Building and Testing Theories of Decision Making by Travellers

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832 www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
Building and testing theories of decision making by travellers

Ercan Sirakayaa,, Arch G. Woodsideb
a
Department of Recreation, Texas A & M University, Parks and Tourism Sciences, 256A Francis Hall, College Station, TX 77843 2261, USA b Boston College, USA Received 17 April 2003; accepted 25 May 2004
Abstract How does the tourism literature model major recreational travel decisions? What inuences do the grand models in consumer research have on tourist destination choice models? This article provides building-block propositions for creating useful theories of decision making by travelers via a qualitative review of the tourist decision-making literature. The grand models of decision-making in consumer research inform the propositions advanced. The article describes trends in developing traveler destination choice models. Along with examining decision-making propositions from the literature, the article covers important issues in need of resolution for making advances in understanding, describing, and predicting tourist decision-making. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Consumer behavior theory; Tourism behavior; Decision-making models; Behavioral and choice-sets models
1. Introduction Scholars from a variety of social science disciplines focus on how individuals go about making decisions. The utility of this work is evident in the eld of marketing, in which a substantial body of decisionmaking literature builds from since the 1950s. A systematic and in-depth understanding of buying processes is the main goal of pioneering models of consumer behavior (see Howard, 1994; Runyon, 1980). Nicosia (1966), Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1968), Howard and Sheth (1969) and Gilbert (1991) provide the earliest and most inuential models, the grand models, of consumer behavior. These models explain decisions relating to tangible, manufactured, products. Although not designed to explain service purchase decisions, the grand models were used by tourism scholars as a starting point for explaining the process used to purchase tourism services. The tourism literature
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-979-862-8819; fax: +1-979-8450446. E-mail address: esirakay@rpts.tamu.edu (E. Sirakaya).
now offers substantial conceptual and empirical works to describe tourists destination choice processes by empirically probing the following issues. What are the travelers psychological processes during judgment or choice tasks (i.e., motivation studies)? Which choices are made among the alternatives considered and what cues are more important on the judgment or on the choice of a specic destination? In general, this literature reports that tourists follow a funnel-like procedure of narrowing down choices among alternate destinations. Decision-making can be broken down into a series of well-dened stages: (a) recognition that there is a decision to be made, (b) formulation of goals and objectives, (c) generation of an alternative set of objects from which to choose, (d) search for information about the properties of the alternatives under consideration, (e) ultimate judgment or choice among many alternatives, (f) acting upon the decision, and (g) providing feedback for the next decision (Carroll & Johnson, 1990; Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1986; Huber, 1980). Evidently, this decision-making process is inuenced by both psychological or internal variables, for example,
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.05.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
816 E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832
attitudes, motivation, beliefs and intentions, and nonpsychological or external variables (e.g., time, pull factors and marketing mix). Given the centrality of the selection decision process to tourists behavior, a clear understanding of the complexities and interrelationships of these variables is an important research agenda. This article reviews and integrates the main conceptual and empirical work that has been reported in the tourism literature. This integration helps to identify strengths, limitations, and knowledge gaps in the literature. Consequently, the review develops a set of research propositions to help guide future research. The goal is to increase sense making of tourism decisionmaking by offering theory-based propositions to guide research. The aim of the paper is not to compulsively annotate the past, but rather to summarize the elds collective understanding of decision processes of potential tourists using a critical review of the literature. Throughout the article, tourism service is used as a generic, umbrella term embracing both the intangible (service) and tangible aspects (goods) of a destination. A major task in all areas of science is the development of theory.... Scientists have known for centuries that a single study will not resolve a major issue. Indeed, a small sample study will not even resolve a minor issue. Thus, the foundation of science is the culmination of knowledge from the results of many studies (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982, p. 10). Meta-analysis is a quantitative method for combining ndings (e.g., estimating the average and variance of an effect size for a given hypothesis tested across several independent studies, see Woodside & Dubelaar (2003) for a meta-analysis related to tourism science) in order to draw conclusions about the overall association among variables (Rosenthal, 1987; Doucouliagos, 1995). According to Hunter and Schmidt (1990), one of its major benets is that it facilitates the digestion of a large volume of empirical literature on a given subject by condensing numerous studies into one study. Therefore, it is easier to refer to, for example, Woodside and Lysonski (1989), than to refer to a long list of studies, reporting different models, hypotheses, propositions and results. The approach used in this study broadens the meta concept for the purpose of synthesizing and advancing theory; an approach that we label, metatheory, that is, creating a set of associated propositions based on prior contribution to theory, with the metatheory enriching understanding and identifying previously unreported nuances in the discipline. Thus, the following discussion does not include a true metaanalysis across studies but serves to identify areas for future meta-analysis undertakings as well as new empirical studies that examine the proposed theoretical advances.
2. Advancing consumer decision-making in tourism behavior Consumer decision-making research has grown exponentially during the past three decades. Theories such as the expected utility theory (von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947), prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1972), regret theory (Bell, 1982); satisfying theory (Simon, 1956); The theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and its derivative theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1987) have been developed and tested in a variety of contexts. The range of contexts (e.g., well-dened to ill-dened choice situations) within which these decision-making theories are used is too broad to specically deal within a single manuscript. A particular theory is likely to explain a specic aspect of an individuals decision in a given context. Multiple decision theories when used together are likely to explain a wider range of decision behavior across an expanded range of contexts. So far, however, no single unifying theory has emerged across disciplines to describe, explain, or predict consumer decisions, and it seems unlikely that individual decision processes t neatly into a single decision theory. Abelson and Levi (1985) categorize decision-making literature on three continua: structure versus process orientation, risk free versus risky choice models, and normative versus descriptive models. Abelson and Levi suggest that risk-free decisions involve preferences, whereas risky decisions include probabilities. A continuum of choice environments exists that ranges from well-dened to ill-dened choice situations. Well-dened choice situations include both risky and risk-free decisions, while ill-dened choice situations generally involve risky decisions because of the uncertainty of the outcome. A majority of tourism decisions may be illdened choice situations where outcomes have unknown probabilities, because of the intangible and experiential nature of tourism. Normative and descriptive decision models differ in their conceptualizations of what a decision maker does, and there is sometimes a tendency to explain, how individuals should choose (normative models) versus how individuals choose (descriptive models) (Abelson & Levi, 1985, p. 232). A key difference between normative and descriptive models revolves around whether tourists are looking for optimum decisions or simply accepting a satisfying solution for a wide array of reasons. Most human decisions are not perfectly rational, because they are inuenced by a multitude of factors, which may constraint or motivate them to act irrationally (Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 1998). Decision biases occur often in the decision process. Such biases occur, in part, due to the use of heuristics or rules of thumb which are shortcuts used to simplify decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1971, 1973, 1974; Kahneman, 1973;
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832 817
Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). In general, tourism models view decision-makers as functional (or utilitarian) people (Homo-Economicus), although some acknowledge the role of constraints on tourism decisions (for example, Um & Crompton, 1990; Woodside & Lysonski, 1989). Type of involvement and level of decision-making are the two variables widely used to explain differences in consumers decision processes. Purchase involvement is the level of concern for or interest in the purchase process, triggered by the need to consider a particular purchase, and involvement is inuenced by the interaction of individual, product and situational characteristics (Hawkins, Best, & Coney, 1995, p. 425). Purchase involvement relates to the type of decision-making. Extensive problem solving is associated with high involvement purchases, whereas habitual decision-making is associated with low involvement purchases (Hawkins et al., 1995). Limited decision-making process is a level between habitual and extensive decisionmaking, where the decision process is not as complex and highly involved as extensive decision-making, yet not as simple as habitual decision-making. Most tourism service purchases are considered to be high-involvement, extensive decision-making purchases, because of the relatively high costs, both monetary and non-monetary, involved in these decisions. For example, planning a pleasure trip to another country involves a relatively high perceived risk of making a bad decision, investing a signicant amount of time searching for information, and a considerable monetary outlay. However, low involvement is likely when decision-makers have prior experience about the service (Teare, 1992). Prior experience leads to a more cursory information search, more condence in the decision choice, and less perceived risk (Woodside, MacDonald, & Trappey, 1997).
