, . ‘I LIBRARY Michlnan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Information—Seeking Behavior by Travelers To Michigan's Great Lakes presented by Mary Brunke Elmer has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master degree in Sc1ence Major professor Date April 16, 1987 07539 MSUL‘ m. Almmnn'... ‘ ' ’ 1 ' r, ', I-afinninn lfllllflllllfllflllllllllflll 300870 5778 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 'JUN ’ l W}: t bizrv '.‘ = '4 #11“. A. !-'F Ila-j— r" - - INFORMATIONFSEEKING BEHAVIOR BY TRAVELERS T0 MICHIGAN'S GREAT LAKES by Mary Brunke Elmer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1987 7J— ABSTRACT INFORMATION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR BY TRAVELERS T0 MICHIGAN'S GREAT LAKES by Mary Brunke Elmer The relationship between formal and informal channels of communication were investigated to better understand how traveling groups use information systems in making travel decisions. Communication structure is an important concept in the dissemination of travel information. The focus was whether connectedness or openness of the traveling group was affected by repeat visitation and whether repeat visitation affected the kinds and sources of information used. Groups that are connected rely on each other for information, whereas, open groups rely on outside sources. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires issued to visitors at selected sites. These sites represented six geographical areas in Michigan. Results suggest individual travelers frequently use interpersonal communications for sources of travel information. All first time visitor groups and all repeat visitor groups were more connected than mixed visitor groups. Implications for directing Michiganfls tourism information are discussed. To my father, Alvin R. Brunke ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the financial support of Michigan Sea Grant in this endeavor. I also acknowledge the members of my committee, Dr. M. McDonough, Dr. J. Fridgen, and Dr. gellerman. There are several people who made the going a little easier and whose friendship I will always be thankful for. Thank you to Dr. Melverne Winborne for his ability to make me laugh when I found little humor and to Cindy O'Halloran for her afternoons of listening and caring over coffee. My sister Lonna and my sister-in-law Becky who were always supportive also cannot go unnoticed. 'My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Mel Lacy, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Michigan State University, for the use of his word processor. Last, I thank my husband, Wade, who kept me in chocolate, ice cream and coffee during this whole ordeal. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES ....................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... viii INTRODUCTION ....... .......................... . ....... 1 W1” ku‘h .... n P LEM JUSTIEICETION ........... . .................... 3 Information-seeking Behavior and Marketing Communications ...................... 4 5 Tourism Marketing ............................... 11 ; Informal Communication Channels \ in Marketing ..... ........ .. ................... 17 / Mass Communication and ) Communication Networks ................. ....... 20 STUDY OBJECTIVES ..................................... so THOD 0. ............................................. 31 VCR Sampling .............. .................. ... ..... 31 Questionnaire Development ....................... 34 Limitations with the Questionnaire .............. 34 Anaylsis Procedure for the Questionnaire ........ 35 Resfifrs AND DISCUSSION ............................... 38 Sgww,mwwc”' Introduction .................................... 38 Information Sources ............................. 39 Before Trip ................................ 42 Summary of Before'Trip ..................... 53 Upon Arrival ............................... 55 Summary of Upon Arrival .................... 67 iv Comparison of Before and Upon Arrival Information Sources .......... .......... .. ..... Communication Patterns or Networks .............. Openness of the Traveling Group ............ Connectedness of the Traveling Group ....... CONCLUSIONS and IMPLICATIONS ......................... Conclusion ................... ................... Implications ............. .. ..................... Limitations and Research Directions ......... .... APPENDIX Michigan Tourism Survey .................... ..... LITERATURE CITED ..................................... 68 7O 71 71 77 77 80 83 87 93 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Sources of Information Before Trip for Other Types by Number of Times Visited .............. 53 Kinds of Information Used Upon Arrival by Number of Times Visited ........................ 57 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Places to Stay by Number of Times Visited ............ 58 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Places to Eat by Number of Times Visited ..... ...... .. 59 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Recreational Activites by Number of Times Visited .......... 60 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Community Events by Number of Times Visited ............. 61 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Shopping by Number of Times Visited ..................... 62 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Tourist Attraction by Number of Times Visited ......... 63 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Scenic Areas by Number of Times Visited .............. 64 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Directions by Number of Times Visited .................... 65 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Local People by Number of Times Visited ............. 66 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Other Types by Number of Times Visited .............. 67 Mean Openness Score by Number of Repeat Visitors in the Group Before Trip ...................... 72 Mean Openness Score by Number of Repeat Visitors in the Group Upon Arrival ..................... 73 Mean Connectedness Score by Number of Repeat Visitors in the Group .......... ...... ......... 74 Group Connectedness by Number of Repeat Visitors 75 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1. The Conceptual Model Structure .................. 18 viii INTRODUCTION The fact that travelers obtain information about destinations and activities is well documented in the travel literature. Without travel information a traveler”s choice of alternative travel and recreation opportunities would be limited. Effective promotion of destinations and opportunities is needed to broaden a traveler's alter- natives. Spotts and Stynes (1985) suggest that information directed to appropriate targets would make recreation op- portunities more available to many people. Tourist and recreation information needs to be directed through appropriate channels to the target market. Formal channels of communication have been effective in generating general awareness, but in many instances consumers rely on informal channels when making actual purchase decisions (Arndt, 1967). If the tourism and recreation industries in Michigan wish to encourage greater use of the Great Lakes recreation resources, they need to become more aware of where people obtain information about these opportunities. The Michigan Travel Bureau has devoted much energy to the mass media campaign "Yes, Michigan" to attract in-state and out-state 2 visitors to the tourism and recreation opportunities of Michigan” ‘However, the mass media approach to providing information may not be the most effective approach avail- able to evaluate exposure to travel information. Knowledge about the relationship between interpersonal communication and mass media can better answer questions concerning the influence of information sources for travel decisions. The results of this study of formal and in- formal channels of travel information used by visitors to the Great Lakes can facilitate the means for more effective communication between the providers and the consumers of Great Lakes resources. It is the goal of this study to better understand how traveling groups use information systems, both formal and informal, in making their travel decisions. PROBLEM JUSTIFICATION Clawson and Knetch (1966) described the outdoor recreation experience as a series of stages: anticipation; travel to; on-site experience; travel from; and recol- lection. The anticipation stage assumes that some sort of decision has already been made. Therefore, these five stages should be preceded by a decision stage during which alternative destinations or activities are evaluated. Travel decisions can often be high involvement decisions due to their perceived financial, social, psycho- logical, and performance/experience risks. These perceived risks influence people to undertake an external search for additional information rather than rely on their own memories. In other words, travelers will consciously seek information from others, guidebooks, travel agents, or from the media (Gitelson and Crompton, 1983). It seems that the acquisition of travel and recreation information is used to reduce the uncertainty and perceived risk of a visitor to a destination site. Information-seeking Behavior and Marketing_Communication Taylor (1974) stated in his "systematic explanation" W ,fi‘-M of the role of/r’isk in consumer behavior that the central M P 03- I IDE’J.A‘-- ‘. ...,v,,‘~«.,~ .‘_ _q problem of consmmer behavior is choice. Since the outcome of choice can only be known in the future, an element of risk or uncertainty is introduced. The amount of perceived risk and the method of its reduction will be affected by the individual consumer's level of self—esteem. Taylor (1974) suggests that risk is often perceived as painful in that it may produce anxiety, in which case it must be dealt with in some manner by the consumer. Any choice situation involves two aspects of risk; (1) ,— /,_-“ _. uncertainty about the outcome, and (2) uncertainty about the consequences. Uncertainty about the outcome can be reduced by acquiring and processing information. Un- certainty about the consequences can be dealt with by reducing the amount at stake or putting off making a choice. In a choice situation, risk is interpreted in terms of possible loss (Taylor, 1974). Consumers are more likely to seek out and acquire information of all kinds, including the advice and opinions of friends, family, and experts, where the financial and; emotional investment is high (AakerwflandflMyersx'1983). Gitelson and Crompton (1983) suggest at least three reasons why external searches can be expected in travel decisions. First, as stated earlier, a vacation is a high risk Kn purchase because it not only involves investment of discretionary dollars but also involves a considerable in- vestment of discretionary time. Obtaining further informa- tion is one way to reduce the perceived risk in the decision. Second, the consumer cannot directly observe or inexpensively experience beforehand what is being pur- chased. The third reason for an external search for in- formation may be due to the lack of familiarity of the destination. The choice of a new destination may promote an external search for information. The cin’s‘umue’rwdecision “making process for travel related decisions and expensive products such as auto- mobiles and refrigerators are similar in that when pur- chased (at least for the first time) they are high risk purchases. As with high risk products, the traveling con- sumer moves through a series of decision making stages. At each stage different marketing communication strategies are appropriate. "Mayr_k_et‘_i_n‘g:_]implies selling with a goal of economic benefit for the communicator. Eotler (.1980) explains the selling concept as a management orientation that assumes that consumers will either not buy, or not buy enough of the organization's products unless the organization makes a substantial effort to stimulate their interest in its products. It is through marketing communication, a subfield of ,....»