1
Chapter 1
IINTRODUCTION
Many studies focus on who the main decision maker is when going on
vacation. Mottiar and Quinn (2004) studied the distinctive roles of men and women
when selecting a vacation. These studies have not researched whether the outcome of
overall trip satisfaction is affected if one person is more dominant in the decision
making process. “In order to efficiently and effectively utilize advertising dollars state
travel bureaus and other involved in the promotion of a tourist destination need to
understand consumer behavior related to travel decisions…and their overall decision
making process” (Gitelson and Kerstetter, 1994, p.60).
As early as 1960 Blood and Wolf examined married couples and their
consumer decisions. Throughout the 1970’s other studies were done which furthered
research on the husband-wife consumer decision making process (Davis 1970; Davis
and Rigaux 1974; Munsinger et al. 1975). Likewise, (Jenkins 1978; Myers and
Moncrief 1978) researched decisions between husband and wife, but related these
decisions to travel.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to extend research on household decision
making in regard to tourism. This study evaluated couples who were in committed
2
cohabitating relationships. The study included mixed and same gender couples. This
is an important area of study for the tourism and travel industry because marketing
strategies should know who to advertise to. Previous studies have researched how a
couple comes to a travel decision. These decisions have been broken down into
husband-dominant, wife-dominant and joint decisions. However, these studies have
not researched whether there is a correlation between the dominant decision maker
and the satisfaction outcome of the vacation. They also have not examined same
gender couples.
Statement of the Problem
The importance of this study was to recognize the different aspects of the
travel decision making process between cohabitating couples. Also to examine how
both persons in a couple made travel decisions together. As well as, further research
on mixed and same gender travel decisions.
Research Questions:
1. Are travel decisions mostly joint decisions?
2. Does who made the decisions affect the satisfaction outcome of the vacation?
3. Does the frequency of vacation planning impact satisfaction?
4. How does this change with same gender couples?
3
5. Does years married/together impact satisfaction of the vacation?
Limitations of the Study
This study will be limited to persons who are in a committed cohabitating
relationship and have taken a trip with overnight accommodations together.
Assumptions of the Study
The assumption of this study is that couples do not decide on their travel
choices jointly. That there is one person in the couple who takes a more dominant role
in the decision making process, which affects the overall satisfaction of the vacation.
Definition of Terms

Couple – Two persons in a cohabitating relationship.

Mixed Gender Couple– A cohabitating couple with 1 male and 1 female.

Same Gender Couple– A cohabitating couple either 2 males or 2 females.

Vacation – A trip that required overnight accommodations.
4
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are many factors that influence a tourism decision. Where to go, how
long to stay, how much money to spend, all of which are part of the tourism decision
making process. “Understanding how people select a product such as a house or travel
destination has received substantial attention not only from consumer researchers, but
also from tourism researchers and practitioners interested in developing effective
marketing and communication strategies” (Litvin, et al., 2004,p.1299).
Consumer Decisions
Much research has been dedicated to the decision making process in couples.
Most of the research early on looked at consumer purchase behavior within couples.
Who made the decisions on buying a vehicle? Who choose the family physician?
Tracing back over five decades ago, Sharp and Mott (1956) reported that husbands
have more influence on the purchase of a new vehicle, wives have more influence on
food spending and both the husband and the wife have influence on vacations and
housing.
More so, Blood and Wolfe (1960) looked at family structure and investigated
the dynamics of the American marriage. They researched decision making within
5
couples to find out who was the decision maker. They found that decisions regarding
travel were shared by both the husband and the wife.
Also, Davis (1970) studied decision making between spouses, however Davis
was more concerned with their consumer purchase decisions. Through questions and
interviews he investigated how decisions were made for family purchases. The studies
done by Sharp and Mott (1956), Blood and Wolfe (1960) and Davis (1970) were the
start of many contributing to purchase decisions incorporating more than one person.
Munsinger, et al. (1975) studied consumer decisions and found the majority of
the decisions to be joint and some to be husband dominant.
