Description
By means of a longitudinal study the research investigates the main
topics of discussion in couples, and the information sources couples use in their discussion.
Furthermore, the research investigates whether the information sources used depend on the nature of
the sub-decision – search-determined or experience-determined – the couples discuss.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
A new perspective on tourist information search: discussion in couples as the context
Fred Bronner Robert de Hoog
Article information:
To cite this document:
Fred Bronner Robert de Hoog, (2011),"A new perspective on tourist information search: discussion in couples as the context", International
J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 128 - 143
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139555
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 32 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1172 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kenneth F. Hyde, Alain Decrop, (2011),"New perspectives on vacation decision making", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 103-111http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139537
Theera Erawan, Donyaprueth Krairit, Do Ba Khang, (2011),"Tourists' external information search behavior model: the case of Thailand",
J ournal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 297-316http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465661111183702
Karin Teichmann, (2011),"Expertise, experience and self-confidence in consumers' travel information search", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 184-194http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139591
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
A new perspective on tourist information
search: discussion in couples as the
context
Fred Bronner and Robert de Hoog
Abstract
Purpose – Information-search for vacation decision-making can occur in two different contexts: an
individual one, in which one forms one’s preferences, and a social one in response to discussions with
partners and family members. This paper focuses on the latter.
Design/methodology/approach – By means of a longitudinal study the research investigates the main
topics of discussion in couples, and the information sources couples use in their discussion.
Furthermore, the research investigates whether the information sources used depend on the nature of
the sub-decision – search-determined or experience-determined – the couples discuss.
Findings – The research ?nds that there is considerable discussion between partners and that the
amount of discussion varies in relation to the type of sub-decision. During these discussions, the use of
different information sources is widespread. More generally, the study con?rms the overall importance of
the social context: information sources used in the social context are different from sources used in the
individual context. The research does not con?rm the expected relationship between the nature of a
sub-decision and the type of information source used. As the decision process proceeds over time, the
role of objective information sources increases in discussions.
Research limitation/implications – Compared with the classical individual approach to researching
tourist information search, the social context of information-searching needs other market research data,
to provide insight into the topics of discussion. Tourismmarketing messages in a social decision context
should be directed to signi?cant others, as these messages are likely to be used as important
information sources during the joint vacation decision process in couples. In this respect, the use of
electronic word-of-mouth offers new opportunities for vacation marketing.
Originality/value – A new perspective on information search: the relevance of social contexts.
Keywords Decision making, Information searches, Information media, Tourism, The Netherlands
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Information search and vacation decision-making
Particularly in high-involvement decision situations, such as vacation choice, consumers
acquire and process information and use this information in making purchasing decisions.
Information acquisition is necessary for selecting a destination and for speci?c
sub-decisions such as selecting accommodation, transportation and tours (Snepenger
et al., 1990). The information sources that tourists employ form the basis for vacation
planning (McIntosh and Goeldner, 1986); these sources vary considerably. Consumers are
likely to search as long as they believe that the bene?ts of acquiring information outweigh the
costs (Stigler, 1961; Stigler and Becker, 1977; Ratchford, 2001). Information search is the
motivated activation of knowledge stored in memory or acquisition of information from the
environment (Engel et al., 1995; Gursoy and McCleary, 2004). As this de?nition suggests, a
search can be either internal or external. Internal search is the retrieval of knowledge from
memory, while external searching consists of collecting information from the environment.
For most tourist decisions, search is predominantly external (Gursoy and McCleary, 2004). In
PAGE 128
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 128-143, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111139555
Fred Bronner is based at
the University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. Robert de
Hoog is based at the
University of Twente,
Enschede, The
Netherlands.
Submitted: October 2007
Revised: May 2008
Accepted: September 2008
The authors thank Ad
Schalekamp (TNS NIPO) and
Kees van der Most (CVO) for
their stimulating comments and
for the funding of the ?eldwork
for this study.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the literature, researchers pay attention to the in?uence of the information sources used,
situational variables and consumer characteristics affecting the choice process, and
dependency on product characteristics. Further insight into tourist information-search
behaviour is not only interesting froman academic viewpoint, but also relevant for marketing,
because during information acquisition, marketers can in?uence tourists’ buying decisions.
Several factors can stimulate external pre-purchase information searching. In most tourist
information-search studies, the starting-point is that the tourists acquire information because
it enables them to reduce uncertainty when planning a vacation (McCleary and Whitney,
1994).
The purpose of this research is to study tourist information-search from a new
perspective: the context of family vacation decision-making. Over the last 20 years, joint
decision-making in families increased (Bronner, 2004, 2006). The vacation decision is
more emphatically a joint decision than even buying equally large and important items
such as cars and electronic and ?nancial products (Mottiar and Quinn, 2004; Bronner and
de Hoog, 2008). From this perspective, it is striking that ‘‘interpersonal in?uences in group
decision-making and cultural environment are not taken into account when looking at
tourist behavior’’ (Decrop and Snelders, 2005, p. 123). Also Jang, Lee, Lee, and Hong
(2007, p. 1306) state, ‘‘Most tourists act in social situations and travel with family,
relatives, friends and others. However, individual decision makers have been treated as if
the tourism decision-making model exists in a vacuum’’. In this joint process, discussion
and exchange of views within the family about several sub-decisions can occur, such as
accommodation or number of places to visit. This increasingly shared decision process
and relating discussions leads the researchers to study tourist information-search from a
new perspective: not the traditional one in which an individual makes up his own mind
almost independently of signi?cant others, but one in which information-search is
embedded in a joint decision process in couples (Fodness and Murray, 1999). An
example of this new perspective is when the husband prefers Norway while the wife
prefers Italy because she thinks the weather is awful in Norway. The husband then seeks
information to persuade his wife that the weather in Norway is better than she expects. In
the traditional individual decision-making approach, the focus would be on information
that supports the husband’s preference for Norway: for example, the beauty of the fjords.
In this study, information search is seen as a tool in family discussions and the study
investigates whether this new, social perspective leads to different information-search
strategies than does the individual context.
To elaborate on this new perspective, the more classical information-search approach is
compared with the approach in this research.
Classical approach to measuring information-search: the individual context
In the classical approach, the information-search question is posed in an identical way to all
respondents participating in the survey. Some variants found in the literature are:
B Several information sources are included in the questionnaire and for each source the
importance is measured using a seven-point rating scale, with 1 representing not
important and 7 representing very important. For example: ‘‘When you purchase wine for
personal use from a wine store, how important are the following information sources to
your selection of a particular wine?’’ (Dodd et al., 2005).
B Which of these information sources did you use in selecting this destination? Minimum is
zero, maximum is all information sources used (Snepenger et al., 1990).
B Can you pick from this list the three information sources you used most often (Cleaver,
2000).
The alternative approach to measuring information-search: the social context
In the alternative approach this study pursues, the researchers asked participants about
relevant sub-decisions: ‘‘has there been discussion in your family about sub-decision x?’’. If
yes: ‘‘pick from this list the two information sources you used most in the discussion about
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 129
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
sub-decision x’’. One of the answer categories is ‘‘no information sources played a role in the
discussion about this subject’’. In this way, for each sub-decision, insight is obtained into:
B the percentage of couples who discuss this sub-decision;
B the use or non-use of information sources in relation to this discussion; and
B if information sources are used, which speci?c ones are primarily used.
The difference between the two approaches mentioned above has to do with the context of
information-search. In the classical approach, information is used in the context of a person’s
own preferences. In the approach this study follows, information is used in the context of
family discussions about vacations with another person (the partner) and preferences of this
person. The basic question is whether these different contexts make a difference in the
selection of information sources. For example, when considering the quietness of a
destination, one may be personally satis?ed with information provided in a travel agency
brochure, in particular when it reinforces one’s own preferences, but when one has to
discuss and reach agreement with a partner about the same topic, information from friends
and relatives is perhaps much more convincing. The marketing implications of this
difference of context are also addressed in this paper.
Combining the focus of the research (information-search in response to a current problem
and more speci?cally in response to discussion between partners within couples) and the
choice of the vacation as the central topic, the study concentrates on three related themes,
which are elaborated in the ‘‘Research questions’’ section.
This report investigates these themes with a longitudinal study that traces vacation choice
processes among the same couples for nearly a year. This is necessary as ‘‘vacation
choices involve a long process, which usually starts in January/February and spreads over
many months’’ (Decrop and Snelders, 2004, p. 1013). The sample is drawn from the Dutch
population of couples (married and unmarried).
Research questions
In this section, the themes and the research questions are elaborated.
Theme 1: discussion topics in the decision process of couples
As already stated, vacation choice is quite often a joint affair. Leisure travel is a product
people frequently consume jointly and re?ects the in?uence of all people travelling
together (Fodness and Murray, 1999). This social setting that characterizes the
consumption of a product also in?uences information-search. All people travelling
together try to reach a ?nal common vacation decision. In most couples, at least in The
Netherlands, the ‘‘golden mean’’ strategy is in use most frequently in order to resolve
disagreements (Bronner and de Hoog, 2008). This is a strategy of give-and-take and
reaching a compromise. Here, everyone gives something up to reach a common
decision. Reasoning takes place using logical arguments vis-a` -vis one another. This
reasoning process generates discussion about the sub-decisions that constitute an
overall vacation decision, and this discussion will continue as long as the decision-makers
make no ?nal decision. The decision-making process leading to the purchase of the
tourism product takes much longer than for many other products such as television sets
(Gursoy, 2001). To deal with this longer period, tracking discussions about the vacation
choice over a relatively long period is necessary. Furthermore, not all sub-decisions are
equally important and involvement with an important one will probably lead to more
discussion; in other words, more discussion about important sub-decisions and less
discussion about unimportant sub-decisions is likely. More discussion can increase the
satisfaction with the decision process afterwards due to reducing the risk of a taking a
decision that turns out be disappointing. As Fodness and Murray (1999, p. 225) state,
‘‘for prepurchase search, better choice decisions, increased product and market
expertise, and heightened satisfaction with purchasing have been suggested as
outcomes’’. These considerations lead to the following research questions:
PAGE 130
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
RQ1a. Do couples engage in discussions about vacation sub-decisions?
RQ1b. Which vacation sub-decisions do couples discuss more and which ones do they
discuss less?
RQ1c. Does more discussion takes place about sub-decisions which the partners
deem more important than about sub-decisions they deem less important?
RQ1d. Is more discussion between partners within couples related to greater
satisfaction with the joint decision process?
Theme 2: information sources used in the discussion
In the discussions between partners within couples, several information sources are
potentially useful as ‘‘weapons’’ for persuading others in the same family. Features of the
product affect the choice of information sources. If the quality of a product is more dif?cult to
evaluate before the purchase decision – as in vacation choice – consumers rely more
heavily on personal sources of information (Murray, 1991). Bei et al. (2004), following the
pioneering work by Nelson (1970), classify products into search and experience products.
Experience products are dominated by choice attributes that cannot be known until use of
the product, such as travel packages and dinners at new restaurants, and services more
generally. Search products are de?ned as ones dominated by attributes for which full
information can be acquired prior to purchase, like athletic shoes or mobile phones. For
search and experience products, the role for consumers of different information sources
varies. As Bei et al. (2004, p. 450) state: ‘‘For example, the information for selecting a travel
package is more abstract and experience-oriented. Consequently, the recommendations of
others would be used more for experience products than search products’’. For service
products, personal information sources may be most important sources (Zeithaml et al.,
2006). In line with this assumption, recommendations of others are expected to be the
most-used information source in the vacation discussion process, followed by the internet,
because online informal sources from other consumers (like weblogs) become more and
more important for experience products like vacations.
