See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

[Link]

Process studies of tourist

decision making

Article in Annals of Tourism Research · April 2010

Impact Factor: 3.26 · DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2009.10.014 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

40 642

2 authors:

Clive Smallman
Western Sydney University
73 PUBLICATIONS 800
CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Kevin Moore
Lincoln University New Zea…
44 PUBLICATIONS 606
CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Clive Smallman

Retrieved on: 11 May 2016
 Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 397–422, 2010
0160-7383/$ - see front matter ! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
[Link]/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.10.014

PROCESS STUDIES OF TOURISTS’

DECISION-MAKING
Clive Smallman
Kevin Moore
Lincoln University, New Zealand

Abstract: We review tourism decision-making paradigms. We conclude that the literature is

dominated by ‘variance’ studies of tourists’ decisions by causal analysis of independent vari-
ables explaining choices by tourists. This ‘choice set’ approach is in consonance with the
need to understand important issues such as destination attractiveness and marketing. We
argue that this approach does not incorporate an ontology of decision-making as a process,
a deeper understanding of which may only be generated through studies that involve narrat-
ing emergent actions and activities through which individual or collective endeavours unfold.
From this base we review the tourism decision-making literature and argue for the develop-
ment of process studies as an important adjunct to the current body of knowledge. Keywords:
tourists’ decision-making theories, process studies, variance studies. ! 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Tourism is a major socio-economic phenomenon producing massive
economic, social and environmental change. The effort to understand
the complex and elaborate set of interactions between tourists, tour
operators, governments and local communities has led to the develop-
ment of models and general accounts of tourists’ behaviours (Leiper,
2004). Despite the ontological and epistemological challenges that this
presents, these models have successfully informed the management of
tourists and their economic, social and environmental impacts
(Decrop, 2006).
Some have argued that tourism research has evolved from a commer-
cially driven agenda of ‘boosterism’, through adverse criticism of tour-
ism’s social and environmental impacts, towards an informed empirical
and theoretical basis and the widespread adoption of rigorous scien-
tific research methods (Jafari, 1990,2003,2005). Such progressive, evo-
lutionary accounts of phenomena may be criticised because of their

Clive Smallman is Professor of Business Management and Head of Research in the Faculty
of Commerce, Lincoln University (New Zealand. Email <[Link]@[Link]>). His
PhD is from the Bradford University School of Management, UK. His research interests
include decision-making, simulations of social systems, and process studies of organizations.
Kevin Moore is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Tourism in the Faculty of Environment,
Society and Design, Lincoln University. His PhD is from Canterbury University, NZ. His
research interests include tourist decision making and theoretical psychology.

397
398 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

implicit suggestion that something has become, over time, more

sophisticated and better as a result. Nevertheless, a focus on the
changes in and diversity of approaches to understanding tourism
and, in particular, tourists’ behaviours, seems apposite in a time when
the tourism industry is under extraordinary economic pressure.
In this article we argue for a greater emphasis on ‘process’ models
of tourists’ decision-making, and the consequential changes in ontol-
ogy and epistemology they imply. An advantage of pursuing this ap-
proach is to mesh decision-making research in tourism with the
spirit of more dynamic, postmodern accounts of the tourist experi-
ence (Uriely, 2005). However, more significantly we believe that this
focus will help produce models of tourist decision-making that better
suit the increasing concerns of how to manage the tourist experience
in process in ways that minimise its adverse impacts, whilst retaining its
central features of apparent spontaneity and freedom that many tour-
ists value.
Research is often driven by critical incidents or concerns present
within an area of study at a particular point in time. We suggest that
much previous and current work on tourists’ decision-making, which
is undeniably useful and ‘fit for purpose’, has been driven by histori-
cally prominent concerns over destination marketing and consumer
services. However, the recent proliferation of journals and conferences
on topics such as the sustainability of tourism, tourism and peak oil,
tourism and climate change is indicative of more recent concerns with
complex social and environmental dimensions of tourist behaviour.
Along with an increasing acknowledgement of the fluidity and com-
plexity of tourists’ decision-making, this means that process orientated
approaches should be valuable and complementary adjuncts to current
work.
Studies of tourist decision-making seldom address ontological orien-
tation. However, that does not render ontological issues irrelevant. In
particular, an awareness of broad ontological categories is important in
order to compare and contrast approaches to tourists’ decision-mak-
ing. Most researchers acknowledge that decision-making is a process,
but a process can be understood in at least two ways. First, it can be
viewed through a ‘realism’ ontology of real objects, entities or ‘things’
interacting in a reasonably orderly, if usually complicated, manner.
Second, the decision-making process can be understood as itself being
fundamentally what is real, perhaps in turn giving rise to the kinds of
objects, entities or ‘things’ that might emerge or be social constructed
by a researcher.
Consumer behaviour inspired models of tourist decision-making
mirror this distinction between object and process ontologies. Conse-
quently, tourism resists easy definition as a product (object) or service
(process), because each tourism experience is a portfolio of products
or services (although services usually dominate). Whilst mass customisa-
tion is well-established in the production of consumer goods and the
delivery of service offerings (Pine, 1992), arguably in no other sector
is the customer as involved in the information search for and choices
around their purchase than is the case in tourism (Decrop, 2006;
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 399

Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). Tourists’ decision-making processes are

complex, involving many sub-decisions, occurring continuously from
prior to deciding ‘where to go’ through to ‘what are we going to do
now we’re here’ and beyond. Many choices are based on contextual
‘facts’. Many more are based on perceptions or evaluative judgements
of relatively high-risk decisions, that is, no-one knows how ‘good’ their
holiday is going to be until they are experiencing it.
The dominance of intangible factors in tourism is problematic be-
cause the ‘grand theories’ of consumer behaviour (e.g., Engel, Kollat,
& Blackwell, 1968; Gilbert, 1991; Howard, 1994; Howard & Sheth,
1969; Nicosia, 1966; Runyon, 1980 all cited in Sirakaya & Woodside,
2005) do not systematically distinguish between tangible and intangi-
ble products or services. More fundamentally, many of these models
conceptualise decision-making as a ‘simple’ input-output model. This
‘black box’ between independent and dependent variables, focuses
upon: identifying factors that should logically be considered as part
of the explanation of decision-making (‘what?’); and deducing rela-
tionships between the factors (‘how?’). Such theories also attempt to
explain ‘why?’ the factors are related, commonly through psychologi-
cal, economic or social dynamics. However, such explanations are of-
ten limited by methodological choices.
Furthermore, causation is often only dealt with proximally (attrib-
uted to direct or ‘efficient’ causes intimately associated with the deci-
sion). More subtly related or distal (‘final’, ‘formal’ or ‘material’)
causes are rarely considered.
Compounding this, conventional theorists seldom address the con-
textual limits of their theories, failing to fully explain their findings
(Whetten, 1989). In this convention, scholars face a trade-off between
generality, simplicity and accuracy (Sutton & Staw, 1995). The ‘price’
of this is often limited explanation of the ‘how?’ and ‘why?’ of behav-
iour. Consequent explanations are empirical, a-theoretical accounts
relying heavily on recent cross-sectional measures to enhance predict-
ability. Allied to this is a methodological preference for static measures
of consumer attributes (the ‘what?’) as central to any model. As a
consequence, the resulting theories are often underdetermined
(DiMaggio, 1995) and we argue that conventional models of
decision-making commonly do not fully meet conventions of ‘good’
theory (Bacharach, 1989; Whetten, 1989).
And what is ‘good’ theory? For us good theory is about connections
among human experiences, a synopsized story about people, transac-
tions, acts, ideas, events, context, structure, thoughts and outcomes.
Good theory emphasizes the rich nature of causation, identifying the
order and timing of experiences. It delves into underlying processes
seeking out the systematic and non-systematic reasons for particular
experiences. It delves deeply into micro-processes, at the margins into
related concepts, or in seeking disaggregation it ties itself to broader
social phenomena. It is characterized by a set of convincing and
logically interconnected propositions or hypotheses. It may also have
undetected implications that run counter to our common sense
(Sutton & Staw, 1995). More simply, a good theory explains, predicts,
400 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

