A state-of- the-art review of tourist decision-making literature

A state-of-the-art review of tourist decision-making literature

Dung Le
Thai Phong Le

Abstract

Decision-making theories in tourism can be classified into three groups based on their underlined assumptions: rational choice, affect-driven and dual-process theories. Rational choice theories are the dominant framework in many fields including economics, political science, finance, and marketing. Consumers are considered as “rational-decision-makers” who evaluate available options by rational thinking. In contrast, the affec-driven theories assume that tourists are hedonic decision-makers and their choice is influenced and guided by affective factors (i.e., emotions, feelings). Dual-process theories reconcile these two opposite approaches by proposing a dual-system of decision making: System 1 related to automatic, emotional, non-conscious process, and System 2 involving rational thinking (Evans, 2008). This review paper provides a general picture of how tourism decision-making literature has been developed with a focus on the latest advancement, dual-system theories. Tourism marketers may find this paper beneficial in understanding tourist behaviours, in particular, tourists’ destination choice. By advancing our knowledge of tourist decision-making, this paper provides useful guidelines for tourism marketers to develop better marketing initiatives.
Key words: Tourist behaviour, decision-making, dual-system, destination choice, marketing
Date of receipt: 5th Sep.2017; Date of revision: 25th Sep.2017; Date of approval: 25th Sep.2017

1. Introduction
How tourists choose a destination for their future vacation is one of the key questions in tourism research. Over the past six decades, tourism has experienced continued expansion and diversification, to become one of the largest and fastest-growing economic sectors in the world. The intense competition between traditional and emerging tourism destinations requires tourism marketers to improve their knowledge about the tourist decision-making process. Understanding how tourists decide and plan their trips results in important implications for future product development and promotional schemes (Chen, 2003) as well as marketing strategies (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). There is a growing research base of theoretical and empirical studies on tourist destination choice and tourist decision-making over the last five decades (Smallman & Moore, 2010).
Tourism research remains dominated by the assumption of rational decision-making (Cohen, Prayag, & Moital, 2014; McCabe & Chen, 2015). The rational theories used in tourism decision-making research adopt one of three major approaches: the normative approach (utility theory), the prescriptive cognitive approach (the theory of reasoned action & the theory of planned behaviour) and the structured process approach (the choice-set model). However, rational decision-making models seem to be problematic in explaining how choices of experiential products such as vacations are made because they ignore affective factors (Jun & Vogt, 2013; Kwortnik & Ross, 2007; Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, & Kassam, 2015; Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003; McCabe & Chen, 2015).
In the 1980s, researchers started to explore how affective factors are involved in tourist decision-making (Holbrook, 1986; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Litvin, 2008). People rely on their emotions when choosing hedonic products such as a pleasure vacation (Bechara, 2004; Mellers, Schwartz, & Ritov, 1999; Pham, 1998; Prayag, Khoo-Lattimore, & Sitruk, 2015; Schwarz, 2011; Zeelenberg, Nelissen, Breugelmans, & Pieters, 2008). The affect-driven theories clarify different mechanisms that affect influence consumer behaviours. The impact of emotions on consumer decision-making is explained by four influential theories including the feelings-as-information (Schwarz, 2011), the affect-priming (Forgas, 1995), the appraisal-tendencies (Lerner & Keltner, 2000) and the feeling-as-doing (Zeelenberg et al., 2008). In addition, anticipated emotions are supposed to guide consumer behaviour. Decisions are made to pursue positive anticipated emotions or avoid anticipated emotions such as regret or disappointment (Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007; Mellers & McGraw, 2001).
Recently the recognition of affective influence in the consumer decision-making process leads to the call of reappraising traditional tourist decision-making models (Jun & Vogt, 2013; McCabe & Chen, 2015). Dual-system theories which incorporate both affective and rational factors may provide a better explanatory framework to explain consumer decision and choice. Dual-system theorists agree that the consumer decision-making process involves two systems. System 1 is experiential, automatic, intuitive and related to affective factors. System 2 is rational, analytic, reflective and related to rational thinking (Chaiken, 1980; Epstein & Pacini, 1999; Evans, 2006; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Lieberman, 2003; Strack & Deutsch, 2006). The final decision is made based on satisficing principle between two systems (Evans, 2006). The dual-system theories reflect how people make decisions by incorporating both fast and slow thinking (Kahneman, 2011). Neuroscience research support dual-system theories by providing evidence of two neural systems involved in decision-making: an impulsive, amygdala-dependent system for signalling the pain or pleasure of immediate prospects (i.e., system 1)and a reflective, orbitofrontal-dependent system for signalling the prospects of the future (i.e., system 2) (Bechara, Noel, & Crone, 2006).
