Description
Prior to e-commerce, tourists could only purchase souvenirs at a destination. The goal of this
research is to develop and test a theory to explain how adding a retail web site affects tourists’
decision-making for souvenir purchases.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
The souvenir purchase decision: effects of online availability
Lisa J . Abendroth
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lisa J . Abendroth, (2011),"The souvenir purchase decision: effects of online availability", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 173 - 183
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139582
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 1473 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kandapa Thanasuta, (2015),"Thai consumers’ purchase decisions and private label brands", International J ournal of Emerging Markets, Vol.
10 Iss 1 pp. 102-121http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ OEM-02-2011-0016
Chiu-chi Angela Chang, Monika Kukar-Kinney, (2011),"The effects of shopping aid usage on consumer purchase decision and decision
satisfaction", Asia Pacific J ournal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23 Iss 5 pp. 745-754http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555851111183110
Lambros G. Laios, Socrates J . Moschuris, (2001),"The influence of enterprise type on the purchasing decision process", International
J ournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 351-372http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570110364687
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
)
The souvenir purchase decision: effects of
online availability
Lisa J. Abendroth
Abstract
Purpose – Prior to e-commerce, tourists could only purchase souvenirs at a destination. The goal of this
research is to develop and test a theory to explain how adding a retail web site affects tourists’
decision-making for souvenir purchases.
Design/methodology/approach – The researcher conducts two experiments using scenarios to
simulate a souvenir purchase. The researcher manipulates item type and web site availability, and then
measures purchase intent, attitudes toward the souvenir, and regret.
Findings – Purchase limitation increases 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.
Research limitations – The stimuli are necklaces, and although the ?ndings do not show gender
effects, the stimuli could limit the generalizability to other souvenir types. The research tests hypotheses
using scenarios and less-experienced travelers. Future research should examine different types of
souvenirs in a naturalistic setting.
Practical implications – Retailers should not mention web sites until after a tourist decides not to buy
in-store and should do so subtly.
Originality/value – This research contributes to souvenir research by identifying a purchase limitation,
available in-store only, as a new determinant of a souvenir’s reminder value. The research also
contributes to scarcity research by identifying reminder value as a new and qualitatively different type of
valuation affected by scarcity. Lastly, the research extends the regret literature by reversing inaction
inertia at a later purchase opportunity while maintaining a regret minimization goal.
Keywords Retail, Decision making, Time, Tourism, Web sites
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The growing presence of internet commerce is changing the retail landscape. Shopping in
one’s home region, consumers typically have plenty of opportunities to frequent physical
and online stores. When shopping in a distant location, consumers face a different situation.
Typically, purchases are limited to the time spent at the destination, and during that time
consumers only frequent physical stores. However, retailers in tourist destinations are
increasingly developing web sites that extend the purchase opportunity past the trip’s end.
In addition to providing convenience to travelers, retailers hope that these web sites will
increase sales, as tourists may make additional purchases after they have returned home.
However, is adding a web site always bene?cial?
Imagine a tourist shopping for local artwork on a trip to Costa Rica. After ?nding a desirable
piece of art, the tourist learns that the store allows purchases from home over the internet.
Does this information change the tourist’s evaluation of the artwork or retailer? Does he
proceed to make a purchase in the store? This research addresses how expanding or
limiting the purchase opportunity affects decision-making while on vacation and after
DOI 10.1108/17506181111139582 VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 173-183, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 173
Lisa J. Abendroth is based
in the Department of
Marketing of University of St
Thomas, St Paul,
Minnesota, USA.
Submitted: March 2008
Revised: July 2008
Accepted: November 2008
The author thanks the editors,
reviewers, Kristin Diehl, and
James Heyman for their
insightful comments and
suggestions as well as David
Alexander for his assistance
with data collection..
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
)
returning home. Although tourists may prefer the greater opportunity presented by a web
site, this research argues that limiting purchase to in-store should improve tourists’
evaluation of the souvenir, thereby increasing purchase intent. The research also predicts
that regret associated with non-purchase should in?uence purchase intent when later
opportunities arise.
The paper begins by reviewing prior research on souvenirs and limited purchase
opportunities and then develops hypotheses focusing on purchase intentions both on
vacation and after returning home as well as the role regret and limitation play in later
purchase decisions. After testing these hypotheses in an experiment involving a souvenir
purchase in Hawaii (Study 1), the research explores more deeply the nature of the initial
decision-making process. Speci?cally, the research examines the roles played by valuation,
loss aversion, and attitude toward the retailer in making the initial purchase decision, which
the research tests in Study 2.
Theory development
Souvenirs
Five broad types of souvenirs exist: pictorial images, pieces-of-the-rock, symbolic
shorthand, markers, and locally produced items (Gordon, 1986). Kim and Littrell (2001)
identify two sub-types within local products, ethnic products that are representative of the
speci?c tourism region, and generic products that are made in the region but do not include
any design linkages. While they ?nd that the type of tourist (recreational or ethnic-oriented)
and purchasing for oneself or someone else does not affect purchase intent, higher
evaluations of an item’s unique and aesthetic properties signi?cantly increases purchase
intentions. In addition to item attributes, the desire not to go home empty handed, a
motivation stated by event attendees in an ethnographic study of Olympic souvenir
consumption (Tumbat, 2003), may operate simultaneously. Perhaps the purchase situation
at a tourist destination is inherently different from the situation at home.
Limited purchase opportunities
Until recently, tourists could only purchase souvenirs at the destination, but with the growing
availability of online shopping, this situation is rapidly changing. When distribution of an item
is limited to a speci?c location, a visitor’s opportunity to purchase the item is limited to the
window of time spent at that destination, creating temporal scarcity (Abendroth and Diehl,
2006). In contrast, when an item is available online allowing the tourist to purchase from
home, the purchase opportunity is virtually unlimited. Because prior research indicates that
scarcity, temporal or otherwise, is associated with an increase in purchase likelihood
(Cialdini, 1993), tourists who can only buy an item at the destination should be more likely to
purchase than tourists who can also buy the item online after returning home.
H1. Limiting a purchase opportunity should increase purchase intent at the destination.
Abendroth and Diehl (2006) ?nd evidence consistent with this hypothesis in a recent study.
Tourists on a cruise around Africa kept a diary of their souvenir purchase decisions. More
purchases (n ¼ 165) than non-purchases (n ¼ 15) are reported in the diaries, although the
authors argue this imbalance could be caused by differential forgetting when the diaries
were completed aboard the ship. The authors, however, focus on post-purchase regret. The
authors emphasize that in now-or-never purchase situations, a decision not to purchase is
equivalent to forfeiting something desirable. As forfeiture situations can heighten mental
endowment, tourists may equate a decision not to purchase with a loss, triggering feelings of
regret. Their ?ndings indicate that in the short-term, tourists regret non-purchases more than
purchases. Over time, non-purchase regrets tend to decrease, although the effect lessens if
the tourist still views the item as desirable. The present paper extends this research by
examining how regret may affect decision-making after returning home.
PAGE 174
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
)
Decision-making post vacation
As retailers are constantly entering the online arena, what happens when a previously limited
purchase opportunity later becomes unlimited? To the extent that a consumer’s regret for a
non-purchase decision remains strong over time, one way to cope with that regret should be
to reverse the decision by purchasing the souvenir in question. Restated as a hypothesis:
H2. Long-term, non-purchase regret should increase purchase intent after returning
home.
This effect of non-purchase regret could be further heightened by the nature of the original
purchase situation, but only if the original limitation affects long-term regret. Abendroth and
Diehl’s (2006) third study manipulates the purchase opportunity for a CD, available only at a
concert versus also in retail locations, and ?nds no effect from the original limitation on
long-term regret. Rather, the only factors that in?uence long-term regret are the purchase
decision (buy or no buy) and the perceived utility of the CD.
Although an earlier purchase limitation may not affect long-term regret, that limitation may
still affect later purchase intent. Research on reactance ?nds that restricting people’s
behavior can lead them to pursue a limited option with greater determination (Brehm, 1966).
Other research shows that the prevalence of a prohibited action increases on release froma
constrained environment (Wegner, 1994). As such, consumers who have faced a limited
purchase opportunity may pursue a second opportunity. Should such an opportunity occur,
they should be more likely to purchase than someone who had never been so constrained.
H3. Initial purchase limitation should increase purchase intent after returning home.