In 1987 Putnam and Davidson replicated the Davis and Rigaux (1974) study
and found significant changes in household decision making. They found many
household decisions such as, purchasing automobiles, televisions and financial
planning shifted from husband dominated to joint decisions. Further, their study
showed that couples demonstrated increasing role specialization (joint decision
making) as the couple moved from the information search to the final decision stage.
Furthermore, Lavin (1993) studied the baby boomer generation and whether
married women who work change the dominant decision making roles. This study
proved the same theories as other studies (Sharp and Mott 1956; Wolgast 1958) that
major purchases such as a sofa continue to be joint decisions. The couples surveyed
were not eager to change fundamentally traditional buying roles.
6
Decision Making Process Stages
In 1974, Davis and Rigaux extended research to include the influence of
husbands and wives throughout different stages of the decision-making process.
Furthering research, Raaij and Crotts (1994) developed a theoretical
framework for understanding the function and processing of information in vacation
decision making. They noted that economic psychology is important in travel and
tourism. They discussed different economic applications in relation to tourism some
of which included: product perception, consumer behavior, consumer decision
making, and household production.
Along the same vein, Fodness and Murray (1999) created a model for tourist
information search behavior. They related tourist information search strategies to
search contingencies, individual characteristics, and behavioral search outcomes.
In addition, Woodside and Sirakaya (2003) wanted to further understand,
describe and predict tourist decision making. They broke down the decision making
process into seven different stages. In doing so they found that tourists follow a
funnel-like procedure when narrowing down different destination choices.
Moreover, Cai, Feng & Breiter (2004) Studied tourist purchase decision
involvement. They found that tourist information search behavior starts with what to
search for and how to search. They found a connection between different levels of
7
tourist purchase decision involvement and usage of the internet, the higher the search
involvement was the higher the internet usage was.
Jang et’ al. (2007) expanded the individual choice-sets model into joint
decision-making to explore how individuals’ choice-sets are affected by others. As
well as, the process by which they resolve differences to arrive at their final
destination choice.
Family Decision Making
In 1978 Jenkins took consumer research such as Davis and related it to family
vacation decision making. Jenkins broke down the vacation decision process into a
series of subdivisions including who collected the information, how long to stay, how
much money to spend, type of lodging, and which activities to participate in. Jenkins
then put these findings into categories: husband-dominant, wife-dominant, and jointdecisions. He found that most of the answers were husband-dominant, such as
information collection, how long to stay and amount of money to spend. Whereas,
lodging, transportation and activities were joint-decisions.
Around the same time as Jenkins’ study Myers and Moncrief (1978) studied
family decision making in relation to pleasure and the travel destination also found
destination selection and lodging to be joint decisions.
8
Another study done by Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980) furthered research on
joint purchasing behavior. They studied decision making units (DMU’S) and found
similarities to Jenkins’ study where husband-dominant and joint-decisions were more
prevalent than wife-dominant. They also found that when children are involved the
husband dominated the decisions.
Additionally, Nichols and Snepenger (1988) extended research on husbanddominant, wife-dominant and joint decisions. They found a fourth role structure exists
called autonomic decision making. This is when either the husband or wife makes the
decision and either person is likely to make the same decision. They studied families
who vacationed to Alaska and concluded that all groups agreed their trip was good to
excellent; however the wife-dominated families rated their vacations significantly
higher than husband-dominated families.
On the other hand, Fodness (1992) researched the Family Life Cycle (FLC)
and found that over time roles within the family will change and so will the decision
making patterns. He noted that most family decisions were joint-decisions. However
wives were becoming the information seekers. “Using family life cycle as a base
variable, type of family decision making could be a valuable descriptor variable for
tourism marketers interested in understanding, predicting, and possibly, influencing
consumer choice” (Fodness, 1992, p. 13). While, Consenza and Davis (1981) found
the role of the wife can change across stages in the Family Life Cycle.
