Description
This paper introduces the seven empirical studies on vacation decision making in this
special issue of IJCTHR. The paper compares the findings of these seven studies to traditional models of
vacation decision making, and highlights a number of new perspectives for research into vacation
decision making.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
New perspectives on vacation decision making
Kenneth F. Hyde Alain Decrop
Article information:
To cite this document:
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 - 111
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139537
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 16 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2607 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Gerard Dunne, Sheila Flanagan, J oan Buckley, (2011),"Towards a decision making model for city break travel", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 158-172http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139573
Metin Kozak, Levent Karadag, (2012),"Who influences aspects of family decision making?", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 8-20http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211206216
Antónia Correia, Adriano Pimpão, (2008),"Decision-making processes of Portuguese tourist travelling to South America and Africa",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 Iss 4 pp. 330-373http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180810908989
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
)
Guest editorial
New perspectives on vacation decision
making
Kenneth F. Hyde and Alain Decrop
Abstract
Purpose – This paper introduces the seven empirical studies on vacation decision making in this
special issue of IJCTHR. The paper compares the ?ndings of these seven studies to traditional models of
vacation decision making, and highlights a number of new perspectives for research into vacation
decision making.
Findings – Five themes appear in these contemporary studies of vacation decision making: the
multifaceted nature of the vacation; joint decision making by members of the household; impact of the
type of vacation trip on the decision making process; the role of the internet in vacation decision making;
and the role of socio-psychological variables in vacation decision making.
Research limitations/implications – The paper provides recommendations for future research in
vacation decision making, in light of contemporary changes in the travel and tourism industry.
Originality/value – The value of this paper lies in its review of traditional approaches to researching
vacation decision making, and advice provided for future research on the topic.
Keywords Decision making, Travel, Leave, Journey planning, Tourism
Paper type General review
Introduction
This special issue of the International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
focuses on the plans and decisions made by individuals and households relating to
vacations, from micro and holistic perspectives. Plans and decisions are made both prior to
and during vacation experiences using explicit and/or implicit thinking processes. Such
processes may involve one or more people within the household. Most of the existing
literature explains leisure and vacation decision-making through rational and
bounded-rationality paradigms. However, recent literature shows that other perspectives
such as hedonic, implicit, and adaptive decision-making processes are also relevant.
Researchers should consider the in?uences of changing aspects of the decision
environment, such as the evolving role of information and communication technologies.
Fred van Raaij and Dick Francken (1984) receive substantial attention in tourism research as
their article effectively highlights a number of important issues that researchers should
consider when examining vacation decision making by consumers. Since van Raaij and
Francken (1984) research and knowledge on vacation decision making have progressed
considerably. The world of travel and vacationing has also changed considerably since
1984, particularly with the growth of the Internet and global reservation systems, the
democratization of travel due to low-cost air travel and increased competition among tour
operators, and the opening of many new destinations to tourism as part of economic
development and globalization processes.
DOI 10.1108/17506181111139537 VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 103-111, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 103
Kenneth F. Hyde is based at
the Business School and
New Zealand Tourism
Research Institute, AUT
University, Auckland, New
Zealand. Alain Decrop is
based at the Louvain
School of Management,
Faculte´ s Universitaires
Notre-Dame de la Paix,
Namur, Belgium.
Received: March 2009
Revised: May 2009
Accepted: November 2009
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 paper offers an introduction to the seven empirical papers in this special issue. The
paper seeks to re?ect on the insights of van Raaij and Francken (1984) and subsequent
research on vacation decision making undertaken over the past quarter century. The seven
papers appearing in this special issue re?ect ?ve themes:
1. the multifaceted nature of vacation decisions;
2. joint decision making by members of the household;
3. the impact of the type of vacation on the decision making process;
4. the role of the internet in vacation decision making; and
5. the role of socio-psychological variables in vacation decision making.
A number of these themes re?ect research avenues that are somewhat overlooked in the
vacation decision making literature.
Van Raaij and Francken (1984) commence by pointing out that the vacation represents
discretionary expenditure for most households. Householders do not need to undertake
vacations. Expenditure of household funds on vacations competes with demands for
expenditure from other discretionary purchases, such as home furnishings and appliances.
Interestingly, van Raaij and Francken do not claim to present a complete framework of
vacation decision making. Rather, they state that their paper presents a ?ve-step, sequential
model of the vacation. The ?ve steps in a vacation, as presented by these authors, are:
1. the generic decision to take a vacation;
2. information acquisition to assist decision making;
3. joint decision-making by members of the household;
4. experiencing of vacation activities; and
5. subsequent satisfaction and complaints about the vacation.
Van Raaij and Francken assume that vacation decision making always commences with the
generic decision of whether to take a vacation or not. Van Raaij and Francken state that this
generic decision is likely to involve a group decision process with negotiation, bargaining
and compromise activities undertaken by members of the household. Following the generic
decision, a period of information acquisition occurs. Information on vacation alternatives is
said to serve several purposes:
B to sensitize consumers favourably to the idea of taking a vacation;
B to persuade a family member of the value of taking a vacation;
B to assist in making vacation choices and enhance appreciation of the destination; and
B to justify the vacation decision to oneself and to others.
The next step in van Raaij and Francken’s model involves a period of joint decision making
by the members of the household. The household members then proceed to experience the
vacation, and develop levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the vacation they have
experienced.
Typical of early models of the vacation and vacation decision making, the van Raaij and
Francken model assumes that consumers follow an invariant sequence of stages in vacation
decision making, and that these stages apply to decision making for all types of vacations.
The papers presented in this special issue provide evidence that such an invariant
sequence of decision steps is unlikely. However, van Raaij and Francken’s approach to
understanding vacation decision making covers a number of broad issues not considered in
other traditional models. Such issues include the importance of the generic decision to take
a vacation or not, and the assumption that vacation decision making most often comprises
joint decision making by several, if not all, members of the household.
PAGE 104
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
)
The models by Moutinho (1987), Woodside and Lysonski (1989), and Um and Crompton
(1990, 1991, 1992) are other traditional models of vacation decision making. These models
borrow heavily from the consumer decision making frameworks of the 1960s (Engel et al.,
1968; Howard and Sheth, 1969). A limitation of these traditional models is that they focus on
just one facet of vacation decision making, the consumer’s choice of destination (Decrop,
2006). The models neglect to examine other vacation sub-decisions that consumers have to
make – including the consumer’s choices of transport, accommodation and activities.
Similar to the van Raaij and Francken model, these traditional models assume that
consumers follow an invariant sequence of stages to decision making; stages that equally
apply to all types of vacation. Finally, and unlike the work of van Raaij and Francken, these
models adopt the perspective of the individual consumer and their decision making. The
models seek to represent the preferences, attitudes and decision processes of an individual
consumer, as if a consumer makes vacation decisions in isolation from the preferences
expressed by other members of the household.
