TESTING THEORY OF PLANNED

Roger March is Senior Lecturer in the School of Marketing, University of New South Wales(Sydney 2052, Australia. Email ). His tourism research interestsinclude international distribution systems, Japanese behavior, and unethical issues. ArchWoodside is Professor of marketing at Boston College. He is a Fellow of Royal Society ofCanada, Society for Marketing Advances, American Psychological Association, and theAmerican Psychological Society.

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 905924, 2005 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain0160-7383/$30.00

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.07.012www.elsevier.com/locate/atouresBoston College, USA

Abstract: This article probes how well ones plans for doing, buying, and consuming discre-tionary tourism services relate to what is actually done. Using group level data, it includes anempirical study of hypotheses comparing planned and actual consumption behaviors. Themain propositions tested are that realized consumption behaviors are greater in number thanplanned and that the level of matching between planned and realized actions varies as a func-tion of contingency factors of composition of the tourist group, product experience, andmotivations. Data from two large-scale surveys serve to examine the theory. The findings sup-port the hypotheses partially and provide guidance for planning survey research and market-ing management strategies. Keywords: consumer plans, services, unplanned behavior,experience. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resume: La mise a` lessai dune theorie pour comparer les comportements touristiquesplanifies et realises. Cet article examine a` quel degre les projets pour faire, acheter et consom-mer des services discretionnaires du tourisme se rapportent a` ce que lon fait vraiment. Larti-cle utilise des donnees de niveau groupe et comprend une etude empirique des hypothe`sespour la comparaison des comportements de consommation projetee et reelle. Les principalespropositions qui sont mises a` lessai sont que les comportements de consommation realiseesont plus nombreux que ceux qui avaient ete projetes, et que le niveau de correspondanceentre les actions projetees et realisees varie en fonction des facteurs de contingence de lacomposition du groupe touristique, de lexperience du produit et des motivations. Des don-nees de deux sondages a` grande echelle servent pour examiner la theorie. Les resultats sout-iennent les hypothe`ses en partie et fournissent des conseils pour la planification desrecherches par sondage et des strategies de gestion de marketing. Mots-cles: projets de con-sommateurs, services, comportements imprevus, experience. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rightsreserved.

INTRODUCTION

Models of consumer behavior typically predict intention (or pur-chase decision) as the immediate antecedent of purchase (Engel,Blackwell and Miniard 1993; Howard and Sheth, 1969; Peter and OlsonVERSUSREALIZEDTOURISMBEHAVIOR

Roger MarchUniversity of New South Wales, Australia

Arch G. Woodside905

planned and actual behaviors. Previous research into intentions andconsumption overwhelmingly focuses on planned behaviors, or inten-

906 TOURISM BEHAVIORtions, and specifically with two aims: to improve the use of intentionmeasurement in its predictive power of future behavior and to influ-ence purchasing. Though a multitude of factors and situations interfereor constrain an individuals ability to act upon his or her intentions(Belk 1974, 1975; Filiatrault and Ritchie 1988), intention is still animportant construct found to relate significantly to actual behavior.

COMPARING INTENTIONS AND ACTUAL BEHAVIOR

The extant literature includes substantial empirical research into therelationship between planned purchases and actual consumption. Typ-ically, these studies aim to measure intentions for the purpose of pre-dicting future consumption behavior. The US government conductedstudies and experiments concerning purchase intentions between the40s and 70s (Young, DeSarbo, and Morwitz 1998). Many of these stud-ies report significant relationships between intentions to buy durablegoods and subsequent purchase, using various econometric modelson panel data (Juster 1966; Tobin 1959). Kalwani and Silk (1982) dem-onstrate that factors such as type of product, type of measurementscale, time from measurement of intent until actual behavior, and re-cency of the previous purchase influence the intention-behavior rela-tionship. Many studies examine the relationship between purchaseintentions and behaviors for durable goods (Clawson 1971; Ferberand Piskie 1965) and nondurable ones (Gormley 1974; Tauber 1975;Warshaw 1980). Young, DeSarbo and Morwitz conclude, Overall,based on empirical evidence, intentions appear to almost always pro-vide biased measures of purchase propensity, sometimes underestimat-1999). The resulting implication is that intention and subsequent con-sumption behavior are theoretically indistinguishable. Similarly, behav-iors available within a given environment that are unplanned,unintended, are not conceptualized in consumer behavior models.Foxall labels marketing theorys aversion to the study of unplannedand impulsive behavior as pathological (2000:93).

