The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School Department

Home , MTV Spring Break, This Is How I Made It

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management

CULTURE, CONSENSUS AND BEHAVIOR AMONG NORTH-AMERICAN

SPRING BREAKERS

A Dissertation in

Recreation, Park and Tourism Management

Nuno Filipe da Costa Cardoso Dantas Ribeiro

 2011 Nuno Filipe da Costa Cardoso Dantas Ribeiro

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2011

The dissertation of Nuno Filipe da Costa Cardoso Dantas Ribeiro was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Careen M. Yarnal Associate Professor of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee

E. Paul Durrenberger Professor of Anthropology

Robert W. Schrauf Professor of Applied Linguistics

Garry E. Chick Professor of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management Professor of Anthropology Head of the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research was to provide an objective account of Spring Break behavior and contrast it with spring breakers‘ self-reported cultural beliefs and behaviors about Spring Break using the cultural consensus and cultural consonance models. Moreover, the aim of this study was to address a gap in the Spring Break literature by providing an ethnographic account of Spring Break in a typical Spring Break destination – Panama City Beach, Florida – and placing the Spring Break phenomenon in its larger socio-political-economical context.

Four separate studies were conducted using a variety of research methods following a mixed-methods design. Namely, a) an ethnography of the Spring Break experience, b) an ethological analysis of spring breakers‘ public behaviors, c) a cultural domain analysis of spring breakers‘ cultural beliefs and cultural prescriptions, and d) an investigation into the relationship between Spring Break culture and self-reported and objectively measured Spring Break behaviors using the cultural consensus and cultural consonance models.

Findings point towards a disconnect between culture and behavior, which I labeled ―cultural dissonance.‖ Objectively measured behavior followed cultural prescriptions

iv (i.e., normative behaviors) more closely than self-reported behavior, thus supporting a wealth of research in the social sciences that stresses the behavioral implications of cultural models. These studies revealed the presence of not one but two separate Spring Break cultures, sharply divided along gender lines. Findings also dispute the notion of Spring Break as a rite of passage for college students, suggesting instead that Spring Break behaviors are but a continuation of practices that college students already engage in during the rest of the year. Moreover, this research revealed that Spring Break is not independent of local systems and global processes of economic and political importance, which influence, and are in turn influenced by, what occurs during Spring Break. Lastly, these studies validated the necessity of adopting mixed methodologies when conducting anthropological research in order to obtain valid and reliable results.

The present research makes a significant contribution to the comparative study of culture and behavior. This study also furthers cultural consensus and cultural consonance theories, namely by contrasting self-reported cultural consonance and objectively measured cultural consonance with cultural consensus. Furthermore, the novelty of the research design and research methods employed has significant potential to mitigate the prevailing issue of informant inaccuracy in the social sciences.

This research also contributes to a better understanding of young people‘s leisure in controversial settings by examining how their cultural beliefs influence actual and self- perceived behavior. Lastly, this research extends existing knowledge on Spring Break, a tourism phenomenon of growing economic and social importance.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ______ix LIST OF TABLES ______xii ACNOWLEDGEMENTS ______xiii INTRODUCTION ______1 LEARNING ABOUT CULTURE ______2 HOTEL SOVIVA ______6 THE HISTORY OF A BREAK ______10 SOME DISCREPANCIES IN THE SPRING BREAK LITERATURE ______13 ORIENTATION TO THE DISSERTATION ARTICLES ______16 REFERENCES ______18 ―WE‘RE NOT PORN GUYS, WE‘RE ANTHROPOLOGISTS!‖ – AN ETHNOGRAPHIC ACCOUNT OF SPRING BREAK IN PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA ______26 ABSTRACT ______26 INTRODUCTION ______28 ―THE BEST-KEPT SECRET IN THE PANHANDLE‖ – THE MAKING OF A TOURISM DESTINATION ______33 ―YOU GUYS DON‘T LOOK LIKE SPRING BREAKERS!‖ ______40 WELCOME TO PANAMA CITY BEACH ______45 BEACH LIFE ______50 THE DIRTY UNDERBELLY ______58 LOCAL SYSTEMS, GLOBAL PROCESSES ______68 ―WE‘RE NOT PORN GUYS, WE‘RE ANTHROPOLOGISTS!‖ ______82 CODA – GUARDING FORT PANAMA ______84 REFERENCES ______88 APPENDIX A – A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF PANAMA CITY BEACH, 1939-2009 ______103 PUBLIC SPACE AND CORPORATE SPACE: RITUAL ELEMENTS IN THE SPRING BREAK EXPERIENCE IN PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA ______108 ABSTRACT ______108 INTRODUCTION ______110 PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA ______111

METHODS ______112 RESULTS ______113 SPRING BREAK – A FAKE RITE OF PASSAGE? ______118 REFERENCES ______121 USING A VARIETY OF METHODS TO COMPARE RELATED FREE LISTS AND INVESTIGATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITION AND BEHAVIOR OF A SPRING BREAK EXPERIENCE ______124 ABSTRACT ______124 INTRODUCTION ______126 THE SPRING BREAK CONTEXT ______127 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ______128 METHODS ______129 Sampling Procedures ______129 Analysis ______130 Defining and characterizing cultural domains ______131 Comparing cultural domains ______133 RESULTS ______133 Frequency Distribution ______133 Length of Free Lists______135 Visualizing Domain Composition and Structure ______139 Multidimensional Scaling Plots ______139 Graphic Layout Algorithm Representation ______140 Domain Comparison ______145 DISCUSSION ______146 CONCLUSION ______148 REFERENCES ______149 APPENDIX A – FREE LISTING QUESTIONNAIRE ______154 APPENDIX B – RESPONDENT-BY-ITEM SIMILARITY MATRICES ______156 CULTURE, CONSENSUS, AND DISSONANCE AMONG NORTH-AMERICAN SPRING BREAKERS ______163 ABSTRACT ______163 INTRODUCTION ______165 LITERATURE REVIEW ______166

vii Culture, Consensus, and Behavior______166 Culture, Consensus, and Leisure ______168 Spring Break – A North American Phenomenon ______169 PROCEDURES ______170 Hypotheses. ______170 Research Design ______170 Sampling ______173 Research Site ______174 Data Collection ______174 Random spot sampling and continuous monitoring______174 Free listing ______175 Cultural consensus questionnaires ______175 Cultural consonance questionnaires ______176 Data Analysis______179 Random spot sampling and continuous monitoring______179 Free listing ______179 Cultural consensus questionnaires ______179 A note on cultural consensus and negative competencies ______179 Cultural consonance questionnaires ______180 Hypothesis testing ______180 RESULTS ______182 Cultural Consensus ______182 Beliefs ______182 Behaviors ______184 Cultural Consonance ______186 Self-reported overall behaviors ______186 Self-reported beach behaviors ______189 Objectively measured beach behaviors ______191 Self-reported cultural consonance ______193 Objectively measured cultural consonance ______196 Summary of Results ______198 DISCUSSION ______200 Taking Cultural Consensus and Cultural Consonance Further ______200 Spring Break: A Case of Cultural Dissonance? ______203 CONCLUSION ______206

viii

REFERENCES ______208 APPENDIX A – SPRING BREAK BEACH ACTIVITIES ETHOGRAM ______218 APPENDIX B – SPRING BREAK BEACH FREE LISTING QUESTIONNAIRE ______220 APPENDIX C – SPRING BREAK CULTURAL CONSENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE (SPRING BREAK BELIEFS) ______222 APPENDIX D – SPRING BREAK CULTURAL CONSENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE (SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS) ______226 APPENDIX E – SPRING BREAK CULTURAL CONSONANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (OVERALL BEHAVIORS) ______230 APPENDIX F – SPRING BREAK CULTURAL CONSONANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (BEACH BEHAVIORS) ______234 APPENDIX G – SPRING BREAK ETHOGRAM DAILY DATA COLLECTION SAMPLE __ 238 CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ______236 REFERENCES ______239

ix LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 – MAP OF PANAMA CITY BEACH, FL ______34 FIGURE 1.2 – PANAMA CITY BEACH SEASIDE ______34 FIGURE 1.3 – PANAMA CITY BEACH DURING SPRING BREAK (EASTWARD VIEW) _____ 35 FIGURE 1.4 – PANAMA CITY BEACH DURING SPRING BREAK (WESTWARD VIEW) ____ 35 FIGURE 1.5 – ADULT BEACH STORE ______37 FIGURE 1.6 – THE OLD AND THE NEW: NOTE THE OLD MOTELS IN THE FOREGROUND ___ 37 FIGURE 1.7 – THE NEW BEACH FRONT CONDOMINIUMS ______38 FIGURE 1.8 – BEACH FRONT CONDOMINIUM (CLOSE VIEW) ______38 FIGURE 1.9 – CLUB LAVELA ______41 FIGURE 1.10 – CORPORATE AREA (U.S. ARMY) AT THE BEACH UNDER CONSTRUCTION 41 FIGURE 1.11 – CORPORATE AREA (MAXIM/NORELCO) READY FOR SB ______42 FIGURE 1.12 – CORPORATE AREA (U.S. ARMY/HOLLIDAY INN) SOUNDSTAGE ______42 FIGURE 1.13– SPRING BREAKERS ARRIVE IN PCB ______47 FIGURE 1.14 – BRAND AMBASSADORS INSIDE THE LOBBY OF A HOTEL ______47 FIGURE 1.15 – PCB‘S BEACH IN THE EARLY MORNING (9:00AM) ______54 FIGURE 1.16 – PCB‘S BEACH IN THE EARLY AFTERNOON (12:00PM) ______54 FIGURE 1.17 – SPRING BREAKERS IN A SPARSELY POPULATED AREA OF THE BEACH ___ 55 FIGURE 1.18 – SPRING BREAKERS IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA OF THE BEACH ____ 55 FIGURE 1.19 – AN IMMENSE TAILGATE ______56 FIGURE 1.20 – SPRING BREAKERS PLAYING BEER PONG ON AN IMPROVISED TABLE ____ 56 FIGURE 1.21 – WHAT THE BEACH LOOKS LIKE ONCE THE SUN SETS ______61 FIGURE 1.22 – SEA OATS PLANTATION ENCLOSURES NEXT TO CONDOMINIUMS ON THE BEACH ______61 FIGURE 1.23 – AMBULANCE NEAR PCB‘S EMS CENTER ______62 FIGURE 1.24 – A STATE TROOPER PULLS OVER A SPRING BREAKER ON THOMAS DRIVE 62 FIGURE 1.25 – CITY BILLBOARD CAUTIONING SPRING BREAKERS AS THEY ENTER PCB 66 FIGURE 1.26 – HOTEL BILLBOARD WELCOMING SPRING BREAKERS TO PCB ______66 FIGURE 1.27 –BILLBOARD ADVERTISING THE SERVICES OF A LOCAL LAWYER TO SPRING BREAKERS ______67 FIGURE 1.28 –RELIGIOUS HOSTILITY TOWARDS SPRING BREAKERS ______67

FIGURE 1.29 –THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SPRING BREAK IN PCB ______69 FIGURE 1.30 –CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN PCB‘S POLITICAL ECONOMY DURING SPRING BREAK ______76 FIGURE 1.31 – LIQUID REFRESHMENT FOR SALE AT A NATIONAL CHAIN DISCOUNT STORE ______77 FIGURE 1.32 – FREE TUITION AS ENTICEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN CORPORATE CONTESTS ______77 FIGURE 1.33 – ADVERTISEMENT BUS FOR A NATIONAL SPRING BREAK TOUR OPERATOR 78 FIGURE 1.34 – COPYRIGHT WARNING AT THE ENTRANCE OF A CORPORATE AREA ON THE BEACH ______78 FIGURE 1.35 – DIALECTIC EXCHANGE BETWEEN LOCAL AND GLOBAL FORCES ______81 FIGURE 1.36 – THE AUTHOR CONDUCTING FIELDWORK ______84 FIGURE 1.37 –FORT PANAMA IN THE EARLY MORNING ______86 FIGURE 1.38 – GUARDING FORT PANAMA ______86 FIGURE 1.A1 – AERIAL VIEW OF PANAMA CITY BEACH (1939) ______104 FIGURE 1.A2 – AERIAL VIEW OF PANAMA CITY BEACH (1950) ______104 FIGURE 1.A3 – AERIAL VIEW OF PANAMA CITY BEACH (1960) ______105 FIGURE 1.A4 – AERIAL VIEW OF PANAMA CITY BEACH (1970) ______105 FIGURE 1.A5 – AERIAL VIEW OF PANAMA CITY BEACH (1980) ______106 FIGURE 1.A6 – AERIAL VIEW OF PANAMA CITY BEACH (CIRCA 1990) ______106 FIGURE 1.A7 – AERIAL VIEW OF PANAMA CITY BEACH (CIRCA 2000) ______107 FIGURE 1.A8 –PANAMA CITY BEACH AT SUNSET (2009) ______107 FIGURE 2.1 – BEHAVIORAL COUNTS FOR PUBLIC AREAS ______114 FIGURE 2.2 – BEHAVIORAL COUNTS FOR CORPORATE AREAS ______115 FIGURE 2.3 – BEHAVIORAL COUNT COMPARISON BETWEEN PUBLIC AND CORPORATE AREAS ______117 FIGURE 2.4 – BEHAVIORAL AVERAGES COMPARISON BETWEEN PUBLIC AND CORPORATE AREAS ______117 FIGURE 3.1 – FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF FREE LIST ITEMS ______133 FIGURE 3.2 – METRIC MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING PLOTS OF FREE LIST ITEMS ______140 FIGURE 3.3 – GRAPHIC LAYOUT ALGORITHM REPRESENTATION OF FREE LIST ITEMS - BELIEFS ______142 FIGURE 3.4 – GRAPHIC LAYOUT ALGORITHM REPRESENTATION OF FREE LIST ITEMS - BEHAVIORS______143

FIGURE 4.1 – DATA COLLECTION PROCESS ______172 FIGURE 4.2 – MALE AND FEMALE CULTURALLY CORRECT ANSWERS – SPRING BREAK BELIEFS ______184 FIGURE 4.3 – MALE AND FEMALE CULTURALLY CORRECT ANSWERS – SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS______186 FIGURE 4.4 – MALE AND FEMALE AVERAGE SELF-REPORTED SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS - OVERALL ______189 FIGURE 4.5 – MALE AND FEMALE AVERAGE SELF-REPORTED SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS – BEACH ONLY ______191 FIGURE 4.6 – DAILY BEHAVIORAL COUNTS OF SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS – BEACH ONLY ______193

xii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1.1 - BAY COUNTY ARREST DATA FOR THE PERIOD 01/01/2010-06/30/2010 ____ 64 TABLE 1.2 - DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN PANAMA CITY BEACH'S POLITICAL ECONOMY DURING SPRING BREAK ______75 TABLE 3.1 - SAMPLE STATISTICS ______130 TABLE 3.2 - FREE LIST FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION ______134 TABLE 3.3 - LENGTH OF FREE LISTS, SORTED BY DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES ______136 TABLE 3.4 - MOST SALIENT ITEMS MENTIONED BY MORE THAN 3 PARTICIPANTS, SORTED BY SALIENCY ______137 TABLE 3.B.1 - INFORMANT-BY-ITEM MATRIX (FREE LIST #1 - BELIEFS) ______157 TABLE 3.B.2 - INFORMANT-BY-ITEM MATRIX (FREE LIST #2 - BEHAVIOR) ______160 TABLE 4.1 - RESPONDENT DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ______177 TABLE 4.2 - CULTURALLY CORRECT RESPONSES - SPRING BREAK BELIEFS ______183 TABLE 4.3 - CULTURALLY CORRECT RESPONSES - SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS ______185 TABLE 4.4 - SELF-REPORTED SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS – OVERALL ______188 TABLE 4.5 - SELF-REPORTED SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS - BEACH ONLY ______190 TABLE 4.6 - OBJECTIVELY RECORDED SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS - BEACH ONLY ____ 192 TABLE 4.7 - MALE AND FEMALE RANK COMPARISONS FOR SELF-REPORTED CULTURAL CONSONANCE (SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS - OVERALL) ______194 TABLE 4.8 - MALE AND FEMALE RANK COMPARISONS FOR SELF-REPORTED CULTURAL CONSONANCE (SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS - BEACH ONLY) ______195 TABLE 4.9 - MALE AND FEMALE RANK COMPARISONS FOR OBJECTIVELY MEASURED CULTURAL CONSONANCE (SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS - BEACH ONLY) ______196 TABLE 4.10 - MALE AND FEMALE RANK COMPARISONS BETWEEN SELF-REPORTED AND OBJECTIVELY MEASURED SPRING BREAK BEHAVIORS (BEACH ONLY) ______198 TABLE 4.11 - MALE AND FEMALE SPRING BREAK CULTURAL CONSONANCE SCORES (PEARSON'S R) ______199 TABLE 4.12 - MALE AND FEMALE SPRING BREAK CULTURAL CONSENSUS VALUES ____ 201

xiii ACNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of a number of individuals, whose contribution I would like to acknowledge. First and foremost, I would like to thank my wife Toni for putting up with me for so long, particularly in the last months leading up to the conclusion of the dissertation, when I wasn‘t perhaps the most congenial of fellows. I can‘t thank her enough for her love, empathy, and diplomatic editing skills. I also want to thank my parents Gaspar and Paula for their love, understanding, and the education they bestowed upon me.

I have a big debt of gratitude towards the Erem-Durrenberger family. Suzan, Paul, Ayse, and Buddy took me into their house, fed me, took me places, let me use their washer and dryer, gave me books, listened to my endless complaints about graduate school and life in general, were victims of my many gastronomical experiments, and generally provided a safe haven where I could be myself. They were a surrogate family and I owe them my sanity and friendship many times over.

I want to thank Eric Foemmel for agreeing to be my research assistant on such short notice and for little more than subsistence pay, and for helping me collect data under the most interesting of circumstances. Without Eric‘s help, this dissertation would not have been possible.

I was fortunate to have had a remarkable doctoral dissertation committee, both academically and personally, and I would like to thank them for their efforts. I am grateful to Garry Chick for introducing me to the theoretical and methodological issues surrounding the comparative study of culture and behavior, which ended up being a focal point of this dissertation, and for answering my many queries concerning theory and method in anthropology and leisure studies. He has also been a wonderful mentor in the finer points of the academic profession, and his guidance and advice have proved invaluable. I cannot accurately describe how much I owe Paul Durrenberger, both as a professor and as a friend. For me and for many young scholars of my generation, he has

xiv been a role model and an inspiration of how one should conduct oneself in academia and in life in general. He has taught me many lessons and embodies the Boasian ideal of the social scientist and activist that is sadly becoming rarer within the academic profession. I trust I will be worthy of his teachings. Bob Schrauf has contributed greatly to increase the scientific merits of this dissertation. I know of few other anthropologists who are more knowledgeable about anthropological research methods and, moreover, are able to transmit what they know in such an engaging and effortless manner. His lectures remain in my memory as some of the most useful and thought provoking I had the pleasure of listening to. I also want to thank Careen Yarnal, my academic advisor, for her useful help and feedback throughout this process. I am particularly grateful for being allowed to pursue my own academic interests, something of a rarity in graduate school.

A number of scholars provided valuable insights and criticism when I presented earlier versions of my doctoral work at professional and academic meetings and colloquia, and I would like to acknowledge the comments and suggestions of Giovanni Bennardo, Dimitra Doukas, Rick Feinberg, John Gatewood, Alex Mayer, Bradd Shore, and Sue Weller.

Three other professors have greatly contributed to my education as a student and as a scholar. Licínio Cunha stands out in my mind as a living example of such old-fashioned values as academic rigor, integrity, and intellectual curiosity. Vasco Teixeira was my first role model as to what an anthropologist should be, and I thank him for exposing me to the wonderful world of anthropological inquiry as well as to the antics of Mr. Hulot. And José Corrêa Guedes deserves credit for teaching me to appreciate fine art and understanding how it contributes to a more fulfilling life.

In Panama City Beach, a great number of people helped me in a number of different ways, and granted me access to places, people, data, and often, their lives. I would like to particularly thank Joe, Theresia, Steve, B.G., Corey, Lisa and the other folks at Shoestrings for their warm Southern hospitality and willingness to respond to my many (usually dumb) questions. Ms. Jo Smith, executive secretary to the mayor, was of

xv remarkable assistance, as were local historian Ms. Maureen Womack and Mr. Dan Rowe, CEO of the Tourism Development Council/Conventions and Visitors Bureau of Panama City Beach. The Bay County and Panama City Beach Libraries‘ staff were immensely helpful, and the Local History Room of the Bay County Library graciously allowed me to use their photographic archive to illustrate my work.

In State College, I want to thank the Anth 455 Collective, the Casbah kids, and Penn State‘s chapter of United Students Against Sweatshops for teaching me the meaning of fraternity. They gave me their time, friendship, food, bike-fixing, and dumpster-diving skills and asked for nothing in return. I am particularly grateful to Chris Stevens, Liz Stock, and Andy Mazur for keeping the Casbah what it is – a place of refuge. My stay in State College was enriched by meeting and learning from a number of other people: Anna Alcaro, Stephen Arnold, Anna and Ben Brewer, Sam Cheng, Youngjoon Choi, Logan Cook, Zach Devlin, Charles and Jo-Ann Dumas, Landon Evak, Art and Louise Goldschmidt, Eric Handley, Benjamin Hickerson, Kate Hoffman, David Hopey, Deb Kerstetter, Won Seok Lee, Malibu, Elaine Meder-Wilgus, Ruth Parsons, Megdanger Quinn, Sara Eve Rivera, Angela and Shawn Rothrock, Natalya Stanko, Dave Stevens, Timmy Tatts, Nathan Trauntvein, Dave Vacco, Julia Watkins, Krista White, Andy Wiesner, and Paul Zielinka. Many thanks also to Lindsay Usher and the Usher family for their friendship and hospitality.

I want to duly acknowledge the help of the Portuguese National Science Foundation for awarding me a substantial dissertation grant which allowed me to dedicate myself exclusively to my doctoral work for the last three semesters of my graduate studies.

Lastly, I want to thank the many anonymous spring breakers who were a part of my study. I could not have done it without you. Whatever it was that you were looking for, I hope you found it.

xvi

To Paul Durrenberger, mentor and friend

Introduction

It comes to you slowly that before you learn anything about the people into whose midst you have dropped (…) you are going to have to learn about yourself.

N. Von Hoffman (2010: 11)

In its simplest form, Spring Break (SB) is nothing more than a week-long vacation period, typically held in the early spring (hence the name), recognized as such by administrators of colleges and universities across North America, and providing a respite from classes, meetings, exams, and often the cold weather. But SB is also a multi-billion dollar tourism phenomenon that encompasses the yearly migration of thousands of college students from U.S. and Canadian universities towards a small number of sunny beach destinations, and is generally associated with the consumption of alcohol in excess, reckless behavior, and a relaxation of sexual mores. More than thirty scholarly articles have been published on the topic, in addition to thousands of media pieces, news articles, op-eds, and reports by advocacy and interest groups. Novels, films, television programmes, and even a handful of master‘s and doctoral theses have been devoted to SB. In college campuses across the Eastern U.S., SB is a daily topic of conversation during the gloomy February months leading up to it, and the talk of many who recount their experiences for many weeks afterwards.

My interest in SB started in the fall of 2005, when I took a course entitled ―Social Psychology of Leisure‖ as part of my Master‘s degree first year course load. Like it happens in countless other graduate courses, our main assignment for the course was the production and presentation of a research proposal on a topic of our choice (provided, of course, that the topic was somehow related to leisure). I had recently read an article that looked at Canadian spring breakers‘ behavior in Daytona Beach, Florida (Maticka-

Tyndale et al. 1998), which argued that SB constituted a liminal space (from the Latin lìmen, meaning threshold, i.e., a time/space outside ―ordinary‖ being and experience, implying a reversal of social roles and rules, and often heralding a new status for those who had experienced it – see Turner 1969 1974 1979 1987). I was intrigued by Maticka- Tyndale et al.‘s (1998) description of SB and their suggestion that SB might constitute a rite of passage (Van Gennep 1961) for North American college students, and decided to write a research proposal to investigate if such hypothesis could be corroborated through ethnographic inquiry. A later independent studies course on the topic of ―Cognition and Behavior in Leisure Studies‖ introduced me to the cognitive approach to culture (D‘Andrade 1995, Ross 2004), including Romney et al.‘s (1986) cultural consensus and Dressler et al.‘s (2005) cultural consonance models, which in turn had been influenced by early comparative studies of culture and behavior (Chick 1981, Roberts and Chick 1979). These influences spurred my interest and efforts in finding out if such thing as a ―SB culture‖ existed and, if so, how/if such culture impacted the spring breakers‘ behavior.

This dissertation is the culmination of such efforts. It consists of a mixed-methods study of SB in one of the most popular SB destination in the U.S., Panama City Beach, Florida (PCB). The study comprises a variety of research methods and theoretical approaches to provide an account of SB culture in PCB, including the relationship between culture and the spring breakers‘ behavior, as well as an analysis of the political-economical system of SB in PCB. In the pages that follow I present some personal history that pertains to my interest in culture and behavior, a brief summary of the history of SB, some considerations about the SB literature, and an orientation to the articles that compose the present volume.

Learning About Culture

Twelve years ago, of course, I had never heard of SB. I had just recently dropped out of the second oldest law school in Europe, after a brief passage through its venerable mahogany corridors without fame or brilliance and during the course of which I had accomplished the feat of attending fewer than ten class periods, sitting for only one exam (which I failed ignominiously), and passing none of the courses I had enrolled in. I had,

3 however, acquired an impressive social network, developed a remarkable tolerance for all sorts of alcoholic beverages, and nurtured emerging skills at several games of chance. Regrettably, my father saw little promise in my gambling abilities that I honed at a nearby casino. The casino had foolishly been built a mere twenty-five miles from the university, thus making the decision between studying Roman Contract Law or playing vingt et un surrounded by cocktail dress-clad beauties a rather obvious one. After I spent a semester‘s tuition money during an ill-fated evening playing roulette (I had clearly yet to take any introductory statistics courses), my father had had enough. I could shape up, hit the books, and become a lawyer like generation after generation of male progeny in our family had done before me, or…

Stupid, pig-headed, and arrogant, I chose the latter. In a gesture worthy of Tom Sawyer‘s delusions of grandeur, I announced to father that I had decided to quit school, leave family and friends behind, and see the world. My plan was to come back many years later, skin tanned and leathery, dressed in black finery from head to toe, thick gold earrings glistening in the sun, with sword and pistol by my side, aboard the fastest vessel in the Spanish Main – The Black Lightning – and make everyone tremble in fear at my terrible countenance and immense fortune. Fortunately, good sense and the hand of a kind family member intervened. One of my aunts, warned by my mother of my impending projects, contacted me and asked, Would I not prefer to work for her husband, a wealthy owner of a number of businesses related to the hospitality industry? Why not? I asked myself, and left with the proverbial slam of the door and the black duffel bag that mother had managed to pack with clean underwear and some cash which I had not the moral fortitude to refuse.

Situated in an idyllic region of the Mediterranean coast, the hotel where I was to work was a decrepit monolithic piece of granite and plaster, with vast underground caves and passageways that could be favorably compared with the catacombs of St. Peter. The hotel turned immense profits thanks to cheap labor and the hard currency of the all-inclusive package tourists from the British Isles, Germany and France that every summer swarmed the beaches of Southern Europe (Krippendorf 1987, Lenček and Bosker 1998). I completed a full management internship there, or what the French call a ―stage

4 complète,‖ meaning I had to spend a minimum of thirty days in each section of the hotel, including the restaurants, the kitchen, the front desk, the manager‘s office, and so forth.

Traditionally, interns rank just below the night porter and above the busboy in the hospitality hierarchy, and thus are saddled with the most unpleasant tasks. But I was the boss‘s nephew; and pretty soon I realized I had it easy. I was never asked to take out the trash, which was held in flimsy fifty and hundred-gallon bags that often ripped; no one ever told me to dive for pearls when a dishwasher missed work; I was never scolded if I did something wrong or stupid (which was often); I was never asked to go out for a beer after work. Most tellingly, no one ever used part of their vast and colorful repertoire of profanity to speak ill of others – an immensely popular leisure activity among hotel workers – when I was present. In the eyes of those who toiled above and below ground, I was clearly privilegium. Hurt in my pride, I demanded to be treated as everybody else and after much insistence they realized I was serious. Instead of the two days off per week guaranteed by law, I requested only one. I wanted desperately, for reasons I only now begin to recognize, to win the respect of the hotel workers.

With time I became one of them. I didn‘t put on airs, worked as hard as everyone else – hotel work was then, and still is today, brutal, back-breaking, mind-numbing, soul- crushing work punctuated by fleeting instants of pure joy and fierce pride in one‘s abilities (Adler and Adler 2004, Sandoval-Strausz 2008, Sherman 2007) – never ratted anyone out to my uncle (not that he would ask, as he was far too intelligent for that), and shared everyone‘s hatred of the general manager, a naziesque arrogant prick who had made his bones in the hotel business in Brazil bossing Ceará peasants (whom desertification and hunger had turned into waiters and busboys) as if they were still slaves.

The workers taught me what they knew and they taught me well. Between lessons on how to make demi-glace sauce, clean a one-bedroom apartment under two minutes flat, and manage complex computerized reservation and revenue systems, they taught me a thing or two about culture and behavior. First, culture is basically what you need to know in order to get along in a given environment (cf. Goodenough 1967 1967a). Culture lives

5 in people‘s minds. Culture is collective and transmissible, and can be learned, but no one has all the answers. There were no signs anywhere telling you to call the woman in the kitchen with the tall white hat (called a toque) ―Chef‖ and the woman with the small one ―Laura,‖ but you figured it out pretty quickly. Everyone knew how their section worked and what their job was in it, but if you moved one person from accounting to the front desk they were clueless. The general manager had a good overview of the entire hotel, and probably knew more about it than anyone else, but he couldn‘t make mayonnaise or clean the water pump by the pool to save his life. He also didn‘t know that it was okay to treat the meat supplier poorly, insinuating that his mother often had sexual encounters with a wide variety of farm animals, but that the fishmonger had to be treated in the most deferential manner possible (there were many meat purveyors in the area, but only one fish supplier, who would sell you bad fish that looked and smelled fresh if you upset him).

Second, learning about culture is both an apprenticeship and a translation that often gets lost (Agar 2004). When learning the ropes around the main kitchen, I had to learn its culture, and what things I was supposed to do (cultural prescriptions) and what things I wasn‘t (cultural proscriptions). There was obviously a ―kitchen culture,‖ a militaristic, hierarchical, assembly line-type operation centered on the knowledge and production of food (Fine 2008). I did my best to learn it, but often I got it wrong. Moreover, the same thing explained by different people often turned out differently in my mind after I had interpreted it. For example, when making a certain soup, Chef Bénard wanted his peppers cut just so, like this. For the same soup Chef Martin also wanted his peppers cut just so, like that. What looked to me like two entirely different ways of dicing vegetables were, for them, exactly the same thing – julienned peppers. If I had wanted to write an ethnography about kitchen life, I wouldn‘t have been able to write the ethnography of kitchen life, but an ethnography of a kitchen life as I had seen it. Thus, as Michael Agar (2006) points out, culture is neither authoritative nor absolute. Nor should ethnography be, either (but it often is, leading to all sorts of trouble – see e.g., the Redfield-Lewis, Mead-Freeman, and Benedict-Bennett debates).

Third, I learned that culture sometimes impacts behavior and sometimes it doesn‘t (Brown 2008). For example, part of the overall ―hotel culture‖ was a strong work ethic. In spite of the low wages, you worked very, very hard, and if you didn‘t you were either looked down upon, ostracized, or, in the most severe cases, forced to leave. So there was a great deal of pressure to work hard. But that didn‘t mean that everyone did. Some, by virtue of their structural positions (e.g., the boss‘s nephew) were allowed special privileges and only had to work hard if they wanted to. Others proclaimed they worked extremely hard and indeed appeared to work very hard; but a closer look revealed that someone else was doing their work for them. It was their personal power (e.g., they were intimidating persons, or they knew something about someone‘s tax returns) that was shielding them from cultural prescriptions. Thus I learned that power in its different variations has a bearing on culture, and that the opposite is probably true as well (Wolf 1990).

Hotel Soviva

The following year I got a job with a British tour operator as a holiday rep (i.e., ―overseas representative‖ in corporatespeak), a sort of glorified tour guide who nonetheless possesses the dubious distinction of being a cultural broker between the local population and the tourists (Bruner 2005, Ness 2003). Following a brief training period in Monastir, Tunisia (the company‘s flagship destination), my knowledge of the French and Arabic languages, along with being able to mention the name of the previous Tunisian president (Habib Bourguiba) when asked, had weighted heavily in the corporate headquarters‘ decision to keep me in Tunisia. I was posted in Port El Kantaoui, a highly desirable resort where guests were said to be of ―higher quality‖ (meaning wealthier and more liberal with their gratuities). Thus my incipient etic (i.e., outsider‘s) knowledge of Tunisian culture had placed me in a structural position whereby I would pretend to possess such emic (i.e., insider‘s) knowledge that I would be able to ―translate‖ a foreign culture to foreigners.

My duties were clear: keep the guests happy and sell them stuff. I was to welcome and see them off at the airport; accompany them on the bus transfers to and from their hotels;

7 assist with check-in and other hotel procedures; negotiate the cultural exchanges that occurred between guests and hosts (Smith 1989), and that were bound to cause friction (―No, Mr. Robertson, it does not do to call every Tunisian Mohammed; that‘s rather offensive‖), and generally be at hand to handle any emergency and/or complaint the guests might have concerning their vacations. Moreover, I was to sell them a variety of services: trips (i.e., ―excursions‖) to the Sahara and a variety of other locations, rental cars, tickets to the casino/cabaret, bar crawls and, whenever possible, advertise the services of local sellers of leather goods, jewelry, and rugs sold by a motley crew of purveyors (i.e., ―business associates‖) that by a strange coincidence happened to be related by blood or marriage to the more senior reps stationed in the resort. In addition to a tax-free salary, paid either to a bank account of our choice overseas or in hard currency (British pounds or U.S. dollars) on resort, reps received commission on every single item sold or otherwise ―brokered‖ to their guests.

Little wonder then, that by the time the tourists arrived back home, they did so with the impression that Tunisian culture revolved around the desert (trips to the Sahara went the furthest and consequently were the most expensive/profitable), a great deal of Tunisian men were gay (no one bothered to explain – there was no percentage in it – that in many cultures holding hands and kissing on the cheek among males is not synonymous with homosexuality – cf. Lewis 1978, Schmitt and Sofer 1992), leather and gold were remarkably inexpensive (it wasn‘t leather and it wasn‘t gold), and the only night entertainment available in Port El Kantaoui was centered around the local casino (―casino nights‖ provided reps with the highest commission in terms of percentage – 10%, and the casino manager was rumored to know the resort manager intimately). Thus, I learned that the political-economical system often conditions not only culture, but representations of culture as well (Harris 2001, Mauss 2000, Sahlins 2000, Wilk and Cliggett 2007). Moreover, we seem to have ingrained inside ourselves some sort of cultural laziness – we seldom bother to question the systems we find ourselves in, and we have a hard time discarding pre-existing cultural assumptions (Durrenberger 1991). This is particularly evident during periods of self-licensed leisure, such as holidays, feasts, carnivals, or vacations.

All of the do‘s and don‘ts of being a rep (i.e., the cultural prescriptions and proscriptions that composed ―rep life‖), including how to act, what to say, how to dress, and many others were explained in our ―rep‘s manual,‖ a three hundred-page blue folder issued on the first day of our training and that we were meant to return upon termination of employment. The level of detail was extraordinary – from diagrams detailing how we should rise and greet a guest during office hours, to the number of earrings males and females were allowed to wear, to a strict prohibition against Clintonesque ―inappropriate relations‖ with guests – it was all there. It was, in essence, a distillation/translation of a unique corporate culture, a corporate auto-ethnography if you will. Yet this culture was not organic, but artificial, which led me to reflect if it was possible to artificially create a culture, indoctrinate individuals into it, and have them modify their behavior because of it (Anderson 1983; cf. Neumann 1966 [1944]). In the particular case of corporate cultures, I believe that answer to be yes (Hertz 1998, Ho 2009, Tett 2009). To this day, I regret not violating my contract and photocopying the manual before returning it.

At the end of their vacation, guests were asked to fill out a survey (i.e., ―customer questionnaire‖) that, in addition to demographic information, asked them about their satisfaction with their overall vacation experience as well as with a number of components of the same (e.g., accommodation, transportation, performance of the rep, etc.). While nobody admitted it in public, these questionnaires, along with the reps‘ sales figures, were the most important measures of our performance. Our actual job had little to do with ―facilitating the encounter between cultures‖ and ―providing an optimum vacation experience at the best value,‖ as the company brochures proclaimed, and everything to do with being a good PR and salesperson. Yet one would be hard pressed to find such cultural prescriptions in the rep‘s manual. For obvious reasons, they weren‘t there. So this episode showed me that often there is a large difference between what people say they think and what they actually think, as there is a difference between what people say they do and what they actually do (Chick 1981, Mills 1940, Spiro 1996). Moreover, there are often glaring omissions in codified translations of culture (i.e., ethnographies).

Another episode that occurred during my work in Tunisia helped me contextualize issues concerning the reliability of recall data. One of the most dreaded properties a rep in Tunisia might be unfortunate enough to be in charge of was Hotel Soviva, in Port El Kantaoui. Many eons ago the hotel was no doubt fit for human habitation, but at the time the place was simply an immense disaster, a sort of budget Club Med gone very, very wrong. There was broken glass at the bottom of the pool, the stairs frequently cracked under the weight of heavier guests, there were daily cases of food poisoning, the bathroom fixtures often exploded into the air if you turned on the water too fast, and a thriving rat colony shared the kitchen with the staff. One could only speculate as to why our company hadn‘t terminated the contract with the hotel, but there were rumors of money laundering, drug trafficking and, more likely, the well-placed bakeesh (bribe, or gratuity).

The guests who were unfortunate enough to vacation there and lived to tell the tale took to calling it ―Hotel Survivor,‖ and the moniker stuck. Pretty soon every rep lived in dread of being assigned to the ―Survivor.‖ So terrible was its reputation that it was used by senior management as punishment for low sales volume or poor questionnaire performance. Yet when one looked at the questionnaires for Hotel Soviva, hotel satisfaction figures were not that bad. In fact, they were quite good. Either because the company, in a rare bout of clarity, had decided to post its most experienced reps there, or because time tends to erase bad memories and extol the good ones, or because during the bus transfer from the hotel to the airport (the time when questionnaires were handed out and filled out by guests) the transfer rep made a point to explain how important the questionnaires were for the personal future of the rep in question, the point is that the questionnaire values for ―Hotel Survivor‖ painted a far rosier picture than that hell hole deserved. This incident showed me the limitations of survey research and, moreover, taught me that recall data, for a number of different reasons, should not be taken as an acceptable surrogate for observation (Bernard et al. 1984, Freeman and Romney 1987, Freeman et al. 1987).

The History of a Break

There is little reliable historical evidence concerning the origins of SB. For certain, we know only that in 1935 Colgate University‘s Swimming Team traveled from Hamilton, New York to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to take advantage of the first outdoor Olympic- sized swimming pool in the Southern States (the Casino Pool) built in 1928. In 1938, Fort Lauderdale hosted the College Coaches‘ Swim Forum, which attracted a large number of collegiate swimming teams from across the U.S. and increasing numbers of college students (Gianoulis 2000). In the 1950s, Northwestern Florida received large numbers of high school students during ―AEA Week‖ (Alabama Education Association) and ―GEA Week‖ (Georgia Education Association) in early March during which no classes were held. Local authorities and businesses were quick to perceive the potential profits to be derived from these annual spring migrations of students towards Florida and, in 1953, civic leaders of Fort Lauderdale extended an ―open invitation‖ to college students from all over the country to come and spend SB in their city (George 1991, Hollis 2004, Josiam et al. 1998, Smeaton et al. 1998).

In 1959, Time Magazine published a story on the ―20,000 spring-vacationing collegians who began taking over the town‖ of Fort Lauderdale (―Beer & the beach‖ 1959). The Time article portrayed SB as a ritual and ended with the answer of a young collegian girl to the question of why she had travelled to Fort Lauderdale: ―Because that‘s where the boys are‖. The following year, a novel entitled Where the boys are (Swarthout 1960), provided a humorous outlook on SB (with spring breakers ending up running guns to Cuba to support Fidel Castro‘s revolutionary efforts!), and the famous homonymous movie, starring Connie Francis and Paula Prentiss, followed only a few months later (Pasternak and Levin 1960). In 1961 Fort Lauderdale received 50,000 spring breakers, and Daytona Beach welcomed over 100,000 in the late 1960s (Gerlach 1989, Gianoulis 2000).

The 1980s witnessed not only the release of the film Spring Break (Smilow and Cunningham 1983), but also the first broadcast of Music Television‘s (MTV) annual MTV Spring Break live from Daytona Beach in 1986, starting a media ritual that endures

11 until today. In 1984, an unsuccessful remake of the movie Where the Boys Are, unoriginally entitled Where the Boys Are ‟84 (Carr and Haverback 1984), was released to little commercial and critical acclaim. In the mid-1980s South Padre Island, Texas received over 150,000 spring breakers and Daytona Beach 400,000 (Gerlach 1989, Woodbury 1987). Fort Lauderdale had reached its peak capacity (350,000 college students in 1985), and was beginning to question whether the marked increase in revenue and tax collections during SB was enough to offset SB‘s negative impacts ―following public complaints and concerns about too many students and their unlawful activities while on vacation‖ (George 1991: 5).

By 1989, due to a number of measures enacted by local officials tired of the spring breakers‘ antics, Fort Lauderdale had successfully reduced spring breakers‘ numbers to a mere 20,000. Nevertheless, overall SB numbers continued to increase, and SB hotspots now included Daytona Beach, Miami, and Panama City Beach in Florida; Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; South Padre Island, Texas; and San Diego and Palm Springs in California (Gianoulis 2000, Moredock 2003). Of note is also the establishment in the early 1980s of College Expo America in Daytona Beach, which remains to this day the largest consumer fair that specifically targets young adults and college students (Gonzalez 1986). By now, SB was unquestionably ―part of Florida‘s cultural history‖ (Wooldrige 2007), heavily contributing to this state‘s economic dependency on tourism (Gannon 2003, Moore 2003, Mormino 2005).

The 1990s saw the rise of Panama City Beach as the SB capital of the U.S., with MTV‘s Spring Break annual broadcast playing a crucial role in its rising popularity (Colon et al. 2001). The number of SB destinations increased steadily in the 1990s, due to an increasingly fragmented student travel market. Whilst reportedly 1.5 million college students travelled yearly during their SB vacations in the 1990s, the number of spring breakers visiting non-traditional SB hotspots and shunning the typical fun-in-the-sun SB also grew. Furthermore, new SB vacation spots included destinations outside the U.S., such as Cancun and Acapulco in Mexico; the Bahamas in the Caribbean; and Europe (Bai et al. 2004, Gianoulis 2000).