Collectively, the papers in this special issue provide advancement on the traditional models
of vacation decision making. The discussion that follows considers the ?ve themes identi?ed
in these papers, themes which each present a perspective on vacation decision making that
is somewhat neglected in traditional models.
The multifaceted nature of vacation decisions
The vacation potentially entails a lengthy series of decisions by the consumer. While traditional
models of vacation decision making have concentrated on consumer choice of a single facet
of the vacation, the choice of destination, many more choices may be involved in vacation
decision making. Vacation sub-decisions include choices in destination(s), transport to the
destination/s, transport at the destination(s), travel routes, activities, attractions, dining and
retail purchases (Hyde and Laesser, 2009; Woodside and MacDonald, 1994).
A number of the papers in this special issue consider the sub-decisions involved in planning
of the vacation, including the paper by Pearce and Schott, and the paper by Bronner and de
Hoog. Pearce and Schott test whether signi?cant differences exist between domestic and
outbound travellers as to their channel choice behaviour for ?ve decision categories (i.e.
transport to destination, transport at destination, accommodation, attractions and activities,
and package).
Bronner and de Hoog introduce a distinction between search sub-decisions and experience
sub-decisions. The former are easier to access, more concrete and more objective than the
latter. They ?nd that the most frequently discussed sub-decisions among the couples they
studied were decisions on destination and the number of places to visit. The least frequently
discussed sub-decision was the means of transport. Some sub-decisions require greater
consultation of information sources. This requirement is especially so with sub-decisions
concerning the way to organise the vacation (that is, independent versus packaged
vacations) and the nature of the vacation environment (that is, quiet versus lively vacation
environments). Finally, Abendroth focuses on a particular sub-decision, that is, souvenir
purchases, that has received little attention in the literature so far. She identi?es purchase
limitation (i.e. the fact that a souvenir is only available at a particular location, making it
scarce) as a new antecedent of a souvenir’s purchase intention and reminder value.
Joint decision making by household members
Van Raaij and Francken (1984) explicitly recognize that vacation decision making is most
often joint decision making by members of a household. Sadly, research into vacation
decision making over the intervening 25 years fails to include this perspective. Notable
exceptions include work by Decrop (2005), and Woodside et al. (2006).
Two of the papers in this special issue focus on vacation decision making by couples, the
paper by Bronner and de Hoog and the paper by Bokek-Cohen. Both papers recognise that
various strategies of in?uence, negotiation and compromise facilitate decision making by
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 105
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 couple. The paper by Bronner and de Hoog examines the information sources used by
couples in discussing and negotiating their vacation decisions. The paper by Bokek-Cohen
examines the in?uence strategies adopted by a each partner in a couple when negotiating
their vacation options.
Bronner and de Hoog point out that information search can occur in two different contexts. In
the ?rst instance, the individual consumer searches for information on vacation options as a
basis for forming their own vacation preferences. In the second instance, the individual
searches for information as a basis for discussion and decision making by the couple. In
these two diverse contexts, the individual might be employing different information sources.
For example, to form individual preferences one might be satis?ed to consult impersonal
sources such as a brochure and a web site. However, to be effective in group discussion,
information from personal sources such as friends and relatives may be more convincing. In
their study, Bronner and de Hoog establish that the information search strategies adopted in
the individual context may differ from those used in a social context. Bronner and de Hoog
observe that personal sources are used the most often for information search in a social
context. It is likely that the arguments presented by one partner, in the couple’s discussion of
vacation options, may be stronger if personal sources of information are used.
The Bronner and de Hoog study also observes that the amount of discussion regarding a
speci?c vacation sub-decision, such as the couple’s choice of accommodation, correlates
with satisfaction with the choices made, and correlates with satisfaction with the vacation.
The researchers point out that, in the Dutch culture, arguments by the couple may be
resolved by a process of adopted the ‘‘golden mean’’; that is, disagreements may be
resolved by open discussion with each partner, by presentation of information, reasoning
and willingness to compromise.
Bokek-Cohen examines how marital power bases impact on the in?uence strategies used by
couples in the vacation decision process. In pre-vacation decision-making, spousal partners
engage in joint discussion. They each attempt to in?uence the other, in the vacation choices
made. Bokek-Cohen adopts a model of marital relations as a balanced exchange of
resources. He ?nds couples use reward strategies more frequently than they use coercive or
emotional strategies. He ?nds that an individual’s choice of in?uence strategy is unrelated to
objective bases of marital power, such as differences in occupation or levels of education.
However, the choice of in?uence strategies does relate to subjective bases of marital power –
such as perceived differences in physical attractiveness, identi?cation with the partner and
marital happiness. The author points out that travel agents should not make assumptions
about which partner in a couple has power in the relationship simply based on differences in
occupation. He suggests that advertising for vacations could emphasise the romantic nature
of the experience, and the opportunity for vacations to improve marital relationships.
In many vacations, the married couple or romantic couple are the predominant variant of
travel party. Thus, the scant attention in the literature on discussions of vacationing couples
is surprising. Dunne, Flanagan, and Buckley ?ll this gap to some extent. Their study shows
that the majority of travel parties undertaking a city break vacation in Dublin are couples,
including a number of couples who have arranged to vacation without their children. The
vacation is a product that couples choose to experience together. That experience is likely to
be an emotional one, and if the emotions evoked in both parties are positive, the vacation
has potential to contribute positively to the couple’s relationship.
The quality of the vacation experience is in part a re?ection of how well the members of the
couple get along during vacation time spent together. If one partner is unsatis?ed with the
choice of vacation elements, such as choice of accommodation or activities, this is likely to
impact on the quality of the vacation experienced by the other partner. The satisfying
vacation experience for each partner is in part a result of the choices made during
pre-vacation discussions by the couple. This again highlights the role of joint household
decision making in shaping the quality of the vacation experience. Future research might
therefore consider the role that vacationing as a couple has on maintaining and improving
the relationship of the couple.
PAGE 106
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?uence of vacation type on the decision making process
Traditional models of vacation decision making present generalized models attempting to
describe decision making in all contexts. Such models fail to recognise that decision
processes may vary according to the type of vacation trip undertaken.
Dunne, Flanagan, and Buckley examine the city break vacation, by which they mean a
short-term vacation to a city destination with no other destinations visited en route. For
Dunne and his colleagues, the decision-making process for a city break dramatically
departs from the choice processes for the annual family summer vacation. They ?nd among
many of the consumers they interviewed (i.e. couples unaccompanied by children), that
choice of a city break vacation was a last minute, spontaneous and opportunistic decision.
