Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.

com/

A General Theory of Tourism Consumption Systems: A Conceptual Framework and an Empirical

Exploration
Arch G. Woodside and Chris Dubelaar
Journal of Travel Research 2002 41: 120
DOI: 10.1177/004728702237412

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/41/2/120

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/41/2/120.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 2002

What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014

10.1177/004728702237412
NOVEMBER
JOURNAL OF2002
TRAVEL RESEARCH
A General Theory of Tourism Consumption
Systems: A Conceptual Framework
and an Empirical Exploration
ARCH G. WOODSIDE AND CHRIS DUBELAAR
A tourism consumption system (TCS) is defined as the set
of related travel thoughts, decisions, and behaviors by a dis-
cretionary traveler prior to, during, and following a trip. The
central proposition of a theory of TCS is that the thoughts,
decisions, and behaviors regarding one activity influence the
thoughts, decisions, and behaviors for a number of other ac-
tivities. Using exit interview travel data and quick clustering
analysis, this article empirically examines seven basic TCS
propositions pertaining to decisions made once the destina-
tion has been selected. The findings support and extend the
basic propositions specifically indicating clear patterns in
the behaviors of visitors to Prince Edward Island, Canada.
The authors conclude by recommending that this approach is
useful for tourism marketers and practitioners in general.
Suggestions are provided for analyzing TCS to increase the
effectiveness of tourism marketing strategies.
The purpose of this article is to suggest a framework for a
theory of tourism consumption systems (TCSs) and an
exploratory empirical examination to illuminate this frame-
work. A tourism consumption system is defined as the set of
related travel thoughts, decisions, and behaviors by a discre-
tionary traveler prior to, during, and following a trip. The
central proposition of a theory of TCSs is that the thoughts,
decisions, and behaviors regarding one activity influence the
thoughts, decisions, and behaviors for a number of other
activities, implying that behavioral patterns should be visible
in the consumption of tourism offerings.
A deep understanding of tourism behavior needs to
extend beyond theories and focus on information search and
destination choice for which ample models already exist
(e.g., see Bello and Etzel 1985; Fodness and Murray 1999;
Woodside and Lysonski 1989). The “defining moments”
(i.e., events vividly and automatically retrieved from mem-
ory) of a trip may not relate, per se, to unique features of a
destination area. Thus, the theory of TCS focuses on achiev-
ing deep understanding of the multiple immediate and down-
stream relationships among events prior to, during, and fol-
lowing a discretionary trip rather than predicting and
explaining destination choice. In particular, this article
focuses on the actions and decisions subsequent to the choice
and details the patterns of behavior, highlighting the regular-
ity and striking differences present in groups that travel to the
same destination.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014
TOURISM CONSUMPTION SYSTEMS
Decisions and behaviors by travelers and tourists repre-
sent a rich mosaic of relationships among multiple sets of
variables. These variables include the following:
• background variables (demographic, psychographic,
and social);
• destination marketing and related service marketing
influences—for example, destination advertising Web
sites and offers to provide inquirers with free visitor in-
formation guides (VIGs) and the information and
persuasiveness of these VIGs; related service market-
ing influences include event and attraction marketing
and advertising by car rental firms, restaurants, and
accommodations;
• prior trip behavior, information search, and current trip
planning;
• choices and behaviors regarding destinations, trans-
portation modes, travel routes, accommodations, visit-
ing attractions, restaurants and foods, durable pur-
chases, and local-area destinations;
• micro and macro evaluations and satisfactions (i.e., re-
garding individual and global consumption events oc-
curring during the trip); and
• conations (e.g., willingness and intentions to repeat the
tourism-related consumption events, such as visiting
the same destination in the future).
For example, air versus car travel from home to a major des-
tination is likely to influence the use of destination-area
transportation mode, places visited, and event participation
in the local destination vicinity. Also, travelers’ use versus
nonuse of VIGs (made available by many local and regional
Arch G. Woodside is a professor of marketing in the Carroll
School of Management at Boston College in Boston. Chris
Dubelaar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing at
Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. The authors thank the
four JTR reviewers and Charles R. Goeldner for the helpful com-
ments and suggested revisions on earlier drafts of this article. They
gratefully acknowledge Roberta MacDonald, University of Prince
Edward Island, Charlottetown, and the Marketing Agency, Prince
Edward Island, for the data files used to empirically explore the
propositions in this article.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41, November 2002, 120-132
DOI: 10.1177/004728702237412
© 2002 Sage Publications
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 121

FIGURE 1
MODEL OF DISTANCE, USE OF ADVERTISING INFORMATION, AND FIRST/PRIOR VISIT
BEHAVIOR ON PRIME MOTIVE, TRAVELER DESTINATION BEHAVIORS, AND OUTCOMES

Phase 1

Phase 2
Distance to Phase 3
Destination c
for the Traveler l
4 = very far
3 = far e Evaluation of
2 = mid specific
1 = near destination Conations
d Traveler Behaviors
in Destination Areas places and
b events • Willingness
• Length of stay to recommend
Prime j k
First (=1) versus
motive
• Accommodations used m the destination
Prior (=0) Visit • Destination activities
for trip to
• Destination areas visited • Willingness
destination
• Destination expenditures to visit
a f
• Gift-buying behavior Overall destination
g evaluations again
Use of Advertising h of destination
Information
2 = heavy
1 = light i
0 = None

Note: Figure 1 includes 13 propositions of direct relationships. Each proposition is identified by a lowercase letter. For example,
Pa: the greater the distance to the destination for the traveler, the greater the use of advertising information; Pb: the greater the
distance to the destination for the traveler, the greater the likelihood of a first visit to a destination.

