131141!!!

. iiil-I' u... c
v v' .tl..1.itlecra :II a
.3): In! u".779.. .. ul.
‘ vge:
I. 7
I , .L'L’
. .‘ ..Iv:x\_.b.._.
l -1 £21:le .6.
t ‘ uv ‘ l.
01"!
.

{LOIQtt
cs|.«-|lttn
. n] ‘

. r .0 - L
A. ft... 5.5... a . e
4. 14!;F!) .1 1...,
, ‘(Qp'III I‘D 5| 1 tan” 'Hlfulfl I.
plurvfgohflssr .iwrnu I:
.I!P‘On".i.l> O)
Iii-vii. J2? L70! v . .7 l'vltn
.9 . .l: y. u... .I' n i: A 1.
. do».nu1r$3.:w viz} , 4...! tubal]... .
If Hag. b§fJIuflmlaJflln hv'ltb iiiiii (tn
rl‘if... L151," {.1 I33. I .w-‘tflunfil‘a.
Pan. .yo.f.nlt.
V r.‘ 1.";
0 ‘1...

V .: 25....

. 4"”..fo5.

15.5%.“!!! .
.7...

~ .1353:

, All):
VI .nnrlfllbio I}
f"? In ,‘NUJ .brlll'
.. » I: ..

I'lfilfl'll ' .t A- . ‘
$nll»~tol.- {but 03704::
v tvfl.)flfl.llipl.vo.hctllrlruial‘xfuk. . It (nun. .
ll. PE? i. I
[1,. k 1?.» .1.i..l If!)
. C. Y ‘yH051fAli A? . .
. l

. 3'
rum
‘I

"f: . . ‘u

l

I
o

3.51:4
. .1!)

I 1 Ch“ o X .I
u..ur|.-.0' ‘o.
. Atfl I

. it!
I].
'1‘ I st

ti 1 .u]
:05 9...:
' ...FA I.
031 0.x;fil‘).
3'6 5'5}.
..

Nil. [19.»

 

3. .
15.31. 55.. .3 I:
f. 3.4)-; 1:14.! n»..- ‘
33315.2. 1!}

I!‘ 1.. (It?
. . .

.l
.v a 3' 1.:

. .Au 1. It.
. I.-. it‘ll.
I‘ll-I... )Ir

.
9.191....Jtfih.
rill. ‘5DQID$ D
.. 4313 2.... .

l1. - - .2 ll..-
r - f1 sixtiufiv! o...
3. : .vvs...:{.u.3v.-l3rx..czf -
«ha. -nvuuzxsll3unwt“ciz.rwflfif
. lion} :,

pH
.6
bit”: -

 

 

                                                                                                   

llllllllllfm

3 1293 00903900

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Vacation Decision—Making of Family Members:
The Influence of Socioeconomic Variables

presented by

Marianne Young Mahoney

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctor of Philosophy degreein Family Ecology

 

 

 

Major prolgksor
9.,

Date Z/é/70

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

  
 
 

  

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 
    

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

I, DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

SEP 2 0 I115:
IL; 68 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘

\\\

MSU It An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cicl

"MONO-DJ

 

  

 

 

 

Vacation Decision-Making of Family Members:

The Influence of Socioeconomic Variablw

By

Marianne Young Mahoney

A DISSERENTION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

IIIHOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family Ecology

1990

 

 

WC?

VAQTION DECISION-MAKING OF FAMILY MEMBERS:
'IHE INFIUENCE OF SOCIOEmNQ’lIC VARIABLES

By
Marianne Young Mahoney

The purpose of this stmdy was to examine the perceived influence
family members have on vacation decision—making. Plonk's Central-
Satellite Model of decision-making was used as the conceptual

framework. The central decision was the perceived mean level of

M influence family members had on the decision to vacation this year.

Satellite decisions consisted of the perceived mean level of influence
family members had on the decision to vacation this summer, when to
vacation, activities selected, accommodations, length of the vacation
and resort area chosen.

‘Satellite decisions were classified by a Delphi panel as tactical

v and policy 'Ihe first set of hypotheses addressed travel characteris-

tics which may affect family members' perceived influence on vacation
decision-maJdng. Characteristics analyzed included cost of accommoda-
tions, mnnber of persons the respondent paid for, mode of transporta-
tion and travel party composition. Analysis of covariance and stepwise
regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. General
patterm concerning the influence travel characteristics made on family
vacation decision-making were not identified.

Hypotheses Set 2 addressed the relationship between demographic

variables, travel party canposition and perceived influence family

A 1,

 

-.—-

_,_— ————.——

 

 

members had on vacation decision—making. Oneway analysis of variance,
Tukey's post hoc test and analysis of variance were conducted.
Significant differences were identified between young couples traveling
without children and middle-aged couples traveling with children and
between elderly vacationers and young couples traveling with children.
Respondent's age was positively related to the perceived influence
children exerted on vacation activities selected and resort area
chosen. Income was significant in relation to the perceived mean level
of influence of children on the decision to vacation this year. >
Education was negatively related to the perceived influence the wife
and husband exerted on the resort area chosen. Education was
positively related to the perceived influence of the husband to
vacation this surrlmer.

Hypothesis set three consisted of the examination of differences
between the perceived influence spouses exerted on the satellite
decisions. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences
between the overall dominant decision-maker and dominant decision-

maker for policy and tactical decisions.

 

 

Many people assisted in the completion of this dissertation.
Several people, however, must be acknowledged due to their mending
guidance, support and encouragement. A special thanks is given to Dr.
Brenda Sternqm'st, my major professor. Thank you for the use of the
database, aswellasthemiendingsupport, encwragementand
friendship provided me throughait my graduate program and research.
Dr. Margaret BJbOlZ and Dr. Jean Schlater, Family Ecology, through
their expertise in family studies, provided valuable information
concerning the study of the family ard decision-making. Dr. Forrest S.
Carter, Marketing and Transportation, assisted greatly in the
statistical analyses of the dissertation. 'Ihese camnittee members
shall always be remembered for their time, encmragement, and
friendship thrmghart my program.

A special thanks is given to Dr. Richard 'Ihornes. 'Ihe friendship
and emotional support bestowed upon me is greatly appreciated. 'Ihanks
for always being there.

Finally, to Louis James Mahoney, to whom this dissertation is
dedicated—for all the long nights, missed events, and fast dinners,
thankyou forymrmxierstanding, anotional sqportanitechnical
assistance.

iv

 

'EBLEOFOIH'ENI'S

m
Mm”... ...... . ........................................... 1
Introduction... ......... . .............. .. ...... ............. 1
Statement oftheProblem ...... . ...... . ...... . ...... . ............... 2
Justification. . . . ............. . .................................... 3
ResearchObjectives ...................... . ......................... 6
'meHumanEcosystanModel ......................................... 6
Family Vacation Decision-Making Within an Ecosystem
er.... ..... . .............. . ..... . .................. . ...... 7
Framework ............. . ..... . ................... . ....... 8
Definitions ..... . ....... ........................................ 9
mu ........................ . ............................... 13
QBeviewof literature .......... . .................................... 13
Importame of Tourist Trade ........................................ 14
Tourism Employment Base... ................................... 16
v Influential Factors in ’Iburists' Decision-Making ................... 17
QSocioeconomicAspects ......................................... 17
Travel Destination ..... . ...................................... 19
Travel fopenditures...” ..... .......................... 21
Information Acquisition. . . ..... . .............................. 22
'yDecision—Making ........................................... 24
WW5 of Analyzing Decision-Making.... ...... . ..... . ..... . ........ 25
Decisim-MakingProcess .............................. 25
State ofNature ..... . ......................................... 26
JClassification of Decisions. . . . . . ..... . ...... . ..... . ........ . . 26
VDec1s1on Linkages ..... . ................... . ................... 28
Dec151on-Maker ....... ...... . ..... . ...... . ............. 29
..... ...... ................ 29
QEmflyLifeCYcleu .............. 30
VDecisim-MakingBetweenfiawses ............. . ................ 36
\Ouldren's InfluenceonDecision-Making........... ............ 41
Central-Satellite Pattern of Decision-Making tbdel .......... . ...... 43
\Criteria forthecentralDecision ....... . ....... 44
Criteria for Satellite Decisions.......... ..... . .............. 44
JDecision Classification....... ..... .. ..... . ..... ...... 46
Control Dec1s1ons ...... . .................... .. 46
Policy Dec1510rs ...... 46
Decisions........... ..... ..... 47
'I‘actial Decisicrs........... ...... . ........... .. ............. 47
magnum Decis1on-Ma1dng 48
y Life cycle and Vacation Decision-Maldng ..... . . . . ....... 48
\/Spousal InfluenceinVacation Decision-Maldng. ..... 52

vciildren's Influence inVacation Dec1smn—Mak1ng 56
WOO-......IICOIOOOOI...IIIOIUOIIOCIIOOOIOIOIIOOOOOOOOOOCO.... 57

 

Table of Contents (Cont'd)

WW” ......... ................. 60
SurveyMethodology ....... ........... 6o
Qiestionnaire Development ..................................... 61
Measmement of Variables ...................................... 61

Data Cbllection ..... .......... . ............. 64
Data Collection Locations ..... . ............................... 64
Sanpling Intensity ........................................... 66

(bjectivs, Hypotheses and Statistical Analysis .................... 68

Objective ....... . ....... . ................................... 68

112-7: ...... . .............................................. 83

(meway Analysis of Variance, Analysis of Variance
and Analysis of Covariance .................................... 93

IIIIIIII to...o0000.00.00.00eeeaosooeooeecoceeooecceooouel 96

my
mtaAnaly51sarriF1nd1ngs 96
Data 'rr'arsfonnatiors for Statistical Analyses. ............. . . . . . . . . . 96
TravelPartyCharacteristics ...................... .. .......... 96
'IravelPartyOmIpositimBasedonStages of the
Family Life cycle........ .................. ............. 97
Age ..... ................. 99
Edtmtmn .............. . ............ 99
Family Imane....... .......... 99
Occupation ...... . .............. 100
Sancesof Information ...................... . 100
Most Important Reason for Visiting This Area .................. 101
PriorExperierne ..... . ........ 102
CostofAccmmodatmns ....... . ........ 102
Modeof Transportatmn ...... ..... 103
OverallnaninanceinVacation Decision-Making.... ....... 103

vi

 

 

Table of Contents (cent'd)

Fage

IXndnance in vacation Decision-Making by Type of
Decision....................................................
Demographic Information............................................
(Ingarison of the Entire Sample and Decision-Making
Sanple...........................................................
(ruperison of Decision-Making and Michigan Travel
Bureau Samples..............................................
Perceived Mean Level of Influence of Family
Members on vacation Decisions...............................
Testing of the Hypotheses..........................................
Hypotheses Set 1..............................................
Hypothesis 1-1..................... ..... ............... .....
Hypothesis 1-2..............................................
Hypothesis 1-3......................... ..... .. ......... .....
Hypothesis 1-4..............................................
Hypothes1s 1-6..............................................
Hypotheses Set 2..............................................
Pearson correlation ccefficients............................
Hypothesis Set 2....................... ..... ........ ......... .
Hypothesis 2-1.................................... ........ ..
Hypothesis 2-2..............................................
Hypothesis 2-3................................... ...........
Hypothesis 2-4..............................................
Hypothesis 2-5................................. .............
Hypothesis 2-6..............................................
Hypothesis 2-7........................ ............... .......
Hypothesis 2-8..............................................
Hypothesis Set 3..............................................

m'1:IOOOQOIOIOIO0.00.I.......IOOOOOOOI....-OOOOOOQOICOOOOI.

Discussion.........................................................
Perceived Mean Levels of Influence Family
Have on vacation Decision-Making............................
Hypothesis Testing.................................................
Hypothesis Set 1..............................................
Hypothesis 1—1:.............................................
Hypothesis 1—2:.............................................
Hypothesis 1-3:.............................................
Hypothesis 1-4:.............................................
Hypothesis 1-5:.............................................
Hypothesis 1—6:.............................................
Hypothesis Set 2...................................................
Travel Party Ctnpcsition Based on the Stages of
the Family Life cycle.......................................
SocioeconanicAspects of the Family
Respondent's Educational Status...............................

'3 Age..............................................

Family Inccne.................................................

104
104

108
110

113
115
115
115
119
125
126
130
140
150
150
150
151
160

174
178
179
188
195
201
201

203
203

203
207
207
207
211
213
213
215
217
219

219
227
229
231
233

Table of Contents (Cont'd)

Page
Hypothesis Set 3. . . ................... . ............................ 234
Theoretical Framework........ ................................. 235
MI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII 241
Summary of Findings, Limitations and Recamendations .......... . . . . . 241
ammary of Research Methodology and Data Analysis .................. 241
Sunmary of Fudings ............ . . . . .......................... 243
Limitations of the Study. ..... . ................................ 247
Reccnmendations. . . . ........ . .................................. 249
wwIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 253
AppendixA-Q1estionnaire..... ............................... 254
Appendix B. . ..... . ............................................ 255
Appendix C ................ . .......................... . ........ 257
Appendix D .................................................... 260
References. . . . . .................................................... 263

viii

Table

Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table

Table
Table

Table

12.

13.

14.

15.

IISTOF'I‘ABIES

Page
Vacation Trips Taken by U.S. Residents Between
1980-1984. (Millions) ........ . . . . . . ..................... 15

U.S. Business Receipts Generated by rnourism ($Million) . . 16
U.S. Employment Generated by Tourism .................... 17
Stages oftheFamily Life Cycle... .............. 32

Stages of the Vacation Decision Profile in the Family
Life Cycle. . . . .......................................... 51

Variables Used in the Examination of the Level of
Influence of Family Members in Vacation Decision-
mkim IIIIII I IIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 53

Level of Influence Family Members Have in Vacation

Decision-Makingm... .................................. 55
W 'ons of Children's Parcent of Influence

in Family Vacation Decision-Making (5) ............. . . . . . 58
Daily Sampling Intersity for Mackinac Island........ ..... 69
DailySanpling Intensity forMarquette...... ........ 70
Hourly Sampling Intensity for Marquette Based on an
EigltmmyIIIII IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIII 71
Hourly Sampling Intensity for Mackinac Island Based on
anEightHourDay. ....... ..... . ..... . ........ 72
Summary Table of Variables Used in Hypothesis Set 1 ..... 78
Stmnary Table of Variables Used in Hypothesis Set 2 ..... 85
We mfneIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII 105

Damagraphic Profile Ccmpanson 111

PerceivedMeanIevel of InfluenceFamilyMembersExert
mvaatim misimIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I 114

 

Table 18 .

Table 19 .

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22 .

Table 23 .

Table 24 .

Table 25 .

Table 26.

LISI‘ OF MES (Cont'd)

Page

Analysis of Covariance: Family Members' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Decision Concerning Ebtactly When to
Vacation by Travel Party (Imposition, Respondent's
Occupation and Their Spouse's Occupation, When

Controlling for the Number of Persons Paid for on This

Trip ............................. . ...................... 117

Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1-1:
Perceived Influence of the Children on When to Vacation

by Travel Party Ccmposition. Respondent's Occupation

and Their Spouse's Occupation, When Controlling for the
Number of Pusons Paid for on this Trip ...... . .......... 120

Analysis of Covariance: Family Members' Perceived Mean

InfluencemtheResortAreadiosenbyCostof

Accaumcdations, Distance Traveled, Prior Experience With
the Area When Controlling for Family Incane ..... . ........ 122

Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1-2:
Perceived Influence of the Children on Resort Area

(mosen by Cost of Accarmodatiors, Distance Traveled,

Prior Experience With the Area When Controlling for

Family Incare. . . . . . ..... . ............................... 124

Regression Analysis: Perceived Mean Level of Influence
Family Matnbers Have on the Length of the Vacation ....... 127

Analysis of Covariance: Family Manbers' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Vacation Budget by Cost of Accommoda-
tions and Made of Transportation, When Controlling for
FamilyInccne, andNumberofPersorsPaidforon'Ihis
Trip....... ...... ...... .. ..... 129

Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1-4:
Perceived Influence of the Wife on the Vacation Budget

by Cost of Acccmnodatiors and Mode of Transportation

When Controlling for Family Insane and Number of
PersonsPaid foron'IhisTrip... ....... .. ........ .. ..... 131

Analysis of Covariance: Family Members' Perceived Mean
Influence on Vacation Accmnodatiors Selected by Cost of
Accamnodatims, Made of Transportation, and Travel Party
(imposition When Controlling for Family Incare.......... 133

Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1-5:
Perceived Influence of the Husband on Accommodations
Selected by Cost of Accammdations, Mode of Transpor-
tation and Travel Party Oanpcsition men Controlling
forFamily Irm............... ...... ....... .. ...... 135

Table 27 .

Table 28 .

Table

29.

Table

Table

Table 32 .

Table 33 .

LIST OF MES (Cbnt'd)

Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1-5:
Perceived Influence of the Wife on Accaumodatiors

Selected by Cost of Accaumodations, Mode of Transpor-
tation and Travel Party Canposition When Controlling
forFamily Incane....... ....... .. ....... .. ....... . ...... 137

Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1-5:
Perceived Influence of the Children on Accarmcdations
Selected by Cost of Accaumdations, Made of Transpor-
tation and Travel Party Composition men Controlling

for Family Incone ...... . ...... . ......................... 139

Analysis of Covariance: Family Members' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Decision Concerning the Vacation
Activities Participated in by Reason for Visiting this
Resort Travel Party Cauposition, and Use of Friends and
the Michigan Travel Bureau as an Information Source,
While Controlling for Family Irrarme and Length of
Visit..... ...... .... ..... . .................. . ........... 142
Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1—6:
Perceived Influence of the Husbani on the Vacation
Activities Participated in by Reason of Visiting 'Ihis
Resort, Travel Party (Imposition and Use of Friends

and the Michigan Travel Bureau as an Information

Source, While Controlling for Family Inccme and Length
OfVisit. ...... ... ...... ........ ......... ........ ....... 144
Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1.6:
Perceived Influence of the Wife on the Vacation
Activities Participated in by Reason of Visiting This
Resort, Travel Party Cmpositicn and Use of Friends

and the Michigan Travel Bureau as an Information
Source, While Controlling for Family Inccme and Length
of Visit. . . ....... . .................... . ............... 146
Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1-6:
mrceived Influence of the Children on the Vacation
Activities Participated in by Reason of Visiting 'Ihis
Resort, Travel Party (Imposition and Use of Frienis

and the Michigan Travel Bureau as an Information

Source, While Controlling for Family Income and Length
ofVisit.................... .......... .. ..... ........ 148

Pearson Correlation Coefficients: Total Family Income,

Respondent's Age and Education 151

Table

Table

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

43.

45.

LISI‘ OF TABLES (Ca'lt'd)
Page

Cneway Analysis of Variance: Family Metrbers' Perceived
Mean Influence on the Decision to Vacation 'mis Year by
Travel Party Canpcsition. . ....................... . ...... 153

Tukey's Post Hoc Test: Perceived Mean Level of Influence
of the Husband on the Decision to Vacation This Year by
the Transposed Travel Party Ccmposition ................ 155

Summary of Travel Party Catposition Group Mean Values of
Perceived Mean Influence of Family Mariners on Vacation
Decisions ....................... . ....................... 156

Takey's Post Hoc Test: Paceived than Level of Influence
of the Children on the Decision to Vacation This Year by
the Transposed Travel Party Cauposition ................. 158

Analysis of Variance: Family Wars' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Decision to Vacation This Year by Age,
Education, Irlccme ....................................... 159

Cneuay Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived
Mean Influence of the Decision to Vacation This Summer
by Travel Party Cmpositicn ..... . . .............. . ....... 162

Tukey's Post Hoc Test: Perceived Mean Level of Influence
of the Husband on the Decision to Vacation This Year by
the Transposed Travel Party Catposition ................. 163

Tukey's Post Hoc Test: Perceived Mean Level of Influence
of the Children on the Decision to Vacation This Summer. 165

Analysis of Variance: Family Marbers' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Decision to Vacation This Summer by
Age, Education, Incane......... ......... ........ . 167

away Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived
Mean Influence of the Decision When to Vacation by
WmmitimIICIIIIOOIIIOCIC......OOIIOOOOOO 170

T‘tflcey's Post Hoc Test: Perceived Mean Level of Influence
ofthemildrenontheDecisionWhentoVacatimbythe
TransposedTravelPartyCmpcsiticn... ..... ...... 171

Analysis of Variance: Family Fathers' Perceived Mean
InfluencemtheDecisimConcerningmactlyWhento
VacationbyAge, Educatim, Incane 173

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

46.

47.

50.

54.

55.

56.

57.

LIST OF MES (Cont'd)
Page

amiay Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived
Mean Influence on the Length of the Vacation by Travel
Party Canposition. . . ......... . . ...... . . ........ . ........ 176

Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Length of the Vacation by Age,
Education, Incane ....................................... 177

Oneway Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived
Mean Influence on the Vacation BJdget by Travel Party
Cmposition. . . . ................ . ........................ 180

Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Vacation Rflget by Age, Education,
Income ........... . ...................................... 181

My Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived
Mean Influence on Vacation Activities Chosen by Travel
Party Canposition. . . . ....... . ........................... 183

Tukey's Post Hoc Analysis: Perceived Mean Influence of
of the Husbarrl on the Vacation Activities Selected by
Trarsposed Travel Party Composition. . . . ................. 184

Tukey's Post Hoc Analysis: Perceived Mean Influence of
the Wife on the Vacation Activities Selected by
Transposed Travel Party Carposition ...... . .............. 186

Analysis of Variance: Family Manbers' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Vacation Activities by Age, Education,
W. I C Q 0 I O O O ........ O I O ........ O ............ O IIIIIIII 187

(xieway Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived
MeanInfluenceontheDecisiontoVisitThisResortArea
by Travel Party Canposition. . . . . ........................ 190

'mkey'sPcstHocAnalysis: PerceivedMeanLevelof
InfluenceoftheHusbandontheDecisionConcernirgthe
ResortAreaChosen.... ......... . ................ . ....... 191

Tukey' s Post Hoc Analysis: PerceivedMean Level of
InfluenceoftheChildrenontheDecisionConcerning
theResortAreaChosenn ......... . ........ ...... 193

Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived Mean
Influence m the Decision to Visit This Resort Area by
m, mtim' m0... IIIIII O'OOOOIOIOIIOOOOOIOOOCII 194

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

58.

59.

66.

69.

Table 70.

LIST OF TABLES (ODnt’d)

Page
Oneway Analysis of Variance: Family imbers’ Perceived
Mean Influence on the Vacation Accanmodaticrs 0iosen

byTravelPartyCauposition......... .................... 197

Tukey’ s Post Hoc Analysis: Perceived Mean Level of
Influence 01ildren szert on Vacation Accanmodations
Selected ................................................ 199

Analysis of Variance: Family Members’ Perceived Mean
Influence on the Vacation Hotel Acconmcdations by Age,
Education, Incane ....................................... 200

011-Square Analysis: Contingency Table of Overall
Daninant Spousal Decision-Maker by Daninant

Decision-Maker for Each Type of Vacation Decision ....... 202
of Perceived Influence Family Members Have on
Vacation Decision-Making ................................ 204
Stmmary of Hypothesis Set 1 ............................. 209

Summary of Hypothesis Set 2: Travel Party Composition,

Based on the Stages of the Family Life cycle, Family

Incane, Respondent’s Age and Educational Status
Significantly Influence Family Members’ Perceived Mean
Level of Influence on Family Vacation Decisim—Makihg. . . 220

Sunmary of Significant Models of the Perceived Mean
Level of Influence on Family Vacation Decision-Making by
Travel Party Cunposition ....... . ........................ 222

Tukey’s Post Hoc Test: Significant Differences Between

Mean Values of Perceived Influence of Family Members on
Vacation Decisions by Transposed Travel Party

Carpositicn ............ . . ....................... . ...... 223

Summary of Perceived Levels of Influence on Vacation
Decision-Making by Travel Party Carposition, Based on
the Stages of the Family Life Cycle ..................... 225

Summary of Significant Madels of the Perceived Mean
Level of Influence on Family Vacation Decisim-Maldhg by
Socioeconanic Aspects of the Family ..................... 228

Sumnary of the Relationship Between Family Socioeconomic
Aspects and Vacation Decision-Making: Analysis of Cell

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ..... o. ...... OIOIOOCOOOOOOOO ...... 23o

StmaryofPercmtofMaleVersusFemaleOverallDaninant
Decision-x-Maldhgarri Dcmination by Type of Decision. . . . . . 234

xiv

AppendixB- Table 1.

AppendixC-Tablel.

AmendixD-Tablel.

LIST OF APPENDICES TABLES

Summary Table: Perceived Mean Influence of
Fam11y Members' Influence on Vacation
Decision-Making by Respondent's Age Group” .. 256

Summary Table: Perceived Mean Influence of
Family Members' Influence on Vacation
Decision-thking by Respondent's Educational
Status ..................................... 258

Summary Table: Perceived Mean Influence of
Family Members' Influence on Vacation
Decision-Making by Family Income ............. 261

Figure 1.

Figure 2 .

Figure 3 .

Figure 4 .

IISTOF FIGURES

Page
Central-Satellite Pattern of Decision-Making............ 45

Flamhart of Family Vacation Decision-Making............ 89

TransposedTravel Party Ccmp051tion 98

Flowchart of Family Vacation Decision-Making: The

Inclusion of Transposed Travel Party Canposition,
Socioeconomic Variables and Type of Decisions........... 236

xvi

GIAPIER I

W

The relationship between spouses' influence and, to a small
extent, children's influence in family decision-making has been
acamined by several researchers (Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Brown, 1961:
erchinal 8: Bender, 1965; COX, 1975; Davis, 1970; 1976; Davis & Rigaux,
1974; Douglas & Wind, 1978; Ferber & Lee, 1974: Hempel, 1974; Hill &
Klein, 1972; Kenkel, 1961). The analysis of decision-making is
cmpla,dueinparttotheinterrelatedardinterdeperflent
relationship of decisions (Paolucci, Hall & Axinn, 1977), as well as
the method of analyzing decision-making. The methods of analyzing
decision—making include mfierstanding the process of decision-making,
the nature of the situation, classification of the decisions, decision
linkages, the decision—maker and the group structure.

Stuiiainthisareahavedenmstratedthatflielevel of influence
each family menber has on the final decision is partially deperrient
upon the type of decision under consideration (Davis, 1970; 1976:
Ferber & Lee, 1974; Granbois S: Willet, 1980; Scanzoni & Szinovacz,
1980). For example, the husband may have the dominant level of
influenceonthedecisiontopurdlaseacar, however, thewifemaybe
the primary decision-maker concerning the color of the car.

milding upon family decision-making research, studies have been
conducted which examine the level of influence that various family

marbers have on vacation decisim-makirg (Jenkins, 1978; Filiatrault &

Ritdnie, 1980: Myers & Mmcrief, 1978). More specifically, these
studies have danorstrated that most family members, the husband, wife
and children, have sane degree of influence on vacation decisiors. The
levels of influence vary significantly, however, among family members.
Thesignificarceofsudnreseardnisbasedurmncmsmnersdxargirg
attitirles toward leisure.

Alflnough hard work is still valued, persons worldwide are placing
amavedarphasisonthequalityoflife. Oneofthemeasurements
cumnly used in relation to the quality of life is the allocation of
leisuretime. TheaverageAmericandevotesanestimatedtiohcursa
week to arployment. Based on this figure, approximately one-third of
each year, or an average of 140 days, is utilized for the purposes of
leisure (Hudman, 1986). with an increased disposable incane and
smaller family size, the purchase of nonessential or luxury items has
risen. Cheaxflnpnrdnasehasbecmetheanmalfamily vacation
(airldiart & Medlik, 1974) .

Statue“: of the Prdalen

Through research, three family vacation decision-making concepts
have been identified: the inpact of the family life cycle stages,
socioeconcmic variables and member influence in decision-making. As
thefamilyprcgrssattmlghthevarimsstagesofthelifecycle, the
influerceexertedbythembersondecision—mkingdnarges (Cosenzali
Wis, 1981; Clawsm, 1975: Cox, 1975: thbermn & Elison, 1967;
Schlesinger, 1962; Wells & Grubar, 1966) . Socioeconanic variables have
also been shown to impact decision-making (Abbey, 1979; Sdnewe &
Calatme, 1978; Walter & Tong, 1977). Marital status, family
cmpositim, age, incane, arri educational status also inpact decision-

making. Just as the stages of the family life cycle and socioeconanic
variables of the family inpact decisian-making, so does the family
cmpositim. Research has demonstrated that all family members, the
tmsband, wife and children, to a certain degree, influence decision-
makirg (Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980; Jenkirs, 1978; Ritchie &
Filiatrault, 1980). Despite the recognition of these important
concepts, the examination of the stages of the family life cycle,
socioeconanic variables and member influence in relation to family
vacation decision-making has been deficient. The researcher could not
identify any studies which examine the inpact of the family life cycle
stages and the socioeconcxnic variables in relation to decision-making.
Furthermore, only three studies have been identified whidn examine the
influence of the husband, wife and children on vacation decision-making
(Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980; Jei'fldrs, 1978; Ritchie & Filiatrault,

1980).

Justificntim

Generalizatias concerning the influence of the family and its
minersregardirgdecisim-makinghavebeenmadeasaresultof
research. In the traditional family structure prior to the last twenty
years,thehusband, asprimaryincanegenerator,wasthedaninant
decision-maker in the family. The husband was typically responsible
for decisions regarding large purchases or rnnrwtine decisions while
the wife was primarily responsible for making housdnold decisions such
as what groceries to purdnase or the most effective method of cleaning
the house (mvis, 1976).

The role of family mariners in decision-making has dnanged
dramtically over the past several decades (Cox, 1975; Davis, 1970;

mvis & Rigaux, 1974; Granbois & Willet, 1970; Morgan, 1961; Safilios—
Rothsdnild, 1970) . Decision-raking is typically dnaracterized as
product specific and subdecision specific (Davis, 1970). 'Ihat is,
based upon the type of product under consideration, a particular family
rather is the primary decision-maker for that product. Numerous family
decision-making shflia (Birthinal S: Battier, 1965: Wis, 1970: Davis &
Rigaux, 1974) have also danonstrated that family members, to varying
degrees, influence decisions (Szybillo, Sosanie & Tenenein, 1979).
Wane-n are becaning increasingly more active and influential in a wide
variety of family decisions (Scanzoni, 1977; Scanzoni 8 Scanzoni, 1981;
Scanzoni & Szinovacz, 1980). Researchers (Mahoney, 1961: Strober &
Weinberg, 1977) have theorized that this trend is due, at least in
part, totheimreasingmmherofmmrkingdnsideoftrem,
withmoreecotmicresancesavailabletothanardcorsequentlymre
power.

0nildren's roles in family decision-making have also been altered.
Although typically not the dominant decision-makers, children have
becane increasingly more influential in the types of activities the
family participates in, the activities they themselves participate in,
aedcsdnsen, andinthecaseofteens, theclothingtheywear (Berey
& Pollay, 1968; Goldberg 8 60m, 1974; Mosdiis, 1978; msdiis & more,
1978; 1979; Mosdiis, Moore & Stqinens, 1977).

Decision-nanny within a family is often carplex due to the nature
of the Wm. Decisiots cannot be visualized, instead familial
decisicns can only be mder'stood through an analysis of behaviors
(Bean, 1968; Distrillos, 1963). Another omplication in the analysis
of decision-mldrg is the identification of r015 played by family

raters. Irriividualsoftenactinfinenamnerfineyfeelfineyare
"supposed to" (Paolucci, Hall & Axinn, 1977). These metlnods of
bdnavior are the roles they subscribe to. The role an individual takes
is neifiner fixed or permanent. That is, given a different time or
sihzatim, the same individual may take on an entirely different
behavioral role (Scanzoni & Szinovacz, 1980). As such, family umbers
my take certain decision-making roles for housdnold matters and
cmpletely different roles when making vacation decisions. The
analysis of fine role each matter plays in fine vacation decision-making
processwill assistingainingamorecmprehensiveandaccurate
analysis of who the vacation decision-maker is in relation to specific
travel decisions.

Vacation decision-making research advances fine analysis of
traditional tourism and family decision-naking researdn (Ritchie &
Filiatrault, 1980). Despite the importance of mdexstanding the
perceived level of influence eadn family number has on vacation
decisions, only a fa; sundies (Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980; Jenkins,
1978; Ritdnie & Filiatrault, 1980) have been aniucted which examines
fineperceivedlevelofinfluencedenrxstratedbyfinednildrenaswell
as the spouses concerning vacation decisiors.

Family vacation decisiorr-makirg research can be advanced by
winning fine influence of socioeconanic variables and fine stages of
the family life cycle relative to fine perceived level of influence
family umber-s exert on decision-naming. The cancepunalization of the
various carponents of family vacation decision-mating enables
practitioners and academicians in fine areas of family sfindies, consumer
bdnavior, nerdnandising, am tourism to obtain a mom catprehersive

mnderstarding of fine interrelatedness of decisions and influences of

familial dnaracteristics.

lhseardn anjectivs

l. Dcamine travel characteristics which may impact family nenbers'
perceived influence on vacation decision—making.

2. Eamine fine relationship between fie travel party catposition,
using stages of fine family life cycle as a bendnnark, socioeconanic
variables and fie perceived influence family renters have on
vacation decision-making.

3. Examine differences between fine perceived influence family members
aferted on fie type of vacation decisions analyzed in fie study:
tactical and program.

4. Developafineoreticalmcdelwhichexaminesfieinfluencesoffamily
socioeconomic aspects and travel party cmpcsition, based on the
stages of fine family life cycle, on family vacation decision-

taking.

The Elan Bzosystem tbdel

Thehumanecosystemmodel providesafranevmrkwterwytwrists'
decision-naming can be examined in relation to fine-environment. The
mdelassistsinfieenqnlanationoffiejnterdependencybetweenfie
environment and individuals. Within finis model, finree environments are
proposed, fienaulralerwirorment, fietnman-oonstnnctedenviroment
and fine tnmnan behavioral environment (anbolz, Eider & Sontag, 1979) .

The natural environment consists of physical, biological and time-

space limitations of all organisms. The air, climate, trees, lakes and

natural feafiiresoffieenviroment, andallnaturalaspectsoffie
mrld are included in fine natural environment.

'Itel‘nnnan-oonstnnctedenviromnentooreistsoffinoseaspectsoffie
erwircnnentmidnhavebeencreated, alteredoradaptedhymaninan
at‘talpt to create a more livable envimment. These adaptations to fine
erwironment are made to fulfill persons' physical, biological and
social reeds. Cultural and social institutions such as nuseuns,
fineaters, shopping facilities, apartments, houses and hospitals are
part of fie human-coretructed environment.

'Itehumanbehavioral erwironmentisfinefinirdtypeofenviroment
analyzed finrough fie human eoosystan model. 'ne human behavioral
envimnment consists of fie interactions between persons. 'Ihe
interaction may encanpass a person's feelings, attitudes and values
(mbolz, Eidner & Sontag, 1979).

Family Vacaticxn mcisicn-Hakin; wifinin an Emsystan Franeaork

Travel decisionsarriexpendi‘bnresareoften influencedbyfie
lumen-canstnnctederwimmentaswellasbyfiemfinralenvimment.
Soaeryarxiofinerfeaturesoffinenaturalenvimnentareoftan
signifimnt features which influence vacation destination, budget and
activities. Roadsandmnntaineareoftenalteredinanattaqntto
easetravelingbyland. Highwaysarriroadsoornstnnctedfinranghfie
mmtairearepartoffinehmnan-constmctedenviroment. Inorderto
assistinfieupkeepoffieroads,travelers,finrax;htollsarrl
gasoline,payaoertainanumtofmreybasedmfielengfinofdistame
traveledontheseroads. likewise,urbanareaswhidnprmote
«Instructed fea‘bnres and attractions such as mnseums and artifacts may

attracttanrists. Travelexperdimresareinflnereedbyfiesocialani
unlunral iretiurtiore available in an area.
Wtefierfievacetionisaplannedfutureevent, orjustadesired
possible event, people often interact wifin each ofiner about vacation
locations, events and attributes. 'ne attitudes, auctions and values
of fie individual may be expounded upon wten relaying vacation
infcrmation. Information about likes, dislikes arnd mries wifin a
particnlar vacation destination, all part of fine human behavioral

enwira'nment, influence family vacation decision—naming.

Conceptual Framer}:
'ItecanceptualfraneworkusedinfinisstuiyisfieCentral-
Satellite Pattern of Decision-Making in relation to family roles
(Plank, 1964; 1968). 'Ite Central-Satellite takes into account fie
central decision and satellite decisions. 'ne central decision acts as
fine focal point of decision—making. 'Ite central or primary decision,
in turn, generate satellite or secondary decisions. Satellite
decisiansandfinecentraldecisionmaybeinterdependentand
interrelated. 'nnat is,fieremaybeafi»c—way influence ofa‘e
decisian an ancfier decision. Furfiermre, ane decision may influence
nultiple decisions. As such, satellite decisions often significantly
influence fie success of fie central decision. For example, fine
central decision is to take a vacation finis sunmer. Satellite
decisions may include fie amount of money allocated for fie vacation,
type of activities, and mode of trareportatian. 'ne vacation budget
includes $100 per day, fie mode of transportation is an airplane, arnd
fie vacatim activities are selected on a consensus basis. Given an

adequate budget, an uneventful plane ride, and successful participation

in favorite family activities, fie probability of viewing fie central
decisionn favorably inncreases. If fie satellite decisions result in
negative attitudes, family manbers my feel negative abort fie central
decision to take a vacation finis snmnner.

One central and seven satellite vacation decisions are examined in
finis study. The central decision to vacation finis year is influenced
by fie lumen behavioral environment. Family manbers' feelinngs or
attifindestowardvacationingfinisyearimpactfieoutcmeoffie
central decision. 'Ite satellite vacation decisions may be influenced
Inman constructed environment in fie form of roads, highways or flight
traffic may influence fie lerngth of vacation due to travel time needed.
Likewise, fie architecture, unlunral buildings, shopping facilities,
hotel accamnodations annd annusement parks may influence fie vacation
destinatim, budget and activity decisions. 'ne natural enviranment
sudnasfie lakes oroceanns, mmtains, trees andnatural wildlifemay

also influence fine destination, timing and activity decisions.

W is fie deliberate selection of a plan of action,
based on fie evaluation of alternatives. Decision—making was not
cperationally defined in fie survey.

Emily decisionM’ is fie deliberate selection of a plan of
action, by family members, based on the evaluation of alternatives.
Family decision-making is operationally defined through questions 78-
84.

Wisfinatdecisimwhidnactsasafoal pointand
is fine basis for related decisions. 'ne central decision examined in

10

finis study is fie decision to vacation finis smnner, operationally
defined finmugh question 78.

Waresecaflarydecisiaswhidnaregeneratedby
fie central decision. 'n'e satellite decisions examined in finis study
included fie decision to vacationn this snmmer, when to vacation, fie
length of fie vacation, vacation budget, vacation activities to
participate in, acccmnodations selected annd fie decision to visit this
reort. These decisions are operationally defined finrough questions
79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85 and 86.

Eirst PM g5 ions are decisions which are nede by fie majority
of persons in a particular situation. For exannple, fie decision to
vacation finis year is a first order decision. Despite fie outcome of
fie decision to vacation finis year, all persons considering a vacation
recognize annd act upon finis decision situation. 'n'e central decision
(question 78) and fie satellite decisions (questions 79 finrangh 86)
examinedinthissfiriyareconsidered firstorderdecisions.

wig“ level of m luenceisfielevel of influencefie
respaflenntperceivesapersanashavingexertedmaparticular
decisicrn. This perception was measured on a 100 poinnt constant-sum
scale (questions 78 finrough 86) .

mistiSaconsmerMnolives loomilesormareawayfrcnfie
destination. 'Iburists were identified by fie data collectors asking if
fieresponienthastraveled 100 milesormore frunhane. 'netourist
status was measured finrough questionn 57.

m is defined as a location situated at least 100 miles
frun any cmmmity wnere fie population is in excess of 100,000

persons. Resort area was operationally defined by fie researder prior

11

to data collection. 'Ihose areas listed in question 63 are sitneted at
least 100 miles from a cammmity wifin a population greater than 100,000
persons.

Mel—ween consists of those persons vacationire
togefier. Travel party canposition is operationally defined by fie
marital statusoftleadults, fiemmberofadultsanddnildrenard
ages of fie children (question 66) .

19E distance traveled consists of fie physical length of fie
vacation. 'Ictal distance traveled is operationally defined by sunning
fie annnnt of distance traveled while on vacation (question 57) .

m cost of accamcdations is fie total finnancial outlay for
accamcdations while on vacation. Total cost of accanmodations is
operationally defined by mltiplyinng fie cost of fie hotel
accamnodations for one night (question 60) by fie number of nights fie
tourists are staying (question 58) .

m family incaneconsistsofall incanegeneratedwifininfie
family. Operationally, total family incane is defined by fie addition
of all monetary canpensation of family menbers (question 72) .

Wm consists of fie characteristics of fie
family. Cperationally, this is defined as fie family socioeconanic
status, lengthofmarriageandfieageofdnildrenaswellasfinatof
fie parents. Five stages of a family's life have been identified,
ranging frun single, unnder 35 years of age to married, divorced or
widowedandaged65 orolder. Stagesoffiefamilylifecyclewerenct
qnerationally defined in fie survey.

WW consists of the travel party
exposition (question 66) in conjunction with fie respondent's age

12

(question 75). 'Be transposed travel party carposition variable was
based an fie stages of fie family life cycle. This variable, however,
isnctusedasaproxyforfiestagesoffiefamilylifecycle. 'Ine
fcnrstageeoffietransposedtravelpartyoanpositionrangefrun
singleadultsmrierfieageofBStosamesexadultstraveling
together-

M II
lbvial of Ii‘terattn‘e

Stages of fie family life cycle and socioeconomic status of fine
family have been sham to be significant determinants of the level of
influace each manber has in family decision-making (Oosenza & Davis,
1981; Gorn & Goldberg, 1977; mrphy & Staples, 1979; Sdnul & Cranpton,
1983; Wells & Grubar, 1966). Recent researdn conducted by Filiatrault
and Ritchie (1980), Jenkins (1978), and Myers and Moncrief (1978) has
advanced fie area through fie analysis of family vacation decision-
naking. Activities, destinations, nnoney allocated and fie type of
vacationntakenhave alsobeenshwntobeinfluencedbyfineviewsof
fie primary or daninant decision-maker wifininn a family. 'Ihese
decisions, in turn, directly and indirectly impact fine econanic status
of tourist dependent areas.

