Process Studies of Tourists’

8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists

1/26

PROCESS STUDIES OF TOURISTS

DECISION-MAKING

Clive Smallman

Kevin Moore

Lincoln University, New Zealand

Abstract: We review tourism decision-making paradigms. We conclude that the literature isdominated by variance studies of tourists decisions by causal analysis of independent vari-ables explaining choices by tourists. This choice set approach is in consonance with theneed to understand important issues such as destination attractiveness and marketing. Weargue that this approach does not incorporate an ontology of decision-making as a process,a deeper understanding of which may only be generated through studies that involve narrat-ing emergent actions and activities through which individual or collective endeavours unfold.From this base we review the tourism decision-making literature and argue for the develop-ment of process studies as an important adjunct to the current body of knowledge. Keywords:tourists decision-making theories, process studies, variance studies. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Allrights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism is a major socio-economic phenomenon producing massiveeconomic, social and environmental change. The effort to understandthe complex and elaborate set of interactions between tourists, touroperators, governments and local communities has led to the develop-ment of models and general accounts of tourists behaviours (Leiper,2004). Despite the ontological and epistemological challenges that thispresents, these models have successfully informed the management oftourists and their economic, social and environmental impacts(Decrop, 2006).

Some have argued that tourism research has evolved from a commer-cially driven agenda of boosterism, through adverse criticism of tour-isms social and environmental impacts, towards an informed empiricaland theoretical basis and the widespread adoption of rigorous scien-tific research methods (Jafari, 1990,2003,2005). Such progressive, evo-lutionary accounts of phenomena may be criticised because of their

Clive Smallmanis Professor of Business Management and Head of Research in the Facultyof Commerce, Lincoln University (New Zealand. Email ). HisPhD is from the Bradford University School of Management, UK. His research interestsinclude decision-making, simulations of social systems, and process studies of organizations.Kevin Mooreis a Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Tourism in the Faculty of Environment,Society and Design, Lincoln University. His PhD is from Canterbury University, NZ. Hisresearch interests include tourist decision making and theoretical psychology.

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 397422, 20100160-7383/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.10.014www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

397
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.10.014http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.10.014


2/26

implicit suggestion that something has become, over time, moresophisticated and better as a result. Nevertheless, a focus on thechanges in and diversity of approaches to understanding tourismand, in particular, tourists behaviours, seems apposite in a time when

the tourism industry is under extraordinary economic pressure.In this article we argue for a greater emphasis on process models

of tourists decision-making, and the consequential changes in ontol-ogy and epistemology they imply. An advantage of pursuing this ap-proach is to mesh decision-making research in tourism with thespirit of more dynamic, postmodern accounts of the tourist experi-ence (Uriely, 2005). However, more significantly we believe that thisfocus will help produce models of tourist decision-making that bettersuit the increasing concerns of how to manage the tourist experiencein processin ways that minimise its adverse impacts, whilst retaining its

central features of apparent spontaneity and freedom that many tour-ists value.

Research is often driven by critical incidents or concerns presentwithin an area of study at a particular point in time. We suggest thatmuch previous and current work on tourists decision-making, whichis undeniably useful and fit for purpose, has been driven by histori-cally prominent concerns over destination marketing and consumerservices. However, the recent proliferation of journals and conferenceson topics such as the sustainability of tourism, tourism and peak oil,tourism and climate change is indicative of more recent concerns withcomplex social and environmental dimensions of tourist behaviour.Along with an increasing acknowledgement of the fluidity and com-plexity of tourists decision-making, this means that process orientatedapproaches should be valuable and complementary adjuncts to currentwork.

Studies of tourist decision-making seldom address ontological orien-tation. However, that does not render ontological issues irrelevant. Inparticular, an awareness of broad ontological categories is important inorder to compare and contrast approaches to tourists decision-mak-

ing. Most researchers acknowledge that decision-making is a process,but a process can be understood in at least two ways. First, it can beviewed through a realism ontology of real objects, entities or thingsinteracting in a reasonably orderly, if usually complicated, manner.Second, the decision-making process can be understood as itself beingfundamentally what is real, perhaps in turn giving rise to the kinds ofobjects, entities or things that might emerge or be social constructedby a researcher.

Consumer behaviour inspired models of tourist decision-makingmirror this distinction between object and process ontologies. Conse-

quently, tourism resists easy definition as a product (object) or service(process), because each tourism experience is a portfolio of productsor services (although services usually dominate). Whilstmass customisa-tionis well-established in the production of consumer goods and thedelivery of service offerings (Pine, 1992), arguably in no other sectoris the customer as involved in the information search for and choicesaround their purchase than is the case in tourism (Decrop, 2006;

398 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422


3/26

Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). Tourists decision-making processes arecomplex, involving many sub-decisions, occurring continuously fromprior to deciding where to go through to what are we going to donow were here and beyond. Many choices are based on contextual

facts. Many more are based on perceptions or evaluative judgementsof relatively high-risk decisions, that is, no-one knows how good theirholiday is going to be until they are experiencing it.

The dominance of intangible factors in tourism is problematic be-cause the grand theories of consumer behaviour (e.g.,Engel, Kollat,& Blackwell, 1968; Gilbert, 1991; Howard, 1994; Howard & Sheth,1969; Nicosia, 1966; Runyon, 1980 all cited in Sirakaya & Woodside,2005) do not systematically distinguish between tangible and intangi-ble products or services. More fundamentally, many of these modelsconceptualise decision-making as a simple input-output model. This

black box between independent and dependent variables, focusesupon: identifying factors that should logically be considered as partof the explanation of decision-making (what?); and deducing rela-tionships between the factors (how?). Such theories also attempt toexplain why? the factors are related, commonly through psychologi-cal, economic or social dynamics. However, such explanations are of-ten limited by methodological choices.

Furthermore, causation is often only dealt with proximally (attrib-uted to direct or efficient causes intimately associated with the deci-sion). More subtly related or distal (final, formal or material)causes are rarely considered.

Compounding this, conventional theorists seldom address the con-textual limits of their theories, failing to fully explain their findings(Whetten, 1989). In this convention, scholars face a trade-off betweengenerality, simplicity and accuracy (Sutton & Staw, 1995). The priceof this is often limited explanation of the how? and why? of behav-iour. Consequent explanations are empirical, a-theoretical accountsrelying heavily on recent cross-sectional measures to enhance predict-ability. Allied to this is a methodological preference for static measures

of consumer attributes (the what?) as central to any model. As aconsequence, the resulting theories are often underdetermined(DiMaggio, 1995) and we argue that conventional models ofdecision-making commonly do not fully meet conventions of goodtheory (Bacharach, 1989; Whetten, 1989).

Andwhat is good theory? For us good theory is about connectionsamong human experiences, a synopsized story about people, transac-tions, acts, ideas, events, context, structure, thoughts and outcomes.Good theory emphasizes the rich nature of causation, identifying theorder and timing of experiences. It delves into underlying processes

seeking out the systematic and non-systematic reasons for particularexperiences. It delves deeply into micro-processes, at the margins intorelated concepts, or in seeking disaggregation it ties itself to broadersocial phenomena. It is characterized by a set of convincing andlogically interconnected propositions or hypotheses. It may also haveundetected implications that run counter to our common sense(Sutton & Staw, 1995). More simply, a good theory explains, predicts,

C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 399


4/26

and delights (Weick, 1995). It is driven by abduction (inference to thebest theory) rather than solely reliant on induction or deduction.