Four distinct factors contributed to this changing trend. First, a number of SB hotspots such as Palm Springs, Daytona Beach and Fort Lauderdale, among others, implemented strict measures to dissuade spring breakers from visiting, in the hopes of attracting the far more lucrative market of families and retirees. Second, media outlets such as MTV and CBS News dramatically increased their coverage of the SB phenomenon in the 1990s, featuring a number of overseas SB destinations, such as Cancun. The first volume of the infamously popular film series Girls Gone Wild was also released in this period. Third, as Gianoulis (2000: 489) points out, ―A sharpened awareness of the problems of alcoholism(…)resulted in a marked decrease in the glorification of drink at resort destinations.‖ Consequently, spring breakers travelled to other destinations, such as Mexico, where drinking restrictions were either less prevalent or not so strictly enforced (―Gimme a break‖ 2000, Lange et al. 2002). The fourth and final factor was the increased popularity of ―alternative‖ SB programs (Collison 1989, Nealy 2006), whereby college students choose to spend their SB vacations performing some form of voluntary community service (Healy 2005, Ivory 1997, McElhaney 1998, Rhoads and Neururer 1998).

Finally, the last decade registered not only a marked decrease in overall SB numbers (Guess 2008), but also a steep increase in the marketing efforts of a number of SB- dependent companies, now competing more aggressively for an increasingly smaller college student market (Barbaro 2003, Trigaux 2005). Furthermore, the well-publicized releases of SB-related motion pictures, such as MTV Spring Break (DeMaio et al. 2001) and The Real Cancun (de Oliveira 2003), consolidated the marketing appeal of overseas destinations such as Cancun and Acapulco in Mexico, and Negril and Montego Bay in Jamaica as SB hotspots. SB trips to Europe are also becoming increasingly popular, further contributing to diminish the number of visitors to domestic SB destinations (Clark 2010). Nevertheless, the U.S. SB market is still a profitable one, with reported SB expenditures of $1 billion in 2003 in Florida and Texas alone (Porter 2003, Reynolds 2004).

Some Discrepancies in the Spring Break Literature

The economic impact of the SB market, coupled with the increasing numbers of negative health consequences associated with participation in the SB experience that began to surface in the early 1980s (e.g., Gonzalez 1981), lead to a bourgeoning number of scholarly articles focusing on SB. Predictably, the vast majority of these articles focused primarily on spring breakers‘ behavior, which has been characterized as extreme, alcohol-fueled, ritualistic, overly sexual, and ultimately health-threatening, on one hand; and on the other hand tourism motivations and behaviors of the spring breakers, which were regarded as highly desirable tourists (due to their disposable income at a time of the year known for its paucity in tourism revenues) for tourism destinations both in the U.S. and abroad (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Grekin et al. 2007, Lee et al. 2006, Maticka- Tyndale et al. 1998, Mewhinney et al. 1995, Neighbors et al. 2007, Smeaton et al., 1998, Sönmez et al. 2006). In summary, existing SB research appears to validate the notion of SB as a ―Spring Bacchanal‖ (Marsh 2006).

Nonetheless, there are numerous discrepancies and gaps in the SB literature that are worthy of our attention. For example, the percentage of spring breakers that travel to ―typical‖ SB destinations and are consequently at greater risk to engage in risky behaviors such as drug taking, binge drinking, and casual sex, is not only quite small to begin with, but has been dwindling consistently in the past ten years. Alternative SB vacations to the ―traditional‖ fun-in-the-sun SB experiences, while extremely popular, have also remained, for the most part, largely unstudied by scholars. Furthermore, a closer look at the SB literature reveals substantial disagreement among researchers in regard to spring breakers‘ motivations, levels of involvement, previous intentions, and factors affecting actual SB behavior (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Blumenthal 2006 2006a 2006b, Butts et al. 1996, Collison 1989, Gerlach 1989, Guess 2008, Ivory 1997, Lee et al. 2006, Mathis et al. 1993, Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998, Mattila et al. 2001, McElhaney 1998, Mewhinney et al. 1995, Nealy 2006, Neighbors et al. 2007, Porter 2003, Rhoads and Neururer 1998, Sönmez et al. 2006).

For example, Sönmez et al. (2006) conducted a pre and post-SB study of college students‘ health-risk behaviors during SB and found that not only were drinking and sexual opportunities relevant motives for going on SB (particularly for males), but that significant percentages of males and females reported ample opportunities for drinking (86%, 79% respectively), sex (66%, 63%), and drug use (39%, 27%). The authors report that out of 532 undergraduate students from two U.S. universities, 68% reported consuming more alcohol during SB than at home, and 49% of males and 38% of females reported ―having sex as a direct result of drinking‖ (Sönmez et al. 2006: 907). Furthermore, out of the smaller sample of participants who responded to the post-SB survey (n=251), 52% of males and 40% of females reported getting drunk, with somewhat similar percentages for binge drinking (40% and 28% respectively).

While most SB studies reported similar results, highlighting the increased alcohol consumption during the SB vacation period along with (to a lesser extent) increased sexual activity and illicit drug use (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Grekin et al. 2007, Josiam et al., 1998, Smeaton et al. 1998), some researchers have found the opposite; that is, that such health-risk behaviors did not increase during SB, but rather, were on par with behaviors exhibited during the rest of the year (Binford et al. 2003, Lee et al. 2006).

To further complicate matters, there seems to be little agreement among scholars as to which variables impact SB behavior. A number of distinct variables, ranging from intrapersonal characteristics (e.g., gender, age, previous intentions, religious beliefs); to interpersonal factors (e.g., peer influences, fraternity/sorority membership, social determinants, SB pacts with friends), and situational variables (e.g., alcohol availability and consumption at SB destination, SB atmosphere, corporate and media influence), have been studied in connection with SB, but thus far neither causal relationships nor generalizable and/or comparable results have been achieved. For example, while some SB studies claimed that ―age/year in college‖ had no significant effect on SB behavior (Cronin 1996), other studies have shown the opposite (Grekin et al. 2007).

Interestingly, SB research has been thus far unable to identify any significant differences between male and female patterns of behavior involving risky sexual behavior during SB.

For instance, Maticka-Tyndale et al. (1998: 262) found that there was ―greater similarity in the percentages of men and women who engaged in casual sex than would be expected considering the degree of dissimilarity between men and women on all other variables examined.‖ Other scholars have reported similar findings, which seems to indicate that during SB both genders exhibit the same patterns of sexual behavior but their reasons for doing so are substantially different (Josiam et al. 1998, Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998, Ribeiro and Yarnal 2006 2008).

Moreover, Maticka-Tyndale and Herold (1997: 324) found that ―some gender differences that are commonly documented in research on sexual interaction were absent in the spring break environment.‖ These authors found similar percentages in regard to sexual activity during SB for both male and female spring breakers. A possible explanation for these findings may reside in the sexual scripts of SB, that is to say, on the ―cultural narrative about what sexuality is and the rules that organize it‖ during SB (Maticka- Tyndale and Herold 1997: 326). Thus, if SB sexual scripts are known and accepted by most spring breakers then it should not be surprising that a number of studies have shown similar male and female sexual behaviors during SB (Mewhinney 1996, Mewhinney et al. 1995, Maticka-Tyndale and Herold 1997).

On the other hand, it should be noted that differences in male and female sexual behavior during SB have indeed been reported (Drigotas et al. 1999, Maticka-Tyndale and Herold 1999, Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998, Mattila et al. 2001), but such differences have usually been attributed to self-reporting error (i.e., male over-reporting and female under- reporting). A number of other factors, namely media influence and situational characteristics (e.g., type of SB destination) may also contribute to the apparent absence of differences in regard to male and female sexual behavior during SB (Ribeiro 2008). The specific impact of gender on SB sexual behaviors, as well as on alcohol consumption and illicit drug taking during SB remains, with some exceptions (Mattila et al. 2001, Ribeiro and Yarnal 2006), largely unstudied.

In summary, extant literature on SB behavior is inconclusive in regard to a number of aspects of the SB experience. We may already know how spring breakers behave in

16 certain situations/destinations. We also have a fairly good idea of why spring breakers travel during SB in the first place. What we don‘t know, however, is why spring breakers behave the way they do, nor do we know the unwritten rules that guide such behaviors.

Orientation to the Dissertation Articles

The present study is a study of SB culture in a ‗typical‘ SB destination – Panama City Beach, Florida – and also an attempt to address some of the aforementioned discrepancies found in the SB literature. This study is composed of four distinct articles, which illuminate different parts of the SB experience in PCB.

The first article is an ethnography of SB, wherein I describe as best I can what happens in PCB during SB. My goal was to fill a gap in the SB literature with ethnographic evidence concerning the SB experience from the point of view of an actual participant. I also wanted to place SB in its larger political-economical context, and I tried to heed Durrenberger‘s (1993) advice to place ethnographic fieldwork at the service of a better understanding of global processes. Thus, in this article I alternate between the microscopic view of ethnography and the wide lens of global political economy, and I use Wolf‘s (1990) distinctions of power and Gotham‘s (2005) global/local analysis of Mardi Gras in New Orleans to place SB in its macro context.

The second article is a short essay on whether or not SB can be considered a rite of passage, as some SB scholars have claimed (Josiam et al. 1994 1998, Russell 2004, Smeaton et al. 1998). I analyze ethnographic and ethological evidence in light of Van Gennep‘s (1961), Turner‘s (1979), and Rappaport‘s (1999) theoretical frameworks on ritual to discuss whether or not SB in PCB can be considered a) a liminal space/place and b) a rite of passage for college students.

The third article consists of a cultural domain analysis (CDA – Borgatti 1994) of two cognitive domains related to the SB experience – SB beliefs and SB behaviors concerning SB in PCB. I use a variety of methods (mean saliency analysis, graphic layout algorithm, free list length analysis, multidimensional scaling, quadratic assignment procedure), to investigate the correspondence between beliefs and behaviors concerning

17 the SB experience with the use of free listing data (Weller and Romney 1988). Furthermore, I investigate if using different CDA methods when analyzing the same cultural domain(s) results in similar findings.

The fourth and last article is a study of culture, consensus and behavior among spring breakers in PCB using the cultural consensus (Romney et al. 1986) and cultural consonance (Dressler et al. 2005) models. Using these two models I employed a variety of statistical methods in order to investigate the relationship between SB culture and self- reported and objectively measured SB behaviors. This article aimed not only at contrasting culture and behavior among spring breakers vacationing in PCB, but also at contributing to solve a riddle that has baffled the social sciences for more than fifty years, namely the (lack of) correspondence between culture and self-reported and objectively measured behavior.

A final word on the use of in-text citations and references. Following Feinberg‘s (1985) advice concerning the necessity of presenting due evidence of anthropological fieldwork, I was perhaps overly zealous in my use of scholarly references and supporting evidence. The reason behind it lies in the paucity of such references when one looks at the SB literature (often riddled with omissions, inaccuracies, and evidence of sloppy scholarship – see Ribeiro and Hickerson forthcoming); and is also related to a firm belief in a scientific anthropology, which must necessarily be based on evidence and not on conjecture or opinion (Kuznar 1997).

The articles that compose this dissertation can be read in any order, and are independent of one another as scholarly manuscripts. Nonetheless, I advise the reader to either start or end with “We‟re Not Porn Guys, We‟re Anthropologists,” as it provides much of the ethnographic context from which data used in the other articles was drawn from. The order in which the articles are presented in this volume reflects my personal interpretation of how each study contributed to a better understanding of the SB phenomenon and, more broadly, of the relationship between culture and behavior within the context of out-of- the-ordinary leisure and tourism phenomena.

Naturally, all mistakes contained herein are my sole and exclusive responsibility.

References

Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (2004). Paradise laborers: Hotel work in the global economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Agar, M. (2004). We have met the other and we‘re all nonlinear: Ethnography as a nonlinear dynamic system. Complexity, 10(2), 16-24.

Agar, M. (2006). Culture: Can you take it anywhere? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 1-16.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso Publishing.

Appleford, S. (2004). The desperate party. In N. Welch, Spring broke (pp. 3-8). New York: Powerhouse Books.

Bai, B., Hu, C., Elsworth, J., & Countryman, C. (2004). Online travel planning and college students: The spring break experience. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(2/3), 79-97.

Barbaro, M. (2003, March 3). Warming to spring break: Hot spots aggressively vie for student dollars. The Washington Post. P. H.01.

Beer & the beach. (1959, April 13). Time Magazine [electronic version]. Accessed November 4, 2008 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,810974,00.html.

Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, D. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495-517.

Binford, S., Caulum, J., Rundahl, A., & Xiong, G. (2003). Spring Break: "A UW-L tradition?". Unpublished manuscript. La Crosse, WI: University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

Blumenthal, M. (2006, March 28). The AMA spring break survey – Part I. The Mystery Pollster [electronic version]. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/03/the_ama_spring_.html.

Blumenthal, M. (2006a, March 29). The AMA spring break survey – Part II. The Mystery Pollster [electronic version]. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/03/the_ama_spring__1.html.

Blumenthal, M. (2006b, June 1). Corrections! An AMA spring break update. The Mystery Pollster [electronic version]. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/corrections_an_.html.

Borgatti, S. P. (1994). Cultural domain analysis. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 4(4), 261-278. Brown, M. J. (Ed.) (2008). Explaining culture scientifically. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Bruner, E. M. (2005). Culture on Tour: Ethnographies of Travel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carr, A. (Producer) & Haverback, H. (Director). (1984). Where the boys are ‟84 [Motion picture]. United States: TriStar Pictures.

Chick, G. E. (1981). Concept and behavior in a Tlaxcalan cargo hierarchy. Ethnology, 20(3), 217-228.

Clark, J. (2010, March 5). Spring break switcheroo: Europe gains visitors at Caribbean‘s expense. USA Today [online version]. Accessed January 12, 2011 from http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2010-03-05-spring-break-europe- caribbean_N.htm

Collison, M. N. (1989). For some students, spring break offers chance to help the needy. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 35(28), 33-34.

Colon, G. (Producer) & DeMaio, J., Paley, S. & Patrick, L. (Directors). (2001). MTV Spring Break [Television film]. United States: Music Television.

D‘Andrade, R. G. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. de Oliveira, R. (Director). (2003). The real Cancun [Motion picture]. United States: New Line Cinema.

DeMaio, J., Paley, S., & Patrick, L. (Directors). (2001). MTV Spring break [Motion picture]. United States: Music Television.

Dressler, W. W., Borges, C. D., Balieiro, M. C., & Dos Santos, J. E. (2005). Measuring cultural consonance: Examples with special reference to measurement theory in anthropology. Field Methods, 17(4), 331-355.

Drigotas, S. M., Saftrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 509- 524.

Durrenberger, E. P. (1991). Sitting Buddha in a Mississippi golf course: Constructing anthropology in exotic and familiar settings. Anthropology and Humanism Quarterly, 16(3), 88-94.

Durrenberger, E. P. (2003). Global processes, local systems. Urban Anthropology, 32(3- 4), 253-279.

Feinberg, R. (1985). A note on data presentation in ethnographic reports. American Anthropologist, 87(3), 666-668.

Fine, G. A. (2008). Kitchens: The culture of restaurant work (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Freeman, L. C. & Romney, A. K. (1987). Words, deeds, and social structure: A preliminary study of the reliability of informants. Human Organization, 46(4), 330-334.

Freeman, L. C., Romney, A. K., & Freeman, S. C. (1987). Cognitive structure and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 89(2), 310-325.

Gannon, M. (2003). Florida: A short history (Rev. ed.). Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

George, P. S. (1991). Where the boys were. South Florida History Magazine, 3(1), 5-8.

Gerlach, J. (1989). Spring Break at Padre Island: A new kind of tourism. Focus, 39(1), 13-16, 29.

Gianoulis, T. (2000). Spring break. In S. Pendergast & T. Pendergast (Eds.), St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture (Vol. 4, pp. 488-490). Detroit, MI: St. James Press.

Gimme a break: A history of spring break. (2006, March 23). The Orange County Register [electronic version]. Retrieved March 4, 2007 from http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/atoz/article_1067153.php.

Gonzalez, G. M. (1986). Trends in alcohol knowledge and drinking patters among students who visited Daytona Beach, Florida, during spring break, 1981-1983. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27(6), 496-502.

Goodenough, W. H. (1967). Right and wrong in human evolution. Zygon, 2(1), 59-76.

Goodenough, W. H. (1967a). Componential analysis. Science, 156, 1203-1209.

Gotham, K. F. (2005). Tourism from above and below: Globalization, localization and New Orleans‘s Mardi Gras. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(2), 309-326.

Grekin, E. R., Sher, K. J., & Krull, J. L. (2007). College spring break and alcohol use: Effects of spring break activity. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 681-688.

Guess, A. (2008, March 14). Spring break. Woo. Inside Higher Ed [online edition]. Available at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/14/break.

Harris, M. (2001) [first edition 1979]. Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Healy, C. A. (2005). Students‟ decisions regarding spring break vacation. Unpublished honors‘ thesis, University Park, PA: Penn State University.

Hertz, E. (1998). The trading crowd: An ethnography of the Shanghai stock market. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Ho, K. Z. (2009). :Liquidated: An ethnography of Wall Street. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hollis, T. (2004). Florida‟s miracle strip: From redneck riviera to emerald coast. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississipi.

Ivory, B. (1997). The re-entry crisis of students returning to campus following a volunteer alternative break experience: A developmental opportunity. College Student Affairs Journal, 16(2), 104-112.

Joseph, J. (2006). Marxism and social theory. New York: Macmillan.

Josiam, B., Hobson, J., Dietrich, U. & Smeaton, G. (1998). An analysis of the sexual, alcohol and drug related behavioural patterns of students on spring break. Tourism Management, 19(6), 501-513.

Krippendorf, J. (1987). The holidaymakers – Understanding the impact of leisure and travel. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kuznar, L. (1997). Reclaiming a scientific anthropology. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Lange, J. E., Voas, R. B., & Johnson, M. B. (2002). South of the border: A legal haven for underage drinking. Addiction, 97(9), 1195-1203.

Lee, C., Maggs, J., & Rankin, L. (2006). Spring break trips as a risk factor for heavy alcohol use among first-year college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(6), 911-916.

Lenček, L. & Bosker, G. (1998). The beach: The history of paradise on earth. New York: Penguin Books.

Lewis, R. A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social Issues, 34(1), 108-121.

Marsh, B. (2006, March 19). The innocent birth of the Spring Bacchanal. The New York Times [electronic version]. Retrieved October 7, 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19marsh.html.

Mathis, R. D., Levine, S. H., & Phifer, S. (1993). An analysis of accidental free falls from a height: The ‗Spring Break‘ syndrome. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care, 34(1), 123-126.

Maticka-Tyndale, E. & Herold, E. S. (1997). The scripting of sexual behaviour: Canadian university students on spring break in Florida, The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6(4), 317-327.

Maticka-Tyndale, E. & Herold, E. S. (1999). Condom use on spring-break vacation: The influence of intentions, prior use, and context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29(5), 1010-1027.

Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S. & Mewhinney, D. M. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 254-264.

Mattila, A., Apostolopoulos, Y., Sönmez, S., Yu, L., & Sasidharan, V. (2001). The impact of gender and religion on college students‘ spring break behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 193-200.

Mauss, M. (2000) [1st ed. 1924]. The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. New York: W.W. Norton.

McElhaney, K. A. (1998). Student outcomes of community service learning: A comparative analysis of curriculum-based and non-curriculum-based alternative spring break programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ann Harbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Mewhinney, D. M., Herold, E. S., & Maticka-Tyndale, E (1995). Sexual scripts and risk taking of Canadian university students on spring break in Daytona Beach, Florida. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 4(4), 273-288.

Mills, C. W. (1940). Methodological consequences of the sociology of knowledge. American Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 316–330.

Moore, M. (1998, April 3). Spring breakers drink in Cancun excess: Mexican resort is no.1 party spot. The Washington Post, p. A1.

Moore, P. (2003). ‗Redneck Riviera‘ or ‗Emerald Coast‘? Using public history to identify and interpret community growth choices in Florida‘s Panhandle. Gulf South Historical Review, 18(2), 60-91.

Moredock, W. (2003). Banana republic: A year in the heart of Myrtle Beach. Charleston, SC: Frontline Press.

Mormino, G. R. (2005). Land of sunshine, state of dreams: A social history of modern Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Nealy, M. J. (2006). A spring break from the ordinary. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(4), 9.

Neighbors, C., Walters, S. T., Lee, C. M., Vader, A. M., Vehige, T., Szigethy, T., & DeJong, W. (2007). Event-specific prediction: Addressing college student drinking during known windows of risk. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2667-2680.

Ness, S. A. (2003). Where Asia Smiles: An Ethnography of Philippine Tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Neumann, F. (1966 [1944]). Behemoth: The structure and practice of National Socialism 1933-1944 (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Pasternak, J. (Producer), & Levin, H. (Director). (1960). Where the boys are [Motion picture]. United States: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Porter, K. (2003, May 17). Calmer Panama City Beach, Fla., spring break brought are $160 million. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. P. 1.

Rappaport, R. A. (1999). Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Reynolds, C. (2004). Gimme a break! American Demographics, 26(2), 48. Available online at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2_26/ai_113516539.

Rhoads, R. A. & Neururer, J. (1998). Alternative spring break: Learning through community service. NASPA Journal, 35(2), 100-118.

Roberts, J. M. & Chick, G. E. (1984). Quitting the game: Covert disengagement from Butler County Eight Ball. American Anthropologist, 86(3), 549-567.

Russell, R. (2004). Spring Breaks. In G. Cross (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Recreation and Leisure in America (Vol. 2, pp. 303-305). Detroit, MI: Thomson Gale.

Sahlins, M. (2000). Culture in practice: Selected essays. New York: Zone Books.

Sandoval-Strausz, A. K. (2008). Hotel: An American history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schmitt, A. & Sofer, J. (Eds.). (1992). Sexuality and eroticism among males in Moslem societies. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Sherman, R. (2007). Class acts: Service and inequality in luxury hotels. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Smeaton, G., Josiam, B. and Dietrich, U. (1998). College students‘ binge drinking at a beach-front destination during spring break. Journal of American College Health, 46(6), 247-254.

Smilow, D. (Producer) & Cunningham, S. (Director). (1983). Spring break [Motion Picture]. United States: Columbia Pictures.

Smith, V. L. (Ed.) (1989) (2nd ed.). Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.

Spiro, M. E. (1996). Burmese supernaturalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Swarthout, G. (1960). Where the boys are. New York: Random House.

Trigaux, R. (2005). The changing face of spring break: Sun, sand and corporate blitz. St. Petersburg Times. P. 1D.

Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, fields and metaphors: Symbolic action in human society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Turner, V. (1979). Frame, flow and reflection: Ritual and drama as public liminality. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 6(4), 465-498.

Turner, V. (1987). The liminal period in rites of passage. In L. Mahdi, S. Foster, & M. Little (Eds.). Betwixt & between: Patterns of masculine and feminine initiation (pp. 3-19). La Salle, IL: Open Court Press.

Von Hoffman, N. (2010). Radical: A portrait of Saul Alinsky. New York: Nation Books.

Weller, S. C. & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wilk, R. & Cliggett, L. (2007). Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wolf, E. R. (1990). Distinguished lecture: Facing power – Old insights, new questions. American Anthropologist, 92(3), 586-596.

Woodbury, R. (1987, April 6). Spring break at South Padre. Time Magazine [electronic version]. Accessed October 6, 2008 at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,963957,00.html.

Wooldrige, J. (2007, March 4). Spring break: Part of Florida‘s cultural history. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. P. 1.

“We’re Not Porn Guys, We’re Anthropologists!” – An Ethnographic Account of Spring Break in Panama City Beach, Florida

Abstract In this article I present an ethnographic account of Spring Break – a popular North American college vacation period – in Panama City Beach, Florida. While an abundant literature on Spring Break exists, most of it is focused on the negative health outcomes of participation in the Spring Break experience, on one hand, and the tourism potential of the Spring Break demographic, on the other. Moreover, in spite of anthropologists‘ interest in carnival-type phenomena, little ethnographic data on Spring Break exists. In an effort to address this gap in the literature, the present article presents ethnographic data drawn from two years of fieldwork to reveal that Spring Break is a more complex phenomenon than the ―sun, sea, sand, suds, and sex‖ stereotype perpetuated by the visual media and the popular press. I use Wolf‘s four modalities of power – personal, interactional, organizational, and structural – to illustrate the different interests that shape and influence the political economy of Spring Break in Panama City Beach. I draw also on Durrenberger‘s distinction of local systems/global processes and on Gotham‘s analysis of global/local interactions in the commodification of Mardi Gras in New Orleans to analyze the larger socio-economic context in which Spring Break in Panama City Beach is embedded. Ethnographic data partially supported the notion of Spring Break as a period of hedonistic licensed leisure for college students but places the nexus of causality of this tourism phenomenon within the local political economy of Panama City Beach, which in turn is conditioned by global forces with a vested interest in the Spring Break demographic. Lastly, I reflect on the hazards and challenges of conducting anthropological fieldwork about a phenomenon inextricably tied to oversexualized and controversial representations of young people‘s leisure behavior. keywords: spring break, tourism, ethnography, political economy, globalization

Spring Break is a festival of sun and sin, where young high school and college escapees wash up on the beaches of Florida like thousands of breeding salmon. For some it‟s a final binge of intense irresponsibility before graduation and a life sentence to the daily paycheck grind.

S. Appleford (2004: 4)

Part harmonic convergence, the result of millions of teenagers coming of age in a time of rebellion and affluence, and part hormonic convergence, a coming of age in a society saturated with sexual images, the Florida beach perfectly matched generation and lifestyles. Fort Lauderdale, Daytona Beach, and Panama City Beach were reinvented to fit an American rite of passage.

G. R. Mormino (2005: 316)

Introduction

Spring Break (SB) is a popular North American college vacation period usually associated with sunny locales, heavy alcohol consumption, and increased casual and unprotected sexual activity. In the last twenty years, there has been a bourgeoning scholarly interest in SB, particularly in light of the negative health outcomes associated with participation in the ‗typical‘ SB experience and, on the other hand, on the potential revenue these millions of college students represent to tourism destinations and marketing companies (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Grekin, Sher, and Krull 2007, Josiam, et al. 1994, 1998, Lee et al. 2006, Maticka-Tyndale, Herold, and Mewhinney 1998, Mattila et al. 2001, Smeaton et al. 1998, Ribeiro 2008, Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008, Sönmez et al. 2006). SB‘s extensive media coverage, highlighting almost exclusively spring breakers‘ most extreme behaviors, further cemented generalized consensus among educators, journalists, concerned interests groups, and the spring breakers themselves that SB is a period devoted to little more than fun, sun, alcohol, and sex (Ribeiro 2008).

Unfortunately, for all the interest in what Newsweek (1961: 40) called in the early 1960s ―a folk ritual that could better be described by anthropologist Margaret Mead‖, hardly any ethnographic accounts of SB exist. Perhaps because SB is often seen as a frivolous topic, unworthy of scholarly research, or perhaps because university professors tend to relish this week-long respite from classes as much as their students, anthropologists have left this piece of Americana largely unstudied. The lack of ethnographic research on SB is all the more surprising as other carnival-like phenomena have been studied in great depth by anthropologists (e.g., Galt 1973, Gilmore 1975, Kertzer 1974, Lett 1983, Pratt 2002, Scher 2002, Schrauf 1988, Sexton 2001, Turner 1982, Ware 2001). This gap in the SB literature has been noticed primarily by other SB scholars who have highlighted the need for more ethnographic SB data (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002).

Moredock‘s Banana Republic (2003) and Welch‘s Spring Broke (2004), while not ethnographies in a strict scholarly sense, are nonetheless worthy of mention, as they draw on prolonged participant observation in known SB locales (Myrtle Beach and Panama City Beach, respectively) to paint quasi-ethnographic portraits of SB ―life‖. The

29 descriptions of SB both authors present are consonant with the SB stereotype of the ―Spring Bacchanal‖ (Marsh 2006) propagated by the media and validated by research. Their vivid tales (Moredock) and award winning photographs (Welch) of SB are closer to capturing the essence of a phenomenon than many a scholarly article heavy on statistics but lacking in ethnographic detail. Moredock‘s (2003: 72) descriptions of the ―full- throttle hedonism‖ of spring breakers in Myrtle Beach who were ―lured and intoxicated by a veritable fantasyland of beer company promotions‖ help us decipher some of the economic complexities of a multi-billion dollar business (Trigaux 2005), but it was Welch (2004: i) who, knowing that ―there was more to Spring Break than what MTV had been feeding us between commercials since the 1980s,‖ went in search of, as any competent anthropologist would, ―a greater truth [that] waited to be told just below the surface.‖

I had been scratching at the surface of SB as early as 2005, when I committed to a Master‘s degree in Tourism Management and chose SB as a thesis topic. Over the last six years, I conducted research on online communities of spring breakers (Ribeiro and Yarnal 2006), on spring breakers‘ travel motivations (Ribeiro et al. 2010), on the role of alcohol consumption in the SB experience (Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008), and on the relationship between culture and behavior within the SB context (Ribeiro and Chick 2009, Ribeiro et al. 2009), in addition to collecting, contrasting, and analyzing the SB literature, dispersed through a variety of scholarly outlets and disciplines (Ribeiro and Hickerson forthcoming). My thesis was a qualitative analysis of the SB experience based on pre- and post-SB in-depth interviews with college students at a large Mid-Atlantic university known for its ―party‖ reputation (Ribeiro 2008). Additionally, I used methods common in cultural domain analysis (Borgatti 1994) to investigate spring breakers‘ perceptions of the SB phenomenon (Ribeiro 2010).

My research helped me understand how spring breakers viewed the SB experience; what the ―typical‖ SB was and how such stereotype affected spring breakers‘ perceptions of their own SB experiences; how spring breakers (reportedly) behaved during SB; why they went on SB in the first place; and why they visited some SB destinations and not others. But my research also left many questions unanswered. I knew only what I had

30 been told, and at the back of my mind I could hear the ghost of Marvin Harris (1968) cautioning me against excessive reliance on informants‘ accounts of culture. Did spring breakers behaved as they said they did? Did spring breakers remember and report their SB experiences accurately? The few extant studies on the accuracy of participants‘ self- reported behavior showed that self-reported data, when compared with observational data, were at best inadequate and at worst completely unreliable (Bernard et al. 1984, Freeman and Romney 1987, Freeman et al. 1987, Romney and Weller 1984; see also Butts 2003). Moreover, could spring breakers be trusted to tell the truth about socially reproachable behaviors, such as excessive and underage alcohol consumption, and casual and unprotected sex? Would they not be tempted to over and/or under-report their SB behaviors, as previous SB scholars (Josiam et al. 1998) had alluded to? With the almost entirety of the SB literature reliant on self-reported data (Ribeiro and Hickerson forthcoming), obtaining ethnographic evidence of spring breakers‘ behavior seemed important.

Another question loomed in the background. Why does SB exist in the first place? Why, in spite of overwhelming evidence of its nefarious effects on college students‘ health (e.g., Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Lee et al. 2006, Maticka-Tyndale, Herold, and Mewhinney 1998, Smeaton et al. 1998, Sönmez et al. 2006), does SB remain entrenched in the vast majority of U.S. colleges‘ academic calendar as an official break period? Along these lines, Broadbear (2003) asks:

Why (…) has spring break become such a standard for colleges and universities? Other than making students available for the multi-billion dollar spring break industry, is anything accomplished by this time away from studies? What educational value does it serve? Collectively, although not purposefully, universities accommodate the spring break industry by spacing out these mid-term breaks over several weeks running from early March to late April.

Broadbear is correct in asserting that college students in general and spring breakers in particular are a valuable commodity for a number of corporations. Indeed, few other market segments possess the same amounts of discretionary time and disposable income at this time of the year (March-April), thus making spring breakers a desirable target for the many ―merchants of cool‖ who hope to trigger and nurture this demographics‘ loyalty

31 to a variety of consumer and service goods (Goodman 2001; see also Gladwell 2007, and Rushkoff 2000). What is more, spring breakers bring much needed revenue to a number of tourism destinations across the U.S. (Gianoulis 2000). For many tourism destinations, plagued by seasonality (Jolliffe and Farnsworth 2006: 51-59), the tourism season still spans the proverbial ―100 days‖ from Independence Day (July 4) to Labor Day (first Monday in September) and thus destinations are all too willing to welcome spring breakers and relieve them from their disposable income as quickly as the spring breakers can spend it (Barbaro 2003). But spring breakers also bring with them a number of not- so-desirable behaviors, such as public intoxication, indecent exposure, vandalism, petty theft, and underage drinking, to cite but a few, which localities are less willing to tolerate.

In some cases, as it occurred with Fort Lauderdale in the early 1990s, some destinations decided that SB was more bother and more expense than it was worth and dealt away with the phenomenon altogether. The methods employed to do so by local officials were sometimes unorthodox, but nonetheless efficient: in 1991, in an effort to deter spring breakers from visiting his city, then Mayor of Palm Springs Sonny Bono, among other measures, famously banned the use of thongs in public (Hubler 1991). The following year, most spring breakers had migrated to Daytona Beach, Florida, in detriment of Palm Springs. Other destinations remained adamant in their support for SB, and others still were ambivalent in regard to this tourism phenomenon, eager to accept spring breakers‘ dollars but less tolerant of their antics, whenever they happened to conflict with the prevailing social mores, caused excessive strain to local infrastructure and services, and/or drew too much bad publicity to the destination (Gianoulis 2000, Hollis 2004, Jackson 2010, Laurie 2008). The recent (2008-2010) financial and economic crisis has led a number of tourism destinations to revisit their stance on SB and welcome those whom they had banished in the past in a quest for more tourist dollars (e.g., Flaccus 2009).

This topic has not been addressed by scholars with an interest in the SB phenomenon: little information pertaining to the political economy of the SB destinations where spring breakers‘ behavioral data has been drawn from can be found in the SB literature. Moreover, little ethnographic data is available that would allow spring breakers‘ behavior

32 to be put in its appropriate local context. Yet journalistic and anecdotal evidence suggests that SB in Lake Havasu, Arizona, is different from SB in Panama City Beach, Florida, which in turn is unlike SB in Cancun, Mexico (e.g., Lacey 2009, Marsh 2006).

In this article I present an ethnographic account of SB drawn from two years of fieldwork (2009-2010) in the most popular SB destination in the U.S., Panama City Beach, Florida (PCB). The data presented in this article were collected with the aid of a research assistant (Eric Foemmel) during the spring break periods of 2009 and 2010, totaling eight weeks of ethnographic data collection. My aim with this article is not only to provide a ―realistic tale‖ (Van Maneen 1988: 45) of what goes during SB in PCB, but also to place SB in the larger context of a beach town whose fortunes are inextricably tied to the SB phenomenon. I use Wolf‘s (1999) four modalities of power – personal, interactional, organizational, and structural – to illustrate the different and often conflicting interests that shape and influence the political economy of SB in PCB.

I also draw on Durrenberger‘s (2003) distinction of global processes and local systems and Gotham‘s (2005) ethnographic insights pertaining to the global and local interactions in the commodification of Mardi Gras in New Orleans to analyze the larger socioeconomic context in which SB in PCB is embedded. A spring breaker‘s decision to go on SB, as well as his or her conduct during this vacation period, goes beyond individual choice and preference. Other external forces, primarily socio-economic, affect individual SB decisions, and ultimately combine with those decisions to shape the SB phenomenon. As Zengotita (2005) and others (Edelman and Haugerud 2005, Lewellen 2002) argue, human action in contemporary society is increasingly being shaped by global forces beyond individual control, and leisure and tourism phenomena are no exception (Rojek 1995 2000). Lastly, this study is also an attempt to answer the call for a more holistic and systemic approach to leisure and tourism research that some scholars have posited (Carr 2002, 2002a; Moore et al. 1995, Sessa 1988).

“The Best-Kept Secret in the Panhandle” – The Making of a Tourism Destination

Tucked away in the Florida Panhandle between St. Andrew‘s Bay to the Southeast and Laguna Beach to the Northwest, roughly 90 miles from Pensacola and 100 miles from Tallahassee, sits Panama City Beach, a city inhabited by approximately 13,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Virtually little more than undeveloped pineland for use of the St. Joe Paper Company – now the St. Joe Company (NYSE: JOE), the largest private land owner in the state of Florida (Ziewitz and Wiaz 2004), PCB saw some early tourist development in the 1930s with the construction of a hotel and some ―tourist cottages‖ by Gideon Thomas, an early Panhandle entrepreneur (Hollis 2004). Thomas, whose name now graces one of the most important arteries in PCB (Thomas Drive), named his small tourist enclave ―Panama City Beach‖, which officially opened its door to the public in May 2, 1936. Completion of the Hathaway Bridge linking PCB with the larger Panama City and Highway 98 provided easier access to what another early PCB tourism impresario, J. E. Churchwell, called ―The World‘s Most Beautiful Beaches‖ (Hollis 2004: 26), a moniker which endured until today.

This area has indeed some of the finest beaches in the continental U.S., with almost nine miles of uninterrupted sandy white beaches stretching from Lower Grand Lagoon to Laguna Beach, and an emerald green sea that makes for an idyllic postcard-perfect tourism destination (Figure 1.2). PCB is part of a more extensive coastal area, extending from St. Andrew Bay to Pensacola, FL, mostly dedicated to tourism development and known, alternatively, by the designations of ―Redneck Riviera,‖ ‗Emerald Coast,‖ and ―Miracle Strip‖ (Bouler 2007, Hollis 2004, Mormino 2005).

Until the construction of the Hathaway Bridge linking ―the beaches‖ to Panama City, this area was virtually unknown but for a few fishermen and a handful of locals (Womack 1998). Tracey, a 38-year old real estate agent from Dayton, Ohio, now waitressing part- time at a beach-side bar and café where many of the locals hang out told me that there was ―nothing here before the 70s. It was the best kept secret of the Panhandle. Only

FIGURE 1.2 – Panama City Beach seaside

FIGURE 1.3 – Panama City Beach during Spring Break (Eastward view)

FIGURE 1.4 – Panama City Beach during Spring Break (Westward view)

36 locals came here to go to the beach or [to] go fishing(…)Then they started building those condos…until the bottom fell out.‖ Tracey moved to PCB, where she owned a vacation home, with her 22-year old daughter after the real-estate bust of the 2000s. ―I came here when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went belly up.‖ ―Did you lose a lot?‖ – I ask. ―Everything.‖ We talk of corporate shenanigans, and how the corporate world forgives them as long as ―your numbers are good‖, as hers were. But it all came crashing down, said Tracey: ―Yup, I just opened the doors to my place and sold everything inside, furniture, paintings on the wall, everything. And then we moved down here.‖ Tracey‘s story is not unique as much of the population of PCB comes from elsewhere, mostly from the neighboring states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama (to say that one is from LA, meaning Lower Alabama, when prompted, is a common joke among locals), and Georgia, attracted by prospects of (mostly seasonal) employment, balmy weather, and affordable cost of living. More recently, large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America and Eastern Europe have arrived in PCB hoping to find employment in the area.

In addition to labor, much of the capital interests that invested in PCB, as they did in most of the Panhandle, originated from business interests in other Southern states such as Alabama and Georgia, which also provided part of the tourist demand that would beget the SB phenomenon in PCB (Hollis 2004, Mormino 2005, Smith 2004, Wynne and Moorhead 2010, Womack 1998). For instance, Charlie Hilton, owner of several hotels in PCB that cater to the SB clientele and ―one of the most powerful and influential men in the Panhandle‖ was born in Helena, Georgia, and moved to PCB in the early 1940s (Dixon 2008).

To satisfy the booming tourism demand of the 1950s onwards, a number of small scale independently owned motels and hotels sprung up along the coast of PCB in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as numerous beachfront bars, beach apparel stores, liquor stores, diners, tattoo parlors, arcades, restaurants, amusement parks and an endless number of mini-golf courses of dubious taste. Some of these establishments still exist today, but most were replaced by enormous beach front hotels and condominiums, built during the height of the real estate market in the 1980s (Mormino 2005). Ownership of property in

FIGURE 1.5 – Adult beach store

FIGURE 1.6 – The old and the new: note the old motels in the foreground

FIGURE 1.7 – The new beach front condominiums

FIGURE 1.8 – Beach front condominium (close view)

39 the then called ―Redneck Riviera‖ along the Gulf Coast proved to be a better investment than stock portfolios in the 1980s and 1990s, and demand from aging Baby Boomers from neighboring Georgia and Alabama quickly fueled property speculation in PCB. Increased demand coupled with low interest rates and little regulatory oversight over mortgage practices led to a dynamic trade in condominium property in PCB, which in turn led to even greater construction (Colburn and deHaven-Smith 2002, Jackson 2010; see also Tett 2009). In a recent article, Jackson (2010: 21-22) reports that:

During the first decade of the new millennium the Redneck Riviera has been a region in transition and in conflict. Orange Beach, Gulf Shores, Destin, and Panama City Beach (…) have become a get-rich-quick investment opportunity for Baby Boomer empty nesters. Aided by liberal lending policies, pliable local governments, aggressive developers, and overzealous real estate agents, Boomers began to buy pre-construction condo units, resell them at a profit before a nail was driven to someone who would sell to another buyer who would sell again, sometimes as many as five times before an owner finally received a set of keys. Although this ―flipping‖ was a national phenomenon that even spawned reality TV shows, along the coast it generated what one writer called ―condo mania.‖ (…) Soon double-digit storied condominiums replaced many of the remaining mom-and-pop motels, vacation cottages, and low-rise condos, and absentee owners settled back to watch their investment grow while they made mortgage payments by renting to ―snowbirds‖ in the winter and to anyone else who had the money the rest of the year. Then, when the time was right, they would sell and smile.

More recently, the sharp seasonality, high property and operating taxes (particularly liquor licenses), and increasing operating costs contributed to a decline in independently owned businesses, which are slowly disappearing from the PCB landscape. The corollary of the ―progressive gentrification‖ of the Panhandle and PCB (Jackson 2010) was the opening of Pier Park in 2010, a 1.1 million square foot open-air shopping and dining center in Disney‘s Celebration faux small town style (Ross 2000). Pier Park brought an onslaught of popular chain stores to PCB, such as Target, J.C. Penney, Jimmy Buffet‘s Margaritaville, Guy Harvey‘s Grill, and many more. Located near the old pier, Pier Park was built on land previously owned by the St. Joe Company, which was sold to Simon Property Group (NYSE: SPG), the largest real estate company in the U.S., for $286,000 per acre (Business Wire 2004; see also Dixon 2011). The establishment of Pier Park in PCB, which included a partnership with local government, heralded what PCB‘s Mayor

Gayle Oberst called ―an unheard of period of growth, development, and redevelopment‖ for PCB (Oberst 2010: 22).

“You guys don’t look like spring breakers!”

The SB season in PCB usually begins in the first week of March, and ends mid-April. The PCB Chamber of Commerce and the Tourism Development Council/Convention and Visitors Bureau (TDC/CVB) distribute, as early as January, a list containing all the college SB vacation dates for as many as 120 different universities and colleges from the U.S., complete with enrolment numbers. Thus, every business in PCB is aware of the impending arrival of the many thousands of spring breakers and prepares accordingly.

The arrival of the first spring breakers in PCB is preceded by heavy construction, increased police presence (the city ordinarily requests the help of state troopers and state beverage officers during this vacation period to boost its manpower – see Kelly 2011), and the arrival of many ―brand ambassadors,‖ a term used to designate all those who work for a corporation that either deals directly with spring breakers (e.g., hotels, tour operators, bars), or work for another corporation that hopes to entice spring breakers to try out their products by showcasing them in PCB during SB, most commonly by distributing free samples (on the topic of brand ambassadors and their increasing influences in corporate marketing practices, see, e.g., Kumar 2007 and Smilanksy 2009).

