Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.

93115, 2010 0160-7383/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.08.002

DESTINATION CHOICE SETS

An Inductive Longitudinal Approach
Alain Decrop Louvain School of Management, Belgium
Abstract: Choice or consideration set formation focuses on how consumers deal with the multitude of brands that are available in many product categories. This paper investigates the formation and evolution of destination choice sets over time through a longitudinal qualitative study of vacation decision making. A typology of seven choice sets is presented (i.e., available set, awareness set, dream set, evoked set, exclusion set, surrogate set, unavailable set); the emergence process and connections of those sets are then explained. Choice sets prove to be continuous and to undergo turnarounds. The paper indicates that, to a large extent, nal destination choice is driven by constraints and opportunities. Keywords: consumer behavior, choice sets, destination evaluation, interpretive research. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Business research and practice often presents consumers decision making (DM) as a sequential process involving a series of steps from need recognition (awareness) to nal choice (purchase) through the evaluation of products. In other words, decisions arise from cognitive, affective, and conative stages that lie at the core of hierarchy-of-effects (e.g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961) and most consumer behavior models (e.g., Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell, 1973; Howard & Sheth, 1969). Researchers may use product alternatives and/or attributes as a reference point when working with such models. This paper focuses on alternatives. Howard (1963) was the rst to suggest that alternatives are grouped in an evoked set which includes the brands consumers consider acceptable for the next purchase. More broadly, consideration or choice set models focus on the way consumers rst consider product or brand alternatives and then evaluate them in order to come to a nal choice (Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990; Howard & Sheth, 1969). These models assume a funneling categorization process through which consumers narrow the number of brand alternatives they are aware of down to a single choice. Choice set (CS) is used throughout

Alain Decrop is Professor of Marketing at the Louvain School of Management and a member of CeRCLe (Center for Research on Consumption and Leisure) at the University of Namur, Belgium (Rempart de la Vierge 8, 5000 Namur, Belgium. Email: <alain.decrop@ fundp.ac.be>). His major research interests include consumer decision making and behavior, qualitative interpretive methods, and tourism marketing. 93

94

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

this paper as a generic term to refer to different types of sets containing product alternatives people have in mind when making a decision. This research reconsiders the emergence of tourism destination CSs in a naturalistic interpretive perspective. Four major arguments justify why such a rediscovery is necessary. First, extant literature on destination CSs deals much more with the question as to why consumers move to simplify and limit the number of brands they consider than with how consumers form their CSs (Brisoux & Laroche, 1981; Gruca, 1989; Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990). Moreover, many studies focus on the structure and size of sets (for reviews, see Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990; Laroche & Parsa, 2000). In contrast, the literature is largely silent about the process of forming a CS. Laroche, Kim, and Matsui (2003) attribute this paucity to the lack of sound theoretical bases and to the difculty to research such a topic. As a consequence, the categorization and evaluation processes underlying CSs remain largely unexplored: It is unclear how an individual funnels the large number of alternatives from the initial CS to select the nal destination and which principles are used in the process, at least from an empirical point of view (Hong, Kim, Jang, & Lee, 2006, p. 750). Second, the few general CS models that have been proposed (e.g., Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Narayana & Markin, 1975; Turley & Leblanc, 1995) are purely conceptual/theoretical and lack empirical roots. Moreover, those models rely on a hierarchical and sequential vision of DM that gradually reduces the number of alternatives, which is in line with the idea of a (bounded) rational decision maker (March & Simon, 1958). Most papers have viewed the formation of CSs as a two-stage choice model wherein consumers rst decide which brands to consider and then, when a purchase situation arises, evaluate the remaining brands (Laroche et al., 2003). This vision makes little room for hedonistic, adaptive, and opportunistic perspectives that may be relevant in vacation DM (Decrop & Snelders, 2005). Finally, extant research fails to explore the dynamics of CSs both across and within usage occasions. Nedungadi (1990) and Turley and Leblanc (1995) note that a static view dominates the CS literature. Shocker, Ben-Akiva, Boccara, and Nedungadi (1991, p. 186) regret such a limitation because consideration sets are real, dynamic, changing with time and occasion, and affected by consumer contexts and purposes. For these four reasons, reconsidering the formation of CSs is worthwhile: Which types of CSs exist? How do they relate to each other? How stable are they over time? How do they lead to choice? The present study addresses such questions by investigating CSs in depth and dynamically, in the natural context of an actual vacation DM process. Before going into the empirical study, the next section presents extant literature on CS in marketing and tourism research respectively. CHOICE SET MODELS IN MARKETING AND TOURISM RESEARCH A range of theories in economics and psychology and a substantial number of empirical studies support CSs existence although they

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

95

are not directly observable (Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990; Shocker et al., 1991). Consumers tend to reduce the number of brands in consideration due to the limitation of cognitive capacity (Miller, 1956) and to the want to save information (Stigler, 1961). Authors such as Hauser and Wernerfelt (1990) and Roberts and Lattin (1991) view CS formation as a tradeoff between utility and cost. CS models also benet from considerable attention in the marketing literature (Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Hastak & Mitra, 1996; Howard, 1977; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Narayana & Markin, 1975; Nedungadi, 1990; Spiggle & Sewall, 1987; Turley & LeBlanc, 1995). Most authors suggest two typical stages. First, the brand-consideration stage involves retrieval (a function of both memory and brand accessibility) to form an evoked set (Belonax, 1979; Howard, 1963, 1977; Howard & Sheth, 1969), a consideration set (Roberts, 1989; Roberts & Lattin, 1991; Wright & Barbour, 1977), or an action set (Spiggle & Sewall, 1987), most of the time through the use of a simple heuristic. Next, the brand-evaluation stage pertains to the evaluation of brands to arrive at a nal choice (i.e., selection of a single brand) on the basis of more elaborated heuristics. A few authors (e.g., Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Shocker et al., 1991; Um & Crompton, 1990) add a brand-awareness stage before the consideration stage, which represents a perceptual stage wherein the consumer includes all the destinations s/he knows to arrive to an awareness set. Such a conceptualization works in a hierarchical manner: It is now a truism of marketing that brand awareness is a necessary precondition for choice (Nedungadi, 1990, p. 264); the consumer has to evaluate these brands before making a nal choice. In addition to the concepts of awareness set and consideration/evoked set that were the rst to appear in the literature, researchers introduced other types of sets which are dened in Table 1. Shocker et al. (1991) present a series of alternative models of CS formation and change. They show that CSs are real, dynamic, changing with time and occasion, and affected by consumer contexts and purposes. Tourism research models of destination choice are either in the form of CSs in input-output approaches of DM (Crompton, 1977; Um & Crompton, 1990; Woodside & Lysonski, 1989) or in the form of cognitive processes (Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Moutinho, 1987; van Raaij & Francken, 1984). CS models focus on the evolution of vacation destinations and/or plans in a series of CSs. Those models are in line with the two- or three-stage conceptualization presented above. The consideration set (evoked set) is part of the perceived opportunity set (awareness set) and comprises all the destinations the vacationer is contemplating for his/her current vacation. As the latter is not omniscient, the awareness set is itself only a part of the total opportunity set which entails all possible destination alternatives (Goodall 1991; Woodside & Sherrell 1977). Choice then consists in an evaluation and selection process through which the vacationer compares the destinations included in the consideration set on the basis of alternatives and/or attributes. Crompton and his colleagues (Ankomah, Crompton, & Baker, 1996; Crompton, 1992; Crompton & Ankomah, 1993; Um & Crompton,

