Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.

93115, 2010
0160-7383/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.08.002

DESTINATION CHOICE SETS

An Inductive Longitudinal Approach
Alain Decrop
Louvain School of Management, Belgium
Abstract: Choice or consideration set formation focuses on how consumers deal with the
multitude of brands that are available in many product categories. This paper investigates
the formation and evolution of destination choice sets over time through a longitudinal qualitative study of vacation decision making. A typology of seven choice sets is presented (i.e.,
available set, awareness set, dream set, evoked set, exclusion set, surrogate set, unavailable
set); the emergence process and connections of those sets are then explained. Choice sets
prove to be continuous and to undergo turnarounds. The paper indicates that, to a large
extent, final destination choice is driven by constraints and opportunities. Keywords: consumer behavior, choice sets, destination evaluation, interpretive research. 2009 Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Business research and practice often presents consumers decision
making (DM) as a sequential process involving a series of steps from
need recognition (awareness) to final choice (purchase) through the
evaluation of products. In other words, decisions 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; Howard & Sheth, 1969).
Researchers may use product alternatives and/or attributes as a reference point when working with such models. This paper focuses on
alternatives. Howard (1963) was the first to suggest that alternatives
are grouped in an evoked set which includes the brands consumers
consider acceptable for the next purchase. More broadly, consideration or choice set models focus on the way consumers first consider
product or brand alternatives and then evaluate them in order to come
to a final choice (Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990; Howard & Sheth, 1969).
These models assume a funneling categorization process through
which consumers narrow the number of brand alternatives they are
aware of down to a single choice. Choice set (CS) is used throughout

Alain Decrop is Professor of Marketing at the Louvain School of Management and a

member of CeRCLe (Center for Research on Consumption and Leisure) at the University of
Namur, Belgium (Rempart de la Vierge 8, 5000 Namur, Belgium. Email: <alain.decrop@
fundp.ac.be>). His major research interests include consumer decision making and behavior,
qualitative interpretive methods, and tourism marketing.
93

94

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

this paper as a generic term to refer to different types of sets containing

product alternatives people have in mind when making a decision.
This research reconsiders the emergence of tourism destination CSs
in a naturalistic interpretive perspective. Four major arguments justify
why such a rediscovery is necessary. First, extant literature on destination CSs deals much more with the question as to why consumers
move to simplify and limit the number of brands they consider than
with how consumers form their CSs (Brisoux & Laroche, 1981; Gruca,
1989; Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990). Moreover, many studies focus on
the structure and size of sets (for reviews, see Hauser & Wernerfelt,
1990; Laroche & Parsa, 2000). In contrast, the literature is largely silent
about the process of forming a CS. Laroche, Kim, and Matsui (2003)
attribute this paucity to the lack of sound theoretical bases and to
the difficulty to research such a topic. As a consequence, the categorization and evaluation processes underlying CSs remain largely 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, the few general CS models that have been proposed (e.g.,
Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Narayana & Markin, 1975; Turley & Leblanc,
1995) are purely conceptual/theoretical and lack empirical roots.
Moreover, those models rely on a hierarchical and sequential vision
of DM that gradually reduces the number of alternatives, which is in
line with the idea of a (bounded) rational decision maker (March &
Simon, 1958). Most papers have viewed the formation of CSs as a
two-stage choice model wherein consumers first decide which brands
to consider and then, when a purchase situation arises, evaluate the
remaining brands (Laroche et al., 2003). This vision makes little room
for hedonistic, adaptive, and opportunistic perspectives that may be
relevant in vacation DM (Decrop & Snelders, 2005). Finally, extant research fails to explore the dynamics of CSs both across and within
usage occasions. Nedungadi (1990) and Turley and Leblanc (1995)
note that a static view dominates the CS literature. Shocker, Ben-Akiva,
Boccara, and Nedungadi (1991, p. 186) regret such a limitation because consideration sets are real, dynamic, changing with time and
occasion, and affected by consumer contexts and purposes.
For these four reasons, reconsidering the formation of CSs is worthwhile: Which types of CSs exist? How do they relate to each other? How
stable are they over time? How do they lead to choice? The present
study addresses such questions by investigating CSs in depth and
dynamically, in the natural context of an actual vacation DM process.
Before going into the empirical study, the next section presents extant
literature on CS in marketing and tourism research respectively.
CHOICE SET MODELS IN MARKETING AND TOURISM RESEARCH
A range of theories in economics and psychology and a substantial
number of empirical studies support CSs existence although they

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

95

are not directly observable (Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990; Shocker et al.,
1991). Consumers tend to reduce the number of brands in consideration due to the limitation of cognitive capacity (Miller, 1956) and to
the want to save information (Stigler, 1961). Authors such as Hauser
and Wernerfelt (1990) and Roberts and Lattin (1991) view CS formation as a tradeoff between utility and cost. CS models also benefit from
considerable attention in the marketing literature (Brisoux & Laroche,
1980; Hastak & Mitra, 1996; Howard, 1977; Howard & Sheth, 1969;
Narayana & Markin, 1975; Nedungadi, 1990; Spiggle & Sewall, 1987;
Turley & LeBlanc, 1995). Most authors suggest two typical stages. First,
the brand-consideration stage involves retrieval (a function of both
memory and brand accessibility) to form an evoked set (Belonax,
1979; Howard, 1963, 1977; Howard & Sheth, 1969), a consideration
set (Roberts, 1989; Roberts & Lattin, 1991; Wright & Barbour, 1977),
or an action set (Spiggle & Sewall, 1987), most of the time through
the use of a simple heuristic. Next, the brand-evaluation stage pertains
to the evaluation of brands to arrive at a final choice (i.e., selection of a
single brand) on the basis of more elaborated heuristics.
A few authors (e.g., Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Shocker et al., 1991;
Um & Crompton, 1990) add a brand-awareness stage before the consideration stage, which represents a perceptual stage wherein the consumer includes all the destinations s/he knows to arrive to an
awareness set. Such a conceptualization works in a hierarchical manner: It is now a truism of marketing that brand awareness is a necessary precondition for choice (Nedungadi, 1990, p. 264); the
consumer has to evaluate these brands before making a final choice.
In addition to the concepts of awareness set and consideration/evoked
set that were the first to appear in the literature, researchers introduced other types of sets which are defined in Table 1. Shocker
et al. (1991) present a series of alternative models of CS formation
and change. They show that CSs are real, dynamic, changing with time
and occasion, and affected by consumer contexts and purposes.
Tourism research models of destination choice are either in the
form of CSs in input-output approaches of DM (Crompton, 1977;
Um & Crompton, 1990; Woodside & Lysonski, 1989) or in the form
of cognitive processes (Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Moutinho, 1987; van
Raaij & Francken, 1984). CS models focus on the evolution of vacation
destinations and/or plans in a series of CSs. Those models are in line
with the two- or three-stage conceptualization presented above. The
consideration set (evoked set) is part of the perceived opportunity
set (awareness set) and comprises all the destinations the vacationer
is contemplating for his/her current vacation. As the latter is not omniscient, the awareness set is itself only a part of the total opportunity set
which entails all possible destination alternatives (Goodall 1991; Woodside & Sherrell 1977). Choice then consists in an evaluation and selection process through which the vacationer compares the destinations
included in the consideration set on the basis of alternatives and/or
attributes.
Crompton and his colleagues (Ankomah, Crompton, & Baker, 1996;
Crompton, 1992; Crompton & Ankomah, 1993; Um & Crompton,