'ne primary focus of finis literature review is fie examination of
fie variables which influence family vacation decision-making. 'Ihe
significanceoftcnrismtofieeconmyisexaminedinfiefirstof four
sections. Factors which influence vacation travel are examined in fine
second section. 'Ihese factors include travel destination, vacation
activities, travel expenditures and information acquisition. In order
to better understand family vacation decision-making, an examination of
family decision-making in general is needed. As such, factors which
influence family decision-making are presented in sectionn finree. 'Ihe
stages of fie family life cycle, fie level of dominance each spouse has

13

14

anfiedecisionsaswellasfielevelofinfluencednildrenmakein
family decision-making are examined. A conceptual framework for
studying family decision-making is also discussed in this section. In
fie fourth and final section of fie review of literature, decision-
makinginrelationtofietcuristisexamined. 'nestagesoffie
family life cycle and fieir impact on vacation decision-making are
presented. 'nelevel ofspousaldaninnanceaswellasdnildren's
influence on vacationn decisions is examined. Finally, a model which
synthesizes fie family life cycle and socioeconanic variables in
relation to family vacation decisim—making is conceptualized.

m of Tourist Trade

Measuredfinrcughbusinness receiptsgenerated, tourism, asagrowfin
industry (Bryant & Marrison, 1980), has developed innto fie second
largest service industry in fie United States (Honcmichl, 1984;
McIntosh & Goeldrer, 1986). Del incane families have larger
discretionaryinccmefinaninfiepast. 'Ihisincreaseindiscretionary
incanehascontributedtodnangesindesiredlifestyles. Otherfinan
sleep, Americans allocate nnnore time to recreation finan any ofier
activity (cram, 1966). Wifin fie increased time allocated for
recreationn, Americans are allocating increased effort and money on
leisure (Linden, 1980; Van Raaij & Francken, 1984). Annual paid
vacations, corporate benefits, a variety of fast and economical ncdes
of transportation as well as fie anphasis an quality of living have
also helped to bolster fie grcwfin of finis industry (Jenkins, 1978; Var,
Beck & Inftus, 1977; Walter & 'Ibn'g, 1977).

'Iburismisagrowingindustry,yetfiegrwfinissporadicdneto
seasonality (Var, Beck & mffins, 1977). Tourists' constriction patterns

15

directly and indirectly infltence fie ecmcmic status of vacation areas
inpartiwlarandfievelfareoffiestateingeneral. Areaswithina
region affected by tourism inelude arployment, success of businesses,
and innate tax generated (alrkhart & Medlik, 1974; Myers, 1974).
Indicative by fie volune of tourist business generated in fie state, if
fiese pnndlases were to decline significantly, fie eccnanic situation
infieareainpartiwlarandfieindustryingeneralvmldsuffer.
'n'einpactfilattcuristsnaketoaregimcanbeidenrtifiedfilroughan
analysis of fie business receipts they generate.

Dalestic travel constitutes approximately 70-75 percent of all
tourism (Chib, 1977). Approximately 3 percent of the average American
household income is spent on vacations or pleasure trips (Linden, 1980;
Van Raaij & Francken, 1984). In excess of one—half of fie adult
American population takes one or more weekend trips (Walter & 'Ibng,
1977). During 1984, Americans took 333.3 million vacation trips.
Representing apprcncimately 689.6 million persons, fiese trips were for
fie specific purposes of visiting friends and relatives, ofier pleasure
reasons, business or conventions and miscellaneous reasons (U.S.

Statisqu Abstract, 1987) . See Table 1.

 

Table 1. Vacation Trips Taken by U. S. Residents Between 1980-1984.

 

 

(Millions)

Volune Percent
1980 1984 Change Change
NTmber of Vacation Trips 289.7 333.3 43.6 15.05
Nunber of Vacation Person-trips 646. 9 689. 6 42. 7 6.60

 

Scllrce: U.S. BureauoffieOensns, Statistical abstract offieUnited
States: 1987 (107fi1 ed.) Washington, D. C. , p. 226.

\

16

'lburists spend literally millions of dollars each year on
vacations. Accounting for $11.3 billion, fie United States is fie
recipient of fie largest international tourisn receipts (McIntosh &
Goeldner, 1986). Tourism worldwide is estimated to accamt for over
$30 billion annually. Tourist purchases in turn generate billions of
dollars annually in local, state and federal izmte tax (Fridgen, 1987;
Jenkins, 1978,- Leiper, 1979; mIntosh & Goeldner, 1986). Daring 1984,
the tourism industry generated $242,279 million from U.S. residents

alone. See Table 2.

 

Table 2. U.S. Blsiness Receipts Generated by Tourism ($Million)

 

Volume Percent
1980 1984 Change (mange

 

'Ibtal Industry 170,718 242, 279 71, 561 41.92
transportation 25,635 34,473 8,838 34.48
Accamedaticre 26, 832 38, 917 12 , 085 45. 04

Restaurants, Eating and
Drinking Places 28,327 44,780 16,453 58.08

 

Source: U. S. alreau of fie Census, Statistical abstract of fie United
States. 1987 (107fi1 ed. ) Washington, D. C. , p. 226.

Note: Business receipts for retail qeraticre generated due to
tmrism are not available.

 

WEB—.53

'Ite tourism industry is an enermous aployment generator (Davis,
1986; Hidden, 1987; Holloway, 1983; Myers, 1974). me to its labor
intensityaswellasfielw—skillrequirmnts,fi1isindustnyhas
beemefiesecadlargestalploynentsectorinfienatim (mmtoshS:

17

Goeldner, 1986). airing 1984, over 7,960,000 U.S. residents were
aployed as a result of tourism. See Table 3. Departs have estimated
filat such atplcyment within fie U.S. has produced $57 billion in wages
and salaries and in access of $25 billion in federal, state, and local
ineane taxes (McIntosh & Goeldner, 1986). Employment opportunities in
this industry vary frcm transportation, accmmcdatia‘ns, retail sales,
guides, and anusanent park operators (U.S. mreau of fie Census, 1987).

 

Table 3. U.S. Buployment Generated by Tourism

 

Volume Percent
1980 1984 Change mange

 

Transportation 491.3 530.4 39.1 7.96
Restaurants, Eating and

Drinking Places 4,625.8 5,403.3 1,077.5 23.29
Mandatias 1,037.7 1,225.5 187.8 18.10
Anusanenrt and Recreation

Services 763.5 801.1 37.6 4.92
'Ibtal 6,918.3 7,960.3 1,042.0 15.06

 

Source: U.S. ereau of fie Census, Statistical abstract of fie United
States: 1987 (107fi1 ed.) Washington, D.C., p. 226.

Note: 1119th statistics for retail operations me to tourism
are not available.

 

Influential Factors in Tunrists' Dacisicn—lhking
MM

Socioeconcmic aspects such as incane, age, education, and sex have
been useful in fie analysis of tanrists' bdevioral patterns (Abbey,

18

1979). Results of studies (Oosenza & Davis, 1981; Nidels & Snepenger,
1988: Sdewe £1 Chlatone, 1978; Sdml & Clapton, 1983: Walter 8: Tag,
1977) have demonstrated fiat different socioeconanic profiles
significantly influence fie attitudes, activities, interests, opinions
and actions of tanrists.

Familyinemehasbeenstewntobeaninportantvariableinfie
analysis of travel behavior (Haganann, 1981; Linden, 1980; Pizam &
Reichel, 1978). Families with dual ineanee or a single inccne in fie
ugperearningbrackethaveagreaterprcpensitytotakeamnal
muons (Barres, 1982; Linden, 1980). [he to the fact that
discretionary incane is typically used for travel (Bartos, 1982; Bryan,
1981), it is not surprising fiat ammxinately 50 percent of tourists
reportafamilyineareinfietopZOpercentinemebracket (Linden,
1980) . Despite fie positive relationship between inecme and fie
prtpensity to travel, fie assunption cannet be nade fiat fiese tourists
typically spend a larger annount of money while on vacation fian
touristsinalaverineanebracket. Resultsofasudyconductedby
Pizam and Reidel (1979) revealed fiat tourists in higrer ineane
bradcetsdidnetnecessarilysperdmoremvacationsfiantourists in
lower incane brackets (Pizam & Reidel, 1979) .

A positive relationship Ias been denonstrated between education
and travel behavior (Hagenanm, 1981; Jorgenson, 1976; Mak, W &
Yonamine, 1977) . Persons wifil a higl'er education level typically
travelmrefrequentlyandfarfierfianfiesewithalowereducational
level (Hagenann, 1981: Jorgereon, 1976).

'De age of family members has been identified as influential in

fie decisim to travel (Bartos, 1982). According to fie National

19

TravelSurvey, sixtypercentofallvacatiorerswerebetweenfieageof
25-64 (Jorgenson, 1976). Escarch conducted by Mak, Mmeur and
Yanamine (1977) indicated finat fie length of fie vacation as well as
fie enqendiunres were significantly influenced by age. Persons in
fieirearly 205and305aswellasretiredpersonstooklonger
spent significantly more neney per day fian younger or retired
individuals (Mak, Moncur & Yonnamine, 1977).

Family canposition may also signnificantly influence travel
behavior. 'Itat is, family travel is often curtailed due to fie
praence of younger children (Bartos, 1982; Hagarann, 1981). This
reductionintravelisalsoprevalentwhenfiednildrenareinfieir
late teens (Hagarann, 1981) . A negative relationship has been
identified between fie number of children and travel behavior. Stlndiee
haveshownfinatasfiemmberofdnildrenwifininafamilyincrease, fie
frequency, length and money allocated for family vacation travel
decrease (Efinridge, 1982; Hagarann, 1981). As fie children age,
typimllywl'enfieybeazuecvermyearsofage,fiefreqtencyof
vaations and fie expenditures allocated for fie vacation tend to

increase (Linden, 1980) .

mm

Tourists may select a particular destination as a result of past
experiences, perceptions or expectations of a resort area. Tourists
visit a particular resort area repeatedly for a variety of reasons.
Gitelscn & Crulpton (1984) identified five potential reasons for repeat
visitation.

20

'nefirstreasanforareturnvisitwasdteinparttorisk
reduction. Tourists tend to want to go back to the identical location
and patronize fie same restaurants, rebels and attractions. If fie
first va<etion at a particular destination was satisfactory, it is
highly probable fiat a refinrn visit to fiat sane destination will also
provide a positive experience (Gitelson & Ctrtnpton, 1984) .

histories or emotional attadment to a location are other reasons
for repeat visitors. Pesitive childhood manories of a particnlar
vacation are often highly influential in fie determination of a
vacation destination during an adult's life (Gitelson & Clapton,
1984).

Vacations are often viewed by tourists as net long ennngh.
Additional obligations typically require fie family to spend only a
limitedtime, anywherefrunonetotwoweeks, mavacation. Assuch,
fie fourfin possible reason cited for repeat visitor behavior was to
cantinnefievacationinfiatareaanefieryear. 'nnroughfierepeat
visit, additicral attractions and activities missed during fie first
visitmaybeengagedin. Resortareaswhidnrelyheavilyonattracting
repeat visitors based on attractions include amnsanent or fine parks
sudnasCJedarPointinOhio, andwaterresortstatessuchasI-Iawaiiand
Florida (Gitelson & Croupton, 1984).

'De fifth possible reason for fie repeat benavior is to share fie
positive aspects of fie area with finose individuals visiting fie
location for fie first time. Visitors often return to a destination in
anattanpttodemonstratefiepastjoys of fieirvacetionswifin first
time visitors (Gitelson & (:ruxpton, 1984) .

21

Perceptions and expectations of a product or service may influence
casmner acceptance wifin a particular resort area. Expectations are
precaeeivedideasaboutfieareaaswellasfieperceivedimageofa
destination once fie consumer has arrived. 'nnese expectations or
inages of an area nay influenee fie tourist's level of satisfaction
with fiat area. Perceptions of tourist areas may positively and
negatively influence a tourist's decision to patronize fiat area.
Through fie portrayal of a positive inage and focus upon specific
activities offered by each location, tourism patronage can be increased
(I-hmt, 1975; Pizam, Neumann & Reidel, 1978).

Goodrich (1978b) examined fie degree to which perceptions of a
tourist region influennced fie selection of a vacation destination. 'Iie
sanple popnlation consisted of 230 international travel customers of
American Express. locations under investigation included Hawaii,
California, Florida, mice, fie Virgin Islands, fie Bahamas, Janaica,
Barbados and Rerto Rico. Respondent's preferences for a particular
area, the inportance of attribntes offered and their belief abort the
mmt of each attribute offered by a location were evaluated. Results
of fie analysis revealed fiat percqntiors or image of a particular
vacation destination significantly inflnenced respondent's attitude and
ultimate locational choice (Goodridn, 1978b) .

MM

Socioeconcmic variables rave been stem to significantly influence
vacationers' travel enqnenditures (Hagemann, 1981; Linden, 1980; Mak,
mir- 8 Yonamine, 1977; Wells & Grubar, 1966). Wells and Grubar
(1966), identified a positive relationship between ineane and fie age
offieneadofleusdnold. Ineatetypicallycontinuestoinereaseas

22

fieheadoffiehcuseholdages. 'neriseinireateplateausandbegire
to decline once fie primary breadwinner reaches fieir late 40$.
Dspitefiedcwnwardtreniinireaneduringfielaterstagesoffie
family life cycle, fie financial resources are typime larger.
Savings, ireomefruuprcperty, arflpeleioreardfiecorrtimalplrdase
of durable goods assist in fie accunulation of firancial resources
(WellsS-Grubar, 1966). Franthis, itcanbeassumedfiatpersonsin
fieir late 405 and older, alfilough not necessarily experiencing larger
salaris, have disposable incane which (an be used for travel.

Rseareh studies (Hagemann, 1981; Linden, 1980: Mak, Maeur &
Yonamine, 1977) rave demonstrated a relationship between travel
atperditures and fie eduoatioml level of fie tourist. Mak, Norm and
Yaamire (1977) and Hagenann (1981) reported a negative relatiorehip
between education and matey spent on vacation. College educated
tairiststoflawaiispentlessmeyperdayfianfiesetouristswitha
lower education level (Mak, limcur & Yoramine, 1977). the researchers
hypothesized fiat less educated tourists viewed fie success of fie trip
tobedirectlyrelatedtofieammtofweyspentwhilemfie
vacation. Contrary to results by Hagenann (1981) and Mak, Monalr and
Yonamine (1977) , Linden (1980) identified a positive relationship
between education and travel expenditures. College educated tourists
spent apprcncimately two-and—a-ralf times more cm vacations fian non-
college educated tourists (Linim, 1980) .

mm' m‘ itim

Despite fie level of familiarity with a situation, the alt-owe of
a decision is not absolutely certain. Faced with a decision, a certain
level of risk or meertainty is involved. 0e objective held by the

23

tourist is to make a decision which maximizes fie utility while
minimizing fie disutility. This is accanplisled filrough an information
search (Geistfeld, 1977) .
uterralsulreesofinformationareoftenusedinanattarptto
decrease fie perceived risk of fie vacation decision. Risk can take
fieformofexpendingdiscretioraryireareasvellasdiscretionary
time. As fie perceived amount of risk increases, typically fie length
of fie information search also increases (Gitelson & Crunptcn, 1983).
'Ihislogic formsfiebasis forfieassmlptionfiatasfiecostand
length of fie prcposed vacation increase in relation to fie
discreticrary time and incaue available, so will fie level of fie

An inverse relationship often exists between prior knowledge and
fieleveloferergyecperriedonaninfonnationsearch. 'natis,fie
greater ammnt of experience a person has wifil a particular topic or
decision, fielessammtoftinefieyreedtoamerdmaninformatim
search (Betfinan&Park, 1980). Qeeadecisionrasbeenmadetotakea
vaation, fie majority of warmers will conduct at least a minimal
acternal information search (Gitelson & Crmpton, 1983).

Informtion acquisition coreists of fie identification and
evaluation of vacation alterratives (Park & Lutz, 1982; Van Raaij,
1986) . Information dissemination plays a large and often influential
role in fie destiration decision-making process of vacationers
(Geistfeld, 1977). Qantity of information, however, is not
tecessarily ernlgh for consumers to make a rational (i.e., informed)
decision (Geistfeld, 1977) . An informed nonrcutine decision typically

requires a large amcxmt of quality information (Bonma & Johnston,

24

1979) in such a manner fiat tourists can process it. Information
salrcestypicallyusedindecision-makingarefilosedeemedmost
credible. As a result, information frun family and peers is typically
teed in vacation decision-making (Nolan, 1975) . Fran filis, it can be
assumed fiat travel information from family and friends is easily

disseminated as well as being credible.

Family Decisim—Mdm

he to fie catplex nature of family decision-making, research is
oftenconductedonapartoffiesubject, ratherfianinitsentirety.
Pefiaps fie broadest approach to studying decision—making is filrcugh
fie examination of decision fieories (Hamend, McClelland & Mlmpower,
1980; Eden & Harris, 1975). Maraganent, whefier it is concerned with
hisiness or fie hate, may be particularly interested in urxierstarding
fie decision process (Davis & Rigaux, 1974; Eden & Harris, 1975; Miller
& Starr, 1967), decision retworks (Hastings & Hello, 1978), types of
decisions (Plonk, 1964; 1968), and styles of decision-naking (Rove &
Mason, 1987) . Additioral research has examined variables which impact
decision-making (Gosenza & Davis, 1981; Davis, 1970: Ferber & Lee,
1974; Mmphy & Staples, 1979) as well as fie level of influence persons
exert on decisim-making (Jenkire, 1978; Myers & Morerief, 1978:
Ritchie & Filiatrault, 1980; Scanzoni, 1977; Wilkes, 1975). Other
decision interests include fie examiration of fie implementation
(Marvin, 1971) and inplications of decision-making (Martim & Stein,
1969). mmlgrnrt filis dapter, only a brief section of fie decision-
making tcpic is examined. be two subtopics of decision-making which
is reviewed include an analysis of variables which impact family

25

decision-making and fie perceived level of influence family members
exert on decision-making.

OF mm mm

Decision-making occurs wlen an individual makes a selection among
a group of alterxatives (Deacon & Firebaugh, 1975; Rice & 'Illcker, 1986)
in an effort to improve fieir quality of life (Paolucci, Hall, & Axinn,
1977; Rice 8: Tucker, 1986). Decision-making can be aralyzed filrough a
variety of nefieds. 'Ihese mefilods include fie alalysis of the
decision—naking pm, fie classification of decisions, decision
linkages, types of decisioze, nature of fie decision and group
structure. Inordertobettermrierstarflfiedifferencesbetween

approaches, a brief discussion of each method is provided.

I . . 1' I

'Be decision-making process can be summarized into three steps:
defining fie problem, considering alterratives and deciding upon a
course of action (macon & Firebaugh, 1975; Gross, Craniall & Knoll,
1980). 'Detimerequiredtocmpletefiefilree-stepprocessis
dependent upon fie daracteristice of fie decision. Simple decisions
can be nade relatively rapidly. Canplex decisions often impact a
variety of cfier situatiore. As suda, additional time is typically
required for canplex decisions in order to aralyze the multifaceted
inpact of fie decision (Gross, Crandall & Knoll, 1980).

'Ite decision process nay include fie examiration of a variety of
possible alterrative choices. As fie number of alter-ratives increase,
fie time needed to evaluate fie possible decision outcome may also
increase. mkevise, asfieinpactoffiedecisimmtcaueiiereases,

26

somayfietinerequiredtomakefiedecisim (Gross, Crarflall &I<holl,
1980) .

‘ne successful carpletion of fie decision process relies upon fie
identification and canprelereion of fie decision goals and
alterratives. 'Ihe level of clarity of fie goals and alternatives
characterize fie decision process as a "closed" or "open" model. A
closedmodelisdaracterizedbygoalsarrialtenativeswhichare
clearly defined and understood. Goals and alterratives which are more
geeralardabstractaredaracteristicsofanopenmodel (Gross,
Crandall & 101011, 1980).

mm

Decisiar-naking can be analyzedin relation to fie rature of fie
situation, carpetitive or cooperative. Carpetitive decision-making
occurs When fie interests of individuals involved in decisim-making
' conflict with fie ultimate goal . Carpetitive decisim—naking typically
exists in an unstable environment. Wten individlals involved in
decisim-making have identified fie sane interests and goal, fie nature
of decision-making is characterized as cooperative. Cboperative
decision-making nay also exist wlen fie goals between fie individuals
are different, if fie goals are not cmpetitive witheach other (Gross,
Crandall s. 101011, 1980).

g] 1:1 !! E I! . .

Decisions can be classified into various types. Researchers lave
idertified decision classifications as oceanic, social, (Deacon &
Firebaugh, 1975; Diesing, 1962; Rice & Men 1986), technical,
political and legal (Diesing, 1962; Rice & maker, 1986) . Technical

27

decisiaearenadeinanattelpttoadlie‘easinglegoal (Gross,
Cr‘arflall & 101311, 1980; Rice & thicker, 1986). We decisions are
daracterized by fie allocation of limited resources for fie obtainent
arms or more goals (Deacon & Firebaugh, 1975; Gross, Crandall &
101011, 1980; Rice & Tinker, 1986). Social decisions arise wten a
persmetamiresardselectshisorrerroleinasifiatim (Deacon&
Firebaugh, 1975; Rice & Tucker, 1986). 'Be aralysis of how decisions
are achieved relate to political decision. legal decisions exist when
societal horns pertain to practical situations and are made as a result
of conflicts of interest (Gross, Crandall & Knoll, 1980).

Another set of decision classifications was developed by Plonk
(1964). Plonk (1964) classified decisions into two types: certral and
satellite. 'lte central decision acts as fie focal point. Upon
cmpletion of fie certral decision, satellite decisims are geerated
(Deacm & Firebaugh, 1975; Plonk, 1964). Satellite decisiora are
classified into one of four categories: tactical, control, policy and
program. ”A tactical decision is an instrumental decisim made to
begin and/or continue action for fie enecution of fie strategic
(central) decision" (Plank, 1964, p. 6). "A control decision
regulates, danges, facilitates, sinplifies, or adjusts a decision in
any of fie satellite classes" (Plank, 1964, p. 6). "A policy decision
is a plan for tandling a certain decisim-denarriing situation if ani
when fie situation arises" (Plank, 1964, p. 6). "A strategic decision
is crucial in fie life of fie decision maker. After fie decision is
nade, reallocation of fie decision nakers resources take place for an
indefinite period of time" (Plank, 1964, p. 5).

28

ll . . II !

Decisim—making is a dynamic process which is generative in
nablre. Decisions are typically interrelated, filus, forming linkages.
three types of linkages incluie decision chairs, central-satellite
model of decision-making and a decision tree (Gross, Crandall & Knoll,
1980).

Decision stains are formed wten one decision generates an
additioraldecisionandaresequential inrature. ‘nesequenceoffie
decision dain, lewever, is not indicative of fie inportance of each
decision.

Central-Satellite decisions contain series and radial linkages.
'necertraldecisionactsasfiemainfocaldecision,whichintum
generates satellite decisions. me series and radial decision linkages
are formed, extending frcm fie central decision. Multiple decisions
may be generated, linked to an additional decision (Gross, Crardall &
Knoll, 1980, p. 225).

'Ite third type of decision linkage consists of a decision tree. A
decision tree is a visual representation of fie available alternative
decisims (Deacon & Firebaugh, 1975). A decision tree is geerated
filrough fie carpletion of an initial decision. nun filis decision,
alterrative decisions are generated, finls, forming fie decision tree
linkages (Gross, Crarrlall, & Knoll, 1980) . 'ne alterrative decision
possibilities represent a differed: e'd result, each possessing
advantagesarddisadvantages. rlhroughfieanalysiscffiedecision
tree,fiealterrativescanbeecamired,fierebyassistinginfie
canpletim of a decision (Deacon & Firebaugh, 1975; Gross, Crandall &
Knoll, 1980). Once fie altenatives have been examined and a decision

29

ismade, anofierlinkagenaybeformed. Unlikefielinkagesina
decisim clain arri central-satellite decision model, fie linkages in
fiedecisimtreeareseque’rtialinrature (Gross, C:randall&l<noll,

1980).

W
Decisia'ls can be made individually or collectively as a group. As

such, decisim-makingcanbearalyzedfranfiestandpointofwteis
making fie decision (Gross, Crandall & Knoll, 1980) as well as fieir
decision-making style (Bustrillos, 1953) . austrillos (1963) identified
filree behavioral elenerts of decision-making: mode, time referees and
decisim rule. 'ne mefied of fie developent and presentation of fie
ideaswhidlconstitutefiedecisionisrefereeedasfiemde
belavioral element of decisim-making. 'ne time reference relates to
fietimingoffiedecision; namely, past,presentorfuture. 'Ite
decisimrule referstofienamer inwhidxfiedecision-nakerreades
fie ultimate alterrative choices (mstrillos, 1963) .

W
‘negrcupstrucmretasbeenstewntoinflueeefiealccessof

decisicn—making within a group. Rice and Tucker (1986) identified
three scearios imich inpact decisim-making: fie stability of fie
gralp, Innogeeityofeadimerberardfiestageofdevelcpneltoffie
group. Vbenagrwporfamilystaresimilarvaheegoalor
aspirations, fie stability of fiat gimp is heighteed. Likearise, when
fie values, goals, aspirations or attitudes differ, fie family beccmes
disjointed wllich in turn hinders decision-making. Decision-makirg can
alsobeinflueeedbyfielevel ofrmegeeityoffiegrulp. 'lypically

30

fiemrehanogeemsfiegram,fieeasierdecisim—makingis.
Hamgeeity alae, Inever, will not guarantee effective and efficient
grmpdecision-naking. Outsideinflueeessldlasstressesfrmfie
envirmment can hinder fie group's decision-making ability (Rice 8
Tucker, 1986). 'Be carposition of fie group structure can also inpact
fieir decision-making ability. Researders rave used fie family life
cycle to examine decisim-makirg within a family. 'ne age of family
nerbers, marital status, and socioeconcmic status of fie family
influeee fie group's decisiai-naking (Oosenza 8 Davis, 1981; Clam,
1961; Cunt, 1975; Green 8 armingtam, 1975; Haberman 8 Elison, 1967:
Myers a mist, 1978: Scanzoni, 1977: Schlesinger, 1962: stmptrim &
Sanuelson, 1976: Rice & Index, 1986: Wells 8 Grubar, 1966).
'nmmglnrtfilisreseardlproject, decision-nakingisexamitedin
relation to fie classification of fie types of decisions as defired by
Plonk (1964) . 'ne central and satellite decisions under investigation
areccncernedwithfieperceived level of influence familymexberslave

on vacatim decisions.

W

Family decision-making is influenced, in part, by familial
characteristics. Family socioecormic stams, length of narriage and
fieageofdlildrenaswellasfiatoffieparertsravebeenshcwnto
significantly influeee fie decision artccme (Oosenza 8 mvis, 1981:
Clawson, 1961: Cox, 1975; Green 8 Main, 1975: Haberman 8 Elism,
1967: Myers 8 mief, 1978; Scanzoni, 1977; Schlesinger, 1962:
Shuptrine & Samelson, 1976: Wells 5 Grubar, 1966) .

Alfinlgh researcrers have agreed on fie significance of studying
the stages of fie family life cycle (Oosenza 8 Davis, 1981: Haberman 8

31

Eliscn, 1967; mrphy 8 Staples, 1979; Schlesinger, 1962; Wells 8
Grubar, 1966), a consensus caeemirg fie precise makeup of fie life
cyclehasmtbeenaccarplisled (Wells 8Gmbar, 1966). Inresponseto
fie changes in fie family structure, mrphy and Staples (1979) revised
fie traditicnal life cycle in order to better reflect today's family.
This editim of fie life cycle consists of five major stages, with an
additional 13 subcategories. See Table 4 for a list of fie categories
in fie revised life cycle.
'Befirststageoffiecycleconsistsofyclmgsingleadults. 'Ite
second stage consists of young married couples, wifinrt children. he
filirdmajorstageisfizatofyamgadultsmtrepresentedbystageae
orstagetwo. Irriividualsireluiedinfiiisstawwculdbeyamg
divorced persons wifiiout children, young married couples wifil children,
in fie infant or young adolescents years (4-12 years old). 'ne last
subcategory of families in stage three consists of young divorced
adultswifilchildreninfieinfantoryomgadolescentagebracket
(Dinghy 8 Staples, 1979) .
'nefanfilstagerepresentsmiddle-agedadults. Offiesix
subcategoriesinfilisstage, fiefirstmbcetegoryrepresentsmiddle—
aged married couples wifieut children. ‘ne next subcategory consists
ofmidile—agedperscrewtearedivoreed, wifieutchildren. 'nelast
four subcategories of fiiis stage represents middle-aged adults, with
dlildreninvarimsagebrackets. 'nefiiird
subcategory consists of married middle-aged couples wifil young or
adolescent children, followed by. micBle—aged divorced persons with
young or adolescent children. 'ne last two albcategories cmsist of

32

 

Table 4. Stages of fie Family Life cycle

 

m1: SingleperscnsmflerBSyearsofage

 

SM 2: Married persons, under 35, wifilout children

 

SEGE 3: Divorced persons, under 35, wifieut children
Married persons, uncer 35, with dependent children

Divorced persons, under 35, With dependent
children

 

SM 4: Married persons, between 35-64 years old, wifieut

children

Divorced persons, between 35-64, wifilout children

Married persons, between 35-64, wifii dependent
children

Divorced perscle, between 35—64, with dependent
children A

Married person's, between 35-64, wifilcut dependent
children

Divorced persons, between 35-64, wifilout dependent
children

 

STAGE 5: Married persons, 65 years or older
Divorced or widowed persons, 65 years or older

 

middle-aged married couples wifilcut dependent children and middle-aged
divorced persons wifieut deperrierrt drildren (airplay & Staples, 1979) .
Researchers (Cox, 1975; unphy & Staples, 1979; Schlesinger, 1962)
haveagreedfilatfiestageoffielifecyclearrlsocioecamicaspects
of fie family influence family decisim-making. 'lhese suldies,
however, haveprovidedtundistl’mtfieoriescaeemingfielevelof
influence of fie family life cycle and socioeccnanic aspects on
decisim-making. On fie ae hand, researders (Cox, 1975: My 8
Staples, 1979) have prcpcsed that fie degree of qecializaticn in
family decision-mung increases as fie length of fie marriage

33

increases. Schlesinger (1962) m fie ofier hand has identified
increased joint decisim—making during early and later years of fie
marriage. wring fie middle years, specializatim in decision-raking
was identified.

Research utilizing fie family life cycle has dencnstrated filat
family interactions are not static, but dynamic. airing fie early
stagesofanerriage,fiefirst15yearsofmarriage, fielevelof
negotiatim and fiereby joint decisicn-makirg between spouses is
typically at its peak (cosenza & Davis, 1981; Cox, 1975; my &
Staples, 1979; Schlesinger, 1962).

Results of early family decision-making studies have provided
incaelusive results on fie relatimship between age and family
decisim—making (Sharp 8 Mott, 1956). current research studies (Ferber
E Iee, 1974: Filiatrault 8 Ritchie, 1980: Green 8 Cunningham, 1975;
Jafldns, 1978: Kmarcvsky, 1961; Myers & Marx-ist, 1978: Ritchie s.
Filiatrault, 1980), waver, have demmsmmd filat fie age of family
raters,bcfi1spcusesanddlildren,isaninfluential factorin
decisiaHnaking. Chrcnologically yumger couples, or couples who have
not been together long typically made decisions jointly (Father a Lee,
1974; Kanarcvsky, 1961).

cox (1975) supplied further support to fie fieory that length of
marriage is a significant (p<. 001) explanatory variable of family
decisim-making. Changes in decisim-makim patterns over fie length
offiemarriagewereslewntobemtsolelydietofietiueelarent.
Cox (1975) proposes filat fie family's desire for goal congruent
behavior, asqpcsedtoatineelanent, isfieguidingfactorin
charging family decisim patterns. As fie couple ages and fie lengfil

34

offieirmarriageprcgresses, fieirkncwledgeoffiewantsarridesires
ofeadlofierirereases,whid1inulrnixereasesfiepmpensityfor
specialization in decisim-maldng (Green 8 armingham, 1975: Myers 8
Murief, 1978). mrfiermore, fieir level of cametence and expertise
in decisiar-making typically increases with age, fiereby pruwting
greater autauny in decisim-neking (Kanarcvsky, 1961) .

Family catpcsiticn typically changes over fie life of a marriage.
mildral are born, raised, mrried an! eventually start families of
fieir cam. As fie family cmpcsitim changes, fie goals of fie family
ingereralmayalsodlarge. 'Ihesechanges, inborn, influencefie
decision-mam process (Mir-my 8 Staples, 1979). Researders (Oosenza
& Davis, 1981: Cox, 1975; unphy 8 Staples, 1979; Schlesinger, 1962)
have idaitified a positive relaticnship between fie length of a
marriagearrifiemmtofautcrmyinfamilydecisim—maJdrg. Asfie
numerofyearsacouplehasbeenmarriedirereased, anincreasein
specializatim of decisim—makl'ng was demmstrated.

Sccioecamic factors, such as education, ireane (Blood 8 Wolfe,
1960: Green & omingham, 1975; Haberman & Elison, 1967: Myers &
Hmcrief, 1978: Slama 8 Tashchian, 1985) and occupation (Blood 8 Wolfe,
1960) havebeenslewntoberelatedtodecisicn—making (Habernan8
211361, 1967: Myers 8 mief, 1978). Researcters (Green &
Omningham, 1975; Kmarcvsky, 1961: Myers & mief, 1978) have
identified a curvilirear relatiaehip between incae and family
decisim-maldng. Specializatim in decisiai-neking is typically
dmetratedthmlghbipolareuhoffieireanecartim. 'lhat is,
autamyindecisim-maJdngisdlaracterizedbylow-ardupperrixeme
hierardlieswtereas familiesinfiemiddle—iremelevelsaremreapt

35

to use joint decisiar-makirg (Green 8 Omningham, 1975; Ferber & lee,
1974: Myers a mist, 1978) . Blood and Wolfe (1960) identified a
positive relatiaehip between fie hieband's level of heme and
educatim ard decisicn-neking influence. Kanarcvsky (1961) proposed
filatautannyindecisiai-uakingisprevalentwhenfieiremelevel is
ateifierendoffiecmtinmforthnreascre. Iowincanefamilies
typically are restricted fran many purchases due to limited disposable
incme. As such, joint decisiai-makin; is not necessitated. Families
athigleriremebradcetshaveagreaterdegreeofpurdiase flexibility
die to fieir greater levels of disposable incme. ‘mis financial
simatim does not recessitate nor does it eremrage joint decision-
making. Joint decisia'r-neking by fie middle class, luever, my be due
in part to fieir aspiratians for fie future (Kmarcvsky, 1961).

Conflicting fieories exist concerning fie level of influence wives
exert in family decision-making. Kanarovsky (1961) and Myers and
Mist (1978) have proposed that decision-halting is typically wife-
dcminant in fie lower socioeccnanic levels. Scott (1970), however,
discoveredapatternwterebyfielevel of influereeindecisim—mkjng
maybeaprcductofitemearriprcductcategory. cheninhigter
incme brackets had a significantly (p<.05) higher level of influence
filanfieirspaisesinfurnimrepdrdiasedecisicn-makingfiiandidfiese
in lower incate brackets.

'nelevel ofeducatimattairedbyfamilymadoershasbeenstmn
to influmce family decisiat-making (Ferber 8 lee, 1974: Scott, 1970;
Slama 8 Tashchian, 1985). however, cartroversy exists caeerning filis
relationship. Scott's (1970) data supported the theory that as the
educatimal level of fie decisim-maker rose, so did fie terriency for

36

danimnce in decision-making. In fie case of women, a positive
statistically significant (p<. 05) relatiaehip between education and
daninance was identified (Scott, 1970). Ferber and lee (1974),
however, identified a positive relatimship between educational level
and joint decisicn-neking. that is, as respa'rient's educational level
increased, sodidfieammtofjointdecisicn—makingbetweenspwses.

 

'neroleaperscntakesinfiedecisim-makingprocesscanconmte
a certain level of power (Blood 8 Wolfe, 1960: Centers, Raven 8
Rodrigues, 1971: Cox, 1975). 'Be greater fie level of poser-fiat a
perscnhas, fiegreaterfielevel ofinfluencefieymayexertcnfie
decision outcane (Centers, Raven 8‘ Rodrigues, 1971), in nany cases
placingfieirreedsordesiresinfra'rtoffieseoffielessdaninant
spouse (Safilios-Rothsdlild, 1970).

'Be role each family matter plays in family decisim-making has
changed (Brown, 1961: Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980: Scanzoni &
Szinovacz, 1980). he in part to changes in fie family role str'ucture,
traditimal roles of family matters in decisicn-makirg is slowly being
altered (mvis 8 Rigaux, 1974). As such, role differentiatim and
specialization in family decisim-making has becane far more catplex
(Davis 8 Rigaux, 1974: Scazcni, 1977). With an increasing proportion
ofwanenenteringfieworkforce, decision-mahngbeheenmanyspouses
ardfiedlildrenhaschanged. mmmkenanirereasinglymore
active role in family decisim-makim, and have becane more influential
in decisicns whidl have been traditialally male daninated (Blood 8
Wolfe, 1960: Green 8 Cmningham, 1975: Scanzcni, 1977: Scenzcni 8
Szincvacz, 1930).

37

Alfilough decisim-neking am fie level of interaction beueen
members varies, fie activity is typified by joint activity, shared to
sane degree by fie mishand, wife and children (Ccsenza 8 Davis, 1981:
Myers 8 Mcterief, 1978: Paolucci, Hall 8 Axinn, 1977: Turner, 1970: Van
maij, 1981). Family decisim-making research, to a large extent,
however, enamiredfieperceivedlevelofqawsalinfluereesudlas
tneband-daninant, wife-dwinant or joint decision-making between bofi1
spouses (Nichols 8 Snepenger, 1988: Sharp 8 Mott, 1956) as opposed to
influence of all family matters (Cox, 1975) .

fie majority of family decisim-making researdl has been corriucted
inrelaticntofieperceived level ofinfluereecnfiepurchaseofa
durable good, housdeld products or task decision-making. fie plrdlase
decisials cannonly analyzed include fie purchase of an autancbile
(mvis, 1970: Sharp 8 Mott, 1956: Shuptrire 8 Samelscn, 1976),
nxmicne (Davis, 1970; Green 8 W, 1975: srmptrine 8
Samelscn, 1970; Spiro, 1983) housing (Davis 8 Rigaux, 1974; Green 8
Qumingham, 1975: Mneinger, Weber 8 Hansen, 1975: Sharp 8 Mott, 1956),
a mjor durable good (Spiro, 1983) child care or aufierity patterns
(Geilcen, 1964: Schlesinger, 1962), MR! products used, schools,
clothing W, artertainnent (Davis 8 Rigaux, 1974), gereral
haeehold nanagenent (Schlesinger, 1962), general my matters (Sharp
8 mtt, 1956: Schlesinger, 1962) vacation destinations (Davis 8 Rigaux,
1974; Myers, 1974; Myers 8 mist, 1978: Sharp 8 Matt, 1964), and
specific decision-mking by farm families (Birchinal 8 Bauder, 1965:
Wilkening 8 Heradwaj, 1967).

fieperceivedand/oracmallevel ofinfluencebyeachspcusem
family decision-mking can be classified into ae of three categories.

38

fiefirstfieanimstcmmmgrcupsarefieseoftmsbarri—danirentani
wife-daninant. Ineachcase, fiespouseinfluencesfiefinal decision
toagreaterextentfiianfiiatoffiecfierfamilynerbers. fiiis
dcnimreedoesmtmeanfilatfiepersmhasamajorityoffie
influence. mlyfienfiespcuseinfluermsfiedecisimtoadegree
greater fiian 50 percent, will a majority decisim-maker be identified.
fie third classification of a family decision-maker is fiiat of joint
decisial-making. Joint decisicn-makirq occurs wlen both spouses have
amrcndmtelyfiesanedegreeofinfluereeonfiecutcaneoffie
decisim.

lbseardl has dccnnented filat role specialization within family
decisim-maldng occurs, and filat role specializatim is situation
specific (Brawn, 1961: mvis, 1970: Davis 8 Riwux, 1974: Davis 8
Rigaux, 1977: Ferber 8 Lee, 1974: Geiken, 1964: Green 8 Cunningham,
1975: impel, 1974: Jenkins, 1978: mm, Wdaer & Hansen, 1975:
Safilics-Rothsdiild, 1969: Shuptrire 8 Samelscn, 1976) . Family
members play different roles in family decisim-maJdng based in part on
fietypeofdecisimbeirgmadeorfiepredxetcategoryoffieplmhase
being cueidered. Brown (1961) fieorized filat fie reason decision-
mking is product specific may be due, in part,.to fie decision-
mker's focal point of interest. filat is, wlen fie decision is of
particular interest to an individual, fieir participation in decision-
mking is greater fiian if fie decisim is of relatively little interest
tofiem. Foreimple, fieplrdiaseofarewautcmrbileisbeing
cmsidered. fiiiscarwillbeusedprimarilybyfiewife. Assuch, fie
wifemaybeperceivedaseidlibitingalargermmtof influenceinfie

39

pudeseoffiecaraswellasinseca'darydecisicrerelatedtofie
parchase such as color, style and options.

Hen an in-depfil analysis of family decision-making is conducted
in relatim to cre or a few itele, studies (Davis, 1970: Mmeinger,
Weber 8 Hansen, 1975; Stmptriie 8 Sanuelsm, 1976) have shown that
perceivedcveralldaninareeineveryaspectoffiedecisicnsdoesmt
typically occur. Using both spouses in fie sanple, Davis (1970)
attarpted to identify fie perceived daninant decision-maker in relation
tofieplrdlaseofanml‘tardoileardl'msehold ftmlitnlr'e. Resiltsof
fieanalysisrevealedfiiatoveralldaninaieebyaspcuseinrelatimto
aprcductwasmtprevalent. mlywhenfievariousdecisicnsin
relatimtofieoverall decisimheremdecculdfielevel of influence
be accurately identified (Davis, 1970).

Quiptrine and Samelson (1976) rqalicated fie study by Davis
(1970). Overall, results of fie studies are similar to fiese
idartified by mvis (1970), which str'engfiens fie proposition filat
perceiveddunimreeindecisim—makirgispartiallydeperdentmfie
decisimorsubdecisimbeirgnade. Duninameisalsoinfluereedby
fie predict category under cmsideraticn. fie researders (Shuptrire 8
Smelsm, 1976) did identify significant differences (p<.05) between
the two studies. In the study coraicted by Davis (1970), decisions
caeerningfienakeofautancbiletoplrdiase, fiemcdelandcolorof
fiemrweremadejointlybefiweenspmses. InfiestndybySlmptrixe
am Sanelscn (1976), however, fiese decisims were daninated by fie
hieband. Menfiedecisimcoteerningfiepur'dlaseof furniturewas
examixed, a significant difference (p<.05) was identified between fie
twostudies inrelatimtofiefilmiturepiecestobeplrdlased. In

4O

fielhvisstmiy, fiiisdecisimmsperceivedtobemadejointlybetween
spouse. SnptrireandSanelsmidentifiedfiewifeasbeingfie
daninant decision-maker in relation to fie pieces of furniture to be
p.1rd1ased (Shuptrire & Samelsm, 1976). msults between fie two
studies are, twever, similar in cfier areas.

Greenarrianmingham (1975) cafletedas’cuiywlerebyfiespmsal
influence in family decisia't-mking was identified in relation to fie
degree of cmservatisn of fie wife. Using an Antanany Inventory
measure, fieresearderscategorizedwmenintocreoffiueegruips,
conservative, mderate and liberal. Results of fie analysis revealed
fiet all wanen, despite fieir degree of cmservatism, stated fiet bofi:
senses jointly made housing and furniture purchase decisions. ‘ne
husband, however, dominated fie decision to pmdxase life ireurance,
milefiewifedcminated foodorgmcerypurdaasedecisicte (Green&
Omnirgham, 1975) . Differences, alfixcugh not signifimnt, between
liberalwivesanifiesevialedascoreervativeandnnderatewere
identified. Liberal wives felt fiey had a greater deal of influence
finanfieirmasbandsconcerningfiepirdeseofmajorappliam, an
autanobile and vacatiae (Green & Qnmingham, 1975) .

