Annals $ Eurzsm Raearch, Vol. 17, pp. 432-448, 1990 0160.7383190 $3.00 + .

OO
Printed in the USA All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc andJ. Jafan

ATTITUDE DETERMINANTS IN
TOURISM DESTINATION CHOICE

Seoho Urn
Kyonggi University, Korea
John L. Crompton
Texas A&M University, USA

Abstract: A two stage approach to travel destination choice was developed

based on the construct of an evoked set. The two stages were evolution of
an evoked set from the awareness set; and destination selection from the
evoked set. It was hypothesized at both stages that travel destination
choice depends upon attitude toward each alternative. Attitude was opera-
tionalized as the difference between perceived inhibitors and perceived
facilitators. A longitudinal approach was used to collect survey data from
respondents at both stages in their decision process. Results of the tests
suggested that attitude was influential in determining whether a potential
destination was selected as part of the evoked set and in selecting a final
destination. Keywords: travel, destination choice, evoked set, image, atti-
tude, perception, utility.
RCsumC: Les diterminants d’attitude dans le choix de destination de
tourisme. On a d&veloppC une m6thode h deux &apes pour ktudier le
choix de destination de voyage en se basant sur le concept de l’ensemble
ivoqu6. Ces deux &apes sont l’ivolution de l’ensemble de conscience h
l’ensemble &oquC, et ensuite 1’6volution de l’ensemble &oqu& au choix
final de destination. Pour les deux &tapes, on a supposC que le choix de
destination de voyage dkpende de l’attitude envers chaque option. On
explique l’attitude comme la diffirence entre la perception des facteurs
inhibiteurs et la perception des facteurs facilitants. On a recueilli des
informations i chacune des deux &tapes du processus de dCcision pour
ttudier l’&olution de l’attitude de chaque personne interrogke. On en
conclut que l’attitude influence le choix d’une destination comme partie de
l’ensemble &oqu& et le choix final d’une destination. Mats-cl&: voyage,
choix de destination, ensemble dvoqu6, image, attitude, perception, uti-
lit&.

INTRODUCTION
The image of a place as a pleasure travel destination is a gestalt. It is
an holistic construct which, to a greater or lesser extent, is derived from

Seobo Urn is Assistant Professor, Department of Tourism and Recreation, Kyonggi

Univeristy (E.-We-Dong, Suwon-Shi, Kyonggi-Do, 440-270 South Korea). His re-
search interests are in the social-psychology of tourism behavior, forecasting, and
destination marketing. John Crompton is a Professor with the Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station and the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at
Texas A&M University. His research interests are in tourism marketing and recreation
services.
432
 UM AND CROMPTON 433

attitudes towards the destination’s perceived tourism attributes. Lan-

caster (1966) suggests that consumers do not choose goods themselves,
but rather the attributes are possessed by the goods and consumers use
perceptions of attributes as input factors to assess utility. Potential
travelers generally have limited knowledge about the attributes of a
destination which they have not previously visited. For this reason, the
image and attitude dimensions of a place as a travel destination are
likely to be critical elements in the destination choice process, irrespec-
tive of whether or not they are true representations of what that place
has to offer.
Most studies of pleasure travel destination choice have been con-
cerned with exploring the relationship between attitude towards a place
or its image, and preference for the place as a travel destination (Good-
rich 1978; Matejka 1973; Mayo 1973; Scott, Schewe and Frederick
1978). However, the findings in these studies were limited to preference
and did not extend to actual travel destination choice behavior.
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) emphasized that attitude measurement
should be based on attitude toward the action of traveling to a specified
destination, rather than on attitude toward the destination. The effica-
cy of this approach has been consistently verified by empirical work
reported in the consumer behavior literature.
Some efforts have been made to describe actual destination choice by
exploring how individuals develop a set of alternative travel destina-
tions from which they make a final selection (Thompson and Cooper
1979; Woodside, Ronkainen and Reid 1977; Woodside and Sherrell
1977). Th e f m d in g s reported in these studies addressed the number of
alternative destinations which were considered and the role of attitudes
toward each alternative in selecting the set of alternative destinations.
These studies attempted to apply the concept of evoked set to the
tourism field, but their conclusions were based upon a hypothetical
destination choice process rather than an actual destination choice pro-
cess. This distinction is important because significant differences have
been reported between the factors considered in making an actual
decision and those involved in a hypothetical decision (Beaulieu and
Schreyer 1985).
Attitudes have been one of the most popular variables used in the
consumer behavior field to try and predict consumer choice behavior.
Several multiattribute models have been developed which measure atti-
tudes and attempt to relate attitudes to behavior (for example, Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975; Rosenberg 1956). A substantial body of literature
using these models has emerged, and one of its salient conclusions is
that when situational constraints are specified and integrated into con-
sumer choice models, their predictive power is enhanced (Belk 1975;
Hansen 1976; Park 1978; Tybout and Hauser 1981). Multiattribute
models which ignore this component are unlikely to accurately reflect
consumers’ choice processes. In the context of tourism, Crompton
(1977) suggested that destination choice should be conceptualized as
being a function of the interaction between pragmatic constraints such
as time, money, and skills and destination images. More recently, this
approach was endorsed by Woodside and Lysonski (1989) in their
general model of traveler choice.
The objective of this study was to conceptualize and empirically test
434 DETERMINANTS IN DESTINATION CHOICE

the role of attitudes in the pleasure travel destination choice process.