The decision process for taking a city break is less complex. The vacation is briefer, less
expensive, and often does not involve the additional complications of accommodating the
demands of children. As such, the vacation requires little planning. It is a highly discretionary
decision; the generic decision – to take a quick vacation or not – dominates. Taking a city
break arises from facilitating and constraining situational factors in consumer’s lives
(Woodside et al., 2006), and a desire to escape.
City break vacations are becoming more common, due to the availability of low cost airlines,
and a trend among consumers to take shorter, more frequent vacations. Consumers
consider only a small number of alternative destinations when planning a city break vacation;
in most instances, these are the destinations served by the consumer’s local airport. The
researchers observe that for a city break vacation, the image of the destination seems of
lesser importance than the cost and convenience of travel, and the requirement to vacation
within tight time constraints.
Pearce and Schott also observe variations in vacation decision making according to the type
of trip. Their paper compares travel booking and channel choice behaviours by New
Zealanders undertaking domestic travel, versus New Zealanders undertaking international
travel. In contrast to the vacation choices of Europeans, where ?ights to a European city such
as Dublin may involve little expense or travelling time, the vacation choices of NewZealanders
are constrained by geographic isolation. International vacations for NewZealanders generally
involve much longer travelling time and expense than is the case for residents of Europe.
Pearce and Schott observe that international travel for NewZealanders involves much higher
levels of booking of vacation elements, than is the case for domestic travel. Virtually all the
international vacationers studied booked transport to the destination; most booked
accommodation; many booked transport at the destination; and greater numbers booked
attractions and activities. By contrast, one quarter of domestic trips included no advanced
bookings whatsoever. This was because many domestic trips involved travel by private car
and accommodation in the homes of friends or relatives. International vacationers also
adopted different channels for purchase of vacation products. For international travel, travel
agents were the dominant channel. By contrast, domestic travellers purchased
accommodation directly from suppliers.
While the Pearce and Schott study only reports on residents of NewZealand, future research
could compare the decision processes for international versus domestic travel for residents
of continental Europe, or for residents of a large nation such as the USA. Pearce and Schott
further point out that, while there is general theoretical understanding of tourist information
search behaviour (Hyde, 2009), a theoretical understanding of tourist booking behaviour
has yet to be established.
The role of the internet in vacation decision making
The growth of the internet is perhaps the most dramatic change in travel and vacationing
since the publication of the van Raaij and Francken (1984). The internet has revolutionized
the way in which consumers search for travel information and purchase vacation products.
Dunne et al. in their paper on city breaks, note the role of the internet in facilitating last-minute
vacation decision making. In contrast to the traditional image of vacation decision making as
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 107
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 process extending over many weeks or months, Dunne et al. observe a dramatic
truncation in the decision making process. A number of the consumers they interviewed
decided to undertake a city break vacation a matter of days prior to departure. Ready
access to low cost airfares and accommodation via the internet enabled these
near-spontaneous actions. Dunne et al. also observe that, because of the role of the
internet, information search and bookings occurred simultaneously for some of the city break
vacationers they interviewed.
In their paper on tourist information search by couples, Bronner and de Hoog note the
greater importance of personal sources of information on vacation options as a basis for
discussion by the couple. While, in the past, personal sources of information were restricted
to word-of-mouth encounters with friends and relatives, Bronner and de Hoog point out that
the internet offers another potential personal source of information. This newpersonal source
of information is the user generated content (UGC) on the internet, such as consumer
reviews of hotels and places of accommodation. Future research might consider if UGC on
the internet can be equally effective in discussions among couples as are other personal
sources of travel information.
In her paper on souvenir purchase, Abendroth observes a downside to the role of the internet
in the vacation experience. Often consumers purchase souvenirs at their vacation destinations
as a physical reminder of the vacation experience, a symbolic token of the destination. Such
souvenirs purchases at the destination have an authentic quality to them. Abendroth observes
that making the same souvenir available for purchase online, from the consumer’s home
computer terminal, may lessen on-site purchase intentions and the symbolic or reminder value
of the souvenir. One might even say that the availability of souvenirs online detracts from the
experience the tourist may have from shopping while at the vacation destination.
The role of socio-psychological variables in vacation decision making
The van Raaij and Francken model has merits in presenting a series of stages consumers
are likely to follow in their decision processes. It also lists a series of individual (attitudes,
expectations, aspirations, values, needs, experiences) and household (life-style,
modernism, time orientation, decision-making style, role, power structure)
socio-psychological variables that may affect the decision process. However, their list is
incomplete and they fail to explain how such variables may impact on decision processes.
Most papers in this special issue contribute to ?ll such gaps.
Teichmann investigates the relationship between consumer self-con?dence, product
expertise, and travel experience in the context of travel information search. Her paper is
unique in that the empirical study is based on a panel survey which monitors trip planning
processes of Austrian travelers. Such a longitudinal approach is rare in tourism research
although vacation planning is dynamic and spreads over many months (Decrop, 2006).
Teichmann’s ?ndings indicate that consumer self-con?dence (i.e. the individual’s perceived
ability with marketplace decisions and information search) and travel experience signi?cantly
affect product expertise. The more self-con?dent individuals are, and the more travel
experience they have, the more they consider themselves to be experts in terms of travelling.
Teichmann also shows that product expertise is positively related to travel information search
while travel experience is not. Experts have more complex knowledge structures and
cognitive skills. Therefore, they are likely to look for more information than novices. In the
author’s full model, the level of product expertise functions as a mediator to the extent that it
accounts for the relation between travel experience and travel information sourcing.
In her study about the purchase of tourism souvenirs, Abendroth manipulates souvenir type
and web site availability, and then measures consumers’ responses on three psychological
variables: purchase intent, attitudes toward the souvenir, and regret. Her ?ndings show that
purchase limitation (i.e. when the itemcannot be purchased at a later date) increases on-site
initial purchase intent by increasing the souvenir’s reminder value, regardless of item type.
Non-purchase regrets are greater than purchase regrets, which in turn increases purchase
intent at a later time.
PAGE 108
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
)
Martin and Woodside’s paper offers an innovative methodological approach to examining how
socio-psychological variables affect consumers’ decision processes. Their study focuses on
dual processing theory which considers the interplay of conscious and unconscious thinking
in the vacation decision making process. They use micro-tipping point (MTP) theory as a
research framework. MTP suggests that individuals automatically engage in dual processing,
combining unconscious and conscious thoughts. MTP proposes conjunctional causation of
speci?c levels of multiple features for a given binary outcome (e.g. leisure-only overnight trip of
three or more nights away from home versus no such trip). MTP research adopts a
case-based research orientation and advocates using qualitative comparative analysis
methods to build, compare, and generalize conjunctional causation models. Martin and
Woodside present ?ve case studies, based on long interviews with vacationers to Hawaii,
which illustrate inductive theory-building applying MTP theory. The case studies show that trip
decisions are complex and dependent on the individual’s environment, and provide evidence
that both unconscious and conscious thoughts affect travel decisions.
