GROUNDED THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL TOURISM BEHAVIOR

Abstract

The dominant logic in conventional research methods involves collecting and analyzing data to rigorously test a deductive theory. In contrast, grounded theory posits constructing theory from data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This analysis demonstrates the application of McCracken's (1988) long interview method to collect data for grounded theory development. Both emic (self) and etic (researcher) interpretations of international visitor experiences uncover important insights on leisure travel decisions and tourist behavior. Long interviews of tourists visiting Hawaii's Big Island enable mapping and comparing visitors' plans, motivations, decisions, and consequences. The results demonstrate the complexity of visitors' travel decisions and behavior.

Keywords:

• International tourism behavior
• Japan
• Germany
• Hawaii
• grounded theory long interview method

GROUNDED THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL TOURISM BEHAVIOR

Understanding international leisure travel behavior is challenging due to the number of variables influencing travelers' decisions, behaviors, and interpretations of trip outcomes. These variables include both past experiences and external stimuli. To interpret traveler experiences, a holistic approach is useful. Grounded theory development typically includes holistic thick descriptions of behavior processes (Geertz, 1973; Glazer & Strauss, 1967). These descriptions provide an opportunity to collect both emic (informant own) and etic (researcher) interpretations of the informant lived experiences and plans.

While etic reporting captures important insights on behavior (e.g., Arnould & Price, 1993; Belk & Costa, 1998), etic reports in concert with emic interpretations allow researchers a rich method of capturing the complexities and nuances of leisure travel experiences. Consumer (e.g., international visitor) self‐reporting of lived experiences provides insights on both motivations and behavior. The present study shows how grounded theory is useful for achieving deep understanding of international leisure travel decisions and tourism behaviors. Employing McCracken's (1988) long interview method, personal, face‐to‐face interviews of travel parties provide insights on foreign visitors' planning processes, motivations, and experiences while visiting Hawaii's Big Island (BI) in the State of Hawaii, USA.

Why select international tourism to the BI for grounded theory research? The international export tourism industry (visitors' expenditures in BI) is vital to area's economy, employment, and quality of life—constituting about 35 percent of the total visitor population to the BI; the BI export tourism industry accounts directly and indirectly for two‐thirds of its economic activity (HVCB, 2006). International market research describing and increasing understanding of visitor behavior is important for planning marketing strategies that nurture this vital industry and helps to justify specific international marketing plans. The present article serves an exemplar for building grounded theory research of other destinations having major international export industry profiles (e.g., Hong Kong, Singapore, Prince Edward Island, Chios, and Sicily).

This study's findings support the core proposition that grounded theory enables useful mapping and description of flows of thoughts, decisions, events, and outcomes within specific contexts in leisure travel (Woodside, MacDonald, & Burford, 2004). From the data, streams of processing and behaviors surface showing relationships among: (a) antecedent‐to‐trip conditions, (b) trip planning strategies, (c) destination activities‐outcomes, and (d) outcome evaluations. The results include gestalt understandings of conscious and unconscious thinking and behaviors (cf., Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee‐Chai, Barndollar, & Troetschel, 2001). The findings provide nuances on key activities and events affecting traveler's selection of BI as a destination.

GROUNDED THEORY CONSTRUCTION OF TOURISM BEHAVIOR

Unlike most research, grounded theory is emergent explicitly. Grounded theory does not test a hypothesis; instead, this approach sets out to find what theory accounts for the research situation. Grounded theory is action research— the aim is to understand the research situation. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), grounded theory's aim is to discover the theory implicit in the data. Glaser (1978) suggests two main criteria for judging the adequacy of the emerging theory: that it fits the situation; and that it works— that it helps the people in the situation to make sense of their experience and to manage the situation better (Dick, 2000). Some evidence suggests that collecting information in narratives is consistent with the way consumers remember and process information (e.g., Adaval & Wyer, 1998; Mattila, 2000). Allowing the respondents to tell the story in their own words offers insights that may not be captured by structured survey methods.