9
Likewise, Burns (1992) investigated family power and the manifestation of an
individual’s wants and needs. He suggested that “…a wife will have more influence
over choices perceived to be made than will he” (p.175). He concluded that the
decision making outcome appeared to be more of a joint decision than ever before.
Lackman and Lansa (1993) also studied family decision making. They
determined that families with children change the husband-wife decision dyad,
establishing that children control a portion of the purchasing decision.
Furthermore, Assael (1998) reported that the family decision making process is
unlike the personal decision making process. Also, family consumer behavior is
considered to be the most important decision making and consumption unit.
Another study by Kang and Hsu (2004) investigated dyadic consensus on the
family vacation destination process, emphasizing on spousal conflict arousal
dimensions, influencing strategies used and satisfaction of the decision making
process. Their research showed “high levels of satisfaction of toward the outcome of
their decision and the decision-making process, disagreement was detected in levels of
satisfaction between husbands and wives…Wives appeared to be more satisfied than
husbands…” (p. 575).
10
Wives Involvement
Other studies have been done focusing solely on the wives involvement with
the tourism decision. Zalatan (1998) found that there were specific stages in which a
wife was more involved, such as information gathering and selection of the
destination. She also found that a wife tends to have more input in the financial
decision when they are employed.
A similar study done by Belch and Willis (2001) found significant changes in
the roles assumed in the family decision making process since the 1970’s and 1980’s.
They found that the wife was gaining more influence in all decision areas. Their
results indicated that marketers need to re-examine marketing strategies for some
products or services. They also found that the more women contribute to the
household the more roles they are taking on within the household.
Furthering research, Mottiar and Quinn (2004) studied the distinctive roles and
power relations within a couple in regard to tourism. They questioned whether
women dominate the early stages of tourism decisions making them the gatekeepers of
the holiday.
Travel Decisions
In 1994, Harsel concluded that the decision to travel is a complex process
based on motivations, attitudes, needs, and values.
11
Additionally, Decrop and Snelders (2003) came up with six different types of
vacationers, habitual, rational, hedonic, opportunistic, constrained, and adaptable.
They found that the information gathered when planning a vacation could help with
marketing to vacationers. They stated that, “One should pay more attention to
adaptability and opportunism in vacation decision-making,” as well as, “the day
dreaming of hedonic vacationers” (p. 129).
Furthermore, Decrop and Snelders (2004) researched the summer vacation.
They found that vacation planning is an ongoing process which does not stop once the
vacation decision is made.
Litvin et al. (2004) revisited Jenkins (1978) study and discussed Xu(2001) and
Hsu and Kang (2002) independent data collection exercises. “With both spouses
believing they are the ones pulling the strings, from a marketing perspective, it would
seem hotels selling to North American travelers need to provide well targeted
messages to both husbands and wives so as to engender strong feelings from each
about their properties” (Litvin et al., p. 198, 2004). They stated that advertisers need
to market to both the husband and wife so the vacation decision can be jointly made.
On the other hand, Decrop (2005) studied group vacationers and concluded
that joint decisions are made in the early stages of planning and more leadership is
needed in the final planning stages.
12
In 2006, Bargeman and Poel studied thirty-two Dutch vacationing households
and found that there was less extensive decision-making when taking a local vacation
compared to a vacation abroad.
Another study by Bronner and Hoog (2008) researched Dutch summer
vacationers and how disagreement is handled when making travel decisions. They
related this to the information search process of travel decisions and the collective
nature of vacation decision making in families. The golden mean strategy (give and
take) was found to be the dominating strategy when compromising. Bronner and
Hoog concluded that vacation decisions are joint decisions.
Understanding how couples come to a travel decision is an important area of
study that has been focused on for decades. “It is imperative that destination
marketers not only indentify the decision-maker…but also understand various roles
each family member play in a particular travel product” (Nanda, Hu & Bai, 2006, p.
121).
13
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to examine cohabitating couples and their travel
decisions. The research methodology used in the conduct of this study is described and
explained in this chapter.
