Description
The purpose of this paper is to examine the city break travel decision, and in particular, to
develop a decision making model that reflects the characteristics of this type of trip taking
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Towards a decision making model for city break travel
Gerard Dunne Sheila Flanagan J oan Buckley
Article information:
To cite this document:
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 - 172
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139573
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1587 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kenneth F. Hyde, Alain Decrop, (2011),"New perspectives on vacation decision making", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 103-111http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139537
J ames D. Hess, Arnold C. Bacigalupo, (2011),"Enhancing decisions and decision-making processes through the application of emotional
intelligence skills", Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 5 pp. 710-721http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111130805
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
)
Towards a decision making model for city
break travel
Gerard Dunne, Sheila Flanagan and Joan Buckley
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the city break travel decision, and in particular, to
develop a decision making model that re?ects the characteristics of this type of trip taking.
Design/methodology/approach – The research follows a sequential mixed methods approach
consisting of two phases. Phase One involves a quantitative survey of 1,000 visitors to Dublin. The
research distinguishes and compares city break and non-city break visitor cohorts. Phase Two entails a
qualitative analysis (involving 40 in-depth interviews) that speci?cally examines the decision making
behavior of city break visitors.
Findings – The research shows city break trips to be relatively inexpensive, uncomplicated, and
discretionary in nature. The city break travel decision emerges from quite distinct motives where
situational factors proved particularly in?uential. The decision process mostly entailed low involvement /
limited problem solving behavior with strong internet usage evident throughout.
Originality/value – The ?ndings show that many traditional decision making models have problems
incorporating contemporary travel decisions such as city breaks. This is because such models generally
fail to recognize a non-systematic approach to decision making, where travelers do not necessarily
undertake the process in distinctive stages, and where emotional elements are as relevant as functional
ones. This study supports the need for a range of models that are re?ective of the differences that exist in
travel decision making – models that can distinguish the speci?c nuances and characteristics of
particular decision situations.
Keywords Decision making, Cities, Involvement, Ireland
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Consumer decision making has been the subject of tremendous research activity over the
past 30 years. Yet, as Sirakaya and Woodside (2005, p.816) point out, ‘‘No single unifying
theory has emerged across disciplines to describe, explain, or predict consumer decisions,
and it seems unlikely that individual decision processes ?t neatly into a single decision
theory.’’ The travel decision in particular remains an exceptionally complex and intriguing
phenomenon, due in part to the ever widening range of destinations on offer, the variation in
vacation types, and increased discretionary time and income. Understanding travelers’
decision making behavior is essential to the success of tourist destinations and tourism
businesses and therefore the travel decision has attracted signi?cant attention fromscholars
and researchers in recent years.
Travel decision making research
According to Jeng and Fesenmaier (2002) much of the research effort in relation to travel
decision making has followed two perspectives. The ?rst perspective relates to the affective
nature of decision making and choice behavior including attitudes, beliefs, involvement, risk
perception, traits, and personality. The second concerns the development of models that
PAGE 158
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 158-172, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111139573
Gerard Dunne and Sheila
Flanagan are both based at
the Dublin Institute of
Technology, Dublin, Ireland.
Joan Buckley is based at
University College Cork,
Cork, Ireland.
Received: April 2008
Revised: May 2009
Accepted: July 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
)
can approximate and predict decision making and choice behavior and that assume
individuals follow a utility maximisation strategy. Researchers have presented many such
models in the literature in recent years. Decrop (2007) points out that most models of
vacation decision making are presented either in the form of choice sets (e.g. Um and
Crompton, 1990; Woodside and Lysonski, 1989) or in the form of cognitive processes (e.g.
Mathieson and Wall, 1982; Moutinho, 1987). The choice set approach, with its emphasis on
the destination choice process, has received particular attention in the literature in recent
years. This is due to its relative simplicity and openness to empirical testing compared to
other more complex approaches, and by extension its practical use for destination
marketers.
Most of the early decision making models relating to travel purchases were adaptations of
the grand models of consumer behavior (Nicosia, 1966; Howard and Sheth, 1969; Engel,
Kollat and Belk, 1975z). However, as these grand models were originally developed for
tangible products their application to tourism services is limited. Most still assume the
decision maker to be rationalistic and logical. In reality, the travel decision can often be
in?uenced by the emotional appeal of products or the advice of family and friends. Many
traditional models also assume the decision process to be sequential in nature, following a
funneling pattern where the decision maker goes through a variety of alternatives in a
systematic way until they arrive at a ?nal choice. Traditional models assume that people
follow this logical sequence in a rational, functional manner. However, because of the
subjective nature of decision making and the adaptability of the consumer it is important to
recognize, as Decrop and Snelders (2004, p. 1011) put it, ‘‘that there is not just one but more
possible types of vacation decision making processes.’’ These authors give the example of
the growing phenomenon of last-minute booking behavior as a factor that traditional models
have not taken into account. Swarbrooke and Horner (2007, p. 77) make a similar point when
they suggest most of the major models predate recent developments in tourist behavior
such as ‘‘last-minute spontaneous purchases’’ and the ‘‘growing use of the Internet and
multi-media systems that can be accessed from the tourists own home.’’ Hudson (1999,
p. 29) makes an important observation on the traditional models when he points out, ‘‘they
are stereotypical and generalized whereas, in reality the decision process will vary
signi?cantly among different groups of tourists.’’ This is a valid point, particularly as
researchers increasingly recognize the signi?cance of type of trip in understanding visitor
behavior (Sung et al., 2001). Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) describe type of trip as being a
crucial element in people’s travel decision process. In some situations the choosing of the
destination can be of secondary importance in the decision making process. For certain
types of vacations, particularly those of a discretionary, opportunistic, or last minute nature,
factors such as travel party, duration, distance, and date ?exibility may have a stronger
in?uence on the decision making behavior undertaken. It is important that researchers take
into account the type of trip that tourists are undertaking when examining the travel decision
process. This paper examines one of the most popular types of trips that has emerged in
recent years, the city break, and examines the decision making process involved in taking
such vacations.
City break travel
City breaks represent a travel niche that has grown signi?cantly in Europe in recent years.
According to IPK International’s European Travel Monitor, European city tourism grew by 20
percent in 2005, compared to an increase of just 3 percent in sun and beach vacations
(Freitag, 2006). This growth has helped to popularize and regenerate several European
cities and has assisted in offsetting the seasonality problems often encountered by urban
destinations. The importance and economic value of the city break market is increasingly
acknowledged by city managers and administrators.
So what is a city break? The most widely used de?nition of a city break is, ‘‘a short leisure trip
to one city or town, with no overnight stay at any other destination during the trip’’ (Trew and
Cockerell, 2002, p. 86). This de?nition recognizes that urban tourists can be divided into
those who come to recreate solely in a city milieu and those who visit the city as part of a
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 159
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
)
larger trip. The growth in the former can be attributed to a number of factors, including the
expansion of low cost airlines and the trend towards shorter and more frequent trip taking.
However another equally important factor is the changing perception of cities as
destinations. The city is increasingly viewed as, not just an entry, exit or transit point for
travelers, but a desirable destination in its own right.
Method
A case study approach was used to explore the decision making process involved in taking
a city break. Dublin, as one of the most successful city break destinations in Europe, was the
principal focus of the investigation. The research follows a mixed methods design involving
both quantitative and qualitative investigations. This approach has increasingly been used
in tourism and leisure studies (Squire, 1994; Woodward et al., 1988; Schott, 2002), allowing
researchers to collect a variety of types of data that may otherwise be dif?cult to acquire.
Within the combined methods design, the researchers considered a sequential approach
the most suitable. This consisted of conducting two phases to the research project, with the
results of the ?rst phase essential for the planning of the next (Miller and Crabtree, 1994).
Phase One involved a quantitative study that provided particular data and knowledge
necessary to carry out the second phase (Phase Two), a more in-depth qualitative enquiry.
The researchers considered such a combined methods approach as the most appropriate
to achieve the principal aim of the research – to explore the decision making behavior of city
break travelers. In Phase One the need to build up a picture of city break visitors to Dublin in
terms of their pro?le and the characteristics of their trips meant a broad quantitative enquiry
was most suitable. A survey instrument involving 1,000 visitor questionnaires was utilized.
This instrument provided a wealth of information concerning tourists to Dublin including
visitor pro?le data, trip characteristics, booking behavior, and activities engaged in. A
comparative analysis was carried out between city breakers and non-city break visitors
(those visiting the city as part of a wider trip to Ireland). This proved very useful in identifying
distinctive characteristics and features of the city break market. Chi-square tests were used
to see if the difference between the two segments of travelers (city break and non city break
visitors) was signi?cant.
The results of Phase One provided a useful pro?le of the city break market and shed some
initial light on the city break travel decision. However in order to get a fuller and more detailed
perspective of the decision making process it was necessary to undertake a more qualitative
investigation. This was achieved in Phase Two by conducting 40 in-depth interviews with city
break travelers to Dublin. The intention here was to gain a thorough understanding of each
visitor’s travel decision story from beginning to end and to uncover what Geertz (1973) calls
the ‘‘thick descriptions’’ of people’s experiences. The data elicited from these personal
interviews covered all the main aspects of the city break decision process including motives,
information gathering, choice, purchase, and consumption experiences. In addition, in order
to provide some useful comparative data, respondents were asked to compare their city
break decision with that of their last main vacation. This provided some useful insights in
relation to the distinctiveness of the city break travel decision and helped to show how type
of trip could in?uence the nature of the decision making process.
Data analysis in Phase Two involved making sense of the text or narrative data collected from
the in-depth interviews. For this study a three stage approach, as outlined by Miles and
Huberman (1994), was followed. This consisted of: data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawing/veri?cation. Data reduction involved breaking the text into ‘‘chunks’’ and
attaching a reference or code to each piece in order to identify key themes and patterns.
Data display consisted of summarizing and presenting the structure and patterns emerging,
while data veri?cation involved checking for alternative explanations or seeking other means
to verify the data.
Overall the combination of methods proved effective. Both phases complemented each
other with Phase One setting the scene by presenting a picture of the city break travel market
and providing details that subsequently helped in sample selection for Phase Two.
PAGE 160
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
)
Consequently the quality and richness of the data from Phase Two allowed themes and
concepts relating to city break motivation and decision making to emerge. This combination
of methods was crucial in creating a synergic relationship (Schott, 2002) that contributed
positively to the overall research effort.
Findings
The main focus of this paper relates to the results from the in-depth interviews (Phase Two).
However, in order to give useful background information on the city break market, it is
necessary to also present the main ?ndings from the survey (Phase One). Therefore this
section begins with some of the principal results from the visitor survey and is followed by
?ndings relating speci?cally to the city break decision making process (Phase Two).
Phase One ?ndings
The ?ndings from Phase One primarily involve a comparative analysis between two visitor
segments, city breakers and non-city break tourists. City breakers represent vacationers
who were visiting the city only (and no other place) while non-city breakers consist of people
visiting the city as part of a wider trip involving other destinations in Ireland. Chi-square tests
were carried out to examine any statistically signi?cant associations between types of
visitors and a variety of variables relating to their trip. The main aim was to highlight areas
where the city break market showed distinctive characteristics or features. Three main areas
were focused on in the survey, visitor pro?le, trip characteristics, and visitor behavior.