Previous studies about tourist purchase consumption systems provide guidance for grounded theory construction of tourist behavior (Woodside & Dubelaar, 2002; Woodside & King, 2001; Woodside et al., 2004). Purchase decisions are a sequence of mental and observable steps undertaken by consumers to buy and use products. Often these acquisitions lead to a purchase sequence involving other products. Qualitative comparative analysis (see Becker, 1998; Ragin, 1987) is relevant for creating useful typologies of trip decisions. Central to consumption decisions is the proposition that prior purchases and experiences (e.g., on‐site destination activities) trigger later purchase.

One study examines the decision process and doing‐behaviors of BI visitors (Woodside & King, 2001). This study has useful conclusions for policy and positioning decision; however, Woodside and King do not include in‐depth reporting at the individual visit level. Their results imply but do not validate that grounded theory construction needs to capture the emic holistic view of individual‐level causes and consequences of processes in tourism behavior. Woodside and Dubelaar (2002) provide guidance for describing how specific nuances in destination‐area behaviors affect other behaviors. Their study provides a variable‐level analysis, two variables at a time, and thus a deep understanding of complete decisions and flows at the individual level is not possible.

Finally, Woodside et al. (2004) use thick descriptions to describe complex destination behaviors. They provide evidence that multiple dependent variables influence travelers' thoughts and actions. As their study is a case study of visitors to Canada's Prince Edward Island, the results need cautious interpretation. Additional testing of the propositions is necessary for learning whether or not the conclusions for building theory are location‐specific.

figure 1 displays nine issues relevant for grounded theory construction of flows of decisions and behaviors. The focus is on destination choices such as antecedents and consequences of implementing the decision. Although not displayed in figure 1, other tourism foci for grounded theory construction include decisions about mode/route, accommodations, dining‐out, and participation in specific events or activities.

short-legendFigure 1

Grounded Theory Propositions

In figure 1, the arrows represent propositions relevant to develop grounded theory and to construct guiding questions for thick descriptions of visitors' behavior. Following Woodside et al. (2004), figure 1 provides a template of topics covered during the long interview process rather than a list for variable‐based analysis. Proposition 1 (P₁), (box 1 to 2 in figure 1), suggests the demographics and lifestyles of visitors affect how they frame leisure choices (see McGuiggan & Foo, 2004; Sellick, 2004). For example, a family with a 3‐year‐old child would consider leisure travel alternatives with age‐appropriate activities for their child. Does the destination have a protected, shallow lagoon with a sandy beach?

Proposition 2 (P₂), (box 3 to 2), implies unexpected or unplanned events occur that may or may not affect the framing of leisure choices. A television advertisement promoting a destination triggers initial thoughts about planning a visit. The advertisement represents a catalyst for collecting information, or an affirmation that a specific destination should be top of mind. Thoughts triggered by ad exposure are necessary, but not sufficient motivation to visit.

Proposition 3 (P₃), (box 4 to 2), proposes external and internal personal influences affect the framing of leisure choices. For example, comments by friends about positive experiences while visiting Hawaii might be retrieved from memory during the framing of leisure choices. Proposition 4 (P₄), (box 2 to 5), includes features and benefits in framing leisure choices affecting the destination choice. For example, an opportunity to visit a coffee plantation on BI may tip the balance when a traveler must choose between a visit to Oahu and BI. Proposition 5 (P₅), (box 3 to 5), states that information collected for framing and trip planning affects the process of selecting and rejecting destination alternatives. The external stimuli affected both the framing of leisure choices (P₂) and are retrieved to influence the final destination choice.

Proposition 6 (P₆), (box 4 to 5), asserts that friends' opinions and thoughts retrieved from memory influence the selection or rejection of destination alternatives. The importance of reference group influence on leisure trip planning is noted in a recent study (Hsu, Kang, & Lam, 2006). Given the influence of reference groups on consumer purchasing behavior, the retrieval of previous reference group encounters also is likely to influence the destination choice. Proposition 7 (P₇), (box 5 to 6), contends key activity drivers help solidify the decision to visit the destination selected. Examples of key activity drivers include concrete plans and pre‐trip actions (e.g., bookings) regarding a visit to a specific destination.