Population Sample
Quantitative research was performed in the conduct of this study. The subjects
of this study were a convenience sample of friends and acquaintances, which were
gathered through a partial snowball process. Two professors invited subjects along
with two other contacts who had a list of persons who fit the criteria of the study.
Data Collection
Data collected was by means of an online survey engine called Survey
Monkey. Data collected was downloaded from Survey Monkey then transported to an
excel spreadsheet. The information gathered was taken from written form and put into
numerical form (i.e. the word three was changed to a numerical 3). The spreadsheet
was then input into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Version 17,
where the tables, figures, and findings were then analyzed.
14
Survey Design
By researching other studies I found two studies which helped me decide the
types of questions to ask. One of the studies was by Jenkins (1978) who asked
questions regarding collection of information, whether to take children, how long to
stay, exact time of year or actual dates, transportation, amount of money to spend,
kinds of activities to engage in, lodging, and destination point(s) (p. 2). The other
study was done by, Mottiar and Quinn (2004) who did a similar survey and included
questions about discussion initiation, gathering of information, amount of money to
spend, travel agent to use, which country or resort to go to, accommodations, when to
go, and who booked the holiday (p.54). Both of these studies were the basis for the
questions in my survey.
The design of the survey was to investigate if there was a dominant decision
maker when planning a vacation. Also, to see if there was a correlation between
satisfaction outcome of the vacation and who was more dominant in the decision
making process. Questions were asked such as: Who decided initiated the discussion,
who gathered the information, who made the reservations, who decided the budget,
destination, accommodations, dates, reservations, and activities? The answers were:
Primarily me, primarily my spouse/partner, both of us equally, or N/A. The survey
contained seven other questions which asked about, number of vacations per year,
typicality, satisfaction, years together/married, and gender (See Appendix).
15
The survey design was reviewed with two professors serving on the masters
committee. Before distributing the survey to the full sample, the survey was piloted
with five individuals to ensure clarity and ease of completion. Upon feedback from
these individuals the survey was then distributed to the full sample.
Analysis
Non-parametric tests such as, Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-Square, and Fisher’s Exact
tests were all conducted on SPSS. The Chi-Square test was formulated by taking the
existing variables and making new variables which were labeled same gender and
mixed gender. These gender variables were then tested against all of the decision
variables. Tests of significance were conducted at the 0.05 level. Cases were
excluded on a test by test basis.
16
Chapter 4
Results
The survey was completed by 94 people. However the response rate cannot be
reported due to the nature in which the survey was distributed. Of these people, 78
couples were married and the remaining 16 couples were not married. See Table 1.1:
Married.
Table 1.1: Married
Married
Not Married
n
78
16
94
Decision Variables
According to the survey responses five out if the nine decision categories were
joint-decisions. These categories are as follows, budget 47.9%, destination 62.8%,
accommodations 41.5%, dates 66.3%, and activities 74.5%. The other four categories
were dominated by the primarily me group, which is the person who completed the
survey. These categories are discussion 47.9%, information 54.3%, reservations
59.6%, and arrangements 47.9%. See Table 1.2: Decision Variables.
17
Trips per Year
Several people were vague in their answers regarding trips taken. Eight people
gave the date of their last trip instead of number of trips taken and fourteen other
people made an unusable comment mathematically. These people are not included in
the mean data. Therefore the data from trips taken was from 72 people where the
minimum trips taken were 1 and the maximum trips taken per year were 30. The total
mean average of trips taken per year was 4.40. See Table 1.3: Trips per Year.
Table 1.2: Decision Variables
Primarily Primarily my
Me
Spouse/Partner
Discussion
45
22
Information
51
22
Budget
27
16
Destination
22
11
Accommodations
35
15
Dates
21
5
Reservations
56
27
Arrangements
45
13
Activities
18
5
Variables
Both of us
equally
27
16
45
59
39
61
7
36
70
n/a
n
0
5
6
2
5
5
4
0
1
94
94
94
94
94
92
94
94
94
Table 1.3: Trips per Year
N
Min
Max
Mean
72
1
30
4.40
18
Typicality of Answers
Of the 94 people surveyed the majority reported their decisions were very
typical (64). Others stated that their decisions were somewhat typical (24). While the
remaining 5 people stated that these decisions were not typical at all. See Table 1.4:
Typicality of Answers.