Visitor pro?le
In relation to visitor pro?le the ?ndings show three characteristics in particular where city
break visitors were distinctive; origin, educational achievement, and occupation (see
Table I). The results corresponding to visitor origin showed the greatest difference between
the two visitor groups. The vast majority (79 percent) of city breakers originated from Britain,
with just 3 percent coming from North America. By contrast non-city break vacationers
showed a signi?cantly more even distribution with 31 percent from the UK and 30 percent
from North America.
In relation to both occupation and education, the ?ndings show city breakers exhibiting a
more varied range of backgrounds compared to non-city break visitors. As a type of trip, city
breaks appear to represent a more accessible vacation option for a larger section of the
population, possibly re?ecting what Richter (2003, p. 340) refers to as the ‘‘democratization
of travel.’’
Trip characteristics
The ?ndings in relation to trip characteristics also highlight a number of distinctive aspects of
the city break segment. For example, city breakers showed a clear preference for shorter
vacations, particularly trips between one and three nights (56 percent). This concurs with
Burtenshaw et al. ’s (1991) belief that visitors can grasp the attractions of a city in just a few
days. Another important characteristic was the distinctive arrival patterns shown by city
Table I Chi-square test on type of visitor and visitor pro?le variables
Visitor pro?le characteristic Signi?cance level Cramer’s V P value ,0.05 (l)
Origin 0.000 0.518 l
Age 0.569 0.078
Occupation 0.023 0.120 l
Education 0.000 0.206 l
Gender 0.159 0.050
Note: The symbol ‘‘l’’ identi?es statistically signi?cant associations detected
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 161
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
)
breakers. Their tendency to come in considerable numbers during off peak periods was
quite signi?cant (see Table II).
City break trips also proved particularly popular for couples, with the majority of people
travelling with a partner (59 percent). Interestingly, children hardly feature at all in these trips,
indicating people’s apparent preference for their city breaks to be adult focused.
Visitor behavior
The third main area of investigation in Phase One looked at issues in relation to visitor
behavior. The ?ndings show city break visitors to be considerable users of the Internet, both
in terms of sourcing information and making bookings. They were signi?cantly more likely to
book their travel online (65 percent) compared to non-city break leisure visitors (40 percent).
In addition, they tended to display a more impulsive decision making pattern of behavior
(evident from both the late timing of their bookings and the considerable in?uence that
cheap airfares had on their decision to travel).
In keeping with the sequential nature of the study, speci?c aspects of the data were also
used to select an accurate group of city break visitors to participate in the in-depth
interviews for Phase Two. Findings relating to visitor origin, age pro?le, timing of visit, and
activities engaged in, were particularly useful in this regard. The following section presents
the results from this interviewing process (Phase Two).
Phase Two
The second phase of the study involved carrying out in-depth interviews with 40 city break
visitors to Dublin. Drawing on the ?ndings from these interviews the city break decision is
discussed under three main headings:
1. Pre-purchase behavior;
2. Choice and purchase; and
3. Post purchase evaluation.
Pre-purchase behavior
Pre-purchase behavior involves the early stages of the city break travel decision, including
the motives that ?rst stimulated the desire to take the trip, the search for information and the
subsequent level of involvement observed.
In terms of motives the ?ndings from Phase Two show a number of speci?c ‘‘push’’ and
‘‘pull’’ factors that featured prominently in the city break travel decision and when these were
compared to respondent’s main vacation motives some interesting distinctions emerged.
These are illustrated in Tables III and IV where the principal push and pull factors for each
type of trip are presented. Each table lists the motives in order of prevalence in the research
?ndings, that is, how often people cited the motives as reasons for taking the trip.
Table II Timing of visit by type of vacationer
X
2
¼ 51.68 p ¼ 0.000 Cramer’s V ¼ 0.255 City break vacationer Non-city break vacationer
Winter (%) 17.2 4.3
Spring (%) 23.2 14.9
Summer (%) 34.0 43.3
Fall (%) 25.6 37.5
Total
Percent 100 100
n 379 416
PAGE 162
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
)
Push motives
The desire to escape from something in the home environment emerged as the strongest
push motive for city break visitors. Iso-Ahola (1982) refers to this push phenomenon as
‘‘avoidance,’’ the notion of people taking a vacation in order to get away from something or
someone. The things people were escaping varied quite considerably but for most they just
wanted a break from routine or to get away fromthe humdrum of everyday life. In this regard
the city break provided a quick, convenient and relatively cheap opportunity to do this. The
escape was not always just a break froma mundane environment either – many people were
using the city break as a respite from the pressures of parenting:
We have a young son – he’s one and a half and he’s into everything at the moment. Jane’s mother
took him for these few days. It’s great to just get the break (Brian, Nottingham).
This is consistent with what Teare (1994) describes as people’s need for a break from family
or domestic commitments.
The city break ?ndings also revealed people’s need to escape was accompanied by a desire
to do things at the destination. This included sightseeing, visiting pubs and clubs, attending
events, and generally experiencing the city’s attractions. In this regard a signi?cant
distinction can be seen between respondent’s city break motives and their main vacation
motives. For the latter, people placed a lot more emphasis on relaxation and ‘‘recharging the
batteries’’, whereas the city break was clearly seen as a doing and experiencing trip. This is
similar to what Fodness (1994, p. 564) describes as the ‘‘utilitarian function of leisure travel’’,
where people are escaping on the one hand but are doing so with some clear leisure goal in
mind, or as he puts it ‘‘an escape to recreational or fun activities.’’ The difference between
the two types of vacations is apparent from the following response from a visitor when he
compared his last main vacation to his city break to Dublin:
Portugal was probably more relaxing with us lazing about, whereas Dublin would be more a short
break where there is so much to do, and you are walking a lot, you’re seeing a lot, you know, you
are doing a lot – we seem to be doing a lot (Kieran, Northern Ireland).
The second most popular motive for taking a city break involved the desire to satisfy a social
need. This again is a common push motive found in many motivational studies. Crompton
(1979) divides the social motive into two main categories: enhancement of kinship relationships
and facilitation of social interaction. The former refers to the desire to enhance or enrich family
relationships, while the latter represents a need to ‘‘meet newpeople in different locations.’’ The
Table III Push factors – city break and main vacation
City break Percent Main vacation Percent
Escape 38 Relax 35
Socialize (internal) 33 Social 25
Self esteem (gift giving) 15 Escape 20
Fun/excitement 13 Fun/excitement 10
Socialize (external) 10 Prestige 8
Relax 10 Education 8
Table IV Pull factors – city break and main vacation
City Break Percent Main Vacation Percent
Convenience/ease of access 35 Sun, sand, sea 38
Cost of travel 33 Positive/fun image 20
Fun destination image 23 Quality of facilities 15
Pre arranged event 23 Cost of trip 10
Friendly image 13 Previous visit 10
Previous visit 10 VFR 8
Tourist sites 5
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 163
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
)
?ndings for Dublin indicate the presence of both of these motives and these are classi?ed as
internal for socializing within the travel party, and external for socializing outside the travel party
(see Table III). For city break trips, the desire to enhance relationships was found to be primarily
in the context of partners, spouses or other adults, and rarely involved families with children.
The ?ndings show the opposite for main vacations where the enhancement of relationships
mostly involved a wider family unit including children. People used such vacations as a chance
to come together and spend ‘‘quality time’’ as a family. Similarly, differences between the types
of vacations were evident in relation to external socializing. For a number of people the city
break offered a chance to meet and interact with locals. Such external socializing was clearly
an important feature of the vacation for these visitors.
Listening to music in pubs and meeting and talking to people – this is important to me in Dublin.
(Maria, Italy).
By contrast this aspect hardly emerged at all in people’s main vacation motives where the
emphasis was more on socializing within the travel party.
One of the most notable city break push motives to emerge was the gift-giving theme that
featured in a number of trips (n ¼ 6). The motivation behind such gift giving was interesting
to observe. On one level, people purchased the trips for quite benevolent motives – ‘‘The
reason we came this time was Kev had a 50
th
birthday, and this was my birthday present to
him’’ (Paula, Birmingham) – but on another level, self esteemmotives were also evident, that
is, the giving of a city break as a present made people feel good about themselves.
Pull motives
The ?ndings showpull factors were extremely important in the city break travel decision. These
relate to the features or attributes of the destination that contribute to the desire to travel. Two
pull factors, ease of access and cheap ?ights, proved to be particularly in?uential. Both these
factors can be attributed to the growth of low cost air travel in recent years. The increased
presence of budget carriers such as Ryanair in the European market has greatly facilitated the
ease with which people can undertake point-to-point international travel:
We left home at 7 a.m. in the morning and arrived here at 7.52 a.m. I mean it’s incredible, I couldn’t
believe it for 70p each way – I mean that’s much less than I pay going to work. Although I knowthe
taxes bring it up but still it’s amazing. (Ruth, Glasgow).
Interestingly, two-thirds of interviewees lived in close proximity to an airport served by low
cost carriers. This convenience was a crucial factor for many in the decision to come to
Dublin. A number of people stated they purposely examined the low cost airline routes
served by their nearest airport and made their destination choice on this basis:
It was basically anywhere where the low cost airfares travel companies ?ew to, from Newcastle
airport. (Chris, Newcastle).
For people’s main vacations however, the importance of ease of access was less evident. Of
much more relevance in that decision was the allure of sun, sand and sea. Such heliotropic
motives re?ected the family nature of most of these trips and the keen desire to relax while on
vacation.
Another noteworthy pull motive to emerge for city break visits was the attractiveness of
pre-arranged events in the city. A number of trips centered on a range of events including
concerts, sports games, exhibitions and parties. All admitted they would not have been in
Dublin (at that time) if it were not for the event. Again this motive was very speci?c to city
breaks and did not ?gure in the results for the main vacation decision.
A ?nal point in relation to city break motivation concerns the situational factors that were
present during the travel decision. These relate to circumstances that are ‘‘particular to a
time and place of observation [. . .] and which have a demonstrable and systematic effect on
current behavior’’ (Belk, 1975, p. 158). The ?ndings reveal many such situational variables,
most of which had a strong bearing on the decision to travel to Dublin. For example, one
PAGE 164
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
)
respondent found himself in circumstances which conveniently facilitated him taking a
discretionary trip:
Well I’m between jobs at the moment, I haven’t been doing anything. So I decided to come here
for a few days. (Frank, Scotland).
Another respondent faced losing vacation entitlements if he did not use them up before the
end of the year. A city break to Dublin was promptly undertaken. Such ?ndings show how
in?uential situational factors can be in the decision making process. It also highlights the
unpredictable nature of the travel decision, particularly as situational factors can emanate
from any aspect of a person’s life.
Overall the results underline the multi-motivational nature of vacation decision-making and
con?rm Bloy’s (2000) assertion that people’s travel motives change according to the nature
of the vacation they take.
Information search
A number of signi?cant ?ndings emerged in relation to the city break information search.
First, the range of information sources that people consulted was quite narrow. The
interviews show city breakers on average considered 2.5 sources of information prior to
purchase (including memory of previous visits). This is a relatively small number for an
international vacation. The ?ndings indicate a search pattern that focused mostly on sources
that were both immediate and close at hand, namely, the Internet and family and friends. The
internet in particular was heavily used by city break travelers. People appreciated its
convenience, especially in situations where the decision making timeframe was short.