96

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

Table 1. A Review of Choice Set Types in the Marketing and Tourism Literature
Choice set type Universal set Denition Totality of all alternatives that could be obtained or purchased by any consumer under any circumstance All possible brands Brands the consumer is aware of and can remember Brands about which consumers have some awareness Brands that the consumer would consider and on which s/he gathers information The subset of brands that a consumer considers buying out of the set of brands that he or she is aware of in a given product class Brands acceptable to the consumer Brands that a consumer will consider Brands that a consumer considers buying in the near future Alternatives toward which the consumer takes some action (e.g., looking for information) Brands that are acceptable but not really needed (have insufcient utility to be evaluated) Brands consumers are aware of but are not processing Alternatives toward which the consumer takes no action (e.g., looking for information) Brands that consumers process only partially (because they are not appropriate) Brands about which consumers lack a nal opinion (cannot say whether they would accept or reject) Brands that consumers discard Brands that are ruled unacceptable for some reason Brands the consumer is aware of but that are temporarily unavailable for some reason Authors Shocker et al. (1991)

Total opportunity set Awareness set

Woodside and Sherrell (1977) Howard and Sheth (1969) Brisoux and Laroche (1981) Howard (1963), Howard and Sheth (1969) Howard (1977)

Evoked set

Consideration set

Belonax (1979) Wright and Barbour (1977), Roberts (1989) Roberts and Lattin (1991) Spiggle and Sewall (1987)

Action set

Inert set

Narayana and Markin (1975) Brisoux and Laroche (1981), Church, Laroche and Rosenblatt (1985) Spiggle and Sewall (1987)

Foggy set

Inaction set

Hold set

Brisoux and Laroche (1981)

Church et al. (1985)

Reject set Inept set Unavailable aware set

Brisoux and Laroche (1981) Narayana and Markin (1975) Woodside and Lysonski (1989)

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

97

1990) introduce a distinction between the initial consideration set (awareness set), consisting of a large number of alternatives, and the late consideration set (evoked set), a reduced set from which consumers choose their nal destination. Botha, Crompton, and Kim (1999) and Hong et al. (2006) apply the same distinction in order to investigate the roles of categorization, affective image, and constraints in forming destination CSs. The latter authors show that the late consideration set determines sequentially the intention to visit a particular destination. Woodside and Lysonski (1989) further make a distinction between evoked set, inert set (brands for which the consumer has a neutral evaluation), unavailable aware set (the vacationer is aware of those destinations but s/he is not considering them actively because of particular constraints), and inept set (brands the consumer is not considering due to a poor previous experience or negative information). In addition to the structure of CSs, a few authors consider their sizes while others study the variables impacting their formation process. As to evoked sets sizes, Woodside and Sherrell (1977), Thompson and Cooper (1979), Woodside and Lysonski (1989), and Perdue and Meng (2006) respectively report means of 3.4, 2.7, 4.2, and 2.6 destinations. Bronner and de Hoog (1985) support Woodside and Sherrells (1977) proposition that vacationers make the effort to evaluate only a few (four two) alternatives among a much larger set of available choices. This proposition is in line with the larger study by Hauser and Wernerfelt (1990) which shows that most evoked sets are small, ranging from three to six depending on the product category. Woodside and Lysonski (1989, pp. 1213) further mention that the average size of the respondents consideration [i.e., evoked] sets was signicantly greater than the average number of countries mentioned in the respondents inert, unavailable, and inept sets. More broadly, authors such as Crompton and Ankomah (1993), Hong et al. (2006), and Botha et al. (1999) suggest three types of criteria affecting the funneling process that reduces the number of alternatives: personal motivations or push factors, destination attributes or pull factors, and situational variables or constraints. Study methods This paper is part of a larger study on vacation DM which followed the destination choice process of 25 Belgian decision making units (DMUs) for a whole year. The authors selected informants likely to yield rich and varied information in order to maximize theory development (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). DMUs consisted of four types: six singles (representing tourists who decide on their own), six couples (married or non-married), ten families with children, and three groups of friends. Acknowledging any intention to go on summer vacation was the only criterion to be eligible for the study. In addition to DMU types, the sample varied as to group size, age range, educational background, occupation, and vacation involvement.

