This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 02:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Travel & Tourism MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20

Cruise Passengers' Decision-Making ProcessesJames F. Petrick a , Xiang(Robert) Li b & Sun-Young Park ca Department of Recreation , Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University , 2261 TAMU,College Station, TX, 77843-2261, USAb School of Hotel, Restaurant, and Tourism Management , College of Hospitality, Retail, andSport Management, University of South Carolina , Columbia, SC, 29208, USAc School of Travel Industry Management , The University of Hawaii at Manoa , 2560 CampusRoad, George Hall, Room 219, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USAPublished online: 22 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: James F. Petrick , Xiang(Robert) Li & Sun-Young Park (2007) Cruise Passengers' Decision-Making Processes,Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1300/J073v23n01_01

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n01_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Cruise Passengers’ Decision-Making Processes

James F. PetrickXiang (Robert) LiSun-Young Park

ABSTRACT. While various models for understanding tourists’ decision-making processes havebeen conceptualized (e.g., Crompton, 1992; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004; Huan & Beaman, 2003),few studies have attempted to examine them. The current study, guided by Crompton’s choice setconceptualization, utilized qualitative methods (focus groups) to investigate the role of choice setswhile examining the underlying reasons and social influences for passengers’ cruise vacationchoice. Findings of the study suggest the existence of two groups of cruisers: those who go throughcomplex decision making and those who are brand loyal. Further theoretical and managerial impli-cations were discussed. doi:10.1300/J073v23n01_01 [Article copies available for a fee from The HaworthDocument Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Decision-making, choice sets, cruise, marketing

INTRODUCTION

The process that individuals go throughwhen deciding on where to travel has receivedmuch attention within the tourism literature(Crompton, 1992; Crompton & Ankomah,1993; Dellaert, Borgers, & Timmermans,1997; Fodness & Murray, 1999; Vogt & Fesen-maier, 1998). The underlying purpose of themajority of this research is that by understand-ing how tourists make decisions, service pro-viders can more effectively market to, and sat-isfy visitors. It has been argued that thedecision-making process involves the narrow-ing down of initial alternatives (Nicosia, 1966)

until one decides which goods/services topurchase. Past research has revealed that thisprocess may be moderated by: a tourist’s famil-iarity with destinations (Gursoy & McCleary,2004; Sirakaya, Sonmez, & Choi, 2001), mari-tal roles (Ford, LaTour, & Henthorne, 1995;Mottiar & Quinn, 2004), gender (Vogt &Fesenmaier), travel frequency(Morgan,1991),children (Thornton, Shaw, & Williams, 1997;Wang, Hsieh, Yeh, & Tsai, 2004), spouse(Madrigal, 1993; Zalatan, 1998), friends andrelatives (Gitelson&Kerstetter,1994), lifecycle(Decrop, 1999), culture (Caneen, 2003), cogni-tive distance (Ankomah, Crompton, & Baker,1996; Crompton & Kim, 2001), group pro-

James F. Petrick is Associate Professor, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&MUniversity, 2261 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2261 USA (E-mail: jpetrick@tamu.edu). Xiang (Robert) Li isAssistant Professor, School of Hotel, Restaurant, and Tourism Management, College of Hospitality, Retail, andSport Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 USA (E-mail: robertli@sc.edu). Sun-Young Park is Assistant Professor, School of Travel Industry Management, The University of Hawaii at Manoa,2560 Campus Road, George Hall, Room 219, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA (E-mail: parksy@hawaii.edu).

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 23(1) 2007Available online at http://jttm.haworthpress.com

� 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J073v23n01_01 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

cesses (Decrop,2005), local“experts”(Rompf,DiPietro, & Ricci, 2005), and advertising(Johnson & Messmer, 1991).

While various models for understandingtourists’ decision-making processes have beenconceptualized (e.g., Crompton, 1992; Gursoy& McCleary, 2004; Huan & Beaman, 2003;Sirakaya, McLellan, & Uysal, 1996), few stud-ies have attempted to empirically examinethem. By examining the processes that touristsutilize to make purchasing decisions, tourismpractitioners should be better equipped to mar-ket their offerings to both current and futurevisitors.

One sector in need of a better understandingof their markets is the cruise industry. Since1980, theNorthAmericancruisemarkethasen-joyed an annual growth rate of 8.2% (CLIA,2005). This surge in revenues was rejuvenatedback into the industry by increasing fleet sizesand increasingcruisecapacityby buildingnew,larger ships (Lois, Wang, Wall, & Ruxton,2004). CLIA (2006) reports that during the1980s 40 new ships were built, while in the1990s approximately 80 ships debuted, and atleast 69 new ships have debuted since 2000.They argue that the industry’s commitment toexpanding guest capacity is because the indus-try has tremendous potential for growth, asonly 16% of adults in the United States haveever taken a cruise. This growth in berths hasmade it imperative for the industry to not onlyattract a larger percentage of potential cruisers,but to also retain its current clientele in order tomaintain current occupancy rates.

The cruise industry has also seen a change inthe demographics of their cruise passengersover the past few decades. Data published byCLIA (2005) reveals that passengers are takingshorter cruises, as the overall percentage ofgrowth since 1980 for short (2-5 day) cruises(724.5%) is much higher than that of 6-8 day(497.4%), 9-17 day (425.3%) and 18 or moreday (82.4%) cruises. Additionally, cruise pas-sengers are younger (average age is 50 yearsold) than they have been since they first startedcollecting data in 1975 (including correctionsfor inflation). This change in demographicssuggests that “high-end” cruise lines may belosing a share of the market, and value oriented(i.e., shortercruises foryoungerpersons)cruiselines may be gaining a competitive edge.