There are gooda priorireasons to suspect that conventional modelsdo not fully encompass the diverse processes involved in the produc-

tion of tourist decisions. First, recreational tourism is characterisedby heightened risks associated with uncertainties of outcomes and withthe supposed motive initially at play in individual tourists behaviours.In some senses, the experience the tourist seeks is not only intangible;it is often not discernibly present for the tourist when tourism behav-iour begins, and is largely constructed in situ. As psychologists inter-ested in motivation have long understood, there is openness aboutbehaviours such as exploration, play and curiosity that contrasts withstrongly goal-directed intentional behaviours.

Second, such openness means that the final behavioural pattern is

imprinted with qualities of the environment within which the behav-iour develops. What tourists seek is often initially vague and has a dy-namic and shifting nature throughout an episode of tourism. Thismeans the environment may exert considerable influence on ex-pressed behaviour. This is not to say that tourist decisions and behav-iours are entirely arbitrary or random. Rather the causal processesgenerating them are not only responsible for the overall experience,but also reconstruct the motives or intentional objectives of the tour-ism episode as the behavioural trajectory unfolds.

Third, this openness of much tourist behaviour and decision-making,combined with the role of the environment, suggests that most real timedecisions will be experienced as intuitive, spontaneous or impulsive,since they would not have been clearly articulated or prefabricated inconsciousness. That experience, however, is not evidence that judg-ments or decisions have not occurred. As an increasing body of workon human decision-making from an evolutionary perspective has re-vealed (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2002), gut instincts have their own logic.Moreover, such very simple heuristics can generate behaviour that, inretrospect, appears surprisingly rational, complex and coherent.

To summarise, conventional consumer behaviour theories offertourism policy makers and industry actors a constrained, albeit fitfor purpose, picture of tourists decision-making. However, some deci-sion-making processes generate reasonably open itineraries or lead tothe selection of activities as they are encountered. Hence, we contendthat conventional models of tourist decision-making may lead to inef-fective tourism policy, marketing and management practices.

Our intended contribution is in appraising substantive literature ontourists decision-making and in proposing an alternative approach fortheorising about this phenomenon. We seek to address those qualities

of tourist decision-making and behaviour that seem to have eludedexisting models. More pragmatically, we offer an alternative theoreticalbase from which richly contextualised research concerning touristsdecision-making can be developed. As an adjunct to conventionaltheorising, this should enable policy makers to develop better-in-formed policy, and industry actors to improve tourism marketingand management practices.



5/26

We next consider developments in the broader field of decision-mak-ing studies, many of which have focused on organisational decision-making. From this base we develop an argument for taking a natural-istic process perspective to tourist decision-making research, as we re-

view the nature and contribution of recent research in touristdecision-making. We outline the strengths of taking a complex processview and conclude with some thoughts on the implications of this forresearch in tourists decision-making.

A REVIEW OF DECISION-MAKING THEORY

The classical concept of prescriptive, analytical everyday decision-making (Edwards, 1954; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944) claims

that people collect and analyse information, eventually selecting anoptimal solution from a range of alternatives (the choice set). Theydo so by evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each possibleoutcome, choosing the one most appropriate to achieve their desiredobjective. This decision is regarded as optimal, based on subjective ex-pected utility. In its original formulation this theory does not allow forthe deterministic limits of assumed pure rationality. Prospect theory(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) and, later, regret theory (Loomes &Sugden, 1982, pp. 73107) tackle these limits in accommodating thenotions of risk or uncertainty in decisions. However, these still fail to

address the mediating processes that lead to a decision (Decrop,2006, p. 2); for example in tourist choice, trip chaining and so-calleddemographic or retail gravitation (Reilly, 1931; Stewart, 1948) arguablyundercut the overly logical processes implied in prospect and regrettheories. Choice set theory remains popular in tourism destinationchoice research (Jafari, 2003, pp. 145146). It is exemplified in thework ofWahab, Crampon, and Rothfield (1976) in which the touristas Homo Economicustries to maximise the utility of their actions priorto purchase, through minimizing risk with extensive problem solvingand advanced planning. Um and Crompton (1990, 1991) also exem-

plify this approach.Bounded rationality (March & Simon, 1958; Simon, 1955) offers a

more realistic view, claiming that, limited by time constraints, cognitivecapacity and incomplete information, individuals make decisions thatare good enough (satisfying) rather than optimal (Simon, 1957).Related to this, incrementalismassumes similar constraints on rational-ity, but accommodates most humans natural conservatism, in claimingthat decisions are made only where an alternative is definitively betterthan the status quo. Choice is characterised as muddling through(Lindblom, 1959), with, for some authorities, a particular emphasis

on conflict, choice and commitment (Janis & Mann, 1977). In tourismthis is typified by the work ofSchmoll (1977) with the rationality oftourists bounded by constraints including travel stimuli, psycho-socialdeterminants and the given environment. Mayo and Jarvis (1981)andMathieson and Wall (1982), too, offer empirical work supportingthe notion of bounded rationality in tourists decision-making.



6/26

However, even this does not deal with the processes mediating thedecision. Contingentor adaptivedecision-making (Payne, 1982; Payne,Bettman, & Johnson, 1993) allows for natural dynamics in solvingproblems. Herein, individuals use a variety of problem solving strate-

gies, depending upon personal traits or characteristics, and problemand social contexts; choice is based on economic or cognitive biases(Decrop, 2006, p. 4). A variant, the politicaldecision-making paradigm(Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer, 1981), accommodates polity, in that it recog-nises that most decisions are made in the context of groups.Moutinho(1987) accommodates the roles of social influences in tourism deci-sions, as well as acknowledging their inherent complexity and the needfor adaptation.

The arrival of postmodernism brought a fifth and more pragmaticview of decision-making that is less cognitively bound (Edwards &

Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987) than the earlier paradigms.This approach proposes that there is no singular reality, causality isoften complex and not clear, and that intentions are poor behaviouralsigns; everything is context-dependent, and socially and discursivelyconstructed (e.g., the garbage can modelCohen, March, & Olsen,1972). This view is implicitly reflected in the work ofWoodside andMacDonald (1994) and particularly in Woodside, MacDonald, andBurford (2004), in that they embrace a socially constructed view oftourist decision-making.

The sixth decision-making paradigm, naturalistic decision-making(Klein, 1998; Lipshitz, Klein, & Carroll, 2006) is used in the study of realworld decision makers, particularly in high risk work environments. Theapproach deconstructs decision-making through detailed analyses ofdiscourse, narrative and social action by decision-makers (Gore, Banks,Millward, & Kyriakidou, 2006), with a strong focus on context. This im-plicit acceptance of the role of the discursive mind (Edwards & Potter,1992; Harre & Gillett, 1994; Moore, 2002) in decision-making repre-sents a marked departure from more conventional research.Woodsideet al. (2004)andDecrop (2006)implicitly follow this approach in their

naturalistic accounts of tourism decision-making.With the exception of the sixth, each of the paradigms are anteced-ents of subsequent work in decision-making in tourism (Sirakaya &Woodside, 2005). Conventionally, the focus of this type of research ison tourist destination choice, generally informed by grand modelsof consumer behaviour (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). The major vari-ables in these models relate to socio-psychological processes, personalvariables and environmental variables (Decrop, 2006, pp. 714).