and delights (Weick, 1995). It is driven by ‘abduction’ (inference to the

best theory) rather than solely reliant on induction or deduction.
There are good a priori reasons to suspect that conventional models
do not fully encompass the diverse processes involved in the produc-
tion of tourist decisions. First, recreational tourism is characterised
by heightened risks associated with uncertainties of outcomes and with
the supposed motive initially at play in individual tourists’ behaviours.
In some senses, the experience the tourist seeks is not only intangible;
it is often not discernibly present for the tourist when tourism behav-
iour begins, and is largely constructed in situ. As psychologists inter-
ested in motivation have long understood, there is openness about
behaviours such as exploration, play and curiosity that contrasts with
strongly goal-directed intentional behaviours.
Second, such openness means that the final behavioural pattern is
imprinted with qualities of the environment within which the behav-
iour develops. What tourists seek is often initially vague and has a dy-
namic and shifting nature throughout an episode of tourism. This
means the environment may exert considerable influence on ex-
pressed behaviour. This is not to say that tourist decisions and behav-
iours are entirely arbitrary or random. Rather the causal processes
generating them are not only responsible for the overall experience,
but also reconstruct the motives or intentional objectives of the tour-
ism episode as the behavioural trajectory unfolds.
Third, this openness of much tourist behaviour and decision-making,
combined with the role of the environment, suggests that most real time
decisions will be experienced as intuitive, spontaneous or impulsive,
since they would not have been clearly articulated or prefabricated in
consciousness. That experience, however, is not evidence that judg-
ments or decisions have not occurred. As an increasing body of work
on human decision-making from an evolutionary perspective has re-
vealed (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2002), ‘gut instincts’ have their own logic.
Moreover, such very simple heuristics can generate behaviour that, in
retrospect, appears surprisingly rational, complex and coherent.
To summarise, conventional consumer behaviour theories offer
tourism policy makers and industry actors a constrained, albeit ‘fit
for purpose’, picture of tourists’ decision-making. However, some deci-
sion-making processes generate reasonably open itineraries or lead to
the selection of activities as they are encountered. Hence, we contend
that conventional models of tourist decision-making may lead to inef-
fective tourism policy, marketing and management practices.
Our intended contribution is in appraising substantive literature on
tourists’ decision-making and in proposing an alternative approach for
theorising about this phenomenon. We seek to address those qualities
of tourist decision-making and behaviour that seem to have eluded
existing models. More pragmatically, we offer an alternative theoretical
base from which richly contextualised research concerning tourists’
decision-making can be developed. As an adjunct to conventional
theorising, this should enable policy makers to develop better-in-
formed policy, and industry actors to improve tourism marketing
and management practices.
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 401

We next consider developments in the broader field of decision-mak-

ing studies, many of which have focused on organisational decision-
making. From this base we develop an argument for taking a natural-
istic process perspective to tourist decision-making research, as we re-
view the nature and contribution of recent research in tourist
decision-making. We outline the strengths of taking a complex process
view and conclude with some thoughts on the implications of this for
research in tourists’ decision-making.

A REVIEW OF DECISION-MAKING THEORY

The classical concept of prescriptive, analytical everyday decision-
making (Edwards, 1954; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944) claims
that people collect and analyse information, eventually selecting an
optimal solution from a range of alternatives (the ‘choice set’). They
do so by evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of each possible
outcome, choosing the one most appropriate to achieve their desired
objective. This decision is regarded as optimal, based on subjective ex-
pected utility. In its original formulation this theory does not allow for
the deterministic limits of assumed ‘pure’ rationality. Prospect theory
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) and, later, regret theory (Loomes &
Sugden, 1982, pp. 73–107) tackle these limits in accommodating the
notions of risk or uncertainty in decisions. However, these still fail to
address the ‘mediating processes that lead to a decision’ (Decrop,
2006, p. 2); for example in tourist choice, trip chaining and so-called
demographic or retail gravitation (Reilly, 1931; Stewart, 1948) arguably
undercut the overly logical processes implied in prospect and regret
theories. Choice set theory remains popular in tourism destination
choice research (Jafari, 2003, pp. 145–146). It is exemplified in the
work of Wahab, Crampon, and Rothfield (1976) in which the tourist
as Homo Economicus tries to maximise the utility of their actions prior
to purchase, through minimizing risk with extensive problem solving
and advanced planning. Um and Crompton (1990, 1991) also exem-
plify this approach.
Bounded rationality (March & Simon, 1958; Simon, 1955) offers a
more realistic view, claiming that, limited by time constraints, cognitive
capacity and incomplete information, individuals make decisions that
are ‘good enough’ (‘satisfying’) rather than optimal (Simon, 1957).
Related to this, incrementalism assumes similar constraints on rational-
ity, but accommodates most humans’ natural conservatism, in claiming
that decisions are made only where an alternative is definitively better
than the status quo. Choice is characterised as ‘muddling through’
(Lindblom, 1959), with, for some authorities, a particular emphasis
on conflict, choice and commitment (Janis & Mann, 1977). In tourism
this is typified by the work of Schmoll (1977) with the rationality of
tourists bounded by constraints including travel stimuli, psycho-social
determinants and the ‘given’ environment. Mayo and Jarvis (1981)
and Mathieson and Wall (1982), too, offer empirical work supporting
the notion of bounded rationality in tourists’ decision-making.
402 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