Combined, these changes in the market havemade it integral for the cruise industry (in par-ticular the “high-end” markets) to understandthe decision-making processes of their currentpassengers. Moreover, the lack of empiricalevidence related to tourism decision-makingmodels, suggests that inductive (qualitative)methods might be more appropriate for exam-ining these processes than deductive (quantita-tive). Thus, the current study will utilize quali-tative methods (focus groups), guided by thechoice sets model, as conceptualized byCrompton (1992) to better understand the deci-sion-making processes of passengers on a“high-end” cruise line.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Decision Making

The concept of “choice sets” was first pro-posed and elaborated in the consumer behav-ior literature in examining consumers’ pur-chase decisions by Howard (1963). Theconcept purports that consumers make a finalchoice from gradually reduced groups of alter-natives among finite numbers of potential op-tions. The concept has since been adopted andtested across several disciplines (Thill &Wheeler, 2000). Particularly, the concept hasbeen applied to the tourists’ destination choicecontext (e.g., Um & Crompton, 1990; Wood-side & Lysonski, 1989). The literature suggeststhat decisions which are perceived to havehigher levels of risk are more likely to includehigher levels of information search and evalu-ation of alternatives (Crompton & Ankomah,1993). To date, the line of research on choicesets has grown to be an important branch oftravel decision-making studies (Jeng & Fesen-maier, 2002). Further, Sirakaya and Woodside(2005, p. 828), in their review of tourism deci-sion-making theories, purport that “the choicesetsapproachoffersa rather simpleandpracticalperspective to understanding the travelers’ deci-sion-making process” and that the Crompton(1992) “choice sets approach provides practi-cal advantages” to other types of models. Thus,the Crompton will be the model utilized toguide the present study.

2 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

The Model of Destination Choice Sets

Crompton (1992) integrated relevant re-search findings by consumer behavior scholarsand extant yet sparse findings from tourismstudies, and proposed a model (Figure 1) on thestructure of tourists’ choice sets. According tothis model, tourists’ decision-making processgoes through three stages, whereby all destina-tions that they are aware of are funneled downto reach a final choice. The three stages are: ini-tial consideration set, containing all destina-tions considered by tourists as “possible to visitwithin a period of time” (Crompton, p. 423);late consideration (evoked) set (termed byHoward (1963)), containing destinations con-sidered by tourists as “probable to visit within aperiod of time” (Crompton, p. 424); and finalchoice decision which is the final destinationtourists choose to visit. Simply put, this modeldelineates the process used by potential touriststo reduce the number of destinations throughthreestagesofalternativesetsbefore reachingafinal selection.

Ina follow-upstudy,CromptonandAnkomah(1993) developed a total of nine propositions(two for the first stage; three for the secondstage; and four for the final stage) based on thismodel. For example, for the first stage, it wasproposed that the probability for a destinationto be chosen as a final choice depends on thelevelof tourists’ awareness of thedestination inthe early considerationset. Moreover, the num-ber of destinations in theearlyconsiderationsetwithin a given geographical area was postu-lated toberelated to the tourists’priorvisitationto that area, and the distance of their residencefrom that area. As for the late consideration set,fewer than four destinations were estimated tobe included in this stage, and the ratio betweenthe first consideration set and this set was hy-pothesized to range from .6 to .9. In the finalstage, various decision strategies and criteria(decision rules) such as the relative merits ofdestinations, perceived constraints, the extentof reliance on information, and so forth wereproposed for a final choice. The authors ac-knowledged that most of these propositionswere “transplanted” from the consumer behav-ior field. Thus, it seems that the applicabilityand relevance of these propositions in the tour-ism context remained to be investigated.

When building the destination choice setsmodel, Crompton (1992) and Crompton andAnkomah (1993) cautioned that the notion ofchoice sets is applicable only when the task ofpurchasing requires non-routinized decision-making and high level of involvement. Inother words, three main types of deci-sion-making behaviors suggested by con-sumer behavior literature (i.e., brand loyalty:high involvement, routinized; limited deci-sion-making: low involvement, non-routin-ized; and inertia: low involvement, routinized)(Assael, 2004) may not fit in this model. Yet, ithas been argued that since the tourism productreflects the “unique characteristics of services”(i.e., intangible, inseparable, etc.) that deci-sions related to tourism purchase are all rela-tively highly involved (Sirakaya & Woodside,2005). Moreover, it was explicitly pointed outby Crompton (p. 432) that the taxonomy ofchoice sets is “an analytical tool” rather than“an explanatory model,” “because it does notexplain the roles of internal and external forcesthat shape the choices.”

More recently, a series of studies reported byCrompton and his associates (Botha, Crompton,& Kim, 1999; Crompton, Botha, & Kim, 1998;Kim, Crompton, & Botha, 2000) have providedempiricalsupport to themodelaswellascertainpropositions. For instance, Crompton et al. ver-ified the predicted results of the propositionsfor the late consideration set as stated above.Their findings supported the claim that thenumber of destinations in the decision maker’slate consideration set is typically under four,and this number is about 60% to 90% of itscounterpart in their early consideration set.However, theauthorsfailedtoidentifyaconsis-tent relationship between perceived impor-tance and perceived risk with the late consider-ation set size. Nor did they confirm theproposed positive relationship between re-spondents’ preference rankings of destinationsand the order of the destinations being men-tioned in unaided recall questions. Interest-ingly, while their findings supported the propo-sition that destinations in which people investmore information-seeking effort are morelikely to be included in the late considerationset, it was also reported that for a familiar desti-nation (such as Sun/Lost City to most respon-dents in their study), there could be a different

Petrick, Li, and Park 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

situation. Thus, their results revealed that a fa-miliar destination could become the ultimatechoice even though search effort on it is muchless than on some alternatives.

Ramifications of the Model

Since this “classic” model of tourist destina-tion choice was proposed, tourism studies ondecision-making process have extended to notonly destination choice (e.g., Prentice & Ander-sen, 2000; Sonmez & Graefe, 1998), but to thecontexts of tourist behavior (e.g., Huang &Tsai, 2003; Kozak, 2001); tourist motivation(e.g., Heung, Qu, & Chu, 2001; Kozak, 2002);and travel agents’ destination recommendation(Klenosky & Gitelson, 1998). There seems tobe at least three trends in the application of thechoice sets conceptualization: integration, ex-tension, and amplification.

The first trend can be characterized as inte-gration of the choice sets model. These studiesintegrated themodelaspartof their conceptualbasis for explaining tourists’ decision-makingprocesses (e.g., Klensosky & Gitelson, 1998;Sonmez, 1998; Sonmez & Graefe, 1998;Zalatan, 1996). For example, factors like safety(Sonmez & Graefe) or destination characteris-tics (Zalatan) were included as part of tourists’decision-making processes.