Valuable though the first five paradigms may be in telling us whatfactors matter prior to decision-making, we contend that there is more

to be found out about the processes themselves. Grounded in a realistontology, when operationalized, the five paradigms evaluate artefactsof decision-making by representing decision outcomes as dependentvariables, the statistical variations of which are explained by significantindependent variables. The consequent variance theories (Mohr,1982) give strongly deterministic explanations, and, to paraphraseand adaptPoole, Van de Ven, Dooley, and Holmes (2000, p. 29):



7/26

While the variance approach offers good explanations of [decision-making]driven by deterministic causation, this is a very limited way to conceptualise[decision-making]. It overlooks many critical and interesting aspects of [deci-sion-making] processes. However, because most . . . scholars have been taught

a version of social science that depends on variance methods, and becausemethods for narrative research are not well developed, researchers tend to con-ceptualise process problems in variance terms.

We contend that it is not possible to fully understand decision-mak-ing by studying final decisions (Svenson, 1979); it is unquestionably aprocess wherein decision-makers heuristics and problem representa-tions (cues) interact in the creation of choice (Svenson, 1996), in adynamically changing context.

Epistemologically, it is natural to represent decision-making as a nar-rative capturing a temporally ordered sequence of events, leading to a

process theory (Mohr, 1982). Such theories offer rich explanations ofcomplex events, take into account temporal factors and allow for dyna-mism in processes. They should not, however, be seen purely asreplacements for existing approaches to understanding tourist choice.Instead, we argue strongly that they are a promising adjunct, becausethey offer deeper explanations, of relationships and interactions, andparticularly of causation (Dowe, 2004; Salmon, 1984), the conceptual-ization of which is the key point of difference between variance andprocess theories.

Within the constraints of this piece, we do not have the space for a

full discussion of the long and fractious history of the philosophy ofcausation. However, clarifying our position around this issue is essen-tial to our argument. Mohr (1982) in his original conceptualizationof variance versus process theory draws heavily upon Aristotles concep-tualization of causality. Aristotles metaphysics are particularly perti-nent to the study of decision-making, since his conceptualperspectives raise issues that are remarkably absent from the dominantvariance epistemology of tourism decision-making.

Aristotle (1984, VI, Physics II 194b16 p. 332)identifies four differentways of exhausting the question why is this so? Materialcause identi-fies that stuff or substance from which something came (its constitu-ents or components and their corresponding properties).Formalcauserelates to the pattern or form of something (as understood through,for example, the governing principles or laws of a particular theoryor account). Efficient cause is that from which something starts (pri-mary source or agency). Final cause is the sense of end or sake forwhich something is done (teleology).

Mohrs (1982) point is that causation explained solely in terms ofefficient cause (as in variance studies) is incomplete and restrictive.

It too easily allows mechanistic processes of enquiry into the natureof decision, revealing only its primary source or agency. Mohrs(1982, p. 38)stance is that more meaningful explanations of processesleading to or connecting events should employfinal, formaland efficientcausationthat is teleological purpose, its pattern or form, as well as itsprimary source. For example, a destination (final cause) may not bechosen without a tourist making a destination choice (efficientcause),



8/26

but that choice cannot be made without the tourist purposefully, andmeaningfully, considering destinations (final cause) or their formthere is no efficientcause withoutfinalor formalcause. Hence, processstudies look at a much broader set of psycho-social and environmental

variables (arguably, the material causes of tourists behaviours) than isconventionally the case with variance studies.

In the remaining sections we assess the state of the recent literatureon tourists decision-making, in order to establish that there is a nichefor this approach.

METHODOLOGY

We analysed substantive normative and empirical research articles,

focusing upon the degree to which the works explained causalitythe why that is required of good theory. We sought a classificatory ap-proach that focused upon the depth of theorising (and explanation),that is, upon ontology and epistemology, rather than allocation to a gi-ven school of thought and its assumptions. Hence, we sought meta-the-ory from other disciplines that offers explanations of human socialprocess.

Consequently, we adaptedVan de Ven and Pooles (2005) typologyof approaches to studying organizational change, to tourist decision-making (see Table 1). This was because of its extensive citation in

the management literature, and its focus on the key concepts of ideas,people, transactions, context (allmaterialcauses), and outcomes (finalcause); all key concepts in tourists decision-making research. Thetypology allocates studies to one of four approaches:

1. variance studies of tourists decisions by causal analysis of independentvariables that explain choices (dependent variable) by a tourist;

2. simple process studies of tourists decision-making narrating sequencesof events, stages or cycles of decisions in choices made by a tourist;

3. complex process studies of tourists decision-making by narrating emer-

gent actions and activities by which individual or group choices unfold;and

4. variance studies of tourists decision-making by dynamic modelling ofagent-based models or chaotic complex adaptive systems.

As variance studies, approaches one and four offer deterministic expla-nations of decision-making. Approaches two and three, as simple andcomplex process approaches (Tsoukas, 2005), deliver much richerexplanation of causation of events. The simplicity of approach two isattributed to its commonly historical approach and the simplificationcomplex events that is conventional in such studies. The complexityof approach three lies in its direct observation and rich reporting ofexperiences. By nature of their explanation of causation, approachesone and four will always produce chronically underdeterminedtheories. Approach two offers a marked improvement in the identifica-tion of distal causation, but the explanatory power of such theories is



9/26

undermined by over-simplification of complexity. As with any scientificendeavour, under the doctrine of ontological relativism, for any collec-tion of evidence there will always be many theories able to account forit (Quine, 1969). However, if the richest explanations of decision-making events follow approach three, then we argue that this is wherewe should be looking to improve our understanding of touristsdecision-making.

The relationship of this typology to the six decision-makingparadigms is not clear-cut. Moreover it was not the main point of themeta-analysis that we report. However, the classical decision-makingapproach (even its modern variants) is clearly accommodated inapproach one.Bounded rationality,incrementalismand the adaptivepara-digms recognise decision-making phases, but do not follow a processontology, and are readily aligned with approach two. Later work bythe progenitors of bounded rationality employed computer simula-

tions of decision-making, which could be associated with approachfour, were it not for the limitations of the technology available at thattime (Cyert & March, 1963/1992). Bridging both approaches two andthree is the pragmatic model, with its quest for complex explanation.Onlynaturalisticdecision-making offers contextualised richness in itscoverage of decision-making as it happens, and this is closest in spiritto approach three.

Table 1. A Typology of Approaches to Studying Tourists Decision-Making

Ontology

A tourist is represented as being:

A noun, a realentity(realist)

A verb, emergent,experientially

processual (process)

Epistemology

(Method forstudyingdecision-making)

Variancemethod

Approach One Approach Four

Variance studies of touristsdecisions by causal analysisof independent variablesthat explain choices(dependent variable)

by an entity

Variance studies of touristsdecision-making by dynamicmodelling of agent-basedmodels or chaotic complexadaptive systems

Processnarrative

Approach Two Approach Three

Process studies of touristsdecision-making narratingsequences of events, stagesor cycles of decisions inchoices made by an entity

Process studies of touristsdecision-making bynarrating emergentactions and activities by

which individual orcollective endeavoursunfold

Adapted fromVan de Ven and Poole (2005)



10/26

We used a keyword search (tourist decision-making and vacationdecision-making) on five bibliographic databases: ABI/InformProquest, Blackwell Synergy, Elsevier Science Direct, Sage Onlineand SpringerLink (covering the major tourism journals). The search

was limited back to ten years, looking for substantive, well-specifiedstudies. We identified 24 empirical studies and 16 conceptual or re-view pieces. To these we added a further 33 contributions, identifiedby Decrop (2006) as influential in the development of tourist deci-sion-making theory. In addition to analysing their approach and con-tribution, we classified the empirical studies ontologically andepistemologically. In the case of review pieces we allocated them toan ontological class only.