Another issue has to do with the time dimension. Dodd et al. (2005) suggest that impersonal
sources are generally useful in the early stages of product decisions. Personal sources of
information tend to exert in?uence at later stages of the decision process. This difference is
related to the nature of what is sought in different decision-making stages. In the early
stages, the emphasis is on generating alternatives and evaluation attributes
(sub-decisions), while in later stages the actual subjective evaluation of alternatives and
development of preferences becomes more salient, so one can expect a shift from using
impersonal sources to using personal ones during the longitudinal study. Based on these
considerations, the following research questions are addressed:
RQ2a. Are information sources used in the discussion about vacations?
RQ2b. When discussing sub-decisions, for which sub-decisions do people search for
information?
RQ2c. When discussing sub-decisions, which information sources are used?
RQ2d. In relation to the individual and the social contexts, are the information sources
used different?
Theme 3: relation between type of sub-decision and information source used
Researchers have distinguished between search versus experience products. However,
one can go a step further because a vacation can be seen as a mixture of experience and
search aspects. The various sub-decisions in this study are characterized as either more
search-determined (where sub-decisions are easy to assess, more concrete and objective;
for example, the organisation offering the vacation) or more experience-determined (where
sub-decisions are dif?cult to assess, unpredictable and subjective; for example,
child-friendly environment or not).
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 131
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In addition, travel information sources are in this study categorized into marketer-dominated
sources (commercial travel information ¼ subjective) and independent sources (family,
friends, social contacts ¼ objective). The internet may represent a mixed category, via which
commercial information is accessible, but also consumer-generated content related to
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with vacation experiences is accessible. A second way
(already introduced above) of segmenting travel information sources is to divide them into
personal (word-of-mouth) and formal (all other sources) ones. Utilization of information from
these two types of information sources probably differs, depending on the
search/experience property of vacations, because experience-determined sub-decisions
are more risky in their outcomes and objective information sources are more trustworthy for
risky decisions. These considerations lead to the research question below:
RQ3. Are (a) objective and (b) personal information sources used more when
discussing experience- determined sub-decisions than when discussing
search-determined sub-decisions?
The next section describes the research design and method of data collection.
Design of the study
Sample
To gather longitudinal data, three waves of ?eldwork are carried out:
B Wave 1: January 2005 (?rst ideas about the main summer vacation).
B Wave 2: April 2005 (decisions are taken about the main summer vacation).
B Wave 3: October 2005 (retrospective consideration of the vacation).
The sample for this study is a sub-sample drawn randomly from the Dutch Continu Vakantie
Onderzoek panel (CVO, Continuous Vacation Panel; see also Bargeman and van der Poel,
2006). This large panel-based survey consists of respondents who report on their vacation
behaviour four times a year. This panel is refreshed annually. The sample encompasses
approximately 7,000 respondents. The panel is representative in relation to
socio-demographics and vacation-related variables. All tour operators in The Netherlands
use this data and the study is considered to be the standard for obtaining insight into
vacation plans and decisions. This panel is the sampling frame for this study. Within this CVO
panel, a sub-population is de?ned consisting of respondents who intend to go on summer
vacation and constitute a couple (married or unmarried) living together at least four days a
week. From this sub-population, a random sample of 240 couples is drawn by the research
agency that conducts the CVO. Since collecting each partner’s opinion independently is not
easy, the sample sizes in comparable studies are often relatively small. Jang et al. (2007) list
studies with sample sizes varying between 23 and 149 couples. From this perspective, 240
couples is a sizeable sample. TNS NIPO, a leading Dutch market research agency, is
responsible for the ?eldwork. For data collection, CASI (Computer Assisted Self
Interviewing) is used. Respondents can answer the questions at home at a time that is
convenient to them and can take the time they require to answer the questions. This
customer-friendly approach towards respondents increases response rates and data quality
(Bronner et al., 2003; Bronner and Kuijlen, 2007). All respondents are asked to complete the
interview individually. Partners are approached separately, with an interval of some days.
The ?rst respondent is furthermore instructed not to discuss his/her answers with the other
family members. Since respondents stated their intention to participate in the surveys, the
initial response rate is high: nearly 90 percent. Table I shows the response rates for each
wave. Only data from couples participating in all three waves (n ¼ 137) are included in the
analysis.
Comparing respondents who drop out with the ones remaining, the panel mortality is not
selective, according to the socio-demographics (tested by x
2
, p . 0:05).
PAGE 132
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Questionnaire
The questionnaire for the ?rst two waves is identical. A vacation is usually described by
means of a set of attributes or sub-decisions. The CVO panel uses a set of sub-decisions
which is based on extensive qualitative and quantitative research with tour operators and
consumers in The Netherlands in 2001. This set is validated as covering the most salient
sub-decisions when people chose a vacation in 2002, 2003 and 2004. As a consequence,
this set represents the most relevant sub-decisions concerning a vacation. The set consists
of the following sub-decisions, which partly overlap with sub-decisions used in comparable
research elsewhere (see for example Litvin et al., 2004): number of places to visit; quiet
surroundings versus lively ones; destination (country); sun-beach-water or not; means of
transport; active (walking, cycling) or not; accommodation; culture or not; organisation (tour
operator or self-arranged, group package tour); child-friendly or not.
For each sub-decision, consider the following questions, relevant to this paper, for each of
the partners: importance of a sub-decision as seen by the respondents (seven-point rating
scale, 7 ¼ very important . . . 1 ¼ very unimportant); discussion about this sub-decision
between partners within the couple (yes, no); when partners discuss a sub-decision, which
information sources do they use most frequently in the discussion? Procedure: out of ten
options, pick the two most frequently used sources in the discussion about sub-decision x.
These ten options followfromdata fromthe CVOin 2002, 2003 and 2004, concerning the use
of information sources in the vacation decision-making process: article in print; advertising
in print; radio or TV programme; radio or TV commercials; internet sites; books; information
from a tour operator, airline company, railway company, ferry company; tourist information
of?ce; relatives and friends; other information source.
The advantage for this study is clearly that use is made of experiences and data obtained by
means of a panel study that spans several years, leading to ?rm grounding of questions and
options used in the questionnaire.
In the third wave, a question about overall satisfaction with the decision process and the
summer vacation is asked, with both aspects rated on a seven-point rating scale (7 ¼ very
satis?ed to 1 ¼ very dissatis?ed).
Results
This section pursues the research themes outlined in the ‘‘Research questions’’ section.
First, discussion about sub-decisions is investigated. Next, the information sources used in
the discussions are analyzed. Finally, the study addresses the question about the relation
between sub-decisions and the use of different information sources.
Theme 1: discussion about sub-decisions
RQ1a. Do couples engage in discussions about vacation sub-decisions?
Table II presents the percentage of people who discuss at least one sub-decision (not
necessarily the same one) in Wave 1 and Wave 2.
Table II shows that discussing sub-decisions is quite widespread. In two-thirds of the
couples interviewed (12% þ 16% þ 38% ¼ 66%), discussion takes place during the
vacation decision process. In addition, a substantial number of respondents continue
Table I Information about the samples used in the study
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
Date Starting sample January 2005 April 2005 October 2005
Number of partners in couples 480 428 340 274
Number of couples 240 214 170 137
Response % 89 79 81
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 133
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
discussing during Wave 1 and Wave 2 (38 percent), while 34 percent do not discuss at all in
Wave 1 and Wave 2. Apparently a core of people continue discussions over two waves and
another core of people do not (Table II, x
2
¼ 54, df ¼ 1, p , 0:05).
RQ1b. Which vacation sub-decisions do couples discuss more and which ones do they
discuss less?
Shown in Table III are the discussion percentages for each sub-decision.
Between 10 and 27 percent of the respondents discuss at least one sub-decision. The most
frequently discussed sub-decisions are destination and number of places to visit. The least
discussed sub-decision is the means of transport. In Table III no signi?cant differences
between Wave 1 and Wave 2 are found. The rank order correlation between the two waves is
signi?cant (Spearman’s r
s
¼ 0:79, p , 0:05). This signi?cant correlation means that at a
general level stability over waves and sub-decisions is present.
RQ1c. Does more discussion take place about sub-decisions which the partners deem
more important than about sub-decisions they deem less important?
The researchers investigated this research question by computing the Spearman rank
correlation between the ranked amount of discussion about each sub-decision, and the
ranked importance of these sub-decisions. This correlation is 0.02 (NS) in Wave 1 and 0.10
(NS) in Wave 2, so there is no relationship between the importance of sub-decisions and the
amount of discussion.
RQ1d. Is more discussion between partners within couples related to greater
satisfaction with the joint decision process?
To investigate this research question, the researchers calculated an additive index of the
amount of discussion over all sub-decisions by simply adding up each time a respondent
states that s/he discusses a sub-decision. Amount of discussion over ten sub-decisions
Table II Number of persons discussing at least one sub-decision per wave
% Discussion in Wave 2
No discussion Discussion Total %
% discussion in Wave 1 % n % n % n
No discussion 34 94 12 32 46
Discussion 16 44 38 104 54
Total % 50 50 100 274
Table III Percentage of respondents discussing each of the sub-decisions in Wave 1 and
Wave 2
% Wave 1 % Wave 2
Destination (country) 27
a
24
Number of places to visit 24 21
Culture or not 18 14
Accommodation 17 16
Quiet versus lively surroundings 16 14
Child friendly (n ¼ 156)
b
16 17
Active (walking, cycling) 15 14
Sun-beach-water or not 15 16
Organisation 12 11
Means of transport 10 10
Notes:
a
Reading example: 27 percent of the respondents in Wave 1 had a discussion with their
partner about the destination (country);
b
Questions about this sub-decision are only posed to
couples with children. n¼ 274
PAGE 134
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
correlates signi?cantly with more satisfaction with the choice process (Wave 1 Pearson’s
r ¼ 0:15, p , 0:05; Wave 2 Pearson’s r ¼ 0:14, p , 0:05). Satisfaction with the choice
process correlates signi?cantly with overall satisfaction with the vacation (Pearson’s
r ¼ 0:74, p , 0:05). As discussion and satisfaction are measured at different moments in
time (Wave 2 and Wave 3 respectively), it is plausible that the amount of discussion has a
positive relation with the satisfaction with the choice process and, through this relation, with
overall satisfaction with the vacation.
Theme 2: information sources used in the discussion
RQ2a. Are information sources used in the discussion about vacations?
The analysis for Theme 1 shows that discussion occurs quite frequently during the vacation
decision-making process. If a respondent answered that s/he discussed a sub-decision,
they are asked whether information sources are used in the discussion, and if so, what the
two most-often used sources are. In the analyses concerning this theme, respondents are
included who at least once discussed a sub-decision in either wave, because these are the
people who can report on the use of an information source in the discussion
(n ¼ 180ð32 þ 44 þ 104Þ, see Table II). Table IV presents the percentage of people who
consult at least one information source when discussing sub-decisions in Wave 1 and/or
Wave 2.
The large majority of the people in Table IV who discuss sub-decisions at least once, use an
information source during the discussion (21% þ 23%þ 43% ¼ 87%). Of these people, 43
percent use information sources in both waves.
RQ2b. When discussing sub-decisions, for which sub-decisions do people search for
information?
The question is how information-search is distributed across the sub-decisions. Table V
shows the percentage of people using an information source for a sub-decision, given that
the sub-decision is the subject of discussion.
Considering Table V, for almost all sub-decisions 50 percent or more of the respondents use
information sources during the discussion. In particular, discussions about the way to
organize the vacation and the nature of the vacation environment (quiet versus lively) elicit
the use of information sources. This con?rms the notion that in the joint decision process
information plays a substantial role in discussions concerning sub-decisions.