The second trend is an extension of thechoice set conceptualization to different situa-tions from the high-involvement and non-rou-tinized scenario specified by Crompton (1992).These studies examined the influence of previ-ous experiences (Huang & Tsai, 2003; Kozak,2001;Oppermann,1998) and familiarity (Pren-tice & Andersen, 2000) on destination choice,which could make the decision-making situa-tion more routinized and less involved. For ex-

4 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

All Potential Destinations

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Awareness Set Unawareness Set

InitialConsideration

Set

ExcludedSet

FoggySet

HoldSet

UnpleasantPersonal

ExperienceSet

NegativeExternal

FeedbackSet

Inert Set Inept or Reject Set

Late Consideration(Evoked) Set

Action Set Inaction Set

Interaction Set Quiet Set

Final SelectedDestination

FIGURE 1. Structure of Vacation Destination Choice Sets (Crompton, 1992, p. 421)

Used with Permission: Elsevier Limited.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

ample, Oppermann contended that because ofprevious visits, some repeat visitors may ex-perience a unique pattern of choice sets: theirearly, late, and final consideration sets couldconsistently contain only one option. Prenticeand Andersen acknowledged that the choicesets model is limited in understanding choicesmade without much problem-solving pro-cesses. They argued that in alternative situa-tions, specifically, when “familiarity is a driverfor imaginedaffectiveassociationsaboutdesti-nations, evoked opportunities, and prefer-ences” (Prentice & Andersen, p. 493), familiar-ity could become the ultimate determinant ofvisiting propensity. According to their concep-tualization, familiarity,asopposed toextensiveinformation processing postulated in theCrompton’s model, becomes the mechanismofchoice selection.

Research has also extended the classicchoice sets model by examining tourists’ de-cision-making characteristics in multipur-pose trips (versus one single pleasure-seekingtrip) (Oppermann, 2000), and by examiningmulti-facet travel decisions (choice of the com-bination of several travel components versussimply destination choice) (Dellaert et al., 1997;Dellaert, Ettema, & Lindh, 1998). Dellaert et al.(1998) suggested that both the timing of travel-ers’ choices on different components of one va-cation and their constraints affect the overallprocess of travel decision-making. Further, thetiming of those parts differed in varying de-grees until the actual travel takes place, andconstraints were found to be the determinantfactor for travel decisions. Overall, this streamof research has attempted to extend the applica-bility of the concept of choice sets. Looking be-yond the specific choice analysis context, theseresearchers associated the notion of choice setswith a broader picture of travel decision-mak-ing situations from various angles.

A third trend is the amplification of thechoice sets model by adding additional factorsto the model. Additional factors which havebeen added to the model include: cognitive dis-tance (Ankomah et al., 1996), image (Heung etal., 2001; Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002), satisfac-tion (Kozak, 2001), motivational differences(Kozak, 2002), and the tourist’s role (Jiang,Havitz, & O’Brien, 2000). For instance,Ankomah et al. investigated the relationship

between cognitive distance and choice sets.They found that cognitive distance estimates todestinations in the late consideration set weresignificantly more accurate than estimates todestinations in the reject set. Further, theyfound that respondents tended tounderestimatecognitive distance for destinations in the lateconsideration set, but the level of underestima-tion varies in different subsets of the late set,with the action subset higher than inaction set.Kozak (2001) found that the determinant fac-tors for intention to revisit were the level ofoverall satisfaction and the number of previousvisits. In addition, tourist motivations havebeen found to be different based on two factors:nationality and destinations visited (Kozak,2002). By identifying the antecedents and con-sequences of choice set formation, this streamof research has attempted to amplify the model,by making it more explanatory by includingvarious factors influencing choice-decision.

In comparison to the numerous studies inte-grating, extending, or amplifying the choicesets model (which is arguably beyond themodel’s initialpurpose), therehasbeen littleef-fort made in testing the original model. Fur-thermore, although Crompton and Ankomah(1993) estimated that the concept of choice setscould be generalizable to many facets of tour-ism, no studies have examined this model inother sectors of the tourism industry (outside ofdestinations). While this model has possiblybeenthemostoftencitedandutilizedinthefieldof tourism, few studies have empirically exam-ined it. Recent research has generated a betterunderstandingof thephenomenafromdifferentperspectives.

Recent Tourist Decision-Making Research

Most of the recent literature related to tour-ists’ decision-making processes have exam-ined how tourists search for information whenmaking travel decisions (Gursoy & McCleary,2004; Huan & Beaman, 2003; Maser &Weiermair, 1998; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998).Vogt and Fesenmaier (p. 552) suggested thatthe underlying premise of this research is “thatindividuals are goal-directed; that is, they areattempting to answer a specific question as towhich product to buy or how to spend time.”They examined information requesters, to a

Petrick, Li, and Park 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Midwest destination in the United States andwere able to develop a reliable and valid scalefor measuring multiple information needs oftourists.Results revealed thatmost informationis collected for functional reasons, though in-formation is also gathered to fulfill: innovative,hedonic (entertainment) and aesthetic/visualneeds. They thus suggest that when developingcommunicationmaterials,destinationmanagersshould incorporate these needs.

Gursoy and McCleary (2004) conceptual-ized a more holistic model of tourists’ informa-tion search behavior, though the model has yettobeempiricallyexamined.Theirmodelpostu-lated that familiarity and expertise are the keymoderating variables between situational fac-tors (previous visits, involvement, intentionallearning and incidental learning) and both in-ternal and external searching behavior. Theirmodel further suggested that the relationshipsbetween familiarity and expertise, and internaland external search were mediated by the per-ceivedcosts of both the internaland external in-formation search. These proposals suggestedthat travel decision-making was typically ahighly involved and complex process.

Another model of decision-making was pro-posed by Huan and Beaman (2003). They sug-gested that not including tourist type or treatingmultiple step decisions as one compensatorychoice invalidates decision-making research.They further suggested that examining deci-sion-makingat the individual level is flawed, asthe process of choosing a destination is also asocial process (influenced by others). Thus,they argued that decision-making is a social-psychological construct.

Similarly, Decrop and Snelders (2005) pro-posed a decision-making typologybased on so-cial-psychological processes. They examinedthe decision-making processes of 25 Belgianhouseholds choosing a vacation and identifiedsix different types of vacationers: habitual (re-peaters), rational (risk avoiders), hedonic (plea-sure seekers), opportunistic (non-planners),constrained (have contextual inhibitors) andadaptable (flexible). While these categories arenot mutually exclusive, they do offer insightinto the decision-making processes of vaca-tioners from various social-psychologicalbackgrounds. From this same data set, Decrop(2005) further found that decisions made with

friends (in comparison to couples/families) aremore likely to: involve all members, take lon-ger, and are more likely to be ineffective. Yet,decisions made with friends are less likely to befrustrating as friends are more willing to com-promise (“sacrifice”), and group adhesion is amajor goal.

