PROCESOS EVIDENCIADOS

Yoo and Chon (2008) compared 10 models of consumer decision making with respect to their application in tourism. The models included those of Wahab, Crompon, Rothfield, (1976), Schmoll (1977), Mayo and Jarvis (1981), Moutinho (1987), Van Raaij and Francken (1984), Woodside and Lysonski (1989), Um and Crompton (1990). The key proposals, major contributions and limitations of the models were compared in a tabulated form. Some of these are discussed in detail below.

The Wahab et al. (1976) model is reproduced from Mair (2005) in Figure 4. It is a linear model. Although probably too rigid, the basic five stages involved in decision- making proposed by grand models are given here. The initial stimulus is provided by the need or want of the person to go on a holiday and the information received on different destination options. Thus, it becomes the motivational factor. Various options are weighed against travel needs leading to certain assumptions on the tour and its outcome. Opinions of others may matter here. But all these are related to information seeking. Then the alternatives are designed effectively shortlisting the number of possible destinations. The seller of the destination is involved here to forecast the consequences of the shortlisted options. The tourist then compares costs and benefits leading to a ranking of options from which the most suitable one is selected. The outcome of this process is buying, which can lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Being linear, there is no feedback loop thus preventing any future use of the specific case. This precludes revisit intentions from consideration.

In applying this theory to this study, the consumer wants to go on a MICE trip. Several MICE events at several venues are available. The consumer narrows down

to the topic and type of MICE event as per personal interest to be considered further. Perhaps one or more options are available in the KSA. From various sources, information is gathered about the country, venue and the event (and possibly from previous visit experience); a perception and an attitude are developed. Input by others and sellers of the destination may lead to assumed favourable attitudes about the destination, possibly the KSA. Based on the perceived outcome, including cost, time and benefits, the decision to possibly visit the KSA is taken. The negative factors of not deciding to visit largely don’t apply. Factors determining availability of multiple choices and narrowing down are measured. Refer to Figure 4.

Figure 4: Tourism Consumer Behaviour Model OF Wahab et al. 1976 (Mair, 2005)

The model proposed by Schmoll (1977) is reproduced in Figure 5. They named this model vacation sequence. Travel stimulus is provided by ads and other promotional and travel literature, suggestions from other travellers and travel trade organisations. Travel behaviour is determined by personal and social factors which include motivation, desire or need and expectations. Confidence in intermediaries who arrange travel, destination image and service, previous travel experiences and time and cost factors are the external factors. Cost and value, attractions and amenities, qualitative and quantitative travel information, local arrangements offered and range of opportunities weigh heavily. All these factors lead to a desire to travel, prompting information search, assessments and comparisons of options resulting in decision making on destination choice. This model looks like an expanded version of Wahab

et al. (1976). There is no feedback loop here also, and the assumption of rational decision making holds. In this model, method of travel stimulus is important.

Figure 5: Vacation Sequence Model Proposed by Scholl (1977) (Mair, 2005)

The model proposed by Mathieson & Wall (1982) includes five components in the decision making process. These are: desire for travel or its felt need, collection of information and its evaluation, travel decisions, travel preparations, and experiences and evaluation of travel satisfaction. In this model, the process goes beyond destination selection to evaluation of satisfaction. Travel preparations and experiences roughly correspond to the attitude and learning aspects of Howard- Sheth. In this case too, the linear nature is evident. The model can be applied especially to travel experiences, which are measured after the event. In this study, the questions about satisfaction measure travel experiences. The applicability to post-visit evaluation facilitates measurement of revisit intentions. Other components of the model are similar to the models discussed above.

The model proposed by van Raiij and Francken (1984) is reproduced in Figure 6. In deciding vacation trips, individual, socio-demographic and family factors interact towards a sequential process of generic decision-making, acquisition of information, joint decision making, vacation activities and satisfaction according to vacation experience. This model applies specifically to vacation trips with family. Although feedback loops exist, motivation and behavioural factors are not reflected in the model. The applicability of this model depends upon how many visitors have their families with them and given the focus on MICE travel where families are not the focus of travel it is less relevant to apply this model to this study.

Figure 6: Travel Consumer Decision Making Model of Van Raaij & Francken (1984) (Mair, 2005)

Another vacation tourist behaviour model was proposed by Moutinho (1987). This model is reproduced in Figure 7. Part 1 outlines the pre-decision processes, starting from internalised external influences motivating travel intentions, and this part ends in decision and purchase. Travel stimuli catalyses intention to travel to consider choices, make decisions and purchase. The second part is related to post-purchase evaluation. Expectations and actual experiences are compared along with costs and value for money. The end result may be satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Any one of these may influence future decisions. Fields and sub-fields are marked in the process steps. This complex model recognises three distinct stages in decision- making. The importance of behavioural concepts-motivation, learning and cognition- are recognised. However, part 3 is implicit in part 2. Hence, a separate part 3 may be considered superfluous. The complexity of the model is a constraint on achieving a definite outcome. This study will need to consider all the three stages: pre- decision, decision, trip and outcome as this model proposes.

Figure 7: Vacation Tourist Behaviour Model of Moutinho (1987) (Mair, 2005)

To summarise the above discussion, a table comparing the above models with respect to their applicability and limitations in this study is given in table 2.

Thus, it is evident that any of these models are applicable to this study only in part. The biggest problem common to all these models is that there is no provision to compare cultural differences, especially between Muslims and non-Muslims in decision making, which is the focus of this study.

Table 2: Comparison of different decision making models in tourism for their applicability and their limitations for the objectives of this study

MODEL APPLICABILITY TO THIS

STUDY

RESTRICTIONS

Wahab et al (1976) Sources of information, perceptions and attitudes about KSA leading to choice decision.

Negative factors against decision to visit KSA and revisit intentions cannot be measured.

Schmoll (1977) Information sources, attitude, motivation, perception and previous experience related with decision making. Possible to differentiate decision making of freshers from those with experience.

No cost and benefits estimation, revisit intentions cannot be measured.

Mathieson & Wall (1982)

Measurement off

experience after the trip is possible through

satisfaction, revisit intention measurable.

Travel preparations stage and learning achieved in the trip are not measurable.

van Raaij and Francken (1984)

Individual and socio- demographic factors relevant, revisit intention measurable.

Applicable only to visitors with families, behavioural and

motivation aspects not measurable.

Moutinho (1987) Pre-decision, trip, post-trip outcome stages and revisit intention can be evaluated

Economic aspects not part of the study.