2. Rational theories
The rational choice theories are based on the assumption that consumers are rational decision makers and utility maximisers. This view of “consumer-as-rational-decision-maker” has been investigated from two perspectives: the macro-perspective (i.e. general models) used to study the social-psychological context and the inputs that influence individual decisions; and the micro-perspective (i.e. operational models) for better explaining actual decision-making outcomes (McCabe & Chen, 2015). From the macro-perspective, the earliest and most influential models of consumer behaviour sought to provide a systematic understanding of the consumer buying decision for tangible, manufactured products (Engel, Kollat, & Blackwell, 1968; Howard & Sheth, 1969). According to these early studies, the decision-making process includes a series of well-defined stages: (1) recognition of need, (2) search for information, (3) evaluation of alternatives, (4) choice and (5) post-purchase (Engel et al., 1968). The entire tourist decision-making process has been similarly conceptualised as a multi-phased process: anticipation (planning and thinking about the trip), travel to the site, on-site behaviour, return travel and recollections of experiences (reflection and memory of trip) (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966). However, these macro-perspective models do not describe how consumers evaluate alternatives to make their decision. The complexity and difficulty of their operationalization have resulted in a lack of empirical support for these models (McCabe & Chen, 2015). Other criticisms of such macro-perspective models include their failure to incorporate emotional, social and symbolic influencers on consumer decision-making (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982), as well as the social characteristics of consumer behaviour and decision-making contexts (Decrop & Kozak, 2009).
From a micro-perspective, there are three different approaches (Table 1): a normative utility approach, the prescriptive cognitive approach (theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour) and the choice-set models (McCabe & Chen, 2015). The first two analyse the decision-making process as an input-output process: the normative approach considers product attributes as input and a decision as output; while the prescriptive cognitive approach uses psychological concepts (e.g. attitude, subjective norms, and behavioural control) as input and intention to purchase as the output. The third type, choice-set models, explain decisions as the result of a filtering process (Smallman & Moore, 2010). The normative and prescriptive models focus on how optimal decisions should be made while a descriptive model (e.g. choice-set) describes how consumers make decisions in a series of steps (Tamura, 2008).
Table 1: Different rational approaches in decision-making literature
Normative utility Prescriptive cognitive Choice-set
Basic assumption Consumer follows a utility-maximisation principle. Consumer behaviour is planned. The intention is the antecedent of behaviour. Consumer follows a funnel-like process to narrow choices until the final decision is made
Influential theories Expected Utility Theory (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947)
Characteristic Utility Theory (Lancaster, 1966)
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977)
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991)
Choice-set theory (Howard, 1963)
Choi-set model (Woodside & Sherrell, 1977)
Choice-set model (Spiggle & Sewall, 1987)
Contribution Explain how consumers should make decisions based on the evaluation of product attributes or characteristics Consumer behaviour intention is influenced by their beliefs and past behaviour. - Describe how consumer decisions are actually made
- Help marketers to define their main competitors
Limitations Poorly explain consumer decisions under risk or uncertainty (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979)
- Neglect affective factors (Godin & Kok, 1996; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001)
- Do not explain unplanned behaviours (i.e., impulsive purchase) - Simplifying consumer choices by a binary logic of selecting or rejecting a destination (Decrop, 2010).
- Reasons for selecting a destination can differ considerably from reasons for rejecting a destination to the extent that actual choices may be based on a process of elimination rather than of selection (Perdue & Meng, 2006)
Application in tourism Papatheodorou (2001)
Seddighi and Theocharous (2002)
Tussyadiah, Kono, and Morisugi (2006)
March and Woodside (2005)
Lam and Hsu (2006)
H. Han, Hsu, and Sheu (2010)
Crompton (1992)
Decrop (2010)
Sources: Summarised by the authors
As the tourist decision-making process is unlikely to fit neatly into a single decision theory, recent research tends to apply more than a decision-making theory (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). For example, a number of tourism studies explain tourists’ destination choice based on both the TPB and the Lancaster’s Characteristic Utility theory. Tourist attitude toward a destination is calculated by the sum of the attitudes toward experiencing the destination’s perceived attributes (e.g. the likelihood of experiencing each attribute) (Crompton, 1992; Yoo & Chon, 2008). Some aspects of Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) such as perceived risk and perceived uncertainty have been integrated into the TPB model to explain the formation of attitudes and behavioural control (Quintal, Lee, & Soutar, 2010).