- ---——,-_W _ marketing, that an organization strives to stimulate interest in its product(s). (The communication tools bring together several diverse parts of the marketing mix under one conceptual framework basedcnicommunication research and theory.:)Personal selling, advertising, publicity, product sampling, and packaging are examples of marketing communication toolsy/ The selling concept is based on the assumption that a high level advertising or sales power will somehow work to move the product. It seems to be a kind of "magict through which the consumer can be manipulated. No one denies the potential impact from skillful use of the media but a selling orientation tends to ignore the fact that consumers tend to see and hear what theywant to see and hear (Engle, Narshaw, and Kennear, 1983L ”Egrsgasivenmass”mediamcampaigns often use these com- munication tools based on a hierarchy model of marketing communication effects. The basis of this model consists of a sequence of mental stages or levels which an audience member is suppose to experience during a communication campaign. The typical sequence is from a simple to a more complex response stage. One such model used by advertising planners consists of the following levels: .— typical of this phenomenon is by Haines (1966) where 58 percent of the buyers of a new supermarket product reported exposure to TV advertising, 26 percent mentioned samples and only 18 percent reported word of mouth exposure (Day, 1971). The high percentage of informal channel use in 16 recreation and tourism studies may be due to the minimal use of TV advertising by recreation and tourism suppliers. Many of these businesses are small and the cost of T advertising may be too great. What may be more important than relative reach, is that word.of mouth has a potentially'greater impact than ‘7 mass media communication. -Arndt (1967) claims the greater ...J... , 1 -K... ‘-" MM~..~_,~ .- ~ l2\.- n'” ' p- . 'udu-‘J- M- impact of word of mouth results from (MA/the opportunity for feedback and clarification that word of mouth provides, \ngizis perceived.as more trustworthy and reliable and figlxpersonal contacts usually offer more social support and encouragement. Noygn (1976) found that visitors to Tennessee perceived interpersonal channels to be more credible than formal channels. Research of this type has reaffirmed the use of in— formal communications. This may seem a bit confusing to .Fov—fi'” M the marketer since it appears as if formal and informal channels are competitive with the informal channels being more effective. Competition is not the case. Rather than being competitive, there is an integrated relationship between formal and informal channels of communication. For example, Gitelson and Crompton (1983) found that 72 percent of those responding received information from family'andf friends, yet 74 percent of the respondents were alsd exposed to other information sources such as destination}: specific literature, broadcast media, or guidebooks. A 17 consumer may develop a set of expectations to cause the use of one type of communication for certain kinds of information and another channel for other kinds of information. ngh(196 ) suggests that information seeking is an important aspect in the way in which consumeréi .__, Mann-4...” ~ dominated (informal) channels are used. The primary role \-~ 'h- .... ...—1" ,4 of formal channels is to create awareness and stimulate interest while providing information useful in decision- making process. The primary role of informal communication is to provide information which can be used in decision evaluation (Cox, 1963; Day, 1971; Aaker and Myers, 1983; Assael, 1985). Informal Communication Channels in Marketing In general, personal influences can occur between three different groups;vbuyers (purchasers of the product), the target market (potential consumers), and other Vinfluential populations (Bayus, 1985). For the most part, the buyers come from the target market. Other influential populations can include reference groups that are not part of the target market. Buyers can influence potential customers (Arndt, 1976; Rogers, 1983) by helping others reduce the perceived risk associated with the purchase decision (Woodside and Delozier, 1976). Bayus (1985) had advanced a marketing model that 18 includes these three reference groups of personal influence by showing the relationship that exists among marketing efforts, sales, and word of mouth (Figure 1). In the Conceptual Model Structure, sales impact the level of word of mouth activity in the market place (Path 1). In turn, word.of mouth influences the amount of final sales (Path 2). Marketing efforts impact sales directly (Path 3) and also can affect the level of word of mouth activity (Path ~ /\ Word of Mouth >Sales 4). 4. 3 \ Marketing / Efforts Source: Journal of Advertising Research, 1985. 25(3) p. 34. Figure 1. The Conceptual Model Structure 19 These variables can be expressed as direct and in— direct influences. For example, the influence of word of mouth activity from sales can be a direct product recom- mendation or travel destination from a buyer or a repeat visitor, or as an indirect endorsement from visual displays such as advertisement or a travel destination brochure. !- “ ‘The consequences of not isolating the role of word of mouth is that the observed changes in awareness and attitude toward the product are likely to be attributed to ad- vertising and promotion by default (Day, 1971). The significance of the model comes from the marketing phenomena which it can generate. Advertising has been found to trigger word of mouth activity as_2§ym(1971) found in investigating the role of word of mouth and the media in attitude change toward old and new brands of a convenience food. He found that family members were more likely to discuss the product after joint viewing of the advertising. Discussions with family members are probably not as influential as the discussions with friends and relatives, which might be motivated by desire for more information. When looking at the effect ofprrdflgffimguthflgn attitude” change toward the new convienence food product, Day found it to be nine times more effective in changing unfavorable or neutral attitudes to positive attitudes.//&n addition, observations have been made where a firm was able to take advantage of positive word of mouth activity and reduce 20 their marketing expenditures (Cox, 1963; Aaker and Carmen, 1982). It is clear that a firm or agency should be attentive to the existing word of mouth activity in the market place. Consumers are not passive. They actively seek travel information from both formaland informal channels. Formal and informal channels of communication are complementary, not competitive./ The formal channels may serve as a stimulus for consumers to seek more information. This may occur at either the interpersonal level or through the mass media. The knowledge of linkages between family and friends, as well as mass media would make it possible to develop an integrated marketing program including these links. Mass Communication and Communication Networks The mass media was once believed to hold powerful in- fluences over the public. In the 1930's and 1940's researchers formulated the direct effects model which states that the mass media could be used to bring about almost any kind of effect upon their passive audience. Much of the basis for the direct effects model came from analyzing successful propaganda techniques in World Wars I and II. Additional support for this model also comes from Merton's (1946) study of the successful Kate Smith war bond / ...—...__ _' V" 21 broadcasts and Cantril's (1940) analysis of panic effects resulting from Orson Welles"broadcast "War of the Worlds". During the late 1940's and through the 1950's Hovland et a1. (1949; 1953) at Yalefls Attitude Change Center provided experimental evidence for the powerful effects model of mass communication” These studies were originally'designed to provide solutions to problems encountered by the‘UAL Army in World War II, such as persuasive films on soliders, assessing attitudes of bomber crews, and improving the moral of new recruits (Taani985). In 1944, Lazarfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet published "The People's Choice" which was an analysis of mass media effects on voting decisions. The mass media was found to have a limited effect on voting decisions and the main effect was in reinforcement of present views. The small percentage of individuals who did change were more likely to be influenced by personal communication sources. According to the limited effects model, the mass media merely reinforced existing attitudes and behaviors, because audiences are "stubborn" and they use a number of defense strategies such as selective.attention, selective perception, and selective recall to insulate them against “contradicting messages. In the 1363?, the limited effects model was replaced by a direct effects model similar to that of the late 1930‘s and 1940's. The renewed interest in the impact of 22 the mass media is no longer confined to attitudes and behavioral changes./5Researchers today are interested in ways the audience is affected by the mass media, including their knowledge of public and political issues, their structuring of social realities, role expectations of themselves, use of leisure time,” and antisocial and x F prosocial behaviors (Tan, 1985)-. {Communication scholars are not only studying how the mass media are effecting societies and how social institutions are affecting the mass media, they also are looking at the level of analysis at which communication is studied. )Traditionally, interpersonal communication behaviors such as studies of persuasion were analyzed. Today communication research has been undertaken from a larger perspective of social groups and organizations (Tanhw1985). Any type of cbmmunication requires two interacting components. (Messages are encoded, sent through a channel and decoded”) Feedback occurs when responses in the receiver are observed. Feedback allows interaction to \, continue between source and receiver. For Jample, a ski resort manager, the source, determines the need for a message since the winter ski season is approaching. The ski resort manager realizes that an advertising campaign is necessary to inform consumers of the benefits of skiing at this resort rather than at others. The process of developing the marketing stimulus or advertising is known 23 as encoding and requires that the product's benefits be I—W’ communicated by a series of symbols, images, and informa- tion. The ski resort manager sends out the message via some channe1-—te1evision, radio, newspaper, or brochure. The consumer first becomes aware of the message, then comprehends and retains it. This process is known as decoding (Assael, 1984). The purpose of marketing com- W“ ”'7" -m munication is to influence the consumer to act. Thus, \~_’,,M consumer purchasing behavior is the crucial variable in assessing the effectiveness of the communication. Evaluating the effectiveness of the advertisement is represented by the feedback loop from action to the source .p .mwfimm“f’ “-o'v' of the communication (Assael, 1984). This model of communication may be effectivemin developing campaign strategies but it doesfinot take into ,_.....Mr -- a .1 -«-.,. ,_ -.. _. . .1 ,. L ,. - 4- - . . aceount the social impact of the message.(:lt does not :count for how the message of the ski resort 0:111 affect the employees, other business in the area such as restau- rants, motels, or sporting equipment stores.:;%his model also seems to put each individual audience member in a vacuum, assuming that the advertisement will not be shared among family, friends, and acquaintances who ski. A more encompassing model of the communication process would in- clude these important components, their relationship, and the information they share with one another. The focus on communication research of this type needs 2b to be on communication behavior. The convergence model of communication allows for more than investigating just the direct effects of the mass media message on individuals. It looks into how these messages are spread and are given meaning as they are shared through interactions with others. The convergence model of communication, as described by Rogers and Kincaid (1981), suggests that the primary "M ""W ”a,” 1" purpose of communication is to define and understand W" W‘.