98

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

We interviewed informants in depth three times before the summer vacation (in February, April, and June). The use of such a longitudinal design is justied by a few arguments. First, as mentioned previously, a major objective of this study is to follow the evolution of CSs over time in order to bypass the limitation of extant CS studies that have been undertaken in static contexts although CSs are dynamic in essence (Laroche et al., 2003; Shocker et al., 1991). Longitudinal research allows such an understanding of patterns of change and of causal relationships over time (Menard, 1991). The longitudinal design is further justied by a few empirical studies (Dellaert, Ettema, & Lindh, 1998; Francken, 1978; Moutinho, 1987; van Raaij & Francken, 1984), which have shown that vacation decision making is a long process stretching over a few months before the actual trip. Finally, a longitudinal design generally helps to improve the trustworthiness of qualitative studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Menard, 1991) because a relation of trust develops with informants, because data can be triangulated at different points in time, etc. During each interview, most members of the DMU were present, including children for families. In each interview, we asked informants to talk about the same three central themes: general vacation and travel behavior, expectations and motives, and current vacation projects and considered destinations for the summer. Most informants spontaneously mentioned a number of destinations when telling about their summer travel plans. In addition, in each interview series over time, we asked them a few questions in order to keep the discussion focused on CSs: Did you consider particular travel destinations yet? Which destination(s)? How did you come to consider that (those) destination(s)? Is this (are these) destination(s) available to you? [If more destinations] Which destination(s) do you prefer or are you most likely to go to? Are there some destination(s) where you will never go? However, following the principles of grounded theory (see below) and interpretive research, questions were open ended and not based on existing theories/hypotheses in order not to bias emerging results. We tried to avoid forcing the data and to keep enough room for discovery and for the emergence of the informants own views. The analysis and interpretation of the interview transcripts was based on the grounded theory approach, which is a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 24). In this study, categories, patterns, and propositions emerged from the data coding process and were not derived from extant literature. We strived toward a balance between theory blindness, with the risk of missing important theoretical phenomena emerging from the data, and an over-detailed examination of the literature, which bears the risk of forcing the data through preconceived ideas and hypotheses (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Only the sensitizing concepts of the study have been subjected to the initial literature review. We went into more details during and after the data collection and interpretation process to connect our emerging ndings to extant literature. Coding involved three levels (i.e., open, axial, and selective) from the most descriptive to the most interpretive, from the most con-

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

99

crete events to the most abstract processes. We used memos and diagrams as well, to assist in interpreting and establishing connections among concepts. EMERGING FINDINGS Four themes are discussed in this section, that is, types of CS, the continuity of evoked sets, sizes of evoked sets, and the dynamics of CS formation. Each theme is introduced or illustrated by quotes that help better appraise how the ndings progressively emerged from the data through our analytical process. Types of Choice Sets
Interviewer: What about your vacation plans for this year? Martine (single, teacher, 37): As I already told you, Im considering going to Denmark and the Faroe Islands because I really loved visiting Island last year and the year before, no sorry the year still before (thus three years ago when I went to Norvegia) and thus. . . [. . .] Or alternatively, if it really appears that I cannot leave at all [because Martines mother suffers from health problems], there is a chance that Ill go to Paris for one week-end but it will not be for a vacation then. . . It will only be for two or three days. Interviewer: So, it seems that you have an overall preference for Northern destinations? Martine: In summer, yes. Because I dont like big heats. Now its done, I will have to travel again. Maybe next year, that could be Peru or Bolivia because I also have those ideas in mind since a long time and because these are countries you can also visit in June, July, August. In contrast, I cannot do Asia at all: thats the monsoon time, so I cannot leave. So its true that Im always constrained to look at countries where its possible, which means a part of South America and North America. Interviewer: Does it mean that you choose your destinations depending on the climate? Martine: Not really, it depends on anything that can show up. Sometimes, its an infatuation, its. . . No, in this case, one should again remember that I had health constraints, thats why I couldnt make up my mind. If I cannot make up my mind, I have to choose a country where I can make a last-minute decision. This means that I make it by myself and therefore. . . If I take the Eastern countries, because I really could have gone to the Eastern countries but traveling alone in Eastern countries becomes very difcult, then . . . And yes, secondly, there is the problem of language, the problem is that you are never sure to be able to book beforehand, you can hardly trust people etc. I did not see myself backpacking alone in the Eastern countries, thats why I chose something easy...

In this opening quote, one may see that a series of destinations naturally emerge in Martines discourse. These may be categorized in different types of CS. First, Denmark and the Faroe Islands appear to be

100

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

the evoked destinations that are available this year although Paris is mentioned as well as a kind of spare or replacement destination in the event Martines mother health would deteriorate. Moreover, Peru or Bolivia are already considered for next year as dreamed destinations for a long time. In contrast, Asian countries are discarded and fall into a kind of exclusion set because of poor climate conditions (i.e., the monsoon in the summer when Martine is traveling). South America and North America further appear to be possible destinations she is aware of. Finally, Martine considers the Eastern countries as another option but those destinations appear to be temporarily unavailable because as a single she is afraid to travel alone in those countries. So, when analysing the quote above, no less than six different CSs appear to coexist in Martines mind, i.e, an available set, a surrogate set, a dream set, an exclusion set, an awareness set, and an unavailable set. Table 2 further describes the different types of CSs that progressively emerged from data analysis. The last column of Table 2 parallels each emerging type with similar types presented in the literature discussed previously. Each set contains none, one, or more destinations. When
Table 2. Types of CSs in Vacationers DM Processes
Type of CS Emerging denition Stage in the DM Equivalent term in process extant literature Consideration Awareness Set

Destinations the vacationer knows but does not express any affection with. This set reveals knowledge but not intention. Evoked Set Destinations considered spontaneously by the vacationer for future (but not especially the next) summer vacation. Surrogate Set Destinations that are not prioritized by the vacationer but are kept as spare alternatives (one never knows...). Exclusion set Destinations denitely rejected by the vacationer (I would never stay there). Dream Set Destinations that are considered as ideal places for traveling or vacationing but are permanently unavailable because of enduring structural inhibitors. Unavailable Set Destinations considered by the vacationer that are temporarily unavailable because of particular situational constraints. Available set Evoked destinations that really are feasible after considering the vacationers constraints

Awareness Set

Evaluation (+)

Evoked set

Evaluation (+/-) Hold set

Evaluation (-)

Reject or inept set

Constraint (structural)

Constraint (situational)