(Howard & Sheth, 1969). During information search, alternative evaluation, and selection, and post-purchase evaluation, the consumer unconsciously utilizes a number of psychological processes (i.e. beliefs, motives, attitudes). In the alternative evaluation stage, the consumer may use decision rules to evaluate and choose a nal service offering. If the evaluation is not successful or complete, the decision stays inconclusive and the search restarts from the beginning. After a purchase, the consumer continues evaluating his/her decision, which may provide inputs for future decisions. Representation of the consumer decision process using these principles was a characteristic of the early pioneering models proposed by Howard and Sheth (1969), Nicosia (1966) and Engel et al. (1968). These three models are considered the grand models of consumer behavior, and many tourism models have been based upon them. When reviewing decision-making models, Gilbert (1991) suggests that the grand models share six common points. First, they perceive consumer behavior to be a constant decision-making process. Second, the behavior of the individual consumer is emphasized. Third, behavior is treated as a functional (or utilitarian) concept that can be explained. Fourth, a buyer is viewed as an individual who searches, evaluates, and stores information. Fifth, buyers narrow down the range of information in time, and choose from the alternatives they developed during the decision-making process. Sixth, feedback from the nal purchase is included in the models to emphasize the effect of the decision on future purchases.
4. Foundational travel decision models Our analysis of behavioral approaches in tourist decision-making focuses on frequently cited models utilized in tourism research. An analysis of the foundational models of travel decision-making (Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Mayo & Jarvis, 1981; Middleton, 1994; Moutinho, 1987; Schmoll, 1977; Um & Crompton, 1990; Van Raaij & Francken, 1984; Wahab, Crampon, & Rotheld, 1976; Woodside & Lysonski, 1989) reveals that these models were successful in providing insights into the specic nature of tourism purchase behavior (Gilbert, 1991). These models are common, in that, the travelers decision-making process was approached as a functional decision-making activity that is inuenced by a number of psychological and non-psychological variables. Table 1 displays the key propositions, major contributions, and limitations of these models in the tourism decision-making literature. One of the rst foundational models of travel decision-making is that of Clawson and Knetsch (1966). These two economists proposed a ve-phase
3. Information-processing theory and grand models of consumer decision-making Information-processing theory is central to all consumer behavior models (Bettman et al., 1998; Gabbott & Hogg, 1994). This theory states that the consumer decision-making process involves ve main stages: (1) problem recognition, (2) information search, (3) alternative evaluation and selection, (4) outlet selection and purchase, and (5) post-purchase processes (Hawkins et al., 1995). Consumer behavior theorists believe that psychological mechanisms underline each of these stages. For example, problem recognition essentially represents a discrepancy between a consumers desire and his/her perceived state (Urbany, Dickson, & Wilkie, 1989). In this stage, the inputs for the process are signicant, symbolic and socialenvironmental stimuli
818
Table 1 Evaluation of decision-making models in tourism Authors Wahab, Crompon, Rotheld Year 1976 Key proposition(s) A tourist is a rational decision maker (Homo Economicus) who tries to maximize the utility and, thus, assess costs and benets of his/her actions before committing themselves to a purchase There are unique elements in a tourism product which differentiate them from other products Tourism purchase decisions are risky, require extensive problem solving, advance planning Major contribution(s) Recognition of unique product aspects of tourism Limitation(s) Heavy dependency on grand models in setting up the theory base (Gilbert, 1991)
Integration of psychological and economic theories into one comprehensive model
Mostly focused on individual as the decisionmaking entity neglecting interpersonal, social and family inuences Considers most decisions as perfectly rational
E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832
Inclusion of variables such as needs, motivations, destination image, spontaneity of purchase decision, inuence of risk and uncertainty, inuences family and friend that dene unique aspect of tourism into tourism decision process models
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Schmoll
1977
Tourist is a rational decision maker within his/ her capabilities and limited information Traveler decision processes are affected by four components: travel stimuli, personal and social determinants, exogenous variables Decision process involves several successive steps
Relates theoretical concepts to real world Explicitly species the relationships between various components and shows which factors have inuence on choice decisions Draws attention to the inuence of constraints in travel decisions
The model is not reexive and thus not dynamic. It neglects the outcomes role in inuencing the personality of the consumer for the next decision (missing reexive loop) Lack of parsimony Difcult to operationally dene certain variables
Mayo and Jarvis
1981
Travelers utilize either routine, impulsive or extensive decision-making styles when making choices Decisions are dynamic, are prone to chance according to circumstances Understanding travel decisions requires an analysis of effects of social and psychological factors Traveler decision-making process is a function of four sets of variables (travel opportunities, communication effort, customer goals and intervening variables) Decision-making process can be mapped and traced through successive stages
Travel decisions are a function of social and psychological factors Emphasizes the role of group and family in choice decisions
Based on grand models that traditionally ignore unique characteristics of services Operational denitions used on some variables are very unclear Low predictive ability due to internal conicts between statements Omission of relevant variables (e.g., external stimuli) No formal testable propositions developed
Attention to the role of constraints in travel decisions
Empirical tests are difcult due to operationalization problems
Successfully combines variables which are commonly believed to be the determinants of tourist behavior
Low explanatory and predictive ability
Lack of parsimony Lack of causality and temporal order
Moutinho
1987
Travel decisions are far more affected by external forces, especially social inuences such as role and family inuences, reference groups, social classes, culture and subculture Tourism services are purchased in a sequence and not always as a tour package Destination choice is seen as a compulsory subdecision among other travel related decisions Post-purchase evaluations have an impact on subsequent purchase behaviors
Correctly identies temporal order of variables that affect the purchase behavior
Unclear relationship between travel stimuli and the rest of the model Suffers from lack of parsimony (very complex)
Conceptually sound (well formed) Successfully integrates many theories of consumer behavior literature into tourist decision-making model Includes cognitive distance as an important factor in decision-making The model is reexive and thus very dynamic. It recognizes the outcomes role in inuencing the attitudes set and subsequent behavior of the consumer for the next decision (reexive loop) A behavioral model that successfully integrates theories in various social science disciplines including that of psychology, economics and sociology Recognizes the importance of destination characteristics on image formation and subsequent decision-making process
Does not specically focus on destination choice process The model premises at times are not very clear, especially when he considers destination choice decisions and other travel related decisions Empirical tests are difcult due to operationalization problems
Matieson and Wall
1982
Travel distance is not considered as a cost to tourists as some tourist may enjoy the travel part
Omission of relevant variables such as perception, memory, personality and information processing. Thus, low explanatory and predictive power
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Recognizes unique features of a tourism product
Van Raaij and Francken
1984
Views a tourist as a rational decision-maker who wants to maximize utility Views travel decision-making as a process consisting of various stages such as formation of a need or desire for travel, information search, travel decisions, travel preparations and experience and evaluation of trip Joint decision-making is the central part of tourists decision process Household-related variables plan an important role in vacation decisions
Lack of parsimony (very complex) Difcult to quantify
Involvement and memories plays an important role in destination choice decisions Decision-making is a sequential activity
Attention to joint decision processes and household-related variables Explicit recognition of the interaction of household-related variables (i.e., lifestyle, power structure, role, decision-making style) with individual-related factors (attitude, aspirations, etc.) The importance of post-purchase evaluation on decision-making styles later The model is dynamic in that it recognizes the outcomes role in inuencing the personality of the consumer for the next decision (reexive loop)
Undermining the role of individual decisions Hypothetical associations among decision factors
Lack of specicity of variables Lack of operational denitions of constructs Lack of dynamism of the model in that the consumer does not change his behavioraccording to his/her decision experience
Woodside and Lysonski
1989
Post-purchase evaluations play an important role in subsequent decisions later Destination choice is a result of a categorization process. Awareness of a tourism product will transfer the same from long-term memory to
Parsimony, simple but theoretically sound perspective on tourists decision processes
Limited description and testing of some of the constructs and the relationships in the model (i.e. affective associations).
819
820
Table 1 (Continued) Authors Year Key proposition(s) working memory causing that product to be chosen over other possible products Cognitive and emotional factors mediate the relationship between choice sets and the actual choice Choice is affected by the interaction of intention to visit and situational variables Major contribution(s) Limitation(s)
