Categorías de análisis

To ensure that the collected data addressed the research questions, it was imperative that the questionnaire was constructed effectively (Jennings 2010). In order to collect the appropriate data, the questionnaire comprised a mix of questions, ranging from attitudinal measures to open-ended questions.

As the research questions concerned expectations, expectancy disconfirmation and satisfaction, the key constructs and variables to measure them were determined, along with the most suitable measures for each (de Vaus 2013). Five-point Likert scales were employed to assess the pre-departure expectations and post-return disconfirmation held by volunteer tourists. While the pre-departure expectations were developed from a mix of both academic literature and the results of Phase 1, the use of EDP in this study provided two constructs that could be measured in the post-return questionnaire. In the earlier discussion of EDP, two methods dominate the measurement of disconfirmation: the inferred and direct methods. While the former measures the difference between performance [P] and expectations [E] to infer disconfirmation [D], represented as D = P - E, the latter takes a direct approach in asking respondents for their evaluation of expectancy disconfirmation (Meyer & Westerbarkey 1996; Teas 1993). The latter method was chosen to measure disconfirmation in this study due to the key criticism directed at the inferred method, in which the mathematical outcome of disconfirmation provides an understanding of performance only in relation to the initial expectation. This could result in skewed results where in a disconfirmation of +1 could have been the result of a respondent with P=2, E=1 or another respondent with P=5, E=4 (Chon, Christianson & Lee 1998; Teas 1993). Both of these hypothetical respondents could conceivably have very different satisfaction scores as a result of their vastly different initial expectations.

139

Additionally, the use of the direct method – the summary judgment of confirmation/disconfirmation by asking respondents if a variable was ‘better than expected’ or ‘worse than expected’ – eliminates the need for researcher calculations (Danaher & Haddrell 1996; Prakash & Loundsbury 1993). Critics of the direct method accuse it of neglecting the cognitive adjustments of expectations when disconfirmed (Yüksel & Yüksel 2001), a valid criticism from the viewpoint of the Assimilation Theory (Anderson 1973; del Bosque & Martín 2008). However, in examining the impacts of disconfirmation, it is the outcome and not the process of the disconfirmation that is most relevant to this study, thereby providing a clearer understanding of the actual effects disconfirmation has on behavioural intentions, regardless of the cognitive adjustments required. The measurement of pre-trip expectations in this study then indicates the levels of expectations relevant to each variable before it is affected by the experience, while the disconfirmation measures the post-experience, adjusted evaluations of expectation fulfilment for each variable.

Related to the measurement of these variables is the choice of scales. In social sciences, particularly in the area of customer satisfaction research, scaled responses are often used for the measurement of attitudes and attributes (Oliver 1980). Five- point Likert-type scales were used to measure respondents’ agreement with to the statements of expectation relating to their upcoming trip. A ‘Not Applicable’ (‘N/A’) option was also included in the event that respondents did not think that particular items were applicable to them. Likert-type scales, commonly used to measure attitudes or opinion (de Vaus 2013), allowed respondents to not only express their level of expectation for each item, but also indicate the extent to which these expectations were important to them. While the most common ratings for these scales are five-, seven-, and nine-point scales, the five-point scale was chosen for this study

140

as it provides a simple measure of amplitude in agreement or disagreement, without overwhelming the respondent with choices (Fink 2009; Rea & Parker 2005). This to ensure that respondents were not put off by having too many choices to select for the 20 expectation item involved, while still providing an indication of the directionality and intensity of their responses (de Vaus 2013). In addition, the instructions for the expectations section of the questionnaire were phrased neutrally to avoid influencing respondents’ answers towards agreement or disagreement. It was important to design the questionnaire in a way to best reflect the true views of the respondents, with as little interference or bias from the researcher as possible.

In measuring the variables for behavioural intentions and satisfaction, five-point Likert- type scales were also used. In regard to behavioural intentions, respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of their starting or continuing volunteer tourism or related activities beyond the trip. This scale was represented by ‘1 – Extremely unlikely’ and ‘5 – Extremely likely’ on opposing ends, with ‘3 – Neither likely nor unlikely’ in the middle. The five-point rating scale encompassed by these options was also chosen for its simplicity in allowing respondents to express the likelihood of their behavioural intentions positively and negatively, while acknowledging that some would feel more strongly than others about these intentions. Similarly, overall satisfaction was measured on a similar five-point Likert-type scale in the post-return questionnaire, with the options of ‘1 – Very dissatisfied’ and ‘5 – Very satisfied’ on each end, and a neutral ‘3 – Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ option.

In the disconfirmation section of the post-return questionnaire, where respondents were asked about how well their expectations were fulfilled in relation to the expectation variables, the middle option was ‘As expected’. This option represented the neutral confirmation of the expectation variables, without either positive or negative

141

confirmations which would have been represented by the other choices. This inclusion of a middle alternative was deliberate for several reasons. Firstly, while there are arguments for the use of binary answer formats – wherein respondents are only given two opposing positions to choose from – as they are quicker to answer and perceived as easier in general (Dolnicar, Grün & Leisch 2011), this study retained the middle alternative as a choice as it can be reflective of the true position of the respondent. Secondly, the omission of the middle position has been shown to contribute mostly to the moderate alternatives that were presented immediately to the sides of where a middle position might have been, with far fewer contributions to extreme positions (Presser & Schuman 1980). Lastly, the reliability and validity of response scales have been shown to improve with the inclusion of neutral middle alternatives (Saris & Gallhofer 2007).