Conclusions
The contributors to this special issue of the International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research have each sought to research a facet of vacation decision making among
their fellow countrymen and women, or among visitors to their country. As such, the studies
published here represent studies of vacation decision making by residents of The Netherlands,
Austria, Israel, New Zealand and the USA, and by visitors to Ireland and to the state of Hawaii.
This special issue’s authors have considered different aspects of decision-making processes,
focusing on information search (Bronner and de Hoog; Teichmann), purchase processes
(Abendroth; Pearce and Schott), group decision making (Bokek-Cohen; Bronner and de Hoog)
and the decision-making process as a whole (Dunne et al.; Martin and Woodside). Decisions
regarding a number of elements of the vacation have been considered.
Twenty-?ve years have elapsed since van Raaij and Francken’s (1984) seminal paper on
vacation decisions. However, some of the issues raised by the authors are still relevant
today, such as the emphasis on the household as the decision-making unit in vacation
planning. Sadly, in the intervening years, researchers have largely neglected this
perspective in their studies of vacation decision-making, preferring instead the
perspective of the individual decision-maker. The papers in this special issue go some
way in restoring the importance of the household perspective in vacation decision making.
Van Raaij and Francken also note that an important role of tourist information search is to
provide information for one household member to convince other members of the household
about the vacation choices they favour; this role of tourist information search is one of the
issues investigated further in this special issue.
In common with other traditional models of vacation decision making, the van Raaij and
Francken model assumes an invariant sequence of stages to decision making that apply in all
contexts. The empirical evidence from the studies presented in this special issue contradicts
this assumption. Differences in the vacation decision process occur for different types of
vacation trip. Use of the internet is also driving changes to vacation decision-making processes,
by providing convenient and ready access for researching and purchasing vacation products.
The process of planning and booking a vacation need not take weeks or months of the
consumer’s time, especially if the consumer is considering a short, inexpensive vacation break.
In conclusion, this special issue’s editors encourage future research on vacation decision
making to consider the full range of vacation sub-decisions consumers make, and not
merely their choice of destination. Three decision levels are worthwhile investigating and
comparing (Decrop and Kozak, 2006):
1. the level of the generic decision to go or not to go on vacation;
2. the level of modal decisions pertaining to the mode or type of vacation; and
3. the level of speci?c vacation decisions such as destination, accommodation, or
transportation.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 109
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
)
Those levels should be regarded as conceptual levels and not as hierarchical nor sequential
levels. Moreover, future research on vacation decision making should be located within the
framework of household decision making when there is more than one person travelling.
Investigating and comparing different types of decision making units is worthwhile, e.g.
singles, couples (both married and non-married; traditional and same-sex), families with
children and larger holidaying groups, such as parties of friends (Decrop and Kozak, 2006).
Future research on vacation decision making should consider how the type of vacation
impacts on decision processes as well, and continue to investigate the impact of consumer
use of the internet, Web 2.0 technologies, user generated web content and mobile electronic
devices (Edwards et al., 2006). Finally, the authors encourage further research into the
socio-psychological variables that underlie vacation decision making.
References
Decrop, A. (2005), ‘‘Group processes in vacation decision-making’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 23-36.
Decrop, A. (2006), Vacation Decision Making, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Decrop, A. and Kozak, M. (2006), ‘‘A multi-level framework for studying vacation decision making’’,
Proceedings of the 35th EMAC Conference, Athens, Greece, European Marketing Academy.
Edwards, S.J., Blythe, P.T., Scott, S. and Weihong-Guo, A. (2006), ‘‘Tourist information delivered through
mobile devices: ?ndings from the Image project’’, Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 31-46.
Engel, J.F., Kollat, D.T. and Blackwell, R.D. (1968), Consumer Behaviour, Holt, Reinhart & Wilson, New
York, NY.
Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behaviour, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hyde, K. (2009), ‘‘Tourist information search’’, in Kozak, M. and Decrop, A. (Eds), Handbook of Tourist
Behaviour: Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 69-83.
Hyde, K. and Laesser, C. (2009), ‘‘A structural theory of the vacation’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 240-8.
Moutinho, L. (1987), ‘‘Consumer behaviour in tourism’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10,
pp. 2-44.
Um, S. and Crompton, J. (1990), ‘‘Attitude antecedents in tourismdestination choice’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 443-8.
Um, S. and Crompton, J. (1991), ‘‘Development of pleasure travel attitude dimensions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 500-4.
Um, S. and Crompton, J. (1992), ‘‘The roles of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in pleasure travel
destination decisions’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 18-25.
Van Raaij, W. and Francken, D. (1984), ‘‘Vacation decisions, activities, and satisfactions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 101-12.
Woodside, A. and Lysonski, S. (1989), ‘‘A general model of traveler destination choice’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 8-14.
Woodside, A. and MacDonald, R. (1994), ‘‘General system framework of customer choice processes of
tourism services’’, in Gasser, R. and Weiermair, K. (Eds), Spoilt for Choice: Decision Making Processes
and Preference Changes of Tourists – Intertemporal and Intercountry Perspectives, Kulturverlag, Thaur.
Woodside, A., Caldwell, M. and Spurr, R. (2006), ‘‘Advancing ecological systems theory in lifestyle,
leisure, and travel research’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 259-72.
About the authors
Kenneth F. Hyde holds a masters degree in occupational psychology and a PhD in
marketing. He is Senior Lecturer in Marketing at AUT University, New Zealand, and
Associate Director of the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute. His research interests
PAGE 110
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
)
include consumer behaviour in tourism, including travel planning and decision making,
traveller motives and travel behaviour. His research has been published in Annals of Tourism
Research, Tourism Management, the Journal of Travel Research, and the Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing. Kenneth F. Hyde is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Alain Decrop holds master degrees in modern history and economics, and a PhD in
business administration. He is Full Professor of Marketing at the University of Namur,
Belgium, and Head of CCMS (Center for research on Consumers and Marketing Strategy)
within the Louvain School of Management. His research interests include consumer decision
making and behavior, qualitative interpretive methods, and tourism marketing. He is the
author of Vacation Decision Making (CABI, 2006) and co-author of the Handbook of Tourist
Behavior (Routledge, 2009). His other works have appeared in a number of books and
academic journals, including Advances in Consumer Research, Annals of Tourism
Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Tourism Management.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 111
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. Olga Gjerald, Hallvor Lyngstad. 2015. Service risk perceptions and risk management strategies in business-to-business tourism
partnerships. Tourism Management Perspectives 13, 7-17. [CrossRef]
2. Andreas H. ZinsReflections on Destination Positioning Analyses and Identifying Competitors 157-165. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [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_578857975.pdf
This paper introduces the seven empirical studies on vacation decision making in this
special issue of IJCTHR. The paper compares the findings of these seven studies to traditional models of
vacation decision making, and highlights a number of new perspectives for research into vacation
decision making.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
New perspectives on vacation decision making
Kenneth F. Hyde Alain Decrop
Article information:
To cite this document:
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 - 111
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139537
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 16 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2607 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Gerard Dunne, Sheila Flanagan, J oan Buckley, (2011),"Towards a decision making model for city break travel", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 158-172http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139573
Metin Kozak, Levent Karadag, (2012),"Who influences aspects of family decision making?", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 8-20http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181211206216
Antónia Correia, Adriano Pimpão, (2008),"Decision-making processes of Portuguese tourist travelling to South America and Africa",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 Iss 4 pp. 330-373http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180810908989
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
)
Guest editorial
New perspectives on vacation decision
making
Kenneth F. Hyde and Alain Decrop
Abstract
Purpose – This paper introduces the seven empirical studies on vacation decision making in this
special issue of IJCTHR. The paper compares the ?ndings of these seven studies to traditional models of
vacation decision making, and highlights a number of new perspectives for research into vacation
decision making.
