Process Models

Of the contemporary models of the consumer decision making process, one type that has endured over time and has gained popularity is the Choice Set model which describes a funnelling process from many alternatives down to the final choice of one. The Choice Set theory of decision making assumes the existence of multi-attribute, complex choice alternatives from which a bounded decision maker eventually makes a reasoned selection decision which is a trade-off between utility and cost (Decrop, 2010). It is normally applied to high involvement, high risk purchases such as tourist destination choice by authors such as Crompton (1992), Crompton and Ankomah (1993), Smallman and Moore (2010) and Decrop (2010). A fundamental characteristic of the Choice Set model of consumer decision making is that options are reduced through a number of screening phases until one alternative remains and an ultimate choice is made.

80 Crompton (1992) identified three core stages within Choice Set models; at first there is the Awareness Set where all options are included, secondly these options are reduced through an elimination process to create a Consideration Set and then finally a single option remains as the chosen alternative. Figure 3 builds on the basic three stages and adds detail to the choice set funnelling process. The sets are described as ‘exhaustive’ by Crompton (1992, p. 427) in that all alternative destinations will belong to a set somewhere. The model begins one stage earlier than the three fundamental stages where all potential destinations are initially included in the choice options. They are then filtered through into an Awareness Set, discarding those that the tourist is unaware of. The Awareness Set has been credited as being a significant influence to consumer choice in many studies (Axelrod, 1968, Crompton and Ankomah, 1993) and a correlation has been found to exist between levels of awareness and the probability of selection. Whilst researching this phenomenon in the tourism context, Michie (1986) found the level of awareness was dependent on previous visitation and distance from the tourists’ origin. By filtering out the destinations about which the tourist is unaware, a range of alternatives remain for them to begin to make decisions about. Many alternatives will be excluded from further consideration, because, according to Crompton (1992), they are either Inert or Inept. Alternatives which are considered Inert include those where the tourist does not know enough about to encourage further consideration (Foggy Set), or those which they may know about and indeed may be positively disposed to, but these alternatives are not satisfactory solutions for the current requirements (Hold Set). Other alternatives in Crompton’s Choice Set model may be excluded because they are seen as Inept; the decision maker perceives these alternatives negatively either as a result of personal experience or external negative feedback. The remaining alternatives will form the Consideration Set.

The Consideration Set is further divided into an Initial Consideration Set (ICS) and Late Consideration Set (LCS). The purpose of this is to continue the reduction to a manageable number of alternatives. The number of alternatives that form the LCS has been agreed by some authors (Woodside and Sherrell, 1977; Bronner and de Hoog, 1985) as consisting of 4 (± 2) destinations, any more than that and the decision maker may be overwhealmed by the complexity of the problem. Decrop (2010) quoted a respondent in his research as stating ‘it’s already complicated enough to think about three [destinations]. I don’t want to think about another one’ (Decrop, 2010, p. 104). Identifying the size of the ICS has been more problematic for researchers and is often expressed as a ratio of destinations in the LCS to those in the ICS. The ratio, which is higher for tourism destination decisions than

81 products or consumables, has been found to be anywhere from 0.43:1 (Woodside et al, 1977) to 0.9:1 (Um, 1987). This suggests that a high proportion of destinations considered in the ICS will be included in the LCS15_{. The existence of such a potentially large LCS and the complexity of destination}

attibutes implies that not all destinations will be investigated fully. Some destinations in the late consideration set may elicit active information search while others may not. This is consistent with the saticficing principle which states that information search ends when a satisfying alternative is

found and also reflects the economics of search as it is assumed that a point is reached where the cost of information search outweighs the benefits.

Source: Crompton (1992)

Crompton (1992) asserts that destinations within the Action Set have a higher likelihood of being selected due to the investment of time and resources that are required for the decision maker to gather information from various sources. If these sources are ‘personal’ (i.e. the tourists engages with a travel agent or representative of the destination) then they fall into the Interactive Set of the

15 _{Extrapolating the figures (2 to 6 destinations in the LCS and ratios for LCS to ICS of 0.43:1 and 0.9:1) gives a}

rough size of the ICS being between 2 destinations and 14.

82 choice set model. Alternatively if they are non-personal, then they can be classified as belonging to the Quiet Set. Interactive Sets are deemed more likely to be chosen due to the opportunity for the representative or agent to ‘sell’ the decision maker the destination. The end product of the Choice Set model is then the final choice itself.

