Travel Decisions of Promotion-Focused vs. Prevention Focused individuals under Different Level of Risk Perceptions toward Bali, Indonesia

1
TRAVEL DECISIONS OF PROMOTION FOCUSED VS.
PREVENTION FOCUSED INDIVIDUALS UNDER DIFFERENT
LEVEL OF RISK PERCEPTIONS TOWARD BALI, Indonesia
(M9721811)
??? Ivonne Suwarma (???) ???? ??? ??

• 5th January 2011

2
OUTLINES
Introduction and Background of Study
Risk Perception, Regulatory Focus, Tourist
Preference
Methodology
Result Analysis
Conclusion
3
Introduction Background of Study
4
1 - Introduction
BACKGROUND
MOTIVATION

• Changing perspective of LEISURE TRAVEL
• (Plog 1974)

Lepp and Gibson (2003)

Expensive Activities
Necessary
Not all tourist perceived risk equally, that
there are some attracted to risky situations and
otherwise.
Buying Goods
Buying experiences
Decision making process (Um and Crompton, 1990)
Dunford and Bryant (2008)

• External inputs (social marketing mix)

Influence of regulatory focus on risky decision
making Chronic regulatory focus is an antecedent
of individual risk propensity

• Internal inputs (socio psychology characteristic)

• Cognitive constructs (integration)

Tourists perceptions (Um and Crompton, 1990)
Bali Island

• Process how tourist translating external
  information into internal mental world

Declining number of Taiwanese foreign visitors to
Indonesia from 2002-2009

• Amount of risk that being perceived before
  purchase decision

• Factors should be included to understand the
  perception of risk

Central Bureau Statistic INA, 2010
Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997)

• Regulatory focus as chronic personality comes
  from experiences that arise from individuals
  childhood environment or past experiences of goal
  achievements

• search and distinct the role of different
  regulatory focus orientation and their risk
  perceptions of having an international vacation
  in Bali, Indonesia.
• to examine any impact on their travel decisions.

• goal-directed thought and behavior
• Promotion focused attaining gains
• Prevention focused avoiding losses

5
1 - Introduction
QUESTIONS

• Is there any distinction between promotion
  focused orientation and prevention focused
  orientation perceive several dimensions of
  perceived risks to have international vacation in
  Bali, Indonesia?
• Do different chronic regulatory focus individuals
  with different level perceptions of perceived
  risks have different travel likelihood?
• Do different chronic regulatory focus individuals
  with different level perceptions of perceived
  risks have different travel style?

CONCEPTUAL MAP
Promotion Focused Individuals
Prevention Focused Individuals
6
Risk Perception Regulatory Focus Tourist
Preference
7
RISK PERCEPTION
2 - Literature Review
Chen and Craske (1998, p.139)
The Prospect Theory by Kahneman and Tversky (1979)
Weber and Bottom (1989)
Schiffman and Kanuk (2000)
Moutinho (2000)
8
RISK PERCEPTION
2 - Literature Review
Verhage et al. (1990)
Qi, Gibson, and Zhang (2009)
Sonmez and Graefe (1998)
DIMENSIONS
Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992)
Sonmez and Graefe (1998)
Han (2005)

• Physical
• Financial
• Social
• Time
• Equipment
• Satisfaction
• Psychological

1. Terrorism
2. Political Instability
3. Health

Communication
9
2 - Literature Review
CHRONIC REGULATORY FOCUS
Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1997)

• Each decision making process can be managed in a
  goal directed manner

Hedonic principle that individual approach
pleasure and avoid pain
Those who concerns on positive outcomes,
achievement-oriented end-states, which related
with approach goals
Those who concerns on negative outcomes, failure
prevention end-states which related with
avoidance goals
PERCEPTION OF RISKS
HIGGINS (2002)
People in promotion focused will value attainment
decision made in the pursuit of gains higher than
decisions made in the avoidance of losses people
in prevention focused will value securement and
protection decision made in the pursuit of
non-losses higher than decisions made in the
avoidance of non-gains
10
TOURIST PREFERENCE
2 - Literature Review
Influence tourist decision making of going/ not
going
Tourist behavior
Murphy (1985)
Tourist experience
Moutinho (1987)
selecting destination
Tran and Ralston (2005)
One factor that influence the demand of tourist
as their preference derives from PERCEPTIONS
besides motivations and expectations
tourists preferences come from several factors
that can be divided into EXTERNAL and INTERNAL
LEVELS

• Relationship between UNCONSCIOUS NEEDS and
  TOURIST PREFERENCE
• need for ACHIVEMENT have preference for adventure
  tourism
• need for AFFILIATION have preference for cultural
  tourism

11
2 - Literature Review

• high expectation of benefit on trip brings
  anxiety
• international destination need high involvement
• risk perceptions influence individuals decision