In summary, limiting a purchase opportunity to a speci?c time and place, such as at a tourist
destination, should heighten purchase intent by creating temporal scarcity. Those who do
not purchase should experience regret, which should in turn increase their purchase
likelihood at a later opportunity. A second factor, reactance to the constrained environment,
should also heighten later purchase intent. Study 1 tests these hypotheses.
Study 1
Study 1 examines how the presence or absence of an opportunity to buy later via the web
affects initial souvenir purchase likelihood, post-purchase regret, and later purchase intent.
The study uses a scenario to simulate a purchase decision on a trip to Hawaii and examine
the effect of that purchase opportunity across three time periods: during the trip, on the ?ight
home, and six months later. This type of scenario methodology has been widely used to
study emotions such as regret (e.g. Abendroth and Diehl, 2006; Inman and Zeelenberg,
2002; Kahneman and Tversky, 1982; Landman, 1987).
Method
Participants and design
A total of 191 undergraduate students from a US university participate in this study to ful?ll a
research requirement. The study manipulates purchase opportunity (limited, unlimited) and
purchase decision (buy, no buy) between subjects.
Procedure
Participants read a short scenario about Liz and Amy’s vacation to Hawaii. While shopping
for souvenirs, Liz ?nds ‘‘a Hawaiian-looking pink coral necklace’’ made from local coral and
styled after a necklace worn by Queen Lili’uokalani. Although Liz likes the necklace, she
hesitates buying the necklace because the necklace costs $100. In the limited condition, the
salesperson reminds her that ‘‘she would not be able to buy it after she went home,’’ while in
the unlimited condition, she is reminded that ‘‘she could always buy it from the store’s web
site after she went home.’’ Participants indicate how likely they think Liz is to buy the
necklace.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 175
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 second part of the scenario, participants learn either that Liz decided to buy or not to
buy the necklace and is nowon her way home. On the ?ight, she wonders whether she made
a mistake. Participants indicate how much regret they think Liz feels about her decision.
After 15 minutes of unrelated surveys, included for temporal distance, participants read the
third part of the scenario. The scenario reminds them of Liz’s trip and purchase decision and
asks them to imagine that six months have passed since she returned home. After talking
with Amy, she thinks about the coral necklace, at which point participants again rate how
much regret they think Liz feels. Those in the no buy conditions then read about a second
purchase opportunity. When the original purchase decision is unlimited, Liz ‘‘remembers’’
the store’s web site, while in the limited condition, she ‘‘discovers’’ the store’s web site. With
all participants in the no buy conditions now facing an unlimited purchase opportunity, they
indicate how likely Liz is to buy the necklace from the store’s web site.
Dependent measures
The survey measures purchase intent on a nine-point scale from not at all likely (1) to
extremely likely (9). The survey measures regret using two nine-point scales from no regret
(1) to extreme regret (9) and from not at all upset (1) to extremely upset (9). These two
measures are strongly correlated both at time 1 (r ¼ 0:79) and time 2 (r ¼ 0:87).
Results
In the initial purchase situation, participants think Liz would be more likely to buy when the
purchase opportunity is limited to in-store only (M ¼ 6.0) than when the store has a web site
for later purchase (M ¼ 4:6, Fð1; 189Þ ¼ 24:3, p , :0001), supporting H1.
When the purchase opportunity is limited, short-term regret is greater for non-purchase
(M ¼ 5:1) than purchase (M ¼ 4:3, Fð1; 94Þ ¼ 4:5, p , 0:04), replicating Abendroth and
Diehl (2006). Long-term regret reveals a similar pattern with non-purchase regret (M ¼ 3:8)
greater than purchase regret (M ¼ 3:0, Fð1; 94Þ ¼ 3:8, p , 0:05). An analysis of variance
with repeated measures ?nds this decrease in regret over time is signi?cant (Fð1; 94Þ ¼ 33:9,
p , 0:0001). By comparison, when the purchase situation is unlimited, regret does not vary
by purchase in the short-term ðFð1; 93Þ ¼ 0:0, p , 0:9) or long-term (Fð1; 93Þ ¼ 0:6,
p , 0:4), but as in the limited condition, regret does decrease over time (Fð1; 93Þ ¼ 26:0,
p , 0:0001).
More interesting is what happens when the 95 participants in the no buy condition face an
unlimited purchase opportunity online after they return home. Consistent with H2, higher
levels of long-term regret increase purchase likelihood (Beta ¼ 0:63, Fð1; 92Þ ¼ 33:3,
p , 0:0001). In addition, those who originally faced a limited purchase opportunity are more
likely to purchase at this later time (M ¼ 5:6) than those who were never limited in their
decision (M ¼ 4:5, Fð1; 92Þ ¼ 4:8, p , 0:03), which is consistent with H3.
Discussion
In Study 1, participants read an evolving scenario regarding a coral necklace that ?rst varies
in its opportunity for purchase (limited or unlimited), then in behavior (purchased or not
purchased), and then again in purchase opportunity (all unlimited), thereby allowing
measurement of purchase likelihood and regret across time and in different situations.
Results indicate that limiting the purchase opportunity increases purchase likelihood at the
travel destination and after returning home. The later increase in purchase intent results from
the release from a constrained environment and the intensity of long-termregret. Meanwhile,
the cause of the initial increase in purchase intent, while consistent with scarcity theory,
remains uncertain. As indicated earlier, souvenirs have unique attributes that can increase
purchase intent (Kim and Littrell, 2001), but researchers do not know if these attributes are
affected by scarcity. Therefore, the next section examines in greater detail howthe presence
or absence of a retail web site might in?uence the souvenir purchase decision while at the
destination.
PAGE 176
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
)
Additional theory development
Valuation
As described above, limiting a purchase opportunity to one’s time at a destination
represents a type of scarcity. Cialdini (1993) indicates that scarcity increases the perceived
value of an item. Under scarcity, consumers are not only willing to pay more, but also
become more likely to purchase. The presence of a web site removes this temporal limitation
by allowing future access to the item, which should in turn lower both monetary value and
purchase intent.
H4. Limiting a purchase opportunity should a) increase a souvenir’s perceived
monetary value, which should b) mediate the effect of limitation on purchase intent.
While researchers typically think of value in monetary terms, souvenirs also hold sentimental
value. Tumbat (2003) ?nds that souvenirs play a role as reminders of people’s experiences at
the Olympics. Love and Sheldon (1998) ?nd that meanings assigned to souvenirs range
from representations of place to abstract representations of people, relationships, and
experiences. The question here becomes whether online availability affects an item’s
reminder value.
McCracken (1986) argues that cultural meaning exists in products and can be added to or
removed from products. Presumably, souvenirs have meaning because tourists purchase
them within the context of a vacation. Extending purchase outside that context may affect
that meaning. For example, the author purchased a wool blanket while visiting the
Norwegian fjords that serves as a reminder of that trip. Had she known at the time of
purchase that she could buy the same blanket at the Scandinavian store near her home, she
may not have bought the blanket, as that knowledge would have weakened the association
between the blanket and her vacation experience. Research shows that an item’s production
location, local or abroad, affects the meaning bestowed on souvenirs. In Love and Sheldon
(1998, p. 172), one respondent stated ‘‘what’s the point of saying I got it here if it’s not true to
the crafts of the area?’’ Shifting from production to availability, making a souvenir available
outside of the destination should weaken its association with the vacation, reducing its
reminder value and lowering purchase intent.
H5. Limiting a purchase opportunity should a) increase a souvenir’s perceived
reminder value, which should b) mediate the effect of limitation on purchase intent.
Loss aversion
Abendroth and Diehl (2006) equate limiting a purchase opportunity to forfeiting the
opportunity to own something desirable. In the ethnographic video of Olympic souvenir
purchases (Tumbat, 2003, video), one man states ‘‘I have to have something to take back
just in case I can’t get it online.’’ Not only is this statement indicative of loss aversion
(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), but the statement also underscores the effect of later
availability on the urgency to purchase in the local market. The act of buying allows a tourist
to avert the loss and avoid later regret (Abendroth and Diehl, 2006). In contrast, if the item is
available online, tourists do not need to forfeit ownership or avert a loss.
H6. Limiting a purchase opportunity should a) increase loss aversion, which should b)
mediate the effect of limitation on purchase intent.