Rational theories have been strongly criticised for neglecting affective factors (Gnoth, 1997; Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003; McCabe & Chen, 2015; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). There is neuroscience evident of the affective involvement in decision-making. Patients with orbitofrontal brain damage who cannot process emotional information, have severe impairment in judgments and decision-making in real-life (Bechara, Damasio, & Damasio, 2000; Damasio, 1994). The affect-driven theories in decision-making theories are discussed in the next section.
3. Affect-driven theories
In opposition to the view of “consumer-as-rational-decision-maker”, the perspective of “consumer-as-hedonic-person” highlights the important role of affective factors in the decision-making process (Hyde et al., 1999). Two main approaches have been identified (Table 2): the affect-as-direct-cause and the affect-as-feedback (DeWall, Baumeister, Chester, & Bushman, 2015). The affect-as-direct-cause focus on exlaining different influencing mechanisms of experienced emotions at the decision moment including feeling-as-information theory (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001; Schwarz, 1990) affect priming theory (Forgas, 1995), appraisal tendency theory (Lerner & Keltner, 2000) and the feeling-is-for-doing theory (Zeelenberg et al., 2008). The second approach (affect-as-feedback) argues that people make decisions based on the anticipation of the decision’s affective consequences (Wilson, Lisle, Kraft, & Wetzel, 1989). Important affect-as-feedback theories include regret theory (Bell, 1982; Loomes & Sugden, 1982), disappointment theory (Bell, 1985; Loomes & Sugden, 1986), subjective expected pleasure (Mellers & McGraw, 2001), and emotion-as-feedback theory (Baumeister et al., 2007).
Both the affect-as-direct-causation and the affect-as-feedback approached has provided important findings on how emotions are involved in the consumer decision-making process (Achar, So, Agrawal, & Duhachek, 2016; Lerner et al., 2015). A meta-analysis of research from these two theoretical perspectives shows that anticipated emotions may have more reliable impacts on consumer behaviour than experienced emotions (DeWall et al., 2015). The recognition of both affective and rational factors in the consumer decision-making process leads to the development of dual-system theories. This latest trend of research in decision-making literature will be reviewed in the next section.
Table 2: Affect-driven approaches in decision-making
Affect as direct causation Affect as feedback
Assumption Experienced affect (e.g., emotions, feelings) influences consumer judgment and decision-making. Consumer decisions are made based on the anticipation of affective consequences (i.e., anticipated emotions).
Influential theories Feelings-as-information theory (Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz & Clore, 1996)
Affect infusion model – AIM (Forgas, 1995)
Appraisal tendency theory (Lerner & Keltner, 2000)
Risk-as-feelings theory (Loewenstein et al., 2001)
Feeling-is-for-doing theory (Zeelenberg et al., 2008)
Regret theory (Bell, 1982; Loomes & Sugden, 1982)
Disappointment theory (Bell, 1985; Loomes & Sugden, 1986), Subjective expected pleasure (Mellers & McGraw, 2001)
Emotion-as-feedback theory (Baumeister et al., 2007).

Contribution Explaining different mechanisms that experienced affect can influence consumer behaviour Consumer behaviour can be guided or shaped by anticipated emotions
Limitations If the consumer has formed an appraisal-based impression of the product, the affect that they experience subsequently has a limited impact (Yeung & Wyer, 2004).
Emotions do not necessarily lead directly to behavior (e.g., mood-freezing) (Baumeister et al., 2007)
Anticipated emotions are not the only determinants of participants’ decisions. Consumer perception of risk and others’ decisions have direct influences on individual choices independently of their mediating impact on anticipated emotions (Fong & Wyer Jr, 2003)
Application in marketing & tourism Pham (1998)
Chang and Pham (2013)
S. Han, Lerner, and Keltner (2007)
Prentice (2006)
Fong and Wyer Jr (2003)
Hunter (2006)
Chun, Patrick, and MacInnis (2007)
Carrera, Caballero, and Munoz (2012)
Kim, Njite, and Hancer (2013)
Bagozzi, Belanche, Casaló, and Flavián (2016)
Sources: Summarised by the authors
4. Dual-system theories
According to dual-system theories, consumers make decisions based two distinct cognitive systems: system 1 is unconscious (preconscious), automatic, rapid, effortless and holistic while system 2 is conscious (rational), controlled, slow, effortful and analytic (Evans, 2008). A number of influential dual-system theories include experiential and rational systems (Epstein & Pacini, 1999), the theory of intuitive and reflective judgment (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002), heuristic and analytic systems (Evans, 2006), reflexive and reflective systems (Lieberman, 2003), reflective and impulsive systems (Strack & Deutsch, 2006), heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken & Ledgerwood, 2011). The dual-system approach is supported by neuroscience evidence of two neural systems described as an impulsive, amygdala-dependent system for signalling the pain or pleasure of immediate prospects and a reflective, orbitofrontal-dependent system for signalling the prospects of the future (Bechara, Noel, & Crone, 2006).