‘ In; a! reality so that all other purposes can be achieved;/ In- formation shared over time by two or more participants, leads them to converge or diverge from each other in their mutual understanding of reality. Mutual understanding is never complete as each individual brings with them their own personal experiences. There are no arrows to and from participants in the convergence model. Information is shared. It is through a -..-WM cyclicalwprgc358.9f information_exchange that the partici- pants may converge toward cnr diverge from mutual understanding (or misunderstan g) of meaning'. Partici— pants interpret not only the other's information but their own information to understand themselves better and to find improved ways to express themselves. The convergence model of communication leads to a relational perspective of communication because of the shift to information rather than messages as the content 25 that is shared by participants. Rather than looking at individual information-processing, the communication structure among people whose common purpose is to under- stand one another is examined. Communication network analysis provides one method of ~ms- fi‘m-v-uru— ~pnp‘.“l.fl. research for identifying the communication structure in a system as well as relationships between the system components. The unit of analysis shifts from individual to communication relationships. Various dimensions of the communication structure are measured through the indices of connectedness and openness. These indices help convert the nature of the communication structure into quantitative variables. Connectedness measures the degree to which members of a group or system are linked to other members in a group or system, while openness is the degree to which the members of a group or system are linked to others external to the group or system (Rogers and Kincaid, 1982). The relational perspective of human communication is achieved by focusing on the interconnected individuals who are linked by patterned flows of information. These com- munication networks allow us to trace specific message flows within.a system and then compare the communication structure with the social structure of the system to deter- mine how they are interrelated (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). ..., “I ,_—-r NetworEMQQmmynication is especially important whenever individuals are exchanging information in order to reduce \. 26 uncertainty. In these instance where individuals want information and where information is likely to change be- havior, they depend heavily on informal communication messages that are transmitted through networks. Network analysis allows communication researchers to determine exactly how communication networks influence individual behavior (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). Rogers and Kincaid (1981) suggest that a fundamental principle of human communication is that ideas are exchanged most frequently among people who are homophilous or similar. Communicationais more effective since these people share a set of similar characteristics, common meanings, and mutual value position. Yet homophilous may be ”dysfunctional for the diffusion of new ideas. Granovetter (1973) suggested that for new ideas to diffuse, Ldyadic communication must occur between individuals who are somewhat heterophilous. Dyadic communication among heterophilous individuals is called "strength of weak ties.t> The basic proposition is that the information exchange of dyadic communication is related to the degree of heterophily between people (Granovetter, 1973; 1982). The overall social structure outlined by this argument is as follows. Each person will have a collection of close friends and family, most of whom are in touch with each other (strong ties). Each person may also have a col— lection of acquaintances, few who know each other (weak b: be in. 91‘: 1a: Wit 27 ties). The relationship a weak tie person has with a strong tie member provides a bridge connecting two separate / / strong tie groups// It may be, then, that destination alternatives exchanged through weak ties would allow for a broader range of travel opportunities for a traveling group rather than relying on just the information within the group as information reaches a larger number of individuals and travels a greater social distance when passed through weak ties rather than strong ties. Social interaction influences recreation and travel H“ b M behavior through information exchange. _Crompton (1981) looked at the role the social group plays in pleasure vacations. It was concluded that pleasure vacations were relatively'popular topics of conversation. Information about vacation destinations appear to be effectively dis- seminated within social groups through word of mouth com- munication. Interpersonal relationships within a social group may be looked upon as the tie that describe an individual's behavior. In other words, the social group to which the individual belongs may be a more precise predictor of individual's behavior than the society of which the social group is a part. How information is passed around a group largely depends upon how closely aligned group members are with each other. Connectedness of the social group describes the degree to which the group exchanges informa- 28 tion within itself. Connected groups are homophilous. Connectedness is one means through which groups or systems affect their members' behaviors. Rggersmand Kincaid (1981) generalize that connectedness is positively related to convergence. Those groups that are more connected share a mutual understanding of information exchange among its members. Repeat visitors who are experienced visitors to an area may also act as in- formal sources of information for their social group and may even influence the behavior of their group. Heterophilous individuals are found in groups that are open. Openness of a group is the degree to which group members are linked to others outside the group. Most new information enters a group from external sources such as its*weak.tie bridge or possibly through the mass media to one or all members. Networks lacking openness may facilitate the pooling of ignorance among the individual members. The pooling of ignorance in traveling groups can limit their travel and recreation opportunities. Through links to outside sources new information and ideas can enter the group and broaden the number of alternatives available. The relationship between connectedness and openness in the communication structure is an important concept in the dissemination of travel information. Grpups that are con- nected rely on each other for information, whereas, open 29 groups gather information from external sources. Awareness of a new destination site may occur through external sources (formal or informal) linked to a group. This information will help in the evaluation process of a traveler's decision. STUDY OBJECTIVES The general objective of this study is to explore the relationship of formal and informal communication systems used by traveling groups for travel and recreation op- portunities in Michigan. Relative to this general ob- jective the specific study objectives are: 1. To examine the communication structure of traveling groups through the measurement_of openness and connectedness. Mn... .- w” <-*. 2. To determine if repeat visitation influences connectedness or openness of traveling groups. 3. To determine the relationship between formal and informal channels of communication and kinds of information before trip and upon arriving at the destination. 30 METHODS This study was designed to research the communication networks of visitors to recreation areas in Michiganl Data ...... .-_...-u were collected from six geographical areas in Michigan selected on the basis of research into tourist images of Michigan (Deale, 1983L. Within each geographical region three specific sites were selected (Table 1). To ensure a cross section of visitors, private and public sites as well as day and overnight sites were chosen. Sites within an area were chosen because of their proximity to each other to reduce research time and cost. See McDonough (1984) for a detailed explanation of the research design and methods. Sampling Sampling of traveling groups was stratified by time-- season, day of week, and time of day. The seasonal sampling periods were spring, early summer, late summer, and fall. During the seasonal periods, the eighteen sites were sampled on each.day’of the weekg Within days of the week, surveys were conducted in three hour time blocks representing morning, afternoon, and evening periods. During each season, each site was surveyed for six hours. 31 32 Table 1 Sampling Sites Within Geographic Areas Area Recreation Site I. Center Houghton Lake State Forest Campground Sleepy Hollow State Park Prehistoric Forest II. Grand Haven Municipal Marina Best Western Beacon Motel P.J. Hoffmaster State Park III. Traverse City Municipal Marina Waterfront Inn Best Western Yogi Bear's Jellystone Campground IV. Mackinaw City Fort Michilimackinac Arnold Straits Transit Co. Mackinaw City KOA V. Alpena Thunder Bay Marina, Inc. Fletcher Motel Ossinike State Forest Campground VI. Belle Isle and Belle Isle Nature Center Metro Beach Belle Isle Aquarium, Conservatory Metro Beach, Metro Park Marina, 33 The numbered sites and slips in campgrounds and marinas were divided by twelve, the maximum number of groups to be interviewed in three hours by two inter- viewers. A random start was then made based on a table of random numbers. At the beach sites, the beaches were divided into six sections, allowing one half hour per group interviewed. Two groups per section were selected. At the tourist attractions and motel lobbies all possible groups were contacted. A maximium of 24 groups were to be sampled per site during each of the two summer sampling periods (6 groups per interviewer per 3 hours--12 x 2 days = 24). This number was rarely reached. Each member in a traveling group over the age of 12 was encouraged to complete a self-administered question- naire. Each individual within the group was needed to fill out a survey in order to better determine the kind and sources of information used by the entire group. A total of 1389 individual surveys were completed representing 549 traveling groups. The number of groups not willing to participate was generally low and varied by site and time of day. The major reason for not participating was lack of time. The largest amount of nonparticipation was from groups where not all group members were present. If a group refused or was unable to participate, it was replaced by the next available group. 3h \éest ionnai re Deve l ooment The questionnaire for use with traveling groups consisted of four sections (Appendix). Section one was a brief interview designed to filter out visitor groups from local residents. Included in this section were questions pertaining to basic group data, such as, whether the group was staying overnight, type of lodging, and length of trip. Sections two through four were self administered. Section two asked for information about the individual's origin, purpose of trip, repeat visitation, familiarity; age, and gender. Section three included charactistics of the group such as information sharing among members. 