Destination choice has been conceptualized as having two phases
(Crompton 1977). The first is a generic phase which addresses the
fundamental issue of whether or not to have a vacation at all. Once the
decision in favor of a vacation is made, the second phase is concerned
with where to go. This study was limited to exploring the second phase;
and respondents were screened to include only those who reported an
intention to go on a pleasure vacation (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975).

CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF THE STUDY

A framework of pleasure travel destination choice was developed to
provide a context for the study (Figure 1). This model identifies and
integrates five sets of processes which are presented as flows (a) the
formation of subjective beliefs about destination attributes in the
awareness set, through passive information catching or incidental
learning; (b) a decision to undertake a pleasure trip (initiation of a
destination choice process) which includes consideration of situational
constraints; (c) evolution of an evoked set from the awareness set of
destinations; (d) the formation of subjective beliefs about the destina-
tion attributes of each alternative in the evoked set of destinations,
through active solicitation of information; and (e) selection of a specific
travel destination (or destinations). The framework also identifies three
constructs which evolve from these five processes. They are awareness
set, evoked set, and travel destination selection.

Descriptio?z of Concepts Used in the Framework

The concepts used in the framework may be described as external
inputs; internal inputs; or cognitive constructs (Figure 1). External inputs
can be viewed as the sum of social interactions and marketing commu-
nications to which a potential pleasure traveler is exposed. They can be
classified into significative stimuli, symbolic stimuli, and social stimuli
(Howard and Sheth 1969:63). Significative stimuli are those which
emanate from actually visiting the destination (i.e., from being physi-
cally exposed to the travel destination). Symbolic stimuli are the words,
sentences, and pictures disseminated as promotional material through
the media by the travel industry. Social stimuli emanate from other
people in face-to-face interactions. They include other people com-
municating their direct or indirect travel experiences.
Gitelson and Crompton (1983) reported that 74% of all respondents
indicated that they had received travel information from friends and
relatives (social stimuli), whereas 20% of the respondents had received
travel information from print media (symbolic stimuli) such as newspa-
pers, general magazines, and travel magazines. Nolan (1976) and Wal-
ter and Tong (1977) reported that the most influential source of infor-
mation for destination choice was interpersonal relationships with
family, friends, and relatives. Similarly, Crompton (1981) reported that
social groups exerted a normative influence on choice of destinations.
Internal inputs derive from the sociopsychological set of a potential
traveler which includes personal characteristics (sociodemographics,
IYXTERNAL INPUTS COGNITIVE INTERNAL INPUTS
CONSTFWCTS
1. Belief Formation AWWetl‘ZsS Scci*
Stimuli
Display Catching)
(PassiveInformation ) set Psychological
Set
. significative 2. Initiation of Choice
’ (Consideration of Situational Constraints)
. personal
. symbolic characteristics
3. Evolution of an Evoked Set
. Social s . motives
Stimuli
Evoked . values
Set
4. Belief Formation
), . attitudes
(Active Information Searching)

5. D&nation Selection

Figure 1. A Model of the Pleasure Travel Destination Choice Process

436 DETERMINANTS IN DESTINATION CHOICE

lifestyle, personality, and situational factors), motives, values, and atti-

tudes (Assael 1984). Beliefs about destination attributes are formed by
being exposed to the external stimuli display, but the nature of those
beliefs will vary according to the potential traveler’s sociopsychological
set.
Cognitive constructs represent an integration of the internal and exter-
nal inputs, into the awareness set of destinations and the evoked set of
destinations.
The awareness set includes all travel locations which people might
consider as potential destinations before any decision process about
their trip has been initiated. That is, it refers to “all the preferred
destinations of your dreams” (Crompton 1977). These preferred desti-
nations are likely to reflect locations which are consistent with an indi-
vidual’s ideal destination. In deriving the awareness set, people are
likely to include everywhere they desire to travel, without being inhibit-
ed by such situational constraints as money or time.
The evoked set includes all the travel destinations which potential
travelers might consider to be reasonable alternatives in selecting a
specific destination(s) (H oward and Sheth 1969). In this stage, people
are likely to consider their situational constraints as well as their prefer-
ences for alternative destinations. It is assumed that an evoked set is
developed simultaneously or after a fundamental decision is made on
whether or not to take a pleasure trip. Thus, evolution of an evoked
set is an intermediate stage between the awareness set and the final
choice.

