Building and Testing Theories of Decision Making by Travellers

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0261-5177/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.to

�Correspond0446.

E-mail addr

Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815–832

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Building and testing theories of decision making by travellers

Ercan Sirakayaa,�, Arch G. Woodsideb

aDepartment of Recreation, Texas A & M University, Parks and Tourism Sciences, 256A Francis Hall, College Station, TX 77843 2261, USAbBoston College, USA

Received 17 April 2003; accepted 25 May 2004

Abstract

How does the tourism literature model major recreational travel decisions? What influences 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 disciplinesfocus on how individuals go about making decisions.The utility of this work is evident in the field ofmarketing, in which a substantial body of decision-making literature builds from since the 1950s. Asystematic and in-depth understanding of buyingprocesses is the main goal of pioneering models ofconsumer behavior (see Howard, 1994; Runyon, 1980).Nicosia (1966), Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell (1968),Howard and Sheth (1969) and Gilbert (1991) providethe earliest and most influential models, the ‘‘grandmodels,’’ of consumer behavior. These models explaindecisions relating to tangible, manufactured, products.Although not designed to explain service purchasedecisions, the grand models were used by tourismscholars as a starting point for explaining the processused to purchase tourism services. The tourism literature

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

urman.2004.05.004

ing author. Tel.: +1-979-862-8819; fax: +1-979-845-

ess: [email protected] (E. Sirakaya).

now offers substantial conceptual and empirical worksto describe tourists’ destination choice processes byempirically probing the following issues. What are thetravelers’ psychological processes during judgment orchoice tasks (i.e., motivation studies)? Which choices aremade among the alternatives considered and what cuesare more important on the judgment or on the choice ofa specific destination?

In general, this literature reports that tourists follow afunnel-like procedure of narrowing down choices amongalternate destinations. Decision-making can be brokendown into a series of well-defined stages: (a) recognitionthat there is a decision to be made, (b) formulation ofgoals and objectives, (c) generation of an alternative setof objects from which to choose, (d) search forinformation about the properties of the alternativesunder consideration, (e) ultimate judgment or choiceamong 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 influenced by bothpsychological or internal variables, for example,

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

ARTICLE IN PRESSE. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815–832816

attitudes, motivation, beliefs and intentions, and non-psychological or external variables (e.g., time, pullfactors and marketing mix). Given the centrality of theselection decision process to tourists’ behavior, a clearunderstanding of the complexities and interrelationshipsof these variables is an important research agenda.

This article reviews and integrates the main concep-tual and empirical work that has been reported in thetourism literature. This integration helps to identifystrengths, limitations, and knowledge gaps in theliterature. Consequently, the review develops a set ofresearch propositions to help guide future research. Thegoal is to increase sense making of tourism decision-making by offering theory-based propositions to guideresearch. The aim of the paper is not to compulsivelyannotate the past, but rather to summarize the field’scollective understanding of decision processes of poten-tial tourists using a critical review of the literature.Throughout the article, ‘‘tourism service’’ is used as ageneric, umbrella term embracing both the intangible(service) and tangible aspects (goods) of a destination.

A major task in all areas of science is the developmentof theory.... Scientists have known for centuries that asingle study will not resolve a major issue. Indeed, asmall sample study will not even resolve a minorissue. Thus, the foundation of science is the culmina-tion of knowledge from the results of many studies(Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982, p. 10).

Meta-analysis is a quantitative method for combiningfindings (e.g., estimating the average and variance of aneffect size for a given hypothesis tested across severalindependent studies, see Woodside & Dubelaar (2003)for a meta-analysis related to tourism science) in orderto draw conclusions about the overall associationamong variables (Rosenthal, 1987; Doucouliagos,1995). According to Hunter and Schmidt (1990), oneof its major benefits is that it facilitates the digestion of alarge volume of empirical literature on a given subject bycondensing numerous studies into one study. Therefore,it is easier to refer to, for example, Woodside andLysonski (1989), than to refer to a long list of studies,reporting different models, hypotheses, propositionsand results. The approach used in this study broadensthe meta concept for the purpose of synthesizing andadvancing theory; an approach that we label, ‘‘meta-theory,’’ that is, creating a set of associated propositionsbased on prior contribution to theory, with the meta-theory enriching understanding and identifying pre-viously unreported nuances in the discipline. Thus, thefollowing discussion does not include a true meta-analysis across studies but serves to identify areas forfuture meta-analysis undertakings as well as newempirical studies that examine the proposed theoreticaladvances.

2. Advancing consumer decision-making in tourism

behavior

Consumer decision-making research has grown ex-ponentially during the past three decades. Theories suchas 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 devel-oped and tested in a variety of contexts. The range ofcontexts (e.g., well-defined to ill-defined choice situa-tions) within which these decision-making theories areused is too broad to specifically deal within a singlemanuscript. A particular theory is likely to explain aspecific aspect of an individual’s decision in a givencontext. Multiple decision theories when used togetherare likely to explain a wider range of decision behavioracross an expanded range of contexts. So far, however,no single unifying theory has emerged across disciplinesto describe, explain, or predict consumer decisions, andit seems unlikely that individual decision processes fitneatly into a single decision theory.

Abelson and Levi (1985) categorize decision-makingliterature on three continua: structure versus processorientation, risk free versus risky choice models, andnormative versus descriptive models. Abelson and Levisuggest that risk-free decisions involve preferences,whereas risky decisions include probabilities. A con-tinuum of choice environments exists that ranges fromwell-defined to ill-defined choice situations. Well-definedchoice situations include both risky and risk-freedecisions, while ill-defined choice situations generallyinvolve risky decisions because of the uncertainty of theoutcome. A majority of tourism decisions may be ill-defined choice situations where outcomes have unknownprobabilities, because of the intangible and experientialnature of tourism. Normative and descriptive decisionmodels differ in their conceptualizations of what adecision maker does, and there is sometimes a tendencyto explain, ‘‘how individuals should choose (normativemodels) versus how individuals choose (descriptivemodels)’’ (Abelson & Levi, 1985, p. 232). A keydifference between normative and descriptive modelsrevolves around whether tourists are looking foroptimum decisions or simply accepting a satisfyingsolution for a wide array of reasons.

Most human decisions are not perfectly rational,because they are influenced by a multitude of factors,which may constraint or motivate them to act irration-ally (Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 1998). Decision biasesoccur often in the decision process. Such biases occur, inpart, 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 PRESSE. Sirakaya, A.G. Woodside / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 815–832 817

Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). In general, tourismmodels view decision-makers as functional (or utilitar-ian) people (Homo-Economicus), although some ac-knowledge the role of constraints on tourism decisions(for example, Um & Crompton, 1990; Woodside &Lysonski, 1989).

Type of involvement and level of decision-making arethe two variables widely used to explain differences inconsumers’ decision processes. Purchase involvement isthe level of concern for or interest in the purchaseprocess, triggered by the need to consider a particularpurchase, and involvement ‘‘is influenced by the inter-action of individual, product and situational character-istics’’ (Hawkins, Best, & Coney, 1995, p. 425). Purchaseinvolvement relates to the type of decision-making.Extensive problem solving is associated with highinvolvement purchases, whereas habitual decision-mak-ing is associated with low involvement purchases(Hawkins et al., 1995). Limited decision-making processis a level between habitual and extensive decision-making, where the decision process is not as complexand highly involved as extensive decision-making, yetnot as simple as habitual decision-making. Most tourismservice purchases are considered to be high-involvement,extensive decision-making purchases, because of therelatively high costs, both monetary and non-monetary,involved in these decisions. For example, planning apleasure trip to another country involves a relativelyhigh perceived risk of making a bad decision, investing asignificant amount of time searching for information,and a considerable monetary outlay. However, lowinvolvement is likely when decision-makers have priorexperience about the service (Teare, 1992). Priorexperience leads to a more cursory information search,more confidence in the decision choice, and lessperceived risk (Woodside, MacDonald, & Trappey,1997).