96

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

Table 1. A Review of Choice Set Types in the Marketing and Tourism

Literature
Choice set type

Definition

Authors

Universal set

Totality of all alternatives that could

be obtained or purchased by any
consumer under any circumstance
All possible brands

Shocker et al. (1991)

Brands the consumer is aware of and

can remember
Brands about which consumers have
some awareness

Howard and Sheth (1969)

Brands that the consumer would

consider and on which s/he
gathers information
The subset of brands that a
consumer considers buying out of
the set of brands that he or she is
aware of in a given product class
Brands acceptable to the consumer
Brands that a consumer will consider

Howard (1963), Howard

and Sheth (1969)

Total opportunity set

Awareness set

Evoked set

Consideration set

Action set

Inert set

Foggy set

Brands that a consumer considers

buying in the near future
Alternatives toward which the
consumer takes some action (e.g.,
looking for information)
Brands that are acceptable but not
really needed (have insufficient
utility to be evaluated)
Brands consumers are aware of but
are not processing

Woodside and Sherrell

(1977)

Brisoux and Laroche (1981)

Howard (1977)

Belonax (1979)
Wright and Barbour (1977),
Roberts (1989)
Roberts and Lattin (1991)
Spiggle and Sewall (1987)

Narayana and Markin

(1975)
Brisoux and Laroche
(1981), Church, Laroche
and Rosenblatt (1985)
Spiggle and Sewall (1987)

Inaction set

Alternatives toward which the

consumer takes no action (e.g.,
looking for information)

Hold set

Brands that consumers process only

partially (because they are not
appropriate)
Brands about which consumers lack
a final opinion (cannot say
whether they would accept or
reject)

Brisoux and Laroche (1981)

Reject set
Inept set

Brands that consumers discard

Brands that are ruled unacceptable
for some reason

Brisoux and Laroche (1981)

Narayana and Markin
(1975)

Unavailable aware set

Brands the consumer is aware of but

that are temporarily unavailable
for some reason

Woodside and Lysonski

(1989)

Church et al. (1985)

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

97

1990) introduce a distinction between the initial consideration set

(awareness set), consisting of a large number of alternatives, and the
late consideration set (evoked set), a reduced set from which consumers choose their final destination. Botha, Crompton, and Kim (1999)
and Hong et al. (2006) apply the same distinction in order to investigate the roles of categorization, affective image, and constraints in
forming destination CSs. The latter authors show that the late consideration set determines sequentially the intention to visit a particular
destination. Woodside and Lysonski (1989) further make a distinction
between evoked set, inert set (brands for which the consumer has a
neutral evaluation), unavailable aware set (the vacationer is aware of
those destinations but s/he is not considering them actively because
of particular constraints), and inept set (brands the consumer is not
considering due to a poor previous experience or negative
information).
In addition to the structure of CSs, a few authors consider their sizes
while others study the variables impacting their formation process. As
to evoked sets sizes, Woodside and Sherrell (1977), Thompson and
Cooper (1979), Woodside and Lysonski (1989), and Perdue and Meng
(2006) respectively report means of 3.4, 2.7, 4.2, and 2.6 destinations.
Bronner and de Hoog (1985) support Woodside and Sherrells (1977)
proposition that vacationers make the effort to evaluate only a few
(four two) alternatives among a much larger set of available choices.
This proposition is in line with the larger study by Hauser and Wernerfelt (1990) which shows that most evoked sets are small, ranging from
three to six depending on the product category. Woodside and Lysonski (1989, pp. 1213) further mention that the average size of the
respondents consideration [i.e., evoked] sets was significantly greater
than the average number of countries mentioned in the respondents
inert, unavailable, and inept sets. More broadly, authors such as
Crompton and Ankomah (1993), Hong et al. (2006), and Botha
et al. (1999) suggest three types of criteria affecting the funneling process that reduces the number of alternatives: personal motivations or
push factors, destination attributes or pull factors, and situational variables or constraints.
Study methods
This paper is part of a larger study on vacation DM which followed
the destination choice process of 25 Belgian decision making units
(DMUs) for a whole year. The authors selected informants likely to
yield rich and varied information in order to maximize theory development (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). DMUs consisted of four types: six singles (representing tourists who decide on their own), six couples
(married or non-married), ten families with children, and three groups
of friends. Acknowledging any intention to go on summer vacation was
the only criterion to be eligible for the study. In addition to DMU
types, the sample varied as to group size, age range, educational background, occupation, and vacation involvement.

98

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

We interviewed informants in depth three times before the summer

vacation (in February, April, and June). The use of such a longitudinal
design is justified by a few arguments. First, as mentioned previously, a
major objective of this study is to follow the evolution of CSs over time
in order to bypass the limitation of extant CS studies that have been
undertaken in static contexts although CSs are dynamic in essence (Laroche et al., 2003; Shocker et al., 1991). Longitudinal research allows such
an understanding of patterns of change and of causal relationships over
time (Menard, 1991). The longitudinal design is further justified by a few
empirical studies (Dellaert, Ettema, & Lindh, 1998; Francken, 1978;
Moutinho, 1987; van Raaij & Francken, 1984), which have shown that
vacation decision making is a long process stretching over a few months
before the actual trip. Finally, a longitudinal design generally helps to improve the trustworthiness of qualitative studies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Menard, 1991) because a relation of trust develops with informants, because data can be triangulated at different points in time, etc.
During each interview, most members of the DMU were present,
including children for families. In each interview, we asked informants
to talk about the same three central themes: general vacation and travel behavior, expectations and motives, and current vacation projects
and considered destinations for the summer. Most informants spontaneously mentioned a number of destinations when telling about their
summer travel plans. In addition, in each interview series over time, we
asked them a few questions in order to keep the discussion focused on
CSs: Did you consider particular travel destinations yet? Which destination(s)? How did you come to consider that (those) destination(s)? Is
this (are these) destination(s) available to you? [If more destinations]
Which destination(s) do you prefer or are you most likely to go to? Are
there some destination(s) where you will never go? However, following
the principles of grounded theory (see below) and interpretive research, questions were open ended and not based on existing theories/hypotheses in order not to bias emerging results. We tried to
avoid forcing the data and to keep enough room for discovery
and for the emergence of the informants own views.
The analysis and interpretation of the interview transcripts was based
on the grounded theory approach, which is a qualitative research
method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 24). In this study, categories, patterns, and propositions
emerged from the data coding process and were not derived from extant literature. We strived toward a balance between theory blindness,
with the risk of missing important theoretical phenomena emerging
from the data, and an over-detailed examination of the literature,
which bears the risk of forcing the data through preconceived ideas
and hypotheses (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Only the sensitizing concepts of the study have been subjected to the initial literature review.
We went into more details during and after the data collection and
interpretation process to connect our emerging findings to extant literature. Coding involved three levels (i.e., open, axial, and selective)
from the most descriptive to the most interpretive, from the most con-