Yavas (1987)
Intention to travel to a destination is affected
by destination image and perception of risk
The role of destination image, which individuals
consider risks associated with a destination, is
also important variable to predict intention to
visit it
Lepp Gibson (2003)
Travelers response to uncertain situation may
different and possible to be influenced by type
of risk perceived by the decision maker
Roehl Fesenmaier, 1992
Plog (2004)
the type of travelers that decide their own
itineraries with air tickets, hotels, rail, and
other extras are booking separately.
the type of package aims for travelers prefer
lots of free time for his/her own planning (i.e.
to rest, shopping, explore places by their own),
although their still use travel arrangement which
includes guides, tour buses, hotel and some
amenities.
the type of package that includes all under
certain price, including air, hotel, meals, and
even luxury amenities such as golf or
entertainment.
The type of package that includes few particular
items, such as only air, hotel, or rental car.
12
SUMMARY
5 Conclusion
EXTERNAL
INTERNAL
RISK PERCEPTIONS
TRAVEL LIKELIHOOD
TRAVEL DECISIONS
TRAVEL STYLE
13
Methodology
14
STUDY HYPOTHESIS
3 Methodology

• Hypothesis 1 Likelihood to travel

When the level of overall perceived risks of an
international travel destination is high (vs.
low), promotion-focused individuals will have
lower (vs. higher) intention traveling overseas
to that destination.
When the level of overall perceived risks of an
international travel destination is high (vs.
low), prevention-focused individuals will have
lower (vs. higher) intention traveling overseas
to that destination.
Hypothesis 2 Choice of Travel Style options
When the level of overall perceived risks to have
an overseas vacation is high (vs. low),
promotion-focused individuals will prefer to
choose a full package tour (vs. a partial package
tour or an independently travel)
When the level of overall perceived risks to have
an overseas vacation is high (vs. low),
prevention- focused individuals will prefer to
choose a full package tour (vs. a partial package
tour or an independently travel)
15
RESEARCH DESIGN
3 Methodology

• compare perception risks among two different
  chronic regulatory focused that may impact their
  travel purchase decision, specifically on
  international destination

Bali, Indonesia as target destinations for
respondents perceived risk while traveling to
another country
Self Structured Questionnaire
correlational research
designed to look from relations between some set
of variables and employ existing theory as bases
descriptive research
scientific method which involves observing and
describing the behavior of a subject without
influencing it in any way
quantitative research
focusing more in counting, classifying features,
constructing statistical models and explaining
what is observed
16
3 Methodology
VARIABLES

• DEPENDENT VARIABELS

INDEPENDENT VARIABELS
Chronic Regulatory Focus
Travel Likelihood

• Promotion focused individuals
• Prevention focused individuals

Very low Low Neutral High Very High
Dimensions of Risk Perception
Travel Style

• Full package tour
• Partial package
• Independent travel

• Physical risk
• Health risk
• Financial Risk
• Social Risk
• Time Risk
• Equipment Risk
• Satisfaction Risk
• Psychological Risk
• Political Instability Risk
• Terrorism Risk
• Communication Risk

BOUNDARIES
SAMPLE SIZE
Groebner (2005)

• n minimum sample size required
• E sampling error
• z z-value for confidence interval

Taiwanese / Taiwan Citizen
Lives in Taipei
10 sampling error
Age 18 35 years old
96.04 96 respondents
95 confidence interval z-value 1.96
She/he has never been visiting the object
destination.
17
3 Methodology
INSTRUMENTS
PURPOSE
INSTRUMENT
1

• Provoke risk perceptions and image of Bali
• Screen individuals

• Self administered questions
• 1 Has/ has never visited
• 2 Unstructured method to ask respondents
  perception
• 3 Their intention and image of Bali

OPEN END QUESTIONS
2
REGULATORY FOCUS SCALE

• Predict respondents chronic regulatory focus
  types

• 11 items measurement scale inside Regulatory
  Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) developed by Higgins et
  al (2001)
• 1,3,7,9,10,11 Promotion Scale Items
• 2,4,5,6,8 Prevention Scale Items

• Measure level of each risk dimensions

• 34 Scale items derived from previous study (Han,
  2005) were classified into 11 dimensions of
  perceived risk.

RISK PERCEPTION SCALE
3
4

• travel likelihood and travel style preference

• 1 measure respondent intention
• 2 which travel style options that individuals
  prefer