Ajzen and Driver
1992
Human behavior is the function of intentions and perceived behavioral control over the behavior Intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that inuence the behavior
Integration of various disciplinary knowledge into one comprehensive model of tourist decision-making Addition of variables that were overlooked by previous models (e.g., affective associations, traveler destination preferences, situational variables and their place of impact) Size of the consideration set is small (three to ve destinations). Successful application of the theory of planned behavior leisure situations
Exploratory nature of the study with a relatively small and non-representative sample. Use of cross-sectional survey data
Intentions are formed with the inuence of three conceptually independent determinants: attitude toward behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control, all of which are assumed to interact with each other. Leisure decisions can be considered a part of a general human behavior theory (theory of planned behavior) that involves cognitive as well as affective components.
Improved prediction and understanding of leisure behavior by going beyond the original theory (addition of two constructs): (1) the role of involvement and (1) the role of mood and affect Theoretically sound explanation
Lack of empirical support in actual choice processes. The premise that intentions to perform leisure activities are different than other types of human behavior seems to be a leapfrogged argument without sufcient justications for doing so Originality is low
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A very narrow presentation of leisure activities
The tie between the variables involvement and mood/affect and the constructs in the original theory are not clear A very general explanation of leisure choice behavior A direct application of a human behavior theory rather than a specically designed study that considers leisure choice situations. Measurement problems of the theoretical constructs Sampling problems Accuracy and validity of self-reported leisure activities Untested relationships in the model
Um and Crompton
1990
Attitudes play an important role in destination decision processes Interaction between constraints and image are integral for destination choice decisions
Conceptualization, operationalization and empirical testing of attitudes in real destination choice processes Efciency in the operationalization of the dependent variable (eliminated the need for measuring behavioral intentions) Potential travelers awareness sets and evoked
Lack of attention to emotions and joint decision processes Mostly cognition and individual traveler-based.
sets were identied longitudinally, conrming earlier claims that destination choice sets narrow down over time (funneling effect) Provision of a simplistic but theoretically sound decision process model.
Marginalization of socialization process.
Woodside and MacDonald
1994
Tourist choices are not always rational (utility maximizing) Interactions by the members of the travel party play an important role in decision-making Destination choice is one of many travel related decisions one has to make
Use of a qualitative data to offer insights into decision-making styles of individuals The role of travel party can play in travel decisions Recognizes individual decision-making styles
Measurement problems (lack of comparison of at the abstract level, generation of destination attributes by two seemingly different populations, experts and tourists which may produce noncomparable lists...we dont know what abstraction level is used by actual decisionmakers) The model is not reexive and thus not dynamic. It neglects the outcomes role in inuencing the personality of the consumer for the next decision (missing reexive loop) Lack of tracing the actual decision-process (measuring decisions after such decisions have been already made) Unsubstantiated assumption about the linearity of relationships between perceived inhibitors and facilitators Operationalization of attitudes as the difference between perceived facilitators and perceived inhibitors Heavy reliance on Grand Models Suffers from lack of parsimony (very complex) Mostly focused on individual as the decisionmaking entity The model is not reexive and thus not dynamic. It neglects the outcomes role in inuencing the personality of the consumer for the next decision (missing reexive loop) Difcult to operationally dene certain variables Destination choice is subsumed under many travel-related decisions (i.e., destination and mode of travel)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Sources : Wahab et al. (1976); Schmoll (1977); Mayo and Jarvis (1981); Moutinho (1987); Mathieson and Wall (1982); Van Raaij and Francken (1984); Woodside and Lysonski (1989); Ajzen and Driver (1992); Um and Crompton (1990); Woodside and MacDonald (1994).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
outdoor recreation experience model to delineate vacation experiences and the decisions involved in the process. Their ve-stage travel model involved modeling decision processes of travelers from a macro-perspective starting with the anticipation phase, followed by travel to actual site, on-site experiences and activities, travel back, and concluding with recollection of experiences. Each of the phases in the model begs for an explanation of how an individual reaches the ultimate decision phases such as the site selection decision. Since the authors did not elaborate on how the individual decisions are made at the micro level, a direct comparison of their model with the rest of the modelsthe focus of this papercannot be made. Although its predictive power regarding individual destination choice decisions is limited, at the macro level it has been used successfully to predict aggregate demand to travel sites. This section of the review focuses on choice models instead. Wahab et al. (1976) propose a model that delineated tourists decision-making process based on the realization that tourist behavior is a rational decision activity. In other words, a potential traveler assesses the costs and benets of his/her actions before committing themselves to a purchase. In addition, this model asserts that tourism services have unique characteristics that differentiate them from other products (e.g., intangibility, involve risks). This model is similar to Nicosias model, in that it explicitly recognizes the impact of the seller on tourists decision-making process, yet the emphasis was still on the tourist. According to Wahab, Crampon, and Rothelds model, tourism rms affect tourist(s) behavior, the consumer in turn, affects how rms make marketing-related decisions. The second model worthy of discussions is the model proposed by Van Raaij and Francken (1984). Their vacation-sequence model resembles that of Engel et al. (1968). A distinguishing feature of Van Raaij and Franckens model is its emphasis on the importance of family member inuence on the decision-making process for tourism service purchases. The decision process for the purchase and consumption of a tourism service is composed not only of individual factors but also household-related factors. The interaction of individual household and socio-demographic factors results in the vacation sequence or the decision process. The major premise is that in every sequence of the decision process the behavior and role of different family members might differ. A major contribution of this model is its recognition of the interaction of household-related variables (i.e., life-style, power structure, role, decisionmaking style) with individual-related factors (attitude, aspirations and so on). Past research on family decision behavior in tourism showed the dominance of joint decisions versus husband or wife dominance in the process (Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980; Nichols & Snepen-
ger, 1988). Jenkinss (1978) research suggested that the role of family members differs with respect to the type of decision activity. For example, husbands were found to inuence the timing of the vacation and monetary decisions. Children were inuential in the selection of activities and duration of vacation. Referring to early research on the same subject, Gitelson and Kerstetter (1994) argued that friends and relatives were constantly providing information to the decision-making process, and therefore may play an important part in directly shaping behavior. Thornton, Shaw, and Williams (1997) assess the nature of group decision behavior and the role of children on the travelers decision process. They conclude that children are inuential in directing decisions by their needs and negotiating abilities. In an attempt to assess whether gender has a role in the decision-making process, Zalatan (1998) demonstrates that there were signicant differences between wives and husbands involving different tasks, before and after the trip. For example, before the trip, wives were more inuential on nonnancial decisions while husbands were more dominating on nancial decisions. The third model that drew much attention is the model developed by Woodside and Lysonski (1989). Based on an extensive review of several social science disciplines, the authors proposed a model that presented the decision process of a traveler as a categorization process of destinations from which the preferences, intentions, and the nal choice result. Specically, before forming preferences, a traveler places all destinations familiar to him/her into the rst of a series of four mental sets. Marketing and personal variables inuence this process. Then, from these mental sets, nal preferences emerge through the possible inuence of affective associations (dened as positive or negative feelings associated with a destination). Finally, the choice is a function of intention to visit a destination where situational variables act more as moderators between intentions and the choice. In their study, respondents successfully recalled destinations from long-term memory and placed them into four mental sets. Respondents consideration sets included a surprisingly small set of alternative destinations, usually ranging from 3 to 5 destinations with an average of 4.2 destinations. Positive associations relate more with destinations in the consideration set than those in other sets. Moreover, respondents preference for a destination was found to correlate with its rank order of mentioned destinations. Research results also suggest that past experience did not inuence the categorization of destinations into a consideration set. The hypotheses of the study tested the inuence of marketing variables on destination categorization and the inuence of preference structure on intentions to visit.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