Similar to the Crompton (1992) model,Woodside and Dubelaar (2002) and Woodsideand King (2001) postulated a purchase con-sumption system (PCS) which sequences thesteps in which consumers utilize to buy and useproducts. Their sequential model helps toexplain how different variables (i.e., demo-graphics, choices/alternatives, pre-planning is-sues, key selection drivers, etc.) in the deci-sion-making process affect each other. Theirbehavioral model (as opposed to choice setmodels; see Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) fora full-review of both types of models) includesten propositions related to the affects of one de-cision behavior on another (see Woodside,MacDonald, & Burford, 2004, for a full reviewof the propositions).

Also related to the current study is the workof Sirakaya, McLellan, and Uysal (1996) whoutilized a behavioral decision theory to modelcollege students’ decision-making processes.They revealed that for college students, deci-sions are individual specific and that destina-tion attractiveness and the cost of the trip arethe most important factors for predicting finalchoice. This finding suggests that decisionsrelated to choosing a cruise may be related tothe attractiveness and perceived value of theproduct.

Purpose of the Study

Since it has been suggested that understand-ing tourists’ decision-making is one of the keysto marketing success (Gursoy & McCleary,2004; Johnson & Messmer, 1991) and thecruise industry is becoming increasingly com-petitive (CLIA, 2005, 2006), it would seem im-portant for cruise management to better under-stand their visitors’ decision-making processesin a practical manner. Since the Crompton(1992) model has been suggested to offer a“rather simple and practical perspective to un-derstanding the travelers’ decision process”and has been argued to have “practical advan-

6 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

tages” over other models (Sirakaya & Wood-side, 2005), it was believed that the Cromptonmodel would offer the best fit to the researchneeded.

Yet, as argued by Crompton (1992), thechoice sets model does not necessarily delin-eate the shaping forces of a choice. As stated bySirakaya and Woodside (2005, p. 829), choiceset models often “accept that other individualsaffect the decision-maker, but do not addressactive interaction with other individuals orsources along the decision-making process.Thus, it would further seem important to focuson the social influences on these decisions (asper Huan & Beaman, 2003), and to examine theunderlying reasons why passengers chose thecruise they did, over all other vacations.

Crompton’s (1992)choicesetmodelwasde-veloped to examine the decision-making pro-cesses related to choosing a vacation destina-tion, and he argued that the process might bequite different for different types of vacations.It was thus postulated that the decision-makingprocesses of persons purchasing a cruise vaca-tion would be more complex than decisions re-lated to choosing a destination, since it was be-lieved the process would involve more steps.Similar to choosing a destination, cruise vaca-tioners must decide: (a) whether or not to take avacation, and (b) where to go. Yet, cruise vaca-tionersmustalsodecide: (c)whichcruise line totravel on, and (d) which ship from that line tochoose.

It has beensuggested that for topics thathavea theoretical foundation which is not yet robust,qualitative approaches are preferred (Dann &Phillips, 2001). Thus, since the Crompton(1992) choice sets model lacks empirical sup-port, it was determined that the most feasiblemeans for examining the purposes of the studywas via focus groups of cruise passengers.Therefore, the current study utilized inductivereasoning (instead of hypotheses) as a guidingframework to investigate the role of choice setswhile examining social influences and theunderlying reasons for final choice.

METHODS

Data for the current study was collected dur-ing a one week cruise on board the newest ship

for a predominant cruise line (called ABC linefrom here forward), utilizing focus groups. Theship utilized has been defined as a “premiership” (Choosing Cruising, 2004) on a “premierline” (Cartwright & Baird, 1999). The ship has720 passenger staterooms which have beencalled “among the largest in the industry” with80% of all cabins having deluxe verandas(Cruise & Vacation Views, 2001). The ship’sitinerary included stops in St. Thomas, USVI;Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; Ocho Rios,Jamaica and ABC’s private island.

Potential participants were selected fromthe cruise manifest (listing of all passengers,including relevant information) by theShip’s Hotel Manager, and were stratified toensure representation of different cruisertypes (Alumni, suite, outside, and insidecabin) were solicited. This was done by sortingpassengers by cabin type and by number ofcruises, prior to systematically selecting them.Passengers selected (n = 152) were then ran-domly placed into one of 23 pre-planned focusgroups. These passengers were then invited toparticipate by having a note explaining thestudy sent to their cabins, with an R.S.V.P. cardenclosed. The note informed the guests whereand when their focus group would take place.The note also asked them to indicate whetherthey would like to participate by returning theirR.S.V.P. card to the Purser’s Desk.

A totalof 82 passengers agreed to participatevia contacting the Purser’s Desk. Guests whoshowed up for their focus groups (n = 72) wereinterviewed in small groups (2 to 5 people) inorder to better hear individual opinions, com-ments and observances, while allowing forgroup interaction. The interviews were all con-ducted in the same conference room, and wererecorded in order to better preserve the data.The interviews were led by the primary investi-gator of the current study, with one assistant inattendance to take additional notes to better as-sist with the reliability of responses. On aver-age, the interviews lasted approximately 35minutes. As a gift for participating, guests weregiven a small gift, compliments of the HotelManager.

Thequestionsaskedwerescripted inorder tobeconsistent,andmultiplefollow-upquestionswere utilized as discussion warranted. Thescript was developed, following the Crompton

Petrick, Li, and Park 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

(1992) choice sets model, and included addi-tional inquiry into the role of others within thedecision-making process (as per Huan &Beaman, 2003). Also, with the use of the inter-viewing process, follow-up questions were in-cludedtoassist inunderstandingtheunderlyingcauses of the decisions made.

Participants were initially informed that thepurpose of their focus group was: “to assist ‘thecruise line’ in better serving them in the future,and to determine why you chose this particularcruise and ship.” The initial set of questionsasked for feedback regarding participants’cruising history (i.e., number of cruises theyhad taken, number with ABC, who else theyhad cruised). The second group of questionsasked respondents about their initial consider-ation sets. Participants were asked: what typesof vacation they considered, who was involvedin thisprocess,whendid thisprocess start,werethere multiple rounds of reducing choices (i.e.,was therea lateconsiderationset),why/howdidthey decide to take a cruise versus another typeof vacation.