Well it’s handy isn’t it, you have it all there, and you don’t have to leave the house. We certainly
didn’t have time to start collecting brochures and stuff (Lorna, London).
It is interesting to note the crucial role the internet plays in what seems to be a general trend
towards last minute information search behavior. Previous decision models, particularly those
older than ten years, fail to re?ect adequately the importance and signi?cance of this mediumin
contemporary travel decision making. The scope and scale of information which is currently
available online to potential travelers has, in many cases, made the internet a one-stop shop for
information seekers, eliminating the need to consult other more traditional information sources.
In this study it proved to be the most consulted information source with over 60 percent of city
break interviewees claiming to have used it during their decision making process.
Level of involvement
The research highlighted some signi?cant points in relation to the amount of time and effort
put into the city break purchase decision. The literature suggests travel service products
possess certain functional, ?nancial, physical, psychological, and social risks for consumers
(Lovelock and Wright, 1999; Teare, 1992). It is the desire to reduce these risks that causes
people to engage in much pre-purchase planning and information search effort. The results
show that city breaks were seen by most respondents to possess few of these risk factors
and as a result were characterized by low involvement search behavior, particularly when
compared to main family vacations. One of the principal reasons for this was the absence of
children from most city break trips. This is re?ected in the following reply in which a
respondent compares his city break to his last main vacation in terms of planning:
I would say this vacation was more . . .spontaneous. We did not plan so much – my wife found a
cheap ?ight on the Internet and we decided to go together, just us. Our main vacation last year
was different – we took our son. Obviously we need to plan more because it is focused on him
(Phillipe, France).
This response shows how the city break trip was seen as an adult focused vacation and
therefore could be decided on spontaneously without too much planning or effort. The main
vacation however was perceived differently, as the participation of a child meant the
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 165
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
)
respondent had to think more about his requirements and ensure a suitable destination was
chosen.
Another reason to explain city break visitors’ low involvement behavior relates to the size and
expense of the trips. According to Bieger and Laesser (2004) fear of economic risk often
leads to high investments of time, effort and resources in customer decision making. The
?ndings show most city breaks were shorter and less expensive compared to main
vacations and therefore perceived as less risky. In addition, the uncomplicated nature of
most city breaks also contributed to less planning and search effort compared to main
vacations. This point is highlighted in the following comment where a respondent compared
a recent main vacation in Estonia to the city break:
I went to Estonia recently, and Estonia is very different from a city break – it’s a very complex trip
[. . .] a city break has less parts and so they are easier to manage, but long breaks have more
parts and activities so they require more time in the planning (Michael, London).
It is important to point out that low involvement behavior was also evident in main vacation
situations, particularly where the main vacation consisted of a repurchase, or what Hawkins
et al. (1995) refer to as a destination-loyal decision. In general, factors such as travel party,
nature of destination, duration, and organization of trip (i.e. package or independent) tended
to have a strong in?uence on the level of involvement in all vacation decisions.
Choice and purchase
One of the most interesting factors to emerge from the interviews was the small number of
alternatives considered by the majority of city break tourists. Over half of all interviewees
(n ¼ 23) chose Dublin without considering any alternative. Many city breaks involved travel
opportunities that presented themselves such as sports games, concerts, and stag/hen
parties. Such scenarios did not generally involve alternatives and if the event were not
happening in Dublin they probably would not have taken the city break at that time. The
following comment by a rugby supporter highlights this:
No, we didn’t look at anywhere else. I mean we came primarily for the game, so if that wasn’t on
we probably wouldn’t be here now (Ali, England).
The outcome of such decisions was often heavily in?uenced by personal circumstances that
people faced at the time (e.g. money issues, work commitments, domestic responsibilities,
etc.).
Evaluating alternatives
For those who did contemplate alternatives, the range of options considered was quite
small. The ?ndings show interviewees considered just 13 destinations in total, with Prague,
Amsterdam, and Glasgow being the most commonly mentioned. All but two were urban
locations, indicating people’s speci?c desire to visit a city, as opposed to some other kind of
destination. It is likely that cities ?tted in better with the length and nature of the trip being
taken. Respondents commonly referred to the convenience of cities as destinations, where
direct access without the need for further onward travel was a big advantage, particularly
when the duration of the trip was relatively short.
The results also show people’s individual evoked sets to be quite small, particularly when
compared to other studies (Woodside and Sherrell, 1977; Ryan, 2002; Woodside and
Lysonski, 1989). With an average set size of just 1.67, the city break decision was noticeable
by how little evaluating activity people engaged in during the choice process. Moreover,
there was very little sign of the funneling process which most of the traditional choice set
models suggest. For example, no evidence emerged of a multi-stage choice process made
up of early and late consideration sets, as suggested by Um and Crompton (1992). Instead,
the city break choice process generally consisted of limited, low involvement decision
making that in many cases was spontaneous and opportunistic.
PAGE 166
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
)
Where alternatives were considered, the ?ndings show respondents employed both
compensatory and non-compensatory heuristics. The choice of Dublin was most frequently
in?uenced by the cost of ?ying and the ease of access to the city. These two attributes, which
featured prominently as pull motives, were central to most people’s decision in selecting
Dublin. The cost of the ?ight was particularly persuasive, with people commonly using
compensatory rules based on this point. For example, in a number of cases respondents ?rst
considered other cities but ended up choosing Dublin following a trade-off strategy in which
the cheap ?ight compensated for other comparative weaknesses.
Originally we were considering Amsterdam, but the ?ights had gone up quite a bit and so we
thought about Dublin. We were able to get here for half the price of Amsterdam (Dave, Scotland).
The ‘‘ease of access’’ attribute, also emerged as being highly in?uential in the decision to
travel to Dublin. The relative simplicity with which people could access the city was a very
important factor for many city breakers. A number of these used the ‘‘elimination by aspects’’
rule, in which they applied a cut-off point that involved the decision to only consider
destinations served from their local airport. Any city destination that did not meet this criterion
was essentially disregarded. Such behavior shows the importance city break visitors place on
convenience, mainly due to time constraints. It also highlights the market potential of
geographical areas within an hour or two of airports that serve city break destinations.
In addition to these two important attributes the decision to come to Dublin was also
in?uenced by the prospect of fun. Much of this fun centered around visiting pubs and clubs.
Dublin’s lively ambience was seen as an attractive feature with people regularly referring to
the buzz and the ‘‘craic’’ (fun) aspect of the city.
Booking behavior
A number of important ?ndings emerged in terms of how people purchased their city break
trips. First, it was interesting to note how uncomplicated most city break products were – 83
percent consisted of transport and accommodation elements only. This is a signi?cant point,
as the simplicity of city breaks is central to their popularity. Having to research other
elements of a vacation such as transfers, kids clubs and car hire can be time consuming and
unappealing, particularly for someone contemplating an unplanned, discretionary trip. As
one city breaker succinctly put it – ‘‘it is very easy, there is only a hotel and airplane to think
about, and then you go’’ (Celine, France).
The uncomplicated nature of city break trips was also an in?uence on the timing of purchase.
The ?ndings indicate a last minute booking behavior pattern, showing the majority of people
purchasing their city breaks less than a month before departure. This highlights the
spontaneous and in some cases impulsive aspect of these trips. Unlike main vacations
which frequently follow an extensive decision making pattern, city breaks can be conceived,
researched and booked in a matter of days or even hours.
The internet usually played a signi?cant part in these relatively quick travel decisions. The
results show, for example, interviewees were three times more likely to book their city break
online compared to their main vacation. The internet featured signi?cantly throughout the
whole city break decision process. People relied greatly on it for searching, evaluating, and
booking their vacations, and although some expressed frustration at times, there was
nonetheless a certain degree of accomplishment when the trip came together.
You don’t have to go in somewhere and talk to people – you choose what hotel you want, what
area it’s in, and then if you can make it all match up it feels great (Diane, London).
In evaluating the initial parts of the city break travel decision it is interesting to note how ?uidly
and seamlessly people seemed to move between the different stages. In many cases no clear
differentiation was evident between the information search, choice, and purchase elements.
For a number of people these three stages were carried out almost simultaneously.
Once we had decided to get away we just went online, searched around a bit, came across some
cheap ?ights to Dublin and that was it – booked it then and there, all very quick (Howard, Surrey).
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 167
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 some cases certain stages were bypassed altogether. This often happened when people
were invited to join a prearranged trip where the evaluation between alternatives was not an
issue. In such situations the alternative for decision makers was not to go. In one case an
interviewee decided to come to Dublin following a chance conversation with a work colleague:
Well how it came about was, my friend at work was talking one day, and he said he was going to
Dublin with a mate and just asked would I be interested. I decided why not? And here I am (Joe,
London).
Such overlapping or bypassing of stages was a common theme among the city break
respondents and re?ects the spontaneous nature of much of the decision making.
Post purchase evaluation
The ?nal stage in the travel decision process usually consists of some form of post purchase
evaluation, in which visitors measure their experience of the travel product against their
pre-consumption expectations. The result of this process is generally expressed in terms of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction and usually has a bearing on future purchasing behavior. In
order to understand city break visitors’ evaluation of their trip to Dublin, interviewees were
asked to describe their overall experience of the trip in terms of whether it matched their prior
expectations. The vast majority of people (n ¼ 36) stated the experience had matched or
exceeded their expectations, which according to Oliver’s (1987) expectancy discon?rmation
model, means they were satis?ed overall.
As well as con?rming whether or not the city break had lived up to their pre trip expectations,
respondents also gave an assessment of their experience of the trip. ‘‘Friendliness’’ and
‘‘good fun’’ were the most common themes expressed, suggesting an overall positive
evaluation of the city and the trip as a whole. Friendliness, in particular, was interesting as it
did not register signi?cantly as an initial factor in people’s prior expectations of Dublin:
I just found people very pleasant – everyone seemed to be friendly and willing to talk. There just
seems to be a kind of openness there that you don’t seem to get in other cities (Brian,
Nottingham).
The negative comments which people expressed related mainly to high prices, litter, and
congestion. The cost of drink and food in particular was an issue for many while the lack of
child friendly facilities in the city was also commented on.
Towards a new model for the city break decision
This study has shown that city break travelers exhibit a number of distinct characteristics in
their decision-making behavior. These characteristics are re?ective of many contemporary
trip-taking trends such as heavy Internet usage, discretionary vacation taking and the
growing popularity of short breaks. The ?ndings show a decision making process that does
not ?t easily with many of the traditional models. Therefore, based on the ?ndings from this
study, the researchers propose a new model that re?ects the distinct features and
characteristics of the city break travel decision. Figure 1 presents this model and the
following section will explain the rationale behind its design.
One of the ?rst things to note in relation to the model is the fewer number of stages in the
decision process. It consists of just three distinct horizontal boxes re?ecting a much ?atter
appearance compared to other models. The ?rst of these boxes represents the need
recognition stage.