3. Information-processing theory and grand models of

consumer decision-making

Information-processing theory is central to all con-sumer behavior models (Bettman et al., 1998; Gabbott& Hogg, 1994). This theory states that the consumerdecision-making process involves five main stages: (1)problem recognition, (2) information search, (3) alter-native evaluation and selection, (4) outlet selection andpurchase, and (5) post-purchase processes (Hawkins etal., 1995). Consumer behavior theorists believe thatpsychological mechanisms underline each of thesestages. For example, problem recognition essentiallyrepresents a discrepancy between a consumer’s desireand his/her perceived state (Urbany, Dickson, & Wilkie,1989). In this stage, the inputs for the process aresignificant, symbolic and social–environmental stimuli

(Howard & Sheth, 1969). During information search,alternative evaluation, and selection, and post-purchaseevaluation, the consumer unconsciously utilizes anumber of psychological processes (i.e. beliefs, motives,attitudes). In the alternative evaluation stage, theconsumer may use decision rules to evaluate and choosea final service offering. If the evaluation is not successfulor complete, the decision stays inconclusive and thesearch restarts from the beginning. After a purchase, theconsumer continues evaluating his/her decision, whichmay provide inputs for future decisions. Representationof the consumer decision process using these principleswas a characteristic of the early pioneering modelsproposed by Howard and Sheth (1969), Nicosia (1966)and Engel et al. (1968). These three models areconsidered 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 commonpoints. First, they perceive consumer behavior to be aconstant decision-making process. Second, the behaviorof the individual consumer is emphasized. Third,behavior is treated as a functional (or utilitarian)concept that can be explained. Fourth, a buyer is viewedas an individual who searches, evaluates, and storesinformation. Fifth, buyers narrow down the range ofinformation in time, and choose from the alternativesthey developed during the decision-making process.Sixth, feedback from the final purchase is included in themodels to emphasize the effect of the decision on futurepurchases.

4. Foundational travel decision models

Our analysis of behavioral approaches in touristdecision-making focuses on frequently cited modelsutilized in tourism research. An analysis of the founda-tional 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, &Rothfield, 1976; Woodside & Lysonski, 1989) revealsthat these models were successful in providing insightsinto the specific nature of tourism purchase behavior(Gilbert, 1991). These models are common, in that, thetraveler’s decision-making process was approached as afunctional decision-making activity that is influenced bya number of psychological and non-psychologicalvariables.

Table 1 displays the key propositions, major con-tributions, and limitations of these models in thetourism decision-making literature.

One of the first foundational models of traveldecision-making is that of Clawson and Knetsch(1966). These two economists proposed a five-phase

ARTIC

LEIN

PRES

STable 1

Evaluation of decision-making models in tourism

Authors Year Key proposition(s) Major contribution(s) Limitation(s)

Wahab, Crompon,

Rothfield

1976 A tourist is a rational decision maker (Homo

Economicus) who tries to maximize the utility

and, thus, assess costs and benefits of his/her

actions before committing themselves to a

purchase

Recognition of unique product aspects of

tourism

Heavy dependency on grand models in setting

up the theory base (Gilbert, 1991)

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

Integration of psychological and economic

theories into one comprehensive model

Mostly focused on individual as the decision-

making entity neglecting interpersonal, social

and family influences

Inclusion of variables such as needs, motivations,

destination image, spontaneity of purchase

decision, influence of risk and uncertainty,

influences family and friend that define unique

aspect of tourism into tourism decision process

models

Considers most decisions as perfectly rational

The model is not reflexive and thus not dynamic.

It neglects the outcome’s role in influencing the

personality of the consumer for the next decision

(missing reflexive loop)

Schmoll 1977 Tourist is a rational decision maker within his/

her capabilities and limited information

Relates theoretical concepts to real world Lack of parsimony

Traveler decision processes are affected by four

components: travel stimuli, personal and social

determinants, exogenous variables

Explicitly specifies the relationships between

various components and shows which factors

have influence on choice decisions

Difficult to operationally define certain variables

Decision process involves several successive steps Draws attention to the influence of constraints in

travel decisions

Based on grand models that traditionally ignore

unique characteristics of services

Operational definitions used on some variables

are very unclear

Mayo and Jarvis 1981 Travelers utilize either routine, impulsive or

extensive decision-making styles when making

choices

Travel decisions are a function of social and

psychological factors

Low predictive ability due to internal conflicts

between statements

Decisions are dynamic, are prone to chance

according to circumstances

Emphasizes the role of group and family in

choice decisions

Omission of relevant variables (e.g., external

stimuli)

Understanding travel decisions requires an

analysis of effects of social and psychological

factors

No formal testable propositions developed

Traveler decision-making process is a function of

four sets of variables (travel opportunities,

communication effort, customer goals and

intervening variables)

Attention to the role of constraints in travel

decisions

Empirical tests are difficult due to

operationalization problems

Decision-making process can be mapped and

traced through successive stages

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

E.

Sira

ka

ya,

A.G

.W

oo

dsid

e/

To

urism

Ma

na

gem

ent

26

(2

00

5)

81

5–

83

2818

ARTIC

LEIN

PRES

SUnclear relationship between travel stimuli and

the rest of the model

Moutinho 1987 Travel decisions are far more affected by external

forces, especially social influences such as role

and family influences, reference groups, social

classes, culture and subculture

Correctly identifies temporal order of variables

that affect the purchase behavior

Suffers from lack of parsimony (very complex)

Tourism services are purchased in a sequence

and not always as a tour package

Conceptually sound (well formed) Does not specifically focus on destination choice

process

Destination choice is seen as a compulsory

subdecision among other travel related decisions

Successfully integrates many theories of

consumer behavior literature into tourist

decision-making model

The model premises at times are not very clear,

especially when he considers destination choice

decisions and other travel related decisions

Post-purchase evaluations have an impact on

subsequent purchase behaviors

Includes cognitive distance as an important

factor in decision-making

Empirical tests are difficult due to

operationalization problems

The model is reflexive and thus very dynamic. It

recognizes the outcome’s role in influencing the

attitudes set and subsequent behavior of the

consumer for the next decision (reflexive loop)

Matieson and Wall 1982 Travel distance is not considered as a cost to

tourists as some tourist may enjoy the travel part

A behavioral model that successfully integrates

theories in various social science disciplines

including that of psychology, economics and

sociology

Omission of relevant variables such as

perception, memory, personality and

information processing.

Recognizes unique features of a tourism product Recognizes the importance of destination

characteristics on image formation and

subsequent decision-making process

Thus, low explanatory and predictive power

Views a tourist as a rational decision-maker who

wants to maximize utility

Lack of parsimony (very complex)

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

Difficult to quantify

Van Raaij and

Francken

1984 Joint decision-making is the central part of

tourists’ decision process

Attention to joint decision processes and

household-related variables

Undermining the role of individual decisions

Household-related variables plan an important

role in vacation decisions

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.)

Hypothetical associations among decision

factors

Involvement and memories plays an important

role in destination choice decisions

The importance of post-purchase evaluation on

decision-making styles later

Lack of specificity of variables

Lack of operational definitions of constructs

Decision-making is a sequential activity The model is dynamic in that it recognizes the

outcome’s role in influencing the personality of

the consumer for the next decision (reflexive

loop)

Lack of dynamism of the model in that the

consumer does not change his behavioraccording

to his/her decision experience

Post-purchase evaluations play an important role

in subsequent decisions later

Woodside and

Lysonski

1989 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).

E.