In Table V, at the overall level, stability can be seen between Wave 1 and Wave 2 concerning
the use of information sources in the discussion (Spearman’s r
s
¼ 0:77, p , 0:05), and at the
level of the sub-decisions there is only one indicative difference: as regards
accommodation, more information is used in the discussion in Wave 2 than in Wave 1
(T ¼ 1:88). The rank order correlation between frequency of discussing sub-decisions
Table IV Percentage of people who consult at least one information source while
discussing sub-decisions in Wave 1 and/or Wave 2
Information search in Wave 2
No source used
Yes, at least one
source used Total
Information search in Wave 1 % n % n % n
No source used 13 24
a
21 37 34 61
Yes, at least one used 23 41 43 78 66 119
Total 36 65 64 115 100 180
b
Notes:
a
Reading example: 13 percent of the partners discussing at least one sub-decision do not use
an information source in the discussion in Wave 1 and Wave 2;
b
100 percent is all discussions
between partners (see Table II)
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 135
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
(Table III) and information source use (Table V) is not signi?cant for Wave 1 and Wave 2. This
implies that discussion in itself does not lead to more information use.
RQ2c.
When discussing sub-decisions, which information sources are used?
Next was to investigate the types of information sources that are used when discussing
sub-decisions. Table VI shows the percentages of most frequently-used information sources
across all sub-decisions. Table VI is based on the number of information sources used by all
discussing respondents across all sub-decisions. In Wave 1, 477 information sources are
mentioned by the respondents and in Wave 2, 453.
Table VI makes clear that relatives and friends, followed by internet sites, are the
most-consulted sources of information in both waves.
Dodd et al. (2005) report that early in the choice process, formal information sources are
more used than personal ones and that later in the choice process personal information
sources become more used. This study seeks to con?rm this ?nding. For purposes of
classifying personal versus formal information sources, following Dodd et al. (2005), the
relatives and friends are personal sources of information, and all other information sources
as formal ones. Study ?ndings fail to con?rm Dodd et al.’s (2005) ?ndings, as in Table VI the
percentages for relatives and friends and the other information sources combined (formal)
for the two waves are almost the same.
The role of tour operators/transport companies as a speci?c source of information decreases
across the waves (t ¼ 4:13, p , 0:05) and the role of books increases (t ¼ 4:53, p , 0:05).
The role of advertising in the discussion seems to be negligible. For the limited role played by
radio and TV programmes and commercials, the explanation is probably that, mostly, this
Table V Information search and discussion about sub-decisions
Wave 1 Wave 2
Sub-decision % n % n
Organisation 97
a
34 93 30
Quiet versus lively surroundings 86 44 79 39
Number of places to visit 79 67 79 57
Destination (country) 76 74 74 66
Accommodation 72 46 88 43
Sun-beach-water or not 69 42 66 44
Active (walking, cycling) 68 41 69 39
Culture or not 65 48 66 38
Child friendly (n ¼ 156) 60 25 77 26
Means of transport 48 27 61 28
Note:
a
Reading example: 97 percent of the partners discussing the organisation of the vacation
(n ¼ 34) search for information in connection with this discussion
Table VI Percentage of information sources used in the discussion about the
sub-decisions
Information source used Wave 1 (100% ¼ 477) Wave 2 (100% ¼ 453)
Relatives and friends 29 28
Internet sites 17 21
Tour operators, transport companies 17 8
Books 11 22
Article in print 9 6
Tourist information of?ce 8 6
Advertising in print 5 5
Radio and TV commercials 2 1
Radio and TV programmes 1 2
PAGE 136
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
information cannot be consulted later in the discussion (after the transmission), unless people
take the trouble to record the transmission, which seems quite unlikely for commercials.
Next, the relation between the use of information sources and the types of sub-decisions is
investigated. Table VII lists the two most frequently used information sources for each wave
and sub-decision.
In Table VII, relatives and friends are present as a source of information in every sub-decision,
as expected for an experience product like vacations. Table VII shows that in both waves,
relatives and friends are quite important information sources. Books and internet sites
increase in importance in Wave 2, while tour operators/transport companies almost disappear
in Wave 2. From all sources Table VII mentions, advertising in print and commercials and
programmes on radio and TV never make it to the ?rst or second place, showing that they are
not frequently used as sources of information when partners discuss sub-decisions.
RQ2d. In relation to the individual and the social contexts, are the information sources
used different?
In the ‘‘Introduction’’ section, a new perspective on information-search – taking the role of
context into account – is presented. The question is whether indeed a difference exists in the
use of types of information sources when the context changes from the perspective of
individual preferences to the perspective of discussion with a partner and the partner’s
preferences. This question is investigated by comparing data from the CVO panel (the
complete panel, n ¼ 7000) with data from the subsample of this panel as used in this study.
In the CVO panel, the classical question (individual context) is asked: ‘‘Which sources did
you consult when preparing/planning your vacation?’’. In this sample, 36 percent of the
vacationers do not search for information in advance. Of the vacationers searching for
information (64 percent), only 3 percent use information from personal (¼ relatives=friends)
sources. In this study’s sample, 29 percent (Wave 1) and 28 percent (Wave 2) of the
vacationers use relatives and friends as information sources. In Table VIII the averages of the
percentages for Wave 1 and Wave 2 are used.
Table VII Most-used information sources in the discussion about sub-decisions for the two waves
Wave 1 Wave 2
Sub-decision 1st source 2nd source 1st source 2nd source
Organisation Relatives and friends Internet Relatives and friends Internet
Quiet versus lively
surroundings
Relatives and friends Tour operators Relatives and friend Books and Internet
Number of places to visit Relatives and friends Internet and Tour
operators
Books Relatives and friends
Destination (country) Relatives and friends Internet Relatives and friends Internet
Accommodation Internet Relatives and friends Internet Relatives and friends
Sun-beach-water or not Tour operators Relatives and friends Relatives and friends Books
Active (walking, cycling) Relatives and friends Books Relatives and friends Books
Culture or not Books Relatives and friends Books Internet, Relatives and
friends, Tourist
information
Child friendly (n ¼ 156) Internet Tour operators, Tourist
information, relatives and
friends
Books, Relatives and
friends
Internet
Means of transport Relatives and friends Tour operators Relatives and friends Internet
Table VIII Comparison between the percentage of used information sources types in the
CVO and data in this study
Type of information source used Individual context (CVO) (%) Social context (this study) (%)
Personal 3 29
Formal 97 71
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 137
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table VIII shows that the sources people use in a social context are more personal than the
sources they use in an individual context. This underlines the perspective of this paper, that
context makes a difference as regards selecting different information sources in the vacation
decision-making process. Another explanation is that information used initially (planning
phase) cannot play a role in the discussion because the information is by then already known
to both partners. So a partner needs new additional information sources in the discussion,
and that’s where relatives and friends become important, perhaps because one has already
exhausted all formal information sources in the preparation phase. More generally, this
?nding supports the overall importance of the social context: more joint decision making
(golden mean strategy) generates more discussion, which in turn in?uences the selection of
information sources over time.
Theme 3: relation between sub-decision and information source used
RQ3.
Are (a) objective and (b) personal information sources used more when discussing
experience-determined sub-decisions than when discussing search-determined
sub-decisions?
This research question requires a classi?cation of information sources into personal versus
formal and into objective versus subjective sources. Also, a classi?cation of sub-decisions
into more experience-determined sub-decisions and more search-determined
sub-decisions is needed.
The objective versus subjective dimension fall into three categories, de?ned as follows:
1. Objective. The source has no stake in the decision (e.g. articles in newspapers, radio and
TV programmes, books, relatives and friends).
2. In between. The source can have a stake in the decision (e.g. internet sites, tourist
information of?ce).
3. Subjective. The source does have a stake in the decision (e.g. tour operators/transport
companies, radio and TV commercials, advertising in print).
By ‘‘having a stake in a decision’’, is meant that if the information source in?uences your
decision, the information source may gain ?nancially by its outcome.
The classi?cation of sub-decisions using a search versus experience product dimension is
not easy. As literature for guiding a classi?cation is lacking, a pragmatic approach is chosen
by creating three categories:
1. Experience (only by experiencing the product one knows the precise outcome of the
sub-decision). Child-friendly, quiet versus lively.
2. In between (in part, one can obtain knowledge about the precise outcome in advance,
but some on-the-spot experience remains). Active, culture, sun-beach-water.
3. Search (knowledge about the precise outcome of a sub-decision can be obtained largely
in advance). Accommodation, country, means of transport, number of places to visit,
organisation.
Table IX shows the relation between type of sub-decision and type of information source
(objective versus subjective) people use.
From reading the columns in Table IX, it is clear that no signi?cant differences in information
source types used in the various sub-decisions are found. At the overall level, the role of
objective sources increases over time (T ¼ 2:14, p , 0:05) and the role of subjective
sources decreases over time (T ¼ 3:88, p , 0:05). Apparently, the closer in time the actual
vacation is, the more people try to reduce the risk of a disappointing vacation by consulting
objective sources. Considering the type of sub-decision, Table IX makes clear that this holds
true especially for search-determined sub-decisions (Objective Wave 1-Wave 2 T ¼ 1.83,
indicative; Subjective Wave 1-Wave 2 T ¼ 3:41, p , 0:05).
PAGE 138
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table X shows the relation between type of sub-decision and personal and formal
information sources used in the discussion.
In Table X signi?cant differences in information source types used (T-test) between the
sub-decisions for Wave 1 and Wave 2, are absent.
Conclusions and implications
Summary of ?ndings
The research in this paper investigates the relationship between the discussion of vacation
decisions in couples and the use of information sources used in this discussion. By means of
a longitudinal study of Dutch couples, in which both partners are interviewed over a time
span of almost a year, several research questions are answered.
Concerning the frequency of discussing sub-decisions in vacation decision-making,
discussion occurs among 66 percent of the couples during the decision-making process,
and the amount of discussion varies across sub-decisions. All ten sub-decisions that are
part of the questionnaire receive attention, ranging from 27 percent for the vacation
destination to 10 percent for the means of transport. No relation occurs between the
importance of a sub-decision as assigned by a partner in a couple and the amount of
discussion about a sub-decision. A greater amount of discussion about sub-decisions
relates positively to satisfaction with the decision process afterwards.
During these discussions, the use of information sources is widespread: in 87 percent of the
cases, sub-decision discussions involve one or more sources of information. In particular,
discussions about how to organize the vacation and the nature of the vacation environment
(quiet versus lively) elicit the use of information sources. Overall, for each sub-decision, 50
percent or more of the partners use information sources during the discussion. No relation is
found between the amount of discussion and the use of information sources: sub-decisions
generating more discussions are not the ones that lead to the use of many information
sources.
Table IX Relation between sub-decision and information source (Objective – Subjective) used in the discussion
Percentage of information source type used in the discussion
Objective In between Subjective
Number of
observations
Type of sub-decision Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2
Experience 51
a
58 26 26 23 16 80 77
In between 53 59 22 26 25 15 132 121
Search 49 57 27 29 26 14 265 255
Total 51 58 25 28 24 14 477
b
453
Notes:
a
Reading example: in the discussion about experience-determined type sub-decisions, 51 percent of the information sources
used in the discussion belong to the class of objective sources (in Wave 1);
b
The total number of information sources used in Wave 1
Table X Relation between sub-decision and information source (Personal-Formal) used in the discussion
Percentage of information source type used in the discussion
Personal Formal Number of observations
Type of sub-decision Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2
Experience 30
a
27 70 73 80 77
In between 24 28 76 72 132 121
Search 31 29 69 71 265 255
Total 29 28 71 72 477
b
453
Notes:
a
Reading example: in the discussion about experience-determined type sub-decisions, 30 percent of the information sources
used in the discussion belong to the class of personal sources (in Wave 1);
b
The total number of information sources used in Wave 1
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 139
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
As a vacation is mainly an experience product, the expectation is, based on the literature,
that personal recommendations are the information source that is mostly used in discussions
between partners. The ?ndings con?rmthis expectation: in both waves, relatives and friends
outrank all other information sources like tour operators/transport companies and internet
sites. This also holds true for every sub-decision: in both Wave 1 and Wave 2, relatives and
friends are always ?rst or second in the ranking order of information sources used. The very
limited use of radio and televisions commercials in discussions is striking. In addition,
advertising in print plays a minor role. Furthermore, later in the choice process the role of tour
operators/transport companies as information sources decreases, while the role of books
increases.
