactions appropriately. It seems especially important to offer opportunities for close interactions with visitors and residents. One strategy is to design organized trips or organized activities (e.g. events) for young visitors, where they contact other visitors for a longer period, sharing meals and talking with them, in order to have a more in-depth knowledge about them. It is also very important to promote opportunities for contact with residents where residents assume an active role in providing information, since these kinds of interaction are among the most likely to generate high positive outcomes. It is also relevant to sensitize residents to be friendly and helpful to young visitors, mainly when providing information, and to involve local people in the provision of tourism information to visitors, both in tourism attractions and tourism facilities (e.g. tourism offices).

Although the present research provides relevant contributions and implications, it also has some limitations. First, only a limited range of determinants of interactions, namely motivations for travel, are considered in the model. In future studies it would be important to consider other potential determinants of interactions such as place attachment, activities undertaken in the destination visited, length of stay at the destination and type of destination visited. Moreover, the research is also limited in terms of geographical scope. It is undertaken only in Portugal and only with students of one university. Extending this research to young people of other countries would also be useful to observe whether the results obtained concerning the model proposed are confirmed. Finally, only a quantitative approach was adopted. Using qualitative approaches would permit to obtain a more in-depth perception of the reasons why motivations have some influence on interactions and why these interactions have certain kinds of consequences.