Attitude
If increasing later purchase opportunity can lower purchase intent, then what is the bene?t of
having a transactional web site? For retailers, a web site increases the total purchase
opportunity. For consumers, a web site provides greater access to goods and the
convenience of not having to transport items. Access and convenience can improve a
retailer’s brand image (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004). As such, a web site should heighten
consumers’ attitude towards the retailer, which should increase purchase likelihood.
Conversely, when a retailer constrains the purchase opportunity to in-store only, the desire to
purchase from that retailer should decrease.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 177
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
)
H7. Limiting a purchase opportunity should a) decrease attitude toward the retailer,
which should b) mediate the effect of limitation on purchase intent.
In sum, this research identi?es four mechanisms – monetary valuation, reminder valuation,
loss aversion, and attitude toward the retailer – that the presence or absence of a retail web
site should affect. Each mechanism should in turn in?uence the purchase decision (see
Figure 1). Therefore, Study 2 attempts to not only replicate the effect of limitation on
purchase intent, but also explain why the effect occurs.
Study 2
This study focuses solely on the initial purchase experience. The scenario is again a souvenir
purchase on a trip to Hawaii but differs in two ways. First, because people may viewthe coral
necklace fromStudy 1 as more ethnic in design, Study 2 includes a classic pearl necklace to
replicate the effect of limitation on purchase with a more generic looking necklace (Kim and
Littrell, 2001). While both are local products made of native material, a classic-styled pearl
necklace does not include the regional design linkages that exist in a Hawaiian-styled coral
necklace. Second, rather than participants rating purchase likelihood and reading about the
purchase decision, in this study participants make their own purchase decision. Because
the stimulus is feminine, the study also tests for gender effects and effects from travel
experience.
Method
Participants and design
A total of 77 undergraduate students from a US university participate in this study to ful?ll a
research requirement. Of the participants, 55 percent are female and 29 percent have
previously traveled to Hawaii. Purchase opportunity (limited or unlimited) and item (coral or
pearl necklace) are manipulated between subjects.
Procedure
Participants read the same scenario about Liz’s vacation to Hawaii, including the same
manipulation of purchase opportunity coming from the store’s salesperson. The only
difference is that the focal item is either the ‘‘Hawaiian-looking pink coral necklace’’ from
Study 1 or a ‘‘classic pearl necklace’’ that includes a certi?cate stating that they are
authentic Hawaiian pearls. Each necklace costs $100. Immediately after reading the
scenario, participants indicate their purchase decision and rate their attitude toward the
Figure 1 Effects of limitation on initial and later purchase decisions
PAGE 178
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
)
store and salesperson. On the next page, participants answer a series of questions about
their perceptions of the necklace and Liz’s experience in the store.
Dependent measures
Purchase decision is either to ‘‘buy the necklace’’ or ‘‘not buy the necklace.’’ The survey
measures the remaining items on nine-point semantic differential scales as follows: Attitude
toward the store and salesperson (poor, excellent); perception that the necklace would
‘‘serve as a reminder of the trip’’ (poor reminder, excellent reminder); evaluation of the price
(poor value, good value); and extent of thought about ‘‘losing the opportunity to own the
necklace’’ (not at all, very much).
Manipulation check
The likelihood to ‘‘be able to buy an identical necklace at a later time and place’’ appears on
a scale from not at all likely (1) to extremely likely (9). Four participants failed the
manipulation check, leaving 73 participants for the analyses. The remaining participants in
the limited condition still perceive some likelihood that they could buy the necklace later
(M ¼ 3:9), but signi?cantly less so than those in the unlimited condition (M ¼ 6:5,
Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 25:92, p , 0:0001). The pearl necklace is not seen as more available than the
coral necklace (Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 2:23, p , 0:14).
Results
Behavior
Purchase incidence is signi?cantly greater when the opportunity is limited to in-store only
(M ¼ 57%) versus being available later online (M ¼ 33%, Chi –squareð1Þ ¼ 4:0, p , 0:04),
supporting hypothesis 1 and replicating Study 1. Purchase incidence does not vary by
necklace (Chi –squareð1Þ ¼ 2:5, p , 0:11).
Cognitive processes
Purchase limitation does not affect the perceived monetary value of the necklace
(Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 0:5, p , 0:5), leaving H4a unsupported. However, necklace type does affect
perceived monetary value (M
pearl
¼ 6:2, M
coral
¼ 4:8, Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 6:8, p , 0:01).
Purchase limitation does affect perceived reminder value (Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 4:8, p , 0:03),
supporting H5a. Speci?cally, when the purchase opportunity is limited to in-store, the
necklace is considered a better reminder of the trip (M ¼ 8:0) than when the necklace is also
available online (M ¼ 7:1). Necklace type has no effect on reminder value (Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 0:4,
p , 0:6).
Thoughts about losing the ownership opportunity are greater in the limited (M ¼ 6:2) than
unlimited conditions (M ¼ 5:0, (Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 6:4, p , 0:01), supporting H6a. Meanwhile,
attitude toward the store and salesperson (r ¼ 0:56) decreases when the salesperson
mentions that the purchase cannot be made later (M ¼ 5:7) instead of mentioning the
opportunity for later purchase (M ¼ 6:8; Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 7:5, p , 0:008), supporting H7a.
Individual differences
All the above analyses are run a second time with gender and travel experience to rule out
effects from individual differences. Neither gender nor prior travel to the destination affects
the dependent measures (F’s , 1) or the hypothesized relationships with the exception of
loss aversion. Females (Fð1; 67Þ ¼ 6:0, p , 0:02) and past visitors to Hawaii (Fð1; 67Þ ¼ 5:4,
p , 0:02) are more loss averse, but the hypothesized results remain.
Mediation analyses
To better explain how limiting an opportunity affects purchase, the researcher ran a series of
regression models. Monetary value is not included in these analyses as monetary value is
not affected by limitation and therefore cannot serve as a mediator, leaving H4b
unsupported. Attitude toward the retailer is also excluded as attitude toward the retailer is
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 179
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
)
not correlated with purchase (r ¼ 0:07, p , 0:5), leaving H7b unsupported. Model 1
essentially reiterates the previous ?nding that limiting the purchase opportunity increases
purchase intent (see Table I). Model 2 adds reminder value to the model, which in addition to
increasing purchase, makes the effect of limitation on purchase become non-signi?cant
(tð70Þ ¼ 1:2, p , 0:2). This ?nding suggests that reminder value mediates the effect of
limitation on purchase (Baron and Kenny, 1986), supporting H5b. Loss aversion, though
correlated with purchase (r ¼ 0:24, p , 0:04), has no effect on purchase when added into
Model 3 with reminder value, leaving H6b unsupported.
Discussion
In addition to replicating the effect of temporal limitation on purchase intent, the goal of this
study is to understand the processes driving the effect. Interestingly, temporal scarcity does
not increase the item’s perceived monetary value as prior research ?nds (e.g. Cialdini,
1993), but instead increases the item’s reminder value. Limiting the purchase opportunity to
the destination heightens the degree to which the item serves as a representation of the
vacation without simultaneously making the item seem worth more money. Further, this
increase in reminder value mediates the effect of limitation on purchase. That this effect
occurs equally for the coral and pearl necklace suggests that the effect is driven by the
situational limitation (i.e. available only in Hawaii) and not the item’s design (i.e. looks
Hawaiian).
Although loss aversion does increase with limitation, the purchase decision is not about
forfeiting something desirable, but rather obtaining a valued reminder of the trip. Similarly,
attitude toward the retailer decreases with limitation but does not affect purchase. Perhaps
attitude toward the retailer in?uences where to shop rather than whether to buy a speci?c item.
General discussion
In today’s world, consumers not only travel to Japan, India and other exotic places, but they
can also buy authentic products from those destinations at the click of a mouse. While
retailers may establish a web presence to allow purchases long after consumers return
home, making tourists aware of such an opportunity may not always be bene?cial.
The presence of a retail web site changes the nature of the purchase situation from an item’s
availability being limited to a speci?c time and place to being available anytime and
anyplace. This research examines the effects on tourist decision-making and purchase
behavior that result when a destination retailer tells tourists about a later purchase
opportunity online. Results of two scenario-based experiments that use a hypothetical trip to
Hawaii indicate that limiting the opportunity to in-store only increases purchase likelihood
both at the destination and after returning home. Understanding the processes behind the
effects (see Figure 1) has implications for both researchers and practitioners.