Proposition 8 (P₈), (box 6 to 7), claims that key activity drivers affect what is planned and done in a destination. Box 7 notes that leisure activities can be categorized into four quadrants: planned‐done; planned‐undone; unplanned‐done; and unplanned‐undone. Planned‐done activities typically are key activity drivers. Visitors' decisions to choose a destination are influence by planned participation in these activities. Data in this quadrant are useful for designing destination attractions and creating positioning statements. Since many travelers do not engage in in‐depth planning (Fodness & Murray, 1999), unplanned‐done activities may represent the largest share of leisure time pursuits done by visitors. Planned‐undone activities may be the result of loss of interest, an unexpected situational contingency, or the result of a tradeoff/replacement with a more desirable activity. Finally, unplanned‐undone activities are when an activity is a possibility; however, the visitor does not plan nor engage in the pursuit. A visitor may have an awareness of an activity (e.g., parasailing), but he does not have an interest.

Proposition 9 (P₉), (box 8 to 7) proposes that visitors learn about events and activities while visiting. Exposure to the destination serves as a catalyst for affecting behavior. This behavior is consistent with Weick's (1995) contention that visitors sometimes only think about involvement in an activity after seeing it. Finally, Proposition 10 (P₁₀), (box 7 to 9), concludes that activities done (and not done) affect much of the attitude and intention consequences resulting from, and associating with, visiting a destination. In other words, visitor experiences that result in specific outcomes are the antecedents to a good or bad trip (see Frazer, 1991).

METHOD

A field study was designed to examine the propositions. The field study includes 60‐ to 90‐minute, in‐situ interviews using an 18‐page questionnaire. The survey instrument was structured to provide latitude for interviewers to ask probing or follow‐up questions in the event that unexpected issues or experiences surfaced during the interview process.

Informants and Procedure

Informants were tourists visiting BI in July 2006. Both first‐time and repeat visitors participated. In the case of first‐time visitors, care was taken to assure informants were interviewed at the end of their visits. Informant selection was by convenience sampling. Prospective informants were approached and prescreened with general questions about their visit and whether they would be willing to participate in an interview. Most interviews were conducted at Kailua‐Kona (a resort city located on the west side of BI) in hotels, or at a tourist shopping mall located at the Waikoloa resort area—20 miles north of Kailua‐Kona. Japanese tourists were interviewed in their native language by bilingual researchers. Each informant received 50 USD and a Hawaii‐themed t‐shirt for their cooperation.

The questionnaire includes questions asking for: (a) demographic information about members of the traveling party, (b) pretrip planning and sources of information, (c) activities and destinations— both planned and unplanned, (d) issues surrounding flights, (e.g., accommodations), (e) eating and dining experiences, and (f) overall impressions of the travel experience. Informants were told that their compensation was not dependent on answering all the questions, and they could end the interview at any time. On average, an interview's duration was about 80 minutes. Nearly all questions were answered by all the informants. Nine interviews were conducted. Written, thick descriptions were completed for each informant. Each case study report was read and revised by the research team.

FINDINGS

The discussion of findings builds first from individual case study analyses. Three of the nine interviews are presented to represent different tourism demographic groups. Given the detail of information the interviews uncovered, this sample size is consistent with McCracken's (1988) recommendations. Following the presentation of these findings, the discussion shifts to presenting findings from a comparative analysis of the case studies.

A Couple from Bonn, Germany Visits Hawaii for the First Time

This case study is of a husband and wife from Bonn, Germany, visiting the State of Hawaii for 3 weeks (July 2006). figure 2 maps details of the interview. The following discussion offers highlights and insights relating to this long interview.

short-legendFigure 2

Helmut is in his early 60s and works full‐time as a professional scientist (PhD in physics); Ingrid is in her late 50s and manages their home full‐time which includes three children (17‐ , 18‐ , and 21‐years old). While visiting Hawaii, the couple kept in daily contact by telephone with their children back home in Bonn. This trip signifies the first time that the couple believed that all three children were old enough for them to stay home alone.