Interaction of Attitudes and Situational Constraints

Attitudes have been shown to be a useful predictor of overall prefer-
ences, but their success in predicting behavior has been less definitive
(Assael 1984). Day and Deutscher (1982) reported that attitudes to-
wards major appliance brands were only weakly related to subsequent
brand choice, because such attitudes were susceptible to change during
the period of active information search prior to the purchase decision.
Belk (1975), Rokeach and Kliejunas (1972), and Sheth (1974) have
suggested that explicit recognition of situational variables can enhance
the ability to explain and understand consumer behavior.
In this study, situational variables were integrated as part of the
attitude toward a destination. Attitudes towards destination attributes
were evaluated as either perceived facilitators or perceived inhibitors in
terms of accommodating situational constraints as well as satisfying
specific motives for pleasure travel. In the context of the destination
choice framework (Figure l), attitudes toward alternatives are formu-
lated at both the evoked set and destination selection stages. At both
stages, attitudes were operationalized as the difference between the
magnitude of perceived facilitators (PF,) and the magnitude of per-
ceived inhibitors (Pr,) (Peter and Tarpey 1975).

Attitude = PF, - Pl,.

Perceived facilitators (PF,) were operationalized as follows:

 UM AND CROMPTON 437

where:
PF, represents the magnitude of perceived facilitators in selecting
alternative k
4, is the subjective probability that alternative k will be related to
perception i of destination attributes and assessed as a facili-
tator,
FE,, is the relative strength of the perception i as a facilitator, and
n is the number of perceptions of alternative k’s attributes, as-
sessed as facilitators.

Perceived inhibitors (PIJ were operationalized as follows:

PIk = 2 Bk,IEki
/=t

where:
PI, represents the magnitude of perceived inhibitors in selecting
alternative k
Bki is the subjective probability that alternative k will be related to
perception j of destination attributes and assessed as an
inhibitor,
IE, is the relative strength of the perceptionj as an inhibitor, and
m is the number of perceptions of alternative k’s attributes, as-
sessed as inhibitors.

It should be noted that perceptions of alternative destinations’ physi-

cal attributes in the awareness set, which are formed through passive
information catching, are susceptible to change during the period of
active solicitation of information stimulated by an intention to select a
travel destination (Bettman 1979; Park and Lutz 1982). Therefore,
perceived inhibitors and perceived facilitators measured at the evoked
set stage after active solution of information were symbolized as PF’,
and PI’, to differentiate them from PF, and PIk

TravelDestination Choice

Travel destination choice is conceptualized as a two-stage process.

The first stage is the evolution of an evoked set of destinations from an
awareness set. The second stage is to select a destination from the
evoked set. At the first stage, all alternative destinations in the aware-
ness set are evaluated in terms of magnitude of PF, - PIk. Alternative
destinations judged to be unsatisfactory in terms of this magnitude are
eliminated from further consideration. At the second stage, a travel
destination (or destinations) is selected from the alternative destina-
tions in the evoked set based on the magnitude of PF’, - PI’, asso-
438 DETERMINANTS IN DESTINATION CHOICE

ciated with actually traveling to each alternative. The alternative which

is likely to provide the highest score is selected as the travel destination
(Corstjens and Cautschi 1983; Edward 1954; Lawler 1973).
Two alternative hypotheses were tested. First, the mean score of
PF, - PI, among alternative destinations which are selected in an
evoked set is greater than that among the alternatives which are not
selected in the evoked set. Second, the mean score of PF’, - PI’, of the
alternative(s) which is selected as a travel destination(s) from the
evoked set is greater than that of the alternatives which are not selected
as travel destinations from the evoked set.

METHODS

The pleasure travel destination choice process has been conceptual-

ized in the literature from four different perspectives. First, destination
choice has been viewed as a cognitive process involving perception of
stimuli, associating stimuli with needs, evaluating alternatives, and
assessing whether expectations have been met (Assael 1984). Second, it
has been perceived as a reasoned action determined by attitude about
the action and by the influence of social groups (Ajzen and Fishbein
1980). Third, it has been viewed as an economic activity, where an
alternative is selected that maximizes utility (Harris, Driver and
Bergersen 1985). Fourth, it has been perceived as leisure participation
which is embedded in perceived competence and results in seeking
destination attributes that are believed to offer optimal arousal (Iso-
Aloha 1980).
From these four conceptualizations, three attribute dimensions were
derived: need satisfaction, social agreement, and “travelability.” The
perspectives using the concepts of maximum utility and perceived com-
petence, together with situational constraints, were merged into a more
generic dimension that was named “travelability”; efforts to operationa-
lize these three facets suggested they were interrelated. The need satis-
faction dimension incorporates a set of motivations for travel such as
novelty, challenge, relaxation, learning, and curiosity (Crompton
1979). The social agreement dimension reflects potential tourists’ incli-
nations to act in accordance with their social groups’ opinions. The
“travelability” dimension describes an individual’s propensity to travel
to a place in terms of such variables as money, time, skill, and health.
To operationalize the three dimensions, a pool of items was generat-
ed by an interacting panel of five individuals whom the authors be-
lieved to be knowledgeable of this literature. The researchers selected
40 items from this pool based on face validity. Their content validity
was checked by a different team of five knowledgeable individuals
(Kerlinger 1986). Th ese judges were asked to ascertain with which of
the three dimensions each item was associated. They were also to
consider clarity of the items, readability of the items, and likelihood of
the items being objectionable to respondents.
Internal reliability of the scale items was pretested by using data
collected from 32 undergraduate students. Cronbach alpha coefficients
(Cronbach 1951) were computed separately for each dimension and
items were deleted to improve the alpha values. The content validity
 UM AND CROMPTON 439