FINDINGS

Of the 16 conceptual or review pieces, 10 take an implicit or explicitprocess ontology and the other six a realist ontology (seeTable 2). Thecommon element in the 10 process-oriented pieces is that they dealwith tourism in terms of space or time. In seeking understanding ofdecision-making, chronology is a central organising device and is afundamental element of process studies (Van de Ven & Poole,2005). In tourism expressed in terms of itineraries so too must spacebe a central organising device for understanding the process of

decision-making. The nine pieces take an implicitly complex processapproach in that they deal with the notion of tourists decision-makingas emergent (that is socially constructed) and complex.

Of the six realist pieces, one (Litvin, Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008) seemsto be an implicit throwback to the tradition of bounded rationality, inits focus on electronic word-of-mouth as an information source forintending tourists. A further five (Eugenio-Martin, 2003; Jenkins,1999; Lew & McKercher, 2006; Morley, 1992; Patterson, 2007) followthe contingent or adaptive paradigm, in that they focus upon cognitivebehaviours or traits and the natural dynamics of decision-making. The

sixth (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005) is a wide-ranging review, whichimplicitly follows the garbage canparadigm, in that it accepts complexand unclear causality. On first reading, the study implicitly appearsto be calling for a process approach to the study of tourist decision-making. However, closer reading reveals that whilst it recognizes theimportance of decision-making heuristics, the authors fail to recognizethe importance of time in understanding process.

Of the 32 empirical pieces, 26 use approach one(seeTable 3). Statis-tical analysis of quantitative and, to a lesser extent, qualitative data isthe dominant analytical strategy. The range of dependent and signifi-

cant independent variables employed in the 19 approach one studiesis remarkable, as is the diversity of contributions. However, what wesee is a breadth of variable focus on conventions of socio-psychologicalprocesses, personal variables, and environmental variables (Decrop,2006, pp. 714). We still find out very little about the creation of choice



11/26

Table 2. Overview of Conceptual or Review Studies

Authors Major variables Contribution

Realist Ontology

Morley, 1992 Destination country Identifies sub-decisions of to travel or not,

time and budget allocations, and choice of

tour.

Individuals characteristics (income, time

available, demographics)

Papatheodorou,

2001

Expenditure and time constraints Consumer heterogeneity is a stylized fact;

demand theory give a static view not

allowing for the evolutionary nature of

tourism products; the emergence of large

consolidated tourism operators goes

against classical demand theory. Proposes

a discrete choice model based upon utility

theory (relating to attractiveness and

facilities).

Prices

Consumer preferences

Quality

Information

Advertising

Tourism agglomeration

Competition

Eugenio-Martin,

2003

Consumer behaviour Identifies multiple factors involved in the

tourists destination choice. Individuals or

families with exactly the same

socioeconomic and demographic

characteristics may choose very different

destinations. Proposes a methodological

framework for modelling a five-stage

tourist decision-making process.

Tourism studies

Decision-making

Families and family life

Sirakaya &

Woodside, 2005

Consumer behaviour theory Identifies search issues for advancing

understanding of tourism decision-

making: the influence of tourism servicecharacteristics on decision-making; risk

reduction strategies and their influence

on decision-making policies; the efficacy

of choice sets in travellers choice process;

decision rules and their effect on choice

behaviour; and underlying variables

affecting choice behaviour.

Tourism behaviour

Decision-making modelsBehavioural and choice-sets models

Patterson, 2007 Older adults Deals with issues around tourism marketing

in the older market.Tourism and travel

Information sources

Pamphlets

Magazines

Television

Litvin et al., 2008 WOM Describes online interpersonal influence, or

eWOM, as a potentially cost-effective

means for marketing hospitality and

tourism, and discusses some of the nascent

technological and ethical issues facing

marketers as they seek to harness

emerging eWOM technologies

Word of mouth

Word-of-mouth

Online marketing

Reference groups

Opinion leaders

Process Ontology

Schmoll, 1977 Travel stimuli Development of a sequential model of vacation decision-making framework:

motivation (as a trigger); information

search; evaluation of alternatives; and

decision.

Personal and social determinants

External variables (e.g., confidence in the

travel agent, destination image)

Characteristics of service distribution

(continued on next page)



12/26

Table 2 (continued)

Authors Major variables Contribution

Mathieson & Wall, 1982 Awareness Identifies decision-making steps focused on

destination choice, but also deals with

subsequent decisions: 1. desire to travel; 2.

information collection and evaluation; 3.

travel decision; 4. preparation and

experience; and 5. evaluation of

satisfaction.

Desire

Destination image

Goodall, 1991 Motivation Distinguishes between the vacation selection

process (through motivations and images

formation) and destination choice(through

a search process and the evaluation of

alternatives). However, the distinction is

ambiguous at best.

Images

Expectation

Perception

Preference

Mansfeld, 1993 Motivation; Steps leading to destination choice: 1.

generic decision; 2. information search; 3.

elimination and assessment of alternatives;

and 4. actual choice.

Information evaluation;

Group decision-making

Gnoth, 1997 Motives Operationalizes both the behaviorist notion

of drive reduction and the cognitivist

constructs of attitudes and values. While

the satisfaction of inner-directed values

and motivations depends on classes of

objects, outer-directed values target

specific objects. In the case of trying tomeet the latter, planners need to follow

specific parameters in their product

design and resource management as they

are expressed in tourists motivations,

whereas with the satisfaction of inner-

directed values, planners can choose from

substitutable products and product

configurations.

Motivation

Expectation

Values

Attitudes

Emotions

Jenkins, 1999 Image Different techniques for the measurement of

a tourists destination images are reviewed

and the dominance of structured, word-

based approaches is highlighted.

Middleton & Clarke, 2001 Needs; Uses a stimulus-response model to

distinguish tourist choice between

routines choices and extensive problem

solving.

Wants;

Goals;

Perceptions;

Attitude

Moore, 2002 Discursive psychology Constructs a major theory of the discursive

tourist, a vital element of which is the

context in which they operate.

Metaphor

Lew & McKercher, 2006 Behaviour Proposes models depicting the spatial

movement patterns of tourists within a

destination.

Spatial movement

Itinerary models

Transportation planning

van der Duim, 2007 Tourismscapes Offers actor-network theory to develop the

concept of tourismscapes, where people

and things become entangled via complex

processes of translation.

Actor-network theory

Modes of ordering

Translation



13/26

through the interaction of these variables, because the underlyingontology does not support the investigation of actual process.

Six pieces followed approach two. Each used variants of narrativeanalysis to look at cognition in tourists choices. Unfortunately, one

(Pritchard & Havitz, 2006) focuses on validating method rather thanon findings, but each of these contributions illustrate the importantrole of looking at temporal sequence in tourists choices. However,their focus is not on action, but arguably on states at various pointsin transitions. The richness required in understanding process is notpresent.