Despitefielevel ofagreanentcaeerningfieberefitsgererated
byfamilydecisim—nakingstudis, researdershavenotyetagreedcn
fieapprcpriateunit of analysis. that is, slmldcreorbcthspcuses
be used in data collectim (Green & amirgham, 1975). Response
iremgnenciescanbeidentifiedwhenbofixspaeesareusedin
decision-naking research (mvis, 1970: Douglas 5 Wire, 1978: Hamel,
1974: Scanzmi, 1965; Wilkening & Reradwaj, 1967). Ofier researchers,
tavever,havestatedfixatfieuseofaenalber, forpaxticnlar

41

decisicfi-naking simatims, is acceptable and prwidoe highly reliabrus-
results (Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Davis, 1970; Davis, 1976: Douglas 5 Wind,
1978; Green & Qmingham, 1975; Grartnis & Willet, 1970). One family
umber, selectedastherespmdent, hasbeenslewntoprcvidereliable
results, prcvidedfiepurposeoffiereseardlistoexamilefielevel
of influence each family matter has m decisim-maJdng (mvis, 1978:
Douglas 5. Wind, 1978).. Furfiermre, when the perceived level of
influeteeeadlperemelnertedmfamilydecisim-nakingisamlyzedm
anaggregatelevel, fierwlltsazecmparabletosuldiesmidlhave
used bofil spcnses as respa'dents (Davis, 1970; Invis, 1976; Granbois &

Willett, 1970) .

 

Olildrenaxebecaningircreasinglymreactivearflinfltential in
family decisim-maldng (Berey & Pollay, 1968; Jenkins, 1978; Ibsclfis &
Moore, 1979: Mosdlis, Moore & Staplexe, 1977). Alfieugh children have
significantly less pirohasing power than adults (Goldberg & Gorn, 1974)
receazdlhasshmnfietdlildrenareinfltentialinplrdesedecisiae
of amrcodmately $145 billion anmally (Moschis, Moore & Stqalens,
1977).

Children's influence in decisim-maldng is partially dependent
upmtwoconditicre. 'nefirstcaflitimisfieabsenceofaprimazy
decisim-maker between spouses. 'mat is, when fie level of decisicm-
makinginfluemebyeadispalseislessfiIanSOpercent,researdlhas
stewnfilatfielevelofinfluaeedanetratedbyfiedlildren
typically increases (Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980; Ritchie &
Filiatrault, 1980) . 'ne' secmd coniitim for dlildren to have
significant influence in decision-maxim is product related. Children

42

arebeingperceivedashavinganixereasedamountofinfluencem
decisialswhenfiedecisimtoplrdlaseisrelatedtofieircwn
recreatim activities. I-Icmever, an inverse relationship exists between
flecostoffieactivityardfiedlild's influenceinfiedecisicn.
'Iypiczlly as fie cost of fie product or activity ilereases, fie
perceived level of influence of fie child on that decision decreases,
arrifieperceivedlevelofinfltereeemertedbyfieparentirereases.
'lhislcsscfinfluenceisdle,inpart,tofiehighpricearrlsocial
riskoffieplrdlasemsdlis,}bore85teptele,1977).
Ageofthedaildhasbeenshowntobeanirportantfaotorintheir
level of influenceinfamily decisions. Asfiedlild age, andlearns
toreasm,oftenbecaningmreassertiveinexpressirgfieiropinimin
a decisim, fie level of influence in family decisions as well as
decisims directly related to fiueelves typime increases (Berey &
pollay,1968).
Familyincmehasbeenslmntobedirectlyrelatedtofiedegree
of decisiar-making influence a child has (Ibschis, Moore & Stefiens,
1977). Studieshaveshcwnfiet children frmlmlass familiesbave
greaterinieperflexeeinplrdesingcmsmnerpmductsfilanfieseof
middle- or upper-inane families. Gem and Goldberg (1977)
hypothesized filat children fran low-incane families do not typically
exertadditimalpressmemparentstoplrdesecaetmergcodsviewed
inadvertisanentsdletolcwexpectatiaeexperiereedinfiepast. It
resbeenhypcfiesizedfilatasfiefamilyincmelevelirereases,so
does fie parental supervision. As fie supervisim irereases, fie
relative decision-making influence of fie child decreases (lbsd'lis,
more &Stq:tens, 1977). Children of middle-orurxJer-incane families,

43

however, aremrecmsciws offievarietyofcaumergoodsavailable
and fie potential for consmpticn (Mosdlis & more, 1979).

'Be information across children utilize in decision-making range
frmpamtalguidance,peerpressureaniadvertisenents(corn&
Goldberg, 1977; Gilkenscn, 1973; rbscm's, 1978; MILE 8: more, 1979;
Saunders, Samli & 'Ibzier, 1973). Pre-adolescents typically refer to
fieir parents for information which assists in naking a decision
(Gilkenscn, 1973). As fiey becare teenagers, parents are replaced by
peers as fie primary source of inforuatim (Gilkenscn, 1973; Moschis &
Moore, 1978; Saunders, Samli & Tozier, 1973). Adolescents as well as
teenagers from middle- and upper-incane families also use
advertisenents as a source of information.

antral-Satellite Patten: of lesbian-Hakim lbdel

Decisicns are hierarchical in nature and possess fie ability to
gererate additicnal, secondary decisions (Alderscn, 1959; Paolucci,
Hall & Axinn, 1977; Plank, 1964; 1968). A cmceptual model which
accents for fie different levels of inportance and types of decisions
made is fie Central-Satellite Pattern of decisim-making.

Using concepts fran Alderscn (1959), Plcnk (1964) developed fie
Carnal-Satellite Pattern decisim-ueking model. Plcnk used fie term
central in order to depict fie strategic decision described by Alderson
(Plank, 1964; 1968). 'Be central decision acts as a focal point and
basis for related decisions (Gross, Crarriall & Knoll, 1980; Paolucci,
Hall & Axinn, 1977; Plank, 1964; 1968). plank (1964; 1968) termed the
secondary decisions, which are gererated by fie central or strategic
decisim, as satellite decisims.

44

'Be Central-Satellite Pattern of decision-making is represented by
ae central decision and nlltiple satellite decisials. Satellite
decisiaearecoreideredsecaflarytofiecentraldecisimardare
dependent or related to fie central decisim (Bean, 1968; Gross,
Craniall & Knoll, 1980) . See Figure l.

 

1. 'De central decision nust be fie primary, fierefore fie first,
decision made.

2. 'Be central decisicn nust, sinply by definition, consist of a
significant central choice. Wifinlt the central decision,
satellite decisions are not gererated.

3. 'necentraldecisicnhasfieabilitytogereratesecordaryor
satellite decisions.

4. Central decisions my consist of a yes/no response, such fiet aloe
arespaeeisgelerated, itwilldetermirewtefiercrmtsatellite
decisicns are generated or fie decision process is aborted.

5. A central decision may consist of a decision wlereby fie satellite
decisions contime to refer back to fie central decision.

GI! i E Ellll! I ..

1. Satellite decisims are fiese decisicns which are generated as a
result of fie central decision.

2. Satellite decisions are cmsidered secordary in fie level of
inportance in relation to fie central decision.

3. Satellite decisims may be classified as tactical, policy, control,

lorptrogramdecisims. aeoracmbinaticnoffiefcnrtypesof
classificatims my be used in fie Mal-Satellite Pattern of

decisim—mking.

45

   
      

 
     
  

Satellite x
Decision Contra l

Satellite
Decision
Decision
’ Satellite
Decision

Satellite '
Decision

Satellite
Decision

' : -Satellite Pattern of Decisi
Figure 1 $1M from fie Central-Satellite Pattern of
Decision-making, as described by Paolucci, Hall
and Axinn (1977) .

46

4 . Satellite decisions may generate adiitialal satellite decisions.

5. Satellite decisims may imact additia'ial satellite decisions.

6. Once a central decision gelerates cre or more satellite decisions,
fie satellite decisims do not reesssarily interact with fie
central decision.

I! i i m if ! .

Satellite decisions may be classified into cre of fie four types
of decisions. 'ne classifications include control , policy, program and
tactical decisicre. Wifilin a single decision situation, any
calbinatim of are or more decision classifications may be represented.
'ne definitions for each type of decision is listed below.

cns:

"A control decision regulates, changes, facilitates, sinplifies,
or adjusts a decision in any of fie satellite classes" (Plank, 1964, p.
6).

For exallple: hiring fie vacation planning process, each family
nether stated an activity which fiey felt was inportant in a vacation.
then making fie final vacatia'l plans, cre activity frtm each family
nerberwaschcsenardparticipated inwhilemvacatim.

"A policy decision is a plan for handling a certain decision
denanding situation if and wlen fie situation arises" (Plank, 1964, p.
6).

Forexanple: 'nefamilyhasdecidedtovisitanalmselentpark
while on vacation. A policy decisim was made, wlereby if any family
neutersbecaneseparatedinfieameenentparheverycreistogo

47

innediatelytofieinformatimbootharrimit forfierestoffie
family to arrive. 'Ite decisim made is to calvere at fie information
booth.

W

"A program decision results in establishing a new mrtl're for
primarily, regularly recurring activities in a new situation" (Plank,
1964, p. 7).

For exanple: 'ne family has jointly decided to use hotel
accannodationsasqposedtocanpgrctmiswhilemvacatim. Ite
vamtimhasbeensdeduledtolastaeweek, orsixnightsandseven
days. 'Itedecisimcoreerningfietypeof accamndaticnsisaprlogram
decision due to fie fact that obtaining a place to sleep each night is

a recurring activity.

' ions:

”A tactin decision in an instrumental decision made to begin
and/or cartinue action for fie execution of fie [central] decision.
Its content catprises fie detailed application of effort made to
cmplete fie core ideal. Decisims in filis class set limits and
bandaries for ofier tactical, policy, cmtrol or program decisions"
(Plonk, 1964, p. 6).

Forexanple: 'nefamilyhasdecidedfilatfieywilltakea
vacatial for cre week during fie smlmer. 'mis decisim limits fie
vamtimtofieslmmermmfils. 'Iteaeweektimeframeactsasa
boundary for additional satellite decisions cancernirq fie activities,
mode of tranquortation and geographic location of fie vacation. 'Ihat
is, activities, mode of transportation and destination decisions made

48

arebasedinpartmfieaeweektimeframe. Forexanple, fiefamily
lives in Michigan and has selected California as fieir vacation
destinatim. netofiefactfilatfievacaticnistolastcnlycte
week, fie mode of transportation would be an airplale, rafier filan
autanobile or bus.

Alfieugh satellite decisions are cmsidered secondary to fie
central decisions, fie success of fie central decision may be
influenza! by the satellite decisicrs. flat is, satellite decisions
any influence fie perceived desirability or (pality of fie central
decision. Positive actions and reactions to fie satellite decisims
nayintlnninfllereefiesucasssoracceptanceoffiecentraldecisicn
(Paolucci, Hall 5. Axinn, 1977).

Family Vacatim Decision-Making

Family vacation decision-raking has been a topic of recent
interest by academicians and practitioners alike. 'ne primary fame of
filisreseardlhasbeentocmprelendfiedifferencesbetweenfie
perceived level of influence family renters have on family vacation
decisions. Variables which influence tourists' decisial-making as well
as specific areas of analysis in tourists' decision-naking are

addressedinfilissecticn.

 

'nestageoffieFamilyIifecycle (PIC) offieconsmnerorfamily
can affect fie level of influence of family renters m decisim—making.
Asfiefamilyprcgressesthrughfiestagesoffielifecycle,fie
traveldecisia'l-makingprccessdlanges.

49

cosmzaandnavis (1981) cadetsdastudydesigledtoelmnirefie
tourist' s decisim-makin; process in relatim to fie dyadic interaction
of familie over the life cycle ani had decisials canernirg travel
were made. 'ne sanple was selected using an thimal stratified
sanplin; procedure. Of fie 155 valid surveys, each family was
categorized into cre of fie six stages of fie family life cycle. ‘ne
levelofdoniremebetveenspousesineadtcategorywasfienarelyzed.

Based at frequencies, fie aufiers categorized vacation decisions
for eadl stage of fie life cycle. wring fie first stage, dyadic
interactim and joint decision-making concerning vacation decisions
took place. Cosenza and Davis (1981) hypofiesized filat fixis occurred
asaresult offienoveltyoffierelatiaehip. Oaltrarytofie
general family life cycle model, stage 2 of fie life cycle for vacation
decisicn—neking was characterized by increased daninatim by fie
amend. Stage3wasrepresentedbyprimarilywifedaninatimin
vacation decisims. airing this stage, families typically have more
diqlosableireaneandaremrevacatimoriented. Assudl, fieir
vacatimqrtia'lsaremrevariedfilaninprevious years. Role
specializatimbyfiewifecartinedtobeprevalentduringstage4of
fie family life cycle. Alfieugh fie husband became slightly more
involved in fie vacatia'l decisicte, fie final decisim was primrily
wife dominated. During fie fifth stage of fie cycle, a syncretic, yet
slightly misbard-daninated vacation decision was experienced. 'ne
aufiershypofiesizedfi'latfieevmulalretirenentoffiecouple
camelledfielmsbarritobecane'mre involvedinnneymattersin
gaeralardfiedimtimofdispoeableirecmeinparticular. 'Ite
sixfi: and final stage of fie family life cycle in relatia'l to vacation

50

decisim was characterized by an irereased specialization by fie wife.
'n'listrenitwardspecializatimmaybedleinparttofiepast
experience of vamtim decisim-making by fie wife (Geenza & Davis,
1981). See Table 5.

Ibsearch conducted by Myers and Moncrief (1978) also resulted in
fie identificatia‘l of relatimships between fie socioecornnic variables
arri tourisn decisim-makirq. mta analysis revealed filat family incane
was related to fie level of autcnauy in family decision-making.
Familieswithanincaneinfielowerandhiglerbracketswerenere
prae to specializatim in decision-making. In conjunction With
results reported by Schlesinger (1962), Myers and mief (1978)
reported filat joint decision-neking was typically characteristic of
middle-income families. Wenfieincanelevelreaciedfieugermost
incale bracket, joint decisim-making decreased and @ecializaticn
increased, typically daninated by fie male (Myers & Moncdef, 1978).
Contrary to findings by Ferber and Lee (1974) and Kanarcvsky (1961),
Myers and Mcrrzrief (1978) reported filat fie length of marriage and age
offiespcnseswasretasignificantprediotorofdlangingpatternsof
vacatim decisia'l-neldm. 'ne aufilors noted filat joint decision-making
didretsignificentlydlangedtetofieageofeadlspmseorfie
lergthoftl'emarriage. Infact, basedmthesefactors, thelevelof
joint decision-raking renaired relatively constant (Myers & Maerief,
1978).

Despite fie amount and significance of family decisim-making and
tourism research, ally a few studies (Filiatrault & Ritd'lie, 1980:
Jenkins, 1978; Myers, 1974; Myers & Hortcrief, 1978) have been ctr-ducted
which analyze family members ' influence in vacation decisicl'l-uaking.

51

 

Table 5.

Stages of fie Vacation Decisicn Profile in fie
Family Life cycle

 

m1:

m4:

SEGES:

SEGEG:

¥

Syncretic decision-making
prles discuss fieir vacation cpticre .
Slightly lmsband-dcminated

'nehusbandseenstohavemoredecisim-

makingpower.

‘necmplehasmredecisim-making

experienceasacalplefilaninstagez.
Iargelywife-daninatled

Vacatim decisims are at a peak, due in

parttofieincreasedfamily incane, and

ages of children, which are typically in
fieir late teen years or older.

largely wife-daninated
Role specialization takes place.
Syncretic or slightly husband-daninated

'Decouplehasmtyetretiredfranwork,
butfieyareawareofitinfierearflrture.

I-hlsban'l-daninated decisions may occur as a
resultofworriesaboutfiefutmrecncefie
couple retires.

Specialization, wife-daninated

'necouplehasretiredfranworkarrimaybe
marriedinexcessofwyears.

'Itewifebeccmesfiedecisial-makerinmany
instances primarily due to past experience.

Source: (resenza and mvis, 1981, 21—22.

y

52

Myers (1974) and Myers and mist (1978) use either spouse as the
resparientandqestiaeareaddressedmlyfrmfiedecisicn inpactof
fie mlsbard and wife, as qposed to fie entire family. Filiatrault and
Ritchie (1980) and Jenkins (1978) analyzed family vacation decision-
makingfrunfieperspectiveoffiewifeaswellasfiemlsbarri. 'ne
questions posed dealt with fie level of influence each family matter,
husband, wife arri children, nede (:1 various vacatim decisions. A
simmery of vacatim decisions analyzed in fie studies is presented in
Table 6.

Despite fie "ideal" situation of surveying both spouses, while on
vacation, fie majority of research devoted to vacatim decisim-making
hasusedmlyaepersal, typicallyfiehusbandorwife, asfie
respordent. 'ltdate, thecnlytloreportedtourismstidieswhidthave
usedbofilspaeesinfiesanplewerecorductedbyJenkire (1978) and
Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980). Data in both cases, however, were not

collected during fie tourists' vacation.

 

Scanzcni (1977) proposed filat working wanen may becane more
influential in decisicte concerning vacation or leisure activities .
‘Il'lisincreasedinfluenceisattrihltedtofiefactfilatfieworking
wmlan has fewer leisure hours filan previously experienced, as well as a
trendtwardegalitarianisnwithinfie familyandgreateraccessto
resources (Scanzcni, 1977). Striies have demonstrated, however, filat
fie majority of family vacatim decisicns are daninated by fie husband
(Filiatrault 8 Ritchie, 1980; Jenkins, 1978: Ritdlie & Filiatrault 8:
Ritchie, 1980). Studies have further damnstrated that when the
htebarrl is not fie daninant decisicn-maker, fie decision is typically

53

 

‘Iable 6. Variables Used in fie Examination of fie Level of Influence
of Family Matters in Vacatim Decision-Making

 

Researder

 

Filiatraulta Jenkire, Myers, MyersstMon-
Variables Ritchie, 19801 1978 1974 crief, 1978

 

Acceptable Price 1::
of Motel

Activities to x

Engage 1“
Choice of Particular x
Motel
mercial lodgings x x

O
H:
XX
X

E
z
i

Take a Vacation as x x
Couple/Family
Take a Vacatia'l x
filis Sumner
Take a Vacation x
this Year
'Iype of Account-
dations
'Iype of Vacation
Vacation Eldget
Visit fie City
Visit fie Region
Wen to Go

x
X
X

XXNXX

X

 

lResearch reported by Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980) and Ritchie and
Filiatrault (1980) are based on fie same data set. As sud), fie
results are reported cmce.

 

54

madejointlybetleenfiehusbandandwife,ascpposedtobeing
daninated by fie wife (Filiatrault 8 Ritdiie, 1980; Jenkins, 1978;
Myers, 1974; Myers 8 Mcncrief, 1978; Ritchie 8 Filiatrault, 1980) . See
Table 7.

Hasband daninated vacation decisions consisted of fie type of
vacation infernetion collected (Jenkins, 1978) , fie timing or date of
fievacatimaswellasfieannmtofmaeytospend (Filiatrault8
Ritchie, 1980; Jenkins, 1978), length of vacation (Jenkins, 1978) arri
fie rurte taken (Myers 8 mief, 1978). Qualitative research
(Inducted by anifil (1979) leads to fie hypothesis that wanen would
daninate fie total or overall vacation decision. Quantitative research
by Jenkins (1978) however indicated this decision was daninated by fie
msband.

Filiatrault ard Ritchie (1980) extelfled fie firdirgs of Jenkins
(1978) . Vacationing husband and wife dyads were selected as fie sanple
pqlulatim. 'ne final sanple cmsisted of 270 couples. Fran fitis, 117
couples were traveling with children, 153 wifilout children.

mtaanalysisrevealedfilatmsbarldswereviaedtobe
significantly more influential filan wives in deciding wlen
to take a vacation, fie length of fie vacation, money allocated,
whefierornottomakehotelreservaticns, fielocationoffiemtelto
beselected, fiepricerangeoffienotelarrifieparticllarmotel
selected (p<.01) . Joint decision-mm was prevalent for decisions
calcerningfietypeoffinalvacaticndestinatimardtypeof
accalmodatims to use (Filiatrault 8 Ritchie, 1980; Ritchie 8
Filiatrault, 1980) .

55

 

'Iable 7. level of Influence Family Matters Have in Vacation Decision-

 

 

 

 

 

Making
Researcler
Filiatrault 8 Myers, Myers 8 Morl-
Ritchie, 19801 Jenkins, 1978 1974 crief, 1978
Hus- Wife's Hus- Wife's
band's band' 8
Re- Re- Re- Re-
W W m sponse
Accamdaticns Husband Wife Joint Joint Joint Joint
Used
Activities Joint Joint
Choice of Hotel Husband Husband
(home of Hotel Husband Husband
Roan
Dwtinatim Joint Joint Joint Joint
Points
Information Husband Husband
Collected
Ialgth of Husband Husband Husband Husband
Vacatim
Locatim of Husband Husband
Motel Chosen
tbde of Joint Joint
'rransportatim
Particular Motel Husband Wife
to Stay at
Price Iange of Husbalfl msbarri
Motel Chosen
mservaticns mishand Husband
Route Husband Husband
Stay Overnight Husband Husbard
Take Vacatim Husbard Husbard Joint Joint
as a Family
or prle
Take a Vacation Husband Husband
filis Sumner
Take a Vacatim Husband Husband
filis Year
Total Vacation Hllsband msband
Decision

Type of Vacation Husband

Vacatim Budget

Hasband

Husband

Husbardflusbarri Husband
Visitfiecity Husband Husband
VisitfieRegionI-lusband Husband

 

1% reported by Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980) and Ritchie and
Filiatrault (1980) are based a1 fie sane data set. As such, fie
rents are rqlorted once.

56

Differences between spouses' perceived level of influence in
several vacation decisicte were identified by Filiatrault and Ritchie
(1980) . Wives viewed fie tmsband as significantly more influential
(p<.01) in all vacation decisims except concerning wlefier or not to
visit fie region, visit fie city, stay overnight, accomlodaticns to
lcokfor, mteld‘laintousearrlfieparticllarmoteldesen. 'ne
wives did vial fie husband's influence as significantly higler (p<.05)
caeerningfietypeofvacaticnselected, arriwlefierornottotake
fie vacation as a family or as a couple (Filiatrault 8 Ritchie, 1980) .

Despite fie significant results identified in fie Filiatrault and
Ritd1ie(1980) study, it is important to note filat in eleven of fie
seventeen subdecisims analyzed, reifier spouse leld more filan 50
percent or a majority influence on vacation decisions. 'ne relative
lack of a majority decisim-raker has irplicaticns for influence by
ofier family melbers, such as children.

An inverse relatia'lship has been identified between the level of
jointspwsaldecisim—makingandfiepresenceofdlildrenmfie
vacatim. 'mat is, whenchildrenarenottakenonfievacaticn, fiere
isanircreasedarnmtofjointdecision—makingbetweenspouses

(Filiatrault 8 Ritchie, 1980) .

 

Alfilough research studies (lbsd'lis, 1978; Moschis 8 Moore, 1978:
1979: Moschis, Moore 8 Stertens, 1977) have showm filat children often
are influential in decision-making, studies on vacation decision-making
rarely include reasurenent of fie d'lildren's influence on fie decision
outcane abschis 8 Moore: 1979). Researclers who have included
d'tildre'l's influence in tourism decision-making research included

57

Jenkirs (1978), Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980) and Ritchie and
Filiatrault (1980) . See Table 8. ‘

Alfieugh children did not exhibit a significant inflience on
family vacation decisim-making, Jenkins (1978) did identify areas
wleredlildrenwereinfluentialtosanedegreemfiedecisimortcane.
Measured on a 100 constant-sum scale, children's level of influence was
typically fie greatest (36-38 percent) calcerning vacation activities.
Ofier decision areas \mich Jenkins (1978) identified children as
influential included fie destinatia'l points, date of fie vacation and
wtefierornotfieywouldgomvacaticn. mildrenwerevieledas
having relatively little or no influence m fie intonation collected,
node of transportation, fie vacation budget and length of fie vacation
(Jenkins, 1978).

Filiatrault arri Ritdlie (1980) fanri filat children were not
perceivedtohaveamajorityordaninantinfluenceinfamilytravel
decisions. In fact, both spouses had significantly more influence
(p<.01) m fie vacatia'l decisims filan did fieir children. Children
did, however, have influence at fie type of activities to participate
in, fiedloice of destinatimarrifieseasmwmenfievacatimwmld
take place (Ritchie 8 Filiatrault, 1980) .

m

'ne societal and monetary significance of tourism to fie private
ardpublicsectorshavecontinlallyprmptedresearduinterest. 'Ite
rejorityofsudlreseardlhaselamiredfieattitlfles, interestsand
opinions of vacatiorers as well as having evaluated tourists'
cmsmlptim patterns. Additional strides in advancing vacation
decisial-making research have begun.

 

Table 8. Spam Wine of Children's Percent of Influence in
Family Vacatim Decision-Making (%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researder
Filiatrault 8
Ritchie(1980) 1 Jenkins (1978)
misbarri's Wife's Re- Husband's Wife's Re-

Decisicn msporee spouse Response sparse
Activities 35.60 35.70
Choice of

Acoaunodatiore 12.10 13.00
Choice of Hotel

man 11.40 12.20
Destination Points 22.60 24.60
Hotel muons 4.10 4.80
Infomatim Used , 6.60 7.10
W1 of Vacaticn 8.10 10.60 11.30 11.40
location of

Acoamedatims 9.50 12.20
Dbde of

'rransportatim 6.50 3.20
hey Allocated 2.20 2.40 11.80 7.80
Price Range of

Acocmnodatiae 2.90 3.40
Stay Overnight

1n fie City 12.40 15.70
Take Vacatim as a

Family or Chlple 13.10 15.30 33.50 37.00
Take a Vacation

£3118 Sinner 19.90 19.90
Take a Vacation

'Ihis Year 17.10 18.80
'notal Vacaticn

lbcisim 23.30 23.20
W of

Wticns 15.20 18.00 17.40 18.10
Type of Vacation 14.60 24.40
Visit fie City 14.30 15.30
Visit fie Regim 14 .90 14 . 60
Ken to Take a

Vamtim 11. 60 14 . 10 24 . 10 25 . 40
1lhesear'ch by Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980) ard Ritchie and

Filiatrault (1980) are based on fie same data set. As such, fie

resiltsarereportedmoe.

 

59

Decisim-makingisavastandcmplex subject. netofienature
of fie subject, researders and practitioners rarely examire decision-
making in its entirety. Decision-making is typically analyzed by a
particular subtopic. Research in fie area of decisicn—maJdng may
incluie fie examination of fie decisim process, managanerrt information
system, decision retworks, who makes fie final decision or fie
examinatimoffieactualorperoeivedlarel ofinfluereepersonsexert
m decisia'l-making or an evaluation of fie type of decision. A
caeeptual framework which has been developed for analyzing decision-
mking is fie Central-Satellite Pattern of Decisim-uakin; m1. 'me
mdelacoamtsforacentraldecisimwhichactsasafocalpoint.
Satellite decisiae are fien gererated fran fie central decision. 'ne
satellite decisims can be furfier -c1assified by type of decisim:
program, policy, tactical and control.

Various smdieshavebeenaxritetedwhidiexaminedfiepereeived
influence of family manbers on vacation decisim-making. any a fad
stuiies, haever, have enamined fie infltenoe of all family members,
namelyfiehusband, wifeandchildren. Deqfitefiegeneralcmsensus
fiiat fie family life cycle stages and socioeomanic variables inpact
fie level of influence family mariners exert on decisim—making, a
conpmelensive analysis of its inpact m vacaticn decisim-making has
not been cmdteted.

M III
lefiiods arrl Prooedrres

mm

'Beshflymsdesigxedtomeasireseveralaspectsofafamily's
vacation experiences. [eta were collected by means of a self-
administered questionnaire. Concepts measured included fie perceived
influence family renters exerted on vacation decision-making, fieir
attitudes toward fie location, activities deaned inportant in a resort
area, activities participated in while on vacation, magazines read,
information used in regard to fie vacation and fieir demographic
profile.

Decisim-naldngquestionsusedinfiesurveymreadaptedfran
fiese used by Jenkins (1978) and Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980) . Nine
of fie seventeen categories used by Filiatrault and Ritchie were
selected for fie questionnaire. QLestions ranged fran family umbers'
perceived level of influence on decisions concerning whefier to travel
asa familyorcouple, wtefierornottotakeavacetionfiiisyear, or
fiiis sunmer, fie type of vacation activities to participate in, timing
and length of fie vacation, budget allocated, and hotel acoaunodations.

Qestions regarding fie attitudes, interests and opinions (AIDS)
offietouristsweredevelmedbynarden, Pureaultand'rroncalli
(1975-1976) . 'ne AIO statements ranged fran tourist's attitudes toward
fie type of vacation desired, fieir interests while on vacation and
opinions consenting fie aspects which make a vacation enjoyable.

60

61

Attituiinal statenents develqaed for fie questionnaire were
modified fran fiese designed by Goodrich (1977a, 1977b, 1978b).
Qesticnsinthissectimneasiredtourist'sattiufletowardfie
various vacation cpportunities provided by fie location. Leasured on a
seven-point Liker't-like type scale, ranging fran exceptionally poor to
Michell}! good, wrists indicated fieir attitude toward fie
vacatim facilities, namral scerery, cultural interests, opportunity
for rest and relaxation, dining and strapping facilities, acoaunodations
ard entertairment.

WM

'Ihis stuiy was part of an Agricultural Experiment Station project,
umber 3284, funded by Michigan State University. 'Ite questionnaire
wasdevelcpedbyateamoffacultyandgraduatestuientsinfie
Department of Human Environment and Design, College of Human Ecology,
Michigan State University. 'ne qestionnaire was approved by fie
University Ommittee on Research Involving mnan Subjects, Michigan
StateUniversity. 'neqtestimireisireltriedinApperdixA.

WM
Vacationsareoftentakenasafamilymitorfamilyevent. ‘Ihese
travel decisions are typically influenced to varying degress by fie
reeds, wants arr! desires of family menbers. Husbands, wives and
children have been sham to hold significantly different perceived
levels of influence on vacatim decisions (Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980:
Jenkins, 1973; Myers, 1974; Myers a Mist, 1978; Ritchie, 1975;
Ritchie & Filiatrault, 1980). Based upon this informatim, it was
decidedtoeaamiiefieperoeivedlevel of influencefieteachspaee

62

arridzildrenhadmfievacatimdecisias,asqposedtoexamining
mly fie spousal influence. Ole central vacatim decision questim and
sevensatellitedecisimqestiaswereposedtofierespordents. See
Amafiifooracopyoffiesurveyirstrtment.

'neperoeivedlevelofinfluenoeeachspouseanddiildrenhadon
fiecentraldecisiontotakeavacationthisyearandmfiesatellite
decisions regarding fie vacatim were incorporated into fie
qrestiamaire. 'ne relatia'ship between fie Central-Satellite model
and fie questiamaire is specified below.

 

 

W Questionnaire
Central Decision Qestim 78
Satellite Decisiors Questiors 79-82, 84-86

 

'ne central and satellite vacation decisions were modified fran
those used by Jenkirs (1978) and Filiatrault and Ritchie (1980) .
Similar to fie stmdies cited above, fie perceived level of influence
sad: family umber played in fie vacation decisim-making was measured
macastant-sumscale. 'mis100poirrtoorstant-51mscalewasfim
used to analyze fie decisions. '

'neoertraldecisimusedinthisstudywasfiedecisimtotakea
vacation fiiis year. 'ne satellite decisias included fie decision to
taJeavacatimthisamner, fiedecisimcaeerrfingfimtotakefiiis
vacatim, fie decision conoeming fie lengfii of fie vacation, annmt of
meytobeallocatedtofievacation, fiedecisimccnoerrfingfietype
of vacation activity you will be ergaged in, fie decision to visit this

63

partiwlarresortareaarflfiedecisimregardingfietypeof
aooaunodatiors selected.

A Delphi parel was used to classify fie satellite decisias into
ore of fie four types: policy, tactical, control or program decisiors.
'nueefamltynexherefrunfienepartnentofr‘amilyaoology
participatedinfieparel. Mmheroffieparelwaslmowledgeable
in fie caltent area of family decisiar—makirg.

PriortofieDelphiparelneetirg, eachparticiparttwasprovided
wifi1 fie definition of each type of decision classification arri a list
of fie satellite vacation decisias used in fie questiormaire.
Interactim between parel mathers resulted in fie classificatim of
seven tactical decisions and are program decision. 'Ite singular
program decisim corsisted of fie perceived nean level of influeree
family methers, fie msbard, wife and children, had on fie decision
regardirgfietypeofacoaunodatias selected. 'n'erenainingvacatim
decisias were classified as tactical decisias: decision to take a
vacaticn fiiis year, decision to take a vacaticn firis sunner, decisim
ochenringexactlywhenymtakefirisvacatim, decisionocnoerningfie
lengfi'aoffiiisvacation, decisimoaeerningfieannmtofmeytobe
allocatedtoycnrvacatimbudget, decisiontotakefiiisvacatimasa
family or a caple, decisim cxnoernirg fie type of vacatim activity
youwillbeengagedin, ardfiedecisimtovisitfirisresortarea.

'ne nature of fie vacatim decisias under investigation led fie
paxel where to provide sane irsight into why fie majority (88.8%) of
fie decisicrs were classified as tactical. 'ne vamtion decisias
mderexaminatimverestatedinstehanamerfiiatfiemajorityorall
offieresporflentswouldhavenadefiesedecisias. Assuoh, fiese

64

decisias were viewed as first order decisiors in relaticn to fie
cartr'al decision. 'Ihat is, additicnal linkages for each decision was
notpresentedtofierespmdent. 'nesedecisiasprovidedfie
boundaries. 'ne decisias under investigatim were limited to fiese
made for fiiis particular vacaticn. 'ne decision regarding fie type of
aooaunodatias selectedwasviadedasprogramdtetofiefactfiiatfie
31d result of fie decision was habitual in nature. ‘Ihat is, fie
aoocmnodation decision typically renairs fie same throughout fie
vacaticn.

Additional information was elicited regarding fie mode of
transportation, distance traveled, length of visit, type of
aooamhdatiots used, frequency of visits to Michigan in geleral and
fiiis tourist area in particular, fie travel infometim gafiered,
anticipated vacation expenditures and cmposition of persons traveling
m firis vacaticn. Derographic data were also collected. 'ne
questicrmaire oorsisted of 87 items.

Intamllectim

DEW
Basedupmtouristdeperflency,fiecityoflhquettearriMacldnac
Island, Michigan were chosen as fie data collection locatiors.
Norfiernuidligan,oammlyreferredtoasfieu;perpenins¢la,is
touristdependent. AsmeasmedbyfieMidmiganDepartmentof
'rrarsportaticn (M.D.0.‘I‘.), fietwonhstteavily touristdependentor
tamisttraveledareasinfieupperpenirsnflaMudefieStIgnaoe
area, matinee Island in particular and Marquette. Mackinac Island
drawstcnristsduetofieattr'actiasofferedmfieislarfl. Nanette
dramtouristsbasedupmitslocatiminrelatimtoofiermmtingard

65

canpinglocatiasaswellasactirgasagatewayto, andfrcrnofier'
penirsula locations.

'Iwo undergraduate stladents fran Michigan State University were
traired to collect data m Mackinac Island. Ore undergraduate student
fran Norfiern Michigan University was trained to collect data in
Marquette . Data collection for both lccatiors took place
siniltareously durirg fie smuner of 1985. mta collection in Marquette
begaanay 25, l985andcontinedtobecollectedeverythirdday
fiirough Septaiher 7, 1985. [eta collectim m Mackinac Islarri began on
Jure15, 1985ardcartinedtobecollectedeveryfi1irddayfi1rulgh
Septenher 7, 1985.

On fie basis of tourist pedestrian traffic, data collectim
locaticrs wifiiin each area were selected. Because access to Mackinac
Island is available primarily by boat, data were collected at fie boat
dockinys. PresqlelslarrlinMarqetteisanamisenentpark, freqented
bytourists. Assuch, PresqLeIslandwasdesenasfieprimarydata
collection location in Marquette.

At all data collectim locations, every third person was
approaded. 'nedatacollectorsfienprcceededtointroduce
fimselves, arriaskediffiepotentialrespaflentwasatourist living
at least 100 miles awayfrunfielocation. Iffiepersmrespmded

affirnetively, fie potential respcndent was fien asked to participate
infiestudy. Responientswererequestedtofillartfieqestiamaire
atfieirleisure, requiring approximately 10t015minutes. Upon
calpletim,fiere$a1dentsweretomailfiegtesticrmairetofie
principal investigator. 'nepostageoffieqtestimirewasprepaid.

66

Afterfiedatacollectorapproadedeadmpotentialrespaflent,“
sex, approximate age, tine of day, travel partycmpositimandwlefier
fieyacoeptedaquestiamaireorrefusedtoparticipateinfiesmvey
was recorded. This information, regardless of participation
acceptaree,wasrecordedforeverypotentialrespondentapproaded.

Wit!

“mdeteminingfiedesiredsanplesize, fieresearchteam
casideredfieadvantagesanidisadvantagesofalarge sanple size.
Bettacharyya andJchrson (1977) have shownfiiat as fie sample size
increases, fie standard error typically decreases andfie confidence
intervals becane shorter. Unfortunately, large sanple sizes require
largeannsoftineandmey(31attadlaryya&Jd1rsm, 1977). Weighing
fieadvantagesarddisadvantages,menhersoffiereseard1teamdecided
fietalargesanple size (e.g., above500) wasdesired.

Brenfiioughtouristsvereabletocatpletefiesmveyatfieir
leianearrimailfiequestiamireback,withfiepostageprepaid,fie
eagectedremrnratewasarpmimatelympercent. Basingfiedecision
mfiesizeoffiedesiredsanpleandalOperoentremrnrate, 6,000

'ne sanpling intersity per month was based upon autanatic traffic
recorderdatabyfiedayoffieweekinl983. 'misinformatimwas
supplied by fie Michigan Department of lI'ranwor'taticn (M.D.0.T.) and
msfienostalrrentinformatimofitskind. ‘Ihesanplingdayswere
establisledaseveryfi1irdday,begimfingMamriallhyweekerdthmagh
fiefirstweekinSeptenher. Sanplirgintersitypernaithvas
determiredbyamingfietrafficcamtsforfiesanedaysoffieweek
inl983foreachm1tharddividirgbyfietotal. Baseduponfiiis

67

eqatim, fiepercentageofqestiamairshandedoutbyeachmarthwas
determired. 'nemonfirlypercentagesarelistedasam: Manorial Day
weekerdrepresented6.8peroentoffiesanpleor400qmstiamires;
June represented 20.2 percent of fie sanple or 1,200 qrestionnaires:
Jilly represented 31.3 percent of fie sanple or 1,900 questicnnaires:
Augustrepresented33.3percentoffietotalor2,000qtestiormaires,
arrifiefirstweekofSeptaxherrepresentedB.3percentoffietotalor
500 qaestiamaires.

‘ he to differences in tourist traffic at each data collecticn
location, Marquette versus Mackinac Island, fie nmher of
questicnnaires to be distributed in each locatim were different.
Based upm M.D.0.'I'. data, fie average daily traffic count for Marqtette
durirg 1983 was 3,090 perscts. 'ne average daily traffic over fie
lackinac Bridge was 6,646 during fiiat same year. Marquette traffic was
arprowdmately 47 percent of fie traffic traveling over fie Mackinaw
Bridge. Based upm fiese figures, 2,820 questionnaires were
distribrtedinMarqetteardLlBanstiamiresweredistributedm
Maddnac Island.

Based upon M.D.0.T. daily traffic counts, fie sampling intersity
perdaywasfiendetermired. 'neintersityoffietrafficforeadiof
fiesanplingdayswasusedtodetermireperoentages. Baseduponfiese
percentages, fiemnherofqtestimnairestobedistrihlteddailywas
determined. See Table 9 and Table 10 for fie daily sanpling intasity.

Surveydistrihltimwasbasedmaneighthmrday, spanninga
time frame frun 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with a cue hour break for
lunch. (reefiedesignatednmherofsirveysweredistribned forfiiat
particilarhour, fiedata collectors couldtakeabreaktmtilfierext

68

winderebysurveydistributimwmldbegin again. Oncefiedaily
sanpling intersitywas determired, fie sanpling intersity per hour was
detennired, also based (:1 fie M.D.O.T. traffic cunts. As traffic
ircreasedordecreased,basedonfietimeofday,sodidfierequired
sanpling intersity. See Table 11 ard Table 12. With a final sanple of
556 usable surveys,a9.26percentresporseratewasad1ieved. 'nelow
resporseratewasexpected:basedmfiepremisefietmanytcnrists
walldforgettofillaltornailfiesurveyordiangefieirmind

caeerning its completion.

ijectivee, Hymfieses and Statistiml Analysis
'Ihreesetsofhypothesesweredeveloped. Eachsetofhypofieses
examines fie perceived infltence family marhers exerted on vacation
decision-making. ‘Itefirstsetofhypofiesesisconcerredwifilfie
inpact travel characteristics have on family vacation decision-making.
'nesecordsetofhypofiesesexaminesfieinpacttravelparty
cmposition, based on fie stages of fie family life cycle, and
socioecamic aspects of fie family have on fie perceived mean level of
influence family menhere exert on vacation decision-making. 'ne last
setofhypofieseswasdevelcpedinordertoeiamiredifferencesbetween
family marbers' perceived mean level of influence can-vacation decisions
by fieir' classification, using fie central satellite model of decision.

Objective
Examire travel characteristics which may inpact family mahere'
perceived influence on vacation decisim-making.

69

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. [ally Sanpling Intasity for Mackinac Island
Monfiu
Date
May Jure July August September
1 250
2 230
3 85 180
4 115
5 200
6 80 260
7 135
8 180
9 120 160
10
11 230
12 80 200
13
14 190
15 125 165
16
17 225
18 110 170
19
20 175
21 160 200
22
23 185
24 130 175
25 166
26 180
27 115 240
28 70
29 210
30 195 170
31 170
1nota1 406 1200 1920 2005 500

 

7O

 

Table 10. Daily Sampling Intensity fer Marquette

 

 

 

Month
Date
IMay JUne Ju1y’ August September
1 117
2 106
3 41 82
4 54
5 96
6 37 121
7 63
8 85
9 58 73
10
11 109
12 38 90
13
14 88
15 59 76
16
17 105
18 52 78
19
20 81
21 76 93
22
23 91
24 62 81
25 78
26 84
27 54 110
28 33
29 99
30 92 80
31 79

 

'Ibtal 190 569 884 944 234

 

71

 

'Iable 11. Early Sanpling Intasity for Marqtette Based on an Eight

 

 

 

Ihur Day
Mmth
Date
May Jure July August Septarher
1 15
2 13
3 5 10
4 7
5 11
6 5 15
7 8
8 11
9 7 9
10
11 14
12 5 11
13
14 11
15 7 10
16
17 13
18 6 10
19
20 10
21 10 12
22
23 11
24 8 10
25 10
26 11
27 7 14
28 4
29 12
30 12 10
31 10

 

Mal 192 576 888 936 240

 

72

 

Table 12. Hourly Sanpling Intersity for Mackinac Island Based on an
Eight Hour Day

 

 

 

 

Month
Date
May Jure July August Septenher
1 16
2 14
3 6 11
4 7
5 13
6 5 16
7 9
8 11 '
9 8 10
10
11 14
12 5 13
13
14 12
15 8 11
16
17 14
18 7 11
19
20 11
21 10 13
22
23 12
24 8 11
25 11
26 11
27 7 15
28 5
29 13
30 12 11
31 11
Total 432 1216 1852 2000 512

 

'Iotal figures represent two data collectors m Mackinac Island.