Theoretical implications
Scarcity
This research contributes to the literature on scarcity by identifying a new way in which
scarcity affects valuations. Prior research focuses on scarcity increasing an item’s monetary
Table I Purchase parameter estimates for Study 2
Purchase limitation Reminder value Loss aversion
Model 1 0.23*
Model 2 0.13 0.12**
Model 3 0.12 0.11** 0.01
Notes: * p , 0:05; ** p , 0:001
PAGE 180
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
)
value. Within the context of souvenirs, scarcity increases the item’s reminder value, a
qualitatively different increase in an item’s perceived value. While the idea that products
have symbolic value is not new(McCracken, 1986), what is interesting here is the ?nding that
scarcity can heighten symbolic value independent of monetary value. Further, reminder
value, not monetary value, mediates the effect of limitation on purchase.
This research also replicates previous ?ndings on regret, namely that limiting a purchase
situation can reverse the omission bias (Kahneman and Tversky, 1982). Rather than ?nding
greater short-term regrets for action than inaction per the omission bias, the opposite
occurs, replicating Abendroth and Diehl (2006). The present ?ndings on reminder value may
also further explain one of their results. The intensity of regret they ?nd is likely caused not
only by the experience of forfeiture as they argue, but also by the nature of the item being
forfeited, as the heightened sentimental value in souvenirs should lead to particularly strong
feelings of loss.
This research further extends the literature by examining the effect of regret on later purchase
intentions. Previous research ?nds that consumers who forego a purchase at time 1 are less
likely to purchase at time 2, experiencing inaction inertia (Tykocinski et al., 1995). While the
present study ?nds the opposite behavioral result, the mechanism driving the result, regret
minimization, is the same. The explanation for the behavioral difference lies in the context.
Research on inaction inertia examines limiting the availability of a price discount. In that
situation, purchases not made during the discount period cost more after that discount period
ends, causing consumers to resist purchasing to avoid the regret associated with paying
more. In a limited purchase opportunity, the foregone ownership is regretted, allowing later
purchase to act as a way to overcome that regret. Therefore, the behavior is not what matters,
but rather the goal of regret minimization that the behavior represents.
Souvenirs
The primary contribution to souvenir research is the identi?cation of purchase limitation as a
contributor to a souvenir’s reminder value. When tourists can only purchase a souvenir at the
destination, that limitation increases the ability of the souvenir to serve as a representation of
place, in essence increasing the authenticity of the souvenir (Love and Sheldon, 1998).
Further, this increased ability to serve as a reminder applies to locally produced goods
regardless of whether they are generic or ethnic in their appearance (see Kim and Littrell,
2001).
Practical implications
This research has signi?cant implications for retailing practice. Although offering an online
channel improves attitudes toward the retailer, its negative effect on in-store purchase is
disturbing not only because of its effect on immediate sales, but most retailers know that any
purchase that gets delayed is likely to never occur. Given that attitude toward the store does
not increase purchase intent in this study, destination retailers may want to focus more on
improving sales than attitudes. By their very nature, tourists are less likely to become
long-term customers, making individual transactions more important than building good
relationships.
Regardless of the negative effect on in-store sales, destination retailers are increasingly
likely to offer a transactional web site. An online presence is necessary when consumers are
unable to bring an item home with them (e.g. large items or items restricted from airplanes)
or when retailers risk losing business to competitors who are online. When a retailer has a
web site, speci?c sales tactics should be employed so as to minimize its negative impact on
in-store sales. The most obvious implication is that retailers should not emphasize their
online presence until after a tourist has decided not to buy in-store. Rather than reducing
in-store purchases, this timing can only increase post-vacation purchases. The second
implication is that communicating the web site should be subtle, for example by giving
consumers a business card after they have decided not to buy, rather than large signage
that would reduce the urgency to buy on location.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 181
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
)
Another sales-maximizing alternative would be to modify the merchandise mix available on
location and online. For example, Hard Rock Cafe´ , with locations around the world, has
basic Hard Rock items available for sale on their web site, while items with speci?c
destination markers can only be purchased in person at the individual cafes. The destination
pins are so desirable that collectors have been known to travel to distant locations just to buy
them.
Limitations and future research
These studies use a scenario methodology and single-itemmeasures. Although researchers
frequently use scenarios in decision-making and regret research, the methodology lacks
external validity relative to ethnographies or real-world experiments. However, some
assurance of external validity exists in the consistency between these ?ndings and those
found in Tumbat’s (2003) video ethnography, Love and Sheldon’s (1998) interviews, and
Abendroth and Diehl’s (2006) souvenir diaries. Nonetheless, future research should attempt
to replicate these ?ndings in a more naturalistic setting using multiple-item measures.
Although no gender effects appear, future research should use gender-neutral souvenirs
that extend into the markers, miniatures, pictures, and pieces categories (Gordon, 1986).
Another limitation is that the undergraduate participants are less experienced travelers.
While perhaps assumed by their age, almost a third of the respondents in Study 2 have
traveled to Hawaii. Previous research ?nds that travel experience affects the type of
souvenirs that tourists buy (Kim and Littrell, 2001) and leads them to assign souvenirs more
abstract meanings (Love and Sheldon, 1998). An interesting question is whether tourists
learn with experience to be smarter consumers, perhaps becoming more strategic in their
purchases so as to minimize future regret.
This research also points to an interesting avenue for future research examining the effect of
online availability on the de-ethnicitization of products. For example, the global availability of
blue jeans has likely weakened their association with the USA, just as bananas no longer
seem as tropical when available year round in cold climates. As the world continues to
become one global market, products risk losing their cultural meaning entirely.
Understanding how products lose symbolic value may enable us to ?nd new ways to
preserve valued meanings.
References
Abendroth, L.J. and Diehl, K. (2006), ‘‘Now or never: effects of limited purchase opportunities on
patterns of regret over time’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 342-51.
Ailawadi, K.L. and Keller, K.L. (2004), ‘‘Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research
priorities’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 331-42.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), ‘‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’’, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Cialdini, R.B. (1993), In?uence: Science and Practice, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Gordon, B. (1986), ‘‘The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary’’, Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 135-46.
Inman, J.J. and Zeelenberg, M. (2002), ‘‘Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: the
attenuating role of decision justi?ability’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 116-28.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’’,
Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 263-91.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1982), ‘‘The psychology of preferences’’, Scienti?c American, Vol. 246
No. 1, pp. 160-73.
PAGE 182
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
)
Kim, S. and Littrell, M.A. (2001), ‘‘Souvenir buying intentions for self versus others’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 638-57.
Landman, J. (1987), ‘‘Regret and elation following action and inaction: affective responses to positive
versus negative outcomes’’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 524-36.
Love, L.L. and Sheldon, P.R. (1998), ‘‘Souvenirs: messengers of meaning’’, in Alba, J.W. and
Hutchinson, J.W. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 170-5.
McCracken, G. (1986), ‘‘Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement
of the cultural meaning of consumer goods’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Tumbat, G. (2003), ‘‘Olympic souvenir consumption (extended abstract)’’, in Keller, P.A. and Rook, D.W.
(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 30, Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA,
pp. 2-10.
Tykocinski, O.E., Pittman, T.S. and Tuttle, E.E. (1995), ‘‘Inaction inertia: foregoing future bene?ts as a
result of an initial failure to act’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 793-803.
Wegner, D.M. (1994), White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts: Suppression, Obsession, and the
Psychology of Mental Control, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Lisa J. Abendroth can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 183
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. Lin Lin, Pei-Chuan Mao. 2015. Food for memories and culture – A content analysis study of food specialties and souvenirs.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 22, 19-29. [CrossRef]
2. Rob Law, Dimitrios Buhalis, Cihan Cobanoglu. 2014. Progress on information and communication technologies in hospitality
and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:5, 727-750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Kristen SwansonSouvenirs, Tourists, and Tourism 179-188. [CrossRef]
4. Yunjin Cho, Yuri Lee. 2013. Analysis of Factors Affecting Purchase Intentions for Fashion Cultural Products. Journal of the
Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 37, 101-112. [CrossRef]
5. Chung-Hsien Lin, Wei-Ching Wang. 2012. Effects of Authenticity Perception, Hedonics, and Perceived Value on Ceramic
Souvenir-Repurchasing Intention. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 29, 779-795. [CrossRef]
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_932963713.pdf
Prior to e-commerce, tourists could only purchase souvenirs at a destination. The goal of this
research is to develop and test a theory to explain how adding a retail web site affects tourists’
decision-making for souvenir purchases.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
The souvenir purchase decision: effects of online availability
Lisa J . Abendroth
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lisa J . Abendroth, (2011),"The souvenir purchase decision: effects of online availability", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 173 - 183
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139582
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 1473 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kandapa Thanasuta, (2015),"Thai consumers’ purchase decisions and private label brands", International J ournal of Emerging Markets, Vol.