The original Woodside and Lysonskis model (1989) and a recent extension (e.g., Woodside & MacDonald, 1994; Woodside & Dubelaar, 2003; Becken & Gnoth, 2004) are two of the more inuential models in tourism literature. A general systems framework of consumer choice decisions by Woodside and MacDonald (1994; also see Woodside & Dubelaar, 2003; Becken & Gnoth, 2004) emphasizes the interactions between members of a travel party, activities and travel decisions. According to Decrop (1999), the tourism psychology framework by Woodside and MacDonald (1994) is in sharp contrast with the rationality paradigm. One of the key assumptions of the model is that the activation of initial travel choices (due to triggering events) spreads over time to related travel choices (Decrop, 1999, p. 122). Woodside and King (2001) present a general purchase consumption system (PCS) framework, which they describe as useful for mapping travelers choice decisions before and during a trip and evaluating their actual experiences that may inuence future trip choices. PCS is a sequence of mental and observable steps a consumer undertakes to buy and use several related service offerings whereby some of the services purchased lead to a purchase sequence involving further purchases. Woodside and King assert that qualitative research observation and analytical techniques are useful for developing and validating complex and interactive models such as the PCS. Their ndings support the view that travelers decision-making behaviors are based on many variables in relationships that are interactive rather than linear. The studies by Bansal and Eiselt (2004) and Lue, Crompton, and Stewart (1996) support this complementary, multidimensional view of travel planning and behavior. A nal behavioral model included in this discussion is the theory of planned behavior as applied to leisure choice situations (Ajzen & Driver, 1992). Although not every leisure activity is considered a tourism activity, the application of the theory of planned behavior proves to be useful for destination choice situations. The theory of planned behavior is the extension of Fishbein and Ajzens (1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) theory of reasoned action that is widely considered the dominant attitude-behavior model. With the addition of perceived behavioral control in the theory of planned behavior, Ajzen (1987) argues that the predictability of intentions is signicantly improved. This theory asserts that human behavior is the function of intentions and perceived behavioral control over behavior. Attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control interact with each other and inuence intention formation. These three constructs summarize many essential elements contained in most tourism decision models, namely the traveler attitudes, family and friend inuences (subjective norm) and the role of past experience and constraints (perceived behavioral con-
trol). Ajzen and Driver applied this model to predict leisure activity choices and were able to prove the usefulness of this theory in understanding leisure choice behavior by relating tourist intention to actual choice behaviors. In summary, aforementioned foundational models contribute to the formation of a sound base for further inquiries in decision-making. Travel-related decisions involve high risks due to the very nature of tourism services and thus require risk reduction strategies such as extensive information search strategies. So far, the assumptions throughout the models have been that decision-makers exhibit rationalistic behavior in their choices among alternative destinations. They will select a destination, which offers the greatest utility subject to individual or social constraints. The selection process is a funnel-like one, in that travelers narrow down choices among alternatives and are inuenced both by sociopsychological factors and non-psychological. A synthesis of variables used in explaining choice decisions and the formation of choice sets can be categorized into four groups: (1) internal variables (i.e., attitudes, values, lifestyles, images, motivation, beliefs and intentions, personality characteristics of a buyer, lifecycle stage, risk reduction methods, information search behavior); (2) external variables (i.e., constraints, pull factors of a destination, marketing mix, inuences of family and reference groups, culture and subcultures, social class, household-related variables such as life-style, power structure, role, group decision-making style); (3) the nature of the intended trip (party size, distance, time, duration of trip); and (4) trip experiences (mood and feelings during the trip, post-purchase evaluations). The ultimate choice of a destination will depend on the nature of interaction among these variables.
5. Behavioral and choice-set approaches to decisionmaking in tourism Extensive, complex and risky decisions, such as the purchase of a tourism service, occur in stages. While passing through these stages, the decision-maker is inuenced by both functional (or utilitarian) and emotional elements (Mansfeld, 1992). For instance, the exact cost of a tour package might be considered a functional (or utilitarian) element, whereas promotional messages, and family and friend inuences, act as emotional elements. Because of the intangible nature of tourism experiences, probabilities will usually be attached to alternatives under consideration (Mansfeld, 1992; Mathieson & Wall, 1982). Both behavioral and choice-set approaches have been adopted in explaining how this process occurs. Behavioral approaches suggest that tourists are motivated by a number of factors to collect information
ARTICLE IN PRESS
about different alternatives, which may meet their needs. The individual assesses and eliminates these alternatives to reach a nal decision (Mansfeld, 1992). Behavioral models, in general, assume utilitarian decision-makers who can evaluate outside information to which they are exposed, search for additional information to make better decision, create alternatives in their minds and make a nal choice from those alternatives. The main purpose of behavioral models is to identify the decision stages decision-makers pass through and illustrate this process by identifying the inside and outside factors inuencing this process. Choice-set models attempt to illustrate the same process in a different way, while implicitly accepting the main assumptions of the behavioral models. The destination choice model (Crompton, 1992) examines the decision process and suggests that decisions are sequential in nature and are comprised of sets. This model also promotes the use of multiple decision strategies. Choice-set approaches propose that a tourist rst develops an initial set of destinations, widely known as an awareness set, then eliminates some of those destinations to form a smaller late consideration or evoked set and nally selects a destination from the late consideration set (Crompton, 1992, pp. 421422). In other words, a potential traveler generates a series of choice sets with an ever-decreasing number of remaining alternatives in a funnel-like process over time, until a nal choice is determined. Choice-set models possess practical advantages over behavioral models by, for example, allowing destination marketers to identify the market potential, while segmenting the target market based on the choice sets of target population. For example, a destination marketer from a foreign country may want to know what share of the potential tourists in the United States considers it as a possible destination to visit or have placed it in their evoked or reject set. 5.1. Choice sets approaches to tourism decision-making Choice-set models have received substantial attention in tourism decision-making literature because of their practical use for destination marketers. The concept of choice sets was rst introduced by Howard (1963) in consumer behavior literature. Howard and Sheth (1969), Narayana and Markin (1975), Brisoux and Laroche (1981), and Spiggle and Sewall (1987) elaborate the concept. According to the theory, a potential traveler rst develops a set of destinations from his/her early consideration or awareness set. The destinations are chosen from a large number of destination alternatives, comprising of all the destinations available, which is also known as the total set. The number of alternatives is then reduced to shape his/her late consideration or evoked set. Finally, one resort is selected from the evoked set as the nal choice. One criticism that can be
levied against the choice set theory is that they may tend to be deterministic in nature (Ben-Akiva & Bruno, 1995). Howard (1963) introduces the concepts of awareness, unawareness and evoked sets. He suggests that all brands belong either to the consumers awareness set or unawareness set. An awareness set is comprised of all brands, or alternatives, that the buyer may be aware of at any given time, while unawareness set encompasses all the brands that the buyer is unaware. Howard denes the evoked set as the collection of brands the buyer actually considers in his purchase decision process. Howard and Sheth (1969) further rene the evoked set as the brands that the buyer considers acceptable for his next purchase. Narayana and Markin (1975) redene the evoked set and included all brands that may be in the buyers awareness set. Narayana and Markin introduce the concepts of inert and inept sets. An inert set is made up of the brands that the consumer has neither positive nor negative evaluation. The inept set encompasses the brands that the buyer has rejected from his purchase consideration, either because he has had unpleasant experience or because he has received negative feedback from other sources. Spiggle and Sewall (1987) contribute an important extension to the concept of choice sets. They present a model for retail decision-making that built upon and extended the evoked-set concept previously investigated by Narayana and Markin (1975). Spiggle and Sewalls model includes ve new choice sets, which were hypothesized as being the subsets of an evoked set. The new sets include the (1) action set, (2) interaction set, (3) inaction set, (4) quiet set, and (5) reject set. Action set was dened as all stores toward which a consumer takes some actionshe or he goes at least as far as making a visit to the store site (p. 99). The interaction set includes all of the stores in which a consumer allowed himself or herself to be exposed to personal selling. The inaction set comprises of all the stores in evoked set that a consumer does not visit. Quiet set composes stores that consumers visit and leave before interacting with a sales clerk. The reject set is made up of the stores that are originally in the evoked, action, or interaction sets and toward which a consumers evaluation is transformed from positive to negative during purchase deliberation (p. 101). The choice set approach in the destination choice process was initiated as an alternative and more practical perspective to behavioral approaches, which were generally criticized as being too complex and difcult to test empirically. Rather than being strong theoretical exercises, choice-set research seeks to bring to light more applicable results to destination choice behaviors. The work of Woodside and Sherrel (1977) was the rst attempt to conceptualize choice sets for leisure travel. Woodside and Sherrel dene choice sets in a tourism setting and conrm the categorization of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