111-1:

73

HypofiesisSetl:InpactofTravelaiaracteristi¢s

Ocapatim and travel party calpositicn significantly inpact fie

perceivedneanlevelofinfluereefamilymerhershavecoreerning

exactly wten to take fiiis vacation, wten controlling for fie nunher of

person'sfierespondentispayingformfiiistrip.
Occupatim and travel party cmpositicn significantly

inpactfieperceivedneanlevelofinfluereefiemisbard

eaertsmfiedecisimconcemingeiactlywlentotakethis

vacation, wten controlling for fie nunher of persas fie

respa'derrtispayingformfiiistrip.
Occupation and travel party carposition significantly inpact
fieperceivedmeanlevel of infltencefiewifeexertsmfie

decision concerning exactly wlen to take filis vacation, wlen

cartrollirqforfienmherofperscrsfierespordentis

paying for on fiiis trip.
Occupation ard travel party cmposition significantly inpact
fieperceivedmeanlevelofinfluereedrildrenemertmfie

decisimcaeerningexactlywlentotakethisvacaticn, wl'en

cuxtrollingforfienmherofpersonsfierespondentis

paying for m fiiis trip.

111-2 :

'ne lengfii of distance traveled, previous experience With a resort

area and fie cost of acoamhdatias significantly inpact family

neuhers'

infltenceonfiedecisimtovisitfiiisresortarea,wlen

cartrolling for family incane.

74

'Be length of distame traveled, previous experience
experiencewifiiaresortareaardcostofacccmnodaticrs
significantly inpact fie perceived mean level of influence
fiemsbardhasonfiedecisimtovisitthisresort area,
when cartrolling for family incme.

'ne lengfii of distance traveled, previous experience with a
resort area and cost of accamhdatias significantly inpact
fieperceivedmeanlevelof influencefiewifehasmfie
decision to visit fiiis resort area, wten controlling for
family incane.

'ne lengfi1 of distance traveled, previous experience with a
resort area and cost of acoamhdatias significantly impact
fieperceivedneanlevelofinfluencediildrenhavemfie
decision to visit fiiis resort area, when cmtrollirg for
family income.

Ill-3:
'Iotaldistareetraveledtofieresortareaardcostof
accalmodatias significantly inpact fie level of family methers '
influence in fie decision regarding fie lengfii of fie family vacation.
'Iotaldistametraveledtofieresortareaardcostof
accmmodatiors significantly inpacts fie perceived mean level
of influemefiernsbandhasinfiedecisimregardingfie
lengfir of fie family vacatim.
Totaldistareetraveledtofieresortareaardcostof
accaunodatias significantly inpacts fie perceived mean level
of inflrencefiewifehasinfiedecisimregardirgfie
lengfi: of fie family vacation.

75

Totaldistareetraveledtofieresortareaardcostof
accamhdatiors significantly inpacts fie perceived mean level
of inflweefiedmildrmhaveinfiedecisimregardimfie
length of fie family vacatim.

111-4:

Cost of accamhdatias and mode of trarsportaticn significantly
inpact family neuhers perceived mean influence on fie vacation budget,
wtencartrollingforfamilyireme,ardfienmherofpersorsfie
respa'dentispayirgformthistrip.

Cost of accannodatias ard made of trarsportation

significantly inpact fie perceived nean influence of fie

husband (:1 fie vacation budget, when cartrolling for family
incae, andfienmherofpereasfierespondentispaying

for m fiiis trip. '

Cost of acoannodaticns and node of transportation

significantly inpact fie perceived mean infltence of fie wife

(11 fie vacatim budget, wten controlling for family incane,

ardfiemnnberofpersorsfierespordentispayingform

fiiis trip.

Cost of acoamcdatiors and mode of trarsportation

significantly inpact fie perceived mean influence of fie

children on fie vacaticn hflget, when cartrollin; for family
incane, andfienmherofpersasfierespadentispaying

for on this trip.

76

EH5:

Mode of trarsportation, travel party canposition, and cost of
accannodatias significantly inpact family mehers' perceived mean
influence in fie decision concerning fie type of acoamnodaticrs
selected for finis vacaticn, wten controlling for family incane.

Mode of transportation, travel party canposition, and

cost of accamnodatiors significantly inpact fie perceived

neanlevelofinfluencefietmsbardhasonfietypeof

acoamnodaticrs selected for fiiis vacation, wten controlling

for family items.

Mode of transportation, travel party canposition, and

cost of accamnodaties significantly inpact fie perceived

meanlevelofinfltereefiewifehasenfietypeof

accamhdatias selected for fiiis vacation, wten controlling

for family incane.

Mode of trarsportatian, travel party canpositicn, and

. cost of accannodations significantly inpact fie perceived
neanlevel of influencefiewife has‘enfietypeof
acoumnodaties selected for finis vacation, when controlling

for family inoane.

111-6:

Travel party carposition, information used in vacation decision-
making, arri fie purpose of visiting fie resort area significantly
inpactfieperceivedmeanlevel of influence familymenhersbaveonfie
decision cancerning fie type of activities to participate in while on
vacatien, wlen centrollirr; for family incane and fie length of days
spent in fie area.

77

Travel party canpositicrn, information used in vacation
decisia'n-nakirg, arnd fie purpose of visiting fie resort area
significantly inpact fie perceived nean level of influence
fiemsbardhasmfiedecisimconcernirgfietypeof
activities to participate in while on vacation, ' wten
controlling forfamilyincaneandfielegfi'nofdaysspentin
fie area.

Travel party exposition, information used in vacation
decision-making, ardfiepnrposeofvisitingfieresortarea
significantly inpact fie perceived mean level of influence
fiewifehasmfiedecisimconcernirgfietypeof
activities to participate in while on vacation, wten
centrollirgforfamilyincaneandfielegfinofdaysspentin
fie area.

Travel party cmposition, information used in vacation
decisian-naking, arnd fie purpose of visiting fie resort area
sigrnificantly inpact fie perceived mean level of influence
fiediildrenbavemfiedecisimconcemirgfietypeof
activities to participate in while an vacation, wl'en
cartrollingforfamilyincaneazflfielengfinofdaysspentin

fiearea.

78

 

Table 13. Snmmary Table of Variables Used in Hypofiesis Set 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Variable Independent Variable Covariate Analysis

Hypofiesis 1-1

Men to Vacation Occupation Persons Paid ANCDVA
TPC* For

Wis 1-2

Resort Area Chosen Distance Traveled Beale ANGNA
Ecperience '
Acoamhdaticn Cost

Hypofiesis 1-3

length of Vacation Distance Traveled Regression

Hypofiesis 1-4

Vacatim auget Acoamcdatien Cost Incane ANCOVA
Parser Paid For

Mypofi'nesis 1-5

Accamndaties Trarsportatian Incane ANCDVA
TPC
Acccmmodaticn Cost

Hypofinesis 1-6

Activities TPC Incane m
Information Vacation length
Trip Purpose

 

*TPC represents Travel Party Carpositicn.

 

79

Chjective

Examirefierelatiashipbetweenfietravelpartycmpcsition,
using stages of fie family life cycle as a benchmark, socioecemic
variables and fie perceived influence family meters have an vacation
decisim-making.

Hypofiesis Set 2: Inpact of Travel Party (imposition
BasedcnfieStagesoffieFamilyLifeCycle,
Respcrndent's Age, Educaticrnal Stath arnd Family Inccne

112-1:

‘netrarsposedtravelpartycarpositicn, basedmfiestagesof
fie family life cycle, family ireane, reqaandett's age and educational
status significantly influence family matere' perceived mean level of
influencemfiedecisicntotakeavamticnfiiisyear.

The transposed travel party exposition, family incarne,
respondent's age and educatimal stats significantly infltenoe fie
perceivedmeanlevelof influencefielmsbandeertedenfiedecisicn
to take a vacation firis year. .

'ne transposed travel party canposition, family ireane,

respondent's age and educational status significantly

influence fie perceived mean level of influence fie wife
enertedmfiedecisiantotakeavacatimfinisyear.

'ne trarsposed travel party cmpositim, family income,

respondent's age and educational status significantly

influencefieperceivedmeanlevelof influencefiechildren
enertedanfiedecisimtotakeavacatimfinisyear.

+Travel party canpositicn, in conjunction wifin fie requmdent's age,
wasusedtocanprisefietransposedtravel partycatositimvariable.
'netransposedtravelpartycmpositianvariablewasbasedmfie
stages of fie family life cycle. This variable, however, is not read
asapmyforfiestagesoffiefamilylifecycle. Acmpletede-
scriptim of finis data transformatian is provided in Chapter 4.

 

80

112-2:

The transposed travel party omposition, family insane,
repaflent's age and edimtiael status significantly influence family
umbers' perceivedmeanlevel of influenoemfiedecisiontotakea

'ne transposed travel party oarposition, family inoate,

repmdent's age and edumtional status significantly

influenoefieperceivedmeanlevelof influereefietmsband
exertedmfiedecisimtotakeavacationthissunmer.

'ne trareposed travel party omposition, family insane,

reqxnient's age and edueatiaxal status significantly

influence fie perceived mean level of influence fie wife
eaertedmfiedecisimtotakeavaetimfimissunmer.

'ne trarepeed travel party omposition, family inoane,

respa'dent's age and educational status significantly

infltenoefieperceivedmeanlevel of infltenoefiechildren
aertedmfiedecisimtotakeavaetimfiiisstmer.

112-3:

The transposed travel party cmposition, family insane,
repadent's age and educational status significantly influeree family
nerbersperoeivedneanlevelofinfluememfiedecisimoaeernirg
exactly wlen to take fifis vacation.

'ne trarsposed travel party outposition, family incane,

respondent's age and educational status significantly

influenoefieperceivedneanlevel of influenoefiehusband
enertedmfiedeoisimoaeemirgemctlymentotakethis

vaeatim.

81

'Be transposed travel party omposition, family ireane,
respondent's age and educaticnal state significantly
influaeefieperceivedmeanlevel of influexeefiewife
exertedonfiedecisimoaeerningexactlywtentotakefiiis
vacation.

'Ite transposed travel party carpositim, family ixeane,
repa'dent's age and educaticmal state significantly
influereefieperceivedneanlevel of influereefiediildren
exertedmfiedecisionoaeerningexactlywlentotakethis

vacation.

112-4:

The transposed travel party omposition, family ireare,
remondent's age and educatimal state significantly influeree family
whereperceivedmeanlevelofinflweemfiedecisifixoaeerning
fie length of this vacation.

'ne transposed travel party exposition, family iteane,

respaflent's age and edtmticnal state significantly

influaeefieperceivedmeanlevelofinflweefiemsbaxe
acertedmfiedecisimooteernimfielengfimofthis
vacation.

'ne transposed travel party exposition, family ireare,

W's age and educaticnal state significantly

influereefieperoeivedmeanlevel of influereefiewife

aertedmfiedecisimcaeernixgfielagfiioffiiis
vaetim.

'ne tamed travel party oarpositicn, family incane,

respmdatt's age and edlmticnal state significantly

82

influereefieperceivedmeanlevelofinfltereefiedzildren
mertedmfiedecisimoueerningfielergfiioffixis

vacation.

112-5
The transposed travel party ompositim, family ireane,
respondent's age and educational state significantly influeree family
mabers' perceived mean level of influeree on fie vacation tflget.
'ne transposed travel party ompositim, family ireme,
respondent's age and educational state significantly
influeleefieperceivedneanlevelofinfluereefietnebarri
exerted m fie vacaticn budget decisim.
'lte transposed travel party omposition, family ileane,
reecrdent's age and educational state significantly
infltereefieperoeivedmeanlevel of infltereefiewife
exerted m fie vacation budget decision.
'ne transposed travel party ompeition, family ireane,
W's age and edtmtimal state significantly
influaeefieperceivedneanlevel of influereefieohildren
exerted m fie vaeatim budget decision.

112-6:

The transposed travel party ocuposition, family ireane,
repmdent's age and educaticnal state significantly influeree family
namers' perceived mean level of influeree m fie vacaticn activitie
decided upm.

'ne transposed travel party omposition, family ireme,

repaeent's age and educational state significantly

83

influexeefieperceivedneanlevelofinfltereefiemsbard
exerted m fie vacaticn activities decided upon.

'ne transposed travel party carposition, family ireme,
repa'dent's age and educatiael state significantly
influeree fie perceived nean level of influeree fie' wife
exerted m fie vacation activitie decided upon.

‘ne transposed travel party omposition, family ixecne,
requdent's age arrl educational state significantly
influaeefieperceivedmeanlevel of influaeefiechildren
exerted m fie vacatim activitie decided upon.

112-7:

The transposed travel party oanposition, family ireane,
resporrlart's age and educational state significantly influeree family
narbers' perceived nean level of influeree on fie decision to visit
fiiis reort area.

'ne transposed travel party omposition, family ireane,

respondent's age and educaticnal state significantly

influereefieperceivedneanlevelof influeleefietneband
exertedmfiedecisiontovisitfiiisreortarea.

‘ne transposed travel party oarposition, family ireme,

respondent's age and educational state significantly

influereefieperceivedneanlevel of influeteefiewife
exerted on fie decision to visit this reort area.

'ne transposed travel party oarpositim, family ixeare,

repa'dent's age are edteaticrel state significantly

influeeefieperceivedmeanlevel of influereefiediildren
aertedmfiedecisimtovisitfifisfiortarea.

84

112-8:

The transposed travel party cmpositim, family ireate,
repmdent's age and educaticnal state significantly influelee family
where'peroeivedneanlevelofinfluereemfietypeof
aooamedatims selected.

'ne transposed travel party cmposition, family ireane,
respondent's age and mum state signifiently
influereefieperceivedmeanlevelofinfluereefiermsband
aertedmfietypeofacoamedatiaeselected.

'ne transposed travel party cmposition, family ireane,

respondent's age and educational state significantly
influereefieperceivedmeanlevel of influereefiewife
exertedmfietypeofaoocmnodationsselected.

'ne transposed travel party cmposition, family ireane,

respondent's age and educational state significantly

influereefieperceivedneanlevelof infltereefiechildren
exertedmfietypeofaooamedatiaeselected.

85

 

Table 14 . Summary Table of Variable Used in Hypotheis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Set 2

Dependent Variable Irdepenient Variable Analysis

Hypothesis 2-1

Vaetim This Year TI'PC* ANOVA
Deane
Age
Education

Hypofiesis 2-2

Vacatim 'Ihis Smmer ‘I'I'PC ANOVA
Ireane
Age
Eduetion

Hypofiesis 2-3

men to Vacation TI'PC ANNA
Ireme
Age
mum

Hypothesis 2-4

teeth of Vacation TI'PC ANOVA
Ireane
A98
Educatim

Hypothesis 2-5

Vacatim Buiget TI'PC Am
Incme
Age
weation

 

*TI'PCrereentsfietrareposedtravelpartyoamositim,
basedmfiestageoffiefamily life cycle.

86

 

Table 14 (Gnt'd) .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deperflerrt Variable Independent Variable Analysis
Hypofireis 2-6
Vacatim Activitie TI'PC ANOVA
Irene
Age .
Education
Hypofiesis 2-7
Visit This Reort TI'PC ANOVA
Irene
Age .
Education
Hypotheis 2-8
Accnmnodatine TI'PC ANOVA
Irene

Edteation

 

87

(bjective
Examire differexee between fie perceived influeree family members
exertedonthetypeofvacationdecisineanalyzedinthestrdy:
tactical and prcgram.
Hypofiesis Set 3: Parceived Dnninaree
of Family Members n1 Vacation Decisinr-Maldng

113-1:

Significant differeree exist between fie spnee who is fie
overall dnninant vacatim decision-neker and fie dnninant decision-
maker for fie policy and tactical decisine.

ijective 4:

Developafieoreticalnedelwhidrsynfiesizeandexaminefie
influence of family socioecnmic aspects and travel party
cnrposition, based n1 fie stage of fie family life cycle, on family
vacatim decision-making.

W a review of literatrre in fie area of family decision-
makir'g in gereral and family vaetim decisinr—makirg in particular,
several important relatinehips have been identified. 'Be first
relatinehip identified is fie effect of fie family life cycle and
demgraniicvariableonfie level of influeree familymelbershavenr
decisine. Family characteristics such as age, irene, education,
lergfix of marriage and occupation affect, to varying degree, fie level
of influeee family where have n: varine decisine. 'ne second
relatinehip identified cneists of fie differing levels of influeree
familymerbershavemfieoentraldecisimaswellasmsatelliteor
secnrdary decisions. Despite fie identification of fie relatinehip to

88

influeree of fie family life cycle stage and socioeconnnic aspects on
family decisini-making, a mdel which synfiesize fiese factors has not
beendevelqed. 'nepurposeoffiiissectionistopreentaoneeptel
franaaork deeigred to synfiesize family life cycle and deregrarhic
variable and fieir relatinehip to family vacatim decisin'r-making.
'ne Vacatini Decisinr-naking model oneists of two separate, yet
interrelated sections. See Figure 2. Tie two sectine irelude the
perceived mean level of influeree of family matters on decision-making
and fie final decisine made.
'nefirstsectimoffiencdelisonlprisedoffiefamily
structrre. 'Ihree ontpnents form fie relatinehip of decision-making
withinfiefamily. 'nefirstnmpnentisrepresentedbyfamily
renders. Researdi (Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980; Jenkins, 1978; Ritchie
& Filiatrault, 1980) has dennetrated fiet all family members, that is,
eachspousearrichildren, influereefiedecisimoutcne. Basedon
firis, fie familynenbers ireludedinfiemodelcneistoffiehusband,
wife and children. 'ne secn'rd onrpnent of family decisini-making is
fie family life cycle and socioecnnnic variable. Researders have
identified fie influeree of daegraphie (Myers, 1974; Myers &
mief, 1978; Walter & Tne, 1977) and fie stage of fie family life
cycle (Cosenza & Davis, 1981) on decisim-neking. A relatinehip
between stage of fie family life cycle and socioecn'rnnic variable
exist. Bofircneeptsadiresfamilialderacteristicsardrasage,
irene level, marital state and fie preselee of drildren. Additinel
socioecnlnnic variable irelude fie occupatinr and level of education
of fie family renters, typically fiet of fie spnee. 'ne family life
cycle extends socioecninnic informatim fiircugh fie analysis of fie

89

 

- CIIIII n

 

 

 

 

 

 

—9T

FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS
travel Pany Composlllon. Based on
W Shoes of Fanin Ute Cycle
- Husband - Stage 1
-..... 2:29;;
. °."é$&"n - Sta:- 4
- mm 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
   

 

  
 
    

  
 
 

 

 

 

 

   

Soclo-econonic varlules ot the funny
- Educatl on level
- Famllylncome
- UII e‘ 3 Income
- huaband'a Income
- Ana of new manta"
YES Centre Declslon ”0
T39 I vacation this year
Stella Vacatlon i
declslms declslon-makho
genemed ceases
3‘32: *
- a -
mule Declalons
Tattle! Prom-n poucy ControI
DecIsIons DecIsIons DecIsIona DecIsIons
Declalon 1 Deolalon 1 Daemon I Declalon 1
DISH” fl Declalon n Daelalon n Daeloa'Ion n
4“ l:\ I I I I I \
L ........ J ......... L ........ J
Feedback Loop

 

 

 

Perceived men
Mueme oI
:::::::: .husbnd
I I I l wIe

. We“? cIaIdren

on vacauon declslon-
mldno.

 

 

 

FAMILY VACATION DECISION-MAKING

 

 

Figure 2:

Flownert of Family Vacatim Decisinw—Haking.

 

9O

effect of fie lengfii of fie marriage on family decisini-making. It is
hypofieeized that fie onIbinatim of fie stage of fie family life
cycle and socioeconnnic variable influeree family decisim-nekirg.
fie third cnrpnent of family decisim-makirg consists of fie perceived
meanlevel of influeree familymerbershavenivacatini decisions. fie
perceived levels of influence irelude dnninaree, majority, joint
spneal decisin'I-mkirg are joint family decisini-nekir'g.

Dnninantdecisina—nakirgisrepreentedwhennefamilymarberis
perceivedtoemertmoreinfluaeefiianfinatofofierfamilynaeers.
Forexanple,fiermsbarrimayhave35percentoffieinfluereen1fie
decisim to take a vacatini, while fie wife represents 40 percent of
fieinfluereeanifiedrildrenrepreartZSpercentoffieinflueree.
fiewifeisdraracterizedasfiednninantdecisinx-makercneerning
wlefierornottotakeavacation.

A rejority decisim-naker mild be represented through a family
marberbeirgperceivedtohaveSOperoentormreoffieinfluereema
decisin). Forexanple,fielnebarrimaybeperceivedasrepreenting50
percentoffieinfluereenrfievaeatimhflget. fiewifemaybe
perceivedasrepreentirgwpercentoffieinfluereecneemingfie
vacatinrhrdget,wtereas,fiediildrenareperceivedasrepreartirg
nilleperoentoffieinfliereenifiiisdecisini. netofiefact
thatfielmsbardhaSSOpercentoffieinfltelee,leisderacterized
as fie majority decision-maker.

fie fiiird classificatim of influeee is joint spneal decisini-
making. fie perceptin: of joint spneal decisinr-naking is
characterized by relatively equal levels of influeree by both spouse

madecisim. Forexanple,bofi1spneemaybeperceivedas

91

repreentinglISpercentoffieinfluereecneerningfietypeof
aconmedatinetoreewhilenrvacatim. fiechildrenareperceivedas
representirganadditinel lOperoentoffieinfluereecneerningfie
aocnunodatine selected.

fie fourfir classification: of inflLeree is joint family decision-
making. fiiis claeifietion is represented by fie perception of
apprcxiretely equal levels of inflLeree on decision-making by fie
spouse and children. For ample, fie husband, wife and children ray
beperceivedasrepreentihgne-fiiirdoffieinfluereecneerningfie
type of activitie to participate in while an vacatim. Although
drildrarhaveretbeenshcwntopossesadnninantlevelofinflueree
n1 decisim—making, fieir perceived levels of influeree have slowly
irereasedinreoentyears. Basednlfiiis, fieassunptiniismadefiet
for certain decisions, children may be perceived as being increasingly
mreinfluential. fiiisinfliereemaynotbeadnninantlevel, however,
it may eventrally repreent a significant portion of fie decisinl
outcne.

fiesecndsectimoffiemdelcneistsoffiefirelplan.
Within fie final plan, fie decisine being nede are oneidered. In
fiiis instaree, family vacation decisine are used for demonstration
prrpose. fie final plan and decisions cneist of a central decision
and satellite decisine. Similar to models developed by Aldersm
(1956) and Plank (1964; 1968), ne reqrirenent of fie model is fiet fie
oartral decisin'I be cnlpleted prior to satellite decisine being made.
fiet is, fie satellite decisine are generated based n1 fie central
decision.

92

Alfieugh satellite decisine are gererated frnn fie central
decisinr, satellite decisine may be influereed by otter satellite
decisine. For example, a satellite decisini being cneidered is
whefiertotakefiediildrennivaetinrorvacatinrasacnrple. If
fie decisim to take fie drildren is trade, fie type of activitie
participated in while n1 vacation my be influereed by fie decision to
inchrle fie children.

Ancfiercharacteristic offiemodelisfieexaminationof family
marhers' influeree on fie satellite decisine as well as fie central
decision. Research (Davis, 1970; smptrire & Samelscn, 1976) has
deenstrated fiet family mnrhers may have varying degree of perceived
influereemsecnidarydecisineaswellasmfiecentraldecision.
That is, fielmsbardneybefiednnimntdecisim-makercneerningfie
vacatinr budget, accnanodatine and lengfir of vacatini. fie wife may
be fie dnnirent decisinI-naker n1 fie decision to visit a partinrlar
resort area. Children have relatively little, if any influeree n1 fie
above decisine, lewever fiey may represent approximately ne-fiiird of
fie influeIee cneerning vacatinr activitie in which to participate.

Basedupnifieirriividualcnrpnentsoffiemdel, fielevel of
influeree family where have m vacatinn decisim—nakirg is depicted.
More inportantly, however, is fie examinatim of fie family life cycle
and socioeconnnic variable and fieir effect on family vacation
decisinr-making. Furfierucre, fie level of influeree of family merhers
mfiecentralandsatellitedecisine isalsodepicted. fiiroughfiiis
model, fie cnlplex and interrelated natrre of decisine can be
emamired.

93

Basedupnrfiererltsoffiestatisticelarelyseaswellas
reults of past strdie, as identified in fie review of literature, an
arpirical nedel will be developed. fie objective of fie fieoretical
modelistosynfiieizeardhypcfireizefieinpactfiestageoffie
family life cycle and socioeconnnic variable have on family vacation
decisini-neking.

StatisticalPrccenrres

.f. . .
Wfi}.fig.

Oneway Analysis of Variance, Analysis of Variaree (ANOVA) and
Analysis of Ocvariaree (ANACIJVA) statistical analysis, using a fixed-
effects model, were used to evaluate fie level of significaree between
differeree of group lean value. fiirough fiiis form of analysis, fie
reearderisabletoidentifyfiesnirceofvariation (Frank8Green,
1967).

Similar to regresim analysis, Analysis of Variaree model
reqiirefiedeerdentvariabletobemeasurednianintervalorratio
scale. Unlike fiet of regressini analysis, fie Analysis of Variaree
model allows fie factors to be reruetric, retric or a cnnbination of
nonetric and metric (Green 8 Carrcll, 1978; Kim 8 Kohout, 1975a).

Despite fie type of analysis of variaree model, fiet is oneway
analysis of variaree, analysis of variaree or analysis of ccvariaree,
fietotalvariareeofallobservationsisseparatedintotao
cnnpnents: variability of fie universe and variaree due to differeree
among mean value (Green 8 Tull, 1975).

neway Analysis of Variance is fie sinplet form of fiiis type of
analysis, wlereby fie model cnrtains mly ne factor (Green 8 M1,

94

1975). fierefore, re interactine exist. 'Iukey's post lec analysis was
cnriucted to determire wlere fie significant differeree were.
mltiple analysis of Variaree is used wlen more fien ne factor is
incltfled in fie nedel (Andersni, Sweeney 8 Williams, 1986).
Interactine between fie factors are preent With analysis of variaree
ardanalysisofcovariaree. Interactineoccurwtenfiechangeinne
factorisdepedentupnrfievalte ofneormoreadditionalvariable
examired (Green a Tull, 1975).
(1)
Were:
Yij = sale of the ith decision in the jth treatment
- mean valie of fie sanple population
5 = fixed effect of fie jth‘ treatment an decisini-making
ij = allowaree for experirental errcr
Analysisofocvariareeisusedwlenpotentialcnifnn'ding
variable are identified (Green 8 Chrrcll, 1978; Green 8 Tull, 1975).
Usirginterval leveldata, fieccvariateareireludedintofiencdel,
andfieirinfltereenrfiereeirderoffiencdeliscnrtrclledfor
(SPSS-X, 1987). By cnrtrollirg for fiese influencing factors, "...fie
reimralerrcrcanbedecreased,resultinginamresereitive
experiment" (Green 8 Carrcll, 1978; p. 112). fie statistical formlas
for analysis of variaree and analysis of ccvariaree are prcvided below.
(2)
Were:
Xij = fie valte of chservation i (i = 1,2, mj)
on treatent j.
= fie pooled wifiiin-grnrps slope

95

=fi1atpartonthatisaccnmtedforbyfie
change in X
ij = fie reidual errcr
Xij == fie value of observation i (i = 1,2, —- mj)
on treatent j.
= Overall mean
j = fie deviation frnn fie overall mean associated
wifii treatmentj (j = 1,2, --)

(Green and Garroll, 1978, p. 112)

Provided sufficient available data, analysis of variance and
analysis of covariance programs will prcvide an analysis of fie main
effects, covariate, explained and reidual source of variation. The
prcgram is also equipped to calculate up to five-way interaction
effects, based on fie model. If, however, epty cells exist, the
higher order interaction effects may ret be calculated (SPSS-X, 1987) .

The analysis of covariaree program prcvide a nultiple
classificatini analysis table. fie featrre of the table include a
grand mean, R-squared value, unadjusted deviation score and adjusted
deviation score for fie factors as well as fie factors and covariate.
fiegrarflneanrepreentsfieoverallmeanoffienedel. fiiroughthe
analysis of fie unadjusted and adjusted deviation score, the
reearcterisableto identifychange infiedependentvariablevalue
as a result of fie addition of factors and covariate. Frnn this
analysis, fie confounding effects of variable, if any, can be
identified.

(11mm 1V
[Eta Analysis are Firdirgs
fie following chapter is a srmmary of fie qualitative and
quantitative analysis of fie data. fie chapter is divided into four
sectine: Data transformatine, denographic information, perceived mean
levels of influeree family renhers have on vacation decision-making,

arritetingoffiehypothee.

1 1E ! g ! . l'

W the first set of hypofiese, vacation characteristics
were examired in relatim to fie perceived mean influeree family
nenhers have on vacation decisinr-maJdng. In order to tet hypofiree
1-1, 1-5 are 1-6, travel party cnrposition was used as an independent
variable. Fourteen etegorie were originally used to reasure the
cnrposition of fie travel party (question 66). For purpose of teting
fiesehypofiiee, fiecnrposition offietravelpartywascollapsed
into four categorie. rule and fenale persons traveling together,
wifieut children cnrposed fie first etegory. fie second category
cneisted of male and fanale adults traveling with children, typically
21yearsoldandunder. fiethirdcategoryoftravelpartycntposition
cneisted of single adults who were traveling with children, typically
age21andyounger. fiefourfiiandfinalcategoryoftravelparty
cnrposition cneisted of fie sane sex adults, traveling togefier.

96

97

 

Inordertotethypofieseinsetz, fievariabletravelparty
conpositim was transformed in a manrer different frnn fie
trareformation used in Hypothesis Set 1. For fie purpose of teting
hypothesesetz, tavelpartycntpositionandfierepnrient'sage
werecnrhined,usingfiestageoffiefamilylifecycleasa
benchmark. As identified in Chapter 2, fie family life cycle coreists
of five stee. fie first stage consists of single adults under the
ageof 35. Detofiefactfietnilypersnetravelingasafamily
cnrpleted fie decisini-reking portion of fie questinmaire (quetiore
78-86) , nlly four classificatine of travel party cnrpositicn, based on
the stages of the family life cycle, were analyzed.

Using fie guideline decribed above, fie first category of fie
travel party cntposition cneisted of male and fanale adults, between
fie age of 18-34. fie secnrd travel party cnrposition etegory
cneisted of male and female adults, under fie age of 35, traveling
with children. Couple, aged 35-65 traveling wifieut children,
cnrple, ages 35-65 travelirg with children and single adults, between
fieageof 35—64, travelingwithdfildrenvereplacedinfiethird
category. fieasamptiniwasmadefixatadults inthiscategorywere
eifier divorced or widowed. fie final category cneisted of adults,
aged 65 ard older. See Figure 3.

ORIGINAL

TRAVEL PARTY
CONPOSITION

TRANSFORMED
TRAVEL PARTY
COWOSITION

98

STAGES OF THE
FAMILY LIFE CYCLE

 

 

   

traveling "III“

I Male 8 femle adults
chllten

meanest:

 

2 Male 8 Iemde adults I r
travellno wlIl cldldm

3 Slade adult uavellm
wall onlldren

 

 

l Cowles under 35.
travellng wllnota

      
  

 

 
  

 

 

slnde. under 35.
travellng wlll
clIIICon

2 Persons. mmled or

 

 

(I Cowles. or alnue

chllwen: Couples.
aged 3544.
Irmllno mm
& chum"

 

punt. aged 35 £4.

 

  

older. trueIng we:
or when cldldnn

  

 

   
  
  

l Slade mono under 35
. you 1! age.

 

2 Manled persona. undu 35.
m chlldan.

 

3 - Dvorced persona undn
35. mom cnldran.

- Motled or dlvorcod
persona under 35. I!!!
wonder! cllldran

 

 

4 - Hurlod venom. and
3544. when cnIdren

\(Mumd persons. and
35'“. WI “can

- Dlvorcod mom. and
rs-u. um alllwen

 

 

- Mead persons. aged
as-u. m chlldlen.

 

5 Dlvorcad or mauled
persona. and I5 or
older.

 

Figure3. TransposedTravelPartyOnlpositini

 

99

Ass

Usinganopen-erriedqrestini, repnidentslistedfieirageat
fieirlastbirfieay (quetion 75). Inordertouseageinanalysisof
variaree and analysis of covariance statistical analyse, fie variable
age was transformed into fine categorie. fie age of fie repondents
were collapsed into categorie consistent wifil fie age categorie
represented in fie stage of fie family life cycle: age 18 filrough 34,
35mm“, andreepnflentsaged65ardolder.

Mm

Usingaclosed-endedqrestinl, repondentswererequetedto
irriicate fieir level of education (nestion 73) . Eight categorie of
edueticnwerepresented. netofienmherofarptycells, itwas
deaedesentialtocollapsefi‘edata. Repn'dentsmehadsne
elaentary educatinl or cntpleted elaentary scleol were reclassified
to fie first category. Category 2 cneisted of fiese individuals who
receivedzyearsof highsdeol, orhadcnrpletedhighschool. fie
filirdcategorywasmadeupofreqrnidentszehadZyearsofcollegeor
had cntpleted a 4 year college educatinl. fie fourth and final
category for educatin'l cneisted of fiese individuals wle had sne
graduate wrk, eifier a master's or prcfesional degree, or had
cnrpleted fieir graduate program.
W

Family irene was reasured using a closed-ended quetion (quetion
72). Familyirenelevelswerelistedmfiequestimnaireinblccks

of $10,000, ranging frnn $10,000 and under filrough $110,000 and above.
Familyirenewasreedasa factorinAnalysis ofVariareeandAnalysis

100

of Covariance statistical analyse. fie twelve categorie were
collapsed into five categorie. Irenes were bladed in $20,000
irereents, withfielowetcntegorycneistingof familyincnneator
below $20,000. fie highet trareformed category cneisted of family

irenes at or above $80,001.

m

Aclosed-eldedquetiniwasposedtorepndentscneerningfieir
ocnrpatinlandfiet offieirspnee (question 70andquetion 71). fie
classificatine of fie 14 type of ocnlpatine listed n1 fie
quetinmaire were collapsed into six categorie. fiese categorie are
broken dam into type of positine l'eld. fie first category cneisted
of two type occupations, listed as prcfesional or technical and
managerialoradministrative, exceptfarm. fiesecnldcategoryusedin
ocnrpatini cneisted of fiese individuals in sale. Sever original
categorie were collapsed into ne category, which involved mamlal
skills each as craftsperson, nachire operator, service worker, rmfarm
laborer, farm omer, farm worker or clerical. fie fourth category
cneisted of strderts. fie fifth category cneisted of retired
individuals. fie final category for occupation cneisted of fiese
individuals wle were employed.

W
Repnldertsvererequetedtostatefiesnlrceofinformtim
usedcneerningthistnlr'istarea(q.estin169). Usingaclosed-ended
nestinl, thirteen source of information were listed, With an
additinelcategorylistedas"ofier". netofienmherofetpty
cells,nllytmsnlrceofinfo.atinlwereexamired. Basedupona

101

frequeeycount, fiereearderdetemiredfietfietninportant
source of inforrraticn used by fie vacationing tourists cneisted of
fiet frnn friends and relative and fie State of Midiigan Travel

 

Twelve closed-elded categorie were listed for visiting fiiis
reort area. the to erpty cells, tourists' reasons for visiting this
reort area were collapsed (questim 55). Similaritie between fie
reasons were identified by the researcler, and ultiretely collapsed
into four categorie. Frields and relative was fie first category
listedasfiencstinportantreasnlforvisitingfilislocatini. fie
secnricategorylistedwasforreasneofbleiressortoatteida
cnlvertion or confereee. fie firird category cneisted of reasons
related to persnial pleasure such as sight-seeing, slerping or
entertainment. Visiting fiiis location while e1 route to anofier
locatiniorasastopmatourpackagewasfiefnlrfilcategory.

We
Inordertoqralifyforparticipatiminfiestriy,rm1dents
were required totravel at least 200 mile round-trip. fieround-trip
distareewaspresertedthmrghanoper—eidedqretini(q.eetin157).
Arelysisofafrequeeycomtoffiedistareetraveledbyfie
repndertsrevealedarangeof200mileto6,000mile. Inorderto
usefievariabledistareetraveledinanAnalysisofCovariareencdel
fie data were collapsed into four categorie. fie first category
cneistedoffieserespnfleltswleweretravelingrelativelyslert
distaree, 200 mileto399 mile route-triponfilisvacatini. fie

102

secnflcategorycneistedoffieseirfiivinelsvaeweretravelingwo
to 699 mile n1 this vacatinl. fie firird classificatinl of distaree
wasrepresertativeoftravelersrargirgfrnn700t0999mile. fie
final classificatinl of distaree was represertative of exterded
traveling. fiese vacatiners traveled 1,000 or more mile round-trip.

W
respnriertsluvfreqaertlyfieyvisitfiiisresortarea,orwhefierfi1is
wasfieir first visittofiearea (questim 61). fiedatawere
transformedinordertoasseswlefierfierepneerthadprior
experieeewifilfiiisresortarea. Iffierepneeltansveredfietthis
isfieir firstvisittofiearea,'fieirrespneewastransfonedto
eqrall. Iffierespn’dertsindicatedanydegreeoffrequeeywifilfie
reortarea,fieirreqrneewastransfonedtoequal2. -

MW
fiecostofacccnmodatineperdaywasneasuredfilrnghanopei-
erledquetinl(questionGO). Arelysisoffiefreqereycnrntrevealed
filatfiecostofaccnmcdatinerangedfrnnfree,fiiatis,red\arge,
to$200perday. Upnrftnfierenminatinioffiefrequencycount,
mtrralbrealeinfiecostofaccmncdatineperdaywereidertified.
Basedupnifieseretlralbreaks,fnrretegorieforfiecostof
accnmcdatineweredeveloped. fiefirstcategorycneistedoffiese
vamtinerswlespentSOtoSZSperdaynraccnrmodatine. fiesecond
category cneisted ofpersnewtespert $26 to $53 perday, follouedby
fiesewleqrert$54to$99perdaynraccnmedatine. fiefourfiland

103

finaletegorycneistedoffiesetouristswtespeutSlOOornereaday
niaccnnnodatine.

MW
Usirgaclosed-erledqtestina,respn1dertswereaskedtostate

fieir leans of transportatim used an fie vacatini (qretini 56). fie
original nire categorie were collapsed into four categorie. fie
first category cneisted of repnlderts traveling by autnnobile or
truck, wifieut canpingequipnert. fiesecnidcategorycneistedof
remondents who read sne form of carping vehicle, for earple, a
recreatini vehicle or an autnnobile With canpirg eqripent. fie third
category of transportatim used cneisted of inerpeeive public
trareportatinisuchasbteeortrains. fiefourfilandfinalcategory
cneisted of a more expeeive mode of transportation, namely, an

airplare or boat.

 

Overall dnninaree in vacatim decision-raking was achieved through
fieelnllatinloffieoverallmeanlevelofinflueeespneeeerted
on vacatim decisinl-making. fie perceived mean level of inflteree fie
mebarrierertednleadivacatinidecisinnwasslmned. filistotal
figure was fien divided by 8, which was fie nmher of vacation
decisine analyzed. fie sane calculatine were filer cneucted using
fie perceived lean level of influeee fie wife eerted n1 vacation
decision-making. fiespneewifiifiehigleroverallscorewasfien
vievedaserertinganoveralldnnirereeindecisim—makingforfiiis

vacation.

104

 

Basedupmfiemaltsoffienelfiiipanel, twotypsofdecisions
usedinthissmdywereida‘rtified: tacticalandprogram. fiemean
value for tactical decisicns was calculated by sunning fie values for
fiespousesmeadxtactical decisimarrldividingbyN. fiequestions
classified as tactical decisions include (pastime 79, 80, 81, 82, 84,
and 85. Only cre qestion, 86, was classified as a program decision.

Dangrafiiic Informatim
fie sanple for fiiis study ccnsisted of 550 tourists visiting

Hargetteorkcldieclslarrtuidiiganduringfiesmmerofmas. Fran
fiiis sanple, 311 (56.55%) touristswerevacationing as a family. Only
fie tourists who were vacaticning as a family cmpleted fie decision-
maJdngqtestions. fiesetcuristswerewbseqentlyreferredtoasfie
decisim-makirgsanple. Asdiscussedindaapter3,oterespondentfran
eadxfamilyortravelinggrulpwasaskedtoparticipateinfiesmdy.
SeeTablelS.

fie Michigan Travel alreau periodically collects data (11 Michigan
Tourists. mtawascollectedbyfieNationalTravelSurvey. Usinga
telefinesurveymefied,datawascollectedmadultsfim1gtnrtfie
United States. fie nest recent data available was cmpiled during
1983-1984.

'Iwoseparateanalysesarecarmctedmfiedamgramicsoffie
sanple. fie first analysis cansists ofacmparism offiedanographic
profile of fie entire sanple ard fiiat of fie decision-mldng sanple.
Wfiiisaxelysis,allcntegoriesrepresentedmfiea1rvey
iretrunentwillbediscussed. fiesecondanalysiscmsistsofa

carparison of fie delegrarhic profile of fie decision-making sanple and

105

 

Table 15. Danographic Profile

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Sanple Decision-Making Sanple

Danographic Aspects
N % N %

Race
Bladk 8 1.50 3 .96
White 510 95.00 299 96.14
Hispanic 5 .90 2 .64
Anerican Indian 5 .90 5 1.60
Asian-Pacific 2 .40 2 .64
Tbtal 530 100 311 100
398
18-24 57 10.61 15 4.82
25-34 147 27.37 91 29.26
35-44 141 26.26 103 33.19
45-54 69 12.85 41 13.18
55-64 67 12.48 35 11.25
65-74 50 9.31 21 6.75
75 and older 6 1.12 1 .32
Tbtal 537 100 311 100
Sex
Male 276 51 . 20 167 53 . 70
FEmale 263 48.80 144 46.30
irflzfl. 539 100 311 100
Family Inccne
less than.10,000 51 10.00 7 2.30
10,001-2o,ooo 63 12.40 27 9.10
20,001-30,000 103 20.20 59 19.80
30,001-40,000 124 24.40 92 30.90
40,001-50,000 71 13.90 47 15.80
50,001-60,000 45 8.80 29 9.70
60,001-70,000 15 2.90 12 4.00
70,001-80,000 9 1.80 5 1.70

 

Table 15 (Ccmt'd) .