Table 3: Overview of some influential dual-system theories
Name of theory System 1 System 2 Relationship between two systems
Elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Wegener, 1999)
Peripheral route related to low-effort mechanism Central route based on relatively extensive and effortful information processing Default-interventionist
Experiential and rational systems (Epstein & Pacini, 1999)
Experiential system related to preconscious, rapid thinking Rational system related to logical thinking Parallel-competitive
Intuitive and reflective judgment (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002)
Intuitive system related to affective content Reflective system related to abstract content based on effortful thinking Default-interventionist
Reflexive and reflective systems (Lieberman, 2003)
X-system (reflexive) related to affect and social meaning C-system (reflective) related to further reasoning Default-interventionist
Heuristic and analytic systems (Evans, 2006)
Heuristic process generating representations of problem content, Analytic process deriving judgments from these representations Default-interventionist
Reflective and impulsive systems (Strack & Deutsch, 2006)
Impulsive system operating as a fast and automatic information processing network Impulsive system related to rule-based reasoning Parallel-competitive
Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken & Ledgerwood, 2011)
Heuristic system focusing on salient and easily comprehended cues derived from well-learned judgmental shortcuts Systematic system involving careful attention, deep thinking and intensive reasoning Parallel-competitive
Source: Summarised by the author
Dual-system theories differ on the role of affect and the interactions between two processes described (Evans, 2008). Firstly, affective factors are explicitly (Epstein & Pacini, 1999; Evans, 2006; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002) or implicitly (Chaiken & Ledgerwood, 2011; Lieberman, 2003; Strack & Deutsch, 2006) linked to System 1. Secondly, dual-system theories can be distinguished based on their “default-interventionist” (Evans, 2006; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Lieberman, 2003) versus “parallel-competitive” (Chaiken, 1980; Epstein & Pacini, 1999) assumptions. The dual-system approach has received two main types of criticism: (1) there are multiple kinds of implicit processes described by different theorists and (2) not all of the proposed attributes of the two kinds of processing can be sensibly mapped into two systems as currently conceived (Evans, 2008).
There is also an increasing number of marketing research in accordance with dual-system theories. Consumer behaviour is explained by two intervening response systems in parallel: information-processing system related to conventional Cognition-Affect-Behaviour (CAB) paradigm and experiential system related to fantasies and feelings (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). The Consciousness-Emotion-Value (CEV) differs from the CAB paradigm by involving three phases of consumption experience: consciousness, emotions and value (Holbrook, 1986). According to the CEV model, emotions shape value in the consumption experience. The influence of both affective and rational factors in consumer decision-making process has been studied in numerous studies by Bagozzi and collaborators (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, Pieters, & Zeelenberg, 2000; Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Basuroy, 2003; Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Bagozzi & Pieters, 1998). The Model of Goal-Directed Behaviour (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001) and the Model of Effortful Decisions (Bagozzi et al., 2003) incorporate anticipated emotions into the theory of planned behaviours to better explain consumer behaviour.
Based on a grounded-theory study, the Experiential-Decision Model is developed to explain the choice of experiential products by incorporating both experiential (i.e., imagery and emotions) and rational processes (i.e., attribute analysis) (Kwortnik & Ross, 2007).

Sources: Adapted from Kwortnik and Ross (2007)

5. Conclusion
The explanatory power of rational decision-making models has been questioned in case of purchasing experiential products such as vacations (Jun & Vogt, 2013; McCabe & Chen, 2015; M. Pham, 1998; Prentice, 2006; Walls, Okumus, & Wang, 2011). Tourists seek fantasy, feelings and fun in their holidays (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook, 1986; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Litvin, 2008). These experiential aspects, in turn, have a role to play in tourist decision-making process (Decrop & Snelders, 2004; Goossens, 2000; Kwortnik & Ross, 2007; Prentice, 2006). The development of dual-system theories offers a bigger picture of how both rational and affective factors are involved in tourist decision-making. The application of dual-system theories in tourism research consists of a significant advancement in understanding tourist behaviours. This will help tourism marketers to design and deliver more effective marketing initiatives.