When I first visited the beach with my research assistant in early March, many of the corporate structures were already up (I discuss these in more detail in another article in this volume, pp. 106-121), whereas others were under construction. The prime location is in front of Club LaVela, an immense day and nightclub (self-proclaimed largest in the U.S.), and Club Spinnaker, another similar nightclub and beach bar next to LaVela. Towards the entrance to the beach – a gap in a chain link fence that runs around the parking lot – a number of what look like security personnel and workers stand in a cluster. Two large John Deere trucks, towing beach rakes, stand next to them. Someone starts the engine of one of them. It is still chilly, so we are wearing long pants and coats.

FIGURE 1.9 – Club LaVela

FIGURE 1.10 – Corporate area (U.S. Army) at the beach under construction

FIGURE 1.11 – Corporate area (Maxim/Norelco) ready for SB

FIGURE 1.12 – Corporate area (U.S. Army/Holliday Inn) soundstage

There are a few spring breakers around, but nowhere near the madness that will take over in a few days‘ time. The two rakes go past us and begin combing the beach. To our left, Fort Panama (the U.S. Army‘s SB information and recruitment center, complete with an obstacle course) is still under construction. A number of other corporate areas (i.e., specific areas of the beach sponsored by a given corporation(s), delimited by corporate logo fences –called ―snow fences‖ in the corporate lingo – that allow for only one entry point, and attract spring breakers via contests, music, and giveaways), are either being set up or already ready for the onslaught that is surely coming. They look like small corrals, and display common household corporate names: Maxim, Bic, Garnier, Victoria‘s Secret, Geico, Trojan, U.S. Army.

One guy in his mid-thirties, beefy, wearing board shorts and a corporate polo shirt with a Motorola handset clipped to it and shades reminiscent of Boss Paul in Cool Hand Luke, waves at us. We wave back and say hi. The guy has an air of command about him, he seems to be in charge of something. He walks in our direction with a smile on his face.

―Hi, I couldn‘t help notice that you guys don‘t look like spring breakers. You‘re not really here for spring break, are you?‖ – he asks. We laugh. ―It‘s the coats, right?‖ ―It‘s pretty cold.‖ We explain that we‘re here to write about spring break, for my PhD dissertation. ―Where you guys from?‖ ―Penn State‖ – we respond. ―Penn State, wow! I‘ve been there a couple of times for football games. You guys have the biggest case of controlled chaos with the Penn State-Michigan game…‖ ―That‘s true‖ – we grin again, more self-conscious this time. Mark – that‘s his name – introduces himself and tells us he is from New Jersey. ―Spring break hasn‘t really started, has it?‖ – I ask. ―No, he says. ―We‘re getting everything ready. The only schools that are on spring break right now are Eastern Michigan and Canada. So if you‘re out there‖ – he gestures towards the beach, where a few spring breakers brave the cold – ―chances are you are Canadian.‖ We laugh. I am surprised by his knowledge of the academic calendars of U.S. and Canadian universities, but I suppose it‘s his job to know it.

―I represent a company that arranges the space for these sponsors. We sell them space along the beach, for this area right here.‖ Mark gestures with his right hand, pointing

44 towards the beach space filled with corporate corrals. ―Of course‖ – he continues – ―we only have a part of it. Other companies do other parts. We like to think we do it better.‖ Mark sounds like an MTV-generation corporate executive, cool and detached in an overgrown and overweight beach bum manner, but business-like and efficient. He seems to know his métier well.

The beach space that Mark is in charge of renting and securing corporate sponsors for belongs to the State of Florida, and permission to use it is granted by the PCB Council under recommendation of its City Manager. Most of PCB‘s occupied land, including the almost entirety of the beach, is zoned for tourism use (1,159 acres). The remaining land is zoned for single-family residential use (954 acres), recreation (662 acres), multi-family residential use (474 acres), agricultural use (432 acres), conservational use (298 acres), educational use (94 acres), public buildings and grounds (52 acres), industrial use (25 acres), with 7,469 vacant acres remaining (Panama City Beach Government 2007). During SB, large events such as open air concerts (i.e., > 500 persons/hour) are deemed ―special events‖ and are required to obtain specific approval by the PCB City Manager. It should be noted that a number of beach uses, such as inflatable structures, tents, and so forth, are only permitted during the ―spring break time zone,‖ thus defined by the PCB Council (Panama City Beach Council 2010). Moreover, while application for a ―special event‖ permit is no doubt a morose process, the Council can refuse to issue a permit provided the applicant fulfils the requirements put forth by the council (e.g., 1 security personnel per 1,000 attendees – see Panama City Beach Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article 2) only in the most special of circumstances, as doing so on arbitrary terms would conflict with the applicant‘s First Amendment Rights (Panama City Beach Council 2010a). Part of Mark‘s job is to negotiate through these layers of bureaucracy, and secure the PCB‘s Council approval for his many corporate clients.

Mark extols the virtues of corporate involvement in the SB phenomenon, which he thinks has changed SB for the better: ―A lot has been written about Spring Break, but not all of it is true. I‘ve been doing this for 14 years. You know I was in…Daytona back in the day, nowadays it‘s a lot more than just bikini contests and belly flops, it‘s a lot more corporate now.‖ He goes on to say ―So it‘s better for everyone (…) things are different now, the

45 kids are safe.‖ He offers to show us around, to get to know the backstage of the corporate world behind spring break. ―Let me know if I can show you around, you know…like the Holiday Inn, that‘s the premier hotel for spring break here in Panama [City Beach]. They have like casino-tight security there. So let me know if you have a problem getting in there, I can help‖. Solicitous, he hands us his business card before getting back to work.

Afterwards we go into Pinneapple Willy‘s, a popular bar/restaurant on the site of one of the original beach bars of the 1920s (see Smith 2004). We sit at the counter and order beers. The barmaid, a mid-thirties overweight blonde with a tight pony-tail and the air of a seasoned veteran of many spring breaks, asks to see my ID. Eric jests: ―Do you need my ID too?‖ (Eric is thirty-eight, but looks to be in his young thirties or perhaps late twenties on a good hair day). She laughs and apologizes: ―Sorry, I have to. It IS spring break. We just had a meeting this morning with the ABT [the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco] and they scared the shit out of us.‖ We show our IDs and sit down for a drink and to write up our fieldnotes. Alcohol seems to be a social lubricant for anthropologists as much as for spring breakers.

Welcome to Panama City Beach

The SB season starts in earnest the next day, a Saturday. For most SB businesses in PCB, and particularly the hospitality industry, this is the busiest day of the week, as the majority of SB tour operators rotate their guests on Saturday. Furthermore, most U.S. colleges and universities schedule their SB vacation periods to coincide with a full week of classes (Monday to Friday), which encourages the spring breakers who drive to PCB to leave Friday to arrive Saturday in PCB and, conversely, to depart PCB Saturday at the end of their SB vacation to arrive Sunday in time for Monday classes.

The arrival of the spring breakers changes the physiognomy of PCB overnight. Long lines of cars feed ceaselessly into the town‘s main arteries, Thomas Drive and Front Beach Road, bringing carload after carload of spring breakers. Cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs bearing license plates from several states, but primarily from neighboring ones (the most common are Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, South

Carolina, and Tennessee) are almost bumper to bumper as they disgorge spring breakers into their respective hotels, motels, and condos. The spring breakers, still in clothes indicative of the weather in the states where they come from, can be seen everywhere, three and five to a car, unpacking in hotel and motel parking lots. The entire town acquires a festive atmosphere, and the procession of spring breaker-laden vehicles resembles a parade.

The first stop of the spring breakers is at their hotel or resort. There, they run the gauntlet of unloading their baggage, checking in, receiving the colorful wrist bracelets that allow them access to the property, and listening to the many brand ambassadors‘ spiels on why they should try this or that product, or why going to party X at club Z is a really good idea. For example, upon arrival at one of the largest PCB resorts that caters to the SB crowd, spring breakers are made to stand in line for sometimes hours at a time, progressing slowly across the meandering path – delimited by several interlocked metal gates, similar to the ones used in rock concerts and political protests – that leads to the hotel front desk. While they wait, a hotel representative explains the rules: ―No hanging out the balconies, or you‘ll get arrested!‖ ―No guests after 6:00pm unless they have a wristband!‖

Several companies, advertising everything from liquor-based fruit drinks to ―booze cruises‖ and VIP cards that grant access to several PCB nightclubs, have set up booths inside the hotel. Enormous cardboard containers with ―swag‖ (i.e., corporate product samples), are routinely pillaged by the spring breakers, who seem to have a strange fascination with the acquisition of cheap plastic sunglasses, travel-sized sunscreen containers, razor blades (male and female), hand lotion, frisbees, t-shirts, and whatever else happens to be free of charge. The hotel also has its own bottle store, which is stacked high with cases of beer, advertised at prices only slightly higher than those you would find at a local grocery store. Among the advertisements for several brands of beer and the suggestion that using the services of an online reference service will greatly increase your odds of sexual gratification, a large white banner reads ―Welcome to Panama City Beach.‖ Sat at a nearby table, occasionally listening to the two-way radio clipped to his

FIGURE 1.13– Spring breakers arrive in PCB

FIGURE 1.14 – Brand ambassadors inside the lobby of a hotel

48 right shoulder, a PCB police officer in a well-creased short-sleeved white uniform shirt looks on, bemused.

The next stop for many spring breakers is the store where they acquire the necessary supplies that will see them through their stay in PCB. These consist, for the most part, of fruit juices or mixes, sodas, and salt and fat-laden snacks. Energy and sport drinks (routinely distributed free of charge as corporate samples), heavy in sugar, caffeine, and calories but with little nutritional value, also play an important role in the spring breakers‘ diet. When truly hungry, spring breakers will eat at one of the many fast-food places that abound in PCB, or at the few local establishments that still exist in PCB. Hamburgers, chicken fingers, popcorn shrimp, pizza, barbecued chicken and pork, fries, and so forth are standard fare. Were it not for the manifest Southern influences, the gastronomy on offer would be quite similar to what can be found in most college towns, albeit with slightly inflated prices. For those spring breakers with more means, a proverbial ―last meal‖ at one of the several more upscale restaurants, which invariably feature the holy trinity of steak, seafood, and pasta, is de rigueur on the last night before departure back to campus.

With two of their basic needs satisfied, spring breakers turn to more conspicuous consumption. During their stay in PCB, spring breakers will acquire a variety of objects that will undeniably establish their status as spring breakers, such as coolers, beer bongs (a contraption made by attaching a wide flexible plastic tube to a funnel through which beer is poured, allowing the user to ―bong‖ the beer in a few seconds), frisbees, beach balls, footballs, beach chairs, footballs, beach towels, beads, and other assorted beach paraphernalia. At the beach, such items are often given as prizes or as corporate promotional material. At the end of their stay, the vast majority of these items will be abandoned by the spring breakers, left in their hotel rooms or thrown out of their car to the side of the road to make the trip back to campus more comfortable. Some items will make it to dorm rooms, and others will be kept as mementos of the fleeting glory won in a beer chugging contest.

I found the spring breakers‘ fascination with these soon-to-be-discarded, easily perishable goods difficult to understand. T-shirts were particularly sought-after items – when I interviewed an informant who had recently returned from a ‗typical‘ SB vacation in Daytona Beach, he made a point of telling me that one of the highlights of his vacation was winning a t-shirt in a beer chugging contest (Ribeiro 2008: 51). In PCB, the most highly prized items were those offered by the U.S. Army: black t-shirts of good manufacture and exceptionally high-quality cotton (Made in U.S.A), with yellow-gold letters proclaiming that its user had ―Conquered the Army Spring Break Challenge.‖ Beads were also immensely popular in PCB, for the same reasons they are popular in New Orleans‘ Mardi Gras (Jankowiak and White 1999, Shrum and Kilburn 1996).

In The World of Goods, Mary Douglas (Douglas and Isherwood 1979: 67) claimed that goods serve as communication symbols used to proclaim one‘s allegiance to a set of cultural values and norms: ―Consumption uses goods to make firm and visible a particular set of judgments in the fluid processes of classifying persons and events.‖ Douglas also stressed that consumption of goods is a ritual activity, used both to mitigate and enhance an individual‘s connection to a certain social group. I was unable to determine if that was the case for spring breakers. With the exception of beads and t- shirts, spring breakers attached little meaning to the many goods they specifically purchased for or otherwise acquired during SB. They kept the ones with obvious utilitarian value (e.g., towels, t-shirts, footballs, frisbees) and discarded the others. Yet their acquisition was an integral part of the SB experience.

Lastly, in case they did not bring it with them (which often happened if spring breakers came from neighboring states or were underage), spring breakers acquired alcohol. The most common is by far beer, which is sold in enormous quantities, and always by the case. Most spring breakers are budget-conscious, allotting the most substantial part of their SB budget towards alcohol and cover charges at the local nightclubs (Josiam et al. 1994, 1998, 1999, Ribeiro 2008, Welch 2004, Wirtz et al. 2003), and thus acquire the cheapest brands of beer and liquor. The biggest beneficiaries of such consumption are not only the beer manufacturers, but the distributors and retailers, particularly national chain discount stores.

The more affluent spring breakers – particularly those who are associated with fraternity and sorority organizations – tend to acquire their alcohol piecemeal at one of the many bars and liquor stores that sell potent fruit and alcohol concoctions in large plastic containers. These containers have the added benefit of circumventing the seldom enforced Florida open container laws – by virtue of a lid – which prohibits open containers with alcoholic beverages within fifty feet of a public thoroughfare, which in PCB is pretty much everywhere.

At Pineapple Willy‘s, popular alcoholic cocktails such as margaritas and piña coladas are sold in handy 9oz., 16oz., and 32oz. purple plastic containers, which can be refilled at the bar for a fraction of the original price. The largest sizes come with free LED flashing necklaces to encourage its purchase, not unlike the toys that a popular fast-food chain offers its consumers when they purchase a meal aimed at a younger demographic. The marketing ploy is successful, especially among young females, to the point where Pineapple Willy‘s colorful containers and companion necklaces become so ubiquitous as to be part of the social landscape of PCB.

Other spring breakers (especially those who have yet to celebrate their 21st birthday) have discovered more ingenious ways to transport and consume alcohol less obtrusively, making good use of camelbacks, the flexible plastic hydration packs popular among endurance sports enthusiasts and the military. Spring breakers fill the packs with the drink of their choice (liquor such as Crown Royal is a popular choice), and conceal the camelbacks in ordinary looking backpacks, leaving only the drinking tube visible. Thus, within hours of their arrival in PCB, duly equipped and provisioned, checked-in and registered, spring breakers head to ―where the action is‖ – the beach.

Beach Life

The convergence of sand and sea has always fascinated humans, and the beach has long been associated with relaxation, pleasure, and hedonism (Lenček and Bosker 1998). The beach has also been a place for conspicuous leisure (Veblen 1994), whereby access to a certain beach, or the performance of certain beach activities, denotes one‘s social status,

51 notwithstanding the blurring of class and hierarchical positioning that occurs when one wears nothing but a swimsuit (Cohen 1984). Beaches and beach life are typically seen as the antithesis to the burdensome realities of modern urban existence (Cohen 1982, Edgerton 1979, Laurent 1973, Wagner 1977). Whereas some authors do not hesitate to qualify the beach as a liminal space, where beachgoers form an almost immediate communitas by virtue of their simultaneous presence in a space with fewer social restrictions and conducive to a relaxation of social mores (Wagner 1977; see also Turner 1969 1977), others cast doubt on the properties of social cohesion afforded by sea and sand (Cohen 1984, Edgerton 1979; see also pp. 106-121, this volume).

SB activities in PCB‘s beach follow a well-structured and regular pattern. When spring breakers arrive at PCB‘s beach mid-morning (the beach is mostly deserted before 10:00am), carrying with them coolers of beer and other beach paraphernalia, they select an area that will remain for the most part unchanged during the remainder of their SB vacation. Like most beach goers (Lenček and Bosker 1998, Kammler and Schernewski 2004), spring breakers are territorial, and choose their place on the beach in function of distance to lodging (if staying at a beach hotel) and/or distance to a beach access (if not), distance to corporate areas, size of party (there are no individual spring breakers), and willingness to rent a beach chair.

Some areas are surprisingly peaceful and sparsely populated; others – those closest to the corporate enclosures – are packed. As the day progresses, more spring breakers arrive and the entire beach acquires the look and feel of a college tailgate. Footballs whiz through the air; beer bongs are raised, filled with beer, and quickly drained; cans of beer are ―shotgunned.‖ Shotgunning a can of beer consists of tilting a beer can with the opening towards one‘s mouth – so that an air pocket forms at the top of the can – puncturing the can in the air pocket with a sharp object (or one‘s fingers, with enough practice) and opening the beer can in quick succession, so that the beer exits the can at a higher speed and can thus be consumed in a few seconds (which are often timed and the subject of animated contests). Shotgunning beer was forever immortalized and associated with the SB experience when in March of 2006 the host of a popular television show on the American NBC network (NYSE: GE, CMCSA), Conan O‘Brien, exhorted James

Lipton of Inside the Actor‟s Studio fame to shotgun a beer on the air to ―kick off Spring Break‖, which Lipton did to thunderous applause. On his next appearance in O‘Brien‘s show Lipton upped the ante with another SB-related activity: he bonged a beer, this time sporting a white and red baseball cap worn askew advertising Budweiser (NYSE: BUD) beers.

On the beach, young people can be seen clustered in small groups, drinking, hanging out, sunbathing, talking, and generally having a good time. As the day progresses, so does the noise level. Thousands of spring breakers can be seen on the beach all the way west (towards the pier) and east (towards LaVela nightclub). It is a boisterous crowd, but surprisingly there is little conflict. Beer cans, either empty, discarded on the beach, or full, in 24- and 30-can cartons being carried by spring breakers, can be seen everywhere. Other games are being played on the sand, also reminiscent of tailgating/drinking games, such as horseshoes and whiffle ball. Both the penalty and the reward in these games is the consumption of alcohol, evoking agonistic and vertigo gamesmanship (Caillois 2001). Another popular activity is simply walking along the beach and checking out what is going on. There is little or no between-group interaction, and what interaction exists seems to correlate highly with increased levels of alcohol consumption and with sheer physical proximity. Social interaction occurs in earnest only in locations designed for that purpose, such as bars, nightclubs, and/or hotels, or when sufficient alcohol has been consumed.

In one thing, however, the beach is different from a football tailgate: there are no visible toilet facilities. During the daytime, I didn‘t observe anyone openly relieving themselves in public, nor did I see long lines to the few port-a-potties located close to the beach (which are invariably filthy to the point of nausea, despite quasi-daily service), so common during nighttime. In fact, the entire length of my fieldwork in PCB I only witnessed two cases of public urination during the daytime. The first involved two obviously intoxicated bikini-clad female spring breakers in their late teens who were returning from the beach in the mid-morning, across a parking lot adjoining some of the few remaining single-family houses on Front Beach Road: in full view of the parking lot attendees, but partially hidden from view of the passersby on the road, one of the girls

53 walked to a house‘s back yard, squatted next to a small bush and, after sliding the small front triangle of her bikini bottoms to the left with the fingers of one hand, proceeded to urinate for a few minutes while being held by her friend, who grasped her other hand and thus kept her from losing her balance. The other case of daytime public urination that I witnessed was that of my research assistant as we were leaving the main entrance to the beach on a Friday afternoon, after a particularly taxing day of ethological data collection and participant observation.

There are less than fifty port-a-potties in PCB, placed mostly outside some clubs and gas stations, but these are clearly insufficient for the tens of thousands of spring breakers drinking enormous amounts of beverages known for their diuretic properties. Thus, the question begs asking: where do you go when you gotta go? The eleventh largest body of water on planet Earth is the answer. The Gulf of Mexico functions as an immense urinal and spring breakers make no effort disguising their actions when using it for such purpose. One female spring breaker, somewhat tipsy, hands her beer to her male companion and commands: ―I need to pee. Here, hold my beer. Don‘t drink it!‖ She nonchalantly walks into the water until it reaches crotch level and stands, facing the beach, for a few moments. She walks back to the beach, retrieves her beer, takes a hearty swig, and resumes her walk east with her friend, not without first adjusting the straps in her ill-fitting bikini top, this time facing the Gulf. Perhaps unsurprisingly, expenses related to waste water (which include sewage treatment) composed the largest item in PCB‘s city budget for the fiscal year 2009-2010, totaling $22.5 million (Panama City Beach Council 2011).

As the afternoon progresses, the mood among the spring breakers changes, particularly by the corporate areas delimited by snow fences, near the entrance to LaVela and Spinnaker nightclubs. There, in the mid-afternoon, the roar is almost deafening. In a thin strip of sand, measuring no more than one hundred by forty feet, tightly sandwiched between the towering sea-view apartment complexes and the ocean, are many, many hundreds of spring breakers. They stand almost shoulder to shoulder in a solid wall of pink and ebony-colored flesh, shouting, flirting, hanging out, dancing, getting corporate swag, and doing their best to become seriously intoxicated.

FIGURE 1.15 – PCB’s beach in the early morning (9:00am)

FIGURE 1.16 – PCB’s beach in the early afternoon (12:00pm)

FIGURE 1.17 – Spring breakers in a sparsely populated area of the beach

FIGURE 1.18 – Spring breakers in a densely populated area of the beach

FIGURE 1.19 – An immense tailgate

FIGURE 1.20 – Spring breakers playing beer pong on an improvised table

The atmosphere is that of a no-holds-barred college party with little clothing and mandatory alcohol consumption. Not even the college flags willowing in the breeze like medieval pennants, denoting allegiance to alma maters, greek organizations, and branches of the military, are missing. Footballs and frisbees whiz through the air, miraculously avoiding bystanders. It seems that not a second goes by without someone shotgunning or funneling a beer, downing a shot of liquor, or falling flat on their face in the sand completely inebriated.

A constant stream of young people moving to and fro along the hotel beach entrances and the water‘s edge feeds the crowd that pulsates with a life of its own. The mood is electric, almost feverish. The males form circles around the females and flirt with them relentlessly. Other wannabee Lotharios, more prone to commerce than prose, attempt to trade: ―Hey, you want some beads?‖ – asks a male spring breaker with many strings of colorful beads around his neck. ―Sure!‖ – is the enthusiastic response from a young co-ed walking by. ―Let‘s see those tits!‖ – he proposes. She ignores him and walks away. Suddenly, a rhythmic chant grows in a crescendo and reaches a fever pitch: ―SHOW YOUR TITS! SHOW YOUR TITS! SHOW YOUR TITS!‖ Next to an empty stage (there are no concerts after four p.m.) an almost exclusively male crowd beseeches some females sitting atop their friends‘ shoulders to show their breasts, over and over again. When they do so, a loud appreciative roar is heard above the din, and the girls are lowered to the ground with high-fives and flashes of many photographic and cell phone cameras. A disappointment-filled chorus of boos is heard if the female(s) in question refuse(s) to take off her(their) clothing. One girl loses not only her bikini top but also her bikini bottom in the confusion, and the remnants of her dignity are saved by two friends who run to the rescue with a large beach towel that she wraps around herself.

Nearby, a young male with short-cropped hair and incipient stubble chugs a bottle of Bacardi rum, trips, and falls face down on the sand. He doesn‘t move. Several of his friends surround him and immediately begin covering him with sand. A girl in her early twenties, wearing a small bikini and a black sarong, bends over, plants her palms on the sand, and grinds her buttocks on a young man‘s crotch, both of them moving in time to a thumping hip hop beat blasted from a nearby speaker. Two other girls in their mid-

58 twenties and matching bikinis lick liquor off the stomach of a heavily-muscled male who lays on his back with his hands behind his head. A fight breaks out between two males, who roll on the sand trading the inept punches of the inebriated before they are separated without major injury. Eight other males funnel beers at the same time using a strange contraption resembling a square six-foot high gallows made of PVC, where twelve red beer bongs hang from. A bearded grizzly-like spring breaker, clad in a stain-covered white t-shirt, board shorts and ball cap, carries a passed out blond male on his right shoulder like a sack of potatoes. The good Samaritan climbs the few steps towards the beach entrance of one of the largest hotels and deposits his friend at the feet of the state sheriff who is here boosting the hotel‘s security detail. Two EMS personnel show up and begin to administer first aid, but not before the sheriff searches the young man for ID and tries, unsuccessfully, to elicit a response from him. Two females walk arm in arm with a tall male with a swimmer‘s physique, passing the inert body on the ground. A security guard gives them a cursory glance, notices the revealing pink bracelets on their wrists, and lets them through. One of the girls spanks the boy‘s buttocks, and he remarks: ―You know, this is my last night here…‖ ―No! Really?!‖ – she responds, drunk and forlorn. The other girl hugs him closer and they disappear into the bowels of the three hundred- plus room hotel.

In the distance, U.S. Army paratroopers jump from a low flying airplane and parachute slowly onto the beach, releasing red smoke from canisters in their boots before they touch the sand. Just before sunset, another low flying airplane roars above the beach, dragging an advertisement banner for Natural Beers (NYSE: BUD) which reads: ―N.I.L.F. = Natty I‘d Like to Finish.‖

The Dirty Underbelly

As the sun sets and the last of the spring breakers abandons the beach, they leave behind a veritable sea of trash, mostly composed of discarded empty cans of beer, plastic cups, beach towels, broken corporate swag, empty cardboard and styrofoam boxes, drained liquor bottles, and assorted pieces of clothing. The odor of stale beer is pungent, particularly near the corporate areas where most of the trash has accumulated, and

59 overpowers the scent of the sea that a gentle breeze blows from the ocean. The magnitude of the waste is difficult to describe. In some places, it becomes almost impossible to walk on the sand without stepping on empty cans of beer. As night falls, powerful floodlights are turned on and illuminate the beach. Two large excavator tractors enter the beach and begin to methodically comb and rake the sand, collecting the trash in their front shovels and depositing it in large dump trucks. This procedure takes place every night during SB and without it the beach would quickly become untenable.

The amount of trash left by spring breakers on the beach is an example of the many negative impacts of SB in the local ecosystem. As often occurs in tourism destinations that have been the object of little or no planning efforts (Burton 1995, Cunha 1997, Gunn and Var 2004), the impact of a sudden surge in population numbers causes significant pressures on an already fragile ecosystem (Bouler 2007). To place things in perspective, one must remember that, for a town with approximately 13,000 inhabitants (U.S. Census Bureau 2009), during SB there can be as many as 60,000 spring breakers vacationing in PCB (Klages 2009; author‘s calculations). While the number of yearly SB visitors is still inferior to the peak 400,000 that visit PCB during the summer months (Klages 2009a), it is nonetheless a substantial number of visitors during a rather short time period (4-5 weeks), who tend to concentrate their activities on a very small geographic area (see pp. 106-121, this volume). In addition to the production of solid and liquid waste, SB also causes damage to the few remaining sand dunes, which are considered protected areas. These areas are fenced so that recently planted sea oats may grow and help sustain the ongoing erosion of the coastal areas, owed to the effects of several hurricanes and excessive high density construction too close to the water‘s edge. The damage done to the oats during SB is caused primarily by the installment and removal of the corporate areas on the beach, albeit it is not uncommon for spring breakers to deposit trash within these fenced areas or to disregard them when intoxicated.

As it often occurs in small tourism destinations (King et al. 1993, Rozenberg 1990), it is the social sphere that is most visibly affected by the presence of the spring breakers in PCB. Every year, as the SB season is underway, the local media is awash with angry indictments from local residents of the spring breakers‘ antics. Use of profanity, public

60 urination and intoxication, underage drinking, traffic congestion, excessive alcohol and drug consumption are mentioned as synonyms with SB in PCB (Michleski 2009). More serious occurrences, such as assaults, rapes, and SB-related deaths often gain widespread national media attention, as it occurred with the death of an intoxicated Notre Dame football recruit, who fell to his death from a balcony in a hotel in PCB during SB of 2010 (Smith 2010).

It bears mention that balcony-related injuries sustained during SB are not uncommon, nor are they without serious consequences; every year, spring breakers die in PCB after falling from a hotel/resort balcony while intoxicated (e.g., Gant 2010). In fact, balcony- related injuries among spring breakers have become so common that there is a medical term for them – the ―spring break syndrome‖ (Mathis et al. 1993; see also DeMott 1986). In a particularly gruesome case in 2007, a security guard at a large PCB resort pushed a young female spring breaker from Alabama from a fourth story balcony after raping and choking her in a hotel room (Angier 2009).

More recently, nurses and doctors of the Gulf Coast Medical Center drew attention to the high prevalence of date-rapes that occur during SB in PCB, stressing that 80% of the victims of sexual assault do not report the occurrence to the authorities (Calhoun 2009). That same edition of The News Herald, dated March 14 2009, reported that:

The doctors and nurses in the emergency room at Gulf Coast Medical Center say the scenario plays out with alarming regularity every March. A young woman comes in to the hospital, either by herself or with a law enforcement escort. She woke up alone on the Beach or in a strange hotel room, is unable to remember what happened to her and has a discomfort that suggests she was raped. At least four women in that situation came into the emergency room this week, Dr. Jimmie McCready said Thursday.(…) About 80 percent of the time the victim of a sexual assault will not report the crime to law enforcement, said Robin Baxley, a certified forensic nurse with the Panhandle Sexual Assault Response Team. The Bay County Sheriff's Office and the Panama City Beach Police Department are responsible for investigating rapes on the Beach. In March of 2007, no sexual crimes were reported to the Sheriff's Office, officials said. That same year Beach police dealt with nine incidents, police said. Last March, the two agencies investigated 27 sex offenses on Panama City Beach. So far this year there have been five sex offenses reported to local authorities. (…) "It always increases around Spring Break time," Baxley said.

FIGURE 1.21 – What the beach looks like once the sun sets

FIGURE 1.22 – Sea oats plantation enclosures next to condominiums on the beach

FIGURE 1.23 – Ambulance near PCB’s EMS center

FIGURE 1.24 – A state trooper pulls over a spring breaker on Thomas Drive

As other SB scholars have noticed, accurate up-to-date statistics at the municipal level concerning SB are difficult to come by, particularly in regard to police and medical occurrences (Laurie 2008, Moredock 1994). Nonetheless, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (2010) publishes aggregate arrest data on a semiannual basis for all the counties in Florida, divided by law enforcement jurisdictions. Bay County Data (Bay County Sheriff‘s Office and Panama City Beach Police) data for the period 01/012010- 06/30/2010 can be found in Table 1.1.

These official statistics should be contrasted with the SB-related police occurrences that the press publishes during the SB season. For instance, the Associated Press reported that ―between March 11 and March 28 [2010], agents arrested 985 people in Panama City [Beach] for underage possession of an alcoholic beverage‖ (Associated Press 2010). WMBB News quoted Panama City Beach Police Maj. Dave Humphreys saying that ―The first three weeks of March [2010] compared to last year show dramatic increases in criminal activity, with about 900 more complaints and traffic citations and more than double crime reports and arrests‖ (Chapin 2010). Lastly, the News Herald reported that in March 2010 ―Panama City Beach Police more than quadrupled their number of underage drinking arrests for the month — up to 483 from 114 a year ago (…) state alcohol agents arrested 985 people on underage drinking charges during nine days of enhanced enforcement in March — more than the 941 they arrested in all of March and half of April 2009‖ (Gant 2010a; see also Powers and Lelis 2009).

The negative impacts of SB in PCB are what Malcolm, a brand ambassador working for a consortium of PCB businesses with an interest in SB, calls ―the evil side of Spring Break.‖ He sustains that the most serious occurrences, such as assaults, stabbings, and rapes occur only inside certain notorious SB businesses, such as bars, nightclubs, and hotels/resorts that cater almost exclusively to the SB clientele and are dependent on the spring breakers for their economic survival. Serious occurrences seldom happen outside, (i.e., in public spaces), thus becoming more difficult to identify, investigate, and prosecute. It is thus likely that the official statistics paint an underestimated picture of the negative consequences of SB in PCB.

Table 1.1 - Bay County Arrest Data for the period 01/01/2010-06/30/2010

Division of Bay County Panama City Alcoholic Sheriff's Beach Police totals Beverages and Office Department Tobacco total arrests 1,806 2,195 1,160 5,161 adult arrests 1,593 1,935 1,101 4,629 juvenile arrests 213 260 59 532 murder 2 1 - 3 forcible sex 4 0 - 4 robbery 20 6 - 26 aggravated assault 95 19 - 114 burglary 220 8 - 228 larceny 414 145 - 559 motor vehicle theft 24 0 - 24 manslaughter 0 0 - 0 kidnap/abduction 6 0 - 6 arson 0 0 - 0 simple assault 188 109 - 297 drug arrests 30 82 5 117 bribery 0 1 - 1 embezzlement 0 1 - 1 fraud 19 66 - 85 counterfeit/forgery 11 24 1 36 extortion/blackmail 0 3 - 3 intimidation 4 1 - 5 prostitution 1 1 - 2 non-forcible sex 8 10 - 18 stolen property 4 0 - 4 DUI 55 11 - 66 destruction/vandalism 29 24 - 53 gambling 0 1 - 1 weapons violations 19 2 - 21 liquor law violations 1 821 1,144 1,966 miscellaneous 381 859 10 1,250 source: Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Eric and I met Malcolm, an early twenty-something college student, with short-cropped dark hair and a few SBs in PCB under his belt, inside the lobby of one the largest PCB beach hotels that caters to the SB clientele. There, Malcolm and his friend Pete, another brand ambassador, sell ―party cards‖ to spring breakers. Similar to popular discount cards, each card (there are several, each marketed by a different consortium of PCB SB businesses) costs around $50.00 and allows spring breakers free entrance to several bars and nightclubs during a 7-day period. Each card also advertises at least one happy hour per day of the week at one or more nightclubs, during which alcoholic beverages are free of charge for those who possess a card. The budget-conscious spring breakers who purchase the cards will feel pressured to ―get their money‘s worth,‖ and will therefore consume a substantial number of drinks during a short period of time, greatly increasing their chances of intoxication and the clubs‘ customer turnover and revenue. A few businesses, such as Club LaVela, generate enough demand as to market their own cards, which grant access and preferential treatment to patrons and are put on the market in early February of each year ($40.00), increasing in price every week until SB.

These and other marketing strategies (ladies‘ nights, teen nights, foam parties, happy hours, booze cruises) facilitate, intentionally or not, extremely high levels of intoxication among spring breakers and are no doubt a contributing factor to the overall hedonistic atmosphere that is felt during SB in PCB. Similarly to what occurs during a college football tailgate (Glassman et al. 2007) spring breakers begin drinking in the early morning, and it is not uncommon to find them intoxicated as early as 9:00am.

These findings lend credence to the extensive SB research that has associated alcohol consumption with spring breakers‘ excessive behaviors in typical SB destinations (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Butts et al. 1996, Delaney 1997, Gerlach 1989, Gonzalez 1986, Grekin et al. 1007, Josiam et al. 1994 1998 1999, Lee et al. 2006 2009, Maticka- Tyndale and Herold 1997 1999, Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998, Mattila et al. 2001, Mewhinney et al. 1995, Mewhinney 1996, Neighbors et al. 2007, Smeaton et al. 1998, Sönmez et al. 2006, Ribeiro 2008, Ribeiro and Yarnal 2006 2008, Wirtz et al. 2003).

FIGURE 1.25 – City billboard cautioning spring breakers as they enter PCB

FIGURE 1.26 – Hotel billboard welcoming spring breakers to PCB

FIGURE 1.27 –Billboard advertising the services of a local lawyer to spring breakers

FIGURE 1.28 –Religious hostility towards spring breakers

Nonetheless, I saw little activity that could be interpreted as outside the norm of what usually occurs in large college towns throughout the U.S., reflecting the ―beer and circus‖ higher education stereotype described by Sperber (2000). My observations lend support to recent SB research that argues that spring breakers‘ behavior is but a continuation (albeit an exaggerated one) of practices they already engage in during the rest of the academic year (Litvin 2009, Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008).

Local Systems, Global Processes

It is impossible to understand the spring breakers‘ behavior in PCB without taking a closer look at the local political and economical system of SB in PCB. To understand the system, we must first identify its components and assess the relationships between them (Sessa 1988). In PCB, there are (at least) six agents that one must consider when analyzing the SB phenomenon: 1) the spring breakers themselves; 2) the local residents; 3) local businesses with an interest in SB, such as hotels, motels, nightclubs, and bars; 4) local government; 5) marketing companies, such as the one Mark works for; and 6) large multinational corporations who are interested in the SB demographic (18-24 year olds), such as Victoria‘s Secret, Garnier, Bic, and so forth. We must also consider the local and national media, who play a crucial role in the information exchange between the different components of the system. Lastly, we must also take in consideration the actions of PCB‘s Police and of the TDC/CVB.

Figure 1.29 shows a diagram of the political economy of PCB during SB. As the diagram shows, the local system is all but simple and yet it is typical of most contemporary tourism destinations (Burton 1995, Cunha 1997, Hall 1994). At the center of the system are the spring breakers who, even before SB starts, are already bombarded with messages to not only elect PCB as their SB destination, but also to patronize certain PCB businesses and not others. These messages often influence SB-related campus behaviors, such as increased fitness and dieting efforts which are sometimes taken to extremes, particularly among females (Williams 2006).

FIGURE 1.29 –The political economy of Spring Break in PCB

The vast majority of the advertising aimed at spring breakers is filtered through marketing companies who act as intermediaries between the spring breakers and corporations with an interest in the SB demographic, local businesses and organizations representing local business interests (TDC/CVC, business co-ops). The latter will also advertise directly to spring breakers, usually employing locally-based marketing expertise. The methods used to do so rely heavily on social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, TripAdvisor, YouTube), are fairly sophisticated, and aim, in a first stage, at creating ―buzz‖ among the many hundreds of thousands of college students who constitute the target market for SB in PCB, and in a later stage at improving loyalty to the ―PCB brand‖ over time (Jennifer Barbee, Inc. 2011). This process is akin to the subcontracting of Mexican immigrants for janitorial services by large high-tech firms in Silicon Valley described by Zlolniski (2006). In both cases (Silicon Valley and PCB),

70 large corporations seek to rid themselves of externalities (labor laws and high labor costs in Silicon Valley; bureaucracy and operating costs in PCB) by creating a ―buffer‖ between them and their object of interest, be it a cheap, compliant, and readily-available labor pool, or an intoxicated, compliant, and readily-available consumer pool.

Upon arrival, spring breakers are controlled by local authorities, who seek to restrict the spring breakers‘ activities to a certain designated area in order to minimize negative impacts to the local population and to maximize the potential revenue for local businesses with an interest in SB. To keep the spring breakers under control, the PCB police, reinforced by state police and the ABT, sets up checkpoints along the main thoroughfares in PCB (Thomas Drive, Front Beach Road), bringing the traffic to a virtual standstill and effectively corralling the spring breakers (who travel primarily by car) to an area smaller than two square miles (see pp. 106-121, this volume). The cost of added police efforts during SB weights heavily in the City Council‘s budget: for the fiscal year 2009-2010, law enforcement-related expenses totaled $5.8 million, the third largest item in the budget (Panama City Beach Council 2011).

Yet for all these law enforcement efforts (as recently as April 2010, following a SB season marred by incidents, including two balcony-related fatalities, the Bay County Sheriff was given a ―blank check‖ to ―increase police presence during busy periods such as Spring Break‖ – Hobson 2010), one has the impression that trying to curb SB is like fighting an avalanche with a snowball. Due to their limited manpower (even with state reinforcements, there are never more than 100 police officers – including office staff – for the tens of thousands of spring breakers and local residents), the police can do little but set up checkpoints and respond to the many, many calls for distress that occur during SB (Simmons 2010). For instance, at the height of the SB season, two ABT officers stand for hours at a time near one of the main beach accesses near Club LaVela, detaining and citing obviously intoxicated or underage spring breakers carrying and consuming alcohol. Thousands of spring breakers use this beach access every day and there is little two officers can do to stem the tide of spring breakers who engage in illicit behavior. During 2010‘s SB, local police made use of a ―mobile jail,‖ placed near the beach, which allowed for spring breakers found in violation of the law to be arrested, processed, fined,

71 and released more quickly (Walker 2010). Moreover, SB also plays a role in the relations between local police and government officials. In early 2010, a few weeks before the start of the SB season, SB was a point of discord in a labor dispute between county officials and the local police union (Teamsters Local 991), who argued that more personnel and pay rises were necessary to guarantee the security of the beach during SB (Gant 2010, Owen 2010 2010a).

Interestingly, local residents claim that there is evidence of a not-so-subtle pressure by the local authorities for police to be somewhat tolerant of spring breakers‘ behavior (Kohn 2002). As an example, a recent letter to the editor of The News Herald claimed that during SB ―our sheriff, beach police and some state troopers turn their heads because the kids need to blow off steam and relax from the pressure of school. So we will turn our heads, relax the laws and jeopardize our lives for the almighty dollar‖ (Mathis 2011). I found little ethnographic evidence of this, other than a state trooper not issuing a ticket to a spring breaker who had not fastened his seat belt on Thomas Drive. ―You‘re a nice guy‖ – was this trooper‘s partner‘s reproachful comment. Indeed, Tracey told me that local police are often more lenient on local inhabitants of PCB than they are on spring breakers: ―well, the cops (…) they leave us [the locals] alone, but they treat the kids [the spring breakers] like shit.‖

Nonetheless, the presence and behavior of the spring breakers and the (perceived) preferential treatment they receive from law enforcement generates a considerable deal of resentment among locals, whose perceptions of the SB phenomenon are influenced not only by what they observe, but also by the local and national media, which are owned or otherwise controlled by large corporations. In PCB, for instance, the local paper (The News Herald) is owned by Freedom Communications, Inc., which owns over 100 newspapers and magazines in 14 U.S. states, and 8 television stations (affiliated with CBS, CBC and CW) in 6 states, making it the 12th largest media conglomerate in the U.S. (Freedom Communications 2007). Following the conglomerate‘s bankruptcy in 2009 and subsequent restructuring in 2010, Freedom Communications, Inc. is currently jointly owned by three investment companies (Alden Global Capital – a global hedge fund with offices in New York, Dallas, Dubai, Jersey, and Mumbai; Angelo, Gordon & Co – an

72 investment advisor specializing in non-traditional investing with a $23 billion portfolio; and Luxor Capital Group – a privately held loan broker), and several other lenders including JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) (Milbourn 2010).

The local and national media exert in turn considerable influence over the actions of the local government, either portraying them as valiant civil servants burdened with a difficult task or as inept officials who let the spring breakers run riot. Thus, local authorities are caught between two fires – they must not antagonize their constituents, while at the same time they must nonetheless bow to the wishes of local and translocal businesses with a vested commercial interest in SB. What is more, spring breakers bring much needed tax revenue, in the form of sales tax and bed tax – the latter funding not only the TDC/CVB but also contributing to the beach nourishment project of PCB as well as providing support for low cost air service.

