Diagram no. 2 Linear model of buying a tourist product Source: Mathieson & Wall, 1982: 95
According to the decisive model of decision-making offered by Set, Njumen, and Gros (Sheth, Newmen & Gross 1991), there are five consumer values (Diagram 3) that directly affect consumer choice. Individual or all five values can determine the decision (Sheth, Newman & Gross, 1991: 159-170).
Five values that influence consumer decision making
Diagram no. 3 Izvor: Upon, Sheth, Newman & Gross, 1991: 160
Traditionally, a functional value is viewed as a prerequisite or a basic driver in the election process. Identified basic product values (benefits provided), marketers point out through promotion as the most influential message bearer (Solomon, 1996: 160).
Conditional values often depend on the situation. For example, some products (especially in tourism) have a seasonal value. Social value expressed as a perceived benefit through socializing with the socio-economic and cultural-ethical group (Sheth, Newman & Gross, 1991: 161-162).
Emotional value is expressed as a capacity to stimulate emotions or to associate with certain feelings, while the epistemological value is perceived as the possibility of awakening curiosity, experiencing new, or satisfying the desire for new knowledge (Sheth, Newman & Gross, 1991: 161-162). The Consumer Behavior Model in Tourism, Middleton called the stimulus-response model, (Diagram 4). The concept is based on four mutually active components, based on the central set of "customer characteristics and decision-making process" that explains the characteristics of tourism product customers and the decision-making process. The model outlines the consumer's motive and the determinants of the purchasing process, with an emphasis on the importance and impact of the promotional mix of the company (Middleton, 1994: 104-112).
Sirgy and his associates offered an integrated model of self-sufficiency and functional alignment in explaining and anticipating the behaviors of tourists. Self Congruity is a staple between a brand show with a personal idea of a consumer, while functional compliance refers to the consistency between perceived product/service characteristics and consumer desirable or essential functional characteristics (Sirgy & Johar, 1999: 252).
Different approaches are trying to explain the behavior of consumers in tourism through modeling and structural displays. It is difficult to encompass all aspects of complex decision-making in tourism due to the specificity of a tourism product, or a specific context in which to decide on purchases (Hyde & Lawson, 2003: 13-23). Complexity is reflected in the fact that decision-making on the choice of destination actually involves multiple decision-making regarding the various elements contained in a tourism product (Decrop & Snelders, 2004: 1008-1030; Decrop & Snelders 2005: 121-132; Hyde & Lawson, 2003: 13-23). Some decisions are related to the organization of travel to the destination, other issues are solved by arriving at the destination and during the stay at the destination, so it can be said that the majority of the decisions are due to circumstantial factors (Decrop & Snelders, 2004: 1008-1030). Cohen and associates point out that such a high level of complexity in decision making in tourism can be comprehensively viewed through focusing on the overall decision-making process (Cohen, Prayag & Moital, 2014: 872-909). Smallman and Moor, suggest that the problem of decision-making can be better seen through less structured models, with a more detailed description, explanation of decision-making activities (Smallman & Moor, 2010: 397-422).
Stimulant-Response Model for Decision on Shopping for a Tourist Product Diagram no. 4 ( Source: Middleton, 1994: 106)
There are opinions that some decisions are a product of a planned approach, while others have unplanned or even impulsive purchases (Hyde & Lawson, 2003: 13-23). Bargeman and Van Der Poel, point out that decision-making in tourism is actually more routine than the models of rational choices (Bargeman & Van Der Poel, 2006: 718) Sirakaya & Woodside emphasize habit as an important decision-maker (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005: 815-832).
Verplanken and Orbell emphasize the role and strength of habits in the decision-making process for purchasing tourist products. The results of their research indicate that the creation of habits is a psychological construction rather than simply a repetition of behavior. They developed a scale of 12 Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI), to measure the habits of daily and weekly levels. There was a strong correlation between habit and frequency, or repetition of the behavior of the respondent (Verplanken & Orbell, 2003: 1313-1330; Verplanken, 2006: 539-560). Using the scales of SRHI, developed by Verplanken and Orbel, 2003, Bjork and Jansson are also introducing habits as an important decision-maker (Bjork & Jansson, 2008: 11-34).
Decrop & Snelders, organize a complex research venture that results in a typology of decision-making in tourism. Over one year, 25 households were monitored in Belgium. The results show that deciding on buying a tourist product is a lengthy process, exposed to numerous influences. They have developed a typology that includes six categories of tourists (Decrop & Snelders, 2005: 121-132):
Tourists who make a decision driven by habits; Those who repeat the same vacation program almost every year, or go to the same place.
Rational decision-makers; They are risking; they start thinking about vacation very early, January/February. They are characterized by careful planning of their vacations; they are deliberate and predictable in decision making.
Hedonist; They enjoy thinking, dreaming, and talking about vacation, which boosts pleasure and excitement. They use every opportunity to get as much information as possible about the upcoming tourist trip. They are optimistic; emotions move them more forcefully than practical reasons.
Opportunists; They do not think or talk about vacation too much. They are the passive nature of the "wait-and-see" type. Particularly informed, they are not active in bidding. Waiting for the opportunity, they often make decisions at last, suddenly. Their plans are not stable, often overlooked, unpredictable in the destination choice.
Printed; A type of tourist who more often has to make a decision that they are in a position to control the choice because of the behavior of restrictive, situational variables of finance, transfer, health problems. The pressure of family members especially exposed children and senior members, who often resort to personal preferences.
Adaptive, concave; They love to vacation and travel. They are thinking of vacation and have new plans constantly. Your projects and behavior can easily adapt to new conditions. They decide the last time because of waiting for the best realistic conditions for their projects. High degree of flexibility makes them very unpredictable in decision making.
Decrop presents additional findings during the choice of destination in the mentioned group, 25 households in Belgium. Data were collected by interview method, using open type questions. Through an analysis of the relationship between the constituencies, it is concluded that the choice of decision is most often driven by opportunities and situational constraints (Decrop, 2010: 93-115).
Decrop categorized the choice sets, in seven typologies, (Decrop, 2010: 93-115):
Svest o dest. (Awareness set); The destinations that tourists have known have not left their impression, does not intend to visit.
Evocated dest. (Evoked set); Spontaneous reminder, without any special intention to recall the visit.
Surrogate dest. (Surrogate set); They are not a priority, but they