Findings – Five themes appear in these contemporary studies of vacation decision making: the
multifaceted nature of the vacation; joint decision making by members of the household; impact of the
type of vacation trip on the decision making process; the role of the internet in vacation decision making;
and the role of socio-psychological variables in vacation decision making.
Research limitations/implications – The paper provides recommendations for future research in
vacation decision making, in light of contemporary changes in the travel and tourism industry.
Originality/value – The value of this paper lies in its review of traditional approaches to researching
vacation decision making, and advice provided for future research on the topic.
Keywords Decision making, Travel, Leave, Journey planning, Tourism
Paper type General review
Introduction
This special issue of the International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
focuses on the plans and decisions made by individuals and households relating to
vacations, from micro and holistic perspectives. Plans and decisions are made both prior to
and during vacation experiences using explicit and/or implicit thinking processes. Such
processes may involve one or more people within the household. Most of the existing
literature explains leisure and vacation decision-making through rational and
bounded-rationality paradigms. However, recent literature shows that other perspectives
such as hedonic, implicit, and adaptive decision-making processes are also relevant.
Researchers should consider the in?uences of changing aspects of the decision
environment, such as the evolving role of information and communication technologies.
Fred van Raaij and Dick Francken (1984) receive substantial attention in tourism research as
their article effectively highlights a number of important issues that researchers should
consider when examining vacation decision making by consumers. Since van Raaij and
Francken (1984) research and knowledge on vacation decision making have progressed
considerably. The world of travel and vacationing has also changed considerably since
1984, particularly with the growth of the Internet and global reservation systems, the
democratization of travel due to low-cost air travel and increased competition among tour
operators, and the opening of many new destinations to tourism as part of economic
development and globalization processes.
DOI 10.1108/17506181111139537 VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 103-111, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 103
Kenneth F. Hyde is based at
the Business School and
New Zealand Tourism
Research Institute, AUT
University, Auckland, New
Zealand. Alain Decrop is
based at the Louvain
School of Management,
Faculte´ s Universitaires
Notre-Dame de la Paix,
Namur, Belgium.
Received: March 2009
Revised: May 2009
Accepted: November 2009
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 paper offers an introduction to the seven empirical papers in this special issue. The
paper seeks to re?ect on the insights of van Raaij and Francken (1984) and subsequent
research on vacation decision making undertaken over the past quarter century. The seven
papers appearing in this special issue re?ect ?ve themes:
1. the multifaceted nature of vacation decisions;
2. joint decision making by members of the household;
3. the impact of the type of vacation on the decision making process;
4. the role of the internet in vacation decision making; and
5. the role of socio-psychological variables in vacation decision making.
A number of these themes re?ect research avenues that are somewhat overlooked in the
vacation decision making literature.
Van Raaij and Francken (1984) commence by pointing out that the vacation represents
discretionary expenditure for most households. Householders do not need to undertake
vacations. Expenditure of household funds on vacations competes with demands for
expenditure from other discretionary purchases, such as home furnishings and appliances.
Interestingly, van Raaij and Francken do not claim to present a complete framework of
vacation decision making. Rather, they state that their paper presents a ?ve-step, sequential
model of the vacation. The ?ve steps in a vacation, as presented by these authors, are:
1. the generic decision to take a vacation;
2. information acquisition to assist decision making;
3. joint decision-making by members of the household;
4. experiencing of vacation activities; and
5. subsequent satisfaction and complaints about the vacation.
Van Raaij and Francken assume that vacation decision making always commences with the
generic decision of whether to take a vacation or not. Van Raaij and Francken state that this
generic decision is likely to involve a group decision process with negotiation, bargaining
and compromise activities undertaken by members of the household. Following the generic
decision, a period of information acquisition occurs. Information on vacation alternatives is
said to serve several purposes:
B to sensitize consumers favourably to the idea of taking a vacation;
B to persuade a family member of the value of taking a vacation;
B to assist in making vacation choices and enhance appreciation of the destination; and
B to justify the vacation decision to oneself and to others.
The next step in van Raaij and Francken’s model involves a period of joint decision making
by the members of the household. The household members then proceed to experience the
vacation, and develop levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the vacation they have
experienced.
Typical of early models of the vacation and vacation decision making, the van Raaij and
Francken model assumes that consumers follow an invariant sequence of stages in vacation
decision making, and that these stages apply to decision making for all types of vacations.
The papers presented in this special issue provide evidence that such an invariant
sequence of decision steps is unlikely. However, van Raaij and Francken’s approach to
understanding vacation decision making covers a number of broad issues not considered in
other traditional models. Such issues include the importance of the generic decision to take
a vacation or not, and the assumption that vacation decision making most often comprises
joint decision making by several, if not all, members of the household.
PAGE 104
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
)
The models by Moutinho (1987), Woodside and Lysonski (1989), and Um and Crompton
(1990, 1991, 1992) are other traditional models of vacation decision making. These models
borrow heavily from the consumer decision making frameworks of the 1960s (Engel et al.,
1968; Howard and Sheth, 1969). A limitation of these traditional models is that they focus on
just one facet of vacation decision making, the consumer’s choice of destination (Decrop,
2006). The models neglect to examine other vacation sub-decisions that consumers have to
make – including the consumer’s choices of transport, accommodation and activities.
Similar to the van Raaij and Francken model, these traditional models assume that
consumers follow an invariant sequence of stages to decision making; stages that equally
apply to all types of vacation. Finally, and unlike the work of van Raaij and Francken, these
models adopt the perspective of the individual consumer and their decision making. The
models seek to represent the preferences, attitudes and decision processes of an individual
consumer, as if a consumer makes vacation decisions in isolation from the preferences
expressed by other members of the household.