destinations in potential travelers minds. Arguing their particular usefulness in tourism, they introduce the awareness-available and awareness-unavailable sets instead of a complete awareness set. The available set included the destinations, which the traveler believes he or she has the ability to visit during some period (i.e., a year). Furthermore, they propose that determining the available sets might be more reasonable because of the large number of destinations in the awareness set. Their study, at a South Carolina Welcome Center, indicated that the average number of vacation destinations is 3.4 in evoked sets, 1.4 in inept sets and 0.9 in inert sets of the subjects. Um and Crompton (1990) propose a theoretical framework for the destination choice process using choice-set structure. This approach is simpler and more theoretically and methodologically sound compared to many other approaches in tourism decision research. Um and Cromptons framework asserts that destination selection is a three-stage process including (1) composition of awareness set, (2) evoked set, and (3) nal destination selection, where the latter is a condensed form of the former. The awareness set of destinations in the potential travelers mind is formed through passive information from the outside environment, whereas the evoked set emerges with the active information searching from external sources including past experience, media, family, friends and others. The active choice process starts after an awareness set is developed with the inuence of internal inputs that comprise the sociopsychological set of the traveler (i.e. motives, values, attitudes). At this point, situational constraints play an important role before the traveler creates his/her evoked set. This framework is useful for assessing the role of attitudes in the decision processwhere attitudes are operationalized as the difference between perceived facilitators and inhibitors, measured with 17 instruments on a total of 100 respondents. A difference between facilitators and inhibitors was hypothesized to show a positive attitude toward selected destination(s) in the evoked set. The role of situational constraints was also tested via their consideration as part of the inhibitors. The research was conducted using a longitudinal approach, which measured the magnitude of the differences between perceived facilitators and inhibitors, before and after the actual destination selection. Results of the study suggest that the attitude toward a destination is an important indicator of whether a potential traveler will select a particular destination from the awareness set or not. The study is unique in the sense that it attempted to measure the effectiveness of attitudes in an actual choice situation. Crompton (1992) provides a further analysis of choice sets along with an extensive literature review. Crompton reorganizes the functions of choice sets, reconceptualizes
the awareness-available and -unavailable sets, and adopts some newly proposed sets from the marketing literature, such as action, inaction, and interaction sets into tourism literature. Crompton and Ankomah (1993) provide a series of propositions related to the early consideration set, late consideration set (also known as awareness and evoked sets) and nal decision. To widen the span of choice-set study in tourism, the authors develop testable propositions based on conceptualizations from empirical studies in marketing and management. Early consideration propositions dealt with the size of set and the relationship between the level of awareness and probability of selection of the destinations in the set. Late consideration set propositions questioned the size and the factors that affect the size of the late consideration set. Final propositions focus on decision rules and other factors that inuence the selection of a particular destination over others. Ankomah, Crompton, and Baker (1996) analyze the inuence of cognitive distance on the allocation of vacation destinations in different choice sets. They dene cognitive distance as an individuals mental representation of a physical distance from one point to another, which is inuenced and shaped by internal (memory and beliefs) and external sources (society and culture, destination-related factors). They test the effect of cognitive distance on the assignment process as one of the situational constraints. Their ndings suggest that individuals regard cognitive distance as an important factor in a decision process. In addition, study respondents distance estimates to destinations in the late set were more accurate than those destinations in the reject set. The distance to destinations in the action set was more underestimated than the destinations in the inaction set. According to the evidence from the related literature about behavioral and choice-set approaches, the following summary propositions provide guidance for further advancing tourism theory: Proposition 1: Consumers follow a funnel-like procedure to narrow down choices among alternatives. Choices of destinations are affected by a number of psychological or internal variables (i.e., attitudes, images, motivation, beliefs and intentions, personality characteristics of a buyer) and non-psychological or external variables (i.e., time, pull factors, marketing mix). Proposition 2: Destination choice decisions are sequential in nature and comprise sets. Choice sets decrease in numbers over time until the nal choice is made. Internal and external factors vary in degree of inuence during this reduction stage. Rather than several empirical data analyses, the greatest support for P1 and P2 is based on published theoretical models and frameworks. The meta-theoretical
ARTICLE IN PRESS
view represented by P1 and P2 needs empirical conrmation via meta-analytical reports. 5.2. Characteristics of tourism service offerings and their neglected role in decision-making In the 1980s, four key characteristics distinguish the production, consumption, and evaluation of services from manufactured goods: intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990). First, services are mostly intangible in that they are not physical, objects, rather they are performances or experiences. The implications of this view are that the values offered cannot be communicated easily by the tourism service provider, evaluating a service in terms of its potential to fulll identied needs is difcult for potential travelers. However, according to Crozier and McLean (1997), services may not have to be entirely intangible. Very few pure services exist; most of them can be positioned on an intangible dominant (e.g., travel agency services) or tangible dominant continuum (e.g., restaurant meal) to reect the extent to which the service element is essential to the product. Second, services are heterogeneous; they differ substantially across providers because of human inconsistencies involved in providing the service. This characteristic of service makes it challenging for providers to deliver consistent quality of service. Third, services are inseparable, which means that the purchase and consumption of services occur at the same time. Managing the traveler mix and quality control can pose challenges for the management. Fourth, perishability of services means that services cannot be stored and consumed at a later point in time, so selling the service as soon as it is produced becomes a priority; otherwise revenue is lost (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1985). Tourism services have unique features that often differentiate them from non-tourism services. For example, tourists purchase and consume a service at a different location from where they live (Sirakaya, McLellan, & Uysal, 1996). Consumption of a tourism service, for example, a vacation in the mountains, takes a longer time than the consumption of many other service offerings; tourists often receive no tangible return on their investment except souvenirs and the purchase frequently is not spontaneous but requires preplanning. Moreover, Wahab et al. (1976) note that the perceived risk often is high in tourism purchase decisions, which suggests that tourists will be relatively highly involved in information search in order to reduce uncertainty involved in the purchase. The ultimate choice of a nal destination depends more or less on the quality and quantity of information available to and used by the tourist (Fodness & Murray, 1997, 1998; Gitelson & Perdue, 1987; Raitz & Dakhil, 1989; Snepenger, Meged, Snelling, & Worral, 1990; Snepenger
& Snepenger, 1993; Van Raaij, 1986; Etzel & Wahlers, 1985; Perdue, 1985). Consumer information search strategies can be grouped into three sets (Fodness & Murray, 1998): where, when, and how the search takes place. In decisions related to tangible-dominant services, information search may include pre-purchase trial or observation of others, but intangible-dominantservices such as tourism require different risk-reduction strategies (Guseman, 1981; Crozier & McLean, 1997). These search behaviors include reliance on testimonials, endorsements and personal recommendations (Murray, 1991). Evidence from the service marketing literature indicates that these characteristics of tourism service offerings also necessitate a different, at least an emphasis, shift of decision-making process. For example, information search seems to be more important and different and some stages might be omitted if there is not much information available on the alternatives. While the traditional six-stage decision-making process (recognition, formulation, alternative generation, information search, judgment or choice, action, and feedback) is common to many consumer decision-making models, more recent knowledge about how decisions for purchases of services differ from manufactured goods challenges this traditional approach. View many of the traditional models and their derivatives with some skepticism since none of them are conrmed empirically (Crozier & McLean, 1997). Moreover, the traditional models of consumer behavior as adapted to tourism have not accommodated differences between the purchase of products and services (Cowell, 1991). Barnes (1986) suggests that a four-step decision process was applicable in the context of services: (1) problem recognition, (2) limited personal source search, (3) purchase/consumption, and (4) evaluation of service. Subsequently, Gabbott and Hogg (1994) conceptualized the consumer decision-making process in the context of real-estate services as having three broad steps: information search, comparison of alternatives, and postpurchase evaluation. Both of these models recognize that consumers engage in limited personal source search and put more emphasis on post-purchase evaluation, since they often lack information on price, amount of time needed to secure the service, or even the environment in which the service is delivered is like (Barnes, 1986, p. 42). Because of the unique characteristics of services (e.g., lack of standardization and difculty in quality control), the perceived nancial and emotional risks associate highly with many service decisions. In these high-risk situations, word-of-mouth or personal information sources are more inuential than impersonal media sources in decisions. Unlike product-based decisions where many alternatives may be generated for possible purchase, according to Barnes (1986) and Crozier and McLean (1997), the known alternatives