Hollis (2004: 27-28) notes that as early as the 1950s, local authorities in PCB were welcoming of SB, yet remained ambivalent in regard to its effects:

Local government also began taking a previously unrevealed interest in the annual coastal mating season known as spring break.(…)The tradition had come to the Miracle Strip beginning in the 1950s under the dual names of ―AEA Week‖ and ―GEA Week.‖ The initials stood for Alabama Education Association and Georgia Education Association, and each year the beaches braced themselves for the onslaught of junior high and high school students who were out of classes during the associations‘ year spring meetings.(…)The city had (and still has) mixed feelings about how to react to this yearly invasion, being hesitant to stifle the commercial possibilities but also reluctant to condone the component activities.‖

The ―mixed feelings‖ that Hollis mentions reflect the intricate political economy of PCB and highlight the local government‘s reluctance in dealing away with SB in spite of the local residents‘ opposition. That reluctance has for decades hinged on the perception – periodically fed by the local and national media (e.g., Higgins 2009, Price 2011) – that SB constitutes one of the pillars of PCB‘s economy. For instance, current employment in PCB in the arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services accounts for one fifth (21.9%; 1,484) of all civilian population employment, making it the largest economic sector in terms of both employment and revenue (U.S. Census Bureau 2009, Harper 2010; see also Character 2011). The month of March is the third most profitable

73 month in terms of revenue for the recreation sector in PCB (Harper 2010), feeding the generalized perception that PCB‘s economy is dependent on SB.

While there is little disagreement among business owners, county officials, and local residents that SB is an important source of revenue for PCB, whether or not such revenue is worth the negative consequences (including the adverse publicity) of the spring breakers‘ presence in PCB has long been a point of discord (Calhoun 2008). The exact amount of the economic impact of SB in PCB has also been disputed, with a recent report submitted by two local citizens criticizing the vastly overinflated estimates of the TDC/CVB (Durta and Durta 2007, Offley 2007). Moreover, private revenue accrued by hosting SB in PCB is concentrated in the hands of a small number of businesses and business owners, who control financial and political resources (n.a. 2009), which they use to direct public resources to benefit private interests (as it happens, for instance, when the TDC/CVB, funded by a bed tax collected from the spring breakers‘, uses said tax to promote certain SB businesses and not others).

The cohesion and conflict among the several components of its political and economical system that SB in PCB generates is as difficult to understand as the dynamics of Medieval Iceland (Durrenberger 1992), and the political machinations and vying for power and control among local and translocal businesses with an interest in SB are comparable to the inner dealings among the ―power elite‖ described by C. Wright Mills (1956). In 2007, for instance, the Bay County Commission fired the TDC/CVB en masse, accusing the organization of promoting a single hotel owner‘s business interests over everyone else‘s (n.a. 2009). More recently, in January of 2011, a group of business owners, including a restaurateur, the brother of a TDC chairman, and the chairman of PCB‘s Chamber of Commerce, publicly complained that the TDC‘s SB marketing efforts ―were too little too late,‖ (Kelly 2011), in spite of generalized consensus among local residents, local government, the TDC and the PCB police that PCB should move away from its SB image and concentrate on being an year-round destination (Bay County Tourism Development Council 2010). In response, the TDC realigned itself with pro-SB PCB businesses, prompting its CEO to declare that ―college spring break has been one of the mainstays of Panama City Beach business over time‖ (Cate 2011).

To better understand the workings of the local system, one must acknowledge that not all agents within it are equally powerful, nor do they possess similar types of power. For instance, while the local business community may have substantial power to influence, or attempt to influence, local government, there is little they can do to prevent a group of spring breakers from throwing a soda machine from a 15th story window (Welch 2004). Similarly, while the local authorities have the power to curtail and to a certain extent control the spring breakers‘ activities (e.g., by recruiting more or fewer law enforcement personnel), they are virtually powerless as to how SB will be marketed in the interests of large corporations, or how the SB phenomenon is portrayed in the media.

I borrow here from Eric Wolf‘s (1990 1999) distinction between four different types of power to illustrate the unequal distribution of power among the components of SB‘s political economy in PCB. In Envisioning Power (1999: 5) Wolf distinguished between individual, interactional, organizational, and structural power:

Power works differently in interpersonal relations, in institutional arenas, and on the level of whole societies. I have found it useful to distinguish among four modalities in how power is thus woven into social relations. One is the power of potency or capability that is seen to inhere in an individual (…) A second kind of power is manifested in interactions and transactions among people and refers to the ability of an ego to impose its will in social action upon an alter (…) A third modality is power that controls the contexts in which people exhibit their capabilities and interact with others. This sense calls attention to the instrumentalities through which individuals or groups direct or circumscribe the actions of others within determinate settings. I refer to the mode as tactical or organizational power (…) there is still a fourth modality of power (…) structural power. By this I mean the power manifest in relationships that not only operates within settings and domains but also organizes and orchestrates the settings themselves, and that specifies the direction and distribution of energy flows.

Table 1.2 displays the application of Wolf‘s four modalities of power to the six main agents in PCB‘s SB political economy – spring breakers, local residents, local government, local businesses, marketing companies, and multinational corporations – along a simple three-point continuum of low to high. By attributing numerical values to the subjective qualifications of power described above (i.e., LOW = 1; MODERATE = 3; HIGH = 5), we can also plot the cumulative distribution of power in PCB‘s SB political economy, which is displayed in Figure 1.30.

Table 1.2 - Distribution of Power in Panama City Beach's Political Economy during Spring Break

personal interactional organizational structural power power power power spring breakers HIGH MODERATE LOW LOW local residents LOW MODERATE LOW LOW local government LOW HIGH MODERATE LOW local businesses MODERATE LOW HIGH LOW marketing companies LOW HIGH HIGH LOW multinational corporations LOW MODERATE HIGH HIGH

Looking at Table 1.2 we can see that the spring breakers have substantial personal power – their condition as college students/spring breakers grants them a special status in PCB‘s political economy. Moreover, they have some interactional power, as they are able to impose their will on others, as it occurs, for instance, when a spring breaker urinates on a local resident‘s front lawn. On the other hand, spring breakers have little organizational and structural power, as they have no control of the local context where SB activities occur (such power is mostly held by the local businesses and marketing companies by virtue of their deployment of brand ambassadors in PCB), or of the larger context of SB itself.

The local residents score low in all categories of power with the exception of interactional power, which derives from their ability to elect public officials and influence, albeit to a small extent, the local media. The local government possesses low personal and structural power; they are neither powerful individuals themselves nor do they have any ―power to deploy social labor‖ (Wolf 1999: 5). They are, however, by virtue of their legislative and executive power, able to control to a moderate extent certain contexts, such as what occurs in public spaces during SB in PCB (see pp. 106- 121, this volume). By virtue of the control they exert over law enforcement, local authorities also possess considerable interactional power, as they are able to impose their collective will on others, namely the spring breakers and the local residents.

multinational corporations

marketing companies

local businesses

local government

spring breakers

local residents

personal power interactional power organizational power structural power

FIGURE 1.30 –Cumulative distribution of power in PCB’s political economy during Spring Break

Local businesses have some measure of personal power, by virtue of personal wealth or political connections, and have considerable organizational power by associating themselves in pro-SB co-ops, leveraging the power of the local Chamber of Commerce to serve their interests, or attempting to influence the TDC/CVB. What is more, local businesses exert their organizational power by controlling the spring breakers‘ behaviors that occur in private places such as hotels, motels, nightclubs, and bars. Indeed, local businesses are fiercely protective of such spaces; at a City Council meeting where the topic of SB and its negative consequences for PCB was being discussed, one hotel owner quipped – in the presence of the Bay County Sheriff, who remained impassive – that there was no need for police to provide security inside their properties and that, instead, police should concentrate on keeping unwanted guests from trespassing: ―We are not asking for police to provide security inside our property. We can take care of that. But if someone is coming from the street onto our property we would like some help‖ (Panama City Beach Council 2010a; author‘s fieldnotes 3/25/2010).

FIGURE 1.31 – Liquid refreshment for sale at a national chain discount store

FIGURE 1.32 – Free tuition as enticement for participation in corporate contests

FIGURE 1.33 – Advertisement bus for a national spring break tour operator

FIGURE 1.34 – Copyright warning at the entrance of a corporate area on the beach

The marketing companies yield a great deal of interactional power, particularly in regard to the spring breakers‘ behavior – they are able to ―impose their will‖ (Wolf 1999: 5) on spring breakers, for instance, when they hold ―booty shaking‖ or ―hard body‖ contests and tell spring breakers exactly how to behave, or when they furnish such enticements to spring breakers (e.g., free tuition, free product samples) that resistance to participation in corporate sponsored contests is all but impossible. Moreover, by virtue of their advertising value for local PCB SB businesses, marketing companies also exert considerable influence over local authorities. Marketing companies also possess a substantial amount of organizational power, as they are able to direct behavioral patterns within certain settings, as it occurs, for instance, inside the corporate enclosures on the beach. Inside, the control marketing companies exert is such that those who enter must surrender, perhaps not all hope as unwary visitors to Dante‘s Inferno did, but at least their visual personas and the legal rights that come with them (Figure 1.34).

Nevertheless, marketing companies do not control either the contexts in which SB occurs nor the institutional structures that create and nurture this phenomenon in the first place. Such power resides exclusively in the hands of multinational corporations, who view SB as an immense marketing ground, where thousands of college-age individuals can be exposed to a myriad of corporate products and services (see pp. 106-121, this volume). The value that spring breakers represent for large multinational corporations is detailed in the website of a collegiate advertising company (Collegiate Marketing Group, LLC), which since 2008 has served as the intermediary between corporations and PCB‘s SB business co-ops (Collegiate Marketing Group 2010):

The biggest thing to hit the American marketing scene since the 72 million baby boomers is Generation Y. With more than 60 million strong, corporate America is reaching out in unique new ways to enhance their visibility and build brand awareness and product loyalties. One of the unique ways that corporations are attracting the Gen Yers is with the hot yearly event known as Spring Break. Every March hundreds of thousands of students from across the nation descend on the beaches of destinations such as Panama City Beach Florida for a mix of sun, fun, and parties. Since Panama City Beach Florida is known as ―The Spring Break Capital Of The World‖ and attracts a college student mass upwards of 500,000 marketers are using Spring Break to put their products in front of the eyes of these young affluent college students. Corporations feel that one of the great aspects of this marketing event is the fact that most of the college students who travel to

Spring Break are trendsetters- who bring friends and involve them in their buying decisions. This gives corporate sponsors more bang for their buck. Spring-Break has changed its characteristics since Generation X began to add its touch to the tradition. While partying still plays a central role in Spring Break rituals, planned activities have expanded and include more on-site advertising and corporate sponsors. The marketing message has also switched to advertising computer-related items, video games, movies and TV shows, and other youth- oriented consumer products. What it boils down to is this: Get thousands of college kids in one spot, with wads of money which they know they want to spend, and in a hot spot like Panama City Beach – and you have the makings of a massive method of product promotion and service marketing.

Figure 1.30 clearly shows an unbalance of overall power tilted favorably in the multinational corporations‘ direction. While they have little or no personal power, they possess some interactional power and, more importantly, a great deal of organizational and structural power. It is this latter type of power which Wolf (1990: 587) characterized as ―power that structures the political economy,‖ that gives large corporations its dominance over the local system of SB in PCB.

The structural power of these monoliths of economic and cultural production comes from their access to global markets, made possible by the organization and integration of informational and financial networks that transcend local boundaries (Durrenberger 2003). In the last one hundred years or so, corporations‘ access to global flows of capital and labor – what in Marxian terms we would call means of production – on an unprecedented scale has tilted the scales of power in favor of the global and in detriment of the local (Greider 1998, Korten 1996, Stiglitz 2002, Yates 2003). Corporations‘ interest in SB derives from the fact that spring breakers constitute a third means of production indispensable in modern consumption-driven economies: a consumption base for whatever products and services are manufactured, marketed, sold, and speculated on in the global marketplace.

Thus what happens during SB in PCB does not stay in PCB but instead has ramifications with a multitude of global agents and forces. College students from Canada, France, the Netherlands, and Germany visit PCB for SB every year. Marketing companies with an interest in SB have found it useful to maintain corporate offices in Canada (Collegiate Marketing Group 2010). The plastic beads that spring breakers use as symbolic means of

81 ritual disrobement (Schrum and Kilburn 1996) are manufactured by Chinese dagonzai workers working in sweatshops, as are the majority of the products advertised to spring breakers on the beach in PCB (Ngai 2005, Redman 2005, Ross 2004). At the height of the Second U.S.–Iraq War, when increasingly large numbers of recruits were needed to feed the war machine, the U.S. Army commissioned McCann Erickson, a global advertising agency owned by Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (NYSE: IPG), and one of the four largest advertising companies in the world, to design and carry out a SB advertising campaign centered in PCB (Neilsen 2007). The global financial crisis of 2008-2010 brought real estate speculation to a grinding halt in PCB (Jackson 2010) and, paradoxically, forced many existing condominium owners and local residents to accept the yearly onslaught of raucous spring breakers more willingly, as did local businesses and local government officials in search of added tourism revenue.

Conversely, global tourism fluxes do not affect local systems univocally (see Figure 1.35). Rather, the global and the local are perpetually engaged in a dialectic process, whereby local systems resist and negotiate the demands of global capital, which in turn attempts to influence and control local systems of production and exchange, most notably through cultural production (Appadurai 1996, Kearney 1995).

FIGURE 1.35 – Dialectic exchange between local and global forces

As Gotham (2007; see also 2002, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c) showed in his study of the political economy of Mardi Gras in New Orleans, global tourism forces are often met with resistance and, while most of the time they are successful in imposing their will on local systems, they must nonetheless conform to remarkably resilient local cultures (Gotham 2005: 322):

Tourism is an uneven and contested process that involves a set of global forces imposed from above in conjunction with localized actions and organizations attempting to preserve place difference, local traditions and indigenous cultures. Despite the globalized nature of tourism, it is important to remember that entertainment firms, tourism institutions, and social processes are embedded in specific locations, plugged into locally-constituted social relationships, networks and cultural ties. This local embeddedness of global tourism suggests that global corporations are not free agents to impose their modes of operation on passively accepting cities. In most cases, they are forced to confront local idiosyncracies, cultures and long-standing traditions that resist the homogenization and standardization processes of ‗tourism from above‘.

“We’re Not Porn Guys, We’re Anthropologists!”

In 2003, Joe Francis, creator and CEO of the popular soft-porn franchise Girls Gone Wild was arrested and jailed in PCB on a series of charges stemming from allegations that he and/or Girls Gone Wild employees had coerced two female juveniles (aged 16 at the time) to appear naked on camera. After a rocambolesque trial and assorted legal proceedings, Francis pled guilty in 2008 to a felony count of child abuse and four misdemeanors (Kretzer 2008). That same year, a few days after being sentenced to time served and $60,000 in fines, Francis was again sued by four women who claimed that they had been videotaped while underage in PCB (Associated Press 2008). The nationwide attention that Joe Francis‘ legal troubles in PCB garnered further cemented the association between SB and the oversexualized and exploitative representation of young people‘s (especially females) leisure behavior (Mewhinney et al. 1995, Mewhinney 1996; see also Pitcher 2006, and Spirut 2005), already bolstered by the many thousands of videos and photographs freely available on the web proclaiming SB as a period of self-professed abandon of sexual mores.

Little wonder then, that several times during my fieldwork in PCB, my research assistant and I were often asked if we were ―checking out hot girls‖ when, clipboard and pitch counters in hand (we used the latter to make behavioral counts in heavily populated areas of the beach more reliable), we collected ethological data concerning spring breakers‘ beach behaviors (see pp. 106-121, this volume). Other times we were asked what we were doing by local residents when we stood near heavy traffic beach access areas passing out surveys designed to measure cultural agreement among spring breakers (see pp. 159-235, this volume). Such inquiries were never carried out in a threatening manner, but always in an inquisitive and slightly bemused tone, as we must have looked exactly like what we were: two slightly older, clean cut nerds taking notes for some sort of school project.

A particularly humorous episode occurred when we were recruiting participants for a study on SB that used participatory photography (Ribeiro forthcoming). In exchange for a $25.00 gift card to a national chain discount store, I asked spring breakers to take a disposable camera and take one photo per hour, during the next 24 hours, thus providing evidence that would allow me to study what a typical SB experience in PCB was like. Following standard procedures in the social sciences, we provided informed consent forms to each participant (which they refused to sign), explaining why and how the data would be used, and detailing their rights as human subjects in a social science experiment. Our response rate, no doubt strengthened by the financial incentive we were providing participants with, was remarkably high – we ran out of gift cards within two hours of participant recruitment. No one thought our study was spurious or even suspicious, with the exception of the last two participants (two female senior college students from Florida with graduate school ambitions) who inquired, somewhat incredulous that someone would ask them to take photographs rather than the other way around: ―How do we know you guys are not some porn guys?‖ Eric and I looked at each other for a few moments – the thought had never crossed our minds until then – and responded, outraged: ―We‘re not porn guys!‖ ―We‘re anthropologists!‖

FIGURE 1.36 – The author conducting fieldwork

Coda – Guarding Fort Panama

Towards the end of the SB season in PCB, intent on photographing the beach in the early morning, I entered the beach by an entrance near Fort Panama. Its obstacle course, set up by Mark and his people under the guidance of U.S. Army personnel, allowed spring breakers to compete against each other in a crucible of events that simulate battle conditions. Events consist of abdominal crunches, pull ups, push ups, rope swinging, net climbing, crawling on your hands and knees, and culminating in the dry-firing of a M-60 machine gun atop a twelve-foot tower. The fastest times are recorded in a board that ephemerally celebrates ―Fort Panama‘s Strongest‖, and prizes are awarded to the contestants who compete in the ―Army Spring Break Challenge.‖

Nearby, a large black pup tent houses the Army‘s SB information and recruitment center, which contains several computer stations where spring breakers can find out if they are Army material in a few minutes, video games that simulate battle scenarios, an air hockey

85 table, and an assortment of other electronic equipment worth many thousands of dollars, designed to lure spring breakers into the tent and associate the ―Army‖ brand with irrevocable coolness. At this time of the day, however, the beach is deserted and the tent flaps are down. A solitary PCB police officer in a black uniform stands guard, almost blending into the tent by virtue of the color of his uniform, looking bored beyond belief and with his thumbs stuck in his service belt. He notices me standing there with a camera in my hand taking photos of my surroundings and his posture stiffens visibly.

―Sir, step back.‖ – I look around and see no one in the immediate vicinity. There is no one around as far as I can see. Is the officer talking to me? He is. The tone is not aggressive, but leaves little margin for interpretation. He does not want me to come any closer, particularly since he noticed my camera. ―Sir, please stay behind the barrier.‖ – he insists. I instinctively take a step back (PhD students may be ignorant, but they are not stupid) and place myself behind the invisible barrier composed by an imaginary line traced along the several blue plastic trash barrels filled to the brim with empty cans of beer that are distant twenty feet or so from the Army tent. This action seems to please him, his demeanor changes, and we engage in polite conversation.

I explain that I am here to take some photos of the beach when there is no one around, and he commiserates with me that the clouds are not cooperating, hiding the sun and thus providing insufficient light. The officer suggests I return a little later, when the Gulf breeze starts blowing the clouds away and the light will be better. Will do, officer, and thank you very much and have a nice day.

Durrenberger (2003) draws our attention to the often incomprehensibility of structures and institutions affected by global processes, and the harm that the imposition of globally mandated processes with little regard for cultural specificity can cause to local systems. Rappaport (1993: 301) called this phenomenon the hierarchical maldistribution of organization, suggesting that ―The complexity and power of global processes increase at the expense of local and regional systems, which then lose autonomy and self- sufficiency, reducing thereby the stability and resilience of the world system as a whole.‖

FIGURE 1.37 –Fort Panama in the early morning

FIGURE 1.38 – Guarding Fort Panama

Ultimately, the increased preponderance of the global at the expense of the local makes systems more vulnerable, unpredictable, and chaotic (Greider 1998), and leads to incomprehensible situations comparable to a police officer guarding a tent filled with military computers in the middle of a deserted beach, surrounded by many thousands of empty cans of beer.

References

Angier, D. (2009, March 14). Wuertley gets 30 years for rape. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed March 20, 2010 at http://www.newsherald.com/news/wuertley-72591-victim-trial.html

Apostolopoulos,Y., Sönmez, S. & Yu, C. (2002). HIV-risk behaviours of American spring break vacationers: a case of situational desinhibition? International Journal of STD and AIDS, 13(11), 733-743.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Appleford, S. (2004). The desperate party. In N. Welch, Spring broke (pp. 3-8). New York: Powerhouse Books.

Associated Press (2008, March 25). Four women sue „Girls Gone Wild‟ founder Joe Francis for underage filming. Accessed December 12, 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341430,00.html

Associated Press (2010, April 5). More alcohol agents for Spring Break. Accessed December 12, 2010 from http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/more_alcohol_agents_fo r_spring_break/

Barbaro, M. (2003, March 3). Warming to spring break: Hot spots aggressively vie for student dollars. The Washington Post. P. H.01.

Bay County Tourism Development Council (2010, April 13). Meeting minutes. Panama City Beach, Florida: Bay County Tourism Development Council. Available at http://www.visitpanamacitybeach.org/files/April%202010%20Board%20Minutes _000.pdf

Bernard, H. R. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 195-517.

Borgatti, S. P. (1994). Cultural domain analysis. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 4(4), 261-278. Bouler, J. L. (2007). Exploring Florida‟s Emerald Coast: A rich history and a rare ecology. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Broadbear, J. (2003). Killing the Mook and Midriff. Journal of College and Character, 4(2). Retrieved January 12, 2008 from http://journals.naspa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1341&context=jcc

Burton, R. (1995). Travel geography (2nd ed.). London: Longman.

Butts, C. T. (2003). Network inference, error, and informant (in)accuracy: A Bayesian approach. Social Networks, 25(2), 103-140.

Butts, F., Salazar, J., Sapio, K., & Thomas, D. (1996). The impact of contextual factors on the Spring Break travel decisions of college students. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 4(3), 63-70.

Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play and games (transl. Meyer Barash). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Calhoun, S. B. (2008, April 20). Spring break brings crime spike. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed March 20, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/news/beach-3590-spring-break.html

Calhoun, S. B. (2009, March 14). Spring break, date-rape drugs a bad mix. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed March 20, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/news/room-72587-medical-emergency.html

Carr, N. (2002). The tourism-leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4), 972-986.

Carr, N. (2002a). Going with the flow: An assessment of the relationship between young people‘s leisure and holiday behaviour. Tourism Geographies, 4(2), 115-134.

Cate, E. (2011, January 6). Spring Break marketing. WMBB News [online version]. Accessed February 1, 2011 from http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/spring_break_marketing 1/mbb7727580/

Chapin, J. (2010, March 22). Beach businesses meet on crime. WMBB News [online version]. Accessed December 12, 2010 from http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/beach_businesses_meet_ on_crime/

Character, K. (2011, February 2). Spring Break jobs available in Panama City Beach. WMBB News [online version]. Accessed February 2, 2011 from http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/spring_break_jobs_avail able_in_panama_city_beach/mbb7728125/

Cohen, E. (1982). Marginal paradises: Bungalow tourism on the islands of southern Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 1 89-228

Cohen, E. (1984). The sociology of tourism: Approaches, issues, and findings. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 373-392.

Colburn, D. R. & deHaven-Smith, L. (2002). Florida‟s megatrends: Critical issues in Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.

Collegiate Marketing Group (2010). Corporate America uses Spring Break to attract generation Y. Accessed January 3, 2011 from http://www.collegiatemarketinggroupllc.com/corporate-america-uses-spring- break-to-attract-generation-y/

Cunha, L. (1997). Economia e política do turismo. Lisboa, Portugal: McGraw-Hill.

Delaney, A. (1997). The spring break phenomenon: A study of students‟ reasons for vacationing. Unpublished honors‘ thesis. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

DeMott, J. S. (1986, April 7). Wreaking havoc on spring break. Time Magazine [electronic version]. Accessed January 19, 2008 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,961067,00.html.

Dixon, W. O. (2008, Winter). Boss of the beach. Bay Life Magazine [online version] Accessed December 12, 2009 at http://www.baylifemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id =175&Itemid=95

Dixon, W. O. (2011, January 4). A walk in the park: Pier Park, the open-air regional shopping center in Panama City Beach, prospers despite tough economic times. 850 The Business Magazine of Northwest Florida [online version]. Accessed January 15, 2011 from http://www.850businessmagazine.com/spotlight/167- panama-city-beachs-pier-park-prospers-despite-tough-economic-times.html

Douglas, M. & Isherwood, B. (1979). The world of goods. New York: Basic Books.

Durrenberger, E. P. (1992). The dynamics of Medieval Iceland: Political economy and literature. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.

Durrenberger, E. P. (2003). Global processes, local systems. Urban Anthropology, 32(3- 4), 253-279.

Durta, B. J. & Durta, C. M. (2007, April 27). College spring break marketing considerations. Panama City Beach, FL: Panama City Beach Convention & Visitors Bureau. Available at http://pcbspringbreakreport.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/springbr eakreport.pdf

Edelman, M. & Haugerud, A. (Ed.) (2005). The anthropology of development and globalization: From classical political economy to contemporary neoliberalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Edgerton , R. B. (1979). Alone together: Social order on an urban beach. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Eiser, J. & Ford, N. (1995). Sexual relationships on holiday: A case of situational disinhibition? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(3), 323-339.

Flaccus, G. (2009, March 20). Palm Springs woos spring breakers, thongs and all. Associated Press [online version]. Accessed December 12, 2009 from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Palm+Springs+woos+spring+breakers,+thongs+an d+all-a01611831133

Florida Department of Law Enforcement (2010). Semi-annual county and municipal arrest data 2010. Available at http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/f76fdad4-6543-45e4-8611- b7652b4d62e9/2010SA_County_Municipal_Arr.aspx

Florida Department of Revenue (2010). Taxable sales and index of regional economic activity. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Available online at http://www.edr.state.fl.us/Content/revenues/reports/taxable- sales-and-index-of-regional-economic-activity/regionalsales1003.pdf

Freedom Communications (2007). Annual Report. Available at http://www.freedom.com/company/2007AnnualReport.pdf

Freeman, L. C. & Romney, A. K. (1987). Words, deeds, and social structure: A preliminary study of the reliability of informants. Human Organization, 46(4), 330-334.

Freeman, L. C., Romney, A. K., & Freeman, S. C. (1987). Cognitive structure and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 89(2), 310-325.

Galt, A. H. (1973). Carnival on the island of Pantelleria: Ritualized community solidarity in an atomistic society. Ethnology, 12(3), 325-339.

Gant, A. (2010, January 28). Flier blames city for unsafe Spring Break. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed March 20, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/articles/city-80966-panama-beach.html

Gant, A. (2010, May 5). Report: Ohio teen who died in Spring Break fall was drunk. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed December 12, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/news/james-83595-florida-spring.html

Gant, A. (2010a, April 5). PCB‘s drinking problem: Underage alcohol arrests quadruple on the beach. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed December 12, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/articles/beach-82820-panama-alcohol.html

Gerlach, J. (1989). Spring Break at Padre Island: A new kind of tourism. Focus, 39(1), 13-16, 29.

Gianoulis, T. (2000). Spring break. In S. Pendergast & T. Pendergast (Eds.), St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture (Vol. 4, pp. 488-490). Detroit, MI: St. James Press. Gilmore, D. (1975). Carnaval in Fuenmayor: Class conflict and social cohesion in an Andalusian town. Journal of Anthropological Research, 31(4), 331-349.

Gladwell, M. (2007, March 17). The coolhunt. The New Yorker, P. 78.

Glassman, t., Werch, C. E., Jobli, E., & Bian, H. (2007). Alcohol-related fan behavior on college football game day. Journal of American College Health, 56(3), 255-260.

Goodman, B. (Director). (2001). The Merchants of Cool [motion picture]. United States. PBS Broadcasting.

Gotham, K. F. (2002). Marketing Mardi Gras: Commodification, spectacle and the political economy of tourism in New Orleans. Urban Studies, 39(10), 1735-1756.

Gotham, K. F. (2005). Tourism from above and below: Globalization, localization and New Orleans‘s Mardi Gras. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(2), 309-326.

Gotham, K. F. (2007). Authentic New Orleans: Race, culture, and tourism in the Big Easy. New York: New York University Press.

Gotham, K. F. (2007a). Destination New Orleans: Commodification, rationalization, and the rise of urban tourism. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(3), 305-334.

Gotham, K. F. (2007b). Contrasts of carnival: Mardi Gras between the modern and postmodern. In P. Kivisto (Ed.), Illuminating social life (4th ed.), (pp. 292-311). Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Gotham, K. F. (2007c). Selling New Orleans to New Orleans: Tourism authenticity and the construction of community identity. Tourist Studies, 7(3), 317-339.

Greider, W. (1998). One world, ready or not: The manic logic of global capitalism. New York: Touchstone Books.

Grekin, E. R., Sher, K. J., & Krull, J. L. (2007). College spring break and alcohol use: Effects of spring break activity. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 681-688.

Gunn, C. & Var, T. (2004). Tourism planning: Basics, concepts, and cases (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power, and place. New York: Wiley.

Harper, R. (2010). Bay County‟s growth potential: An economic update. Pensacola, FL: Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development.

Harris, M. (1968). The rise of anthropological theory. New York: Thomas Howell.

Higgins, M. (2009, March 1). Ban on spring breakers? Not this year. The New York Times [online version]. Accessed April 10, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/travel/01pracspring.html

Hobson, J. S. & Josiam, B. (1996). Spring break student travel: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2(2), 137-150.

Hobson, W. (2010, April 6). McKeithen gets ‗blank check‘ for beach enforcement. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed May 5, 2010, at http://www.newsherald.com/articles/gets-82845-beach-mckeithen.html

Hubler, S. (1991, March 24). Palm Springs Spring Break becomes a spring brake holiday: City tries a new set of rules to tone down the partying. So far, the plan appears to be working. Los Angeles Times, P. A.1.

Jackson, H. H. (2010). The rise and decline of the Redneck Riviera: The Northern Rim of the Gulf Coast since World War II. Southern Cultures, 16(1), 7-30.

Jankowiak, W. & White, C. T. (1999). Carnival on the clipboard: An ethnological study of New Orleans Mardi Gras. Ethnology, 38(4), 335-350.

Jennifer Barbee, Inc. (2011, February 2). Panama City Beach partners social marketing workshop. Panama City Beach, Florida: Jennifer Barbee, Inc. Available at http://www.visitpanamacitybeach.org/files/PCB_2011.pdf

Jolliffe, L. & Farnsworth, R. (2006). Seasonality issues. In G. Baldacchino (Ed.), Extreme tourism: Lessons from the world‟s cold water islands (pp. 51-59). Oxford: Elsevier.

Josiam, B., Clements, C. & Hobson, J. (1994). Youth travel in the USA: Understanding the spring break market. In Seaton, A. (Ed.): Tourism: The state of the art (pp. 322-33)1. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Josiam, B., Hobson, J., Dietrich, U. & Smeaton, G. (1998). An analysis of the sexual, alcohol and drug related behavioural patterns of students on spring break. Tourism Management, 19(6), 501-513.

Josiam, B., Smeaton, G., & Clements, C. (1999). Involvement: Travel motivation and destination selection. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2), 167-175.

Kammler, M. & Schernewski, G. (2004). Spatial and temporal analysis of beach tourism using webcam and aerial photographs. In G. Schernewski & G. Löser (eds.), Managing the Baltic Sea: Coastline Reports, vol. 2. (pp. 121–128). Available online at http://spicosa-inline.databases.eucc- d.de/files/documents/00000381_Kammler_Schernewski.pdf

Kearney, M. (1995). The local and the global: The anthropology of globalization and transnationalism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 547-565.

Kelly, P. (January 11, 2011). Critics pan TDC‘s Spring Break efforts. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed January 17, 2011 at http://www.newsherald.com/news/tdc-89985-critics-efforts.html

Kelly, P. (January 15, 2011). Beverage officers to join Spring Break patrol. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed January 17, 2011 at http://www.newsherald.com/news/beverage-90096-patrol-break.html .

Kertzer, D. (1974). Politics and ritual: The communist festa in Italy. Anthropological Quarterly, 47(4), 374-389.

King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism: Host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4), 650-665.

Klages, W. J. (2009, August 11). Spring 2009 visitor profile. Report prepared for the Panama City Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau. Tampa, Florida: The Klages Group. Available at http://www.visitpanamacitybeach.org/files/PCBSpring2009SummaryREV-2.pdf

Klages, W. J. (2009a, October). Summer 2009 visitor profile. Report prepared for the Panama City Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau. Tampa, Florida: The Klages Group. Available at http://www.visitpanamacitybeach.org/files/PCBSummer2009.pdf

Kohn, D. (2002, April 17). Spring Break exposed: A 24-hour party - Is it too much? CBS News [online version]. Accessed April 12, 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/16/48hours/main506312.shtml?tag=mn col;lst;3

Korten, D. C. (1996). When corporations rule the world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kretzer, H. (2008, August 7). Final Girls Gone Wild defendant pleads. WMBB News [online version] Accessed January 5, 2011 from http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/final_girls_gone_wild_d efendant_pleads/

Kumar, A. (2007). From mass customization to mass personalization. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 19(4), 533-547.

Lacey, M. (2009, March 10). At Spring Break in Mexico, revelry mixes with new caution. The New York Times [online version]. Accessed December 12, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/world/americas/11cancun.html

Laurent, A. (1973). Libérer les vacances? Paris: Seuil.

Laurie, J. (2008). Spring Break: The economic, socio-cultural and public governance impacts of college students on spring break host locations. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. New Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans.

Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2009). Preliminary examination of spring break alcohol use and related consequences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(4), 689-694.

Lee, C. M., Maggs, J., & Rankin, L. (2006). Spring break trips as a risk factor for heavy alcohol use among first-year college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(6), 911-916.

Lenček, L. & Bosker, G. (1998). The beach: The history of paradise on earth. New York: Penguin Books.

Lett, J. (1983). Ludic and liminoid aspects of charter yacht tourism in the Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research, 10(1), 35-56.

Litvin, S. W. (2009). A comparison of student spring break and their ‗normal‘ behaviors: Is the hype justified? Tourism Review International, 13(3), 173-181.

Mathis. T. (2011, January 11). Letter to the editor: Enforce laws. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed January 12, 2011 from http://www.newsherald.com/articles/mills-89954-cries-pill.html

Maticka-Tyndale, E. & Herold, E. S. (1997). The scripting of sexual behaviour: Canadian university students on spring break in Florida, The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6(4), 317-327.

Maticka-Tyndale, E. & Herold, E. S. (1999). Condom use on spring-break vacation: The influence of intentions, prior use, and context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29(5), 1010-1027.

Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S. & Mewhinney, D. M. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 254-264.

Mewhinney, D. M. (1996). The vacation subculture and sexuality: An exploratory study of students on spring break. Unpublished Master‘s Thesis. Guelph, Canada: University of Guelph.

Michleski, A. (2009, August 26). Beach‘s quality of life suffers from Spring Break antics. The News Herald [online edition]. Accessed April 5, 2010 at http://www.newsherald.com/articles/beach-76896-panama-city.html

Milbourn, M. A. (2010, April 30). Freedom Communications exits bankruptcy. The Orange County Register [online version]. Accessed January 2, 2011 from http://ocbiz.ocregister.com/2010/04/30/freedom-communications-exits- bankruptcy/18389/

Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York: The Oxford Press.

Moore, K., Cushman, G., & Simmons, D. (1995). Behavioral conceptualization of tourism and leisure. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 67-85.

Moredock, W. (2003). Banana republic: A year in the heart of Myrtle Beach. Charleston, SC: Frontline Press.

Moredock, W. R. (1994). Safe break: A demonstration of the need and a theoretical structure for public information campaigns to help college women avoid sexual assault on spring break. Unpublished master‘s thesis. Charleston, SC: University of South Carolina.

Mormino, G. R. (2005). Land of sunshine, state of dreams: A social history of modern Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. n.a. (1961, April 10). On – and – off the beach. Newsweek, P. 40. n.a. (2009, November 3). Editorial: Spring Break splinters. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed March 20, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/articles/break-78745-spring-comes.html n.a. (December 16, 2004). The St. Joe Company completes land sale at Pier Park to Simon Property Group for $286,000 per acre: JOE raises full-year 2004 earnings guidance. Business Wire [online version] Downloaded April 14, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2004_Dec_16/ai_n8574082/

Neilsen, K. (2007, June). The army goes on Spring Break. The Progressive [online version]. Accessed April 22, 2010 from http://www.progressive.org/mag_nielsen0607

Oberst, G. (March/April 2010). How will Panama City Beach be a part of Northwest Florida‘s history as our area changes? The Circuit (pp. 22). Panama City Beach, FL: Panama City Beach Chamber of Commerce.

Offley, E. (2007, May 15). Spring break economic impact questioned. The News Herald [online version]. Available at http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/46 2383999?accountid=13158

Owen, S. (2010, February 4). City, union at odds over e-mails. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed March 20, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/news/city- 81173-mails-odds.html

Owen, S. (2010a, March 3). Union wants third-party negotiator for city talks. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed March 20, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/news/union-81916-city-wants.html

Panama City Beach Council (2010). Event Guidelines. Panama City Beach, FL: Panama City Beach Council. Available at http://www.pcbgov.com/uploads/meetings/710/file/COMMUNITYEVENTGUID ELINES2011.pdf

Panama City Beach Council (2010a, March 25). Regular Meeting Minutes. Panama City Beach, FL: Panama City Beach Council. Available at http://www.pcbgov.com/uploads/meetings/706/file/Minc10.March25RegMtg.pdf

Panama City Beach Council (2011). Resolution No. 10-158: Amended 2010 budget. Panama City Beach, FL: Panama City Beach Council. Available online at http://www.pcbgov.com/pdf/Amended_10_Adopted_11_Budget.pdf

Panama City Beach Government (2007). Panama City Beach existing land use – GIS map. Panama City Beach, FL: Bay County GIS Division. Available online at http://www.pcbgov.com/uploads/meetings/579/file/ELUM7.pdf

Parry, T. (2005, February 1). Brands on break: Reapply often. Chief Marketer [online version]. Accessed January 11, 2011 at http://chiefmarketer.com/presence/promotion/marketing_brands_break_reapply/.

Pitcher, K. (2006). The staging of agency in Girls Gone Wild. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 23(3), 200-218.

Powers, S. & Lelis, L. (2009, March 13). Spring break, underage drinking: Daytona Beach moves on. The Orlando Sentinel [online version]. Accessed April 12, 2010 from http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/beach/orl-spring-break-daytona- beach-drinking-031309,0,6329473.story?page=1

Pratt, A. (2002). Modern America and its discontents: The ride-hard, die-hard fantasy of Bike Week. The Journal of American Popular Culture, 1(1), 1-13.

Price, M. (2011, January 29). Viewpoint: Beach economy depends on college Spring Break. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed February 1, 2011 from http://www.newsherald.com/articles/city-90461-panama-beach.html

Rappaport, R. A. (1993). Distinguished lecture in general anthropology: The anthropology of trouble. American Anthropologist, 95(2), 295-303.

Redmon, D. (2005) (Director). Mardi Gras: Made in China. [motion picture]. Carnival Esque Film: USA.

Ribeiro, N. F. & Chick, G. E. (2009, December). Cognition and behavior in leisure pursuits: Spring Break as an example of cultural dissonance. Paper presented at the 108th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA), Philadelphia, PA.

Ribeiro, N. F. (2008). “Getting away”: A qualitative inquiry into the spring break experience. Unpublished master's thesis. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Available electronically at http://etda.libraries.psu.edu/theses/approved/WorldWideFiles/ETD- 2583/Masters_Thesis_Nuno_Ribeiro.pdf

Ribeiro, N. F., & Yarnal, C. M. (2006, April) "A once in a lifetime experience": An exploration of Spring Break using the Internet. Paper presented at the North East Region Recreation (NERR) Symposium, Bolton Landing, NY.

Ribeiro, N. F., & Yarnal, C. M. (2008). ―It wasn‘t my sole purpose for going down there‖ – An inquiry into the Spring Break experience and its relation to risky behaviors and alcohol consumption. Annals of Leisure Research, 11(3-4), 351-367.

Ribeiro, N. F., Durrenberger, E. P., Yarnal, C. M., & Chick, G. E. (2010). “I just wanted to get away” – An analysis of spring breakers‟ travel motivations. In D. B. Klenosky, C. L. Fisher, & C. LeBlanc (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st North East Region Recreation Research (NERR) Symposium (pp. 272-276). Newton Square, PA: US Forest Service.

Ribeiro, N. F., Yarnal, C. M., Chick, G. E., & Durrenberger, E. P. (2009, June). Perceptions of spring break and spring break experiences: A strange dichotomy. Paper presented at the 40th Travel and Tourism Research Association (TTRA) Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI.

Rojek, C. (1995). Decentring leisure. London: Sage.

Rojek, C. (2000). Leisure and culture. New York: St. Martin‘s Press.

Romney, A. K. & Weller, S. C. (1984). Predicting informant accuracy from patterns of recall among individuals. Social Networks, 6(1), 59-77.

Ross, A. (2000). The Celebration chronicles: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property value in Disney‟s new town. New York: Ballantine Books.

Ross, R. (2004). Slaves to fashion: Poverty and abuse in the new sweatshops. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Rozenberg, D. (1990). Tourism et utopie aux Baléares. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Rushkoff, D. (2000). Coercion: Why we listen to what “they” say. New York: Riverhead Books.

Scher, P. W. (2002). Copyright heritage: Preservation, carnival and the state in Trinidad. Anthropological Quarterly, 75(3), 453-484.

100

Schrauf, R. W. (1988). La comparsa y el concurso: Andalusian Carnival on-stage. Anthropological Quarterly, 71(2), 74-88.

Schrum, W. & Kilburn, J. (1996). Ritual disrobement at Mardi Gras: Ceremonial exchange and moral order. Social Forces, 75(2), 423-458.

Sessa, A. (1988). The science of systems for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(2), 219-235.

Sexton, R. (2001). Ritualized inebriation, violence, and social control in Cajun Mardi Gras. Anthropological Quarterly, 74(1), 28-38.

Simmons, T. (2010, March 15). Spring Break police reports for Saturday, March 13. The News Herald [online version]. Accessed May 4, 2010 from http://www.newsherald.com/news/car-82224-beach-year.html

Siprut, J. (2005). The naked newscaster, Girls Gone Wild, and Paris Hilton: True tales of the right of privacy and the First Amendment. Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Journal, 16(1), 35-60.

Smeaton, G., Josiam, B. and Dietrich, U. (1998). College students‘ binge drinking at a beach-front destination during spring break. Journal of American College Health, 46(6), 247-254.

Smilansky, S. (2009). Experiential marketing: A practical guide to interactive brand experiences. London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page Limited

Smith, E. (2010, April 3). Police describe Notre Dame recruit Matt James as ‗drunk‘ before his death. USA Today [online version]. Accessed December 3, 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/04/notre-dame- recruit-matt-james-reportedly-dies-after-fall-from-hotel-balcony/1

Sönmez, S., Apostolopoulos, Y., Yu, C., Yang, S., Mattila, A., & Yu, L. (2006). Binge drinking and casual sex on Spring Break. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 895-917.

Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and circus: How big-time college sports is crippling undergraduate education. New York: Henry Holt.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton. Tett, G. (2009). Fool‘s gold: How the bold dream of a small tribe at J.P. Morgan was corrupted by Wall Street greed and unleashed a catastrophe. New York: Free Press.

