El estado sociocultural del Shuar de antaño con el actual.

Whereas the previous section looked at the entire consumer decision-making process in tourism, the following section will focus on one part of the buying process: the evaluation of alternatives in tourism. This aspect of the buying process has been the focus of significant research. Of particular interest are the models developed by Moscardo (1996), Um and Crompton (1990), and Woodside and Lysonski (1989).

3.11.1 Woodside and Lysonski 1989

The “General Model of Traveller Destination Choice” was developed by Woodside and Lysonski in 1989 and it proposed that “tourism marketing and research policy should be based on consumer perceptions and preferences” (Woodside & Lysonski, 1989, p. 8). The model incorporates eight variables and nine relationships. This includes marketing and traveller variables, destination awareness, affective associations, traveller destination preferences, intentions to visit, situational variables, and choice (see Figure 3.2).

Although a relatively simple model, it demonstrates the importance of the categorisation process of various destinations, from which preferences, intentions and ultimately destination choice result. More specifically, before deciding on a preferred destination,

64

the model suggests that consumers place all destinations into one of four awareness sets: consideration set, inert set, unavailable/aware set and inept set.

The awareness set is simply the total number of destinations a potential tourist knows to be available as a potential destination choice. The inert set includes destinations the individual is aware of, but would not actively consider as a holiday destination. The unavailable/aware set consists of destinations the individual is aware of, however believes are unavailable or difficult to go to due to distance, access problems, etc. Finally, the inept set includes destinations rejected by the individual as it is perceived to comprise more negative than positive affective associations (Woodside & Lysonski, 1989).

Of these, the most interesting in terms of marketing is the consideration set (also known as the evoked set), as positive associations relate more with this set than those in other sets (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2004). The fact that a destination is in the consideration set for an individual consequently implies that this destination is more likely to be considered and possibly selected as the destination choice (Mair, 2005). Therefore, it is important for destinations to maintain their presence in the minds of consumers if they wish to even be considered as a potential holiday destination. It may be the case that changes in destination characteristics, such as the implementation of climate change adaptation options, may be of significance when tourists make their final choice in terms of destination.

65

Figure 3.2 Woodside and Lysonski’s General Model of Destination Choice

Source: (Woodside & Lysonski, 1989).

3.11.2 Um and Crompton 1990

Um and Crompton (1990) proposed a “Model of the Pleasure Travel Destination Choice Process” which consists of five sets of processes and three different concepts – external inputs, internal inputs and cognitive constructs. External inputs are described as “ the sum of social interactions and marketing communications to which the potential pleasure traveller is exposed” (Um & Crompton, 1990, p. 434). Internal inputs comprise the socio-psychological set and includepersonal characteristics such as motives, values and attitudes (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2004; Um & Crompton, 1990). Cognitive constructs represent “an integration of the internal and external inputs, into the awareness set of destinations and the evoked set of destinations” (Um & Crompton, 1990, p. 436)

66

The five processes identified in the model are as follows (Um & Crompton, 1990): 1. Belief formation (passive information catching).

2. Initiation of choice. 3. Evolution of evoked set.

4. Belief formation (active information searching) 5. Destination selection.

The model also identifies a three-stage process of destination selection that includes: (1) composition of awareness set; (2) evoked set; and (3) final destination selection, where the latter is a condensed form of the former (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2004; Um & Crompton, 1990). During the first stage, the traveller’s mind is involved in passive information collection, whereas during the latter stages the individual is involved in active information searching from external sources such as media, family and friends, and is also influenced by internal psychological aspects such as motives, values and attitudes (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2004; Um & Crompton, 1990).

Um and Crompton (1990) argue that travel destination choice depends largely on the attitude towards each alternate destination. As potential travellers often have limited knowledge of destination attributes (if they have not visited there previously), the image and attitude dimensions of a destination become critical (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2004; Um & Crompton, 1990). This is likely to be the case irrespective of whether these offer a true representation of what the destination has to offer. This emphasis on the role of attitudes is what really differentiates Um and Crompton’s (1990) model from that of Woodside and Lysonski (1989).