'The last section asked about information use before and during the trip and upon arrival at a particular destination. The questionnaire was pretested on the campus of Michigan State University and at recreation sites in Lansing, Michigan. The pretest provided information which resulted in more effective wording of some questions. V/Limitations with the Questionnaire There was some difficulty with open ended recall questions when filling out the visitor survey. The inter- viewer tried to guide people through those questions by asking probing questions. The intention was not to give people answers but to clarify and help people organize 35 their thoughts. Nonaccurate subject responses and inter- view bias were kept at a minimum in the process. Frequently people told the interviewers they did not obtain information from the responses listed because they already knew where they were going and what they were going to do. Thus, they could easily finish the matching ques- tions by checking none for information use. The survey did not include a specific response for prior knowledge. Prior knowledgerwas added later to the codebook because people had listed that information in the "other" category. Last, because the survey was completed in a group there was a tendency to discuss answers especially when one was unsure what to fill in and wanted to use another's answers. The interviewers tried to assure people that there were no right or wrong answers and the groups, answers did not have to be the same. This technique usually worked. i/Ahalysis Procedure for the Questionnaire Questionnaires were coded and the data entered into the Michigan State University Cyber 700 where the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. A number of diferent statisitical tests were performed on the data. Frequencies for each question were used to check for error in data entry and to obtain a description of respondents. For a complete description of 36 the travelers see McDonough (1984). The major data transformation was performed when determining connectedness and openness scores for each traveling group. The connectedness score is the degree to which group members are linked to one another. In other words, connectedness is the degree to which group members rely on each other for information. Connectedness uses the number of links that exist among the members of a group and is expressed as a proportion of the total possible number of links in the group (Farce, Monge, and Russell, 1977). The connectedness scorgpwas computed by adopting a formula from Rogers and Kincaid (1981). The connectedness M’ score is the average number of links for each individual member of the group to the other group members, divided by the number of possible links in the group. The number of possible links is N(N-1)/2, where N is the number of individuals in the group. If a group has only a few of its possible links "within" it is said to be loosely connected. If everyone in a group had a link with everyone else, the group connectedness score would be 100% (Farce, Mongue, Russell, 1977). Theflgpenesswsccae.which is the degree to which the members of the group are linked to others external to the group, was created by summing the number of links across 37 the group's boundary, divided by the number of possible links. An analysis of varianceMLANOVAd was used.to test for relationships between repeat visitation and connectedness and repeat visitation and openness. ANOVA.was used as a method of determining the probability that the observed differences in connectedness or openness scores were due to repeat visitation. Sw‘egtswtzte§__ts were used to compare the connected— ness and openness scores of first time visitor groups, repeat visitor groups, and groups with both first time and repeat visitors. By using the sample means, it can be determined if one type of visitor group is more open or connected than another. Last, sources and kinds of information used by the traveling groups were compared with the number of times the group had visited the destination site. The comparison was measured by using a chi-square test. The chi-square test compares two distributions to determine if they are statistically significant. Awehiisguare implies a relationship but does not show the direction or strength of the relationship. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction The goal of this study is to look at communication -.wu... ‘ _ Y -\ t' 0‘ patterns that influence travel decisions,to_tourism and M‘- I‘M.M a ... ...-.- I recreation opportunities in Michigan. The theoretical premise of the study is the interdependent relationship between the components of group connectedness and travel information. The more linked together the traveling group the less outside information will be used. A group will rely on each other for travel or recreation information. Without a bridge to an outside link, chances for new information or opportunities for new activities or experiences diminishes. The link.to outside information sources, then, can provide a wider range of travel and recreation opportunities. The suppliers of recreation and tourism opportunities can use this information to know from where this information is obtained. This section will describe the communication patterns influencing traveling groups in order to establish the con- nectedness of groups and the channels of information used for selected kinds of information. The first part of this chapter looks at channels of information used by traveling 38 39 groups and the second section examines the patterns of com- munication that influence traveling groups when making their travel decisions. Information Sources Individual travelers were asked to identify their sources for nine specific kinds of information relative to their current trip. Information sources were operationalized into categories of formal and informal channels of communication. Formal channels included all types of mass media such as television, radio, newspaper, and magazines. Informal channels were friends, family, and acquaintances. Realizing that travelers do not restrict themselves to either formal channels or informal channels, a category was developed to include them.bothl Tables 2 and.3 shows which information sources constitute formal, informal, and mixed channels in this study. The channels for specific kinds of information.were compared to the number of times a destination was visited to see if repeat visitation impacted the need for, the kind of, and sources of information before the trip and at the destination» "Information" itself is a relativexterm in that it means different things to different people. In this study the definition of information was left up to the individual. no Table 2 Before Trip Sources Catergorized into Formal, Informal, and Mixed Channels Formal Informal Mixed Newspaper Person in group Any combination Radio Friend not going of formal and informal Magazine Family not going Television Chamber of Commerce employee Family member Friend Travel Information Center employee Family or Friend National Lakeshore gave book or map Own Investigation AAA book or map Any combination of the AAA brochure above Chamber of Commerce Travel Information Center information or brochure Travel Bureau Different Information Center Book or map Any combination of the above 41 Table 3 Upon Arrival Sources Categorized into Formal, Informal, and Mixed Channels Formal Informal Mixed Newspaper Person in group Prior Knowledge Radio Another visitor Any Magazine Employee at the combination place of formal Television and informal Drove by Brochure at the place Walked by Local visitor Local visitor center center employee Brochure at Restaurant employee restaurant Gas Station employee Brochure at the station Sport shop employee Chamber of Commerce Chamber of Commerce Any combination Chance of the above Any combination of the above 42 Before Trip Table 4 shows the relationship between the number of visits with kinds of information desired. Community events, local people and other types of information are not influenced by level of visitation. Since the chi-square does not reveal the direction of the relationship each kind of information will be examined with it's source (formal, informal, etc.) by the number of times visited. Places to stay in Table 5 reveals that first time visitors used formal sources (22.9%) more frequently then informal (13.7%) and mixed sources (21.5%). Repeat visitors used informal sources most frequently (18.3%, 12.6%). As the number of times individuals visited the destination increased the acquisition of information decreased. When all three groups are added together, over half of all visitors (63.4%) did not seek information on places to stay before leaving home. Places to eat information in Table 6 was most frequently sought through mixed sources by first time visitors (12.7%). The second source of information used by first time visitors were formal sources (10.7%). Over half of the first time visitors (66.3%) did not seek in- formation about places to eat before their trip. Informal sources were used most frequently by individuals who have Kinds of Information Used Before Trip 43 Table 4 by Number of Times Visited (df=10) Kind of Information X2 Prob. Level Places to stay 112.51 0.0001* Places to eat 49.22 0.0001* Recreation Activities 53.38 0.0001* Community Events 21.71 0.167 Shopping 43.86 0.0001* Tourist Attractions 79.00 0.0001* Scenic Areas 62.83 0.0001* Directions 68.10 0.0001* Local People 17.51 0.637 Other 12.07 2.805 * Significant at p>0.05 44 visited the destination in the past (15u0%, 13.2%). The majority'of individuals who were repeat visitors did not obtain information about places to eat before their trip (71.7%, 76.1%). Table 5 Sources of Information Before Trip for Places to Stay by Number of Times Visited. N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 22.9 14.4 9.4 Informal 13.7 18.3 12.6 Mixed 21.5 8.3 7.5 None 41.5 57.8 69.9 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 45 Table 6 Sources of Information Before Trip for Places to Eat by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 10.7 7.2 5.2 Informal 9.8 15.0 13.2 Mixed 12.7 5.0 4.1 None 66.3 71.7 76.1 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 1+6 Recreational Activities information in Table 7 reveals that over half of all visitors in all groups (65.1%) did not acquire information on recreational activities before leaving home. For those first time visitors who did, mixed sources were used most frequently'(18.5%). Individuals who had visited the destination site before acquired informa- tion about recreation activites through informal sources (14.4%, 9.0%) more frequently than through formal or mixed sources . Table 7 Sources of Information Before Trip for Recreational Activities by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=18O N=969 % % % Formal 15.1 9.4 8.7 Informal 14.1 14.4 9.0 Mixed 18.5 11.1 8.5 None 51.7 63.9 68.2 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 47 Community Events information in Table 4 was not significant in relation to the number of times an individual visited the destination area. As Table 8 shows most visitors did not desire information about community events (80.5%, 82.2%, 84.0%) prior to their trip and there was little difference in the frequency of this information by first time or repeat visitors. Table 8 Sources of Information Before Trip for Community Events by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 — 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 9.3 2.4 7 3 Informal 7.2 3.3 8.4 Mixed 7.3 6.1 3.1 None 80.5 82.2 84.0 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 1+8 §hopping information in Table 9 was not desired by most of the individuals before the trip (81.5%). For first time visitors who did want shopping information, formal sources were used (9.8%) with mixed sources closely following in frequency. Informal sources were used most frequently by individuals who had visited the destination before (8.3%, 8.5%). Table 9 Sources of Information Before Trip for Shopping by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 9.8 5.0 3.3 Informal 9.3 8.3 8.5 Mixed 8.3 3.3 3.4 None 72.2 82.2 83.4 No response 0.5 1.1 1.1 49 Tourist Attractions information (Table 10) used by first time visitors came from both formal (18.1%) and mixed sources (18.1%) more frequently than informal sources. A similar frequency pattern is followed by individuals visiting ten times or less. Formal sources were used most frequently (13.9%). Informal sources were used most fre- quently by those individuals who have visited ten times or more (10.9%). As the number of times individuals visited the destination increased, their desire for information about the destination decreased. Table 10 Sources of Information Before Trip for Tourist Attractions by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 18.0 13.9 7.4 Informal 10.7 11.1 10.9 Mixed 18.0 11.1 6.3 None 52.7 62.8 73.9 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 50 re 50 Scenic Areas information in Table 11 was most often acquired by first time visitors (41.4%). Over half of the first time visitors who did receive scenic area information received it through mixed (15.7%) and formal (14.2%) sources more frequently than the other sources. Individual repeat visitors to a destination used informal sources most frequently (12.8%, 10.2%) . Table 11 Sources of Information Before Trip for Scenic Areas by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 14.1 8.3 6.6 Informal 11.7 12.8 10.2 Mixed 15.6 7.8 5.8 None 58.0 70.0 76.0 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 fr: vi: Gr: 1e wh SO I“! 