Trigaux, R. (2005). The changing face of spring break: Sun, sand and corporate blitz. St. Petersburg Times. P. 1D.

101

Turner, V. E. (Ed.) (1982). Celebration: Studies in festivity and ritual. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Turner, V. W. (1977). Frame, flow and reflection: Ritual and drama as public liminality. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 6(4), 465-499.

U.S. Census Bureau (2009). American Community Survey, 2005-2009: Panama City Beach, Florida. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/

Veblen, T. (1994) [first edition 1899]. The theory of the leisure class. New York: Penguin Books.

Wagner, U. (1977). Out of time and place: Mass tourism and charter trips. Ethnos 42(1/2), 38-52.

Walker, A. (2010, March 8). Mobile jail help control chaotic Spring Break. WMBB News [online version]. Accessed April 7, 2010, from http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/mobile_jail_helps_contr ol_chaotic_spring_break/mbb7721856/

Ware, C. (2001). Anything to act crazy: Cajun women and Mardi Gras disguise. Journal of American Folklore, 114(452), 225-247.

Welch, N. (2004). Spring broke. New York: Powerhouse Books.

Wickens, E. & Sönmez, S. (2007). Casual sex in the sun makes the holiday: Young tourists' perspectives. In Y. Apostolopoulos & S. Sönmez (Eds.), Population mobility and infectious disease (pp. 199-214). New York: Springer.

Williams, A. (2006, April 2). Before Spring Break, the anorexic challenge. The New York Times. Retrieved April 3, 2006 from The New York Times Online http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/fashion/sundaystyles/02BREAK.html.

Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on spring break? The role of predicted, on-line, and remembered experience in future choice. Psychological Science, 14(5), 520-524.

Wolf, E. R. (1990). Distinguished lecture: Facing power – Old insights, new questions. American Anthropologist, 92(3), 586-596.

Wolf, E. R. (1999). Envisioning power: Ideologies of dominance and crisis. Berkeley, CA: California University Press.

102

Yates, M. D. (2003). Naming the system: Inequality and work in the global economy. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Zlolniski, C. (2006). Janitors, street vendors, and activists: The lives of Mexican immigrants in Silicon Valley. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

103

Appendix A – A pictorial history of Panama City Beach, 1939-2009

104

FIGURE 1.A1 – Aerial view of Panama City Beach (1939) (courtesy of Bay County Public Library – Local History Room)

FIGURE 1.A2 – Aerial view of Panama City Beach (1950) (courtesy of Bay County Public Library – Local History Room)

105

FIGURE 1.A3 – Aerial view of Panama City Beach (1960) (courtesy of Bay County Public Library – Local History Room)

FIGURE 1.A4 – Aerial view of Panama City Beach (1970) (courtesy of Bay County Public Library – Local History Room)

106

FIGURE 1.A5 – Aerial view of Panama City Beach (1980) (courtesy of Bay County Public Library – Local History Room)

FIGURE 1.A6 – Aerial view of Panama City Beach (circa 1990) (courtesy of Bay County Public Library – Local History Room)

107

FIGURE 1.A7 – Aerial view of Panama City Beach (circa 2000) (courtesy of Bay County Public Library – Local History Room)

FIGURE 1.A8 –Panama City Beach at sunset (2009) (photo by the author)

108

Public Space and Corporate Space: Ritual Elements in the Spring Break Experience in Panama City Beach, Florida

Abstract From its humble origins as a collegiate swim meet in Fort Lauderdale in 1938, spring break has grown into a formidable tourism phenomenon, involving the temporary migration of millions of undergraduate students and generating billions of dollars in revenue every year. Due to its association with the public display of extreme and hedonistic types of behavior, some scholars have posited that Spring Break constitutes a liminal space, where social norms are temporarily suspended and spring breakers‘ actions are perceived as inconsequential. Drawing on Van Gennep‘s, Turner‘s, and Rappaport‘s theoretical frameworks on ritual, I marshal ethnographic and ethological evidence to refute this thesis, arguing instead that public displays of spring break behavior, while heavily ritualized, are not liminal in nature. Instead, I propose that spring break is an example of corporate ritualization of public space, whereby corporations with vested commercial interests in the spring break demographic script and encourage atypical behavior, which occurs in enclosed corporate spaces, themselves situated within the larger quasi-public spring break locales. While spring breakers transition at ease between public and corporate spaces, their behavior changes dramatically when they enter the latter, becoming more extreme along carefully drawn scripts that perpetuate stereotypical views of spring break. I further posit that, by emphasizing the ritualistic and therefore compulsory aspect of spring break within corporate spaces, corporations hope to create an imagined community of spring breakers, turning them into a homogenous and obedient mass of consumers to whom marketing a variety of products will ultimately be easier.

Keywords: space, ritual, invention of tradition, spring break

109

But the interesting thing about „Spring Break‟ is, as it is, it's something that is a rite of passage. And when you're 20 years old, you don't do it 52 weeks a year. You go for one week of your life and you let loose and that is the experience. So MTV very much approaches it in the same way, which is that we do not do „Spring Break‟ 52 weeks a year--to see a repeat of it is pretty rare. We indulge it one weekend a year, in March, when they're going through spring break, and we do it as honestly as we can. (….)It's a ritual. It's a rite of passage. It happens once a year. And we sort of leave it at that.

B. Graden, Director of MTV Programming (2001)

„Invented tradition‟ is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.

E. Hobsbawn (1983: 1)

110

Introduction

Spring Break (SB) is an annual migratory movement of thousands of North American undergraduate students towards warm and sunny locales during a week-long spring vacation, usually occurring in March/April, before final exams for the spring semester are taken. The very thought of SB immediately conjures images of scantily-clad youth, happily drinking themselves into oblivion on some sunny beachfront vacation hot spot, participating in raunchy contests of dubious taste, and listening to the hip hop sensation of the moment.

The expression ―rite of passage‖ has been used extensively by both academic researchers (Josiam et al. 1994, 1998; Russell 2004; Smeaton et al. 1998) and the popular press (Marsh 2006; Moredock 2003) to designate the SB phenomenon. In Van Gennep‘s (1961: 3) classical definition, rites of passage are ―ceremonies whose purpose is to enable the individual to pass from one defined position to another which is equally well defined.‖ A number of SB researchers (Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998; Sönmez et al. 2006; Wickens and Sönmez 2007) have carried this notion forward to suggest that participation in the SB experience constitutes a liminal experience, a term coined by Victor Turner to describe ―a state or process which is betwixt-and-between the normal, day-to-day cultural and social states and processes of getting and spending, preserving law and order, and registering social status…a time of enchantment when anything might, even should, happen‖ (Turner 1977: 465).

Other scholars have sustained that it is the space where SB activities occur that influences spring breakers‘ behavior. Apostolopoulos et al. (2002: 734) argued that ―it is the very space of the tourist resort that provides a conducive setting where personal and social codes are suspended, behavioural constraints are removed, inhibitions fade and…travellers take extreme risks,‖ making a case for what is known in the social psychology and tourism literatures as situational disinhibition (Eiser and Ford 1995). Thus, for some of these authors, it is not the SB experience that is liminal and/or ritualistic in nature, but the space where such experience takes place.

111

Similarly to what occurs in other carnival-like phenomena, such as the Carnaval in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Da Matta 1991), Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Louisiana (Shrum and Kilburn 1996), or the Daytona Bike Week in Daytona Beach, Florida (Pratt 2002), a great deal of SB behavior does indeed occur in public spaces. This makes such behavior eminently visible and, paradoxically, places these locales – which by definition belong to everyone – at a premium. SB destinations were quick to realize the potential revenue that could be accrued by granting access to these public locales to corporations with an interest in the SB demographic. The outcome of this commodification of a public good was not a ―tragedy of the commons,‖ but rather a de facto transfer of ownership of public space to private interests, at least during the SB season. Because not all public space could be commodified, the end result of this state of affairs was a curious dichotomy between public space and corporate space, separated only by a few feet of sand but with marked differences not just in regard to the behavior that occurs in such spaces, but also in how such space is cognitively perceived by those who embody it.

In this paper, derived from my research in one of the most popular SB destinations in the U.S. – Panama City Beach, Florida, I put forth ethnographic evidence to suggest that public displays of SB behavior, while heavily ritualized, are not liminal in nature. Instead, I propose that SB is an example of corporate ritualization of public space, whereby corporations with vested commercial interests in the SB demographic script and encourage atypical behavior which is to be carried out in enclosed corporate spaces within the larger quasi-public SB locales. While spring breakers transition at ease between public and corporate spaces, their behavior changes dramatically when they enter the latter, becoming more extreme along carefully drawn scripts that perpetuate stereotypical views of SB.

Panama City Beach, Florida

Panama City Beach, Florida (PCB) is located in Bay County in the Florida Panhandle and is inhabited by approximately 14,000 people (2000 data; U.S. Census Bureau 2009). During the few weeks that constitute the SB season (early March to mid-April), the population swells to as much as ten times that number. Undergraduate students from all

112 over the U.S. and Canada flock to its balmy and temperate climate, its tolerant attitude towards underage drinking and alcohol in general, and its many miles of sandy white beaches. PCB benefits also from the numerous colleges and universities located within a 200 mile radius from its city limits. More than 50 institutions of higher education are situated but a few hours‘ driving distance from PCB, and every year long lines of traffic composed of car load after car load of college students not only from nearby colleges in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia but from places as far as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, and Illinois herald the arrival of the SB season in PCB.

Methods

The data presented in this paper were collected in the main beachfront area of PCB, a wide strip of sand stretching roughly 2.2 miles between the water‘s edge and the massive high-rise hotels and apartment buildings and beach bars/nightclubs along Front Beach Road and Thomas Drive, which constitute PCB‘s ―strip‖. Much like any other SB destination, SB in PCB has become a geographically bound phenomenon. Due to the enactment and enforcement of stricter city ordinances, SB public activities in PCB have become restricted to a small beach-front area where a number of SB-oriented hotels, and a wider number of bars and nightclubs, are located. Entrance to the beach along the strip is done through consecutively numbered wooden passageways, roughly equidistant from one another. SB activity on the beach is restricted to the area delimited by beach entrances (BE) #‘s 19 and 43. These 24 entrances constituted the data collection points for this particular study.

With the aid of a research assistant, I used a combination of participant observation, continuous monitoring and instantaneous spot sampling (Bernard 2006) to collect behavioral and cognitive data concerning SB in PCB. First, during an initial observation period, I developed an ethogram of SB activities on the beach. Second, I developed a research schedule by randomizing the aforementioned data collection points (BE #‘s 19- 42) into two waves of non-consecutive four-day periods of data collection. Each day, my research assistant and I collected data from six randomly selected data collection points. Data was collected from each data collection point at least twice. The order and time of

113 data collection were randomized, and we collected data in each data collection point for equal amounts of time. We collected objectively measured behavioral data using ethogram sheets and hand held clickers. We collected self-reported behavioral data and cognitive perceptions of SB activity using questionnaires that aimed at creating a cognitive model of SB culture and behavior, following the cultural consensus and cultural consonance models developed by Romney, Weller, and Batchelder (1986; see also Weller 2007) and Dressler et al. (2005). Lastly, we engaged in prolonged participant observation, informal interviews with spring breakers, local residents, business owners, etc., which allowed us to place our findings into the larger context of SB in PCB and make sense of the results obtained via the methods I just described.

Results

The space available to spring breakers is not homogenous, but rather neatly divided into two distinct settings (here I am using Amos Rapoport‘s (1990) distinctions of space, settings, walls, boundaries and so forth) which in turn influences the ways spring breakers behave. While there are clear boundaries between these two settings – public areas and corporate areas – spring breakers transgress them with ease, and effortlessly move from one setting to another, in a manner reminiscent of Deleuze and Guattari‘s (1980) discussion of embodied nomadism. Moreover, the way spring breakers carry themselves and display their bodies within this leisure space – female spring breakers in particular – is akin to what Yarnal et al. (2006) found in their study of young female fire fighters. Bodies are used in the SB context not only as objects of desire, but also as a means of empowerment, particularly for women.

The first setting, which I designated by public area spans roughly 1.5 miles between beach entrances # 22 and 40. The most common activities in these areas can be seen in Figure 2.1.

114

Figure 2.1 – Behavioral Counts for Public Areas

I highlighted the seven most common behaviors that came out of our ethological research (walking along the beach, drinking alcohol, hanging out, tanning, and concession activities – these refer mostly to the rental of sun chairs, jet skis, etc.). By far the most extensive – but also the least densely populated – this space was occupied by spring breakers in a manner akin to that of a tailgate party: spring breakers hung out, played tailgate-inspired games such as horseshoes or bean toss, played football or volleyball, tanned, and above all else drank constantly. Interestingly, we also noticed little to no between-group interaction. Other than the occasional catcall, or impromptu football or volleyball game, spring breakers in this setting did not venture more than a few words to members outside their group. This greatly restrained their mobility, and it was not uncommon to observe groups of spring breakers that remained in the same space (often a mere five square feet) for periods up to six hours or more.

In this setting, I found no evidence of ritualized behavior: none of the ―obvious aspects of ritual‖ that Rappaport (1999: 32-50) identified, that is to say, 1) encoding by others than the performers; 2) adherence to form, 3) invariance, 4) performance, and 5) lack of material efficacy was present in this space. In fact, it was difficult to discern any patterns

115 to their behavior at all. Nor did I find, as previous scholars have reported (Maticka- Tyndale et al. 1998; Sönmez et al. 2006), a spontaneous communitas (Turner 1969, 1982) of spring breakers. Rather, differences in dress (e.g., fraternity and sorority letters), speech, conspicuous consumption (sun chairs, jet skis, expensive beer and liquor, the tell all bracelets), and above all else, the differences in the spring breakers‘ bodies and the inscriptions therein, illustrated a rather obvious social stratification that spring breakers occupying the space in this setting did not seem all that keen on ignoring.

The second setting, which I designated by corporate area spans roughly 0.7 miles, between BEs #‘s 19-21 and BEs # 41-42, in effect bookending the aforementioned public areas. The most common activities in these areas can be seen in this graph. Again I highlighted the most common behaviors that came out of our ethological research (walking along the beach, drinking alcohol, hanging out, playing sports, tanning, concession and corporate activities and beach tailgate games), which can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2.2 – Behavioral Counts for Corporate Areas

116

It is interesting to compare these figures with the ones for public areas (Figure 2.3). It is also interesting to compare the behavioral averages (in this case the average was obtained by simply dividing the sum totals for each activity by the number of areas in each setting) between both settings, which can be seen in Figure 2.4. Most of the space in this setting is taken by modern-day enclosures, each corresponding to a different corporate sponsor. As spring breakers enter these areas, they are quietly reminded that their image is no longer their property. Inside, spring breakers compete in a myriad of contests, from an obstacle course sponsored by the U.S. Army to the inevitable ―booty shaking‖ and ‗hard body‖ contests (and variations thereof) which seem to occur almost every hour.

What little space is not occupied by these enclosures and other corporate-sponsored structures is taken by the spring breakers themselves, who in these settings stand almost shoulder to shoulder as they hang out, play games, listen to music and drink constantly. When concerts are going on, the number of spring breakers increases exponentially, generating a claustrophobic feeling intensified by the numerous condo buildings that tower above, that in turn are populated by hundreds of spring breakers who constantly shout at one another.

117

Figure 2.3 – Behavioral Count Comparison between Public and Corporate Areas

250 2.1 Hanging out 2.2 Tanning 200 2.3 Playing sports 2.4 Corporate-sponsored activites 150 2.5 Beach/Tailgate games 2.6 Flirting 100 2.7 Walking along beach 2.8 Taking photographs 50 2.9 Using cell phone 2.10 Concession activities 0 2.11 Eating 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 2.12 Urinating 2.13 Alcohol consumption Corporate Areas Public Areas Corporate Areas

Figure 2.4 – Behavioral Averages Comparison between Public and Corporate Areas

300

250

200

150

100

Corporate Areas Public Areas

118

For an outside observer, most of the spring breakers‘ behavior in this setting mirrors the ―Spring Bacchannal‖ image of SB propagated by the media (Marsh 2006). Yet every contest and every concert is carefully scripted, and spring breakers‘ behavior is dictated by the several MCs that officiate at each of the stages. From their quasi-panoptical position, they read from a pre-determined order of ceremonies and encourage spring breakers – contestants and audience alike – to act in an increasingly raunchy manner, particularly when cameras are present. The crowd roars its approval and reproduces such behavior within this space at the slightest pretext.

In this setting, I did find evidence of ritualized behavior, as well as a communitas of sorts, which was visible only when certain contests and/or concerts were going on. Going back to Rappaport‘s (1999) five features of ritual, I found evidence to support only four. Namely 1) encoding by others than the performers, 2) adherence to form, 3) invariance, and 4) performance. In regard to the fifth element – lack of material efficacy – it was clear that a utilitarian purpose to these SB performances exists. As Bosman (2006) pointed out: ―Marketers who establish a presence in spring break areas hope not only to reach the 18- to 24-year-old demographic, which is typically resistant to traditional advertising, but to associate their brands with the positive memories students have of their vacations.‖

For the most part, however, spring breakers behaved as they would at a tailgate or fraternity party: hanging out, socializing, playing alcohol-related games, flirting, and drinking constantly. After talking with literally hundreds of spring breakers, I found no evidence to suggest that SB is a rite of passage for them: they simply want to get away from the cold and the ―college drama,‖ hang out, party, and have a good time.

Spring Break – A Fake Rite of Passage?

Based on these findings, it seems premature to classify SB as a rite of passage, as a number of SB scholars have done. In earlier studies, I pointed out that spring breakers, with a few exceptions, did not regard SB as a transformational experience. As a spring breaker (Ribeiro 2008: 53) put it:

119

[Spring Break is](…)a way to get away and relax from all the work of college. Not really as one big, huge party, like I saw before(….)I‘d say the biggest thing is it‘s really what you want to make it, I guess. If you want to go out and party and have a good time you have every opportunity to do that. Just as if you just want to mosey around or relax, you can do that too (Sean, 18).

Nevertheless, the question remains: where does this conviction that SB is a rite of passage come from? I would like to posit that the media – of which MTV is a prime example, along with the marketing efforts of a number of corporations, have created a distorted image of a fake rite of passage, complete with its own history and traditions. Interestingly, spring breakers are quick to identify where this stereotype comes from (Ribeiro 2008: 39):

Hmmm, I don‘t know, I don‘t [know] why ever since I was young I get that feeling that it‘s important to go, like at least one time, I don‘t know why, I think it‘s just, it could be when I was in high school or whatever, MTV always has the Spring Break coverage from Cancun or whatever, so I think that gives you like, an outlook on it, or something, and you wanna go experience that kinda stuff first hand, rather than watching from however far away (John, 18).

I would like to suggest that corporations have succeeded in ―ritualizing‖ SB, stressing its compulsory nature. By ritualizing I mean ―the act of deliberately cultivating or constructing a new rite‖ (Grimes 2004: 28). If, as Kertzer (1988: 102) argues, ―rite makes might‖ and the ability to enforce rituals translates into power, corporations with a business interest in SB have of course every interest in ritualizing SB. By emphasizing the ritual nature of SB, complete with its own manufactured history and associated rites, such as extreme behavior, corporations seem to be doing what Hobsbawn and Ranger (1983) called the ―invention of tradition.‖ Traditionally a tool of governments and authority to acquire and/or consolidate political power, in this particular case the goal is not to turn SB into a ―field of political struggle‖ (Kertzer 1988: 104), but rather to use this phenomenon as a tool of corporate marketing. The purposes of a ritualized SB are not political, although the methods used closely resemble those present in political rituals (Bell 1997; Kertzer 1974, 1988). In the case of SB, the purpose is not to ―specifically construct, display and promote the power of political institutions(…)or the political interests of distinct constituencies and subgroups‖ (Bell 1997: 128). Rather, corporations wish to associate their brands to a particular event – SB – regarded by college students as

120 a pleasurable and memorable occasion. By doing so, corporations are in effect creating an ―imagined community‖ (Anderson 1983) of spring breakers, thus turning them into a homogenous mass of consumers, to whom marketing a variety of products will ultimately be easier (Ribeiro 2008).

121

References

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso Publishing.

Apostolopoulos,Y., Sönmez, S. & Yu, C. (2002). HIV-risk behaviours of American spring break vacationers: A case of situational desinhibition? International Journal of STD and AIDS, 13(11), 733-743.

Bell, C. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Bosman, J. (2006, March 9). Marketers follow the flock to Spring Break. The New York Times. [electronic version]. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/business/media/09adco.html

Da Matta, R. (1991). Carnival, rogues, and heroes. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1980) [2004 ed., trans. Brain Massumi]. A thousand plateaus. New York: Continuum Press.

Eiser, J. & Ford, N. (1995). Sexual relationships on holiday: A case of situational disinhibition? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(3): 323-339.

Grimes, R. L. (2000). Deeply into the bone: Re-inventing rites of passage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Josiam, B., Hobson, J., Dietrich, U. & Smeaton, G. (1998). An analysis of the sexual, alcohol and drug related behavioural patterns of students on spring break. Tourism Management, 19(6), 501-513.

122

Kertzer, D. (1974). Politics and ritual: The communist festa in Italy. Anthropological Quarterly, 47(4), 374-389.

Kertzer, D. (1988). Ritual, politics, and power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S. & Mewhinney, D. M. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 254-264.

Moredock, W. (2003). Banana republic: A year in the heart of Myrtle Beach. Charleston, SC: Frontline Press.

Pratt, A. (2002). Modern America and its discontents: The ride-hard, die-hard fantasy of Bike Week. The Journal of American Popular Culture, 1(1), 1-13.

Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Rappaport, R. A. (1999). Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ribeiro, N. F. & Yarnal, C. M. (2008). ―It wasn‘t my sole purpose for going down there‖ – An inquiry into the Spring Break experience and its relation to risky behaviors and alcohol consumption. Annals of Leisure Research, 11(3-4), 351-367.

Ribeiro, N. F. (2008). “Getting away”: A qualitative inquiry into the spring break experience. Master's thesis. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Available electronically at http://etda.libraries.psu.edu/theses/approved/WorldWideFiles/ETD- 2583/Masters_Thesis_Nuno_Ribeiro.pdf

Ribeiro, N., & Yarnal, C. (2006, April). “A once in a lifetime experience”: An exploration of spring break using the Internet. Paper presented at the Northeastern Recreation Research (NERR) Symposim, Bolton Landing, NY.

Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2), 313- 338.

123

Russell, R. (2004). Spring Breaks. In G. Cross (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Recreation and Leisure in America (Vol. 2, pp. 303-305). Detroit, MI: Thomson Gale.

Schrum, W. & Kilburn, J. (1996). Ritual disrobement at Mardi Gras: Ceremonial exchange and moral order. Social Forces, 75(2), 423-458.

Smeaton, G., Josiam, B. and Dietrich, U. (1998). College students‘ binge drinking at a beach-front destination during spring break. Journal of American College Health, 46(6), 247-254.

Sönmez, S., Apostolopoulos, Y., Yu, C., Yang, S., Mattila, A., & Yu, L. (2006). Binge drinking and casual sex on Spring Break. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 895-917.

Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Turner, V. W. (1977). Frame, flow and reflection: Ritual and drama as public liminality. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 6(4), 465-499.

Turner, V. W. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ Publications.

U.S. Census Bureau (2009). Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights: Panama City Beach, Florida. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/

Van Gennep, A. (1961). [first edition 1908]. The rites of passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weller, S. C. (2007). Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods, 19(4), 339-368.

Wickens, E. (2002). The sacred and the profane: A tourist typology. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 834-851.

Yarnal, C. M., Hutchinson, S., & Chow, H. W. (2006). ―I could probably run a marathon right now:‖ Embodiment, space, and young women‘s leisure experience. Leisure Sciences, 28(2), 133-161.

124

Using a Variety of Methods to Compare Related Free Lists and Investigate the Relationship Between Cognition and Behavior of a Spring Break Experience

Abstract This article compared two cultural domains related to the same phenomenon – Spring Break – via free listing, a method commonly used in cognitive anthropology to study the composition and boundaries of cultural domains. Sixty-seven (30 females, 37 males) spring breakers vacationing in Panama City Beach, Florida in March 2010 were asked to list ―all the things that come to mind when you think about Spring Break‖ and also to list ―all the things that people do during Spring Break.‖ A variety of methods were used to analyze the resulting free lists and compare the two cultural domains. Results from some procedures (mean saliency analysis, graphic layout algorithm) showed a number of similarities between the two cultural domains whereas other analyses (free list length analysis, multidimensional scaling, quadratic assignment procedure) indicated that cognitive and behavioral representations of Spring Break were independent of one another. These findings validate the use of free listing as a valuable emic tool in ethnographic research and suggest the necessity of using complementary methods when analyzing related free lists in order to obtain reliable results.

Keywords: free listing, cultural domain analysis, cognition, behavior, spring break

125

It was six men of Indostan, To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approach'd the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!" The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, -"Ho! what have we here So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear, This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!" The Third approach'd the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant Is very like a snake!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee: "What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain," - quoth he,- "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!" The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said- "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!" The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Then, seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope, "I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant Is very like a rope!" And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! So, oft in theologic wars The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen!

John Godfrey Saxe, The Blind Men and the Elephant (1849)

126

Introduction

Free listing is a common interview technique used to elicit emic data about a given cultural domain, which in turn can be defined as ―an organized set of words, concepts, or sentences, all on the same level of contrast, that jointly refer to a single conceptual sphere‖ (Weller and Romney 1988: 9). In its simplest form, free lists are generated by asking members of a given culture to ―list all the X you know,‖ or to ―list all the kinds of Y you know.‖ Free lists can be obtained orally or using paper and pencil, and the researcher may impose a certain time limit for their completion or not (Bernard 2006). Because it allows members of a given culture to define cultural domains in their own terms, free listing has obvious ethnographic applications (Gravlee 2005), and has a long tradition of use not just in anthropology but also in other social sciences (e.g., Bousfield 1953; Gatewood 1984; Henley 1969; Romney and D‘Andrade 1964; Trotter 1981).

Free listing has been used to study a variety of cultural domains, such as farm animals (Henley 1969), Mexican American home remedies (Trotter 1981), negative emotions (Schrauf and Sanchez (2004), activities of contemporary Mayan elders (Harman 2001), and reasons for selecting college courses (Flinn 1998), among many others.

Free list data is collected under the assumption that the understanding of cultural domains is not idiosyncratic, that is, that members of a certain culture share something in common about a certain cultural domain. Furthermore, previous research shows that individuals tend to list items in order of familiarity (i.e., the most salient items will be listed first); that individuals who are more familiar with a given cultural domain will tend to list more items than those who are not; and that items that are mentioned by more individuals indicate locally prominent items (Quinlan 2005: 219-220). Thus, free listing can be particularly useful in the study of inter and intra-cultural variation (Brewer 1995; Schrauf and Sanchez 2008).

Free listing is often used as the first step in cultural domain analysis (Borgatti 1994). By identifying the composition and boundaries of a given cultural domain, researchers can then use other techniques (e.g., pile sorts, triad tests) to gather more detailed information about the relationship(s) between the free list items, their attributes, and the informants

127 who listed them. Further analyses, such as cultural consensus analysis and correspondence analysis, can then be performed. Ideally, after free lists about a given cultural domain are collected and analyzed, the researcher should go back and inquire from his/her original informants if he/she had ―gotten it right,‖ that is to say, if the researcher‘s interpretation of the cultural domain and the items that constitute it made sense to the members of that culture (Borgatti 2004). However, in many cases (such as the one presented in this article), particularly when dealing with large sample sizes, such data verification procedures are not available to the researcher. When this occurs, the researcher must be careful not to overstate his findings (DeMunck 2009), while at the same time employing different methods to analyze the data to achieve comparable results (Bernard 2006).

This article reports on the use of free listing to elicit items from two related cultural domains (Beliefs and Behaviors) that pertain to the same leisure phenomenon, Spring Break.

The Spring Break Context

Scholarly interest in Spring Break, a North American week-long college holiday period, usually held in March, has grown substantially in recent years. Whereas earlier studies attempted to describe the Spring Break travel market (e.g., Hobson and Josiam 1992, 1996; Josiam et al. 1994, 1999), scholars quickly turned their attention to spring breakers‘ behavior, which thus far has been almost exclusively equated with binge drinking, drug- taking, and increased and unprotected sexual activity (Apostolopoulos et al., 2002; Grekin et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2006; Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998; Mattila et al. 2001; Smeaton et al. 1998; Sönmez et al. 2006).

Furthermore, media interest in the Spring Break phenomenon, which has been considerable (e.g., Colon et al. 2001; Marsh 2006), has reinforced the image of Spring Break as a ―booze- and sex-fueled college rite‖ (Shevitz 2002).

Recent research, however, indicates that the extreme and hedonistic image of Spring Break so prevalent in the scholarly literature and the popular press may not be completely accurate (Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008). There seems to be more to the Spring Break

128 phenomenon than the ―Spring Bacchanal‖ propagated by the media (Marsh 2006). A closer look at the Spring Break literature reveals substantial disagreement among researchers in regard to spring breakers‘ motivations, levels of involvement, previous intentions, and factors affecting actual Spring Break behavior (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002; Butts et al. 1996; Mattila et al. 2001; Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998; Mewhinney et al. 1995; Smeaton et al. 1998; Sönmez et al. 2006).

In some of my earlier research on Spring Break (Ribeiro 2008; Ribeiro and Yarnal 2006, 2008; Ribeiro et al. 2009, 2009a), I was intrigued by an apparent dichotomy between spring breakers‘ beliefs and their self-reported Spring Break behavior (Ribeiro et al. 2009). While all the participants‘ cognitive perceptions of what Spring Break is were in line with the stereotype propagated by the media of ―alcohol-fueled sex parties‖ (Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008: 357), their cognitive perceptions of what people do during Spring Break were more heterogeneous. Their free lists of items pertaining to the cultural domain ―Spring Break‖ (elicited before and after their Spring Break vacation) further highlighted this dichotomy (Ribeiro 2010; Ribeiro forthcoming). Furthermore, the participants‘ self-reported Spring Break experiences had, with few exceptions, little in common with the aforementioned ―Spring Bacchanal.‖ It should be noted, however, that I used a broader definition of Spring Break in that study to include all the activities college students engaged in during that March vacation period, whether they travelled to a ―typical‖ Spring Break destination or not. Furthermore, this earlier study (Ribeiro 2008) was carried out on campus, without the benefit of ethnographic fieldwork. What would occur if I investigated the same phenomenon (Spring Break), but this time at one of the U.S. most popular Spring Break hot spots?

Research Questions

Two main research questions drove the present study. First, I was interested in finding out if and how cognitive and behavioral perceptions of the same phenomenon (Spring Break) were related. This question is related to the composition of cultural domains. To what extent do cognitive representations of Spring Break behaviors (taken as a cultural domain in itself, i.e., Spring Break Behaviors) correspond with the more general Spring

129

Break cultural domain (Spring Break Beliefs)? Furthermore, which items are more salient in each domain?

The second question is a methodological one. What happens when we contrast two related cultural domains using different methods? Are the structures of each domain comparable with one another? Do qualitative and quantitative methods paint the same picture of the same cultural domain(s)?

Methods

The data presented in this study are part of a larger ongoing (2005-present) study on culture, consensus, and consonance among North-American spring breakers (Ribeiro forthcoming). The purpose of this larger study is to investigate the relationship between culture and objectively measured and self-reported behavior within the context of a ritualized out-of-the-ordinary leisure experience.

With the help of a research assistant, I collected free list data in paper-and-pencil form from spring breakers vacationing in Panama City Beach, Florida in March 2010. We asked participants to ―list all the things that come to mind when you think about Spring Break in Panama City Beach, Florida‖ and also to ―list all the things that people do during Spring Break in Panama City Beach, Florida.‖ Additionally, we collected demographic data in regard to age, sex, and year in college. A sample of the free listing questionnaire used can be found in Appendix A.

Sampling Procedures

Selection of participants was based on Spring Break demographics already identified by research: a) college undergraduate students, b) aged 18-24, and c) with a slightly higher percentage of males than females (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002; Josiam et al 1998; Mattila et al. 2001). Sample descriptive statistics can be found in Table 3.1.

In an effort to increase the representativeness of the data, I used a procedure called instantaneous spot sampling (Bernard 2006) which involved collecting data from a number of randomly assigned locations and times representative of Spring Break activity

130 in Panama City Beach, Florida. Based on previous Spring Break literature (Josiam et al. 1998 1999, Lee et al. 2006), the spatial geography of Panama City Beach (Hollis 2004), and preliminary research conducted in March 2009 (Ribeiro, Foemmel, and Liechty forthcoming), I identified twenty-four locations for data collection, which were randomly assigned to six daily data collection periods over four days (see pp. 106-121, this volume). Each data collection period lasted between ten and fifteen minutes and respondents were repeatedly prompted (non-specifically) to list as many items as they could without any time limit (Brewer 2002).

Table 3.1 - Sample statistics N % M SE Mdn SD Age 67 100.00 19.90 0.20 20.00 1.60 Sex* 67 100.00 1.55 0.06 2.00 0.50 Female 30 44.80 - - - - Male 37 55.20 - - - - Year in College** 59*** 100.00 2.10 0.15 2.00 1.16 Freshman 25 37.30 - - - - Sophomore 12 17.90 - - - - Junior 15 22.40 - - - - Senior 5 7.50 - - - - Graduate 2 3.00 - - - - * [1=Female;2=Male] ** [1=Freshman;2=Sophomore; 3=Junior; 4=Senior; 5=Graduate] *** 8 respondents did not provide this information

Analysis

Data was coded following basic free listing analysis procedures (Fleisher and Harrington 1998, Schrauf and Sanchez 2008). For example, synonyms (ALCOHOL, BOOZE) were coded as the same item (ALCOHOL), and phrases (DRINK BOOZE) were reduced to key terms (DRINK), where appropriate. Duplicate items in the same free list were eliminated. Free list data was then entered in ANTHROPAC version 4.983/X (Borgatti 1996) and the resulting aggregate respondent-by-item matrices (see Appendix B) for each domain were then exported to other statistical programs such as UCINET version 6.288

131

(Borgatti, Everett and Freeman 2002) and PASW version 18.0 (formerly SPSS) using a spreadsheet program (Microsoft Excel).

Defining and characterizing cultural domains. In addition to simple descriptive statistics that provided aggregate frequency counts and percentages for each set of free lists, I analyzed two other variables that are known to affect the composition of a cultural domain: average length of free lists and item saliency (Brewer 1995, DeMunck 2009, Flinn 1998, Furlow 2003).

The length of a free list is generally considered to be an indicator of an individual‘s knowledge of a given cultural domain. That is, the more items an individual is able to free list the more knowledgeable such individual is said to be concerning the domain in question (Handwerker 2002, Quinlan 2005). I used simple descriptive statistics to characterize each free list in regard to length and tested for significant differences using a paired-samples t-test. I tested the potential influence of demographic variables (Age, Sex, and Year in School) on free list length with GLM Repeated Measures ANOVA in PASW, specifying free list length as the within-subject factor, Sex and Year in School as the between-subject factors, and Age as a covariate.

To investigate item saliency (i.e., which items were more prominent in each free list), I used Sutrop‟s S (Sutrop 2001), a correction of Smith‟s S (Smith 1993, Smith and Borgatti 1998) adjusted for free list length (Sutrop 2001). Sutrop‟s S combines the frequency and mean position of a given item in a free list, and is given by the expression:

(1) where F is the frequency with which a given term is mentioned (i.e., the number of respondents that mention the item), N is the sample size, and mP is the mean position of an item. mP is in turn given by the expression:

(2) where F and N are the same as in (1) and Rj is the rank of a given item in an individual free list.

132

After identifying the most salient items for each domain, I used UCINET to construct a correlation-based item-by-item similarity matrix for each set of free lists. This process involved transposing and recoding the aforementioned aggregate respondent-by-item matrices following procedures detailed in Borgatti (1994), Quinlan (2005), Ryan et al. (2000), and Thompson and Juan (2006). These item-by-item similarity matrices were then used in the analyses that follow.

To provide visual representations of both sets of free lists, I used two distinct methods. First, I used multidimensional scaling (MDS), which consists of a spatial representation of items (usually in the form of proximity matrices) according to their relative Euclidian distance to one another (Kruskal and Wish 1978). Goodness-of-fit measures, such as stress, indicate how well the spatial representation is an accurate representation of each dataset. The interpretation of the x and y axis is then left to the researcher, based on his or her knowledge of the domains in question (Kruskal and Wish 1978). Examples of MDS representations of free list data can be found in Bernard (2006), DeMunck (2009), Harman (2001), and Gravlee (2005). MDS representations of the data were generated with the use of UCINET.

Second, I used an alternative method for visually representing proximity data proposed by DeJordy et al. (2007: 247). They posit that when MDS representations are inadequate to accurately portray proximity data, Graphic Layout Algorithm (GLA) may be a better method. GLAs represent proximity data ―drawing an analogy between networks and physical systems,‖ displaying relationships between items using different algorithms intended to maximize the harmony of the model. GLAs graphically display proximity data as a collection of nodes (the items) and lines (the relationships between the items). GLAs offer the advantage of allowing the researcher to specify the cutoff level at which relationships are significant (i.e., the level of similarity/agreement between the items), thus allowing a more interactive and dynamic interpretation of the data (DeJordy et al. 2007). By visualizing the data in successive iterations with different levels of agreement, researchers can obtain a clearer picture of if and how items of a cultural domain relate to one another. I generated GLAs of the data contained in the item-by-item proximity matrices derived from the two sets of free lists (Beliefs and Behaviors) using the network visualization software NetDraw version 2.097 (Borgatti 2002a).

133

Comparing cultural domains. Lastly, I compared the likelihood of similarity between Beliefs and Behaviors using Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP; Hubert and Shultz 1976, Hubert and Golledge 1981; see also Krackhardt 1988 1992). QAP contrasts two sets of proximity data by comparing two similarity matrices cell by cell while at the same time randomly permutating the rows and columns of one matrix thousands of times, creating a sampling distribution that can then be contrasted with a test statistic (usually Pearson‘s r). Detailed procedures concerning the application of QAP to proximity data can be found in Borgatti (2002).

Results

Frequency Distribution

The first set of free lists obtained from participants (Beliefs) contained 107 different items, whereas the second set of free lists (Behaviors) contained only 66. As commonly occurs in free listing procedures (De Munck 2009), both sets of free lists followed an L- shaped distribution, with a smaller number of items being mentioned by many participants, a slightly larger number of items mentioned by less participants, and a large number of items mentioned by a very small number of participants (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 – Frequency distribution of free list items

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20 frequency countfrequency 10 countfrequency 10

0 0 items items

Figure 3.1.1 – Beliefs Figure 3.1.2 – Behaviors

134

For example, in the first set of free lists (Beliefs) only 7 items were mentioned by more than 10 participants (PARTY, SEX, BEACH, GIRLS, ALCOHOL, DRINKING, and BEER), but 61 items were mentioned by a single participant. In the second set of free lists (Behaviors), coincidentally, only 7 items were mentioned by more than 10 participants (DRINK, PARTY, HAVE SEX, GO TO CLUBS, DANCE, GO TO THE BEACH, and GET DRUNK), but 36 items were mentioned by a single participant. Table 3.2 displays the frequency distribution of both sets of free lists.

Table 3.2 - Free list frequency distribution (N=67)

Free list #1 (Beliefs) Free list #2 (Behaviors) # of # of frequency items % items % 1 61 57.01% 36 54.55% 2 23 21.50% 10 15.15% 3 4 3.74% 3 4.55% 4 0 0.00% 4 6.06% 5 2 1.87% 1 1.52% 6-10 10 9.35% 5 7.58% >10 7 6.54% 7 10.61% total 107 100.00% 66 100.00%

There was no significant difference between the frequency distributions of both sets of freelists (Beliefs; M=15.29; SD=21.54) and the second set of free lists (Behaviors; M=9.43; SD=4.56): t(6)=1.55, p=.171. Conversely, both sets of free lists were fairly highly correlated with one another in regard to frequency distribution: r(5)=.98, p<.001. In Figures 1.1 and 1.2, a number of cutoff points, or ―elbows‖ (Quinlan 2005, Thompson and Juan 2006; identified with → in the figures), can be clearly identified. These cutoff points appeared in both sets of free lists more markedly for items mentioned once (61 items for Beliefs; 36 items for Behaviors), twice (23 items for Beliefs; 10 items for Behaviors), and three times (4 items for Beliefs; 3 items for Behaviors). Identifying these cutoff points is useful inasmuch as it helps delimitate the boundaries of the domain(s) under study (to the left of the dashed line in Figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.2).

135

Length of Free Lists

Table 3.3 displays the mean and median values for free list length sorted by the descriptive variables Age, Sex, and Year in college. There was a significant difference of free list length between the first set of free lists produced by participants (Beliefs; M=5.55; SD=3.03) and the second set of free lists (Behaviors; M=4.15; SD=2.09): t(66)=4.82, p<.001. Notwithstanding, both sets of free lists were fairly highly correlated with one another in regard to list length: r(65)=.62, p<.001. However, neither of the descriptive variables measured (Age, Sex, and Year in college), nor their respective interactions, had any significant impact on how many items were contained in each free list.

136

Table 3.3 - Length of free lists, sorted by descriptive variables

N M SE Mdn SD Age Beliefs Behaviors Beliefs Behaviors Beliefs Behaviors Beliefs Behaviors 18 14 6.07 5.21 0.98 0.76 5.00 4.00 3.67 2.83 19 16 6.25 4.00 0.96 0.40 6.00 4.00 3.84 1.59 20 13 5.15 3.92 0.75 0.52 5.00 4.00 2.70 1.89 21 18 5.17 3.83 0.54 0.48 4.50 4.00 2.28 2.04 22 3 4.67 2.33 0.88 0.67 5.00 3.00 1.53 1.15 23 2 4.50 4.50 1.50 0.50 4.50 4.50 2.12 0.71 27 1 4.00 5.00 - - 4.00 5.00 - - Sex Female 30 5.77 3.93 0.58 0.29 5.00 4.00 3.18 1.59 Male 37 5.37 4.32 0.48 0.40 5.00 4.00 2.94 2.43 Year in College Freshman 25 6.08 4.72 0.68 0.48 5.00 4.00 3.41 2.41 Sophomore 12 5.33 4.58 0.73 0.58 4.50 4.00 2.53 2.02 Junior 15 6.40 4.07 0.84 0.37 6.00 4.00 3.27 1.44 Senior 5 4.60 2.60 0.40 0.68 4.00 3.00 0.89 1.52 Graduate 2 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 4.50 4.00 3.07 4.24

137

Table 3.4 - Most salient items (n=15), mentioned by more than 3 participants, sorted by saliency

Free list #1 (Beliefs) Free list #2 (Behaviors) Saliency Saliency Item N F mP (Sutrop's S) Item N F mP (Sutrop's S) SEX 67 27 2.19 0.1844 DRINK 67 43 2.02 0.3172 PARTY 67 38 3.16 0.1796 HAVE SEX 67 33 1.97 0.2501 ALCOHOL 67 24 2.58 0.1387 PARTY 67 33 2.52 0.1958 GIRLS 67 27 3.04 0.1327 GO TO CLUBS 67 12 2.08 0.0860 BEACH 67 27 3.70 0.1088 GO TO THE BEACH 67 11 2.73 0.0602 DRINKING 67 15 3.20 0.0700 GET DRUNK 67 11 3.00 0.0547 BEER 67 11 2.82 0.0583 DANCE 67 11 3.45 0.0475 CLUBS 67 9 3.78 0.0356 TAN 67 9 2.89 0.0465 DRUNK 67 8 3.38 0.0354 SMOKE 67 7 2.29 0.0457 SUN 67 8 3.88 0.0308 SWIM 67 9 3.67 0.0366 FUN 67 6 3.00 0.0299 MEET GIRLS 67 7 3.43 0.0305 BOOBS 67 10 5.10 0.0293 DO DRUGS 67 4 2.50 0.0239 DANCING 67 8 4.38 0.0273 EAT 67 6 4.33 0.0207 CRAZY 67 7 4.14 0.0252 PUKE 67 4 3.25 0.0184 MUSIC 67 6 3.67 0.0244 RELAX 67 4 3.75 0.0159

138

Table 3.4 shows that there is a great deal of overlap between both sets of free lists: eight items (53%) from the first free list (SEX, PARTY, GIRLS, BEACH, DRINKING, CLUBS, DRUNK, and DANCING) are also mentioned in the second set of free lists. Two (13%) other items (ALCOHOL and BEER) are also indirectly mentioned in the second set of free lists (DRINK). This leaves five (34%) and six (40%) items, respectively, that are unique to each domain. It is also interesting to note that while certain items place relatively high in terms of cognitive saliency in both free lists (e.g., SEX and HAVE SEX; PARTY and PARTY), others do not. For example, while GIRLS is the fourth most salient item in the first free list (S=.1327; mentioned by 27 informants), its behavioral synonym MEET GIRLS places only 11th in the second free list (S=.0305; mentioned by 7 informants). On the other hand, items that one would not necessarily associate with the ―Spring Break stereotype‖ (Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008), such as SWIM (S=.0366; mentioned by 9 informants), EAT (S=.0207; mentioned by 6 informants), and RELAX (S=.0159; mentioned by 4 informants), are mentioned in the second free list (Behaviors), but not in the first one (Beliefs).