10 Iss 1 pp. 102-121http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ OEM-02-2011-0016
Chiu-chi Angela Chang, Monika Kukar-Kinney, (2011),"The effects of shopping aid usage on consumer purchase decision and decision
satisfaction", Asia Pacific J ournal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23 Iss 5 pp. 745-754http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555851111183110
Lambros G. Laios, Socrates J . Moschuris, (2001),"The influence of enterprise type on the purchasing decision process", International
J ournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Iss 3 pp. 351-372http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570110364687
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
)
The souvenir purchase decision: effects of
online availability
Lisa J. Abendroth
Abstract
Purpose – Prior to e-commerce, tourists could only purchase souvenirs at a destination. The goal of this
research is to develop and test a theory to explain how adding a retail web site affects tourists’
decision-making for souvenir purchases.
Design/methodology/approach – The researcher conducts two experiments using scenarios to
simulate a souvenir purchase. The researcher manipulates item type and web site availability, and then
measures purchase intent, attitudes toward the souvenir, and regret.
Findings – Purchase limitation increases 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.
Research limitations – The stimuli are necklaces, and although the ?ndings do not show gender
effects, the stimuli could limit the generalizability to other souvenir types. The research tests hypotheses
using scenarios and less-experienced travelers. Future research should examine different types of
souvenirs in a naturalistic setting.
Practical implications – Retailers should not mention web sites until after a tourist decides not to buy
in-store and should do so subtly.
Originality/value – This research contributes to souvenir research by identifying a purchase limitation,
available in-store only, as a new determinant of a souvenir’s reminder value. The research also
contributes to scarcity research by identifying reminder value as a new and qualitatively different type of
valuation affected by scarcity. Lastly, the research extends the regret literature by reversing inaction
inertia at a later purchase opportunity while maintaining a regret minimization goal.
Keywords Retail, Decision making, Time, Tourism, Web sites
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The growing presence of internet commerce is changing the retail landscape. Shopping in
one’s home region, consumers typically have plenty of opportunities to frequent physical
and online stores. When shopping in a distant location, consumers face a different situation.
Typically, purchases are limited to the time spent at the destination, and during that time
consumers only frequent physical stores. However, retailers in tourist destinations are
increasingly developing web sites that extend the purchase opportunity past the trip’s end.
In addition to providing convenience to travelers, retailers hope that these web sites will
increase sales, as tourists may make additional purchases after they have returned home.
However, is adding a web site always bene?cial?
Imagine a tourist shopping for local artwork on a trip to Costa Rica. After ?nding a desirable
piece of art, the tourist learns that the store allows purchases from home over the internet.
Does this information change the tourist’s evaluation of the artwork or retailer? Does he
proceed to make a purchase in the store? This research addresses how expanding or
limiting the purchase opportunity affects decision-making while on vacation and after
DOI 10.1108/17506181111139582 VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 173-183, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 173
Lisa J. Abendroth is based
in the Department of
Marketing of University of St
Thomas, St Paul,
Minnesota, USA.
Submitted: March 2008
Revised: July 2008
Accepted: November 2008
The author thanks the editors,
reviewers, Kristin Diehl, and
James Heyman for their
insightful comments and
suggestions as well as David
Alexander for his assistance
with data collection..
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
)
returning home. Although tourists may prefer the greater opportunity presented by a web
site, this research argues that limiting purchase to in-store should improve tourists’
evaluation of the souvenir, thereby increasing purchase intent. The research also predicts
that regret associated with non-purchase should in?uence purchase intent when later
opportunities arise.
The paper begins by reviewing prior research on souvenirs and limited purchase
opportunities and then develops hypotheses focusing on purchase intentions both on
vacation and after returning home as well as the role regret and limitation play in later
purchase decisions. After testing these hypotheses in an experiment involving a souvenir
purchase in Hawaii (Study 1), the research explores more deeply the nature of the initial
decision-making process. Speci?cally, the research examines the roles played by valuation,
loss aversion, and attitude toward the retailer in making the initial purchase decision, which
the research tests in Study 2.
Theory development
Souvenirs
Five broad types of souvenirs exist: pictorial images, pieces-of-the-rock, symbolic
shorthand, markers, and locally produced items (Gordon, 1986). Kim and Littrell (2001)
identify two sub-types within local products, ethnic products that are representative of the
speci?c tourism region, and generic products that are made in the region but do not include
any design linkages. While they ?nd that the type of tourist (recreational or ethnic-oriented)
and purchasing for oneself or someone else does not affect purchase intent, higher
evaluations of an item’s unique and aesthetic properties signi?cantly increases purchase
intentions. In addition to item attributes, the desire not to go home empty handed, a
motivation stated by event attendees in an ethnographic study of Olympic souvenir
consumption (Tumbat, 2003), may operate simultaneously. Perhaps the purchase situation
at a tourist destination is inherently different from the situation at home.
Limited purchase opportunities
Until recently, tourists could only purchase souvenirs at the destination, but with the growing
availability of online shopping, this situation is rapidly changing. When distribution of an item
is limited to a speci?c location, a visitor’s opportunity to purchase the item is limited to the
window of time spent at that destination, creating temporal scarcity (Abendroth and Diehl,
2006). In contrast, when an item is available online allowing the tourist to purchase from
home, the purchase opportunity is virtually unlimited. Because prior research indicates that
scarcity, temporal or otherwise, is associated with an increase in purchase likelihood
(Cialdini, 1993), tourists who can only buy an item at the destination should be more likely to
purchase than tourists who can also buy the item online after returning home.
H1. Limiting a purchase opportunity should increase purchase intent at the destination.
Abendroth and Diehl (2006) ?nd evidence consistent with this hypothesis in a recent study.
Tourists on a cruise around Africa kept a diary of their souvenir purchase decisions. More
purchases (n ¼ 165) than non-purchases (n ¼ 15) are reported in the diaries, although the
authors argue this imbalance could be caused by differential forgetting when the diaries
were completed aboard the ship. The authors, however, focus on post-purchase regret. The
authors emphasize that in now-or-never purchase situations, a decision not to purchase is
equivalent to forfeiting something desirable. As forfeiture situations can heighten mental
endowment, tourists may equate a decision not to purchase with a loss, triggering feelings of
regret. Their ?ndings indicate that in the short-term, tourists regret non-purchases more than
purchases. Over time, non-purchase regrets tend to decrease, although the effect lessens if
the tourist still views the item as desirable. The present paper extends this research by
examining how regret may affect decision-making after returning home.
PAGE 174
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
)
Decision-making post vacation
As retailers are constantly entering the online arena, what happens when a previously limited
purchase opportunity later becomes unlimited? To the extent that a consumer’s regret for a
non-purchase decision remains strong over time, one way to cope with that regret should be
to reverse the decision by purchasing the souvenir in question. Restated as a hypothesis:
H2. Long-term, non-purchase regret should increase purchase intent after returning
home.
This effect of non-purchase regret could be further heightened by the nature of the original
purchase situation, but only if the original limitation affects long-term regret. Abendroth and
Diehl’s (2006) third study manipulates the purchase opportunity for a CD, available only at a
concert versus also in retail locations, and ?nds no effect from the original limitation on
long-term regret. Rather, the only factors that in?uence long-term regret are the purchase
decision (buy or no buy) and the perceived utility of the CD.
Although an earlier purchase limitation may not affect long-term regret, that limitation may
still affect later purchase intent. Research on reactance ?nds that restricting people’s
behavior can lead them to pursue a limited option with greater determination (Brehm, 1966).
Other research shows that the prevalence of a prohibited action increases on release froma
constrained environment (Wegner, 1994). As such, consumers who have faced a limited
purchase opportunity may pursue a second opportunity. Should such an opportunity occur,
they should be more likely to purchase than someone who had never been so constrained.
H3. Initial purchase limitation should increase purchase intent after returning home.