tourism boards around the world) is likely to have many in-
fluences beyond the destination choice decision. For exam-
ple, use of VIGs may influence choice of accommodations
and restaurants, attractions and events, and gift-buying be-
havior (Woodside, Trappey, and MacDonald 1997).
Any given discretionary trip is complex in the many
related thoughts, decisions, behaviors, and evaluations that
occur prior to, during, and following the trip. The discretion-
ary traveler’s thoughts, actions, and attitudes are likely to be
influenced by seemingly minor events that often trigger sub-
stantial investments in time and money. Consequently, com-
plexity and nuance need to be captured in modeling and
empirically examining discretionary trips.
While related, the concept of TCS differs from Solo-
mon’s (1988, 1999) view of consumption constellations.
“Consumption constellations [are] sets of products and activ-
ities used by consumers to define, communicate, and per-
form social roles” (Solomon 1999, p. 562). TCS refers to the
related thoughts, actions, and behaviors of discretionary trav-
elers prior to, during, and following their trips. Unlike con-
sumption constellation research, the primary focus of the
study of TCSs is not on social roles reflected by the com-
bined use of several seemingly unrelated products-services
and brands. TCS focuses on direct and indirect relationships
occurring between all variables relevant for a discretionary
trip. Earlier theoretical work by Clawson and Knetsch (1966)
emphasizes such a systems view.
Clawson and Knetsch (1966, pp. 33-36) advocated a
broad view in describing the “total recreation experience” as
five related but distinctly different phases:
1. an outdoor recreation experience begins by anticipa-
tion, including planning;
2. travel to the actual site (“in almost every instance
some travel is required, even if it is only a short walk
or bicycle ride to a local playground,” p. 34);
3. on-site experience and activities (even though this
experience is what many seem to think is the total out-
door recreation experience, it “may be less than half
of the total,” p. 33);
4. travel back, which is unlikely to be a duplicate of the
travel to the site (“Even when the route is the same,
the recreationists are different. . . . If travel back is
from a vacation, memories of the vacation and antici-
pation of the job are certainly different from the
thoughts on the outbound trip,” p. 34);
5. recollection and sharing of recollections with friends,
relatives, and associates.
Clawson and Knetsch (1966) concluded their five-phase
theory of the total recreation experience by recommending
that “all in all, each phase of the total experience seems to
merit serious, if not equal attention in research, in planning,
and in operations” (p. 36). The following theoretical devel-
opment builds on the contributions of Clawson and Knetsch.
Issues and Propositions in
Tourism Consumption Systems
Figure 1 summarizes an example set of specific TCS
issues. The following questions represent initial issues posed

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014

122 NOVEMBER 2002
by a theory of TCS. How is the distance traveled associated
with whether or not it is a first visit or how the visitor used the
information available? How are each of the above associated
with motivations for the travel and behavior in the area? How
are the above associated with evaluations and conations of
the area?
Figure 1 is not intended to be a complete view of TCS.
The figure reflects both direct and indirect relationships sup-
ported in travel, tourism, and consumer research literatures
(for earlier versions and discussions of similar frameworks,
see Clawson and Knetsch 1966; Woodside and MacDonald
1994; Woodside 2000). For simplicity and ease of discus-
sion, Figure 1 is divided into three phases:
• Phase 1: prior and during travel relationships affecting
traveler behaviors in destination areas
• Phase 2: during and post travel relationships
• Phase 3: post travel relationships affecting future
behaviors
The one-directional arrows in Figure 1 summarize sev-
eral hypotheses regarding TCSs. To increase clarity by sim-
plifying this introduction to TCSs, we did not include feed-
back loops in Figure 1. However, several feedback loops are
likely to be found in real-life TCSs. For example, the length
of stay and accommodations used in the destination areas
may be revised based on the visitor’s evaluations of specific
destination experiences. The prime motive for the trip re-
ported by the traveler may be revised based on the experi-
ences evaluated during the trip. The view reflects the mental
model (i.e., set of implicit or explicit assumptions) (see
Senge 1990) advocated by Weick (1995): “the creation of
meaning is an attentional process, but it is attention to that
which has already occurred. . . . People discover their own in-
tentions” [and frequently revise their beliefs and attitudes
based on their observations of outcomes to their own behav-
ior] (pp. 25-37).
Proposition 1: Travel party characteristics influence (a)
trip-related use of information, (b) prior visits to the
destination area, (c) destination evaluation, (d) prime
motives, and (e) behaviors in destination areas.
As shown by the initial five arrows in Figure 1, travel
party characteristics are hypothesized to influence most plan-
ning and doing variables in TCSs. Several studies confirm
the strong influences of travel party characteristics on infor-
mation search and use strategies implemented by discretion-
ary travelers (e.g., see Fodness and Murray 1998, 1999;
Snepenger et al. 1990). In general, the planning and doing be-
haviors of travelers are heavily influenced by the composi-
tion of the traveling party (McIntosh and Goeldner 1990).
Proposition 2: Prior visits to the primary destination area
influence (f) search/use of advertising information
and (g) the prime motive for a trip to the destination.
“Destination-naive” (Snepenger et al. 1990) travelers
search and use information more extensively than repeat vis-
itors to the destination. Extensive use of VIGs is more likely
to occur among first-time visitors compared to repeat visi-
tors. “Experiencing a different culture” is more likely to be
seen as a primary motivation for the trip to the destination
among first-time compared to repeat visitors; the opposite re-
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014
lationship is expected for “visiting friends and family mem-
bers” as a primary trip motivation. While these propositions
appear intuitive, their confirmation and relative strengths
need to be examined empirically. Otherwise, valuable in-
formation into the nuances of such relationships and
downstream impacts on evaluations and conations may go
unnoticed.
A strategic outcome from examining the impacts of first-
time and repeat destination visits is achieving deep
“sensemaking” (Weick 1995) into the multiple modes of
planning, behaviors, and evaluations by different visitor seg-
ments. Consequently, such deep sensemaking may result in
using multiple unique destination marketing strategies for
uniquely defined target markets. An example of such a strat-
egy might be marketing Prince Edward Island (a small Cana-
dian Atlantic maritime province) as a future destination by
providing free copies to Japanese schoolchildren of Akage
No Anne (Red-Haired Anne, the Japanese translation of Anne
of Green Gables) and marketing “relaxation and escaping
from overwork” to repeat visitors from Canadian origins.
Proposition 3: Use of information influences (h) prime
motives for the trip to the destination, (i) visit behav-
iors in the destination area, and (j) evaluations of des-
tination places and events.
Information use influences previsit expectations of what
the traveler might do, as well as not do, in the destination
area. For example, VIGs sent by Nevada and Las Vegas ver-
sus Prince Edward Island will stress different motivations for
visiting and different behaviors available while in the respec-
tive destination areas.
Heavy versus light users of destination information (e.g.,
VIGs) often stay longer, do more activities in the destination
area, spend more money, are more satisfied with their visits,
have a more positive overall attitude about the destination
area, are more willing to visit the destination in the future,
and are more willing to recommend a trip to the destination to
friends (Woodside, Trappey, and MacDonald 1997). These
findings occurred for both first-time and repeat visitors.
Tourism strategy implication: getting VIGs into the hands of
repeat and first-time visitors may be have high positive impacts
for both the visitors and the destination tourism industry.
Proposition 4: Prime motives for the trip to the destina-
tion influences travelers’ destination behaviors (arrow k
in Figure 1).
While a given destination rarely can be all things to all
visitors (the mistake of a “We have it all” marketing strat-
egy), visitors often can be segmented meaningfully into a
few groups according to their principal reason for selecting
the destination. Lengths of stay, expenditure amounts, and
accommodations used are likely to vary by visitors seg-
mented according to their primary motive for visiting the
destination. For example, visitors attracted to the destination
to experience a culture different from their own might be ex-
pected to tour local destination areas, stay overnight in bed-
and-breakfast accommodations, eat more often at restaurants,
and have greater destination-related expenditures compared
to visitors motivated primarily to visit friends and relatives.
However, stating the seemingly obvious does not inform on
the strength of such relationships. Consequently, the several