There was no significant difference of mean saliency values between the first set of free lists produced by participants (Beliefs; M=.0740; SD=.0587) and the second set of free lists (Behaviors; M=.0833; SD=.0932): t(14)=-.778, p=.449. Conversely, the mean saliency values from both free lists were highly correlated with one another: r(13)=.91, p<.001.

It should be noted that the items ALCOHOL, DRINKING, and BEER that appear in the first free list (3rd, 6th, and 7th; S=0.1387, 0.0700, and 0.0583, respectively), while related to the same activity (consumption of alcoholic beverages), are not synonyms in the Spring Break lexicon. During my ethnographic fieldwork (see pp. 26-106) I discovered that spring breakers attributed different meanings to each of these words. Thus ALCOHOL refers to the almost ubiquitous availability of alcoholic beverages that occurs in many Spring Break locations, and comprises both hard liquor (e.g., whisky) and beer. DRINKING means the act itself (i.e., consuming alcoholic beverages as a Spring Break activity), which was routinely done throughout the day, and was often mentioned as the spring breakers‘ primary activity, whether or not they were of legal age. DRINKING may

139 refer to the consumption of liquor, beer, or both. Ordinarily, consumption of beer was more common during the daytime, whereas liquor tended to be consumed in the evening and night, often in nightclubs and/or hotel rooms. Lastly, BEER obviously refers to the most popular alcoholic beverage consumed by spring breakers, who tended to privilege the brands Natural (Natty) Ice™ and Natty Light™, due to their lower price.

Visualizing Domain Composition and Structure

Multidimensional Scaling Plots. Figure 3.2 shows the MDS plots for both sets of the free lists displayed in Table 4. A possible explanation for the MDS representation of the items from the first free list (Figure 3.2.1) is that the x axis represents time (i.e., an average 24- hour period), with items mentioned in the two left quadrants (e.g., SUN, BEACH, GIRLS) representing Spring Break activities that occur during the daytime (11:00am- 5:00pm), and items mentioned in the right two quadrants (e.g., DRUNK, CLUBS, SEX), representing activities that occur later in the day. The y axis is more difficult to interpret, but one might suggest that it is related to space, with items in the upper quadrants (e.g., FUN, MUSIC, BOOBS) related to activities that occur on the strip (i.e., the main access road to the beach and most beach front hotels, routinely clogged with traffic and object of frequent police checkpoints), and items in the two lower quadrants (e.g., BEACH, CLUBS, DANCING) pertaining to activities that occur in other places, such as the beach, nightclubs, and hotel rooms.

A different interpretation can be posited for Figure 3.2.2., which displays the MDS representation of the items from the second free list. The x axis appears to represent a spatial dimension, with items displayed in the two right quadrants (e.g., GO TO THE BEACH, SWIM, TAN) occurring in one specific location (the beach), and items in the two left quadrants (e.g., GO TO CLUBS, MEET GIRLS, HAVE SEX) occurring in other spaces (clubs, hotel rooms). The y axis almost defies interpretation, although one might venture that it is related to behavioral intensity, with more active behaviors being present in the two upper quadrants (e.g., GET DRUNK, GO TO CLUBS, PARTY), and more passive behaviors displayed in the two lower quadrants (e.g., DRINK, TAN, RELAX).

140

Figure 3.2 – Metric multidimensional scaling plots of free list items

Figure 2.1 – Beliefs Figure 2.2 – Behaviors (stress=0.267) (stress=0.307)

Figure 3.2 also shows that the values of the goodness-of-fit measure used (stress) fall outside the conventional range for accurate MDS representation of proximity data (.267 for Beliefs and .307 for Behaviors). Kruskal and Wish (1978) posit that, under normal conditions, stress values above 0.2 indicate a lack of fit of the MDS model to the data (see also Kruskal and Carroll 1969). The presence of a number of outliers in both MDS representations (e.g., ALCOHOL and BOOBS in Beliefs and DO DRUGS and SMOKE in Behaviors) also indicate that MDS may not be the optimal procedure to visually represent the data.

Graphic Layout Algorithm Representation. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 display GLA representations for both sets of free lists (Beliefs and Behaviors), at four different cutoff levels in successive .05 iterations (.20, .25, .30, and .35).

The GLA representation of Beliefs in Figure 3.3 shows that, as increasingly higher levels of agreement are specified, spring breakers regard fewer items from the first set of free lists as being similar. While in Figure 3.3.1 (filtered at .20) we can identify twelve dyadic relationships between eleven items (nodes), in Figure 3.3.4 (filtered at .35) we can only see three dyadic relationships between five items. This in turn affects the number of

141 relationships that each item shares with other items from the same domain. For example, whereas at the .20 level the item SEX shares four dyadic relationships with as many items (BOOBS, ALCOHOL, DANCING, and CLUBS), at the .30 level only two of those relationships remain significant (DANCING and CLUBS).

There were no visible relationships beyond the .35 level of agreement, which represents the maximum amount of agreement between spring breakers in regard to the proximity of any two items. Furthermore, the items that remain in a relationship in the later iterations are not always the most salient items. That is to say, the most salient items are not necessarily mentioned together. For example, of the five items in Figure 3.3.4 (filtered at .35) – BOOBS, DRUNK, GIRLS, DANCING, and SEX, only two (GIRLS and SEX) were among the five most salient items of the cultural domain Beliefs (SEX, PARTY, ALCOHOL, GIRLS, and BEACH; see Table 3.4).

Figure 3.3 warrants two other observations. First, items that share dyadic relationships with one another tend to be mentioned together in specific temporal and spatial contexts. We can see that some items clearly belong in the category ―things that occur in the daytime/outside‖ (e.g., BEACH, FUN, SUN), and other items belong in the category ―things that occur at night/indoors‖ (e.g., CLUBS, DANCING, SEX). And second, spring breakers tend to group items according to their role in certain behavioral scripts. For instance, one would not ordinarily show one‘s BOOBS unless one was DRUNK (Figures 3.3.3 and 3.3.4), nor would one have SEX with GIRLS without DANCING with them first in CLUBS (Figure 3.3.2).

142

Figure 3.3 – Graphic layout algorithm representation of free list items - Beliefs

DRUNK GIRLS PARTY PARTY BEACH BEACH DRINKING DRINKING CRAZY BOOBS BEER ALCOHOL SUN DANCING CRAZY CLUBS

SEX

MUSIC MUSIC SEX

DANCING ALCOHOL FUN CLUBS

SUN FUN BOOBS GIRLS

BEER DRUNK Figure 3.3.1 – GLA filtered at .20 Figure 3.3.2 – GLA filtered at .25

CLUBS GIRLS PARTY PARTY ALCOHOL ALCOHOL BEACH BEACH DRINKING DRINKING BEER BEER CLUBS SUN SUN FUN FUN SEX CRAZY CRAZY MUSIC MUSIC BOOBS BOOBS DANCING

DRUNK DANCING

DRUNK

GIRLS SEX Figure 3.3.3 – GLA filtered at .30 Figure 3.3.4 – GLA filtered at .35

143

Figure 3.4 – Graphic layout algorithm representation of free list items - Behaviors

RELAX HAVE SEX SMOKE DRINK SWIM PARTY EAT GO TO CLUBS GO TO CLUBS TAN PUKE GO TO THE BEACH GET DRUNK DRINK SMOKE DO DRUGS SWIM DO DRUGS EAT DANCE MEET GIRLS PUKE

HAVE SEX RELAX

GET DRUNK MEET GIRLS

TAN

GO TO THE BEACH

PARTY DANCE Figure 3.4.1 – GLA filtered at .20 Figure 3.4.2 – GLA filtered at .25

DRINK DRINK MEET GIRLS HAVE SEX HAVE SEX PARTY PARTY GO TO CLUBS GO TO CLUBS GO TO THE BEACH GO TO THE BEACH GET DRUNK TAN GET DRUNK SMOKE TAN SWIM SMOKE DO DRUGS SWIM EAT PUKE EAT RELAX PUKE RELAX

DO DRUGS MEET GIRLS DANCE DANCE Figure 3.4.3 – GLA filtered at .30 Figure 3.4.4 – GLA filtered at .35

144

In similar fashion to what occurred with the GLA representation of Beliefs, the GLA representation of Behaviors in Figure 3.4 also shows that as higher levels of inter-item agreement are specified, fewer items from the second set of free lists are reported as being similar. In Figure 3.4.2 (filtered at .20) we can identify nine dyadic relationships between eleven items; in Figure 3.4.4 (filtered at .35) we can only see one dyadic relationship between two items. The number of items (and consequently the number of relationships between them) reported as similar decreases more sharply as higher levels of agreement are specified for Behaviors than it does for Beliefs. Figure 3.4.2 (filtered at .25) shows six items (RELAX, TAN, HAVE SEX, DO DRUGS, MEET GIRLS, and DANCE) from the second free list sharing four relationships, and Figure 3.4.3 (filtered at .30) shows only three items (DO DRUGS, MEET GIRLS, and DANCE ) and two relationships. For the same cutoff levels, the number of items/relationships from the first free list was, respectively, nine/seven and six/four (Figures 3.3.2 and 3.3.3).

The item HAVE SEX, for instance, is shown in Figure 3.4.1 (filtered at the .20 level) to be related to three other Spring Break behaviors: MEET GIRLS, DO DRUGS, and GET DRUNK. At the point .25 level it is related only to DO DRUGS (Figure 3.4.2) and beyond that level of agreement is not shown to share a dyadic relationship with any other item(s). One would expect that MEET GIRLS would be highly related to HAVE SEX, but that occurs only at lower levels of agreement; as higher cutoff levels are specified (>.25), spring breakers are more likely to mention MEET GIRLS in conjunction with DANCE (Figures 3.4.3 and 3.4.4) and, oddly enough, DO DRUGS (Figure 3.4.3). A possible explanation may reside in the different visibility of these four items. Spring breakers tend to perceive behaviors such as MEET GIRLS, DANCE, and DO DRUGS as actions that occur in public or semi-public spaces (e.g., the beach, clubs, parking lots), in a gregarious atmosphere, whereas HAVE SEX is an action that occurs in more private settings (e.g., hotel rooms), usually in much smaller company.

As occurred for Beliefs, there were also no visible relationships beyond the .35 level of agreement for Behaviors. Furthermore, neither of the items remaining in the later iterations with pre-specified higher levels of agreement – DO DRUGS, MEET GIRLS, and DANCE (see Figures 3.4.3 and 3.4.4) were particularly salient items. Out of a total of

145

15 items, these three items ranked 7th (DANCE), 11th (MEET GIRLS), and 12th (DO DRUGS) in terms of cognitive saliency (see Table 3.4).

The GLA representations in Figure 3.4 indicate that spring breakers tend to group behaviors according to their perceived intensity and significance in the overall Spring Break experience. Items such as RELAX, TAN, and DRINK (see Figure 3.4.1) are regarded by spring breakers as common and inconsequential behaviors, constituting the backdrop of the Spring Break vacation period. On the other hand, behaviors such as GO TO CLUBS, MEET GIRLS, DO DRUGS, and HAVE SEX (see Figures 3.4.2 and 3.4.3) are perceived to be highlights of the Spring Break experience, and thus occur less frequently. Lastly, behavioral co-occurrence appears to play a role in how spring breakers cluster items from the same cultural domain. Behaviors that (can) happen at the same time (e.g., RELAX and TAN, Figure 3.4.2; GO TO THE BEACH and PARTY, Figure 3.4.1) are perceived to be more similar than behaviors that do not co-occur (e.g., TAN and HAVE SEX, Figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2).

Domain Comparison

Results from the Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) analysis (Correlation QAP) in UCINET indicated that the two cultural domains under study (Beliefs and Behaviors) were most likely unrelated. The Pearson correlation between the similarity matrices derived from the two sets of free lists was -0.005. The probability of obtaining such value by chance was 0.483 (Mr=0.000; SD=0.098) after 100,000 permutations (Euclidean

Distance(0.517)=2.047; MEuclidean Distance=2.040; SD=0.100). Thus, at the typical .05 level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis of independence between the two sets of free lists (Borgatti 2002).

Interestingly, results from the QAP analysis are at odds with other analyses (see above) as well as ethnographic evidence (see pp. 26-106, this volume). The fact that QAP procedures used in this study point towards independence between the two sets of free lists (Spring Break Beliefs and Spring Break Behaviors) under analysis is worthy of discussion. It may be that QAP procedures – similarly to what occurred with MDS in the present study – are not the most appropriate measure to use when comparing related free

146 lists (cf. Borgatti 2002, Maniezzo and Colorni 1999), or other (unknown) phenomena may be artificially influencing the results.

Discussion

The results shown above indicate that the different methods used to analyze the free list data presented in this article paint different pictures of the same cultural domains under study (Spring Break Beliefs and Spring Break Behaviors). Furthermore, depending on which method(s) we choose to focus on, we reach different conclusions concerning the relationship between the two cultural domains.

On one hand, we can clearly see that there was a great deal of overlap between the two sets of freelists. First, a significant percentage of items from the first free list occurred in the second list. Second, both sets of freelists were highly correlated with one another in regard to frequency of items mentioned, free list length, and item saliency. Third, there was no statistically significant difference of mean saliency values between the first set of free lists produced by participants and the second one. Fourth, the GLA representations of the two cultural domains (Beliefs and Behaviors) showcased a number of similarities, namely in regard to within and between-domain structure and composition. What these results tell us if we were to take them at face value, is that not only are the composition and structure of the first and second cultural domains similar, but also that the spring breakers sampled generally agreed as to which items belonged to which cultural domain(s) and also which items were more important. These results lend support to the free listing literature that has used measures such as domain content, free list length, and item saliency to analyze and compare cultural domains (e.g., Fleisher and Harrington 1998, Flinn 1998, Henley 1969, Thompson and Juan 2006, Trotter 1981).

On the other hand, results from the MDS and QAP analyses show both qualitatively and quantitatively that it is unlikely that the two sets of free lists are directly related to one another. What is more, there was a significant difference in the number of items produced by each informant from one set of free lists to the other. Free lists concerning the domain Spring Break Behaviors tended to be shorter, on average, than free lists that pertained to the domain Spring Break Beliefs. Another piece of evidence in favor of cultural domain

147 independence is the number of different items that were produced by informants for each free list (107 for Beliefs and 66 for Behaviors), which is indicative of a difference in size of cultural domains (Quinlan 2005). It is also unlikely that such differences between these two cultural domains can be attributed to either of the descriptive variables measured (age, sex, and year in college). Thus, again looking exclusively at the results from the MDS and QAP analyzes, one would be forced to conclude that a direct relationship between the cultural domains Spring Break Beliefs and Spring Break Behaviors cannot be established and that, therefore, the two domains are independent of one another.

To further complicate matters, it should be noted that all of the analyses presented in this article (with the exception of the analysis of frequency distribution and free list length) were conducted on a shortened version of the original dataset, and included only the fifteen most salient items for each cultural domain (see Table 3.4). For ease of analysis and following recommendations by Sutrop (2001: 265), I deleted the items mentioned by three or fewer informants and excluded them from subsequent analyses. While not displayed here due to space restrictions, I conducted similar analyses to the ones presented in this article with additional items (i.e., items mentioned by two or more informants), and found even sharper contrasts between the two cultural domains.

What, then, is to be done? What should we conclude? Are the two cultural domains substantially different from one another?

The answer is no. While there are differences between the two cultural domains, the two are inherently linked, in composition and in structure, and it is likely that the second domain (Behaviors) constitutes a sub-domain of the first (Beliefs), evidencing an indirect correspondence between cognition and behavior (D‘Andrade 1981). The support for this assertion comes not only from the results presented in this article, but also from my ethnographic fieldwork (see pp. 26-106, this volume). Without it, and in face of conflicting results, I would have been unable to draw any conclusions in regard to the relationship between two related cultural domains.

148

Conclusion

In this study, I sought to compare two related cultural domains via free listing, a popular method to elicit terms constituents of a given cultural domain. I analyzed the data using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods, and found conflicting evidence which indicated both similarities and differences between the two cultural domains under study. I was able to reach a conclusion concerning the relationship between two related cultural domains (Spring Break Beliefs and Spring Break Behaviors) only through a combination of multiple methods of analysis and ethnographic evidence. My findings further validated free listing as an emic tool while at the same time reinforced the confirmatory value of ethnographic fieldwork (Bernard 2006, Durrenberger and Erem 2010).

149

References

Apostolopoulos,Y., Sönmez, S. & Yu, C. (2002). HIV-risk behaviours of American spring break vacationers: a case of situational desinhibition? International Journal of STD and AIDS, 13(11), 733-743. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Borgatti, S. P. (1994). Cultural domain analysis. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 4(4), 261-278. Borgatti, S. P. (1996). ANTHROPAC 4.0 [computer software]. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies Borgatti, S. P. (2002). A statistical method for comparing aggregate data across a priori groups. Field Methods, 14(1), 88-107. Borgatti, S. P. (2002a). NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software [computer software]. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., and Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis [computer software]. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. Bousfield, W. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 49: 229-240 Brewer, D. D. (1995). Cognitive indicators of knowledge in semantic domains. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 5(2), 107-128. Brewer, D. D. (2002). Supplementary interviewing techniques to maximize output in free listing tasks. Field Methods, 14(1), 108-118. Butts, F., Salazar, J., Sapio, K., & Thomas, D. (1996). The impact of contextual factors on the Spring Break travel decisions of college students. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 4(3), 63-70. Colon, G. (Producer): & DeMaio, J., Paley, S. & Patrick, L. (Directors). (2001). MTV Spring break [Television film]. United States: Music Television. D‘Andrade, R. G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5(3), 179- 195. De Munck, V. (2009). Research design and methods for studying cultures. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. DeJordy, R., Borgatti, S. P., Roussin, C., & Halgin, D. S. (2007). Visualizing proximity data. Field Methods, 19(3), 239-263. Durrenberger, E. P. & Erem, E. (2010). Anthropology unbound: A field guide to the 21st century (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

150

Fleisher, M. S. & Harrington, J. A. (1998). Free listing: Management at a women‘s federal prison camp. In V. C. DeMunck & E. Sobo (Eds.), Using methods in the field (pp. 69-84). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Flinn, J. (1998). Free lists, ratings, averages and frequencies: Why so few students study anthropology. In V. C. DeMunck & E. Sobo (Eds.), Using methods in the field (pp. 85-96). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Furlow, C. A. (2003). Comparing indicators of knowledge within and between cultural domains. Field Methods, 15(1), 51-62. Gatewood, J. B. (1984). Familiarity, vocabulary size, and recognition ability in four semantic domains. American Ethnologist, 11(3), 507-527. Gravlee, C. C. (2005). Ethnic classification in Southeastern Puerto Rico: The cultural model of ―color.‖ Social Forces, 8(3), 949-970. Grekin, E. R., Sher, K. J., & Krull, J. L. (2007). College spring break and alcohol use: Effects of spring break activity. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 681-688. Handwerker, W. P. (2002). The construct validity of cultures: Cultural diversity, culture theory, and a method for ethnography. American Anthropologist, 104(1), 106-122. Harman, R. C. (2001). Activities of contemporary Mayan elders. Journal of Cross- Cultural Gerontology, 16, 57-77. Henley, N. M. (1969). A psychological study of the semantics of animal terms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 176-184. Hobson, J. S. & Josiam, B. (1992). Spring break student travel: An exploratory study. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(3), pp. 87-97. Hobson, J. S. & Josiam, B. (1996). Spring break student travel: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2(2), 137-150. Hollis, T. (2004). Florida‟s miracle strip: From redneck riviera to emerald coast. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Hubert, L. J. & Golledge, R. G. (1981). A heuristic method for the comparison of related structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 23, 214-226. Hubert, L. J. & Schultz, J. (1976). Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis strategy. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 29(1), 190-241. Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32(3), 241-254.

Josiam, B., Clements, C. & Hobson, J. (1994). Youth travel in the USA: Understanding the spring break market. In Seaton, A. (Ed.): Tourism: The state of the art, pp. 322-331. Chichester, England: Wiley. Josiam, B., Hobson, J., Dietrich, U. & Smeaton, G. (1998). An analysis of the sexual, alcohol and drug related behavioural patterns of students on spring break. Tourism Management, 19(6), 501-513.

151

Josiam, B., Smeaton, G., & Clements, C. (1999). Involvement: Travel motivation and destination selection. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2), 167-175. Krackhardt, D. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks, 10(4), 359-381. Krackhardt, D. (1992). A caveat on the use of the quadratic assignment procedure. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 3, 279-296. Kruskal, J. B. & Carroll, J. D. (1969). Geometric models and badness-of-fit functions. In P. R. Krishnaiah (Ed.), Multivariate analysis, Vol 2 (pp. 639-670). New York: Academic Press. Kruskal, J. B. & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lee, C., Maggs, J., & Rankin, L. (2006). Spring break trips as a risk factor for heavy alcohol use among first-year college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(6), 911-916. Maniezzo, V. & Colorni, A. (1999). The ant system applied to the Quadratic Assignment Problem. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 11(5), 769- 778. Marsh, B. (2006, March 19). The innocent birth of the Spring Bacchanal. The New York Times [electronic version]. Retrieved October 7, 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19marsh.html. Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S. & Mewhinney, D. M. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 254-264. Mattila, A., Apostolopoulos, Y., Sönmez, S., Yu, L., & Sasidharan, V. (2001). The impact of gender and religion on college students‘ spring break behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 193-200. Mewhinney, D. M., Herold, E. S., & Maticka-Tyndale, E (1995). Sexual scripts and risk taking of Canadian university students on spring break in Daytona Beach, Florida. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 4(4), 273-288. Quinlan, M. (2005). Considerations for collecting free lists in the field: Examples from ethobotany. Field Methods, 17(3), 219-234. Ribeiro, N. F. & Yarnal, C. M. (2006, April). “A once in a lifetime experience”: An exploration of spring break using the Internet. Paper presented at the Northeastern Recreation Research (NERR) Symposim, Bolton Landing, NY. Ribeiro, N. F. & Yarnal, C. M. (2008). ―It wasn‘t my sole purpose for going down there‖ – An inquiry into the Spring Break experience and its relation to risky behaviors and alcohol consumption. Annals of Leisure Research, 11(3-4), 351-367. Ribeiro, N. F. (2008). “Getting away”: A qualitative inquiry into the spring break experience. Master's thesis. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Available electronically at

152

http://etda.libraries.psu.edu/theses/approved/WorldWideFiles/ETD- 2583/Masters_Thesis_Nuno_Ribeiro.pdf

Ribeiro, N. F. (2010, June). Using concomitant free-listing to analyze perceptions of a Spring Break experience. Poster presented at the 41st Travel and Tourism Research Association (TTRA) Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX. Ribeiro, N. F., Yarnal, C. M., Chick, G. E., & Durrenberger, E. P. (2009, June). Perceptions of spring break and spring break experiences: A strange dichotomy. Paper presented at the 40th Travel and Tourism Research Association (TTRA) Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI. Ribeiro, N. F., Yarnal, C. M., Chick, G. E., & Durrenberger, E. P. (2009a, October). “Getting away” - A qualitative inquiry into the Spring Break experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) Leisure Research Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT. Romney, A. K. & D‘Andrade, R. G. (1964). Cognitive aspects of English kin terms. American Anthropologist, 66(3), 146-170. Ryan, G. W., Nolan, J. M., and Yoder, P. S. (2000). Successive free listing: Using multiple free lists to generate explanatory models. Field Methods, 12(2), 83-107. Schrauf, R. W. & Sanchez, J. (2004). The preponderance of negative emotion words in the emotion lexicon: A cross-generational and cross-linguistic study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(2/3), 266-284. Schrauf, R. W. & Sanchez, J. (2008). Using free listing to identify, assess, and characterize age differences in shared cultural domains. Journal of Gerontology, 63B(6), S385-S393. Shevitz, T. (2002, March 8). Spring brake: Doctors group hopes to curb some of the excesses during the booze- and sex-fueled college rite. San Francisco Chronicle [electronic version]. Available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/08/MN187278.DTL. Smeaton, G., Josiam, B. and Dietrich, U. (1998). College students‘ binge drinking at a beach-front destination during spring break. Journal of American College Health, 46(6), 247-254. Smith, J. & Borgatti, S. (1998). Salience counts – And so does accuracy: Correcting and updating a measure for free-list item salience. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(2), 208. Smith, J. (1993). Using Anthropac 3.5. and a spreadsheet to compute a free list salience index. Cultural Anthropology Methods Newsletter, 5(3), 1-3. Sutrop, U. (2001). List task and a cognitive saliency index. Field Methods, 13(3), 263- 276. Thompson, E. & Juan, Z. (2006). Comparative cultural salience: Measures using free-list data. Field Methods, 18(4), 398-412.

153

Trotter, R. (1981). Remedios caseros: Mexican American home remedies and community health problems. Social Science and Medicine, 15B, 107-114. Weller, S. C. & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

154

APPENDIX A – Free listing Questionnaire

155

PLEASE LIST ALL THE THINGS THAT COME TO MIND

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SPRING BREAK IN PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA

PLEASE LIST ALL THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE DO DURING

SPRING BREAK IN PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA

GENDER ______AGE ____ YEAR IN SCHOOL (freshman, sophomore) ______

156

APPENDIX B – Respondent-by-Item Similarity Matrices

157

Table 3.B.1 - Informant-by-Item Matrix (Free list #1 - Beliefs)

BEACH FUN SUN GIRLS BEER ALCOHOL PARTY SEX MUSIC DRUNK BOOBS CRAZY DRINKING DANCING CLUBS

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 14 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

158

26 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 29 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 30 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 31 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 37 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 39 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 43 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 45 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 48 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 52 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 53 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

159

54 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 60 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 61 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 62 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 67 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

160

Table 3.B.2 - Informant-by-Item Matrix (Free list #2 - Behavior) GO TO GO TO GET HAVE MEET DO PARTY DRINK TAN SMOKE RELAX THE EAT DANCE SWIM PUKE CLUBS DRUNK SEX GIRLS DRUGS BEACH 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 23 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

161

26 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 31 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 32 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 35 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 37 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 40 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 46 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 53 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

162

54 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 55 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 57 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 58 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 59 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 60 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 61 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 64 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 65 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 66 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

163

Culture, Consensus, and Dissonance Among North-American Spring Breakers

Abstract The Cultural Consensus Model draws on a cognitive approach to culture and provides a theoretical and methodological framework through which emic cultural beliefs and prescriptions can be extracted and analyzed scientifically. The Cultural Consonance Model extended the Cultural Consensus Model by adding cultural consonance, that is, the degree to which behavior and beliefs match culture. In this paper I discuss the potential applications of the Cultural Consensus Model and Cultural Consonance Model using a well-known American college travel phenomenon – Spring Break – as a case study. The informal version of the Cultural Consensus Model, derived for rank data, was used to investigate the degree of cultural consensus among spring breakers in regard to either Spring Break beliefs or Spring Break behaviors. Results were explored and contrasted using a variety of statistical methods in order to investigate the relationship between Spring Break culture and self-reported and objectively measured Spring Break behaviors. Results showed no overall cultural consensus for both Spring Break beliefs and Spring Break behaviors; moderate consensus among males and females in regard to Spring Break beliefs; and marginal consensus among males and strong consensus among females in regard to Spring Break behaviors. Overall self-reported cultural consonance scores were high for both males and females, but beach only self-reported cultural consonance was lower than beach only objectively measured cultural consonance. Findings from this study validated and extended the use of the Cultural Consensus and Cultural Consonance models by including behavioral measures acquired through means other than self-report. In this particular case, objectively measured behavior followed cultural prescriptions more closely than self-reported behavior, which supports a wealth of research in the social sciences that stresses the behavioral implications of cultural models. Furthermore, these results also reveal the fallibility of self-reported behavioral measures.

Keywords: culture, cultural consensus, cultural consonance, spring break

164

Perhaps the central methodological problem of the social sciences springs from recognition that often there is a disparity between lingual and social-motor types of behavior (…) In this field one of [the] problems is the ascertaining of differential disparities obtaining between overt systems of behavior and what is said by the actors in different cultural contexts.

C. Wright Mills (1940: 329)

What people say, what people do, and what they say they do are entirely different things.

Margaret Mead (n.d., prob. apocryphal)

165

Introduction

To what extent does culture, taken as the set of normative beliefs that individuals use to live their lives within a given context, correspond with actual behavior? Furthermore, are self-reported accounts of behavior sufficient to ascertain the veracity of informants‘ claims, particularly in the case of socially reproachable behavior? While culture undoubtedly influences behavior it is also true that individuals do not always behave in accordance with the cultural beliefs they purport to subscribe to, nor do they always report past events accurately (Bernard et al. 1984, Freeman, Romney and Freeman 1987). The problem is compounded when one looks at out-of-the-ordinary behaviors, like those that occur in leisure-based phenomena such as carnivals, festivals, and holidays. Such phenomena are usually highly ritualized and often involve the reversal of traditional roles and the defiance of social norms (Grimes 2000, Shrum 2004, Turner 1969 1992). Consequently, self-reported behavioral accounts of events that are likely to incur in the disapproval of mainstream society may be understated, exaggerated, and/or inaccurate, and thus at odds with cultural perceptions of the same phenomena (Edelman 2009, Swora 2003).

A paradigmatic example is Spring Break (SB), the annual spring migration of thousands of North-American college students towards warm vacation hotspots usually associated with extreme types of behavior (e.g., Maticka-Tyndale, Herold and Mewhinney 1998). Existing research has relied almost exclusively on self-reported survey data (e.g., Sönmez et al. 2006), perpetuating the media-driven stereotypical image of SB as a ―Spring Bacchanal‖ (Marsh 2006). More recent research, however, has challenged these findings and suggested that, while cultural consensus (i.e., the degree to which a group of individuals agrees on cultural beliefs and practices - Romney, Weller and Batchelder 1986) exists in regard to what SB is, spring breakers‘ behavior may not correspond to their cultural perceptions of SB (Ribeiro 2008, Ribeiro and Chick 2009). That is to say, while cultural consensus may exist among spring breakers, cultural consonance (i.e., the degree to which culture is matched by individual behavior – Dressler and Bindon 2000) may not. The present study contrasted SB behavior in a ―typical‖ SB destination (Panama

166

City Beach, Florida) with spring breakers‘ cultural beliefs and self-reported behaviors regarding the same phenomenon using the cultural consensus and cultural consonance models.

Literature Review

Culture, Consensus, and Behavior

Beginning with Harris‘ (1968) and D‘Andrade‘s (1987) critiques of the lack of attention paid by social scientists to the common absence of correspondence between culture and behavior (see also Mills 1940 and Spiro 1996), anthropologists have long been at the forefront of the research looking at the connections between what people think and what people actually do. Common to these approaches is a cognitive view of culture, that is, ―what one has to know or believe in order to conduct oneself in a manner acceptable to its members in the various roles and activities in which they engage‖ (Goodenough 1967: 59). In this regard, culture consists of knowledge which is both learned and shared (D‘Andrade 1981). One of the advantages of using such a definition of culture (i.e., one that recognizes culture as a form of cultural consensus) is that culture is thus eminently measurable through scientific methods of research. By measuring the degree to which individuals know and agree upon information regarding their own culture(s), any given culture can be accurately delimited and studied by ethnographic means of research (Chick 2000).

Seminal work conducted by Romney, Weller, and Batchelder (1986; for a review of Romney‘s work see D‘Andrade 2004) provided a much-needed theoretical and methodological framework – cultural consensus theory – with which cultural and behavioral models of conduct can be compared. Cultural consensus theory and its subsequent refinements (Romney 1999, Weller 2007), while pivotal towards a better understanding of culture and behavior, are not immune to criticism. Namely, the cultural consensus model (CCM) puts excessive faith in the informants‘ knowledge and accuracy about a given culture, and it does not contemplate comparisons with cultural data from somewhere else other than the informants themselves. Work by Dressler and his colleagues (e.g., 1998 1998a 2000) addressed some of these concerns and extended the

167

CCM by adding cultural consonance, that is, the degree to which behavior matches cultural beliefs. While Dressler‘s cultural consonance model (CCoM) was a remarkable step forward towards a better understanding of the relationship between culture and behavior, measurement of cultural consonance in its present form, however, is still heavily dependent on self-reported and/or inferred behavioral data (Dressler et al. 2000 2005 2007).

Use of the CCM has known widespread use not only in cultural anthropology (the discipline wherein it originated), but in other fields of inquiry such as organizational behavior (e.g., Caulkins and Hyatt 1999), gerontology (e.g., Schrauf 2009), and general medicine (e.g., Smith et al. 2004). Moreover, the CCM has been used to study a wide variety of issues, from yellowfin tuna fishery management in Hawaii (Miller et al. 2004) to pain descriptions among Anglo-American and Mandarin Chinese patients and dentists (Moore et al. 1997). Further refinements of the CCM, such as the development of an informal model (Romney et al. 1987; see also Weller 2007), with fewer assumptions and tolerant of other than dichotomous/nominal data, allowed for application of the CCM to an even greater range of topics, such as social support (Berges et al. 2006), hunting preferences (Koster et al. 2010) and the reliability and influence of individual cultural knowledge on other aspects of human life (Koster 2010, Dressler et al. 1998). In regard to the latter, Dressler and colleagues took the CCM further to include the extent to which behavior corresponded with shared cultural beliefs (the CCoM – Dressler 1996), and studied the relationship(s) that such culture-behavior correlation (or lack thereof) had with numerous socio-demographic variables and health behaviors.

More recently, there has been a wealth of research in the social sciences that stresses the behavioral implications of cultural models (e.g., Bowles and Gintis 2008, D‘Andrade and Strauss 1994, Durham 2008, Ridley 2003). Furthermore, the question of informant (in)accuracy, while duly recognized as important by social scientists (Bernard et al. 1984, Freeman and Romney 1987, Freeman et al. 1987) remains a serious threat to the validity of the cultural consensus and cultural consonance models. Studies that include objective (i.e., other than self-reported) measures of behavior are still conspicuously absent in the

168 cognitive anthropology literature (for exceptions, see Chick 1981, and Roberts and Chick 2007).

Culture, Consensus, and Leisure

Cultural consensus analyses are fairly widespread in anthropological circles (e.g., Caulkins and Hyatt 1999, Gatewood 2009), but they are less known elsewhere, in spite of the fact that some of the earliest studies of cultural consensus were carried out in leisure settings (Chick 1981 1989, Roberts and Chick 1979 1984). Indeed, certain types of leisure phenomena appear to be promising settings in which to apply and test the validity of the CCM. Cyclical, ephemeral, and communal leisure events such as feasts, festivals, and carnivals tend to combine elements of both play and ritual, and often involve some inversion of the social order and challenge existing mores (Turner 1996). Furthermore, they tend to incorporate elements of excess and hedonism as it happens, for example, during Carnaval in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Da Matta 1991), Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Louisiana (Shrum and Kilburn 1996), or the Daytona Bike Week in Daytona Beach, Florida (Pratt 2002). In such out-of-the-ordinary leisure events, strong consensus exists among participants about what such events are about, the rules that govern them, and how one should behave during the event (Turner 1982a). The same cannot be said, however, of actual behavior, which is often at odds with prescribed behavioral models. For example, in his study of a Mexican festival cargo system, Chick (1981 1989 2002) contrasted informants‘ accounts of prescribed behavior with church records of actual behavior. He found that while some individuals behaved in accordance with culturally prescribed rules (i.e., holding offices in a pre-determined hierarchical sequence) others did not (Chick 1989 2002). Similarly, in a study of U.S. spring breakers, Ribeiro and colleagues (Ribeiro 2008, Ribeiro and Chick 2009, Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008) found discrepancies between what participants thought was ―typical‖ SB behavior and post hoc accounts of their own SB experiences.

It is possible that, due to the nature of the activities indulged in during these extraordinary periods of licensed leisure, participants may be reluctant to disclose the extent of their participation, for fear of disapproval by mainstream society. Conversely, participants may

169 be prone to exaggeration, in order to conform to pre-determined cultural expectations of the event, as Ribeiro and Yarnal (2006) found in their study of an online community of spring breakers.

Spring Break – A North American Phenomenon

Scholarly interest in SB, a North American week-long college holiday period, usually held in March, has grown substantially in recent years (e.g., Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Lee et al. 2006, Sönmez et al. 2006). A tourism phenomenon of growing importance (Gianoulis 2000), SB comprises the temporary migration of hundreds of thousands of U.S. undergraduate students, who spend millions of dollars every year (Reynolds 2004) in their quest for ―tiny bikinis, sweaty muscles, and beer‖ (Russell 2004: 303). Based mostly on self-reported survey data, as well as journalistic and anecdotal evidence, spring breakers‘ behavior has been equated almost exclusively with binge drinking, drug-taking, and increased and unprotected sexual activity (e.g., Grekin et al. 2007, Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998). Recent research, however, indicates that the extreme and hedonistic image of SB so prevalent in the scholarly literature, the popular press, and the media, may just be part of a broader picture (Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008). There seems to be a lot more to the SB phenomenon than the ―Spring Bacchanal‖ propagated by the media (Marsh 2006). A closer look at the SB literature reveals substantial disagreement among researchers in regard to spring breakers‘ motivations, levels of involvement, previous intentions, and factors affecting actual SB behavior (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Butts et al. 1996, Mattila et al. 2001, Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998, Mewhinney et al. 1995, Smeaton et al. 1998, Sönmez et al. 2006). What is more, over reporting by males and under reporting by females in regard to alcohol consumption and sexual behavior are not uncommon occurrences in the SB literature (Josiam et al. 1998, Ribeiro 2008, Sönmez et al. 2006). As some authors have posited (e.g., Apostolopoulos et al., 2002), a great deal more research, particularly of an ethnographic nature, is necessary in order to fully understand the SB phenomenon and how college students‘ cultural beliefs about SB correlate with actual SB behavior.

170

Procedures

The primary research objective of this study was to contrast self-reported accounts of SB behavior and objective records of SB behavior with cultural SB beliefs and culturally prescribed SB behaviors. Additional research objectives were to: further existing research on cultural consensus and cultural consonance; and contribute to existing theory on informant accuracy in anthropological research.

Hypotheses. Based on previous research (Ribeiro 2008, Ribeiro forthcoming), I anticipated replicating previous cultural consensus results in regard to SB and I hypothesized that cultural consensus among spring breakers would be high; that is, it would reveal the existence of a marked SB culture (H1). Furthermore, I hypothesized that cultural consonance based on self-reported SB behavior would be higher than cultural consonance based on objective records of SB behavior (H2).

Research Design

The research design consisted of a mixed-methods approach to systematic data collection and analysis (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998), in four stages, with the intent of measuring and contrasting the following constructs:

 SB cultural consensus (SB culture), i.e., the normative beliefs and prescriptive behaviors associated with SB by a group of individuals (spring breakers) and the degree to which they agree with such beliefs;

 Self-reported SB cultural consonance, i.e., the degree to which SB culture is matched by individual SB behavior(s), as reported by the individuals themselves; and

 Objectively measured SB cultural consonance, i.e., the degree to which SB culture is matched by individual SB behavior(s), measured by means other than self-report.

171

In order to carry out the proposed research, I collected data from several samples of spring breakers vacationing in Panama City Beach, Florida (PCB), a destination chosen for its popularity among spring breakers (Porter 2003). The data presented in this article were collected with the aid of a research assistant during March 2010, which corresponds to the most intense period of the SB ―season‖ in PCB, which in turn lasts from early March until mid-April.

During the first stage (March 6-12), my research assistant and I engaged in participant observation in the most popular areas among spring breakers, which had been identified in preliminary fieldwork (Ribeiro et al. 2009 2009a; see also ―Research Site‖ below, and pp. 106-121, this volume). Based on our observations, we developed an ethogram cataloguing all the SB behaviors observed. A shorter version, including only SB behaviors displayed in beach areas, was then developed and pre-tested in the field to allow for effective simultaneous data collection by both researchers.

In the second stage (March 13-19), we used the aforementioned ethogram to collect objectively measured behavioral data (beach behaviors), using random spot sampling and continuous monitoring procedures (Bernard 2006). During this stage, we also elicited cultural beliefs and culturally prescribed behaviors associated with SB via successive free listing (Ryan et al. 2000).

In the third stage (March 20-25), we continued to collect objectively measured behavioral data (beach behaviors) via random spot sampling and continuous monitoring. We also collected cultural consensus data using rank order questionnaires, constructed with data collected during stage two. These questionnaires measured the level of agreement (consensus) among spring breakers in regard to: a) the most common cultural beliefs and culturally prescribed behaviors elicited via free listing; and b) the most common beach behaviors observed via random spot sampling and continuous monitoring.

Finally, in the fourth stage (March 26-29), we collected cultural consonance data using rank order questionnaires derived from data collected during stages two and three. The cultural consonance questionnaires aimed at measuring the self-reported behavioral frequency among spring breakers in regard to a) the 20 most common culturally

172 prescribed behaviors elicited via free listing and b) the 20 most common beach behaviors observed via random spot sampling and continuous monitoring. Figure 1 visually summarizes the aforementioned iterative process of data collection for this study.

