Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29628901›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018

Defending Oneself From Tourists: The Counter-Environmental Bubble.

Michela Cortini, Daniela Converso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michela CortiniDepartment of Psychological, Health and Territorial Sciences, Università G. d'Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Daniela ConversoDepartment of Psychology, Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the Environmental Bubble Theory, tourists perform a series of strategies in order to remain anchored to their residential spots. The environmental bubble is constituted by a sort of social pellicule able to immunize tourists from the identity/cultural attacks which the visit to a foreign country implies. Such a pellicule is activated by the tourists themselves as they decide to travel in group or, for example, to eat only at the restaurants proposing their own national cuisine, and so on. Generally the potential cultural shock of residents is not taken into consideration in literature, even if it is plausibile to make the hypothesis of a counter-environmental bubble performed by the residents in order to defend their own culture and their identity from the attacks of mass tourism, especially for cities that live on tourism, as, for example, Florence or Siena do. Our study aims at testing the access to local tradition made available in promotional material. The hypothesis we propose is that there should exist a difference in promoting cultural heritage and intimate culture. The intimate culture refers to the living culture, the way of living, comprehending cuisine, education, religion, the way by which the role of females and males are performed, and so on. On the other hand, the cultural heritage, or historical culture, makes reference to a culture meant as belonging to the whole mankind, as it happens, for example, for archeological sites or museums. In more detail, we propose the hypothesis that the intimate culture is maintained unaccessible for tourists' gaze, or at least accessible only in the shape of a spectacularized event, the so called pseudo-event of Boorstin. Using the software NUD

Indexed as

critical discourse analysisenvironmental bubble theoryNUD*ISTpseudo-eventstourism

Identifiers

PMID29628901
PMCPMC5876287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.