Interview Site/Day

The couple was interviewed at the Kona Seaside Hotel's pool. The 90‐minute face‐to‐face interview was conducted on July 22, 2006— the couple's last day on BI. The interview was conducted in English. Both husband and wife answered the questions.

Trip Decisions for the Total Trip

Ingrid was reluctant to fly directly to BI. She wanted to visit someplace on the U.S. mainland during the trip. The husband suggested a visit to San Diego. A San Diego stopover also serves the couple by partially overcoming jet lag before visiting Hawaii.

The couple was unwilling to travel away from home as a couple until the children were old enough to manage for themselves alone and unsupervised at home. Helmut and Ingrid planned their trip with the final 4 days away being in Honolulu. This schedule allowed for the contingency of cutting the trip short a few days if they sensed the children needed their early return home. Each day, the couple telephoned the children during the 3‐week trip.

Trip Planning and Visit Issues

Helmut's accumulation of frequent flyer points in Delta Airlines loyalty program became an enabling step toward transforming the dream into reality. Airline award points were accumulated due to business trips over the past 20 years. The couple waited to accumulate enough points for two first‐class round‐trip tickets.

Trip planning was limited to booking flights and accommodations. Online comparative shopping was used for booking accommodations and car rental. The budget‐priced Kona Seaside hotel was chosen for accommodations because they wanted to avoid paying $200 per night for a hotel. While the hotel was a bit run‐down (e.g., the elevator did not work) and the room lacked amenities (e.g., no coffee maker), the couple did not have high expectations because of the low price ($80 per night).

Also, an Avis rental car was booked on the internet. The car rental was attractive because they preferred to keep their trip unstructured. As with the hotel booking, the couple chose the car rental company with the lowest price. One disappointment in the car rental was that the signal lights did not work properly.

Activities and Attractions Visited

The couple listed a number of activities and attractions that they visited during their stay. First, they visited their principle attraction, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. One day was spent touring the Park. Although the lava tubes were impressive, the couple was disappointed because they did not see spectacular lava flows. Unplanned activities included a one‐day driving tour with a stop in Hilo, strolling around Kailua‐Kona, and an afternoon snorkeling/swimming at a Kailua‐Kona beach.

Motives for the trip

Helmut reported that he always has wanted to visit the Big Island (BI) because of the volcanoes. He reported learning about Hawaii and its volcanoes in the general media over many years. His training and work history in physics likely affected his vigilance toward media reports on the BI over earlier decades in his life. Helmut noted that his wife was agreeable to visit the destination, but BI was his dream rather than hers.

Summary

Indirect factors (e.g., news stories and novels) influenced this couple's decision to visit BI. For 20 years, the husband consciously and unconsciously thought about visiting Hawaii to see volcanoes and lava flows. Surprisingly, little effort was made to learn about BI before arriving. Most of their activities were unplanned. Although the couple was satisfied with their experience, they did not display positive emotions when describing their experiences. Either the lack of spectacular lava flows at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, or the thought of leaving their children at home may have affected their ability to enjoy the experience.

Japanese Family from Toyota, Japan Visits BI Again

For the last 12 years, Eiji has visited Hawaii annually. The current trip is unique because of visit's duration. Having worked for his employer for 20 years, Eiji was entitled to take a 1‐month vacation. His extended Hawaiian holiday was split between Kauai (2 weeks), Oahu (10 days), and BI (1 week). The data in figure 3 apply to Eiji's trip. Last year, the family visited BI, but they only stayed for 3 days.

short-legendFigure 3

Eiji and his wife are in their mid‐30s, and their two sons aged 8‐ and 10‐years old. Eiji works for an automobile manufacturer; his wife is a homemaker. He answered most of the questions, but his wife made comments as well. The family resides in Toyota City in Japan.

Interview Site/Day

Eiji was interviewed at the Kings' Shops located in the Waikoloa resort. He had just finished eating lunch at Merriman's Café. The interview was held in the property manager's office during the afternoon of July 23, 2006. They had arrived from Japan the previous at day, so the family was tired. Eiji's wife and children were present for about half of the interview.