3.11.3 Moscardo et al. 1996

Following on from Um and Crompton was the model put forward by Moscardo, Morrison, Pearce, Lang, and O’Leary (1996). This model suggests “that the critical link between motives and destinations may be found in the understanding of activities” (Moscardo et al., 1996, p. 111). They suggest that activities are critical attributes of destinations which are evaluated by travellers according to their ability to satisfy specific needs. Unlike the other models discussed, Moscardo et al’s (1996) model is not descriptive of the entire destination choice process, preferring rather to focus on how activities can be related to motives, and consequently to destination choice. Activities

67

are central to this model, as they are seen as the link between motives and destination choice. Moreover, motives are seen as providing potential travellers with expectations for certain activities at a destination, and activities are seen as key attributes of destinations (Moscardo et al., 1996). Consequently, the model presented is not explicitly concerned with the entire process of destination selection; rather it brings the focus on destination attributes, namely activities.

This review of the major models of destination choice provides foundational knowledge of the consumer decision-making process as it relates to destination choice. The models share similarities in that they each identify the influence of psychological (internal) and non-psychological (external) factors on destination choice. Table 3.1 summarises the key propositions, major contributions and limitation of each of these models.

Table 3.1 Summary of the key propositions, major contributions and limitations of the discussed models of destination choice

Author/Year Key propositions Major contributions Limitations

Woodside & Lysonski (1989) Destination choice is a result of a categorisation process. Awareness of a tourism product will transfer the same from long-term memory to working memory causing that product to be chosen over other possible products.

Cognitive and emotional factors mediate the relationship between choice sets and the actual choice.

Choice is affected by the interaction of intention to visit and situational variables.

Parsimony, simple but theoretically sound perspective on tourists’ decision processes.

Integration of various disciplinary knowledge into one comprehensive model of tourist decision-making.

Addition of variables that were overlooked by previous models (e.g., affective associations, traveller destination preferences, situational variables and their place of impact)

Size of the consideration set is small (three to five

destinations).

Limited description and testing of some of the constructs and the relationships in the model (i.e. affective associations).

Exploratory nature of the study with a relatively small and non-representative sample.

Use of cross-sectional survey data. Lack of empirical support in actual choice processes. Um & Crompton (1990) Attitudes play an important role in destination decision processes. Interaction between constraints and image are integral for destination choice decisions.

Conceptualization, operationalisation and empirical testing of attitudes in real destination choice processes.

Efficiency in the operationalisation of the dependent variable (eliminated the need for measuring behavioural intentions). Potential traveller’s awareness

Untested relationships in the model.

Lack of attention to emotions and joint decision processes.

Mostly cognition and individual traveller- based.

Marginalization of socialization process.

Measurement problems (lack of comparison of comparison at the abstract level, generation of destination attributes by two seemingly different

68

sets and evoked sets were identified longitudinally, confirming.

Earlier claims that destination choice sets narrow down over time (funnelling effect).

Provision of a simplistic but theoretically sound decision process model.

populations, experts and tourists which may produce non-comparable lists...we don’t know what abstraction level is used by actual decision makers).

The model is not reflexive and thus not dynamic.

It neglects the outcomes role in influencing the personality of the consumer for the next decision (missing reflexive loop).

Lack of tracing the actual decision- process (measuring decisions after such decisions have been already made).

Unsubstantiated assumption about the linearity of relationships between perceived inhibitors and facilitators.

Operationalisation of attitudes as the difference between perceived facilitators and perceived inhibitors.

Heavy reliance on Grand Models.

Moscardo, Morrison, Pearce, Lang & O’Leary (1996)

Critical link between motives and destination choice may be found in the understanding of activities.

Activities are seen as key attributes at destinations.

Identifies importance of matching activities offered and preferred activities in

determining destination choice.

Identifies activities as central to forming destination image and influencing destination choice.

Inclusion of section describing the destination itself (not included in the other two models).

Open to issues of perception, whereby the tourist may perceive that the destination offers the best array of activities, but due to tourism’s intangible nature, this may or may not be the case.

The model does not specifically identify and situational constraints.

Source: Adapted from Mair (2005), Sirakaya and Woodside (2004), and Woodside and Lysonski (1989).