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

99

crete events to the most abstract processes. We used memos and diagrams as well, to assist in interpreting and establishing connections
among concepts.
EMERGING FINDINGS
Four themes are discussed in this section, that is, types of CS, the
continuity of evoked sets, sizes of evoked sets, and the dynamics of
CS formation. Each theme is introduced or illustrated by quotes that
help better appraise how the findings progressively emerged from
the data through our analytical process.
Types of Choice Sets
Interviewer: What about your vacation plans for this year?
Martine (single, teacher, 37): As I already told you, Im considering
going to Denmark and the Faroe Islands because I really loved visiting
Island last year and the year before, no sorry the year still before (thus
three years ago when I went to Norvegia) and thus. . . [. . .] Or alternatively, if it really appears that I cannot leave at all [because Martines
mother suffers from health problems], there is a chance that Ill go to
Paris for one week-end but it will not be for a vacation then. . . It will
only be for two or three days.
Interviewer: So, it seems that you have an overall preference for Northern
destinations?
Martine: In summer, yes. Because I dont like big heats. Now its
done, I will have to travel again. Maybe next year, that could be Peru
or Bolivia because I also have those ideas in mind since a long time
and because these are countries you can also visit in June, July,
August. In contrast, I cannot do Asia at all: thats the monsoon time,
so I cannot leave. So its true that Im always constrained to look at
countries where its possible, which means a part of South America
and North America.
Interviewer: Does it mean that you choose your destinations depending on the
climate?
Martine: Not really, it depends on anything that can show up. Sometimes, its an infatuation, its. . . No, in this case, one should again
remember that I had health constraints, thats why I couldnt make
up my mind. If I cannot make up my mind, I have to choose a country
where I can make a last-minute decision. This means that I make it by
myself and therefore. . . If I take the Eastern countries, because I really
could have gone to the Eastern countries but traveling alone in Eastern countries becomes very difficult, then . . . And yes, secondly, there
is the problem of language, the problem is that you are never sure to
be able to book beforehand, you can hardly trust people etc. I did not
see myself backpacking alone in the Eastern countries, thats why I
chose something easy...

In this opening quote, one may see that a series of destinations naturally emerge in Martines discourse. These may be categorized in different types of CS. First, Denmark and the Faroe Islands appear to be

100

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

the evoked destinations that are available this year although Paris is
mentioned as well as a kind of spare or replacement destination in
the event Martines mother health would deteriorate. Moreover, Peru
or Bolivia are already considered for next year as dreamed destinations
for a long time. In contrast, Asian countries are discarded and fall into
a kind of exclusion set because of poor climate conditions (i.e., the
monsoon in the summer when Martine is traveling). South America
and North America further appear to be possible destinations she is
aware of. Finally, Martine considers the Eastern countries as another
option but those destinations appear to be temporarily unavailable because as a single she is afraid to travel alone in those countries. So,
when analysing the quote above, no less than six different CSs appear
to coexist in Martines mind, i.e, an available set, a surrogate set, a
dream set, an exclusion set, an awareness set, and an unavailable set.
Table 2 further describes the different types of CSs that progressively
emerged from data analysis. The last column of Table 2 parallels each
emerging type with similar types presented in the literature discussed
previously. Each set contains none, one, or more destinations. When
Table 2. Types of CSs in Vacationers DM Processes
Type of CS

Awareness Set

Emerging definition

Destinations the vacationer knows

but does not express any affection
with. This set reveals knowledge
but not intention.
Evoked Set
Destinations considered
spontaneously by the vacationer
for future (but not especially the
next) summer vacation.
Surrogate Set
Destinations that are not prioritized
by the vacationer but are kept as
spare alternatives (one never
knows...).
Exclusion set
Destinations definitely rejected by
the vacationer (I would never
stay there).
Dream Set
Destinations that are considered as
ideal places for traveling or
vacationing but are permanently
unavailable because of enduring
structural inhibitors.
Unavailable Set Destinations considered by the
vacationer that are temporarily
unavailable because of particular
situational constraints.
Available set
Evoked destinations that really are
feasible after considering the
vacationers constraints

Stage in the DM Equivalent term in

process
extant literature
Consideration

Awareness Set

Evaluation (+)

Evoked set

Evaluation (+/-) Hold set

Evaluation (-)

Reject or inept set

Constraint
(structural)

Constraint
(situational)

Aware unavailable
set

Constraint/
final choice

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

101

looking at the relative importance of each set in the interview data (in
terms of how often the informant mentioned destinations), the evoked
set proves to be the most important. The exclusion set and the unavailable set are also important, although to a lesser extent. In contrast,
informants less often mentioned destinations in the surrogate set
and the awareness set.
In order to avoid lexical confusion, the difference between surrogate
set and exclusion set needs further explanation. The difference between surrogate set and exclusion set is a result of the evaluation of
destination alternatives (see third column of Table 2). The surrogate
set involves destinations that are positively evaluated but are not prioritized by the vacationer. They are temporarily shelved as spare alternatives
that could be chosen in the last resort if a better solution is not found,
as illustrated by Martines words in the opening quote: alternatively, if
it really appears that. . ., there is a chance that. . . In contrast, the
exclusion set contains destinations permanently rejected by the vacationer because they are negatively evaluated. Most of the time this rejection is the result of a general lack of interest (New York does not
interest me at all) or of an excessive weakness of the destination on
particular attributes (such as climate for Asia in Martines case) that
informants highly value. Motives and disliked activities may also lead
to the exclusion of particular destinations (e.g., a few informants avoid
any beach destination, like Spain). Variety seeking and emotional factors also come into play. Finally, exclusion may be a function of the
type of trip which is considered. For example, an interviewed family excludes destinations like Poland and Russia for vacationing (relaxing)
but would not reject them for traveling (visiting).
The distinction between unavailable set and dream set also requires
further comments. This distinction is a reflection of the intervention
of constraints in vacationers DM process (see third column of Table 2) and more precisely of the difference between situational and
structural constraints/inhibitors (Decrop, 1999). The unavailable set
is composed of temporarily rejected destinations due to the intervention of situational constraints. These pertain to a particular decision
situation and become more important when summertime is
approaching. For example, in the third interview of Jacqueline and
Roger below, the couple no longer considers going to Bretagne or
Auvergne because of their childrens poor school results. Time (related to occupation), money, and accompaniment (e.g., being alone
in Martines case) are the major momentary situational inhibitors. Of
course, this is not to say that those destinations will not re-enter their
evoked set another year. In contrast, the dream set includes destinations that are permanently out of reach because of enduring structural
constraints. An alternative that falls into the dream set is not likely to
re-enter the vacationers evoked set in the following years, at least as
long as the structural constraint is present. For example, an older single female informant would love to go to India but is not able to
achieve that dream because of her poor health. Occupation, family
situation, and economic status are the major structural inhibitors in
our data.