In summary, limiting a purchase opportunity to a speci?c time and place, such as at a tourist
destination, should heighten purchase intent by creating temporal scarcity. Those who do
not purchase should experience regret, which should in turn increase their purchase
likelihood at a later opportunity. A second factor, reactance to the constrained environment,
should also heighten later purchase intent. Study 1 tests these hypotheses.
Study 1
Study 1 examines how the presence or absence of an opportunity to buy later via the web
affects initial souvenir purchase likelihood, post-purchase regret, and later purchase intent.
The study uses a scenario to simulate a purchase decision on a trip to Hawaii and examine
the effect of that purchase opportunity across three time periods: during the trip, on the ?ight
home, and six months later. This type of scenario methodology has been widely used to
study emotions such as regret (e.g. Abendroth and Diehl, 2006; Inman and Zeelenberg,
2002; Kahneman and Tversky, 1982; Landman, 1987).
Method
Participants and design
A total of 191 undergraduate students from a US university participate in this study to ful?ll a
research requirement. The study manipulates purchase opportunity (limited, unlimited) and
purchase decision (buy, no buy) between subjects.
Procedure
Participants read a short scenario about Liz and Amy’s vacation to Hawaii. While shopping
for souvenirs, Liz ?nds ‘‘a Hawaiian-looking pink coral necklace’’ made from local coral and
styled after a necklace worn by Queen Lili’uokalani. Although Liz likes the necklace, she
hesitates buying the necklace because the necklace costs $100. In the limited condition, the
salesperson reminds her that ‘‘she would not be able to buy it after she went home,’’ while in
the unlimited condition, she is reminded that ‘‘she could always buy it from the store’s web
site after she went home.’’ Participants indicate how likely they think Liz is to buy the
necklace.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 175
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 second part of the scenario, participants learn either that Liz decided to buy or not to
buy the necklace and is nowon her way home. On the ?ight, she wonders whether she made
a mistake. Participants indicate how much regret they think Liz feels about her decision.
After 15 minutes of unrelated surveys, included for temporal distance, participants read the
third part of the scenario. The scenario reminds them of Liz’s trip and purchase decision and
asks them to imagine that six months have passed since she returned home. After talking
with Amy, she thinks about the coral necklace, at which point participants again rate how
much regret they think Liz feels. Those in the no buy conditions then read about a second
purchase opportunity. When the original purchase decision is unlimited, Liz ‘‘remembers’’
the store’s web site, while in the limited condition, she ‘‘discovers’’ the store’s web site. With
all participants in the no buy conditions now facing an unlimited purchase opportunity, they
indicate how likely Liz is to buy the necklace from the store’s web site.
Dependent measures
The survey measures purchase intent on a nine-point scale from not at all likely (1) to
extremely likely (9). The survey measures regret using two nine-point scales from no regret
(1) to extreme regret (9) and from not at all upset (1) to extremely upset (9). These two
measures are strongly correlated both at time 1 (r ¼ 0:79) and time 2 (r ¼ 0:87).
Results
In the initial purchase situation, participants think Liz would be more likely to buy when the
purchase opportunity is limited to in-store only (M ¼ 6.0) than when the store has a web site
for later purchase (M ¼ 4:6, Fð1; 189Þ ¼ 24:3, p , :0001), supporting H1.
When the purchase opportunity is limited, short-term regret is greater for non-purchase
(M ¼ 5:1) than purchase (M ¼ 4:3, Fð1; 94Þ ¼ 4:5, p , 0:04), replicating Abendroth and
Diehl (2006). Long-term regret reveals a similar pattern with non-purchase regret (M ¼ 3:8)
greater than purchase regret (M ¼ 3:0, Fð1; 94Þ ¼ 3:8, p , 0:05). An analysis of variance
with repeated measures ?nds this decrease in regret over time is signi?cant (Fð1; 94Þ ¼ 33:9,
p , 0:0001). By comparison, when the purchase situation is unlimited, regret does not vary
by purchase in the short-term ðFð1; 93Þ ¼ 0:0, p , 0:9) or long-term (Fð1; 93Þ ¼ 0:6,
p , 0:4), but as in the limited condition, regret does decrease over time (Fð1; 93Þ ¼ 26:0,
p , 0:0001).
More interesting is what happens when the 95 participants in the no buy condition face an
unlimited purchase opportunity online after they return home. Consistent with H2, higher
levels of long-term regret increase purchase likelihood (Beta ¼ 0:63, Fð1; 92Þ ¼ 33:3,
p , 0:0001). In addition, those who originally faced a limited purchase opportunity are more
likely to purchase at this later time (M ¼ 5:6) than those who were never limited in their
decision (M ¼ 4:5, Fð1; 92Þ ¼ 4:8, p , 0:03), which is consistent with H3.
Discussion
In Study 1, participants read an evolving scenario regarding a coral necklace that ?rst varies
in its opportunity for purchase (limited or unlimited), then in behavior (purchased or not
purchased), and then again in purchase opportunity (all unlimited), thereby allowing
measurement of purchase likelihood and regret across time and in different situations.
Results indicate that limiting the purchase opportunity increases purchase likelihood at the
travel destination and after returning home. The later increase in purchase intent results from
the release from a constrained environment and the intensity of long-termregret. Meanwhile,
the cause of the initial increase in purchase intent, while consistent with scarcity theory,
remains uncertain. As indicated earlier, souvenirs have unique attributes that can increase
purchase intent (Kim and Littrell, 2001), but researchers do not know if these attributes are
affected by scarcity. Therefore, the next section examines in greater detail howthe presence
or absence of a retail web site might in?uence the souvenir purchase decision while at the
destination.
PAGE 176
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
)
Additional theory development
Valuation
As described above, limiting a purchase opportunity to one’s time at a destination
represents a type of scarcity. Cialdini (1993) indicates that scarcity increases the perceived
value of an item. Under scarcity, consumers are not only willing to pay more, but also
become more likely to purchase. The presence of a web site removes this temporal limitation
by allowing future access to the item, which should in turn lower both monetary value and
purchase intent.
H4. Limiting a purchase opportunity should a) increase a souvenir’s perceived
monetary value, which should b) mediate the effect of limitation on purchase intent.
While researchers typically think of value in monetary terms, souvenirs also hold sentimental
value. Tumbat (2003) ?nds that souvenirs play a role as reminders of people’s experiences at
the Olympics. Love and Sheldon (1998) ?nd that meanings assigned to souvenirs range
from representations of place to abstract representations of people, relationships, and
experiences. The question here becomes whether online availability affects an item’s
reminder value.
McCracken (1986) argues that cultural meaning exists in products and can be added to or
removed from products. Presumably, souvenirs have meaning because tourists purchase
them within the context of a vacation. Extending purchase outside that context may affect
that meaning. For example, the author purchased a wool blanket while visiting the
Norwegian fjords that serves as a reminder of that trip. Had she known at the time of
purchase that she could buy the same blanket at the Scandinavian store near her home, she
may not have bought the blanket, as that knowledge would have weakened the association
between the blanket and her vacation experience. Research shows that an item’s production
location, local or abroad, affects the meaning bestowed on souvenirs. In Love and Sheldon
(1998, p. 172), one respondent stated ‘‘what’s the point of saying I got it here if it’s not true to
the crafts of the area?’’ Shifting from production to availability, making a souvenir available
outside of the destination should weaken its association with the vacation, reducing its
reminder value and lowering purchase intent.
H5. Limiting a purchase opportunity should a) increase a souvenir’s perceived
reminder value, which should b) mediate the effect of limitation on purchase intent.
Loss aversion
Abendroth and Diehl (2006) equate limiting a purchase opportunity to forfeiting the
opportunity to own something desirable. In the ethnographic video of Olympic souvenir
purchases (Tumbat, 2003, video), one man states ‘‘I have to have something to take back
just in case I can’t get it online.’’ Not only is this statement indicative of loss aversion
(Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), but the statement also underscores the effect of later
availability on the urgency to purchase in the local market. The act of buying allows a tourist
to avert the loss and avoid later regret (Abendroth and Diehl, 2006). In contrast, if the item is
available online, tourists do not need to forfeit ownership or avert a loss.
H6. Limiting a purchase opportunity should a) increase loss aversion, which should b)
mediate the effect of limitation on purchase intent.