Finally, the relation between the nature of a sub-decision and types of information sources
used is investigated. Though overall a vacation can be seen as an experience product,
some differentiation between sub-decisions is made, since for some sub-decisions all
information can in principle be found before the actual vacation (search-determined
sub-decisions), while for others, only the vacation itself can reveal the correct information
(experience-determined sub-decisions). In line with the distinction between personal and
formal sources of information, the expectation is that for more experience-determined
sub-decisions, people will use personal sources of information in the discussion and formal
sources for search-determined sub-decisions. However, this is not to be the case. As
regards the idea that for experience-determined sub-decisions, people will rather turn to
objective information sources (those having no ?nancial stake in the outcome of the
decision) than to subjective ones (those having a ?nancial stake in the outcome of the
decision), the ?nding is that the role of objective sources in discussions increases over time
while the role of subjective sources decreases over time. This holds true especially for
search-determined sub-decisions. Apparently, the closer in time the actual vacation is, the
more people try to reduce the risk of a disappointing vacation by consulting objective
sources.
The sources used when discussing vacation sub-decisions with a partner are de?nitely more
personal than the ones used for preparing a vacation from a purely individual perspective.
This underlines the chosen research perspective that context makes a difference as regards
the selection of different information sources in the vacation decision-making process.
Limitations of the study
A relation between the nature of a sub-decision (experience-determined or
search-determined), and types of information source used is not found. The absence of
this relation may be due to the very tentative nature of the classi?cation of the sub-decisions
into experience- or search-determined ones. An obvious improvement in the future testing of
this relation is to ask the respondents how they personally perceive each sub-decision
(experience-determined or search-determined), as their behaviour is more in?uenced by
their own interpretation of these sub-decisions than a post hoc classi?cation by researchers.
Only if the same results are found as in this study, can it be assumed that information-search
behaviour during discussions between partners can be generalized across the entire
vacation, and does not depend on the sub-decision of a vacation that is the topic of the
discussion.
Another limitation is that this study focuses only on the discussion between partners. As the
in?uence of children is growing, in future studies data about the role of children in vacation
decision-making by couples need collection.
Implications for future research and tourism marketing
Information-search is different in two different contexts:
1. forming and creating own preferences in the pre-purchase phase; and
2. in response to discussion between partners within couples, in order to reach agreement
and arrive at a common decision.
PAGE 140
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In the ?rst (individual) context, there is no discussion: consumers acquire and process
information and use this information in making up their own minds. In the second (social)
context, information can be a ‘‘weapon’’ to be used in discussions with a partner. If partners
in a couple travelling together disagree about the ?nal choice, arriving at a ?nal decision
involves one or more of several strategies. In vacation choice, the golden mean strategy is
mostly used. This is a strategy of give-and-take and reaching a compromise. Everyone gives
up something and the decision-makers achieve a golden mean. In this process, the
decision-makers use arguments vis-a` -vis one another. These arguments likely are stronger
and more persuasive if they are solidly based on speci?c types of information sources, in
particular personal ones. This distinction between information sources used in these two
different contexts has several implications for targeting marketing messages.
Marketing managers try to in?uence the ?nal consumer choice by making use of several
marketing instruments. Providing information that ?ts into the consumer search process is
one of the tools. Core elements are brochures, web site information and advertising material
(print, TV, radio, Internet, outdoor). Research provides data about which segments of
consumers use which information (Decrop and Snelders, 2005). With the aid of marketing
research, the tourism industry studies how travellers select, acquire and use information. As
Fodness and Murray (1999, p. 229) state in reference to these studies: ‘‘the belief that
systematic patterns of tourist behaviour are attributable to the information available to them
compels its study’’. The central idea is that, during information acquisition, marketers can
in?uence consumers’ buying decisions (Gursoy and McCleary, 2004). However, currently
they seemto focus on the individualistic context of information-search. Marketing research is
carried out in which individual perceptions and preferences for countries, tour operators,
travel agents and speci?c package vacations are measured. Results are used to improve
weak points and reinforce strong points in brand image and/or country image. But the social
context of information-search requires other data and different studies. By means of
marketing research, the tourism industry needs to collect additional information about points
of discussion within couples. If a male partner thinks the weather is beautiful in country x and
the female partner thinks the weather in this country is bad – and it is a topic of discussion –
the tourism industry has to provide him with information about the weather, using the
appropriate information sources. These sources should ?t this social context: for example,
more personal information sources in the beginning of the decision process and more
objective ones later in the decision process. With the help of this tailored information, he can
persuade his partner and reach a common decision. More generally, the results of the study
do have marketing and marketing research implications for product types and decision
processes that have important features in common with vacations, such as ‘‘intangibility,
heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability’’ (Westwood et al., 1999, p.239). One needs to
collect data about individual perceptions and preferences, in the ?rst pre-purchase phase,
and during a later phase, about topics of discussion between partners. When selecting
communication channels to convey information, the context in which the information is
received should be taken into account: individual or social.
For tourismmarketing, taking into consideration that personal sources are more signi?cant in
the social context as compared with the individual context, is important. This implies not only
trying to in?uence the consumer who has to take a decision but also trying to in?uence the
‘‘signi?cant others’’. This study shows that as time progresses, objective information sources
become more important in the joint decision process. The role of review and rating sites with
consumer-generated content (electronic word-of-mouth as a combination of personal and
objective information sources) is growing. As de Valck (2005, p. 234) states: ‘‘We have found
that community in?uence manifests itself most profoundly in the information search and
pre-purchase evaluation phases.’’ Networks of consumers in communities of interest arise
(Brown et al., 2007). It seems very important to follow closely the interaction and discussion
between consumers on these types of sites. According to de Valck (2005, p. 239), ‘‘the
highly relevant traditional reference groups formed by family, friends, acquaintances,
colleagues [. . .] function out of sight of marketers’’. In the near future, consumers will rely
more on online information sources providing content from fellow consumers and fellow
travellers. The internet might in this way potentially change a vacation from an
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 141
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
experience-determined product into a search-determined product, because information on
experiencing the product is available online (Bei et al., 2004). However, Litvin, Goldsmith,
and Pan (2008, pp. 459) conclude that the tourism industry ‘‘lags behind others in the
development and discussion of strategies for managing interpersonal in?uence in an
electronic environment’’. Catching up will become even more important as family
democracy increases in the coming years, and more vacation decisions are taken
together in joint decision processes. More knowledge about how to align information and
information channels in this changed decision and information landscape is necessary for
effective marketing.
References
Bargeman, B. and van der Poel, H. (2006), ‘‘The role of routines in the vacation decision-making process
of Dutch vacationers’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 707-20.
Bei, L-T., Chen, E.Y.L. and Widdows, R. (2004), ‘‘Consumers’ online information search behavior and the
phenomenon of search vs experience products’’, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 449-67.
Bronner, A.E. (2004), ‘‘Family decision making and advertising’’, Admap, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 15-18.
Bronner, A.E. (2006), ‘‘Increasing family democracy and the implications for advertising’’, in Diehl, S.
and Terlutter, R. (Eds), International Advertising and Communication, Deutscher Universita¨ ts-Verlag,
Wiesbaden, pp. 301-18.
Bronner, A.E. and de Hoog, R. (2008), ‘ ‘Agreement and disagreement in family vacation
decision-making’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 967-79.
Bronner, A.E. and Kuijlen, T. (2007), ‘‘The live or digital interviewer: a comparison between CASI, CAPI
and CATI with respect to differences in response behaviour’’, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 167-90.
Bronner, A.E., Tchaoussoglou, C. and Ross, R. (2003), ‘‘The virtual interviewer2, Worldwide Readership
Research Symposium 11, Cambridge, MA, October, pp. 121-130.
Brown, J., Broderick, A.M. and Lee, N. (2007), ‘‘Word-of-mouth communication with online communities:
conceptualizing the online network’’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 2-20.
Cleaver, M. (2000), ‘‘Australian seniors’ use of travel information sources: perceived usefulness of
word-of-mouth, professional advice, marketer-dominated and general-media information’’, ANZMAC
2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century, pp. 1-6.
Decrop, A. and Snelders, D. (2004), ‘‘Planning the summer vacation: an adaptable process’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1008-20.
Decrop, A. and Snelders, D. (2005), ‘‘A grounded typology of vacation decision making’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 26, pp. 121-32.
De Valck, K. (2005), ‘‘Virtual communities: networks of consumer knowledge and companionship’’,
ERIM PhD Series in Management 50, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Dodd, T.H., Laverie, D.A., Wilcox, J.F. and Duhan, D.F. (2005), ‘‘Differential effects of experience,
subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sources of information used in consumer wine
purchasing’’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
Engel, J., Blackwell, R. and Miniard, P. (1995), Consumer Behavior, 8th ed., Dryden, Fort Worth, TX.
Fodness, D. and Murray, B. (1999), ‘‘A model of tourist information search behavior’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 37, pp. 220-30.
Gursoy, D. (2001), ‘‘Development of a travelers’ information search model’’, PhD Dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Gursoy, D. and McCleary, K.W. (2004), ‘‘An integrative model of tourists’ information search behavior’’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 353-73.
Jang, H., Lee, S., Lee, S-W. and Hong, S.K. (2007), ‘‘Expanding the individual choice-sets model to
couples’ honeymoon destination selection process’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 1299-314.
PAGE 142
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2008), ‘‘Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism
management’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 458-68.
Litvin, S.W., Xu, G. and Kang, S.K. (2004), ‘‘Spousal vacation-buying decision making revisited across
time and place’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 193-8.
McCleary, K. and Whitney, D. (1994), ‘‘Projecting Western consumer attitudes toward travel to six
Eastern European Countries’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 239-56.
McIntosh, R.W. and Goeldner, C.R. (1986), Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 5th ed., Wiley
and Sons, Somerset, NJ.
Mottiar, Z. and Quinn, D. (2004), ‘‘Couple dynamics in household tourism decision making: women as
the gatekeepers?’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 149-60.
Murray, K.B. (1991), ‘‘A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition activities’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp. 10-25.
Nelson, P. (1970), ‘‘Information and consumer behavior’’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78 No. 20,
pp. 311-29.
Ratchford, B.T. (2001), ‘‘The economics of consumer knowledge’’, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 27, pp. 397-411.
Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M. and Worrall, K. (1990), ‘‘Information search strategies by
destination-naive tourists’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 29, pp. 13-16.
Stigler, G. (1961), ‘‘The economics of information’’, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 19, pp. 213-25.
Stigler, G. and Becker, G. (1977), ‘‘De gustibus non est disputandum’’, American Economic Review,
Vol. 67, pp. 76-90.
Westwood, S., Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Ineson, E. (1999), ‘‘Branding the package holiday – the
role and signi?cance of brands for UK air tour operators’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 238-52.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Further reading
Chen, J.S. and Gursoy, D. (2000), ‘‘Cross-cultural comparison of the information sources used by
?rst-time and repeat travelers and its marketing implications’’, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 191-203.
Corresponding author
Robert de Hoog can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 143
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Fred Bronner, Robert de Hoog. 2013. Economizing on vacations: the role of information searching. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 7:1, 28-41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_944143485.pdf
By means of a longitudinal study the research investigates the main
topics of discussion in couples, and the information sources couples use in their discussion.