Collectively, the papers in this special issue provide advancement on the traditional models
of vacation decision making. The discussion that follows considers the ?ve themes identi?ed
in these papers, themes which each present a perspective on vacation decision making that
is somewhat neglected in traditional models.
The multifaceted nature of vacation decisions
The vacation potentially entails a lengthy series of decisions by the consumer. While traditional
models of vacation decision making have concentrated on consumer choice of a single facet
of the vacation, the choice of destination, many more choices may be involved in vacation
decision making. Vacation sub-decisions include choices in destination(s), transport to the
destination/s, transport at the destination(s), travel routes, activities, attractions, dining and
retail purchases (Hyde and Laesser, 2009; Woodside and MacDonald, 1994).
A number of the papers in this special issue consider the sub-decisions involved in planning
of the vacation, including the paper by Pearce and Schott, and the paper by Bronner and de
Hoog. Pearce and Schott test whether signi?cant differences exist between domestic and
outbound travellers as to their channel choice behaviour for ?ve decision categories (i.e.
transport to destination, transport at destination, accommodation, attractions and activities,
and package).
Bronner and de Hoog introduce a distinction between search sub-decisions and experience
sub-decisions. The former are easier to access, more concrete and more objective than the
latter. They ?nd that the most frequently discussed sub-decisions among the couples they
studied were decisions on destination and the number of places to visit. The least frequently
discussed sub-decision was the means of transport. Some sub-decisions require greater
consultation of information sources. This requirement is especially so with sub-decisions
concerning the way to organise the vacation (that is, independent versus packaged
vacations) and the nature of the vacation environment (that is, quiet versus lively vacation
environments). Finally, Abendroth focuses on a particular sub-decision, that is, souvenir
purchases, that has received little attention in the literature so far. She identi?es purchase
limitation (i.e. the fact that a souvenir is only available at a particular location, making it
scarce) as a new antecedent of a souvenir’s purchase intention and reminder value.
Joint decision making by household members
Van Raaij and Francken (1984) explicitly recognize that vacation decision making is most
often joint decision making by members of a household. Sadly, research into vacation
decision making over the intervening 25 years fails to include this perspective. Notable
exceptions include work by Decrop (2005), and Woodside et al. (2006).
Two of the papers in this special issue focus on vacation decision making by couples, the
paper by Bronner and de Hoog and the paper by Bokek-Cohen. Both papers recognise that
various strategies of in?uence, negotiation and compromise facilitate decision making by
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 105
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 couple. The paper by Bronner and de Hoog examines the information sources used by
couples in discussing and negotiating their vacation decisions. The paper by Bokek-Cohen
examines the in?uence strategies adopted by a each partner in a couple when negotiating
their vacation options.
Bronner and de Hoog point out that information search can occur in two different contexts. In
the ?rst instance, the individual consumer searches for information on vacation options as a
basis for forming their own vacation preferences. In the second instance, the individual
searches for information as a basis for discussion and decision making by the couple. In
these two diverse contexts, the individual might be employing different information sources.
For example, to form individual preferences one might be satis?ed to consult impersonal
sources such as a brochure and a web site. However, to be effective in group discussion,
information from personal sources such as friends and relatives may be more convincing. In
their study, Bronner and de Hoog establish that the information search strategies adopted in
the individual context may differ from those used in a social context. Bronner and de Hoog
observe that personal sources are used the most often for information search in a social
context. It is likely that the arguments presented by one partner, in the couple’s discussion of
vacation options, may be stronger if personal sources of information are used.
The Bronner and de Hoog study also observes that the amount of discussion regarding a
speci?c vacation sub-decision, such as the couple’s choice of accommodation, correlates
with satisfaction with the choices made, and correlates with satisfaction with the vacation.
The researchers point out that, in the Dutch culture, arguments by the couple may be
resolved by a process of adopted the ‘‘golden mean’’; that is, disagreements may be
resolved by open discussion with each partner, by presentation of information, reasoning
and willingness to compromise.
Bokek-Cohen examines how marital power bases impact on the in?uence strategies used by
couples in the vacation decision process. In pre-vacation decision-making, spousal partners
engage in joint discussion. They each attempt to in?uence the other, in the vacation choices
made. Bokek-Cohen adopts a model of marital relations as a balanced exchange of
resources. He ?nds couples use reward strategies more frequently than they use coercive or
emotional strategies. He ?nds that an individual’s choice of in?uence strategy is unrelated to
objective bases of marital power, such as differences in occupation or levels of education.
However, the choice of in?uence strategies does relate to subjective bases of marital power –
such as perceived differences in physical attractiveness, identi?cation with the partner and
marital happiness. The author points out that travel agents should not make assumptions
about which partner in a couple has power in the relationship simply based on differences in
occupation. He suggests that advertising for vacations could emphasise the romantic nature
of the experience, and the opportunity for vacations to improve marital relationships.
In many vacations, the married couple or romantic couple are the predominant variant of
travel party. Thus, the scant attention in the literature on discussions of vacationing couples
is surprising. Dunne, Flanagan, and Buckley ?ll this gap to some extent. Their study shows
that the majority of travel parties undertaking a city break vacation in Dublin are couples,
including a number of couples who have arranged to vacation without their children. The
vacation is a product that couples choose to experience together. That experience is likely to
be an emotional one, and if the emotions evoked in both parties are positive, the vacation
has potential to contribute positively to the couple’s relationship.
The quality of the vacation experience is in part a re?ection of how well the members of the
couple get along during vacation time spent together. If one partner is unsatis?ed with the
choice of vacation elements, such as choice of accommodation or activities, this is likely to
impact on the quality of the vacation experienced by the other partner. The satisfying
vacation experience for each partner is in part a result of the choices made during
pre-vacation discussions by the couple. This again highlights the role of joint household
decision making in shaping the quality of the vacation experience. Future research might
therefore consider the role that vacationing as a couple has on maintaining and improving
the relationship of the couple.
PAGE 106
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?uence of vacation type on the decision making process
Traditional models of vacation decision making present generalized models attempting to
describe decision making in all contexts. Such models fail to recognise that decision
processes may vary according to the type of vacation trip undertaken.
Dunne, Flanagan, and Buckley examine the city break vacation, by which they mean a
short-term vacation to a city destination with no other destinations visited en route. For
Dunne and his colleagues, the decision-making process for a city break dramatically
departs from the choice processes for the annual family summer vacation. They ?nd among
many of the consumers they interviewed (i.e. couples unaccompanied by children), that
choice of a city break vacation was a last minute, spontaneous and opportunistic decision.