6. References
Achar, C., So, J., Agrawal, N., & Duhachek, A. (2016). What we feel and why we buy: the influence of emotions on consumer decision-making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 166-170. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.01.009
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Bagozzi, R., Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2000). The role of emotions in goal-directed behavior. In S. Ratneshwar, D. Mick, & H. Cynthia (Eds.), The why of consumption: Contemporary perspectives on consumer motives, goals, and desires (pp. 36-58). USA: Routledge.
Bagozzi, R., Belanche, D., Casaló, L., & Flavián, C. (2016). The Role of Anticipated Emotions in Purchase Intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 33(8), 629-645.
Bagozzi, R., Dholakia, U., & Basuroy, S. (2003). How effortful decisions get enacted: The motivating role of decision processes, desires, and anticipated emotions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 273-295.
Bagozzi, R., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 27(2), 184-206.
Bagozzi, R., & Pieters, R. (1998). Goal-directed emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 12(1), 1-26.
Baumeister, R., Vohs, K., DeWall, N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167-203.
Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and cognition, 55(1), 30-40.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, Decision Making and the Orbitofrontal Cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 295-307. doi:10.1093/cercor/10.3.295
Bechara, A., Noel, X., & Crone, E. (2006). Loss of willpower: abnormal neural mechanisms of impulse control and decision making in addiction. In W. Reinout & S. Alan (Eds.), Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 215-232). USA: SAGE publications.
Bell, D. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations research, 30(5), 961-981.
Bell, D. (1985). Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations research, 33(1), 1-27.
Carrera, P., Caballero, A., & Munoz, D. (2012). Future‐oriented emotions in the prediction of binge‐drinking intention and expectation: the role of anticipated and anticipatory emotions. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 53(3), 273-279.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 752-766.
Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2011). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume one (pp. 246-166). UK: Sage Publications Ltd.
Chang, H., & Pham, M. (2013). Affect as a decision-making system of the present. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 42-63.
Chen, J. (2003). Market segmentation by tourists’ sentiments. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 178-193. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00046-4
Chun, H., Patrick, V., & MacInnis, D. (2007). Making prudent vs. impulsive choices: the role of anticipated shame and guilt on consumer self-control. In G. Fitzsimons & V. Duluth (Eds.), NA-Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 34, pp. 715-719): MN : Association for Consumer Research.
Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. (1966). Economics of outdoor education: Baltimore MD: John Hopkins Press.
Cohen, S., Prayag, G., & Moital, M. (2014). Consumer behaviour in tourism: Concepts, influences and opportunities. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 872-909.
Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3), 420-434.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York: Putnam
Decrop, A. (2010). Destination choice sets: An inductive longitudinal approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 93-115.
Decrop, A., & Kozak, M. (2009). Decision strategies in tourism evaluation. In M. Kozak & A. Decrop (Eds.), Handbook of tourist behavior: Theory & practice (pp. 69-82). UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis group.
Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2004). Planning the summer vacation: An adaptable process. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 1008-1030.
DeWall, N., Baumeister, R., Chester, D., & Bushman, B. (2015). How often does currently felt emotion predict social behavior and judgment? A meta-analytic test of two theories. Emotion Review, 8(2), 136-143. doi:10.1177/1754073915572690
Engel, J., Kollat, D., & Blackwell, R. (1968). Consumer behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 462-482). USA: The Guilford Press.
Evans, J. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378-395.
Evans, J. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 255-278.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10(2), 130-132.
Fong, C., & Wyer Jr, R. (2003). Cultural, social, and emotional determinants of decisions under uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(2), 304-322. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00528-9
Forgas, J. (1995). Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.
Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283-304.
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American journal of health promotion, 11(2), 87-98.
Goossens, C. (2000). Tourism information and pleasure motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 301-321.
Han, H., Hsu, L.-T., & Sheu, C. (2010). Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism Management, 31(3), 325-334. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.013
Han, S., Lerner, J., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and Consumer Decision Making: The Appraisal-Tendency Framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3), 158-168. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70023-2
Holbrook, M. (1986). Emotion in the consumption experience: toward a new model of the human consumer. The role of affect in consumer behavior: Emerging theories and applications, 6(23), 17-52.
