8 shallow processing or mindlessness (Langer 1989,2009).There are other terms for these two pathways including the Elaboration Likelihood Model(Petty Cacioppo 1986)and two systems approach(Kahneman,2011)but at core,one route provides well learned and accessible recall of information and perspectives while the other involves a ready acceptance of information which later may not be recalled or employed.Further attention to the specifics of the dual processing approach will be pursued in a later section on memory(Smith DeCoster,2000). Much of the development of these directions in attitude research occurred in North America.A largely European re-assessment of the cross-Atlantic work has been growing in recent decades.The challenge to existing approaches is fuelled by the limited success of linking attitudes and behaviour and the modest outcomes of persuasive communication efforts.The European researchers have been led in particular by those espousing a social representations framework(Farr and Moscovici. 1984:Moscovici,1990).In this view it is not sufficient to describe the content of attitudes and how they might develop or change solely at the individual level because they must be explained in relation to the social world in which the individual moves (Jahoda,1992;Moscovici,1990).The move amounts to a re-direction of attitude research emphasising the socially shared nature of people's summary and anticipatory responses and directing attention to,for example,racist talk and discourse rather than racist attitudes(Augoustinous Reynolds,2001;Wetherell Potter,1992).The approach is able to handle contradictory attitudes (or at least differences in attitudes expressed in survey responses as opposed to those expressed in conversation)and provides a strong basis for researchers to re-engage in critical commentary regarding issues of power and social justice.Such critical commentary tends to be marginalised when working within the strongly individualist tradition that treats people only as thinking machines The implications for tourism study may be developed as follows.Tourism researchers have arguably lost the dynamic,performative and communication dependent character of attitudes by reducing their assessment to tables of means derived from Likert scale responses(Crang,1997;Moore,2002).It can be suggested, following the recent reviews of the term,that the attitudes tourists hold towards the people and places visited are not fixed and standard entities but shifting,socially negotiated communications.Such exchanges are highly dependent on to whom tourists are speaking,the context of the conversation and its implications.In this sense attitudes and the values they represent are context dependent and contain insights about the people who trade these reactions. It has of course been convenient in psychology and tourism studies to be able to measure attitudes in numerical terms and to use these measures to develop a statistically based understanding of the patterns and forces shaping attitude change (cf. Pizam Mansfeld,2000).The recurring criticism here though is that this approach has been less effective in stimulating thought about the ways in which people acquire their views,present their attitudes and influence others.It is possible therefore to suggest ways in which the current work can be supplemented. A focus on the storytelling of tourists represents one way to conceive of this more social,communication linked role of attitudes(cf.Woodside,Cruikshank Dehuang, 2007).Many researchers are now suggesting that the concept of narrative or storytelling can be seen as central to the tourist experience(Guthrie Anderson,8 shallow processing or mindlessness (Langer 1989, 2009). There are other terms for these two pathways including the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and two systems approach (Kahneman, 2011) but at core, one route provides well learned and accessible recall of information and perspectives while the other involves a ready acceptance of information which later may not be recalled or employed. Further attention to the specifics of the dual processing approach will be pursued in a later section on memory (Smith & DeCoster, 2000). Much of the development of these directions in attitude research occurred in North America. A largely European re-assessment of the cross-Atlantic work has been growing in recent decades. The challenge to existing approaches is fuelled by the limited success of linking attitudes and behaviour and the modest outcomes of persuasive communication efforts. The European researchers have been led in particular by those espousing a social representations framework (Farr and Moscovici, 1984; Moscovici, 1990). In this view it is not sufficient to describe the content of attitudes and how they might develop or change solely at the individual level because they must be explained in relation to the social world in which the individual moves (Jahoda, 1992; Moscovici, 1990). The move amounts to a re-direction of attitude research emphasising the socially shared nature of people’s summary and anticipatory responses and directing attention to, for example, racist talk and discourse rather than racist attitudes (Augoustinous & Reynolds, 2001; Wetherell & Potter, 1992). The approach is able to handle contradictory attitudes (or at least differences in attitudes expressed in survey responses as opposed to those expressed in conversation) and provides a strong basis for researchers to re-engage in critical commentary regarding issues of power and social justice. Such critical commentary tends to be marginalised when working within the strongly individualist tradition that treats people only as thinking machines. The implications for tourism study may be developed as follows. Tourism researchers have arguably lost the dynamic, performative and communication dependent character of attitudes by reducing their assessment to tables of means derived from Likert scale responses (Crang, 1997; Moore, 2002). It can be suggested, following the recent reviews of the term, that the attitudes tourists hold towards the people and places visited are not fixed and standard entities but shifting, socially negotiated communications. Such exchanges are highly dependent on to whom tourists are speaking, the context of the conversation and its implications. In this sense attitudes and the values they represent are context dependent and contain insights about the people who trade these reactions. It has of course been convenient in psychology and tourism studies to be able to measure attitudes in numerical terms and to use these measures to develop a statistically based understanding of the patterns and forces shaping attitude change (cf. Pizam & Mansfeld, 2000). The recurring criticism here though is that this approach has been less effective in stimulating thought about the ways in which people acquire their views, present their attitudes and influence others. It is possible therefore to suggest ways in which the current work can be supplemented. A focus on the storytelling of tourists represents one way to conceive of this more social, communication linked role of attitudes (cf. Woodside, Cruikshank & Dehuang, 2007). Many researchers are now suggesting that the concept of narrative or storytelling can be seen as central to the tourist experience (Guthrie & Anderson