However, even this does not deal with the processes mediating the
decision. Contingent or adaptive decision-making (Payne, 1982; Payne,
Bettman, & Johnson, 1993) allows for natural dynamics in solving
problems. Herein, individuals use a variety of problem solving strate-
gies, depending upon personal traits or characteristics, and problem
and social contexts; choice is based on economic or cognitive biases
(Decrop, 2006, p. 4). A variant, the political decision-making paradigm
(Pettigrew, 1973; Pfeffer, 1981), accommodates polity, in that it recog-
nises that most decisions are made in the context of groups. Moutinho
(1987) accommodates the roles of social influences in tourism deci-
sions, as well as acknowledging their inherent complexity and the need
for adaptation.
The arrival of postmodernism brought a fifth and more pragmatic
view of decision-making that is less cognitively bound (Edwards &
Potter, 1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987) than the earlier paradigms.
This approach proposes that there is no singular ‘reality’, causality is
often complex and not clear, and that intentions are poor behavioural
signs; everything is context-dependent, and socially and discursively
constructed (e.g., the garbage can model—Cohen, March, & Olsen,
1972). This view is implicitly reflected in the work of Woodside and
MacDonald (1994) and particularly in Woodside, MacDonald, and
Burford (2004), in that they embrace a socially constructed view of
tourist decision-making.
The sixth decision-making paradigm, naturalistic decision-making
(Klein, 1998; Lipshitz, Klein, & Carroll, 2006) is used in the study of real
world decision makers, particularly in high risk work environments. The
approach deconstructs decision-making through detailed analyses of
discourse, narrative and social action by decision-makers (Gore, Banks,
Millward, & Kyriakidou, 2006), with a strong focus on context. This im-
plicit acceptance of the role of the discursive mind (Edwards & Potter,
1992; Harré & Gillett, 1994; Moore, 2002) in decision-making repre-
sents a marked departure from more conventional research. Woodside
et al. (2004) and Decrop (2006) implicitly follow this approach in their
naturalistic accounts of tourism decision-making.
With the exception of the sixth, each of the paradigms are anteced-
ents of subsequent work in decision-making in tourism (Sirakaya &
Woodside, 2005). Conventionally, the focus of this type of research is
on tourist destination choice, generally informed by ‘grand models’
of consumer behaviour (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). The major vari-
ables in these models relate to socio-psychological processes, personal
variables and environmental variables (Decrop, 2006, pp. 7–14).
Valuable though the first five paradigms may be in telling us what
factors matter prior to decision-making, we contend that there is more
to be found out about the processes themselves. Grounded in a ‘realist’
ontology, when operationalized, the five paradigms evaluate artefacts
of decision-making by representing decision outcomes as dependent
variables, the statistical variations of which are explained by significant
independent variables. The consequent ‘variance theories’ (Mohr,
1982) give strongly deterministic explanations, and, to paraphrase
and adapt Poole, Van de Ven, Dooley, and Holmes (2000, p. 29):
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 403

‘While the variance approach offers good explanations of [decision-making]

driven by deterministic causation, this is a very limited way to conceptualise
[decision-making]. It overlooks many critical and interesting aspects of [deci-
sion-making] processes. However, because most . . . scholars have been taught
a version of social science that depends on variance methods, and because
methods for narrative research are not well developed, researchers tend to con-
ceptualise process problems in variance terms.’
We contend that it is not possible to fully understand decision-mak-
ing by studying final decisions (Svenson, 1979); it is unquestionably a
process wherein decision-makers’ heuristics and problem representa-
tions (cues) interact in the creation of choice (Svenson, 1996), in a
dynamically changing context.
Epistemologically, it is natural to represent decision-making as a nar-
rative capturing a temporally ordered sequence of events, leading to a
‘process theory’ (Mohr, 1982). Such theories offer rich explanations of
complex events, take into account temporal factors and allow for dyna-
mism in processes. They should not, however, be seen purely as
replacements for existing approaches to understanding tourist choice.
Instead, we argue strongly that they are a promising adjunct, because
they offer deeper explanations, of relationships and interactions, and
particularly of causation (Dowe, 2004; Salmon, 1984), the conceptual-
ization of which is the key point of difference between variance and
process theories.
Within the constraints of this piece, we do not have the space for a
full discussion of the long and fractious history of the philosophy of
causation. However, clarifying our position around this issue is essen-
tial to our argument. Mohr (1982) in his original conceptualization
of variance versus process theory draws heavily upon Aristotle’s concep-
tualization of causality. Aristotle’s metaphysics are particularly perti-
nent to the study of decision-making, since his conceptual
perspectives raise issues that are remarkably absent from the dominant
variance epistemology of tourism decision-making.
Aristotle (1984, VI, Physics II 194b16 p. 332) identifies four different
ways of exhausting the question ‘why is this so?’ Material cause identi-
fies that ‘stuff’ or substance from which something came (its constitu-
ents or components and their corresponding properties). Formal cause
relates to the pattern or form of something (as understood through,
for example, the governing principles or laws of a particular theory
or account). Efficient cause is that from which something starts (pri-
mary source or agency). Final cause is the sense of end or sake for
which something is done (teleology).
Mohr’s (1982) point is that causation explained solely in terms of
efficient cause (as in variance studies) is incomplete and restrictive.
It too easily allows mechanistic processes of enquiry into the nature
of decision, revealing only its primary source or agency. Mohr’s
(1982, p. 38) stance is that more meaningful explanations of processes
leading to or connecting events should employ final, formal and efficient
causation—that is teleological purpose, its pattern or form, as well as its
primary source. For example, a destination (final cause) may not be
chosen without a tourist making a destination choice (efficient cause),
404 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

but that choice cannot be made without the tourist purposefully, and
meaningfully, considering destinations (final cause) or their form—
there is no efficient cause without final or formal cause. Hence, process
studies look at a much broader set of psycho-social and environmental
variables (arguably, the material causes of tourists’ behaviours) than is
conventionally the case with variance studies.
In the remaining sections we assess the state of the recent literature
on tourists’ decision-making, in order to establish that there is a niche
for this approach.

METHODOLOGY
We analysed substantive normative and empirical research articles,
focusing upon the degree to which the works explained causality—
the ‘why’ that is required of good theory. We sought a classificatory ap-
proach that focused upon the depth of theorising (and explanation),
that is, upon ontology and epistemology, rather than allocation to a gi-
ven school of thought and its assumptions. Hence, we sought meta-the-
ory from other disciplines that offers explanations of human social
process.
Consequently, we adapted Van de Ven and Poole’s (2005) typology
of approaches to studying organizational change, to tourist decision-
making (see Table 1). This was because of its extensive citation in
the management literature, and its focus on the key concepts of ideas,
people, transactions, context (all material causes), and outcomes (final
cause); all key concepts in tourists’ decision-making research. The
typology allocates studies to one of four approaches:

1. variance studies of tourists’ decisions by causal analysis of independent

variables that explain choices (dependent variable) by a tourist;
2. simple process studies of tourists’ decision-making narrating sequences
of events, stages or cycles of decisions in choices made by a tourist;
3. complex process studies of tourists’ decision-making by narrating emer-
gent actions and activities by which individual or group choices unfold;
and
4. variance studies of tourists’ decision-making by dynamic modelling of
agent-based models or chaotic complex adaptive systems.

As variance studies, approaches one and four offer deterministic expla-

nations of decision-making. Approaches two and three, as simple and
complex process approaches (Tsoukas, 2005), deliver much richer
explanation of causation of events. The simplicity of approach two is
attributed to its commonly historical approach and the simplification
complex events that is conventional in such studies. The complexity
of approach three lies in its direct observation and rich reporting of
experiences. By nature of their explanation of causation, approaches
one and four will always produce chronically underdetermined
theories. Approach two offers a marked improvement in the identifica-
tion of distal causation, but the explanatory power of such theories is
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 405

Table 1. A Typology of Approaches to Studying Tourists’ Decision-Making

Ontology
A tourist is represented as being:

A noun, a ‘real’entity A verb, emergent,

(realist) experientially
processual (process)

Epistemology Variance Approach One Approach Four

(Method for method Variance studies of tourists’ Variance studies of tourists’
studying decisions by causal analysis decision-making by dynamic
decision- of independent variables modelling of agent-based
making) that explain choices models or chaotic complex
(dependent variable) adaptive systems
by an entity
Process Approach Two Approach Three
narrative Process studies of tourists’ Process studies of tourists’
decision-making narrating decision-making by
sequences of events, stages narrating emergent
or cycles of decisions in actions and activities by
choices made by an entity which individual or
collective endeavours
unfold