The present articles objective is to bridge this empirical gap andoffer insights into the similarities and differences between consumersplanned and actual purchase and consumption behaviors. The empir-ical research setting examined focuses on vacation destination behav-ior. Using a between subjects quasi-experiment (Cook and Campbell1979), the field study examines consumption behaviors that respon-dents plan to undertake, as reported in an entry survey to the destina-tion, and the behaviors undertaken, as reported in an exit survey to thesame destination. The study investigates several behaviors (length-of-stay, spending, and number of activities undertaken) and examineseffects of contingency influences (group composition, product experi-ence, and motivations) on the differences between planned and real-ized length-of-stay and spending.

The field study reported here is not the conventional approach to

MARCH AND WOODSIDE 907ing actual purchasing and other times overestimating actual purchas-ing (1998:189).

Studies often focus on the predictive powers and accuracy of inten-tions. Most models of consumer behavior incorporate intentions asan important predictor variable to forecast sales (Kalwani and Silk1982; Morwitz and Schmittlein 1992). Few distinctions are made be-tween buyer intentions and actions. Situational variables are used torationalize divergences between intentions and behavior. In the wordsof Juster, Purchases (actions) are directly related to (or predicted by)intentions, modified by the incidence of unforeseen circumstances(1964:66). This view remains both speculative and lacking in specif-icswhat unforseen circumstances affect intention-action gaps andthe effect size of such influences need examination. This article probesthe nature and size of such gaps as they relate to planning and doingtourism behavior.

Lynch and Srull (1982) offer one reason for the apparent lack ofinvestigation into the final stage in the consumer consumption pro-cess. In their view, consumer research primarily is phenomenon, as op-posed to theory, driven. For marketing practitioners, particularly inadvertising related fields, the predictive power of intentions to forecastfuture consumption behavior accurately has obvious commercial ap-peal. This view builds on the assumption that consumers both attend-ing to commercial messages and making plans have reciprocalinfluencesintentions are worthy of study because they reflect bene-fit-seeking behavior that would enable destination strategists to crafteffective communication messages (Woodside and Jacobs 1985). Con-sequently, examining consumers planned strategies offers uniquestrengths that relate especially to learning what brings tourists to adestination the first-time as well as the second and future visits.

The concept of unplanned behavior is one dimension of the issueregarding the relationship between intentions and actual behavior thathas been examined in marketing. Sterns (1962) seminal article pro-poses four categories of unplanned purchases: pure impulse buying,characterized by a total lack of preplanning; reminder impulse buying,whereby purchases are sparked by previous personal experience or re-call; suggestion impulse buying, where one sees the purchased productfor the first time and buys it; and planned impulse buying, typified by ashopper entering a store with some specific items in mind, but with theexpectation and intention of making other purchases dependent onsuch things as price and coupon specials. By the mid-80s, scholarsbegan to deconstruct the unplanned concept, and focus on its impulsedimension (Rook and Hoch 1985; Rook and Gardner 1993). Thoughan impulse purchase is unplanned, it is also includes substantial com-plexity in terms of antecedents, consequences, and subcategories of im-pulse behavior. Since the 80s an increasing number of scholars haveinformed these impulse buying issues (Agee and Martin 2001; Beattyand Ferrell 1998; Gardner and Rook 1987; Rook and Fisher 1995;Weun, Jones, and Beatty 1998). However, the characteristics and ante-cedents of unplanned behavior in the broader sense remainunexplored and unknown.