ARTICLE IN PRESS
for service offerings are fewer. Indeed, in a tourism context, Woodside and Lysonski (1989) identify this set to be a small set of alternative destinations, usually ranging from 3 to 5 destinations with an average of 4.2 destinations. However, Crompton (1992) argues that a relative small set of alternative is typical of ndings in products also. Many times, consumers are unaware of service alternatives; therefore they may skip alternative evaluation stage and put more emphasis on post evaluation (Crozier & McLean, 1997). Since many tourism destination-choice models have been derived from traditional consumer behavior models (grand models), they failed to incorporate all these unique circumstances of services (e.g., intangible dominant products, differences in steps in decision-making) in modeling travelers decisions. Accordingly, a call for unique approaches for modeling tourist decisions is long overdue. Accordingly, the preceding discussion results in Propositions 35. Proposition 3: Tourists decision-making reects the unique characteristics of services, that is, intangibles, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability. When making decisions, tourists engage in limited search of personal sources to create a set of alternative destinations. (3a) In order to reduce the perceived risk, tourists engage in extensive information search regarding their initial set of alternatives. (3b) In this search, they give most credence to personal rather than to nonpersonal sources of information. Proposition 4: Prior experience reduces the extensity and intensity of the information search. Proposition 5: Level of involvement inuences the decision rules used to arrive at the ultimate choice decision. The consumer and tourism research literatures support the view that a strong negative relationship occurs between prior experience and the extent of information search (see Moutinho, 1987; Urbany et al., 1989; Perdue, 1985). However, additional theoretical work and empirical reports are needed to help understand heavy search behavior by visitors with extensive prior travel behavior experiences to the destination areas that they are about to visit, as well as non-search behavior exhibited by some leisure rst-time visitors to a given destination area. The exceptions to the signicant negative main effect between experience and search are too numerous to ignore theoretically and practically. Involvement level may be approached from enduring and situational perspectives (see Hoyer & MacInnis, 2004). Enduring involvement exists when the traveler shows interest in leisure travel as an avocation over a long period of time. Situational involvement reects temporary commitment with an activity; both travelers with high and low levels of involvement are likely to experience situational involvement while actively engaged in planning an imminent trip. Both enduring and
situational involvement levels are likely to inuence the decision rulesthe heuristicsapplied by leisure travels. For example, travelers with high enduring travel involvement are likely to be cognizant of alternative opportunities and expenditure-saving options compared to travelers with low enduring travel involvement, since the former are likely to be cognitively vigilant to information related to these issues versus the later. Additional theoretical and empirical work is necessary to probe the possibilities for developing the involvement-related propositions in tourism research.
6. What lies ahead? Discussion and implications for future research A new sub-eld of marketing emerged during the 1980s, pointing out the fundamental differences between marketing of products and services. A substantial number of articles refer to four key characteristics that distinguish the production, consumption, and evaluation of services from manufactured goodsintangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability (Zeithaml et al., 1990). In addition to these generic differences, tourism posits characteristics that make it even more unique in the serviceproduct continuum. A tourist is expected to be highly involved in the information search for tourism service purchases, than many other product or service purchases, because of high-perceived risk factor. The consumer often seeks ways to reduce uncertainty involved in the purchase of a vacation in an environment where such information is scarce. As opposed to tangible-dominant products where information search may include pre-purchase trial or observation of others, intangible-dominant products require different risk-reduction strategies (Guseman, 1981; Crozier & McLean, 1997). Destination revisitation (repurchase) may come to mind; however, this is less relevant to tourists where purchase is usually infrequent. Another strategy that comes to mind is reliance on testimonials, endorsements and personal recommendation (Murray, 1991). Therefore, a different perspective on the travel decision-making process was needed because of the inability of the grand models to reect on the differences between services and tangible products. Although various tourism scholars address this need (e.g., see Um & Crompton, 1990; Woodside & Lysonski, 1989; Woodside & MacDonald, 1994), a signicant portion of the developed models still do not move beyond borrowing the main concepts from the grand models, which were fundamentally developed for manufactured products, not service intensive industries like tourism. Thus, most of the models developed in tourism should be viewed with a critical eye. The current state of decision-making research in tourism lacks a
ARTICLE IN PRESS
consistent perspective that reects the unique characteristics of tourism services. The aim of the process-oriented research is to clarify the process that travelers go through to reach a nal decision to purchase a tourism service, such as a vacation package. The consumer behavior literature generally concludes that consumer decision-making process for nonroutinized purchases, like the purchases of tourism services, is comprised of ve stages: (1) problem recognition, (2) information search, (3) evaluation, (4) purchase and (5) post-purchase evaluation (Engel et al., 1986). However, view the ubiquitous use of the traditional consumer decision processes and their derivatives with a degree of questioning, since none of the existing decision models have been validated by empirical data for service offering (Crozier & McLean, 1997). Nonetheless, in analyzing and presenting the nature of this process, tourism researchers apply complementary perspectives for modeling: a broad, behavioral, perspective and a narrower, choice-set perspective. Researchers focusing on the broader behavioral perspective attempt to illustrate the decision process of travelers with contingent psychological variables before focusing on categorization of destinations in travelers minds, whereas those who adapt the choice-set perspective focus from the start on the nature and size of choice sets in each step within the decision process. Studies in the 1990s show that tourism researchers aptly conceive a choice-sets approach to travelers decision process studies (Crompton, 1992; Crompton & Ankomah, 1993; Ankomah et al., 1996). From a broader behavioral perspective, Gilbert (1991, p. 101) argues, ... much of the written material explaining different aspects of the decision-making process of travelers is general in nature or unsubstantiated empirically. Considering most if not all of these attempts are behavioral approaches, these models are too complex and generalized for empirical analysis (Bagozzi, 1984; Jacoby, 1978). The choice-sets approach offers a rather simple and practical perspective to understanding the travelers decision process. These advantages stimulate the increased application of this approach in this eld. The choice-sets approach provides practical advantages (Crompton, 1992). For example, the choice-sets structure, with a survey approach, allow destination marketers to identify the percentage of a target market in each choice set and assess their success in transforming people in each set into visitors to their destination (p. 431). Since most of the choice sets are associated with positive, negative, or neutral feelings, marketers may make an overall assessment as to how their target market perceives their destination. However, choice-set models consider the decision-making process as monolithic because they almost become immune once the initial sets have been processed. Time and situational factors such as availability of last-minute information
(e.g., the safety or security of the destination, or a newly promoted destination) have been marginalized. When tested in real-world situations, choice-set models may act more like probabilistic models rather than deterministic models. Accordingly, the following proposition helps guide research efforts in this area. Proposition 6: (a) Initial rst-blush consideration sets are highly limited in size (i.e., no8; e.g., see Woodside & Sherrel, 1977); (b) revisions occur to such consideration sets in a dynamic process as consumers move mentally toward making commitment and rejection decisions; (c) consumers are able to easily report intention probabilities to visit alternatives in consideration sets and these probabilities are revised dynamically. Moreover, the literature on behavioral decisionmaking suggests that decision-making styles are individualistic (Sirakaya et al., 1996). Therefore, developing a model that ts all decision-makers and every decision situation may not be realistic. Priori segmentation of travel markets according to trip purpose (such as pleasure vacation versus family and friends, leisure travel versus business) is an approach useful for future models. Different segments might have dissimilar methods of approaching problem solving and the decision-making. For example, a potential traveler who is interested in traveling to a location where she/ he has friends or relatives might follow different decision-making rules (i.e., low-involvement, less-risky conditions) than a person who is taking a pleasure vacation trip for the rst time to a new location (highinvolvement, high perceived risk). A posterior, sentiment-based, segmentation proposal by Chen (2003) is a useful alternative, as well as complementary method to priori segmentation. Chen employs chi-square automatic interaction algorithm (CHAD) in a decision tree framework to create mutually exclusive segments of persons known to have visited a destination. CHADs main objective to tourism psychological research is to maximize differences in sentiments and behaviors between segments using the minimum number of splits possible among respondents. In Chens study, the CHAD analysis created four segments useful for future research for advancing theory and tourism strategic management:

Pundit tourists: mostly freely independent travelers; likely to recommend their destination to others; most will use Internet for future trip planning (23% of n 261). Individualistic tourists: similar to pundits, except most will not use the Internet (36%). Negative/neutral recommenders: all report being unwilling to offer a positive recommendation to visit the destination (23%). Recommend the visit but are dissatised visitors (18%).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Such results focus attention on the potentially critical importance of psychological outcomes and actions related to the primary destination visited, as well as the distinguishing power of using a relatively new information technology. Such ndings provide credence to backward segmentation theory in tourism research (i.e., creating segments starting with travel outcomes rather than starting with demographic characteristics) and segmenting based on use/nonuse of information sources. Wickens (2002) also demonstrates the backward segmentation approach for developing tourism theory by segmenting 86 British holidaymakers who visited Chalkidiki, Greece, by their summary views about their destination experiences. The socialization process of individuals is a variable receiving little attention in theory-building in tourism (for an exception, see Wickens, 2002). There is a strong indication that childrens leisure socialization plays an important role in what type of activities they participate, in addition to how and where they travel when they become adults (Woodside, MacDonald, & Burford, 2004). Recent consumer behavior literature suggests that emotions and feelings play an important role in processing information. Models that are not dynamic have neglected the importance of these variables. With the exception of Wahab and Pigram (1997) and Wansink and van Ittersum (2004), the role of the travel party has been marginalized in most tourism behavior models. An individual may not care where they travel as long as they are with friends, thus they may give up decision control to a friend. This individual would then analyze alternatives and make the travel decisions. Even though the decisions may be made in a social setting with a group of individuals, each playing a specic role, most research focuses on the psychological variables, not social variables. Family and signicant individuals are two important mediators of decisions. The decisionmaking style of groups (family) is an important area for future research as group interactions and family roles may inuence what product/destination will be chosen. The treatment of an individual decision maker, as if they were in a vacuum, is common to all decisionmaking models. These models accept that other individuals affect the decision-maker but do not address active interaction with other individuals or sources along the decision-making process. Tourism mostly occurs in social situations. It is a social activity that involves family, relatives, friends and others (if in a group travel); thus, a different approach is needed. The existing models lack the integration of these issues into a single unique model that is theoretically sound, complex, and still useful for practical purposes. We conclude with several recommendations for future research. First, future research on tourism decisionmaking adopting multiple approaches is bound to create desk-top models that have both theoretical and practical
value for tourism suppliers. Simplied and eld-specic models should be created and empirically tested to ll the gap in this area. Statistical methods that allow model testing (i.e. structural equation modeling, path analysis) should be utilized to test the nature of a complete model. Secondly, different purchase and use situations should be considered, in order to gain a better understanding about the nature of the decision process of travelers. For example, there can be tourism purchases where very little functional decision-making is involved. In addition, the role of emotions should also be considered. In essence, pleasure travelers are buying and consuming experiences where emotions play an important role from beginning to end. Thirdly, decision-making models that consider the individual as the decision-making entity remain limited because many tourism service purchases heavily involve joint decision-making processes (Teare, 1992). Family, group, and external sources impact an individuals evaluation (weighing) of alternative attributes. Models that account for the role of joint decisions are more generalizable than individual-based models. Tourism researchers treat availability of an alternative destination as an observable variable. However, it is difcult to fully observe the set of alternative destinations an individual considers before making a nal choice. Because decision-making is a dynamic process, research focusing on understanding and describing the dynamic nature of the decision itself is needed (Aukers, 1999). Process-tracing methodologies could provide a valuable tool in exploring the process between decision inputs and decision outputs. The Exhibit summarizes a more detailed account of research issues useful for examining for a new framework in tourism decisionmaking. Exhibit Research issues for advancing understanding of tourism decision-making The inuence of tourism service characteristics on decision-making Do the decision-making stages change according to the nature of tourism product? How does decision-making process change for tourism services? Risk reduction strategies and their inuence on decisionmaking policies Do consumers of tourism services/products or destinations rely more on personal than nonpersonal sources? If yes, at what stage they become more important? How do consumers reduce perceived risk involved in tourism decisions? How do consumers use nonpersonal sources of information in their decision processes?
ARTICLE IN PRESS
The efcacy of choice sets in travelers choice process What cues do consumers use as major criteria for selecting among the few alternatives from their evoked sets? What is the role of pricing as a cue for evaluating tourism services? What are the efcacies of developing probabilistic choice sets rather than deterministic models? Decision rules and their effect on choice behavior What decision styles are used under what circumstance? How do decision styles vary across tourism products and destination types? Under what circumstances do consumers act rationally, maximizing benets while minimizing costs? Under what circumstances do consumers use shortcuts in their decision-making styles? What are their implications for marketing? What decision models are used under what circumstances? What is the efcacy of the choice-set models versus behavioral models of decision-making? Underlying variables affecting choice behavior What role do household-related variables (i.e., life-style, power structure, family roles, decision-making style) play in decision-making? How are decisions are made within a group. And, what decision styles are used when making group decisions rather than an individual decision. What are the ramications of the same for consumer behavior theory of tourist decisions? How are choice-set models impacted by situational factors such as availability of last-minute information (e.g., the safety or security of the destination, or a newly promoted destination)? How and under what circumstances does the nal choice change and what are the ramications of this from a modeling perspective? What is the nature of relationship between childrens leisure socialization and their decision-making policies later when they become adults? Decision-making is complex and recognized only recently as often being an unconscious process (for a review on this point, see Zaltman, 2003); thus DM is a process not fully developed theoretically. Decisionmaking researchers face the difcult task of measuring and understanding a process that is unobservable and for which consumers are only partially aware. The goal of decision research is to understand how decisions are made consciously as well as unconsciously (Carroll & Johnson, 1990). Carroll and Johnson argue, If decision making were easy to understand (or easy to do), there would be no need for such elaborate research efforts (p. 19). From our perspective, travel marketers and destination developers must understand the tourist decision process, in order to develop effective marketing strategies because decision behavior (buyer behavior) is the structure upon which marketing must hang. There-
fore, development of tourist decision models that incorporate a wide array of real world inuences and bridge the gap between behavioral and choice-set approaches using the probability theory will remain critical in tourism consumer behavior research. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Steven Aukers, John L. Crompton, and Teoman Duman for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. The authors acknowledge the insightful comments by anonymous Tourism Management reviewers to earlier drafts of the article. References
Abelson, R. P., & Levi, A. (1985). Decision making and decision theory. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.) (pp. 231309). New York: Random House. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckman (Eds.). Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 1139). Heidelberg: Springer. Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 20 (pp. 163). New York: Academic Press. Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 207224. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ankomah, P. K., Crompton, J. L., & Baker, D. (1996). Inuence of cognitive distance in vacation choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 138150. Aukers, S. M., (1999). The development of a decision process map: Application to the snow ski market. Dissertation abstracts international, Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Bagozzi, R. P. (1984). A prospectus for theory construction in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 48(1), 1129. Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. A. (2004). Exploratory research of tourism motivations and planning. Tourism Management, 25(3), 387396. Barnes, N. G. (1986). The consumer decision process for professional services marketing: A new perspective. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 2(1/2), 3945. Becken, S., & Gnoth, J. (2004). Tourist consumption systems among overseas visitors: Reporting on American, German, and Australian visitors to New Zealand. Tourism Management, 25(3), 375385. Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961981. Ben-Akiva, M., & Bruno, B. (1995). Discrete choice models with latent sets. International Journal of Marketing, 12(1), 924. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187217. Brisoux, J. E., & Laroche, M. (1981). Evoked set formation and composition: An empirical investigation under a routinized response behavior situation. Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 357361. Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Decision research: A eld guide. Newbury Park: Saga Publications. Chen, J. S. (2003). Market segmentation by tourists sentiments. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 1782003.