Furthermore, the research investigates whether the information sources used depend on the nature of
the sub-decision – search-determined or experience-determined – the couples discuss.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
A new perspective on tourist information search: discussion in couples as the context
Fred Bronner Robert de Hoog
Article information:
To cite this document:
Fred Bronner Robert de Hoog, (2011),"A new perspective on tourist information search: discussion in couples as the context", International
J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 128 - 143
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139555
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 32 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1172 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kenneth F. Hyde, Alain Decrop, (2011),"New perspectives on vacation decision making", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 103-111http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139537
Theera Erawan, Donyaprueth Krairit, Do Ba Khang, (2011),"Tourists' external information search behavior model: the case of Thailand",
J ournal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 297-316http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465661111183702
Karin Teichmann, (2011),"Expertise, experience and self-confidence in consumers' travel information search", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 184-194http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139591
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
A new perspective on tourist information
search: discussion in couples as the
context
Fred Bronner and Robert de Hoog
Abstract
Purpose – Information-search for vacation decision-making can occur in two different contexts: an
individual one, in which one forms one’s preferences, and a social one in response to discussions with
partners and family members. This paper focuses on the latter.
Design/methodology/approach – By means of a longitudinal study the research investigates the main
topics of discussion in couples, and the information sources couples use in their discussion.
Furthermore, the research investigates whether the information sources used depend on the nature of
the sub-decision – search-determined or experience-determined – the couples discuss.
Findings – The research ?nds that there is considerable discussion between partners and that the
amount of discussion varies in relation to the type of sub-decision. During these discussions, the use of
different information sources is widespread. More generally, the study con?rms the overall importance of
the social context: information sources used in the social context are different from sources used in the
individual context. The research does not con?rm the expected relationship between the nature of a
sub-decision and the type of information source used. As the decision process proceeds over time, the
role of objective information sources increases in discussions.
Research limitation/implications – Compared with the classical individual approach to researching
tourist information search, the social context of information-searching needs other market research data,
to provide insight into the topics of discussion. Tourismmarketing messages in a social decision context
should be directed to signi?cant others, as these messages are likely to be used as important
information sources during the joint vacation decision process in couples. In this respect, the use of
electronic word-of-mouth offers new opportunities for vacation marketing.
Originality/value – A new perspective on information search: the relevance of social contexts.
Keywords Decision making, Information searches, Information media, Tourism, The Netherlands
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Information search and vacation decision-making
Particularly in high-involvement decision situations, such as vacation choice, consumers
acquire and process information and use this information in making purchasing decisions.
Information acquisition is necessary for selecting a destination and for speci?c
sub-decisions such as selecting accommodation, transportation and tours (Snepenger
et al., 1990). The information sources that tourists employ form the basis for vacation
planning (McIntosh and Goeldner, 1986); these sources vary considerably. Consumers are
likely to search as long as they believe that the bene?ts of acquiring information outweigh the
costs (Stigler, 1961; Stigler and Becker, 1977; Ratchford, 2001). Information search is the
motivated activation of knowledge stored in memory or acquisition of information from the
environment (Engel et al., 1995; Gursoy and McCleary, 2004). As this de?nition suggests, a
search can be either internal or external. Internal search is the retrieval of knowledge from
memory, while external searching consists of collecting information from the environment.
For most tourist decisions, search is predominantly external (Gursoy and McCleary, 2004). In
PAGE 128
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 128-143, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111139555
Fred Bronner is based at
the University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. Robert de
Hoog is based at the
University of Twente,
Enschede, The
Netherlands.
Submitted: October 2007
Revised: May 2008
Accepted: September 2008
The authors thank Ad
Schalekamp (TNS NIPO) and
Kees van der Most (CVO) for
their stimulating comments and
for the funding of the ?eldwork
for this study.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the literature, researchers pay attention to the in?uence of the information sources used,
situational variables and consumer characteristics affecting the choice process, and
dependency on product characteristics. Further insight into tourist information-search
behaviour is not only interesting froman academic viewpoint, but also relevant for marketing,
because during information acquisition, marketers can in?uence tourists’ buying decisions.
Several factors can stimulate external pre-purchase information searching. In most tourist
information-search studies, the starting-point is that the tourists acquire information because
it enables them to reduce uncertainty when planning a vacation (McCleary and Whitney,
1994).
The purpose of this research is to study tourist information-search from a new
perspective: the context of family vacation decision-making. Over the last 20 years, joint
decision-making in families increased (Bronner, 2004, 2006). The vacation decision is
more emphatically a joint decision than even buying equally large and important items
such as cars and electronic and ?nancial products (Mottiar and Quinn, 2004; Bronner and
de Hoog, 2008). From this perspective, it is striking that ‘‘interpersonal in?uences in group
decision-making and cultural environment are not taken into account when looking at
tourist behavior’’ (Decrop and Snelders, 2005, p. 123). Also Jang, Lee, Lee, and Hong
(2007, p. 1306) state, ‘‘Most tourists act in social situations and travel with family,
relatives, friends and others. However, individual decision makers have been treated as if
the tourism decision-making model exists in a vacuum’’. In this joint process, discussion
and exchange of views within the family about several sub-decisions can occur, such as
accommodation or number of places to visit. This increasingly shared decision process
and relating discussions leads the researchers to study tourist information-search from a
new perspective: not the traditional one in which an individual makes up his own mind
almost independently of signi?cant others, but one in which information-search is
embedded in a joint decision process in couples (Fodness and Murray, 1999). An
example of this new perspective is when the husband prefers Norway while the wife
prefers Italy because she thinks the weather is awful in Norway. The husband then seeks
information to persuade his wife that the weather in Norway is better than she expects. In
the traditional individual decision-making approach, the focus would be on information
that supports the husband’s preference for Norway: for example, the beauty of the fjords.
In this study, information search is seen as a tool in family discussions and the study
investigates whether this new, social perspective leads to different information-search
strategies than does the individual context.
To elaborate on this new perspective, the more classical information-search approach is
compared with the approach in this research.
Classical approach to measuring information-search: the individual context
In the classical approach, the information-search question is posed in an identical way to all
respondents participating in the survey. Some variants found in the literature are:
B Several information sources are included in the questionnaire and for each source the
importance is measured using a seven-point rating scale, with 1 representing not
important and 7 representing very important. For example: ‘‘When you purchase wine for
personal use from a wine store, how important are the following information sources to
your selection of a particular wine?’’ (Dodd et al., 2005).
B Which of these information sources did you use in selecting this destination? Minimum is
zero, maximum is all information sources used (Snepenger et al., 1990).
B Can you pick from this list the three information sources you used most often (Cleaver,
2000).
The alternative approach to measuring information-search: the social context
In the alternative approach this study pursues, the researchers asked participants about
relevant sub-decisions: ‘‘has there been discussion in your family about sub-decision x?’’. If
yes: ‘‘pick from this list the two information sources you used most in the discussion about
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 129
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
sub-decision x’’. One of the answer categories is ‘‘no information sources played a role in the
discussion about this subject’’. In this way, for each sub-decision, insight is obtained into:
B the percentage of couples who discuss this sub-decision;
B the use or non-use of information sources in relation to this discussion; and
B if information sources are used, which speci?c ones are primarily used.
The difference between the two approaches mentioned above has to do with the context of
information-search. In the classical approach, information is used in the context of a person’s
own preferences. In the approach this study follows, information is used in the context of
family discussions about vacations with another person (the partner) and preferences of this
person. The basic question is whether these different contexts make a difference in the
selection of information sources. For example, when considering the quietness of a
destination, one may be personally satis?ed with information provided in a travel agency
brochure, in particular when it reinforces one’s own preferences, but when one has to
discuss and reach agreement with a partner about the same topic, information from friends
and relatives is perhaps much more convincing. The marketing implications of this
difference of context are also addressed in this paper.
Combining the focus of the research (information-search in response to a current problem
and more speci?cally in response to discussion between partners within couples) and the
choice of the vacation as the central topic, the study concentrates on three related themes,
which are elaborated in the ‘‘Research questions’’ section.
This report investigates these themes with a longitudinal study that traces vacation choice
processes among the same couples for nearly a year. This is necessary as ‘‘vacation
choices involve a long process, which usually starts in January/February and spreads over
many months’’ (Decrop and Snelders, 2004, p. 1013). The sample is drawn from the Dutch
population of couples (married and unmarried).
Research questions
In this section, the themes and the research questions are elaborated.
Theme 1: discussion topics in the decision process of couples
As already stated, vacation choice is quite often a joint affair. Leisure travel is a product
people frequently consume jointly and re?ects the in?uence of all people travelling
together (Fodness and Murray, 1999). This social setting that characterizes the
consumption of a product also in?uences information-search. All people travelling
together try to reach a ?nal common vacation decision. In most couples, at least in The
Netherlands, the ‘‘golden mean’’ strategy is in use most frequently in order to resolve
disagreements (Bronner and de Hoog, 2008). This is a strategy of give-and-take and
reaching a compromise. Here, everyone gives something up to reach a common
decision. Reasoning takes place using logical arguments vis-a` -vis one another. This
reasoning process generates discussion about the sub-decisions that constitute an
overall vacation decision, and this discussion will continue as long as the decision-makers
make no ?nal decision. The decision-making process leading to the purchase of the
tourism product takes much longer than for many other products such as television sets
(Gursoy, 2001). To deal with this longer period, tracking discussions about the vacation
choice over a relatively long period is necessary. Furthermore, not all sub-decisions are
equally important and involvement with an important one will probably lead to more
discussion; in other words, more discussion about important sub-decisions and less
discussion about unimportant sub-decisions is likely. More discussion can increase the
satisfaction with the decision process afterwards due to reducing the risk of a taking a
decision that turns out be disappointing. As Fodness and Murray (1999, p. 225) state,
‘‘for prepurchase search, better choice decisions, increased product and market
expertise, and heightened satisfaction with purchasing have been suggested as
outcomes’’. These considerations lead to the following research questions:
PAGE 130
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
RQ1a. Do couples engage in discussions about vacation sub-decisions?
RQ1b. Which vacation sub-decisions do couples discuss more and which ones do they
discuss less?
RQ1c. Does more discussion takes place about sub-decisions which the partners
deem more important than about sub-decisions they deem less important?
RQ1d. Is more discussion between partners within couples related to greater
satisfaction with the joint decision process?
Theme 2: information sources used in the discussion
In the discussions between partners within couples, several information sources are
potentially useful as ‘‘weapons’’ for persuading others in the same family. Features of the
product affect the choice of information sources. If the quality of a product is more dif?cult to
evaluate before the purchase decision – as in vacation choice – consumers rely more
heavily on personal sources of information (Murray, 1991). Bei et al. (2004), following the
pioneering work by Nelson (1970), classify products into search and experience products.
Experience products are dominated by choice attributes that cannot be known until use of
the product, such as travel packages and dinners at new restaurants, and services more
generally. Search products are de?ned as ones dominated by attributes for which full
information can be acquired prior to purchase, like athletic shoes or mobile phones. For
search and experience products, the role for consumers of different information sources
varies. As Bei et al. (2004, p. 450) state: ‘‘For example, the information for selecting a travel
package is more abstract and experience-oriented. Consequently, the recommendations of
others would be used more for experience products than search products’’. For service
products, personal information sources may be most important sources (Zeithaml et al.,
2006). In line with this assumption, recommendations of others are expected to be the
most-used information source in the vacation discussion process, followed by the internet,
because online informal sources from other consumers (like weblogs) become more and
more important for experience products like vacations.