The third group of questions asked partici-pants the main reasons why they chose ABCoverothercruise linesandorvacations(lateandfinal decision). Questions in this group in-cluded: what other cruise lines/vacations wereconsidered, who made the final decision, who/what influenced the final decision, what werethe other possible choices, when was the finaldecision made, and why did they ultimatelychoose the “ship.” Additional streams of ques-tions (not included in this study) include: acompetitor analysis, the effect on the currentcruise of participating in a focus group, andfuture behavioral intentions.

RESULTS

Profile of Respondents

Respondents included 55 visitors who hadsailed ABC before and 17 first time ABCguests.Participantsonaveragehad takena totalof 13.7 cruises, with 8.3 (60.3%) of thosecruises being taken on ABC (ranged from firsttime cruisers to 61 total cruises). Additionally,the sample included 37 males, and 35 females,and consisted of 18 guests who were staying in

suites and 14 guests who stayed in insidecabins.

Initial Choice Set

On average, guests started their decision-making process regarding which type of vaca-tion to take 5.7 months prior to sailing. The vastmajority of initial decisions were made only bythose who would be going on the vacation (i.e.,couples discussed it together, or one member ofa couple informed the other, or, if an individual,nobody influenced initial decisions). Of the 72participants, only four made initial decisionsbased on information received from ABC, andonly one was influenced by a travel agent. Thefour persons who were influenced by ABCwere all Alumni, and contact made from theirparticipation in the Alumni program is whatstarted their decision-making processes. Themajority of responses mirrored the following:

“Nobody, or no information influencedour decision to go on vacation. We go ev-ery year, and as always, we just sat downand started to decide where we would gothis year. We make these decisions byourself.” (Male, Alumni visitor)

During this initial phase, only five inter-viewed guests considered a vacation other thana cruise. These guests were either consideringflying toasingledestination(n=4)ordriving tosee family (n = 1). While there were multiplereasons that participants gave for deciding totakeacruise insteadofanother typeofvacation,most were because cruising is perceived to bemore carefree than other vacations. Examplesinclude:

“We think (cruising) is the best part of ev-erything. You’ve got everything from food,live entertainment, and different portsto go to. It’s a break away from doingnothing.”

“You can unpack only once, and see dif-ferent places . . . it is convenient.”

“We’ve done other vacations, been there,done that.”

8 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

“You don’t have to be anywhere, at anyspecific time.”

“You don’t have to deal with buses or ho-tels. You have everything you need righthere.”

While itwasanticipatedthat therewouldbeaprogressive funneling of multiple choices,down to a single choice, the vast majority ofparticipants (n = 56) knew that they were takingan ABC cruise the second that they decided togo on vacation. Of these, all but three were re-peat ABC cruisers. Responses from therepeaters included:

“The only decision we make every year iswhich ship we are going to go on.”

“We’ve tried other lines, but ABC iswhere we belong . . . I don’t think we’lltake a regular vacation again.”

“Why would we go through the hassle totry anything else? They (ABC) make ushappy and treat us like royalty . . . weonly sail ABC.”

Responses from first time ABC (n = 3) cruis-ers who knew they would be taking a cruise onABC immediately included:

“Our parents always swear by ABC andwe just figured it was time for us to seewhat it was all about . . . it was the onlyvacation we considered.”

“The last cruise we went on, people toldus that ABC America was better . . . weknew our next cruise would be with them,just didn’t know when.”

The sixteen passengers who did not knowthat they would be sailing with ABC immedi-ately included two repeat ABC cruisers, and 14first timers. This group of respondents ap-peared to weigh the strengths of the differentlines first, and then chose based on itineraryand/or ship. A single, consistent theme for whytheyendedupcruisingABC seemed tobe that itoffered better value. Quotes from this groupinclude:

“We did research on all of the big cruiselines and narrowed it to Princess, Royal(Caribbean) and ABC. Princess andRoyal (Caribbean) are less expensive,but you don’t get as much as you do here.We decided that since it was our anniver-sary that it was worth the extra money . . .Once we knew we were going on ABC,the ‘ship’ was our choice because wewanted to go to the Caribbean.”(FirstTimer)

“Our last few cruises were all on Prin-cess, but we wanted to sail somebodynew. We are able to cruise (Princess) fora little less (money), but they aren’tworth it unless they are running a specialpromotion. We checked out a lot of lines,and even thought about Princess again . . .We couldn’t find a super deal, so wechose ABC because (the others) don’t of-fer as high of quality overall . . . I reallywanted a newer ship (in response to whyhe chose the ‘ship’).”(First Timer)

“We knew it was going to be either Ce-lebrity or ABC, and tried to see whowould offer us the best deal. Of all thelines these are our two favorites, and thistime the decision seemed to be tougherthan normal. Both lines offered us won-derful deals. We got a 45% discount forbeing Alumni members which made ourdecision much easier . . . we chose the‘ship’ because we wanted to be in awarm itinerary.”(Repeater)

Late and Final Choice Set

On average, respondents had decided to taketheir vacation on board the “ship” (final deci-sion) 5.5 months prior to sailing. Thus, the timefrom initially thinking about taking a vacation(5.7 months prior), to making a final decisiontook on average less than one week. For partici-pantswhoknewimmediatelythat theywerego-ing to take an ABC cruise (n = 56), they reducedtheir choices down to the “ship” based on eitherthe destinations visited, or the ship itself. Ex-amplesof quotationsmadeby respondents whobased their final decision on destinationsvisited include:

Petrick, Li, and Park 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

“Their itinerary and dates matched bestwith when and where we wanted to go.”

“This was the only ship ‘ABC’ has in theCaribbean which made our choice veryeasy.”

Responses from those who made their deci-sion based solely on the ship include:

“We have come to eliminate some of(ABC’s) ships, the older ones, and wantedto cruise the newest one.”

“We heard that this ship had the bestmodern art.”

As mentioned previously, the final decision forrespondents who did not know that they wouldbe going on ABC immediately was generallymade, based on value.

During the final decision-making phase, re-spondents were also more likely to seek infor-mation from others. Participants who knew im-mediately that they were going to cruise withABC(n=56),weremost likely toseek informa-tion from the Web (n = 33), though they alsocontacted ABC directly for information (n =11) and also contacted travel agents for infor-mation (n = 8). Participants (n = 16) who did notknow that they were going to cruise ABC im-mediately were most likely to: go to the ABCWeb site (n = 13), contact a travel agent (n = 9),ask friends/family for assistance (n = 6), or talkwith a group leader for advice (n = 5). These re-spondents as a whole were much more likely touse multiple sources of information to make afinal decision, while the former group tended toutilize only one source of information.