Aware unavailable set

Constraint/ nal choice

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

101

looking at the relative importance of each set in the interview data (in terms of how often the informant mentioned destinations), the evoked set proves to be the most important. The exclusion set and the unavailable set are also important, although to a lesser extent. In contrast, informants less often mentioned destinations in the surrogate set and the awareness set. In order to avoid lexical confusion, the difference between surrogate set and exclusion set needs further explanation. The difference between surrogate set and exclusion set is a result of the evaluation of destination alternatives (see third column of Table 2). The surrogate set involves destinations that are positively evaluated but are not prioritized by the vacationer. They are temporarily shelved as spare alternatives that could be chosen in the last resort if a better solution is not found, as illustrated by Martines words in the opening quote: alternatively, if it really appears that. . ., there is a chance that. . . In contrast, the exclusion set contains destinations permanently rejected by the vacationer because they are negatively evaluated. Most of the time this rejection is the result of a general lack of interest (New York does not interest me at all) or of an excessive weakness of the destination on particular attributes (such as climate for Asia in Martines case) that informants highly value. Motives and disliked activities may also lead to the exclusion of particular destinations (e.g., a few informants avoid any beach destination, like Spain). Variety seeking and emotional factors also come into play. Finally, exclusion may be a function of the type of trip which is considered. For example, an interviewed family excludes destinations like Poland and Russia for vacationing (relaxing) but would not reject them for traveling (visiting). The distinction between unavailable set and dream set also requires further comments. This distinction is a reection of the intervention of constraints in vacationers DM process (see third column of Table 2) and more precisely of the difference between situational and structural constraints/inhibitors (Decrop, 1999). The unavailable set is composed of temporarily rejected destinations due to the intervention of situational constraints. These pertain to a particular decision situation and become more important when summertime is approaching. For example, in the third interview of Jacqueline and Roger below, the couple no longer considers going to Bretagne or Auvergne because of their childrens poor school results. Time (related to occupation), money, and accompaniment (e.g., being alone in Martines case) are the major momentary situational inhibitors. Of course, this is not to say that those destinations will not re-enter their evoked set another year. In contrast, the dream set includes destinations that are permanently out of reach because of enduring structural constraints. An alternative that falls into the dream set is not likely to re-enter the vacationers evoked set in the following years, at least as long as the structural constraint is present. For example, an older single female informant would love to go to India but is not able to achieve that dream because of her poor health. Occupation, family situation, and economic status are the major structural inhibitors in our data.

102

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

Ongoing macro-evoked sets The continuity of evoked sets is another major nding of this study. While being interviewed, informants often evoke vacation destinations that stem from earlier CSs. Previous years destinations or plans, which they have abandoned or postponed due to situational or structural constraints, or to stronger preferences for other alternatives, are coming back to the surface again. Moreover, data show that the temporal origin of many evoked projects and destinations lies in the last vacation experience. For example, Martine rst considered Denmark and the Faroe Islands while she was traveling in Iceland one year before:
Martine (teacher, 37): Denmark, a rucksack, the Faroe Islandsthis is what Ive been thinking about ever since Ive been to Iceland. Once I saw it, I said to myself the Faroe Islands must be a bit like that. Now Ive been thinking about that for a whole year but maybe it will not happen.

Memory and learning (through experience) thus appear to contribute to the continuity of evoked sets. In the same way, plans and destinations do not always pertain to the current year but also to the coming years as illustrated by Martine who considers traveling to Peru or Bolivia next year (see opening quote). Furthermore, most informants do not only have vacation ideas and plans for the summer vacation but also for other periods of the year. In short, more projects in different states of progress coexist in vacationers mind. Instead of speaking of different evoked sets, data suggest DMUs possess one ongoing macro-evoked set. Indeed, the destinations included in one evoked set do not pertain to only one and the same consumption situation (or purchase decision) bounded in time and space. One should dene the macro-evoked set as a set of product alternatives which are all possible in the near future. This nding is probably typical of vacation and travel decisions which may involve planning and variety seeking over extended time periods. Macro-evoked sets allow consumers to solve tradeoffs more easily and not to give up desirable alternatives forever: if it is not this year, it will be for next year. In contrast, a minority of DMUs are considering only one vacation project at a time:
Marie-France (couple, retired, 53): Personally I dont do very much planning. I have friends who plan a lot in advance: trips next year and then in two years, well put a bit of money aside, so we can go to such a place. . . But I dont do that at all: the vacation comes and I plan a bit beforehand but these are not precise projects. I dont live in the hope of realizing. . .

Size of Destination Evoked Sets This section focuses on evoked sets as it appears to be the most important CS type in our data. Table 3 illustrates the evolution of the number of projects and spontaneously evoked destinations for each DMU over the three series of interviews. The evoked set includes alternative destinations, in the sense of the one or the other, or a com-

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

103

Table 3. Case by Case Evolution of the Number of Vacation Projects and Evoked Destinations (One Line for Each Project)
DMU id. Projects t1 Evoked set 3 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 4 2 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 3 (2 ) 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 Projects t2 Evoked set 3 2 (+) 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 (+) Projects t3 Evoked set 2 (-) 1 (-) NO (\) 3 (+) YES 1 (-) 0 2 (+) 2 1 3 (2\) 1 (-) 1 1 (-) t41 Projects Evoked set YES NO (\) NO (\) YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 2 (+) YES NO YES YES 2 (+) YES 3 (+) NO (\)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2

2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

2 YES 1 YES 1 1 1 2

NO YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES YES

(-)

(+)

1 2 1

(2\) (-) (-) (\) (2\) (-)

1 1 1 2 1 2

(+) (-) (-) (+) (\)

1 1 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 -

(-) (\) (-) (-) (\)

1 (-) 2 (1\) 1 (\)

YES 1 0

YES 1 (-) -

YES NO NO

YES -

(+): Extension of the evoked set in comparison with the former interview. (-): Reduction of the evoked set in comparison with the former interview. (\): Modication of the evoked set in comparison with the former interview (number of alternatives that have changed). : Combination of different alternatives in the same vacation plan. YES/NO: indicates whether or not an evoked vacation project/destination has actually been achieved. 1 Informants were contacted again after the summer vacation in order to check whether or not they actually carried out the project and destination they evoked in the former interview.

104

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

bination of destinations, that is an inclusion of more destinations in the same vacation plan. The number of evoked destinations ranges from zero to four in the data. Most of the time, informants evoke only one or two destinations and never spontaneously mention more than four alternatives while being interviewed. This nding is in line with previous studies presented in section two. Two emerging factors explain the limited size of destination evoked sets. First, destination is not always the major vacation decision item when compared with accommodation, period and transport decisions (Author, 1999); as a result, informants do not process that item in much depth. Second, destination proves to be a hyper-complex product. Belonax and Mittelstaedt (1978) show that having more choice criteria leads to larger evaluation costs and hence to smaller evoked sets. While being asked whether they had thought of destinations other than three evoked places (i.e., Turkey, Prague, and Saint Petersburg), the parents of a large family answered:
Louis (teacher, 59): No, its already complicated enough to think about three. I dont think we thought about another one. Jacqueline (teacher, 54): Its already complicated enough! And after all, we dont have any other desires: the same ones always come back. Prague, we will go there too, but maybe one time at Easter, for a week or. . . We realize that maybe there are less tourists if we go in the offpeak season, outside the main summer vacation time. Its easier, its closer. No, we havent thought of other things.