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Sanple Decisim-Making Sanple

Danographic Aspects

N % N %
Family Inccne (Cont'd)
80,001-90,000 5 1.00 5 1.70
90,001-100,000 8 1.60 4 1.30
100,001-110,000 5 1.00 3 1.00
110,001 arri above 10 2.00 8 2.70
Total 508 100 298 100
Respondent's Educational
level
Sale Elenentary 1 .20 1 .32
ampleted Elanentary 1 0 0 0
2 Years High School 18 2.40 5 1.61
Cmpleted High School 132 24.80 64 20.58
2 Years Cbllege 120 22.60 72 23.15
Gllpleted College 110 20.70 65 20.90
Sale Gradlnte Work 60 11.30 41 13.18
Culpleted Graduate Work 88 16.50 61 19.61
'Iotal 532 100 311 100
Female Responient's
Occupation
Professiamal-Tedmical 90 35 . 20 62 43 . 10
Manager-Administrator 21 8.20 12 8.30
Sales 14 5.50 6 4.20
Clerical 29 11 . 30 15 10 . 40

6 2.30 4 2.80
Had'xire marator 7 2.70 4 2.80
Nam-Farm laborer 2 .80 2 1.40
Service Worker 5 2.00 3 2.10
Farm Owner 3 1.20 2 1.40
Farm Worker 1 .40 O 0
Sttxlent 18 7.00 6 4.20
Retired 31 12.10 9 6.30
Unexployed 7 2.70 5 3.50
Other 22 8.60 14 9.70
m1 256 100 144 100

 

Table 15 (Oa'rt'd) .

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Sanple Decisim-MaJdng Sanple

Denngrafiric Aspects

N % N %
Fanale Respondent's
Spouse's Occupation
Professiamal—dedmical 73 38 . 80 52 39 . 10
WWW 29 15.40 21 15.80
Sales 10 5.30 6 4.50
Clerical 4 2.10 3 2.30
Craftspersm 8 4.30 7 5.30
Machixe Cperator 8 4.30 8 4.30
War-Farm laborer 5 2.70 5 3.80
Service Worker 6 3.20 5 3.80
Farm Owrer 1 .50 1 .80
Farm Worker 0 0 0 0
salient 8 4.30 4 3.00
Mixed 21 11.20 11 8.30
unemployed 4 2.10 3 2.30
Other 11 5.90 7 5.30
‘lbtal 188 100 144 100
Male W's
Occupation
Professicnal-Technical 108 39.70 71 42.50
Hunger-Administrator 36 13.20 26 15.60
Sela 13 4.80 6 3.60
Clerical 4 1.50 2 1.20

14 5.10 6 3.60
Machine Cperator 14 5.10 10 6.00
Nat-Farm laborer 4 1.50 3 1.80
Service Worker 6 2.20 5 3.00
Farm Owrer 4 1.40 3 1.80
Farm Worker 13 4.80 1 .60
salient 13 4.80 1 .60
Ihtirai 37 13.60 23 13.80
Urenployed 4 1.50 1 .60
Other 13 4.80 9 5.40
'IUtal 283 100 167 100

 

108

 

Table 15 (Cont'd) .

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Sanple Decision-Making Sanple

Danograrhic Aspects
N % N %

Male respondent's
Spouse's Occupation
Professimal-Tedmical 52 23.90 42 25.90
Whininistrator 16 7. 30 13 8.00
Sales 8 3.70 6 3.70
Clerical 34 15.60 20 12.30
Craftsperscn 4 1.80 3 1.90
Madiine Querator 1 .50 1 .60
Nam-Farm laborer 2 .90 2 1.20
Service Worker 6 2.80 4 2.50
Farm Owner 2 .90 2 1.20
Farm Worker 0 0 0 0
Stuien‘t 6 2.80 6 3.70
Retired 26 11.90 17 10.50
Unarployed 23 10.60 16 9.90
Other 38 17.40 30 18.50
Total 218 100 167 100

 

fie sanple fran fie Michigan Travel Bireau study. fie categories of
fiedanograrhicprofilearebasedmfieseusedbyfieuidiigan'rravel
alreau. Despite fie discrepareies of data collection dates, a
cmparisonoffiesanplesaremade. fiegoaloffieresearfieristo
determire wlefier similarities exist between sanple populations.

demmmmme
fiedemgrarhicprofilesoffieentiresanplearrifiesetraveling
asafamilywereexamined. fiemajorityoffieentiresanpleand
reqmdents traveling as a family were white (95% and 96.14%
respectively), andwerebetweenfie agesof 25ard44 (53.63% and

62 . 45% respectively) .

109

Slight differences between sanples were identified in relation to
family incane, educaticnal status ani occupation. For both sanples,
respcndent's family incate ranged frun less fien $10,000 to $110,001
and above. Similarities between sanples were identified thrcnglnrt all
incme classifications except for reqaondents who reported an inccne of
$10,000 or less. Fifty-ore respa'rients (10%) frcm fie entire sample
reported an incane of $10,000 or less, cmpared to 7 respondents (2.3%)
offierespadentsvdeveretravelirgasafamily.

Differences were identified between fie educational status of fie
sanple. Alargerpercentoffieentiresanplereportedhighsdeolas
fieir highest educaticnal status. Ore lnmdred and filirty-two
respmdents (24.80%) frcm fie entire sanple and 64 respondents (20.58%)
travelingasa familyreportedhighsdeolasfieirhigtestedtmtional
level attained. Ole hundred and two persons (32.79%) traveling as a
family reported some graduate work or cmpletim of fieir graduate
program, whereas 148 respcrdents (27.82%) fran fie entire sanple
reported fills sane educational status.

Men fie respondent was fenale, differences between occupatims
were identified. Sixty-two female respaldents (43.10%) traveling as a
family reported fieir occupation as professionaldtechnical . Nirety
fanale respcndents, or 35.20 percent of fie entire sanple, reported
filis sane occupation, resulting in a difference of 7.8 percent.

fie secmd identifiable difference between fie occupational status
of fanalerespafientscaeistedoffiesepersaewlewereretired. A
largerperoentoffanalerespmdemsinfiemtiresanplereported
fieiroowpatimarrifiiatoffieirspalseasretired.filirty-ae
respmdents (12.10%) of fie attire sample were retired, catpared to

110

nire fanale respcnients (6.30%) who were traveling as a family. 'menty-
ore fenale raponients (11.20%) frat fie entire smple also listed
fieir qeuse's occupation as retired. Only eleven fenale respondents
(8.30%) who were traveling as a family listed fieir spouse's occupation

as retired.

 

Acaparismwasmadeinordertoiderttifydiffereleesbetteenfie
decisicn-making smple and tourists' smples by fie Michigan Travel
alreau. See Table 16. Alfieugh fie smple sizes for fie decision-making
smple and fie Michigan Travel alreau (MI‘B) Smples were different (311
and543 regectively),fiepercerttrepresattedbyfievarious
denographic categories were relatively similar. See Table 16. fie
majority of respmdents in fie deoisim—uaking and ms salples were
between fie ages of 25 and 44 (62.45% and 52.00%). Approximately 18
percent of fie decisim-making smple (194 respa'dents) and 28 percent
offieMI‘Bsmple (152 respotflertts) wereagedSSorolder.

Respatdent's sex wifilin each smple were approxinately equal. fie
decisia't-making smple cneisted of 167 (53.70%) nen and 144 (46.30%)
wunen. fie najority of respmdents frun both smples capleted high
sdeol or had sate college education (45.34% and 50% respectively).

fieooaxpatimcategoriesusedbyfieresearderardfitatusedby
MI‘B were slightly different. fie researfier listed 13 categories in
additimtoan"ofier" category. fieM'Bsurveylisted8possible
mp10ynentcategoriesinadditimtoan"ofier"eategory. netofie
differences between categories listed, a caparism of fie responiertt's

aploynentstamsisincaplete. Smecaparismscanbemadein

111

 

Table 16 . Dapgraphic Profile Caparison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decision-Dem Michigan Travel [eta
Smple Center Smple
Daographlc Aspects
N % N %
lespcrdent's Age
18-24 15 4.82 70 13.00
25-34 91 29.26 168 31.00
35-44 103 33 . 19 114 21 . 00
45-54 35 11 . 25 76 14 . 00
55-64 22 7.07 76 14.00
65 and older 22 7.07 43 ‘ 8.00
Sex
Male 167 53 . 70 244 45 . 00
Fanale 144 46 . 30 299 55 . 00
anily Incate
less filan $10,000 7 2.30 49 9.00
$10, 000-$19 , 999 27 9 . 10 141 26 . 00
$20, GOO-$29,999 59 19.80 147 27. 00
$30,000-$39,999 92 30.90 109 20.26
$40,000 and above 113 37.91 92 17.00
Education
less filan High School 1 .32 43 8.00
Capleted High School 69 22 . 19 152 152 . 00
Sale College 72 23.15 120 22.00
Capleted College 65 20.90 136 25.00

Graduate Work or Degree 102 19.61 92 17.00

 

112

 

Table 16 (Oatt'd) .

 

 

 

 

 

Decision-Making Michigan Travel Data
Smple Center Smple
Dapgrarhic Aqaects
N % N %

W's Coopatim
Professimal or

mnagerial 171 55.88 81 15.00
lower level Technical -- ---- 81 15.00
Clerical 17 5 . 55 114 21 . 00
Blue Cbllar 38 12.41 92 92.31
Household Service -- -—- 11 2.00
Mtired 32 10 . 46 71 13 . 00
Uraployed 6 1.96 16 3.00
Unaployed, not looking -- --- 71 13.00
Other 42 13.72 6 1.00

 

relation to clerical , retired and uneployed persons. fie' largest
discrepancy between smple was represented by clerical aployees.
Approximately 5 percent (17 reqondents) of fie decisim-making smple
were clerin aployees. Clericals represented approximately 21
percent (114 respcndents) of fie um smple.

fie incme level classificatims used by fie researder differed
sligtttlyfranfitatusedbyMI‘B. fiereseardereniedfieincane
classificatim at an even matter. For exalple, fie second incane
category consisted of $10,001 fitrough $20,000. fie MI‘B categories,
however, beganfiecategoryatanevennmber. Forexmple, fiesecond
incoe category consisted of $10,000-$19,999. For caparative
purposes,fierosearfierisusingfiem8category. Assudl,fie
figures shwld be considered as apprcndmtims.

113

fie family heme forfiedecisim-makjng smplewashigterthan
fitat of fie ma sanple. Approximately 38 percent of fie decision-
making smple reported a family inane of $40,000 ormore annually.
fieMI'Bsmple,lewever, reportedmly17percentoffiesmpleinthis

ireoue bracket. likewise, only 11.40 percent (34 respondents) in the
decisia't-making smple reported an incate of $19,999 or lower. fiiirty—

fivepercent (190 respondents) offieMl'Bsmplereportedanamwal
fmnily ireane of $19,999 or less.

 

Priortofietestingoffiehypofieses,fieelaminatimoffie
perceivedneanlevelofinfltereefietmsbard,wifearrld1ildrenhadon
vacatimdecisicn-makingwasdesired. Wencaparingfiesexoffie
rosporriertt,wmenperceivedfiemnomttofinfluereeexertedbyfie
husband, at six mtion decisions, as higler filan filat perceived by
men. Menwereperceivedashavingnoreinfltereefilanwmenmfie
decisim regarding fie vacation budget, vacation activities chosen, and
fiespecific resortareadesen. SeeTable 17.

Despitefiesexoffierespatdmt,menwereperceivedashavinga

mean perceived influeree ranging fran 43.07 percent’to 55.56 percent.
mrfienpre, bofilmaleandfenalerespmdattsperceivedfiehusbandas

having exerted a majority influeree on fie decision coreerning fie
lengfitoffievacationaswellasmfievacationbudget.
Maleandfataleresporeentsperceivedfieneanlevel of inflleree
exerted by wunen on vamtim decisiae differently. Male respondents
perceivedwmenasexertingagreatermnmtofinfluereeoneight
vacation decisions. Men cmsistently perceived fieir wife's influezee

114

 

Table 17:
Vacatim Decisims

Perceivedneanleveloflnflueeer‘amilynenbersnaertm

 

 

 

bale Respcndents Fenale W
Decision Husband Wife Children Husband Wife Children
Wtials 44.96 47.44 4.53 48.14 45.95 3.07
Length of Vacation 51.64 41.73 5.40 52.96 38.96 6.68
heart Area Chosen 48.71 42.46 6.36 43.49 43.45 9.85
Vacatim Activities 45.59 43.20 9.36 43.22 43.17 10.09
Vacation as a Family 46.58 45.21 5.15 47.05 44.04 5.37
Vacatim Badget 55.56 42.01 1.21 52.48 41.23 2.38
Vacaticn 'Ihis Simmer 43.62 45.42 7.89 45.06 40.92 13.28
Vacation this Year 43.07 47.22 7.41 46.08 41.84 11.35
When Vacatim is Taken 48.54 43.18 7.64 49.07 40.04 6.68

 

115

asbeimgreaterfilanfietperceivedbywmenforeightoffienire
vacatimdecisions.

Despitefiesecoffierewadett,wmenwerenotperceivedas
having a majority influeee m vacatim decision-making. Male
respondents, perceived wane: as eerting similar levels of influeee
across all vamticn decisims, ranging fran 42.46 percent on fie
decisimcaeemingfieresortaread‘eseito47.44percettinflueee
mletelacoamedatiaedeset.

fieexaminatim of respondett's percepticns offieneanlevel of
influeee children exerted m vacatim decisions also resulted in
discrepancies, basedmfie sexoffierespmdett. mare specifically,
wanetperceiveddlildretasexertingmoreinflueeefilandidmenon
seven of fie nine vacation decisions. Wanen allocated a higher
percettageofinflueeebydlildretmfiedecisimto:takeavacation
filis year, take a vacation filis sutmer, letgfil of fie vacation,
vacatimhriget,wtefierornottotakefilisva<etimasafmnilyoras
acolple,fievaeationactivitiesdesen,andwhatresortareaistobe
desenforfievacetion.

Testirgoffienypofimes
HypothesesSetl
Wield
Occupation are travel party caposition significantly impact fie
perceivedneanlevel of influeee familymetbershavecoreerning
eactlywlentotakethisvaeatim,whelcontrollingforfiemmberof
personsfierespoeettispayirgformfilistrip.
. Occupation and travel party copositim significantly
inpactfiepeceivedmeanlevelofinflueeefiehusbard

116

enertsmfiedecisimcaeerningeractlywhettotake

filis vacation, wten cmtrolling for fie umber ofpersons

fierespcndettispayingformfitistrip.

. Occupatim and travel party capositim significantly

ilpactfieperceivedneanlevelofinflueeefiewife

enertsmfiedecisimcaeerningexactlywlentotake

filis vacation, wlen controlling forfie umber of persons

fierespoteettispayingformthistrip.

. Ocatpatim and travel party capositicn significantly

ilpactfieperceivedneanlevelofinflueeedlildret

eertmfiedecisimcaeerningecactlywentotake

filis vacation, when controlling for fie umber of

persmsfierespaeettispayireiforonfilistrip.

Analysis of Covariaree (ANACOVA) was cameted fitree separate
times, usingfieperceivedmeanlevelofinflteteefmuilymepers,fie
lmsband, wife and children, have m fie decisim caeerm’ng exactly
wtentovacatimasfiedepetdettvariable. fiefactorsusedtotest
filis hypofitesis consisted of fie respatdett's occupation, fieir
spouse's occlpationarefiecaposition offieirtravelparty. fie
covariatecmsistedoffienmberofpersaefierespaeettispaying
formfilistrip.

Realltsoffieanalysisdidtetprovetobesignifiearttwlenfie
depedettvariablecaeistedoffieperceivedneanlevelofinflueee
offiehusbandorfieperceivedneanlevelofinflueeeoffiewifem
fie vacation decision. See Table 18.

117

 

Table 18. Analysis of Covariance: Family Merers' Perceived Mean
lnflueee on fie Decisim anerning Ebcactly men to Vam-
tion by Travel Party Capositim, Respeeett's Occupation
and fieir Spouse's Occupation, Wlen Controlling for fie
Nimber of Parade Paid for at filis Trip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sims of Sqiare DF Mean Square F Ratio
Husband

min Effects 8219.58 13 632.27 .77
Travel Party Depositicn 1533.06 3 511.02 .62
mspedent's Occupation 5157.62 5 1031.52 1.26
Spouse's Occupation 1961.34 5 392.27 .48
mvariates 15.94 1 15.94 . .02
Pescns Paid For 15.94 1 15.94 .02
Eplained 8235 . 52 14 588 . 25 . 72
msidual 200652 . 61 246 815 . 66

'Ibtal 208888 . 13 260 803 . 41

Wife

Main Effects 10822.48 13 832.49 1.16
Travel Party couposition 4661.95 3 1553.98 2.18
Respondent's Ocapatim 2182.01 5 436.40 .61
Spouse's Occupation 2775.78 5 555.15 .77
mvariata 1756 . 19 1 1756 . 71 2 . 46
Persons Paid For 1756.19 1 1756.71 2.46
Dplaira'l 12579 . 19 14 898 . 51 1 . 26
Ihsidual 175279 . 49 246 712 . 51

Total 187858 . 69 260 722 . 53

ciildret

min Effects 12231.88 13 940.91 2.33**
Travel Party caposition 7733.78 3 2577.92 6.40***
Raspatdett's Occupation 2296.35 5 459.27 1.14
Spouse's Occupation 1715.30 5 343.06 .85
(bvariates 1863 . 62 1 1863 . 62 4 . 62*
Persms laid For 1863.62 1 1862.62 4.62*
Dplained 14095 . 51 14 1006 . 82 2 . 50**
Ihsidual 99029 . 46 246 402 . 55

Total 113124 . 97 260 435 . 09

 

“v.00“ **p<.01; *p<.05.

118

men fie dependent variable consisted of fie perceived nean level
ofinflueeeoffiedlildrenonfiedecisioncoreerrfingwlento
vaeatim, fie main effects, travel party caposition, covariate and
explained swrce of variation proved to be significant. fie factor,
travel party caposition was significant at fie p<.001 level. fie
covariate, number of persons paid for was significant at fie p<.001
level. fie independent variables occupation and spouse's occupation
did not prove to be significant. fie nultiple R-square was low (.12) .

Multiple classification analysis revealed fitat an increasing
effect of fie factor travel party caposition exists as fie other
factors respondett's occupation: and spouse's occupation and fie
covariate persons paid for on this trip was adjusted for. See Table
19. Wten fie variables were unadjusted, sane sex adults perceived
children as having exerted 10.00 percent influence on fie decision when
to vacation. Wen fie factors were adjusted for, this perception
increased to 17.29 percent influeee. Wlen controlling for fie
covariate in fie category sane sex adults traveling togefier filis trip,
d:ildrenwereperceivedtohaveecerted24.01percentinflueeeonfie
vacatie: decision, an irerease of 16.10 percent frat: fie grand near:
(7.91).

Based upon fie statistical analysis, re support for fie alternate
Hypofiesis 1-1 is provided when fie criterion variable consisted of the
perceivedneaninflteteeoffiehusband, (nedel 1) andfiewife (nedel
2) mfiedecisionconeerningwlentotakethisvacation. Wl'enfie

criterion variable consisted of perceived mean influeee of fie

children, (model 3) mfiedecisionconcerningwtentotakefinis
vacation, support for fie alternate Hypofiesis 1—1 is provided.

119

W13

area and fie cost of accumuodations significantly inpact fie perceived
nean level of influeee family menbers have on fie decision to visit

fie lengfi: of distance traveled, previous experieee wifin a resort

filis resort area, wten controlling for fmnily irecne.

ordertotesthypofinesis 1-2.
perceivedmeanlevel of influeee offiehusband, (nedel 1) wife (nedel
2) anddnildren (model 3) anfiedecisiontovaeatimatthisresort

fie lengfin of distance traveled, previous experieee
with a resort area and fie cost of accountedations sig-
nifieantly inpact fie perceived mean level of influ-
eeefiehusbmehascnfiedecisiontovisitfilis
resort area, wl'en controlling for family ireane.

fie lengfi: of distance traveled, previous experieee
with a resort area and cost of accamcdatiors signifi-
cantly inpact fie perceived nean level of influeee
fiewifehasmfiedecisimtovisitfinisresort
area, when controlling for family irecne.

fie length of distance traveled, previous experieee
wifi: a resort area and cost of accanncdations signifi-
cantly inpactfieperceivedneanlevel of influeee
fiednildrenhavemfiedecisiontovisitfinisresort
area, when controlling for family ireane.

Analysisofoovariaree(Am:wVA)wascondnetedfinreetimesin

fie criterion variable casisted of fie

120

 

Table 19 . mltiple Classification Analysis of Hypofiesis 1—1: Perceived
Influence offiednildrenmflentoVacatimbyTravelParty
(Imposition, Respondent's Occupation and fieir Spouse's
Occupation, Men OattrolIing for fie Nunber of Perses Paid
for a: filis Trip

 

Adjusted De-
Adjusted viation for
Unadjusted Deviation Factors and

N Deviatim for Factors Covariates

 

Grand nean 7.91%
Mlltiple R-sqaare .125

 

Respondent's Occlpation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professia‘nal-Tedmical 152 - . 87 -1 . 45 1 . 23
Sales 9 3.20 4.87 4.69
Manual labor 45 4.49 4.87 4.92
Stuie‘rt 5 -3.91 -7.33 -6.20
Retired 25 -1.91 4.46 2.38
Uneployed 25 -1.27 -4.72 --4.18
Eta .11 .29 .14
Spouse 8 Occupation

Professional-decennial 114 -.23 .42 .41
Sales 11 -2.46 -5.41 -4.77
Manual labor 54 -2.15 -2.96 -3.05
Stlxient 9 -4.58 .01 -.11
Mtired 26 -4.07 -1.39 .25
Uneployed 47 6.73 4.42 3.51
Eta .16 .13 .11
Travel Party Cuposltlon

CIXJPIES 118 -6.13 -6.53 -3.31
CKII'B 140 5.20 5.45 2.61
SKIES 1 -7.91 -10.98 -7.43
SAMFSEX 2 2.09 9.38 16.10
Eta .27 .29 .16
Table My.

m—mples traveling

Clam-Couples, traveling wifi: children.

SKIlB—Single adults, traveling wifin children.

awn—Sane sex adults, traveling togefier.

 

121

area. fiefacborsconsistedoffiecostofacoamedatiorsperday, the
totaldistaneetraveledwmileonthisvacation, andwlefierornotfie
respandetthadpriorecperieeewithfinisresortarea. 'Itttalfamily
ineane was need as a covariate.

aeoffiefinreemodelsprovedtobesignificant. Phenfie
criterion variable consisted of fie perceived mean influeee of
childrenonfieresortareadesen, fiemodelwassignifieant. fieR-
square for fie ncdel was .07. See Table 20.

Analysis of Covariance was conducted, wlereby fie criterion
variablecesistedoffieperceivedneaninflueeeoffiednildrenon
fie resort area desen. Analysis revealed finat significant results
were idettified for fie nain effects (p<.01) annd fie factor distance
traveled (p<.05) annd fie explained source of variation (p<.05) .

Whenfieperceivedneanlevel of influeeeoffiednildrenonthe
resortareadesenwasadjnstedforfieineepeeentvariablescostof
acoamedatias, distance traveled and prior experienee annd fie
covariatetotal family ineane, differemsfranfiegraneneanwere
identified. See Table 21. the: fie variables were unadjusted and fie
respcndenttraveledbetween700and999milescnfinisvacatim, fie
dnildrenwereperreivedashavingenerted4.96percentinflueeeonfie
venetian decision. Adjusting for fie covariates, finis perceived
influeeeinereasedto5.59 percent, 2.22 percettbelowfiegrandmean
(7.81 percent). the: fie vacationers traveled 1000 miles orncre on
finis vacatim, are fie variables were unadjusted, fie children were
perceived as having exerted 3.18 percent influeee an fie vacation
decision. Adjusting for fie covariates, fie children were perceived as
having exerted 3.71 percent influeee an fie vacaticn: decisim.

122

 

Table 20. Analysis of Covariance: anily Menters' Perceived Mean
InflueceonfieResortAreaccsenbyCostofAccameda-
tions, Distance Traveled, Prior Eperieee Wifin fie Area,
Wen: Controlling for Family Incate

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sums of Square DF Man Square F Ratio
Husband
Main Effects 7000.12 7 1000.01 1.52
Cost of Accomcdations 3022.08 3 1007.36 1.53
Distance Traveled 2626.80 3 875.60 1.33
Prior Eperiece 853.13 1 853.13 1.29
Covariates 1023.81 1 1023.81 1.51
Family Ineane 1023.81 1 1023.81 1.51
2-Way Interactions 10697. 18 15 713. 14 1. 08
Distance Prior aneriece 2715.97 3 905.32 1.37
Distance Cost of

Accounodations 6027.41 9 669.71 1. 02
Prior Experiece Cost

of Accamedations 38.21 3 12.73 .01
3-Way Interactions 7178.14 5 1435.63 2.18
Distance Prior Ehcperience

by Cost of Acccmncdations 7178.14 5 1435.63 2.18
Dcplained 7773.68 8 971.71 1.43
Residual 163042 . 73 241 676 . 52
Total 170816 . 41 249 686 . 01
Wife
Main Effects 2269.46 7 324.20 .50
(hat of Acxxlmedations 777.17 3 259.05 .40
Distance Traveled 1255.42 3 418.47 .65
Prior Ebcperienoe 50.85 1 50.85 .07
Covariates 124 . 73 1 124 . 73 . 19
Family Inome 124.73 1 124.73 .19
2-Way Interactia'ns 8982.71 15 598.84 .93
Distance Prior anerieee 1070.60 3 356.86 .55
Distance Cost of

Accamedatias 7371.91 9 819.10 1.28
Prior Ebperiece Cost

of Accamcdations 609.99 3 203.33 .31
3-Way Interactia‘ns 1463.31 5 292.66 .45

 

123

 

Table 20 (Catt'd) .

 

Sanrce Sunsoquuare DF MeanSquare FRatio

 

Wife (cont'd) .

 

Distance Prior Eperieee

 

 

by (est of Accamedatias 1463.31 5 292.66 .45
Ebplainel 12840 . 22 28 458 . 57 . 71
Residlnl 141426 . 51 221 639 . 93
Total 154266 . 73 249 619 . 54
Children
Main Effects 6611.26 7 944.46 2.58**
cut of Acmmedaticns 2236.09 3 745.36 2.04
Distance Traveled 3349.48 3 1116.49 3.05*
Prior Ebnperiece 126.17 1 126.17 .34
Covariates 209.04 1 209.04 .57
Family lncone 209.04 1 209.04 .57
2-Way Interactions 3697.62 15 246.50 .67
Distance Prior Experiece 1220.99 3 406.99 1.11
Distance Cost of

Accomcdatias 1691 . 63 9 187 . 95 . 51
Prior Ehperiece Cost

of Watkins 422.13 3 140.71 .38
3-Way lntteractions 997.51 5 199.50 .54
Distance Prior Eperieee

by Cost of Accamcdatias 997.51 5 199.50 .54
Eplained 11515.45 28 411.26 1.12
Raidual 80756.71 221 365.41
Total 92272 . 16 249 370 . 57

 

***p<.001; **p<.01: *p<.05.

 

124

 

Table 21 . mltiple Classificatim Analysis of Hypofiesis 1-2: Perceived
InflueeeoffiecnildrenonnesortAreacesenbyCostof
Accamedaties, Distance Traveled, Prior Ebnperiece wifi: fie
Area, Wlen Controlling for Family lncane

 

Adjusted De-
Adjusted viation for
Unadjusted Deviation Factors and

N Deviatian for Factors Covariates

 

Grand nean 7.81%
niltiple R-square .074

 

(Inst of Accenpdations

 

 

 

 

 

Free-$25 132 -.21 -.04 -.13
$26-$53 72 -3.91 -3.47 -3.54
$54-$99 39 6 . 16 5 . 18 5 . 45
$100 or More 7 9.76 7.53 8.41
Eta .19 .16 .17
Distance Traveled

200-399 Miles 26 3.30 3.64 3.40
400-699 Miles 96 4.41 3.83 3.62
700-999 Miles 47 -2.85 -4.24 -2.22
1000 Miles or Mare 81 -4.63 -4.24 -4.10
Eta .21 ' .20 .18
Prior Ebperieee

No Prior mperieee 97 .07 .92 .81
Had Prior anerieee 153 -.05 -.58 -.51
Eta .00 .04 .03

 

125

Baseduponfiestatisticalanalyses, supportforfiealternate
Hypofiesis 1-2 is provided wlen: fie criterion: variable consists of fie
perceivedneaninflueceoffiechildre: (nede13) mfieresortarea
chosen. Nosupport forfiealternateHypofinesis 1-2 isprovidedwhen
fie criterion variable casisted of fie perceived nean influence of fie
lnsband, (nedel 1) and fie wife, (nedel 2) on finis vacation decision.

Wield

Totaldistancetraveledtofieresortareaanccostof
accompdations significantly inpact fie perceived nean level of
influeeefamilynnenbershaveinfiedecisionregardirgfielengthof
fiefamilyvacation.

.‘lbtaldistaneetraveledtofieresortareaardcostof

accamedations significantly inpacts fie perceived

neanlevelofinflueeefielmsbanrlhasinfie

decision: regarding fie legth of fie family vacation.

.Totaldistannoetraveledtofieresortareaanricostof

accamedations significantly inpacts fie perceived

neanlevelofinfluecefiewifehasinfiedecisicn

regarding fie lengfin of fie family vacation.

.Totaldistaneetraveledtcfieresortareaandcostof

accomcdations signnificanttly impacts fie perceived

neanlevelofinflueeefiechildrenhaveinfie

decision regarding fie legfin of fie family vacatim.

Regression analysiswasconenetedfinreetimes, nsingfieperceived
neaninflueeeoffielnnsbane(nede11),wife (nede12)andchildren
(nedel 3) on fie decision: regarding fie length of fie family vacation
asfiedependentvariable. fieindepe'dettvariablesusedinfiefinree

126

nedelscosistedoffietotaldistaneetraveledandfiecostof
accomedatios.
fieincependentvariablesdistaneetraveledandtotalcostof
accomcdatios, did not prove to be significant predictors of fie
husband's, wife's or children's perceived level of influeee on fie
legfin of finis vacation. See Table 22. low R—square values, ranging
fron.004to.016,wereindicativefinatfiemodelwasnctagood
predictor of family medaers' inflnence on fie lengfin of fie vacation.
fie beta correlation coefficients revealed finat, regardless of fie
family meleer nmder investigation, fie husband, wife or children, a
slight negative slope existed. As such, nc support for fie alternate
Hypofinesis 1-3 is provided in relation to all family nnenbers ' perceived
neaninflueeeonfielengthoffinisvacation.

Wield
Cost of accomedatios annd mode of transportation significantly
inpact family menbers' perceived nean level of influeee on fie
vacation budget, wten controlling for family incone annd fie number of
personsfierespondettispaying foronfinistrip.
. Cost of accomcdatios and nede of transportation
significantly inpact family members ' perceived near:
level of influence on fie vacation budget, wtenn
controlling for family incone and fie mmher of
persosfierespoeettispayingforonfinistrip.
. Cost of accomedations are nede of transportation
significantly inpact fie perceived mean: level of
influecefielmsbanchasonfievacationheget,
whencontrolling forfamilyincoeandfienmeerof

127

 

Table 22. Regressim Analysis: Perceived Mean Level of Influence Family
ManhersfiavemfielergfiloffieVacatim

 

Independent .nependentryarleblee
W Perceived influence Perceived Influence Perceived Influence

 

of Husband of Wife of Children
B P B P B P
Cost of
Aoommdatiaas -.O7 .17 -.00 .90 .07 .07
Distance
Traveled -.OO .23 .00 .05 -.OO .49
Intercept 56.69 37.47 4.41
R? Square .01 .01 .01
F 1.42 1.95 2.07
P .24 .14 .12
df 2,263 2,264 2,264

n 266 267 267

 

128

persa'efierespafientispayirgformfilistrip.

. Cost of acccnmodations and mode of transportation sig-

nificantly inpact fie perceived mean level of influ-

eteefiewifehasonfievacatimhriget,wren

controlling for familyireanearrifienmberof

persaefierceparlentispayilgformfiiistrip.

. Cost of acccmnodations and mode of transportation sig-

nificantly inpact fie perceived nean level of influ-

ereefiedlildrenhavemfievacatimhflget,wten

cartrcllirg for familyiteuneandfienmberof

permefiereepmdentispayirgformfilistrip.

Analysisofcovariancemscariuctedfilreetinesinordertoteet
for Hypothesis 1-4 . 'ne criterial variable consisted of fie perceived
meaninfluenoe offiehusband, (model 1) fiewife, (model 2) and
children (nedel 3) mfievacationbudget. 'nefactorscoreistedof
fiecostofacoannodatioreperdayarrifiemdeoftrareportation.
'Iotalfamilyincaneandfienmberofpersaefierespa'dentispayixg
forwereusedascovariates.

Wen fie criterim variable consisted of fie perceived nean
infllereeoffielmsbardmfievacatimhldget, fiemodeldidnot
prove to be siglificant. See 'lable 23.

Siglificant results were identified when fie criterion variable
caeistedoffieperoeivedneanlevel of influenceoffiewifeonfie
vacatim laudget. 'ne factor node of trareportatim was significant at
fie p<.05 level. With an P value of 4.37, fie covariate umber of

persons paid for also proved to be siglificant (p<.05). 'ne min

129

 

Table 23. Analysis of Covariance: Family Maxbers' Puceived Mean
Influence on fie Vacation Bdget by Cost of Accaunodations
and Mode of Transportatim, Hen Controlling for Family

Ireme,arflNunberofPewePaidform'nlisTrip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sums of Square DF Mean Square F mtio
Husband
min Effects 553 . 29 6 92 . 21 . 10
cost of Accanrndations 276 . 00 3 92 . 00 . 10
Mode of Trarsportation 185.87 3 61.95 .07
Covariates 2594 . 54 2 1297 . 27 1 . 52
Family Incale 278 . 20 1 278 . 20 . 32
Persons Paid For 2290 . 57 1 2290 . 57 2 . 69
2-Way Interactions 10571 . 69 6 1761 . 95 2 . 06
Cost of Accaunodations

lbde of Transportatim 10571 . 69 6 1761. 95 2 . 06
Explained 13719 . 54 14 979 . 96 l . 15
lbsidual 202663 . 27 238 851. 52
'Ibtal 216382 . 81 252 858 . 66
Wife
Main Effects 8158 . 59 6 1359 . 76 1. 72
Get of Accamndations 1969 . 51 3 656 . 50 . 83
)bde of Trareportation 6149 . 93 3 2049 . 97 2 . 60*
Covariata 4284 . 25 2 2142 . 12 2 . 72
Family Incane 794 . 69 1 794 . 69 1 . 01
m Paid For 3436.49 1 3436.49 4.37*
2—Way Interactions 2231. 27 6 371 . 87 . 47
(last of Accamedations

Mode of 'I‘rareportatim 2231.27 6 371.87 .47
Explained 14674 . 12 14 1048 . 15 1 . 33
width]. 187165 . 04 238 786 . 40
Mai 201839 . 17 252 800 . 94
Children
Main Effects 239 . 88 6 39 . 98 . 39
Cost of Aoccmnodations 197 . 52 3 65 . 84 . 65
Dbde of Trarsportatim 101. 91 3 33 . 97 . 33
vaariatfi 116 . 73 2 58 . 36 . 57
Family Inccne 28.97 1 28.97 .28
Persons Paid For 86.15 1 86.15 .85
2-Way Interactions 36 . 03 6 6. 00 . 05
met of Accanmdatioze

Mode of Transportation 36.03 6 6.00 .05
Emlainai 392 . 65 14 28 . 04 . 27
Residual 24106 . 59 238 101. 28
Total 24499 . 24 252 97 . 21

 

***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.

130

effects, explained source of variation, mining factors and covariate
covariate familyinconedidnotprovetobesignificantinfinisnedel.
Multiple classification analysis revealed significant
differeneesbeWeenfieunadjnstedardadjustedneanvalneofpersons
navelirgbytrainorbus.SeeTable24. Wenfierespo'dents
identifiedfinenselvesastravelhgbyhlsortrain, ardthefactor‘sard
covariateswerenmadjusted, fiewifewasperceivedashavirgenaerted
10.00 percent influence on fie vacation decision. As fie factors were
adjusted for, this perceived influence decreased to 7.76 percent.
When controlling for fie ccvariates in fie category mode of
transportation, byblsortrain, fiewifewasperceivedashaving
exerted 2.11 percent influence on fie vacation decision, 39.41 percent
loner finan fie grand nean (41.52 percent).
Wienfieperceivedneanlevelof inflnereeoffiednildrenonfie
vacation badget was used as fie criterion variable, fie model did not
prove to be significant at any level.
Nosurportforfiealternatellypcfiesis 1—4 isprovidedwhenfie
criterion variable cosisted of fie perceived nean inflnence of fie
husband (model 1) arddlildren (model 3) onfievacntionbudget. men
fie criterion variable consisted of fie nean perceived influence of fie
wife (model 2) on fie vacation budget, support for fie alternate

Hypcfiesis 1-4 is provided.

W125

Mode of transportation, travel party oonposition, and cost of
accomcdations significantly inpact fie perceived mean level of
influence familynenbershaveonfiedecisionconcernirgfietypeof

131

 

Table 24 . Multiple Classification Analysis of Hypcfiesis 1-4: Perceived
Influence offieWifeonfieVacationnndgetbyCostof
Acconmodations and lbde of Transportation, men Controlling
forFamilyIreoneardNnmberofPersosPaidforonfinis

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trip
Adjusted De-
Adjusted viation for
Unadjusted Deviation Factors and
N Deviation for Factors Covariates

Grand mean 41.52%
Multiple R-square .06
Mode of Trarsportation
Wile 135 2 . 05 . 94 1. 20
Canping Vehicle 101 -_.30 1.06 1.01
Train or 318 4 -31.52 -33.76 -39.41
Airplane or Boat 12 -7.35 -5.50 -5.60
Eta .18 .18 .21
dust of Accounodatios
nee-$25 129 -1 . 18 -1 . 91 -2 . 24
$26-$53 74 4.13 4.67 3.61
$54-$99 43 -2 . 49 -1 . 39 . 70
$100 or lbre 7 -6.52 -5.62 -1.11
Eta .10 .11 .09

 

132

acconnodations selected for finis vacation, wlen controlling for family
incone.
. Mode of transportation, travel party conposition, and
cost of accmmdatios significantly inpact fie
perceivedmanlevel of influencefielnusbandhason
fie type of accomodatios selected, wten controlling
for family incone.
y. Mode of transportation, travel party conposition, and
cost of aoconnodatios significantly inpact fie
perceivedmanlevel of influencefiewifehasonfie
type of aocomnodatios selected, wlen controlling for
family incone.
. Mode of transportation, travel party conposition, annd
cost of accouncdatios significantly inpact fine
perceivedmanlevel of influenoefiechildrenhaveon
fie type of aoconnnodatios selected, wlen controlling
for family incone.
Analysisofccvariancemscoductedfinreetimsinordertotest
hypothesis 1-5. 'nefactors consisted offieinfluencemdeof
trannqnortation, travel party oonposition annd fie cost of accomdatios
hadontheperoeivedmanlevel of influeneethel‘msbani, (nedel 1) the
wife, (model 2) andfiednildren, (model 3) hadonfievacetion
aocounodations selected. The covariate consisted of total family
incone.
All finree statistical mdelsproved to be significant in similar
ways. See Table 25. For‘all finree mdels, using fie perceived man
level of influence offielnsband (nedel 1), fiewife (nedel 2), and

133

 

Table 25. Annalysis of Covariance: Family Menders' Perceived Mean
Influence on Vacation Accomnodaticns Selected by Chet of
Acconnodatios, Mode of Transportation, and Travel Party

(Imposition Men Controlling for Family Ineone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Stms of Sqlare DF Mean Square F Ratio
Husband

Main Effects 13557.60 9 1506.40 2.53**
Cost of Accounodations 671.37 3 223.79 .37
Mode of Transportation 294.89 3 98.29 .16
Travel Party (Imposition 11843.64 3 3947.88 6.65***
Covariates 957 .24 1 957.24 1. 61
Wily Incone 957.24 1 957.24 1.61
Ebcplaired 14514 . 85 10 1451 . 48 2 . 44**
Ibsidual 134178 . 29 226 593 . 70

'Ibtal 148693 . 14 236 630 . 05

Wife

Main Effects 14260.36 9 1584.48 2.71**
Cost of Accamodations 259.79 3 86.59 .14
Made of Transportation 5719.18 3 1906.39 3.27*
Travel Party (Imposition 8291.58 3 2763.86 4.75**
Covariates 221 . 01 1 221 . 01 . 37
Family Innate 221.01 1 221.01 .37
Dtplaired 14481 . 38 10 1448 . 13 2 . 48**
Iaidual 131751 . 13 226 582 . 97

'Ibtal 146232.51 236 619.62

Children

Main Effects 5366.32 9 596.25 4.64***
Ccst of Accamndaticns 1286.11 3 428.70 3.33*
Mode of Transportation 663.35 3 221.11 1.72
Travel Party composition 3383.27 3 1127.75 8.78***
Covariates 3.25 1 3.25 .25
Family Incone 3.25 1 3.25 .25
Explained 5369 . 57 10 536 . 95 4 . 18***
Residual 29025 . 67 226 128 . 43

W 34395.24 236 145.74

 

***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.

 

134

dnildren (model 3), as fie dependent variable, fie main effects, fine
factor travel party composition and explained source of variation,
proved to be statistically significant. 'n'e main effects, using

fie criterion variable of fie husband's influence, wife's influence,
and children's influence, were significant at p<.01, p<.01 annd p<.001
levels, respectively. Travel party oonposition was shown to be
significant at fie p<. 001 level wl'en fie criterion variable cosisted
offieperceivedmaninflnenceoffiehusbandanrifiednildren.
Travel party corposition was significannt at fie p<.01 level wlen fine
criterion variable consisted of fie perceived man influence of the
wife on fie vacation aocomnodatios selected. 'n'e main effects of fie
mdelwhidnanalyzedfieperoeivedmaninflnenceoffiemnsbarflanc
wife were significannt at p<.Ol. ms: fie criterion variable oosisted
offieperoeivedmaninfluenceoffiednildrenonfinisvacation
decision, fie main effects were significannt at p<.001. Based upon fie
significant results, support for fie alternate Hypothesis 1—5 is
providedinrelationtomdel 1, model 2 andmodel 3.

'Be mltiple classification analysis revealed differences between
unadjusted, adjusted deviation for factors and adjusted deviation
scoresforccvariatesinrelationtofieperceivedinfltenceoffie
husband on fie accounodatios selected. See Table 26. Wten fie single
parents traveling with dnildren (SKIES) are considered, fie effect of
fiefactorincreasedasfieofierfactorsareadjustedfor. This
inereasecontinedwhenfieocvariatewasadjustedfor. Henfie
factors annd oovariates were unadjusted, single adults traveling with
dnildrenperceivedfietmsbandashavingonerted833percentinfltenee
onfievacationdecision, 39.89peroenntlowerfinanfiegrardman

135

 

Table 26. multiple Classification Analysis of Hypcfiesis 1-5: Perceived
InfluenceoffineHusbandonAccomedatiosSelectedbyfie
Cost of Accomdatios, Mode of Transportation annd Travel
Party Corposition Men Controlling for Family Incone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adjnsted De—
Adjusted viation for
Unadjusted Deviation Factors annd
N Deviation for Factors Covariates
Grand man 48.22%
untiple R-square .09
Mode of Transportation
Wile 127 -l. 37 -. 90 -. 82
carping Vehicle 94 1.60 1.11 1.05
Train or his 5 -3.22 -4.23 -1.54
Airplane or Boat 11 3.59 2.76 1.24
Eta .07 .05 .04
Travel Party (Imposition
commas 109 1.50 1.28 1.24
<1ch 120 1.23 1.38 1.27
SKIIB 6 -39 . 89 -38 . 77 -36 . 53
SPHESEX 2 -35. 72 -35. 76 -40. 15
Eta .29 .28 .28
(bet of Accomcdatios
Bree-$25 125 .60 -.08 .26
$26-$53 67 1 . 22 1 . 86 1 . 88
$54-$99 37 -4.90 -3.46 -4.26
$100 or More 8 3.03 1.65 -.01
Eta .09 .07 .08
Table Key:

MES-mles, traveling together.