This is the starting point for most models but in this case it is necessary to make a few
important observations. First, the recognition of the need to take a city break often stems
from speci?c situational factors in people’s lives. The ?ndings show how important these
points prove in stimulating the initial need to take a trip. Such situational factors are seldom
acknowledged or, have been marginalized in the traditional models (Sirakaya and
Woodside, 2005). Second, as the ?ndings have shown, the desire to get away and
experience a change of scene (escape) seems particularly signi?cant in the need to take a
PAGE 168
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
)
city break. People see such trips as ideal vehicles to bring some novelty and diversion to the
routine of daily life, a kind of antidote to the stresses of modern living. Third, the initial generic
decision of whether or not to take the trip is of particular importance. As noted previously, the
city break vacation is usually a discretionary one and therefore dissimilar to many main
vacation decisions. The latter often consist of an annual ritual with the decision to go already
decided. By contrast, city break opportunities often occur out of the blue without much
warning. Therefore, the initial generic decision (to take a vacation) is often the most crucial
aspect of the decision process. Indeed, as Decrop and Snelders (2004) point out, the
generic decision does not always follow a rational decision making sequence. For example,
people sometimes have an idea to take a trip, check out alternatives, select the one they
want, but may still not have made the generic decision to go. This is often the case with
discretionary trips such as short breaks where there is a lot of fantasizing. A distinction
therefore needs to be made between generic intention and the actual generic decision.
The second box in the city break model is slightly unusual in that the information search,
evaluation of alternatives, and purchase phases are grouped together. Although the information
search does come ?rst, it intentionally runs into the evaluation and purchase phases. This
re?ects the ?ndings, which show a number of city breakers engaging in all three of these
activities together in quite an unsystematic and at times haphazard manner. In some cases, the
evaluation of alternatives was bypassed and people went straight to the purchase stage, as
represented by the right side of the box. In other situations, people searched for information and
evaluated alternatives simultaneously before purchasing (left side of the box). Undoubtedly, the
presence of the Internet is one of the main reasons for this decision making pattern. People can
search out deals, evaluate them, and make bookings, with just a few clicks of a mouse. In many
ways the internet cuts through the multistage decision models of old, and re?ects the modern
reality of people taking discretionary trips in situations where they increasingly lack consumer
resources such as time, attention, and cognitive processing ability. The Internet represents the
ultimate decision-making tool for the cash rich, time poor, modern traveler.
The ?nal box represents the post purchase evaluation stage and is similar to most other
models. The service is evaluated from the moment the consumer has made the purchase
commitment. The city breaker will make judgments on the service providers they encounter
as well as the destination itself. Interestingly, because city breaks are mostly put together by
individuals themselves, there is no third party to blame if things go wrong such as a travel
agent or tour operator.
Figure 1 City break decision making model
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 169
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In addition to the three main boxes of the decision model, a number of factors appear on
either side of the horizontal dimension. These factors represent the main in?uencers in the
city break decision and fall into four groups:
1. internal variables;
2. external variables;
3. nature of trip; and
4. situational factors.
Some of these are similar to those suggested by other authors but have been adapted to
re?ect the speci?cs of the city break travel decision.
1. The internal variables refer to the personal aspects of the consumer such as, motivation,
image, personality, lifestyle, attitudes, beliefs, and lifecycle stage.
2. External variables include, constraints, pull factors of a destination, marketing mix,
in?uences of family and reference groups, culture and subcultures, social class and
household-related variables.
3. The third factor is the nature of the intended trip. This is very signi?cant in the context of
city breaks as it refers to features such as travel party size, distance, time, and duration of
trip.
4. The ?nal group refers to situational factors and although these could technically come
under external variables, their importance to the city break travel decision merited their
own distinct grouping.
All four of these factors represent the principal in?uences on the overall decision process.
The extent of each one’s in?uence varies from case to case but can be felt at any time or
stage in the process.
Conclusion
This research has shown the importance of type of trip as a determinant of decision-making
behavior and highlights the signi?cance of what Ritchie (1994) refers to as the context in
which choices are made. The traditional models of consumer behavior have problems
accommodating the characteristics of some contemporary travel products such as city
breaks. This is primarily because they fail to recognize a non-systematic approach to
decision making, where the process is not necessarily undertaken by a sole individual in
distinctive stages, and where emotional elements are just as relevant as functional ones. In
addition, many conventional models fail to acknowledge the importance of the nature of the
trip being undertaken. The idea of one, all encompassing travel decision making model that
represents every type of trip is unrealistic. Along with Sirakaya and Woodside (2005), who
claim unique approaches for modeling tourist decisions is long overdue, most scholars see
the need today for a range of models that are re?ective of the differences that exist in travel
decision making. This study shows the city break decision to be distinctive in a number of
ways. The ?ndings reveal a decision process characterized by low involvement behavior
and limited problem solving, with little evidence of the funneling activity that is so often a
feature in other models.
Examining the particular nuances and characteristics of speci?c travel decisions such as
city breaks provides a useful contribution to our understanding of this complex area of
tourism marketing, and further underlines the importance of investigating decision behavior
across all types of trips.
References
Belk, R.W. (1975), ‘‘Situational variables and consumer behavior’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2,
pp. 157-67.
PAGE 170
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
)
Bieger, J.R. and Laesser, C. (2004), ‘‘Information sources for travel decisions: towards a source process
model’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 234-48.
Bloy, D. (2000), ‘‘An assessment of tourist motivations within a multiple holiday taking context’’, in
Robinson, M., Long, P., Evans, N., Sharpley, R. and Swarbrooke, J. (Eds), Motivations, Behavior and
Tourist Types, Business Education Publishers, Sunderland, pp. 27-44.
Burtenshaw, D., Bateman, M. and Ashworth, G.J. (1991), The City in West Europe, 2nd ed., Wiley,
Chichester.
Crompton, J.L. (1979), ‘‘Motivations for pleasure vacation’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 408-24.
Decrop, A. (2007), ‘‘The formation of destination choice sets: new light through old windows’’, paper
presented at 2007 Advances in Tourism Marketing Conference, 10-12 September, Valencia.
Decrop, A. and Snelders, D. (2004), ‘‘Planning the summer vacation: an adaptable process’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1008-30.
Fodness, D. (1994), ‘‘Measuring tourist motivation’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 555-81.
Freitag, R. (2006), ‘‘Using market intelligence in the commercial world’’, presentation made at the
symposium on market intelligence, 4 October, Malta, available at: www.etc-corporate.org//DWL/Rolf.
Freitag_Market_Intellig._Commercial_World_onlineversion.pdf
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J. and Coney, K.A. (1995), Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing
Strategy, 6th ed., Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Hudson, S. (1999), ‘‘Consumer behavior related to tourism’’, in Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y. (Eds),
Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, Haworth Hospitality Press, New York, NY, pp. 7-32.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982), ‘‘Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: a rejoinder’’, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 256-62.
Jeng, J. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2002), ‘‘Conceptualizing the travel decision-making hierarchy: a review
of recent developments’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7, pp. 15-32.
Lovelock, C.H. and Wright, C. (1999), Principles of Service Marketing and Management, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982), Tourism Economic, Physical, and Social Impacts, Longman, London.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miller, W.L. and Crabtree, B.F. (1994), ‘‘Clinical research’’, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds),
Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 340-52.
Moutinho, L. (1987), ‘‘Consumer behavior in tourism’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10,
pp. 1-44.
Nicosia, F.M. (1966), Consumer Decision Processes, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Oliver, R.L. (1987), ‘‘An investigation of the interrelationship between consumer dissatisfaction and
complaint reports’’, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, Utah, pp. 218-22.
Richter, L.K. (2003), ‘‘International tourismand its global public health consequences’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 340-7.
Ritchie, J. (1994), ‘‘Research on leisure behavior and tourism: state of the art’’, in Gasser, R. and
Weiermair, K. (Eds), Spoilt for Choice: Decision Making Processes and Preference Change of Tourists:
Intertemporal and Intercountry Perspectives, Kulturverlag, Thaur, pp. 2-27.
Ryan, C. (2002), ‘‘From motivation to assessment’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), The Tourist Experience, 2nd ed.,
Continuum, London, pp. 58-77.
Schott, C. (2002), ‘‘Motivation and lifestyles amongst young holidaymakers: a case-study of Exeter’’,
PhD Thesis, University of Exeter, Exeter.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 171
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
)
Sirakaya, E. and Woodside, A.G. (2005), ‘‘Building and testing theories of decision making by
travellers’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 815-32.
Squire, S.J. (1994), ‘‘Gender and tourist experiences: assessing women’s shared meanings for Beatrix
Potter’’, Leisure Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 195-209.
Sung, H.H., Morrison, A.M., Hong, G.S. and O’Leary, J.T. (2001), ‘‘The effects of household and trip
characteristics on trip types: a consumer behavioural approach for segmenting the U.S. domestic
leisure travel market’’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 46-68.
Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (2007), Consumer Behavior in Tourism, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Teare, R. (1992), ‘‘An exploration of the consumer decision process for hospitality services’’, in Teare, R.,
Moutinho, L. and Morgan, N. (Eds), Managing and Marketing Services in the 1990s, Cassell, London,
pp. 233-48.
Teare, R. (1994), ‘‘Consumer decision making’’, in Teare, R., Mazanec, J.A., Crawford-Welch, S. and
Calver, S. (Eds), Marketing in Hospitality and Tourism: A Consumer Focus, Cassell, London, pp. 1-96.
Trew, J. and Cockerell, N. (2002), ‘‘The European market for UK city breaks’’, Insights, Vol. 14 No. 58,
pp. 85-111.
Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. (1990), ‘‘Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 17, pp. 432-48.
Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. (1992), ‘‘The roles of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in pleasure travel
destination decisions’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 18-25.
Woodside, A.G. and Lysonski, S. (1989), ‘‘A general model of traveller destination choice’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 8-14.
Woodside, A.G. and Sherrell, D. (1977), ‘‘Traveler evoked, inept and inert sets of vacation destinations’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 16, winter, pp. 14-18.
Woodward, D., Green, E. and Hebron, S. (1988), ‘‘The Shef?eld study of gender and leisure: its
methodological approach’’, Leisure Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 95-104.
Further reading
Engel, J.E., Kollat, D.T. and Blackwell, R.D. (1968), Consumer Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York, NY.
World Travel (2005), Market Global Travel Report 2004/05, IPK International.
Corresponding author
Gerard Dunne can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 172
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
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. Jamie Carlson, Philip J. Rosenberger, Mohammad M. Rahman. 2015. A hierarchical model of perceived value of group-
oriented travel experiences to major events and its influences on satisfaction and future group-travel intentions. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing 1-17. [CrossRef]
2. J. Charterina, G. Aparicio. 2015. A comparison of antecedents of satisfaction in city break traveling. Revista Española de
Investigación en Marketing ESIC 19, 71-82. [CrossRef]
3. Jamie Carlson, Philip J. Rosenberger, Mohammad M. Rahman. 2015. Cultivating group-oriented travel behaviour to major
events: assessing the importance of customer-perceived value, enduring event involvement and attitude towards the host
destination. Journal of Marketing Management 31, 1065-1089. [CrossRef]
4. 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]
5. Nicole Regan, Jamie Carlson, Philip J. Rosenberger. 2012. Factors Affecting Group-Oriented Travel Intention to Major
Events. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 29, 185-204. [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_638446432.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to examine the city break travel decision, and in particular, to
develop a decision making model that reflects the characteristics of this type of trip taking
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Towards a decision making model for city break travel
Gerard Dunne Sheila Flanagan J oan Buckley
Article information:
To cite this document:
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 - 172
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139573
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 40 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1587 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Kenneth F. Hyde, Alain Decrop, (2011),"New perspectives on vacation decision making", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 103-111http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139537
J ames D. Hess, Arnold C. Bacigalupo, (2011),"Enhancing decisions and decision-making processes through the application of emotional
intelligence skills", Management Decision, Vol. 49 Iss 5 pp. 710-721http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111130805
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
)
Towards a decision making model for city
break travel
Gerard Dunne, Sheila Flanagan and Joan Buckley
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the city break travel decision, and in particular, to
develop a decision making model that re?ects the characteristics of this type of trip taking.