Table 1.4: Typicality of Answers
Very Typical
Somewhat Typical
Not Typical at all
n
65
24
5
94
Satisfaction of the Vacation
According to the subject’s satisfaction rating of their trip overall, 71 were very
satisfied, 19 were somewhat satisfied, 2 were somewhat dissatisfied, and 2 were very
dissatisfied. On a scale of 1 being very satisfied and 5 being very dissatisfied the
mean was 1.35. See Table 1.5: Satisfaction of the Vacation.
Table 1.5: Satisfaction of the Vacation
Very
Somewhat Neutral
Satisfied
Satisfied
71
19
Somewhat
Very
n
Mean
94
1.35
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
0
2
2
19
Years Married or Together
Reports show that the number of years a couple has been married and number
of years a couple has been together ranges from under a year to 41 years. The
minimum amount of time a couple has been married was 2 months and the maximum
was 39 years. The mean number of years a couple has been married is 11.70. The
minimum of years a couple has been together was 1 year and the maximum was 41
years. The mean number of years a couple has been together is 13.10. See Tables 1.6:
Years Married and 1.7: Years Together.
Table 1.6: Years Married
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
77
0
39
11.70
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
89
1
41
13.10
Table 1.7: Years Together
Gender
Responses from the questions regarding gender and spouse/partner’s gender
show that 41 males completed the survey and 53 females completed the survey. Of
20
these responses 69 reported their spouse/partner was male and 25 reported their
spouse/partner was female. Further inspection of the data set found that 72 couples
were mixed gender and 22 couples were same gender. See Tables 1.8: Gender and
1.9: Spouse/Partner’s Gender.
Table 1.8: Gender
Male
Female
n
41
53
94
Table 1.9: Spouse/Partner’s Gender
Male
Female
n
69
25
94
Kruskal-Wallis Test
A Kruskal-Wallis test examined the variables and who decided the trip. The
answers given were: primarily me, primarily my spouse/partner or both of us equally.
This question examined if there was any significance between these decisions and
overall trip satisfaction. The test reported no significance in these following variables:
initiation of discussion (p=0.556), gathering of information (p=0.350), destination
(p=0.285), accommodations (p=0.188), dates (p=0.736), booking the reservations
21
(p=0.137), making the travel arrangements (p=0.130), and deciding the activities to
participate in (p=0.744).
The only variable that affected the outcome of overall trip satisfaction and
showed any significance was the budget variable (p=0.031). Data shows 27 people
answered primarily me to the question of who determined the budget. The mean rank
as well as, mean satisfaction was significantly different in the answer primarily me,
than in the answers primarily my spouse/partner and both of us equally. The budget
variable showed significance in relation to who determined the budget and overall trip
satisfaction. The other variables showed no significance. See Tables 2.1- 2.9 for the
Kruskal-Wallis results for each decision variable.