Adapted from Van de Ven and Poole (2005)

undermined by over-simplification of complexity. As with any scientific

endeavour, under the doctrine of ontological relativism, for any collec-
tion of evidence there will always be many theories able to account for
it (Quine, 1969). However, if the richest explanations of decision-
making events follow approach three, then we argue that this is where
we should be looking to improve our understanding of tourists’
decision-making.
The relationship of this typology to the six decision-making
paradigms is not clear-cut. Moreover it was not the main point of the
meta-analysis that we report. However, the classical decision-making
approach (even its modern variants) is clearly accommodated in
approach one. Bounded rationality, incrementalism and the adaptive para-
digms recognise decision-making phases, but do not follow a process
ontology, and are readily aligned with approach two. Later work by
the progenitors of bounded rationality employed computer simula-
tions of decision-making, which could be associated with approach
four, were it not for the limitations of the technology available at that
time (Cyert & March, 1963/1992). Bridging both approaches two and
three is the pragmatic model, with its quest for complex explanation.
Only naturalistic decision-making offers contextualised richness in its
coverage of decision-making ‘as it happens’, and this is closest in spirit
to approach three.
406 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

We used a keyword search (‘tourist decision-making’ and ‘vacation

decision-making’) on five bibliographic databases: ABI/Inform
Proquest, Blackwell Synergy, Elsevier Science Direct, Sage Online
and SpringerLink (covering the major tourism journals). The search
was limited back to ten years, looking for substantive, well-specified
studies. We identified 24 empirical studies and 16 conceptual or re-
view pieces. To these we added a further 33 contributions, identified
by Decrop (2006) as influential in the development of tourist deci-
sion-making theory. In addition to analysing their approach and con-
tribution, we classified the empirical studies ontologically and
epistemologically. In the case of review pieces we allocated them to
an ontological class only.

FINDINGS
Of the 16 conceptual or review pieces, 10 take an implicit or explicit
process ontology and the other six a realist ontology (see Table 2). The
common element in the 10 process-oriented pieces is that they deal
with tourism in terms of space or time. In seeking understanding of
decision-making, chronology is a central organising device and is a
fundamental element of process studies (Van de Ven & Poole,
2005). In tourism expressed in terms of itineraries so too must space
be a central organising device for understanding the process of
decision-making. The nine pieces take an implicitly complex process
approach in that they deal with the notion of tourists’ decision-making
as emergent (that is socially constructed) and complex.
Of the six realist pieces, one (Litvin, Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008) seems
to be an implicit ‘throwback’ to the tradition of bounded rationality, in
its focus on electronic word-of-mouth as an information source for
intending tourists. A further five (Eugenio-Martin, 2003; Jenkins,
1999; Lew & McKercher, 2006; Morley, 1992; Patterson, 2007) follow
the contingent or adaptive paradigm, in that they focus upon cognitive
behaviours or traits and the natural dynamics of decision-making. The
sixth (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005) is a wide-ranging review, which
implicitly follows the garbage can paradigm, in that it accepts complex
and unclear causality. On first reading, the study implicitly appears
to be calling for a process approach to the study of tourist decision-
making. However, closer reading reveals that whilst it recognizes the
importance of decision-making heuristics, the authors fail to recognize
the importance of time in understanding process.
Of the 32 empirical pieces, 26 use approach one (see Table 3). Statis-
tical analysis of quantitative and, to a lesser extent, qualitative data is
the dominant analytical strategy. The range of dependent and signifi-
cant independent variables employed in the 19 approach one studies
is remarkable, as is the diversity of contributions. However, what we
see is a breadth of variable focus on conventions of socio-psychological
processes, personal variables, and environmental variables (Decrop,
2006, pp. 7–14). We still find out very little about the creation of choice
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 407

Table 2. Overview of Conceptual or Review Studies

Authors Major variables Contribution

Realist Ontology
Morley, 1992 Destination country Identifies sub-decisions of to travel or not,
Individuals’ characteristics (income, time time and budget allocations, and choice of
available, demographics) tour.

Papatheodorou, Expenditure and time constraints Consumer heterogeneity is a stylized fact;

2001 Prices demand theory give a static view not
Consumer preferences allowing for the evolutionary nature of
Quality tourism products; the emergence of large
Information consolidated tourism operators goes
Advertising against classical demand theory. Proposes
Tourism agglomeration a discrete choice model based upon utility
Competition theory (relating to attractiveness and
facilities).

Eugenio-Martin, Consumer behaviour Identifies multiple factors involved in the

2003 Tourism studies tourists’ destination choice. Individuals or
Decision-making families with exactly the same
Families and family life socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics may choose very different
destinations. Proposes a methodological
framework for modelling a five-stage
tourist decision-making process.

Sirakaya & Consumer behaviour theory Identifies search issues for advancing
Woodside, 2005 Tourism behaviour understanding of tourism decision-
Decision-making models making: the influence of tourism service
Behavioural and choice-sets models characteristics on decision-making; risk
reduction strategies and their influence
on decision-making policies; the efficacy
of choice sets in travellers’ choice process;
decision rules and their effect on choice
behaviour; and underlying variables
affecting choice behaviour.

Patterson, 2007 Older adults Deals with issues around tourism marketing
Tourism and travel in the older market.
Information sources
Pamphlets
Magazines
Television

Litvin et al., 2008 WOM Describes online interpersonal influence, or

Word of mouth eWOM, as a potentially cost-effective
Word-of-mouth means for marketing hospitality and
Online marketing tourism, and discusses some of the nascent
Reference groups technological and ethical issues facing
Opinion leaders marketers as they seek to harness
emerging eWOM technologies

Process Ontology
Schmoll, 1977 Travel stimuli Development of a sequential model of
Personal and social determinants vacation decision-making framework:
External variables (e.g., confidence in the motivation (as a trigger); information
travel agent, destination image) search; evaluation of alternatives; and
Characteristics of service distribution decision.

(continued on next page)

408 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

Table 2 (continued)

Authors Major variables Contribution

Mathieson & Wall, 1982 Awareness Identifies decision-making steps focused on

Desire destination choice, but also deals with
Destination image subsequent decisions: 1. desire to travel; 2.
information collection and evaluation; 3.
travel decision; 4. preparation and
experience; and 5. evaluation of
satisfaction.

Goodall, 1991 Motivation Distinguishes between the vacation selection

Images process (through motivations and images
Expectation formation) and destination choice (through
Perception a search process and the evaluation of
Preference alternatives). However, the distinction is
ambiguous at best.

Mansfeld, 1993 Motivation; Steps leading to destination choice: 1.

Information evaluation; generic decision; 2. information search; 3.
Group decision-making elimination and assessment of alternatives;
and 4. actual choice.

Gnoth, 1997 Motives Operationalizes both the behaviorist notion

Motivation of drive reduction and the cognitivist
Expectation constructs of attitudes and values. While
Values the satisfaction of inner-directed values
Attitudes and motivations depends on classes of
Emotions objects, outer-directed values target
specific objects. In the case of trying to
meet the latter, planners need to follow
specific parameters in their product
design and resource management as they
are expressed in tourists’ motivations,
whereas with the satisfaction of inner-
directed values, planners can choose from
substitutable products and product
configurations.

Jenkins, 1999 Image Different techniques for the measurement of

a tourist’s destination images are reviewed
and the dominance of structured, word-
based approaches is highlighted.

Middleton & Clarke, 2001 Needs; Uses a stimulus-response model to

Wants; distinguish tourist choice between
Goals; routines choices and extensive problem
Perceptions; solving.
Attitude

Moore, 2002 Discursive psychology Constructs a major theory of the discursive

Metaphor tourist, a vital element of which is the
context in which they operate.