Clam—Combs, traveling wifin dnildren.

Slam—Single adult, traveling with children.
SAMESEJP-Same self adults traveling togefier.

 

136

(48.22 percent). Hen adjusting for fie factors, fie husband was
perceivedashavingeaertedSASperoentinfluenceonfievacation
decision. the: controlling for fie covariate, single adults traveling
wifin children (SKIIB) perceived fie husband as having exerted 11.69
percentinfluenceonfiedecision, a 36.53 decrease fronfiegranndman
(48.22%).

muefactorsandcovariatesweremadjusted,ardthe
resporientscosistedofsamesexadultstravelingtogefier,fie
tmsbandwasperoeivedashavingeertedlLSOperoentinflueeeonfie
vamtion decision, 35.72 percent lower finan fie grand man (48.22
percent). then controlling for fie covariates, in fie category sane
sexadultstravelingtogefier, fiehusbaniwasperoeivedasexerting
8.07 percent influeee on fie decision, 40.15 percent less finan fie
grannd man.

Mnenfie factorsandcovariateswereunadjusted, infiecategory
single adults traveling with children, fie wife was perceived as having
15.62 percent influence on fie vacation decision, 29.69 percent lower
finan fie grannd man (45.31 percent). See Table 27. men controlling
for fie factor, fie perceived influeee of fie wife inncreased slightly
to 16.96 percent. Adjusting for fie ccvariates in fie category single
adults traveling with children, fie wife was peoeived as having
exerted 18.11 percent influence on fie accounodatios selected, 27.20
percent lower than the grand mean.

‘Be nultiple classification annalysis also revealed finat when fie
factorsanricovariatesweremnadjustedinfiecategcryoftonrists
usingatrainorbus, fiewifevasperceivedashavingls.00percent
influenceonfieaoconnodatios selected. Wenadjusting forfie

137

 

Table 27 . nnltiple Classification Annalysis of Hypcfiesis 1-5: Perceived
Influence of fie Wife on Accommodations Selected by Cost of
Accomnodatios, made of Transportation and Travel Party
Couposition when Controlling for Family Incone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adjusted De—
Adjusted viation for
Unadjusted Deviation Factors and
N Deviation for Factors Covariates
Grand man 45.31%
Multiple R—square .099
Mode of Transportation
Autonobile 127 1.68 1.90 1.86
Chiming Vehicle 94 .06 -.47 -.44
Train or as 5 -30.31 -32.61 -33.90
Airplane or Boat 11 -6.22 -3.07 —2.34
Eta .19 .20 .21
Travel Party Conposition
CIIJPIIS 109 2.21 2.94 2.96
CKIIB 120 -3.78 -4.35 -4.35
SKIS 6 29.69 28.35 27.27
SAMESEX 2 17.19 15.53 17.74
Eta .24 .24 .24
Cost of Aoconnodations
Free-$25 125 .80 .85 .69
$26-$53 67 . 41 -. 57 -. 58
$54-$99 37 -1 . 74 - . 76 -. 38
$100 or Pbre 8 -7.81 -5.02 -4.23
Eta .07 .05 .04
Table Key:

MES-melee, traveling
(:KIm—Oonles, traveling wifin children.

SKIES—Single adult, traveling wifin dnildren.
Sam—Sam sex adults traveling togefier.

 

138

factors infiesanemtegoryofmdeof transportation, fiewifewas
perceived as having 12.70 percent influeee on fie vacation decision,
32.61 percent lower than fie grannd man (45.31). When controlling for
fie covariates, fie wife was perceived as having exerted 11.41 percent
influeee on fie vacation decision. 'nnis represented a 33.90 percent
decrease inperceived influence fronfiegrandman (45.31 percent).
mltiple classification analysis revealed a grannd man influence
dnildrenefertedonfieaccomcdatiosselectedwas3.50percent. See
Table 28. Men fie factors and covariate were nnot adjusted, in fie
travel party conposition single adults traveling wifin children, fie
dnildrenvereperceivedashavingenaertele.67peroentinflneneeon
fie accounodatios selected. Hen controlling for fie factors, in fie
sametravelpartyconposition, fieperoeived influencednildrenennerted
on finis decision decreased slightly to 16.27 percent, 12.77 percent
abovefiegrandman (3.50 percent). Mnenadjusting forfiecavariate,
this perceived influeee continued to decrease slightly to 16.13
percent.
Menfiefactorsandcovariateweremtadjustedinfiecategory
ofsamesexadultstravelingtogefier, dnildrenwereperceivedas
having enaerted 25.00 percent influeee on fie accomdatios selected,
21.50 percent greater finan fie grannd man (3.50 percent). men
controlling for fie factors, in fie same travel party conposition, fie
peroeivedinflueeeeertedbyfiednfldrenrcseto26.17percent.
Hnenfiecovariatewasadjusted, fieperceived innfluenceexertedbyfie
,dnildren increased to 26.42 percent, 22.92 percent higer finan fie

grand man (3.50 percent). See Table 28.

139

 

Table 28 . mltiple Classifiation Analysis of Hypcfiesis 1—5: Paroeived
InfluenceoffiednildrenonAccomnodatiosSelectedbyCost
of Acconmodatios, Mode of Transportation annd Travel Party
Conposition men Controlling for Family Incone

 

Adjusted De-
Adjusted viation for
Unadjusted Deviation Factors annd

N Deviation for Factors Covariates

 

Grand man 3.50%
Multiple R—square .156

 

Mode of Transportation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autonfinile 127 .27 -.85 -.86
Canping Vehicle 94 .24 1.95 1.95
Train or 3.18 5 -3.50 -1.88 2.04
Airplane or Boat 11 -3.50 -5.94 -5.85
Eta .08 .16 .16
Travel Party Ccmposition

(IIIPLES 109 -3.50 -3.21 -3.21
cncns 120 2.16 1.90 1.90
SKIIB 6 13.17 12.77 12.63
SAMBEX 2 21.50 22.67 22.92
Eta .33 .32 .32
Cost of Accounodatios

Free-$25 125 -.83 -1.71 -1.73
$26-$53 67 -1 . 66 -. 20 -. 20
$54-$99 37 4.15 4.28 4.32
$100 or More 8 7.75 8.62 8.71
Eta .20 .22 .22

Table Key:

(IIJPIES—Conples, traveling

Clam—Couples, traveling wifin children.
Slam—Single adult, traveling wifin children.
W—éam sex adults traveling togefier.

 

140

Significant differences were identified in relation to fie cost of
acconmdatiosandfieperoeived influenceoffiechildrenonfie
acconmdations selected. Henfiefactorsandccvariateswerenot
adjustedforinfiecategoryofresporientswlnopaid$100ormoreper
day onacconnnodatios, dnildrenwereperoeivedashavingeaerted 11.25
percent influence on fie vacation decision, 7.75 percent greater finan
fie grand man (3.50 percent). Wen controlling for fie factors, in
finis sanne category, children's influeee was perceived as having
inncreasedto12.12peroent. unenadjustingforfineccvariateinfie
categoryofresporientswhopaidSlOOormreperdayon
accommodations, the perceived influence of children on fie
acconnodatios selectedrcseto12.21peroent, 8.71percenthigherthan

fiegranndman.

We
Travel party conpcsition, information used in vacation decision-

making, annd fie purpose of visiting fie resort area significantly
inpactfieperceivedmanlevel of influence familymenbershaveonfie
decision concerning fie type of activities to participate in while on
vacation, when controlling for family incoe annd fie legth of days
spent in fie area.
. Travel party conposition, information used in vacation

decision-making, and fie purpose of visiting fie

resort area significantly inpact fie perceived man

level of influencefiehusbanndhasonfiedecision

concerning fie type of activities to participate in

while on vacation, when controlling for family incone

andfielegfinofdaysspentinfiearea.

141

. Travel party conposition, information used in vacation
decision-mung, annd fie purpose of visiting fie

resort area significantly inpact fie perceived man

level of inflLencefiewifehasonfiedecisioncon-

cerning fie type of activities to participate in while

on vacation, wlen controlling for family innconne annd

fielegthofdaysspentinfiearea.

. Travel party conposition, information used in vacation
decision-making, annd fie purpose of visiting fie

resort area significanntly inpact fie perceived man

level of influencefiechildrenhaveonfiedecision

concerning fie type of activities to participate in

while on vacation, wl'en controlling for family inncone

andfielengfinofdaysspentinfiearea.

AnnalysisofCovariance (ANMDVA)wasconductedfinreetimsin
order to test Hypcfinesis 1-6. ‘ne criterion variable cosisted of fie
perceivedman inflnence of fiehusband (nedel 1), wife (nedel 2), and
dnildren (model 3), on fie vacation activity decision. 'ne factors
cosisted of fie travel party conposition, source of information annd
fiepurpose forvisitingfinisresortarea. 'necovariates cosisted of
totalfamilyinconeandfielengfinofdaysspentinfiearea.

Usingfieperceivedmanlevel of influenceoffiehnsbanriasfie
criterion variable, fie min effects proved to be significant at fie
p<.001 level. See Table 29. ‘Be factors, travel party conposition annd
fiemstiuportantreasonforvisitingfinistolristarea, werealso
significant (p<.001) . Wifin an F value of 6.16, fie explained source of

142

 

Table 29. Analysis of Covariance: Fannily Menbers' Pecaived Mean
Influence on fie Decision Concerning fie Vacation Activities
Participated in by Reason for Visiting this Resort Travel
Party Conpcsition, annd Use of Friends annd fie Michigan
Travel mreau as an Information Source, mile Controlling

for Family Incone and Iegfin of Visit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Suns of Sqnare DF Mean Square F Ratio
Husband

Main Effects 197295.87 8 2466.23 7.63***
Reason for Visiting 7355.62 3 2451.87 7.59***
Travel Party (Imposition 10999.84 3 3666.61 11. 35***
Information fron Frieris 5.99 1 5.99 . 01
Information fran State 464.22 1 464.22 1.43
Covariates 173 . 98 2 86 . 99 . 26
Family Incone 165.58 1 165.58 .51
length of Visit 5.76 1 5.76 .01
Emlained 19903 . 85 10 1990 . 38 6 . 16***
Imidual 72971 . 82 226 322 . 88

'Ibtal 92875 . 67 236 393 . 54

Wife

min Effects 7222.90 8 902.86 3.26**
mason for Visiting 3064.91 3 1021. 63 3 .684**
Travel Party Conpcsition 3876.80 3 1292.26 4 . 66**
Information flan Friends 108.41 1 108.41 . 39
Information fron State 163 . 87 1 163 . 87 . 59
(bvariates 131.70 2 65.85 .23
Family Incone 19.70 1 19.70 .07
legth of Visit 115.47 1 115.47 .41
Diplaired 7354.60 10 735.46 2.65**
Residual 62584 . 59 226 276 . 92

Total 69939 . 19 236 296 . 35

Children

Main Effects 19042.11 8 2380.26 7.52***
Reason for Visiting 857.72 3 285.90 .90
Travel Party Couposition 16965. 03 3 5655. 01 17 .86***
Information fron Friends 1.50 1 1.50 .00
Information fron State 647.16 1 647.16 2.04
Ccvariates 665.84 2 332.92 1.05
Family Inncone 643.72 1 643.72 2.03
Iengfin of Visit 13.87 1 13.87 .04
ExplairHl 19707.96 10 1970.79 6.22***
Ihsidtnl 71524 . 31 226 316 . 47

'Ibtal 91232 . 27 236 386 . 57

 

 

143

variation was significant at p<.001 level. 'ne factors as well as fie
useof friedsandfietravelbureauassouroesof infamtionwasnot
significant.

untiple classification analysis revealed significant differences
within categories wlen controlling for fie factors and ccvariates. See
Table 30. Menfie factorconsisted offiereasonforthistrip, fie
mnadjustedscoreforfiecategoryrespodentstravelingonbusinessas
havingperceivedfiemsbandashavingenerted7o.28percentinflnence
on fie vacation activities selected, 25.14 percent greater finan fie
grand man (45.14 percent). When fie factors were adjusted for, fie
respodentsperoeivedfiehusbandashavingexerted69.17percentof
fie influence on fie vacation activities selected. then fie covariate:
hereadjustedfor,fieperceivedinnflueeeoffietnsbandonfie
vacation activities decreased to 68.54 percent, 23.40 percent above fie
grand man (45.14 percent).

Wnenfiefactorsandccvariateswereunadjusted, for fietravel
party conposition category of single adult traveling with children, fie
husbandwasperoeivedashaving 12.5percentinfluenceonfievacation
decision, 32.64 percent below fie grand man. then adjusting for fie
factors, fie perceived influence increased slightly, to 13.23 percent.
‘neperceived inflnenncecontinedtoinncreaseto14.28percentdenfie
covariateswereadjusted for, honeverfinislevel of influencewasstill
significantly below fie grand man (45.14 percent).

Hnenfiefactorsandccvariatesweremnadjusted, andfietravel
partyconpositioncosistedofsamesexaonltstravelingtogefier, fie
msbandvasperceivedashavingenaertedzspercentinfluencecnfie
vacation decision, 20.14 percent lower finan fie grand man (45.14

144

 

Table 30. mltiple Classification Annalysis of Hypofiesis 1—6: Perceived
Influence of fie Husband on fie Vacation Activities selected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adjusted De-
Adjnsted viation for
Unadjusted Deviation Factors and
N Deviation for Factors Ccvariates
Grand man 45.14%
unltiple R—square .214
Reason for Trip
Visit Friends 33 3.20 2.74 2.92
Easiness 11 25 . 14 24 . 03 23 . 40
Personal Pleasure 178 -1.80 -1.57 1.58
Destination Route 15 -4.14 -4.98 -4.84
Eta .30 .28 .28
Travel Party Conposition
CUJPIES 106 6.47 6.28 6.36
CKIIB 125 -4.12 -3.99 -4.06
SKIIB 4 -32 . 64 -31 . 91 -30 . 86
SAMESEX 2 -20.14 -l9.84 -21.69
Eta . .35 .34 .35
Information Fron Frieds
Did Not Use This Source 142 -.63 -.13 -.14
Used 'Ihis Solrce 95 .94 .20 .01
Eta .04 .01 .01
Informtion fron fie State
of Michigan Travel Bureau
Did Not Use 'Ihis Sartre 190 .93 .71 .70
Used This Source 47 -3.75 -2.86 -2.84

 

Table Key.

(nJPIES—Conplw traveling

Clam—Couples traveling with children.

Slam—Single adult traveling with children.
SAMESEt—Same sen adults traveling togefier.

 

145

percent). Renfiefactorswereadjusted forincategoryofsamsex
adults travelingtogefier, fiehusbandwasperceivedashavingexerted
25.30 percent influence on fie vacation activities selected. When
controlling forfieccvariatesinfiesametravelpartyconposition
category,fiehusbandwasperceivedasenertedfieleastamonntof
influence, 23.45 percent, 21.69 percent below fie grand man (45.14
percent).

Analysis of Covariancewascoducted, usingfieperoeivedman
level of influence of fie wife on vacation activities as fie criterion
variable. 'ne factors cosisted of reason for visiting finis area,
travel party conposition, innformation fron friends, and information for
fiestate. 'lheccvariates includedtctal familyinnconeandlegthof
visit. 'Ite main effects in the model proved to be significannt at
p<.01. 'ne factors reason for visiting this area and fie travel party
conposition were significant p<.o1. 'ne ccvariates did not prove to be
significant.

Multiple classification analysis revealed significant
differencesinrespodentsperceived innfluenceoffiewifeonfie
vacation activities selected. See Table 31. Hen fie factors and
covariateswereunadjnsted forfiecategoryoffiereasonforfietrip
cosisted of business, fie wife was perceived as having exerted 29.63
percent innfluence on fie vacation activities selected, 15.88 percent
below fie grand man (45.51 percent). 'ne perceived influeee
increased slightly as fie factors and ccvariates were adjusted for.
finenfiefactorswereadjustedforandfiecntegoryofreasonforfie
tripcosistedofhnsiness, fiewifewasperceivedashavingecerted
29.97 percent influeee. Controlling for fie covariates in fie same

146

 

Table 31. unltiple Classification Analysis of Hypofinesis 1—6: mrceived
Influence of fie Wife on fie Vaoation Activities Participated
inbyReasonfchisitingfinisRescrt, Travel Party
Conpcsition, annd Use of Friends annd fie Michigan Travel
Bureau as an Information Source, While Controlling for Family
Innate annd Length of Visit

 

Adjusted De-
Adjusted viation for
Unadjneted Deviation Factors annd

N Deviation for Factors Covariates

 

Grand mean 45.51%
mltiple R-square .105

 

Reason for Trip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit Frienfls 33 -.39 -1.18 -1.45
Disiness 11 -15.88 -15.54 -15.74
Personal Pleasure 178 .79 .83 .87
Destination Route 15 3.15 4.14 4.42
Eta .21 .21 .21
Travel Party (Imposition

(IIJPIIS 106 3.05 3.10 3.05
(ICES 125 -3.15 -3.16 -3.13
SKIIB 4 19.99 19.76 20.33
SAMESEX 2 -5.01 -6.32 -6.60
Eta .24 .24 .24
Information Fron Friends

Did Not Use This Source 142 -.44 -.56 -.60
Used 11115 Source 95 .65 .84 .90
Eta .03 .04 .04
Intonation from fie State

of Midnigan Travel Bureau

Did Not Use This Source 190 -.51 -.43 -.43
Used 'Ihis Soiree 47 2.06 1.70 1.73
Eta .06 .05 .05

 

Table Key:

anPIES—Oonples traveling tcgefier.

CKIIB—Conples traveling with children.
Slam—Single adult traveling wifin children.
MEX—8m sex adults traveling togetler.

 

147

category, fie wife was perceived as having exerted 29.77 percent
influence on fie vacation activities selected, 15.79 percent lower finan
fie grand mean (45.51 percent).

Rnenfiefactcrsandcovariatesveremadjustedinfiecategory
of a single adult traveling wifin onildren, fie wife was perceived as
having exerted 65.50 percent influence on fie vacation activities
selected, 19.99 percent higter finan fie grand mean (45.51 percent).
Wencontrclling fcrfie factors inthissamecategcry, fiewifewas
perceived as having enerted 65.27 percent influeee on fie vacation
decision. Adjusting for fie covariates in fie category of a single
adulttravelingwithchildren, fiewifewasperceivedashavingexerted
65.84 percent inflnence on fine vacation activities selected, 20.33
percent higher finan fie grand mean (45.51).

'ne finird Annalysis of Covariance statistical annalysis included fie
usecffieperceivedmeanlevel of influence childrenhaveonvaeaticn
activities as fie criterion variable. nearlts of fie analysis revealed
finat fie min effects were significant (p<.001) as was fie factor
travel party cotpcsition (p<.001). Wifin an F valne of 6.22, fie
explained source of variation was significannt at p<.001. Unlike fie
results described above, significant results were not identified
coeernningfierespodent'sncstinportanntreasonfcrvisitingfinis
tourist area. Similar to fie previoe annalyses, nnoe of fie covariates
proved to be significant.

Multiple classification analysis revealed finat fie effect of fine
factorsamesecadultstravelingtcgefierdiministedasfieofier
factors and covariates were adjusted for. See Table 32. 'Re
wnadjustedscorefcrfieoategcrysamesecadultstravelingtcgefier

148

 

Table 32 . mltiple Classification Analysis of Hypothesis 1-6: Perceived
Influence of fie Children on Vacation Activities Participated
inbyReasonfchisitingfinislesort, Travel Party
Conposition, and Use of Friends and fie Michigan Travel
Bireau as an Information Source, mile Controlling for Family
Inncone and Iengfin of Visit

 

Adjusted De-
Adjusted viation for
Unadjusted Deviation Factors and

N Deviation for Factors Covariates

 

Grand nean 10.20%
mltiple R-square .21

 

Reason for Trip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit Friends 33 -3.69 -2.47 -2.80
Personal Pleasure 178 .86 .54 .56
Destination Rate 15 3.13 3.53 3.22
Eta .12 .10 .09
Travel Party Conposition

CIIJPLES 106 -9.26 -9.14 -9.28
QCIIB 125 6.94 6.84 6.97
SKIIB 4 14.80 14.76 12.68
SAMFSEX 2 27.30 27.09 30.71
Eta .44 .43 .44
Information Fronn Frieds

Did Not Use This Source 142 .36 .07 .09
Used 'nnis Source 95 -.54 -.10 -.14
Eta .02 .00 .01
Information fronn fie State

of Michigan Travel aireau

Did Not Use This Source 190 -.93 -.84 -.82
Used This Source 47 3.75 3.38 3.33
Eta .10 .09 .08

 

Table Key:

(unis—Couples traveling tcgefier.

Clam—Couples traveling wifin dnildren.
Slam—Single adult traveling with children.
SAm‘SEx—Sane set adults traveling tcgefier.

 

149

revealed finat children were perceived as having enerted 37.20 percent
influence on fie vacation decision, 27.30 percent higter finan fie grand
man (10.20 percent). Wen fie factors were adjusted for, fie
perceived man influence of fie dnildren on fie vacation activities
selected decreased slightly to 37.29 percent influence. Controlling
fcrfiecovariatesinfiecategorycfsanesexadultstraveling
tcgefier, fieperceivedmaninfluencecffiednildreninncreasedtc
40.91 percent, 30.71 percent influence higher than the grand man.

Wnenfiefactcrsandcovariateswereunadjustedinfiecategorycf
single adults traveng with children, fie dnildren were perceived as
having enerted 25.00 percent influence on fie vacation activities
selected, 14.80 percent higter finan fie grand man (10.20 percent).
Whenfiefactcrswerecontrclledfcrinfinissanetravelparty
conpcsition category, fie children were perceived as having exerted
24.80 percent influence on fie vacation decision. Adjusting for fie
covariate in fie category of single adults traveling wifin children,
fiednildrenwereperceivedashavingenertedzz.88percentinflnence
on fie vacation activities selected, 12.68 percent higter finan fie
grandman (10.20).

Significant results were identified wlen fie criterion variable
consistedcffieperceivedmaninfluencecffiemsband, wifeand
dnildren on fie vacation activities
participated in. As anon, support for fie alternate Hypofinesis 1-6 is
provided for all three models.

 

'nnroghontfietestingcffiehypofineses, fievariablesage,
educationandinconeareuseddirectlyinfieanalysesasabendmerk
for respodent's stage of fie family life cycle. As such, it is
inportannt to test for nulticcllinearity among the variables. To date,
Pearson Correlation Coefficients are fie only operational test for
nulticollinearity (Dillon & Goldstein, 1984) . Bren so, fie correlation
coefficients can only be used as a bendnmark for nulticollinearity.

Results of Pearson Correlation Coefficients on fie variables
respodennt's age, education and income are provided in Table 33. With
a correlation coefficient score of .389, education and inncone were
signifieanntly correlated (p<.001). ‘ Despite fie low coefficient score
of .080, inncone and age were also signnificanntly correlated (p<.05).
Education and age resulted in a correlation coefficient score of .031,
which did nnot prove to be significant.

A correlation coefficient score of . 60 or above is indicative of
highly correlated variables. Based on this informtion, fie
coefficients between age and education and between education and
inncone, fiecoefficiennt scoresarenotviededtobelargeenoghtc
indicate nulticollinearity.

BypofimisSetz
Incrdertctestfinesecodsetcfhypofineses,twcdifferent

statistical, yet related, analyses were coducted on each hypofinesis.
'Be first statistical analysis consisted of a Cneway Analysis of
Variance, using fie transformed categories of travel party conpcsiticn,
asfactcrs. 'nnisanalysiswascoductedfinreetimes, wterebyfie

151

Table 33. Poarson Correlation Coefficients: Total Family Incone,
lespodent's Age and Education

 

 

Variables Age nitration Incone
Age — .065 .080*
meation .065 -- .38***
Incone . 08* , 33*“ ...

 

dependent variable would consist of fie perceived influence of fie
husband (model 1), wife (nedel 2), and children (model 3), on fie
vacation decision.

De to fie fact finat, to date, family insane and educational
statusaremtdirectlyrelatedtcfiestagescffielifecycle, fie
sccicecononic variables are examined in a separate analysis. 'ne
secod set of annalyses cosisted of Annalysis cf Variannce (AW) using
familyincone, fierespodent'sageandeducationalstatusasfie
factors. AswasfiecesewifinfieoewayAnalysis chariance, fie
dependentvariableconsistedcffieperceived inflnencecffiehusband,
wife and dnildren on fie vacation decision.

W:

The transposed travel party conpcsition, family incone,
reqnodent's age and educational status significantly influence family
mnbers' perceivedmanlevel cf influenceonfiedecisiontctakea
vacation finis year.

. Transposed travel party conpcsition, family life
cycle, family incone, respodent's age and educational
status significanntly influence fie perceived man

152

level of influecefiehusbandexertedonfiedecision

to take a vacation this year.
. Transpoeed travel party conpcsition, family incone,

respondent's age and educational status significantly

influencefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

wifeexertedonfiedecisiontotakeavacationthis

year.

. Transposed travel party conpcsition, family incone,

respodent's age and educational status significantly

influencefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

childrenexertedonfiedecisiontotakeavacation

finis year.

aneway Analysis of Variance, using fie trannsformd travel party
conpcsition as fie factor was codncted. 'ne depedent variable
consistedoffieperceivedmanlevelofinflnenceoffiehusband
(mdel 1), fiewife (ncdel 2), andfiednildren (mdel 3), nedeonfie
decision to take a vacation finis year.

Results of fie nultiple aneway Annalysis of Variance statistical
annalyses indicated finat fie mdel was significannt when fie depedent
variable was fie perceived man level of fie husband's innfluece
(p<.01) and fie perceived man level of fie dnildren's influence
(p<.001) . See Table 34. Significant differeces between man values
were nct identified, tcwever, wlen fie depedent variable consisted of
fieperceivedmaninflueceoffiewifeonfiedecisiontotakea
vacation finis year.

Tukey's Post Hcc annalysis was conducted on fie two significant
models. This annalysis revealed finat, when fie depedent variable was

153

 

Table 34. Genny Analysis of Variance: Family Menbers' Perceived Mean
Influece on fie Decision to Vacation This Year by Travel

Party Conposition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source DF Sons of Square Mean Square F Ratio
Husband

Between Granps 3 7298.89 2432.96 4.79***
Within Gralps 216 109527.48 507.07

Total 219 116826.38

Wife

Between Groups 3 550.49 183.49 .37
Within Grarps ' 216 106459.43 492.86

Total 219 107009.92

Children

Between Grarps 3 7559.95 2519.31 7.14***
Within (31111;) 216 76157.88 352.58

Total 219 83715.83

 

***p<.001: **p<.01: *P<.os.

 

154

fieperceived influenceoffiehnebandonfiedecisiontotakea
vacation finis year, two group means were significantly different
(p<.05). See Table 35. See Table 36 for a sunmary chart of fie
perceived man valne of family renters on vacation decision-making, by
fie transformd travel party conposition. 'ne man valne of young male
and fenale couples traveling wificut children (YCQDC) (55.64 percent)
was significantly different fron fie man value of middle-aged couples
traveling wifin dnildren (more) (39.56 percent). It is inportaht to
nctefinatfieycungmaleand fenale couples travelingwifinout children
mayormaynothavednildrenathone. Resultsof‘mkey'sPcstHcc
analysis also revealed significant differences between fie perceived
man values of children's influece on fie decision to vacation finis
year. See Table 37. Significant differences between middle-aged
couples traveling wifin children MIC) (15.50 percent) and young
couples traveling wifincut children (YCQDC) man value (.000) were
identified (p<.05) . Middle-aged couples traveling with children
(MALWIC) man value was also significantly different fron finat of
elderly couples, traveling with or wifinout children (HEIRS) (4.61
PEI-mt) (SK-05)-

Using fie sccicecononnic variables age, incone and educational
state as fie independent variables, Annalysis of Variance was coducted
onfieperceivedmaninflueceoffiehusbandonfiedecisionto
vacationfinisyear. AnnalysisofVariancewasalsccoductedwtereby
fiedepedentvariable cosisted offieperceivedmaninfluece offie
wifeandfiednildrenonfiedecisiontovacetionfinisyear. SeeTable
38. Results of fie analysis revealed finat wlen fie dependent variable
consistedoffieperceivedmanlevel of inflnencecffiehusband

155

 

Table 35. 'mkey'sPcstHcc'Iest: PerceivedMeanIevelcf Influence of
fieI-lusbandonfieDecisiontoVacation'nnisYearbyfie

Trannspcsed Travel Party (Imposition.

 

 

Gronp Mean
Macwic 39.56 °
Elders 45. 19
chwic 45.94
chnncc 55. 64 .

 

i Denotes pairs of groups significanntly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

YCCNCC—Ycung couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifinout
dnildren.
YCCWIC—Young couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifin children.
MACHIC—Middle—aged couples, aged 35—64, traveling wifinont
children, single parents, aged 35-64, traveling with
children or middle-aged couples traveling wifin dnildren.
Elm—Elderly persoe, aged 65 and older.

156

 

Table 36. Snmvary of Travel Party Conpcsition Group Mean Values of
Parceived Mean Influence of Family Dancers on Vacation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decisioe
Vacation Decisioe Hneband Wife Children
Accomcdations
YOCNOC 52.69 44.74 0.00
YOGvIC 47.84 42.38 4.49
MALWIC 46.65 42.38 7.40
m 45.76 42.69 0.00
length of Vacation

' mono 57.94 42.05 0.00
YOCWIC 55.17 34.05 9.05
MIC 53.09 37.09 8.73
m 52.00 40.00 0.00

Take a Vacation This Year
YOCNOC 55.64 44.35 0.00
YOCNIC 45.94 44.08 9.93
MIC 37.90 42.64 16.32
m 45.15 46.34 4.61
Vacation angst
YOODC 56.02 43.97 0.00
YOOVIC 57.67 39.22 1.37
MIC 51.26 42.31 3.37
norm 55.76 36.53 0.00
Table Key:

mono—Yam; couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifincut children.
YCCWIC—Ycung conples, aged 34 and under, traveling with children.
MIC—Middle-aged couples, aged 35-64, traveling wifinout dnildren,

single parents, aged 35-64, traveling wifin children or middle-
aged couples traveling wifin dnildren.
Elm—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

 

157

 

Table 36 (Cont'd) .

 

Vacation Decisioe Husband Wife Children

 

Vacation Activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W 52.05 47.94 0.00
YOGVIC 40.17 42.50 15.49
MIC 39.80 38.85 18.20
moans 52.05 47.95 0.00
Visit This msor't Area
W 56.38 43.61 0.00
YOCWIC 43.92 44.00 8.56
MIC 40.09 42.21 16.56
m 50.00 38.46 0.00
Vacation This Sumner
W 55.89 44.10 0.00
YOGVIC 44.84 41.91 13.21
MIC 38.24 39.31 19.26
some 42.40 43.20 6.40
Wen to Vacation
YOGDC 56.66 43.33 0.00
MIC 50.46 41.31 8.20
MIC 45 . 89 35 . 91 17 . 10
m 49.23 41.53 6.15
Table Key:

YCODC—Ycung couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifincut dnildren.
YCCWIC—Yong couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifin dnildren.
mane—Middle-aged couples, aged 35-64, traveling wifinout children,

single parents, aged 35-64, traveling wifin children or middle-
aged couples traveling with children.
HEIRS—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

 

 

Table 37. 'I'ukey'sPcstHoc'IVest: PorceivedMeanIevelof Influence of
OnildrenonfieDecisiontoVacation'nnisYearbyfie

Transposed Travel Party Conposition.

 

 

Gronp Mean
Ycocc 0.00 ' _
mm 4.61
chwic 9.93 I
Macwic 15,50 . .

 

jDenotes pairs of groups significanntly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

WYQJIIJ couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifincut
children.

YCCWIC—Ycung couples, aged 34 and under, traveling with dnildren.

MIC—Middle-aged couples, aged 35-64, traveling wifinont
children, single parents, aged 35-64, traveling with
children or middle-aged conples traveling wifin children.

HEIRS—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

159

 

Table 38. Analysis of Variance: Fannily Henbers' cheived Mean
Influence on fie Decision to Vacation This Year by Age,
Education, Incole

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Sgnare DF Mean Square F Ratio
Husband

Main Effects 6713 . 28 9 745. 92 1 . 41
Age 2746. 32 2 1372 . 16 2 . 59
flirtation 2205. 73 3 735 . 24 1 . 39
Innate 1629 . 43 4 407 . 35 . 77
Explained 6713 . 28 9 745 . 92 1 . 41
Residual 150634 . 05 285 528 . 54

Total 157347 . 36 294 535 . 19

Wife

Main Effects 6540. 33 9 726. 70 1. 51
figs 574 . 51 2 287 . 25 . 60
Education 3387 . 24 3 1129 . 08 2 . 35
Innate 2717.26 4 679.31 1.41
Ebcplained 6540. 33 9 726 . 70 l. 51
lhsidual 116428 . 56 285 478 . 69

'Ibtal 142968 . 90 294 486 . 28

Children

Main Effects 6468 . 83 9 718 . 75 1. 93*
Age 2098.54 2 1049.27 2.82
Riucation 1485 . 42 3 495 . 14 1. 33
Incone 2969 . 89 4 742 . 47 1 . 99
Btplained 6468 . 83 9 718 . 75 1 . 93*
lasidual 105915. 62 285 371. 63

'Ibtal 11.2384 . 46 294 382 . 26

 

***p<.001; **p<.01;

*p<.05.

 

160

(mdel 1), and wife (mdel 2), on fie decision to vacation finis year,
the ncdels were not significant.
Usingfiemanperceivedinfluenceoffiednildrenasfie
depedentvariable, andage, educationandinnconeasfieindepedennt
variables, mdel proved to be significant. 'ne min effects, as well
as fie explained source of variation were significant at fie p<.05
level.
Wnenfiedepedentvariablecoeistedoffiemanperceived
influenceoffiehusbandonfiedecisiontovacationthisyearandfie
indepedentvariable cosisted offietransposedtravelparty
conpcsition, based upon fie stages of fie family life cycle, support
for fie alternate Hypofiesis 2-1 is provided. Tie socioecononic
variablesdidnctprovetobesignificanntonfieperceivedman
influeceonfiehusbandonthisdecision. Assuch,wlenfie
sccicecononic aspects of fie family are considered, support for fie
alternnate Hypothesis 2-1 is not provided.
Wnenfiedepedentvariableconsistedoffieperceivedman
influence of fie wife on this vacation decision, significant results
werenctidentified. Baseduponfieseresults,nosupportforfie
alternate Hypofinesis 2-1 is provided. Sumort for the alternate
Hypofiesis 2-1isprovidedwhenfiedenedentvariableconsistedoffie
perceivedmaninflnenceoffiednildrenonfiedecisiontovacation

thisyear.

W
The transposed travel party conposition, family incone,
respondent's age and educational status significantly influence family

161

nebers' perceivedmanlevel of influeceonfiedecisiontotakea
vacation finis sunmer.
. Tranepcsed travel party conposition, family incone,
respondent's age and sensational status significantly
influecefieperceivedmanlevel of inflnencefie
hebandeertedonfiedecisiontotakeavacation
.. Transpcsed travel party conpcsition, family incone,
respodent '3 age and educational status significantly
influencefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie
wifeenertedonfiedecisiontotakeavacationthis
summer.
. Transposed travel party conposition, family incone,
respodennt's age and educational status signific'enntly
influecefieperceivedmanlevel of innfluecefie
childrenenertedonfiedecisiontotakeavacation
finis simmer.
aneday Annalysis of Variance statistical annalysis resulted in two
significant mdels. See Table 39. Using fie perceived level of
innfluencecffiel'nebandonfiedecisiontovacationthissnmmerasfie
depedent variable, and fie transformd travel party conposition as fie
factor, fie model proved to be a significant (p<.01). 'mkey's Post Hcc
analysis was coducted to test for significant differeces between
group man values. See Table 40. Results of this annalysis revealed
finatfiemeanvalueoffiehusband's influenceofyoungcouples
traveling wifincut dnildren (YCQDC) (55.89 percent) was significanntly

162

 

Table 39. Chaney Annalysis of Variance: Family Henbers' Perceived Mean
Influence on fie Decision to Vacation This Sumner by Travel

Party (Imposition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sonrce DF Sims of Sgnare Dean Sgnare F Ratio
Husband

Between Gronps 3 7104.82 2368.27 4.20**
Within Grams 212 119343.83 562.94

Total 215 126448.66

Wife

Between Grants 3 1057.73 352.57 .67
Within Grams 212 110009.03 518.91

Total 215 111066.77

Children

Between Grunps 3 10004.97 3334.99 6.29***
Within Grcup 212 112333.62 529.87

Total 215 122338.59

 

***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.

 

163

 

Table 40. Tukey'sPcstHcc'Iest: Parceivedueanlevel of Inflnence of
fiemsbandonfieDecisiontoVacation'Bnisammrbyfie

Trannspcsed Travel Party (Imposition.

 

 

Gronp man
nacwic 40. 00
Elders 42 . 40
chwic 44 . 82
chncc 55.89 .

 

i Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

YCch—Ycung couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wificut
dnildren.
YCOIIC—Young couples, aged 34 and nnnder, traveling with children.
MACWIC—Middle-aged couples, aged 35-64, traveling wifinont
children, single parents, aged 35-64, traveling wifin
children or middle-aged couples traveling wifin children.

EIIERS—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

164

different finan fie man value of middle-aged conple traveling with
children (negro) (40.00 percent) (p<.05).

Usingfieperceivedinflueceofchildrenonfiedecisionto
vacation finis amner, Cneway Analysis of Variance revealed a
significant model (p<.000). Furfier analysis, using Tukey's Post Hcc
analysis, revealed significannt differences between young couple
traveling wifinont children (YOODC) (.000 percent) and middle-aged
couple traveling wifin or wifincut dnildren (MACWIC) (18.09 percent)
man values of children's influeee on fie decision to vacation finis
summer (p<.05). See Table 41. Significant differece (p<.05) were
also identified between young couple traveling wifinont children
(YCQDC) (0.00) and young couple traveling wifin children (YCGVIC)
(13.21). ‘

Cnenay Analysis of Variance, using fie perceived level of
influeee of fie wife on fie decision to vacation this
sunmer, didnnotprovetobe significant. ‘nemanvalues offie four
groups ranged fronn 41.91 percent to 44.10 percent.

Analysis ofVariancewascoductedonfieperceivedmaninflnence
of fannily manners, husband, wife and children, using scoicecononic
variables as fie independent variable. Using fie perceived man
influenceoffielnnsbandonfiedecisiontovacationfinissmnmerasfie
depedent variable, the main effects did not prove to be significant.
0f fie finree sccicecomic variable analyzed, ednmtioal status was
significant at p<.05 level. A positive relationship was identified
betweenfieiespodent'sedncatioalstafinsandfieperceivedman
level of influencefielmsbandeaertedonfiedecisiontovacationthis
stunner. 'ne ofier be variable, incone and age, were nnot significant.

165

 

Table 41. Tukey's Post Koo 'net: Perceived Mean Level of Influence of
fie Children an fie Decisim to Vaetian 'nnis Stunner.

 

 

Group Mean
Yocnoc 0.00 ‘ '
Elders 6.40 I
Yocwic 13.21 -
Mamie 18.09

 

iDenote pairs of groups significantly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

YOQnC—Yourg couple, aged 34 and under, traveling wifinout
children.

YOGVIC—Yonng couple, aged 34 and under, traveling wifin children.

MIC—Middle-aged couple, aged 35-64, traveling wifinout
children, single parents, aged 35-64, traveling with
children or middle-aged couple traveling with children.

HEIRS—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

166

'neexplainedsourceofvariatianalsodidmtprcvetobesignifient.
See'l‘ab1e42.

Analysis of Variance was conninncted, using fie perceived man
influenceoffiewifeonfiedecisientovacntionfinissnmerasfie
deperient variable. mnenfie independentvariable consisted of fie
resparlent's age, ednmtianal statusanrifannily incane, fiemdeldid
not prcve to be signifiennt.

Gantrarytofiereenltsdisanssedabove,wlenfieperceivedman
levelofinfluenceoffiechildrenanfiedecisicntovacaticnfinis
snnnnerwasusedasfiedependentvariable,reu1tsoffieanalysisof
variance stewed fie main effects to be significant (p<.05). ‘Ibtal
familyincaneprcvedtobeasignificant (p.05) variable infinismdel.
A negative relationship was identified between family innccne and fie
perceived influence of children on fie decision to vacation this
snmner. Age and educational stafinswere not significant.

axppoftforthealtenatenypothesisz-zispmvidedwhentne
depeflentvariableconsistedoffieperceivedmaninflneneeoffie
husband(mdell)anrifieperceivedmaninnfluenoeoffiednildr'en
(mde13)anfiedecisimtovacatianthissnmmranrifieinfleperient
variable consisted offietransposedtravelpartycmpositicn. Wten
fieinfleperienntvariablecmsistedoffietransposedtravelparty
canpositian and fie depe'dent variable consisted of fie perceived man
influence of fie wife (model 2) an fie decision to vacation this
simmer, no export forfie alternate Hypofineis 2-2 is provided.

Wnenfiedeperientvariablecansistedoffieperceivedlevelof
influenceoffiehusband (mde11)anfiedecisiantovacatimfinis

167

 

able 42. Analysis of Variance: Family tabers' Esrceived Mean
InfluecemfieDecisiantoVaetim'misSmmerbyAge,
niucatian, Incane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source anus of Square D!“ Mean Square F Ratio
unshanri
min Effects 8642 . 49 9 960 . 27 1 . 63
Age 1963.28 2 981.64 1.67
Fdlmticn 5779 . 27 3 1726 . 42 2 . 94*
Incane 1079 . 83 4 269 . 96 . 46
Biplained 8642 . 49 9 960 . 27 1 . 63
msidual 165245. 59 282 585. 98
10121 173889 . 08 291 597 . 55
Wife
Main Effects 5493 . 75 9 610. 41 1. 13
Age 180.94 2 90.47 .16
mum 2632 . 20 3 877 . 40 1. 63
Inccm 2640.72 4 660.18 1.22
Diplainal 5493 . 75 9 610 . 41 1 . 13
ksidual 151678 . 36 282 637 . 86
'Ibtal 157172 . 12 291 540. 11
Children
Main Effects 8955 . 24 9 995 . 02 2 . 00*
Age 1825 . 49 2 912 . 74 1 . 83
Mtim 2576 . 47 3 858 . 82 1. 72
Incane 4855.25 4 1213.81 2.44*
Explained 8955.24 9 995.02 2.00
midlal 140242 . 72 282 497 . 31
Ibtal 149197 . 97 291 512 . 70

 

***p<. 001; **p<.01; *p<.05.

 

168

amnmdthe independent variable consisted of education, support for
the alternate Hypofinesis 2-2 is prcvided. No sunport for fine
alternate Hypofineis 2-2 is provided when fie dependent variable
mistedoffieperceived level of influeceoffiewife (mdel 2) on
thedecisiantovacatimfinis sumerandfieinriependentvariable
consistedofage, educatimandincme. unenfinedepe‘dentvariable
mistedoffieperceivedlevel of innflueceoffiechildren(mdel 3)
mfiedecisicntovaetionfinissnmnerandfieindependertvariable
mistedoftravelpartycanpositian, and incmesurportforfie

alternate hypofineis 2-2 is provided.
W}

The transposed travel party canposition,
repaflent's age and educatianal stabns significantly influence family

family incane,

neces'perceivedmanlevelofinflnenceanfiedecisicncacerning

enactly when to take finis vacation.