102

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

Ongoing macro-evoked sets

The continuity of evoked sets is another major finding of this study.
While being interviewed, informants often evoke vacation destinations
that stem from earlier CSs. Previous years destinations or plans, which
they have abandoned or postponed due to situational or structural constraints, or to stronger preferences for other alternatives, are coming
back to the surface again. Moreover, data show that the temporal origin of many evoked projects and destinations lies in the last vacation
experience. For example, Martine first considered Denmark and the
Faroe Islands while she was traveling in Iceland one year before:
Martine (teacher, 37): Denmark, a rucksack, the Faroe Islandsthis is
what Ive been thinking about ever since Ive been to Iceland. Once I
saw it, I said to myself the Faroe Islands must be a bit like that. Now
Ive been thinking about that for a whole year but maybe it will not
happen.

Memory and learning (through experience) thus appear to contribute to the continuity of evoked sets. In the same way, plans and destinations do not always pertain to the current year but also to the coming
years as illustrated by Martine who considers traveling to Peru or Bolivia next year (see opening quote). Furthermore, most informants do
not only have vacation ideas and plans for the summer vacation but
also for other periods of the year. In short, more projects in different
states of progress coexist in vacationers mind. Instead of speaking of
different evoked sets, data suggest DMUs possess one ongoing
macro-evoked set. Indeed, the destinations included in one evoked
set do not pertain to only one and the same consumption situation
(or purchase decision) bounded in time and space. One should define
the macro-evoked set as a set of product alternatives which are all possible in the near future. This finding is probably typical of vacation and
travel decisions which may involve planning and variety seeking over
extended time periods. Macro-evoked sets allow consumers to solve
tradeoffs more easily and not to give up desirable alternatives forever:
if it is not this year, it will be for next year. In contrast, a minority of
DMUs are considering only one vacation project at a time:
Marie-France (couple, retired, 53): Personally I dont do very much
planning. I have friends who plan a lot in advance: trips next year
and then in two years, well put a bit of money aside, so we can go
to such a place. . . But I dont do that at all: the vacation comes
and I plan a bit beforehand but these are not precise projects. I dont
live in the hope of realizing. . .

Size of Destination Evoked Sets

This section focuses on evoked sets as it appears to be the most
important CS type in our data. Table 3 illustrates the evolution of
the number of projects and spontaneously evoked destinations for
each DMU over the three series of interviews. The evoked set includes
alternative destinations, in the sense of the one or the other, or a com-

103

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

Table 3. Case by Case Evolution of the Number of Vacation Projects and

Evoked Destinations (One Line for Each Project)
DMU id.

t1

t2

t41

t3

Projects

Evoked
set

Projects

Evoked
set

Projects

Evoked
set

Projects

Evoked
set

3
2 (+)

NO
YES

YES

2 (-)
1 (-)
NO (\)
3 (+)
YES
1 (-)
0
2 (+)
2
1

NO

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES

NO (\)
NO (\)
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
2 (+)
YES
NO
YES
YES
2 (+)
YES
3 (+)
NO (\)

YES
NO
NO

YES
-

3
4
5
6
7

1
1
0
0
1

3
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
3

8
9
10

0
1
0

0
2
0

1
2
1

2
1
2
0
1
2
1
1
4
2

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

4
2
1
2
2
2
4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

4
1
1
2
1
3
2

18
19

1
2

1
2

20
21
22

1
1
2

1
1
2
1
1
2
2

23

24
25

1
2

1
1
1
2
3 (2 )
1
2
1
2
3
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
2

1
1
2

(+)

(-)

YES
1
YES
1
1
1
2

(+)

1
2

(2\)
(-)

(-)
(\)
(2\)
(-)

1
1
1
2

1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
-

YES
1
0

YES
1 (-)
-

1
2
(+)
(-)
(-)
(+)
(\)

3 (2\)
1 (-)
1
1 (-)

(-)
(\)
(-)
(-)
(\)

1
1
1

1 (-)
2 (1\)
1 (\)

(+): Extension of the evoked set in comparison with the former interview.
(-): Reduction of the evoked set in comparison with the former interview.
(\): Modification of the evoked set in comparison with the former interview (number of
alternatives that have changed).
: Combination of different alternatives in the same vacation plan.
YES/NO: indicates whether or not an evoked vacation project/destination has actually been
achieved.
1
Informants were contacted again after the summer vacation in order to check whether or
not they actually carried out the project and destination they evoked in the former interview.

104

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

bination of destinations, that is an inclusion of more destinations in

the same vacation plan. The number of evoked destinations ranges
from zero to four in the data. Most of the time, informants evoke only
one or two destinations and never spontaneously mention more than
four alternatives while being interviewed. This finding is in line with
previous studies presented in section two.
Two emerging factors explain the limited size of destination evoked
sets. First, destination is not always the major vacation decision item
when compared with accommodation, period and transport decisions
(Author, 1999); as a result, informants do not process that item in
much depth. Second, destination proves to be a hyper-complex product. Belonax and Mittelstaedt (1978) show that having more choice criteria leads to larger evaluation costs and hence to smaller evoked sets.
While being asked whether they had thought of destinations other
than three evoked places (i.e., Turkey, Prague, and Saint Petersburg),
the parents of a large family answered:
Louis (teacher, 59): No, its already complicated enough to think
about three. I dont think we thought about another one.
Jacqueline (teacher, 54): Its already complicated enough! And after
all, we dont have any other desires: the same ones always come back.
Prague, we will go there too, but maybe one time at Easter, for a week
or. . . We realize that maybe there are less tourists if we go in the offpeak season, outside the main summer vacation time. Its easier, its
closer. No, we havent thought of other things.