Participants were also asked the main reasonwhy they chose ABC over all other cruise lines.These responses were systematically groupedinto themes by two researchers independently.Once completed, the themes were comparedand negotiated. The resultant themes which in-cluded three or more responses included:Supe-rior Product/Service (n = 19), Familiarity/Loy-alty (n = 11), Other Guests (n = 9), TheShip (n =8), Superior Crew (n = 6), Convenience (n = 6)and Price (n = 4).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

With the cruise industry becoming increas-ingly competitive (CLIA, 2006), it is more im-portant than ever for cruise management tounderstand their markets. Further, the under-standing of tourists’ decision-making pro-cesses (Crompton, 1992), the various social in-fluences (Huan & Beaman, 2003) and theunderlying processes (Gursoy & McCleary,2004; Johnson & Messmer, 1991) have beenproposed as keys to marketing success. Thus,it was the purpose of the current study to exam-ine cruise passengers’ choice sets (as perCrompton), while focusing on the social influ-ences on these decisions (as per Huan &Beaman), and examining the underlying rea-sonswhypassengerschosethecruise theydid.

Resultsof thecurrentstudyhavebothmanage-rial and theoretical implications. The Crompton(1992) choice sets model suggested that deci-sions related to choosing a vacation destinationgo through three distinct stages, yet suggestedthat this process could be very different for dif-ferent sectors of the tourism industry. It wasthus believed by the current researchers that thedecision-makingprocessesofpersonspurchas-ing a cruise vacation would be more complexthandecisionsrelatedtochoosingadestination.Similar to choosing a destination, cruise vaca-tioners must decide: (a) whether or not to take avacation, and (b) where to go. Yet, cruise vaca-tionersmustalsodecide: (c)whichcruise line totravel on, and (d) which ship from that line tochoose.

Findings of the current study suggest the ex-istence of two groups of cruisers: those who gothrough complex decision-making (partici-pants who did not know that they were going tocruise ABC immediately) and those who arebrand loyal (participants who sailed ABC be-fore and knew immediately that they were go-ing to cruise with ABC). The former wentthrough the funneling process before reachingtheir final decision, as suggested by Cromptonand his associates (Crompton, 1992; Crompton& Ankomah, 1993; Crompton et al., 1998).

Thelatterwent throughaprocess thatcontra-dictedthechoicesetsmodel,byskippingearlierstages. It was revealed that these passengersseemtofollowLanger’s (1978)notionofmind-lessness: theysimplified theirdecision-making

10 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

with minimal processing of available informa-tion, and did not go through all three phases ofthechoicesets model.CromptonandAnkomah(1993) argued that the choice sets model wouldonly be effective for non-routinized and highlyinvolved decisions. While it can be argued thatthe decisions of the current respondents werehighly involved (as per Assael, 2004), it ap-pears as if these decisions were routinized.Thisheld especially true for repeat ABC travelers,which is similar to Oppermann’s (1998) postu-lation that for tourists who have previous expe-rience, their entire set of choices may includeonly one option. In this case, it was not that theyhad taken that specific vacation before (no par-ticipants had ever sailed on the “ship” before),but they had purchased other products from thebrand before (ABC).

The above finding is in accordance withPrentice and Anderson (2000) who suggestedthat familiarity could become the ultimate de-terminant of visitation, and with Crompton andAnkomah(1993)whopostulated thatdecisionsthat involve familiar destinations would reducethe number of choices in the late considerationset. It is further possible that this finding is re-lated to Decrop’s (1999) proposition that thereare distinct differences between “brand loyal-ists” (those with intensive experience) and“variety seekers” (those with extensive experi-ence). The role of prior experience in decision-making is thus very complex, and certainlywarrants further research. For cruise manage-ment this finding reveals the importance ofmaintaining customer loyalty, and that the useof loyalty programs could be very beneficial.

Interestingly, the three first-timeABC cruis-ers who knew that they wanted to take a ABCcruise thesecondtheydecidedtogoonvacationdemonstrated a new decision-making behaviorthatdoesnot fall into traditionalunderstanding:they had not been brand loyal yet (i.e., no previ-ous experience with the brand), and did not uti-lize complex decision-making. In examiningtheir decision-making processes, it was re-vealed that these respondents chose their vaca-tion, based on social influences (i.e., a familymember, other cruisers, a travel agent). It ap-pears as if these cruisers absorbed the informa-tion from external sources perceived as credi-ble and these perceptions became part of theirmemory.Oncetheydecidedtogoonavacation,

they retrieved this information internally, andtheir entire information search process stoppedthere (i.e., no more external information searchwas necessary). Thus, internal informationsearch preceded external information search interms of both order and importance, whichsupports Bettman’s (1979) conceptualization.

This finding seems to suggest that there is asequence of information search, such as in-ternal information based on one’s own pastexperienceÆinternal information based onpreviously collected, credible informationÆinternal informationbasedonothermemoriesÆexternal information search. As proposed bySirakaya and Woodside (2005, p. 827), “addi-tional theoretical work and empirical reportsare needed to help understand heavy search be-havior by visitors with extensive prior travelbehavior experiences to the destination areasthat theyareabout tovisit, aswell asnon-searchbehavior exhibited by some leisure first-timevisitors to a given destination area.” From amanagerial perspective, this finding suggeststhe importance of word-of-mouth advertising,as itappears thatforsomevisitors, justhearingaconfirmation that the product is a good one, jus-tified their purchase.

Resultsof thecurrentstudyalsovalidatepor-tions of the Decrop and Snelders’ (2005) deci-sion-making typology. They proposed that de-cision-makers can be classified as: habitual,rational, hedonic, opportunistic, constrained oradaptable, and that these groups are not mutu-ally exclusive. Present results suggest thatmany of the ABC cruisers are habitual cruisers,as they tended to make the same final decisionsthat they have in the past (routinized). Addi-tionally, some of the respondents could be clas-sified as rational (chose ABC as it was lessrisky) and as opportunistic (i.e., went with agroup that made the decisions for them). Whileit would be assumed that many of the visitorsmade decisions based on hedonic (for pleasure)reasons, the scope of the study did not revealthis as a motive. Additionally, the groups ofconstrained and adaptable did not appear to bepart of this sample. Future research should in-clude methods to examine whether or not thesegroups of decisionmakersexist for cruisevaca-tions. This knowledge could be very useful to

Petrick, Li, and Park 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

cruise management in determining target mar-kets, and their differences.

