The most well known theory of culture shock is “Doxey’s Irritation Index”. According to Doxey’s theory, when there is no touristic activity in the region, hosts are curious and interested in tourists; they are welcome, delighted and excited about tourists’ presence. Furthermore, it is a general phenomenon that more people move in and out of tourism sectors. Moreover, when the number of tourists increases, they are taken for granted and contact between tourists and hosts becomes more formal and locals.The theory become indifferent towards tourists; they do not know whether to welcome tourists or not. When the number of tourists reaches to a maximum level, tourism development reaches the saturation stage and the rate of tourism growth is expected to be even higher, hosts become concerned over price rises, crime, and tourist rudeness, and cultural rules being broken and eventually irritated by tourists’ presence; tourists are perceived as an annoyance. When tourists are blamed for all wrongdoings in the host society, and are seen as lacking human values, hosts become hostile towards them.Hosts start to believe tourists can be exploited. Eventually, hosts call for actions which would offset the negative impacts of tourism development. Stages of Doxey’s Irriation Index: Euphoria (exploration & involvement)| Visitors are welcome and there is little planning| Apathy (Development)| Visitors are taken for granted and contact becomes more formal| Annoyance/ Irritation (Consolidation)| Saturation is approached and the local people have misgivings. Planners who attempt to control through increasing infrastructure rather than limiting growth| Antagonism (stagnation etc. | Open expression of irritation and planning isremedial yet promotion is increased to offset thedeteriorating reputation of the resort| Limitations of Doxey’s Irriation Index: The limitations of Doxey’s model are its measurement based on only a macro view and the residents’ attitudes towards tourism development point out and steadily developed to negative prospects only. However, Doxey’s theory is considered that destinations may not be able to grow without justification. The model proposes that local residents become negative towards tourists hen the visitor numbers rise over time, however; tourist arrival numbers will not continually grow at the same rate over time and they may decline as well. Although Doxey’s categories are very useful and have proven valuable in understanding the range of perceptions exhibited within a community. There are differences among attitudes based on different resident typologies depending on many factors such as socio-economic factors. Albert Cohen was a student of Talcott Parsons and wrote a Ph. D. under his inspiration. Parsons and Cohen continued to correspond also after Cohen left Harvard.Cohen wrote about delinquent gangs and suggested in his theoretical discussion how such gangs attempted to “replace” society’s common norms and values with their own sub-cultures. He proposed two basic ideologies, the first of which is called status frustration. Status frustration is directed mainly to the young people of lower classes. There is no parallel between their own social realities and the rest of society’s promoted goals. They become frustrated at the disadvantages and inequalities that they face, and this leads to Cohen’s second principle; reaction formation.Reaction formation is the reaction from status frustration, and the young men of the lower classes find themselves replacing their society’s norms and values with alternative ones. I. e. instead of working hard being the common goal for respect, it may become a delinquent act like who commits the most vandalism to gain the respect. This provides the group with a sense of values and status which they cannot receive from the larger society. It is a process which allows the members of the groups to adapt to their own exclusion from society.Unlike Merton’s strain theory, Cohen holds the view that the reaction to status frustration is a collective response rather than an individual one. This theory accounts for the increasing rates of non-utilitarian crime (vandalism, loitering and joyriding) in western societies. Although actions such as these do not provide monetary gain to the perpetrator, they come to hold value to members of the sub-culture. As such, becoming accessible means of achieving status and prestige among the individual’s peer group.