and internal reliability checks reduced the number of items from 40 to

20. The final Cronbach alphas for each of the three dimensions, need
satisfaction, social agreement, and travelability were .80, .65, and .73,
respectively.
Two components of perceived inhibitors and perceived facilitators
were operationalized: as subjective probability that a place is associated
with a perception of destination attributes; and as the relative strength
of the perception as either an inhibitor or a facilitator in evaluating the
place as a possible destination. Each of these two dimensions was mea-
sured by separate instruments. First, Likert-type scale items using 5-
point “strongly agree to strongly disagree” responses were developed to
measure the subjective probability of each item’s association with each
place in potential travelers’ choice sets. The second instrument used ll-
point Likert-type scale items to measure potential travelers’ evaluations
of each item in terms of its relative strength as either a perceived
facilitator or perceived inhibitor. That is, respondents were asked to
check each item on a 3-point scale as being a “perceived inhibitor,’
“neither perceived inhibitor nor perceived facilitator,” or “perceived fa-
cilitator,” and then to evaluate its relative strength on a 5-point “very
weak to very strong” continuum. This process yielded an 1 i-point
Likert-type scale from -5 for very strong inhibitor to +5 for very
strong facilitator, with “neither perceived inhibitor nor perceived facili-
tator” representing zero. In this way, inhibitors and facilitators were
designated by the respondents.
Three of the 20 items were deleted because their high coefficients of
variation suggested low content validity. The remaining 17 items used
to measure the three attitude dimensions are shown in Table 1. This
table also reports respondents’ mean scores on the 1 l-point scale, indi-
cating the extent to which each item was perceived by the respondents
to be an inhibitor or a facilitator.

Table 1. Mean Scores of the Scale Items on the Facilitator-Inhibitor Instrument

(n = 312)

I. A trip to will be a lot of fun. NS 4.21

2. It will cost more money to travel to _~ than I rsn afford. ‘I -2. I6
il. Other8 have reconu~~entletl that I eeled ~ a8 a place to go. SA 2.UR
4. Climate is a major factor in my decision to visit ~~~ NS 3.Rh
h. I randoB wide variety of things in ~~~. NS :x64
B. A trip to ~ is likely to enhance my feeling of well-being. NS 3.32
I. I can participate in outdoor recreation activities which I particularly
enjoy in ~~~, NS 3.26
8. I will travel to _. because a friend or family member wants to go there. SA 1.00
0. Other8 in the travel group with whom I wually travel agree with mv d&ion
of ._ 88 8 rlestination. SA 1.72
10 A trip to __ is likely to improve togetherness with my family and friends. SA 2.96
11 I consider a trip to ~ to be challenging. NS 2.68
_
12. mtentlat “QQMl promms arc a ronrcrn It 1 go on a tnpto ~.~~, T -.7R
13. I am likely to meet many people with different intends and life style8 in ~~~. NR 2.R3
14. _ is likely to be a good place for me to relax. NS 3.76
16. The time spent to get to _ is longer than other plaren I ronsidered going to. T -1.17
16. It i8 not absolutely safe for me to travel to ~~~. T -1.01
17. The attractive natural environment i8 one of the major reasons for
selecting _ a8 a destination. NS 4.13

Notes: NS = Need Satisfartion: SA = Social Agreement: and T = Travelability.