Trip Decisions for the Total Trip

Trip planning began one year before departure. Eiji and his wife began gathering information for their next visit after the family returned from their previous trip to Hawaii. Since Eiji always had planned to spend his 20‐year employment holiday in Hawaii, pre‐trip planning started years earlier. Pretrip planning included reading a number of guide books, talking to family, friends, and co‐workers, and online information searches. Eiji mentioned Chikyo no Arukikata: Big Island [How to Travel the Globe: Big Island] as a useful book for planning purposes. Also, he was a frequent visitor to a Japanese web site called “I Love Hawaii.”

BI Planning and Visit Issues

Japan Airlines (JAL) mileage awards from previous trips had accumulated to reach the threshold for a free air ticket. Flight arrangements for the free ticket were made online. The other tickets were booked through the travel agent he always uses. Eiji commented that the airline personnel were not very efficient in serving food and drinks to passengers.

At the “I Love Hawaii” website, Eiji found a very favorable rate for renting a condominium called “The Shores.” Having been to Kona before, Eiji was familiar with this property, but the high price prevented him from making reservations previously. The family was delighted to stay in a nice condominium. Eiji's only misgiving about the accommodation is the lack of ocean view from the room.

To visit various parts of BI, Eiji rented a car. He chose Alamo car rental because of a price discount. JCB, a Japanese credit card company, was running its “Bonus Campaign” promotion. Cardholders were entitled to a discount on Alamo car rental rates. Eiji contacted his local Alamo representative by telephone to make car rental reservations. Overall, the rental car met his expectations.

Activities, Attractions and Motives

The interview took place early in Eiji's visit to BI. Still, Eiji had definite plans on the places that they were going to visit. These locations can be categorized into ocean/beaches, inland nature (volcano and waterfall), and astronomy‐related destinations (e.g., Imiloa Astronomy Center). In addition, the family was going to visit a coffee farm to gather information for the older son's summer school project. To buy omiyagi (gifts for friends), Eiji was going to visit Big Island Candy and the Prince Kuhio shopping mall in Hilo.

Eiji's strong attachment to Hawaii is evident from his words, “I cannot stop thinking about Hawaii.” Days after returning from his previous visit, Eiji had contacted his travel agent to make reservations for his next trip. Perhaps these annual excursions help him to cope with his structured life in Japan. The lure of white sand beaches and palm tree creates a fantasy world that he looks forward to annually.

Summary

Eiji and his family are regular visitors to Hawaii. Typically, he purchases a package tour and stays for 1 week. Eiji's current trip is a departure from his usual tourist behavior. Because of his 20‐year employment anniversary, Eiji was able to spend more time in Hawaii. His activities on BI and other Hawaiian islands suggest interests in both natural beauty and scientific discovery. BI offers these opportunities and should continue to provide a strong incentive for annual visits.

American Couple, 50s, First‐Time Visit

Dave is a banker from a small town in Georgia. He visited Hawaii in July 2006 with his wife. They spent a total 6 days on BI. The trip's purpose was to attend the annual convention for the Community Banker's Association of Georgia. Neither Dave nor his wife previously visited Hawaii. The couple extended their stay an extra 2 days in order to see as much of the island as possible, and so the wife could shop.

Trip preplanning was coordinated by the Association's official travel agent. Dave's only pretrip decisions included the length of stay, and whether or not to rent a car. This visit was work‐related, so most expenses were paid by Dave's employer. figure 4 shows the external influences and outcomes of Dave's visit to BI.

short-legendFigure 4

Description of the Family Visiting BI

Dave and his wife are in their mid‐50s. They have grown children that did not accompany them on the trip. Dave is employed full‐time, his wife is a homemaker. Traveling by chartered flight, their group included representatives of 300 bank and 200 associate members of the Community Banking Association of Georgia (CBA, 2006).

Interview Site/Day

Dave was interviewed at the Kings' Shops located in the Waikoloa resort. He was patiently sitting on a bench at the shopping center while his wife was shopping. The interview was held in the afternoon of July 23, 2006. This day was Dave's last one in Hawaii. His chartered flight was scheduled to depart for home that evening (11:00 p.m.).