908 TOURISM BEHAVIORThe complexity of the unplanned concept needs explication.Behavior can be unplanned yet done, either in the form of impulsebuying (purchase of a chocolate bar at the supermarket check-outcounter) or unplanned purchases, when knowledge of and interac-tion with the task environment and time pressure combine to force adecision that otherwise would have been foregone (Bettman 1979).To complicate matters more, not all impulse buying may be totally un-planned. Rook and Hoch report that some people plan on beingimpulsive as a shopping strategy (1985:25). Cobb and Hoyer (1986)draw an interesting distinction between impulse and partial planners.While both cohorts appear to be impulse purchasers because theydelay brand decisions until entering the consumption environment,impulse planners act almost entirely in a spontaneous manner, whilepartial planners exhibit careful insite purchase behavior by engagingin detailed search and being price sensitive. Previous research intoplanned, unplanned, and actual consumption was done mainly insupermarkets (Bruce and Green 1991; Kollat and Willett 1967; Prasad1975) thus limiting the insights that can be generalized into non-super-market contexts.

Studies in the overall retailing sector, which includes malls as well assupermarkets, consistently report that a significant proportion of whatis actually purchased is not planned. Moreover, in findings of particu-lar relevance to leisure-destination research, the extent of unplannedbehavior increases under the following conditions: the more that theconsumption environment is unknown to the buyer (Bettman, Luce,and Payne 1998); when customers regard consumption outcomes aspositive (Bagozzi and Nataraajan 2000); when few constraints existon their time and effort (Kollat and Willett 1967); when multiple itemsare purchased, rather than just a few (Inman and Winer 1998; Kollatand Willett 1967); and when the overall transaction involves a large,rather than a small, amount of money (Prasad 1975). Thus, plannedversus realized strategy gaps are likely to be smaller versus largeramong consumers planning to stay only a few versus many nights ina destination; and among tourists on a limited expenditure budget.

A large number of studies into unplanned behavior and impulsebehavior quantify the extent of unplanned purchases. In contrast,few attempts have been made to quantify the differences in what isplanned and what is actually purchased. Abratt and Goodey found that41% of respondents reported that they had spent more than their ex-pressed spending intention. They suggest, the proposition that con-sumers tend to spend more than they planned may hold(1990:119). For a specific destination, it is important to learn whatactivities are planned much more than done (if any) versus those un-planned but done frequently (if any), and what the causes and conse-quences of such combinations are. Explicating a theory of planned andrealized strategies that helps to answer such issues is likely useful forguiding research and management practice.

The tourism literature includes several relevant studies for construct-ing a theory for explaining planned versus realized behavioral gaps.For example, Stewart and Vogt surveyed the same tourists prior to

MARCH AND WOODSIDE 909and during a vacation for a number of measures, including length-of-stay, activities, accommodation, and group composition. While theyfound that people tend to plan more activities than they actuate, thoseregarding length-of-stay, group, and transport mode were carried outas planned (1999:91). For at least two reasons these results must betreated with caution. First, significance tests were not applied. Second,the same respondents were interviewed, thus creating two methodolog-ical problems: self-generated validity, whereby respondents attempt tojustify their earlier expressed intentions (Feldman and Lynch 1988)and social desirability bias (Cobb and Hoyer 1986), in that impulseor unplanned purchasing is underestimated in a persons effort toappear rational and goal oriented.

Perdue (1986) touches upon the subject in an exploratory investiga-tion seeking to empirically verify the proposition that unplanned yetrealized behavior yields higher spending than the unplanned andunrealized. He reports that consumers who purchase a product notplanned for are likely to express satisfaction with it as a means of justi-fying the purchase to themselves and other members of their group.Ajzen and Driver (1992) use leisure activities as the research settingfor testing the theory of planned behavior. They found that the theoryis useful in predicting influences upon intentions and actual behaviorsfrom intentions. Their study has the limitation of being confined tocollege students and in being limited to five leisure activities. As Ajzenand Driver (1992) conclude, future research needs to examine otherrecreation activities and to use more accurate and valid reportingmeans. Here again, this report builds upon the previous work discussedby examining influences in a real tourism/leisure setting, with a largenumber of respondents and across a wide range of activities andexperiences.

