Cross-Cultural Perceptual Differences in the Symbolic Meanings of Chinese Architectural Heritage

Abstract

Architectural heritage, as a highly symbolized medium of cultural expression, plays a vital role in transmitting collective memory and shaping intercultural tourism experiences. Yet, how visitors from diverse cultural backgrounds perceive and emotionally respond to Chinese architectural symbols remains insufficiently understood. This study addresses this gap by integrating architectural semiotics with cross-cultural psychology to examine perceptual differences across three visitor groups—Mainland China and Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan (C), East and Southeast Asia (A), and Europe/North America (UA)—at eleven representative Chinese heritage sites. Drawing on 235 in-depth interviews and 1500 online reviews, a mixed-methods design was employed, combining semantic network analysis, grounded theory coding, and affective clustering. The findings reveal that memory structures and cultural contexts shape symbolic perception, that cultural dimensions and affective orientations drive divergent emotional responses, and that interpretive pathways of architectural symbols vary systematically across groups. Specifically, Group C emphasizes collective memory and identity, and Group A engages through structural analogies and regional resonance, while Group UA favors aesthetic form and immersive experiences. These insights inform culturally adaptive strategies for heritage presentation, including memory-anchored curation, comparative cross-regional interpretation, and immersive digital storytelling. By advancing a micro-level model of “architectural symbol–perceptual theme–emotional response–perceptual mechanism,” this research not only enriches theoretical debates on cross-cultural heritage perception but also offers practical guidance for inclusive and resonant heritage interpretation in a global tourism context.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.