Holbrook, M., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.
Howard, J. (1963). Marketing management: Analysis and planning. New York: RD Irwin.
Howard, J., & Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Hunter, G. (2006). The role of anticipated emotion, desire, and intention in the relationship between image and shopping center visits. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34(10), 709-721.
Hyde, K., Woodside, A., Crouch, G., Mazanec, J., Oppermann, M., & Sakai, M. (1999). A hedonic perspective on independent vacation planning, decision-making and behaviour. Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure., 177-209.
Jun, S.-H., & Vogt, C. (2013). Travel information processing applying a dual-process model. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 191-212.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 47(2), 263-292.
Kim, Y., Njite, D., & Hancer, M. (2013). Anticipated emotion in consumers’ intentions to select eco-friendly restaurants: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 255-262. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.04.004
Kwortnik, R., & Ross, W. (2007). The role of positive emotions in experiential decisions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(4), 324-335.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589-599.
Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
Lerner, J., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.
Lerner, J., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual review of psychology, 66, 799–823.
Lieberman, M. D. (2003). A social cognitive neuroscience approach. In J. Forgas, K. Williams, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 44-67). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Litvin, S. W. (2008). Sensation seeking and its measurement for tourism research. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 440-445.
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. Handbook of affective science, 619(642), 3.
Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological bulletin, 127(2), 267.
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92(368), 805-824.
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. The Review of Economic Studies, 53(2), 271-282.
March, R., & Woodside, A. (2005). Testing theory of planned versus realized tourism behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 905-924. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.07.012
McCabe, S., & Chen, Z. (2015). Time for a Radical Reappraisal of Tourist Decision Making? Toward a New Conceptual Model. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 3-15.
Mellers, B., & McGraw, P. (2001). Anticipated emotions as guides to choice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 210-214.
Mellers, B., Schwartz, A., & Ritov, I. (1999). Emotion-based choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 332.
Papatheodorou, A. (2001). Why people travel to different places. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 164-179. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00014-1
Perdue, R., & Meng, F. (2006). Understanding choice and rejection in destination consideration sets. Tourism Analysis, 11(6), 337-348.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal‐directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79-98.
Petty, R., & Wegener, D. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology. USA: The Guilford Press.
Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 144-159.
Prayag, G., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Sitruk, J. (2015). Casual Dining on the French Riviera: Examining the Relationship Between Visitors’ Perceived Quality, Positive Emotions, and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24(1), 24-46.
Prentice, R. (2006). Evocation and experiential seduction: Updating choice-sets modelling. Tourism Management, 27(6), 1153-1170. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.11.008
Quintal, V., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. (2010). Risk, uncertainty and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism example. Tourism Management, 31(6), 797-805. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.006
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: informational and motivational functions of affective states: Guilford Press.
Schwarz, N. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 1, 289-308.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2, 385-407.
Seddighi, H., & Theocharous, A. (2002). A model of tourism destination choice: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Tourism Management, 23(5), 475-487. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00012-2
Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision making by travellers. Tourism Management, 26(6), 815-832.
Smallman, C., & Moore, K. (2010). Process studies of tourists' decision-making. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(2), 397-422. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.10.014
Spiggle, S., & Sewall, M. (1987). A choice sets model of retail selection. The Journal of Marketing, 97-111.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2006). Reflective and impulsive determinants of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 205-216.
Tamura, H. (2008). Behavioral models of decision making under risk and/or uncertainty with application to public sectors. Annual Reviews in Control, 32(1), 99-106. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2008.03.006
Tussyadiah, I., Kono, T., & Morisugi, H. (2006). A model of multidestination travel: implications for marketing strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 44(4), 407-417.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2 ed.). USA: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, T., Lisle, D., Kraft, D., & Wetzel, C. (1989). Preferences as expectation-driven inferences: effects of affective expectations on affective experience. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(4), 519.
Woodside, A., & Sherrell, D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept, and inert sets of vacation destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 16(1), 14-18.
Yeung, C., & Wyer, R. (2004). Affect, appraisal, and consumer judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 412-424.
Yoo, J., & Chon, K. (2008). Factors affecting convention participation decision-making: Developing a measurement scale. Journal of Travel Research.
Zeelenberg, M., Nelissen, R., Breugelmans, S., & Pieters, R. (2008). On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgment and Decision making, 3(1), 18–27.