relationships implied by arrow k in Figure 1 need to be exam-
ined empirically.
Proposition 5: Visitor behaviors in the destination area
influence their evaluations with respect to the destina-
tion (l in Figure 1).
Visitors may be segmented according to their destination-
area behaviors. Visitors experiencing versus not experienc-
ing certain behaviors are likely to evaluate destination places
and events differently. For example, related to visitors expe-
riencing nightclubs during their stays in Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island (PEI), versus visitors experiencing his-
torical sites, the first visitor segment may have lower evalua-
tions overall of Charlottetown versus the second segment.
While some overlap of segment membership may occur,
membership in the two destination-area behavior segments
may be mostly unique.
The issues here focus on the following questions. What
do visitors actually do in the destination area, and how do
their behaviors influence their evaluations of specific desti-
nation places and events, as well as their overall evaluations
of the destination? What specific destination behaviors influ-
ence positive and negative evaluations about the destination
area?
Studies of visitors to four Mediterranean countries (Tur-
key, Egypt, Greece, and Italy) (Baloglu 2000) support the
hypothesis that participating versus not participating in spe-
cific destination behaviors influences visitors’ evaluations
concerning the destinations. Consequently, Baloglu (2000)
advocated adopting Woodside’s (1982) recommendation to
create destination positioning strategies based on visitors’
experiences that they subsequently evaluate very positively.
The point is worth noting that three levels of traveler
evaluations occur related to a discretionary trip:
• Prior to starting the current trip, some evaluations oc-
cur about specific places, attractions, accommoda-
tions, local destination area touring, and events in a
destination area (micro evaluations), as well as an
overall assessment of the destination region (macro
evaluation).
• During the trip, both micro and macro evaluations are
subject to revisions based on the experiences and bene-
fits realized (Woodside and Jacobs 1985).
• After the trip is completed, both micro and macro eval-
uations are likely to undergo further revisions based on
reflections and discussions about what happened dur-
ing the trip and the meanings of these happenings (see
Arnould and Price 1993).
To reduce complexity and achieve simplicity, Figure 1 em-
phasizes only the second and third levels of evaluations—
micro and macro trip-related evaluations occurring while
still in progress, as well as after most of the trip experiences
are complete. Also, micro evaluations based on direct experi-
ences have the greatest impact on macro evaluations—such
as global attitude toward the destination—and conations (for
reviews on this rationale, see Peter and Olson 1999, chap. 6;
Fazio and Zanna 1987; Smith and Swinyard 1982).
Proposition 6: Visitor evaluations of their experiences in
the destination area influence their overall evalua-
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 123
tions with respect to the destination (arrow m in Fig-
ure 1), and postexperience evaluations influence
conations (arrow n in Figure 1).
While the consumer behavior literature (see Peter and
Olson 1999) provides strong rationales for the propositions
displayed by evaluation-conation arrows m and n in Figure 1,
Weick (1995, pp. 192-93) states the case vividly in a travel
context:
People discover what they think by looking at what
they say, how they feel, and where they walk. The talk
makes sense of walking, which means those best able
to walk the talk are the ones who actually talk the
walking they find themselves doing most often,
with most intensity, and with most satisfaction.
How can I know what I value until I see where I walk?
People make sense of their actions, their walking,
their talking.
Thus, while potential visitors’ evaluations are likely to
show expectations on how much visitors will like their expe-
riences in a destination region (e.g., “It should be fun!” and
“The region looks beautiful [in the photographs].”), such
evaluations are only preliminary. These preliminary evalua-
tions are subject to substantial revisions following actual vis-
its and participation in activities in the destination region.
Related to this theoretical view, Howard and Sheth (1969)
proposed the use of “attitude” and “attitude′” (attitude prime)
to distinguish preexperience brand attitude from
postexperience brand attitude′. Also, proposition 6 is
grounded in Smith and Swinyard’s (1983) hypothesis and
empirical results that only after purchasing and using a prod-
uct or service are anything resembling beliefs and attitudes
formed.
Proposition 7: Multiple paths occur in traveler behaviors
within destination areas.
An additional proposition not shown in Figure 1 is worth
discussing: travelers visiting a destination region may be
segmented usefully by their behavior while in the destination
region. One sequence of steps, a single behavioral path, is un-
likely to dominate most discretionary travelers’ behaviors in
a destination region. For some segment of visitors, gift buy-
ing may dominate destination areas visited (see Kim and
Littrell 1999) and vice versa. Traveling local heritage road-
ways may affect accommodation choices.
What causes some travelers to tour outlying regions
within the destination region while others travel only within
a very limited geographic area in the destination region? The
segmentation issue: what is the personal (demographic-
psychographic) and trip-related profile of each visitor seg-
ment? Such issues are of theoretical and practical impor-
tance. Learning the nuances in triggering behavior paths that
include visits to outlying tourism-dependent destination
regions may be helpful in planning strategies to influence
such behaviors. Many examples exist of outlying tourism-
dependent local destination areas that earn only a small frac-
tion of the tourism revenues received by the main regions
visited by tourists—for example, the eastern versus the west-
ern side of the Big Island of Hawaii and the outer Prince and
King Counties versus Queen County in PEI.
124 NOVEMBER 2002
METHOD
The Database
A secondary database was used to examine hypotheses
related to the arrows in Figure 1. The extensive data file (i.e.,
face-to-face interviews with 2,239 travel parties) from the
1992 PEI exit survey was used. The “Marketing Agency” (a
provincial government-sponsored organization) and Roberta
MacDonald, University of Prince Edward Island, provided
these data to us. The only use of the data made prior to the
study reported here was a government descriptive report pro-
filing visitors’ demographics, attitudes, and behaviors (Mar-
keting Agency 1993) and a study on the impact of PEI’s 1992
advertising campaign on attitudes, behaviors, and traveler
expenditures (see Woodside, Trappey, and MacDonald
1997).
The data were collected using a 12-page questionnaire.
The data collected included motives of the current trip to
PEI; the number of previous trips and their purposes; the
length of time since the last trip to PEI; visitors’ perceptions
of the PEI visitor information guide and whether or not they
received the guide before or after entering PEI; their aware-
ness and extent of use of the VIG; their evaluations of the
visual appeal, ease of use, and amount of information in the
VIG; and their mode of entry into PEI (e.g., ferry, air, cruise
ship—at the time of the study, no “fixed link” [i.e., bridge]
had been constructed that attached PEI to the Canadian main-
land). Additional data collected included the following top-
ics: type of accommodations used on PEI, evaluations of the
accommodations used, participation in each of 15 activities
while in PEI and evaluations of activities done, visits to each
of 10 attractions in PEI and evaluations of these attractions,
the destination areas visited in PEI and overnight stays there,
the perceived quality of PEI’s road signage, evaluations of
PEI on 10 image items, expenditures in Canadian dollars
while in PEI (including credit card purchases and spending
by children), the proportions of total PEI expenditures by
eight categories, the travel party size and description, and
demographic information (age, marital status, education,
employment outside the home, life cycle stage, annual
household income, and origin by province, state, and coun-
try). Additional details on the specific questions in the ques-
tionnaire are available elsewhere (see Woodside, Trappey,
and MacDonald 1997).
Questionnaire administration procedure. The interviews
were completed during the tourism seasonal period (May 22
to October 5, 1992) when more than 95% of leisure travelers
visit PEI. The questionnaire was administered at all points of
exit from PEI (ferries, airports, and cruise ships) in matching
proportions to total trip visits for each travel mode.
A quota sampling procedure was used to ensure that the
proportions of Canadian, U.S., and European respondents
matched the population of visitors from these three origins:
65% of completed interviews were with Canadians, and 31%
were respondents from the United States; previous to the
study, two-thirds of PEI leisure visitors were estimated to be
Canadians, and about 30% were estimated to be Americans.
The only exception to the quota-sampling rule involved
Japanese visitors. Because profiles of Japanese visitors were
an objective for the study, nearly 1% of the total respondents
were Japanese visitors. Japanese visitors are estimated to
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014
represent less than 0.2% of total leisure visitors. To ensure a
high cooperation rate (88% achieved), native Japanese inter-
viewers conducted interviews with Japanese respondents in
Japanese.
Response rate. The overall cooperation/completion inter-
view rate was 94%. Due mainly to some nonresponses
to some of the questions, the useable number of responses
to test the propositions was close to 88% of the completed
interviews.
Assessment of data collection method. The exit-intercept
method used for data collection offers several advantages.
First, the 94% cooperation and 88% useable response rates
are considerably higher than reported in “inquiry conver-
sion” studies (i.e., survey research studies with respondents
being contacted by mail or telephone several months after
they had requested advertised free information about a desti-
nation). Reported response rates in inquiry conversion stud-
ies average less than 60% (see Woodside and Dubelaar
1999).
Second, exit-intercept interviews are likely to minimize
memory problems in retrieving details of the trip in respond-
ing to questions asked in the survey instrument. Also, unlike
mail and telephone procedures, all respondents are answer-
ing the questions at the same time during their trip; thus, con-
founding of responses caused by varying lengths of time
since the trip and completing the questionnaire is eliminated.
Also, we can be close to certain that the respondents in
exit-intercept studies actually visited the destination on their
current trip—they are face-to-face with the interviewer. Thus,
“telescoping” does not occur. Telescoping by the respondent
includes moving events in memory forward in time to report
a visit to the destination that is the focus of the study. Tele-
scoping may occur in some instances because the respondent
wants to be helpful and enjoys telling about a trip made some
years ago to the destination being asked about. The most
important advantage of the exit-intercept method may be the
ability to compare responses to acquirers of advertising
information (e.g., free VIGs) with nonacquirers of such
information. Such a comparison is a quasi-experiment design
of advertising effectiveness research of tourism marketing
programs (e.g., see Woodside, Trappey, and MacDonald
1997).
The disadvantages include the higher research costs com-
pared with mail and telephone interviews and the inability to
randomly stop travelers to ask for their participation in the
study for destinations that many travelers can enter and exit
without stopping. As an island with limited entry-exit access
at the time of the study, natural stops and queuing aided the
data collection procedure for the PEI study.
Data analysis. Because this study is intended to be ex-
ploratory in examining systems of relationships between lei-
sure travel behaviors, “quick clustering” (Kamen 1970) is the
main data analysis method used for examining the proposi-
tions. Quick clustering includes correlation analysis fol-
lowed by creating maps showing the highly significant rela-
tionships between the variables under examination. For each
of the variables examined, ordinal and interval variables
were developed to permit the calculation of Pearson product-
moment correlations. All the correlations included in the
quick clustering maps in the Findings section are significant