Table 2.1: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Discussion and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
45
45.28
1.27
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
22
48.27
1.27
Both of us
Equally
27
Total
94
P
0.556
50.57
1.56
1.35
22
Table 2.2: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Information and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
51
42.43
1.20
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
22
48.64
1.50
Both of us
Equally
16
Total
89
P
0.350
48.19
1.80
1.35
Table 2.3: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Budget and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
27
36.65
1.07
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
16
50.75
1.63
Both of us
Equally
45
Total
88
* < 0.05
P
0.031*
46.99
1.38
1.35
23
Table 2.4: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Destination and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
22
41.50
1.14
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
11
52.59
1.64
Both of us
Equally
59
Total
92
P
0.285
47.23
1.37
1.35
Table 2.5: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Accommodations and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
35
40.41
1.23
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
15
49.50
1.60
Both of us
Equally
39
Total
89
P
0.188
47.38
1.38
1.35
24
Table 2.6: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Dates and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
21
44.48
1.52
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
5
50.10
1.40
Both of us
Equally
61
Total
87
P
0.736
43.34
1.30
1.36
Table 2.7: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Reservations and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
56
43.09
1.29
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
27
51.63
1.52
Both of us
Equally
7
Total
90
P
0.137
41.14
1.14
1.35
25
Table 2.8: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Arrangements and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
45
43.23
1.20
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
13
54.12
1.54
Both of us
Equally
36
Total
94
P
0.130
50.44
1.47
1.35
Table 2.9: Kruskal-Wallis Test, Activities and Satisfaction
N
Mean Rank
Mean
Satisfaction
Primarily Me
18
47.86
1.28
Primarily my
Spouse/Partner
5
53.30
1.40
Both of us
Equally
70
Total
93
P
0.744
46.33
1.37
1.35
Chi-Squared Test
Chi-Squared testing was performed to test whether the mixed or same gender
couples sampled decided their vacations together or alone and to see if this had any
significance with satisfaction. The data showed no significance: discussion initiation
26
(p=0.423), information gathering (p=0.753), deciding the budget (p=0.607),
destination (p=0.203), accommodations (p=0.803), dates (p=0.408), booking the
reservations (p=0.188), making the travel arrangements (p=1.000), and deciding the
activities to participate in (p=1.000). These Fisher’s Exact test results indicate that
whether a couple is mixed or same gender satisfaction is not related to how likely they
are to make decisions together. Therefore these finding are not significant. See Tables
3.1- 3.9 for the Chi-Squared results for each decision variable.
Table 3.1: Discussion
Mixed Gender
Alone
53
Together
19
Total
72
P = 0.423 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
Same Gender
14
8
22
Total
67
27
94
Same Gender
18
3
21
Total
73
16
89
Same Gender
8
11
19
Total
43
45
88
Table 3.2: Information
Mixed Gender
Alone
55
Together
13
Total
68
P = 0.753 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
Table 3.3: Budget
Mixed Gender
Alone
35
Together
34
Total
69
P = 0.607 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
27
Table 3.4: Destination
Mixed Gender
Alone
28
Together
42
Total
70
P = 0.203 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
Same Gender
5
17
22
Total
33
59
92
Table 3.5: Accommodations
Mixed Gender
Alone
39
Together
29
Total
68
P = 0.803 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
Same Gender
11
10
21
Total
50
39
89
Table 3.6: Dates
Mixed Gender
Alone
22
Together
46
Total
68
P = 0.408 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
Same Gender
4
15
19
Total
26
61
87
Table 3.7: Reservations
Mixed Gender
Alone
61
Together
7
Total
68
P = 0.188 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
Same Gender
22
0
22
Total
83
7
90
Same Gender
14
8
22
Total
58
36
94
Table 3.8: Arrangements
Mixed Gender
Alone
44
Together
28
Total
72
P = 1.000 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
28
Table 3.9: Activities
Mixed Gender
Alone
18
Together
53
Total
71
P = 1.000 (Fisher’s Exact Test)
Same Gender
5
17
22
Total
23
70
93
Test of Correlations
A test of correlations was completed to see if there was significance between
overall trip satisfaction and number of years a couple has been together or married and
the number of trips they take per year. Results showed no significance between the
variables: number of trips (p=0.718), number of years married (p=0.524), and number
of years together (p=0.506). There is no correlation between overall trip satisfaction,
number of years a couple has been married or together, and how many trips they take
per year. As a result, these findings were not significant. See Table 4.1: Correlation
results.
Table 4.1: Correlations with Respect to Trip Satisfaction
p-value
N
Trips
0.718
72
Married
0.524
77
Together
0.506
89
29
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS
There has been extensive research on travel choices made between couples.
Previous studies have asked the same types of questions that were presented in this
study. However, these studies have failed to test satisfaction against the decision
variables. This study tested satisfaction against the decision variables as well as
extended the sample population to same gender couples.
