Adventure  Tourism  The  role  of  social  comparison  theory  in  

successful  adver6sing  images    

Ka6e  Dudley  Texas  State  University  

Adventure  Tourism  

•  Specialized  and  rapidly  growing  segment  of  tourism  •  Grew  a  yearly  average  of  65%  from  2009-­‐2012  •  $263  billion  industry  in  2012  

 (The  George  Washington  University  &  Adventure  Travel  Trade  Associa6on,  2013)    

 

Adventure  Tourism  Ac6vi6es  

Hard  Adventure      •  High  risk  |  commitment  |  

advanced  skill  •  Climbing  •  Caving    •  Kite  surfing  •  Paragliding  •  Trekking  

So.  Adventure  •  Lower  risk  |  basic  skills  |  led  

by  experienced  guides  •  Backpacking  •  Camping  •  Canoeing  •  Hiking  •  RaYing  

Tradi6onal  Adventure  Tourist  

•  Sensa6on  seekers  •  Willing  to  take  physical,  financial,  and  legal  risk  for  the  sake  of  adventure  

•  Main  focus  of  marke6ng  efforts  for  adventure  tourism  ou\i]ers  

 

Tourism  is  Changing  •  Two-­‐income  couples  choosing  not  to  have  children  •  Growing  single  adult  popula6on  •  Ac6ve  aging  popula6on  •  Challenge:  match  the  wide  array  of  products  to  changing  demographics  

Literature  Review  

Adventure  Tourism  •  Quest  for  knowledge  and  insight  (Weber,  2001)  

•  Restoring  a  displaced  equilibrium  (Fluker  &  Turner,  2000)  •  The  percep6on  of  risk  (Dickson  &  Dolnicar,  2004;  Cater,  2006)  •  Consumer  research  (Alexandrov,  Lilly,  &  Babakus,  2013;  Breazeale  

&  Ponder,  2011;  Meyers,  2010;  Walters,  Sparks,  &  Herington,  2010)  

Research  Gap  •  Effec6vely  appealing  to  an  adventure  tourism  audience  through  adver6sing  images  

 

 

Social  Comparison  Theory  

•  People  evaluate  their  opinions  and  abili6es  by  comparing  them  to  others’  opinions  and  abili6es.  

•  Upward  vs.  Downward  comparison    •  Three  features  of  high  SCO:  

(a)  High  ac6va6on  of  self;  men6on  more  first-­‐person  nouns  (b)  Strong  interest  in  what  others  feel;  interdependent  (c)  Uncertainty  of  self;  low  self-­‐esteem  or  neuro6cism    

Research  Ques6ons      

•  R1:  Does  the  level  of  intensity  portrayed  in  an  adventure  tourism  ac6vity  image  affect  consumers’  ahtude  toward  the  image?  

•  R2:  Does  the  level  of  intensity  portrayed  in  an  adventure  tourism  ac6vity  image  affect  consumers’  ahtude  toward  the  ac6vity?    

•  R3:  Does  the  level  of  intensity  portrayed  in  an  adventure  tourism  ac6vity  image  affect  consumers’  purchase  inten6ons?    

•  R4:  Does  social  comparison  theory  explain  the  rela6onship  between  effec6ve  adver6sing  images  and  consumers?    

•  R5:  Are  consumers  of  adventure  tourism  ac6vi6es  driven  by  upward  or  downward  comparisons  when  shown  adventure  images?    