statistically (p < .01). While some of the reported correla-
tions appear small (e.g., r = .10, p < .01), “tipping point”
analysis (not shown in the findings, but see Gladwell 1996;
McClelland 1998) indicates that the correlation coefficient
understates the significance of the relationship being de-
scribed between the two variables. The rationale for tipping
analysis: behavioral scientists have observed that societal
variables make little impact on a dependent variable until
they reach a certain critical level (e.g., McClelland 1998; for
a related discussion, also see Bass, Tigert, and Lonsdale
1968). Consequently, a linear correlation coefficient under-
estimates the strength of such relationships. Thus, rather than
concluding that a small correlation that is highly significant
is indicative of an unimportant relationship, a relevant path
relating the two variables should be noted.
Unique Aspects about the Research Setting
The links among travel party characteristics and prime
motive for the trip to the destination area and the behaviors in
the destination area may be rather distant in time as well as
place. For example, the reading by young schoolgirls of the
Japanese translation of Anne of Green Gables (a novel of an
orphaned girl who is adopted by a sister and brother and
grows up on Prince Edward Island, Canada, written by Lucy
Maude Montgomery and translated by Muraoka 1952) cre-
ates a deep-seated attraction to visit PEI. Muraoka’s transla-
tions of the series of Anne books have been reprinted more
than 100 times in Japan (Cole 1993). This subtle link results
in more than 1,000 Japanese visitors to PEI annually. These
“pilgrimages” (Cole 1993) by young Japanese women and
their travel companions occur usually 5 to 10 years after their
reading the Anne book series.
The PEI provincial government maintains houses fur-
nished in the time period of the Anne series; guided tours are
offered to visitors of the grounds and houses. The Anne
musical is the primary performing arts attraction offered
each year in Charlottetown. While not all discretionary trips
to PEI relate to the Anne book series, many Canadians,
Americans, and Europeans are also motivated to visit the
province because of their childhood reading of Anne of
Green Gables (Marketing Agency 1993). Consequently,
travel party composition factors often influence behavior:
search and use of information, perceptions and evaluations of
specific destination places and events, and the overall evalu-
ations of destinations. The destination experiences of walk-
ing the paths, touring houses mentioned in the Anne books
series, and attending the Charlottetown (capital of PEI) sum-
mer festival of the musical Anne of Green Gables are the
activities completed by Japanese visitors. Their evaluations
of their experiences are very positive.
Limitations
The findings below describe empirical associations only.
Cause-and-effect relationships are not tested scientifically in
the study; formal treatment and test groups and treatments
were not included in the design of the study. The study is lim-
ited by the use of secondary data that were not collected by
the primary researchers with the analysis presented in mind.
However, the primary researchers (PEI’s Marketing
Agency) did plan on collecting detailed data on all aspects of
leisure travel behavior involving visiting PEI.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 125
The data collection procedure was retrospective and
mostly self-reports. The data were collected at one point
toward the end of visitors’ stays in PEI. Even though the data
are mostly self-reports, we can be certain that the respon-
dents had actually been to PEI during the time frame of the
study since the data were collected face-to-face at PEI exit
locations. Not all the details presented in Figure 1 are
described empirically in this report. For example, local-area
travel routes and the use of transportation modes in PEI are
not described in this report. Data were not collected on these
two variables in the primary study. The reported empirical
study is intended to explore associations, not to test causal
paths. Tests of alternative models that explain dependent
relationships are possible using partial correlations and path
analysis (see Pedhazur 1982). The results of the quick clus-
tering method employed in this report suggest the value in
examining the relative impacts of direct and indirect paths of
influence on identifiable dependent variables.
FINDINGS
Phase 1 Findings
Figure 2 shows findings relevant for variables in the first
four boxes in the left-hand side of Figure 1. To increase clar-
ity and partially to reduce complexity, we show only distance
as a chronic traveler characteristic in Figure 2. Because the
PEI visitor information guide is not published in Japanese
and its availability was not advertised in Japan in 1991-1992,
the responses by Japanese visitors are excluded from the
analysis resulting in Figure 2.
Several different ordinal scales indicating physical dis-
tance from PEI were used for computing an index of dis-
tance. We used kilometers from the center of each origin to
the center of PEI and employed five distance zones:
1 = Canadian Atlantic maritime provinces
2 = Quebec and Ontario provinces and U.S. New England
states
3 = U.S. Mid-Atlantic states
4 = Other U.S. states (mostly Midwest states)
5 = European countries
For purposes of data analysis, binary coding was used for
first visit (FV = 1) versus prior visits (PV = 0) and for each
prime motive for the trip that included visiting PEI (e.g., fam-
ily visit = 1 if prime visit; 0 for family visit if other prime mo-
tive ticked). For use of the VIG, two variables were esti-
mated: reporting receiving the VIG before the trip (coded 1 if
yes, 0 if no) and level of use of the VIG (0 = none, 1 = light,
2 = heavy).
Note in Figure 2 that as predicted in the first set of propo-
sitions (proposition 1), the travel party characteristic (i.e.,
distance) strongly relates to first versus prior visits (r = .58,
p < .001). This finding reflects the useful conclusion for tour-
ism marketing strategy that two distinct visitor segments
occur for PEI—the first-time distant traveler and the local
repeat-visit traveler. Distance and receiving the VIG are
related positively (r = .11, p < .01); distant travelers tend to
do their homework more so than nearby travelers.
Figure 2 shows very strong relationships of distance with
prime motives for visiting PEI. The distant travelers come to
126 NOVEMBER 2002