51 Directions information shown in Table 12 was more frequently obtained through formal sources by first time visitors and those visiting less than times (16.2%, 15.0%). Greater than ten times visitors used informal sources more frequently (12.2%). Individual repeat visitors visiting less than ten times used informal sources more frequently while those visiting more than ten times used formal sources . Table 12 Sources of Information Before Trip for Directions by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 .> 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 16.1 15.0 7.7 Informal 9.3 11.1 12.2 Mixed 15.1 7.8 4.2 None 59.0 65.0 75.2 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 sh in 52 Local People information (Table 13) was acquired before the trip by a small number of visitors (10%). As shown in Table 2 increasing levels of visitation did not influence the desire for information about the destination area's local people. Table 13 Sources of Information Before Trip about Local People by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 2.9 1.1 1.7 Informal 2.9 4.4 6.3 Mixed 3.9 0.6 1.3 None 98.8 92.8 89.3 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 che; types of information (Table 14) from those listed on the questionnaire were rarely desired by any of the travelers. Table 2 shows that other types of information is not significantly affected by increasing levels of visitation. However, first time visitors used formal sources (1.0%) more frequently than other sources. N N ((n (I) n) 53 Table 14 Sources of Information Before Trip for Other types by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of O 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 1.0 0.0 0.7 Informal 0.5 0.0 0.7 Mixed 0.5 2.2 0.5 None 97.6 96.7 96.6 No response 0.5 1.1 1.4 Spmmapy of Before Trip As the chi-square and frequency tables reveal, repeat visitation does influence the kinds of information acquired before a trip. First time visitors used mixed sources most frequently with formal sources following closely. It may be that formal channels were used to determine various alternative destination or recreation activities and informal sources were used in evaluating those alternatives. Mills and Morrison (1985) suggest that formal sources of communication are less important during the evaluation phases of consumer decision-making. Rather, (I) 54 there is a heavy reliance on the opinions of others. Informal channels were the most frequently used sources for information about the destination area before the trip by individuals having visited the site before. This may imply that individuals are relying on other group members or acquaintances for information. This would follow the principle of communication suggested by Rogers and Kincaid (1981L Ideas are exchanged most frequently among people who share a set of similar characteristics, common meaning, and mutual value positions. Gathering information through these sources would prevent having to "shuffle" through all information to find what particularly fits the traveling group's needs. As the amount of repeat visitation increased, the assumed need for information by travelers decreased. It appears that with repeat visitation travelers become familiar with the destination area and rely on their own experiences and knowledge for informatucnh The frequency tables also show that in most cases over half of visitors, first time or repeat, did not acquire the specific kinds of information listed. Furthermore, ninety percent of all visitors did not require other kinds of information that where not included in the questionnaire. There are three possible explanations for the apparent lack of information needed by traveling groups. First, individual travelers are the respondents in this data, and 55 it only takes one person to bring new information and ideas into a group. Thus, one person could be serving as the bridge linking to outside information and then disseminating the information through the group. Another possible reason could be that visitors assume that this information or type of service (ie. lodging or food and beverage)wwill be readily available upon.arrival. Many destinations are developed enough to have several types of lodging, restaurants, and shopping facilities available. Some of the services once considered crucial to travel have become common place in our era of fast—food and other conveniences. Following this same line of reasoning, the last reason for not acquiring information could be that through casual conversation with others or advertisements at times other than.immediately preceeding this trip,'the information was passively learned. The majority of the respondents were from Michigan (77.7%) with only a small number (21.9%) from out-of—state (McDonough, 1984). So it may be that this information is just "known" to them or "common knowledge. Upon Arrival Hodgson (1979) proposed a model of communication processes in outdoor recreation experiences in which the ideas of Rogers's (1983) diffusion of innovation were III In “I 56 combined with the description of recreation experiences from.Clawson.and Knetch.(1966). Hodgson established that different communication channels and information sources are utilized at different phases in the recreation experience. In other words, information is not only gathered before a trip is taken but may be collected and utilized at the destination site. This study requested that travelers indicate the kind of information used upon arrival at the destination site to determine if there is a difference in the information sources before a trip and upon arrival at the destination. Table 15 shows that kinds of information obtained upon arrival at the destination are affected by the number of times the destination site has been visited. The chi-square scores in Table 15 show that for all specific kinds of information except local people, there is a relationship with the number of times a destination site is visited. Each kind of information is examined to determine, through frequencies of sources used, the direction of relationship between the number of times visited and kind of information used. Place to stay information in Table 16 shows that for all types of visitors, informal sources are more frequently used ( 13.7%, 9.4%, 9.3%). It appears that as individual visitation increased the desire for information decreased. The majority of visitors did not obtain information after 57 Table 15 Kinds of Information Used Upon Arrival by Number of Times Visited (df=10) Kind of Information X2 Prob. Level Places to stay 40.29 0.001* Places to eat 74.19 0.001* Recreation Activites 35.54 0.001* Community Events 28.44 0.015 Shopping 31.11 0.006* Tourist Attractions 71.59 0.001* Scenic Areas 42.02 0.001* Directions 50.78 0.001* Local People 9.78 4.566 Other 26.07 0.036 * Significant at p>0.05 58 arriving at the destination site on places to stay (67.8%, 75.0%, 80.2%). Table 16 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Places to Stay by Number of Times Visited. N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of O 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 6.3 4.4 2.9 Informal 13.7 9.4 9.3 Mixed 8.3 7.8 4.7 None 67.8 75.0 80.2 No response 4.4 3.3 2.9 Places to eat information was most frequently acquired through.informal channels by all visitors as shown in Table 17. For first time visitors formal sources were the second most used source (8.3%). Repeat visitors used mixed sources as their second most frequently used source of information (8.9%, 6.8%). Individual repeat visitors used increasing less information with increasing number of visitations. 59 Table 17 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Places to Eat by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 8.3 7.8 2.6 Informal 22.9 11.7 12.0 Mixed 5.4 8.9 6.8 None 59.0 68.3 75.7 No response 4.4 3.3 2.9 Recreational activites information in Table 18 shows informal sources to be used most frequently by all visitors (15.6%, 11.1%, 11.3%). The second most frequently used source by first time visitors were formal sources (11.2%L Repeat visitors used mixed sources(9.4%, 7.2%). Community Events information was not desired by over two thirds (77.6%, 79.4%, 84.0%) of the visitors in all categories (Table 19). Informal sources were used most frequently by first time visitors (18.3%) and those visiting ten times or less (7.2%). Individuals visiting over ten times used formal sources most frequently. 60 Table 18 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Recreational Activities by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 11.2 5.6 5.5 Informal 15.6 11.1 11.3 Mixed 6.8 9.4 7.2 None 62.0 70.6 73.1 No response 4.4 3.3 2.9 Shopping information shown in Table 20 was most frequently acquired through informal sources by all visitor categories (12.2%, 9.5%, 9.1%). As the number of times an individual visited a destination increased the desire for shopping information decreased. Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Events by Number of Times Visited Community 61 Table 19 N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 8.3 4.4 5. Informal 7.3 7.2 4. Mixed 2.4 5.6 3. None 77.6 79.4 84. No response 4.4 3.3 2. 62 Table 20 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Shopping by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of O 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 5.4 3.9 2.6 Informal 12.2 9.5 9.1 Mixed 9 3 5.0 4 4 None 68.8 78.3 81.0 No response 4.4 3.4 2.9 Tourist attractions information used by first time visitors (Table 21) was acquired through mixed sources most frequently (25u6%). Repeat visitors used informal sources most frequently (11.7%, 8.4%) as sources of information. Scenic Areas information shown in Table 22 was obtained through informal channels by all.‘visitor categories (13.7%, 102.8, 9.4%). The second most frequently used sources by first time visitors were formal sources (10.7%)‘while repeat visitors used mixed sources (7.2%, 5.2%) 63 Table 21 Source of Information at Destination for Tourist Attractions by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Source of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 17.1 8.3 5.6 Informal 12.7 11.7 8.4 Mixed 25.6 7.8 5.5 None 54.6 68.9 77.7 No response 4.4 3.3 2.9 .64 Table 22 Source of Information at Destination for Scenic Areas by Number of Times Visited N =1354 Number of Times Visited Source of O 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 10.7 2.8 4.1 Informal 13.7 12.8 9.4 Mixed 6.3 7.2 5.2 None 64.9 73.9 78.4 No response 4.4 3.3 2.9 Pirections shown in Table 23 were gathered by all visitor categories most frequently through informal sources (15.1%, 12.8%, 10.3%). The second most frequently used sources were mixed sources for all visitor categories. The majority of individuals did not request any information on directions. gocalgpeople information as shown in Table 15 was not significantly relatad to the number of times the destination was visited. Table 24 shows that for those requesting this information, informal sources were most frequently used by all visitor categories. 