CONSTANTE DIELECTRICA Y CONCENTRACIÓN 10,

When attempting to understand why visitors participate, or not, in specific tourism activities (in this particular study on Indigenous tourism), it is necessary to examine activity-specific choices rather than focus on general tourism (E. L. Jackson, 1983; Nyaupane et al., 2004). While consumer behaviour models have been criticised as being rational due to the process aspect, Cohen et al. (2013) argued that these models are needed to capture the complexity of decision making in tourism. Therefore, a model of consumer behaviour focused on activity- choices was developed for this study capitalising on the previous theories and models presented in this chapter, but incorporating elements to address the limitations previously identified in this field of research.

This model was built based on: (1) the modified TPCS model (shown in Figure 3-1), which is the conceptual framework guiding the consumer behaviour process (Martin & Woodside, 2011; Woodside & King, 2001). (2) The means-end theory to explore the push and pull motivations to engage in tourism activities (Klenosky, 2002). (3) The use of a holistic approach to psychographic characteristics by including three concepts: (a) personality – using Plog’s concept of venturesome (Weaver, 2012); (b) lifestyle – using RVS and LOV scales as the framework to code values as part of the means-end theory; (c) attitudes – opinions using the TPB theory and its related beliefs (Ajzen, 2011). (4) The inclusion of the widely used constraints typology: intrapersonal- interpersonal-structural (Crawford & Godbey, 1987).

52

Figure 3-2 Tourism activity choices model (developed for the present study)

The modification of the TPCS (see Figure 3-1) employs the rationale that not all the variables in the framework are directly related to the aims of the study, which focuses on understanding on-site activity choices. Therefore, the TPCS was modified to only focus on the variables that could guide this current research and to include other concepts that are not considered within the framework. Box 1 in Figure 3-1 shows that “background variables” (e.g. demographics and psychological factors), and “external influences” (e.g. reference groups, and marketing influences) have an impact on the visitors´ travel choices (decisions to be made). Within the background variables, personality, values and attitudes were included following the holistic approach recommended after analysing the psychographic section (see section 3.5). Also, the TPCS proposes the use of heuristics or choice rules as a way of visitors setting priorities for their choice decisions and intentions (Woodside & King, 2001). This was included in the model as a way of setting activity preference. Within Box 2 in Figure 3-1 it is suggested that “situation on-site influences” have an impact on activity participation. And finally within Box 3 in Figure 3-1 it is suggested that the “consequences” of participation have an impact on future participation. All these concepts have been maintained within the proposed framework (see Figure 3-2). It can be seen that Figure 3-2 does not include Boxes 1-3 in comparison with Figure 3-1. These were removed as this research study was based on people already visiting a particular destination. Therefore, the moments where “travel to the destination” decisions take place are not relevant for the present framework. This also addresses the previously identified limitation regarding decisions being “meticulously planned”.

In addition, other concepts that are not considered within the framework were added. The justification for additional relationships are described below.

53

Proposition 1: Personality, values and opinions (attitudes) influence travel choices. In particular, they influence the perceived attributes of the tourism activity.

Within the background variables, personality, values and attitudes (in this current study, opinions) were included following the holistic approach recommended after doing the literature review of the psychographics characteristics. It is important to point out that behavioural, normative, and control beliefs are part of “attitudes”. Situational social norms are part of the normative beliefs (Sönmez et al., 2006). Therefore, the previously identified limitation regarding the lack of inclusion of situational social norms is addressed in the present model.

Proposition 2: The perceived attributes of the tourism activity and the evaluation of them against other tourism activities, and the link with the destination, will lead to tourism activity preferences.

The addition of the variable “perceived activity attributes/alternatives” was incorporated as a way to not only link the push-pull theory with the concepts of motivations, and values, but to also incorporate the specific attributes of the tourism activity under evaluation by the visitor. As previously mentioned, this model represents the on-site decision-making process. Therefore, it is proposed that this evaluation would include judgments regarding the relationship between the activity and the destination (Woodside & King, 2001). This includes for example the perception of “must do” activities at certain destinations – critical attributes of destinations (Oppewal et al., 2015).

Proposition 3: Constraints have a negative impact on tourism activity participation. However, constraints can be negotiated based on the level of motivation to do the activity. Unsuccessful negotiation will lead to a lack of interest.

The constraints elements (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints plus the motivation and negotiation concepts) were included in the framework according to the model of E.L. Jackson et al. (1993). The inclusion of “lack of interest”, as a consequence of unsuccessful negotiations, and its connection with lack of participation is based on Gilbert and Hudson’s (2000) assertion. Two previously identified limitations of existing consumer-behaviour models include the lack of consideration of (1) joint or group decision-making process, and (2) situational factors. These two variables were included in the model. The first limitation was addressed by including the interpersonal constraint variable brought about by achieving joint or group decisions when visitors need to negotiate interpersonally. Situational factors are considered as part of structural constraints.

3.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter 3 has presented a review of the literature pertinent to the development of the conceptual framework used to guide this research. This review highlighted the importance of a holistic framework that integrates different elements related to consumer behaviour theories. It has also revealed that several consumer behaviour

54

theories, and disagreements, exist mainly within the areas of travel motivations and psychographic characteristics. However, it appears that the continued development of studies using different approaches could enhance the knowledge regarding tourism behaviour.

The discussion about specific frameworks that focused on tourism-activity choices instead of general tourism was also included as a justification for a better understanding of consumer tourism behaviour and the benefits that this focus could bring. Additionally, the discussion about leisure constraints and its use in tourism studies has highlighted the need to include this element within tourism consumer behaviour models.

Finally, the integration of all the concepts detailed in this chapter (consumer behaviour models, motivation theories both general and activity-focused, psychographic characteristics, and constraints) guided the development of the conceptual framework related to the research objectives.

55