. transposed travel party canpositian, family incane,
respaflent's age and educatimal status significantly
influencefieperceivedmanlevel of influencefie
husband exerted on fie decisian cacerning exactly
when to take finis vacatim.

. Transposed travel party canpositim, family incane,
W's age annd ednmtimal status significantly
influenoefieperceivedmanlevel of innfluecefie
wife exerted an fie decision cacerning exactly when
to take this vacation.

. Transposed travel party canpositian, family incane,

W's age and educational status signifiently

 

 

169

influecefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

childreneertedonfiedecisioncocerningenactly

when to take this vacation.

Oneay Analysis of Variance was oniucted three time, using
fieperceivedmanlevel of influence offiehusband, wifeandonildren
(depedent variable) on fie decision cocerning exactly wlen to take
thisvacationusingfietransformdtravelpartycmpositionasfie
independent variable. Only oe model proved to be signnificannt.

Mnenfiedeperientvariableconsisted offieperceivedmanlevel
of influecednildrenhadonfiedecisioncocernningwtentotakethis
vacation, fietraneposedtravelpartyconposition, asfieirdependent
variable, was significant (p<.001). See Table 43. 'Iukey's Post Hoc
analysiswasfiencorinctedinordertodeterminesignificant
differeceinmanlevelsbetweenfiefonrgronps. Resultsofthe
analysis reveled significant difference between fie man value of
young couple traveling wifinout onildren (YOCIDC) (1.28 percent) annd
middle-aged couple traveling with children MIC) (16.88 percent)
(p<.05). See Table 44.

No significant results were identified when fie dependent variable
wasfieperceivedmanlevelofinflueceoffiehusbandandfie
perceived man level of influece of fie wife on fie decision
cocemingenactlywhentotakethisvacation. 'nemanvalue forfie
perceived influeee of fie husband ranged fron 47.81 percent for
middle-aged couple traveling wifin children (realm) to 56.66 percent
for young couple traveling wificnnt children (M). 'De man value
for fie perceived influece of fie wife ranged fron 34.20 percent for

170

 

Table 43. oneway Analysis of Variance: Family Henbers' Perceived Mean
Influece offieDecisionunentoVacationbyTravel Party

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cunrcsition
Source DF Suns of Square Mean Square F Ratio
Husband
Between Grunps 3 2200.72 733.57 .79
Within Grunps 214 196808.30 919.66
Total 217 199009.03
Wife
Between Granps 3 3363.53 1121.17 1.45
Within Grcups 214 16517.74 771.83
Total 217 168536.27
Children
Between Graips 3 7981.96 2660.65 5.35***
Within Grunp 214 106400.52 497.19
Total 217 114382.49

 

***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.

 

171

 

Table 44. Tukey's Postnoc IBest: Perceiveduean Level of Influence of
Children on fie Decision Olen to Vacation by Transposed

Travel Party (imposition.

 

 

Grunp Mean

Yocwic 1.28
Elders 6.15
Yoocc 8.21

Macwic 16.88

 

iDecte pairs of groups significantly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

Sloane—Yong couple, aged 34 and under, traveling wifinonnt
children.
Sloane—Young couple, aged 34 and under, traveling wifin children.
MIC-middle—aged couple, aged 35-64, traveling wificnnt
children, single parents, aged 35—64, traveling with
children or middle-aged couple traveling with children.

Elm—Elderly persons, aged 65 annd older.

172

midile-aged couple traveling wifin children MIC) to 43.33 percent
for yang canple traveling wifinant children (W) .

Analysis ofVariancewascoriuctedonfieperceivedmanlevel of
influeceoffiefamilymnbers, onfiedecisioncocerningwhento
take finis vacation, socioecononnic variable were as fie independent
variables. Reults offieanalysis revealedfinatfiemdeldidnct
prove to be significant wren fie dependent variable consisted of fine
perceivedmaninflueceoffiehusbanrionfiedecisiancocerningwhen
to take finis vacation. See Table 45.

Unlikefieresultsdisanssedabove, fieinndependentvariable
education proved to be significant (p<.05) when the depedent variable
consisted offieperceivedmaninfluece offiewifeonfiedecision
cocerning wten to take this vacation. Respo'dent's educational level
was negatively related to fie perceived level of influence fie wife
enertedonwhentovacation. Similartofieresultsoffieperceived
innflueceoffiehusband, fierenainderoffiemdeldidnctprcveto
be significant.

Analysis of Variance statistical analysis proved to be significant
inseveralways forfienncdelusingfieperceived influeceofdnildren
onfiedecisioncocernningwhentotakefinisvacation. lbsnnltsoffie
analysisrevealedfinatfiennaineffectsandfieefplairedsanrceof
variation were signnificant at p<.01 level. 'n'e independent variable
age annd incone were also provenn to be significant (p<.05) . Respondent's
age was positively related wifin fie perceived man level of influence
children exerted on when to vacation. W's edncational level
was negatively related wifin fie perceived man level of influece
children exerted on finis vacation decision.

173

 

Table 45. Analysis of Variance: Family Hennbers' Perceived Mean
InfluenceonfieDecisionOocerninngactlyWento
Vacation by Age, Ednxation, Incone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sanrce aims of Square DF Mean Salare F Ratio
Husband

Main Effects 11038 . 85 9 1226. 54 1. 43
Age 1274 . 99 2 637 . 49 . 747
Ethica‘tim 5930 . 08 3 976 . 69 2 . 30
Inocne 3946.72 4 986.68 1.15
Etplain'ed 11038 . 85 9 1226 . 54 1 . 43
Residual 243140 . 55 284 856 . 12

M 254179 . 41 293 857 . 50

Wife

min Effects 9220. 43 9 1023 . 49 1. 31
Me 366 . 64 2 183 . 32 . 23
filtration 6367 . 28 3 2122 . 42 2 . 72*
Income 2497 . 31 4 624 . 33 . 80
Diplaired 9220 . 43 9 1024 . 49 1. 31
lbsidual 221569 . 60 284 780 . 17

'Ibtal 230790 . 04 293 787 . 67

Children

Main Effects 9570.04 9 1063.33 2 .63*
Age 2661. 71 2 1330. 85 3 . 29*
fixation 2347 . 35 3 782 . 45 1. 93
Income 4763 . 58 4 1190. 89 2 . 94*
Biplained 9570. 04 9 1063 . 33 2 . 63**
Reidual 114838 . 58 284 404 . 36

'Ibtal 124408 . 62 293 424 . 60

 

***p<.001; **p<.01;

*p<.05.

 

174

Nosupport forfiealter'nateHypofineis 2-3 isprovidedwtenfie
dependentvariable consistedoffieperceivedmaninnflueceoffie
husbandancdel 1)onfiedecisioncocerningwtnentotakefinis
vacation. when fie dependent variable consisted of fie perceived man
influence of fie wife (mdel 2) on this vacation decision, annd fine
independent variable consisted of fie respondent's educatioal level,
support for fie alternate Hypofiesis 2-3 is prcvided. Wifin the
eccetion of fie independent variable reqnondent's education, support
forfiealternateHypofineis 2-3isprovidedwlnenfiedependent
variableconsists offieperceivedmaninflueceoffiechildrenon
finis vacation decision.

W2:

The transposed travel party canposition, family incone,
respondent's age and educatioal stacns significantly influece family
menbers' perceived man level of influence on fie decision cocerning
fie legfin of finis vacation.

. Transposed travel party conposition, family incone,

repondent's age and educational status significantly

influecefieperceivedmanlevel of innfluecefiehusband

enertedonfiedecisioncocemingfielegthofthisvacation.
. Transposed travel party conposition, family incone,

respodennt's age and educational status signnificanntly

influecefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

wifeeertedonfiedecisioncocemingfielegfinof

this vacation.

. Transpoeed travel party conposition, family incone,
respo'dent's age and educatioal status significantly

175

influecefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

dnildrenennertedonfiedecisioncocemingfielegfin

of finis vacation.

Results of fie aneuay Analysis of Variance revealed fiat oe of
fie finree models were significant. Using fie perceived man level of
influeceoffiednildrenonfiedecisioncocerningfielegfinoffine
vacationefiedependentvariable, andfietransposedtravelparty
conposition as fie independent variable, signnificannt rents were
identified (p<.01). See Table 46. 'Innkey's Post Hoc analysis furfiner
revealed fiat nc two granps wifininn this model were signnificanntly
different. Additioal Oneway Analysis of Variance statistical
analyse, usingfieperceivedmanlevel ofinflueceoffiehusband
anndfieperceivedmanlevel of‘influeceoffiewifeasdependent
variable, did not prove to be significant.

AnalysisofVariancewasconductedfinreetinne, inorderto
evaluate fie significance of fie socioecononic variable on fie
perceivedman influeceof familymencersonfiedecisioncocernnirg
fie legth of fie vacation. Reults of fie analysis revealed fiat wren
fie dependent variable consisted of fie perceived level of influeee of
fiehusbandanndfieperceivedmanlevel of influeceoffiednildren
on fie legfin of fie vacation, fie models were not significant. See
Table 47.

Whenfiedepe'dentvariableconsisted offieperceivedmanlevel
of influece exerted by fie wife, only fie inndepe'dent variable
education proved to be significant (p<.05) . Similar to fie previans
results, fie main effects and explained sanrce of variation did nct
prove to be significannt.

176

 

Table 46. (reway Analysis of Variance: Family Menbers' Perceived Mean
InflueceanfielegthoffieVacationbyTravelParty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Imposition
Sanrce DF 3.1m of Square Mean Sqnare F mtio
Husband
Between Granps 3 1014.64 338.21 .388
Within 61111138 215 187311.30 871.21
‘Ib‘tal 218 188325.95
Wife
Between Gralps 3 2165.49 721.82 .18
Within Grange 215 131862.66 613.31
Total 218 13402.15
Children
Between Granps 3 3748.56 1249.52 3.52**
Within Granp 215 76291.36 354.84
'Ibtal 218 80039.92

 

***p<.001: **p<.01: *p<.05.

 

177

 

Table 47. Analysis of Variance: Family Menbers' Perceived Mean
Influence on the Length.of the‘vacaticnnby Age, Education,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incone
Salrce anus of Sanare DF Mean Saare F Ratio
nebanc
Main Effects 8981.80 9 997.97 1. 33
Age 629.20 2 314.60 .41
nitration 4300.90 3 1433.63 1.91
Incam 4078 . 54 4 1019 . 63 l . 36
Ecplained 8981 . 80 9 997 . 97 1 . 33
msidual 213743 . 22 285 749 . 97
'Ibftal 222725 . 03 294 757 . 56
Wife
Main Effects 7615 . 28 9 846 . 14 1 . 23
Age 407.01 2 203.50 .29
Eflucatim 5147 . 01 3 1715 . 67 2 . 50*
Incane 2205 . 12 4 551 . 28 . 80
Biplanined 7615 . 28 9 846 . 14 l . 23
Residual 195256 . 44 285 685 . 11
Total 202871 . 72 294 690 . 04
Children
Main Effects 2957 . 62 9 328 . 62 1 . 04
Age 1052.53 2 526.26 1.67
Width 334 . 26 3 11 . 42 . 35
Incale 1928 . 32 4 482 . 08 1 . 53
Biplained 2957 . 62 9 328 . 62 1 . 04
Residual 89810 . 03 285 315 . 12
'Ibtal 92767 . 66 294 315 . 53

 

***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.

 

178

Noamortforthealtematenypounesiszqisprovidedmenthe
deecentvariableconsistedoffieperceivedmaninflueceoffie
husband(mdell)onfielegthofthisvacation. Wenfieindepecent
variable consists of the respo'dent's education, and fie dependent
variable consists of fie perceived man influece of fie wife (mdel 2)
on finis vacation decision, sunport for fie alternate Hypofiesis 2-4 is
provided. airportforfiealternate Hypofineis 2-4isprovidedwhen
fiedependentvariableconsistsoffieperceivedmaninnflueceoffie
dnildren (mdel 3) onfinisvacationdecisionanrlfieindependent
variable cosisted of travel party conposition.

W25
The transposed travel party conposition, family incone,
respondent's age annd educatioal status significanntly influece family
menbers' perceivedmanlevel of influeceonfievacationbudget.
. Transposed travel party conposition, family incone,
respondent's age annd educatioal status signnificantly
influecefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie
husband exerted on fie vacation budget decision.
. ‘Itanspoeed travel party exposition, family incone,
respondent's age annd educational status significanntly
innfluecefieperceivedmanlevel of innfluecefie
wife enerted on fie vacation budget decision.
. Transposed travel party conposition, family incone,
we age and educatioal status signifienntly
influecefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie
children exerted on fie vacation budget decision.

179

aneay Analysis of Variance was conducted nultiple time, using
fie transformd travel party exposition as fie independent variable
anndfieperceivedmeanlevel of influeceoffiel'nnsbanri, wifeannd
children as fie depe'dent variable. lesults of fie statistical
analyse did not prove to be significant for any of fie three mdels.
See Table 48.

Using socioecononic variable as fie independent variable and fie
perceivedmanlevel of influeceof familymenbesonfievacation
budget as fie dependent variable, Analysis of Variance statistical
analysiswasconducted. Conductedfinreetims, resultsoffieanalysis
varied by fie dependent variable used. See Table 49.

Analysis offiemdelrevealedsinnilarresultswhenfiedepe'dent
variable for fie finree analyse consisted perceived man influence of
fiehusbannd, wifeanddnildrenonfievacationbudget. Noeoffie
three mdels revealed significannt results of fie nain effects,
socioecononic variable or explained sanrce of variation. As such, nc
sunportforfiealternateI-IypofineisZ-Sisprcvidedforallfinree
mdels.

mate

The transposed travel party conposition, family incone,
respondent's age and educational status significantly influence family
renters ' perceived man level of influeee on fie vacation activitie
decided upon.

. Transposed travel party ccnposition, family incone,

reeocent's age and educatioal status significantly

influecefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

husband exerted on fie vacation activitie decided upon.

180

 

Table 48. (runway Analysis of Variance: Family Menbers' Perceived Mean
InflnenceonfieVacationacgetbyTravelPartyConposition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source DF Sums of Square Mean Sgnare F Ratio
Innsband

Between Granps 3 522.46 174.16 .216
Within Granps 214 173624.69 803.81

Total 219 174147.18

Wife

Between Granps 3 1172.15 390.71 .544
Wifininn Granps 216 155135.59 718.22

'IUtal 219 156307.74

Children

Between Grains 3 481.33 160.44 1.85
Within Granp 216 18731.59 86.72

'Ibtal 219 19212.92

 

***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.

 

181

 

Table 49. Analysis of Variance: Family Menders' Perceived man
Influence on the‘Vacaticn.Budget.by’Age, Education, Income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sanrce Sum of Square 01“ Mean Square F Ratio
Husband

Main Effects 6374.53 9 708.28 .87
Age 724 . 67 2 362 . 33 . 44
Ethication 3785 . 20 3 1261 . 73 1 . 55
Incale 1906.85 4 476.71 .58
Ehcplain‘ed 6374.53 9 708.28 .87
Ibsidual 231869 . 92 285 813 . 57

Total 238244 . 46 294 810 . 35

Wife

Main Effects 4718.53 9 524.28 .69
Age 809.77 2 404.88 .53
filtration 1352 . 25 3 450 . 75 . 59
Incone 2159.15 4 539.78 .71
Ebtplained 4718 . 53 9 524 . 28 . 69
Ibsidual 216537 . 23 285 759 . 78

'Ibtal 221255 . 77 294 752 . 57

Children

Main Effects 1035.37 9 115.04 1.24
Age 81.74 2 40.87 .44
fixation 204.44 3 68.15 .73
Incane 842.86 4 210.71 2.28
Biplained 1035. 37 9 115 . 04 l. 24
msidual 26278 . 13 285 92 . 20

Total 27313 . 50 294 92 . 90

 

***p<.001; **p<.01;

*p<.05.

 

182

. Transposed travel party conposition, family incone,

respondent's age and educational static significanntly

influecefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

wife exerted on fie vacation activitie decided upon.

. Transposed travel party conposition, family incone,

reporient's age and educational status significantly

influencefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

dnildren exerted on fie vacation activitie decided

upon.

Quay Analysis of Variance statistical analysis, using the
trannsformd travel party conposition, proved to be significant all
mdels. Usingfieperceived level of influeceoffiehusbandanfine
vacation activity decision as fie‘ dependent variable, Quay Analysis
of Variance proved to be significannt (p<.001). See Table .50. Tukey's
Post Hoc analysis furfier revealed significannt differece between
granps. See Table 51. Significant different man value were idenntified
betweenfieperceptionsofyanngcanpletravelingwifinantdnildren
(room) (57.17 percent) and that of middle-aged couple traveling wifin
children MIC) (4.17 percent) (p<.05). Significant differece
betweenfieperceptioeofyanngcanple travelingwifinantdnildren
(YOQDC) (57.17 percent) and fiat of yanng canple traveling with
children (YOCWIC) (40.17 percent) were also identified.

Qneday Analysis of Variance, using fie perceived man level of
influence of fie wife on fie vacation activitie as fie dependent
variable. 'ne factortrannsposedtravelpartyconpositionmdelwas
significant at the p<.05 level. Furfier analysis, using tukey's post
tcc tet, revealed significant differece between midile-aged couple

183

 

Table 50. Qneway Analysis of Variance: Family Meniers' Received Mean
InflueceonVacationActivitiechsenbyTravel Party

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cmposition
Sanrce DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Ratio
I-heband
Between Granps 3 9173.37 3057.79 5.66***
Within Groups 214 115554.64 539.77
Total 217 124728.02
Wife
Between 61:0.an 3 3186.07 1062.02 3.12*
Within Gralps 214 72718.09 339.80
Total 217 75904.16
Children
Between Grams 3 3748.55 1249.51 3.52**
Within Gralp 215 76291.36 354.84
Total 218 80039.91

 

***p<.001: **p<.01:

*p<.05.

 

184

 

Table 51. 'mkey's Post l-bc Tet: Perceived Mean Influece of fie
Husband on fie Vacation Activitie Selected by Transposed

Travel Party (Imposition.

 

 

Yocnoc 57 . 17

Granp Mean
Yoaric 40.17 -
Mamie 41. 15 °
Elders 50.00 I

 

Decte pairs of granps significantly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

YOCNOC—Yang couple, aged 34 and unnder, traveling wifinant
children.
YOGVIC—Yanng canple, aged 34 and under, traveling wifin children.
MAGGIC-fiiddle-aged couple, aged 35-64, traveling wifinant
children, single parents, aged 35-64, traveling with
children or middle-aged canple traveling wifin children.

ELIERS—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

185

traveling wifin children (MANIC) (37.76 percent) annd yang canple
traveling wifinant dnildren (raccoon (47.94 percent). See Table 52.

Quay Analysis of Variance, using fie perceived man level of
influeceofdnildrenonfievacationactivitieasfiedependent
variable. 'ne factor transposed travel party conposition model was
significannt at fie p<.01 level. Furfiner analysis, using Tukey's Post
Hoc analysis, revealed finat nc significant differece between granps
efisted.

Analysis of Variance was coriucted, eing socioeconanic variable
as independent variable. than fie depecent variable consisted of fie
man perceived influence of fie husbannd on fie vacation activitie
selected, fie mdel was not significant. See Table 53.

Unlike the results disanssed’above, when the dependentvariable
consisted offiemanperceived influece offiewifeonfievacation
activitie selected, fie main effects of fie mdel were significant
(p<.05). 'ne independent variable, education, was also significant
(p<.05). Wifin an P value of 1.89, fie explained sanrce of variation
did not prove to be significannt.

Analysis ofVariancewascocuctedusingfiemanperceived level
of influeee of fie dnildren on fie vacation activitie selected as fie
dependent variable. 0f fie finree socioecononic variable used as
inriepe'dent variable, age of fie reeo'dent proved to be significant
(p<.05). A negative relationship was identified between fie
reqaorient'sageandfieperceivedmanlevel of innfluecechildren
exerted on fie vacation activitie decision. 'ne main effects annd fie
explained sanrce of variation, alog with education anri family incone,
did not prove to be significant.

186

 

Table 52. Tukey's Post Hoc Test: Farceivednean Influence of fie
Wife on fie Vacation Activitie Selected by Transposed

Travel Party mircsition.

 

 

Granp Mean
mic 37.76
Elders 38 . 46

Yoavic 42. 50
Yoocc 47.94

 

Denote pairs of granps significantly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

YOQDC—Yanng canple, aged 34 and under, traveling wifinant
children.
YOCWIC—Yanng canple, aged 34 an! under, traveling with children.
MIG-Hiddle-aged couple, aged 35-64, traveling without
children, single parents, aged 35—64, traveling wifin
onildren or middle-aged canple traveling wifin dnildren.

Elm—Elderly persons, aged 65 annd older.

187

 

Table 53. Analysis of Variance: Family Mennbers' Perceived Mean
Influece on fie Vacation Activitie by Age, Frlucation,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incone
Sanrce Sum of Sgnare DF lean Square F Ratio
Innsband
min Effects 4597 . 86 9 510 . 87 1 . 23
Age 1383.84 2 691.92 1.66
Ethicatim 2853 . 94 3 951 . 31 2 . 29
Incone 941 . 97 4 235 . 49 . 56
Explained 4597 . 86 9 510 . 87 1 . 23
Minimal 118575 . 97 286 414 . 6O
'Ibtal 123173 .83 295 417.53
Wife
Main Effects 5382 . 53 9 598 . 05 1 . 89*
Age 568 . 30 2 284 . 15 . 90
mum 3033 . 48 3 1011 . 16 3 . 21*
Incone 1927 . 59 4 481 . 89 1 . 53
Ebtplained 5382 . 53 9 598 . 05 1 . 89
Residual 90048 . 32 286 314 . 85
Total 95430 . 86 295 323 . 49
Onildren
Main Effects 4593 . 97 9 510 . 44 1 . 47
Age 2407 . 34 2 1203 . 67 3 . 47*
mum 904 . 77 3 301 . 59 . 87
Incone 1011 . 14 4 252 . 78 . 73
Dcplainei 4593 . 97 9 510 . 44 1 . 47
Residual 99044 . 02 286 345 . 30
Ml 103637 . 99 295 351 . 31

 

***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.

 

188

Snnrportfarfiealternatenypcfineisz-6isprovidedwl'ennfie
dependentvariableaonsistsoffieperceivedmaninflueceoffie
lnusband (nedel 1) on vacation activitie and fie indeperient variable
aosistsoffietranspasedtravelpartyaonpasition. Usingfiesam
dependentvariable, andsaciaeaononicaspectsoffiefamilyasfie
Wt variable, no airport for fie alternate Hypotheis 2-6 is
provided.

thenfiedepecentvariableconsistsoffieperaeivedman
influence of fie wife (mdel 2) on finis vacation decision, and fie
independent variable consists of fie respondent's education, snppor't
forfiealtern'ateHypofineisz—6isprovided. Nosnrportforfie
alternate Hypothesis 2-6 is provided wlenn the independent variable
aonsistsoffietransposedtravelpartyaonposition.

Usingfieperceivedmaninflueceoffiednildren (mdel3)on
fie vacation activitie selected as fie deperientvariable, annd fie
transposed travel party aonpasition as fie independent variable,
s1pportforfiealternateHypofiesis2-6isprovided. Usingfiesam
dependentvariable, anndrespondent'sageasfiein'dependentvariable,
sumort farfiealternate Hypofineis 2-6 isprovided.

W

The transposed travel party aonpasition, family incone,
respondent's age and educational status significantly influence family
manters' perceived man level of influence on fie decision to visit
finis reort area.

. Transpased travel party ampasition, family incone,
respondent's age annd ednncatioal status significantly
innfluecefieperaeivedmanlevel of influecefie

189

lnusbanrietertedonfiedecisiontovisitfinisreort
area.
. Transpased travel party ampasition, family income,

respondent's age annd educatioal state significantly

innfluecefieperaeivedmanlevel of influecefie

wife exerted on fie decision to visit finis reort

area.

. Transpased travel party aonpasition, family incone,

respondent's age and educatioal state significantly

influecefieperceivedmanlevel of influecefie

dnildrenenertedonfiedecisiontovisitfinisreort

area.

Usingfietraneposedtravelpartyaonpositionasfieincepecent
variable annd fie perceived man level of influece of fie husband, wife
anridnildrenonfiedecisiontovisitfinisreortareaasfiedependent
variable, three Quay Analysis of Variance statistical analyse were
conducted. Twooffiefinreencdelsprovedtobesignificant.

Usingfieperceivedmanlevel of influenceoffiehnebanndonfie
decisiontovisitfinisreortareaasfiedependentvariable, anndfie
transposedtravelpartyaonpasitionasfie inndependentvariable, fie
model was significannt at fie p<.01 level. See Table 54. Tukey's Past
Baa analysis furfier revealed significannt differece between fie man
value of yang aanple traveling wificut children (W) (56.38
percent) and middle-aged couples traveling with dnildren movie)
(41.51 percent) (p<.05). See Table 55.

Wenfiedependentvariableaoeistedaffieperceivedlevel of
influece affiednildrenonfiedecisiontovisitthisresortarea,

190

 

Table 54. Onemy Analysis of Variance: Family Members' Perceived Mean
InfluereemfieDecisimtoVisitfifisResortAreaby
Travel Party ampositicn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source DF Sins of Square Mean Square F Ratio
Hmband

Between Gruxps 3 6361.58 2120.52 3.23***
Within Grams 207 135624.38 655.19

Total 210 141985.97

Wife

Between Grcups 3 745.94 248.64 .41
Wifiiin Grcups 207 125124.84 604.46

'Ictal 210 125870.78

Children

Between Grams 3 8740.50 2913.50 8.35***
Wifixin 61qu 207 72179.11 349.69

Total 210 80919.62

 

***p<.001; **p<.01: *p<.05.

 

191

 

Table 55. 'mkey'sPcstI-bc'lest: Perceivedueanlevelof Influence of
fiel-MsbardmfieDecisimanerningfieResortArea

 

 

Chosen.
Group Mean
Mamie 41.51
Yocwic 44 . 05
Elders 50 . 00
Yocnoc 56 . 38

 

Denotes pairs of graxps significantly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

YOCNOC—Yamg calples, aged 34 and under, traveling WithOJt
mildren.
YOCWIC—Yamg couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifi'x children.
MAMC—Middle—aged couples, aged 35-64, traveling wifieut
children, single parents, aged 35-64, traveling with
children or middle-aged couples traveling with children.

Elm—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

192

Onaway Analysis of Variance proved to be significant (p<.001) . Tukey's
post hoc test revealed significant differences between fie man values
for middle-aged couples traveling with chilchen MIC) (15.29
percent) and yamg couples traveling wit-lent children (W) (0.00
percent), and between middle-aged calples traveling with children
MIC) (15.29 percent) and elderly travelers (ELIERS) (0.00 percent).
See Table 56.

'nemdeldidmtprcvetobesignificantvdenfiedeperdent
variable consisted of fie perceived level of 111le of fie wife on
fie decision to visit this resort area. 'ne perceived man infltence
of fie wife on filis vacation decisia'l ranged fran 38.46 percent for
elderly travelers (EHERS) to 44.00 percent for yamg oarples traveling
with children (YOCNIC).

Analysis of Variance was caducted nultiple times, using fie man
perceived inflleree of family menbers, fie husband, wife and children,
mfieresortareachosen, asfiedependentvariable. 'neirriepenient
variables cansisted of fie family ireale, resparient's age and
educational status. See Table 57.

'Be factor respondent's educational status proved to be
significant for two of the three mdels. Men the deperdent variable
oaeistedoffiemanperceivedlevel of influenceoffiehusbandand
fiemanperceived level of influenceoffiewifeonfieresortarea
chosen, educatim was significant (p<.05) . A positive relationship was
identified between fie respondent's educational level and fie perceived
manlevel of infllereefiehusbandandwifeexerteda'lfilisvacatim
decision. Ofier similarities between fiese two models included fie

193

 

 

 

 

Grarp Mean
Yoaloc 0.00 '
Elders 0.0 °
Yoavic 7.7 I
Macwic 15.29 . .

 

I Deretes pairs of grape significantly different at fie .05 level.
Table My:

YOQDC—Yamg couples, aged 34 and urrler, traveling wifilout
children.

YOCWIC—Young couples, aged 34 ad under, traveling wifil children.

Dmc—middle-aged couples, aged 35-64, traveling wifieut
children, single parents, aged 35-64, traveling with
children or middle-aged couples traveling wifil children.

Elm—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

194

 

Table 57. Analysis of Variance: Family barbers' Puceived Mean
Infllereealfienecisimtovisit'nlisnesortAreabyAge,
niucatial, Incane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Salrce Sum of Square D? Mean Salare F Ratio
msbani

min Effects 9038 . 10 9 1004 . 23 1. 48
Age 1362.78 2 681.39 1.01
mum 5271. 08 3 1757 . 02 2 . 60*
Irnme 3004.24 4 751.06 1.11
Ebtplained 9038 . 10 9 1004 . 23 1 . 48
Midual 188104 . 94 279 674 . 21

'Ibtal 197143 . 04 288 684 . 52

Wife

min Effects 6915.12 9 768.34 1.28
Am 217 . 77 2 108 . 88 . 18
Mention: 5660 . 16 3 1886 . 72 3 . 14*
Imam 745 . 22 4 186. 30 . 31
mplained 6915.12 9 768.34 1.28
Rsidual 167511 . 94 279 600 . 40

'Ibtal 174427 . 06 288 605 . 65

Children

Main Effects 4193 . 82 9 465 . 98 1 . 36
m 1836 . 74 2 918 . 37 2 . 68
Bincatim 786 . 06 3 262 . 02 . 76
Incane 1439 . 84 4 359 . 96 1. 05
Ebcplained 4193 . 82 9 465 . 98 1 . 36
lbsidual 94979 . 16 278 341 . 65

'Ibtal 99172 . 98 287 345 . 55

 

***p<.001; “p<.01;

*p<.05.

 

195

lack of significant results for fie main effects, age, family ireane
and fie explained sauce of variation.

Unlikefierealltsdescribedabcve, Menfiedeperdentvariable
ccreistedoffiemanperceivedinfluereeofdlildrmmfieresort
area deem, more of fie irdeperdent variables were significant.
Furfiermre, fie min effects are fie explaired ealrce of variation
were not significant.

Suppor‘tforfiealter'nateflypofiesis 2-7isprcvidedwlenfie
dependent variable consists of fie perceived man influeree of fie
misband(nedel1)0nfieresortareadeem,andfieindepmdent
variablescalsistsoffietranspoeedtravelpartyoalpcsitimand
respcrdent's educational level. men fie dependent variable cosisted
offieperceivedman infltereeOffiewife (mode12)a1fievacation
decision and fie dependent variable consists of fie respondent's
educatia'lal status, support for fie alternate Hypothesis 2-7 is
provided. Supportforfiealternateflypofiesisz-7isprcvidedwten
fiedependmtvariableomsistsoffieperoeivedmaninfluereeoffie
dlildrm (nedel 3) althisvacatialdecisimardfieireepeteent
variable cmsists of fie transposed travel party calpcsition. No
amortforfiealternatenypofiesis 2-7 isprcvidedwhmfiedependerrt
variable omsists of fie perceived influeree of children on this
vacatial decision and socioecmanic aspects of fie family are used as

independent variables.

W
The transposed travel party outpositim, family ireane,
respalderrt's age and educational states significantly influeree family

196

mattersperceivedmanlevel of influeeealfietypeofaccamedations
selected.
. Transposed travel party ompositim, family inccme,
respaiderit's age and educatiael status significantly
influereefieperceivedmanlevel of influereefie
Inebardenaertedmfietypeofaocamedatiaeselected.
. Transpoeed travel party ompositia'l, family ireane,
resparimt's age and educatimal status significantly
influereefieperceivedmanlevel of influereefie
wife exerted m fie type of accanncdatiae selected.
. 'I‘r'arepoeed travel party oarpcsitial, family ireane,
respaldent's age and educational stafiis significantly
influeee fie perceivedmanlevel of influeee fie
dlildrenexertedalfietypeofaccamcdatiaeselected.
meway Analysis of Variaree was oa‘ducted using fie transformed
travelpartycmpositimasfiefactorandfieperceivedmanlevelof
infllereefietmsband,wifearddlildrmhavemfiedecisim
weerningretelaccamedatimsdeemasfiedepeleentvariable. See
Table 58. Using fie perceived man level of fie husband's influeree
ardfiepermivedmanleveloffiewife'sinflueleemfie
aocmnedatidl decisim as fie depenierrt variable, results of fie
analysis did not prove to be significant.
Usingfieperceivedmanlevel of influereeoffiediildrenonfie
hotel accannodatiae deem, as fie dependent variable, results of fie
analysis proved to be significant (p<.01). Tukey's Post Hoc analysis
furfier revealed that significant differerees existed between

197

 

Table 58. army Analysis of Variaree: Family Marbers' Perceived Mean
Influeree a1 fie Vacatia'l Accamedatiae deem by Travel

Party Carpositim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Salrce DP Suns of Square Mean Square F latio
Husband

Befioem Groups 3 969.82 323.27 .45
Within Grams 210 147736.75 703.50

Total 213 148706.57

Wife

Betwem Gralps 3 . 285.12 95.04 .14
Within Gralps 210 140384.78 668.49

MI 213 140669.91

Children

Between Graze 3 1627.52 542.50 3.49**
Wifilin Gralp 211 32735.47 155.14

'Ibtal 214

34362 . 99

 

***p<.001: **p<.01; *p<.05.

 

198

groups. See Table 59. With a man value of 6.48 percmt, middle-aged
calples traveling with dlildren MIC) was significantly different
fienfiemanvalueofyamgoamlestravelingwifieutdiildren
(YOODC) (0.00 percmt). 'ne man valte of midile-aged caiples
traveling wifil dlildren oeuvre) was also significantly different filan
filat of elderly travelers (E11138) (0.00 percent).

Analysis of Variance was caeucted mltiple time, wlereby fie
independent variables cneisted of family ireane, respcndent's age and
educaticnal status. 'ne dependent variables, de for each analysis,
caeistedoffieperceivedmanlevel of influereefielmsband, wife
arr] dlildren exerted on fie hotel aoccmmdation decisial. See Table 60.

Renfiedepmdentvariable cneisted offieperceivedman level
of 1:1le of fie husbarfl, fie’edumtional status of fie r'espcndent
was significant (p<.05) . A positive relationship was identified
bebzemfierespaemt'sedimtialal statusandfieperceivedman
level of influereefiehusbandemertedalfilisvacatimdecisim. 'lte
main effects, age, family ireane and fie explained salrce of variation,
lewever, were not stem to be significant.

Wenfiedependentvariableomsistedoffieperceivedmanlevel
ofinflweeoffiewifemfietetelaocanmdatiaeselected, fie
results were similar to fieee described above. More specifically,
edutetial was prcvm to be significant at fie p<.05 level. A positive
relationship was identified between fie respmdent's educational status
andfieperceivedmanlevel of influereefiewifeexertedonfilis
vacatial decision. he min effects, age, incane and explained sauce
of variation did not prove to be significant.

199

 

Table 59. 'mkey's Post Hoc Analysis: Esroeived Mean level of Influence
Childrm Ebert m Vacaticn Accmmdatiae Selected.

 

Graip Mean

 

Yocrec 0 0
Elders 0.0
Yoavic 4 4
Maowic 6 4

 

 

Denotes pairs of grape significantly different at fie .05 level.
Table Key:

You‘ve—Yang couples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifieut
dlildren.
YOGVIIC—Yamg couples, aged 34 are under, traveling with dlildren.
MIC—Middle-aged couples, aged 35-64, traveling wifiiart
diildren, single parents, aged 35-64, traveling wifil
du'ldren or middle-aged oalples traveling with dlildren.

Elm—Elderly persons, aged 65 and older.

200

 

Table 60. Analysis of Variaree: Family Wrs' Perceived Mean
InfluereealfieVacatiallbtelAccanncdatiaebyAge,
fanatical, Ireane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sairce Sum of Square DF Mean Square F lutio
Husbare

Main Effects 7506.06 9 734.00 1.25
Age 530. 29 2 265 . 14 . 39
Ethicatia‘l 5234 . 89 3 1744 . 96 2 . 62*
Incane 1667 . 95 4 416. 99 . 62
Explained 7506 . 06 9 834 . 00 l. 25
Msidnal 186209 . 96 280 665 . 03

Total 193716 . 03 289 670 . 29

Wife

Main Effects 8436 . 11 9 937 . 34 1 . 44
Age 1027 . 68 2 513 . 84 . 79
Mmtim 6350. 76 3 2116. 92 3 . 26*
Deane 1245.50 4 311.37 .48
Explained 8436. 11 9 937 . 34 1 . 44
Residual 181497 . 66 280 648 . 20

Total 189933 . 77 289 657 . 21

Children

Main Effects 1721 . 71 9 191 . 30 1 . 13
Age 637.14 2 318.57 1.88
mum 696 . 48 3 232 . 16 1 . 37
W 374 . 05 4 93 . 51 . 55
Diplal'ned 1721. 71 9 191. 30 1. 13
Rmidual 47232 . 73 280 168 . 68

'Ibtal 48954 . 44 289 169 . 39

 

***p<.001; **p<.01;

*p<.05.

 

201

Analysis of Variareewas omducted aee again, using fie perceived
manlevelofinfluereeoffiedlildrenalfiel'etelaccarmdation
selectedasfiedeperdentvariable. Unlikeresultsoffietwoprevials
mdels, filismdeldidretprcvetobesignificantforfiemain
effects, irdepa'derrt variables or explaired source of variation.

airportforfiealternateflypofiesisz-8isprcvidedwtenfie
dependentvariableccnsistedoffieperceivedmaninfltexeeoffie
misbard(mdell)onfietetelaocamedationselectedandfie
indepeteentvariable consisted offierespcndmt's educational status.
Regardlessoffieindeperdentvariablesxeedinfiemdel,reaxpport
forfiealternateI-Iypofiesisz-Bisprovideddenfiedependent
variable casisted of fie perceived man influelee of fie wife (nedel
2) mfilisvacatial decision. Whenfiedependentvariable consisted of
fieperceivedmaninfluereeoffiechildren (nede13)althis
decisial,arrlfieirrieperdmtvariablecdlsistedoffietrarspceed

travel party caipcsition, support for fie alternate Hypothesis 2-8 is
provided.

Hypothesis Set 3
113-1:

Significantdiffereleesexistbetwemfiespaisedeisfie
overall daninant decisim-mker and fie dominant decisicn-maker for fie
policy ard tactiml decisions.

Chi-salarestatistical analysiswasocnductedtotesthypofiesis
3-1. 'netwovariablesused infiecartingereytable omsistedoffie
overalldaninareeofvacatimdecisiaebysex, ardfiedaninareeof
eadltypeofdecision, tacticalorprcgram, usedinfiestudy. wants
of fie analysis revealed no significant differerees between fie spouse

202

wleisfieoveralldaninantdecisim-makeranifiedaninantdecision-
mker for fie policy and tactical decisiae. 'ne cartingency table did
revealfilatwifileadldecisialtype,rmsbanddaninantandwife
daninant, alargerpercentagedoninatedfietactiml decisimfilanfie
program decision. ae hurrired and seventy eight (74.50%) husbands were
perceived as havin; daninated fie tactical vacatidl decision while 49
(66.20%) wunm were perceived as having daninated fie tactical
decisim. See Table 61. A sneller percmtage of husband's and wife's
wereperceivedasbeingfiedanimteprogramdecisim—mker. Sixty-ore
respondents (25.50%) perceivedfiefielmsbaleasbeirgfiedanl'nate
program decision-neker while 25 (33.80%) wives were perceived as fie
daninate prcgram decision-maker. Based al fie lack of significant
results, re support for fie alternate Hypofiesis 3-1 is provided.

 

Table 61. Chi-Square Analysis: Cartirqexey Table of Overall Daninant
Spaisal Decision-Maker By Daninant Meal Decision-Maker
for Ehdl Type of Vacatim Decisial

 

 

Decisial Type Tactical Prcgram Row Total
Husband Doninant 178 61 239

74 . 50 25. 50 76 . 40
Wife Daninant 49 25 74

66 . 20 33 . 80 23 . 60
Column 'Ibtal 227 86 313

72 . 50 27 . 50 100 . 00

 

Chi-Square Statistic DF Significaree

 

1.54 1 .214
1.93 l .164

 

(NAPIER V
Disaesial
This chapter is a discussion of fie descriptive and quantitative
statistical analysis of fie study. 'ne chapter is divided into 5
parts: discussion of fie perceived man levels of influeree family
members have on vacation decision-making, disaesial of hypofieses sets
1, 2andB, arrifierefinmentanddisalssimoffiefieoretical

framework.

 

Priortofietestingoffiehypotheses, fieperceivedmanlevels
of influeree family renters had an vacation decisim-mking was
analyzed. 'lhralghfilisanalysis,severalinterestingpointswere
identified. Husbands exerted a majority of influeree on file vacation
budget decisial, as well as on fie length of fie vacation. This
majority inflteree was viewed by both male and female respondents.
These results are similar to fieee idmtified by Filiatrault and
Ritdlie (1980), Jenkins (1978). See Table 62.

Results by Filiatrault and Ritdiie (1980) and Jenkins (1973)
imicatedfilattmsbardswereperceivedtoexertadaninant, butnota

203

204

 

Table 62. Sumaryof Perceived Influeree Familyuelbersfiaveon
Vacation Decisicn-Maldrg

 

Vacation Decision

MaleReepaemts

FmaleRespcndents

 

Accamedations
lengfil of Vacation
Resort Area deem
Vacation Activities
Vacatial Bldget
Vacation This Sumner
Vacation This Year

men'IcTakeThisVacatim

Wife. dominated
I-hrsbard Majority
Husband Daninated
Husband Daninated
Husband Majority
Joint Spaisal
Wife Daninated

HusbandDanirated

Husband Daninated
Husband Majority
Joint Spousal
Joint Spousal
neband Majority
Husband Daninated
theband Daninated
Husband Daninated

 

majority (50% influeree or more) on vacation decisial-making. Results
frunfilisstlldy, however, ileicatedfilatmenwereperceivedasexerting
amjority level of influereeonfielengfiloffieVacatimandfie
vacation budget.