When looking at their evolution, evoked sets sizes are relatively stable between the first (mean t1 = 1.93 destinations/DMU or 1.62/plan)
and second series of interviews (mean t2 = 1.96/DMU or 1.58/plan)
but they decrease slightly in the third series (mean t3 = 1.72/DMU
and 1.29/plan). Overall, data show that the number and evolution of
evoked destinations is a function of involvement (the higher the
involvement, the larger and the less stable the evoked set), and decision timing (the earlier the final decision, the smaller and the more
stable the evoked set). Further analyses lead to a distinction among
four groups of informants with different patterns described in Figure 1.
The first group is made of DMUs with a large evoked set (three or four
destinations), which decreases over time (sub-sample size: n = 6).
These vacationers are highly involved, they have less personal constraints (singles, couples, or older families) but make their decisions
very late (less than one month before departure). The content of plans
also shows less stability: newer plans or destinations often appear over
time. The second group of DMUs have an initially small evoked set
(one or two destinations), which decreases to zero or one destination
in t2 or t3 (n = 7). Early DM characterizes this group (i.e., they choose a
destination once and for all or they make the decision not to go on
vacation). These vacationers are older singles, highly involved in traveling. The third group of informants include DMUs that have an initially
small evoked set (t1) that expands (t2) and then decreases (t3) (n = 5).
These informants show little stability regarding the content of their
vacation plans, most of the time because of children. The final decision

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

t1 (February)

t2 (April)

t3 (June)

mean=1.62

mean=1.58

mean=1.29

105

1. Highly involved,
less personal
constraints, late
decisions
2. Highly involved,
older and single
vacationers, early
decisions
3. Families, lot of
constraints
(children), late (or
no) decision
4. Low involvement,
lot of constraints,
early or last-minute
decisions (loyalty)

Figure 1. Evolution Patterns of Evoked Sets Sizes in Time

is taken very late... or is never made. Finally, a fourth group of DMUs is

characterized by a low (zero or one) and stable number of evoked destination alternatives (n = 7). This group is characterized by low vacation involvement, a substantial number of constraints, early (or last
minute) DM, and loyalty (people going to the same place).
The dynamics of CS formation
In order to give readers a better grasp on emerging findings, we start
from the case of a married couple (Jacqueline and Roger) and we analyse how their CSs evolved over the three series of interviews.
First interview (February 14):
Interviewer: Do you already have some projects in mind for your next summer
vacation?
Jacqueline (housewife, 58): Oh, we had an absurd idea but I think
that we are now back to reality. It was to go to Mexico or Brazil.
Interviewer: What do you mean by absurd?
Jacqueline: Because I think its too expensive.
Roger (high magistrate, 63): Yes. Moreover, we have to go there in
July or August.
Jacqueline: For Brazil, temperature is OK.
Roger: Yes but for Mexico at that time, the period doesnt fit.
Jacqueline: Therefore, it was Brazil. But Brazil is too expensive. Thats
why we come closer, we come closer.
Roger: Turkey is the country we are now considering.
Jacqueline: Ive been to get a brochure and we look at it a little bit.
[. . .] Or alternatively, if my husband would like to take his car, we

106

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

thought about going to Italy, in the Marches region. Because in Italy,

we never get bored, there is always something to see and the food is
nice. [. . .] So as you can see, we did consider many things!
Roger: Oh yes, many things have been considered. Island has also
been considered.
Jacqueline: And Ireland! [. . .] It means that if we were heading for
cold, it was Island or Ireland. My husband would like to visit Nordic
countries but Im afraid people are so clean, too organized. . . I dont
know. . . I prefer more colorful and joyful people.
Interviewer: Are there some factors that limit your destination choices
currently?
Jacqueline: Yes, as far Im concerned, climate for example for all of
South-eastern Asia. Its too hot, a humid heat, I dont like it. Moreover, in Thailand, those stories about pedophiles, prostituted small
girls. . . Id feel rather uncomfortable there.
Second interview (April 9):
Interviewer: could you please tell me about your vacation plans for this
summer?
Jacqueline: [. . .] As far as destinations are concerned, wed like to go
to Bretagne or to Auvergne. Because it seems that in Auvergne, there
is still more authenticity if we were to stay in a farm (but maybe thats
a false idea, I may be mistaken). But anyway, we always have good
memories when we come back from Auvergne.
Interviewer: In the first interview, you told me about Turkey and Italy; did you
give up those two destinations?
Jacqueline: Actually for Turkey, we changed our mind (wrongly or
rightly) because if we dont rent a car in Istambul, we have to catch
another flight to go to the Mediterranean coastline and if we take a
package tour as offered in calatogs, we will end up in a tourist paradize. [. . .] Moreover, I do worry about my husband who is suffering
from back ache; Id feel guilty would something happen to him. [. . .]
In contrast, if we go to civilized countries, should it be any problem,
there is always an hospital somewhere and the possibility to be understood. [. . .] Italy is not definitively excluded but as we already go to
Rome now. . . I mean. . . my husband loves the sea but the Mediterranean sea is not really the sea for us. Its not wild enough, its too flat,
too blue. I prefer a sea that moves, that splashes; as far Im concerned,
I like the Atlantic ocean, and my husband too. Thats why we have to
go to the South-east [of France], to Bretagne or to the North sea.
Interviewer: So, Turkey and Italy are ruled out for this year?
Jacqueline: For this year, yes. Especially, since weve got the taxes to
pay. . .
Third interview (June 22):
Interviewer: Could you please tell me about your vacation plans for this
summer?
Jacqueline: Actually, they are avorted for the good reason that my husband has decided to retire, on the one hand, and because of the poor
school results of our children on the other hand. [. . .] Thats why we
opted for the North sea. We have rent an apartment from one to 15 July.

From this opening quote, we see that in the first interview, Jacqueline and Roger mention dreamed or absurd destinations (Mexico
and Brazil) that seem out of reach because of price and temperature.

