Consumer behavior in tourism: Concepts, influences and opportunities
Javier Ramirez
Liberty University
BUSI 520: Strategic Marketing Management
Muriel Wilson
January 23, 2022
Consumer behavior in tourism: Concepts, influences and opportunities
Consumer behaviour (CB) involves certain decisions, activities, ideas or experiences
that satisfy consumer needs and wants (Solomon, Citation1996). It is ‘concerned with all
activities directly involved in obtaining, consuming and disposing of products and services,
including the decision processes that precede and follow these actions’ (Engel, Blackwell, &
Miniard, Citation1995, p. 4). CB remains one of the most researched areas in the marketing
and tourism fields, with the terms ‘travel behaviour’ or ‘tourist behaviour’ typically used to
describe this area of inquiry. Few comprehensive reviews of the literature on CB concepts
and models exist in the field of tourism. Exceptions include Moutinho (Citation1993) who
reviews the social and psychological influences on individual travel behaviour with the aim
of developing a model of tourist behaviour and Dimanche and Havitz (Citation1995) who
review four concepts (ego-involvement, loyalty and commitment, family decision-making
and novelty-seeking) in an attempt to methodologically advance CB in tourism studies.
A lack of comprehensive reviews is not only due to the extensive breadth of the topic
area itself, but also because travel behaviour is generally considered as a continuous process
that includes varied yet inter-correlated stages and concepts that cannot always be analysed
separately (Mill & Morrison, Citation2002). Tourism researchers have reviewed individual
concepts (e.g. Riley, Niininen, Szivas, & Willis, Citation2001, on loyalty), specific influences
(e.g. Moutinho, Citation1993, on social influences on CB), and particular research contexts
(e.g. Hong, Lee, Lee, & Jang, Citation2009, on first time versus repeat visitation), without
situating such reviews in the broader context of travel or tourist behaviour. For example,
concepts, influences and research contexts can be studied for a specific travel stage (pre-
visit, on-site and post-visit) in the visitation process (e.g. Frias, Rodriguez, &
Castaneda, Citation2008, on pre-visit factors in the formation of destination image). Figure
1 shows a proposed conceptual model of the link between concepts, influences and
research contexts.
Decision-making
Understanding consumer decision-making is a cornerstone of marketing strategy. CB
in tourism is underpinned by general assumptions about how decisions are made. The
processes involved in CB decision-making require the use of models rather than definitions
alone to understand their complexity (Swarbrooke & Horner, Citation2004). Traditionally, CB
research has been influenced by research outside tourism, notably the classical buyer
behaviour school of thought (Decrop & Snelders, Citation2004; Sirakaya &
Woodside, Citation2005). The offspring of this school of thought, whether the grand models
of CB (Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell, Citation1968; Howard & Sheth, Citation1969) or tourism CB
models (Mathieson & Wall, Citation1982; Wahab, Crompton, & Rothfield, Citation1976)
view consumers as rational decision-makers. One of the main assumptions of these models
is that decisions are thought to follow a sequence from attitude to intention to behaviour
(Decrop, Citation2010; Decrop & Snelders, Citation2004). CB research in tourism continues
to be marked by studies underpinned by the assumption of rational decision-making. These
studies explore causal relationships by means of ‘variance’ analysis, which estimates how
much of an outcome (or dependent) variable is explained by relevant explanatory (or
independent) variables (Smallman & Moore, Citation2010). The theories of Reasoned Action
and Planned Behaviour, which are based on the expectancy-value model of attitudes
(Fishbein, Citation1963), are examples of sequential theories which continue to be used by
tourism researchers (Oh & Hsu, Citation2001; Quintal et al., Citation2010).
These models continue to be criticised by several researchers, who challenge their
assumptions. One of the main arguments against such models is that they are unable to
capture the complexity of decision-making in tourism, which comes from the unique context
in which travel decisions are made (Hyde & Lawson, Citation2003). Complexity arises from
the fact that travel decision-making involves multiple decisions about the various elements
of the vacation itinerary (Decrop & Snelders, Citation2004; Hyde & Lawson, Citation2003),
some of which are made prior to the arrival, while others are made while at the destination
(Choi et al., Citation2012). Moreover, these models do not take into account dyadic or group
decisions, which have been shown to be common in a tourism context (Bronner & de
Hoog, Citation2008; Kang & Hsu, Citation2005; Litvin et al., Citation2004) and which we will
discuss further in the section on group and joint decision-making. Finally, complexity is also
heightened by the fact that many travel decisions are highly influenced by situational factors
(Decrop & Snelders, Citation2004; March & Woodside, Citation2005).