Results of the current study also revealedthat for decisions that were more complex, per-ceptions of value tended to be the most impor-tant decision-making factor. This finding issimilar to Sirakaya, McLellan, and Uysal(1996) who found that cost is one of the mostimportant variables related to final choice. Theimportance of value may be even a larger drawfor ABC passengers, as ABC has been awarded“World’s Best Cruise Value” for the past thir-teen years (CruiseNetwork, 2005). This sug-gests that ABC should utilize messages relatedto value, as it appears to be a major pull factor totheir market. Future research should examinewhether this finding is similar across lines.

It was also found that initial decisions had atendency to be made solely by those who wouldbe traveling (via internal information process-ing), while final decisions involved external in-formation (i.e., Web sites, literature), and addi-tional social influences (i.e., travel agent,friends) as suggested by Huan and Beaman(2003) and Maser and Weiermair (1998). Thisfinding reveals to cruise management the im-portance of having accurate information avail-able to decision makers during the final phase,and the importanceof word-of-mouth advertis-ing.Future researchshouldexaminewhat typesof information are desired by decision-makersduring this phase, and ways to best present it.

A final finding of the current study is thatcurrent respondents not only had to make a de-cision at the brand level (i.e., ABC), but also atthe sub-brand level (i.e., which ship to choose).This decision was most often based on the itin-erary, or the ship (in most cases, ship was cho-sen because it was new). This finding suggeststhat for cruise lines which have ships that arenot doing as well as the rest of their fleet, it maybe possible to increase interest by changing theitinerary to a more appealing one, and thatchanging out older ships for newer ones may bean effective strategy. Since the ship utilized inthecurrentstudywas thefleet’snewest ship, fu-ture research should examine whether or not“newness” is an important factor in cruisepassengers’ decision-making processes.

While it is believed that the methods utilizedin the current study were fundamentally sound,the study still had limitations. The study was

limited by utilizing passengers on board onlyone ship, for one cruise line. Since Tyrrell,Countryman, Hong, and Cai (2001) haveshown differences in decision-making pro-cesses for travelers to different destinations,moreresearchisnecessaryprior togeneralizingthe current results. The current study was fur-ther limited to only one cruising season(Spring). The demographics of cruise passen-gers change greatly between seasons, and fur-ther research is necessary in order to determineif decisions made for vacations at this time ofthe year are the same as they are during othertimes (i.e., are children more involved duringthe summer months?).

While it is difficult to generalize the resultsof thepresent study, it is believed that theyoffernew insights into the decision-making pro-cesses of cruise passengers. As proposed bySirakaya, McLellan, and Uysal (1996), deci-sion-making is very individualistic, making itunrealistic to develop a model which explainsall tourists’ behaviors. Yet, the current studygenerated a better understanding of whencruise passengers’ decisions are made, how/why decisions were made, and who/what influ-enced those decisions. Since little empirical re-search has been conducted in this area, it is fur-ther believed that the current results offer aninitial conceptualization of the decision-mak-ing processes that cruise passengers on a pre-mier line go through. With the use of thisknowledge, cruise management should be ableto more effectively manage resources, as theyshould have a better understanding of theirclientele.

REFERENCES

Ankomah, P. K., Crompton, J. L., & Baker, D. (1996).Influence of cognitive distance in vacation choice.Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 138-150.

Assael, H. (2004). Consumer behavior: A strategic ap-proach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bettman, J. R. (1979). Information processing theory ofconsumer choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S.-S. (1999). Devel-oping a revised competitive position for Sun/LostCity, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research,37(4), 341-352.

Caneen, J. M. (2003). Cultural determinants of tourist in-tention to return. Tourism Analysis, 8(2), 237-242.

12 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Cartwright, R., & Baird, C. (1999). The development andgrowth of the cruise industry. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Choosing Cruising. (2004). Holland America, MS Zaandam.Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://www.choosingcruising.co.uk/Cruiseweb/ShpDetailsQuery.asp?nshp=229

Crompton, J. L. (1992). Structure of destination choicesets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3), 420-434.

Crompton, J. L., & Ankomah, P. K. (1993). Choice setpropositions in destination decisions. Annals of Tour-ism Research, 20(3), 461-476.

Crompton, J. L., Botha, C., & Kim, S.-S. (1998). Testingselected choice propositions. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 26(1), 210-213.

Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. S. (2001). The influence ofcognitive distance in vacation choice. Annals ofTourism Research, 28(2), 512-515.

Cruise Line International Association. (2005). CLIA:The overview Spring 2005. Retrieved February 15,2006, from http://www.cruising.org/press/overview/Spring2005.pdf

Cruise Line International Association. (2006). Profile ofthe U.S. cruise industry. Retrieved February 15,2006, from http://www.cruising.org/press/sourcebook2006/profile_cruise_industry.cfm

CruiseNetwork. (2005). Lucky number 13 for HollandAmerica. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from http://www.cruisenetwork.com/cruise-news-20050425.jsp

Cruise & Vacation Views. (2001). Holland AmericaLine: Keeping tradition and elegance exciting.Retrieved February 10, 2006, from http://www.etravelnews.com/Subscribers/CruiseMarket/CruiseMarket_ref_2001/Holland%20America%20Line/Holland_America_2001.htm

Dann, G., & Philips, J. (2001). Qualitative tourism re-search in the late twentieth century and beyond. In B.Faulkner, G. Moscardo, & E. Laws (Eds), Tourism inthe twenty-first century (pp. 247-265). London: Con-tinuum.

Decrop, A. (1999). Personal aspects of vacationers’ de-cision making processes: An interpretivist approach.Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(4),59-68.

Decrop, A. (2005). Group processes in vacation deci-sion-making. Journal of Travel & Tourism Market-ing, 18(3), 23-36.

Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2005). A grounded typologyof vacation decision-making. Tourism Management,26(2), 121-132.

Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J., & Timmermans, H.J. P. (1997). Conjoint models of tourist portfoliochoice: Theory and illustration. Leisure Sciences,19(1), 31-58.