Sira

ka

ya,

A.G

.W

oo

dsid

e/

To

urism

Ma

na

gem

ent

26

(2

00

5)

81

5–

83

2819

ARTIC

LEIN

PRES

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

Integration of various disciplinary knowledge

into one comprehensive model of tourist

decision-making

Exploratory nature of the study with a relatively

small and non-representative sample.

Choice is affected by the interaction of intention

to visit and situational variables

Addition of variables that were overlooked by

previous models (e.g., affective associations,

traveler destination preferences, situational

variables and their place of impact)

Use of cross-sectional survey data

Size of the consideration set is small (three to five

destinations).

Lack of empirical support in actual choice

processes.

Ajzen and Driver 1992 Human behavior is the function of intentions

and perceived behavioral control over the

behavior

Successful application of the theory of planned

behavior leisure situations

The premise that intentions to perform leisure

activities are different than other types of human

behavior seems to be ‘‘a leapfrogged’’ argument

without sufficient justifications for doing so

Intentions are assumed to capture the

motivational factors that influence the behavior

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

Originality is low

Intentions are formed with the influence of three

conceptually independent determinants: attitude

toward behavior, subjective norm and perceived

behavioral control, all of which are assumed to

interact with each other.

Theoretically sound explanation A very narrow presentation of leisure activities

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.

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 specifically designed study that

considers leisure choice situations.

Measurement problems of the theoretical

constructs

Sampling problems

Accuracy and validity of self-reported leisure

activities

Um and Crompton 1990 Attitudes play an important role in destination

decision processes

Conceptualization, operationalization and

empirical testing of attitudes in real destination

choice processes

Untested relationships in the model

Interaction between constraints and image are

integral for destination choice decisions

Efficiency in the operationalization of the

dependent variable (eliminated the need for

measuring behavioral intentions)

Lack of attention to emotions and joint decision

processes

Potential traveler’s awareness sets and evoked Mostly cognition and individual traveler-based.

Table 1 (Continued)

Authors Year Key proposition(s) Major contribution(s) Limitation(s)

E.

Sira

ka

ya,

A.G

.W

oo

dsid

e/

To

urism

Ma

na

gem

ent

26

(2

00

5)

81

5–

83

2820

ARTIC

LEIN

PRES

Ssets were identified longitudinally, confirming

earlier claims that destination choice sets narrow

down over time (funneling effect)

Marginalization of socialization process.

Provision of a simplistic but theoretically sound

decision process model.

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 don’t know

what abstraction level is used by actual decision-

makers)

The model is not reflexive and thus not dynamic.




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

Woodside and

MacDonald

1994 Tourist choices are not always rational (utility

maximizing)

Use of a qualitative data to offer insights into

decision-making styles of individuals

Suffers from lack of parsimony (very complex)

Interactions by the members of the travel party

play an important role in decision-making

The role of travel party can play in travel

decisions

Mostly focused on individual as the decision-

making entity

Destination choice is one of many travel related

decisions one has to make

Recognizes individual decision-making styles The model is not reflexive and thus not dynamic.




Difficult to operationally define certain variables

Destination choice is subsumed under many

travel-related decisions (i.e., destination and

mode of travel)

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).

E.

Sira

ka

ya,

A.G

.W

oo

dsid

e/

To

urism

Ma

na

gem

ent

26

(2

00

5)

81

5–

83

2821


outdoor recreation experience model to delineate vaca-tion experiences and the decisions involved in theprocess. Their five-stage travel model involved modelingdecision processes of travelers from a macro-perspectivestarting with the anticipation phase, followed by travelto actual site, on-site experiences and activities, travelback, and concluding with recollection of experiences.Each of the phases in the model begs for an explanationof how an individual reaches the ultimate decisionphases such as the site selection decision. Since theauthors did not elaborate on how the individualdecisions are made at the micro level, a directcomparison of their model with the rest of themodels—the focus of this paper—cannot be made.Although its predictive power regarding individualdestination choice decisions is limited, at the macrolevel it has been used successfully to predict aggregatedemand to travel sites. This section of the review focuseson choice models instead.

Wahab et al. (1976) propose a model that delineatedtourists’ decision-making process based on the realiza-tion that tourist behavior is a rational decision activity.In other words, a potential traveler assesses the costsand benefits of his/her actions before committingthemselves to a purchase. In addition, this model assertsthat tourism services have unique characteristics thatdifferentiate them from other products (e.g., intang-ibility, involve risks). This model is similar to Nicosia’smodel, in that it explicitly recognizes the impact of theseller on tourists’ decision-making process, yet theemphasis was still on the tourist. According to Wahab,Crampon, and Rothfield’s model, tourism firms affecttourist(s) behavior, the consumer in turn, affects howfirms make marketing-related decisions.

The second model worthy of discussions is the modelproposed by Van Raaij and Francken (1984). Their‘‘vacation-sequence’’ model resembles that of Engel etal. (1968). A distinguishing feature of Van Raaij andFrancken’s model is its emphasis on the importance offamily member influence on the decision-making processfor tourism service purchases. The decision process forthe purchase and consumption of a tourism service iscomposed not only of individual factors but alsohousehold-related factors. The interaction of individualhousehold and socio-demographic factors results in thevacation sequence or the decision process. The majorpremise is that in every sequence of the decision processthe behavior and role of different family members mightdiffer. A major contribution of this model is itsrecognition of the interaction of household-relatedvariables (i.e., life-style, power structure, role, decision-making style) with individual-related factors (attitude,aspirations and so on). Past research on family decisionbehavior in tourism showed the dominance of jointdecisions versus husband or wife dominance in theprocess (Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980; Nichols & Snepen-

ger, 1988). Jenkins’s (1978) research suggested that therole of family members differs with respect to the type ofdecision activity. For example, husbands were found toinfluence the timing of the vacation and monetarydecisions. Children were influential in the selection ofactivities and duration of vacation. Referring toearly research on the same subject, Gitelson andKerstetter (1994) argued that friends and relatives wereconstantly providing information to the decision-mak-ing process, and therefore may play an important part indirectly shaping behavior. Thornton, Shaw, and Wil-liams (1997) assess the nature of group decisionbehavior and the role of children on the travelers’decision process. They conclude that children areinfluential in directing decisions by their needs andnegotiating abilities. In an attempt to assess whethergender has a role in the decision-making process,Zalatan (1998) demonstrates that there were significantdifferences between wives and husbands involvingdifferent tasks, before and after the trip. For example,before the trip, wives were more influential on non-financial decisions while husbands were more dominat-ing on financial decisions.

The third model that drew much attention is themodel developed by Woodside and Lysonski (1989).Based on an extensive review of several social sciencedisciplines, the authors proposed a model that presentedthe decision process of a traveler as a categorizationprocess of destinations from which the preferences,intentions, and the final choice result. Specifically,before forming preferences, a traveler places all destina-tions familiar to him/her into the first of a series offour mental sets. Marketing and personal variablesinfluence this process. Then, from these mental sets,final preferences emerge through the possible influenceof affective associations (defined as positive or nega-tive feelings associated with a destination). Finally,the choice is a function of intention to visit a destina-tion where situational variables act more as moderatorsbetween intentions and the choice. In their study,respondents successfully recalled destinations fromlong-term memory and placed them into four mentalsets. Respondents’ consideration sets included a surpris-ingly small set of alternative destinations, usuallyranging from 3 to 5 destinations with an average of4.2 destinations. Positive associations relate morewith destinations in the consideration set than thosein other sets. Moreover, respondents’ preferencefor a destination was found to correlate with its rankorder of mentioned destinations. Research results alsosuggest that past experience did not influence thecategorization of destinations into a consideration set.The hypotheses of the study tested the influence ofmarketing variables on destination categorization andthe influence of preference structure on intentions tovisit.