Lew & McKercher, 2006 Behaviour Proposes models depicting the spatial
Spatial movement movement patterns of tourists within a
Itinerary models destination.
Transportation planning

van der Duim, 2007 Tourismscapes Offers actor-network theory to develop the
Actor-network theory concept of ‘tourismscapes’, where people
Modes of ordering and things become entangled via complex
Translation processes of translation.
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 409

through the interaction of these variables, because the underlying

ontology does not support the investigation of actual process.
Six pieces followed approach two. Each used variants of narrative
analysis to look at cognition in tourists’ choices. Unfortunately, one
(Pritchard & Havitz, 2006) focuses on validating method rather than
on findings, but each of these contributions illustrate the important
role of looking at temporal sequence in tourists’ choices. However,
their focus is not on action, but arguably on states at various points
in transitions. The richness required in understanding process is not
present.
Five studies adopted approach three, conducting ethnographic studies
of tourists decision-making. They stress the individuality and irrational-
ity of tourists’ choices, focusing upon adaptability, opportunism and
emotion, as well as the importance of context. Each develops a ‘rich’
picture of the choice process that covers not only the key decision-mak-
ing cues, but also the nature of their emergence through heuristics
generated by individuals.
No studies were categorised as using approach four. This is a pity since
the use of dynamic modelling in exploring decision-making in other
applications is well established (e.g., Axelrod, 1984,1997; Conte,
Edmonds, Moss, & Sawyer, 2001; Macy & Willer, 2002; Moss &
Edmonds, 2005).
In the tourism literature, variance studies follow either a micro-
economic or cognitive-structural approach. Demonstrating their roots
in the neo-classic paradigm, micro-economic models fail to address
issues around information asymmetry and irrationality in tourist
choice. In particular, they do not properly account for the roles of
emotion and experience in tourism.
Cognitive-structural approaches focus on understanding tourists’
choices through choice sets, based around choice amongst alternatives
or attributes. The approach looks at sequencing a limited number of
cognitive, affective or behavioural variables. As with all variance ap-
proaches, the major issues are those of the reduction of innate com-
plexity in decision-making, and the ignorance of the role of context
(Decrop, 2006, pp. 24–32). These models correspond to the simple
process approach. They are highly conventional and fit well with the
‘grand theories’ of consumer behaviour. However, they propose phase
models within singular decision-making hierarchies. They also tend to
take a transactional view of time, focusing on significant events (actu-
ally the state of entities involved in events) from the point of view of
the observer (not the decision-maker). Moreover, few of the models
have been tested empirically (Decrop, 2006, pp. 29, 38–39).
Apparently complex process models of tourist decision-making, cor-
responding to the fifth postmodernist paradigm of decision-making
theory, have developed a view of interpretive tourist decision-making
that is naturalistic and experiential. These studies take a more richly
conceptualized and complex approach, proposing expanded sets of
factors in decision-making than has conventionally been the case. How-
ever, few choose to take a social-constructionist or complex process ap-
proach (Decrop, 2006, pp. 39–43).
410 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

Table 3. Overview of Empirical Studies

Authors Dependent Major independent Methodology Contribution

variable variables

Approach One
Rugg, 1973 Destination choice Product characteristics Least squared Introduced three
Consumption technology regressions dimensions previously
Budget ignored: time
constraint,
transportation costs,
and time costs.

Morley, 1992 Tour itinerary Country of destination Experimental Identifies relationships

Individual characteristics design, stated through decision to
(e.g., income, time preference, data travel or not, time
available, and discrete allocation and budget;
demographics) choice model. and choice of tour.

Seddighi & Destination Revisit intention Logit analysis Steps: 1. vacation or no

Theocharous, Perceptions of product vacation decision; 2.
2002 characteristics domestic or foreign
Personal characteristics destination decision; 3.
abstraction—systems
characteristics used as
decision-making
criteria; 4.
aggregation—
perceptions are
transformed into a
preference ordering;
and choice.

Crompton, 1979; Um Destination Consideration sets Longitudinal Steps: 1. generic decision;

& Crompton, Beliefs survey; and 2. destination
1990, 1991 Attitudes quantitative decision (evolution
Situational constraints analysis (t-tests) form awareness to an
evoked set, the choice
form the evoked set).

Woodside & Destination Destination awareness Survey; quantitative Cognitive effects of

Lysonski, 1989 (consideration set); analysis destination decision.
Preferences; (constant-sum
Intentions; approach)
Situational variables;
Choice

Thornton, Shaw, & Percentage of time Presence of children Space-time budget Group and age effects in
Williams, 1997 allocate to Number of children survey; tourism decisions.
various holiday Age of children descriptive and
activities multivariate
stats
Diary-interview
survey and
content analysis

Vogt & Fesenmaier, Information need Functional construct Descriptive stats, Information needs in
1998 Hedonic construct Cluster analysis, tourism decisions.
Innovation construct Correlation,
Aesthetic construct Regression
Sign construct

Zalatan, 1998 Tourism decisions Initial trip tasks Descriptive stats, Gender effects in tourism
Financing tasks Regression decisions.
Pre-departure tasks analysis
Destination tasks
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 411

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent Major independent Methodology Contribution

variable variables

Liu, 1999 Destination utility Destination attractiveness Descriptive stats, Phasic analysis of
Destination development Regression destination utility built
Tourism ‘basket model’ analysis out of various factors

Jiang, Havitz, & Destination Destination-oriented Factor analysis Validates and extends a
O’Brien, 2000 decision dimension cognitively-based
Travel services dimension predictive scale of
Social contact dimension destination decision.

Money & Crotts, Information search Uncertainty (or risk) Not clear Consumers from national
2003 Trip planning time avoidance cultures characterized
horizons, Travel by higher levels of
party uncertainty avoidance
characteristics use information sources
(e.g., size of that are related to the
group) channel instead of
Trip characteristics personal, destination
(e.g., length of marketing-related, or
stay) mass media sources.

Bansal & Eiselt, 2004 Destinations Motivation, image of all Descriptive stats Development of model.
regions and travel
companions leading to
Choice of region and
then details planning

Mottiar & Quinn, Household Gender Descriptive stats Largely a joint decision,
2004 decision of but women have a
holidays dominant role in the
early stages of the
process, possibly
making them the
gatekeepers

Kubas!, Yilmaz, Aktas!, Frequency of visits Motivational factors Multinomial High direct correlation
& MetIn,_ 2005 to recreation affecting the visits Logit Model between the frequency
areas of visits and
motivational factors.

Nicolau & Más, 2005 Decision to go on Income Cognitivist— Differentiated effect of a

holiday Household size Heckit model given dimension on
Education each decision.
Size of the city of origin
Opinion of going on
holiday

Level of Distance between origin

expenditure and destination
Type of accommodation
Income
Household size
Age
Marital status
Length of stay

Bargeman & van der Routinization in Extensiveness of decision- Descriptive stats; Vacation decision-making
Poel, 2006 decision-making making process Cluster processes of the
Internal and external analysis of interviewed households
information search qualitative are much less extensive
(Type of) destination data and far more routinized
selected than described in the
rational choice models.