Five studies adoptedapproach three, conducting ethnographic studiesof tourists decision-making. They stress the individuality and irrational-ity of tourists choices, focusing upon adaptability, opportunism andemotion, as well as the importance of context. Each develops a rich

picture of the choice process that covers not only the key decision-mak-ing cues, but also the nature of their emergence through heuristicsgenerated by individuals.

No studies were categorised as usingapproach four. This is a pity sincethe use of dynamic modelling in exploring decision-making in otherapplications is well established (e.g., Axelrod, 1984,1997; Conte,Edmonds, Moss, & Sawyer, 2001; Macy & Willer, 2002; Moss &Edmonds, 2005).

In the tourism literature, variance studies follow either a micro-economic or cognitive-structural approach. Demonstrating their rootsin the neo-classic paradigm, micro-economic models fail to addressissues around information asymmetry and irrationality in touristchoice. In particular, they do not properly account for the roles ofemotion and experience in tourism.

Cognitive-structural approaches focus on understanding touristschoices through choice sets, based around choice amongst alternativesor attributes. The approach looks at sequencing a limited number ofcognitive, affective or behavioural variables. As with all variance ap-proaches, the major issues are those of the reduction of innate com-

plexity in decision-making, and the ignorance of the role of context(Decrop, 2006, pp. 2432). These models correspond to the simpleprocess approach. They are highly conventional and fit well with thegrand theories of consumer behaviour. However, they propose phasemodels within singular decision-making hierarchies. They also tend totake a transactional view of time, focusing on significant events (actu-ally the state of entities involved in events) from the point of view ofthe observer (not the decision-maker). Moreover, few of the modelshave been tested empirically (Decrop, 2006, pp. 29, 3839).

Apparently complex process models of tourist decision-making, cor-

responding to the fifth postmodernist paradigm of decision-makingtheory, have developed a view of interpretive tourist decision-makingthat is naturalistic and experiential. These studies take a more richlyconceptualized and complex approach, proposing expanded sets offactors in decision-making than has conventionally been the case. How-ever, few choose to take a social-constructionist or complex process ap-proach (Decrop, 2006, pp. 3943).



14/26

Table 3. Overview of Empirical Studies

Authors Dependent

variable

Major independent

variables

Methodology Contribution

Approach One

Rugg, 1973 Destination choice Product characteristics Least squared

regressions

Introduced three

dimensions previously

ignored: time

constraint,

transportation costs,

and time costs.

Consumption technology

Budget

Morley, 1992 Tour itinerary Country of destination Experimental

design, stated

preference, data

and discrete

choice model.

Identifies relationships

through decision to

travel or not, time

allocation and budget;

and choice of tour.

Individual characteristics

(e.g., income, time

available,

demographics)

Seddighi &

Theocharous,

2002

Destination Revisit intention Logit analysis Steps: 1. vacation or no

vacation decision; 2.

domestic or foreign

destination decision; 3.

abstractionsystems

characteristics used as

decision-making

criteria; 4.

aggregation

perceptions are

transformed into a

preference ordering;

and choice.

Perceptions of product

characteristics

Personal characteristics

Crompton, 1979; Um

& Crompton,

1990, 1991

Destination Consideration sets Longitudinal

survey;

quantitative

analysis (t-tests)

Steps: 1. generic decision;

and 2. destination

decision (evolution

form awareness to an

evoked set, the choice

form the evoked set).

Beliefs

Attitudes

Situational constraints

Woodside &

Lysonski, 1989

Destination Destination awareness

(consideration set);

Survey; quantitative

analysis

(constant-sum

approach)

Cognitive effects of

destination decision.

Preferences;

Intentions;

Situational variables;

Choice

Thornton, Shaw, &

Williams, 1997

Percentage of time

allocate to

various holiday

activities

Presence of children Space-time budget

survey;

descriptive and

multivariate

stats

Group and age effects in

tourism decisions.Number of children

Diary-interview

survey and

content analysis

Age of children

Vogt & Fesenmaier,

1998

Information need Functional construct Descriptive stats,

Cluster analysis,

Correlation,

Regression

Information needs in

tourism decisions.Hedonic construct

Innovation construct

Aesthetic construct

Signconstruct

Zalatan, 1998 Tourism decisions Initial trip tasks Descriptive stats,

Regression

analysis

Gender effects in tourism

decisions.Financing tasks

Pre-departure tasks

Destination tasks



15/26

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent

variable

Major independent

variables


Liu, 1999 Destination utility Destination attractiveness Descriptive stats,Regression

analysis

Phasic analysis ofdestination utility built

out of various factors

Destination development

Tourism basket model

Jiang, Havitz, &

OBrien, 2000

Destination

decision

Destination-oriented

dimension

Factor analysis Validates and extends a

cognitively-based

predictive scale of

destination decision.

Travel services dimension

Social contact dimension

Money & Crotts,

2003

Information search Uncertainty (or risk)

avoidance

Not clear Consumers from national

cultures characterized

by higher levels of

uncertainty avoidance

use information sources

that are related to the

channel instead of

personal, destination

marketing-related, or

mass media sources.

Trip planning time

horizons, Travel

party

characteristics

(e.g., size of

group)

Trip characteristics

(e.g., length of

stay)

Bansal & Eiselt, 2004 Destinations Motivation, image of all

regions and travel

companions leading to

Choice of region and

then details planning

Descriptive stats Development of model.

Mottiar & Quinn,

2004

Household

decision of

holidays

Gender Descriptive stats Largely a joint decision,

but women have a

dominant role in the

early stages of the

process, possibly

making them the

gatekeepers

Kubas, Yilmaz, Aktas,

& Met_In, 2005

Frequency of visits

to recreation

areas

Motivational factors

affecting the visits

Multinomial

Logit Model

High direct correlation

between the frequency

of visits and

motivational factors.

Nicolau & Mas, 2005 Decision to go on

holiday

Income Cognitivist

Heckit model

Differentiated effect of a

given dimension on

each decision.

Household size

EducationSize of the city of origin

Opinion of going on

holiday

Level of

expenditure

Distance between origin

and destination

Type of accommodation

Income

Householdsize

Age

Maritalstatus

Length of stay

Bargeman & van derPoel, 2006

Routinization indecision-making

Extensiveness of decision-making process

Descriptive stats;Cluster

analysis of

qualitative

data

Vacation decision-makingprocesses of the

interviewed households

are much less extensive

and far more routinized

than described in the

rational choice models.

Internal and external

information search

(Type of) destination

selected




16/26

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent variable Major independent variables Methodology Contribution

Lam & Hsu, 2006 Behavioural

beliefs fi

Behavioural intention of

choosing a travel destination

Descriptive stats;

Structuralequation

modelling

Attitude, perceived

behavioral control, andpast behavior were

found to be related to

behavioral intention of

choosing a travel

destination

Attitude

Normative

beliefs fi

Subjective norm

Control beliefs fi

Perceived

behavioural

control

Past behaviour

Molina & Esteban,

2006

Destination image

formation

Features of brochures Descriptive stats,

Regression

analysis

The formation of

destination image can

be predicted by onlytwo attributes of

brochures: luring and

sense of wonder.