When looking at their evolution, evoked sets sizes are relatively stable between the rst (mean t1 = 1.93 destinations/DMU or 1.62/plan) and second series of interviews (mean t2 = 1.96/DMU or 1.58/plan) but they decrease slightly in the third series (mean t3 = 1.72/DMU and 1.29/plan). Overall, data show that the number and evolution of evoked destinations is a function of involvement (the higher the involvement, the larger and the less stable the evoked set), and decision timing (the earlier the nal decision, the smaller and the more stable the evoked set). Further analyses lead to a distinction among four groups of informants with different patterns described in Figure 1. The rst group is made of DMUs with a large evoked set (three or four destinations), which decreases over time (sub-sample size: n = 6). These vacationers are highly involved, they have less personal constraints (singles, couples, or older families) but make their decisions very late (less than one month before departure). The content of plans also shows less stability: newer plans or destinations often appear over time. The second group of DMUs have an initially small evoked set (one or two destinations), which decreases to zero or one destination in t2 or t3 (n = 7). Early DM characterizes this group (i.e., they choose a destination once and for all or they make the decision not to go on vacation). These vacationers are older singles, highly involved in traveling. The third group of informants include DMUs that have an initially small evoked set (t1) that expands (t2) and then decreases (t3) (n = 5). These informants show little stability regarding the content of their vacation plans, most of the time because of children. The nal decision

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

105

t1 (February) mean=1.62

t2 (April) mean=1.58

t3 (June) mean=1.29 1. Highly involved, less personal constraints, late decisions 2. Highly involved, older and single vacationers, early decisions 3. Families, lot of constraints (children), late (or no) decision 4. Low involvement, lot of constraints, early or last-minute decisions (loyalty)

Figure 1. Evolution Patterns of Evoked Sets Sizes in Time

is taken very late... or is never made. Finally, a fourth group of DMUs is characterized by a low (zero or one) and stable number of evoked destination alternatives (n = 7). This group is characterized by low vacation involvement, a substantial number of constraints, early (or last minute) DM, and loyalty (people going to the same place). The dynamics of CS formation In order to give readers a better grasp on emerging ndings, we start from the case of a married couple (Jacqueline and Roger) and we analyse how their CSs evolved over the three series of interviews.
First interview (February 14): Interviewer: Do you already have some projects in mind for your next summer vacation? Jacqueline (housewife, 58): Oh, we had an absurd idea but I think that we are now back to reality. It was to go to Mexico or Brazil. Interviewer: What do you mean by absurd? Jacqueline: Because I think its too expensive. Roger (high magistrate, 63): Yes. Moreover, we have to go there in July or August. Jacqueline: For Brazil, temperature is OK. Roger: Yes but for Mexico at that time, the period doesnt t. Jacqueline: Therefore, it was Brazil. But Brazil is too expensive. Thats why we come closer, we come closer. Roger: Turkey is the country we are now considering. Jacqueline: Ive been to get a brochure and we look at it a little bit. [. . .] Or alternatively, if my husband would like to take his car, we

106

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

thought about going to Italy, in the Marches region. Because in Italy, we never get bored, there is always something to see and the food is nice. [. . .] So as you can see, we did consider many things! Roger: Oh yes, many things have been considered. Island has also been considered. Jacqueline: And Ireland! [. . .] It means that if we were heading for cold, it was Island or Ireland. My husband would like to visit Nordic countries but Im afraid people are so clean, too organized. . . I dont know. . . I prefer more colorful and joyful people. Interviewer: Are there some factors that limit your destination choices currently? Jacqueline: Yes, as far Im concerned, climate for example for all of South-eastern Asia. Its too hot, a humid heat, I dont like it. Moreover, in Thailand, those stories about pedophiles, prostituted small girls. . . Id feel rather uncomfortable there. Second interview (April 9): Interviewer: could you please tell me about your vacation plans for this summer? Jacqueline: [. . .] As far as destinations are concerned, wed like to go to Bretagne or to Auvergne. Because it seems that in Auvergne, there is still more authenticity if we were to stay in a farm (but maybe thats a false idea, I may be mistaken). But anyway, we always have good memories when we come back from Auvergne. Interviewer: In the rst interview, you told me about Turkey and Italy; did you give up those two destinations? Jacqueline: Actually for Turkey, we changed our mind (wrongly or rightly) because if we dont rent a car in Istambul, we have to catch another ight to go to the Mediterranean coastline and if we take a package tour as offered in calatogs, we will end up in a tourist paradize. [. . .] Moreover, I do worry about my husband who is suffering from back ache; Id feel guilty would something happen to him. [. . .] In contrast, if we go to civilized countries, should it be any problem, there is always an hospital somewhere and the possibility to be understood. [. . .] Italy is not denitively excluded but as we already go to Rome now. . . I mean. . . my husband loves the sea but the Mediterranean sea is not really the sea for us. Its not wild enough, its too at, too blue. I prefer a sea that moves, that splashes; as far Im concerned, I like the Atlantic ocean, and my husband too. Thats why we have to go to the South-east [of France], to Bretagne or to the North sea. Interviewer: So, Turkey and Italy are ruled out for this year? Jacqueline: For this year, yes. Especially, since weve got the taxes to pay. . . Third interview (June 22): Interviewer: Could you please tell me about your vacation plans for this summer? Jacqueline: Actually, they are avorted for the good reason that my husband has decided to retire, on the one hand, and because of the poor school results of our children on the other hand. [. . .] Thats why we opted for the North sea. We have rent an apartment from one to 15 July.

From this opening quote, we see that in the rst interview, Jacqueline and Roger mention dreamed or absurd destinations (Mexico and Brazil) that seem out of reach because of price and temperature.