Design/methodology/approach – The research follows a sequential mixed methods approach
consisting of two phases. Phase One involves a quantitative survey of 1,000 visitors to Dublin. The
research distinguishes and compares city break and non-city break visitor cohorts. Phase Two entails a
qualitative analysis (involving 40 in-depth interviews) that speci?cally examines the decision making
behavior of city break visitors.
Findings – The research shows city break trips to be relatively inexpensive, uncomplicated, and
discretionary in nature. The city break travel decision emerges from quite distinct motives where
situational factors proved particularly in?uential. The decision process mostly entailed low involvement /
limited problem solving behavior with strong internet usage evident throughout.
Originality/value – The ?ndings show that many traditional decision making models have problems
incorporating contemporary travel decisions such as city breaks. This is because such models generally
fail to recognize a non-systematic approach to decision making, where travelers do not necessarily
undertake the process in distinctive stages, and where emotional elements are as relevant as functional
ones. This study supports the need for a range of models that are re?ective of the differences that exist in
travel decision making – models that can distinguish the speci?c nuances and characteristics of
particular decision situations.
Keywords Decision making, Cities, Involvement, Ireland
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Consumer decision making has been the subject of tremendous research activity over the
past 30 years. Yet, as Sirakaya and Woodside (2005, p.816) point out, ‘‘No single unifying
theory has emerged across disciplines to describe, explain, or predict consumer decisions,
and it seems unlikely that individual decision processes ?t neatly into a single decision
theory.’’ The travel decision in particular remains an exceptionally complex and intriguing
phenomenon, due in part to the ever widening range of destinations on offer, the variation in
vacation types, and increased discretionary time and income. Understanding travelers’
decision making behavior is essential to the success of tourist destinations and tourism
businesses and therefore the travel decision has attracted signi?cant attention fromscholars
and researchers in recent years.
Travel decision making research
According to Jeng and Fesenmaier (2002) much of the research effort in relation to travel
decision making has followed two perspectives. The ?rst perspective relates to the affective
nature of decision making and choice behavior including attitudes, beliefs, involvement, risk
perception, traits, and personality. The second concerns the development of models that
PAGE 158
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011, pp. 158-172, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111139573
Gerard Dunne and Sheila
Flanagan are both based at
the Dublin Institute of
Technology, Dublin, Ireland.
Joan Buckley is based at
University College Cork,
Cork, Ireland.
Received: April 2008
Revised: May 2009
Accepted: July 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
)
can approximate and predict decision making and choice behavior and that assume
individuals follow a utility maximisation strategy. Researchers have presented many such
models in the literature in recent years. Decrop (2007) points out that most models of
vacation decision making are presented either in the form of choice sets (e.g. Um and
Crompton, 1990; Woodside and Lysonski, 1989) or in the form of cognitive processes (e.g.
Mathieson and Wall, 1982; Moutinho, 1987). The choice set approach, with its emphasis on
the destination choice process, has received particular attention in the literature in recent
years. This is due to its relative simplicity and openness to empirical testing compared to
other more complex approaches, and by extension its practical use for destination
marketers.
Most of the early decision making models relating to travel purchases were adaptations of
the grand models of consumer behavior (Nicosia, 1966; Howard and Sheth, 1969; Engel,
Kollat and Belk, 1975z). However, as these grand models were originally developed for
tangible products their application to tourism services is limited. Most still assume the
decision maker to be rationalistic and logical. In reality, the travel decision can often be
in?uenced by the emotional appeal of products or the advice of family and friends. Many
traditional models also assume the decision process to be sequential in nature, following a
funneling pattern where the decision maker goes through a variety of alternatives in a
systematic way until they arrive at a ?nal choice. Traditional models assume that people
follow this logical sequence in a rational, functional manner. However, because of the
subjective nature of decision making and the adaptability of the consumer it is important to
recognize, as Decrop and Snelders (2004, p. 1011) put it, ‘‘that there is not just one but more
possible types of vacation decision making processes.’’ These authors give the example of
the growing phenomenon of last-minute booking behavior as a factor that traditional models
have not taken into account. Swarbrooke and Horner (2007, p. 77) make a similar point when
they suggest most of the major models predate recent developments in tourist behavior
such as ‘‘last-minute spontaneous purchases’’ and the ‘‘growing use of the Internet and
multi-media systems that can be accessed from the tourists own home.’’ Hudson (1999,
p. 29) makes an important observation on the traditional models when he points out, ‘‘they
are stereotypical and generalized whereas, in reality the decision process will vary
signi?cantly among different groups of tourists.’’ This is a valid point, particularly as
researchers increasingly recognize the signi?cance of type of trip in understanding visitor
behavior (Sung et al., 2001). Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) describe type of trip as being a
crucial element in people’s travel decision process. In some situations the choosing of the
destination can be of secondary importance in the decision making process. For certain
types of vacations, particularly those of a discretionary, opportunistic, or last minute nature,
factors such as travel party, duration, distance, and date ?exibility may have a stronger
in?uence on the decision making behavior undertaken. It is important that researchers take
into account the type of trip that tourists are undertaking when examining the travel decision
process. This paper examines one of the most popular types of trips that has emerged in
recent years, the city break, and examines the decision making process involved in taking
such vacations.
City break travel
City breaks represent a travel niche that has grown signi?cantly in Europe in recent years.
According to IPK International’s European Travel Monitor, European city tourism grew by 20
percent in 2005, compared to an increase of just 3 percent in sun and beach vacations
(Freitag, 2006). This growth has helped to popularize and regenerate several European
cities and has assisted in offsetting the seasonality problems often encountered by urban
destinations. The importance and economic value of the city break market is increasingly
acknowledged by city managers and administrators.
So what is a city break? The most widely used de?nition of a city break is, ‘‘a short leisure trip
to one city or town, with no overnight stay at any other destination during the trip’’ (Trew and
Cockerell, 2002, p. 86). This de?nition recognizes that urban tourists can be divided into
those who come to recreate solely in a city milieu and those who visit the city as part of a
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 159
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
)
larger trip. The growth in the former can be attributed to a number of factors, including the
expansion of low cost airlines and the trend towards shorter and more frequent trip taking.
However another equally important factor is the changing perception of cities as
destinations. The city is increasingly viewed as, not just an entry, exit or transit point for
travelers, but a desirable destination in its own right.
Method
A case study approach was used to explore the decision making process involved in taking
a city break. Dublin, as one of the most successful city break destinations in Europe, was the
principal focus of the investigation. The research follows a mixed methods design involving
both quantitative and qualitative investigations. This approach has increasingly been used
in tourism and leisure studies (Squire, 1994; Woodward et al., 1988; Schott, 2002), allowing
researchers to collect a variety of types of data that may otherwise be dif?cult to acquire.
Within the combined methods design, the researchers considered a sequential approach
the most suitable. This consisted of conducting two phases to the research project, with the
results of the ?rst phase essential for the planning of the next (Miller and Crabtree, 1994).
Phase One involved a quantitative study that provided particular data and knowledge
necessary to carry out the second phase (Phase Two), a more in-depth qualitative enquiry.
The researchers considered such a combined methods approach as the most appropriate
to achieve the principal aim of the research – to explore the decision making behavior of city
break travelers. In Phase One the need to build up a picture of city break visitors to Dublin in
terms of their pro?le and the characteristics of their trips meant a broad quantitative enquiry
was most suitable. A survey instrument involving 1,000 visitor questionnaires was utilized.
This instrument provided a wealth of information concerning tourists to Dublin including
visitor pro?le data, trip characteristics, booking behavior, and activities engaged in. A
comparative analysis was carried out between city breakers and non-city break visitors
(those visiting the city as part of a wider trip to Ireland). This proved very useful in identifying
distinctive characteristics and features of the city break market. Chi-square tests were used
to see if the difference between the two segments of travelers (city break and non city break
visitors) was signi?cant.
The results of Phase One provided a useful pro?le of the city break market and shed some
initial light on the city break travel decision. However in order to get a fuller and more detailed
perspective of the decision making process it was necessary to undertake a more qualitative
investigation. This was achieved in Phase Two by conducting 40 in-depth interviews with city
break travelers to Dublin. The intention here was to gain a thorough understanding of each
visitor’s travel decision story from beginning to end and to uncover what Geertz (1973) calls
the ‘‘thick descriptions’’ of people’s experiences. The data elicited from these personal
interviews covered all the main aspects of the city break decision process including motives,
information gathering, choice, purchase, and consumption experiences. In addition, in order
to provide some useful comparative data, respondents were asked to compare their city
break decision with that of their last main vacation. This provided some useful insights in
relation to the distinctiveness of the city break travel decision and helped to show how type
of trip could in?uence the nature of the decision making process.
Data analysis in Phase Two involved making sense of the text or narrative data collected from
the in-depth interviews. For this study a three stage approach, as outlined by Miles and
Huberman (1994), was followed. This consisted of: data reduction, data display, and
conclusion drawing/veri?cation. Data reduction involved breaking the text into ‘‘chunks’’ and
attaching a reference or code to each piece in order to identify key themes and patterns.
Data display consisted of summarizing and presenting the structure and patterns emerging,
while data veri?cation involved checking for alternative explanations or seeking other means
to verify the data.
Overall the combination of methods proved effective. Both phases complemented each
other with Phase One setting the scene by presenting a picture of the city break travel market
and providing details that subsequently helped in sample selection for Phase Two.
PAGE 160
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
)
Consequently the quality and richness of the data from Phase Two allowed themes and
concepts relating to city break motivation and decision making to emerge. This combination
of methods was crucial in creating a synergic relationship (Schott, 2002) that contributed
positively to the overall research effort.
Findings
The main focus of this paper relates to the results from the in-depth interviews (Phase Two).
However, in order to give useful background information on the city break market, it is
necessary to also present the main ?ndings from the survey (Phase One). Therefore this
section begins with some of the principal results from the visitor survey and is followed by
?ndings relating speci?cally to the city break decision making process (Phase Two).
Phase One ?ndings
The ?ndings from Phase One primarily involve a comparative analysis between two visitor
segments, city breakers and non-city break tourists. City breakers represent vacationers
who were visiting the city only (and no other place) while non-city breakers consist of people
visiting the city as part of a wider trip involving other destinations in Ireland. Chi-square tests
were carried out to examine any statistically signi?cant associations between types of
visitors and a variety of variables relating to their trip. The main aim was to highlight areas
where the city break market showed distinctive characteristics or features. Three main areas
were focused on in the survey, visitor pro?le, trip characteristics, and visitor behavior.