Research Question 1
First of all, are travel decisions mostly joint decisions? From the data collected
in this study, 60% of the decisions made were joint decisions. Determining the
budget, deciding the destination, accommodations and dates, as well as, determining
the activities to participate in, were all joint decisions. The other 40% seem to be
dominated by the person who completed the survey, the primarily me group. Including
who initiated the discussion, who gathered the information, as well as, who made the
reservations and travel arrangements. I cannot conclude whether these decisions were
husband or wife dominated since I included same gender couples in the study.
Therefore, this study concludes that travel decisions are mostly joint decisions.
Research Question 2
Secondly, does who made the decisions affect the satisfaction outcome of the
decision? It looks as if the only decision variable that affected the outcome of overall
30
trip satisfaction was who determined the budget. In the Kruskal-Wallis test
satisfaction was significantly affected by the budget. It seems there was locus of
control between satisfaction and budget, the more control one had over the budget the
more satisfied they were with the outcome of the vacation. None of the other
variables showed to be significant in this area.
Research Question 3
Next, does the frequency of vacation planning impact satisfaction? There was
no support to show that frequency of vacation planning impacts satisfaction. Whether
a couple planned one or thirty vacations in a year satisfaction was not affected. I
believe this information is helpful because it shows that people who do not take
multiple vacations per year are still satisfied with their travel decisions. The people
who travel less may actually enjoy their vacations more because those trips may be
something they plan for all year.
Research Question 4
In addition, how does this change with same gender couples? This study
surveyed 72 mixed gender and 22 same gender couples. Decades of previous research
limited their studies to mixed gender couples. With society changing I felt it was
important to include same gender couples. Although, there was no significance found
in how mixed and same gender couples make travel decisions.
There was one person
who answered the question: Number of years married as, “1.5 we are one of the 16K
31
who made it before prop 8”. Furthermore, as times are changing I believe that
research should progress this area of study. The small sample size, especially with
respect to same gender couples, precludes further examination at this time.
Research Question 5
Lastly, does number of years a couple has been married or together impact the
satisfaction of the vacation? It seems there was no significance in overall trip
satisfaction and how long a couple was married or together. Subjects from this study
were married or together from as little as less than one year to as long as forty-one
years. No matter, if a couple was newly married or has shared a lifetime together,
satisfaction of their trips was not affected.
Conclusions
The purpose of this thesis has been to analyze the relationship between
satisfaction and cohabitating couples travel decisions. I was expecting to find that the
travel decisions were not joint decisions; however I was surprised to find that they
were joint decisions. The conclusion that most of the travel decisions surveyed were
joint decisions is consistent with previous research. Within the context of this study, I
have found that budget is the only variable to have significance with overall trip
satisfaction. I believe that if this study were to be performed on a larger sample
significance could be found within other decision variables. I also think that same
32
gender couples travel decisions is an important area for further research. Continuous
research in these areas will help the travel industry better serve their clientele.
33
APPENDIX
Survey
1.
With respect to the most recent trip taken by you and your spouse/partner that
required overnight accommodations (check one response for each item):
Primarily me
Primarily my
spouse/Partner
Both of us
equally
Who initiated the
discussion?
Who gathered information
about possible
destinations?
Who determined the
budget?
Who decided the
destination?
Who decided the
accommodations?
Who decided the dates?
Who made reservations?
Who decided the travel
arrangements?
Who decided activities to
participate in during the
trip?
2. How many trips that require overnight accommodations are you and your
spouse/partner likely to take in a typical year?
3. With regard to trip-related decision making in general, how typical are the
above roles (check one response)?
Very typical
Somewhat typical
Not at all typical
34
4.
How satisfied were you with the trip overall (check one response)?
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
5. How long have you been a couple (cohabiting)?
Number of years married_______
Total number of year together (including marriage)_______
6. What is your gender? (circle one)
7.