The original Woodside and Lysonski’s model (1989)and a recent extension (e.g., Woodside & MacDonald,1994; Woodside & Dubelaar, 2003; Becken & Gnoth,2004) are two of the more influential models in tourismliterature. A general systems framework of consumerchoice decisions by Woodside and MacDonald (1994;also see Woodside & Dubelaar, 2003; Becken & Gnoth,2004) emphasizes the interactions between members of atravel party, activities and travel decisions. According toDecrop (1999), the tourism psychology framework byWoodside and MacDonald (1994) is in sharp contrastwith the rationality paradigm. One of the key assump-tions of the model is ‘‘that the activation of initial travelchoices (due to ‘‘triggering events’’) spreads over time torelated travel choices (Decrop, 1999, p. 122).’’

Woodside and King (2001) present a general purchaseconsumption system (PCS) framework, which theydescribe as useful for mapping travelers’ choice deci-sions before and during a trip and evaluating theiractual experiences that may influence future trip choices.PCS is a sequence of mental and observable steps aconsumer undertakes to buy and use several relatedservice offerings whereby some of the services purchasedlead to a purchase sequence involving further purchases.Woodside and King assert that qualitative researchobservation and analytical techniques are useful fordeveloping and validating complex and interactivemodels such as the PCS. Their findings support theview that travelers’ decision-making behaviors are basedon many variables in relationships that are interactiverather than linear. The studies by Bansal and Eiselt(2004) and Lue, Crompton, and Stewart (1996) supportthis complementary, multidimensional view of travelplanning and behavior.

A final behavioral model included in this discussion isthe theory of planned behavior as applied to leisurechoice situations (Ajzen & Driver, 1992). Although notevery leisure activity is considered a tourism activity, theapplication of the theory of planned behavior proves tobe useful for destination choice situations. The theory ofplanned behavior is the extension of Fishbein andAjzen’s (1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) theory ofreasoned action that is widely considered the dominantattitude-behavior model. With the addition of perceivedbehavioral control in the theory of planned behavior,Ajzen (1987) argues that the predictability of intentionsis significantly improved. This theory asserts that humanbehavior is the function of intentions and perceivedbehavioral control over behavior. Attitude toward thebehavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioralcontrol interact with each other and influence intentionformation. These three constructs summarize manyessential elements contained in most tourism decisionmodels, namely the traveler attitudes, family and friendinfluences (subjective norm) and the role of pastexperience and constraints (perceived behavioral con-

trol). Ajzen and Driver applied this model to predictleisure activity choices and were able to prove theusefulness of this theory in understanding leisure choicebehavior by relating tourist intention to actual choicebehaviors.

In summary, aforementioned foundational modelscontribute to the formation of a sound base for furtherinquiries in decision-making. Travel-related decisionsinvolve high risks due to the very nature of tourismservices and thus require risk reduction strategies suchas extensive information search strategies. So far, theassumptions throughout the models have been thatdecision-makers exhibit rationalistic behavior in theirchoices among alternative destinations. They will selecta destination, which offers the greatest utility subject toindividual or social constraints. The selection process isa funnel-like one, in that travelers narrow down choicesamong alternatives and are influenced both by socio-psychological factors and non-psychological. A synth-esis of variables used in explaining choice decisions andthe formation of choice sets can be categorized into fourgroups: (1) internal variables (i.e., attitudes, values,lifestyles, images, motivation, beliefs and intentions,personality characteristics of a buyer, lifecycle stage, riskreduction methods, information search behavior); (2)external variables (i.e., constraints, pull factors of adestination, marketing mix, influences of family andreference groups, culture and subcultures, social class,household-related variables such as life-style, powerstructure, role, group decision-making style); (3) thenature of the intended trip (party size, distance, time,duration of trip); and (4) trip experiences (mood andfeelings during the trip, post-purchase evaluations). Theultimate choice of a destination will depend on thenature of interaction among these variables.

5. Behavioral and choice-set approaches to decision-

making in tourism

Extensive, complex and risky decisions, such as thepurchase of a tourism service, occur in stages. Whilepassing through these stages, the decision-maker isinfluenced by both functional (or utilitarian) andemotional elements (Mansfeld, 1992). For instance, theexact cost of a tour package might be considered afunctional (or utilitarian) element, whereas promotionalmessages, and family and friend influences, act asemotional elements. Because of the intangible natureof tourism experiences, probabilities will usually beattached to alternatives under consideration (Mansfeld,1992; Mathieson & Wall, 1982). Both ’’behavioral’’ and‘‘choice-set’’ approaches have been adopted in explain-ing how this process occurs.

Behavioral approaches suggest that tourists aremotivated by a number of factors to collect information


about different alternatives, which may meet their needs.The individual assesses and eliminates these alternativesto reach a final decision (Mansfeld, 1992). Behavioralmodels, in general, assume utilitarian decision-makerswho can evaluate outside information to which they areexposed, search for additional information to makebetter decision, create alternatives in their minds andmake a final choice from those alternatives. The mainpurpose of behavioral models is to identify the decisionstages decision-makers pass through and illustrate thisprocess by identifying the inside and outside factorsinfluencing this process. Choice-set models attempt toillustrate the same process in a different way, whileimplicitly accepting the main assumptions of thebehavioral models. The destination choice model(Crompton, 1992) examines the decision process andsuggests that decisions are sequential in nature and arecomprised of sets. This model also promotes the use ofmultiple decision strategies. Choice-set approachespropose that a tourist first ‘‘develops an initial set ofdestinations, widely known as an awareness set, theneliminates some of those destinations to form a smallerlate consideration or evoked set and finally selects adestination from the late consideration set’’ (Crompton,1992, pp. 421–422). In other words, a potential travelergenerates a series of choice sets with an ever-decreasingnumber of remaining alternatives in a funnel-likeprocess over time, until a final choice is determined.

Choice-set models possess practical advantages overbehavioral models by, for example, allowing destinationmarketers to identify the market potential, whilesegmenting the target market based on the choice setsof target population. For example, a destinationmarketer from a foreign country may want to knowwhat share of the potential tourists in the United Statesconsiders it as a possible destination to visit or haveplaced it in their evoked or reject set.

5.1. Choice sets approaches to tourism decision-making

Choice-set models have received substantial attentionin tourism decision-making literature because of theirpractical use for destination marketers. The concept ofchoice sets was first introduced by Howard (1963) inconsumer behavior literature. Howard and Sheth (1969),Narayana and Markin (1975), Brisoux and Laroche(1981), and Spiggle and Sewall (1987) elaborate theconcept. According to the theory, a potential travelerfirst develops a set of destinations from his/her earlyconsideration or awareness set. The destinations arechosen from a large number of destination alternatives,comprising of all the destinations available, which is alsoknown as the ‘‘total set.’’ The number of alternatives isthen reduced to shape his/her late consideration orevoked set. Finally, one resort is selected from theevoked set as the final choice. One criticism that can be

levied against the choice set theory is that they may tendto be deterministic in nature (Ben-Akiva & Bruno,1995).