 

Methodology  

•  3  x  2  experimental  design    3  (images:  high  vs.  low  vs.  neutral=control)  x  2  (social  comparison  orienta6on:  high  vs.  low)    

•  Pre-­‐test:  High,  neutral,  low      •  3  Surveys  

•  Stage  1:  view  images  •  Stage  2:  ahtude  toward  image/ahtude  

toward  ac6vity  •  Stage  3:  purchase  inten6on  •  Stage  4:  social  comparison  orienta6on  scale    

Sample    

•  Neighborhood  email  lists  from  Texas,  Virginia,  and  Ohio,  LinkedIn  and  Facebook  (n=510)    

•  Random:  170  per  survey  (n=510)  •  144  responses  •  44  per  intensity  level  (n=132)    

Results:  one-­‐way  ANOVA  

•  Ahtude  toward  image  •  Intensity  proved  insignificant  (p  =  .09)  •  High  intensity  more  favorable  (M  =  4.77)  vs.  (M  =  4.30)  

•  Ahtude  toward  ac6vity    •  Intensity  proved  insignificant  (p  =  .24)  •  High  intensity  more  favorable  (M  =  5.72)  vs.  (M  =  5.45)  

•  Purchase  inten6on  •  Intensity  proved  insignificant  (p  =  .29)  •  High  intensity  more  favorable  (M  =  3.74)  vs.  (M  =  3.40)    

Results:  two-­‐way  ANOVA  

•  No  significant  interac6on  between  SCO  and  intensity  level:  (p  =  .37)  (p  =  .68)  (p  =  .76)  

•  Ahtude  toward  the  image  •  SCO  effects  significant  (p  =  .05)    •  High  SCO  more  favorable  (M  =  4.76)  vs.  (M  =  3.98)  

•  Ahtude  toward  the  ac6vity    •  SCO  effects  significant  (p  =  .001)  •  High  SCO  more  favorable  (M  =  5.98)  vs.  (M  =  4.98)  

•  Purchase  inten6on  •  SCO  effects  significant  (p  =  .009)  •  High  SCO  more  favorable  (M  =  4.09)  vs.  (M  =  2.88)  

Discussion    

•  R1:  Does  the  level  of  intensity  portrayed  in  an  adventure  tourism  ac6vity  image  affect  consumers’  ahtude  toward  the  image?  

•  R2:  Does  the  level  of  intensity  portrayed  in  an  adventure  tourism  ac6vity  image  affect  consumers’  ahtude  toward  the  ac6vity?    

•  R3:  Does  the  level  of  intensity  portrayed  in  an  adventure  tourism  ac6vity  image  affect  consumers’  purchase  inten6ons?    

 •  Image  intensity  level  is  not  significant  

 

Discussion  con6nued…  

•  R4:  Does  social  comparison  theory  explain  the  rela6onship  between  effec6ve  adver6sing  images  and  consumers?    

 •  High  SCO    – Posi6ve  ahtude  toward  the  brand    – Posi6ve  ahtude  toward  the  ac6vity  – Posi6ve  purchase  inten6on  

Discussion  con6nued…  

•  R5:  Are  consumers  of  adventure  tourism  ac6vi6es  driven  by  upward  or  downward  comparisons  when  shown  adventure  images?    

•  Upward  vs.  Downward  comparison  – High  intensity  =  less  experienced  – Low  intensity  =  more  experienced  

•  Target  market  aliena6on    

Conclusion  

•  Lack  of  research  focusing  on  images  and  adventure  tourism  •  As  the  industry  grows  so  does  the  need  for  sophis6cated  marke6ng  

efforts  •  Social  comparison  theory  has  explanatory  power  how/why  people  

use  experiences  to  display  a  self  image  •  Intensity  level  does  not  ma]er  à  appeal  to  those  with  less  

experience  for  a  feeling  of  inclusion  in  the  target  market  •  Taking  part  in  an  adventure  ac6vity  is  enough  to  display  the  

characteris6cs  of  high  SCO  regardless  of  the  intensity  level  of  the  images  

•  Heightened  awareness  of  self  image  +  low  self-­‐esteem    •  Create  adver6sements  that  allow  consumers  to  live  vicariously  

through  them  (Walters,  Sparks,  &  Herington,  2010).        

Limita6ons  and  Future  Research  

•  One  ac6vity  (whitewater  raYing)  •  Sample  size    •  Current  tourism  habits  •  Images  accompanied  by  text  or  brand  name