We argue that such levels of complexity can only be fully captured through a focus
on the process of tourist decision-making. Yet, research on tourist decision-making
continues to focus little on process aspects. The ability of choice models to capture the
process aspects of decision-making is heavily criticised (Smallman & Moore, Citation2010),
suggesting that these can only be captured through less-structured methodologies involving
narrative accounts of actions and activities. Some (mainly quantitative) studies purporting to
focus on process aspects (Barros et al., Citation2008; Nicolau & Más, Citation2005) are thus
better viewed as ‘choice set’ models (Smallman & Moore, Citation2010), hence
concentrating on the outputs of the decision-making process rather than the process itself.
We concur with Smallman and Moore's (Citation2010) view that more process studies are
needed.
Tourism CB overwhelmingly studies CB as if the travel decision-making process takes
place independently of other consumption decisions. Few studies attempt to move away
from such an isolationist, tourist decision-centred approach. As exceptions, using ecological
systems theory, Woodside et al. (Citation2006) examine the decision to travel in relation to
alternative leisure activities; and Dolnicar et al. (Citation2008) focus on the allocation of
expenditure to travel in the context of other household expenditures. While both studies
make an important contribution, future research should focus more on the
interdependencies between tourism and other consumption decisions, particularly in light
of increasing economic uncertainties in the western world, which are affecting discretionary
consumption patterns.
Much of the CB research appears to rest on the assumption that travel decisions are
thoroughly planned. Yet, evidence has started to emerge that challenges such thinking. For
example, Hyde and Lawson (Citation2003) find tourist decisions involve planned, unplanned
and impulse purchases. Similarly, Bargeman and van der Poel (Citation2006, p. 718)
conclude that ‘it appears that the vacation decision-making processes … are much less
extensive and far more routinised than described in the rational choice models’. As travel
becomes a frequent purchase for some, and is increasingly part of everyday life, further
examination of the routine aspects of travel decisions are required, when both new and
previously visited destinations (or travel products consumed) are involved. As most existing
tourism CB research assumes thoroughly planned decisions (Sirakaya &
Woodside, Citation2005), the habituated aspects of tourist decision-making and its
implications for tourism marketing are in urgent need of research.
Values
A value is ‘an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of
existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode’
(Rokeach, Citation1973, p. 5). In the marketing field, values are seen to influence the
behaviour of consumers with respect to choice of product categories, brands and product
attributes (Vinson, Scott, & Lamont, Citation1977). Motivations, choice of tourist
destinations and the experiential value of a holiday are linked to consumer values in tourism
(Crick-Furman & Prentice, Citation2000). Consumer values largely guide actions, attitudes,
emotions, judgments and behaviour (Crick-Furman & Prentice, Citation2000). The tourism
literature focuses on two types of values, instrumental (external) and terminal (internal).
Instrumental values are object-directed and are based on knowledge of the object, such as
goal, experience or situation (Prentice, Citation1987). Terminal values are directed towards
classes of objects rather than specific objects in themselves (Gnoth, Citation1997).
Existing popular scales for the measurement of consumer values include the
Rokeach's Value Survey (Citation1973) and Khale's List of Values scale. Consumer values
tend to be more stable than attitudes over time (Crick-Furman & Prentice, Citation2000;
Rokeach, Citation1973). Alongside personal values, cultural and environmental values
receive some attention in the tourism literature (Crick-Furman & Prentice, Citation2000;
Lopez-Masquera & Sanchez, Citation2011; Money & Crotts, Citation2003). For example,
Hofstede's (Citation1980) four value dimensions remain widely applied as a tool to evaluate
cultural values. Yet, Hofstede's conceptualisation of personal values is criticised for its etic
perspective and, for instance, the use of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's (Citation1961) value
orientation framework has instead been suggested for its more emic approach (see Watkins
& Gnoth, Citation2011a). Also, applications of ‘non-Western’ scales such as the Chinese
Value Survey (Wong & Lau, Citation2001) remain exceptions in understanding the values of
tourists from emerging markets.
One of the most popular theories used to understand consumer values in tourism
research is the means−end theory, operationalised through the laddering technique.
Means−end theory suggests that consumers have a cognitive hierarchy of means to achieve
consumption goals (McIntosh & Thyne, Citation2005). Hence, as a method, ‘ … laddering
facilitates understanding of how cognitive attributes are perceived to provide benefits or
consequences, which in turn satisfy personal values’ (Pike, Citation2012, p. 102). Lopez-
Mosquera and Sanchez (Citation2011) use means−end theory to understand how personal
values influence the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces. Li and Cai
(Citation2012) evaluate the effects of personal values on motivation and behavioural
intention, showing a direct effect of both internal and external values on travel motivation.
These authors are unable to establish a direct link between external values and behavioural
intentions, while the relationship between internal values and the former is supported.