(continued on next page)

412 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent variable Major independent variables Methodology Contribution

Lam & Hsu, 2006 Behavioural Behavioural intention of Descriptive stats; Attitude, perceived
beliefs fi choosing a travel destination Structural behavioral control, and
Attitude equation past behavior were
Normative modelling found to be related to
beliefs fi behavioral intention of
Subjective norm choosing a travel
Control beliefs fi destination
Perceived
behavioural
control
Past behaviour

Molina & Esteban, Destination image Features of brochures Descriptive stats, The formation of
2006 formation Regression destination image can
Destination choice analysis be predicted by only
process two attributes of
Needs for brochures: luring and
information sense of wonder.
Important variables in
brochure usefulness:
incentives, visual
(attractive) format,
functional attributes,
information
attractiveness and
content

Prentice, 2006 Opportunity Destination selection Descriptive stats; Operationalises discourses

awareness (Consumer situation Correlation on affects-as-
Consumer filters variables fi Visit) information in terms of
(Socio- destination imagining
demographics and and choosing.
income M
Preferences &
credibility) fi
Evoked set—
information &
feelings as
information
(knowledge M
Familiarity M
imagery) fi Action
set (propensity or
behavioural
intentions) fi
Late awareness
(new destination
options)

Tran & Ralston, 2006 Tourist preferences Unconscious needs for Canonical Two significant
achievement, affiliation and variance relationships between:
power analysis the need for
achievement and the
preference for
adventure tourism; and
the need for affiliation
and the preference for
cultural tourism
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 413

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent Major independent Methodology Contribution

variable variables

Beerli, Meneses, & Congruity between Experience of tourist Descriptive stats, The greater the agreement
Gil, 2007 one’s real-self destination Factor analysis between a destination’s
concept and Involvement in leisure image and one’s self-
their image of tourism concept, the greater the
tourists to the tendency for the tourist
destination to visit that place.
leading to
choice of
destination

Brey & Lehto, 2007 Vacation activity Participation in similar Bivariate analysis, Findings largely support
recreational activity Segmentation the hypothesis that the
(classification more an individual is
tree) analysis involved with a certain
activity in a daily setting,
the higher the tendency
to participate in the
same while at a
destination.

Murphy, Mascardo, & Travel choice Word-of-mouth Descriptive stats, Compares four groups of
Benckendorff, Behaviour in factor respondents and where
2007 destination analysis, they obtained
discriminant information from.
analysis Significant differences
across the four groups
with respect to
demographic
characteristics, other
information sources
used, accommodation
and transportation
used, and travel
activities in the
destination.

Xia, Arrowsmith, Wayfinding Levels of familiarity with Case study Discusses wayfinding as a
Jackson, & the physical cognitive psychological
Cartwright, 2008 environment process.
Pre-planned or unplanned
itinerary
Spatial and temporal scales
encountered in the
tourist visit
Landmark utility

Approach Two
Moutinho, 1987 Destination (a Preference Survey; Steps: 1. tourism need
compulsory sub- Decision; quantitative arousal; 2. information
decision Purchase analysis (facet search; 3. decision on
amongst many) Dissatisfaction; theory + different vacation items
Repeat-buying bivariate (including destination);
theory) and 4. travel
preparation.

(continued on next page)

414 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent variable Major independent variables Methodology Contribution

van Raaij & Francken, Any tourist product Socio-demographic factors; Meta-analysis of Steps: 1. generic decision;
1984; van Raaij, Individual factors; previous 2. information
1986 Household factor studies acquisition; 3. joint
decision-making; 4.
vacation activities; and
5. satisfaction or
complaints.

Woodside & Destination; Consideration set; motives; Open-ended Develops a ‘general

MacDonald, accommodation; information search; structured systems framework’ of
1994 activities; evaluation; intentions interviews; tourist decision-making.
attraction; Cognitive
transportation; mapping
eating; self-gifts;
other purchases

Larsen, Urry, & Not applicable Not applicable Narrative analysis Shows that much tourism
Axhausen, 2007 should no longer be
seen as marginal and by
implication
‘‘unnecessary’’.

Pritchard & Havitz, Not applicable Not applicable Critical incident Qualitative-based scores
2006 technique; gave evidence of being
Importance both congruent with
performance and capable of being
analysis using both congruent with
content and capable of
analysis delivering a clear
distinct enunciation of
what tourists think

Teare, 1994 Accommodation Product experience; Participant Prior product experience

Involvement; observation or and product
Evaluation; semi- involvement are the
Joint decision-making structured core of the decision-
interviews; making process. Tested
grounded 10 proposition based
theory around this.
method

Decrop & Snelders, Not applicable Not applicable Grounded Presents a contextualized
2004; Decrop & theory; study of vacation
Snelders, 2005 Naturalistic planning starting from
analysis, a naturalistic
ethnography perspective.

Approach Three
Woodside et al., 2004 Not applicable Not applicable Storytelling; Holistic case-based reviews
Grounded of leisure travel
theory; decisions and tourism
Long interview behaviour provides a
method rich, deep, nuance-
filled understanding of
the causes and
consequences of such
behaviours
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 415

Table 3 (continued)

Authors Dependent Major independent Methodology Contribution

variable variables

Maoz, 2007 Not applicable Not applicable Ethnographic Suggests that studies
should refrain from
regarding all
backpackers as a single
entity. Further studies
of backpackers and
other tourists could
shed light on specific
cultural backgrounds
and their effect on
patterns of traveling
and their behavior and
motivations.

Variance, simple process and interpretive (with its implicit complex

process ethos) research conceptualises tourists’ decision-making as an
orderly process of discrete state transformations, with well-defined in-
puts and outputs. This conceptualization is founded in the various con-
sumer behaviour models outlined previously and the first five
paradigms of decision-making theory. Cognitive variants of such mod-
els rely explicitly on the technical definition of ‘information’ in infor-
mation theory: a category of input necessary to change one (cognitive)
state into another (cognitive) state. (Dickins, 2003,2004).
Conventional models fail to acknowledge that tourists’ decision-mak-
ing is often focused on poorly defined ‘problems’ in which there is
considerable emotional capital. Tourists will have varying degrees of
experience in such problem solving, but not withstanding this, conven-
tional models are poorly suited to explaining how people make such
choices. This is because they make an assumption of process-time
ordering that is absent in all but a few cases. Furthermore, much of
the prior body of knowledge takes the individual as its level of analysis.
Of course there are individual tourists, but more often than not tour-
ism takes place in a group context. As such, conventional decision-mak-
ing research takes a purely teleological perspective, in insisting that
purposeful enactment by individuals should be the sole concern of
decision-making theory. Some research does deal with group theories,
but effectively takes a multi-teleological approach. It does not deal with
decision-making as a dialectic that accommodates pluralism, confron-
tation or conflict (Poole et al., 2000, p. 66). More realistically, it seems
to us that decision-making more often than not is about processes of
conflict and synthesis between individuals in a group (Poole et al.,
2000, p. 75). A further issue with conventional research lies in its def-
inition of tourist products. Most studies deal only with a particular as-
pect (usually destination choice). Rare is the research that deals with
choices made after the destination decision.
What we seek is balance. Rational variance research generates
insights into inputs, but this needs to be augmented by process studies
416 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

that enable us to identify decision-making heuristics. The need is to an-

swer Richie’s (1994) call (cited in Decrop, 2006, p. 45) for
‘a comprehensive framework describing the many components and processes
involved in tourist decision-making and taking into account the context in
which decisions are made.’
Here lies an opportunity to deploy lessons learned from the sixth
paradigm. The ‘fit’ of naturalistic decision-making with tourism is
not immediately obvious, although at least one review has postulated
the use of the approach in developing competences in tourism service
recovery (Thwaites & Williams, 2006). Including this, the application
of naturalistic decision-making thus far has been limited to individual
and groups of professionals as distinct from ‘non-professional’ tour-
ists. The paradigm also employs conventional cognitive psychology
protocols. However, the majority of studies report socially constructed
narratives of decision-making episodes, rich in heuristics and offering
clear insights into process. This is because data acquisition and analyt-
ical techniques commonly used in the naturalistic paradigm implicitly
position decision-making as an embedded social practice. Such
embeddedness is visible only where data on decision-making interac-
tions are analysed in critical time order as the decision emerges.
Moreover, such approaches enable understanding of how decisions
are socially constructed. Consequently, naturalistic decision-making
implicitly embodies the characteristics of the complex process
approach.