It should be understood that during this funnelling process, alternatives placed in the Consideration Sets that are eliminated may not be eliminated permanently. Although alternatives within the Consideration Sets that go on to demonstrate dominant negative characteristics will be permanently excluded as inept, alternatives which are deemed positive may be eliminated because they are less positive than the competing alternatives. These alternatives are then moved into the Hold Set and maintain the possibility of becoming the eventual choice. The Hold Set can be seen as a function of the decision making environment that has been discussed previously – that the external environment is dynamic and changes may occur that disrupt the choice set funnelling process. Situations may arise in which the most favoured alternative is eliminated by external forces, resulting in favourable but eliminated alternatives stored in the Hold Set becoming the ultimately chosen alternative. The tourism industry is rife with examples of this from simple selling out of seats on flights to a multitude of natural or man-made crises which prevent or discourage the tourist from visiting the original destination of choice.

An example of more contemporary research on Choice Set Models is the work of Decrop (2010) who conducted a longitudinal study on choice set formation and created a model (Figure 4) which shares characteristics with Crompton’s (1992) model. Both models begin with all available options and then proceed to an Awareness Set and an Unawareness Set. Following this, Decrop describes an Evoked Set which represents Compton’s (1992) Consideration Set. The first difference of opinion appears when identifying alternatives that are either negatively or neutrally perceived by the decision maker. Neutrally perceived alternatives are allocated to the Surrogate Set, which is identical to Crompton’s description of his Hold Set in nature and negatively perceived alternatives are allocated to the Exclusion Set. Decrop’s Exclusion Set is Crompton’s Inept Set as both contain alternatives that will not be considered as a result of a negative perception. Decrop appears to have no category for Crompton’s Foggy Set, where tourists have limited information regarding a destination. It may be that Decrop assumes that allocation to choice sets can be made with or even because of limited information. A tourists’ ignorance of a destination beyond their basic awareness of it suggests a feeling of apathy towards that destination – it is not seen positively or negatively. This would then

83 belong in Decrop’s Surrogate Set. Destinations that are perceived negatively would be eliminated and therefore allocated to the Exclusion Set and finally, destination for which the decision maker has

sufficient positive information would be included in the Evoked Set. In practice, assuming that

information is available, it remains to be seen whether a destination which a tourist is aware of is eliminated due to lack of information alone. Due to the number of destinations in the Awareness Set, lack of information may still be a significant filter of alternatives.

Following the formation of the Evoked Set, Decrop introduces the Sets which Crompton does not explicitly acknowledge; the Dream Set, Unavailable Set and Available Set. The inclusion of these sets helps to overcome a specific problem. In the field of tourism, this initial stage of the choice set model has caused researchers problems due to the extensive list of potential destinations that a tourist is likely to be aware of, and also the almost infinite list of destinations they may not be (Crompton, 1992). Crompton applied the two stage Consideration Set to filter the alternatives whilst Woodside and Sherrell (1977, p. 15) addressed this problem by proposing an ‘awareness-available’ set and an ‘awareness-unavailable’ set and eliminated the unawareness set. The inclusion of the term ‘available’ was used to imply that a tourist believes that they are able to visit the destination within (roughly) the next year. Although an improvement on the basic model, this has been criticised (Crompton, 1992) by the fact that while a tourist may have the time and resources to be able to visit a destination, they may have absolutely no intention of doing so. Decrop’s (2010) model includes a Dream Set, Unavailable Set and Available Set thereby applying the ‘available’/’unavailable’ filter after the acceptable alternatives have been placed into the Evoked Set thereby overcoming the criticisms directed at previous models.

Destinations in the Dream Set are regarded positively but are not viable alternatives as due to ‘structural constraints’ (Decrop, 2010) which are enduring in nature and therefore eliminate the alternative permanently (or at least until the structural inhibitor is overcome). Examples of structural inhibitors include economic, family and occupational constraints. It may be argued that this alternative may have been considered in Crompton’s (1992) model and information was actively sought which demonstrated to the decision maker that the alternative was not an option. The alternative would then feed back into the Excluded Set. The Unavailable Set was created for those alternatives that were also positively regarded, but are prevented from being a realistic alternative due to what Decrop calls ‘situational constraints’. These constraints are more temporary in nature

84 than those that relate to the Dream Set and may include issues such as short term economic constraints, the lack of company and the lack of sufficient time. Finally, having identified preferable (evoked) alternatives which are available, a decision is made from that set of alternatives. While the model represents an evolution in the presentation of the process involved in destination decision making, it does not include the important behavioural element of active/inactive information search which Crompton (1992) recommends in his model.

Figure 4; Decrop's (2010) Choice Set Model