Watkins and Gnoth (Citation2011b) apply means−end theory to understand Japanese
tourists' values that drive travel choices in New Zealand. Critics of the theory argue that the
approach may force relationships between values and behaviour that may not be
recognised by the individual [tourist] or have any clear meaning (McIntosh &
Thyne, Citation2005). Also, existing studies fail to recognise that some values, whether
personal or social, transform over time and that as a society modernises, in emerging
markets for example, a shift in values occur. Few attempts have been made to understand
these changes for both western and emerging markets and how they influence tourist
behaviour.
Motivations
Motivation receives a great deal of attention from tourism academics, given its
importance in marketing decisions such as segmentation, product development, advertising
and positioning (Bieger & Laesser, Citation2002). Motivation is perhaps best described as
‘psychological/biological needs and wants, including integral forces that arouse, direct and
integrate a person's behaviour and activity’ (Yoon & Uysal, Citation2005, p. 46). Several
theories or models have been developed to explain motivation (see Gnoth, Citation1997;
Hsu et al., Citation2010) and early studies such as those of Plog's (Citation1974)
‘allocentric−psychocentric’, Dann's (Citation1977) ‘push−pull’, Pearce's (Citation1988) ‘travel
career ladder’ and Ross and Iso-Ahola's (Citation1991) ‘escape seeking’ are instrumental.
Pearce and Lee (Citation2005) reaffirm the findings of previous studies that tourist push
motivations are four-fold in nature (novelty seeking, escape/relaxation, kinship/relationship
enhancement and self-development). Gnoth (Citation1997) specifically distinguishes
between motives and motivations, arguing that the former is the tourist's lasting
disposition, recurring with cyclical regularity (behaviourist approach), and the latter
indicates object-specific preferences (cognitivist approach). However, it can be argued that
tourist motivation is characterised neither by a behaviourist nor by a cognitivist approach
but rather by a combination of both (McCabe, Citation2000). Accordingly, to date a
theoretically robust conceptualisation of motivation remains elusive (White &
Thompson, Citation2009) and researchers continue to treat the two concepts as one and
the same.
The push–pull approach remains the most widely applied for explaining motivations,
given its simplicity and intuitive approach (Klenosky, Citation2002). Tourists are pushed by
their biogenic and emotional needs to travel and pulled by destination attributes (Yoon &
Uysal, Citation2005). This process is moderated by factors such as involvement, imagery and
emotions (Goossens, Citation2000; White & Thompson, Citation2009). The push−pull
approach is often used for market segmentation purposes with the aim of profiling visitors.
Similarly, the influence of demographic and travelling characteristics on motivations is
thoroughly investigated (Kim & Prideaux, Citation2005; Kozak, Citation2002; Lau &
McKercher, Citation2004).
In recent years, an emerging research strand explores how motivation influences
pre-visit factors such as expectation and attitudes (Hsu et al., Citation2010) and post-visit
factors such as loyalty (Yoon & Uysal, Citation2005). Also, given that the motivations of the
pleasure travel market are well researched, authors are exploring the motivations of other
prominent niche markets such as backpacker tourism (Maoz, Citation2007), wine tourism
(White & Thompson, Citation2009), events (Nicholson & Pearce, Citation2001), culture and
heritage tourism (Poria et al., Citation2006), battlefield and dark tourism (Hyde &
Harman, Citation2011; Kang et al., Citation2012), rural tourism (Devesa et al., Citation2010),
volunteer tourism (Chen & Chen, Citation2011), cruise tourism (Hung &
Petrick, Citation2011), adventure and eco-tourism (Buckley, Citation2012; Kerstetter et
al., Citation2004) and medical tourism (Ye et al., Citation2011).
In addition, many of the earlier models or theories of tourist motivation are either
conceptual or tested on small samples (Swarbrooke & Horner, Citation2004). More recently,
some studies (Pearce & Lee, Citation2005; Snepenger et al., Citation2006; Tran &
Ralston, Citation2006) empirically test or extend the validity of such models and theories.
They generally conclude that the original theories and models are still valid and applicable
to pleasure-seeking tourists mainly. For example, Snepenger et al. (Citation2006) test the
validity of Iso-Ahola's (Citation1982) motivation theory and conclude that the four-factor
structure (i.e. personal seeking, personal escape, intrapersonal seeking and intrapersonal
escape) operates as a salient intrinsic motivation for tourism behaviour but differences in
motivation are notable between tourism and recreation experiences. Volunteer tourists, for
example, can be motivated by other factors such as altruism (Chen & Chen, Citation2011).
The relationship between motivation and other behavioural constructs such as
expectation and attitude is surprisingly rarely studied (Hsu et al., Citation2010). Also, most
studies focus on motivation per se, ignoring the formation of motivation
(Gnoth, Citation1997). The relationship between motivation and emotions, moods, brand
personality and affective constructs such as brand and destination attachment remains
unexplored. These are certainly worthwhile future areas of inquiry, along with the
mechanism of how motivation stimulates actual behaviour.