Visitor pro?le
In relation to visitor pro?le the ?ndings show three characteristics in particular where city
break visitors were distinctive; origin, educational achievement, and occupation (see
Table I). The results corresponding to visitor origin showed the greatest difference between
the two visitor groups. The vast majority (79 percent) of city breakers originated from Britain,
with just 3 percent coming from North America. By contrast non-city break vacationers
showed a signi?cantly more even distribution with 31 percent from the UK and 30 percent
from North America.
In relation to both occupation and education, the ?ndings show city breakers exhibiting a
more varied range of backgrounds compared to non-city break visitors. As a type of trip, city
breaks appear to represent a more accessible vacation option for a larger section of the
population, possibly re?ecting what Richter (2003, p. 340) refers to as the ‘‘democratization
of travel.’’
Trip characteristics
The ?ndings in relation to trip characteristics also highlight a number of distinctive aspects of
the city break segment. For example, city breakers showed a clear preference for shorter
vacations, particularly trips between one and three nights (56 percent). This concurs with
Burtenshaw et al. ’s (1991) belief that visitors can grasp the attractions of a city in just a few
days. Another important characteristic was the distinctive arrival patterns shown by city
Table I Chi-square test on type of visitor and visitor pro?le variables
Visitor pro?le characteristic Signi?cance level Cramer’s V P value ,0.05 (l)
Origin 0.000 0.518 l
Age 0.569 0.078
Occupation 0.023 0.120 l
Education 0.000 0.206 l
Gender 0.159 0.050
Note: The symbol ‘‘l’’ identi?es statistically signi?cant associations detected
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 161
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
)
breakers. Their tendency to come in considerable numbers during off peak periods was
quite signi?cant (see Table II).
City break trips also proved particularly popular for couples, with the majority of people
travelling with a partner (59 percent). Interestingly, children hardly feature at all in these trips,
indicating people’s apparent preference for their city breaks to be adult focused.
Visitor behavior
The third main area of investigation in Phase One looked at issues in relation to visitor
behavior. The ?ndings show city break visitors to be considerable users of the Internet, both
in terms of sourcing information and making bookings. They were signi?cantly more likely to
book their travel online (65 percent) compared to non-city break leisure visitors (40 percent).
In addition, they tended to display a more impulsive decision making pattern of behavior
(evident from both the late timing of their bookings and the considerable in?uence that
cheap airfares had on their decision to travel).
In keeping with the sequential nature of the study, speci?c aspects of the data were also
used to select an accurate group of city break visitors to participate in the in-depth
interviews for Phase Two. Findings relating to visitor origin, age pro?le, timing of visit, and
activities engaged in, were particularly useful in this regard. The following section presents
the results from this interviewing process (Phase Two).
Phase Two
The second phase of the study involved carrying out in-depth interviews with 40 city break
visitors to Dublin. Drawing on the ?ndings from these interviews the city break decision is
discussed under three main headings:
1. Pre-purchase behavior;
2. Choice and purchase; and
3. Post purchase evaluation.
Pre-purchase behavior
Pre-purchase behavior involves the early stages of the city break travel decision, including
the motives that ?rst stimulated the desire to take the trip, the search for information and the
subsequent level of involvement observed.
In terms of motives the ?ndings from Phase Two show a number of speci?c ‘‘push’’ and
‘‘pull’’ factors that featured prominently in the city break travel decision and when these were
compared to respondent’s main vacation motives some interesting distinctions emerged.
These are illustrated in Tables III and IV where the principal push and pull factors for each
type of trip are presented. Each table lists the motives in order of prevalence in the research
?ndings, that is, how often people cited the motives as reasons for taking the trip.
Table II Timing of visit by type of vacationer
X
2
¼ 51.68 p ¼ 0.000 Cramer’s V ¼ 0.255 City break vacationer Non-city break vacationer
Winter (%) 17.2 4.3
Spring (%) 23.2 14.9
Summer (%) 34.0 43.3
Fall (%) 25.6 37.5
Total
Percent 100 100
n 379 416
PAGE 162
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
)
Push motives
The desire to escape from something in the home environment emerged as the strongest
push motive for city break visitors. Iso-Ahola (1982) refers to this push phenomenon as
‘‘avoidance,’’ the notion of people taking a vacation in order to get away from something or
someone. The things people were escaping varied quite considerably but for most they just
wanted a break from routine or to get away fromthe humdrum of everyday life. In this regard
the city break provided a quick, convenient and relatively cheap opportunity to do this. The
escape was not always just a break froma mundane environment either – many people were
using the city break as a respite from the pressures of parenting:
We have a young son – he’s one and a half and he’s into everything at the moment. Jane’s mother
took him for these few days. It’s great to just get the break (Brian, Nottingham).
This is consistent with what Teare (1994) describes as people’s need for a break from family
or domestic commitments.
The city break ?ndings also revealed people’s need to escape was accompanied by a desire
to do things at the destination. This included sightseeing, visiting pubs and clubs, attending
events, and generally experiencing the city’s attractions. In this regard a signi?cant
distinction can be seen between respondent’s city break motives and their main vacation
motives. For the latter, people placed a lot more emphasis on relaxation and ‘‘recharging the
batteries’’, whereas the city break was clearly seen as a doing and experiencing trip. This is
similar to what Fodness (1994, p. 564) describes as the ‘‘utilitarian function of leisure travel’’,
where people are escaping on the one hand but are doing so with some clear leisure goal in
mind, or as he puts it ‘‘an escape to recreational or fun activities.’’ The difference between
the two types of vacations is apparent from the following response from a visitor when he
compared his last main vacation to his city break to Dublin:
Portugal was probably more relaxing with us lazing about, whereas Dublin would be more a short
break where there is so much to do, and you are walking a lot, you’re seeing a lot, you know, you
are doing a lot – we seem to be doing a lot (Kieran, Northern Ireland).
The second most popular motive for taking a city break involved the desire to satisfy a social
need. This again is a common push motive found in many motivational studies. Crompton
(1979) divides the social motive into two main categories: enhancement of kinship relationships
and facilitation of social interaction. The former refers to the desire to enhance or enrich family
relationships, while the latter represents a need to ‘‘meet newpeople in different locations.’’ The
Table III Push factors – city break and main vacation
City break Percent Main vacation Percent
Escape 38 Relax 35
Socialize (internal) 33 Social 25
Self esteem (gift giving) 15 Escape 20
Fun/excitement 13 Fun/excitement 10
Socialize (external) 10 Prestige 8
Relax 10 Education 8
Table IV Pull factors – city break and main vacation
City Break Percent Main Vacation Percent
Convenience/ease of access 35 Sun, sand, sea 38
Cost of travel 33 Positive/fun image 20
Fun destination image 23 Quality of facilities 15
Pre arranged event 23 Cost of trip 10
Friendly image 13 Previous visit 10
Previous visit 10 VFR 8
Tourist sites 5
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 163
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
)
?ndings for Dublin indicate the presence of both of these motives and these are classi?ed as
internal for socializing within the travel party, and external for socializing outside the travel party
(see Table III). For city break trips, the desire to enhance relationships was found to be primarily
in the context of partners, spouses or other adults, and rarely involved families with children.
The ?ndings show the opposite for main vacations where the enhancement of relationships
mostly involved a wider family unit including children. People used such vacations as a chance
to come together and spend ‘‘quality time’’ as a family. Similarly, differences between the types
of vacations were evident in relation to external socializing. For a number of people the city
break offered a chance to meet and interact with locals. Such external socializing was clearly
an important feature of the vacation for these visitors.
Listening to music in pubs and meeting and talking to people – this is important to me in Dublin.
(Maria, Italy).
By contrast this aspect hardly emerged at all in people’s main vacation motives where the
emphasis was more on socializing within the travel party.
One of the most notable city break push motives to emerge was the gift-giving theme that
featured in a number of trips (n ¼ 6). The motivation behind such gift giving was interesting
to observe. On one level, people purchased the trips for quite benevolent motives – ‘‘The
reason we came this time was Kev had a 50
th
birthday, and this was my birthday present to
him’’ (Paula, Birmingham) – but on another level, self esteemmotives were also evident, that
is, the giving of a city break as a present made people feel good about themselves.
Pull motives
The ?ndings showpull factors were extremely important in the city break travel decision. These
relate to the features or attributes of the destination that contribute to the desire to travel. Two
pull factors, ease of access and cheap ?ights, proved to be particularly in?uential. Both these
factors can be attributed to the growth of low cost air travel in recent years. The increased
presence of budget carriers such as Ryanair in the European market has greatly facilitated the
ease with which people can undertake point-to-point international travel:
We left home at 7 a.m. in the morning and arrived here at 7.52 a.m. I mean it’s incredible, I couldn’t
believe it for 70p each way – I mean that’s much less than I pay going to work. Although I knowthe
taxes bring it up but still it’s amazing. (Ruth, Glasgow).
Interestingly, two-thirds of interviewees lived in close proximity to an airport served by low
cost carriers. This convenience was a crucial factor for many in the decision to come to
Dublin. A number of people stated they purposely examined the low cost airline routes
served by their nearest airport and made their destination choice on this basis:
It was basically anywhere where the low cost airfares travel companies ?ew to, from Newcastle
airport. (Chris, Newcastle).
For people’s main vacations however, the importance of ease of access was less evident. Of
much more relevance in that decision was the allure of sun, sand and sea. Such heliotropic
motives re?ected the family nature of most of these trips and the keen desire to relax while on
vacation.
Another noteworthy pull motive to emerge for city break visits was the attractiveness of
pre-arranged events in the city. A number of trips centered on a range of events including
concerts, sports games, exhibitions and parties. All admitted they would not have been in
Dublin (at that time) if it were not for the event. Again this motive was very speci?c to city
breaks and did not ?gure in the results for the main vacation decision.
A ?nal point in relation to city break motivation concerns the situational factors that were
present during the travel decision. These relate to circumstances that are ‘‘particular to a
time and place of observation [. . .] and which have a demonstrable and systematic effect on
current behavior’’ (Belk, 1975, p. 158). The ?ndings reveal many such situational variables,
most of which had a strong bearing on the decision to travel to Dublin. For example, one
PAGE 164
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
)
respondent found himself in circumstances which conveniently facilitated him taking a
discretionary trip:
Well I’m between jobs at the moment, I haven’t been doing anything. So I decided to come here
for a few days. (Frank, Scotland).
Another respondent faced losing vacation entitlements if he did not use them up before the
end of the year. A city break to Dublin was promptly undertaken. Such ?ndings show how
in?uential situational factors can be in the decision making process. It also highlights the
unpredictable nature of the travel decision, particularly as situational factors can emanate
from any aspect of a person’s life.
Overall the results underline the multi-motivational nature of vacation decision-making and
con?rm Bloy’s (2000) assertion that people’s travel motives change according to the nature
of the vacation they take.
Information search
A number of signi?cant ?ndings emerged in relation to the city break information search.
First, the range of information sources that people consulted was quite narrow. The
interviews show city breakers on average considered 2.5 sources of information prior to
purchase (including memory of previous visits). This is a relatively small number for an
international vacation. The ?ndings indicate a search pattern that focused mostly on sources
that were both immediate and close at hand, namely, the Internet and family and friends. The
internet in particular was heavily used by city break travelers. People appreciated its
convenience, especially in situations where the decision making timeframe was short.