Another issue has to do with the time dimension. Dodd et al. (2005) suggest that impersonal
sources are generally useful in the early stages of product decisions. Personal sources of
information tend to exert in?uence at later stages of the decision process. This difference is
related to the nature of what is sought in different decision-making stages. In the early
stages, the emphasis is on generating alternatives and evaluation attributes
(sub-decisions), while in later stages the actual subjective evaluation of alternatives and
development of preferences becomes more salient, so one can expect a shift from using
impersonal sources to using personal ones during the longitudinal study. Based on these
considerations, the following research questions are addressed:
RQ2a. Are information sources used in the discussion about vacations?
RQ2b. When discussing sub-decisions, for which sub-decisions do people search for
information?
RQ2c. When discussing sub-decisions, which information sources are used?
RQ2d. In relation to the individual and the social contexts, are the information sources
used different?
Theme 3: relation between type of sub-decision and information source used
Researchers have distinguished between search versus experience products. However,
one can go a step further because a vacation can be seen as a mixture of experience and
search aspects. The various sub-decisions in this study are characterized as either more
search-determined (where sub-decisions are easy to assess, more concrete and objective;
for example, the organisation offering the vacation) or more experience-determined (where
sub-decisions are dif?cult to assess, unpredictable and subjective; for example,
child-friendly environment or not).
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 131
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In addition, travel information sources are in this study categorized into marketer-dominated
sources (commercial travel information ¼ subjective) and independent sources (family,
friends, social contacts ¼ objective). The internet may represent a mixed category, via which
commercial information is accessible, but also consumer-generated content related to
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with vacation experiences is accessible. A second way
(already introduced above) of segmenting travel information sources is to divide them into
personal (word-of-mouth) and formal (all other sources) ones. Utilization of information from
these two types of information sources probably differs, depending on the
search/experience property of vacations, because experience-determined sub-decisions
are more risky in their outcomes and objective information sources are more trustworthy for
risky decisions. These considerations lead to the research question below:
RQ3. Are (a) objective and (b) personal information sources used more when
discussing experience- determined sub-decisions than when discussing
search-determined sub-decisions?
The next section describes the research design and method of data collection.
Design of the study
Sample
To gather longitudinal data, three waves of ?eldwork are carried out:
B Wave 1: January 2005 (?rst ideas about the main summer vacation).
B Wave 2: April 2005 (decisions are taken about the main summer vacation).
B Wave 3: October 2005 (retrospective consideration of the vacation).
The sample for this study is a sub-sample drawn randomly from the Dutch Continu Vakantie
Onderzoek panel (CVO, Continuous Vacation Panel; see also Bargeman and van der Poel,
2006). This large panel-based survey consists of respondents who report on their vacation
behaviour four times a year. This panel is refreshed annually. The sample encompasses
approximately 7,000 respondents. The panel is representative in relation to
socio-demographics and vacation-related variables. All tour operators in The Netherlands
use this data and the study is considered to be the standard for obtaining insight into
vacation plans and decisions. This panel is the sampling frame for this study. Within this CVO
panel, a sub-population is de?ned consisting of respondents who intend to go on summer
vacation and constitute a couple (married or unmarried) living together at least four days a
week. From this sub-population, a random sample of 240 couples is drawn by the research
agency that conducts the CVO. Since collecting each partner’s opinion independently is not
easy, the sample sizes in comparable studies are often relatively small. Jang et al. (2007) list
studies with sample sizes varying between 23 and 149 couples. From this perspective, 240
couples is a sizeable sample. TNS NIPO, a leading Dutch market research agency, is
responsible for the ?eldwork. For data collection, CASI (Computer Assisted Self
Interviewing) is used. Respondents can answer the questions at home at a time that is
convenient to them and can take the time they require to answer the questions. This
customer-friendly approach towards respondents increases response rates and data quality
(Bronner et al., 2003; Bronner and Kuijlen, 2007). All respondents are asked to complete the
interview individually. Partners are approached separately, with an interval of some days.
The ?rst respondent is furthermore instructed not to discuss his/her answers with the other
family members. Since respondents stated their intention to participate in the surveys, the
initial response rate is high: nearly 90 percent. Table I shows the response rates for each
wave. Only data from couples participating in all three waves (n ¼ 137) are included in the
analysis.
Comparing respondents who drop out with the ones remaining, the panel mortality is not
selective, according to the socio-demographics (tested by x
2
, p . 0:05).
PAGE 132
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Questionnaire
The questionnaire for the ?rst two waves is identical. A vacation is usually described by
means of a set of attributes or sub-decisions. The CVO panel uses a set of sub-decisions
which is based on extensive qualitative and quantitative research with tour operators and
consumers in The Netherlands in 2001. This set is validated as covering the most salient
sub-decisions when people chose a vacation in 2002, 2003 and 2004. As a consequence,
this set represents the most relevant sub-decisions concerning a vacation. The set consists
of the following sub-decisions, which partly overlap with sub-decisions used in comparable
research elsewhere (see for example Litvin et al., 2004): number of places to visit; quiet
surroundings versus lively ones; destination (country); sun-beach-water or not; means of
transport; active (walking, cycling) or not; accommodation; culture or not; organisation (tour
operator or self-arranged, group package tour); child-friendly or not.
For each sub-decision, consider the following questions, relevant to this paper, for each of
the partners: importance of a sub-decision as seen by the respondents (seven-point rating
scale, 7 ¼ very important . . . 1 ¼ very unimportant); discussion about this sub-decision
between partners within the couple (yes, no); when partners discuss a sub-decision, which
information sources do they use most frequently in the discussion? Procedure: out of ten
options, pick the two most frequently used sources in the discussion about sub-decision x.
These ten options followfromdata fromthe CVOin 2002, 2003 and 2004, concerning the use
of information sources in the vacation decision-making process: article in print; advertising
in print; radio or TV programme; radio or TV commercials; internet sites; books; information
from a tour operator, airline company, railway company, ferry company; tourist information
of?ce; relatives and friends; other information source.
The advantage for this study is clearly that use is made of experiences and data obtained by
means of a panel study that spans several years, leading to ?rm grounding of questions and
options used in the questionnaire.
In the third wave, a question about overall satisfaction with the decision process and the
summer vacation is asked, with both aspects rated on a seven-point rating scale (7 ¼ very
satis?ed to 1 ¼ very dissatis?ed).
Results
This section pursues the research themes outlined in the ‘‘Research questions’’ section.
First, discussion about sub-decisions is investigated. Next, the information sources used in
the discussions are analyzed. Finally, the study addresses the question about the relation
between sub-decisions and the use of different information sources.
Theme 1: discussion about sub-decisions
RQ1a. Do couples engage in discussions about vacation sub-decisions?
Table II presents the percentage of people who discuss at least one sub-decision (not
necessarily the same one) in Wave 1 and Wave 2.
Table II shows that discussing sub-decisions is quite widespread. In two-thirds of the
couples interviewed (12% þ 16% þ 38% ¼ 66%), discussion takes place during the
vacation decision process. In addition, a substantial number of respondents continue
Table I Information about the samples used in the study
Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
Date Starting sample January 2005 April 2005 October 2005
Number of partners in couples 480 428 340 274
Number of couples 240 214 170 137
Response % 89 79 81
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 133
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
discussing during Wave 1 and Wave 2 (38 percent), while 34 percent do not discuss at all in
Wave 1 and Wave 2. Apparently a core of people continue discussions over two waves and
another core of people do not (Table II, x
2
¼ 54, df ¼ 1, p , 0:05).
RQ1b. Which vacation sub-decisions do couples discuss more and which ones do they
discuss less?
Shown in Table III are the discussion percentages for each sub-decision.
Between 10 and 27 percent of the respondents discuss at least one sub-decision. The most
frequently discussed sub-decisions are destination and number of places to visit. The least
discussed sub-decision is the means of transport. In Table III no signi?cant differences
between Wave 1 and Wave 2 are found. The rank order correlation between the two waves is
signi?cant (Spearman’s r
s
¼ 0:79, p , 0:05). This signi?cant correlation means that at a
general level stability over waves and sub-decisions is present.
RQ1c. Does more discussion take place about sub-decisions which the partners deem
more important than about sub-decisions they deem less important?
The researchers investigated this research question by computing the Spearman rank
correlation between the ranked amount of discussion about each sub-decision, and the
ranked importance of these sub-decisions. This correlation is 0.02 (NS) in Wave 1 and 0.10
(NS) in Wave 2, so there is no relationship between the importance of sub-decisions and the
amount of discussion.
RQ1d. Is more discussion between partners within couples related to greater
satisfaction with the joint decision process?
To investigate this research question, the researchers calculated an additive index of the
amount of discussion over all sub-decisions by simply adding up each time a respondent
states that s/he discusses a sub-decision. Amount of discussion over ten sub-decisions
Table II Number of persons discussing at least one sub-decision per wave
% Discussion in Wave 2
No discussion Discussion Total %
% discussion in Wave 1 % n % n % n
No discussion 34 94 12 32 46
Discussion 16 44 38 104 54
Total % 50 50 100 274
Table III Percentage of respondents discussing each of the sub-decisions in Wave 1 and
Wave 2
% Wave 1 % Wave 2
Destination (country) 27
a
24
Number of places to visit 24 21
Culture or not 18 14
Accommodation 17 16
Quiet versus lively surroundings 16 14
Child friendly (n ¼ 156)
b
16 17
Active (walking, cycling) 15 14
Sun-beach-water or not 15 16
Organisation 12 11
Means of transport 10 10
Notes:
a
Reading example: 27 percent of the respondents in Wave 1 had a discussion with their
partner about the destination (country);
b
Questions about this sub-decision are only posed to
couples with children. n¼ 274
PAGE 134
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
correlates signi?cantly with more satisfaction with the choice process (Wave 1 Pearson’s
r ¼ 0:15, p , 0:05; Wave 2 Pearson’s r ¼ 0:14, p , 0:05). Satisfaction with the choice
process correlates signi?cantly with overall satisfaction with the vacation (Pearson’s
r ¼ 0:74, p , 0:05). As discussion and satisfaction are measured at different moments in
time (Wave 2 and Wave 3 respectively), it is plausible that the amount of discussion has a
positive relation with the satisfaction with the choice process and, through this relation, with
overall satisfaction with the vacation.
Theme 2: information sources used in the discussion
RQ2a. Are information sources used in the discussion about vacations?
The analysis for Theme 1 shows that discussion occurs quite frequently during the vacation
decision-making process. If a respondent answered that s/he discussed a sub-decision,
they are asked whether information sources are used in the discussion, and if so, what the
two most-often used sources are. In the analyses concerning this theme, respondents are
included who at least once discussed a sub-decision in either wave, because these are the
people who can report on the use of an information source in the discussion
(n ¼ 180ð32 þ 44 þ 104Þ, see Table II). Table IV presents the percentage of people who
consult at least one information source when discussing sub-decisions in Wave 1 and/or
Wave 2.
The large majority of the people in Table IV who discuss sub-decisions at least once, use an
information source during the discussion (21% þ 23%þ 43% ¼ 87%). Of these people, 43
percent use information sources in both waves.
RQ2b. When discussing sub-decisions, for which sub-decisions do people search for
information?
The question is how information-search is distributed across the sub-decisions. Table V
shows the percentage of people using an information source for a sub-decision, given that
the sub-decision is the subject of discussion.
Considering Table V, for almost all sub-decisions 50 percent or more of the respondents use
information sources during the discussion. In particular, discussions about the way to
organize the vacation and the nature of the vacation environment (quiet versus lively) elicit
the use of information sources. This con?rms the notion that in the joint decision process
information plays a substantial role in discussions concerning sub-decisions.