TRAVEL DECISIONS
5
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

• sample characteristic

1. Gender
2. Age
3. Marital status
4. Education level
5. Income level per month

18
DATA COLLECTION
3 Methodology
Small Number of Respondents

• Initial Survey

30 questionnaires
Validity and Reliability of Questionnaire
Pearson Correlation
Cronbachs alpha test
Greater number of respondent sampling
Final Survey
194 questionnaires
Statistical Test for each Questions
Analysis tool SPSS 17.0
Shopping Centers
Public Transport Service
PUBLIC SPACES
Universities
19
STATISTICAL TESTS
3 Methodology
TEST Pearson Correlation Cronbachs alpha test Frequency Descriptive Multiple Regression Cross Tabulation
Validity
Reliability
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
good alpha should be greater than .70
Validity test for items using Pearson Correlation
is to compare score items with score total
items Compare the total results with the r Table
(Pearson Product Moment N30 ? valid greater
than 0.361 (r Table).
20
STATISTICAL TESTS
3 Methodology
TEST Pearson Correlation Cronbachs alpha test Frequency Descriptive Multiple Regression Cross Tabulation
Validity
Reliability
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
to know the relationship between dependent
variable with independent variables
analyze the difference perceived risk among two
chronic regulatory focus type
to explore the row and column profile (between
chronic regulatory focus and dependent variables
21
STATISTICAL TESTS
3 Methodology
TEST Pearson Correlation Cronbachs alpha test Frequency Descriptive Multiple Regression Cross Tabulation
Validity
Reliability
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
to know the relationship between dependent
variable with independent variables among
different chronic regulatory focused
22
Result Analysis
23
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
4 - Results
24
RISK PERCEPTION
4 - Results

• FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (NEGATIVE IMAGES)

25
RISK PERCEPTION
4 - Results

• FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (POSITIVE IMAGES)

Tran and Ralston (2005) that found relationship
between unconscious need and tourist preferences
Higgins (2002) People in promotion focused will
value attainment decision made in the pursuit of
gains higher than people in prevention focused
Those who need for achievement have preferences
for adventure tourism, and those who need for
affiliation have preferences for cultural tourism
26
RISK PERCEPTION
4 - Results

• DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

Prevention focused individuals perceived greater
than those of promotion focused individuals
27
RISK PERCEPTION
4 - Results

• INDEPENDENT T-TEST

28
TRAVEL DECISIONS
4 - Results

• DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

TRAVEL LIKELIHOOD
TRAVEL STYLE
29
TRAVEL LIKELIHOOD
4 - Results

• CROSS TABULATION

30
TRAVEL LIKELIHOOD
4 - Results

• PROMOTION FOCUSED

Sig lt 0.05
29.3
Sig lt 0.05
31
TRAVEL LIKELIHOOD
4 - Results

• PREVENTION FOCUSED

Sig lt 0.05
Sig lt 0.05
36.1
32
TRAVEL STYLES
4 - Results

• CROSS TABULATION

33
TRAVEL STYLE
4 - Results

• PROMOTION FOCUSED

34
TRAVEL STYLE
4 - Results

• PREVENTION FOCUSED

Sig lt 0.05
26.7
35
TEST OF HYPOTHESES
4 - Results

• DEGREE OF PERCEIVED RISKS

• Respondent 1

Average Total Risk Perceptions of all respondents
(average n194) 28.31
Total Risk Perceptions score of Respondent 1
26.93
LOW
categorization
36
TEST OF HYPOTHESIS - 1
4 - Results
37
TEST OF HYPOTHESIS - 2
4 - Results
38
Conclusion
39
SUMMARY
5 Conclusion
Promotion focused
Prevention focused

• Beautiful sceneries
• Bright sunny weather

• Beautiful sceneries
• Culture

40
SUMMARY
5 Conclusion

• TRAVEL LIKELIHOOD

Promotion focused individuals gtPrevention focused
individuals
Promotion focused
Prevention focused
TIME RISK
FINANCIAL RISK
HIGH
Promotion focused
Promotion High Intention gt Low Intention
Prevention High Intention lt Low Intention
Prevention focused
LOW
Higher intention
Promotion focused
High Intention gt Low Intention
Prevention focused
41
SUMMARY
5 Conclusion

• TRAVEL STYLE

(FULL PACKAGE) Prevention focused individuals gt
Promotion focused individuals
Promotion focused
Prevention focused
-
PHYSICAL RISK
HIGH
Promotion focused
Full package tour
Prevention focused
LOW
Promotion focused
Promotion focused partial package tour
Independent travel Prevention focused
partial package tour Full package tour
Prevention focused
42
CONCLUSION
5 Conclusion
The degree of perceived risk is important factor
in tourist decision making
People avoid destination that perceived has high
risks.
People prioritize safety and security by choosing
full package tour to destination that perceived
has high risks.
There are heterogeneous tourist behaviors with
respect to regulatory focus.
Prevention focused perceived higher in term of
perception of risks (negative outcomes the
possibility of loss may occur)
Promotion focused is more risk seeker in term of
intention to go and type of travel style options
than prevention focused individuals
43
5 Conclusion
LIMITATION
GENERALIZABILITY

Respondents are limited to Taiwanese

Different country scenario may revealed different
dimensions of risk (i.e. developed vs.
developing country, regions)
RECOMMENDATION
FURTHER RESEARCH

Regulatory focus situational framing

Respondents different nationalities or
different geographical regions

Destination scope domestic travel

Travel motive i.e. business travel
44
Thank you

• 5th January 2011