Howard (1963) introduces the concepts of awareness,unawareness and evoked sets. He suggests that allbrands belong either to the consumer’s awareness set orunawareness set. An awareness set is comprised of allbrands, or alternatives, that the buyer may be aware ofat any given time, while unawareness set encompasses allthe brands that the buyer is unaware. Howard definesthe evoked set as the collection of brands the buyeractually considers in his purchase decision process.Howard and Sheth (1969) further refine the evoked setas the brands that the buyer considers acceptable for hisnext purchase. Narayana and Markin (1975) redefinethe evoked set and included all brands that may be in thebuyer’s awareness set. Narayana and Markin introducethe concepts of inert and inept sets. An inert set is madeup of the brands that the consumer has neither positivenor negative evaluation. The inept set encompasses thebrands that the buyer has rejected from his purchaseconsideration, either because he has had unpleasantexperience or because he has received negative feedbackfrom other sources. Spiggle and Sewall (1987) contributean important extension to the concept of choice sets.They present a model for retail decision-making thatbuilt upon and extended the evoked-set conceptpreviously investigated by Narayana and Markin(1975). Spiggle and Sewall’s model includes five newchoice sets, which were hypothesized as being thesubsets of an evoked set. The new sets include the (1)action set, (2) interaction set, (3) inaction set, (4) quietset, and (5) reject set. Action set was defined as ‘‘allstores toward which a consumer takes some action—sheor he goes at least as far as making a visit to the storesite’’ (p. 99). The interaction set includes ‘‘all of thestores in which a consumer allowed himself or herself tobe exposed to personal selling. The inaction setcomprises of all the stores in evoked set that a consumerdoes not visit. Quiet set composes stores that consumersvisit and leave before interacting with a sales clerk. Thereject set is made up of the stores that are originally inthe evoked, action, or interaction sets and toward whicha consumer’s evaluation is transformed from positive tonegative during purchase deliberation’’ (p. 101).

The choice set approach in the destination choiceprocess was initiated as an alternative and morepractical perspective to behavioral approaches, whichwere generally criticized as being too complex anddifficult to test empirically. Rather than being strongtheoretical exercises, choice-set research seeks to bringto light more applicable results to destination choicebehaviors. The work of Woodside and Sherrel (1977)was the first attempt to conceptualize choice sets forleisure travel. Woodside and Sherrel define choice sets ina tourism setting and confirm the categorization of


destinations in potential travelers’ minds. Arguing theirparticular usefulness in tourism, they introduce theawareness-available and awareness-unavailable sets in-stead of a complete awareness set. The available setincluded the destinations, which the traveler believes heor she has the ability to visit during some period (i.e., ayear). Furthermore, they propose that determining theavailable sets might be more reasonable because of thelarge number of destinations in the awareness set. Theirstudy, at a South Carolina Welcome Center, indicatedthat the average number of vacation destinations is 3.4in evoked sets, 1.4 in inept sets and 0.9 in inert sets of thesubjects.

Um and Crompton (1990) propose a theoreticalframework for the destination choice process usingchoice-set structure. This approach is simpler and moretheoretically and methodologically sound compared tomany other approaches in tourism decision research.Um and Crompton’s framework asserts that destinationselection is a three-stage process including (1) composi-tion of awareness set, (2) evoked set, and (3) finaldestination selection, where the latter is a condensedform of the former. The awareness set of destinations inthe potential traveler’s mind is formed through passiveinformation from the outside environment, whereas theevoked set emerges with the active information search-ing from external sources including past experience,media, family, friends and others. The active choiceprocess starts after an awareness set is developed withthe influence of internal inputs that comprise the socio-psychological set of the traveler (i.e. motives, values,attitudes). At this point, situational constraints play animportant role before the traveler creates his/her evokedset.

This framework is useful for assessing the role ofattitudes in the decision process—where attitudes areoperationalized as the difference between perceivedfacilitators and inhibitors, measured with 17 instrumentson a total of 100 respondents. A difference betweenfacilitators and inhibitors was hypothesized to show apositive attitude toward selected destination(s) in theevoked set. The role of situational constraints was alsotested via their consideration as part of the inhibitors.The research was conducted using a longitudinalapproach, which measured the magnitude of thedifferences between perceived facilitators and inhibitors,before and after the actual destination selection. Resultsof the study suggest that the attitude toward adestination is an important indicator of whether apotential traveler will select a particular destinationfrom the awareness set or not. The study is unique in thesense that it attempted to measure the effectiveness ofattitudes in an actual choice situation.

Crompton (1992) provides a further analysis of choicesets along with an extensive literature review. Cromptonreorganizes the functions of choice sets, reconceptualizes

the awareness-available and -unavailable sets, andadopts some newly proposed sets from the marketingliterature, such as action, inaction, and interactionsets into tourism literature. Crompton and Ankomah(1993) provide a series of propositions related to theearly consideration set, late consideration set (alsoknown as awareness and evoked sets) and final decision.To widen the span of choice-set study in tourism, theauthors develop testable propositions based on con-ceptualizations from empirical studies in marketingand management. Early consideration propositionsdealt with the size of set and the relationship bet-ween the level of awareness and probability of selectionof the destinations in the set. Late consideration setpropositions questioned the size and the factors thataffect the size of the late consideration set. Finalpropositions focus on decision rules and other factorsthat influence the selection of a particular destinationover others.

Ankomah, Crompton, and Baker (1996) analyze theinfluence of cognitive distance on the allocation ofvacation destinations in different choice sets. Theydefine cognitive distance as an individual’s mentalrepresentation of a physical distance from one point toanother, which is influenced and shaped by internal(memory and beliefs) and external sources (society andculture, destination-related factors). They test the effectof cognitive distance on the assignment process as one ofthe situational constraints. Their findings suggest thatindividuals regard cognitive distance as an importantfactor in a decision process. In addition, studyrespondents’ distance estimates to destinations in thelate set were more accurate than those destinations inthe reject set. The distance to destinations in the actionset was more underestimated than the destinations in theinaction set.

According to the evidence from the related literatureabout behavioral and choice-set approaches, the follow-ing summary propositions provide guidance for furtheradvancing tourism theory:

Proposition 1: Consumers follow a funnel-like proce-dure to narrow down choices among alternatives.Choices of destinations are affected by a number ofpsychological or internal variables (i.e., attitudes,images, motivation, beliefs and intentions, personalitycharacteristics of a buyer) and non-psychological orexternal variables (i.e., time, pull factors, marketingmix).

Proposition 2: Destination choice decisions are se-quential in nature and comprise sets. Choice setsdecrease in numbers over time until the final choice ismade. Internal and external factors vary in degree ofinfluence during this reduction stage.

Rather than several empirical data analyses, thegreatest support for P1 and P2 is based on publishedtheoretical models and frameworks. The meta-theoretical


view represented by P1 and P2 needs empirical con-firmation 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 theproduction, consumption, and evaluation of servicesfrom manufactured goods: intangibility, inseparability,heterogeneity, and perishability (Zeithaml, Parasura-man, & Berry, 1990). First, services are mostlyintangible in that they are not physical, objects, ratherthey are performances or experiences. The implicationsof this view are that the values offered cannot becommunicated easily by the tourism service provider,evaluating a service in terms of its potential to fulfillidentified needs is difficult for potential travelers.However, according to Crozier and McLean (1997),services may not have to be entirely intangible. Very fewpure services exist; most of them can be positioned on anintangible dominant (e.g., travel agency services) ortangible dominant continuum (e.g., restaurant meal) toreflect the extent to which the service element is essentialto the product. Second, services are heterogeneous; theydiffer substantially across providers because of humaninconsistencies involved in providing the service. Thischaracteristic of service makes it challenging forproviders to deliver consistent quality of service. Third,services are inseparable, which means that the purchaseand consumption of services occur at the same time.Managing the traveler mix and quality control can posechallenges for the management. Fourth, perishability ofservices means that services cannot be stored andconsumed at a later point in time, so selling the serviceas soon as it is produced becomes a priority; otherwiserevenue is lost (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1985).Tourism services have unique features that oftendifferentiate them from non-tourism services. Forexample, tourists purchase and consume a service at adifferent location from where they live (Sirakaya,McLellan, & Uysal, 1996). Consumption of a tourismservice, for example, a vacation in the mountains, takesa longer time than the consumption of many otherservice offerings; tourists often receive no tangiblereturn on their investment except souvenirs and thepurchase frequently is not spontaneous but requirespreplanning. Moreover, Wahab et al. (1976) note thatthe perceived risk often is high in tourism purchasedecisions, which suggests that tourists will be relativelyhighly involved in information search in order to reduceuncertainty involved in the purchase. The ultimatechoice of a final destination depends more or less onthe quality and quantity of information available to andused 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 searchstrategies can be grouped into three sets (Fodness &Murray, 1998): where, when, and how the search takesplace. In decisions related to tangible-dominant services,information search may include pre-purchase trial orobservation of others, but intangible-dominantservicessuch as tourism require different risk-reduction strate-gies (Guseman, 1981; Crozier & McLean, 1997). Thesesearch behaviors include reliance on testimonials,endorsements and personal recommendations (Murray,1991).