Dellaert, B. G. C., Ettema, D. F., & Lindh, C. (1998).Multi-faceted tourist travel decisions: A con-straint-based conceptual framework to describe tour-ists’ sequential choices of travel components.Tourism Management, 19(4), 313-320.

Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist in-formation search behavior. Journal of Travel Re-search, 37(3), 220-230.

Ford, J. B., LaTour, M. S., & Henthorne, T. L. (1995).Perception of marital roles in purchase decision pro-cesses: A cross cultural study. Journal of the Acad-emy of Marketing Sciences, 23(2), 120-131.

Gitelson, R., & Kerstetter, D. (1994). The influence offriends and relatives in travel decision-making. Jour-nal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3(3), 59-68.

Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004). An integrativemodel of tourists’ information search behavior. An-nals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353-373.

Heung, V. C. S., Qu, H., & Chu, R. (2001). Relationshipbetween vacation factors and socio-demographic andtraveling characteristics: The case of Japanese leisuretravelers. Tourism Management, 22(3), 259-269.

Howard, D. (1963). Marketing management (2nd ed.).Homewood, IL: Irwin Publishing.

Huan, T. C., & Beaman, J. (2003). Contexts and dynam-ics of social interaction and Information search in de-cision making for discretionary travel. TourismAnalysis, 8(2), 177-182.

Huang, L., & Tsai, H. T. (2003). The study of senior trav-eler behavior in Taiwan. Tourism Management,24(5), 561-574.

Jeng, J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Conceptualizingthe travel decision-making hierarchy: A review of re-cent developments. Tourism Analysis, 7(1), 15-32.

Jiang, J., Havitz, M. E., & O’Brien, R. M. (2000). Vali-dating the international tourist role scale. Annals ofTourism Research, 27(4), 964-981.

Johnson, R. R., & Messmer, D. J. (1991). The effect ofadvertising on hierarchical stages in vacation destina-tion choice. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(4),18-24.

Kim, S.-S., Crompton, J. L., & Botha, C. (2000). Re-sponding to competition: A strategy for Sun/LostCity, South Africa. Tourism Management, 21(1),33-41.

Klenosky, D. B., & Gitelson, R. E. (1998). Travel agents’destination Recommendations. Annals of TourismResearch, 25(3), 661-674.

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinctdestinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3),784-807.

Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourist moti-vations by nationality and destinations. TourismManagement, 23(3), 221-232.

Langer, E. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in so-cial interactions. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R.Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution re-search (pp. 35-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Lois, P., Wang, J., Wall, A., & Ruxton, T. (2004). For-mal safety assessment of cruise ships. Tourism Man-agement, 25(1), 93-109.

Madrigal, R. (1993). Parents’ perceptions of familymembers’ relative influence in vacation decision

Petrick, Li, and Park 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4

making. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,2(4), 39-57.

Maser, B., & Weiermair, K. (1998). Travel deci-sion-making: From the vantage point of perceivedrisk and information preferences. Journal of Traveland Tourism Marketing, 7(4), 107-120.

Morgan, M. S. (1991). Travelers’ choice: The effects ofadvertising and prior stay. Cornell Hotel & Restau-rant Administration Quarterly, 32(4), 41-49.

Mottiar, Z., & Quinn, D. (2004). Couple dynamics inhousehold tourism decision making: Women as thegatekeepers? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2),149-160.

Nicosia, F. M. (1966). Consumer decision processes:Marketing and advertising implications. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oppermann, M. (1998). Travel horizon: A valuableanalysis tool? Tourism Management, 19(4), 321-329.

Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty.Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78-84.

Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2000). Evoking Ireland:Modeling tourist propensity. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 27(2), 490-516.

Rompf, P., DiPietro, R. B., & Ricci, P. (2005). Local’sinvolvement in travelers’ informational search andvenue decision strategies while at destination. Jour-nal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 18(3), 11-22.

Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R. W., & Uysal, M. (1996).Modeling vacation destination decisions: A behav-ioral approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-keting, 5(1/2), 57-75.

Sirakaya, E., Sonmez, S. F., & Choi, H. S. (2001). Dodestination images really matter? Predicting destina-tion choices of student travelers. Journal of VacationMarketing, 7(2), 125-142.

Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building andtesting theories of decision making by travellers.Tourism Management, 26(6), 815-832.

Sonmez, S. F. (1998). Tourism, terrorism, and politicalinstability. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2),416-456.

Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Influence of ter-rorism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Annals ofTourism Research, 25(1), 112-144.

Sonmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). A distorted desti-nation image: The case of Turkey. Journal of TravelResearch, 41(2), 185-196.

Thill, J. C., & Wheeler, A. (2000). Tree induction of spa-tial choice behavior. Transportation Research Record,1719, 250-258.

Thornton, P. R., Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (1997).Tourist group holiday decision-making and behav-ior: The influence of children. Tourism Management,18(5), 287-297.

Tyrrell, B., Countryman, C., Hong, G. S., & Cai, L. A.(2001). Determinants of destination choice by Japa-nese overseas travelers. Journal of Travel and Tour-ism Marketing, 10(2/3), 87-100.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinantsin tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Re-search, 17(3), 432-448.

Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. (1998). Expanding thefunctional information search model. Annals of Tour-ism Research, 25(3), 551-578.

Wang, K. C., Hsieh, A. T., Yeh, Y. C., & Tsai, C. W.(2004). Who is the decision-maker: The parents orthe child in group package tours? Tourism Manage-ment, 25(2), 183-194.

Woodside, A. G., & Dubelaar, C. (2002). A general the-ory of tourism consumption systems: A conceptualframework and an empirical exploration. Journal ofTravel Research, 41(2), 120-132.

Woodside, A. G., & King, R. (2001). Tourism consump-tion systems: Theory and empirical research. Journalof Travel and Tourism Marketing, 10(1), 3-27.

Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A generalmodel of traveler destination choice. Journal ofTravel Research, 27(4), 8-14.

Woodside, A. G., McDonald, R., & Burford, M. (2004).Grounded theory of leisure travel. Journal of Travel& Tourism Marketing, 17(1), 7-39.

Zalatan, A. (1996). The determinants of planning time invacation travel. Tourism Management, 17(2),123-131.

Zalatan, A. (1998). Wives’ involvement in tourism deci-sion processes. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4),890-903.

SUBMITTED: February 28, 2006FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:

October 24, 2006ACCEPTED: November 28, 2006

REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY

doi:10.1300/J073v23n01_01

14 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:10

10

Oct

ober

201

4