65 Table 23 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Directions by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 7.8 3.9 3.5. Informal 15.1 12.8 10.3 Mixed 11.2 5.6 4.1 None 61.5 74.4 79.2 No response 4.4 3.3 2.9 66 Table 24 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Local People by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of O 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 1.0 0.6 0.5 Informal 5.4 3.9 3.7 Mixed 1.5 2.2 2.3 None 87.8 90.0 90.6 No response 4.4 3.3 2.9 Other types of information in Table 25 were requested by less than 10 percent of all visitors and without much variation with the number of times the destination site was visited. That is, first time visitors rarely required other types of information that were not specifically asked for in the questionnaire as often as repeat visitors. 67 Table 25 Sources of Information Upon Arrival for Other types by Number of Times Visited N=1354 Number of Times Visited Sources of 0 1 - 10 > 10 Information N=205 N=180 N=969 % % % Formal 0.5 2.8 0.2 Informal 1.5 0.0 0.9 Mixed 0.0 1.1 0.5 None 93.7 92.8 95.5 No response 4.4 3.3 2.9 Summary of Dean Arrival Table 14 showed that there was a relationship between kinds of information acquired upon arrival at the destination site and the number of times visited. The frequencies in Tables 16 to 25 showed that with increasing number of visits to a destination the desire for informa- tion decreases. For those requesting information, the most frequently used sources for all kinds of information were informal sources. This coincides with the findings of Eckstein (1983). Eckstein, in a study of communication networks used by visitors to Michigan, found the most frequently 68 used source of information was the place where visitors were staying (65.5%), followed by driving/walking by (46.9%). She suggestd that, upon arrival, informal sources become more readily available so their use increases. The majority of visitors in all categories did not use the specific kinds of information given in the question— naire or other types of information not included in the questionnaire. Once again, it may be the familiarity of the destination or general "pre-conceivedfl notion of the destination area that diminishes the need for information. Comparison of Before and After Arrival Information Sources Separating out the kinds of information visitors receive according to phase of trip (before and upon arrival) was done to establish if people exhibit different usage of information sources with the various phases of their trip. The data suggests that first time and repeat visitors do not actively seek out information before their trip or after arriving at the destination based on the large number of individuals that did not obtain any type of information. However, for first time visitors who did seek additional information the three most frequent kinds of information sought were places to stay (58.5%), recreational activities (48.3%), and tourist attractions (47/3%). First time visitors used mixed sources and formal channels for information. 69 The same kinds of information needs were found to occur with repeat visitors. The most frequently requested kinds of information before the trip were places to stay (32.7%), recreational activities (32.5%) and tourist attractions (27.9%). Repeat visitors obtained information through informal channels more frequently than through other channels. Upon arrival at the destination, first time visitors most frequently used information about places to eat (31.7%), tourist activities (31.1%), and recreational activities (29.4%). These kinds of information were most frequently gathered through informal sources. Repeat visitors most frequently requested information on recreational areas (27.3%), places to eat (25.4%), and tourist attractions (23~7%). This information was gathered through informal sources. The data show that first time visitors relyron.mixed and formal channels before the trip and informal sources upon arrival. Individual repeat visitors gathered informa- tion primarily through informal sources. As Cox (1963) suggested, information seeking is important in the way in which consumers use channels of information. Formal sources are used to create awareness and stimulate interest. Using formal sources to create awareness and stimulate interest would hold true for first time visitors and their use of formal sources to learn about the 7O destination and what it has to offer, while informal sources are used for evaluation. First time visitors may use the opinions of family and friends to help them evaluate their alternatives. Informal channels used by repeat visitors could also be used to generate awareness and for evaluation. The informal sources are probably homophilious or similar to the individual seeking the information. Thus the informal sources would be better able to provide information relative to the information seekers' needs and wants. The data were collected on individuals and it is difficult to determine the relationship between individual choices of information sources and impact on the group. Only one person is needed to bring information into a group. The next section looks at the connectedness of the travel group to determine if repeat visitors are influential by bringing in new ideas or staying with the old and familiar. Communication Patterns One way social interaction influences recreation and travel behavior is through information exchange. The structure of information exchange within the group as well as between the group and outside sources can help explain this influence on behavior. Two concepts from the network communication literature can show this structure: con- 71 nectedness and openness. Connectedness of the traveling group describes the degree to which the group exchanges information within itself. Openness is the degree to which the traveling group exchanges information with its environment. Openness of the Traveling Group In looking at the importance of outside information to the traveling group, Tables 26 and.27 show that there is runza.significant relationship between repeat visitation and the openness of a group to receiving outside suggestions. Groups comprised of all first time visitors do not receive more suggestions from outside their group then do groups of mixed or all repeat visitors before the trip or upon arrival. Connectedness Of The Traveling Groups Table 28 shows there is a significant relationship between repeat visitation and connectedness. Repeat visitation does influence communication patterns within the group. For mixed groups, the connectedness score is less (210.85) than for other two groups. First time visitors in mixed groups may rely on repeat visitors. This could lead to pooling of ignorance, as suggested by Rogers and Kincaid (1981), which would limited their travel and recreation 72 opportunities by simplying relying on information of either the groups. Table 26 Mean Openness Score by Numbers of Repeat Visitorsinthe Group Before Trip (F=1.623, p>0.05) Mean Group Openness Standard Composition Number Score Deviation All first time visitors groups 83 2.076 1.893 Mixed: first time and repeat visitors groups 109 1.659 1.514 All repeat visitors groups 316 1.701 1.860 73 Table 27 Mean Openness Score by Number of Repeat Visitors in the Group Upon Arrival (F=O.468, p>0.05) Mean Group Openness Standard Composition Number Score Deviation All first time visitors groups 83 0.981 1.305 Mixed: first time and repeat visitor groups 109 0.918 1.510 All repeat visitors groups 316 0.829 1.361 Visitor groups made up from all first time visitors and all repeat visitors have higher connectedness scores. Connected groups tend 1H) be more homophilious. Connectedness is positively related to convergence (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981L These visitors talk about their travel decisions among themselves more frequently than mixed groups possibly because they share common interests and their information exchange has mutually understood meanings. 74 Table 28 Mean Connectedness Score by Number of Repeat Visitors in the group (F=6.505, p>0.05) Mean Group Connectedness Standard Composition Number Score Deviation All first time *visitors groups 83 306.12 221.37 Mixed: first time, repeat visitors 109 210.85 223.60 All repeat visitors groups 316 313:96 281.51 Table 29 further investigates the relationship between connectedness and repeat visitation. Each level of repeat visitation shows significant differences between all first time visitor groups and mixed groups and between groups of all repeat visitor and mixed groups. There was no signifi- cant difference between all first time visitor groups and all repeat visitor groups. It would be reasonable to assume that first time visitor groups to an area would gather more information from outside sources than repeat visitors since all group members would be unfamiliar with the destination. However this is not the case. All first time visitor groups were found not to be more open than other visitor groups. It 75 Table 29 Group Connectedness by Number of Repeat Visitors (T=l.96, p>0.05) Group Standard T Composition N Mean Deviation Value (if. All first time visitors 83 306.12 221.37 2.11* 164 More than 50% first time visitors 83 228.97 249.61 All first time visitors 83 306.12 221.37 5.18* 107 Less than 50% first visitors 26 153.66 84.60 All first time visitors 83 306.12 221.37 0.27 397 .All repeat visitors 316 313.97 281.51 More than 50% first time visitors 83 228.77 241.61 2.35* 107 Less than 50% first time visitors 26 153.66 84.60 More than 50% first time visitors 83 228.77 249.61 2.69* 397 All repeat visitors 316 313.97 281.51 Less than 50% first time visitors 26 153.66 84.60 6.99* 340 All repeat visitors 316 313.97 281.51 * indicates significance 76 also might be expected that first time visitor groups would have higher connectedness score since the information would need to be shared among the group members. This was true between mixed groups and first time visitor groups but not between first time visitor groups and all repeat visitor groups. Groups with all repeat visitors do not appear to be any more or less open than other visitor groups. The familiarity of the area does not direct them to seek further information" The connectedness score of all repeat visitor groups was not significantly related to the all first time visitor group suggesting that they are just as connected as first time visitors. All repeat visitor groups may be deciding which out of all the options available to them at the destination site they are going to utilize. The communication patterns influencing recreation and travel behavior were discussed here. Groups that are com- posed of all first time visitors do not receive any more suggestions from outside their group than groups of mixed or all repeat visitors. However, groups of first time and repeat visitors seem to talk less about their travel plans within their group then all first time and all repeat visitor groups. The implication of communication patterns and information sources used for recreation and tourism promotion will be discussed in the next section. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions Recreation and tourism information is needed in order to be aware of the opportunities available and to be able to evaluate these opportunities to make a decision. Tourist information, when directed through the appropriate channels to the target market, facilitates the decision— making process. Past recreation and tourism studies have asked where a visitor first learned about destination sites, but it was the goal of this study to take this one step further. Past research has taken a linear communica- tion model perspective of information sources suggesting the person filling out the questionnaire was the final step in the communication process. This study, realizing that people do not exist in a vacuum, looked at what happens to that information once it was received by a group member. The focus was whether the connectedness or openness of the traveling group was affected by repeat visitation and rahether repeat visitation affected the kinds and sources of information used. Repeat visitation was not significantly related to the openness of traveling groups. Outside sources of 77 78 information were not used more~by one group'over another. Repeat visitation was significantly related to the con- nectedness of all first time visitors and all repeat visitor groups. Yet, mixed groups were not significantly related to all first time or all repeat visitor groups. Individual repeat visitors did affect the kinds and sources of information used by their visiting groups in making their travel decisions. As the level of repeat visitation increased, the uses of outside sources for in- formation decreased. It appears that with repeat visitations. travelers become more familiar with the destination area and rely on their own experiences or knowledge. The information or experience is then shared with other group members. Formal and/or mixed channels were found to be used more frequently by first time visitors before their trips. Upon arrival first time visitors most frequently used in- formal sources. Repeat visitors used informal channels most frequently before their trip and upon arrival than any other sources. However, the data showed that a majority of the individuals, first time and repeat, did not require information before their trip .or upon arrival at the destination site. As stated, this information was collected and analyzed for individual respondents. It was also stated that the 79 majority of respondents did not use any information sources before their trip or upon arrival. Only one individual is needed to bring information into the group. This one individual could serve as the bridge between the group and outside sources of information. Serving in this central position, this person would relay information to other members. Communication network studies of small groups define centrality as the measure of one's closeness to all other group members and this is a measure of the availability of information necessary for solving the problem (Hare, 1962L In a centralized organizational pattern within a group, all information is channeled through one person who solves the problem and distributes the answer to other group members. (Shaw, 1971). Having a group member in a centralized position would minimize the number of individuals seeking information for travel decisions. A centralized organizational pattern may also be characterisitic of mixed traveling groups. The repeat visitor within the group may serve in the central position. The dependence on informal channels for information may come from repeat visitors in the groups. Having a centralized person could also explain the lower connectedness score for mixed groups since information and decisions flow from one person decreasing the need to discuss opportunities among the group. 80 All first time and all repeat visitor groups were found to be more connected than mixed groups, which would sugget they conferred with other group members. When a person within a group is not placed in a highly centralized position, the tendency is to develop an "each-to-all" organizational pattern (Shaw, 1971L. This latter is not merely a lack of organization" It involves a consistent procedure for ensuring that all members receive all available information (Shaw, 1954; Shaw and Rothschild 1965; Guetzkow and Dill, 1957; Cohen, 1961; 1962). Yet only one person is needed to bring information in to the group from the outside which, again, may account for the low number of requests for information. Implications It was the aim of this study to provide insights as to how to more effectively promote and manage tourism in Michigan" IResults of this study indicate that this will not be an easy task because many travelers do not actively seek travel and recreation information before their trip or upon arrival. If travelers are not actively seeking information there may be preconceived idea of what is available at a destination site or that this information is readily available upon arrival. A traveler may associate a destination site with a particular activity, opportunity, or business, and travelers may know that particular 81 facilities will be available. Prior knowledge of facilities may be beneficial to well established businesses but not so for new and less well-known businesses. If travelers are not seeking futher information about a destination then they may not learn about alternatives or new opportunities. The question tnen becomes how can these business or services promote themselves to travelers. If travelers are not actively seeking out information from formal sources then the travel marketer must actively seek out the target market. Actively seeking out the target market can be accomplished throughmadvertising in specialty magazines relating to activies such as skiing or fishing. Direct mailings from past visitor usage lists, magazine subscribtion lists, or fishing license registrations can provide a direct link to the target market without wasting promotion dollars on the uninterested or nonparticipant sectors of the populations. Another possiblity is sponsoring sporting events or tapping into clubs that would be interested in the opportunity available. For example, running-shoe companies give hundreds of dollars worthlof equipment to running clubs, hoping to gain favorable exposure with local joggers and corportations sponsor athletic events. Sponsoring sporting events generates exposure and name recognition among their target populations and creates good will. A manager of a ski resort could sponsor races or special events or could 82 offer her/his resort on the off season to cross country runners. If traveling populations are not learning about the destination opportunities before their trip or upon arrival from the sources specified in this study, just how do they know about them? Zrt may be that this information is learned passively at other times through causal conversations or from advertisements at times other than pre-trip. Associating a business with a destination or activity could be one way to make people more aware of the opportunities,available. The city of Frankenmuth conjures up an image in the minds of many Michigan residents with its Bavarian theme. Cooperative advertising by businesses and/or services would help people to make new associations with a destination. Cooperative advertising may help defer the cost of advertising and promotion and at the same time put the business or service in the mind of the public. Upon arrival at the destination, first time visitors were more likely to use informal sources. Eckstein (1983) found that visitors to Frankfort and Tawas, Michigan most frequently (65.5%) used the "place stayed" as a source of information. A travel manager could take advantage of this information and stimulate owners/employees to make recom- mendations. Hotel and motel owners and managers in Scottsbluff, Nebraska personally offer to their customers information about the opportunities in surrounding areas 51 r: 'fl 83 and the Old West Trail which goes through several bordering states. Having hotel and motel owners and managers make recommendations is part of the promotion plan by the Scottsbluff Tourism Council. This type of promotion may be especially effective for new businesses in creating aware- ness and it may cut the cost of advertising by avoiding wasting advertising dollars on nontarget segments of the population. Last, the actual promotion themes can suggest that people discuss the activity or service with others. Advertising copy can have neighbors or family member discussing the destination in order to spark word of mouth communication. Many other recreation or travel studies have found that travelers:do talk about their vacation experiences. Clawson and Knetch (1966) call this the recollection phase. It may be during this time that travel information is learned and stored in memory for later use. Thus, tourism marketers, in order to reach their target markets, must actively pursue them rather than.assume travelers will seek out information as shown in this study. This is especiallyr true for repeat visitors and for new businesses. Limitations and Research4§irections There are several limitations to the data utilized in this study. First, it is questionnable as to how 84 representative the sample is of the general population. Travelers to Michigan may be different than travelers to other states. The types of activities and experiences the Michigan has to offer may differ from place to place. Most of the respondents were from Michigan. If the sample had included more out-of-state visitors, the results may have been different. The second limitation deals with the research questionnaire. Respondents were given a list of specific kinds of information to discover the types of information sought by travelers before their trip and after arrival at their destination” It was found that many travelers did not aCtive;y searcn for information. Not seeking information may have been due to the generalness or the broad context in which this information was asked. In this day and age, destinations are generally well developed.with several types of lodging or restaurants available. Availability of facilities may not be such important information to gather before the trip because it is assumed that these services will be there. It might have been more appropriate to ask about specific lodging or restaurants characteristic to the area in question. Another way that could be used to tap into this information is to ask why this particular destination was chosen. From here, questions could expand into how this information was learned“ Was it actively'sought or was it just "known"? 85 Is it pertinent information for the trip or is this information taken for granted? Was the information "known" about last year? Where was the information learned? Has a family member or friend been there? These type of questions may determine how or through what sources travelers passively learn about a destination site. Futhermore, it would be useful to compare Michigan travelers and out—of—state visitors to determine if the same type of information sources are used. With the intro- duction of distance traveled as a variable, would there be a more active information search? This study used auto- moble travel. Introducing other transportation variables may show a more in-depth information search. The third limitation is contained in the methodology of the study. A more appropriate measure of communication networks is through a communication matrixn A matrix allows for determining "who-to-whom" communication links. In such a matrix, each individual appears on the vertical (who) dimension and also on the horizontal (to whom) dimension. Thus, every possible link can be examined. Of course, that would hardly be possible in random sample of people on their vacations. In order to truly tap into a traveler's communication network, every possible link would have to be investgated. The costs of money and time would be great in such an undertaking. The influence of word of mouth communication is well 86 known in the business sector as well as with communication researchers. The use of word of mouth communcation is felt far and wide yet it almost impossible to truly tap into to determine just how it works. Yet through realizing its existence and its power the travel marketers can use it to their advantage. APPENDIX APPENDIX Michigan Tourism Survey Are you visiting from out of state? no la) Where in Michigan are you from? yes 1b) What state or country are you from? 1c) Are you orignally from Michigan? What is the purpose of this trip? (Please check as many as apply.) visit family and friends business vacation buy agricultural products (i.e. potatoes, berries. (i.e. potatoes, berries, wine, maple syrup) other (please list) Is this you first trip, or have you vacationed within a ten mile radius of this area before? first-time visitor 4a) How did you first become aware of this area as a vacation site? repeat visitor 4b) Think back to your first trip to this area. How did you first become aware of this area as a vacation site? 4c) How many times have you visited this area before? How familiar do you feel you are with this area? (Please circle one) not at all not very somewhat very extremely familiar familiar familiar familiar familiar 87 88 6. Now we would like to ask you some questions about the group you are traveling with on this trip. ZFirst please list each person in your group by first name, and give each person's relationship to you. Then, please answer the remaining questions. List persons in group by first name: Relationship to you (i.e. father, wife, friend): Before you came on this trip how many times did you talk with this person in the last 3 months? (Please choose one number per person from this list: (1) one in 3 months; (2) at least once a month; (3) at least once a week; (4) at least once a day; (5) at least 3 times a day.) How many times did this person make suggestions about this trip to you before you left? (Please estimate a number, i.e. O, 6) How many times has this person made suggestions about this trip to you since you arrived here? (Please estimate a number, i.e. O, 6) What percent of the time are this personhs suggestions followed by the group? (Once again, please try to estimate a number.) Example: John, friend, 3, 4, 6, 40% 7. Please order the names from the list above of those people, including yourself, who influence you traveling group the most. (Use only as many names as necessary.) 