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

107

They evoke more reasonable destinations as well (Turkey, Italy, Iceland and Ireland). Alternatives are also already excluded at that stage
(South-eastern Asia because of climate and ethical concerns). In the
second interview, plans have changed: Bretagne and Auvergne are
evoked and further appear to be the two available alternatives left. Turkey is now part of their unavailable set because of Rogers health problems and budget constraints; Italy is shelved because the couple is
already going on a city-trip to Rome. During the third interview, it appears that plans still have changed: a surrogate destination not mentioned in the former interviews (i.e., the Belgian North Sea) emerges
as final choice. In conclusion, for Jacqueline and Roger, as it is also
the case for more DMUs in our sample, the final chosen destination
has little to do with the destinations mentioned during the first (and
sometimes even the second) interview (see Figure 2).
Two major explanations of such turnarounds emerge from data analysis. On the one hand, plans show an increasing level of realism over
the three series of interviews. In t1, informants are inclined to dream
aloud when mentioning possible summer vacation destinations. While
aware of actual and potential constraints, they try to convince themselves that the project is still feasible. That dream dimension is far
less present in the next two series of interviews. Considered destinations become more realistic as consumers take situational inhibitors
into account to a larger extent. As a consequence, the unavailable
set grows during the DM process whereas the size of the available set
decreases. Moreover, the unavailable set appears to be less stable over
time than the exclusion set and than the dream set. Sometimes, situational inhibitors even lead vacationers to choose a surrogate destination that was not part of evoked sets.
On the other hand, opportunities may arise such as an invitation
from relatives or an advertized special offer. Such opportunities result

Evoked set : t1
Mexico, Brazil,
Turkey, Italy,
Iceland, Ireland,
(t2 Bretagne,
Auvergne)
Awareness
set

Surrogate set :
t3 Belgian
North sea

Dream set :
t1 Mexico, Brazil
Unavailable set :
t2 Turkey, Italy
Available set:
t2 Bretagne, Auvergne
Final
Choice: t3
North sea

Exclusion set :
t1 South-eastern
Asia (e.g.,
Thailand)

Figure 2. The Formation of Destination CSs (The Case of Jacqueline and

Roger)

108

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

in the sudden awareness of previously unknown destinations. The vacationer may finally prefer these new alternatives and choose them over
other alternatives, as illustrated by the following quote:
Thierry (couple, medical rep, 28): But if an opportunity comes out
from now to the end of the year (from now to vacation time, sorry),
it is very possible... that we will take this opportunity. I dont know,
if we have an opportunity to go... to Italy because for one reason or
another, we have a house, or rather there is a friend who rents one
house and who proposes us to go with him, well we will go to Italy.

Figure 3 summarizes the studys findings. The formation of CSs may

include four dimensions (we prefer this term to stages as the process
is not always sequential). Awareness is the first dimension: vacationers
are either aware of existing destinations or not aware. Awareness most
of the time results from ones own experience or from information
gathered opportunistically from external sources. Next, consumers
evaluate the destinations they are aware of. Destinations evaluated positively will fall into either the evoked set (preference or expectation level) or the surrogate set (tolerance level). Destinations evaluated
negatively become the exclusion set. The third dimension involves taking constraints into account. Evoked destinations end up into the
dream set when vacationers face one or more structural constraint(s)
or into the unavailable set if they are confronted in one or more situational inhibitor(s). In contrast, destinations are included in the available set if no constraint is experienced. The final choice is made either
from the available set, the surrogate set, or straight from the awareness
set. Vacationers may choose a spare or surrogate destination when the
available set decreases to no alternative at all (due to the intervention
of situational inhibitors). Sometimes DMUs become aware of new destinations not considered at first because of propositions from their

Unawareness
set
All existing
destinations

Dream set
+

Awareness
set

Consideration

Unavailable
set
Available set

+/- Surrogate set

MARKET

Evoked set

Final
Choice

Exclusion set

Evaluation

Constraints

Figure 3. The Formation of Destination CSs

Choice

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

109

marketing and/or social environment (see the dotted arrow from the
unawareness set to the awareness set in Figure 3). Finally, vacationers
may choose an opportunistic destination rather than an alternative
from the available set or surrogate set (see the dotted arrow from
the awareness set to choice).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This paper focuses on the formation and evolution of CSs. The
emerging typology of Table 2 partly confirms and extends the traditional conceptualizations of Narayana and Markin (1975), and Brisoux
and Laroche (1980) adapted in tourism by Um and Cromptons
(1990), and Woodside and Lysonskis (1989). One may parallel the
presentation of an exclusion set, respectively with Brisoux and Laroches reject set and Narayana and Markins inept set. In the same
way, the concepts of a surrogate set and of an unavailable set are not
far from Brisoux and Laroches hold set, and Woodside and Lysonskis
unavailable aware set respectively. However, the surrogate set involves
more processing and the formation of positive attitudes towards product alternatives, which the hold set does not. In contrast, extant literature has never considered ideas of an available set and a dream set
before, although these two types of sets may play major roles in destination choice such as described earlier.
Moreover, our study shows that the number of destinations is quite
stable over time and ranges from zero to four with means close to two
destinations/DMU (1.5/plan). Such a finding is in line with the general
idea that most evoked sets are small, ranging from three to six depending on the product category (Hauser & Wernerfelt, 1990) and with the
specific contention that vacationers evaluate only a few destinations
(i.e., four two) among a much larger set of available alternatives
(Bronner & de Hoog, 1985; Perdue & Meng, 2006; Woodside & Sherrell, 1977). Evoked sets sizes may be even smaller in this study due to
the naturalistic method employed, as informants were to evoke alternatives for an actual rather than hypothesized DM situation.
Traditional conceptualizations present the formation of CSs along
two typical sequential stages: the brand-consideration stage and the
brand-evaluation stage (Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Hastak & Mitra,
1996; Howard, 1977; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Narayana & Markin,
1975; Nedungadi, 1990; Spiggle & Sewall, 1987; Um & Crompton,
1990). However, the emerging conceptualization of Figure 3 is a little
more subtle since it suggests that three stages or dimensions rather
than two may lead consumers to their final choice. More specifically,
our model adds a constraint dimension as third stage: after destinations have been considered and evaluated, structural constraints and
situational factors are taken into account; this reduces the number of
evoked destinations to an available set which includes only the alternatives that are feasible.
Moreover, our emerging model suggests that the choice process may
be shortened through direct connections between awareness set and

110

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

final choice or between surrogate set and choice. This straight recourse
to the awareness set highlights that evaluation is not always necessary
for choice. Focusing on the stage of CS formation prior to evaluation
and choice, Nedungadi (1990) provides empirical evidence that brand
choice is significantly altered outside the traditional evaluation-based
route, through variation in the retrieval and consideration of brands
(p. 273). He suggests a memory-based choice dependent on brand
accessibility. For a brand to be included in the CS, the consumer must
recall that brand and fail to recall other brands that s/he might otherwise prefer.
Theoretical implications
The papers findings entail four major contributions to extant literature. The first contribution is to generate an empirical model of CS
formation that refines traditional conceptualizations by Narayana
and Markin (1975), Brisoux and Laroche (1980), and Turley and Leblanc (1995). In contrast with those purely conceptual hypotheticodeductive models, the papers Figure 3 has been generated inductively
and analytically from empirical data related to actualas opposed to
hypotheticalDM processes. Moreover, our emerging model is specific to tourism; it involves local and substantive theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) empirically rooted in a destination choice setting. In
contrast, authors such as Um and Crompton (1990) or Woodside
and Lysonski (1989) have borrowed and adapted the general/formal
theory of traditional CS conceptualizations to a tourism context.
Second, our findings indicate that to a large extent, the formation of
CS is a constraint- and opportunity-driven process, which has been neglected by the CS literature so far. Constraints consideration leads
consumers to categorize evoked brands as part of either the available,
unavailable, or dream set. Such a distinction has not been introduced
by former models. A few authors already investigated the role of constraints in vacation DM and destination choice (e.g., Gilbert & Hudson,
2000; Hong et al., 2006; Perdue & Meng, 2006). However, they did not
introduce constraints consideration as a stage in itself in the formation
process of CS. Moreover, our data suggest that opportunities are
responsible for the appearance of new alternatives that consumers
may finally choose. Such results are in line with the idea of adaptive
decision making (Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1993) which has been
underused in investigating vacation DM.
Third, this paper helps better understand the dynamics of CS formation. As far as we know, this research is the first to examine the formation of destination CSs longitudinally as the same informants have
been interviewed up to three times. Such a longitudinal approach
highlights the growing level of realism in vacation plans and destinations over time. A shift from dream to reality is at play in the formation
of CSs, which is comparable to Mansfelds (1994) adaptation of the
value stretch concept (Rodman 1963). Vacationers may move from
a preference/ideal value level (dreamed but not necessarily available

