ABSTRACT
Consumers’ decision making (DM) is often presented as a sequential process involving a series of steps from need recognition (awareness) to final choice (purchase) through evaluation. In other words, product decisions are thought to arise from cognitive, affective and conative stages that lie at the core of hierarchy-of-effects (e.g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961) and most consumer behavior models (e.g., Engel, Kollat & Blackwell, 1973). Both product alternatives and attributes may be used as a reference point when using such models. This chapter focuses on alternatives. The way product or brand alternatives are first considered and then evaluated in order to come to a final choice is the focus of choice set (CS) models. These assume a funneling categorization process in which the number of alternatives from all brands the consumer is aware of is narrowed down to a single final choice. The concept of choice sets will be used as a generic term throughout this chapter to point at the different sets of destination alternatives that are considered by consumers in their choice processes. The aim of the chapter is to reconsider CS theory, especially that which is related to tourism and destination choice, in a qualitative interpretative perspective. Two major arguments justify why such a “rediscovery” is needed. First, extant literature on destination CS involves a few controversies and dark zones. As shown later, most studies have focused on the structure and size of sets and on some variables impacting on the funneling process related to the formation of CS. In contrast, major aspects such as the dynamics of CS evolving over time or the categorization and evaluation processes underlying CS remain unexplored: “it is unclear how an individual funnels the large number of alternatives from the initial CS to select the final destination and which principles are used in the process, at least from an empirical point of view” (Hong, Kim, Jang & Lee, 2006, p. 750). Second, CS theory has been dominated by a cognitive-affective-conative hierarchical and sequential vision that is in line with the idea of a (bounded) rational decision maker but leaves few room for hedonistic, adaptive and opportunistic perspectives that may be very important in
vacation DM (Decrop & Snelders, 2005). Fournier and Mick (1999, p. 5) warn that “reliance on a single paradigm or method may pose serious limitations for any marketing phenomenon.” For these two reasons, reconsidering CS theory is worthwhile: what are different types of CS? How do they relate to each other? How stable are they over time? How do they lead to choice? These questions are addressed here by investigating CS in depth and dynamically, in their natural context.