Attitude
If increasing later purchase opportunity can lower purchase intent, then what is the bene?t of
having a transactional web site? For retailers, a web site increases the total purchase
opportunity. For consumers, a web site provides greater access to goods and the
convenience of not having to transport items. Access and convenience can improve a
retailer’s brand image (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004). As such, a web site should heighten
consumers’ attitude towards the retailer, which should increase purchase likelihood.
Conversely, when a retailer constrains the purchase opportunity to in-store only, the desire to
purchase from that retailer should decrease.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 177
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
)
H7. Limiting a purchase opportunity should a) decrease attitude toward the retailer,
which should b) mediate the effect of limitation on purchase intent.
In sum, this research identi?es four mechanisms – monetary valuation, reminder valuation,
loss aversion, and attitude toward the retailer – that the presence or absence of a retail web
site should affect. Each mechanism should in turn in?uence the purchase decision (see
Figure 1). Therefore, Study 2 attempts to not only replicate the effect of limitation on
purchase intent, but also explain why the effect occurs.
Study 2
This study focuses solely on the initial purchase experience. The scenario is again a souvenir
purchase on a trip to Hawaii but differs in two ways. First, because people may viewthe coral
necklace fromStudy 1 as more ethnic in design, Study 2 includes a classic pearl necklace to
replicate the effect of limitation on purchase with a more generic looking necklace (Kim and
Littrell, 2001). While both are local products made of native material, a classic-styled pearl
necklace does not include the regional design linkages that exist in a Hawaiian-styled coral
necklace. Second, rather than participants rating purchase likelihood and reading about the
purchase decision, in this study participants make their own purchase decision. Because
the stimulus is feminine, the study also tests for gender effects and effects from travel
experience.
Method
Participants and design
A total of 77 undergraduate students from a US university participate in this study to ful?ll a
research requirement. Of the participants, 55 percent are female and 29 percent have
previously traveled to Hawaii. Purchase opportunity (limited or unlimited) and item (coral or
pearl necklace) are manipulated between subjects.
Procedure
Participants read the same scenario about Liz’s vacation to Hawaii, including the same
manipulation of purchase opportunity coming from the store’s salesperson. The only
difference is that the focal item is either the ‘‘Hawaiian-looking pink coral necklace’’ from
Study 1 or a ‘‘classic pearl necklace’’ that includes a certi?cate stating that they are
authentic Hawaiian pearls. Each necklace costs $100. Immediately after reading the
scenario, participants indicate their purchase decision and rate their attitude toward the
Figure 1 Effects of limitation on initial and later purchase decisions
PAGE 178
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
)
store and salesperson. On the next page, participants answer a series of questions about
their perceptions of the necklace and Liz’s experience in the store.
Dependent measures
Purchase decision is either to ‘‘buy the necklace’’ or ‘‘not buy the necklace.’’ The survey
measures the remaining items on nine-point semantic differential scales as follows: Attitude
toward the store and salesperson (poor, excellent); perception that the necklace would
‘‘serve as a reminder of the trip’’ (poor reminder, excellent reminder); evaluation of the price
(poor value, good value); and extent of thought about ‘‘losing the opportunity to own the
necklace’’ (not at all, very much).
Manipulation check
The likelihood to ‘‘be able to buy an identical necklace at a later time and place’’ appears on
a scale from not at all likely (1) to extremely likely (9). Four participants failed the
manipulation check, leaving 73 participants for the analyses. The remaining participants in
the limited condition still perceive some likelihood that they could buy the necklace later
(M ¼ 3:9), but signi?cantly less so than those in the unlimited condition (M ¼ 6:5,
Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 25:92, p , 0:0001). The pearl necklace is not seen as more available than the
coral necklace (Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 2:23, p , 0:14).
Results
Behavior
Purchase incidence is signi?cantly greater when the opportunity is limited to in-store only
(M ¼ 57%) versus being available later online (M ¼ 33%, Chi –squareð1Þ ¼ 4:0, p , 0:04),
supporting hypothesis 1 and replicating Study 1. Purchase incidence does not vary by
necklace (Chi –squareð1Þ ¼ 2:5, p , 0:11).
Cognitive processes
Purchase limitation does not affect the perceived monetary value of the necklace
(Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 0:5, p , 0:5), leaving H4a unsupported. However, necklace type does affect
perceived monetary value (M
pearl
¼ 6:2, M
coral
¼ 4:8, Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 6:8, p , 0:01).
Purchase limitation does affect perceived reminder value (Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 4:8, p , 0:03),
supporting H5a. Speci?cally, when the purchase opportunity is limited to in-store, the
necklace is considered a better reminder of the trip (M ¼ 8:0) than when the necklace is also
available online (M ¼ 7:1). Necklace type has no effect on reminder value (Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 0:4,
p , 0:6).
Thoughts about losing the ownership opportunity are greater in the limited (M ¼ 6:2) than
unlimited conditions (M ¼ 5:0, (Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 6:4, p , 0:01), supporting H6a. Meanwhile,
attitude toward the store and salesperson (r ¼ 0:56) decreases when the salesperson
mentions that the purchase cannot be made later (M ¼ 5:7) instead of mentioning the
opportunity for later purchase (M ¼ 6:8; Fð1; 69Þ ¼ 7:5, p , 0:008), supporting H7a.
Individual differences
All the above analyses are run a second time with gender and travel experience to rule out
effects from individual differences. Neither gender nor prior travel to the destination affects
the dependent measures (F’s , 1) or the hypothesized relationships with the exception of
loss aversion. Females (Fð1; 67Þ ¼ 6:0, p , 0:02) and past visitors to Hawaii (Fð1; 67Þ ¼ 5:4,
p , 0:02) are more loss averse, but the hypothesized results remain.
Mediation analyses
To better explain how limiting an opportunity affects purchase, the researcher ran a series of
regression models. Monetary value is not included in these analyses as monetary value is
not affected by limitation and therefore cannot serve as a mediator, leaving H4b
unsupported. Attitude toward the retailer is also excluded as attitude toward the retailer is
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 179
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
)
not correlated with purchase (r ¼ 0:07, p , 0:5), leaving H7b unsupported. Model 1
essentially reiterates the previous ?nding that limiting the purchase opportunity increases
purchase intent (see Table I). Model 2 adds reminder value to the model, which in addition to
increasing purchase, makes the effect of limitation on purchase become non-signi?cant
(tð70Þ ¼ 1:2, p , 0:2). This ?nding suggests that reminder value mediates the effect of
limitation on purchase (Baron and Kenny, 1986), supporting H5b. Loss aversion, though
correlated with purchase (r ¼ 0:24, p , 0:04), has no effect on purchase when added into
Model 3 with reminder value, leaving H6b unsupported.
Discussion
In addition to replicating the effect of temporal limitation on purchase intent, the goal of this
study is to understand the processes driving the effect. Interestingly, temporal scarcity does
not increase the item’s perceived monetary value as prior research ?nds (e.g. Cialdini,
1993), but instead increases the item’s reminder value. Limiting the purchase opportunity to
the destination heightens the degree to which the item serves as a representation of the
vacation without simultaneously making the item seem worth more money. Further, this
increase in reminder value mediates the effect of limitation on purchase. That this effect
occurs equally for the coral and pearl necklace suggests that the effect is driven by the
situational limitation (i.e. available only in Hawaii) and not the item’s design (i.e. looks
Hawaiian).
Although loss aversion does increase with limitation, the purchase decision is not about
forfeiting something desirable, but rather obtaining a valued reminder of the trip. Similarly,
attitude toward the retailer decreases with limitation but does not affect purchase. Perhaps
attitude toward the retailer in?uences where to shop rather than whether to buy a speci?c item.
General discussion
In today’s world, consumers not only travel to Japan, India and other exotic places, but they
can also buy authentic products from those destinations at the click of a mouse. While
retailers may establish a web presence to allow purchases long after consumers return
home, making tourists aware of such an opportunity may not always be bene?cial.
The presence of a retail web site changes the nature of the purchase situation from an item’s
availability being limited to a speci?c time and place to being available anytime and
anyplace. This research examines the effects on tourist decision-making and purchase
behavior that result when a destination retailer tells tourists about a later purchase
opportunity online. Results of two scenario-based experiments that use a hypothetical trip to
Hawaii indicate that limiting the opportunity to in-store only increases purchase likelihood
both at the destination and after returning home. Understanding the processes behind the
effects (see Figure 1) has implications for both researchers and practitioners.