FIGURE 2
DISTANCE, PRIOR VISITS, AND EVALUATION

Distance to Destination for the Traveler First versus Prior Visits

-29 29
58
Distance
-18 First Visit

11 -19
39 21 26
19
-10

42

-40 -21
-09 -15

Use of VIG Prime Motive for Trip

25 Family Vacation
13
12 Relax and Escape
Experience a Different Culture
Received VIG
18 16 17 Entertainment
-21
Visit Friends and Family
Level of VIG Use
-08 Sports and Social Activities
-20 Home Away from Home
Experience Nature
10

Note: Pearson product-moment correlations shown with decimal point omitted; for all r s, p < .001. Thick lines are used to empha-
size several strong associations. VIG = visitor information guides.

PEI for two prime motives: experience a different culture and
experience nature. Nearby originating travelers come to PEI
for two different prime motives: visit friends and family and
for sports and social activities. Such findings indicate the
value of using two distinct strategies to position the destina-
tion in the minds of prospective visitors—depending on their
geographic distance. By analogy, “You have a friend in
Pennsylvania” may be a useful positioning message for only
one segment of the nearby visitors to this state; such a mes-
sage is likely to be less effective for most visitors from dis-
tant origins.
Figure 2 includes a significant negative relationship
between use of the VIG and visiting friends and relatives (r =
–.20, p < .001). Given the substantial positive impacts of
using versus not using the VIG on increasing expenditures,
the image of PEI, and satisfaction with the visit even among
nearby visitors, some marketing effort may be worthwhile in
attempting to eliminate this negative relationship. “Visit PEI
again for the very first time—New Experiences Guaranteed
by Reading This Guide” may aid in increasing VIG reader-
ship among nearby Atlantic maritime province visitors.
Proposition 3 receives strong support: use of VIG infor-
mation is associated with (h) prime motives for the trip to the
destination, (i) visit behaviors in the destination area, and (j)
evaluations of destination places and events.
Additional findings are worth noting in Figure 2. As
prime motives, “family vacation” and “relax and escape”
connect substantially less with key travel variables compared
to the other motives in Figure 2. Thus, tourism consumption
systems analysis provides valuable insights into how
motives connect visitors segmented by distance with destina-
tion behaviors (e.g., see Figure 3). Proposition 4 is sup-
ported: prime motives for the trip to the destination influence
travelers’ destination behaviors.
To increase clarity, Figure 3 includes only two of the pos-
sible eight prime motives (see Figure 1 for the eight prime
motives). Figure 3 shows how these two prime motives are
linked with travel behaviors in the destination region as well
as the number of previous visits and other phase 1 variables.
Several findings in Figure 3 warrant discussion. First,
consider the negative relationship between number of previ-
ous visits and use of advertising information (r = –.37, p <
.001). Conclusion: more frequent visitors tend to use adver-
tising information infrequently compared to first-time and
less frequent visitors. While frequency of visits is not associ-
ated with destination expenditures, use of advertising infor-
mation is strongly associated with destination expenditures
(r = .23, p < .001).
For destinations having two primary markets by fre-
quency of visits (i.e., first-time visitors represent 57% and
repeat visitors 43% of PEI visitors), increasing the perceived
usefulness of information such as VIGs to repeat visitors is
likely to increase the total expenditures in the destination
region. One exception to this proposition is gift-buying
behavior. Use of advertising information is associated nega-
tively with gift-buying behavior (r = –.13).