Figure 4.1 – Data collection process

173

Sampling

Selection of participants was based on SB demographics already identified by research: college undergraduate students, aged 18-24, with a slightly higher percentage of males than females (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Josiam et al. 1998 1998a, Mattila et al. 2001). Taking into account Romney et al.‘s (1988) and Weller‘s (2007) recommendations concerning cultural consensus analysis, as well as the required minimum sample size for most statistical analyses (Kuehl 2000), we collected cultural and self-reported behavioral data from several purposive samples from more than 300 spring breakers (n=304) and objectively measured behavioral data from more than 2,000 spring breakers (n=2,027).

Participants were directly approached by me and/or my research assistant in specific SB locations in PCB (see ―Research Site‖ below). As described in a previous article (see pp. _____, this volume), entrance to the beach along the strip is done through consecutively numbered wooden passageways, roughly equidistant from one another. SB activity on the beach is restricted to the area delimited by beach entrances (BEs) #‘s 19 and 43. These 24 entrances constituted the data collection points for this study. In an effort to increase the representativeness of the data collected, all data collection points (n=24) were randomized following a simplified incomplete block design (BIB) with (λ) = 2 (Weller and Romney 1988) to allow for data to be collected from each location at least twice. Given that there were 24 data collection points and that each day allowed for data collection from six sites (k=6), data from all 24 points could be collected in four days (b=4). Using SPSS, I obtained consecutive random permutations of 1 through 24 (one permutation per stage of data collection) and assigned the results in the order they were obtained to the data collection points (BEs #19-43), thus obtaining the schedule of data collection that was used in this study.

While the sample from which the data presented in this article was drawn from cannot statistically speaking be considered a random sample (i.e., every member of the population under study did not have a statistically equal opportunity to be selected for the study), it was nonetheless as close to random as could be achieved given the field conditions (see ―Research Site‖ below).

174

Research Site

Panama City Beach, Florida (PCB) is located in the Florida Panhandle (Bay County), inhabited by approximately 13,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). PCB‘s SB fame as SB capital of the U.S. (Webb 2003) dates from the early 1990‘s, when the popular annual television broadcast MTV Spring Break was first broadcasted live from PCB (Bai et al. 2004). PCB possessed a number of characteristics that made it the ideal setting for the present research. First, in spite of the growing popularity of foreign SB destinations, PCB remains the most popular SB destination in the U.S., with over 100,000 college students visiting PCB every March (Gianoulis 2000). Second, its relatively small size made collection of data easier, as all data collection points were within walking distance. Due to the enactment and enforcement of stricter city ordinances by the local police, SB activities in PCB have become restricted to a small beach-front area (aprox. 3 sq. mi), where a number of SB-oriented hotels, and a wider number of bars and nightclubs, are located (Webb 2003). All 24 data collection points were situated in these locales (see ―Data Collection‖ below). Third, despite its popularity PCB remains one of the most affordable SB destinations, with fairly inexpensive flights to Panama City International Airport, situated only 6 miles from Panama City Beach and within driving distance of numerous Southern universities.

Data Collection

Random spot sampling and continuous monitoring. The purpose of this data collection method was to collect objectively recorded (i.e., not self-reported) behavioral data, in this case related to SB beach behaviors. With the help of my research assistant, I collected objectively measured SB behavioral data using ethogram sheets (see Appendix A) and hand held clickers (otherwise known as ―pitch counters‖). I followed procedures common in human ethology (Tinbergen 1963; see also Cloak 1975 for a discussion of cultural ethology; and Kingstone et al. 2008 for a discussion of cognitive ethology) to observe and record the frequency of beach activities engaged in by spring breakers in PCB. At each data collection point, my research assistant and I began by delimiting our area of observation (aprox. 100‘) and by counting the number of spring breakers within the area.

175

Each of us counted and recorded the number of spring breakers in the ethogram. When finished, we recorded behavioral instances of SB beach behaviors for an equal period of time (10 min.). The correspondence between spring breakers and behavioral instances was not univocal, that is to say, a spring breaker walking along the beach sipping on a beer counted as one instance of ―walking along the beach‖ (behavior 2.7 in the ethogram – see Appendix A) and another instance of ―drinking beer‖ (behavior 2.13.1 in the ethogram – see Appendix A). After 10 min., we took another count of the number of spring breakers in our area of observation and recorded it in the ethogram. The ethograms were also used to make short fieldnotes (―Observations‖ – See Appendix A), and other variables, such as date and time of data collection, researcher‘s name, and location (BE #) were also recorded.

Free listing. The purpose of this data collection method was to elicit two distinct SB cognitive domains (i.e., a set of similar cognitive representations – Borgatti 1994): SB culture and culturally prescribed SB behaviors. First, we asked participants to list all the things that come to mind when they thought about SB in PCB. Second, we asked participants to list all the things that people usually do during SB in PCB. The resulting data illustrated not only what participants thought about SB (i.e., SB culture), but also how they thought spring breakers should act during SB in PCB (i.e., culturally prescribed SB behaviors). Additionally, demographic data from the participants was collected (age, gender, year in school). A sample of the free listing questionnaire used can be found in Appendix B. Free listing data was collected immediately after objectively recorded behavioral data (see above), in the same data collection points, for equal periods of time (15 min.).

Cultural consensus questionnaires. The purpose of this data collection method was to collect the ―culturally correct‖ (Weller 2007) SB beliefs and prescriptive SB behaviors and measure the level of agreement among participants in regard to such beliefs and behaviors, that is to say, to investigate if a distinctive SB culture existed. Using the 20 most frequent items from each of the freelists obtained beforehand (SB beliefs and SB behaviors) I constructed two separate consensus questionnaires, which were then administered to spring breakers in PCB in similar fashion to free listing questionnaires.

176

One questionnaire asked participants to rank each SB belief along a six-point Likert scale ranging from not important at all (1) to extremely important (6). The other questionnaire asked participants to rank each SB behavior along a six-point Likert scale ranging from not important (1) at all to extremely important (6). Additionally, both questionnaires recorded demographic data from the participants (age, gender, year in school). To reduce bias, the order of the questions was randomized (Bernard 2006) using simple permutations of 1 to 20 in SPSS. Examples of the cultural consensus questionnaires used can be found in Appendices C and D.

Cultural consonance questionnaires. The purpose of this data collection method was to collect self-reported behavioral frequency data for behaviors engaged in by participants during SB in PCB which could then be contrasted with cultural consensus and objectively recorded behavioral frequency data. First, using the 20 most salient culturally prescribed SB behaviors from the cultural consensus behavioral questionnaire (see above), I constructed a cultural consonance questionnaire which asked participants to report estimates of how often they engaged in said SB behaviors in the last 24 hours by ranking their participation in each SB behavior along a six-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to more than eight times (6). This questionnaire provided self-reported SB behavioral data for each participant in regard to overall SB behaviors. Second, using the 20 most frequently observed SB behaviors on the beach (see “Random spot sampling and continuous monitoring” above), I constructed another cultural consonance questionnaire similar to the previous one, but that this time asked participants to report estimates of how often they engaged in said SB beach behaviors in the last 24 hours by ranking their participation in each SB behavior along a six-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to more than eight times (6). This questionnaire provided self-reported SB behavioral data for each participant in regard to SB beach behaviors. Additionally, both questionnaires recorded demographic data from the participants (age, gender, year in school). To reduce bias, the order of the questions was randomized (Bernard 2006) using simple permutations of 1 to 20 in SPSS. Examples of the cultural consensus questionnaires used can be found in Appendices E and F. Descriptive statistics for the different samples/instruments of data collection, with the exception of ethological data, can be found in Table 4.1.

177

Table 4.1 - Respondent Descriptive Statistics

Freelisting questionnaires Spring Break beliefs & behaviors (n = 67) N % M SE Mdn SD Age 67 100 19.90 0.20 20.00 1.60 Sex* 67 100 1.55 0.06 2.00 0.50 Female 30 44.80 - - - - Male 37 55.20 - - - - Year in College1** 59 100 2.10 0.15 2.00 1.16 Freshman 25 37.30 - - - - Sophomore 12 17.90 - - - - Junior 15 22.40 - - - - Senior 5 7.50 - - - - Graduate 2 3.00 - - - -

Cultural consensus questionnaires Sprin g Break beliefs Spring Break behaviors (n = 80; α = .88) (n = 84; α = .84) N % M SE Mdn SD N % M SE Mdn SD Age 1 77 100 19.84 0.32 20.00 2.78 83 100 20.73 0.22 21.00 2.01 Sex1* 80 100 0.63 0.05 1.00 0.49 84 100 0.71 0.05 1.00 0.45 Female 30 37.50 - - - - 24 28.57 - - - - Male 80 62.50 - - - - 60 71.43 - - - - Year in College1** 78 100 2.26 0.27 2.00 2.34 79 100 2.39 0.16 2.00 1.42 Freshman 28 35.90 - - - - 25 31.65 - - - -

178

Sophomore 17 21.79 - - - - 13 16.46 - - - - Junior 19 24.36 - - - - 15 18.99 - - - - Senior 8 10.26 - - - - 17 21.52 - - - - Graduate 1 1.28 - - - - 5 6.33 - - - -

Cultural consonance questionnaires Spring Break behaviors - overall Spring Break behaviors - beach only (n = 110; α = .92) (n = 114; α = .87) N % M SE Mdn SD N % M SE Mdn SD Age 1 109 100 20.29 0.17 20.00 1.73 113 100 20.75 0.19 21.00 2.02 Sex* 110 100 0.55 0.05 1.00 0.50 114 100 0.61 0.05 1.00 0.50 Female 49 44.50 - - - - 45 39.47 - - - - Male 61 55.50 - - - - 69 60.53 - - - - Year in College1** 102 100 0.22 0.11 2.00 1.08 106 100 2.60 0.12 3.00 1.22 Freshman 31 30.39 - - - - 21 19.81 - - - - Sophomore 42 41.18 - - - - 28 26.42 - - - - Junior 14 13.73 - - - - 25 23.58 - - - - Senior 12 11.76 - - - - 26 24.53 - - - - Graduate 3 2.94 - - - - 4 3.77 - - - - 1 some respondents did not provide this information; * [0=Female;1=Male]; ** [1=Freshman;2=Sophomore; 3=Junior; 4=Senior; 5=Graduate]

179

Data Analysis

Random spot sampling and continuous monitoring. Objectively measured behavioral data (SB beach behaviors) collected with the aid of the ethogram was entered in a computer spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel), with two entries for each behavior/people count, corresponding to each researcher. A sample of a daily collection sheet can be found in Appendix G. Data were entered separately for each data collection point and the average between the two researchers‘ counts was aggregated across rows. Daily behavioral counts were obtaining by dividing the aggregate totals by the total number of days of data collection. The 20 most popular (i.e., higher frequency counts) SB beach behaviors were ranked from most frequent (1) to least (20) and used to construct one of the cultural consonance questionnaires (see ―Data Collection‖ above).

Free listing. Free listing data was analyzed with the aid of a computer spreadsheet and ANTHROPAC version 4.983/X (Borgatti 1996). After coding items following procedures detailed by Fleisher and Harrington (1998) and Schrauf and Sanchez (2008) (e.g., eliminating duplicates, re-coding synonyms), the 20 most popular items from each set of free listing questionnaires (SB beliefs and SB behaviors) were ranked from most frequent (1) to least (20) and used to construct the cultural consensus questionnaires (see ―Data Collection‖ above). A more detailed analysis of the free listing data can be found in another article in this volume (pp. 122-158).

Cultural consensus questionnaires. Cultural consensus data was analyzed with the help of the statistical program SPSS. Data was entered with the participants as rows and the beliefs/behaviors and descriptive variables (age, gender, year in school) as columns. For each dataset (beliefs and behaviors), descriptive statistics were calculated and post-hoc reliability tests (Cronbach‘s alpha) were conducted for each questionnaire (αSB beliefs = .88;

αSB behaviors = .84) before Hypothesis 1 was tested (see ―Hypothesis testing‖ below).

A note on cultural consensus and negative competencies. One of the many advantages of the CCM is that it allows for the calculation of an individual‘s knowledge of his/her own culture (Romney et al. 1987, Weller 2007; see also Garro 2000). This knowledge is

180 given by how closely the respondent‘s cultural knowledge approximates the ―culturally correct‖ responses of the group, and is statistically translated into the factor scores obtained via cultural consensus analysis (Weller 2007; see also ―Hypothesis testing‖ below). Recent applications of the CCM have defined consensus as a model where negative competencies (i.e., ―ignorant‖ informants) are not present (e.g., Chavez et al. 1995; Webster, Iannucci and Romney 2002). On the other hand, Gatewood (2009) suggests that when one has a plausible (i.e., rooted in ethnographic evidence) reason for negative competencies and/or they represent 5% or less of the sample under consideration, they can be removed from analysis (J. Gatewood, personal communication, November 19, 2010). I followed Gatewood‘s recommendation and proceeded accordingly. In the few cases where negative competencies occurred, they represented less than 5% of the total sample and were consequently deleted.

Cultural consonance questionnaires. Self-reported behavioral data was analyzed with the help of the statistical program SPSS. Data was entered with the participants as rows and the different sets of behaviors (overall and beach only) and descriptive variables (age, gender, year in school) as columns. For each dataset (overall SB behaviors and beach only SB behaviors), descriptive statistics were calculated and post-hoc reliability tests

(Cronbach‘s alpha) were conducted for each questionnaire (αSB behaviors overall = .92; αSB beach only behaviors = .87) before Hypothesis 2 was tested (see ―Hypothesis testing‖ below).

Hypothesis testing.

H1: Cultural consensus among spring breakers in PCB is significant; i.e., a SB culture in PCB exists

To test this hypothesis I used common cultural consensus analysis procedures as applicable to rank order data (i.e., the informal cultural consensus model – see Romney et al. 1987 and Weller 2007). Data from each of the cultural consensus questionnaires obtained from the participants were analyzed with the aid of the statistical software package SPSS using minimum least squares factor analysis without rotation (Weller 2007; see also Zuur, Ieno and Smith 2007: 193-224). I began by entering each set of answers from the cultural consensus questionnaires as a data matrix, where the items/questions corresponded to the columns and the participants the rows. Data was then

181 transposed and I ran a PCA on the informants as variables of interest specifying a single- factor single-group model and selecting PCA without rotation as the desired extraction method. SPSS provided eigenvalues, factor loadings, and factor scores. If the ratio between the first and second eigenvalue is greater than three, than we can assume the unidimensionality hypothesis or that a single SB culture is present in the data (Romney et al. 1986, 1987; see also Weller and Romney 1987). I performed this analysis for both cultural consensus questionnaires (SB cultural beliefs and culturally prescribed SB behaviors).

H2: Cultural consonance based on self-reported behavioral accounts of SB is higher than cultural consonance based on objective records of behavior of SB

To test this hypothesis I used a variation of cultural consonance analysis procedures described by Chick (1981, 1989) and Dressler and colleagues (2000, 2005, 2007). To test for cultural consonance based on self-reported behaviors, I began by ranking the factor scores obtained in the previous cultural consensus analysis for SB behaviors (i.e., the culturally correct answers) from 1 to 20. I then analyzed the cultural consonance questionnaire related to overall SB behaviors using SPSS and obtained descriptive statistics (M, SD, SE) for each of the behaviors, which were ranked from 1 to 20, with 1 corresponding to the behavior with the highest self-reported frequency mean and 20 to the lowest. I created a new data set in SPSS whereby the rows (20) corresponded to the self-reported behaviors and the columns (2) to the two different rankings. To obtain a cultural consonance score, I used bivariate correlation procedures (Pearson‘s r) to correlate the two rankings. The significance and degree of this correlation served as a measure of self-reported cultural consonance in regard to SB behaviors.

I proceeded in similar fashion to test for cultural consonance based on objectively measured behavior. I analyzed the cultural consonance questionnaire related to beach only SB behaviors using SPSS and obtained descriptive statistics (M, SD, SE) for each of the behaviors, which were ranked from 1 to 20, with 1 corresponding to the behavior with the highest self-reported frequency mean and 20 to the lowest. I then analyzed the ethological data collected via ethograms and ranked the 20 most popular behaviors from

182

1 (most frequent) to 20 (least frequent). Because there was no perfect correspondence between overall SB behaviors and SB beach behaviors (only five behaviors were equivalent), I calculated cultural consonance scores in two different ways. First, I created a dataset whereby the rows (20) corresponded to the self-reported behaviors and the columns (2) to the two different rankings (culturally correct responses and objectively measured beach behaviors), treating the rank of the non-corresponding behaviors as missing data and substituting it for the average rank (Dressler et al. 2005). Second, I created another whereby the rows (5) corresponded to the matching behaviors and the columns (2) to the two different rankings (culturally correct responses and objectively measured beach behaviors). In order to obtain a cultural consonance score, I again used bivariate correlation procedures (Pearson‘s r) to correlate the two rankings, for both datasets. The significance and degree of this(ese) correlation(s) served as a measure of objectively measured cultural consonance in regard to SB behaviors.

Results

Cultural Consensus

Beliefs. Analysis of the cultural consensus model in regard to SB beliefs did not reveal a single SB culture, that is, there was no overall consensus among spring breakers in regard to what SB is in Panama City Beach, Florida (1st eigenvalue = 28.10; 2nd eigenvalue = st nd 16.00; ratio of 1 to 2 = 1.76; Mcompetence = 0.57). Nonetheless, the first and second factors combined explained in excess of 50% of the total variance (VAR = 36.36 and 20.62, respectively). Furthermore, the third eigenvalue (6.67) was significantly lower than the second (ratio of 2nd to 3rd = 2.40), which pointed towards the presence of ―two cultures‖ (Gatewood 2009; Gatewood and Lowe 2009). The ―culturally correct‖ (Weller 2007) answers in regard to SB beliefs in PCB can be found in Table 4.2.

183

Table 4.2 - Culturally correct responses - Spring Break Beliefs

Beliefs* Overall Rank Males Rank Females Rank (n = 80) (n = 50) (n = 30) DRUNK 3.70 13 4.23 14 3.31 13 SUN 5.14 4 5.09 7 5.28 3 BEER 3.70 14 4.49 11 2.65 16 BOOBS 3.60 15 4.80 8 1.80 19 FUN 5.67 1 5.73 1 5.64 2 TANNING 4.02 10 3.76 17 4.61 6 SLEEP 3.29 18 3.00 18 3.67 11 CLUBS 3.53 16 3.96 16 3.10 15 ALCOHOL 4.12 8 4.73 10 3.52 12 DRUGS 1.85 20 2.11 19 1.75 20 MUSIC 5.07 5 5.14 6 5.15 5 BOYS 2.15 19 1.28 20 3.79 10 DANCING 4.01 11 3.97 15 4.19 7 CRAZY 4.42 7 4.78 9 4.05 8 BEACH 5.22 3 5.29 3 5.27 4 THE STRIP 3.80 12 4.31 13 3.10 14 GIRLS 4.03 9 5.26 4 2.00 17 SEX 3.42 17 4.45 12 1.97 18 PARTY 4.65 6 5.19 5 3.83 9 FRIENDS 5.61 2 5.55 2 5.71 1 Mean scores 4.05 - 4.36 - 3.72 - * "Please rate how important each of the following words is to spring breakers in Panama City Beach" (1 - Not important at all; 2- Unimportant; 3 - Somewhat important; 4 - Important; 5 - Very important; 6 - Extremely important)

Accordingly, when checking for cultural consensus among males and females separately, results showed moderate cultural consensus among both males (1st eigenvalue = 22.92; nd st nd st 2 eigenvalue = 6.99; ratio of 1 to 2 = 3.28; Mcompetence = 0.64) and females (1 nd st nd eigenvalue = 14.82; 2 eigenvalue = 3.99; ratio of 1 to 2 = 3.78; Mcompetence = 0.65). The amount of variance explained by the first factor was 46.19% for males and 52.32% for females. Figure 4.2 compares the culturally correct answers between males and females for SB beliefs.

184

Figure 4.2 – Male and female culturally correct answers – Spring Break Beliefs

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Males Females

Behaviors. Analysis of the cultural consensus model in regard to SB behaviors did not reveal a single SB culture, that is, there was no overall consensus among spring breakers in regard to what SB do in Panama City Beach, Florida (1st eigenvalue = 34.95; 2nd st nd eigenvalue = 12.50; ratio of 1 to 2 = 2.80; Mcompetence = 0.61). The first and second factors combined explained in excess of 50% of the total variance (VAR = 42.42 and 15.62, respectively) and the third eigenvalue (5.15) was significantly lower than the second (ratio of 2nd to 3rd = 2.43), which again pointed towards the presence of two cultures. The culturally correct answers in regard to SB behaviors in PCB can be found in Table 4.3.

185

Table 4.3 - Culturally correct responses - Spring Break Behaviors

Behaviors* Overall Rank Males Rank Females Rank (n = 84) (n = 60) (n = 24) WALKING ON THE BEACH 4.21 10 4.14 12 4.31 7 EATING 4.64 5 4.57 8 4.74 3 DANCING 4.35 9 4.20 11 4.46 5 HAVING SEX 3.74 11 4.52 9 2.20 16 GOING TO THE BEACH 5.31 1 5.22 2 5.46 1 SWIMMING 3.09 16 2.97 16 3.21 14 CRUISING THE STRIP 3.60 13 3.76 13 3.25 13 GOING TO CLUBS 4.55 7 4.63 7 4.33 6 TANNING 3.44 14 3.16 15 3.98 10 SLEEPING 3.36 15 3.28 14 3.52 12 FLASHING BOOBS 3.65 12 4.36 10 2.26 15 SOCIALIZING 5.12 3 5.13 3 5.04 2 DRINKING 4.74 4 5.01 4 4.27 8 BEING CRAZY 4.64 6 4.80 5 4.25 9 FIGHTING 1.63 20 1.85 20 1.19 20 SMOKING 2.40 17 2.85 17 1.54 17 DOING DRUGS 1.76 18 2.07 18 1.29 19 GETTING DRUNK 4.36 8 4.70 6 3.72 11 THROWING UP 1.71 19 1.88 19 1.42 18 PARTYING 5.28 2 5.55 1 4.62 4 Mean scores 3.78 - 3.93 - 3.45 - * "Please rate how important each of the following behaviors is to spring breakers in Panama City Beach" (1 - Not important at all; 2- Unimportant; 3 - Somewhat important; 4 - Important; 5 - Very important; 6 - Extremely important)

When checking for cultural consensus among males and females separately, results showed marginal consensus among males (1st eigenvalue = 24.72; 2nd eigenvalue = 8.11; st nd st ratio of 1 to 2 = 3.05; Mcompetence = 0.61) and strong consensus among females (1 nd st nd eigenvalue = 12.64; 2 eigenvalue = 3.03; ratio of 1 to 2 = 4.17; Mcompetence = 0.70). The variance explained by the first factor was 49% for males and 55.69% for females. Figure 4.3 compares the culturally correct answers between males and females for SB behaviors.

186

Figure 4.3 – Male and female culturally correct answers – Spring Break Behaviors

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

Males Females

Cultural Consonance

Self-reported overall behaviors. Descriptive statistics for male and female overall self-reported SB behaviors (i.e., occurring both in public and private settings) can be found in Table 4.4.

One factor MANOVA procedures revealed statistically significant differences between males and females only in regard to a small number of SB behaviors (5 out of 20, or 25%). MANOVA results were significant according to Wilk‘s Lambda (Λ = .67, F(20, 85) = 2.12, p < .01) and Pillai‘s Trace (Ρ = .33, F(20, 85) = 2.12, p < .01). Namely, male and female spring breakers reported significant behavioral differences in the last 24 hours preceding questioning only in regard to Walking on the Beach (p = .02), Having Sex (p = .04), Going to the Beach (p = .01), Tanning (p < .01), and Smoking (p = .03). Males reported higher behavioral averages than females in regard to Walking on the Beach, Having Sex, Going to the Beach, and Smoking, whereas females reported Tanning more

187 frequently than males in the last 24 hours. Interestingly, there were no significant behavioral gender differences in regard to behaviors such as Drinking, Being Crazy, Doing Drugs, Getting Drunk, and Partying. A visual comparison of the mean self- reported SB behaviors between males and females can be found in Figure 4.4.

It should be noted that while males reported higher behavioral frequency than females in all SB behaviors measured with the exception of Tanning and Sleeping, both genders reported higher behavioral frequency for the most stereotypical SB behaviors, such as Socializing, Drinking, Being Crazy, and Partying.

188

Table 4.4 - Self-reported Spring Break behaviors – Overall

Females Males Behaviors* N M SE SD Rank N M SE SD Rank WALKING ON THE BEACH 49 2.61 0.19 1.32 11 61 3.31 0.21 1.61 8 EATING 49 3.14 0.24 1.68 5 61 3.39 0.20 1.56 7 DANCING 48 2.96 0.27 1.86 7 61 3.02 0.22 1.70 10 HAVING SEX 49 1.43 0.09 0.61 17 61 1.84 0.15 1.19 16 GOING TO THE BEACH 49 2.78 0.19 1.33 8 61 3.49 0.20 1.58 6 SWIMMING 48 1.67 0.15 1.04 15 61 2.05 0.15 1.18 14 CRUISING THE STRIP 49 2.71 0.24 1.70 10 61 3.25 0.22 1.70 9 GOING TO CLUBS 49 1.98 0.16 1.09 14 61 2.33 0.16 1.26 13 TANNING 49 2.76 0.22 1.52 9 61 1.97 0.16 1.21 15 SLEEPING 49 2.53 0.21 1.50 12 61 2.52 0.18 1.39 12 FLASHING BOOBS 49 1.31 0.12 0.82 19 60 1.68 0.21 1.62 17 SOCIALIZING 49 4.18 0.27 1.86 1 61 4.52 0.21 1.63 1 DRINKING 49 3.63 0.28 1.94 4 61 4.28 0.25 1.92 3 BEING CRAZY 48 3.83 0.28 1.91 2 61 4.03 0.23 1.83 4 FIGHTING 49 1.45 0.17 1.17 16 61 1.49 0.13 0.98 19 SMOKING 49 2.16 0.25 1.72 13 61 2.90 0.26 2.04 11 DOING DRUGS 49 1.35 0.15 1.03 18 61 1.64 0.17 1.37 18 GETTING DRUNK 49 3.14 0.27 1.90 6 61 3.77 0.26 1.99 5 THROWING UP 49 1.18 0.06 0.44 20 61 1.46 0.14 1.06 20 PARTYING 49 3.71 0.26 1.84 3 61 4.36 0.23 1.81 2 * "Please rate how many times you did the following things in the last 24 hours" (1 - Never; 2 - 1-2 times; 3 - 3-4 times; 4 - 5-6 times; 5 - 7-8 times; 6 - More than 8 times)

189

Figure 4.4 – Male and female average self-reported Spring Break behaviors - Overall

> 8 times

7-8 times

5-6 times

3-4 times

1-2 times

Never

Males Females

Self-reported beach behaviors. Descriptive statistics for male and female self- reported SB beach behaviors can be found in Table 4.5.

One factor MANOVA procedures revealed statistically significant differences between males and females only in regard to a small number of SB beach behaviors (4 out of 20, or 20%). MANOVA results were significant according to Wilk‘s Lambda (Λ = .66, F(20, 84) = 2.14, p < .01) and Pillai‘s Trace (Ρ = .34, F(20, 84) = 2.14, p < .01). Namely, male and female spring breakers reported significant behavioral differences in the last 24 hours preceding questioning only in regard to Flirting (p = .01), Playing Football (p < .01), Drinking Beer (p < .01), and Participating in Corporate Contests (p = .02).

190

Table 4.5 - Self-reported Spring Break behaviors - Beach Only

Females Males Behaviors* N M SE SD Rank N M SE SD Rank USING CELLPHONE 45 3.00 0.26 1.73 5 69 3.13 0.22 1.85 7 PLAYING FRISBEE 45 1.42 0.14 0.94 17 69 1.70 0.11 0.94 18 TANNING 42 2.74 0.27 1.74 7 69 2.77 0.22 1.86 10 WALKING 45 3.73 0.24 1.59 2 68 4.03 0.19 1.56 3 PLAYING BEERPONG 45 1.87 0.24 1.62 10 69 2.07 0.19 1.57 16 RENTING JETSKIS 45 1.16 0.06 0.42 19 69 1.22 0.08 0.66 20 BEERBONGING 45 1.80 0.22 1.46 11 69 2.17 0.17 1.43 13 HANGING OUT 45 4.04 0.24 1.61 1 69 4.33 0.19 1.61 1 FLIRTING 45 3.33 0.30 2.03 4 69 4.29 0.22 1.82 2 PLAYING VOLLEYBALL 45 1.62 0.16 1.07 14 69 2.14 0.18 1.48 14 RUNNING 45 1.71 0.18 1.22 12 69 2.09 0.17 1.43 15 TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS 45 3.51 0.26 1.77 3 69 3.38 0.23 1.90 5 PLAYING FOOTBALL 43 1.67 0.19 1.23 13 67 3.10 0.21 1.70 8 SMOKING 43 1.58 0.18 1.20 15 67 2.33 0.23 1.90 12 DRINKING LIQUOR 44 2.64 0.28 1.86 8 67 3.06 0.23 1.90 9 DRINKING BEER 44 2.77 0.29 1.92 6 67 3.88 0.22 1.84 4 DIGGING BEER PITS 43 1.14 0.06 0.41 20 67 2.46 0.47 3.86 11 PLAYING SPORTS 44 2.05 0.18 1.22 9 67 3.37 0.20 1.63 6 RENTING BEACH CHAIRS 44 1.32 0.14 0.93 18 67 1.40 0.12 0.99 19 PARTICIPATING IN 44 1.43 0.11 0.73 16 67 2.00 0.18 1.51 17 CORPORATE CONTESTS * "Please rate how many times you did the following things in the last 24 hours" (1 - Never; 2 - 1-2 times; 3 - 3-4 times; 4 - 5-6 times; 5 - 7-8 times; 6 - More than 8 times)

191

A visual comparison of the average self-reported SB behaviors between males and females can be found in Figure 5.

Figure 4.5 – Male and female average self-reported Spring Break behaviors – Beach Only

> 8 times

7-8 times

5-6 times

3-4 times

1-2 times

Never

Males Females

We can see that males reported higher behavioral frequency than females in all SB beach behaviors measured with the exception of Taking Photographs. Both genders reported relatively high behavioral frequency for stereotypical (Flirting, Drinking Liquor, Drinking Beer) and non-stereotypical (Walking, Hanging Out, Taking Photographs) SB behaviors.

Objectively measured beach behaviors. Behavioral counts for objectively recorded SB beach behaviors can be found in Table 4.6. A visual display of daily behavioral counts for the same behaviors can be found in Figure 4.6. With the exception of alcohol consumption (Drinking Beer and Drinking Liquor), the most popular SB beach activities

192 consisted of non-stereotypical SB behaviors (e.g., Walking, Hanging Out, Tanning, Renting Beach Chairs).

Table 4.6 - Objectively recorded Spring Break behaviors - Beach Only

Behaviors Fi1 fi2 Rank USING CELLPHONE 129 16.06 10 PLAYING FRISBEE 66 8.25 14 TANNING 437 54.63 5 WALKING 5053 631.56 1 PLAYING BEERPONG 48 6.02 17 RENTING JETSKIS 48 5.94 18 BEERBONGING 66 8.25 15 HANGING OUT 2129 266.06 2 FLIRTING 153 19.13 8 PLAYING VOLLEYBALL 67 8.31 13 RUNNING 40 4.94 19 TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS 142 17.75 9 PLAYING FOOTBALL 160 19.94 7 SMOKING 32 3.94 20 DRINKING LIQUOR 568 71.00 4 DRINKING BEER 1136 141.94 3 DIGGING BEER PITS 51 6.42 16 PLAYING SPORTS 119 14.81 11 RENTING BEACH CHAIRS 222 27.75 6 PARTICIPATING IN CORPORATE CONTESTS 75 9.31 12 1 Fi = total behavioral counts 2 fi = daily behavioral counts = Fi / # days of observation

It is also interesting to note the frequency disparity between some behaviors and others, with activities such as Walking, Hanging Out, Drinking Beer, Drinking Liquor, and Tanning clearly outpacing all others in popularity (Figure 4.6). Again, it should be noted that most SB beach behaviors are not mutually exclusive: for instance, a spring breaker may simultaneously drink beer, flirt, and play beerpong; or she may walk along the beach and drink beer/liquor (an extremely popular activity – see pp.106-121, this volume).

193

Other activities are more difficult, or even impossible, to accomplish simultaneously, such as renting a jet ski and beerbonging, or smoking and running.

Figure 4.6 – Daily behavioral counts of Spring Break behaviors – Beach Only

700.00 631.56 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 266.06

200.00 141.94

54.63 71.00 100.00 27.75 16.06 8.25 6.02 5.94 8.25 19.13 8.31 4.94 17.75 19.94 3.94 6.42 14.81 9.31 0.00

Self-reported cultural consonance. Bivariate correlations (Pearson‘s r) between the rank values of the culturally correct behavioral responses (Table 4.3) and self-reported overall SB behaviors (Table 4.4) revealed high correlations between culture and self- reported overall SB behavior for both males (r(18)= .82, p(two-tailed) < 0.01) and females (r(18)= .78, p(two-tailed) < 0.01). Relevant behavioral rank comparisons for both males and females can be found in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 shows that only three behaviors possessed the same cultural and behavioral importance for spring breakers: Tanning and Doing Drugs for males and Sleeping for females. Nonetheless, a number of other behaviors were very closed ranked (difference=1) in both cultural and behavioral importance: Eating, Dancing, Drinking,

194

Being Crazy, Fighting, Getting Drunk, Throwing Up, and Partying for males; and Having Sex, Swimming, Tanning, Socializing, Doing Drugs, and Partying for females. A smaller number of other behaviors revealed greater cultural-behavioral differences (difference>5): Having Sex, Going to Clubs, Flashing Boobs, and Smoking for males; and Going to the Beach, Going to Clubs, and Being Crazy for females.

Table 4.7 - Male and female rank comparisons for self-reported cultural consonance (Spring Break behaviors - overall)

Males Females Behaviors Rank1 Rank2 change3 Rank1 Rank2 change3 WALKING ON THE BEACH 12 8 4 7 11 4 EATING 8 7 1 3 5 2 DANCING 11 10 1 5 7 2 HAVING SEX 9 16 7 16 17 1 GOING TO THE BEACH 2 6 4 1 8 7 SWIMMING 16 14 2 14 15 1 CRUISING THE STRIP 13 9 4 13 10 3 GOING TO CLUBS 7 13 6 6 14 8 TANNING 15 15 0 10 9 1 SLEEPING 14 12 2 12 12 0 FLASHING BOOBS 10 17 7 15 19 4 SOCIALIZING 3 1 2 2 1 1 DRINKING 4 3 1 8 4 4 BEING CRAZY 5 4 1 9 2 7 FIGHTING 20 19 1 20 16 4 SMOKING 17 11 6 17 13 4 DOING DRUGS 18 18 0 19 18 1 GETTING DRUNK 6 5 1 11 6 5 THROWING UP 19 20 1 18 20 2 PARTYING 1 2 1 4 3 1 total change - - 52 - - 62 1 Rank based on mean consensus data (behaviors) 2 Rank based on self-reported behavioral data (overall) 3 Absolute values

195

Bivariate correlations (Pearson‘s r) between the rank values of the culturally correct behavioral responses (Table 4.3) and self-reported beach only SB behaviors (Table 4.6) revealed a moderate correlation between culture and self-reported behavior when testing for correlation across all 20 behaviors for females (r(18)= .40, p(two-tailed) = 0.08) but no significant correlation was observed for males. To allow for a greater number of correlations to be calculated, non-corresponding behavioral ranks were replaced with the mean rank (11) derived from the values on Table 4.6, given that fewer overall SB behaviors found their correspondence on the beach.

There was, however, an extremely high correlation between culture and self-reported behavior when testing for correlation exclusively for corresponding behaviors – Tanning, Walking, Smoking, Drinking (Liquor), and Drinking (Beer) for females (r(18)= .93, p(two-tailed) = 0.02). Again, no significant correlation was observed for males when testing for the same behaviors. Relevant behavioral rank comparisons for both males and females can be found in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 - Male and female rank comparisons for self-reported cultural consonance (Spring Break behaviors - beach only)

Males Females Behaviors Rank1 Rank2 change3 Rank1 Rank2 change3 USING CELLPHONE - 7 - - 5 - PLAYING FRISBEE - 18 - - 17 - TANNING 15 10 5 10 7 3 WALKING 12 3 9 7 2 5 PLAYING BEERPONG - 16 - - 10 - RENTING JETSKIS - 20 - - 19 - BEERBONGING - 13 - - 11 - HANGING OUT - 1 - - 1 - FLIRTING - 2 - - 4 - PLAYING VOLLEYBALL - 14 - - 14 - RUNNING - 15 - - 12 - TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS - 5 - - 3 - PLAYING FOOTBALL - 8 - - 13 - SMOKING 17 12 5 17 15 2

196

4 DRINKING LIQUOR 4 9 5 8 8 0 4 DRINKING BEER 4 4 0 8 6 2 DIGGING BEER PITS - 11 - - 20 - PLAYING SPORTS - 6 - - 9 - RENTING BEACH CHAIRS - 19 - - 18 - PARTICIPATING IN - 17 - - 16 - CORPORATE CONTESTS total change - - 24 - - 12 1 Rank based on mean consensus data (behaviors) 2 Rank based on self-reported behavioral data (beach only) 3 Absolute values 4 Equivalent to "Drinking" in cultural consensus model (behaviors)

Objectively measured cultural consonance. Bivariate correlations (Pearson‘s r) between the rank values of the culturally correct behavioral responses (Table 4.3) and objectively measured beach only SB behaviors (Table 4.5) revealed a moderately high correlation between culture and self-reported behavior when testing for correlation across all 20 behaviors (non-corresponding behavioral ranks were replaced with the mean rank, i.e., 10.5) for females (r(18)= .66, p(two-tailed) < 0.01) and a more modest correlation for males (r(18)= .40, p(two-tailed) = 0.09).

There was, however, an extremely high correlation between culture and self-reported behavior when testing for correlation exclusively for corresponding behaviors – Tanning, Walking, Smoking, Drinking (Liquor), and Drinking (Beer) for females (r(18)= .99, p(two-tailed) < 0.01). No significant correlation was observed for males when testing for the same behaviors. Relevant behavioral rank comparisons for both males and females can be found in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 - Male and female rank comparisons for objectively measured cultural consonance (Spring Break behaviors - beach only)

Males Females Behaviors Rank1 Rank2 change3 Rank1 Rank2 change3 USING CELLPHONE - 10 - - 10 -

197

PLAYING FRISBEE - 14 - - 14 - TANNING 15 5 5 10 5 3 WALKING 12 1 9 7 1 5 PLAYING BEERPONG - 17 - - 17 - RENTING JETSKIS - 18 - - 18 - BEERBONGING - 15 - - 15 - HANGING OUT - 2 - - 2 - FLIRTING - 8 - - 8 - PLAYING VOLLEYBALL - 13 - - 13 - RUNNING - 19 - - 19 - TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS - 9 - - 9 - PLAYING FOOTBALL - 7 - - 7 - SMOKING 17 20 5 17 20 2 4 DRINKING LIQUOR 4 4 5 8 4 0 4 DRINKING BEER 4 3 0 8 3 2 DIGGING BEER PITS - 16 - - 16 - PLAYING SPORTS - 11 - - 11 - RENTING BEACH CHAIRS - 6 - - 6 - PARTICIPATING IN - 12 - - 12 - CORPORATE CONTESTS total change - - 24 - - 12 1 Rank based on mean consensus data (behaviors) 2 Rank based on objectively measured behavioral data (beach only) 3 Absolute values 4 Equivalent to "Drinking" in cultural consensus model (behaviors)

Finally, bivariate correlations (Pearson‘s r) between the rank values of self-reported beach only SB behaviors (Table 6) and objectively measured beach only SB behaviors (Table 5) revealed similar moderately high correlations between self-reported and objectively measured SB behavior for males (r(18)= .65, p(two-tailed) < 0.01) and females (r(18)= .64, p(two-tailed) < 0.01). Relevant behavioral rank comparisons for both males and females can be found in Table 4.10.

198

Table 4.10 - Male and female rank comparisons between self-reported and objectively measured Spring Break behaviors (beach only)

Males Females Behaviors Rank1 Rank2 change3 Rank1 Rank2 change3 USING CELLPHONE 7 10 3 5 10 5 PLAYING FRISBEE 18 14 4 17 14 3 TANNING 10 5 5 7 5 2 WALKING 3 1 2 2 1 1 PLAYING BEERPONG 16 17 1 10 17 7 RENTING JETSKIS 20 18 2 19 18 1 BEERBONGING 13 15 2 11 15 4 HANGING OUT 1 2 1 1 2 1 FLIRTING 2 8 6 4 8 4 PLAYING VOLLEYBALL 14 13 1 14 13 1 RUNNING 15 19 4 12 19 7 TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS 5 9 4 3 9 6 PLAYING FOOTBALL 8 7 1 13 7 6 SMOKING 12 20 8 15 20 5 DRINKING LIQUOR 9 4 5 8 4 4 DRINKING BEER 4 3 1 6 3 3 DIGGING BEER PITS 11 16 5 20 16 4 PLAYING SPORTS 6 11 5 9 11 2 RENTING BEACH CHAIRS 19 6 13 18 6 12 PARTICIPATING IN 17 12 5 16 12 4 CORPORATE CONTESTS total change - - 78 - - 82 1 Rank based on self-reported behavioral data (beach only) 2 Rank based on objectively measured behavioral data (beach only) 3 Absolute values

Summary of Results

H1: Cultural consensus among spring breakers in PCB is significant; i.e., a SB culture in PCB exists

Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported by the results of this study. While there was no overall cultural consensus for both SB beliefs and SB behaviors, results showed moderate

199 consensus among males (ratio of 1st to 2nd eigenvalue = 3.28) and females (ratio of 1st to 2nd eigenvalue = 3.78) in regard to SB beliefs; and marginal consensus among males (ratio of 1st to 2nd eigenvalue = 3.05) and strong consensus among females (ratio of 1st to 2nd eigenvalue = 4.17) in regard to SB behaviors.

These results point towards within-gender agreement in regard to both SB cultural beliefs (i.e., what spring breakers think SB in PCB is about) and culturally prescribed SB behaviors (i.e., what spring breakers think other spring breakers do during SB in PCB), but in all likelihood males and females disagree with what they consider to be typical SB beliefs and behaviors, that is to say, they do not share the same cultural model(s). Furthermore, females appear to be more culturally knowledgeable than males in regard to SB behaviors.

H2: Cultural consonance based on self-reported behavioral accounts of SB is higher than cultural consonance based on objective records of behavior of SB

Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the results of this study. While overall self-reported cultural consonance scores were high for both males (r = .82) and females (r =.78), beach only self-reported cultural consonance was lower than beach only objectively measured cultural consonance. Females exhibited higher degrees of cultural consonance than males in regard to both self-reported and objectively measured beach only SB behaviors. Table 4.11 displays the cultural consonance values obtained in this study.

