China Outbound Tourism Market - Outbound Tourists Visits, Tourists Spending & Forecast
Process Studies of Tourists’
-
Upload
anil-verma -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 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 -
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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.
400 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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.
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 401
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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):
402 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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),
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 403
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
404 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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)
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 405
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
406 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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)
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 407
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
408 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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).
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 409
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
410 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
15/26
Table 3 (continued)
Authors Dependent
variable
Major independent
variables
Methodology Contribution
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
(continued on next page)
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 411
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
412 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
17/26
Table 3 (continued)
Authors Dependent
variable
Major independent
variables
Methodology Contribution
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
(continued on next page)
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 413
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
414 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
Methodology Contribution
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.
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 415
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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,
416 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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.
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 417
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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.
418 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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.
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 419
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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.
420 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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.),
C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422 421
-
8/11/2019 Process Studies of Tourists
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
422 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397422