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014

 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 127

FIGURE 3
EMPIRICAL RESULTS FOR PHASE 1

Distance to
Destination Prime 12
for the Traveler Motive
35
4 = very far for Trip to
3 = far Destination
2 = mid Learn about - 08
1 = near - 11 a different
35 culture Traveler Behaviors
in Destination Areas
- 53 - 05
• Length of stay
Number of • Accommodations used
- 35 14 • Destination activities
Previous Visits
• Destination areas visited
15
25 05 • Destination expenditures
14 • Gift-buying behavior 23
- 37 Prime 24
Motive - 16
for Trip to
Destination - 08
Use of Advertising
Relax and - 13
Information
09 escape from
2 = heavy
1 = light daily concerns
0 = None

The dominant relationship concerning gift-buying behav-
ior shown in Figure 3 is the positive connection with distance
to the destination (r = .24, p < .001). Similarly, a positive link
occurs between gift buying and learning about a different
culture as the prime motive for visiting PEI.
Phase 2 Findings
Two issues of particular interest are related to distant and
mainly first-time visitors versus nearby and mainly repeat
visitors to PEI:
• Do these two market segments engage in different be-
haviors during their visits?
• Do these two market segments evaluate their experi-
ences differently?
The answers from the data analysis present surprising
findings. The two customer segments do often participate in
different activities. The more distant and mostly first-visit
customers consistently evaluate the activities less positively
compared to nearby customers. The lower evaluations of
specific activities done in PEI imply negative distance and
conative (e.g., willingness to recommend and definitely visit
again) linkages. Consequently, the findings provide strong
support for proposition 2.
Table 1 includes the correlation of participating in each
activity with a distance index. The revised distance index in-
cludes Japanese respondents to compare these visitors by ac-
tivities and postexperience evaluations with those of nearby
and middle distance visitors. The i distance index includes
the following ordinal assignments:
1 = respondents living in the Canadian maritime prov-
inces (n = 595)
2 = other Canadian respondents and Americans living in
the New England states (n = 906)
3 = Americans living beyond the New England states and
Europeans (n = 544)
4 = Japanese (n = 150)
Nearly all correlations are significant statistically. The
activities that visitors from distant homes are most prone to
do include the following:
• Visit museums and historical or cultural sites
• Attend lobster suppers
• Sightseeing
The activities that visitors from nearby origins are most
prone to do include the following:
• Golfing
• Enjoying nightlife
• Water sports
Note in Table 2 the substantial drops in being “very
pleased” with the activity engaged in for visitors from nearby
versus more distant origins. The majority of participants in
most activities were very pleased only for the nearby cus-
tomer segment. Possibly, visitors from more distant origins

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014

128 NOVEMBER 2002

TABLE 1 TABLE 2
CORRELATIONS OF VISITORS’ DISTANCE INDEX SHARE OF RESPONDENTS “VERY PLEASED”
AND ACTIVITIES DURING VISIT IN WITH THE ACTIVITY FOR EACH OF THE VISITOR
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DISTANCE SEGMENTS (IN PERCENTAGES)

Activity Correlation p< Each Distance Segment

Going to the beach .08 .000 Activity 1 2 3 4
Water sports (swimming, windsurfing, Going to the beach 54 47 42 4
boating) –.14 .000 Water sports (swimming,
Golfing –.16 .000 windsurfing, boating) 55 45 14 0
Other active sports –.09 .000 Golfing 60 47 35 1
Spectator sports –.11 .000 Other active sports 54 35 28 0
Harbor cruise or land tour .11 .000 Spectator sports 74 31 29 0
Sightseeing within cities/towns Harbor cruise or land tour 45 40 48 0
(on your own) .22 .000 Sightseeing within
Sightseeing outside cities or towns cities/towns (on your own) 53 43 54 3
(on your own) .18 .000 Sightseeing outside cities or
Antique/handcraft shopping .05 .011 towns (on your own) 56 50 61 45
Shopping in general –.01 .541 Antique/handcraft shopping 45 34 34 3
Visiting museums and historical or Shopping in general 31 24 25 0
cultural sites .31 .000 Visiting museums and historical
Attending live theater .22 .000 or cultural sites 52 47 49 3
Attending lobster suppers .26 .000 Attending live theater 85 62 66 54
Eating local cuisine –.03 –.120 Attending lobster suppers 70 56 61 9
Enjoying nightlife –.16 .000 Eating local cuisine 49 36 38 0
Note: The distance index includes 1 = respondents living in Enjoying nightlife 49 41 46 0
the Canadian maritime provinces; 2 = other Canadians and
U.S. New England states respondents; 3 = other U.S. resi- Note: Sample sizes vary substantially by activities. For exam-
dents and Europeans; 4 = Japanese. ple, total responses evaluating the beaches were 1,322, but
only 131 watched spectator sports. Respondents are in-
cluded only if they participated in the activity and evaluated
the activity. See Tables 3 and 4 for an example.

Figure 5 summarizes key linkages among activities done

have more experiences in these activities at a greater number
of alternative destinations versus PEI, and comparisons to
such alternatives result in PEI ratings below being very pleased.
Tables 3 and 4 show examples of more detailed informa-
tion than is summarized in Table 2. A striking finding in
Table 4 is that while 85% of the Japanese visitors reported
attending PEI lobster suppers, only 9% were “very pleased.”
Given that the overall majority of visitors do not report
being very pleased with the PEI beaches, going to PEI
beaches is less of a key driver than other PEI activities (see
Table 3). However, those visitors who strongly agree that
“PEI’s beaches are superior” are significantly more likely to
“definitely visit PEI again” (see additional findings below).
Thus, making sweeping conclusions regarding visitors’ eval-
uations of their destination activities may be misleading; for
example, visitor experiences on PEI beaches are a positive
driver for nearby customers but not a key driver for visitors
from more distant origins.
Through the 1990s, PEI’s general marketing strategy
included the message, “Warmest beaches north of the Caroli-
nas.” However, based on the findings in Tables 1 and 2,
emphasizing beach activities to visitors from distant origins
may be counterproductive.
Figure 4 reflects the negative relationships between dis-
tance to origins and visitors’ evaluations of PEI activities, as
well as the positive relationships with doing specific activi-
ties on PEI with overall evaluations with respect to PEI.
Note in Figure 4 that none of the variables shown was
found to be associated with perceiving PEI as an expensive
destination. Visits to PEI museums were related negatively
to evaluating PEI as having no nightlife and being boring and
old-fashioned.
by visitors in PEI. For example, length of stay (i.e., number
of nights in PEI) is associated positively with staying in bed
and breakfast accommodations but is unrelated to staying in
hotels. Visiting Charlottetown is not included in Figure 5
because nearly all travelers visit this city (the capital of the
PEI) during their visit. Thus, visits to Charlottetown are not
influenced and do not influence doing the activities included
in Figure 5.
As shown in Figure 5, New London and Kensington are
found to be activity hub cities. Note that this observation
applies in particular to New London.
Phase 3 Findings
What evaluations by visitors are the positive and negative
principal drivers to visiting PEI and being willing to recom-
mend PEI to friends? Figure 6 summarizes the findings that
help answer this question.
Sightseeing in the cities and visiting PEI museums are
associated strongly with both conations in Figure 6. Antique
and craft shopping and the local PEI cuisine are the second-
ary positive drivers linked to the two primary activity drivers
as well as directly with visiting PEI again. Evaluating the
beaches is not associated directly with the two conations (see
Figure 6 for additional details).
Note that as might be expected, global PEI evaluations
regarding PEI are associated most strongly with visiting PEI
again and with willingness to recommend PEI to friends. The
combined factor that includes having no nightlife and being
boring and old-fashioned is the largest negative driver
toward recommending PEI to friends (r = –.42, p < .001). The

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014

 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 129

TABLE 3
DETAILED EXAMPLE OF EVALUATIONS BY SEGMENTS: GOING TO THE BEACH

Postexperience Evaluation (%)

Very Very
Distance Segment Disappointed Disappointed Pleased Pleased Number
1 = Canadian maritime 0 2 44 54 283
2 = Other Canada and U.S. New England 0 1 52 47 627
3 = Other U.S. states and Europe 0 3 55 42 314
4 = Japan 1 9 86 4 98
Total 0 2 53 44 1,322
Note: Chi-square = 94.75, df = 9, p < .000; shares of each distance segment reporting going to the beach: segment 1 = 48% (i.e.,
283 of 595), segment 2 = 69%, segment 3 = 58%, and segment 4 = 65%.