CONCLUSION: A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE ON TOURISTS

DECISION-MAKING
Whilst more recent work has begun to focus on decision-making pro-
cesses (Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1986) its value has been ques-
tioned (Crozier & McLean, 1997 cited in Sirakaya & Woodside,
2005), not least since decision-making is highly individualistic. Tour-
ists’ decision-making it seems does not easily lend itself to the conven-
tional derivation of grand theories. Consequently, there is a need to
understand tourist decision-making from alternative theoretical per-
spectives. One avenue is the development of critical theories of tour-
ists’ decision-making that are ‘complex, defamiliarizing and rich in
paradox’ (DiMaggio, 1995). Also relevant are narrative-based (or
discursive) approaches to theorizing, based in naturalistic accounts
of social process or discourse, with an
‘. . . emphasis on empirical tests of the plausibility of the narrative as
well as careful attention to the scope and conditions of the account’

(DiMaggio, 1995, p. 391)

Such approaches allow the derivation of decision-makers’ heuristics,
their effect upon choice behaviour and the influence of contextual
factors upon these rules and actions (Sirakaya, McLellan, & Uysal,
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 417

1996). These cannot yield grand theories, but this manner of

theorizing affords the development of pragmatic models of
behavioural processes of which we do not yet really have a complete
grasp (Weick, 1995).
Relative to variance studies, process studies are less common in the
tourism literature. Partly this may be because they challenge en-
trenched social sciences conventions. It may also be due to the accu-
sation or lingering suspicion that they employ methods that are at
best ‘soft’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Lipshitz, Klein, Orasanu, &
Salas, 2001, pp. 6–7) or at worst ‘invisible, incomprehensible, illegit-
imate or impractical’ (Pfeffer, 1995 cited in Orton, 1997). However,
those we identified demonstrate that rich data can be rigorously
generated.
Complex process studies open up our understanding of consumer-
tourist decision heuristics, their effect upon choice behaviour and
the influence of contextual factors upon these rules and actions (Sira-
kaya et al., 1996). This is because they offer researchers the opportu-
nity to narrate emergent actions and activities by which tourists’
decision-making unfolds. Using these techniques it is feasible to iden-
tify different approaches to decision-making and the circumstances in
which these apply. Because the unit of analysis is the tourist (rather
than touristic or tourism artefacts), we may more easily see variations
across different areas of decision-making that tourists are concerned
with. A complex process approach accommodates both rationality
and irrationality, because it makes no assumptions about the rationality
of individuals. The focus is process, that is, what is it the tourist does, not
necessarily what information do they do it with?

Acknowledgement—This work is funded under the New Zealand Foundation for Research Sci-
ence and Technology Enhancing the Financial Economic and Sustainable Yield from Tourism Project.
The authors are grateful to our colleagues on the project, David Simmons, Susanne Becken,
Crile Doscher, Jude Wilson (all at Lincoln) and Pip Forer (Auckland University) for their
encouragement and feedback in the development of this piece. We are also grateful for
the comments of two anonymous reviewers which led to substantial amendments, particularly
in justifying our ontological and epistemological position, and in correctly sourcing the schol-
arly work of Aristotle. We are also grateful to John Moriarty of Victoria University Wellington
for his scholarly guidance on ancient causation.

REFERENCES
Aristotle (1984). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle—The revised Oxford
translation (Vol. 1). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of co-operation. Harmondworth: Penguin.
Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation. Agent-based models of competition and
collaboration. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organisational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. A. (2004). Exploratory research of tourist motivations and
planning. Tourism Management, 25(3), 387–396.
418 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

Bargeman, B., & van der Poel, H. (2006). The role of routines in the vacation
decision-making process of Dutch vacationers. Tourism Management, 27(4),
707–720.
Beerli, A., Meneses, G. D., & Gil, S. M. (2007). Self-congruity and destination
choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 571–587.
Brey, E. T., & Lehto, X. Y. (2007). The relationship between daily and vacation
activities. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 160–180.
Cohen, M. D., March, J., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of
organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–24.
Conte, R., Edmonds, B., Moss, S., & Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Sociology and social
theory in agent-based social simulation: A symposium. Computational and
Mathematical Organization Theory, 7, 183–205.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 6(4), 408–424.
Crozier, D. A., & McLean, F. (1997). Consumer decision-making in the purchase of
estate agency services. Service Industry Journal, 17(2), 278–293.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963/1992). A behavioural theory of the firm (Second
ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Decrop, A. (2006). Vacation decision making. Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2004). Planning the summer vacation: An adaptable
process. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 1008–1030.
Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2005). A grounded typology of vacation decision-
making. Tourism Management, 26(2), 121–132.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lin coln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (Second ed., pp. 1–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.
van der Duim, R. (2007). Tourismscapes an actor-network perspective. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(4), 961–976.
Dickins, T. E. (2003). What can evolutionary psychology tell us about cognitive
architecture? History and Philosophy of Psychology, 5(1), 1–16.
Dickins, T. E. (2004). Social constructionism as cognitive science. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(4), 333–352.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on ‘‘what theory is not’’. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40(3), 391–397.
Dowe, P. (2004). Causal processes. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy (Winter ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision-making. Psychological Bulletin, 51,
380–417.
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. (1986). Consumer behavior (Fifth ed.).
Chicago, IL: The Dryden Press.
Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. J., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer Behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Eugenio-Martin, J. L. (2003). Modelling determinants of tourism demand as a five-
stage process: A discrete choice methodological approach. Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 4(4), 341.
Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gilbert, D. C. (1991). Consumer behavior in tourism. In C. P. Cooper (Ed.).
Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 3, pp. 78–105).
Lymington, Hants, UK: Belhaven Press.
Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24(2), 283–304.
Goodall, B. (1991). Understanding holiday choice. In C. Cooper (Ed.). Progress in
tourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 3, pp. 59–77). London:
Belhaven Press.
Gore, J., Banks, A., Millward, L., & Kyriakidou, O. (2006). Naturalistic decision-
making and organisations: reviewing pragmatic science. Organization Studies,
27(7), 925–942.
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 419