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

107

They evoke more reasonable destinations as well (Turkey, Italy, Iceland and Ireland). Alternatives are also already excluded at that stage (South-eastern Asia because of climate and ethical concerns). In the second interview, plans have changed: Bretagne and Auvergne are evoked and further appear to be the two available alternatives left. Turkey is now part of their unavailable set because of Rogers health problems and budget constraints; Italy is shelved because the couple is already going on a city-trip to Rome. During the third interview, it appears that plans still have changed: a surrogate destination not mentioned in the former interviews (i.e., the Belgian North Sea) emerges as nal choice. In conclusion, for Jacqueline and Roger, as it is also the case for more DMUs in our sample, the nal chosen destination has little to do with the destinations mentioned during the rst (and sometimes even the second) interview (see Figure 2). Two major explanations of such turnarounds emerge from data analysis. On the one hand, plans show an increasing level of realism over the three series of interviews. In t1, informants are inclined to dream aloud when mentioning possible summer vacation destinations. While aware of actual and potential constraints, they try to convince themselves that the project is still feasible. That dream dimension is far less present in the next two series of interviews. Considered destinations become more realistic as consumers take situational inhibitors into account to a larger extent. As a consequence, the unavailable set grows during the DM process whereas the size of the available set decreases. Moreover, the unavailable set appears to be less stable over time than the exclusion set and than the dream set. Sometimes, situational inhibitors even lead vacationers to choose a surrogate destination that was not part of evoked sets. On the other hand, opportunities may arise such as an invitation from relatives or an advertized special offer. Such opportunities result
Dream set : t1 Mexico, Brazil Unavailable set : t2 Turkey, Italy Available set: t2 Bretagne, Auvergne Final Choice: t3 North sea

Evoked set : t1 Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, Italy, Iceland, Ireland, (t2 Bretagne, Auvergne) Awareness set Surrogate set : t3 Belgian North sea Exclusion set : t1 South-eastern Asia (e.g., Thailand)

Figure 2. The Formation of Destination CSs (The Case of Jacqueline and Roger)

108

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

in the sudden awareness of previously unknown destinations. The vacationer may nally prefer these new alternatives and choose them over other alternatives, as illustrated by the following quote:
Thierry (couple, medical rep, 28): But if an opportunity comes out from now to the end of the year (from now to vacation time, sorry), it is very possible... that we will take this opportunity. I dont know, if we have an opportunity to go... to Italy because for one reason or another, we have a house, or rather there is a friend who rents one house and who proposes us to go with him, well we will go to Italy.

Figure 3 summarizes the studys ndings. The formation of CSs may include four dimensions (we prefer this term to stages as the process is not always sequential). Awareness is the rst dimension: vacationers are either aware of existing destinations or not aware. Awareness most of the time results from ones own experience or from information gathered opportunistically from external sources. Next, consumers evaluate the destinations they are aware of. Destinations evaluated positively will fall into either the evoked set (preference or expectation level) or the surrogate set (tolerance level). Destinations evaluated negatively become the exclusion set. The third dimension involves taking constraints into account. Evoked destinations end up into the dream set when vacationers face one or more structural constraint(s) or into the unavailable set if they are confronted in one or more situational inhibitor(s). In contrast, destinations are included in the available set if no constraint is experienced. The nal choice is made either from the available set, the surrogate set, or straight from the awareness set. Vacationers may choose a spare or surrogate destination when the available set decreases to no alternative at all (due to the intervention of situational inhibitors). Sometimes DMUs become aware of new destinations not considered at rst because of propositions from their

Unawareness set All existing destinations Awareness set

Dream set + Unavailable set Available set +/- Surrogate set Final Choice

Evoked set

Exclusion set

MARKET

Consideration

Evaluation

Constraints

Choice

Figure 3. The Formation of Destination CSs

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

109

marketing and/or social environment (see the dotted arrow from the unawareness set to the awareness set in Figure 3). Finally, vacationers may choose an opportunistic destination rather than an alternative from the available set or surrogate set (see the dotted arrow from the awareness set to choice). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This paper focuses on the formation and evolution of CSs. The emerging typology of Table 2 partly conrms and extends the traditional conceptualizations of Narayana and Markin (1975), and Brisoux and Laroche (1980) adapted in tourism by Um and Cromptons (1990), and Woodside and Lysonskis (1989). One may parallel the presentation of an exclusion set, respectively with Brisoux and Laroches reject set and Narayana and Markins inept set. In the same way, the concepts of a surrogate set and of an unavailable set are not far from Brisoux and Laroches hold set, and Woodside and Lysonskis unavailable aware set respectively. However, the surrogate set involves more processing and the formation of positive attitudes towards product alternatives, which the hold set does not. In contrast, extant literature has never considered ideas of an available set and a dream set before, although these two types of sets may play major roles in destination choice such as described earlier. Moreover, our study shows that the number of destinations is quite stable over time and ranges from zero to four with means close to two destinations/DMU (1.5/plan). Such a nding is in line with the general idea that most evoked sets are small, ranging from three to six depending on the product category (Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990) and with the specic contention that vacationers evaluate only a few destinations (i.e., four two) among a much larger set of available alternatives (Bronner & de Hoog, 1985; Perdue & Meng, 2006; Woodside & Sherrell, 1977). Evoked sets sizes may be even smaller in this study due to the naturalistic method employed, as informants were to evoke alternatives for an actual rather than hypothesized DM situation. Traditional conceptualizations present the formation of CSs along two typical sequential stages: the brand-consideration stage and the brand-evaluation stage (Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Hastak & Mitra, 1996; Howard, 1977; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Narayana & Markin, 1975; Nedungadi, 1990; Spiggle & Sewall, 1987; Um & Crompton, 1990). However, the emerging conceptualization of Figure 3 is a little more subtle since it suggests that three stages or dimensions rather than two may lead consumers to their nal choice. More specically, our model adds a constraint dimension as third stage: after destinations have been considered and evaluated, structural constraints and situational factors are taken into account; this reduces the number of evoked destinations to an available set which includes only the alternatives that are feasible. Moreover, our emerging model suggests that the choice process may be shortened through direct connections between awareness set and