In this context, existing models of consumer decisionmaking (How-ard and Sheth 1969) focus mostly on tangible products, rather thanintangible services in tourism. Its product is experiential with emotionalundertones whose decision process differs vastly from the rational,problem-solving scenario applied to many tangible goods. Mayo and Jar-vis (1981) argue that tourism is a special form of consumption behaviorinvolving an intangible, heterogeneous purchase of an experientialproduct. As a consequence, existing models omit important realities.Um and Crompton suggest, that perceptions of alternative destina-tions physical attributes in the awareness set . . . are susceptible tochange during the period of active solicitation of information stimu-lated by an intention to select a travel destination (1990:437).

Finally, several tourism researchers argue that the benefits realizedfrom a consumption experience may be more useful to understandthan the benefits that consumers say they intend to seek (Dann1981; Pearce and Caltabiano 1983; Shoemaker 1994; Woodside andJacobs 1983). The present report advances the proposition that learn-ing both benefits sought and plans made, as well as benefits realizedand activities done, provides valuable information for building tourismtheory of antecedents and consequences of such behavior. Researchthat investigates the process by which some intentions are actualized

for o-dati

planned and eventual behaviors (Gitelson and Crompton 1983).Leisure tourists, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in pre-

910 TOURISM BEHAVIORarrival planning by obtaining information, particularly if they arefirst-timers. Excitement and adventure seekers tend to look for moreinformation and undertake more activities (Gitelson and CromptonH1: Realized consumption behaviors are greater in number than planned for aset of customer activities related to a tourism consumption system.

Three contingencies common in consumer behavior and consump-tion plans are product experience, motivation, and in tourism, compo-sition of the group. These were incorporated into the model asmoderating variables acting upon planned and realized behaviors.First, product experience is critical when studying the dynamic choiceprocesses of consumers new to a market (Heilman, Bowman andWright 2000). Experience, which is the accumulation of routine andhabitual buyer behavior, allows for purposive and intelligent behaviorwithout deliberation (Katona 1975). Tourists who vacation at the sameplace regularly are likely to engage in little pre-arrival planning, relyinginstead on their accumulated knowledge and experience from previ-ous visits (Fodness and Murray 1999).

Second, motivations underlying a leisure trip are likely to have signif-icant influences on behavior (Morrison 1996). Tourists visiting friendsor relatives are more likely to rely on the advice of their hosts, less likelyto use product information, and thus more likely to deviate betweentwo weeks might trigger a search for places to visit and accommons.behavior and convincingly explains the influences resulting in un-planned as well as planned behaviors is likely to make a valuable con-tribution to the advancement of knowledge in the field of tourism.

Exploring Consumer Plans and Behaviors

The two hypotheses (as well as their rationales) relating planned andactual behaviors focus on behavior within consumers tourismconsumption systems (Becken and Gnoth 2004; Woodside and Dube-laar 2002). A tourism consumption system is the set of relatedthoughts, decisions, and behaviors by a discretionary tourist prior to,during, and following a trip. The central proposition in a theory of[tourism consumption system] is that the thoughts, decisions, andbehaviors regarding one activity influence the thoughts, decisions,and behaviors for a number of other activities (Woodside and Dube-laar 2002: 120). The concept is similar but still distinct from Solomonsnotion of consumption constellations. The latter are sets of prod-ucts and activities used by consumers to define, communicate, and per-form social roles (Solomon 1999:562). Distinct from this concept, atourism consumption system implies the likelihood of a contingentcausal chain of observable activities before and during discretionarytravel, for example, the decision by a Canadian couple to visit France

function of the following contingency factors: group composition, product expe-rience, and motivations.