Evidence from the service marketing literature in-dicates that these characteristics of tourism serviceofferings also necessitate a different, at least anemphasis, shift of decision-making process. For exam-ple, information search seems to be more important anddifferent and some stages might be omitted if there is notmuch information available on the alternatives. Whilethe traditional six-stage decision-making process (re-cognition, formulation, alternative generation, informa-tion search, judgment or choice, action, and feedback) iscommon to many consumer decision-making models,more recent knowledge about how decisions forpurchases of services differ from manufactured goodschallenges this traditional approach. View many of thetraditional models and their derivatives with someskepticism since none of them are confirmed empirically(Crozier & McLean, 1997). Moreover, the traditionalmodels of consumer behavior as adapted to tourismhave not accommodated differences between the pur-chase of products and services (Cowell, 1991).

Barnes (1986) suggests that a four-step decisionprocess 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) conceptualizedthe consumer decision-making process in the context ofreal-estate services as having three broad steps: informa-tion search, comparison of alternatives, and post-purchase evaluation. Both of these models recognizethat consumers engage in limited personal source searchand put more emphasis on post-purchase evaluation,since they often ‘‘lack information on price, amount oftime needed to secure the service, or even the environ-ment in which the service is delivered is like’’ (Barnes,1986, p. 42). Because of the unique characteristics ofservices (e.g., lack of standardization and difficulty inquality control), the perceived financial and emotionalrisks associate highly with many service decisions. Inthese high-risk situations, word-of-mouth or personalinformation sources are more influential than imperso-nal media sources in decisions. Unlike product-baseddecisions where many alternatives may be generated forpossible purchase, according to Barnes (1986) andCrozier and McLean (1997), the known alternatives


for service offerings are fewer. Indeed, in a tourismcontext, Woodside and Lysonski (1989) identify this setto be a small set of alternative destinations, usuallyranging from 3 to 5 destinations with an average of 4.2destinations. However, Crompton (1992) argues that arelative small set of alternative is typical of findings inproducts also. Many times, consumers are unaware ofservice alternatives; therefore they may skip alternativeevaluation stage and put more emphasis on postevaluation (Crozier & McLean, 1997). Since manytourism destination-choice models have been derivedfrom traditional consumer behavior models (grandmodels), they failed to incorporate all these uniquecircumstances of services (e.g., intangible dominantproducts, differences in steps in decision-making) inmodeling travelers’ decisions. Accordingly, a call forunique approaches for modeling tourist decisions is longoverdue. Accordingly, the preceding discussion results inPropositions 3–5.

Proposition 3: Tourists’ decision-making reflects theunique characteristics of services, that is, intangibles,inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability. Whenmaking decisions, tourists’ engage in limited search ofpersonal sources to create a set of alternative destina-tions. (3a) In order to reduce the perceived risk, touristsengage in extensive information search regarding theirinitial set of alternatives. (3b) In this search, they givemost credence to personal rather than to nonpersonalsources of information.

Proposition 4: Prior experience reduces the extensityand intensity of the information search.

Proposition 5: Level of involvement influences thedecision rules used to arrive at the ultimate choicedecision.

The consumer and tourism research literatures sup-port the view that a strong negative relationship occursbetween prior experience and the extent of informationsearch (see Moutinho, 1987; Urbany et al., 1989;Perdue, 1985). However, additional theoretical workand empirical reports are needed to help understandheavy search behavior by visitors with extensive priortravel behavior experiences to the destination areas thatthey are about to visit, as well as non-search behaviorexhibited by some leisure first-time visitors to a givendestination area. The exceptions to the significantnegative main effect between experience and search aretoo numerous to ignore theoretically and practically.

Involvement level may be approached from enduringand situational perspectives (see Hoyer & MacInnis,2004). Enduring involvement exists when the travelershows interest in leisure travel as an avocation over along period of time. Situational involvement reflectstemporary commitment with an activity; both travelerswith high and low levels of involvement are likely toexperience situational involvement while actively en-gaged in planning an imminent trip. Both enduring and

situational involvement levels are likely to influence thedecision rules—the heuristics—applied by leisure tra-vels. For example, travelers with high enduring travelinvolvement are likely to be cognizant of alternativeopportunities and expenditure-saving options comparedto travelers with low enduring travel involvement, sincethe former are likely to be cognitively vigilant toinformation related to these issues versus the later.Additional theoretical and empirical work is necessaryto probe the possibilities for developing the involve-ment-related propositions in tourism research.

6. What lies ahead? Discussion and implications for

future research

A new sub-field of marketing emerged during the1980s, pointing out the fundamental differences betweenmarketing of products and services. A substantialnumber of articles refer to four key characteristics thatdistinguish the production, consumption, and evalua-tion of services from manufactured goods—intangibil-ity, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability(Zeithaml et al., 1990). In addition to these genericdifferences, tourism posits characteristics that make iteven more unique in the service–product continuum. Atourist is expected to be highly involved in theinformation search for tourism service purchases, thanmany other product or service purchases, because ofhigh-perceived risk factor. The consumer often seeksways to reduce uncertainty involved in the purchase of avacation in an environment where such information isscarce. As opposed to tangible-dominant productswhere information search may include pre-purchasetrial or observation of others, intangible-dominantproducts require different risk-reduction strategies(Guseman, 1981; Crozier & McLean, 1997). Destinationrevisitation (repurchase) may come to mind; however,this is less relevant to tourists where purchase is usuallyinfrequent. Another strategy that comes to mind isreliance on testimonials, endorsements and personalrecommendation (Murray, 1991). Therefore, a differentperspective on the travel decision-making process wasneeded because of the inability of the grand models toreflect on the differences between services and tangibleproducts.

Although various tourism scholars address this need(e.g., see Um & Crompton, 1990; Woodside & Lysonski,1989; Woodside & MacDonald, 1994), a significantportion of the developed models still do not movebeyond borrowing the main concepts from the grandmodels, which were fundamentally developed formanufactured products, not service intensive industrieslike tourism. Thus, most of the models developed intourism should be viewed with a critical eye. The currentstate of decision-making research in tourism lacks a


consistent perspective that reflects the unique character-istics of tourism services.

The aim of the process-oriented research is to clarifythe process that travelers go through to reach a finaldecision to purchase a tourism service, such as a vacationpackage. The consumer behavior literature generallyconcludes that consumer decision-making process fornonroutinized purchases, like the purchases of tourismservices, is comprised of five stages: (1) problemrecognition, (2) information search, (3) evaluation, (4)purchase and (5) post-purchase evaluation (Engel et al.,1986). However, view the ubiquitous use of the tradi-tional consumer decision processes and their derivativeswith a degree of questioning, since ‘‘none of the existingdecision models have been validated by empirical data forservice offering (Crozier & McLean, 1997).