In Table V, at the overall level, stability can be seen between Wave 1 and Wave 2 concerning
the use of information sources in the discussion (Spearman’s r
s
¼ 0:77, p , 0:05), and at the
level of the sub-decisions there is only one indicative difference: as regards
accommodation, more information is used in the discussion in Wave 2 than in Wave 1
(T ¼ 1:88). The rank order correlation between frequency of discussing sub-decisions
Table IV Percentage of people who consult at least one information source while
discussing sub-decisions in Wave 1 and/or Wave 2
Information search in Wave 2
No source used
Yes, at least one
source used Total
Information search in Wave 1 % n % n % n
No source used 13 24
a
21 37 34 61
Yes, at least one used 23 41 43 78 66 119
Total 36 65 64 115 100 180
b
Notes:
a
Reading example: 13 percent of the partners discussing at least one sub-decision do not use
an information source in the discussion in Wave 1 and Wave 2;
b
100 percent is all discussions
between partners (see Table II)
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 135
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
(Table III) and information source use (Table V) is not signi?cant for Wave 1 and Wave 2. This
implies that discussion in itself does not lead to more information use.
RQ2c.
When discussing sub-decisions, which information sources are used?
Next was to investigate the types of information sources that are used when discussing
sub-decisions. Table VI shows the percentages of most frequently-used information sources
across all sub-decisions. Table VI is based on the number of information sources used by all
discussing respondents across all sub-decisions. In Wave 1, 477 information sources are
mentioned by the respondents and in Wave 2, 453.
Table VI makes clear that relatives and friends, followed by internet sites, are the
most-consulted sources of information in both waves.
Dodd et al. (2005) report that early in the choice process, formal information sources are
more used than personal ones and that later in the choice process personal information
sources become more used. This study seeks to con?rm this ?nding. For purposes of
classifying personal versus formal information sources, following Dodd et al. (2005), the
relatives and friends are personal sources of information, and all other information sources
as formal ones. Study ?ndings fail to con?rm Dodd et al.’s (2005) ?ndings, as in Table VI the
percentages for relatives and friends and the other information sources combined (formal)
for the two waves are almost the same.
The role of tour operators/transport companies as a speci?c source of information decreases
across the waves (t ¼ 4:13, p , 0:05) and the role of books increases (t ¼ 4:53, p , 0:05).
The role of advertising in the discussion seems to be negligible. For the limited role played by
radio and TV programmes and commercials, the explanation is probably that, mostly, this
Table V Information search and discussion about sub-decisions
Wave 1 Wave 2
Sub-decision % n % n
Organisation 97
a
34 93 30
Quiet versus lively surroundings 86 44 79 39
Number of places to visit 79 67 79 57
Destination (country) 76 74 74 66
Accommodation 72 46 88 43
Sun-beach-water or not 69 42 66 44
Active (walking, cycling) 68 41 69 39
Culture or not 65 48 66 38
Child friendly (n ¼ 156) 60 25 77 26
Means of transport 48 27 61 28
Note:
a
Reading example: 97 percent of the partners discussing the organisation of the vacation
(n ¼ 34) search for information in connection with this discussion
Table VI Percentage of information sources used in the discussion about the
sub-decisions
Information source used Wave 1 (100% ¼ 477) Wave 2 (100% ¼ 453)
Relatives and friends 29 28
Internet sites 17 21
Tour operators, transport companies 17 8
Books 11 22
Article in print 9 6
Tourist information of?ce 8 6
Advertising in print 5 5
Radio and TV commercials 2 1
Radio and TV programmes 1 2
PAGE 136
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
information cannot be consulted later in the discussion (after the transmission), unless people
take the trouble to record the transmission, which seems quite unlikely for commercials.
Next, the relation between the use of information sources and the types of sub-decisions is
investigated. Table VII lists the two most frequently used information sources for each wave
and sub-decision.
In Table VII, relatives and friends are present as a source of information in every sub-decision,
as expected for an experience product like vacations. Table VII shows that in both waves,
relatives and friends are quite important information sources. Books and internet sites
increase in importance in Wave 2, while tour operators/transport companies almost disappear
in Wave 2. From all sources Table VII mentions, advertising in print and commercials and
programmes on radio and TV never make it to the ?rst or second place, showing that they are
not frequently used as sources of information when partners discuss sub-decisions.
RQ2d. In relation to the individual and the social contexts, are the information sources
used different?
In the ‘‘Introduction’’ section, a new perspective on information-search – taking the role of
context into account – is presented. The question is whether indeed a difference exists in the
use of types of information sources when the context changes from the perspective of
individual preferences to the perspective of discussion with a partner and the partner’s
preferences. This question is investigated by comparing data from the CVO panel (the
complete panel, n ¼ 7000) with data from the subsample of this panel as used in this study.
In the CVO panel, the classical question (individual context) is asked: ‘‘Which sources did
you consult when preparing/planning your vacation?’’. In this sample, 36 percent of the
vacationers do not search for information in advance. Of the vacationers searching for
information (64 percent), only 3 percent use information from personal (¼ relatives=friends)
sources. In this study’s sample, 29 percent (Wave 1) and 28 percent (Wave 2) of the
vacationers use relatives and friends as information sources. In Table VIII the averages of the
percentages for Wave 1 and Wave 2 are used.
Table VII Most-used information sources in the discussion about sub-decisions for the two waves
Wave 1 Wave 2
Sub-decision 1st source 2nd source 1st source 2nd source
Organisation Relatives and friends Internet Relatives and friends Internet
Quiet versus lively
surroundings
Relatives and friends Tour operators Relatives and friend Books and Internet
Number of places to visit Relatives and friends Internet and Tour
operators
Books Relatives and friends
Destination (country) Relatives and friends Internet Relatives and friends Internet
Accommodation Internet Relatives and friends Internet Relatives and friends
Sun-beach-water or not Tour operators Relatives and friends Relatives and friends Books
Active (walking, cycling) Relatives and friends Books Relatives and friends Books
Culture or not Books Relatives and friends Books Internet, Relatives and
friends, Tourist
information
Child friendly (n ¼ 156) Internet Tour operators, Tourist
information, relatives and
friends
Books, Relatives and
friends
Internet
Means of transport Relatives and friends Tour operators Relatives and friends Internet
Table VIII Comparison between the percentage of used information sources types in the
CVO and data in this study
Type of information source used Individual context (CVO) (%) Social context (this study) (%)
Personal 3 29
Formal 97 71
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 137
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table VIII shows that the sources people use in a social context are more personal than the
sources they use in an individual context. This underlines the perspective of this paper, that
context makes a difference as regards selecting different information sources in the vacation
decision-making process. Another explanation is that information used initially (planning
phase) cannot play a role in the discussion because the information is by then already known
to both partners. So a partner needs new additional information sources in the discussion,
and that’s where relatives and friends become important, perhaps because one has already
exhausted all formal information sources in the preparation phase. More generally, this
?nding supports the overall importance of the social context: more joint decision making
(golden mean strategy) generates more discussion, which in turn in?uences the selection of
information sources over time.
Theme 3: relation between sub-decision and information source used
RQ3.
Are (a) objective and (b) personal information sources used more when discussing
experience-determined sub-decisions than when discussing search-determined
sub-decisions?
This research question requires a classi?cation of information sources into personal versus
formal and into objective versus subjective sources. Also, a classi?cation of sub-decisions
into more experience-determined sub-decisions and more search-determined
sub-decisions is needed.
The objective versus subjective dimension fall into three categories, de?ned as follows:
1. Objective. The source has no stake in the decision (e.g. articles in newspapers, radio and
TV programmes, books, relatives and friends).
2. In between. The source can have a stake in the decision (e.g. internet sites, tourist
information of?ce).
3. Subjective. The source does have a stake in the decision (e.g. tour operators/transport
companies, radio and TV commercials, advertising in print).
By ‘‘having a stake in a decision’’, is meant that if the information source in?uences your
decision, the information source may gain ?nancially by its outcome.
The classi?cation of sub-decisions using a search versus experience product dimension is
not easy. As literature for guiding a classi?cation is lacking, a pragmatic approach is chosen
by creating three categories:
1. Experience (only by experiencing the product one knows the precise outcome of the
sub-decision). Child-friendly, quiet versus lively.
2. In between (in part, one can obtain knowledge about the precise outcome in advance,
but some on-the-spot experience remains). Active, culture, sun-beach-water.
3. Search (knowledge about the precise outcome of a sub-decision can be obtained largely
in advance). Accommodation, country, means of transport, number of places to visit,
organisation.
Table IX shows the relation between type of sub-decision and type of information source
(objective versus subjective) people use.
From reading the columns in Table IX, it is clear that no signi?cant differences in information
source types used in the various sub-decisions are found. At the overall level, the role of
objective sources increases over time (T ¼ 2:14, p , 0:05) and the role of subjective
sources decreases over time (T ¼ 3:88, p , 0:05). Apparently, the closer in time the actual
vacation is, the more people try to reduce the risk of a disappointing vacation by consulting
objective sources. Considering the type of sub-decision, Table IX makes clear that this holds
true especially for search-determined sub-decisions (Objective Wave 1-Wave 2 T ¼ 1.83,
indicative; Subjective Wave 1-Wave 2 T ¼ 3:41, p , 0:05).
PAGE 138
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table X shows the relation between type of sub-decision and personal and formal
information sources used in the discussion.
In Table X signi?cant differences in information source types used (T-test) between the
sub-decisions for Wave 1 and Wave 2, are absent.
Conclusions and implications
Summary of ?ndings
The research in this paper investigates the relationship between the discussion of vacation
decisions in couples and the use of information sources used in this discussion. By means of
a longitudinal study of Dutch couples, in which both partners are interviewed over a time
span of almost a year, several research questions are answered.
Concerning the frequency of discussing sub-decisions in vacation decision-making,
discussion occurs among 66 percent of the couples during the decision-making process,
and the amount of discussion varies across sub-decisions. All ten sub-decisions that are
part of the questionnaire receive attention, ranging from 27 percent for the vacation
destination to 10 percent for the means of transport. No relation occurs between the
importance of a sub-decision as assigned by a partner in a couple and the amount of
discussion about a sub-decision. A greater amount of discussion about sub-decisions
relates positively to satisfaction with the decision process afterwards.
During these discussions, the use of information sources is widespread: in 87 percent of the
cases, sub-decision discussions involve one or more sources of information. In particular,
discussions about how to organize the vacation and the nature of the vacation environment
(quiet versus lively) elicit the use of information sources. Overall, for each sub-decision, 50
percent or more of the partners use information sources during the discussion. No relation is
found between the amount of discussion and the use of information sources: sub-decisions
generating more discussions are not the ones that lead to the use of many information
sources.
Table IX Relation between sub-decision and information source (Objective – Subjective) used in the discussion
Percentage of information source type used in the discussion
Objective In between Subjective
Number of
observations
Type of sub-decision Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2
Experience 51
a
58 26 26 23 16 80 77
In between 53 59 22 26 25 15 132 121
Search 49 57 27 29 26 14 265 255
Total 51 58 25 28 24 14 477
b
453
Notes:
a
Reading example: in the discussion about experience-determined type sub-decisions, 51 percent of the information sources
used in the discussion belong to the class of objective sources (in Wave 1);
b
The total number of information sources used in Wave 1
Table X Relation between sub-decision and information source (Personal-Formal) used in the discussion
Percentage of information source type used in the discussion
Personal Formal Number of observations
Type of sub-decision Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 1 Wave 2
Experience 30
a
27 70 73 80 77
In between 24 28 76 72 132 121
Search 31 29 69 71 265 255
Total 29 28 71 72 477
b
453
Notes:
a
Reading example: in the discussion about experience-determined type sub-decisions, 30 percent of the information sources
used in the discussion belong to the class of personal sources (in Wave 1);
b
The total number of information sources used in Wave 1
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 139
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
As a vacation is mainly an experience product, the expectation is, based on the literature,
that personal recommendations are the information source that is mostly used in discussions
between partners. The ?ndings con?rmthis expectation: in both waves, relatives and friends
outrank all other information sources like tour operators/transport companies and internet
sites. This also holds true for every sub-decision: in both Wave 1 and Wave 2, relatives and
friends are always ?rst or second in the ranking order of information sources used. The very
limited use of radio and televisions commercials in discussions is striking. In addition,
advertising in print plays a minor role. Furthermore, later in the choice process the role of tour
operators/transport companies as information sources decreases, while the role of books
increases.