440 DETERMINANTS IN DESTINATION CHOICE

Data Collection

The longitudinal aspect of this study, combined with the pragmatic

constraints of limited time and financial resources, led to the decision
to use a judgement or purposive sample to serve as a panel. The total
sample (N = 359) consisted of undergraduate college students from a
variety of majors (n = 152) recreation and park professionals partici-
pating in two different technical workshops (7~ = 155) and employees
from two city park and recreation departments (n = 52).
Data collection was implemented in two stages. First, data concern-
ing the awareness set of summer/fall pleasure travel destinations were
collected in February from all 359 respondents using a self-adminis-
tered questionnaire. Subjects were asked which out-of-state or foreign
places they were considering as possible destinations for pleasure trips
during the summer or fall of 1987. Respondents were requested to
evaluate each of these possible destinations using the attitude scale
items. Twenty-five respondents out of the 359 provided responses were
not complete and had to be discarded from the analysis.
The second stage of data collection took place in May and was
directed only at those respondents who had indicated an intention to
take a pleasure vacation in the first survey. The second survey was
concerned with identifying respondents’ evoked sets and the destina-
tions they had selected for their summer/fall pleasure trips. Mail sur-
veys were sent to members of the nonstudent groups (n = 104) who
indicated in the first survey either that they were likely to take pleasure
trips in the summer or fall, or that they were “neither unlikely nor
likely” to take pleasure trips in the summer or fall. Response rate of the
nonstudent groups was 72.1%. Out of the 75 nonstudent responses
returned, 60 were usable for data analysis. Fifteen responses were
discarded because respondents indicated their intentions had changed
and they were no longer intending to take a vacation trip.
Because of low class attendance at the end of the semester when the
second survey was administered, the size of the total available student
sample decreased from the 152 originally included to 110. Thus, only
63 students were contacted out of the 93 students who qualified for
inclusion in the second survey. Forty of the 63 qualified students’ re-
sponses were usable. The remaining 23 indicated they no longer in-
tended to go on a vacation. Thus, a total of 100 responses, 60 from
nonstudents, and 40 from students were used to test the hypotheses.
In the second survey, respondents were asked to list the place(s) they
had selected as their pleasure travel destination(s), and to list all other
places which were close to being selected before they made their final
decision. If they had not yet decided to where their trip was to be, they
were asked to list all the places they considered to be likely destinations
for their trip and to rank them in the order in which they were most
likely to be selected. Respondents were then asked to respond to the
scale items measuring their attitudes towards all the destinations which
they listed, both close selections and likely final destination(s).
The two stage data collection process resulted in three different types
of responses to identifying awareness set and evoked set, and for mea-
suring attitudes toward potential vacation destinations in those sets.
 UM AND CROMP-ION 441

Figure 2(A) describes the first set of responses which had the highest
frequency (n, = 50). In the first survey, potential travelers’ awareness
sets (destinations A, B, C, D, E, and F) were identified and their
attitudes toward vacation places in the awareness set were measured. In
the second survey, these potential travelers responded that they had
already finalized their summer vacation destination(s) (B). They were
also asked to list all other places (C and D) which were close to being
selected before they made their final selection(s). Thus, n,, potential
travelers’ evoked sets of summer vacation destinations, consisted of
destinations B, C, and D and attitudes towards each of these were
measured.
In interpreting this first set of responses, it was recognized that
dissonance theory suggests that attitudes might change to confirm pre-
vious behavior to reduce post-decision conflict (Ginter 1974; Knox and
Inkster 1968). The attitudes towards vacation places in the evoked set,
which in this case were measured after a destination had been selected,
might be different from the ones on which the destination selection was
based. This is because potential travelers might tend to reinforce their
decisions by enhancing either their positive evaluation of the chosen
alternative or their relatively negative evaluations of the alternative
destinations which were discarded in the evoked set.
By definition, attitudes toward vacation places are composed of both
a subjective probability that a destination is perceived to possess speci-
lied attributes, and an evaluation of the importance of those perceived
attributes. In order to test whether or not potential travelers’ attitudes
changed after their destination selection decision, each respondent’s
mean scores on the 1 l-point evaluation scales before a destination was
selected (first survey) were compared with his or her evaluation scores
after a destination was selected (second survey).
It was found that the evaluations made after the destination selection
decision were significantly more positive than those made before the
destination selection decision (Table 2). For the second set of n2 re-
sponses (discussed later) of potential travelers who had not yet selected
their destination(s), the mean scores on the ll-point evaluation scales
in the first survey were also compared with the mean scores of the
evaluation scales in the second survey. In the n2 sample, there was no
significant difference in the two sets of evaluation scores (Table 2).
These results suggested two alternative interpretations for the n,
sample. First, the evaluation scores measured by the second survey
perhaps should be replaced by the scores measured by the first survey
in identifying the awareness set. This would remove the rationalization
effect which the data suggest may have taken place to alleviate post-
decision dissonance. An alternative interpretation is that changes in
subjective perceptions of alternative destination attributes occurring
between the first and second surveys might have been changed by active
information search between the first survey and the second survey.
Given this interpretation, destination attribute perceptions measured
by the second survey should not be replaced by those measured by the
first survey.
Like the first set of responses, respondents in the second set (n2 =
26) identified an awareness set, and attitudes toward each potential
Ihe fmt setof re.sponses tksecwdsa%ofreqmses tbethirdse10fresponses
II, = 50 IQ=26 $= 24
C-9 (3) Cc)

Figure 2. Summary of the Data Collection Procedures

 UM AND CROMPTON 443

Table 2. Results of Related Sample t test for Evaluation Changes

Types of Reapome ” Meall t value’ Probnbi1it.y

The Flrst Set (n 1) 60 -.I9 -2.72 ,000 b

The Second Set (II 2) 26 -.29 -1.10 IIJO

“t = d/Sa where cl = x1 - x2.