110

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

nal choice or between surrogate set and choice. This straight recourse to the awareness set highlights that evaluation is not always necessary for choice. Focusing on the stage of CS formation prior to evaluation and choice, Nedungadi (1990) provides empirical evidence that brand choice is signicantly altered outside the traditional evaluation-based route, through variation in the retrieval and consideration of brands (p. 273). He suggests a memory-based choice dependent on brand accessibility. For a brand to be included in the CS, the consumer must recall that brand and fail to recall other brands that s/he might otherwise prefer. Theoretical implications The papers ndings entail four major contributions to extant literature. The rst contribution is to generate an empirical model of CS formation that renes traditional conceptualizations by Narayana and Markin (1975), Brisoux and Laroche (1980), and Turley and Leblanc (1995). In contrast with those purely conceptual hypotheticodeductive models, the papers Figure 3 has been generated inductively and analytically from empirical data related to actualas opposed to hypotheticalDM processes. Moreover, our emerging model is specic to tourism; it involves local and substantive theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) empirically rooted in a destination choice setting. In contrast, authors such as Um and Crompton (1990) or Woodside and Lysonski (1989) have borrowed and adapted the general/formal theory of traditional CS conceptualizations to a tourism context. Second, our ndings indicate that to a large extent, the formation of CS is a constraint- and opportunity-driven process, which has been neglected by the CS literature so far. Constraints consideration leads consumers to categorize evoked brands as part of either the available, unavailable, or dream set. Such a distinction has not been introduced by former models. A few authors already investigated the role of constraints in vacation DM and destination choice (e.g., Gilbert & Hudson, 2000; Hong et al., 2006; Perdue & Meng, 2006). However, they did not introduce constraints consideration as a stage in itself in the formation process of CS. Moreover, our data suggest that opportunities are responsible for the appearance of new alternatives that consumers may nally choose. Such results are in line with the idea of adaptive decision making (Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1993) which has been underused in investigating vacation DM. Third, this paper helps better understand the dynamics of CS formation. As far as we know, this research is the rst to examine the formation of destination CSs longitudinally as the same informants have been interviewed up to three times. Such a longitudinal approach highlights the growing level of realism in vacation plans and destinations over time. A shift from dream to reality is at play in the formation of CSs, which is comparable to Mansfelds (1994) adaptation of the value stretch concept (Rodman 1963). Vacationers may move from a preference/ideal value level (dreamed but not necessarily available

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

111

destinations) to an expectation level (realistically available destinations) and nally to a tolerance level (surrogate destinations that represent an acceptable minimum) as far as plans evolve and summertime approaches. The longitudinal data also suggest many turnarounds in vacation plans and destination CSs. Evoked sets composition and size uctuates in time (see the four patterns of Figure 1) and cannot be limited to a linear reduction such as often presented in extant literature. Finally, the CS perspective used in this paper highlights the continuity of vacation DM. More projects are considered simultaneously with different time horizons, multiple DMUs, and so forth. The coexistence of those projects in the vacationers mind leads to the formation of macro-evoked sets of destinations. So destination choice proves to be a continuous process where thinking, dreaming, talking about vacations, and gathering information is ongoing. Such a nding enhances the hedonic and experiential dimensions of the DM and CS formation processes, which is far from the vision of a (bounded) rational decision maker depicted in most CS models (Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Narayana & Markin, 1975; Spiggle & Sewall, 1987). Managerial Implications Travel professionals are likely to make better predictions from choice models that recognize different types of sets rather than focusing on the consideration (evoked) set only. The predictive validity of evoked sets considered alone proves to be very limited indeed. Shocker et al. (1991) stress that research on the formation of CSs helps improve the likelihood that products receive consideration. The cueing of specic product alternatives by contacts with friends and acquaintances or with promotional and other marketing activity (e.g., sales personnel) may also affect retrieval from memory and thus the formation of choice sets (p. 190). Managers should enhance their brands accessibility (ease of retrieval) and desirability at the same time. Moreover, practitioners should try to develop effective plans and actions in order to facilitate the transfer of their brands from the dream or unavailable set into the available set of their target customers. For example, the cruise industry has made considerable efforts these last years to change the perception that a cruise is an expensive elite product that only rich people can afford; operators have lowered prices, they have offered families children-friendly packages, and they have extended distribution channels. Furthermore, destination managers should make sure that their country, region, or city is part of vacationers surrogate set of destinations. For example, one could use a slogan such as Why not the Belgian coast? in advertisements targeting Belgian vacationers who may choose that nearby popular spot as a surrogate destination if they realize that they lack the time or the budget to go abroad. Tour operators, travel agents and destination managers should also consider the opportunistic and constraint-driven way in which potential

112

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

tourists form their CSs. On the one hand, operators and agents could benet from the opportunistic nature of many vacationers by keeping in touch with them, and making them offers such as early booking or last-minute discounts. Active steps are particularly benecial because vacationers are waiting for and not purposefully searching for information. On the other hand, managers should also help remove particular vacationers constraints. They could understand how those constraints, imposed by individual goals and other personal circumstances, interact with available alternatives and other environmental factors. Moreover, travel agents should not overwhelm vacationers with propositions and alternatives as destination evoked sets are of limited sizes. Finally, industry people should incorporate the dynamism and continuity of many CSs in their marketing strategies and decisions. Most vacationers are involved in more than one vacation project at a time with different needs, desires, and expectations, which leads to the formation of a macro-evoked set entailing both available destinations for the current project and unavailable or dream destinations that they could reconsider in future plans. Consequently, vacationers should not be put in exclusive segments: an alternative that has once been rejected may re-enter the evoked set at a later time or in another choice situation. For example, parents with young children could have shelved Egypt at one time but might evoke that country again as a possible destination a few years later when children are older or have left the family nest. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research Of course, this study entails a few limitations which open avenues for future research. First, set models may oversimplify the reality of choices. Set models imply a binary logic in which a (destination) choice alternative is part of a set or not. While good conceptual and operational reasons lead to using such models, fuzzy classications could be more realistic and outperform set models from a methodological perspective. Of course, a mathematical modeling approach would then be needed. For example, a probabilistic model could be developed wherein the alternatives likelihood of being chosen would depend on explanatory variables such as awareness, availability, and/or congruence with criteria of a dream destination. Moreover, as in other conceptualization efforts, the number of and the names given to the different CSs may seem somewhat arbitrary. In this paper, we tried to limit such subjectivity by generating the various CSs systematically and analytically from the empirical data and by giving readers the opportunity to validate the typology by themselves through the interview quotes. Moreover, the particular numbering and naming of CSs are of lesser importance than the way they help to better understand the processes through which consumers come to select or reject choice alternatives. Next, a series of factors inuencing the formation of CSs, such as the contextual variables listed in Figure 3, should be investigated in more depth. For example, the length and type of trip may affect the level of planning and hence the composition of the CS: a long-distance trip