Harré, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Howard, J. A. (1994). Buyer behavior in marketing strategy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John
Wiley.
Jafari, J. (1990). Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education. Journal
of Tourism Studies, 1(1), 33–41.
Jafari, J. (2003). Encyclopedia of tourism. London: Routledge.
Jafari, J. (2005). Bridging out, nesting afield: Powering a new platform. Journal of
Tourism Studies, 16(2), 1–5.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict,
choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
Jenkins, O. H. (1999). Understanding and measuring tourist destination images.
The International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1), 1.
Jiang, J., Havitz, M. E., & O’Brien, R. M. (2000). Validating the international tourist
role scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 964–981.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions
under risk. Econometrica, 47, 262–291.
Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Kubas!, A., Yilmaz, F., Aktas!, Y., & Metin, N. (2005). Analysis of visitor decision
making system when visiting natural recreation sites by multinomial logit
model. Quality and Quantity, 39(5), 615–623.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a
travel destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589–599.
Larsen, J., Urry, J., & Axhausen, K. W. (2007). Networks and tourism: Mobile social
life. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 244–262.
Leiper, N. (2004). Tourism Management (Third ed.). Malaysia: Pearson Education
Australia.
Lew, A., & McKercher, B. (2006). Modeling tourist movements: A local destination
analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 403–423.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration
Review, 19, 79–88.
Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., & Carroll, J. S. (2006). Introduction to the special issue.
Naturalistic decision-making and organisational decision-making: Exploring
the intersections. Organization Studies, 27(7), 917–924.
Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of naturalistic
decision-making. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 14, 331–352.
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in
hospitality and tourism management. Tourism management, 29(3), 458–468.
Liu, C.-M. (1999). Tourist behaviour and the determinants of secondary destina-
tion. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 11(4), 3.
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational
choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92(368), 805–824.
Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: computational sociology
and agent-based modelling. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 143–166.
Mansfeld, Y. (1993). Tourism: Towards a behavioral approach. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Maoz, D. (2007). Backpackers’ motivations the role of culture and nationality.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 122–140.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organisations. New York: Wiley.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.
Prentice Hall.
Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel. Boston, MA: CBI
Publishing Company Inc.
Middleton, V. T. C., & Clarke, J. R. (2001). Marketing in travel and tourism (Third
ed.). London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Molina, A., & Esteban, A. (2006). Tourism brochures: usefulness and image. Annals
of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1036–1056.
420 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

Money, R. B., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on

information search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations.
Tourism Management, 24(2), 191–202.
Moore, K. (2002). The discursive tourist. In G. M. S. Dann (Ed.), The tourist as a
metaphor of the social world (pp. 41–59). Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Morley, C. L. (1992). A microeconomic theory of international tourism demand.
Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 250–267.
Moss, S., & Edmonds, B. (2005). Sociology and simulation: Statistical and
qualitative cross-validation. The American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1095.
Mottiar, Z., & Quinn, D. (2004). Couple dynamics in household tourism decision-
making: Women as the gatekeepers? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2),
149–160.
Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of
Marketing, 21(10), 3–44.
Murphy, L., Mascardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Exploring word-of-mouth
influences on travel decisions: friends and relatives vs. other travellers.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(5), 517–527.
Nicolau, J. L., & Más, F. J. (2005). Heckit modelling of tourist expenditure:
Evidence from Spain. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(3/
4), 271–293.
Nicosia, F. M. (1966). Consumer decision process: Marketing and advertising implications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Orton, J. D. (1997). From inductive to iterative grounded theory: Zipping the gap
between process theory and process data. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
13(4), 419–438.
Papatheodorou, A. (2001). Why people travel to different places. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28, 164–179.
Patterson, I. (2007). Information sources used by older adults for decision-making
about tourist and travel destinations. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
31(5), 528–533.
Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92,
382–402.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London:
Tavistock.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organisations. Belmont CA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. (1995). Mortality, reproducibility, and the persistence of styles of theory.
Organization Science, 6(4), 681–686.
Pine, B. J. (1992). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition
Cambridge. MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. (2000). Organisational
change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and
behaviour. London: Sage.
Prentice, R. (2006). Evocation and experiential seduction: Updating choice-sets
modelling. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1153–1170.
Pritchard, M. P., & Havitz, M. E. (2006). Destination appraisal: an analysis of
critical incidents. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 25–46.
Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia
University Press.
van Raaij, W. F. (1986). Consumer research on tourism mental and behavioral
constructs. Annals of Tourism Research, 13(1), 1–9.
van Raaij, W. F., & Francken, D. A. (1984). Vacation decisions, activities, and
satisfactions. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1), 101–112.
Reilly, W. J. (1931). The law of retail gravitation. New York: Knickerbocker Press.
Richie, J. R. (1994). Research on leisure behaviour and tourism: state of the art. In
R. V. Gasser & K. Weiermair (Eds.), Spoilt for choice. Decision making processes and
preference change of tourists: Intertemporal and intercountry perspectives (pp. 2–27).
Thaur, Germany: Kulturverlag.
 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422 421

Rugg, D. (1973). The choice of journey destination: A theoretical and empirical

analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 55(1), 64–72.
Runyon, K. E. (1980). Consumer behavior and the practice of marketing (Second ed.).
Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schmoll, G. (1977). Tourism promotion. London: Tourism International Press.
Seddighi, H. R., & Theocharous, A. L. (2002). A model of tourism destination
choice. A theoretical and empirical analysis. Tourism Management, 23, 475–487.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 69, 99–118.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.
Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modeling vacation destination
decisions: A behavioral approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 5(1
and 2), 57–75.
Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision-
making by travellers. Tourism Management, 26(6), 815–832.
Stewart, J. Q. (1948). Demographic gravitation: evidence and application.
Sociometry, XI, 31–58.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.
Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision-making. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 23(1), 86–112.
Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psycholog-
ical regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 252–267.
Teare, R. (1994). Consumer decision-making. In R. Teare, J. Mazanec, S. Crawford-
Welch, & S. Calver (Eds.), Marketing in hospitality and tourism: A consumer focus
(pp. 1–96). London: Cassell.
Thornton, P. R., Shaw, G., & Williams, A. M. (1997). Tourist group holiday
decision-making and behaviour: The influence of children. Tourism Manage-
ment, 18(5), 287–297.
Thwaites, E., & Williams, C. (2006). Service recovery: A naturalistic decision-
making approach. Managing Service Quality, 16(6), 641.
Tran, X., & Ralston, L. (2006). Tourist preferences influence of unconscious
needs. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 424–441.
Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledge: Studies in organisational epistemology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination
choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432–448.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Development of pleasure travel attitude
dimensions. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(3), 500–504.
Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience. Conceptual developments. Annals of
Tourism Research, 32(1), 199–216.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying
organisational change. Organisation Studies, 26(9), 1377–1404.
Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expanding the functional information
search model. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 551–578.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behaviour.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wahab, S., Crampon, L. J., & Rothfield, L. M. (1976). Tourism marketing. London:
Tourism International Press.
Weick, K. I. (1995). What theory is not, theorising is. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40(3), 385–390.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination
choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(4), 8–14.
Woodside, A. G., & MacDonald, R. (1994). General systems framework of customer
choice processes of tourism services. In R. V. Gasser & K. Weiermair (Eds.),
422 C. Smallman, K. Moore / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 397–422

Spoilt for choice. Decision making processes and preference change of tourists:
Intertemporal and intercountry perspectives. Thaur, Germany: Kulturverlag.
Woodside, A. G., MacDonald, R., & Burford, M. (2004). Grounded theory of
leisure travel. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 14(1), 7–39.
Xia, J., Arrowsmith, C., Jackson, M., & Cartwright, W. (2008). The wayfinding
process relationships between decision-making and landmark utility. Tourism
Management, 29(3), 445–457.
Zalatan, A. (1998). Wives’ involvement in tourism decision processes. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(4), 890–903.

Submitted 1 May 2008. Resubmitted 20 March 2009. Resubmitted 8 July 2009. Final
Version 20 October 2009. Accepted 20 October 2009. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating
Editor: John Tribe

Available online at [Link]