C OMPAÑÍAS PETROLERAS , MILITARES Y RUNAS

Choice Set models demonstrate how alternatives are treated in the decision making process, however, they require significant interpretation to understand how the alternatives are chosen for each set. In an attempt to address this, Crompton concluded his 1992 paper by posing ‘three secondary questions that have implications for the types of information that are likely to be effective in influencing individuals at each stage’ (Crompton, 1992 p. 430). Crompton’s (1992) first question is whether the criteria used to evaluate destination alternatives differ at each stage and his second is whether decision rules used to discard alternatives at each stage is different. Both of these questions may be answered simultaneously.

The Awareness Sets present in choice set model will normally contain a vast number of destinations that a tourist is aware of, from which a limited number must be selected to continue to the information search and evaluation stages the decision making process, i.e. the Late Consideration/Evoked Set. This limited number has been identified through empirical research (Woodside and Sherrell, 1977; Bronner and de Hoog, 1985) as consisting of 4 (± 2) destinations, implying that an extensive cull must take place during the early stages of decision making and that large numbers of alternatives will be moved from the Awareness Set to either the Exclusion or Surrogate Sets. Given the existence of large numbers of alternatives in the Awareness Set, the decisions on each alternative will have to be made succinctly before they are appraised in any detail whatsoever. The transition from the Awareness Set to the Evoked Set may actually be perceived as consisting of a number of sub-stages and involving different decision making rules and behaviour. For example, as discussed previously, cognitive science literature has suggested that two different modes of information processing exist; unconscious (system 1) and conscious (system 2). Unconscious decisions are made when the number and complexity of the alternatives overwhelm the conscious information processing ability of the decision maker resulting in the need for an initial,

89 automatic elimination of a number of alternatives. As Decrop (2010, p. 101) states, ‘exclusion may be a function of the type of trip considered’, therefore many alternatives may never enter consideration due to an obvious inappropriateness (the contrast between ski resorts and beach destinations illustrate how specific requirements may be satisfied by one but not the other). The remaining alternatives (of which there may still be many) are then subject to conscious appraisal, at least at a perfunctory level.

Process tracing literature has shown that in situations involving large numbers of complex alternatives, non-compensatory strategies are initially adopted to make an initial reduction of the numbers due to the simplicity of the required cognitive process in comparison with compensatory strategies. Consistent with this philosophy of fast and frugal decision making, lexicographic decision making strategies should be the first to be applied through the appraisal of criteria such as accessibility which may be objective in nature, i.e. they either do or do not prevent the destination from being a viable option.

Following on from this, the decision maker is left with destination attributes that are subject to taste and preference and may be described as subjective. If the list of destination alternatives at this stage is still extensive enough to challenge and exceed cognitive ability to conduct detailed assessment of each, literature on heuristics suggests that the alternatives are retained or eliminated based on the decision makers’ assessment of priority attributes. The decision maker will have an internally constructed value system which informs their perception of destination attributes and creates a minimum acceptance level; destinations with key, non-compensatory attributes that fail to meet the decision maker’s minimum acceptance levels will be excluded from further consideration. Decrop (2010, p. 99) provided an example of this Elimination by Aspect strategy in his longitudinal study of Choice Set formation by quoting a respondent as saying that she excluded Asian countries from consideration for her summer vacation because of the hot climate. For her, this single, immutable attribute was sufficient to rule out a large number of alternatives.

Having identified destinations that are available and that also meet the minimum requirements, an appraisal of the remaining alternatives must be made based on attributes which are considered compensatory such hotel location, quality and cost. Heuristic strategy literature describes this judgement of compensatory attributes as the weighted additive rule. The decision makers’ judgement of these compensatory attributes will allow them to create a manageable Evoked Set,

90 normally consisting of the (4 ± 2) alternative that are perceived to have the highest net satisfaction levels from which a more in depth appraisal and comparison of attributes may take place to result in the single alternative which is most preferable.

Returning to Crompton’s first two questions (whether the criteria used to evaluate destination alternatives differ at each stage and whether decision rules used to discard alternatives at each stage is different), by comparing the two Choice Set models and applying research on Heuristic Strategies and Process Tracing, it can be seen from existing literature that first, the criteria used to evaluate destination alternatives does change from those aspects which are prerequisites for travel to those that are merely preferable. Secondly, it can also be seen that the decision rules used to discard alternatives also change from non-compensatory to compensatory in tandem with the criteria. Initially, the relatively large list of alternatives may be screened by relatively simple, non- compensatory strategies beginning with Lexicographic heuristics, followed by Elimination by Aspetc. Once the list of alternatives has been reduced to those which are available and that meet the acceptable minimum standard, the relatively small number of remaining alternatives judged based on a relatively complex heuristic which appraises all of the relevant attributes to create a ranking of preferred choices. The idea that different heuristic strategies applied at the different stages of decision making is supported by Decrop (2010) who states that initial the elimination of alternatives is achieved ‘through the use of simple heuristics’ (Decrop, 2010, p. 95) and subsequently, final selection is made ‘based on more elaborate heuristics’ (Decrop, 2010, p. 95).

Research conducted by Perdue and Meng (2006) also suggest that the heuristic strategies change as the number of choice alternatives is reduced though the decision making process. Their findings were that the reasons for destination rejection were different to the reasons for destination selection, i.e. ski resorts were rejected because they were too expensive or inaccessible, but from the remaining alternatives, choice was made based on snow quality and mountain characteristics. In their research they conclude that ‘factors affecting inclusion in the consideration set may not be the same as the factors influencing the final choice’ (Perdue and Meng, 2006, p. 347). Their paper ends by saying ‘obviously, further research is needed to examine this conjecture (Perdue and Meng, 2006, p. 347). No such research has yet been conducted, therefore the following hypothesis will be tested:

91 Hypothesis 6: non-compensatory heuristic strategies are applied at the Early Consideration Stage,

and compensatory heuristics are applied in the Late Consideration Stage.

The third question posed by Crompton (1992) asks whether types of information and their sources change during the choice set funnelling process. Using Crompton’s own model, it can be seen that the Awareness Set will be populated from internal information, i.e. from memory. In the following stage, where alternatives must be allocated to the Evoked, Surrogate or Exclusion Sets, information may also come from external sources, but they will be passive in nature as active information search has not yet begun. Mass media, word of mouth (both external) and prior knowledge (internal) are all examples of information sources which may influence the formation of choice sets at this stage. Having created a small Evoked Set, the decision maker finally engages in active, external information search in order to make informed decisions on the alternatives considered (Crompton, 1992). Active external information sources may be both commercial and non-commercial and a consumer using a mixed information source strategy is likely to engage with both types of source to minimise the risks associated with the final decision (especially the performance risk).

Although Crompton appears to answer his own question, beyond identifying internal/external, passive/active and potentially commercial/non-commercial sources, it remains somewhat ambiguous as to which specific sources of information are used at each stage. Even within the external, active, commercial category, the range of information sources is extensive. Compounding this ambiguity is the migration of many types of information onto the Internet creating a variety of sources through that single medium adding a new dimension to information distributors. Agents and representatives are now heavily active online in the tourism industry, as are independent commercial organisations such as Lonely Planet and third party users who utilise the functionality of ‘Web 2.0’. Understanding the role of information sources used during the decision making process is vital to destination authorities operating in a highly competitive market. Dellaert et al (1998), for example, conducted research on the sequence of holiday element decisions (destination, accommodation, mode of travel etc..) and found that sequential communication of element attributes may be more effective in interacting with potential tourists, but also suggested that there are benefits in ‘bundling’ information on several aspects together. Stronger guidance would benefit destination management organisations.

92