Important variables in

brochure usefulness:

incentives, visual

(attractive) format,

functional attributes,

information

attractiveness and

content

Destination choiceprocess

Needs for

information

Prentice, 2006 Opportunityawareness

Consumer filters

(Socio-

demographics and

income M

Preferences &

credibility)fi

Evoked set

information &

feelings as

information

(knowledge M

Destination selection(Consumer situation

variables fiVisit)

Descriptive stats;Correlation Operationalises discourseson affects-as-

information in terms of

destination imagining

and choosing.

FamiliarityMimagery)fiAction

set (propensity or

behavioural

intentions)fi

Late awareness

(new destination

options)

Tran & Ralston, 2006 Tourist preferences Unconscious needs for

achievement, affiliation and

power

Canonical

variance

analysis

Two significant

relationships between:

the need for

achievement and the

preference foradventure tourism; and

the need for affiliation

and the preference for

cultural tourism



17/26

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent

variable

Major independent

variables


Beerli, Meneses, &Gil, 2007

Congruity betweenones real-self

concept and

their image of

tourists to the

destination

leading to

choice of

destination

Experience of touristdestination

Descriptive stats,Factor analysis

The greater the agreementbetween a destinations

image and ones self-

concept, the greater the

tendency for the tourist

to visit that place.

Involvement in leisure

tourism

Brey & Lehto, 2007 Vacation activity Participation in similar

recreational activity

Bivariate analysis,

Segmentation

(classification

tree) analysis

Findings largely support

the hypothesis that the

more an individual is

involved with a certainactivity in a daily setting,

the higher the tendency

to participate in the

same while at a

destination.

Murphy, Mascardo, &

Benckendorff,

2007

Travel choice Word-of-mouth Descriptive stats,

factor

analysis,

discriminant

analysis

Compares four groups of

respondents and where

they obtained

information from.

Significant differences

across the four groups

with respect todemographic

characteristics, other

information sources

used, accommodation

and transportation

used, and travel

activities in the

destination.

Behaviour in

destination

Xia, Arrowsmith,

Jackson, &

Cartwright, 2008

Wayfinding Levels of familiarity with

the physical

environment

Case study Discusses wayfinding as a

cognitive psychological

process.

Pre-planned or unplanned

itinerary

Spatial and temporal scales

encountered in the

tourist visit

Landmark utility

Approach Two

Moutinho, 1987 Destination (a

compulsory sub-

decision

amongst many)

Preference Survey;

quantitative

analysis (facet

theory +

bivariate

theory)

Steps: 1. tourism need

arousal; 2. information

search; 3. decision on

different vacation items

(including destination);

and 4. travelpreparation.

Decision;

Purchase

Dissatisfaction;

Repeat-buying




18/26

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent variable Major independent variables Methodology Contribution

van Raaij & Francken,

1984; van Raaij,1986

Any tourist product Socio-demographic factors; Meta-analysis of

previousstudies

Steps: 1. generic decision;

2. informationacquisition; 3. joint

decision-making; 4.

vacation activities; and

5. satisfaction or

complaints.

Individual factors;Household factor

Woodside &

MacDonald,

1994

Destination;

accommodation;

activities;

attraction;

transportation;

eating; self-gifts;

other purchases

Consideration set; motives;

information search;

evaluation; intentions

Open-ended

structured

interviews;

Cognitive

mapping

Develops a general

systems framework of

tourist decision-making.

Larsen, Urry, &

Axhausen, 2007

Not applicable Not applicable Narrative analysis Shows that much tourism

should no longer be

seen as marginal and by

implication

unnecessary.

Pritchard & Havitz,

2006

Not applicable Not applicable Critical incident

technique;

Importance

performance

analysis using

content

analysis

Qualitative-based scores

gave evidence of being

both congruent with

and capable of being

both congruent with

and capable of

delivering a cleardistinct enunciation of

what tourists think

Teare, 1994 Accommodation Product experience; Participant

observation or

semi-

structured

interviews;

grounded

theory

method

Prior product experience

and product

involvement are the

core of the decision-

making process. Tested

10 proposition based

around this.

Involvement;

Evaluation;

Joint decision-making

Decrop & Snelders,

2004; Decrop &Snelders, 2005

Not applicable Not applicable Grounded

theory;Naturalistic

analysis,

ethnography

Presents a contextualized

study of vacationplanning starting from

a naturalistic

perspective.

Approach Three

Woodside et al., 2004 Not applicable Not applicable Storytelling;

Grounded

theory;

Holistic case-based reviews

of leisure travel

decisions and tourism

behaviour provides a

rich, deep, nuance-

filled understanding of

the causes and

consequences of such

behaviours

Long interview

method



19/26

Variance, simple process and interpretive (with its implicit complexprocess ethos) research conceptualises tourists decision-making as anorderly process of discrete state transformations, with well-defined in-puts and outputs. This conceptualization is founded in the various con-sumer behaviour models outlined previously and the first fiveparadigms of decision-making theory. Cognitive variants of such mod-els rely explicitly on the technical definition of information in infor-mation theory: a category of input necessary to change one (cognitive)state into another (cognitive) state. (Dickins, 2003,2004).

Conventional models fail to acknowledge that tourists decision-mak-ing is often focused on poorly defined problems in which there isconsiderable emotional capital. Tourists will have varying degrees ofexperience in such problem solving, but not withstanding this, conven-tional models are poorly suited to explaining how people make suchchoices. This is because they make an assumption of process-timeordering that is absent in all but a few cases. Furthermore, much of

the prior body of knowledge takes the individual as its level of analysis.Of course there are individual tourists, but more often than not tour-ism takes place in a group context. As such, conventional decision-mak-ing research takes a purely teleological perspective, in insisting thatpurposeful enactment by individuals should be the sole concern ofdecision-making theory. Some research does deal with group theories,but effectively takes a multi-teleological approach. It does not deal withdecision-making as a dialectic that accommodates pluralism, confron-tation or conflict (Poole et al., 2000, p. 66). More realistically, it seemsto us that decision-making more often than not is about processes of

conflict and synthesis between individuals in a group (Poole et al.,2000, p. 75). A further issue with conventional research lies in its def-inition of tourist products. Most studies deal only with a particular as-pect (usually destination choice). Rare is the research that deals withchoices made after the destination decision.

What we seek is balance. Rational variance research generatesinsights into inputs, but this needs to be augmented by process studies

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent

variable

Major independent

variables


Maoz, 2007 Not applicable Not applicable Ethnographic Suggests that studiesshould refrain from

regarding all

backpackers as a single

entity. Further studies

of backpackers and

other tourists could

shed light on specific

cultural backgrounds

and their effect on

patterns of traveling

and their behavior and

motivations.



20/26

that enable us to identify decision-making heuristics. The need is to an-swerRichies (1994)call (cited inDecrop, 2006, p. 45) for

a comprehensive framework describing the many components and processesinvolved in tourist decision-making and taking into account the context in

which decisions are made.

Here lies an opportunity to deploy lessons learned from the sixthparadigm. The fit of naturalistic decision-making with tourism isnot immediately obvious, although at least one review has postulatedthe use of the approach in developing competences in tourism servicerecovery (Thwaites & Williams, 2006). Including this, the applicationof naturalistic decision-making thus far has been limited to individualand groups of professionals as distinct from non-professional tour-ists. The paradigm also employs conventional cognitive psychology

protocols. However, the majority of studies report socially constructednarratives of decision-making episodes, rich in heuristics and offeringclear insights into process. This is because data acquisition and analyt-ical techniques commonly used in the naturalistic paradigm implicitlyposition decision-making as an embedded social practice. Suchembeddedness is visible only where data on decision-making interac-tions are analysed in critical time order as the decision emerges.Moreover, such approaches enable understanding of how decisionsare socially constructed. Consequently, naturalistic decision-makingimplicitly embodies the characteristics of the complex process

approach.