b Significant for two-tailed test at the .Oh level.

destination in the awareness set were measured in the first survey

(Figure Z(B)). H owever, in the second survey, potential travelers in the
second set responded that they had not yet decided upon their pleasure
trip destination, but they were still confident of making a pleasure trip
in the summer/fall. They were asked to list the names of all the out-of-
state or foreign places which they were considering as possible destina-
tions for their pleasure trip and to rank them in the order in which they
were most likely to be selected as the final destination (evoked set:
destinations B, C, and D). It was assumed that their first ranked place
would be their final destination selection.
The third set of responses (n3 = 24) differs from the first set in that
potential travelers reported in their second survey that no alternative
places were considered for selection before they made their final deci-
sion (Figure 2(C)). C onsistent with the choice framework guiding the
study, it was interpreted that this did not mean they had no evoked sets,
but rather that the awareness sets which were identified in the first
survey might be their evoked sets. In order to at least partially test this
proposition, the mean size of evoked sets in the first set of responses was
compared with the mean size of awareness sets in the third set of
responses. There was no significant difference between them (Table 3).
In addition, 96% of the potential travelers who belonged to the third set
of responses had already responded in the first survey that they were
either “very likely” or “likely” to travel this summer/fall. Based on these
data, in the third set of responses (n9) it was assumed that the first
survey had measured evoked set rather than awareness set, and that the
awareness set of these respondents was formulated sometime before the
first survey commenced.

RESULTS

To test the hypotheses of this paper, a total of 100 responses (n, +

n2 + n3) were used. In each of the hypotheses, the unit of analysis was
the individual. Related sample t tests were used for testing the hy-
potheses (Roscoe 1975). F’ive procedures were used in undertaking

Table 3. Results of Independent Sample t test Comparing Size of Evoked Set

” Mean t vahd Probsbilltr

Tha First Set (n 1) 44 3.34 -1.46 .I6 a

The Swmd S& (n 21 21 3.80 DF=f33

a Not significant for two-tailed test at the .(I6 level.

444 DETERMINANTS IN DESTINATION CHOICE

related sample t tests to test the alternative hypotheses. First, each

respondent’s mean score of the difference between perceived facilitators
and perceived inhibitors was calculated for the group of selected alter-
native destinations (x,) and the group of nonselected alternatives (x2) at
each stage of the pleasure travel destination choice model. Second, the
difference (d> between the two groups’ mean scores was calculated for
each subject, and then the mean score (d> of those differences was
calculated:

d = x, - x2.

Third, the standard error of the differences between the two groups’
mean scores was estimated from:

S, = (qd-d)‘ln(n - 1))1’2

where: n is the number of pairs. Fourth, the t value was calculated by:

t = 7/s- d’
Finally, the calculated t was compared to the tabled value at the .05
level of significance and with degrees of freedom equal to n - 1. A two-
tailed test was used. If the calculated statistics equalled or exceeded the
tabled value, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the alternative hy-
pothesis was accepted.

H 1: The mean score of PF, - PIk among alternative destinations

which are selected in an evoked set is greater than that among the
alternatives which are not selected in the evoked set.

Table 4 shows the results of the related sample t test performed on the
alternatives selected from the awareness set for the evoked set. The
results indicated that the hypothesis could be accepted at the .05 level.
That is, the mean score PF, - PIk of the alternative destinations, which
were selected from the awareness set for inclusion in the evoked set, was
greater than those destinations that were not selected.

H2: The mean score of PE;r, - PI’, of the alternative(s) which is

selected as a travel destination(s) from the evoked set is greater than

Table 4. Results of Related Sample t tests Testing for Differences Between

Alternative Destinations Selected and Not Selected in the Evoked Set
and as a Final Destination

Stage in Decision Recess ” Mean 0 STD Error t value Probability

PF k.PIk in deriving the Evoked

Set from the Awarness Set 41 7.66 2.76 2.74 .0096

(FF lk _PIlk) in &?Ctiflg B Final

Destination from the Evoked Set 66 4.88 2.43 2.01 .049a

a Significant for twotailed test at the .06 level.

 UM AND CROMPTON 445

the mean score of the alternatives which are not selected as a travel
destination(s) from the evoked set.

Table 4 also shows the results of the related sample t test performed
on the alternatives selected as final destinations from the evoked set.
The results indicated that the hypothesis could be accepted at the .05
level. That is, the mean score PF’, - PI’, of the alternative(s) which
was selected as a travel destination(s) from the evoked set was greater
than the mean score of the alternatives which were not selected as a
travel destination(s).
The results of testing hypotheses 1 and 2 suggest that attitude is a
significant indicator for predicting whether or not a vacation place is
selected as a final destination from the alternatives in the awareness
set.