Nonetheless, in analyzing and presenting the nature ofthis process, tourism researchers apply complementaryperspectives for modeling: a broad, behavioral, perspec-tive and a narrower, choice-set perspective. Researchersfocusing on the broader behavioral perspective attemptto illustrate the decision process of travelers withcontingent psychological variables before focusing oncategorization of destinations in travelers’ minds,whereas those who adapt the choice-set perspectivefocus from the start on the nature and size of choice setsin each step within the decision process.

Studies in the 1990s show that tourism researchersaptly conceive a choice-sets approach to travelers’decision process studies (Crompton, 1992; Crompton &Ankomah, 1993; Ankomah et al., 1996). From a broaderbehavioral perspective, Gilbert (1991, p. 101) argues, ‘‘...much of the written material explaining different aspectsof the decision-making process of travelers is general innature or unsubstantiated empirically.’’ Considering mostif not all of these attempts are behavioral approaches,these models are too complex and generalized forempirical analysis (Bagozzi, 1984; Jacoby, 1978). Thechoice-sets approach offers a rather simple and practicalperspective to understanding the travelers’ decisionprocess. These advantages stimulate the increased appli-cation of this approach in this field.

The choice-sets approach provides practical advan-tages (Crompton, 1992). For example, the choice-setsstructure, with a survey approach, allow destinationmarketers to ‘‘identify the percentage of a target marketin each choice set and assess their success in transform-ing people in each set into visitors to their destination’’(p. 431). Since most of the choice sets are associated withpositive, negative, or neutral feelings, marketers maymake an overall assessment as to how their targetmarket perceives their destination. However, choice-setmodels consider the decision-making process as mono-lithic because they almost become immune once theinitial sets have been processed. Time and situationalfactors such as availability of ‘‘last-minute’’ information

(e.g., the safety or security of the destination, or a newlypromoted destination) have been marginalized. Whentested in real-world situations, choice-set models mayact more like probabilistic models rather than determi-nistic models. Accordingly, the following propositionhelps guide research efforts in this area.

Proposition 6: (a) Initial ‘‘first-blush’’ considerationsets are highly limited in size (i.e., no8; e.g., seeWoodside & Sherrel, 1977); (b) revisions occur to suchconsideration sets in a dynamic process as consumersmove mentally toward making commitment and rejec-tion decisions; (c) consumers are able to easily reportintention probabilities to visit alternatives in considera-tion sets and these probabilities are revised dynamically.

Moreover, the literature on behavioral decision-making suggests that decision-making styles are indivi-dualistic (Sirakaya et al., 1996). Therefore, developing amodel that fits all decision-makers and every decisionsituation may not be realistic. Priori segmentation oftravel markets according to trip purpose (such aspleasure vacation versus family and friends, leisuretravel versus business) is an approach useful for futuremodels. Different segments might have dissimilarmethods of approaching problem solving and thedecision-making. For example, a potential travelerwho is interested in traveling to a location where she/he has friends or relatives might follow differentdecision-making rules (i.e., low-involvement, less-riskyconditions) than a person who is taking a pleasurevacation trip for the first time to a new location (high-involvement, high perceived risk).

A posterior, sentiment-based, segmentation proposalby Chen (2003) is a useful alternative, as well ascomplementary method to priori segmentation. Chenemploys chi-square automatic interaction algorithm(CHAD) in a decision tree framework to create mutuallyexclusive segments of persons known to have visited adestination. CHAD’s main objective to tourism psycho-logical research is to maximize differences in sentimentsand behaviors between segments using the minimumnumber of splits possible among respondents. In Chen’sstudy, the CHAD analysis created four segments usefulfor future research for advancing theory and tourismstrategic management:

�
Pundit tourists: mostly freely independent travelers;likely to recommend their destination to others; mostwill use Internet for future trip planning (23% ofn ¼ 261).
�
Individualistic tourists: similar to pundits, except mostwill not use the Internet (36%).
�
Negative/neutral recommenders: all report being un-willing to offer a positive recommendation to visit thedestination (23%).
�
Recommend the visit but are dissatisfied visitors(18%).


Such results focus attention on the potentially critical
importance of psychological outcomes and actionsrelated to the primary destination visited, as well asthe distinguishing power of using a relatively newinformation technology. Such findings provide credenceto backward segmentation theory in tourism research(i.e., creating segments starting with travel outcomesrather than starting with demographic characteristics)and segmenting based on use/nonuse of informationsources. Wickens (2002) also demonstrates the back-ward segmentation approach for developing tourismtheory by segmenting 86 British holidaymakers whovisited Chalkidiki, Greece, by their summary viewsabout their destination experiences.
The socialization process of individuals is a variablereceiving little attention in theory-building in tourism(for an exception, see Wickens, 2002). There is a strongindication that children’s leisure socialization plays animportant role in what type of activities they participate,in addition to how and where they travel when theybecome adults (Woodside, MacDonald, & Burford,2004). Recent consumer behavior literature suggests thatemotions and feelings play an important role inprocessing information. Models that are not dynamichave neglected the importance of these variables.

With the exception of Wahab and Pigram (1997) andWansink and van Ittersum (2004), the role of the travelparty has been marginalized in most tourism behaviormodels. An individual may not care where they travel aslong as they are with friends, thus they may give updecision control to a friend. This individual would thenanalyze alternatives and make the travel decisions. Eventhough the decisions may be made in a social settingwith a group of individuals, each playing a specific role,most research focuses on the psychological variables,not social variables. Family and significant individualsare two important mediators of decisions. The decision-making style of groups (family) is an important area forfuture research as group interactions and family rolesmay influence what product/destination will be chosen.

The treatment of an individual decision maker, as ifthey were in a vacuum, is common to all decision-making models. These models accept that otherindividuals affect the decision-maker but do not addressactive interaction with other individuals or sourcesalong the decision-making process. Tourism mostlyoccurs in social situations. It is a social activity thatinvolves family, relatives, friends and others (if in agroup travel); thus, a different approach is needed. Theexisting models lack the integration of these issues into asingle unique model that is theoretically sound, com-plex, and still useful for practical purposes.

We conclude with several recommendations for futureresearch. First, future research on tourism decision-making adopting multiple approaches is bound to createdesk-top models that have both theoretical and practical

value for tourism suppliers. Simplified and field-specificmodels should be created and empirically tested to fillthe gap in this area. Statistical methods that allow modeltesting (i.e. structural equation modeling, path analysis)should be utilized to test the nature of a complete model.Secondly, different purchase and use situations shouldbe considered, in order to gain a better understandingabout the nature of the decision process of travelers. Forexample, there can be tourism purchases where verylittle functional decision-making is involved. In addi-tion, the role of emotions should also be considered. Inessence, pleasure travelers are buying and consumingexperiences where emotions play an important rolefrom beginning to end. Thirdly, decision-making modelsthat consider the individual as the decision-makingentity remain limited because many tourism servicepurchases heavily involve joint decision-making pro-cesses (Teare, 1992). Family, group, and externalsources impact an individual’s evaluation (weighing) ofalternative attributes. Models that account for the roleof joint decisions are more generalizable than indivi-dual-based models.

Tourism researchers treat availability of an alternativedestination as an observable variable. However, it isdifficult to fully observe the set of alternative destina-tions an individual considers before making a finalchoice. Because decision-making is a dynamic process,research focusing on understanding and describing thedynamic nature of the decision itself is needed (Aukers,1999). Process-tracing methodologies could provide avaluable tool in exploring the process between decisioninputs and decision outputs. The Exhibit summarizes amore detailed account of research issues useful forexamining for a new framework in tourism decision-making.

ExhibitResearch issues for advancing understanding of tourismdecision-making

The influence of tourism service characteristics on

decision-making

Do the decision-making stages change according to thenature of tourism product? How does decision-makingprocess change for tourism services?