Rese

MARCH AND WOODSIDE 911Two large-scale data files, from the 1992 face-to-face entry and exitsurveys to Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, were used to investigatethe research questions. The entry survey consisted of 2,239 individualinterviews and the exit survey 2,362. The long-interview method(McCracken 1988) was employed for both data sets. The surveys wereundertaken by the Marketing Agency (a PEI government-sponsoredorganization). While the data were collected over a decade ago, theyprovide a rare ability for comparing planned versus realized tourismbehavior. Heretofore, the two data sets have never been used in a singleresearch project. The only previous use was a government descriptivereport profiling tourists demographics, attitudes, and behaviors (Mar-keting Agency 1993) and a study using only the exit interviews on theimpact of PEIs 1992 advertising campaign on attitudes, behaviors,and expenditures (Woodside, Trappey and MacDonald 1997). The datawere collected using 13-page entry and 12-page exit questionnaires.

The interviews were completed during the peak tourism season (May22 to October 5, 1992), a period when over 95% of leisure tourists visitPEI. The questionnaire was administered at all points of entry and exit(ferry, airports, and cruise ships) in matching proportions to total tripvisits for each travel mode. Over 93% of all tourists to PEI arrive by oneof two ferries; 6% via the airport and 1% via cruiseships. The interviewsarch Method1983). Hence, their planned behavior is more likely to approximatetheir eventual behavior.

Third, in the general marketing environment, the social setting(presence or absence of others) that characterizes the consumptionof a product or service influences both planned and actual behaviors,as it does other consumer behavior (Stayman and Deshplande 1989).Fisher (2001) finds that greater collaboration led to higher decisionquality and smaller deviations between consumers planned and actualexpenditures. In leisure settings, the composition of the group heavilyinfluences the behavior of its members (McIntosh and Goeldner1990). Leisure tourism is a product that is jointly consumed, and itsactivities reflect direct and indirect influences of all group members(Chadwick 1987). This phenomenon is noticeable particularly whenchildren are present (or absent). Taking children to a destinationlikely requires greater planning and forethought than is required bycouples or tourists going without. Therefore, groups with childrenare likely to plan their trip itinerary prior to, rather than after, arrivalin the destination (Fodness and Murray 1999). Further, larger groupscomprising friends will require greater coordination in order to meetdifferential needs than will couples or individuals.

H2: The level of matching between planned and realized actions varies as a

from the two surveys. A quasi-experiment between-groups research de-sign was made possible from the use of the two data sets (Cook and

912 TOURISM BEHAVIORCampbell 1979); this procedure ensures that the same participantsbeing asked earlier planning questions do not sensitize responses inthe second data set. Interviewing the same people twice (at the startand end of their visits to PEI) likely would have increased their aware-ness, intentions, and behaviors toward PEI attractions, activities, anddestinations. The two data sets allow quantification of planned and un-planned behavior by tourists entering PEI and actual or unrealizedbehavior by those leaving.

Study Findings

The great majority of tourism decisions are likely made while consid-ering issues related to temporal and financial affordability: whethertourists can afford to take time off; how much they can afford to spend;which destination option best fits within their time constraints; whichdestination option best fits within their financial budget constraints;and when trade-offs are necessary, what choice heuristics should applyin selecting among destination options being considered.

While the time a tourist allocates to a vacation is generally fixed (as isconfirmed below), the amount of money set aside for vacation pur-poses is more flexible. Or put another way, while most people have apredetermined number of days they will or can be away from home,the number of consumers with a specific monetary amount (say,$1,500 for discretionary spending on non-essential items) is likely tobe much smaller. As found in the entry survey, more than one in three(37%) did not state a specific budget for their trip. It is unlikely that allthe respondents who provided a monetary figure had that exact figurein mind beforehand. Consumers are likely to have a ballpark figurewere conducted at ferry wharves prior to boarding, at the provincesmajor airport near Charlottetown, and on board selected cruiseships.At the time of study, no fixed-link (bridge) existed connectingPEI to the North American mainland.

A team of nine interviewers worked on three-day-on, two-day-offschedules to ensure that weekdays and weekends were covered ade-quately. Respondents in the exit interviews were screened so as to leaveout those participating in the entry interviews a second time. A quotasampling procedure was used to insure that the proportions of respon-dents from Canada, United States and Europe matched the populationof tourists from these three origins: 65% of completed interviews werewith Canadians; 31% from the United States; two-thirds of PEI leisuretourists were estimated previously to be Canadian and about 30% wereestimated previous to the study to be Americans. The overall coopera-tion/completion rate for the exit questionnaire was 94%. Due mainlyto some nonresponses to some of the questions, the usable numberto test the propositions was close to 88% of the completed interviews.