Trip Decisions for Total Trip

Dave's primary decision was whether or not to attend the convention. The Community Banking Association of Georgia decided the convention's time and location. Dave was a reluctant traveler for a number of reasons. First, he was not happy about the 12‐hour flight from Atlanta. Also, the flights were scheduled for evening departures. Dave did not look forward to all‐night flights. Finally, he is an outdoorsman that enjoys hunting, fishing, and golf. Dave perceived that BI does not offer these leisure activities. If Dave did not attend the convention, he would wait until next year's event.

BI Planning Issues

Air transportation and lodging were scheduled by the Association's travel agent. Once Dave decided to attend the convention, he had decisions concerning the length of his stay and whether or not to rent an automobile. Two chartered flights were scheduled. Dave opted to extend his visit by choosing the flight arriving 2 days early. According to Dave, the early arrival was chosen to allow time for shopping. The decision to rent an automobile was automatic after he had decided to attend the convention. Dave wanted a car so that he could see as much of the island as possible. The car rental booking process was not extensive. Car rental was made by online booking through Alamo.

Neither Dave nor his wife read travel or guide books about BI prior to their arrival. Dave did talk with family members about their trip. Several of Dave's siblings previously visited Hawaii; however, they had not been to BI. Dave's family provided information about Hawaii that created a distorted picture of BI. When Dave arrived in Kona, he was surprised to see expansive fields of black lava. He envisioned the entire Kona coast to be white sand beaches and palm trees.

BI Visit Issues

Dave did not choose the hotel. All convention attendees stayed at the Fairmont Orchid. Although the travel agent chose the hotel, Dave did see a brochure of the hotel before his arrival. The brochure's pictures gave Dave the impression that the Fairmont Orchid is an upscale hotel. Dave's overall impression of the Fairmont Orchid was consistent with his expectations.

When Dave arrived at BI, he discovered that the car rental agreement required the return of his vehicle 4 hours before his departing flight. Much to his surprise, the rental agent accommodated Dave's schedule by letting him keep the vehicle for an additional 4 hours. The rental car allowance of 4 extra hours left a strong, favorable impression upon Dave. He was delighted to get 4 more hours of touring that otherwise would have been spent at the airport.

Activities and Attractions Visited

With the exception of attending the convention, Dave did not plan to visit any specific attractions. To see as much as possible, Dave and his wife drove around the island. To assist with his touring, Dave used brochures available at the hotel to guide him. In 2 days of touring, he managed to see a considerable amount of BI. Also, the attractions he visited varied considerably and included state and national parks, beaches, museums, towns, and various shopping centers (see figure 3). He mentioned two activities—visiting Volcano National Park and seeing sea turtles—as his most memorable experiences.

Eating Places

Overall, Dave noted nothing unusual or surprising concerning his dining experience on BI. Specifically, he mentioned that the food at Edelweiss, Tommy Bahamas, and the Volcano Restaurant Hotel was very good. All three of these businesses are upscale restaurants on BI, so this assessment is not surprising. Other meals were served in concert with the convention.

Motives for the Trip

Dave stated that his primary motivation for visiting BI was to attend a convention. The trip was extended 2 days for shopping and sightseeing activities, so there appears to be more than one motivation for visiting BI. Undoubtedly, pretrip discussions with family members that had visited Hawaii had a strong influence as well.

Summary

The Community Banker's Association of Georgia's annual convention in Kona created an opportunity for Dave and his wife to visit BI. Although the prospect of an overnight, 12‐hour airplane flight was a negative influence on the decision, input by family members that previously visited Hawaii overcame that obstacle. Once here, Dave was a bit surprised by the flows of volcanic rock because he expected to see white sand beaches and palm trees. After spending a few days traveling, Dave remarked favorably about BI's unique natural beauty. Given the choice of visiting BI or another destination, he would choose to return to BI because it is fun and educational.