Theoretical implications
Scarcity
This research contributes to the literature on scarcity by identifying a new way in which
scarcity affects valuations. Prior research focuses on scarcity increasing an item’s monetary
Table I Purchase parameter estimates for Study 2
Purchase limitation Reminder value Loss aversion
Model 1 0.23*
Model 2 0.13 0.12**
Model 3 0.12 0.11** 0.01
Notes: * p , 0:05; ** p , 0:001
PAGE 180
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
)
value. Within the context of souvenirs, scarcity increases the item’s reminder value, a
qualitatively different increase in an item’s perceived value. While the idea that products
have symbolic value is not new(McCracken, 1986), what is interesting here is the ?nding that
scarcity can heighten symbolic value independent of monetary value. Further, reminder
value, not monetary value, mediates the effect of limitation on purchase.
This research also replicates previous ?ndings on regret, namely that limiting a purchase
situation can reverse the omission bias (Kahneman and Tversky, 1982). Rather than ?nding
greater short-term regrets for action than inaction per the omission bias, the opposite
occurs, replicating Abendroth and Diehl (2006). The present ?ndings on reminder value may
also further explain one of their results. The intensity of regret they ?nd is likely caused not
only by the experience of forfeiture as they argue, but also by the nature of the item being
forfeited, as the heightened sentimental value in souvenirs should lead to particularly strong
feelings of loss.
This research further extends the literature by examining the effect of regret on later purchase
intentions. Previous research ?nds that consumers who forego a purchase at time 1 are less
likely to purchase at time 2, experiencing inaction inertia (Tykocinski et al., 1995). While the
present study ?nds the opposite behavioral result, the mechanism driving the result, regret
minimization, is the same. The explanation for the behavioral difference lies in the context.
Research on inaction inertia examines limiting the availability of a price discount. In that
situation, purchases not made during the discount period cost more after that discount period
ends, causing consumers to resist purchasing to avoid the regret associated with paying
more. In a limited purchase opportunity, the foregone ownership is regretted, allowing later
purchase to act as a way to overcome that regret. Therefore, the behavior is not what matters,
but rather the goal of regret minimization that the behavior represents.
Souvenirs
The primary contribution to souvenir research is the identi?cation of purchase limitation as a
contributor to a souvenir’s reminder value. When tourists can only purchase a souvenir at the
destination, that limitation increases the ability of the souvenir to serve as a representation of
place, in essence increasing the authenticity of the souvenir (Love and Sheldon, 1998).
Further, this increased ability to serve as a reminder applies to locally produced goods
regardless of whether they are generic or ethnic in their appearance (see Kim and Littrell,
2001).
Practical implications
This research has signi?cant implications for retailing practice. Although offering an online
channel improves attitudes toward the retailer, its negative effect on in-store purchase is
disturbing not only because of its effect on immediate sales, but most retailers know that any
purchase that gets delayed is likely to never occur. Given that attitude toward the store does
not increase purchase intent in this study, destination retailers may want to focus more on
improving sales than attitudes. By their very nature, tourists are less likely to become
long-term customers, making individual transactions more important than building good
relationships.
Regardless of the negative effect on in-store sales, destination retailers are increasingly
likely to offer a transactional web site. An online presence is necessary when consumers are
unable to bring an item home with them (e.g. large items or items restricted from airplanes)
or when retailers risk losing business to competitors who are online. When a retailer has a
web site, speci?c sales tactics should be employed so as to minimize its negative impact on
in-store sales. The most obvious implication is that retailers should not emphasize their
online presence until after a tourist has decided not to buy in-store. Rather than reducing
in-store purchases, this timing can only increase post-vacation purchases. The second
implication is that communicating the web site should be subtle, for example by giving
consumers a business card after they have decided not to buy, rather than large signage
that would reduce the urgency to buy on location.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 181
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
)
Another sales-maximizing alternative would be to modify the merchandise mix available on
location and online. For example, Hard Rock Cafe´ , with locations around the world, has
basic Hard Rock items available for sale on their web site, while items with speci?c
destination markers can only be purchased in person at the individual cafes. The destination
pins are so desirable that collectors have been known to travel to distant locations just to buy
them.
Limitations and future research
These studies use a scenario methodology and single-itemmeasures. Although researchers
frequently use scenarios in decision-making and regret research, the methodology lacks
external validity relative to ethnographies or real-world experiments. However, some
assurance of external validity exists in the consistency between these ?ndings and those
found in Tumbat’s (2003) video ethnography, Love and Sheldon’s (1998) interviews, and
Abendroth and Diehl’s (2006) souvenir diaries. Nonetheless, future research should attempt
to replicate these ?ndings in a more naturalistic setting using multiple-item measures.
Although no gender effects appear, future research should use gender-neutral souvenirs
that extend into the markers, miniatures, pictures, and pieces categories (Gordon, 1986).
Another limitation is that the undergraduate participants are less experienced travelers.
While perhaps assumed by their age, almost a third of the respondents in Study 2 have
traveled to Hawaii. Previous research ?nds that travel experience affects the type of
souvenirs that tourists buy (Kim and Littrell, 2001) and leads them to assign souvenirs more
abstract meanings (Love and Sheldon, 1998). An interesting question is whether tourists
learn with experience to be smarter consumers, perhaps becoming more strategic in their
purchases so as to minimize future regret.
This research also points to an interesting avenue for future research examining the effect of
online availability on the de-ethnicitization of products. For example, the global availability of
blue jeans has likely weakened their association with the USA, just as bananas no longer
seem as tropical when available year round in cold climates. As the world continues to
become one global market, products risk losing their cultural meaning entirely.
Understanding how products lose symbolic value may enable us to ?nd new ways to
preserve valued meanings.
References
Abendroth, L.J. and Diehl, K. (2006), ‘‘Now or never: effects of limited purchase opportunities on
patterns of regret over time’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 342-51.
Ailawadi, K.L. and Keller, K.L. (2004), ‘‘Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights and research
priorities’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 331-42.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), ‘‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’’, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Cialdini, R.B. (1993), In?uence: Science and Practice, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Gordon, B. (1986), ‘‘The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary’’, Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 135-46.
Inman, J.J. and Zeelenberg, M. (2002), ‘‘Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: the
attenuating role of decision justi?ability’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 116-28.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’’,
Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 263-91.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1982), ‘‘The psychology of preferences’’, Scienti?c American, Vol. 246
No. 1, pp. 160-73.
PAGE 182
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
)
Kim, S. and Littrell, M.A. (2001), ‘‘Souvenir buying intentions for self versus others’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 638-57.
Landman, J. (1987), ‘‘Regret and elation following action and inaction: affective responses to positive
versus negative outcomes’’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 524-36.
Love, L.L. and Sheldon, P.R. (1998), ‘‘Souvenirs: messengers of meaning’’, in Alba, J.W. and
Hutchinson, J.W. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 170-5.
McCracken, G. (1986), ‘‘Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement
of the cultural meaning of consumer goods’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Tumbat, G. (2003), ‘‘Olympic souvenir consumption (extended abstract)’’, in Keller, P.A. and Rook, D.W.
(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 30, Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA,
pp. 2-10.
Tykocinski, O.E., Pittman, T.S. and Tuttle, E.E. (1995), ‘‘Inaction inertia: foregoing future bene?ts as a
result of an initial failure to act’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 793-803.
Wegner, D.M. (1994), White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts: Suppression, Obsession, and the
Psychology of Mental Control, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Lisa J. Abendroth can be contacted at: [email protected]
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 183
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. Lin Lin, Pei-Chuan Mao. 2015. Food for memories and culture – A content analysis study of food specialties and souvenirs.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 22, 19-29. [CrossRef]
2. Rob Law, Dimitrios Buhalis, Cihan Cobanoglu. 2014. Progress on information and communication technologies in hospitality
and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:5, 727-750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Kristen SwansonSouvenirs, Tourists, and Tourism 179-188. [CrossRef]
4. Yunjin Cho, Yuri Lee. 2013. Analysis of Factors Affecting Purchase Intentions for Fashion Cultural Products. Journal of the
Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 37, 101-112. [CrossRef]
5. Chung-Hsien Lin, Wei-Ching Wang. 2012. Effects of Authenticity Perception, Hedonics, and Perceived Value on Ceramic
Souvenir-Repurchasing Intention. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 29, 779-795. [CrossRef]
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_932963713.pdf