The analytical approach is exploratory and empirical. Group-levelanalyses (Bass, Tigert and Lonsdale 1968) were performed on data

MARCH AND WOODSIDE 913only in mind when considering the financial limits on spending priorto departure and in the destination.

Nevertheless, among the respondents who could provide a monetaryfigure for spending, significant differences occurred between theplanned budget for, and final trip expenditure, on PEI. Spending in-creased from an average stated budget of $388 per respondent(n = 1,231; s.d. = 408) to $505 (n = 2,105; s.d. = 576) for stated spend-ing in the exit survey (p = .001). Overall, the average reported spendingbehavior is 30% higher than planned spending. Since realized spend-ing was significantly greater than planned, this finding supportshypothesis one.Planned and Reported Length-of-Stay. Planned length, expressed in

terms of number of overnight stays, was 3.7 nights (n = 2,341;s.d. = 5.5), compared to the reported realized average number of 4.2(n = 2,138; s.d. = 4.9, p < .001). Expressed as a percentage, the differ-ence between planned and reported length-of-stay behavior is 15%.The significantly greater realized length-of-stay compared to theplanned supports hypothesis one.

What might account for the greater increase in spending moremoney than time for the planned versus realized strategies? Some view-points from prior research help to answer this question. For example,Stewart and Vogt (1999), comparing planned versus actual length-of-stay, found that the greatest concordance was in the 7+ day category,in which 90% of respondents who planned to stay that many or moredays actually stayed that length of time. They conclude with the follow-ing self-evident truth, If visitors changed plans, they were more likelyto lengthen than shorten their stay. . . Tourists can be confronted witha number of compelling reasons to shorten their holidays, such asweather, illness, issues at home, or sheer boredom. Any compulsionto stay longer must be accompanied by the capacity to extend theirstay.

Time is much less transferable and substitutable than, for example,money (Leclerc, Schmitt and Dube 1994). If a taxi costs $50 more thanexpected, consumption can be reduced in other areas to cover the loss.But if the taxi ride from the airport takes an hour longer than ex-pected, this may be difficult to recoup. Conversely, time saved cannotbe stored and used later, and hence is less attractive than money saved.Individuals will spend substantially more money than planned, but areunwilling or unable to substantially increase the amount of time spentin the destination. One simple explanation could be that time is lessflexible than money, and that consumers are always more likely to en-gage in more unplanned spending than extend the amount of timeallocated to the particular task.Planned and Realized Activities. Respondents were queried about their

intention and consumption of 13 leisure activities. Table 1 ranks theplanned activities, ranging from the most popular, sightseeing (81%stating they intended to do sightseeing), to the least popular, nightlife(5%). (Respondents were asked to name their intended activities intwo unaided stages: first, What do you intend to do, while on theIsland? and, after naming one activity the respondent was asked

914 TOURISM BEHAVIORAnything else?). The particularly large increases in done versusplanned behaviors found in Table 1 may reflect that doing certainactivities occurs because of their availability rather than tourists plans.For example, antique and handicraft outlets are widespread through-out PEI.

Table 2 compares the differences between the planned and reportedactivities. It orders the activities by the magnitude of increase betweenplanned and reported behaviors. It was hypothesized that vacationersactually engage in a greater number of activities than they plan to, be-cause they often find themselves in destination situations that includeconvenient-to-do and previously unknown attractions/activities. Anindependent-samples t-test was applied after recoding and combiningthe data from the entry and exit surveys. The mean for intended attrac-tions in the entry survey was 2.7 (s.d. = 2.7), compared to a mean of 6.1

Table 1. Comparison of Planned and Realized Activities

Activity Planned %(n = 2,131)

Done %(n = 2,239)

Chi-square p