How the Propositions Apply to International Tourism Behavior

The case studies provide evidence to support all ten grounded theory propositions; however, the level of support varies. Support for Proposition 1—demographics and lifestyles of visitors influence how they frame leisure choices—can be found in each case. All three families sought educational experiences in their visit. While Eiji, the repeat visitor, wanted to expose his two sons to BI, the German and American couples were first‐time visitors. Helmut's education and work experience was a foundation for his interest in volcanoes. Dave required nice accommodations because he is at a stage in life where comfort is important.

The evidence also supports Proposition 2—unexpected or unplanned events affect the framing of leisure choices. Eiji's visits to a web site about Hawaii shows how preplanning can affect the framing of leisure choices. Eiji consulted travel agents and guide books to gather preplanning information. Helmut's exposure to news stories about the BI served as a catalyst for saving frequent flier mileage to visit BI. Finally, Dave's organization chose BI as the location of their annual meeting. If Dave had been the decision maker, the meeting would have been held much closer to Georgia.

Proposition 3 receives strong support. Both internal and external personal influences affected the framing of the trip to BI. Eiji talks with everyone about Hawaii. He thinks about Hawaii all the time. The German couple's external influences were primarily passive. Hawaii's presence in the news media and in the popular press, movies, short stories, and novels had a long‐time future impact for their choice of leisure destination. Talking with family members and tapping his subconscious imagery of Hawaii, Dave expected Kona to have white sand beaches and palm trees. Consequently, such case studies support the proposition that public relations programs encouraging such story‐reporting are effective and necessary.

All three cases show evidence that features and benefits in framing leisure choices affect destination choice (proposition 4). Dave's decision was whether to take the trip or wait until next year's meeting. The long airplane flight weighed heavily against the trip; however, the opportunity to stay 2 extra days for shopping and sightseeing tipped the balance in favor of the trip. Both Eiji and Helmut had to decide whether to split time between BI and other islands. The implication is that BI is unlikely to be a stand‐alone destination for visitors to the State of Hawaii. Cooperative marketing programs across several islands and State‐wide information brochures are likely to be more effective in influencing first‐time visits.

Supporting proposition 5, the results show how information collected in the preframing and pre‐planning phase also affects destination choice. These preframing activities had a profound effect on the decisions to visit BI. All three families used the internet and travel agents to search for accommodations and transportation.

External influences also influenced the destination choice as proposed in proposition 6. Eiji's previous twelve trips to Hawaii gave him a rich set of memories to influence his destination choice. Helmut had thought about visiting BI for over 20 years. Dave was a bit reluctant to visit, but he enjoys the meeting's networking opportunities. Also, Dave's siblings previously visited Oahu; they reported positive experiences.

According to proposition 7, once the destination has been selected, key activity drivers affect the decision to visit the destination. Evidence from each case supports proposition 7. All three families reserved rental cars for their trips. Also, Eiji and Helmut made plans to accommodate their frequent mileage membership the airlines.

Proposition 8 contends that the key activity drivers affect what is planned and done at the destination. Two cases provide strong evidence of activity driver influence. Eiji's 1‐month vacation provided an opportunity to participate in many activities not possible during his typical 1‐week vacation. Helmut was so obsessed with visiting Hawaii Volcanoes National Park that he saved 20 years of airline mileage rewards.

Strong support for proposition 9 is found. Information and events learned while visiting affected plans and behaviors. Eiji planned to eat Japanese cuisine at King's Shops, but the restaurant was closed. As a result, he chose Merriman's Café. The German couple only planned to visit Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Once they arrived, other activities such as a visit to downtown Hilo became part of their visit. Armed with tourist information center brochures, Dave and his wife drove around the island and stopped at every site that was listed.

Finally, the evidence supports proposition 10— the activities done/not done affect much of the attitude and intention consequences resulting from visiting a destination. Both positive and negative experiences affected the overall trip assessment in each case. In each case, the respondents stated that their overall impression of BI was positive. Exposure to BI's natural beauty and amazing biodiversity were mentioned as positive influences. The cases differ in the amount of time spent learning about the destination. The Japanese travelers spent considerable time, the German couple much less time, and the American couple did not spend any time learning about BI activies.. Had the American and German couples prepared more prior to departure, perhaps their expectations would have been different.