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

111

destinations) to an expectation level (realistically available destinations) and finally to a tolerance level (surrogate destinations that represent an acceptable minimum) as far as plans evolve and summertime
approaches. The longitudinal data also suggest many turnarounds in
vacation plans and destination CSs. Evoked sets composition and size
fluctuates in time (see the four patterns of Figure 1) and cannot be
limited to a linear reduction such as often presented in extant
literature.
Finally, the CS perspective used in this paper highlights the continuity of vacation DM. More projects are considered simultaneously with
different time horizons, multiple DMUs, and so forth. The coexistence
of those projects in the vacationers mind leads to the formation of
macro-evoked sets of destinations. So destination choice proves to be
a continuous process where thinking, dreaming, talking about vacations, and gathering information is ongoing. Such a finding enhances
the hedonic and experiential dimensions of the DM and CS formation
processes, which is far from the vision of a (bounded) rational decision
maker depicted in most CS models (Brisoux & Laroche, 1980; Hauser
& Wernerfelt, 1990; Howard & Sheth, 1969; Narayana & Markin, 1975;
Spiggle & Sewall, 1987).
Managerial Implications
Travel professionals are likely to make better predictions from
choice models that recognize different types of sets rather than focusing on the consideration (evoked) set only. The predictive validity of
evoked sets considered alone proves to be very limited indeed. Shocker
et al. (1991) stress that research on the formation of CSs helps improve
the likelihood that products receive consideration. The cueing of specific product alternatives by contacts with friends and acquaintances or
with promotional and other marketing activity (e.g., sales personnel)
may also affect retrieval from memory and thus the formation of choice
sets (p. 190). Managers should enhance their brands accessibility
(ease of retrieval) and desirability at the same time.
Moreover, practitioners should try to develop effective plans and actions in order to facilitate the transfer of their brands from the dream
or unavailable set into the available set of their target customers. For
example, the cruise industry has made considerable efforts these last
years to change the perception that a cruise is an expensive elite product
that only rich people can afford; operators have lowered prices, they have
offered families children-friendly packages, and they have extended distribution channels. Furthermore, destination managers should make
sure that their country, region, or city is part of vacationers surrogate
set of destinations. For example, one could use a slogan such as Why
not the Belgian coast? in advertisements targeting Belgian vacationers
who may choose that nearby popular spot as a surrogate destination if
they realize that they lack the time or the budget to go abroad.
Tour operators, travel agents and destination managers should also
consider the opportunistic and constraint-driven way in which potential

112

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

tourists form their CSs. On the one hand, operators and agents could
benefit from the opportunistic nature of many vacationers by keeping
in touch with them, and making them offers such as early booking or
last-minute discounts. Active steps are particularly beneficial because
vacationers are waiting for and not purposefully searching for information. On the other hand, managers should also help remove particular
vacationers constraints. They could understand how those constraints,
imposed by individual goals and other personal circumstances, interact
with available alternatives and other environmental factors. Moreover,
travel agents should not overwhelm vacationers with propositions and
alternatives as destination evoked sets are of limited sizes.
Finally, industry people should incorporate the dynamism and continuity of many CSs in their marketing strategies and decisions. Most vacationers are involved in more than one vacation project at a time with
different needs, desires, and expectations, which leads to the formation
of a macro-evoked set entailing both available destinations for the current project and unavailable or dream destinations that they could reconsider in future plans. Consequently, vacationers should not be put in
exclusive segments: an alternative that has once been rejected may re-enter the evoked set at a later time or in another choice situation. For example, parents with young children could have shelved Egypt at one time
but might evoke that country again as a possible destination a few years
later when children are older or have left the family nest.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Of course, this study entails a few limitations which open avenues for
future research. First, set models may oversimplify the reality of choices.
Set models imply a binary logic in which a (destination) choice alternative is part of a set or not. While good conceptual and operational reasons
lead to using such models, fuzzy classifications could be more realistic
and outperform set models from a methodological perspective. Of
course, a mathematical modeling approach would then be needed.
For example, a probabilistic model could be developed wherein the alternatives likelihood of being chosen would depend on explanatory variables such as awareness, availability, and/or congruence with criteria
of a dream destination. Moreover, as in other conceptualization efforts,
the number of and the names given to the different CSs may seem somewhat arbitrary. In this paper, we tried to limit such subjectivity by generating the various CSs systematically and analytically from the empirical
data and by giving readers the opportunity to validate the typology by
themselves through the interview quotes. Moreover, the particular numbering and naming of CSs are of lesser importance than the way they help
to better understand the processes through which consumers come to
select or reject choice alternatives.
Next, a series of factors influencing the formation of CSs, such as the
contextual variables listed in Figure 3, should be investigated in more
depth. For example, the length and type of trip may affect the level of
planning and hence the composition of the CS: a long-distance trip