M
What is your spouse’s/partner’s gender? (circle one)
F
M
F
35
REFERENCES
Assael, H (1998), Household Decision Making, in Consumer Behavior and
Marketing Action, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
Bargeman, B., & van der Poel, H. (2006). The role of routines in the decisionmaking process of Dutch vacationers. Tourism Management, 27, 707-720.
Belch, M., & Willis, L. (2002). Family decision at the turn of the century: Has the
changing structure of households impacted the family decision-making
process? Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2(2), 111-124.
Blood, R. & Wolfe, D. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married living,
Free Press, NY.
Bronner, F., & deHoog, R. (2008). Agreement and disagreement in family vacation
decision-making. Tourism Management, 29, 967-979.
Burns, J. (1992). Husband-wife innovative consumer decision making: Exploring the
effect of family power. Psychology and Marketing, 9(3), 175-189.
Cai, L., Feng, R., & Breiter, D. (2004). Tourist purchase decision involvement and
information preferences. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 138–148.
Cosenza, R. & Davis, D. (1981). Family vacation decision making over the family
life cycle: A decision and structure analysis. Journal of Travel Research,
20(2), 17-23.
Crotts, J. & Raaij, W. (1994). The economic psychology of travel and tourism.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3(3), 1-19.
Davidson, W.R., & Putnam, M. (1987). Family Purchasing behavior: II family roles
by product category, Management Horizons, Inc., Columbus, OH.
36
Davis, H. (1970). Dimensions of marital roles in consumer decision making.
Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 168-177.
Decrop, A. (2005). Group processes in vacation decision-making. Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, 18(3), 23-36.
Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2003). A grounded typology of vacation decisionmaking. Tourism Management, 26, 121-132.
Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2004). Planning the summer vacation: An adaptable
process. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 1008-1030.
Filiatrault, P., & Ritchie, J.R. Brent. (1980). Joint purchasing decisions: A
comparison of influence structure in family and couple decision-making
units. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 131-140.
Fodness, D. (1992). The impact of family life cycle on the vacation decision-making
process. Journal of Travel Research, 31(2), 8-13.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist information search behavior.
Journal of Travel Research, 37, 220-230.
Gitelson, R. & Kerstetter, D. (1994). The influence of friends and relatives in travel
decision-making. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3(3), 59-68.
Harssel, Jan van (1994). Tourism an exploration, Paramount Communications
Publication: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hsu, C., & Kang, S. (2005). Dyadic consensus on family vacation destination
selection. Tourism Management, 26, 571-582.
37
Jang, H., Lee, S., Lee, S.W., & Hong, S.(2007). Expanding the individual choice-sets
model to couples’ honeymoon destination selection process. Tourism
Management, 28, 1299-1314.
Jenkins, R. (1978). Family vacation decision-making. Journal of Travel Research,
16(4), 2-7.
Lackman, C. & Lanasa, J. (1993). Family decision-making theory: An overview and
assessment. Phsycology and Marketing, 10(2), 81-93.
Lavin, M. (1993). Husband-dominant, wife-dominant, joint: A shopping typology.
The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(3), 33-43.
Litvin, S., Gang, X., & Kang, S. (2004). Spousal vacation-buying decision making
revisited across time and place. Journal of travel Research, 43, 193-198.
Mott, P., & Sharp, H. (1956). Consumer decisions in the metropolitan family. The
Journal of Marketing, 149-156.
Mottiar, Z., & Quinn, D. (2004). Couple dynamics in household tourism decision
making: Women as the gatekeepers? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2),
149-160.
Munsinger, G., Weber J., & Hansen, R. (1975). Joint home purchasing decisions by
husbands and wives. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 60-65.
Nanda, D., Hu, C., & Bai, B. (2006). Exploring family roles in purchasing decisions
during vacation planning: Review and discussions for future research.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 20(3/4), 107-125.
Nichols, C., & Snepenger, D. (1988). Family decision making and tourism behavior
and attitudes. Journal of Travel Research, 2-6.
38
Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision
making by travellers. Tourism Management, 26, 815-832.
Zalatan, A. (1998). Wives’ involvement in tourism decision processes. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(4), 890-903.