Table 4.11 - Male and female SB cultural consonance scores (Pearson's r)

overall SB beach only SB beach only SB behaviors behaviors1 behaviors2 Males Females Males Females Males Females self -reported cultural 0.82 0.78 ** 0.40 ** 0.93 consonance objectively measured * * 0.40 0.66 ** 0.99 cultural consonance 1 all behaviors (n=20); 2 corresponding behaviors only (n=5); * not calculated; ** not significant

200

Discussion

Taking Cultural Consensus and Cultural Consonance Further

The development and subsequent refinements and applications of the CCM represented a momentous step forward in the scientific study of culture. As Weller (2007: 339) points out, the CCM is not only a litmus test of culture, but it also measures the amount of cultural knowledge (i.e., cultural competency) each individual possesses about his or her culture: ―cultural consensus theory estimates the culturally correct answers to a series of questions(…)and simultaneously estimates each respondent‘s knowledge or degree of sharing of the answers.‖ Thus the CCM provides not only a scientific measure of identifying and measuring culture(s), but also the degree to which individuals are cognizant of cultural beliefs.

The development of the CCoM was extraordinary because it provided a means to answer the decades-old question in the social sciences of whether or not culture influences behavior (Mills 1940; for a recent discussion, see Brown 2008: 139-252). Furthermore, the application of the CCoM helped systematize many of the CCM procedures when comparing culture and behavior (Dressler et al. 2005; for details, see Dressler 2001, 2002, 2003), thus developing a scientific measure of the relationship between these two variables – cultural consonance (Dressler et al. 1996).

This study expanded the CCM by applying it not only to cultural beliefs (SB beliefs) but also to culturally prescribed behaviors (SB behaviors). The results of this study show that while there was no overall consensus, overall agreement was nonetheless higher in regard to SB behaviors than it was for SB beliefs. Interestingly, in the case of the two sub- samples for which there was cultural consensus (males and females), females reported a greater degree of cultural agreement in regard to SB behaviors than they did in regard to SB beliefs, whereas males reported the opposite (Table 4.12).

201

Table 4.12 - Male and female SB cultural consensus values*

1 1 1 Overall Mc Males M Females M c c Beliefs 1.76** 0.57 3.28 0.64 3.78 0.65 Behaviors 2.80** 0.61 3.05 0.61 4.17 0.70 * ratio of 1st to 2nd eigenvalue;** no consensus; 1 mean competence

These results point towards greater understanding of SB culture and culturally prescribed SB behaviors by female spring breakers, which is consonant with SB ethnographic evidence (see pp.____, this volume), and also with previous studies that have looked at women‘s participation in carnival-type leisure phenomena, such as the Cajun Mardi Gras (Sawin 2001, Ware 2007). Females not only understand the ―rules of the game‖ better than males, but are also more acutely aware of the social consequences of engaging in certain types of behavior, which leads to greater intra-gender agreement among females as to which behaviors are permitted and which ones are forbidden, even in licentious leisure settings (Cresswell 1994, Galt 1973).

The cultural consensus analyses presented in this article also validated the work that has been devoted by some researchers into investigating the second and third factors in the CCM (e.g., Gatewood 2009, Gatewood and Cameron 2010). It was this pioneering work that allowed for the correct identification and subsequent analysis of two distinct SB cultures in the present study (males and females). As more researchers use the CCM in their research, particularly outside the strict purviews of small-scale ethnographic fieldwork, the CCM will be applied to increasingly large samples, and it is likely that, similarly to what occurred in this study, not one, but several cultures and/or sub-cultures will emerge from the data demanding the researcher‘s attention. Therefore, analysis of the second and third factors in the CCM becomes paramount, and identification of the factor‘s delimiting characteristics beyond the ―usual suspects of gender, age, and socioeconomic status‖ (J. Gatewood, personal communication, November 21, 2010) will be all the more relevant.

202

The present research also took the CCoM further by including objective measures of behavior vis-à-vis self-reported behavior, allowing for the calculation of both self- reported cultural consonance and objectively measured cultural consonance. Contrary to what I had hypothesized, objectively measured cultural consonance was higher than self- reported cultural consonance, which seems to indicate that, while participants in this study were not accurate in their self-reports of behavior (males in particular), their actual behavior did reflect culturally prescribed behaviors in a significant manner.

Thus far, the CCoM has been used primarily in the field of medical anthropology (but see Chick 1981), and cultural consonance has only included self-reported measures of behavior. Cultural consonance has been primarily used as a moderating/mediating variable in health-related models, suggesting that higher degrees of cultural consonance are more likely to be associated with positive health outcomes (Dressler et al., 1998, 2000, 2005, 2007, 2007a, Jackson 2009; see also Reyes-Garcia et al. 2010 2010a). For instance, in his seminal study of hypertension among African-Americans (Dressler and Bindon 2000; see also Dressler 1998), Dressler and Bindon discovered a significant relationship between lifestyle, social support (kin relationships), and cultural consonance that affected arterial blood pressure, which they used as a proxy variable for health outcomes. Because the relationship between arterial blood pressure and cultural consonance was not linear, being affected differently by lifestyle and social support, they concluded that different cultural models exert distinct influences over the individual, thus leading to different dimensions of cultural consonance (2000: 255-256).

The present study supported Dressler and Bindon‘s (2000) assertion that different cultural models lead to different dimensions of cultural consonance; it refines it by suggesting that a) separate cultural models should be identified for cultural beliefs and for culturally prescribed behaviors; and b) that cultural consonance be calculated based on self-reported and objectively measured behavior.

Additionally, this study presents a novel method for calculating cultural consonance. Whereas Dressler and colleagues calculated individual cultural consonance scores (one for each member of the culture(s) under study), in the present research I calculated

203 aggregate cultural consonance scores – one for each culturally prescribed/observed behavior – which in turn were derived from the correlation between their respective cultural importance (i.e., cultural rank) and self-reported and objectively measured frequency (i.e., behavioral rank). This method was borne out of necessity, due to the transitory nature of the phenomenon under study (SB) and the need to use repeated, different samples of the same population. Because SB lasts but for a few weeks out of the year and spring breakers are quite understandably unable or unwilling to spend much of their time participating in non-remunerated anthropological research, I was forced to conduct a ―quick ethnography‖ (Handwerker 2001) of sorts. I was thus unable to use a select group of key informants from which to extract cultural consensus data (usually by running the gambit of free listing, pile sorts, in-depth interviews, and rank-order questionnaires – see DeMunck 2009 for a recent discussion of these procedures). Instead, I chose to abbreviate the process by eliciting cultural beliefs and culturally prescribed behaviors via free listing and ethological methods on a larger scale; these data then allowed me to construct highly reliable cultural consonance questionnaires which were used to determine cultural consonance values.

While the methods used in this study to calculate cultural consonance should by no means obviate existing ones, they nonetheless represent an alternative (and perhaps simpler) way of investigating the correspondence between culture and behavior when dealing with transitory cultural phenomena. Furthermore, by emphasizing the construction of aggregate measures of cultural consonance instead of individual ones, the methods described herein also avoid the inelegant solution of assuming an equal distribution of cultural knowledge across the sampled population when dealing with missing data (Dressler et al. 2005), which at least in this study was proven to be impractical (see Tables 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11).

Spring Break: A Case of Cultural Dissonance?

The results presented in this article illustrate a curious disconnect between culture and behavior, which I had discussed elsewhere and labeled ―cultural dissonance.‖

204

In my earlier research (Ribeiro 2008), conducted on the campus of a large Mid-Atlantic U.S. university, I analyzed the cultural perceptions of SB of a convenience sample of college students (n=14) via free listing and in-depth interviews and contrasted it with the participants‘ self-reported behavioral intentions and descriptive accounts of SB behavior. I found that although there was remarkable consensus in regard to SB itself (i.e., a period of self-professed hedonism), measured both before and after SB, participants‘ accounts of their own SB experiences stood, with few exceptions, in stark contrast with their own cultural perceptions.

Based on these earlier findings, and following Dressler‘s definition of cultural consonance (1996), I defined cultural dissonance as ―the extent to which individuals deviate in their own beliefs and behaviors from cultural prescriptions and proscriptions for said beliefs and behaviors‖ (Ribeiro and Chick 2009). I proposed that the reason why it occurred was the widespread influence of the mass media in creating an ‗artificial‘ hedonistic SB culture (id.). I further hypothesized that, while spring breakers‘ cultural perceptions of SB were undoubtedly influenced/created by the corporate media‘s portrayal of SB, spring breakers‘ actual behavior, with few exceptions, did not correspond to the ―Spring Bacchanal‖ (Marsh 2006) image of SB‘s normative behavior because spring breakers had no desire and/or opportunity to behave in such extreme manners (Ribeiro 2008).

In the present study – and it pays to bear in mind that the research was conducted in one of the foremost SB hotspots in the U.S. – I did find evidence that the ―fun-in-the-sun‖ SB stereotype was alive and well among spring breakers in PCB. Nevertheless, spring breakers‘ culturally prescribed SB behaviors not only matched the SB stereotype much more closely than SB cultural beliefs, but there was a greater degree of consensus among spring breakers in regard to what spring breakers do in PCB than in regard to what people think SB in PCB is about. Furthermore, objectively measured behavior followed cultural prescriptions (i.e., normative behaviors) more closely than self-reported behavior, particularly among female spring breakers. There was a disconnect between culturally held beliefs and culturally prescribed behaviors, as there was a disconnect between self- reported and objectively measured behavior; there was also dissonance (particularly for

205 male spring breakers) between culturally prescribed SB behaviors and self-reported SB behaviors. In summary, it appears that these results validate the strand of anthropological theory known as cultural materialism famously championed by Marvin Harris (e.g., 1964, 2001). Ultimately, it matters little what people tell you they do; it is what they actually do that matters, as behavior more accurately reflects cultural patterns (Harris 1968, 2001). As Harris (1975) himself put it in a famous eponymous article: ―perfect knowledge of the rules one must know in order to act like a native cannot lead to a knowledge of how natives act.‖ Or, more succinctly, ―actions speak louder than words‖ (Gatewood 1985).

These results also add another layer of complexity to my earlier findings concerning SB culture and behavior and contribute to the extant SB literature in a number of ways.

Results revealed not a single SB culture, but two, sharply divided among gender lines. This was true for both cultural SB beliefs and culturally prescribed SB behavior, which challenges my earlier findings that pointed towards shared cultural beliefs and behavior among male and female spring breakers (Ribeiro 2008, Ribeiro and Yarnal 2008). Nonetheless, these findings lend support to earlier SB studies that showed inter-gender differences in regard to SB behavioral intentions, attitudes, and motivations (Josiam et al. 1998, Maticka-Tyndale et al. 1998, Ribeiro and Yarnal 2006). This study also highlighted the differences between male and female knowledge of SB: female spring breakers were not only more knowledgeable concerning SB culture (beliefs and behavior), but they tended to more closely approximate cultural beliefs in their behavior than males.

Furthermore, whereas previous SB studies did not report significant differences between male and female (self-reported) behavior in regard to sexual activity and alcohol consumption (Apostolopoulos et al. 2002, Josiam et al. 1998; Maticka-Tyndale and Herold, 1997, Mattila et al. 2001), this study did find significant gender differences in regard to sexual activity (males reporting higher frequency then females), as it did in regard to other overall behaviors such as walking to and on the beach, tanning, and smoking. Conversely, no significant gender differences were found in relation to alcohol consumption, with both genders reporting extremely high frequencies.

206

Lastly, these results also reveal the fallibility of self-reported behavioral measures. The findings presented in this article seriously question the validity of existing SB survey- based research that requested spring breakers to estimate the frequency of their SB behaviors for a period longer than the previous 24-48 hours. Based on the findings of this study, as well as ethnographic data (see pp. 26-105, this volume), I doubt that any SB recall data beyond the aforementioned time frame can be regarded as anything other than educated guesswork, particularly when conducted in ―typical‖ SB destinations, where alcohol consumption is not only daily but constant (see pp. 106-121, this volume).

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to contrast culture and behavior within the context of a specific leisure phenomenon – Spring Break. By analyzing and contrasting self-reported accounts and objective records of SB behavior with cultural SB beliefs and culturally prescribed SB behaviors, the present research makes a significant contribution to the comparative study of culture and behavior. Findings from this study validated and extended the use of the CCM and CCoM by including objective behavioral measures acquired through ethological methods.

Thus far, the few comparative studies of culture and behavior that included objective measures of behavior (e.g., Chick 1989, Edelman 2009) have relied on the serendipitous availability of external behavioral records (e.g., church records, credit card data) to establish comparisons between culture, culturally prescribed beliefs and behaviors, and self-reported and objective behavior. The present research added to these pioneering studies by the use of human ethology methods, allowing for the simultaneous collection of cultural, self-reported, and objective behavioral data.

Furthermore, the novelty of the research design and research methods employed has significant potential to mitigate the prevailing issue of informant inaccuracy in the social sciences. By contrasting self-reported and objectively recorded data for the same behaviors, this study also contributed to the literature that has looked at the validity of self-reported data (e.g., Bernard et al. 1984, Freeman and Romney 1987, Freeman et al.

207

1987), particularly in regard to the leisure behavior of young people that involves participation in risky leisure activities (e.g., Brener, Billy and Grady 2003).

208

References

Apostolopoulos,Y., Sönmez, S. & Yu, C. (2002). HIV-risk behaviours of American spring break vacationers: A case of situational desinhibition? International Journal of STD and AIDS, 13(11), 733-743.

Bai, B., Hu, C., Elsworth, J., & Countryman, C. (2004). Online travel planning and college students: The spring break experience. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(2/3), 79-97.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley.

Bales, R. F. (2001). Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Press.

Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berges, I., Dallo, F., DiNuzzo, A., Lackan, N., Weller, S. (2006). Social support: A cultural model. Human Organization, 65(4), 420-429.

Bernard, H. R. & Gravlee, C. C. (2005, April). Educara SURVEY 2.0: Software for collecting cognitive software on the web. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, D. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495-517.

Borgatti, S. P. (1994). Cultural domain analysis. Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 9, 261-278.

Borgatti, S. P. (1996). ANTHROPAC 4.0 [computer software]. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., and Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis [computer software]. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2008). Culture matters: Inferences from comparative behavioral experiments and evolutionary models. . In M. J. Brown (Ed.), Explaining culture scientifically (pp. 211-228). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

209

Brewer, D. D., Garrett, S. B, & Rinaldi, G. (2002). Free-listed items are effective cues for eliciting additional items in semantic domains. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 343–358.

Brown, M. J. (Ed.) (2008). Explaining culture scientifically. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Burton, M. L. & Nerlove, S. B. (1976). Balanced design for triad tests: Two examples from English. Social Science Research, 5, 247-267.

Caulkins, D. & Hyatt, S. B. (1999). Using consensus analysis to measure cultural diversity in organizations and social movements. Field Methods 11(1), 5-26.

Chavez, L. R., Hubbell, F. A., Mullin, J. M., Martinez, R. G., & Misha, S. I. (1995). Understanding knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer. Archives of Family Medicine, 4(2), 145-152.

Chick, G. E. (1981). Concept and behavior in a Tlaxcalan cargo hierarchy. Ethnology, 20(3), 217-228.

Chick, G. E. (1989). Expressive and instrumental components of participation in a Tlaxcalan cargo system. In R. Bolton (Ed.), The content of culture: Constants and variants – Studies in honor of John M. Roberts (pp. 441-454). New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.

Chick, G. E. (1996). Leisure. In D. Levinson and M. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (vol. 2, pp. 701-705). New York: Henry Holt.

Chick, G. E. (2000). Writing culture reliably: The analysis of high-concordance codes. Ethnology, 39(4), 365-393.

Chick, G. E. (2002). Cultural and behavioral consonance in a Tlaxcalan festival system. Field Methods, 14(1), 26-45.

Cloak, F. T. (1975). Is a cultural ethology possible? Human Ecology, 3(3), 161-182.

Cresswell, T. (1994). Putting women in their place: The carnival at Greenham Common. Antipode, 26(1), 35-58.

D‘Andrade, R. G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Sciences, 5(3), 179- 195.

D‘Andrade, R. G. (1987). Modal responses and cultural expertise. American Behaviorist, 31(2), 194-202.

210

D‘Andrade, R. G. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

D‘Andrade, R. G. (2004). The search for simplicity: A. K. Romney and building models from systematic data. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(3), 220-235.

Da Matta, R. (1991). Carnival, rogues, and heroes. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

De Munck, V. (2009). Research design and methods for studying cultures. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

Dressler, W. W. & Bindon, J. R. (2000). The health consequences of cultural consonance. American Anthropologist, 102(2), 244-260.

Dressler, W. W. (1998). Culture, socioeconomic status and physical and mental health in Brazil. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 12(4), 424-446.

Dressler, W. W. (2001). Culture and individual adaptation: Research Report I. Report to the National Science Foundation (BCS-0090193), William W. Dressler, PI. Available at http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/dressler/Dressler%20Research%20Report%20I. pdf.

Dressler, W. W. (2002). Culture and individual adaptation: Research Report II. Report to the National Science Foundation (BCS-0090193), William W. Dressler, PI. Available at http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/dressler/Dressler%20Research%20Report%20II .pdf.

Dressler, W. W. (2003). Culture and individual adaptation: Research Report III. Report to the National Science Foundation (BCS-0090193), William W. Dressler, PI. Available at http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/dressler/Dressler%20Research%20Report%20II I.pdf.

Dressler, W. W., Balieiro, M. C., Ribeiro, R. P., & Dos Santos, J. E. (2007). A prospective study of cultural consonance and depressive symptoms in urban Brazil. Social Science and Medicine, 65(10), 2058-2069.

Dressler, W. W., Balieiro, M. C., Ribeiro, R. P., & Dos Santos, J. E. (2007a). Cultural consonance and psychological distress: Examining the associations in multiple cultural domains. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 31, 194-224.

Dressler, W. W., Bindon, J. R., & Neggers, Y. R. (1998). Culture, socioeconomic status, and coronary heart disease risk factors in an African American community. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21(6), 527-544.

211

Dressler, W. W., Dos Santos, J. E., & Balieiro, M. C. (1996). Studying diversity and sharing in culture: An example of lifestyle in Brazil. Journal of Anthropological Research, 52(4), 331-354.

Durham, W. H. (2008). When culture affects behavior: A new look at Kuru. In M. J. Brown (Ed.), Explaining culture scientifically (pp. 139-161). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Edelman, B. (2009). Red light states: Who buys online adult entertainment? Journal of Economic Perspective, 23(1), 209-220.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., and Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Freeman, L. C. & Romney, A. K. (1987). Words, deeds, and social structure: A preliminary study of the reliability of informants. Human Organization, 46(4), 330-334.

Freeman, L. C., Romney, A. K., & Freeman, S. C. (1987). Cognitive structure and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 89(2), 310-325.

Galt, A. H. (1973). Carnival on the Island of Pantelleria: Ritualized Community Solidarity in an Atomistic Society. Ethnology, 12(3), 325-339.

Garro, L. (2000). Remembering what one knows and the construction of the past: A comparison of cultural consensus theory and cultural schema theory. Ethnos, 28(3), 275-319.

Gatewood, J. B. & Cameron, C. M. (2010, November). Consensus analysis and subcultural variation: Examining the second consensus factor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting American Anthropological Association, New Orleans: LA.

Gatewood, J. B. (2009, February). Two methodological issues concerning consensus analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Cross Cultural Research, Las Vegas, NV.

Gatewood, J. B. and Lowe, J. W. (2009, November). Perspectival diversity and consensus analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Gatewood, J. B. (1985). Actions speak louder than words. In J. W. Dougherty (Ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology, (pp. 199-219). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

212

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gianoulis, T. (2000). Spring break. In S. Pendergast & T. Pendergast (Eds.), St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture (Vol. 4, pp. 488-490). Detroit, MI: St. James Press.

Goodenough, W. H. (1967). Right and wrong in human evolution. Zygon, 2(1), 59-76.

Gotschi, E., Delve, R., & Freyer, B. (2009). Participatory photography as a qualitative approach to obtain insights into farmer groups. Field Methods, 21(3), 290-308.

Grekin, E. R., Sher, K. J., & Krull, J. L. (2007). College spring break and alcohol use: Effects of spring break activity. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 681-688.

Grimes, R. L. (2000). Deeply into the bone: Re-inventing rites of passage. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Handwerker, W. P. (2001). Quick ethnography: A guide to rapid multi-method research. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Handwerker, W. P. (2002). The construct validity of cultures: Cultural diversity, culture theory, and a method for ethnography. American Anthropologist, 104(1), 106-122.

Harrington, B. (2002). Obtrusiveness as strategy in ethnographic research. Qualitative Sociology, 25(1), 49-61.

Harris, M. (1968). The rise of anthropological theory. New York: Thomas Howell.

Harris, M. (1964). The nature of cultural things. New York: Random House.

Harris, M. (1975). Why a perfect knowledge of all the rules that one must know in order to act like a native cannot lead to a knowledge of how natives act. Journal of Anthropological Research, 30(4), 242-251.

Henrich, J. (2000). Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the Mchiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 973-979.

Highton, B. (2005). Self-reported versus proxy-reported voter turnout in the current population survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 113-123.

Hollis, T. (2004). Florida‟s miracle strip: From redneck riviera to emerald coast. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississipi.

Ice, G. H. (2004). Technological advances in observational data collection: The advantages and limitations of computer-assisted data collection. Field Methods, 16(3), 352-375.

213

Jackson, M. A. (2009). Cultural models, pregnancy, and stress: Examining intracultural variation in Jalisco, Mexico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama. Available at http://acumen.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000168/u0015_0000001_0000 168.pdf

Josiam, B., Hobson, J., Dietrich, U. & Smeaton, G. (1998). An analysis of the sexual, alcohol and drug related behavioural patterns of students on spring break. Tourism Management, 19(6), 501-513.

Josiam, B., Smeaton, G., & Clements, C. (1999). Involvement: Travel motivation and destination selection. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2), 167-175.

Kingstone, A., Milek, D. & Eastwood, J. D. (2008). Cognitive ethology: A new approach for studying human cognition. British Journal of Psychology, 99(3), 317-340.

Koster, J. M. (2010). Informant rankings via consensus analysis: A reply to Hill and Kintigh. Current Anthropology, 51(2), 257-258.

Koster, J. M., Hogden, J. J., Venegas, M. D., & Copeland, T. J. (2010). Human Nature, 21(3), 219-242.

LeCompte, M. D. and Schensul, J. J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Lee, C., Maggs, J., & Rankin, L. (2006). Spring break trips as a risk factor for heavy alcohol use among first-year college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(6), 911-916.

Maticka-Tyndale, E. & Herold, E. S. (1997). The scripting of sexual behaviour: Canadian university students on spring break in Florida. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6(4), 317-327.

Maticka-Tyndale, E., Herold, E. S. & Mewhinney, D. M. (1998). Casual sex on spring break: Intentions and behaviors of Canadian students. The Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 254-264.

214

Miller, M. L., Kaneko, J., Bartram, P., Marks, J., & Brewer, D. D. (2004). Cultural consensus analysis and environmental anthropology: Yellowfin tuna fishery management in Hawaii. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(3), 289-314.

Mills, C. W. (1940). Methodological consequences of the sociology of knowledge. American Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 316–330.

Moore, R. Brødsgaard, I., Miller, M. L., Mao, T., & Dworkin, S. F. (1997). Moore, Consensus analysis: Reliability, validity, and informant accuracy in use of American and mandarin Chinese pain descriptors. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 295-300.

Porter, K. (2003, May 17). Calmer Panama City Beach, Fla., spring break brought are $160 million. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. P. 1.

Pratt, A. (2002). Modern America and its discontents: The ride-hard, die-hard fantasy of Bike Week. The Journal of American Popular Culture, 1(1), 1-13.

Reyes-Garcia, V., Gravlee, C. C., McDade, T. W., Huanca, T., Leonard, W. R. & Tanner, S. (2010). Cultural consonance and psychological well-being: Estimates using longitudinal data from an Amazonian society. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 34(1), 186-203.

Reyes-Garcia, V., Gravlee, C. C., McDade, T. W., Huanca, T., Leonard, W. R. & Tanner, S. (2010a). Cultural consonance and body morphology: Estimates using longitudinal data from an Amazonian society. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 143(2), 167-174.

Reynolds, C. (2004). Gimme a break! American Demographics, 26(2), 48.

Ribeiro, N. F., Durrenberger, E. P., Yarnal, C. M., & Chick, G. E. (2009, April). “I just wanted to get away” – An analysis of spring breakers‟ travel motivations. Paper

215

presented at the North East Region Recreation (NERR) Symposium, Bolton Landing, NY.

Ribeiro, N. F., Yarnal, C. M., Chick, G. E., & Durrenberger, E. P. (2009, October). “Getting away” - A qualitative inquiry into the Spring Break experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) Leisure Research Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT.

Ribeiro, N. F., Yarnal, C. M., Chick, G. E., & Durrenberger, E. P. (2009a, June). Perceptions of spring break and spring break experiences: A strange dichotomy. Paper presented at the 40th Travel and Tourism Research Association (TTRA) Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI.

Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. New York: Harper Collins.

Roberts, J. M. & Chick, G. E. (1984). Quitting the game: Covert disengagement from Butler County Eight Ball. American Anthropologist, 86(3), 549-567.

Roberts, J. M. & Chick, G. E. (2007). Culture and behavior: Applying log-linear models for transitions between offices in a Mexican festival system. Social Science Research, 36(1), 313-328.

Romney, A. K. (1999). Culture consensus as a statistical model. Current Anthropology, 40, S103-S115.

Romney, A. K., Batchelder, W. H., & Weller, S. C. (1986). Recent applications of cultural consensus. American Behavioral Scientist, 31(2), 163-177.

Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88(2), 313- 338.

Russell, R. (2004). Spring Breaks. In G. Cross (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Recreation and Leisure in America (Vol. 2, pp. 303-305). Detroit, MI: Thomson Gale.

Ryan, G., Nolan, J., & Yoder, P. (2000).Successive free listing: Using multiple free lists to generate explanatory models. Field Methods, 12(2), 83-107.

Sawin, P. (2001). Transparent masks: The ideology and practice of disguise in contemporary Cajun Mardi Gras. Journal of American Folklore, 114(452), 175- 203.

216

Schrauf, R. W. (2009). Intracultural variation in cross-cultural gerontology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 24(2), 115-120.

Schrum, W. & Kilburn, J. (1996). Ritual disrobement at Mardi Gras: Ceremonial exchange and moral order. Social Forces, 75(2), 423-458.

Smeaton, G., Josiam, B. and Dietrich, U. (1998). College students‘ binge drinking at a beach-front destination during spring break. Journal of American College Health, 46(6), 247-254.

Smith, C. S., Morris, M., Hill, W., Francovich, C., McMullin, J., Chavez, L., & Rhoads, C. (2004). Cultural consensus analysis as a tool for clinic improvements. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(5), 514-518.

Smith, J. J. & Borgatti, S. P. (1998). Salience counts – and so does accuracy: Correcting and updating a measure for free-list item salience. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(2), 208-209.

Smith, J. J. (1993). Using Anthropac 3.5 and a spreadsheet to compute a free-list salience index. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 5(3), 1-3.

Sönmez, S., Apostolopoulos, Y., Yu, C., Yang, S., Mattila, A., & Yu, L. (2006). Binge drinking and casual sex on Spring Break. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 895-917.

Spiro, M. E. (1996). Burmese supernaturalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Stedman, R., Beckley, T., Wallace, S., & Ambard, M. (2004). A picture and 1000 words: Using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 580-606.

Sutrop, U. (2001). List task and a cognitive salience index. Field Methods, 13(3), 263- 276.

Swora, M. G. (2003). Using cultural consensus analysis to study sexual risk perception: A report on a pilot study. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 5(4), 339-352.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thompson, E. C. & Juan, Z. (2006). Comparative cultural salience: Measures using free- list data. Field Methods, 18(4), 398-412.

Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20, 410-433.

217

Turner, E. (1996). Feasts and festivals. In D. Levinson and M. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (vol. 2, pp. 484-488). New York: Henry Holt.

Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Turner, V. W. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ Publications.

Turner, V. W. (Ed.). (1982a). Celebration: Studies in festivity and ritual. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

U.S. Census Bureau (2009). American Community Survey, 2005-2009: Panama City Beach, Florida. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/

Ware, C. E. (2007). Cajun women and Mardi Gras: Reading the rules backward. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Webb, C. (2003). For spring breakers, Panama City Beach is new party town (2003, March16). Boston Globe, p. A.12.

Webster, C. M., Iannucci, A. L., & Romney, A. K. (2002). Consensus analysis for the measurement and validation of personality traits. Field Methods, 14(1), 46-64.

Welch, N., Appleford, S., & Wright, E. (2004). Spring broke. New York: Powerhouse Books.

Weller, S. C. & Romney, A. K. (1987). Systematic data collection. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Weller, S. C. (2007). Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods, 19(4), 339-368.

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).

Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., & Smith, G. M. (2007). Analysing ecological data. New York: Springer.

218

APPENDIX A – Spring Break Beach Activities Ethogram

219

Researcher: date: location: time: count #1 count #2 2.0 Beach activities 2.1 Hanging out 2.2 Tanning 2.2.1 Using sunscreen 2.3 Playing sports 2.3.1 Football 2.3.2 Volleyball 2.3.3 Frisbee 2.4 Corporate-sponsored activities 2.4.1 Giveaways 2.4.2 Contests 2.4.3 Sports/games 2.4.4 Recruitment 2.5 Beach/Tailgate games 2.5.1 Beer horseshoes 2.5.2 Beer bonging 2.5.2 Beer pong 2.5.3 Beer sandbags 2.5.4 Beer whiffle ball 2.6 Flirting 2.7 Walking along beach 2.8 Taking photographs 2.9 Using cell phone 2.10 Concession activities 2.11 Lounge chairs 2.12 Jet skis 2.13 Parasailing 2.11 Eating 2.12 Urinating 2.13 Alcohol consumption 2.13.1 Beer 2.13.4 Liquor 2.14 Smoking 2.15 Reading Observations:

220

APPENDIX B – Spring Break Beach Free Listing Questionnaire

221

PLEASE LIST ALL THE THINGS THAT COME TO MIND

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SPRING BREAK IN PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA

PLEASE LIST ALL THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE DO DURING

SPRING BREAK IN PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA

GENDER ______AGE ____ YEAR IN SCHOOL (freshman, sophomore) ______

222

APPENDIX C – Spring Break Cultural Consensus Questionnaire (Spring Break Beliefs)

223

PLEASE RATE HOW IMPORTANT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING WORDS IS FOR SPRING BREAKERS IN PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA

DRUNK

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

SUN

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

BEER

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

BOOBS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

FUN

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

TANNING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

SLEEP

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

224

CLUBS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

ALCOHOL

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

DRUGS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

MUSIC

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

BOYS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

DANCING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

CRAZY

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

225

BEACH

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

THE STRIP

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

GIRLS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

SEX

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

PARTY

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

FRIENDS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

GENDER ______AGE ____ YEAR IN SCHOOL (freshman, sophomore) ______

THANK YOU

226

APPENDIX D – Spring Break Cultural Consensus Questionnaire (Spring Break Behaviors)

227

PLEASE RATE HOW IMPORTANT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING BEHAVIORS IS FOR SPRING BREAKERS IN PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA

WALKING ON THE BEACH

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

EATING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

DANCING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

HAVING SEX

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

GOING TO THE BEACH

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

SWIMMING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

CRUISING THE STRIP

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

228

GOING TO CLUBS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

TANNING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

SLEEPING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

FLASHING BOOBS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

SOCIALIZING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

DRINKING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

BEING CRAZY

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

229

FIGHTING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

SMOKING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

DOING DRUGS

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

GETTING DRUNK

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

THROWING UP

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

PARTYING

Not Important Somewhat Extremely Unimportant Important Very Important At All Important Important

GENDER ______AGE ____ YEAR IN SCHOOL (freshman, sophomore) ______

THANK YOU

230

APPENDIX E – Spring Break Cultural Consonance Questionnaire (Overall Behaviors)

231

PLEASE RATE HOW MANY TIMES YOU DID THE FOLLOWING THINGS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS

WALKING ON THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

EATING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

DANCING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

HAVING SEX

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

GOING TO THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

SWIMMING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

CRUISING THE STRIP

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

232

GOING TO CLUBS

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

TANNING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

SLEEPING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

FLASHING BOOBS

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

SOCIALIZING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

DRINKING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

BEING CRAZY

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

233

FIGHTING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

SMOKING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

DOING DRUGS

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

GETTING DRUNK

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

THROWING UP

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

PARTYING

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

GENDER ______AGE ____ YEAR IN SCHOOL (freshman, sophomore) ______

THANK YOU

234

APPENDIX F – Spring Break Cultural Consonance Questionnaire (Beach Behaviors)

235

PLEASE RATE HOW MANY TIMES YOU DID THE FOLLOWING THINGS IN THE LAST 24 HOURS

USING A CELL PHONE ON THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

PLAYING FRISBEE ON THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

TANNING ON THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

WALKING ON THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

PLAYING BEER PONG ON THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

RENTING JET SKIS ON THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

BEER BONGING ON THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

236

HANGING OUT AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

FLIRTING AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

PLAYING VOLLEYBALL AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

RUNNING AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

PLAYING FOOTBALL AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

SMOKING AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

237

DRINKING BOOZE (NOT BEER) AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

DRINKING BEER AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

DIGGING A BEER PIT AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

PLAYING SPORTS AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

RENTING LOUNGE CHAIRS AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

PLAYING IN CORPORATE-SPONSORED CONTESTS AT THE BEACH

More than 8 Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times times

GENDER ______AGE ____ YEAR IN SCHOOL (freshman, sophomore) ______

THANK YOU

238

APPENDIX G – Spring Break Ethogram Daily Data Collection Sample

234

Sunday March 14, 2010

Site BA#21 Site BA#33 Site BA#22 Site BA#26 Site BA#20 Site BA#27 Behaviors R1 R2 M R1 R2 M R1 R2 M R1 R2 M R1 R2 M R1 R2 M 2.1 Hanging out 26 35 30.5 50 34 42 47 20 33.5 10 6 8 150 144 147 36 22 29 2.2 Tanning 28 0 14 12 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2.1 Using sunscreen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 Playing sports 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3.1 Football 6 0 3 9 5 7 10 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 5 2.3.2 Volleyball 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 9 0 0 0 2.3.3 Frisbee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3.4 Running 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3.5 Other sports 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 Corporate-sponsored 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 activities 2.4.1 Giveaways 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4.2 Contests 38 48 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4.3 Sports/games 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 10 5 0 0 0 2.4.4 Recruitment 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4.5 Product demonstrations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4.6 Concerts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 20 0 0 0 2.5 Beach/Tailgate games 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5.1 Beer horseshoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5.2 Beer bonging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 19 14 4 5 4.5 2.5.2 Beer pong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 5.5 2.5.3 Beer sandbags 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5.4 Beer whiffle ball 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5.5 Burying in the sand 1 4 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

235

2.5.6 Sand constructions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5.6.1 Beer pits 21 0 10.5 0 0 0 5 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 6.5 2.5.6.2 Sand castles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 Flirting 0 8 4 5 3 4 8 0 4 0 0 0 65 12 38.5 0 0 0 2.7 Walking along beach 235 217 226 132 136 134 341 348 344.5 158 194 176 579 415 497 248 259 253.5 2.8 Taking photographs 8 0 4 4 0 2 8 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 5 37 14 25.5 2.9 Using cell phone 5 0 2.5 2 3 2.5 3 1 2 5 4 4.5 21 0 10.5 3 1 2 2.10 Concession activities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.10.1 Lounge chairs 17 12 14.5 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 2 1 2.10.2 Jet skis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.10.3 Parasailing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.11 Eating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.12 Urinating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.13 Alcohol consumption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.13.1 Beer 75 79 77 44 39 41.5 65 48 56.5 25 19 22 199 60 129.5 46 38 42 2.13.2 Cocktail/mixed drinks 40 69 54.5 14 12 13 39 32 35.5 7 6 6.5 60 10 35 19 19 19 2.13.4 Liquor 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.14 Smoking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.15 Reading 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

People count_beginning 328 330 329 87 72 79.5 46 34 40 2 2 2 376 367 371.5 56 62 59 People count_end 170 172 171 93 82 87.5 63 42 52.5 7 7 7 290 236 263 48 57 52.5 average 249 251 250 90 77 83.5 54.5 38 46.25 4.5 4.5 4.5 333 301.5 317.25 52 59.5 55.75

236

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Every anthropologist (…) concerned with culture realizes that cultural situations make more sense, reveal more meaning, in proportion as we know more of their cultural antecedents, or, generically, more total cultural context. In other words, cultural forms or patterns gain in intelligibility as they are set in relation to other cultural patterns.

A. L. Kroeber and C. Kluckhohn (1952: 188)

The primary objective of this research was to contrast culture and behavior within the context of a particular leisure activity – Spring Break (SB) – in a popular SB destination in the U.S., Panama City Beach, Florida (PCB). My main goal was to contribute to solving a riddle that has been intriguing social scientists for more than fifty years: whether or not there is a correspondence between culture taken as a cognitive construct (i.e., the amount of knowledge needed in order to function in a given environment – Goodenough 1967) and culturally mandated behavior (i.e., cultural prescriptions) and, more importantly, how to go about measuring such correspondence (or lack thereof). Another objective was to find out if there was a difference between self-reported behavior (what people tell you they do) and objectively measured behavior (what you observe people do), in regard to culturally prescribed behaviors within the SB context.

The findings of the present research did not support a univocal correspondence between SB culture and SB behaviors. First, there was not one SB culture, but two: one for males and one for females, which lead to interesting findings. Females were not only more consensual among themselves in regard to cultural beliefs and culturally prescribed behaviors (i.e., there was a greater degree of cultural consensus among female spring breakers than there was among males), but they were also more ‗culturally intelligent,‘

237 meaning they possessed, in general, a greater level of knowledge concerning SB culture than males. Second, cultural consonance (i.e., the degree to which culture is matched by individual behavior – Dressler and Bindon 2000), which I hypothesized would be higher based on self-reported behaviors than objectively recorded behavior, was in fact higher for objectively recorded behavior. Again, this was particularly true for females, although both sexes revealed a greater degree of agreement between culture and actual behavior than between culture and self-reported behavior. Third, while the present research did indeed partially support the notion of a ‗Spring Bacchanal‖ (Marsh 2006), it also showed that the SB experience is infinitely more complex than the sand, sea, sun, suds, and sex stereotype propagated by the media. This was evidenced, for instance, in the importance spring breakers attributed to (and that I was able to confirm via observation) a number of behaviors that one does not ordinarily associate with the SB stereotype, such as walking and participating in corporate contests. Fourth, the local system in which SB in PCB was a part of, and the global processes that affected it, made any thought of simple explanatory models impossible to entertain. In general, the findings of the four studies that compose this dissertation present a far messier and complex picture of SB than previous research has put forth.

The findings of the present research were difficult to come to terms with. There were no linear relationships between variables; there were no clear patterns of action-reaction within closely bound systems of exchange; some findings made sense in light of previous literature and others did not. As I was analyzing the data, I felt I was making a very difficult puzzle (those with upwards of 10,000 pieces) and that, each time I managed to fit one piece somewhere, the total number of pieces increased, often exponentially. Other times I had to remove a piece from where I had placed it because it didn‘t quite fit, and often that meant that whole sections of the puzzle had to be re-arranged. But perhaps that is what is at the heart of anthropology (Agar 2004, Durrenberger 1991) – the desire to keep on trying to figure out very complex and messy systems, knowing full well they will never be completely understood, and tell a good tale while doing it (Richardson 1975).

238

In regard to SB as an anthropological phenomenon in itself, while I feel I know more about it after the conclusion of the present research, I have to admit truthfully that I understand it less.

Nonetheless, murky as they may be, the findings from the four studies that constitute this dissertation lead to new avenues of research that scholars with an interest in culture and behavior and/or SB might find fruitful to pursue. First, it might be advantageous for scholars with an interest in the cultural consensus and cultural consonance models to refine the calculation of cultural consonance beyond a simple correlation between cultural beliefs and behavior. Moreover, the parallel development of normalized and reliable instruments of both individual and aggregate measures of cultural consonance would be most useful.

Second, anthropologists might want to revisit leisure as a fertile ground in which to engage in the comparative study of culture and behavior. After promising beginnings in the late 1970s and a peak of research in the 1980s (e.g., Chase and Godbey 1983, Chick 1981 1989, Just 1980, Roberts and Chick 1979 1984), leisure as an arena worthy of anthropological inquiry has largely been ignored. The four studies presented in this volume are proof that a great deal can be learned from what people do and purport to do during their leisure and, what is more, that such insights are relevant, both theoretically and methodologically, to a variety of anthropological avenues of research, most notably issues of power and control over individual forms of expression (Rojek 2000).

Lastly, I hope this study will serve as a reminder of the necessity of allowing the research problems to dictate the solutions and not the other way around. As Agar (2004) reminds us, to define a priori methods and methodologies of data collection and analysis when conducting scholarly research is to forego all hope of ever being able to understand nonlinear, dynamic, and complex systems – i.e., the world we live in. Predilection, expertise, or fashion should not dictate which methods are employed in scientific inquiry. After all, as Russ Bernard (1993) is fond of saying, ―Methods belong to all of us.‖

239

References

Agar, M. (2004). We have met the other and we‘re all nonlinear: Ethnography as a nonlinear dynamic system. Complexity, 10(2), 16-24.

Bernard, H. R. (1993). Methods belong to all of us. In R. Borofsky (Ed.), Assessing anthropology (pp. 168-178). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chase, D. R. & Godbey, G. C. (1983). Accuracy of self-reported participation rates: Research notes. Leisure Studies, 2(2), 231-235.

Chick, G. E. (1981). Concept and behavior in a Tlaxcalan cargo hierarchy. Ethnology, 20(3), 217-228.

Dressler, W. W. & Bindon, J. R. (2000). The health consequences of cultural consonance. American Anthropologist, 102(2), 244-260.

Goodenough, W. H. (1967). Right and wrong in human evolution. Zygon, 2(1), 59-76.

Goodenough, W. H. (1967a). Componential analysis. Science, 156, 1203-1209.

Just, P. (1980). Time and leisure in the elaboration of culture. Journal of Anthropological Research, 36(1), 105-115.

Kroeber, A. L. & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American archaeology and Ethnology, 43(1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Richardson, M. (1975). Anthropologist: The myth teller. American Ethnologist, 2(3), 517-533.

Roberts, J. M. & Chick, G. E. (1984). Quitting the game: Covert disengagement from Butler County Eight Ball. American Anthropologist, 86(3), 549-567.

Rojek, C. (2000). Leisure and culture. New York: St. Martin‘s Press.

Curriculum Vitae Nuno F. Ribeiro

E-mail: [email protected] Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/nunofribeirowebsite/

Nuno F. Ribeiro‘s research interests are primarily related to the anthropology of tourism and leisure, and focus especially on the comparative study of culture and behavior within out-of-the-ordinary leisure and tourism phenomena. He is also interested in tourism planning and development, owing to his formal background in tourism economics. He has conducted fieldwork in Central Portugal, Southeastern Pennsylvania, and the Florida Panhandle. Nuno holds degrees from Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias in Lisbon, Portugal (B.S. Planning and Development of Tourism – 2004), and the Pennsylvania State University in University Park, U.S.A. (M.S. Recreation, Park and Tourism Management – 2008; Ph.D. Recreation, Park and Tourism Management; Minor: Anthropology – 2011). He has been awarded several research grants, including a substantial and prestigious doctoral grant from the Portuguese Foundation For Science and Technology, keeps an active research agenda, and has presented in numerous scholarly conferences and symposia.

Nuno currently lives in Regina, Saskatchewan, with his wife and two cats.