Well it’s handy isn’t it, you have it all there, and you don’t have to leave the house. We certainly
didn’t have time to start collecting brochures and stuff (Lorna, London).
It is interesting to note the crucial role the internet plays in what seems to be a general trend
towards last minute information search behavior. Previous decision models, particularly those
older than ten years, fail to re?ect adequately the importance and signi?cance of this mediumin
contemporary travel decision making. The scope and scale of information which is currently
available online to potential travelers has, in many cases, made the internet a one-stop shop for
information seekers, eliminating the need to consult other more traditional information sources.
In this study it proved to be the most consulted information source with over 60 percent of city
break interviewees claiming to have used it during their decision making process.
Level of involvement
The research highlighted some signi?cant points in relation to the amount of time and effort
put into the city break purchase decision. The literature suggests travel service products
possess certain functional, ?nancial, physical, psychological, and social risks for consumers
(Lovelock and Wright, 1999; Teare, 1992). It is the desire to reduce these risks that causes
people to engage in much pre-purchase planning and information search effort. The results
show that city breaks were seen by most respondents to possess few of these risk factors
and as a result were characterized by low involvement search behavior, particularly when
compared to main family vacations. One of the principal reasons for this was the absence of
children from most city break trips. This is re?ected in the following reply in which a
respondent compares his city break to his last main vacation in terms of planning:
I would say this vacation was more . . .spontaneous. We did not plan so much – my wife found a
cheap ?ight on the Internet and we decided to go together, just us. Our main vacation last year
was different – we took our son. Obviously we need to plan more because it is focused on him
(Phillipe, France).
This response shows how the city break trip was seen as an adult focused vacation and
therefore could be decided on spontaneously without too much planning or effort. The main
vacation however was perceived differently, as the participation of a child meant the
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 165
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
)
respondent had to think more about his requirements and ensure a suitable destination was
chosen.
Another reason to explain city break visitors’ low involvement behavior relates to the size and
expense of the trips. According to Bieger and Laesser (2004) fear of economic risk often
leads to high investments of time, effort and resources in customer decision making. The
?ndings show most city breaks were shorter and less expensive compared to main
vacations and therefore perceived as less risky. In addition, the uncomplicated nature of
most city breaks also contributed to less planning and search effort compared to main
vacations. This point is highlighted in the following comment where a respondent compared
a recent main vacation in Estonia to the city break:
I went to Estonia recently, and Estonia is very different from a city break – it’s a very complex trip
[. . .] a city break has less parts and so they are easier to manage, but long breaks have more
parts and activities so they require more time in the planning (Michael, London).
It is important to point out that low involvement behavior was also evident in main vacation
situations, particularly where the main vacation consisted of a repurchase, or what Hawkins
et al. (1995) refer to as a destination-loyal decision. In general, factors such as travel party,
nature of destination, duration, and organization of trip (i.e. package or independent) tended
to have a strong in?uence on the level of involvement in all vacation decisions.
Choice and purchase
One of the most interesting factors to emerge from the interviews was the small number of
alternatives considered by the majority of city break tourists. Over half of all interviewees
(n ¼ 23) chose Dublin without considering any alternative. Many city breaks involved travel
opportunities that presented themselves such as sports games, concerts, and stag/hen
parties. Such scenarios did not generally involve alternatives and if the event were not
happening in Dublin they probably would not have taken the city break at that time. The
following comment by a rugby supporter highlights this:
No, we didn’t look at anywhere else. I mean we came primarily for the game, so if that wasn’t on
we probably wouldn’t be here now (Ali, England).
The outcome of such decisions was often heavily in?uenced by personal circumstances that
people faced at the time (e.g. money issues, work commitments, domestic responsibilities,
etc.).
Evaluating alternatives
For those who did contemplate alternatives, the range of options considered was quite
small. The ?ndings show interviewees considered just 13 destinations in total, with Prague,
Amsterdam, and Glasgow being the most commonly mentioned. All but two were urban
locations, indicating people’s speci?c desire to visit a city, as opposed to some other kind of
destination. It is likely that cities ?tted in better with the length and nature of the trip being
taken. Respondents commonly referred to the convenience of cities as destinations, where
direct access without the need for further onward travel was a big advantage, particularly
when the duration of the trip was relatively short.
The results also show people’s individual evoked sets to be quite small, particularly when
compared to other studies (Woodside and Sherrell, 1977; Ryan, 2002; Woodside and
Lysonski, 1989). With an average set size of just 1.67, the city break decision was noticeable
by how little evaluating activity people engaged in during the choice process. Moreover,
there was very little sign of the funneling process which most of the traditional choice set
models suggest. For example, no evidence emerged of a multi-stage choice process made
up of early and late consideration sets, as suggested by Um and Crompton (1992). Instead,
the city break choice process generally consisted of limited, low involvement decision
making that in many cases was spontaneous and opportunistic.
PAGE 166
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
)
Where alternatives were considered, the ?ndings show respondents employed both
compensatory and non-compensatory heuristics. The choice of Dublin was most frequently
in?uenced by the cost of ?ying and the ease of access to the city. These two attributes, which
featured prominently as pull motives, were central to most people’s decision in selecting
Dublin. The cost of the ?ight was particularly persuasive, with people commonly using
compensatory rules based on this point. For example, in a number of cases respondents ?rst
considered other cities but ended up choosing Dublin following a trade-off strategy in which
the cheap ?ight compensated for other comparative weaknesses.
Originally we were considering Amsterdam, but the ?ights had gone up quite a bit and so we
thought about Dublin. We were able to get here for half the price of Amsterdam (Dave, Scotland).
The ‘‘ease of access’’ attribute, also emerged as being highly in?uential in the decision to
travel to Dublin. The relative simplicity with which people could access the city was a very
important factor for many city breakers. A number of these used the ‘‘elimination by aspects’’
rule, in which they applied a cut-off point that involved the decision to only consider
destinations served from their local airport. Any city destination that did not meet this criterion
was essentially disregarded. Such behavior shows the importance city break visitors place on
convenience, mainly due to time constraints. It also highlights the market potential of
geographical areas within an hour or two of airports that serve city break destinations.
In addition to these two important attributes the decision to come to Dublin was also
in?uenced by the prospect of fun. Much of this fun centered around visiting pubs and clubs.
Dublin’s lively ambience was seen as an attractive feature with people regularly referring to
the buzz and the ‘‘craic’’ (fun) aspect of the city.
Booking behavior
A number of important ?ndings emerged in terms of how people purchased their city break
trips. First, it was interesting to note how uncomplicated most city break products were – 83
percent consisted of transport and accommodation elements only. This is a signi?cant point,
as the simplicity of city breaks is central to their popularity. Having to research other
elements of a vacation such as transfers, kids clubs and car hire can be time consuming and
unappealing, particularly for someone contemplating an unplanned, discretionary trip. As
one city breaker succinctly put it – ‘‘it is very easy, there is only a hotel and airplane to think
about, and then you go’’ (Celine, France).
The uncomplicated nature of city break trips was also an in?uence on the timing of purchase.
The ?ndings indicate a last minute booking behavior pattern, showing the majority of people
purchasing their city breaks less than a month before departure. This highlights the
spontaneous and in some cases impulsive aspect of these trips. Unlike main vacations
which frequently follow an extensive decision making pattern, city breaks can be conceived,
researched and booked in a matter of days or even hours.
The internet usually played a signi?cant part in these relatively quick travel decisions. The
results show, for example, interviewees were three times more likely to book their city break
online compared to their main vacation. The internet featured signi?cantly throughout the
whole city break decision process. People relied greatly on it for searching, evaluating, and
booking their vacations, and although some expressed frustration at times, there was
nonetheless a certain degree of accomplishment when the trip came together.
You don’t have to go in somewhere and talk to people – you choose what hotel you want, what
area it’s in, and then if you can make it all match up it feels great (Diane, London).
In evaluating the initial parts of the city break travel decision it is interesting to note how ?uidly
and seamlessly people seemed to move between the different stages. In many cases no clear
differentiation was evident between the information search, choice, and purchase elements.
For a number of people these three stages were carried out almost simultaneously.
Once we had decided to get away we just went online, searched around a bit, came across some
cheap ?ights to Dublin and that was it – booked it then and there, all very quick (Howard, Surrey).
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 167
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 some cases certain stages were bypassed altogether. This often happened when people
were invited to join a prearranged trip where the evaluation between alternatives was not an
issue. In such situations the alternative for decision makers was not to go. In one case an
interviewee decided to come to Dublin following a chance conversation with a work colleague:
Well how it came about was, my friend at work was talking one day, and he said he was going to
Dublin with a mate and just asked would I be interested. I decided why not? And here I am (Joe,
London).
Such overlapping or bypassing of stages was a common theme among the city break
respondents and re?ects the spontaneous nature of much of the decision making.
Post purchase evaluation
The ?nal stage in the travel decision process usually consists of some form of post purchase
evaluation, in which visitors measure their experience of the travel product against their
pre-consumption expectations. The result of this process is generally expressed in terms of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction and usually has a bearing on future purchasing behavior. In
order to understand city break visitors’ evaluation of their trip to Dublin, interviewees were
asked to describe their overall experience of the trip in terms of whether it matched their prior
expectations. The vast majority of people (n ¼ 36) stated the experience had matched or
exceeded their expectations, which according to Oliver’s (1987) expectancy discon?rmation
model, means they were satis?ed overall.
As well as con?rming whether or not the city break had lived up to their pre trip expectations,
respondents also gave an assessment of their experience of the trip. ‘‘Friendliness’’ and
‘‘good fun’’ were the most common themes expressed, suggesting an overall positive
evaluation of the city and the trip as a whole. Friendliness, in particular, was interesting as it
did not register signi?cantly as an initial factor in people’s prior expectations of Dublin:
I just found people very pleasant – everyone seemed to be friendly and willing to talk. There just
seems to be a kind of openness there that you don’t seem to get in other cities (Brian,
Nottingham).
The negative comments which people expressed related mainly to high prices, litter, and
congestion. The cost of drink and food in particular was an issue for many while the lack of
child friendly facilities in the city was also commented on.
Towards a new model for the city break decision
This study has shown that city break travelers exhibit a number of distinct characteristics in
their decision-making behavior. These characteristics are re?ective of many contemporary
trip-taking trends such as heavy Internet usage, discretionary vacation taking and the
growing popularity of short breaks. The ?ndings show a decision making process that does
not ?t easily with many of the traditional models. Therefore, based on the ?ndings from this
study, the researchers propose a new model that re?ects the distinct features and
characteristics of the city break travel decision. Figure 1 presents this model and the
following section will explain the rationale behind its design.
One of the ?rst things to note in relation to the model is the fewer number of stages in the
decision process. It consists of just three distinct horizontal boxes re?ecting a much ?atter
appearance compared to other models. The ?rst of these boxes represents the need
recognition stage.