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832 Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press. Cowell, D. W. (1991). The marketing of services. In M. J. Baker (Ed.). The marketing book, (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. on Behalf of the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Crompton, J. L. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3), 420434. Crompton, J. L., & Ankomah, P. K. (1993). Choice set propositions in destination decision. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(3), 461476. Crozier, D. A., & McLean, F. (1997). Consumer decision-making in the purchase of estate agency services. Service Industry Journal, 17(2), 278293. Decrop, A. (1999). Tourists decision-making and behavior processes. In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and tourism (pp. 103133). Doucouliagos, C. (1995). Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist rms: A meta-analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49(1), 5877. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 5388. Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. (1986). Consumer behavior (5th ed.). Chicago: The Dryden Press. Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. J., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Etzel, M. J., & Wahlers, G. (1985). The use of requested promotional material by pleasure travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 21(4), 27. Filiatrault, P., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1980). Joint purchasing decisions: A comparison of inuence structure in family and couple decision making units. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 131140. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1997). Tourist information search. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 503523. Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information search strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 108119. Gabbott, M., & Hogg, G. (1994). Consumer behavior and services: A review. Journal of Marketing Management, 10(4), 311324. Gilbert, D. C. (1991). Consumer behavior in tourism. In C. P. Cooper (Ed.). Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management, Vol. 3 (pp. 78105). Lymington, Hants, UK: Belhaven Press. Gitelson, R., & Kerstetter, D. (1994). The inuence of friends and relatives in travel decision-making. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3(3), 5968. Gitelson, R. J., & Perdue, R. R. (1987). Evaluating the role of state welcome centers in disseminating travel related information in North Carolina. Journal of Travel Research, 25(4), 1520. Guseman, D. S. (1981). Risk perception and reduction in consumer services. In J. H. Donnelly (Ed.). Marketing of services, Proceedings of AMA special conference on services marketing. Hawkins, D. I., Best, R. J., & Coney, K. A. (1995). Consumer behaviour: Implications for marketing strategy (6th ed.). Homewood: Irwin Publishing. Howard, J. A. (1963). Marketing management analysis and planning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Howard, J. A. (1994). Buyer behavior in marketing strategy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley. Hoyer, W. D., & MacInnis, D. (2004). Consumer behavior. Boston: Houghton Mifin. Huber, G. P. (1980). Managerial decision making. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. 831 Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research ndings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research ndings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer research: A state-of-the-art-review. Journal of Marketing, 42(2), 8796. Jenkins, R. L. (1978). Family vacation decision making. Journal of Travel Research, 16(4), 27. Kahneman, D. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 251273. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430454. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263291. Lue, C. C., Crompton, J. L., & Stewart, W. P. (1996). Evidence of cumulative attraction in multidestination recreational trip decisions. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 4149. Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3), 399419. Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. London: Longman. Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel. Boston, MA: CBI Publishing Company, Inc.. Middleton, V. T. C. (1994). Marketing in travel and tourism (2nd ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.. Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behavior in tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(10), 344. Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information acquisition activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 1025. Narayana, C. L., & Markin, R. J. (1975). Consumer behavior and product performance: An alternative conceptualization. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 16. Nichols, C. M., & Snepenger, D. J. (1988). Family decision making and tourism behavior and attitudes. Journal of Travel Research, 26(4), 26. Nicosia, F. M. (1966). Consumer decision process: Marketing and advertising implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Perdue, R. R. (1985). Segmenting state information inquirers by timing of destination decision and previous experience. Journal of Travel Research, 23, 611. Raitz, K., & Dakhil, M. (1989). A note about information sources for preferred recreational environments. Journal of Travel Research, 27, 4549. Rosenthal, R. (1987). Judgment studies: Design, analysis, and metaanalysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runyon, K. E. (1980). Consumer behavior and the practice of marketing (2nd ed.). Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Schmoll, G. A. (1977). Tourism promotion. London: Tourism International Press. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129138. Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modeling vacation destination decisions: A behavioral approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 5(1/2), 5775. Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M., & Worral, K. (1990). Information search strategies by destination-na ve tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 29, 1316. Snepenger, D., & Snepenger, M. (1993). Information search by pleasure travelers. In M. A. Khan, M. D. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.). Encyclopedia of hospitality and tourism. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Spiggle, S., & Sewall, M. A. (1987). A choice sets model of retail selection. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 97111.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
832 E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832 Woodside, A. G., & Dubelaar, C. (2003). Increasing quality in measuring advertising effectiveness: A meta-analysis of question framing in conversion research studies. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(1), 7885. Woodside, A. G., & King, R. (2001). Tourism consumption systems: Theory and empirical research. Journal of Travel and Tourism Research, 10(1), 327. Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 814. Woodside, A. G., & MacDonald, R. (1994). General system framework of customer choice processes of tourism services. In R. V. Gasser, & K. Weiermair (Eds.). Spoilt for choice. Decision-making processes and preference change of tourists: Intertemporal and intercountry perspectives (pp. 3059). Thaur, Germany: Kulturverlag. Woodside, A. G., MacDonald, R., & Burford, M. (2004). Grounded theory of leisure travel. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 14, in press. Woodside, A. G., MacDonald, R., & Trappey, R. J., III (1997). Measuring linkage-advertising effects on customer behavior and net revenue. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(2), 214228. Woodside, A. G., & Sherrel, D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept, and inert sets of vacation destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 16(1), 1418. Zalatan, A. (1998). Wives involvement in tourism decision process. Annals of Tourism Research., 25(4), 890903. Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, Harvard University. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 3346. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service. New York: The Free Press. Teare, R. (1992). An exploration of the consumer decision process for hospitality services. In R. Teare, L. Moutinho, & N. J. Morgan (Eds.). Managing and marketing services in the 1990s (pp. 233248). London, UK: Cassell Educational. Thornton, P. R., Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (1997). Tourist group holiday decision making and behavior: The inuence of children. Tourism Management, 18(5), 287297. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105110. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and Probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207232. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 11241131. Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432448. Urbany, J. E., Dickson, P. R., & Wilkie, W. L. (1989). Buyer uncertainty and information search. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 208215. Van Raaij, W. F. (1986). Consumer research on tourism mental and behavioral constructs. Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 119. Van Raaij, W. F., & Francken, D. A. (1984). Vacation destinations, activities and satisfactions. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1), 101112. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wahab, S., Crampon, L. J., & Rotheld, L. M. (1976). Tourism marketing. London: Tourism International Press. Wahab, S., & Pigram, J. J. (1997). Tourism, sustainability, and growth. London: Routledge. Wansink, B., & van Ittersum, K. (2004). Shopping decisions of travelers. Tourism Management, 25(3), 319330. Wickens, E. (2002). The sacred and the profane: a tourist typology. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 834851.

Building and Testing Theories of Decision Making by Travellers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building and Testing Theories of Decision Making by Travellers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832 www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Building and testing theories of decision making by travellers

Integration of psychological and economic theories into one comprehensive model

E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832

Mayo and Jarvis

Attention to the role of constraints in travel decisions

Empirical tests are difcult due to operationalization problems

Low explanatory and predictive ability

Lack of parsimony Lack of causality and temporal order

E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832

Matieson and Wall

Recognizes unique features of a tourism product

Van Raaij and Francken

Lack of parsimony (very complex) Difcult to quantify

Woodside and Lysonski

Parsimony, simple but theoretically sound perspective on tourists decision processes

Ajzen and Driver

E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832

A very narrow presentation of leisure activities

Marginalization of socialization process.

Woodside and MacDonald

E. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815832 821

You might also like