TABLE 4
DETAILED EXAMPLE OF EVALUATIONS BY SEGMENTS: LOBSTER SUPPERS

Postexperience Evaluation (%)

Very Very
Distance Segment Disappointed Disappointed Pleased Pleased Number
1 = Canadian maritime 1 1 28 70 140
2 = Other Canada and U.S. New England 1 1 42 56 432
3 = Other U.S. states and Europe 1 2 37 61 243
4 = Japan 0 5 87 9 127
Note: Chi-square = 134.15, df = 9, p < .0000. Participation in lobster suppers: segment 1 = 23%, segment 2 = 48%, segment 3 =
45%, and segment 4 = 85%.
FIGURE 4
DISTANCE, PRIOR VISITS, AND EVALUATIONS

Distance to Destination for the Traveler 58

First versus Prior Visits

Distance
First Visit

-21

25

Overall Evaluations of PEI as a Destination

Evaluation of Specific Destinations, Places, and Events
Liked beaches 23
PEI is expensive
14 Inconvenient
-14 to reach
-19 Antique/craft shopping Hospitality
-14 staff well
trained
Shopping 19
-20

Local -21
-18 cuisine
Sightseeing 17 Beaches are
in city No nightlife, superior
23 Friendly &
-21 boring, old-
relaxing fashioned
Museums -27
-26

Note: PEI = Prince Edward Island.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014

130 NOVEMBER 2002

FIGURE 5
KEY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ACTIVITIES

Length of Stay 25
B&B Summerside 44
-31
28 South Shore 25
Cabin 20 21
57
-36 New London
Hotel
28
Kensington
31
24
Went to Beach 22
26
23 Brack
20
28 23
25
Went Shopping
Gift Buying
23 22
26
22 22
20
Went Antique Shopping 20 54

26 Expenditures

20 Went to Museums
26
Sampled Local Cuisine
Went Sightseeing in City

Note: Pearson product-moment correlations shown with decimal point omitted; for all r s, p < .001. Thick lines used to emphasize
several strong associations.

overall image that PEI is friendly and relaxing is the largest
positive image driver for recommending PEI to friends (r =
.45, p < .001). The findings support proposition 5: visitor
behaviors in the destination areas influence their evaluations
with respect to the destination. Proposition 6 is supported:
visitor evaluations of their experiences in the destination area
influence their overall evaluations with respect to the desti-
nation, and postexperience evaluations influence conations.
Figure 6 shows detailed results supporting proposition 6.
Notice the strong secondary influence shown in Figure 6
of PEI’s hospitality staff being perceived as well trained.
Visitor evaluations of destination hospitality quality are
found to have strong direct influences on both conative fac-
tors in Figure 6.
Proposition 7 is supported: multiple paths do occur in
traveler behaviors within PEI. Multiple ways occur for
increasing and decreasing conations. The complexity in the
quick clustering maps (shown in Figures 2-6) threatens to
overwhelm the viewer with equivocality rather than uncer-
tainty. Some paths, starting with distance and ending with the
two conations in Figure 6, show net gains (computed by mul-
tiplying the directionality of arrows for a given path), and
some paths show a net loss, that is, reductions in conations.
Thus, the following question has multiple, rather than
one, useful answers: does distance from origin increase or
decrease visitors’ intentions to return and favorable word-of-
mouth communications? The most accurate answer is that
the impact of distance to the destination on visitor conations
depends on the activities and evaluations that occur along the
way. Doing or not doing certain activities affects how the dis-
tance of visitors’ origins relates to their conations concerning
the destination (cf. Etzel and Woodside 1982).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TOURISM STRATEGIES
Viewing leisure travel behavior as a consumption system
may help deepen understanding of the streams of thoughts
and actions by travelers prior to, during, and after travel. For
specific destinations and industries (e.g., hospitality, car
rental, and retail stores), learning the details that culminate
in, as well as block, visits and purchases with respect to their
services may be useful.
Viewing tourism behavior as consumption systems
enables us to focus on understanding multiple decisions and
actions rather than only the destination choice decision (cf.
Moutinho 1987; Woodside and Lysonski 1989). Such a sys-
tems perspective shows the complexities that unfold within
leisure travel. While not all visitors to a destination from a
given origin are the same, most likely a dominant customer
behavior segment needs to be identified for planning market-
ing strategies to attract visitors from each major origin. Anal-
ysis of visitors by their tourism consumption systems pro-
vides the marketing strategist with deep profiles of different
customer segments demographics, trip planning activities,
trip behaviors, evaluations of trip services experienced,

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014

 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 131

FIGURE 6
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC DESTINATIONS, PLACES, AND EVENTS
WITH OVERALL DESTINATION EVALUATIONS AND CONATIONS

Evaluation of Specific Destinations, Places, and Events Overall Evaluations of PEI as a Destination

25
19
Liked beaches 39
18

Antique/craft shopping
47 23
17 PEI is expensive
63 54 Inconvenient
22
Shopping 19 to reach
Hospitality
29 28 staff well
20 17
Local trained
49 -21 -24 -27
cuisine
Sightseeing 18 -31
in city 22
23
57
31 Beaches are
-34
27 superior
43 Museums 23 No nightlife,
Friendly & boring, old-
18 27 .28 relaxing fashioned

-42 27
29 29
27 45
39
-39

Definitely Visit Again 55 Willing to Recommend Others

27

Conations

Note: Pearson product-moment correlations shown with decimal point omitted; for all r s, p < .001. Thick lines used to emphasize
several strong associations. PEI = Price Edward Island.