The decision process for taking a city break is less complex. The vacation is briefer, less
expensive, and often does not involve the additional complications of accommodating the
demands of children. As such, the vacation requires little planning. It is a highly discretionary
decision; the generic decision – to take a quick vacation or not – dominates. Taking a city
break arises from facilitating and constraining situational factors in consumer’s lives
(Woodside et al., 2006), and a desire to escape.
City break vacations are becoming more common, due to the availability of low cost airlines,
and a trend among consumers to take shorter, more frequent vacations. Consumers
consider only a small number of alternative destinations when planning a city break vacation;
in most instances, these are the destinations served by the consumer’s local airport. The
researchers observe that for a city break vacation, the image of the destination seems of
lesser importance than the cost and convenience of travel, and the requirement to vacation
within tight time constraints.
Pearce and Schott also observe variations in vacation decision making according to the type
of trip. Their paper compares travel booking and channel choice behaviours by New
Zealanders undertaking domestic travel, versus New Zealanders undertaking international
travel. In contrast to the vacation choices of Europeans, where ?ights to a European city such
as Dublin may involve little expense or travelling time, the vacation choices of NewZealanders
are constrained by geographic isolation. International vacations for NewZealanders generally
involve much longer travelling time and expense than is the case for residents of Europe.
Pearce and Schott observe that international travel for NewZealanders involves much higher
levels of booking of vacation elements, than is the case for domestic travel. Virtually all the
international vacationers studied booked transport to the destination; most booked
accommodation; many booked transport at the destination; and greater numbers booked
attractions and activities. By contrast, one quarter of domestic trips included no advanced
bookings whatsoever. This was because many domestic trips involved travel by private car
and accommodation in the homes of friends or relatives. International vacationers also
adopted different channels for purchase of vacation products. For international travel, travel
agents were the dominant channel. By contrast, domestic travellers purchased
accommodation directly from suppliers.
While the Pearce and Schott study only reports on residents of NewZealand, future research
could compare the decision processes for international versus domestic travel for residents
of continental Europe, or for residents of a large nation such as the USA. Pearce and Schott
further point out that, while there is general theoretical understanding of tourist information
search behaviour (Hyde, 2009), a theoretical understanding of tourist booking behaviour
has yet to be established.
The role of the internet in vacation decision making
The growth of the internet is perhaps the most dramatic change in travel and vacationing
since the publication of the van Raaij and Francken (1984). The internet has revolutionized
the way in which consumers search for travel information and purchase vacation products.
Dunne et al. in their paper on city breaks, note the role of the internet in facilitating last-minute
vacation decision making. In contrast to the traditional image of vacation decision making as
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 107
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 process extending over many weeks or months, Dunne et al. observe a dramatic
truncation in the decision making process. A number of the consumers they interviewed
decided to undertake a city break vacation a matter of days prior to departure. Ready
access to low cost airfares and accommodation via the internet enabled these
near-spontaneous actions. Dunne et al. also observe that, because of the role of the
internet, information search and bookings occurred simultaneously for some of the city break
vacationers they interviewed.
In their paper on tourist information search by couples, Bronner and de Hoog note the
greater importance of personal sources of information on vacation options as a basis for
discussion by the couple. While, in the past, personal sources of information were restricted
to word-of-mouth encounters with friends and relatives, Bronner and de Hoog point out that
the internet offers another potential personal source of information. This newpersonal source
of information is the user generated content (UGC) on the internet, such as consumer
reviews of hotels and places of accommodation. Future research might consider if UGC on
the internet can be equally effective in discussions among couples as are other personal
sources of travel information.
In her paper on souvenir purchase, Abendroth observes a downside to the role of the internet
in the vacation experience. Often consumers purchase souvenirs at their vacation destinations
as a physical reminder of the vacation experience, a symbolic token of the destination. Such
souvenirs purchases at the destination have an authentic quality to them. Abendroth observes
that making the same souvenir available for purchase online, from the consumer’s home
computer terminal, may lessen on-site purchase intentions and the symbolic or reminder value
of the souvenir. One might even say that the availability of souvenirs online detracts from the
experience the tourist may have from shopping while at the vacation destination.
The role of socio-psychological variables in vacation decision making
The van Raaij and Francken model has merits in presenting a series of stages consumers
are likely to follow in their decision processes. It also lists a series of individual (attitudes,
expectations, aspirations, values, needs, experiences) and household (life-style,
modernism, time orientation, decision-making style, role, power structure)
socio-psychological variables that may affect the decision process. However, their list is
incomplete and they fail to explain how such variables may impact on decision processes.
Most papers in this special issue contribute to ?ll such gaps.
Teichmann investigates the relationship between consumer self-con?dence, product
expertise, and travel experience in the context of travel information search. Her paper is
unique in that the empirical study is based on a panel survey which monitors trip planning
processes of Austrian travelers. Such a longitudinal approach is rare in tourism research
although vacation planning is dynamic and spreads over many months (Decrop, 2006).
Teichmann’s ?ndings indicate that consumer self-con?dence (i.e. the individual’s perceived
ability with marketplace decisions and information search) and travel experience signi?cantly
affect product expertise. The more self-con?dent individuals are, and the more travel
experience they have, the more they consider themselves to be experts in terms of travelling.
Teichmann also shows that product expertise is positively related to travel information search
while travel experience is not. Experts have more complex knowledge structures and
cognitive skills. Therefore, they are likely to look for more information than novices. In the
author’s full model, the level of product expertise functions as a mediator to the extent that it
accounts for the relation between travel experience and travel information sourcing.
In her study about the purchase of tourism souvenirs, Abendroth manipulates souvenir type
and web site availability, and then measures consumers’ responses on three psychological
variables: purchase intent, attitudes toward the souvenir, and regret. Her ?ndings show that
purchase limitation (i.e. when the itemcannot be purchased at a later date) increases on-site
initial purchase intent by increasing the souvenir’s reminder value, regardless of item type.
Non-purchase regrets are greater than purchase regrets, which in turn increases purchase
intent at a later time.
PAGE 108
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
)
Martin and Woodside’s paper offers an innovative methodological approach to examining how
socio-psychological variables affect consumers’ decision processes. Their study focuses on
dual processing theory which considers the interplay of conscious and unconscious thinking
in the vacation decision making process. They use micro-tipping point (MTP) theory as a
research framework. MTP suggests that individuals automatically engage in dual processing,
combining unconscious and conscious thoughts. MTP proposes conjunctional causation of
speci?c levels of multiple features for a given binary outcome (e.g. leisure-only overnight trip of
three or more nights away from home versus no such trip). MTP research adopts a
case-based research orientation and advocates using qualitative comparative analysis
methods to build, compare, and generalize conjunctional causation models. Martin and
Woodside present ?ve case studies, based on long interviews with vacationers to Hawaii,
which illustrate inductive theory-building applying MTP theory. The case studies show that trip
decisions are complex and dependent on the individual’s environment, and provide evidence
that both unconscious and conscious thoughts affect travel decisions.
