Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
acceptable for his next purchase. Narayana and Markin (1975) redefi ne the evoked set and
include all brands that may be in the buyer's awareness set. Narayana and Markin (1975) introduce
the concepts of inert and inept sets. An inert set is made up of the brands that the consumer has
given neither a positive nor a negative evaluation. The inept set encompasses the brands that the
buyer has rejected from their purchase consideration, either because they have had an unpleasant
experience or because they have received negative feedback from other sources.
Spiggle and Sewall (1987) also contribute an important extension to the concept of
choice-sets. They present a model for retail decision-making that is built upon and extends the
evoked-set concept previously investigated by Narayana and Markin (1975). Spiggle and Sewall's
(1987) model includes fi ve new choice-sets, which were hypothesized as being the subsets of an
evoked-set. The new sets comprise the:
1 action set;
2 interaction set;
3 inaction set;
4 quiet set; and
5 reject set.
Action set is defi ned as 'all stores towards which a consumer takes some action - she or he goes
at least as far as making a visit to the store site' (Spiggle and Sewall 1987: 99). The interaction set
includes:
all of the stores in which a consumer allowed himself/herself to be exposed to personal
selling. The inaction set comprises of all the stores in evoked set that a consumer does not
visit. Quiet set composes stores that consumers visit and leave before interacting with a sales
clerk. The reject set is made up of the stores that are originally in the evoked, action, or
interaction sets and towards which a consumer's evaluation is transformed from positive to
negative during purchase deliberation.
(Spiggle and Sewall 1987: 101)
The choice set approach in the tourist's decision making process is initiated as an alternative and
more practical perspective to behavioural approaches, which are generally criticized as being too
complex and diffi cult to test empirically. Rather than being strong theoretical exercises, choice-
set research seeks to bring to light results more applicable to destination choice behaviours.
A number of conclusions should be underlined. Tourists seek well-being; thus, the utility of a
vacation should be measured by a value function where perceived gains and losses are highly
valued. Furthermore, perceptions should be explained through motivation and its components,
namely objective attributes, social motivations and psychological motivations.
The human being has cognitive abilities and is not able to evaluate all alternatives (certainty).
Thus, decisions arise in a context of uncertainty and that should be taken into account.
Furthermore, tourists (consumers) in general have a limited memory and perform decisions
through a simplifi cation process that at the very end is likely to be based on trust and intuitive
perceptions rather than a reasoning process. Simplifi cation processes and uncertainty give rise to
decisions where outcomes may be unexpected. In this sense, touristic decisions are infl uenced by
emotions and cognitions, as well as by psychological and social factors. In the same vein it has
been widely assumed that preferences are stable and unchangeable; however, in tourism the
evolutionary features of the tourism product and the accumulated experience of tourists dictate
that preferences are dynamic.