8. a) To the best of your knowledge, how many times has someone outside your traveling group made a suggestion about this trip before you left? 0 1—3 4-6 7-9 other (please list) b) If someone, or several people, from outside your traveling group did make suggestions, who (i.e. friend, mother, grandfather)? 9. a) To the best of your knowledge, how many times has someone outside your traveling group made a suggetion about this trip since you arrived here? 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 other (please list) 89 b) If someone, or several people, from outside your traveling group did make suggestions, who (i.e friend, father, grandfather?) 10. Now please match what kinds of information you got about this area before your trip with where this information came from, (iJL the sources of that informationJ Several sources can be listed for each kind of information. If you did not get any information, check none. If you gotsome other kind, or souce, of information, please list it in the other category. Example: a. Places to stay 6‘ 13,19 Kinds ofglnformation Sources of Information none 1. newspaper 2. radio a. places to stay ___ 3. magazine 4. TV b. places to eat ___ 5. person in my group told me (who?) c. recreational activities ___ 6. friends not going on trip told me d. community events ___ 7. friends not going on trip gave a e. shopping ___ brochure, map, or guidebook f. tourist 8. friends not going on attractions ___ trip gave me a AAA map g. scenic areas ___ 9. friends not going on trip gave me a AAA h. directions to guidebook a place ___ 10. family not going on 1. what the local trip told me people are like ___ 11. family not going on trip gave me a j. other ___ brochure, map, or (please list) guidebook 12. family not going on trip gave me a AAA map 13. family not going on trip gave me a AAA (Continued on next page) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 9O employee at AAA gave me a map employee at AAA gave me a guidebook selected a brochure at AAA employee at Chamber of Commerce told me employee at Chamber of Commerce gave me a brochure, map or guidebook selected a brochue at Chamber of Commerce employee at Travel Information Center told me employee at Travel Information Center gave me brochure, map, or guidebook selected a brochure at Travel Information Center other (please list) other (please list) 11. Next please match what kinds of information you got about this area since you arrived here with the sources of that information. Once again several sources can be listed for each kind of information. If you did not get any information, check none. If you got some other kind, or source, of information, please list it in the other category. ginds of Information Sources of Information none 1. newspaper 2. radio a. places to stay ___ 3. magazine 4. TV b. places to eat ___ 5. person in my group guidebook told me (who?) c. recreational activities ___ 6. friends not going on trip told me d. community events ___ ‘ 7. friends not going on trip gave a e. shopping ___ brochure, map, or guidebook f. tourist 8. friends not going on attractions ___ trip gave me a AAA map scenic areas ____ 9. friends not going on trip gave me a AAA . directions to guidebook a place 91 10. family not going on 1. what the local trip told me people are like ___ 11. family not going on trip gave me a j. other ___ brochure, map, or (please list) guidebook 12. family not going on trip gave me a AAA map 13. family not going on trip gave me a AAA guidebook 14. employee at AAA gave me a map 15. employee at AAA gave me a guidebook 16. selected a brochure at AAA 17. employee at Chamber of Commerce told me 18. employee at Chamber of Commerce gave me a brochure, map or guidebook 19. selected a brochue at Chamber of Commerce 20. employee at Travel Information Center told me 21. employee at Travel Information Center gave me brochure map, or guidebook 22. selected a brochure at Travel Information Center 23. other (please list) 24. other (please list) 12. Between the time you left home and the time you arrived here, did you receive any information about additional recreational opportunities? no (if no, go on to Question 13) yes 12a) If yes, please also match what kinds of information you got with the sources. Kinds of Information Sources of Information none 1. Billboards 2. radio a. places to stay 3. travel information centers 12b) 13. 14. 92 places to eat recreational activities community events shopping tourist attractions scenic areas directions to a place what the local people are like other (please list) newspapers other highway rest stops someone outside me group told me road signs other (please list) other (please list) Did this information cause you to change you plans in any way? no (if no, go on to Question 13) yes 12c) If yes, What is your age? What is your sex? L ITERATURE C ITED LITERATURE CITED Aaker, D. A. and J. M.Carman. 1982. Are you over advertising? Journal of AdvertisingResearch. 8(4):550-568. Aaker, D. A. and J. G. Myers. 1982. Advertising Management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 560pp. Arndt, J. 1967. Word of mouth advertising: A review of the l iterature. Journal of Marketing Research. 4(3):291-295. Assael, H. 1984. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Belmont: Wadsworth, Inc. 695pp. Bayus, 3.1; 1985. Word of Mouth: The indirect effects of marketing effects. Journal of AdvertisingResearch. 25(3):31-39. Cantril, H. 1940. The Invasion from Mars. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Clawson, M. and J. C. Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. 328 pp. Cohen, A" M. 1961. Changing small group communication networks. Journal of Communication 11:116-124 & 128. Cohen, A” M. 1962. Changing small-group communication networks. Administrative Science Quarterly 6:443-462. Cox, D. L. 1963. The Audience as Communicators. In: Toward ScienticMarketing. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association.ed. SMA. Greyer. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Crompton, J3 L. 1981. Dimensions of the social group role in pleasure vacations. Annals of Tourism Research. 8(4): 550-568. 93 9h Day,G. S. 1971. Attitude change, media and word of mouth. Journal of Advertising Research” 11“”: 31-40. Deale, C. 1983. Auto travelers' images of tourism and recreation regionsninrMichigan: An exploratory study. Unpublished Mas erPs TheSis, Michigan State University, East using, Michigan. Eckstein, C. E. 1983. Communication networks of visitors to recreation locations along the Great Lakes: Implicati orincreasingtourism.Unpublished Mastem”s hesi , Michigan State University, East Lansing, igan. Farce, R. V. P. R. Monge, and H. M. Russell. 1977. fCommunicating a_nd Organizing. Reading: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co. Friedman, H.1L and L. Friedman. 1979. Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of Advertising Research. 19(5): 63-71. Gitelson, Rh J. and J: L. Crompton. 1983. The planning horizons and sources of information used by pleasure vacationers. Journal of Travel Research. 21(3): 2-8. Gr ovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American /7n Journal of Sociology. 78(6): 1360-1380. { . 1982. The strength of weak ties: A network \\\ theory revisited. Social Structure and Network Anaylsis. eds. P.V. Marsden and N. Lin Beverly Hills: Sage. pp. 105—130. Guetzkowi, H. and W. R. Dill, 1957. Factors in the organizational development of task-oriented groups. Sociometry 20:175-204. Haines, G.IL, Jr. 1966. Science, Technology. and Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Hare, A.EL 1962. Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: Free Press. Hodgson, R.VL 1971. Campground features attractive to ' Mi an State Park campers. Unpublished Masterhs T s, Michigan State University, East Lansing, igan. 95 Hovland, C”.IL Lumsdaine, and Scheffield, 1949. Experiments on Mass Communication. Princeton: Princeton University Press Hovland, C” I; Janis,and H. Kelley, 1953. Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jacoby. J. 1975. Pre-purchase information acquisisiton. In: Advances in Consumer Research. ed. Beverlee B. Andersen. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research. pp. 306-314. Katona, G. and E.‘Mueller. 1955. A study of purchasing decisions. In: Consumer Behavior: The Dynamics of Consumer Reaction. ed. IHH. Clark. New York: New York University Press. Katz, E. and PH F. Lazarfeld. 1955. Personal Influence. New York: Free Press. Kolter, P. 1980. Principles of Marketing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc. 685 pp. Krugman, H.2E. 1977. Memory without recall, exposure without perception. Journal of Advertising Research 17 (August): 7—12. McDonough, M.IL 1984. Information networks and Great Lakes Recreation: Implications for increasing tourism in Michigan. Final Report, Michigan a Gr t. Michigan State University, East if- ' g, Michigan. McIntosh, R. W. and C. R. Goeldner. 1984. Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. Columbus: Grid Publishing, Inc. 524 pp. Merton. R. 1946. Mass Persuasion. New York: Harper. Millq IL C. and A” M. Morrison. 1985. The Tourism System Englewood: Prentice—Hall, Inc. 457 pp. Moriarty, S. E. 1983. Beyond the Hierarchy of Effects. Current Issues and Research In Advertising: 45-55. Newton, J. W.and R. Staelin.1972.Prepurchase information-seeking for new cars and major household appliances. Journal of Marketing Research“ 9(August): 249-257. 96 Nolan, 5.1L 1976. Tourists use and evaluation of travel information sources: Summary and conclusions. Journal of Travel Research. 14(3): 6-8. Politz A. 1968. The dilemma of creative advertising. In: Readings in Advertising and Promotion Strategy. ed. A.N. Barban and C.H. Sandage. New York: Richard D. Irwin. Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press. , and DJL. Kincaid. 1981. Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradign for Research. New York: The Free Press. Spotts, D. M. and D. J. Stynes. 1985. Measuring the publicfls familiarity with recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research. 17(4h 253—265. Tan, A” S. 1985. Mass Communication Theories and Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 480 pp. Taylor, J. W. 1974. The role of risk in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing. 38(Winter): 54-60. Woodside, A. G. and M.W. Delozier. 1976. Effects of Word of Mouth Advertising on Consumer Risk Taking. Journal of Advertising Research. 5(4): 12—19.