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

113

could increase the research requirements and thus lower the number
of alternatives in the CS when compared with a short-distance trip.
Focusing on choice heuristics or strategies underlying the formation
of CSs at different stages of Figure 3 is another possible extension of
this research. Of course, such a focus on decision heuristics would require a merging of the product alternatives approach to DM chosen in
this paper with an (multi-)attributes perspective.
In tourism, a few authors (Perdue & Meng, 2006; Turley & Leblanc,
1995) suggest that the attributes affecting the selection of destination
alternatives may be different from those affecting rejection. Turley and
Leblanc (1995) assume that inclusion in the CS is based on a satisficing
rule (i.e., meeting a minimum level on a few primary attributes) while
rejection is then based on facilitating attributes such as availability and
price. In the same way, Perdue and Meng (2006) show that the reasons
mentioned by respondents for destination selection differ from the
reasons cited for rejection, and contend that a non-compensatory heuristic is used in ski destination choice. They close their paper by suggesting a duality in the formation of CS: the observed reasons for
selection may be necessary conditions to get into consideration sets,
while the observed reasons for rejection reflect the actual choice
(Perdue & Meng, 2006, p. 347).
As a final limitation, this studys emerging propositions are qualitative, interpretative and context-bound. The papers findings, tables
and figures have been built inductively from the study of a phenomenon situated in a particular context. Refering to Strauss and Corbin
(1990), this is a local and substantive theory, in contrast with a general
and formal theory. A substantive theory emerges from the study of a
phenomenon situated in a particular situational context, whereas a formal theory develops when the phenomenon is being examined under
many types of situations. If the analytical generalization of emerging
findings is possible to some extant, statistical generalization is not possible because of the theoretical (non-random) sampling procedure
and the small sample size. The papers emerging propositions could
be tested on larger representative samples if statistical generalization
were desired.
REFERENCES
Ankomah, P., Crompton, J., & Baker, D. (1996). Influence of cognitive distance in
vacation choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 138150.
Belonax, J. (1979). Decision rule uncertainty, evoked set size, and information
variability. Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 232235.
Belonax, J., & Mittelstaedt, R. (1978). Evoked set size as a function of number of
choice criterion and information variability. Advances in Consumer Research, 5,
4851.
Botha, C., Crompton, J., & Kim, S. (1999). Developing a revised competitive
position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 341352.
Brisoux, J., & Laroche, M. (1980). Proposed consumer strategy of simplification for
categorising brands. J. Summey & R. Taylor, eds., Evolving Marketing Thought
for 1980 (pp. 112114). Carbondale, IL: Southern Marketing Association.

114

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

Brisoux, J., & Laroche, M. (1981). Evoked set formation and composition: An
empirical investigation under a routinized response behavior situation.
Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 357361.
Bronner, F., & de Hoog, R. (1985). A recipe for mixing decision ingredients.
European Research, 13, 109115.
Church, N. J., Laroche, M., & Rosenblatt, J. A. (1985). Consumer brand categorization for durables with limited problem solving: An empirical test and
proposed extension of the Brisoux-Laroche model. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 6, 231253.
Crompton, J. L. (1977). A systems model of the tourists destination selection decision
process with particular reference to the role of image and perceived constraints.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, USA.
Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of
Tourism Research, 19, 420434.
Crompton, J., & Ankomah, P. (1993). Choice set propositions in destination
decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 461476.
Decrop, A. (1999). Commitments and opportunities: Judgment and decision making by
vacationers. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur.
Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2005). A grounded typology of vacation decision
making. Tourism Management, 26, 121132.
Dellaert, B., Ettema, D., & Lindh, C. (1998). Multi-Faceted tourist travel decisions:
A constraint-based conceptual framework to describe tourists sequential
choices of travel components. Tourism Management, 19, 313320.
Engel, J., Kollat, D., & Blackwell, R. (1973). Consumer behavior. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Francken, D. (1978). Het vakantie-besluitvormingsproces. Internal report. Breda:
Netherlands Research Institute for Tourism and Recreation.
Gilbert, D., & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints: A skiing
participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 906925.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Goodall, B. (1991). Understanding holiday choice. In C. Cooper ed. Progress in
tourism, recreation and hospitality management (Vol. 3, pp. 5977). London:
Belhaven Press.
Gruca, T. (1989). Determinants of choice set size: An alternative method of
measuring evoked sets. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 515521.
Hastak, M., & Mitra, A. (1996). Facilitating and inhibiting effects of brand cues on
recall, consideration set, and choice. Journal of Business Research, 37, 121126.
Hauser, J., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 393408.
Hong, S.-K., Kim, J.-H., Jang, H., & Lee, S. (2006). The roles of categorization,
affective image and constraints on destination choice: An application of the
NMNL model. Tourism Management, 27, 750761.
Howard, J. (1963). Marketing management, analysis and planning. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Howard, J. (1977). Consumer behavior: An application of theory. New York: McGrawHill.
Howard, J., & Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Matsui, T. (2003). Which decision heuristics are used in
consideration set formation?. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(3), 192209.
Laroche, M., & Parsa, H. (2000). Brand management in hospitality: An empirical
test of the Brisoux-Laroche model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
24, 199222.
Lavidge, R., & Steiner, G. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of
advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(October), 5962.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publication.
Mansfeld, Y. (1994). The Value stretch model and its implementation in
detecting tourists class-differentiated destination choice. In R. V. Gasser & K.
Weiermair (Eds.), Spoilt for choice. Decision making processes and preference change

A. Decrop / Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2010) 93115

115

of tourists: intertemporal and intercountry perspectives (pp. 6079). Thaur:

Kulturverlag.
March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.
Harlow: Longman.
Menard, S. (1991). Longitudinal research. London: Sage.
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on
our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(March),
8197.
Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of
Marketing, 21(10), 244.
Narayana, C., & Markin, R. (1975). Consumer behavior and product performance:
An alternative conceptualization. Journal of Marketing, 39(Fall), 16.
Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice
without altering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 263276.
Payne, J., Bettman, J., & Johnson, E. (1993). The adaptive decision-maker. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Perdue, R., & Meng, F. (2006). Understanding choice and rejection in destination
consideration sets. Tourism Analysis, 11(6), 337348.
Roberts, J. (1989). A grounded model of consideration set size and composition.
Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 749757.
Roberts, J., & Lattin, J. (1991). Development and testing of a model of
consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(November),
429440.
Shocker, A., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set
influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and
suggestions. Marketing Letters, 2(3), 181197.
Spiggle, S., & Sewall, M. (1987). A choice sets model of retail selection. Journal of
Marketing, 51, 97111.
Stigler, G. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy,
69(June), 213225.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
Thompson, J., & Cooper, R. (1979). Additional evidence on the limited size of
evoked and inept sets of travel destinations. Journal of Travel Research,
18(Winter), 2325.
Turley, L., & LeBlanc, R. (1995). Evoked sets: A dynamic process model. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(2), 2836.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination
choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432448.
van Raaij, W., & Francken, D. (1984). Vacation decisions, activities and satisfactions. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 101112.
Woodside, A., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination
choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(Spring), 814.
Woodside, A., & Sherrell, D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept, and inert sets of
vacation destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 16(Winter), 1418.
Wright, P., & Barbour, F. (1977). Phased decision strategies: Sequels to initial
screening. M. Starr & M. Zeleny, eds., Multiple criteria decision making
(pp. 91109). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Submitted 10 December 2008. Final Version 18 June 2009. Accepted 13 August 2009.
Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Muzzo Uysal

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com