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

113

could increase the research requirements and thus lower the number of alternatives in the CS when compared with a short-distance trip. Focusing on choice heuristics or strategies underlying the formation of CSs at different stages of Figure 3 is another possible extension of this research. Of course, such a focus on decision heuristics would require a merging of the product alternatives approach to DM chosen in this paper with an (multi-)attributes perspective. In tourism, a few authors (Perdue & Meng, 2006; Turley & Leblanc, 1995) suggest that the attributes affecting the selection of destination alternatives may be different from those affecting rejection. Turley and Leblanc (1995) assume that inclusion in the CS is based on a satiscing rule (i.e., meeting a minimum level on a few primary attributes) while rejection is then based on facilitating attributes such as availability and price. In the same way, Perdue and Meng (2006) show that the reasons mentioned by respondents for destination selection differ from the reasons cited for rejection, and contend that a non-compensatory heuristic is used in ski destination choice. They close their paper by suggesting a duality in the formation of CS: the observed reasons for selection may be necessary conditions to get into consideration sets, while the observed reasons for rejection reect the actual choice (Perdue & Meng, 2006, p. 347). As a nal limitation, this studys emerging propositions are qualitative, interpretative and context-bound. The papers ndings, tables and gures have been built inductively from the study of a phenomenon situated in a particular context. Refering to Strauss and Corbin (1990), this is a local and substantive theory, in contrast with a general and formal theory. A substantive theory emerges from the study of a phenomenon situated in a particular situational context, whereas a formal theory develops when the phenomenon is being examined under many types of situations. If the analytical generalization of emerging ndings is possible to some extant, statistical generalization is not possible because of the theoretical (non-random) sampling procedure and the small sample size. The papers emerging propositions could be tested on larger representative samples if statistical generalization were desired. REFERENCES
Ankomah, P., Crompton, J., & Baker, D. (1996). Inuence of cognitive distance in vacation choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 138150. Belonax, J. (1979). Decision rule uncertainty, evoked set size, and information variability. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 232235. Belonax, J., & Mittelstaedt, R. (1978). Evoked set size as a function of number of choice criterion and information variability. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 4851. Botha, C., Crompton, J., & Kim, S. (1999). Developing a revised competitive position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 341352. Brisoux, J., & Laroche, M. (1980). Proposed consumer strategy of simplication for categorising brands. J. Summey & R. Taylor, eds., Evolving Marketing Thought for 1980 (pp. 112114). Carbondale, IL: Southern Marketing Association.

114

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

Brisoux, J., & Laroche, M. (1981). Evoked set formation and composition: An empirical investigation under a routinized response behavior situation. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 357361. Bronner, F., & de Hoog, R. (1985). A recipe for mixing decision ingredients. European Research, 13, 109115. Church, N. J., Laroche, M., & Rosenblatt, J. A. (1985). Consumer brand categorization for durables with limited problem solving: An empirical test and proposed extension of the Brisoux-Laroche model. Journal of Economic Psychology, 6, 231253. Crompton, J. L. (1977). A systems model of the tourists destination selection decision process with particular reference to the role of image and perceived constraints. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, USA. Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 420434. Crompton, J., & Ankomah, P. (1993). Choice set propositions in destination decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 461476. Decrop, A. (1999). Commitments and opportunities: Judgment and decision making by vacationers. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur. Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2005). A grounded typology of vacation decision making. Tourism Management, 26, 121132. Dellaert, B., Ettema, D., & Lindh, C. (1998). Multi-Faceted tourist travel decisions: A constraint-based conceptual framework to describe tourists sequential choices of travel components. Tourism Management, 19, 313320. Engel, J., Kollat, D., & Blackwell, R. (1973). Consumer behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Francken, D. (1978). Het vakantie-besluitvormingsproces. Internal report. Breda: Netherlands Research Institute for Tourism and Recreation. Gilbert, D., & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints: A skiing participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 906925. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Goodall, B. (1991). Understanding holiday choice. In C. Cooper ed. Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 3, pp. 5977). London: Belhaven Press. Gruca, T. (1989). Determinants of choice set size: An alternative method of measuring evoked sets. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 515521. Hastak, M., & Mitra, A. (1996). Facilitating and inhibiting effects of brand cues on recall, consideration set, and choice. Journal of Business Research, 37, 121126. Hauser, J., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 393408. Hong, S.-K., Kim, J.-H., Jang, H., & Lee, S. (2006). The roles of categorization, affective image and constraints on destination choice: An application of the NMNL model. Tourism Management, 27, 750761. Howard, J. (1963). Marketing management, analysis and planning. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Howard, J. (1977). Consumer behavior: An application of theory. New York: McGrawHill. Howard, J., & Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Matsui, T. (2003). Which decision heuristics are used in consideration set formation?. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(3), 192209. Laroche, M., & Parsa, H. (2000). Brand management in hospitality: An empirical test of the Brisoux-Laroche model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24, 199222. Lavidge, R., & Steiner, G. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(October), 5962. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication. Mansfeld, Y. (1994). The Value stretch model and its implementation in detecting tourists class-differentiated destination choice. In R. V. Gasser & K. Weiermair (Eds.), Spoilt for choice. Decision making processes and preference change

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

115

of tourists: intertemporal and intercountry perspectives (pp. 6079). Thaur: Kulturverlag. March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. Harlow: Longman. Menard, S. (1991). Longitudinal research. London: Sage. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(March), 8197. Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(10), 244. Narayana, C., & Markin, R. (1975). Consumer behavior and product performance: An alternative conceptualization. Journal of Marketing, 39(Fall), 16. Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Inuencing choice without altering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 263276. Payne, J., Bettman, J., & Johnson, E. (1993). The adaptive decision-maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perdue, R., & Meng, F. (2006). Understanding choice and rejection in destination consideration sets. Tourism Analysis, 11(6), 337348. Roberts, J. (1989). A grounded model of consideration set size and composition. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 749757. Roberts, J., & Lattin, J. (1991). Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(November), 429440. Shocker, A., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set inuences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 181197. Spiggle, S., & Sewall, M. (1987). A choice sets model of retail selection. Journal of Marketing, 51, 97111. Stigler, G. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69(June), 213225. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage. Thompson, J., & Cooper, R. (1979). Additional evidence on the limited size of evoked and inept sets of travel destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 18(Winter), 2325. Turley, L., & LeBlanc, R. (1995). Evoked sets: A dynamic process model. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(2), 2836. Um, S., & Crompton, J. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432448. van Raaij, W., & Francken, D. (1984). Vacation decisions, activities and satisfactions. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 101112. Woodside, A., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(Spring), 814. Woodside, A., & Sherrell, D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept, and inert sets of vacation destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 16(Winter), 1418. Wright, P., & Barbour, F. (1977). Phased decision strategies: Sequels to initial screening. M. Starr & M. Zeleny, eds., Multiple criteria decision making (pp. 91109). Amsterdam: North Holland. Submitted 10 December 2008. Final Version 18 June 2009. Accepted 13 August 2009. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Muzzo Uysal

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com