CONCLUSIONS

The focus of the paper was to identify the role of attitudes in an

individual’s pleasure travel destination choice process. The approach
used here differs from other frameworks which have appeared in the
literature in three ways.
First, the concept of evoked set was related to an actual destination
choice process rather than a hypothetical choice situation which has
characterized most previously reported work. Most studies that have
been concerned with evoked set have focused on identifying character-
istics such as it size, rather than using the concept to explain actual
destination choice behavior. These studies often sought to identify po-
tential travelers’ awareness sets and evoked sets without relating them
to actual choice decision. For example, in order to identify potential
travelers’ evoked sets of destinations, Woodside and Sherrell (1977)
asked respondents to list the locations/cities that there was some likeli-
hood to visit as a vacation destination in the next 12 months.
In contrast, in this study, potential travelers’ awareness sets and
evoked sets were defined and identified longitudinally, reflecting pro-
gression through their destination choice process. The first survey
which was concerned with identifying potential travelers’ awareness sets
of summer/fall vacation destinations was administered in early Febru-
ary. In the second survey, which was administered in mid-May to
identify evoked sets, respondents were asked whether or not they had
selected their destinations. If they indicated that they had finalized
their destinations, they were requested to list all other places which had
been close to being selected. Otherwise, they were requested to list all
the places they were still considering as possible destinations.
Second, this study integrated situational constraints and attitude
formation by operationalizing attitude as the difference between per-
ceived inhibitors and perceived facilitators. The consumer behavior
literature suggests that situational constraints should be integrated into
decision choice frameworks (Belk 1975; Hansen 1976; Park 1978; Ty-
bout and Hauser 1981). In most multiattribute models, evaluation of
an object’s attributes reflect decision makers’ motivation structures
(Howard and Sheth 1969). However, they are frequently not designed
446 DETERMINANTS IN DESTINATION CHOICE

to reflect decision makers’ anticipations toward inhibitors in terms of

achieving their goals and accommodating situational constraints.
Moreover, this study considered situational constraints together with
attitudes toward a destination at each stage of the pleasure travel desti-
nation choice process by operationalizing them as perceived inhibitors
and perceived facilitators. In general, attitude models are less than
definitive in predicting actual choice behavior (Assael 1984). Opera-
tionalization of “behavioral intention” as a mediating variable frequent-
ly has been used in efforts to relate attitude to choice behavior and
enhance the predictability of attitude models. In this study, attitudes
toward alternative destinations were measured at the stage of destina-
tion selection from the evoked set, as well as at the stage of evolution of
an evoked set from the awareness set of destinations. This approach
eliminated the necessity of introducing the “behavioral intention” vari-
able.
Third, most multiattribute attitude models, especially compensatory
models which assume that a destination’s weakness on one attribute can
be compensated for by its strength on another, also assume that a
decisionmaker has an extensive information processing capacity (Na-
kanishi and Bettman 1974). However, it seems unrealistic to assume
that decision makers will be able to assign weights, derive values, and
compute overall utility indices in situations that involve many alterna-
tives and attributes (Park 1978). Potential travelers may interpret a
complex array of perceptions of destination attributes by simplifying
them into facilitators and inhibitors in formulating their destination
choice decision. 00

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein

1980 Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Assael, H.
1984 Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Boston: Kent.
Beaulieu, J. T., and R. Schreyer
1985 Choice of Wilderness Environment Differences between Real and Hypothetical
Choice Situation. In Proceedings Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior,
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report (INT184) pp. 38-45, Missoula
MT.
Belk, R. W.
1975 Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research
2:157-164.
Bettman, J. R.
1979 An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading MA: Addi-
son-Wesley.
Corstjens, M. L., and D. A. Gautschi
1983 Formal Choice Models in Marketing. Marketing Science 2:19-56.
Crompton, J. L.
1977 A Systems Model of the Tourist’s Destination Selection Decision Process with
Particular Reference to the Role of Image and Perceived Constraints. Unpublish-
ed Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University.
1979 Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6:408-424.
1981 Dimensions of the Social Group Role in Pleasure Vacations. Annals of Tourism
Research 8:550-568.
Cronbach, L. J.
1951 Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 16:297-
334.
 UM AND CROMPTON 447