Conclusions
The contributors to this special issue of the International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research have each sought to research a facet of vacation decision making among
their fellow countrymen and women, or among visitors to their country. As such, the studies
published here represent studies of vacation decision making by residents of The Netherlands,
Austria, Israel, New Zealand and the USA, and by visitors to Ireland and to the state of Hawaii.
This special issue’s authors have considered different aspects of decision-making processes,
focusing on information search (Bronner and de Hoog; Teichmann), purchase processes
(Abendroth; Pearce and Schott), group decision making (Bokek-Cohen; Bronner and de Hoog)
and the decision-making process as a whole (Dunne et al.; Martin and Woodside). Decisions
regarding a number of elements of the vacation have been considered.
Twenty-?ve years have elapsed since van Raaij and Francken’s (1984) seminal paper on
vacation decisions. However, some of the issues raised by the authors are still relevant
today, such as the emphasis on the household as the decision-making unit in vacation
planning. Sadly, in the intervening years, researchers have largely neglected this
perspective in their studies of vacation decision-making, preferring instead the
perspective of the individual decision-maker. The papers in this special issue go some
way in restoring the importance of the household perspective in vacation decision making.
Van Raaij and Francken also note that an important role of tourist information search is to
provide information for one household member to convince other members of the household
about the vacation choices they favour; this role of tourist information search is one of the
issues investigated further in this special issue.
In common with other traditional models of vacation decision making, the van Raaij and
Francken model assumes an invariant sequence of stages to decision making that apply in all
contexts. The empirical evidence from the studies presented in this special issue contradicts
this assumption. Differences in the vacation decision process occur for different types of
vacation trip. Use of the internet is also driving changes to vacation decision-making processes,
by providing convenient and ready access for researching and purchasing vacation products.
The process of planning and booking a vacation need not take weeks or months of the
consumer’s time, especially if the consumer is considering a short, inexpensive vacation break.
In conclusion, this special issue’s editors encourage future research on vacation decision
making to consider the full range of vacation sub-decisions consumers make, and not
merely their choice of destination. Three decision levels are worthwhile investigating and
comparing (Decrop and Kozak, 2006):
1. the level of the generic decision to go or not to go on vacation;
2. the level of modal decisions pertaining to the mode or type of vacation; and
3. the level of speci?c vacation decisions such as destination, accommodation, or
transportation.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 109
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
)
Those levels should be regarded as conceptual levels and not as hierarchical nor sequential
levels. Moreover, future research on vacation decision making should be located within the
framework of household decision making when there is more than one person travelling.
Investigating and comparing different types of decision making units is worthwhile, e.g.
singles, couples (both married and non-married; traditional and same-sex), families with
children and larger holidaying groups, such as parties of friends (Decrop and Kozak, 2006).
Future research on vacation decision making should consider how the type of vacation
impacts on decision processes as well, and continue to investigate the impact of consumer
use of the internet, Web 2.0 technologies, user generated web content and mobile electronic
devices (Edwards et al., 2006). Finally, the authors encourage further research into the
socio-psychological variables that underlie vacation decision making.
References
Decrop, A. (2005), ‘‘Group processes in vacation decision-making’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 23-36.
Decrop, A. (2006), Vacation Decision Making, CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Decrop, A. and Kozak, M. (2006), ‘‘A multi-level framework for studying vacation decision making’’,
Proceedings of the 35th EMAC Conference, Athens, Greece, European Marketing Academy.
Edwards, S.J., Blythe, P.T., Scott, S. and Weihong-Guo, A. (2006), ‘‘Tourist information delivered through
mobile devices: ?ndings from the Image project’’, Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 31-46.
Engel, J.F., Kollat, D.T. and Blackwell, R.D. (1968), Consumer Behaviour, Holt, Reinhart & Wilson, New
York, NY.
Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behaviour, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hyde, K. (2009), ‘‘Tourist information search’’, in Kozak, M. and Decrop, A. (Eds), Handbook of Tourist
Behaviour: Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 69-83.
Hyde, K. and Laesser, C. (2009), ‘‘A structural theory of the vacation’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 240-8.
Moutinho, L. (1987), ‘‘Consumer behaviour in tourism’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10,
pp. 2-44.
Um, S. and Crompton, J. (1990), ‘‘Attitude antecedents in tourismdestination choice’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 443-8.
Um, S. and Crompton, J. (1991), ‘‘Development of pleasure travel attitude dimensions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 500-4.
Um, S. and Crompton, J. (1992), ‘‘The roles of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in pleasure travel
destination decisions’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 18-25.
Van Raaij, W. and Francken, D. (1984), ‘‘Vacation decisions, activities, and satisfactions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 101-12.
Woodside, A. and Lysonski, S. (1989), ‘‘A general model of traveler destination choice’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 8-14.
Woodside, A. and MacDonald, R. (1994), ‘‘General system framework of customer choice processes of
tourism services’’, in Gasser, R. and Weiermair, K. (Eds), Spoilt for Choice: Decision Making Processes
and Preference Changes of Tourists – Intertemporal and Intercountry Perspectives, Kulturverlag, Thaur.
Woodside, A., Caldwell, M. and Spurr, R. (2006), ‘‘Advancing ecological systems theory in lifestyle,
leisure, and travel research’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 259-72.
About the authors
Kenneth F. Hyde holds a masters degree in occupational psychology and a PhD in
marketing. He is Senior Lecturer in Marketing at AUT University, New Zealand, and
Associate Director of the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute. His research interests
PAGE 110
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
)
include consumer behaviour in tourism, including travel planning and decision making,
traveller motives and travel behaviour. His research has been published in Annals of Tourism
Research, Tourism Management, the Journal of Travel Research, and the Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing. Kenneth F. Hyde is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Alain Decrop holds master degrees in modern history and economics, and a PhD in
business administration. He is Full Professor of Marketing at the University of Namur,
Belgium, and Head of CCMS (Center for research on Consumers and Marketing Strategy)
within the Louvain School of Management. His research interests include consumer decision
making and behavior, qualitative interpretive methods, and tourism marketing. He is the
author of Vacation Decision Making (CABI, 2006) and co-author of the Handbook of Tourist
Behavior (Routledge, 2009). His other works have appeared in a number of books and
academic journals, including Advances in Consumer Research, Annals of Tourism
Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and Tourism Management.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 111
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. Olga Gjerald, Hallvor Lyngstad. 2015. Service risk perceptions and risk management strategies in business-to-business tourism
partnerships. Tourism Management Perspectives 13, 7-17. [CrossRef]
2. Andreas H. ZinsReflections on Destination Positioning Analyses and Identifying Competitors 157-165. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [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_578857975.pdf