Finally, the relation between the nature of a sub-decision and types of information sources
used is investigated. Though overall a vacation can be seen as an experience product,
some differentiation between sub-decisions is made, since for some sub-decisions all
information can in principle be found before the actual vacation (search-determined
sub-decisions), while for others, only the vacation itself can reveal the correct information
(experience-determined sub-decisions). In line with the distinction between personal and
formal sources of information, the expectation is that for more experience-determined
sub-decisions, people will use personal sources of information in the discussion and formal
sources for search-determined sub-decisions. However, this is not to be the case. As
regards the idea that for experience-determined sub-decisions, people will rather turn to
objective information sources (those having no ?nancial stake in the outcome of the
decision) than to subjective ones (those having a ?nancial stake in the outcome of the
decision), the ?nding is that the role of objective sources in discussions increases over time
while the role of subjective sources decreases over time. This holds true especially for
search-determined sub-decisions. Apparently, the closer in time the actual vacation is, the
more people try to reduce the risk of a disappointing vacation by consulting objective
sources.
The sources used when discussing vacation sub-decisions with a partner are de?nitely more
personal than the ones used for preparing a vacation from a purely individual perspective.
This underlines the chosen research perspective that context makes a difference as regards
the selection of different information sources in the vacation decision-making process.
Limitations of the study
A relation between the nature of a sub-decision (experience-determined or
search-determined), and types of information source used is not found. The absence of
this relation may be due to the very tentative nature of the classi?cation of the sub-decisions
into experience- or search-determined ones. An obvious improvement in the future testing of
this relation is to ask the respondents how they personally perceive each sub-decision
(experience-determined or search-determined), as their behaviour is more in?uenced by
their own interpretation of these sub-decisions than a post hoc classi?cation by researchers.
Only if the same results are found as in this study, can it be assumed that information-search
behaviour during discussions between partners can be generalized across the entire
vacation, and does not depend on the sub-decision of a vacation that is the topic of the
discussion.
Another limitation is that this study focuses only on the discussion between partners. As the
in?uence of children is growing, in future studies data about the role of children in vacation
decision-making by couples need collection.
Implications for future research and tourism marketing
Information-search is different in two different contexts:
1. forming and creating own preferences in the pre-purchase phase; and
2. in response to discussion between partners within couples, in order to reach agreement
and arrive at a common decision.
PAGE 140
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In the ?rst (individual) context, there is no discussion: consumers acquire and process
information and use this information in making up their own minds. In the second (social)
context, information can be a ‘‘weapon’’ to be used in discussions with a partner. If partners
in a couple travelling together disagree about the ?nal choice, arriving at a ?nal decision
involves one or more of several strategies. In vacation choice, the golden mean strategy is
mostly used. This is a strategy of give-and-take and reaching a compromise. Everyone gives
up something and the decision-makers achieve a golden mean. In this process, the
decision-makers use arguments vis-a` -vis one another. These arguments likely are stronger
and more persuasive if they are solidly based on speci?c types of information sources, in
particular personal ones. This distinction between information sources used in these two
different contexts has several implications for targeting marketing messages.
Marketing managers try to in?uence the ?nal consumer choice by making use of several
marketing instruments. Providing information that ?ts into the consumer search process is
one of the tools. Core elements are brochures, web site information and advertising material
(print, TV, radio, Internet, outdoor). Research provides data about which segments of
consumers use which information (Decrop and Snelders, 2005). With the aid of marketing
research, the tourism industry studies how travellers select, acquire and use information. As
Fodness and Murray (1999, p. 229) state in reference to these studies: ‘‘the belief that
systematic patterns of tourist behaviour are attributable to the information available to them
compels its study’’. The central idea is that, during information acquisition, marketers can
in?uence consumers’ buying decisions (Gursoy and McCleary, 2004). However, currently
they seemto focus on the individualistic context of information-search. Marketing research is
carried out in which individual perceptions and preferences for countries, tour operators,
travel agents and speci?c package vacations are measured. Results are used to improve
weak points and reinforce strong points in brand image and/or country image. But the social
context of information-search requires other data and different studies. By means of
marketing research, the tourism industry needs to collect additional information about points
of discussion within couples. If a male partner thinks the weather is beautiful in country x and
the female partner thinks the weather in this country is bad – and it is a topic of discussion –
the tourism industry has to provide him with information about the weather, using the
appropriate information sources. These sources should ?t this social context: for example,
more personal information sources in the beginning of the decision process and more
objective ones later in the decision process. With the help of this tailored information, he can
persuade his partner and reach a common decision. More generally, the results of the study
do have marketing and marketing research implications for product types and decision
processes that have important features in common with vacations, such as ‘‘intangibility,
heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability’’ (Westwood et al., 1999, p.239). One needs to
collect data about individual perceptions and preferences, in the ?rst pre-purchase phase,
and during a later phase, about topics of discussion between partners. When selecting
communication channels to convey information, the context in which the information is
received should be taken into account: individual or social.
For tourismmarketing, taking into consideration that personal sources are more signi?cant in
the social context as compared with the individual context, is important. This implies not only
trying to in?uence the consumer who has to take a decision but also trying to in?uence the
‘‘signi?cant others’’. This study shows that as time progresses, objective information sources
become more important in the joint decision process. The role of review and rating sites with
consumer-generated content (electronic word-of-mouth as a combination of personal and
objective information sources) is growing. As de Valck (2005, p. 234) states: ‘‘We have found
that community in?uence manifests itself most profoundly in the information search and
pre-purchase evaluation phases.’’ Networks of consumers in communities of interest arise
(Brown et al., 2007). It seems very important to follow closely the interaction and discussion
between consumers on these types of sites. According to de Valck (2005, p. 239), ‘‘the
highly relevant traditional reference groups formed by family, friends, acquaintances,
colleagues [. . .] function out of sight of marketers’’. In the near future, consumers will rely
more on online information sources providing content from fellow consumers and fellow
travellers. The internet might in this way potentially change a vacation from an
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 141
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
experience-determined product into a search-determined product, because information on
experiencing the product is available online (Bei et al., 2004). However, Litvin, Goldsmith,
and Pan (2008, pp. 459) conclude that the tourism industry ‘‘lags behind others in the
development and discussion of strategies for managing interpersonal in?uence in an
electronic environment’’. Catching up will become even more important as family
democracy increases in the coming years, and more vacation decisions are taken
together in joint decision processes. More knowledge about how to align information and
information channels in this changed decision and information landscape is necessary for
effective marketing.
References
Bargeman, B. and van der Poel, H. (2006), ‘‘The role of routines in the vacation decision-making process
of Dutch vacationers’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 707-20.
Bei, L-T., Chen, E.Y.L. and Widdows, R. (2004), ‘‘Consumers’ online information search behavior and the
phenomenon of search vs experience products’’, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 449-67.
Bronner, A.E. (2004), ‘‘Family decision making and advertising’’, Admap, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 15-18.
Bronner, A.E. (2006), ‘‘Increasing family democracy and the implications for advertising’’, in Diehl, S.
and Terlutter, R. (Eds), International Advertising and Communication, Deutscher Universita¨ ts-Verlag,
Wiesbaden, pp. 301-18.
Bronner, A.E. and de Hoog, R. (2008), ‘ ‘Agreement and disagreement in family vacation
decision-making’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 967-79.
Bronner, A.E. and Kuijlen, T. (2007), ‘‘The live or digital interviewer: a comparison between CASI, CAPI
and CATI with respect to differences in response behaviour’’, International Journal of Market Research,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 167-90.
Bronner, A.E., Tchaoussoglou, C. and Ross, R. (2003), ‘‘The virtual interviewer2, Worldwide Readership
Research Symposium 11, Cambridge, MA, October, pp. 121-130.
Brown, J., Broderick, A.M. and Lee, N. (2007), ‘‘Word-of-mouth communication with online communities:
conceptualizing the online network’’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 2-20.
Cleaver, M. (2000), ‘‘Australian seniors’ use of travel information sources: perceived usefulness of
word-of-mouth, professional advice, marketer-dominated and general-media information’’, ANZMAC
2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century, pp. 1-6.
Decrop, A. and Snelders, D. (2004), ‘‘Planning the summer vacation: an adaptable process’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1008-20.
Decrop, A. and Snelders, D. (2005), ‘‘A grounded typology of vacation decision making’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 26, pp. 121-32.
De Valck, K. (2005), ‘‘Virtual communities: networks of consumer knowledge and companionship’’,
ERIM PhD Series in Management 50, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Dodd, T.H., Laverie, D.A., Wilcox, J.F. and Duhan, D.F. (2005), ‘‘Differential effects of experience,
subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sources of information used in consumer wine
purchasing’’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
Engel, J., Blackwell, R. and Miniard, P. (1995), Consumer Behavior, 8th ed., Dryden, Fort Worth, TX.
Fodness, D. and Murray, B. (1999), ‘‘A model of tourist information search behavior’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 37, pp. 220-30.
Gursoy, D. (2001), ‘‘Development of a travelers’ information search model’’, PhD Dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Gursoy, D. and McCleary, K.W. (2004), ‘‘An integrative model of tourists’ information search behavior’’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 353-73.
Jang, H., Lee, S., Lee, S-W. and Hong, S.K. (2007), ‘‘Expanding the individual choice-sets model to
couples’ honeymoon destination selection process’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 1299-314.
PAGE 142
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2008), ‘‘Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism
management’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 458-68.
Litvin, S.W., Xu, G. and Kang, S.K. (2004), ‘‘Spousal vacation-buying decision making revisited across
time and place’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 193-8.
McCleary, K. and Whitney, D. (1994), ‘‘Projecting Western consumer attitudes toward travel to six
Eastern European Countries’’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 239-56.
McIntosh, R.W. and Goeldner, C.R. (1986), Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 5th ed., Wiley
and Sons, Somerset, NJ.
Mottiar, Z. and Quinn, D. (2004), ‘‘Couple dynamics in household tourism decision making: women as
the gatekeepers?’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 149-60.
Murray, K.B. (1991), ‘‘A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition activities’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp. 10-25.
Nelson, P. (1970), ‘‘Information and consumer behavior’’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78 No. 20,
pp. 311-29.
Ratchford, B.T. (2001), ‘‘The economics of consumer knowledge’’, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 27, pp. 397-411.
Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M. and Worrall, K. (1990), ‘‘Information search strategies by
destination-naive tourists’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 29, pp. 13-16.
Stigler, G. (1961), ‘‘The economics of information’’, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 19, pp. 213-25.
Stigler, G. and Becker, G. (1977), ‘‘De gustibus non est disputandum’’, American Economic Review,
Vol. 67, pp. 76-90.
Westwood, S., Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Ineson, E. (1999), ‘‘Branding the package holiday – the
role and signi?cance of brands for UK air tour operators’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 238-52.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Further reading
Chen, J.S. and Gursoy, D. (2000), ‘‘Cross-cultural comparison of the information sources used by
?rst-time and repeat travelers and its marketing implications’’, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 191-203.
Corresponding author
Robert de Hoog can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 143
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Fred Bronner, Robert de Hoog. 2013. Economizing on vacations: the role of information searching. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 7:1, 28-41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_944143485.pdf