Important differences exist between these results and Woodside et al.'s (2004) study of foreign tourists visiting Prince Edward Island, Canada. Unlike the BI visitors, the Prince Edward tourists primarily relied on the Visitor's Guide Book published by the local government. The internet played a more important role in providing trip information to BI visitors. This difference may be an artifact of the period of time studied. Another possibility is that the effort to plan a trip to a remote location like BI requires more information and planning. Interestingly, word‐of‐mouth information was more important for Prince Edward Island than BI visitors. This finding implies that more information may be available to BI visitors, so they have less need to ask people for advice. Another possible implication is that the tourists may not perceive local people in Hawaii to be as approachable as those on Prince Edward Island. Finally, the degree of visitor attachment to BI and Prince Edward Island appear to be different. Every visitor to BI wanted to return in the future; however, many Prince Edward Island visitors expressed serious doubts that they would return. Prince Edward's local cuisine was an important factor in trip decisions. Perhaps a nice plate of seafood is easier to create at other destinations than a tropical paradise, even if the island is covered by volcanic rock rather than white sand beaches and palm trees.

Contributions to Theory and Practice

Emic story telling research shows how streams or specific combinations of variables affect travelers' thoughts and activities. The preceding case‐based studies support the proposition that a holistic approach is useful for understanding visitor behavior. Visitor memories and recollections create gestalt images affected by pretrip planning, internal and external influences, and on‐site influences.

Also, emic story telling shows that single variables or actions are not sufficient to create a positive or negative visitor experience. For example, Helmut saved enough frequent flier miles for the trip to BI; however, his children needed to be old enough to stay home alone. Emic story telling demonstrates the interconnection of multiple services experiences. A lei greeting at the airport needs to be reinforced by friendly hotel employees, shop keepers, tour operators, and taxi drivers.

State and local governments have an important role to play in improving the tourism climate. Information about visitor behavior must be shared with service providers. Tourism bureaus must disseminate pertinent information and communicate the benefits of a consistent image. Since the tourists' overall impressions are based on an amalgamation of experiences, state and local governments should consider training programs designed to improve service and image consistency.

Finally, all nine interviews uncovered a common motivation to visit BI. The visitors were motivated by educational opportunities (e.g., to see an active volcano). Each person's internet usage to find information is consistent with the notion. Do visitors view BI as a living laboratory? If yes, perhaps more attractions like Hilo's new Imiloa Astronomy Center will appeal to these educational tourists?

Limitations and Suggestions for Additional Research

The case studies show the value of systems thinking in examining the influences, choices, activities, and consequences of leisure travel decisions and processes (Senge, 1990). While the preceding cases are useful for building grounded theories about travelers' thought processes, further study is recommended. Detailed interviews of a small number of visitors provide amazing detail about an individual's thought process; however, large‐scale surveys and field experiments are still needed to generalize the theory to populations. Grounded theory is an important first step in theory development.

The results suggest possibilities for future directions in research. First, are the individual maps specific to a destination, or do these maps generalize each visitor's travel behavior? Comparing the preceding results to Woodside et al. (2004) shows important differences that exist when people visit different destinations. Are these differences destination‐specific, or individual‐specific? In other words, would a BI visitor go through the same preplanning process when deciding to visit Seoul, Korea? A longitudinal study would answer this question and provide deeper insights on tourist behavior.

A related research opportunity is to examine tourist behavior over time to the same location. Eiji has visited BI several times and he plans to return. A better understanding of repeat visitors' motivations and interests would be useful for developing promotional messages to try increase the number of destination‐loyal visitors. Eiji clearly has an emotional attachment to Hawaii. Understanding the cause of Eiji's obsession with Hawaii is a step toward developing promotional materials designed to appeal to a long‐term relationship with the destination. Repeat visitors help reduce revenue fluctuations as well as provide valuable word‐of‐mouth advertising for a destination. Longitudinal studies of repeat visitors will show important changes in motivations and behaviors.