global evaluations of services and destinations, and
conations—and how these variables are linked together.
Consequently, the product and communication strategies
for destination marketers and marketers of tourism services
can focus on (1) the trip activities actually done by each seg-
ment and (2) the experiences they evaluate very positively.
For example, many PEI visitors from the Canadian maritime
provinces actually participate in water sports and evaluate
these experiences very positively. While communicating the
activities and benefits of water sports to these PEI visitors is
likely to be an effective strategy, PEI attractions and activi-
ties other than water sports are more appealing to PEI’s other
customer segments. Promoting PEI water sports to Ameri-
cans from the midwestern and southern states may actually
hurt rather than help build a favorable image toward the
destination.
A regional destination, such as PEI, cannot afford to have
one positioning strategy for all relevant market segments.
However, promoting a regional destination as “having it all”
needs to be avoided—this shopworn message does not match
the benefits sought or experienced by visitors (see Woodside
and Jacobs 1985).
Creating a limited number of product-market strategies is
recommended. Designing unique tourism products and expe-
riences that can be delivered for each of three to six market
segments builds well onto what is known about alternative
tourism consumption systems. Interestingly enough, if we
identify the tourism segment as the unit of analysis we wish
to study in order to select the appropriate strategies implied
above, Finn and Kayande (1997) suggested that we can sub-
stantially reduce the costs of data collection by being more
efficient in how we design our studies. This implies that we
need not survey 2,000 respondents face-to-face to collect the
data we need; instead, we can survey fewer people with a more
focused instrument and achieve the same degree of accuracy.
REFERENCES
Arnould, E. J., and L. L. Price (1993). “ ‘River Magic’: Hedonic Consump-
tion and the Extended Service Encounter.” Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 20: 24-35.
Baloglu, Seyhmus (2000). “A Path-Analytical Model of Visitation Intention
Involving Information Sources, Socio-Psychological Motivations and
Destination Images.” In Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality
and Leisure, edited by A. G. Woodside, G. I. Crouch, J. A. Mazanec,
M. Oppermann, and M. Y. Sakai. Cambridge, UK: CABI Publishing.
Bass, Frank M., Douglas J. Tigert, and Robert T. Lonsdale (1968). “Market
Segmentation: Group versus Individual Behavior.” Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 5 (August): 268-72.
Bello, Dan, and Michael Etzel (1985). “The Role of Novelty in the Pleasure
Travel Experience.” Journal of Travel Research, 24 (1): 20-26.
Clawson, Marion, and Jack L. Knetsch (1966). Economics of Outdoor Rec-
reation. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Series, Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Cole, Sally (1993). “Japanese Make Pilgrimage to PEI to Celebrate the
Amazing ‘Anne’ Link.” The Guardian, July 31: 2.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014

132 NOVEMBER 2002
Etzel, Michael J., and Arch G. Woodside (1982). “Segmenting Vacation
Markets: The Case of the Distant and Near-Home Travelers.” Journal
of Travel Research, 20 (Spring): 10-14.
Fazio, Russell H., and Mark P. Zanna (1987). “Attitudinal Qualities Relating
to the Strength of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship.” Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 14: 398-408.
Finn, Adam, and Ujwal Kayande (1997). “Reliability Assessment and Opti-
mization of Marketing Measurement.” Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 34 (2): 262-75.
Fodness, Dale, and Brian Murray (1998). “A Typology of Tourist Informa-
tion Search Strategies.” Journal of Travel Research, 37 (November):
108-19.
 (1999). “A Model of Tourist Information Search Behavior.” Journal
of Travel Research, 37 (February): 220-30.
Gladwell, M. (1996). “The Tipping Point.” The New Yorker, 72: 32-39.
Howard, John A., and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behav-
ior. New York: John Wiley.
Kamen, Joseph (1970). “Quick Clustering.” Journal of Marketing Research,
7 (2): 199-204.
Kim, Soyoung, and Mary A. Littrell (1999). “Predicting Souvenir Purchase
Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research, 38 (4): 153-62.
Marketing Agency (1993). Summary Profile of PEI Visitors. Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island: Marketing Agency.
McClelland, David C. (1998). “Identifying Competencies with Behavioral-
Event Interviews.” Psychological Science, 9 (5): 331-39.
McIntosh, R. W., and Charles R. Goeldner (1990). Tourism: Principles,
Practices, Philosophies. New York: John Wiley.
Moutinho, Luiz (1987). “Consumer Behavior in Tourism.” European Jour-
nal of Marketing, 21 (10): 2-44.
Muraoka, Hanako (1952). Akage No Anne [Red-haired Anne]. Tokyo:
Mikasa-Shobou.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Peter, J. Paul, and Jerry C. Olson (1999). Consumer Behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Senge, Peter (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Smith, Robert E., and William R. Swinyard (1982). “Information Response
Models: An Integrated Approach.” Journal of Marketing, 46: 81-93.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Bond University Library on September 16, 2014
 (1983). “Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product
Trial versus Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research, 20: 257-67.
Snepenger, D. K., K. Meged, M. Snelling, and K. Worrall (1990). “Informa-
tion Search Strategies by Destination-Naïve Tourists.” Journal of
Travel Research, 29 (Summer): 13-16.
Solomon, Michael R. (1988). “Mapping Product Constellations: A Social
Categorization Approach to Symbolic Consumption.” Psychology &
Marketing, 5 (3): 233-58.
 (1999). Consumer Behavior. 4th ed. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Weick, Karl E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Woodside, Arch G. (1982). “Positioning a Province Using Travel Re-
search.” Journal of Travel Research, 20: 2-6.
 (2000). “Introduction: Theory and Research on the Consumer Psy-
chology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure.” In Consumer Psychol-
ogy of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, edited by A. G. Woodside,
G. I. Crouch, J. A. Mazanec, M. Oppermann, and M. Y. Sakai.
Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 1-17.
Woodside, Arch G., and Chris Dubelaar (1999). “Meta-Analysis of Adver-
tising Conversion Research Findings: Testing the Self-Generated Va-
lidity Hypothesis Regarding Sponsor Identity.” In Marketing in the
Third Millennium: Proceedings—ANZMAC99 [CD]. Sydney: School
of Marketing, University of New South Wales.
Woodside, Arch G., and Laurence W. Jacobs (1985). “Step Two in Benefit
Segmentation: Learning the Benefits Realized by Major Travel Mar-
kets.” Journal of Travel Research, 23 (Fall): 14-24.
Woodside, Arch G., and Steven Lysonski (1989). “A General Model of
Traveler Destination Choice.” Journal of Travel Research, 27 (4): 8-14.
Woodside, Arch G., and Roberta MacDonald (1994). “A General Systems
Framework of Customer Choice Processes of Tourism Services.” In
Spoilt for Choice, edited by R. Gasser and K. Weiermair. Vienna: Kul-
tur Verlag, pp. 30-59.
Woodside, Arch G., Randolph J. Trappey III, and Roberta MacDonald
(1997). “Measuring Linkage-Advertising Effects on Customer Behav-
iour and Net Revenue: Using Quasi-Experiments of Advertising
Treatments with Novice and Experienced Product-Service Users.”
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14 (2): 214-28.