Day, G. S., and T. Deutscher

1982 Attitudinal Predictions of Choices of Major Appliance Brands. Journal of
Marketine Research 19:192-198.
Edward, W. ”
1954 The Theory of Decision Making. Psychological Bulletin 51:380-417.
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen
1975 Beliefs, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ginter, J. L.
1974 An Experiment Investigation of Attitude Change and Choice of a New Brand.
Journal of Marketing Research 11:30-40.
Gitelson, R. L., and 1. L. Crompton
1983 The Planning Horizons And Sources of Information used by Pleasure Travel-
ers. Journal of Travel Research 21:2-7.
Goodrich, J. N.
1978 The Relationship Between Preferences for and Perceptions of Vacation Desti-
nations: ADDlication of a Choice Model. Tournal of Travel Research 17:8-13.
Hansen, F. LL
1976 Psychological Theories of Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research 3:
117-142.
Harris, C. C., B. L. Driver, and E. P. Bergerson
1985 Do Choices of Snort Fisheries Reflect Antler Preferences for Site Attributes? In
Proceedings Symp’osium on Recreation Chvoice Behavior, USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report (INT184), pp. 46-54, Missoula MT.
Howard, J. A., and J. N. Sheth
1969 The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Iso-Ahola, S. E.
1980 The Social Psychology of Leisure and Recreation. Dubuque IA: Wm. C.
Brown.
Kerlinger, F. N.
1986 Foundations of Behavior Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Knox, R. E., and J. A. Inkster
1968 Post-decision Dissonance at Post Time. Tournal of Personality and Social
Psychology 8:319-323.
Lancaster, K. J.
1966 A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy 74: 132-
157.
Lawler, E. E.
1973 Motivations in Work Organizations. Monterey CA: Brooks/Cole.
Matejka, J. K.
1973 Critical Factors in Vacation Area Selection. Arkansas Business and Economic
Review 6:17-19.
Mayo, E. J.
1973 Regional Images and Regional Travel Destination. In Proceedings of The
Fourth Annual Conference of TTRA. pp. 211-217. Salt Lake City UT Travel
and Tourism Research Association.
Mercer, D.
1971 The Role of Perception in the Recreation Experience: A Review and Discus-
sion. Journal of Leisure Research 3:261-276.
Nakanishi, M., and J. R. Bettman
1974 Attitude Models Revised: An Introductional Level Analysis. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 1: 16-2 1.
Nolan, S. D.
1976 Tourists Use and Evaluation of Travel Information Sources: Summary and
Conclusions. Journal of Travel Research 14:6-8.
Park, C. W.
1978 A Conflict Resolution Choice Model. Journal of Consumer Research 5: 124-
137.
Park, C. W., and R. J. Lutz
1982 Decision Plans and Consumer Choice Dvnamics. .,Tournal of Marketing u Re-
search 19:108-l 15.
Peter, J. P., and L. X. Tarpey
1975 A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Decision Strategies. Journal of
Consumer Research 2:29-37.
448 DETERMINANTS IN DESTINATION CHOICE

Peterson, G. L., D. J. Stynes, D. H. Rosenthal, and J. F. Dwyer

1985 Substitution Recreation Choice Behavior. In Proceedings Symposium on Rec-
reation Choice Behavior. USDA Forest Service General Technical Reuort I (INT
\
184) pp. 19-30, Missoula MT.
Rokeach, M., and P. Kliejunas
1972 Behavior as a Function of Attitude-Toward-Object and Attitude-Toward-Situa-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22: 194-201.
Rosch, E.
1978 Principles of Categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, E. Rosch and
B. B. Loyd, eds. pp. 27-48. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rosenberg, M. J.
1956 Cognitive Structure and Attitudinal Effect Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology 53:367-372.
Roscoe, J. T.
1975 Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Scott, D., C. D. Schewe, and D. G. Frederick
1978 A Multi-Brand/Multi-Attribute Model of Tourist State Choice. Journal of
Travel Research 17:23-29.
Sheth, J. N.
1974 A Field Study of Attitude Structure and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship. In
Models of Buyer Behavior, J. Sheth, ed. pp. 242-268. New York: Harper and
Row.
Steel, R. G., and J. H. Torrie
1981 Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, J. R., and P. D. Cooper
1979 Attitudinal Evidence on the Limited Size of Evoked Set of Travel Destinations.
Journal of Travel Research 17:23-25.
Tybout, A. M., and J. R. Hauser
1981 A Marketing Audit Using a Conceptual Model of Consumer Behavior: Appli-
cation and Evaluation. Journal of Marketing 45:82-101.
Walter, C. K., and Hsin-Min, Tong
1977 A Local Study of Consumer Vacation Decisions. Journal of Travel Research
15:30-34.
Woodside, A. G., and I. A. Ronkainen
1980 Tourist Management Strategies for Competitive Vacation Destinations. In
Tourism Marketing and Management Issues, D. E. Hawkins, E. C. Shafer, and J.
M. Rovelstad, eds. pp. 3-17. Washington DC: George Washington University
Press.
Woodside, A. G., I. A. Ronkainen, and D. M. Reid
1977 Measurement and Utilization of the Evoked Sets as a Travel Marketing Varia-
ble, In Proceedings of Eighth Annual Conference of TTRA, pp. 123-130. Salt
Lake City UT Travel and Tourism Research Association.
Woodside, A. G., and D. Sherrell
1977 Traveler Evoked Set, Inept Set, and Inert Sets of Vacation Destinations. Jour-
nal of Travel Research 16:14-18.
Woodside, A. G., and Lysonski, S.
1989 A General Model of Traveler Destination Choice. Journal of Travel Research
27(4):8-14.

Submitted 3 November 1987

Revised version submitted 3 August 1989
Accepted 18 December 1989
Final version submitted 26 January 1990
Refereed anonymously
Coordinating Editor: Peter F. Stringer