Risk reduction strategies and their influence on decision-

making policies

Do consumers of tourism services/products ordestinations rely more on personal than nonpersonalsources? If yes, at what stage they become moreimportant?How do consumers reduce perceived risk involved intourism decisions?How do consumers use nonpersonal sources ofinformation in their decision processes?


The efficacy of choice sets in travelers’ choice process

What cues do consumers use as major criteria forselecting among the few alternatives from their evokedsets? What is the role of pricing as a cue for evaluatingtourism services?What are the efficacies 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 productsand destination types?Under what circumstances do consumers act rationally,maximizing benefits while minimizing costs?Under what circumstances do consumers use shortcutsin their decision-making styles? What are theirimplications for marketing?What decision models are used under whatcircumstances? What is the efficacy of the choice-setmodels 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 madewithin a group. And, what decision styles are used whenmaking group decisions rather than an individualdecision. What are the ramifications of the same forconsumer behavior theory of tourist decisions?How are choice-set models impacted by situationalfactors such as availability of ‘‘last-minute’’ information(e.g., the safety or security of the destination, or a newlypromoted destination)? How and under whatcircumstances does the final choice change and what arethe ramifications of this from a modeling perspective?What is the nature of relationship between children’sleisure socialization and their decision-making policieslater when they become adults?

Decision-making is complex and recognized onlyrecently as often being an unconscious process (for areview on this point, see Zaltman, 2003); thus DM is aprocess not fully developed theoretically. Decision-making researchers face the difficult task of measuringand understanding a process that is unobservable andfor which consumers are only partially aware. The goalof decision research is to understand how decisions aremade consciously as well as unconsciously (Carroll &Johnson, 1990). Carroll and Johnson argue, ‘‘If decisionmaking were easy to understand (or easy to do), therewould be no need for such elaborate research efforts’’(p. 19). From our perspective, travel marketers anddestination developers must understand the touristdecision process, in order to develop effective marketingstrategies because decision behavior (buyer behavior) isthe structure upon which marketing must hang. There-

fore, development of tourist decision models thatincorporate a wide array of real world influences andbridge the gap between behavioral and choice-setapproaches using the probability theory will remaincritical in tourism consumer behavior research.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Steven Aukers, John L. Crompton,and Teoman Duman for helpful comments on earlierversions of this article. The authors acknowledge theinsightful comments by anonymous Tourism Manage-

ment 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. 231–309). 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. 11–39). 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. 1–63). 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),

207–224.

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). Influence of

cognitive distance in vacation choice. Annals of Tourism Research,

23(1), 138–150.

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), 11–29.

Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. A. (2004). Exploratory research of tourism

motivations and planning. Tourism Management, 25(3), 387–396.

Barnes, N. G. (1986). The consumer decision process for professional

services marketing: A new perspective. Journal of Professional

Services Marketing, 2(1/2), 39–45.

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), 375–385.

Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty.

Operations Research, 30(5), 961–981.

Ben-Akiva, M., & Bruno, B. (1995). Discrete choice models with latent

sets. International Journal of Marketing, 12(1), 9–24.

Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive

consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3),

187–217.

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), 357–361.

Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide.

Newbury Park: Saga Publications.

Chen, J. S. (2003). Market segmentation by tourists’ sentiments.

Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 178–2003.


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.


Crompton, J. L., & Ankomah, P. K. (1993). Choice set propositions

in destination decision. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(3),

461–476.

Crozier, D. A., & McLean, F. (1997). Consumer decision-making in

the purchase of estate agency services. Service Industry Journal,

17(2), 278–293.

Decrop, A. (1999). Tourists’ decision-making and behavior processes.

In A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and

tourism (pp. 103–133).

Doucouliagos, C. (1995). Worker participation and productivity in

labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis.

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49(1), 58–77.

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory:

Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology,

32(1), 53–88.

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),

2–7.

Filiatrault, P., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1980). Joint purchasing decisions: A

comparison of influence structure in family and couple decision

making units. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 131–140.

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), 503–523.

Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information

search strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 37(2), 108–119.

Gabbott, M., & Hogg, G. (1994). Consumer behavior and services: A

review. Journal of Marketing Management, 10(4), 311–324.

Gilbert, D. C. (1991). Consumer behavior in tourism. In C. P. Cooper

(Ed.). Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management,

Vol. 3 (pp. 78–105). Lymington, Hants, UK: Belhaven Press.

Gitelson, R., & Kerstetter, D. (1994). The influence of friends and

relatives in travel decision-making. Journal of Travel and Tourism

Marketing, 3(3), 59–68.

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), 15–20.

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.). Home-

wood: 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 Mifflin.

Huber, G. P. (1980). Managerial decision making. Glenview, IL: Scott

Foresman.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis:

Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta-analysis:

Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer research: A state-of-the-art-review.

Journal of Marketing, 42(2), 87–96.

Jenkins, R. L. (1978). Family vacation decision making. Journal of

Travel Research, 16(4), 2–7.

Kahneman, D. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological

Review, 80(4), 251–273.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment

of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of

decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

Lue, C. C., Crompton, J. L., & Stewart, W. P. (1996). Evidence of

cumulative attraction in multidestination recreational trip deci-

sions. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 41–49.

Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From motivation to actual travel. Annals of

Tourism Research, 19(3), 399–419.

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), 3–44.

Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: Consumer

information acquisition activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1),

10–25.

Narayana, C. L., & Markin, R. J. (1975). Consumer behavior and

product performance: An alternative conceptualization. Journal of

Marketing, 39(4), 1–6.

Nichols, C. M., & Snepenger, D. J. (1988). Family decision making

and tourism behavior and attitudes. Journal of Travel Research,

26(4), 2–6.

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, 6–11.

Raitz, K., & Dakhil, M. (1989). A note about information sources for

preferred recreational environments. Journal of Travel Research,

27, 45–49.

Rosenthal, R. (1987). Judgment studies: Design, analysis, and meta-

analysis. 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, 129–138.

Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modeling vacation

destination decisions: A behavioral approach. Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing, 5(1/2), 57–75.

Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M., & Worral, K. (1990).

Information search strategies by destination-naı̈ve tourists. Journal

of Travel Research, 29, 13–16.

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), 97–111.


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. 233–248).

London, UK: Cassell Educational.

Thornton, P. R., Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (1997). Tourist group

holiday decision making and behavior: The influence of children.

Tourism Management, 18(5), 287–297.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small

numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for

judging frequency and Probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2),

207–232.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:

Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism

destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432–448.

Urbany, J. E., Dickson, P. R., & Wilkie, W. L. (1989). Buyer

uncertainty and information search. Journal of Consumer Research,

16, 208–215.

Van Raaij, W. F. (1986). Consumer research on tourism mental and

behavioral constructs. Annals of Tourism Research, 13, 1–19.

Van Raaij, W. F., & Francken, D. A. (1984). Vacation destinations,

activities and satisfactions. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1),

101–112.

von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and

economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wahab, S., Crampon, L. J., & Rothfield, 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), 319–330.

Wickens, E. (2002). The sacred and the profane: a tourist typology.


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), 78–85.

Woodside, A. G., & King, R. (2001). Tourism consumption systems:

Theory and empirical research. Journal of Travel and Tourism

Research, 10(1), 3–27.

Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler

destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 8–14.

Woodside, A. G., & MacDonald, R. (1994). General system frame-

work 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. 30–59). Thaur, Germany: Kulturver-

lag.

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),

214–228.

Woodside, A. G., & Sherrel, D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept, and

inert sets of vacation destinations. Journal of Travel Research,

16(1), 14–18.

Zalatan, A. (1998). Wives’ involvement in tourism decision process.

Annals of Tourism Research., 25(4), 890–903.

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,

33–46.

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering

quality service. New York: The Free Press.

Documents

Building and Testing Theories of Decision Making by Travellers