CONCLUSION: A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE ON TOURISTSDECISION-MAKING

Whilst more recent work has begun to focus on decision-making pro-cesses (Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1986) its value has been ques-tioned (Crozier & McLean, 1997 cited in Sirakaya & Woodside,2005), not least since decision-making is highly individualistic. Tour-

ists decision-making it seems does not easily lend itself to the conven-tional derivation of grand theories. Consequently, there is a need tounderstand tourist decision-making from alternative theoretical per-spectives. One avenue is the development of critical theories of tour-ists decision-making that are complex, defamiliarizing and rich inparadox (DiMaggio, 1995). Also relevant are narrative-based (ordiscursive) approaches to theorizing, based in naturalistic accountsof social process or discourse, with an

. . .emphasis on empirical tests of the plausibility of the narrative aswell as careful attention to the scope and conditions of the account

(DiMaggio, 1995, p. 391)

Such approaches allow the derivation of decision-makers heuristics,their effect upon choice behaviour and the influence of contextualfactors upon these rules and actions (Sirakaya, McLellan, & Uysal,



21/26

1996). These cannot yield grand theories, but this manner oftheorizing affords the development of pragmatic models ofbehavioural processes of which we do not yet really have a completegrasp (Weick, 1995).

Relative to variance studies, process studies are less common in thetourism literature. Partly this may be because they challenge en-trenched social sciences conventions. It may also be due to the accu-sation or lingering suspicion that they employ methods that are atbest soft (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Lipshitz, Klein, Orasanu, &Salas, 2001, pp. 67) or at worst invisible, incomprehensible, illegit-imate or impractical (Pfeffer, 1995 cited in Orton, 1997). However,those we identified demonstrate that rich data can be rigorouslygenerated.

Complex process studies open up our understanding of consumer-

tourist decision heuristics, their effect upon choice behaviour andthe influence of contextual factors upon these rules and actions (Sira-kaya et al., 1996). This is because they offer researchers the opportu-nity to narrate emergent actions and activities by which touristsdecision-making unfolds. Using these techniques it is feasible to iden-tify different approaches to decision-making and the circumstances inwhich these apply. Because the unit of analysis is the tourist (ratherthan touristic or tourism artefacts), we may more easily see variationsacross different areas of decision-making that tourists are concernedwith. A complex process approach accommodates both rationalityand irrationality, because it makes no assumptions about the rationalityof individuals. The focus isprocess, that is, what is it the tourist does, notnecessarily what information do they do it with?

AcknowledgementThis work is funded under the New Zealand Foundation for Research Sci-ence and TechnologyEnhancing the Financial Economic and Sustainable Yield from TourismProject.The authors are grateful to our colleagues on the project, David Simmons, Susanne Becken,Crile Doscher, Jude Wilson (all at Lincoln) and Pip Forer (Auckland University) for theirencouragement and feedback in the development of this piece. We are also grateful for

the comments of two anonymous reviewers which led to substantial amendments, particularlyin justifying our ontological and epistemological position, and in correctly sourcing the schol-arly work of Aristotle. We are also grateful to John Moriarty of Victoria University Wellingtonfor his scholarly guidance on ancient causation.

REFERENCES

Aristotle (1984). In J. Barnes (Ed.),The complete works of AristotleThe revised Oxfordtranslation(Vol. 1). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of co-operation. Harmondworth: Penguin.Axelrod, R. (1997).The complexity of cooperation. Agent-based models of competition and

collaboration. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organisational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.

Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496515.Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. A. (2004). Exploratory research of tourist motivations and

planning.Tourism Management, 25(3), 387396.



22/26

Bargeman, B., & van der Poel, H. (2006). The role of routines in the vacationdecision-making process of Dutch vacationers. Tourism Management, 27(4),707720.

Beerli, A., Meneses, G. D., & Gil, S. M. (2007). Self-congruity and destinationchoice.Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 571587.

Brey, E. T., & Lehto, X. Y. (2007). The relationship between daily and vacationactivities.Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 160180.

Cohen, M. D., March, J., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model oforganizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 124.

Conte, R., Edmonds, B., Moss, S., & Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Sociology and socialtheory in agent-based social simulation: A symposium. Computational andMathematical Organization Theory, 7, 183205.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of TourismResearch, 6(4), 408424.

Crozier, D. A., & McLean, F. (1997). Consumer decision-making in the purchase ofestate agency services. Service Industry Journal, 17(2), 278293.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963/1992). A behavioural theory of the firm(Second

ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Decrop, A. (2006). Vacation decision making. Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing.Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2004). Planning the summer vacation: An adaptable

process.Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 10081030.Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2005). A grounded typology of vacation decision-

making.Tourism Management, 26(2), 121132.Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of

qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lin coln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Second ed., pp. 129). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications Inc.

van der Duim, R. (2007). Tourismscapes an actor-network perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(4), 961976.

Dickins, T. E. (2003). What can evolutionary psychology tell us about cognitivearchitecture?History and Philosophy of Psychology, 5(1), 116.

Dickins, T. E. (2004). Social constructionism as cognitive science. Journal for theTheory of Social Behaviour, 34(4), 333352.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on what theory is not. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 40(3), 391397.

Dowe, P. (2004). Causal processes. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),The Stanford encyclopedia ofphilosophy(Winter ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage PublicationsLtd.

Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision-making. Psychological Bulletin, 51,380417.

Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. (1986). Consumer behavior(Fifth ed.).Chicago, IL: The Dryden Press.

Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. J., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer Behavior. New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Eugenio-Martin, J. L. (2003). Modelling determinants of tourism demand as a five-stage process: A discrete choice methodological approach. Tourism andHospitality Research, 4(4), 341.

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gilbert, D. C. (1991). Consumer behavior in tourism. In C. P. Cooper (Ed.).Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management(Vol. 3, pp. 78105).Lymington, Hants, UK: Belhaven Press.

Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation.Annals of TourismResearch,24(2), 283304.

Goodall, B. (1991). Understanding holiday choice. In C. Cooper (Ed.).Progress intourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 3, pp. 5977). London:Belhaven Press.

Gore, J., Banks, A., Millward, L., & Kyriakidou, O. (2006). Naturalistic decision-making and organisations: reviewing pragmatic science. Organization Studies,27(7), 925942.



23/26

Harre, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Howard, J. A. (1994). Buyer behavior in marketing strategy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John

Wiley.

Jafari, J. (1990). Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education.Journalof Tourism Studies, 1(1), 3341.

Jafari, J. (2003). Encyclopedia of tourism. London: Routledge.Jafari, J. (2005). Bridging out, nesting afield: Powering a new platform.Journal of

Tourism Studies, 16(2), 15.Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict,

choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.Jenkins, O. H. (1999). Understanding and measuring tourist destination images.

The International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1), 1.Jiang, J., Havitz, M. E., & OBrien, R. M. (2000). Validating the international tourist

role scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 964981.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions

under risk. Econometrica, 47, 262291.Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: The

MIT Press.Kubas, A., Yilmaz, F., Aktas, Y., & Metin, N. (2005). Analysis of visitor decision

making system when visiting natural recreation sites by multinomial logitmodel.Quality and Quantity, 39(5), 615623.

Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing atravel destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589599.

Larsen, J., Urry, J., & Axhausen, K. W. (2007). Networks and tourism: Mobile sociallife.Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 244262.

Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism Management(Third ed.). Malaysia: Pearson EducationAustralia.

Lew, A., & McKercher, B. (2006). Modeling tourist movements: A local destinationanalysis.Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 403423.

Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public AdministrationReview, 19, 7988.

Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., & Carroll, J. S. (2006). Introduction to the special issue.Naturalistic decision-making and organisational decision-making: Exploringthe intersections. Organization Studies, 27(7), 917924.

Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of naturalisticdecision-making.Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 14, 331352.

Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth inhospitality and tourism management. Tourism management, 29(3), 458468.

Liu, C.-M. (1999). Tourist behaviour and the determinants of secondary destina-

tion.Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 11(4), 3.Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational

choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92(368), 805824.Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: computational sociology

and agent-based modelling. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 143166.Mansfeld, Y. (1993). Tourism: Towards a behavioral approach. Oxford: Pergamon

Press.Maoz, D. (2007). Backpackers motivations the role of culture and nationality.

Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 122140.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organisations. New York: Wiley.Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.

Prentice Hall.

Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel. Boston, MA: CBIPublishing Company Inc.

Middleton, V. T. C., & Clarke, J. R. (2001). Marketing in travel and tourism(Thirded.). London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Molina, A., & Esteban, A. (2006). Tourism brochures: usefulness and image. Annals

of Tourism Research, 33(4), 10361056.



24/26

Money, R. B., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance oninformation search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations.Tourism Management, 24(2), 191202.

Moore, K. (2002). The discursive tourist. In G. M. S. Dann (Ed.), The tourist as ametaphor of the social world(pp. 4159). Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing.

Morley, C. L. (1992). A microeconomic theory of international tourism demand.Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 250267.

Moss, S., & Edmonds, B. (2005). Sociology and simulation: Statistical andqualitative cross-validation. The American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1095.

Mottiar, Z., & Quinn, D. (2004). Couple dynamics in household tourism decision-making: Women as the gatekeepers? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2),149160.

Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(10), 344.

Murphy, L., Mascardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Exploring word-of-mouthinfluences on travel decisions: friends and relatives vs. other travellers.International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(5), 517527.

Nicolau, J. L., & Mas, F. J. (2005). Heckit modelling of tourist expenditure:Evidence from Spain.International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(3/4), 271293.

Nicosia, F. M. (1966).Consumer decision process: Marketing and advertising implications.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Orton, J. D. (1997). From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gapbetween process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management,13(4), 419438.

Papatheodorou, A. (2001). Why people travel to different places.Annals of TourismResearch, 28, 164179.

Patterson, I. (2007). Information sources used by older adults for decision-makingabout tourist and travel destinations. International Journal of Consumer Studies,

31(5), 528533.Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92,

382402.Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London:

Tavistock.Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organisations. Belmont CA: Pitman.Pfeffer, J. (1995). Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory.

Organization Science, 6(4), 681686.Pine, B. J. (1992). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition

Cambridge. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. (2000). Organisationalchange and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987).Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes andbehaviour. London: Sage.

Prentice, R. (2006). Evocation and experiential seduction: Updating choice-setsmodelling.Tourism Management, 27(6), 11531170.

Pritchard, M. P., & Havitz, M. E. (2006). Destination appraisal: an analysis ofcritical incidents.Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 2546.

Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

van Raaij, W. F. (1986). Consumer research on tourism mental and behavioral

constructs. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(1), 19.van Raaij, W. F., & Francken, D. A. (1984). Vacation decisions, activities, and

satisfactions.Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1), 101112.Reilly, W. J. (1931). Thelaw of retail gravitation. New York: Knickerbocker Press.Richie, J. R. (1994). Research on leisure behaviour and tourism: state of the art. In

R. V. Gasser & K. Weiermair (Eds.),Spoilt for choice. Decision making processes andpreference change of tourists: Intertemporal and intercountry perspectives(pp. 227).Thaur, Germany: Kulturverlag.



25/26

Rugg, D. (1973). The choice of journey destination: A theoretical and empiricalanalysis.Review of Economics and Statistics, 55(1), 6472.

Runyon, K. E. (1980). Consumer behavior and the practice of marketing(Second ed.).Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Schmoll, G. (1977). Tourism promotion. London: Tourism International Press.Seddighi, H. R., & Theocharous, A. L. (2002). A model of tourism destination

choice. A theoretical and empirical analysis. Tourism Management, 23, 475487.Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 69, 99118.Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modeling vacation destination

decisions: A behavioral approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 5(1and 2), 5775.

Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision-making by travellers. Tourism Management, 26(6), 815832.

Stewart, J. Q. (1948). Demographic gravitation: evidence and application.Sociometry, XI, 3158.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 40(3), 371384.

Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision-making. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 23(1), 86112.

Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psycholog-ical regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 252267.

Teare, R. (1994). Consumer decision-making. In R. Teare, J. Mazanec, S. Crawford-Welch, & S. Calver (Eds.),Marketing in hospitality and tourism: A consumer focus(pp. 196). London: Cassell.

Thornton, P. R., Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (1997). Tourist group holidaydecision-making and behaviour: The influence of children. Tourism Manage-ment, 18(5), 287297.

Thwaites, E., & Williams, C. (2006). Service recovery: A naturalistic decision-making approach. Managing Service Quality, 16(6), 641.

Tran, X., & Ralston, L. (2006). Tourist preferences influence of unconsciousneeds.Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 424441.

Tsoukas, H. (2005).Complex knowledge: Studies in organisational epistemology. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destinationchoice.Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432448.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Development of pleasure travel attitude

dimensions.Annals of Tourism Research, 18(3), 500504.Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience. Conceptual developments. Annals of

Tourism Research, 32(1), 199216.Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying

organisational change. Organisation Studies, 26(9), 13771404.Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information

search model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551578.Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944).Theory of games and economic behaviour.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Wahab, S., Crampon, L. J., & Rothfield, L. M. (1976).Tourism marketing. London:

Tourism International Press.Weick, K. I. (1995). What theory is not, theorising is. Administrative Science Quarterly,

40(3), 385390.Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 490495.Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination

choice.Journal of Travel Research, 27(4), 814.Woodside, A. G., & MacDonald, R. (1994). General systems framework of customer

choice processes of tourism services. In R. V. Gasser & K. Weiermair (Eds.),



26/26

Spoilt for choice. Decision making processes and preference change of tourists:Intertemporal and intercountry perspectives. Thaur, Germany: Kulturverlag.

Woodside, A. G., MacDonald, R., & Burford, M. (2004). Grounded theory ofleisure travel. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 14(1), 739.

Xia, J., Arrowsmith, C., Jackson, M., & Cartwright, W. (2008). The wayfinding

process relationships between decision-making and landmark utility. TourismManagement, 29(3), 445457.

Zalatan, A. (1998). Wives involvement in tourism decision processes. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 890903.

Submitted 1 May 2008. Resubmitted 20 March 2009. Resubmitted 8 July 2009. FinalVersion 20 October 2009. Accepted 20 October 2009. Refereed anonymously. CoordinatingEditor: John Tribe

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com


Process Studies of Tourists’

Documents