In addition to these Likert-type scales, other multiple choice formats were utilised to gather relevant data. In the section on past experiences, where experiences could be easily counted as discrete encounters such as in the case of past overseas travel experiences, ordinal scales from ‘0’ to ‘5’ were used to measure respondents’ level of experience with related activities, with ‘More than five times’ as the last option. These ordinal scales allowed for easy recoding of those without experience, with minimal experience and with extensive experience when required for analysis (de Vaus 2013). Where it was not practical for past experience to be reliably recalled as discrete occasions – as in the case of past volunteering experience – respondents were asked to recall the average number of hours they had volunteered per month over the past year, as an indication of their experience of the related activity. Other ordinal scales were used for the amount each respondent paid for their trips.

142

Another form of measurement was undertaken to answer research question 5 - What are the sources that inform volunteer tourists’ expectations? In order to find out the information sources that contributed to the formation of their expectations, respondents were asked to rank a list of information sources, after they had been asked about their expectations. These information sources, compiled from previous studies on expectation formation (Gnoth 1997; Oliver 2010; Webster 1991) are representative of both external and internal sources. External sources, such as word of mouth, media and promotional claims, provide cues and create a framework for potential consumers in anticipation of a product or service consumption experience (Oliver 2010; Seabra, Abrantes & Lages 2007). On the other hand, internal sources of information generally originate from consumers’ past experiences and personal needs, playing a role in the intuitive expectations formed in advance of consumption (Oliver 2010). Both internal and external sources of information were listed in the pre- departure questionnaire, with instructions for respondents to rank the three sources of information that they thought had contributed the most to their expectations of their upcoming trip. The most influential was ranked 1, with progressively less importance choices ranked as 2 and 3. Although this list of information sources was compiled from the literature, provision was made for any other sources of information respondents consulted which were not on the list, with an ‘Others – Please specify’ option. This option allowed respondents to rank the newly-added source of information while also specifying its rank in relation to the other sources of information. This straightforward ranking exercise, while simple, was able to provide the data required to determine the key sources of information (Langville & Meyer 2012).

A key influence which could have distorted the responses received for this ranking exercise is the recency effect, in which short-term memory containing items that

143

respondents have been exposed to more recently has a higher probability of recall than those for which exposure was less recent (Körner & Gilchrist 2007). Factors that could have distorted the rankings via the recency effect include the dissemination of the questionnaire via sending organisations (thereby bringing sending organisations into recent memory) and the preceding questions about past experiences in travel and volunteering, all of which may have induced higher rankings for sending organisations or past experiences respectively. However, the order of the questionnaire placed the measurement of expectations directly before this ranking exercise, thereby disrupting the recency effect of the past experience questions on this ranking (Schwarz 2003). Aside from ordinal scales and item ranking, categorical multiple choice questions were used, especially to establish the demographic and volunteer tourism trip profiles of each respondent. These included questions related to respondents’ gender, their nationality, the countries they were mainly volunteering in, the types of volunteer activities they undertook, and their highest level of education obtained.

Since both rounds of questionnaire were self-administered, it was important to ensure that the questions were simply and clearly phrased, without compromising the quality of responses collected (de Vaus 2013). The use of a self-administration approach for these questionnaires was conducive to brief questions aligned closely with the overarching research questions. This was intended to reduce respondent attrition at the mid-questionnaire stage as a result of loss of interest which may arise in the case of overly long questionnaires (Rea & Parker 2005). Two issues were also crucial to the questionnaire design – that of social desirability and acquiescence in the responses. The social desirability effect assumes that many people answer survey questions in a way which presents themselves in the best light (Joinson 1999). This effect is more prominent in face-to-face questionnaire administration, as the urge to

144

appear favourably is magnified when in the company of another person, but can be reduced through the use of online questionnaire administration as it reduces the self- consciousness that may accompany face-to-face administration (Joinson 1999; Richman et al. 1999). This effect can be further reduced if respondents are allowed to complete questionnaires anonymously (Joinson 1999; Richman et al. 1999). While the former measure could be undertaken to reduce the effect of social desirability in the responses received, the latter measure requiring anonymity in the present study could not be enacted as the contact email of respondents was required to administer the post-return questionnaire. Therefore it could be expected that social desirability may affect some of the responses received.

Additionally, the acquiescence effect is most greatly felt in face-to-face interviews involving less educated respondents, where general questions are used, particularly on topics which respondents have not previously formed an opinion (de Vaus 2013; Hinz et al. 2007). It results in respondents being more likely to agree to attitudinal questions. While the key strategy for minimising this effect is the inclusion of a reverse coded ‘anti’ statement for every ‘pro’ attitude statement (de Vaus 2013; Schriesheim & Hill 1981), so as to cancel out the effect of acquiescence, this was not applied to the present questionnaire. The inclusion of reverse coded statements to all 20 expectation variables would have rendered the questionnaire long and unwieldy, increasing the rise of attrition due to the loss of interest (Rea & Parker 2005). In order to avoid this attrition, it was accepted that the responses received may have been affected by the acquiescence effect, while the expectation variables were worded as neutrally as possible to minimise this effect on responses.