This is the starting point for most models but in this case it is necessary to make a few
important observations. First, the recognition of the need to take a city break often stems
from speci?c situational factors in people’s lives. The ?ndings show how important these
points prove in stimulating the initial need to take a trip. Such situational factors are seldom
acknowledged or, have been marginalized in the traditional models (Sirakaya and
Woodside, 2005). Second, as the ?ndings have shown, the desire to get away and
experience a change of scene (escape) seems particularly signi?cant in the need to take a
PAGE 168
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
)
city break. People see such trips as ideal vehicles to bring some novelty and diversion to the
routine of daily life, a kind of antidote to the stresses of modern living. Third, the initial generic
decision of whether or not to take the trip is of particular importance. As noted previously, the
city break vacation is usually a discretionary one and therefore dissimilar to many main
vacation decisions. The latter often consist of an annual ritual with the decision to go already
decided. By contrast, city break opportunities often occur out of the blue without much
warning. Therefore, the initial generic decision (to take a vacation) is often the most crucial
aspect of the decision process. Indeed, as Decrop and Snelders (2004) point out, the
generic decision does not always follow a rational decision making sequence. For example,
people sometimes have an idea to take a trip, check out alternatives, select the one they
want, but may still not have made the generic decision to go. This is often the case with
discretionary trips such as short breaks where there is a lot of fantasizing. A distinction
therefore needs to be made between generic intention and the actual generic decision.
The second box in the city break model is slightly unusual in that the information search,
evaluation of alternatives, and purchase phases are grouped together. Although the information
search does come ?rst, it intentionally runs into the evaluation and purchase phases. This
re?ects the ?ndings, which show a number of city breakers engaging in all three of these
activities together in quite an unsystematic and at times haphazard manner. In some cases, the
evaluation of alternatives was bypassed and people went straight to the purchase stage, as
represented by the right side of the box. In other situations, people searched for information and
evaluated alternatives simultaneously before purchasing (left side of the box). Undoubtedly, the
presence of the Internet is one of the main reasons for this decision making pattern. People can
search out deals, evaluate them, and make bookings, with just a few clicks of a mouse. In many
ways the internet cuts through the multistage decision models of old, and re?ects the modern
reality of people taking discretionary trips in situations where they increasingly lack consumer
resources such as time, attention, and cognitive processing ability. The Internet represents the
ultimate decision-making tool for the cash rich, time poor, modern traveler.
The ?nal box represents the post purchase evaluation stage and is similar to most other
models. The service is evaluated from the moment the consumer has made the purchase
commitment. The city breaker will make judgments on the service providers they encounter
as well as the destination itself. Interestingly, because city breaks are mostly put together by
individuals themselves, there is no third party to blame if things go wrong such as a travel
agent or tour operator.
Figure 1 City break decision making model
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 169
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
3
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In addition to the three main boxes of the decision model, a number of factors appear on
either side of the horizontal dimension. These factors represent the main in?uencers in the
city break decision and fall into four groups:
1. internal variables;
2. external variables;
3. nature of trip; and
4. situational factors.
Some of these are similar to those suggested by other authors but have been adapted to
re?ect the speci?cs of the city break travel decision.
1. The internal variables refer to the personal aspects of the consumer such as, motivation,
image, personality, lifestyle, attitudes, beliefs, and lifecycle stage.
2. External variables include, constraints, pull factors of a destination, marketing mix,
in?uences of family and reference groups, culture and subcultures, social class and
household-related variables.
3. The third factor is the nature of the intended trip. This is very signi?cant in the context of
city breaks as it refers to features such as travel party size, distance, time, and duration of
trip.
4. The ?nal group refers to situational factors and although these could technically come
under external variables, their importance to the city break travel decision merited their
own distinct grouping.
All four of these factors represent the principal in?uences on the overall decision process.
The extent of each one’s in?uence varies from case to case but can be felt at any time or
stage in the process.
Conclusion
This research has shown the importance of type of trip as a determinant of decision-making
behavior and highlights the signi?cance of what Ritchie (1994) refers to as the context in
which choices are made. The traditional models of consumer behavior have problems
accommodating the characteristics of some contemporary travel products such as city
breaks. This is primarily because they fail to recognize a non-systematic approach to
decision making, where the process is not necessarily undertaken by a sole individual in
distinctive stages, and where emotional elements are just as relevant as functional ones. In
addition, many conventional models fail to acknowledge the importance of the nature of the
trip being undertaken. The idea of one, all encompassing travel decision making model that
represents every type of trip is unrealistic. Along with Sirakaya and Woodside (2005), who
claim unique approaches for modeling tourist decisions is long overdue, most scholars see
the need today for a range of models that are re?ective of the differences that exist in travel
decision making. This study shows the city break decision to be distinctive in a number of
ways. The ?ndings reveal a decision process characterized by low involvement behavior
and limited problem solving, with little evidence of the funneling activity that is so often a
feature in other models.
Examining the particular nuances and characteristics of speci?c travel decisions such as
city breaks provides a useful contribution to our understanding of this complex area of
tourism marketing, and further underlines the importance of investigating decision behavior
across all types of trips.
References
Belk, R.W. (1975), ‘‘Situational variables and consumer behavior’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2,
pp. 157-67.
PAGE 170
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
)
Bieger, J.R. and Laesser, C. (2004), ‘‘Information sources for travel decisions: towards a source process
model’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 234-48.
Bloy, D. (2000), ‘‘An assessment of tourist motivations within a multiple holiday taking context’’, in
Robinson, M., Long, P., Evans, N., Sharpley, R. and Swarbrooke, J. (Eds), Motivations, Behavior and
Tourist Types, Business Education Publishers, Sunderland, pp. 27-44.
Burtenshaw, D., Bateman, M. and Ashworth, G.J. (1991), The City in West Europe, 2nd ed., Wiley,
Chichester.
Crompton, J.L. (1979), ‘‘Motivations for pleasure vacation’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 408-24.
Decrop, A. (2007), ‘‘The formation of destination choice sets: new light through old windows’’, paper
presented at 2007 Advances in Tourism Marketing Conference, 10-12 September, Valencia.
Decrop, A. and Snelders, D. (2004), ‘‘Planning the summer vacation: an adaptable process’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1008-30.
Fodness, D. (1994), ‘‘Measuring tourist motivation’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 555-81.
Freitag, R. (2006), ‘‘Using market intelligence in the commercial world’’, presentation made at the
symposium on market intelligence, 4 October, Malta, available at: www.etc-corporate.org//DWL/Rolf.
Freitag_Market_Intellig._Commercial_World_onlineversion.pdf
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J. and Coney, K.A. (1995), Consumer Behavior: Implications for Marketing
Strategy, 6th ed., Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N. (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Hudson, S. (1999), ‘‘Consumer behavior related to tourism’’, in Pizam, A. and Mansfeld, Y. (Eds),
Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, Haworth Hospitality Press, New York, NY, pp. 7-32.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982), ‘‘Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: a rejoinder’’, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 256-62.
Jeng, J. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2002), ‘‘Conceptualizing the travel decision-making hierarchy: a review
of recent developments’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7, pp. 15-32.
Lovelock, C.H. and Wright, C. (1999), Principles of Service Marketing and Management, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982), Tourism Economic, Physical, and Social Impacts, Longman, London.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miller, W.L. and Crabtree, B.F. (1994), ‘‘Clinical research’’, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds),
Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 340-52.
Moutinho, L. (1987), ‘‘Consumer behavior in tourism’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10,
pp. 1-44.
Nicosia, F.M. (1966), Consumer Decision Processes, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Oliver, R.L. (1987), ‘‘An investigation of the interrelationship between consumer dissatisfaction and
complaint reports’’, in Wallendorf, M. and Anderson, P. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, Utah, pp. 218-22.
Richter, L.K. (2003), ‘‘International tourismand its global public health consequences’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 340-7.
Ritchie, J. (1994), ‘‘Research on leisure behavior and tourism: state of the art’’, in Gasser, R. and
Weiermair, K. (Eds), Spoilt for Choice: Decision Making Processes and Preference Change of Tourists:
Intertemporal and Intercountry Perspectives, Kulturverlag, Thaur, pp. 2-27.
Ryan, C. (2002), ‘‘From motivation to assessment’’, in Ryan, C. (Ed.), The Tourist Experience, 2nd ed.,
Continuum, London, pp. 58-77.
Schott, C. (2002), ‘‘Motivation and lifestyles amongst young holidaymakers: a case-study of Exeter’’,
PhD Thesis, University of Exeter, Exeter.
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 171
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
)
Sirakaya, E. and Woodside, A.G. (2005), ‘‘Building and testing theories of decision making by
travellers’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 815-32.
Squire, S.J. (1994), ‘‘Gender and tourist experiences: assessing women’s shared meanings for Beatrix
Potter’’, Leisure Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 195-209.
Sung, H.H., Morrison, A.M., Hong, G.S. and O’Leary, J.T. (2001), ‘‘The effects of household and trip
characteristics on trip types: a consumer behavioural approach for segmenting the U.S. domestic
leisure travel market’’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 46-68.
Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (2007), Consumer Behavior in Tourism, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Teare, R. (1992), ‘‘An exploration of the consumer decision process for hospitality services’’, in Teare, R.,
Moutinho, L. and Morgan, N. (Eds), Managing and Marketing Services in the 1990s, Cassell, London,
pp. 233-48.
Teare, R. (1994), ‘‘Consumer decision making’’, in Teare, R., Mazanec, J.A., Crawford-Welch, S. and
Calver, S. (Eds), Marketing in Hospitality and Tourism: A Consumer Focus, Cassell, London, pp. 1-96.
Trew, J. and Cockerell, N. (2002), ‘‘The European market for UK city breaks’’, Insights, Vol. 14 No. 58,
pp. 85-111.
Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. (1990), ‘‘Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 17, pp. 432-48.
Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. (1992), ‘‘The roles of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in pleasure travel
destination decisions’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 18-25.
Woodside, A.G. and Lysonski, S. (1989), ‘‘A general model of traveller destination choice’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 8-14.
Woodside, A.G. and Sherrell, D. (1977), ‘‘Traveler evoked, inept and inert sets of vacation destinations’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 16, winter, pp. 14-18.
Woodward, D., Green, E. and Hebron, S. (1988), ‘‘The Shef?eld study of gender and leisure: its
methodological approach’’, Leisure Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 95-104.
Further reading
Engel, J.E., Kollat, D.T. and Blackwell, R.D. (1968), Consumer Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York, NY.
World Travel (2005), Market Global Travel Report 2004/05, IPK International.
Corresponding author
Gerard Dunne can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 172
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 2 2011
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. Jamie Carlson, Philip J. Rosenberger, Mohammad M. Rahman. 2015. A hierarchical model of perceived value of group-
oriented travel experiences to major events and its influences on satisfaction and future group-travel intentions. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing 1-17. [CrossRef]
2. J. Charterina, G. Aparicio. 2015. A comparison of antecedents of satisfaction in city break traveling. Revista Española de
Investigación en Marketing ESIC 19, 71-82. [CrossRef]
3. Jamie Carlson, Philip J. Rosenberger, Mohammad M. Rahman. 2015. Cultivating group-oriented travel behaviour to major
events: assessing the importance of customer-perceived value, enduring event involvement and attitude towards the host
destination. Journal of Marketing Management 31, 1065-1089. [CrossRef]
4. 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]
5. Nicole Regan, Jamie Carlson, Philip J. Rosenberger. 2012. Factors Affecting Group-Oriented Travel Intention to Major
Events. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 29, 185-204. [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_638446432.pdf