Apart from the wording and selection of questions, the flow of the questionnaire was crucial to its design as it had the potential to either enable useful recall or produce

145

respondent bias (Rea & Parker 2005). As a result of the considerations noted above, the following flow was used in the pre-departure questionnaire:

Figure 5: Pre-departure questionnaire flow

As Figure 4 depicts, the pre-departure questionnaire adopted a chronological sequence of questions, starting from past experiences to upcoming trip characteristics, such as duration, location, cost and the activities involved. After encouraging this recall, respondents were asked to express their levels of expectation in relation to the themes in the questionnaire, along with the sources of information which informed their

[Past] An understanding of the

respondent's past experiences in travel, volunteering and volunteer tourism was established.

[Present] The respondent was encouraged to think about their upcoming trip, with

questions about the trip characteristics and the types of activities involved.

[Present & Future] The respondent was asked to express their expectations for the stated attributes of their upcoming volunteer tourism trip. They were also asked about what informed these expectations.

[Future] The respondent anticipated their behavioural intentions.

[Self] The respondent was asked for some basic demographic information and their email address was requested for

dissemination of the post-return questionnaire in round 2.

146

expectations. As there are different expectations, ranging from the ideal (‘should be’) to the minimum tolerable (‘must be’) (Oliver 1980), the wording of the expectations measured was critical to eliciting the most appropriate response from respondents (Kalamas, Laroche & Cézard 2002). The predictive expectations of respondents were most relevant to this study, particularly as the disconfirmation would be measured against their realistic predictions as opposed to ideal or minimum tolerable levels, and the expectations were phrased carefully with the terms ‘will be’ or ‘will’ referring to each. Respondents were then asked to express agreement with each predictive expectation on a five-point Likert scale. They were also given the option to select ‘N/A’ if an expectation was not applicable to them. Using the expectations as a springboard, respondents were then asked to consider their future behavioural intentions beyond volunteer tourism trips, and finally, basic demographic information and email addresses were requested to enable the dissemination of the post-return questionnaire.

The post-return questionnaire focused on recalling expectation disconfirmation and satisfaction with the respondents’ recently-concluded volunteer tourism trip, and asked about their behavioural intentions, eliciting more detail than was requested in the pre- trip questionnaire. This is illustrated in Figure 6:

147 Figure 6: Post-return questionnaire flow

The post-return questionnaire started by reminding the respondent about the pre- departure questionnaire that they had completed. It then explained that they would be asked about how these same expectations were fulfilled and prompted them to begin thinking about their expectations in relation to their volunteer tourism experience. This provided the perception of expectation fulfilment for each attribute. Expectation fulfilment was measured on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘Much worse than expected’ to ‘Much better than expected’, with ‘As expected’ in the middle. An ‘N/A’ option was also provided for those who thought that particular expectations were not applicable to them. An overall satisfaction rating was also sought, after the respondent had the opportunity to review the various aspects of their expectations and fulfilment. This was also measured on a 5-point Likert scale with options ranging from ‘Very dissatisfied’ to ‘Very satisfied’. The repeated measure of behavioural intentions was next, prompting respondents to anticipate their intentions relating to travel, volunteering and volunteer tourism in the future. They were also asked to elaborate on their behavioural intentions giving them the opportunity to articulate what they felt was most relevant.

[Present] The respondent was asked about their evaluation of how well their expectations were fulfilled, as well as their overall satisfaction.

[Future] The respondent was asked about their behavioural intentions. They were also asked to elaborate on their answers.

[Present & Future] The respondent was asked about the factors that may positively influence their local volunteering behaviour, as well as the barriers to actualising these behavioural intentions.

148

Finally and noting the researcher’s emphasis on volunteer tourism as a conduit for encouraging local volunteering, respondents were asked about the positive influences and major barriers to their future volunteering decisions.

In order to ensure a shared and consistent understanding of key terms, definitions were provided as a header on each page in both the pre-departure and post-return online questionnaires (Rea & Parker 2005). An example is provided in Appendix I. The definitions of the following terms were of particular note:

- Domestic travel volunteering,

- Host destination,

- Local volunteering,

- Overseas travel,

- Overseas volunteering, and

- Sending organisation.

The term overseas volunteering was used in preference to volunteer tourism. This substitution of terminology was deliberate. As critiques of volunteer tourism become more commonplace, there has been an increased reluctance on behalf of participants to identify themselves as volunteer tourists (Gray & Campbell 2007). This has prompted some to emphasise that they take overseas trips with the primary intention of volunteering, thus forming a distance from the leisure tourist image with its connotation of a secondary helping motive or agenda that is commonly associated with the term volunteer tourist. It was considered that using overseas volunteering

would avoid deterring potential respondents who may not identify positively with the

149