Previals research has dmastrated joint vacatim decisial-maldng
in relation to fie accamedations selected (Jmkins, 1978; Myers, 1974;
Myers & mief, 1978) activities participated in (Jenkins, 1978) ,
destination points (Jenkins, 1978; Myers, 1974; Myers & Morerief,
1978), modeof trarsportatialandwlefiertotakefilisvatatialasa
caiple or a family (Jenkins, 1978). Oo'rtrary to above studies, results
of this analysis denmstrated filat joint vacation decision-making was
perceivedtohavetakmplacedllybyfetalerespaeents inrelationto
fie vacation activities selected.

205

msearders (Davis, 1970; minger, Weber & Harem, 1975:
Slnlptrine88anuelsal, 1976) haveca'eludedfiiatwhenaeorafew
products in family decisial-makirg are amlyzed, an overall majority or
dominant influeree by are family mater will ret typically be
identified. Rearltsofthisstxflyrevealeddanirareebyaespaisem
fie majority of vacatial decisims. bale respmdents perceived fie
rmsbardashavingexertedadanirantlevelofinfltereealfive
vacaticn decisicns. 'ney perceived fie wife as being fie daninant
decisiarmakerccreernirgfieaccamcdatiaeselectedardwtefierto
takeavacaticnfilisyear. Jointspaisaldecisidl-mkingwasmade
caeerningfiedecisimtovacatimfilisslmner. Thatis,bothspaises
areperceivedtohaveeiertedanarproidmtelyeaalamamtof
influeee m fie vacation decision.

Wlenfierespaemtwasfalale, fiehusbandwasperceivedas
exerting a daninant level of influeee on six vacation decisions.
mndidretperceivefienselvesashavingexertedadanirentlevelof
influeee (:1 any vacation decisim. They did, tewever, perceive fie
decisims caeer'ning fie resort area deem and fie vacatial activities
selectedtohavebemmadejointlybetwemqaaisee.

Oattrary to reallts idmtified by Filiatrault & Ritdlie (1980),
Jenkins (1978), andHyersanichcrief (1978), menperceived fienselves
asemrtingadaninantamamtofinfluereemfiveoffieeight
vacatial decisions. Malereqadrlentsperceivedfieirwifeasexerting
adaninantanamtof influereealfieaccamedatideselected,fie
decisialtovacatimfilisamueraxetovacatimfilisyear.

Fenale respmdent's perceptims of fie man level of influeree
eadl family umber exerted a1 fie vacatim decisims was different filan

206

filatofmalerespaeents. 'neydidretperceivefienselvesashaving
eiertedamajorityordanirantmanlevelofinflleteemanyoffile
vacatia'l decision. 01 fie ofier hand, fieee sane respondents perceived
fielmsbarflashavingfiedanimntlevel ofdecisicn-mkirginflueree
on six of fie eight vacatial decisions. Joint spousal decisial-making
was identified for fie renaining two vacation decisions. These results
are similar to those discussed by Filiatrault arr! Ritdlie (1980) are
Jenkins (1978). In all three studies, female respondents viewed
fienselvesashavingenertinglessfiianadaninantlevelof inflmree
on vacatial decisial-mking.
'aouinaleandfeualerespmdentsperceiveddiildxentonaveonlya
minimal man level of influelee a1 vacation decisim-maldng. These
results are consistent with ofier studies involving fie analysis of
dlildren's influeree in decision-making (Goldberg & Gorn, 1974:
Mosdiis, Moore & Stephens, 1977).
Alfiialghdlildrmwereperceivedasravingmlyaminimal level of
influence on vacation decision-making, discrepancies between
respaldent's perceptiae were identified. Fanale respaldents typically
perceived fie children's man influeree higher filan did male
respmdents. 0e possible eiqalanatial for filis Wm may be due
tofielevel of interactialfieparmtshavewifilfiedlildrm. Ifae
sparserasmreinteractimwifilfiedlildrenfilanfieofiersPalse.
fie perceptims nay differ.

207

Hypofiesis'lmdn;

HypofiesisSetl
'nefirstdajectivewastoeaamiretraveldlaracberisticswhidi

may impact family members' perceived man level of influeree on
vacation decisial-naking. 'Be first set of hypofieses was developed in
ordertoachisvethisdojective. ‘lhralgteutfiefirstsetof
hypofieses, fieirriepmdentvariablesusedinfieanalyses consistedof
travel characteristics such as distaree traveled, cost of
accamodatimsaninmberofpersdefierespaiddrtispayingfor. Tie
depeleentvariablesueedinfieamlysescaeistedoffieperceived
man level of influeee family miners, fie hleband, wife, and
dlildrm, had (11 family vacatial decision-mung. mgreseicn analysis,
analysis of variaree and analysis of covariance statistical analyses
werecdductedinordertoadlievethisobjective. 'nedisaissionfor
fiehypofieseeinsetaewillbedisaiseedindividually. SeeTable 63
for a 81me of fie rejectidel-rejectim of hypofieeee set 1.

W11

Occupation and travel party catpositim significantly inpact fie
perceivedmanlevelof influereefamilymneershavecaeerning
exactlywtentotakethisvacatia'l, wlencmtrolling forfienunberof
personsfieremcrflmtispaying formfilistrip.

Hypofiesisl-lwasdevelcpedmflerfieprenisefilatfie
ocaipatiaus) by fie spalse(s) as well as fie travel party deposition
walldl significantly influeree fie perceived level of influeree of
familymaibersalfiedecisialcaeemirgwlentotakethisvacatim.
Work obligations, restricted vacaticn tim away fran work, and
sdedulingcmflictswithsdeolageddlildrmwereviavedas

208

cmstraintsmfieartcmeoffiedecisim. 'nermearderbelieved
fiiat filese obligatims would significantly inpact fie perceived man
level of influereeoffiespaees, butnotnecessarilythatoffie
dlildrm.

Results offieanalysis revealedfiiatfiemdeldidm‘rtproveto
be significant wlen fie dependent variable consisted of fie perceived
influeree offielmsbandandwife. Resultsoffieanalysis did reveal,
Imever, fiatseveralportims offiemdelweresignificantwtenfie
dependent variable cmsisted of fie perceived man level of influeree
offiedlildrmalfiedecisimcaeernirqwl’mtovacatim, fiemain
effects, travel party carpoeition, covariate are fie explained sauce
of variaree of fie nedel proved to be significant. Despite fie
significaree of fie model, tewever, fie mltiple R—equare was low.

Despite fie lack of significant factors, interesting results were
identified filragh fie analysis of cell mans. Differerees were
identified between fie perceived man level of influeee of fie wife
arrilmsbardmfiedecisimcdeernirgwlentovacatimfilisslmmr.
Despitefieoccupatimal states, wunmwereperceivedashavirgemerted
less firm a majority influeee al this vacatial decisia'l. Mm teld
positions as a prcfessimal/tedlnical , mnagerial/ administrator,
student, retiredormimployedwereperceivedasexertingamajority
levelofinfllereemfiedecisimoaeemingwrentotakethis
vacation. Husbands wte leld positims as sales or renal labor,
alfieughretamajority, wareperceivedashavingalargemmtof
influeree m fie decision (42.78% and 43.96%, respectively). These
results suggest fiat fie husband, despite fie ocalpatial leld, is

209

 

Table63. StmaryoffielevelofSupportforfie
AlternateHypofiesisSetl

 

Family Barber level of Surport significant Variables

 

Ocarpatim and travel party cmpositial significantly influeree fie
perceivedmanlevel of inflleree familymalbershavecaeerning
exactlywhentotakefilisvacatim, whencontrolling forfienunberof

persaefiereepondentispayingformthistrip.

 

Husband No Support
Wife No Support
dlildrm Support Persms paid for

 

'nelengthofdistareetraveled, previalsmperiereewifilaresortarea
and fie cost of accamedations significantly inpact family mnters'
perceived man level of influeree a1 fie decision to visit this resort
area, when controlling for family ireane.

 

Husband No Support
Wife No Surport
dlildren Support Distaree traveled

 

Totaldistareetraveledtofieresortareaarricostofacommdatioris
signifimntly impact fie level of family mleers' influeree in fie
decisia'l regarding fie length of fie family vacation.

 

Husbard NoSupport

Wife No Support
dlildrm No Support

 

210

Table 63 (oart'd) .

 

Family Member level of Support Significant Variables

 

mortal cost of aooamndatims and node of transportatim significantly
inpact family nembers' perceived mean level influence m fie vacatim
budget, mmllingforfamilyixeaneandfienmberofpersons

fierespaflmtispayirgformthistrip.

 

Husband No Support
Wife Sumort Mode of Trareportation
Children No Support

 

Mode of transportation, travel party omposition, and cost of
aooannodatiae significantly inpact family matters ' perceived mean
inflweeinfiedecisioncoreernimfietypeofaoocmmdatiore
selected for this vacation, when omtrollirg for family inome.

 

W Manor-t Travel Party empositim

Wife Support Travel Party (imposition
mildrm Support Travel Party (Imposition

 

navel party ocuposition, informatim used in vacaticn decision-making,
and fie purpose of visiting the resort area significantly inpacts fie
perceivedmanlevel of inflLenoe familymarbershavemfiedecision
omoeming fie type of activities to participate in while (I) vacation,
whenoa'rtrolling forfamilyimaneanifielengfiiofdaysspen‘tinfie
area.

 

msband Sugport Expose of visit, travel
party omposition

Wife Sugaort arr-pose of visit, travel
party omposition

Children amport airpose of visit, travel

party omposition

 

211

peroeivedasaninfluentialdecisiarmkeroaeerningfietimingofa
familyvacatimisheimoaeidered.

W
'nelergfimofdistareetzaveled,previwsexperieleewifi1aresort
area an: fie cost of aoommdatiae significantly inpact family

mers'infltereemfiedecisimtovisitthisresortarea,wten
ca'rtrollimforfamilyinoane.
Hypofiesisl-zwasdwelwedinordertoexamirevariablesmidu
inpactfamilymaflers'peroeivedneanlevelofinfluereemfieresort
areadiosmforfievacatim. aeoffiethreemodelsurder
imrestigatimprovedtobesignifimnt.
Wmfiedwaflartvariableoaeistedoffieperoeivednean
influezeeoffiediildrmmfiedecisimtovisitthisresortarea,
analysis revealedfiemdeltobesignifiwlt. “Demimeffectsard
distance traveled were significant (p<.01 and p<.05, respectively).
Analysis revealed fixatvtenfiedmerdentvariable cneisted of
fieperoeivedmsanlevelofinfluenoeoffiehisbard(mdell),ard
wife(mde12),mfieresortareadxosm,fiemdelsdidnotpmoveto
be significant. Although not statistically significant, interesting
factsweredamnstrated. Fluzmatimsinfieperoeivedmeanlevelof
influeeoffietmsbardmfixisdecisimardfieoostof
aoomdatiaearflfiedistareetraveledmidartified. 'matis,a
relatimship, positive or negative, was not identified between fie
peroeivedinfluaeeardfieoostoffieaooamdatiaeorfienmberof
milesfiefamilyoovereduhilemfiiisvacatim.
Apositiverelatiaehipwasidentifiedbetwemfieperoeivednean
influenoeoffiewifemfieresortareadesmardfiedistanoe

212

traveled. Asfiedistanoetraveledimreased,fieperoeivednean
influenoe offiewifemfiedecisimgramallyreadedMJS percent.
Aregativerelatiaehipmsidentifiedbeuaemprioreaqerieeeandfie
depaflentvariable. Kmfiewifehadpriorexperiereewifinfie
resort,rerpereeivedmeanlevelofinfluereewashiglerfi1anfiese
wifimtprriorexperiamoe.

A positive relatimship was idstified between fie cost of fie
vacatimaoommdatimsandfieperoeivedneaninfluaeeemertedbyfie
children m fixis decisim. Ge possible explanatim for fizis
Wmoouldbefieinterestmfiepartoffieparartstoobtain
aooumdatiae which are amicable to fie children. For exanple, a
retelwifiuapool,orplayareaforactivities,md1asminiaturegolf
mybeusedwifiigreaterfreqencybyfiesevacatiaerstravelingwifii
children, fienbyfiiosetravelin; without children. Despitefie
relevanoeoffiiispositiverelatiaehip,itatmldbemtedfintfie
pereeivedneaninflueteeoffiediildrmmfixisdecisimrangedfrm
6.91peroa1ttomly 17.57 percent.

Aregativerelatia‘ehipwasidentifiedbstweenfieneanperoeived
ixufltaeeoffiedxildrmamfiedistareetraveled. Asfiedistanoe
traveledincreased,fieperoeivedneaninfltenoeoffiediildrenm
finis decisim decreased. Variables ourtrihrtim to fie loss of
influeeemayhavebemfizatasfiedistameirmeases,typimllyfie
oostoffievaoatimirmeases,ascanfielagthoffievacatim.
mildrenterdtobeomemreixwolvedindecisiamkirgwtenfie
decisiminpactsfimdirectlyabsdais,}bore88tqiem,1977). 'ney
mymtbeoueideringfiefullaoqeoffiedecisim,ardoaeentrate
m self-gratificatim rather than practicality. As am, aspects other

213

fienvmatfieresortoffersfianmymtbeoaxsidered. 'lhat is,
iniirectomseqexeesoftravelingl,400mi1estoaresortrafierfi1an
selectingaresortareawOmilesfrmhanemyrntbeompreteniedby
children, especiallyamcrgyumgerdzildrm.

W121:
'Ibtaldistanoetraveledtofieresortareaandoostof
aooaunodaticns significantly inpact fie level of family maxbers'
influence in fie decisim regarding fie lengfix of fie family vacation.
Anasamptimwasmdebyfieresearderfietasfiedistanoe
traveledirmeasedardfieoostofaoommdatiaeirmeased,fie
pereeivedneaninfluereeoffiefamilymalbersoaeeniirgfielengfiaof
fie vacatim wwld be inpacted. Mare specifically, it was assured fiet
fiepereeivedneaninfluereeoffamilymdaersmfielengthoffie
vacatimanldberelatedtofiedistarnetraveledardfiecostof
aooamdatims. Messier) analysis revealed fiet fiese variables were
mtsignifimntinexplainirgoffieinfltereeofanyfamflymarberm
fielagthoffievacatim. BasedmmfielowR—squarevalues,
rargiryfrm.00to.01,asvellasfiemeignificantresultsoffie
mdelledfieraseardltocaeltflefintfieorigimlassmptim
WbythiShypofiesismsrntmbstantiated.

Wield;

Cost of acoaunodatims and made of transportaticn significantly
inpactfamflynelbers' peroeivedneaninfltenoemfievadatimhidget,
vlenomtrollingforfamilyinoane, ardfieramberofpersmsfie

respmdentispayingformfixistrip.

214

Hypofiesisl-Ileiaminedfierelatiuehipbetweenfieperoeived
neanlevelsoffmnilymmers'influememfievacatimhidgetandfie
cost of aooaunodatims and node of traleportatim. Analysis revealed
fixata‘eoffiefiueemdelsmssignificant. Vtenfiedeperdent
variableomsistedoffieperoeivedneaninflumoeoffiewifemfie
vacaticn budget, fiemdelpmredtobesignificmtt.

Rmfiemodeoftransportatimforfievacatimwasamre
miveform,sudmasaboatorairplare,fiewifewasperoeivedas
having eaerted a significantly lower mean level of influeee fixan by
fiesetravelingbycar,hisortrain. aepossibleexplanatim for
fiiisisfieexpereerequiredforaboatorairplare. 'Ihisfomof
transportatim istypicallymreexpensive. As fieexpense increases,
cfierfamilymelbersnayexertnbreinfluenoeoverfievacatimhflget.

Interesting, alfi'nrgh not statistically significant, results of
fieindepafiertvariablesmystedlightmfiepetmdescribed
above. Apositiverelatimshipwasidentifiedbeuaeenfieoostoffie
aooamndatiaearrifieannmtofinfluereefiemsbardvaspereeivedto
exertmfievacatimbudget. Basedtpmfieseresults,fieresearder
assmedfiatwbmafamflyisvacatimingwifiiwtcznpirgeqnpent,
fieywillbestayimatawtelorwifiifrierds. Iffieyarestaying
atahotel,fieoostofaoocmmdatimsmyvaryfrunireaqensiveto
extravagant. menise,itmnbeasannedfi1atfamilieswhoare
travelingbyboatorairplarewillbereqriredtopayasignificantly
higterprioeforfieirtransportatimfienofierfonns,aid1astrains,
busesorcars. Asfieprioeoffietrareportatim,orfieixflirect
ocnseqenoesoffietmdeoftransportatimirereases,sowillfie
peroeivedneaninfltemeoffielmsband.

215

Rmfiedqerfientvariablecaeistedoffieperceivedmeanlevel
ofinfluereeoffiedzildrenmfievacatimtuhehfiemdeldidmt
provetobesignificant. nelackofsignifiwrtresultsvaseiqected,
dieinparttoresultsofpastsmdies. Studies (Goldberg&Gorn,
1977: Mosdiis, more & Stephms, 1977)havedanmstratedfi1at alfieugh
drildrenarebeoaningmreinflwrtial infamily decisim-mldm, fiey
typicallydomtexertadmimntormjority level of influence.

W

Mode of transportatim, travel party cmposition, ard cost of
acommdatims significantly inpact family timbers' influence in fie
decision cancer-hing fie type of aoommodatims selected for this
vacatim, when cmtrolling for family irxxme.

‘neinpactoffieoostofacoanmdatiae,mdeoftransportatim
andtravelpartycmpositimhavemfamilymenbers'pemeivedmean
infltel'eemfieacoamnodatiaeselecbed,wastestedfiaruighhypofiesis
1-5. Menfiedepementvariable cneisted offieperoeivedneanlevel
of influence of each family member, fie lmsbard, wife ard children,
portimsoffiethreemdelspruredtobesignificant.

'nemaineffects,travelpartyompositimarrlfieexplained
source of variatim for all fine models were significant. 'ne
cmpositimoffietravelpartywilltypicallyinfluenoefietypeof
acommdatiaeselected,aswellasfiemmtofinflueteeexertedby
family manners. For manple, if fie family was traveling with
d:ildren,fied1ildrm'sinfluereemybeoaea1tratedmahotelwifi1
apool,oracanpgro.n'dsitemalake. 'nel'msbardandwifemaym
fieofierhaniexertinfluememfieacoammdatiaeselectedtomit
fiea'ttirefamily. Fbrmle,ifinfantsormlldiildrmarem

216

fiiisvacatim,fiespweesmydesiretostayatatetelwhidioffers
babysittimservices. 'nespousesmyalsodesiretostayatahotel
midihasagameroanfordiildrmardarestaurant.

thebards, traveling wifi: fieir spouse, with arwifixout diildren,
werepereeivedashavingalargeramamtofperceivedneaninfltenceon
fie acounmdatim decisimfiaanfiesevacatiaers traveling alae, as a
sirgleadultwithdiildrmortravelimwifiufiesamesexadult. 'ne
sanesexadultstravelixgtogefiermyhaxebemrepresaatedbymaxbers
of nuclear or extended family. 'ne single adult traveling wifia
diildrenmayhavebeenwidowed,divorcedorrevermrried.

Despitefiecostoffieacoannodatiae,msbardsacrossallgrwps
wereperceivedasexertingsimilarneanslevelsofinfltemeoffie
acocmmdatimdecisim. 'nerangeoffieperceivedmeaninfluemewas
behaem 43.32 percent and 51.25 percent. Similar results were
identified for fie irriepetflent variable, node of transportatim. 'ne
pereeivedneaninfluereeoffielmsbarfimfieacommndatimdecisim,
deepitefiemdeoftransportatim,wasperceivedtobebemeen46
percentandSlpercent.

Mfiedeperdentvariableca'lsistedoffieneanperceived
influence of fiewife mfie aoommdatim decisim,’ fiemineffects,
travelpartycmpositimardfieexplairedsmrceofvariatimwere
significant. Menfietravelpartycmsistedofmleandfanale
adults, traveling wifim orwifixout diildren, fie aooamndatims selected
wasviavedtobeajointspwsaldecisim. 'newifewasperoeivedas
havmgexertedamjorityinfltememfiedecisimuenfietravel
party camositim cneisted of a single adult traveling with children
orfiesamesexadultstravelingtogefier.

217

Although not statistically significant, an interesting
relatimshipbetweenfiewife'sneanperceivedinfltencemfie
acommdaticnsselectedanifiecostoffieacoamndatialswas
ida'rtified. A negative relatimship was identified between fie mean
peroeivedinfluereeoffiewifemfieacoaunodaticns selectedandfie
costoffieacoamndatims. 'Ihatis, asfieoostoffieacocnnodations
increased, fiemsanperceived influenoeoffiewifemfiedecisim
decreased. Ge possible explanation for filis negative relatimship is
basedmfieperoqrtimofmoreynattersbeingfieprimryoonoernof
the husbard.

Wenfiedepaflentvariablecmsistedoffieperceivedmean
influenoeoffied'iildrenmfieacoumndaticnsselected,fie
indeperderrt variable, travel party cmpositim, was significant.
Childrenwerepereeivedashavingexertedfielargestmmtof
influereemfiedecisimmenfietravelpartyampositimcmsisted
of fie sane sex adults traveling togefier, followed by single adults
traveling with children.

mm

Travel party cmpositim, informatim used in vacatim decision-
makirg, andfieplrposeof visitirgfilisresortareasignificantly
inpactfieperoeivedneanlevelofinfluereefamilymalbershavemfie
decisicn ocnoerning fie type of activities to participate in while on
vacatim,wlencaltrollim for fmilyhmardfielegfil of days
spentinfiearea.

The final hypothesis concerning fie inpact of travel
deracteristicsmfieperceivedneaninfluenoeoffamilymedaersm

218

vacatim decisiaI-mkirg is oaeerled wifil vacatim activities.
Portiaeofallfixreelndelsanalyzedprovedtobesignificant.
flemineffects,anitravelpartyocmpositimweresignificant
forallfinreemodels. researchmrum, 1961)hasaenonstrateo filat
Wetladecisimisofpartiallarinteresttoanilflividlal,asmnd
vacatim activities, fieir participatim and/or influence in filat
decisim typically hereases. A vacatim is typically taken in order
forfietravelerstohavefmdardrecreatim. 'Ihesuooessoffie
vacatim is often deperda'rt m fie mjayment of fie activities
participated in. More, fie signifimnt results are logical,
dereby fie cmpositim of fie traveling party world significantly
inpactaperson's influaeemvacatim activities. Furfiernere, fie
mmtofinfluenoedmarmhaveinramnyvaeatimaecisim-mnngis
oftmaiereediffiedecisimisrelatedtofieirwnrecreatim
activities (mastitis, HooreGStefilae, 1977).
'nereasmforvisitingfilisareawasalsosignifioantwtenfie
depadentvariablecmsistedoffieperceivedneaninfluaeeoffie
hebardarrifieperceivedmeaninflueleeoffiewifemfievacatim
activitiesdesen. Iffilistripistalnenpartiallyforhlsiress
parposes,fiespousesm11dlimitfieactivitiesselectedtofiesefie
familycznparticipateinafterfietusixesshasbeenompleted,or
ammdhlsinessleurs. Immise,iffieplrposeoffievisitwasto
visitfrietflsardrelatives,fieresearfierassmedfietfiespouses
wmldexertinfluereemvacatimactivitiesmidlcanbeparticipated
inbypereaeinfietravelparty,friadsam/orrelatives.

219

Waltz
'neseoadcbjectivewastoeaamirefierelatiaehipbetweenfie
transposedtravelpartyderacteristice, basedalfiestagesoffie
family life cycle and socioeoaunic variables and fie perceived
influence family mailers have m vacaticn decisim-mking. 'ne second
cbjectivewasadlievedfilrulghfiedevelqmentofardanalysisoffie
seoadsetofhypofieses. See'l‘ableéllsmmaryoffierejectionor

nut-rejection of fie hypofieses set 2.

 

Usingfiestagesoffiefamilylifecycleasaberdmark,travel
party cmpositim categories were transformed. 'ne first group of fie
travel party ompositicn cneisted of rule arri female perems, between
fieagesoflsani34,ardueweretravelingwifinltdlildren. Ire
secordgrumcaeistedofmleardfanaleadults,mderfieageof35,
arddeweretravelingwithdlildren,aged21yearsandyumger. 'ne
thirdgrwpoffietravelpartycmpositimcaeistedofadultsbetmeen
fieagesof35and64. 'nesepersonsoouldbetravelilgwifilor
wifinltdlildren,aged21yearsardyomger. 'nefour'filanifinal
grulpusedtoassimilatefiestagesoffiefamilylifecyclecmsisted
ofadultsoverfieageofas.

Transposed travel party ourpositim proved to be significant for
seven of fie eight mtim decisims truer examinaticn. See Table 65.

'netraleposedtravelpartycmpositimwassignifimntmfie
pereeivedneaninfluereeoffiemlsbardamfiedlildrenoaeeming
fouroffiesevendecisims. Horrespecificallmfiemodelwas
significant wlen fie vacatim decisims under caeideratim ireluded

220

 

Table 64. SmnaryoffielevelofSlrportforfieAltemateHypofimis
Set2: 'I‘ravelPartyOmpositim, BasedmfieStagesoffie
Family Life cycle, Family Inoane, W's Pqe and
Educational Status Significantly Influence Family mere '
Parceived man level of Influence a: Family Vacatim
Decisicn-Hakirg

Went neband Wife Children

 

 

Decisim to Vacatim ‘mis Year

 

 

 

'l'ravelPartyOcmpositim Sapport NoSlmort Sipport
MainEffects NoSlpport NoSlgport Sipport
Age . NoSlpport NoSlpport NoSlpport
mum NoSmport NoSlmort NoSupport
Familylnoane NoSlpport NoSlrport NoSlpport
Deplaixed NoSirport NoSupport Sippor't
DecisiontoVacatim‘Ihis

Sumner

TravelPartyCmposition Smort NoSlpport Sipport
MainEffects NoSlpport NoSmort Sipport
Pqe _ NoSlpport NoSimort NoSlnaort
Eduetlon Sipport NoSlpport NoSlrport
Familylnome NoSlrport NoSlpport Sipport
Explailed NoSlpport NoSlpport NoSlpport

 

Decisim Omoerning Exactly
Hen to Take this Vacatim

 

TravelPartyOmpositim NoSmort NoSlpport Support

 

MainEffects NoSlpport NoSlpport Support
Age NOW NOW Slpport
mum NoSipport Snort NoSupport
Familylnome NoSmport NoSIpport Snort
Ecplained NoSlgport NoSlrport Snort
Decisimanoerningfie

la'lg‘th of Ms Vamtim

 

'l‘ravelPartyOmposition NoSlpport NoSurport Slpport

minEffects NoSIpport NoSlrport NoSlmort
Age NoSlpport NoSupport NoSlpport
nitration NoSupport Sipport NoSumort
Familylnoane NoSlpport NoSumol-t NoSlpport

Explained NoSlpport NoSlmort NoSlrport

 

221

 

Table 64 (Gmt'd).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

armament Iteband Wife Children
Vacatimarhetnecisim
TravelPartyampositim NoSnort NoSnort NoSlpport
MainEffects NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
Age NoSnort NoSnor't NoSnort
meatim NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
Familylnocme NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
VacatimActivitiesSelected
TravelPartycmpositim Snort NoSnort Snort
MainEffects NoSnort Snort NoSnort
Age NoSnort NoSnort
Exiucatim NoSnort Snort NoSnort
Familylreane NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
DecisicntoVisit'lhis
ResortArea
'rravelPartycnlpositim NoSnort Snort
HainEffects NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
pge NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
meatim amt amt NOW
Familylreane NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
AcoumedatimsSelected
for'lhisVacatim
navelPartycmpositim NoSnort NoSnort Snort
HainEffects NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
Age NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
mmtim Sumort Sumort Nosupport
Familylnocne NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort
NoSnort NoSnort NoSnort

 

222

 

Table 65. Smmary of Signifimnt mdels of fie Parceived
Neanlevel of InfluaeemFamilyVacaticn

Decision-flaking by Travel Party Outposition

 

Vacatim Decision neband Wife Children

 

Aoommdatiae
length of Vacation
Vaoation Activities
Vacatim 'Ihis Sumner
Vacaticn 'mis Year
Visit This Resort
Hen to Vacation

xxxx
XXXXXXX

 

wlefiertovacationfilisyear,vacatimthissumer,visitfilisresort
areaarrlfietypesof vacatim activitiestoparticipate in. lines
additimal decisions, fie type of acoannodatims, whal tovacatim and
fieletgfiloffievacationweresignificantinfiemdelinrelatimto
fieperoeivedneanlevelofinfluereeoffiedlildren.

An analysis of significant differaees between fie nean values of
fiefmr'grulpswillfurfieraidtofieexaminatimoffieinpactof
fietravelpartyompositimmfieperceivedmeanlevelofinflteree
of family members on vacation decisions. See table 66. 'lle
differences identified were typime betwem male and fanale
vacationers, under the age of 35, traveling wifilout children (yoovoc)
arrimaleardfenalevacatiaers,betwemfieageof35ard64,wifilor
wifimtchildren (YOCWIC). Frunfilisanalysis,fieasstmptimismade

223

 

Table 66. ‘Iukey's Post Hoc Test: Significant* Differences Esteem
MeanValues of Perceived Influence of Emilymrsm

Vamtim Decisicre by Trareposed Travel Party empositicn

 

 

Vacaticn Decisicns misbard Wife Children

Aeoamedatia'ls MIC-YOCNOC
MIC-m

legth of Vamticn

Visit his mt W1C MIC-m
MIC-m

Vacatim 11118 SW WC MIC-W

Vacatial This Year W1C MIC-W
MIC-m

Vacaticn Activities WC YOCWIC-YOQDC

MCI-WC mono-m

MIC-YOCNOC
mono-m

Vamtim Sflget

When to Vacaticn MIC-W

 

*p<.05.
Table Key:

mono-4am staples, aged 34 and under, traveling wifiult d'lildren.

YOCWIC—flamg calples, aged 34 and under, travelirg with children.

MIC—Midile-aged couples, aged 35-64, traveling wifilout children,
single parents, aged 35-64, traveling with children or middle-

aged calples traveling wifil dlildren.
Elm—Elderly persms, aged 65 ard older.

 

224

that fie transfonled travel party composition significantly inpact fie
perceived mean level of decisiar-mldng.
filbsultsoffilisanalysisareoaeistentwifilpreviws firdl'lgs
(cosenza & Davis, 1981; mrrhy & Staples, 1979; I-laberman & Elinsm,
1967: Schlesinger, 1962: Wells & Sibar, 1966). Wits fran fiese
studiessuggestfiiatagesof familymeubers, marital stamsandfie
presaeeorabsmceofdlildrm, fomirgfiestagesoffiefamilylife
cycle, significantly influence family vacaticn decisicn-maldrg.
Researcters (Cm, 1975; My & Staples, 1979; Schlesinger, 1962)
have omcluded filat fie type of decisim-making, joint, majority or
daninant, usedinafamilydergesasfieyprcgressfimfimfiestages
of fie family life cycle. 0pm examinatim of fie perceived mean
values of fie influeee family numbers have m vacatim decisims by

transposed travel party cmpositim, fie perceived level of influence

exertedmdecisimwaspartiallydepaflertupmfiestageoffie
travelpartycmpositimaswellasmfievacatimdecisim. See

Table67.
Despitefiestageoffietransposedtravelpartycmpositim,fie
misbarriwasperceivedasexertinganajorityinfluezeemfiehldget
ardlengfiiofvacatim. 'nehlsbandwasalsoperceivedasbeingfie
danimntdecisim-makerforfieacommcdatiaeselected. Forall
vacatimdecisiaearelyzed,uenfiespwsesweretmderfieageof35,
regardlessoffiepresaeeofchildrenmfietrip,fielmsbarflwas
perceivedashavingeinertedadcninantormjoritylevelofinflterce
mvacatimdecisim-mking. Relifiespouseswereumerfieageof
35,denitefiepreseleeofdlildrenmfievacatim,fiemsbandwas

225

 

Table 67. Smary of Parceivedlevels of Influence m

Vacation Decisicn-Haking by Travel Party
(Impositim, BasedmfieStagesoffieFamily

Life Cycle

 

Travel Party expositicn Decisia't-Makin; Classificatim '

 

 

Acommdatiae
mono Wj ority
YOGWIC I-hsbard-Danirant
HACWIC l-lusbard-Daninant
m Husbarri-Daninant

 

lengfil of Vacation

 

vocnoc washers-Maj ority
YOGVIC Sahara-Maj ority
MIC nebam-mj ority
sums fiebard-Maj ority

 

Take a Vacatim This Year

 

mono ushers-Maj ority
YOOVIC ulsbarri-Daninant
MIC Wife-Millard:
sums Wife-Miriam:

 

Vaatimarhet

 

YOGIJC Husband-Maj ority
YOCWIC Husband-Maj ority
MIC I-hlsband-Maj ority
m Husband-Maj ority

 

226

 

Table 67 (Chrt'd) .

 

Travel Party Ocrlpositim DecisiaHthng Classificatim

 

Vacation Activities

 

mono Wad-Maj ority
mane Wife-Daninant
mane Joint

m ashore-mj ority

 

Visit his heart Area

 

YOODC lhsbarrl—Maj ority
MIC Joint

MIC Wife-Inninant
mars _ Hasband-Haj ority

 

Vacaticn This Smlner

 

vocmc husband-Maj ority
yoovlc Husbani—

mcmc Joint

m Joint

 

 

mom Wj ority
MC Eastern-Maj ority
MIC ulsbarri-Duninant

 

227

perceivedasbeirgfiemjoritydecisim-Iaharmfiedecisimwhento
vacatim. Siousesaver35yearsoldperceivedfiehusbaniasfie
dahirentdecisim-mhermfilisvacatim docisim.

Regardless of marital state, adnts, aged 35-64, traveling with
du‘ldren, perceivedfiespmsesashavirgmdejointdecisiaemfie
typeofactivitiestoparticipateinamifieresortareaselected.
Additimal joint decisicn-makirg was identified by persms over 65,
regardingfiedecisimtovamtimfilissmmar.

 

Socioeoamicaqectsoffiefamilysudlasage, educatimand
ireatehavebeenslewntosignificzntlyinfltereefieperceivednean
levelofinfluereefamilymnbersaiertmdecisimkim (Oosenza&
Davis, 1981; Clawsm, 1961; cox, 1975; Green & Qmirgham, 1975;
Haberman & Elinsm, 1967; Myers & scarier, 1978; Soanzoni, 1977:
Schlesinger, 1962: Wire & Sanelsm, 1976; Wells & altar, 1966).
Analysiscxnmctedinfilissurlystnortsfiesefirdings. Significant
realltsvereidentifieduenaralysisofvarimeemscaflletedteing
age, ireane, ardedlmtionasfieirdepenientvariablesarrlfie
perceivedmanlevelof influereeoffiefamilymalbersmseven
vacatimdecisimsasfieirflepaflentvariables. SeeTable68. When
fiedeperrlaltvariableoaeistedoffieperceivedneaninfluereeoffie
mebardmvacatimdecisiae,mlyaeiniepefientvariableprcvedto
besignificant. tneeducaticmalstatusoffierespmdentwassl'lctnrnto
besignificantinfieperceivedneanlevelofinfltereeoffielmsbaxfi
mfiedecisimtovacatimfilissumer,tovisitfilisresortarea,ard
fieacocmmcdatiaeselected.

228

 

Table 68. Smary of Significant mdels of fie Perceived
Moan level of Influece (I: Family Vacatim
Decisiar-Haking by Socioeoannic Aspects of fie
Family

 

Significant W nebard Wife Children

 

Accummdatiae

 

Education X X

 

lengfil of Vacatim

 

fixation X

 

Vacatim Activities

 

Main Effects X
Age X
Education X

 

Vacatim 'nlis Sumner

 

Main Effects X
nitration X
lncme X

 

Vacatim This Year

 

Main Effects
Explailed

XX

 

Visit This Resort

 

Eincatim X X

 

229

 

W's educatiael stains proved to be statistimlly
significant in seven mdels. Ourtroversy, lewever, exists oaeerning
the directionality of respa'rlent's educatiael stems and their
perceived level of influeee m decisicn-naking. Scott (1970)
concluded filat a positive relatiafllip between education and decision-
makinginfluaeeexists. Federandlee (1974) oaeludedfilatas
educatiael stains increases, decisim-makirg dulnance decreases, and
is replaced with joint decisiai-mldng between spouses.

Inordertoexamilefiedirectialalityoffiemeanvalues foreach
variable classification, cell means were examimd. Results fran filis
study, oaeernin; fie directionality between educatimal state and
perceivedmanlevel of influeree'mvacatimdecisial-mkinghere
ileaelusive. Positive relatimships were identified oaeerning fie
perceivedmaninflteree offiehlsbandmfouroffieeightvaoation

decisiae and the respariertt's educatimal status. See Table 69. 'Be
perceived influence of fie wife fluctuated acrcss fie variols
educaticnal stabls classificatiae. the: fie decisim under

investigatim cneisted of fie selectim of fie resort area, vacatim
activities, wtefier tovacatim this sinner, vacatimfilis yearand
wlentovacetim,fieperceivedneanlevelof influaeewaslowestfor
fiesewmenwifilanelanentaryedieatimandhigtestforpersaewitha
gradatedegree. Rmfievamtimdecisimomsistedoffietypeof
aoomdatimsselectedorfielengfiloffievamtion, fiewmlwho
leldagraduatedegreewereperceivedaseiertingaloweranamtof
influereefiiandidfiesevdereoeivedanelementaryedieatim. See
AmadixBforawmaryoffieneanvalues.

230

 

Table 69. Smary of fie Relatiaehip Between Family
Socioeoaunic Aspects arri Vacatim Decision-
Haking: Analysis of Cell Means

 

Vamtion Decisicn nebard Wife Children

 

Respa'dent's Meatiael State

 

Acoamnodatims
legth of Vacatim
Resort Area Oesen
Vacaticn Activities
Vacaticn Briget
Vacetim 'mis Sinner
Vacation 11118 Year
Hen To Vacation

$fi+§l??+
IMMM+MMM
IIIMMIMM

 

E

n++gnomm fi

 

Acoannodaticns
length of Vacatim
Insert Area Chosen
Vacaticn Activities
Vacaticn Badget
Vacatim 'lhis Sinner
Vacation This Year
Hen To Vacatim

EQIQ+Q?I
?fl?fll?m?

 

E
E

 

Acommodatiae
lengfil of Vacatim
lbsort Area deem
Vacation Activities
Vacatim Sriget
Vacation 'lhis Sumner
Vacation This Year
When To Vacation

gmlmm$$+
"witiwii
9 ' 29"”?9

 

We: like curvilirear relatimship.

C- -Oonczve like curvilinear relatimship.

F -Fluculations upward and downward.

- -Negative relaticnship.

+ --Positive relatimship.

- -Apprcncimate1y equal acrcss all categories.

+H- -Positive relatimship, however, fie mean valle
decreases when fie higest category is readed.

 

231

Similartofilatofthewife,anicartrarytofietoffielmsband,
fiecellmanvahesoffieperceivedmaninfluereeoffiedfildrenm
vacatim decisiore by educaticnal stable fluctuated. A relatiaehip
betueenfielevelofedmatimandfieperceivedinflueleeexertedm
vacatimdecisiar-mkirgwasmtidartified.

nesefirdirgsaremtascaelusiveasfiloseidartifiedbymood
am Wolfe (1960) ard Scott (1970). Time researders identified a
positive relatimship bet-.ween educatioral status and fie man level of
dmimreeelertedinfamilydecisim-mking. Asfieeducaticnal status
rises, typicallysodoesfielevel of influereeelaertedmdecisims.

W

Researduers (Ferber & lee, l974; Filiatrault & Ritchie, 1980;
Green & oumirgham, 1975; Jenkins, 1978; Konemvsky, 1961) have
identified that fie age of family maibers signifiantly influence fieir
perceived man level of influence m decisim-mkim. Results of filis
shady selectively seaport pmviws findings. W's age
significantlyinpactedfieperceived influencedlildrenexertedmfie
vacatim activities selected. Mspa'ident's age did not, however, prove
to be significant in relatim to fie renaining vacation decisions
analyzed.

Cellmanswereusedtoexamilefieperceivedmanlevelof
influeleeofrespmdentswifilinfievariousagegrwps. Wenfie
respadent's age was taken into cmsideraticn, in cmjuncticn with fie
perceivedman influence offiehudaandardwife, fiedirectionality
variedbyfievacation decisimmflercmsideratim. Ageleral
meoffiedirectiaelityoffieperceivedmaninflueleeoffie
lusband mvacatimdecisiar-mldmwasmt idartified. 'nepelceived

232

maninfluereeoffiemsbardmfievacatimdecisim-mkingwas
viaied to have a omvex-like curvilinear relatiaehip, positive or
madmtelyeqelacrossallagegrnpsmsixoffieeight
decisims. Anegativerelatiaehipwasviaedmfiaooffieeight
decisiae: fie acoamwdatiae selected and fie lengfil of fie vacation.
'nedirectialalityoffieperceivedmaninflueteeoffiewifem
vacaticn decisim—making, inrelatimtofierespondart's age,wasalso
decisim specific. That is, when fie vacaticn decision under
cmsideratim cmsisted of fie vacatim activities, lengfil of fie
vacation, resort area desen, or fie vacatim budget, fie
directimality was perceived to be regative or a cursive-like
anvilirearrelatiaehip. Ageandperceivedmaninfluaeeoffiewife
mentovacatimdecisims,totakeavacatimfilisslmer,ardthis
year, cneisted of a positive relatiaehip. .

Unlikefieresultsdescribedabove,therelatialshipshetweenfie
respariart'sageamfieperceivedmaninfherceoffiedlildrenm
vacaticn decision-mung were eifier apprmtimately eqlivalent across
agegrumsorcaeistedofaalrvilirearrelatiaehip. 'lhisconcave—
likerelatiaehipcnortsfieasamptimfietparult(s)bebdemfie
agesof35-64,allowfieirdlildrentobemreinfluartialinvacation
decisiat-ualdngfiendoparentswtearemlder350rover64. Ge
possibleelqllamtimforfiiisfiamelmisfieageoffiedlildrm.
mildra'lofparentsmder35mybeinfantsortodllerszfiesedlildren
domthavedecisiar—mkingskillsorlogicyet. Asfieparentsage,
sodofiechildrm. Asfiediildrmgrwintoadolescelee,fieir
decisim-mkimskillsaredeveloped,axrifieirlilesmddislikescan
easilybe identified (Berey & Pollay, 1968).

233

mm

Statistical analysis revealed filat family inccm was statistically
significant for ae model. Wen fie dspa'ndart variable cmsisted of
fieperceivedmanlevel of influeee offiechildralmfiedecision
to vacatim filis year, fie mdel proved to be significant.

lnanattelpttoeimirefieperceivedmanlevelofinfluence
familymalberswifilinfievarialsimcmebradcetshadmvacation
decisicns, cell mans were examired. A positive relatimship arri
fluctuating relatimship was identified between fie perceived man
influenceoffiehusbarrimvacatimdecisiaeanifietotalfamily
inocne. Scott (1970) identified a positive relatimship between fie
wife's perceived man level of influence in family decisial-mking and
family l'noae. Researdi by Myers and mief (1978) identified
similarrelatimships, statingfietwhenfiehigtest ircanehracketwas
reported, fiewmea'samountof influencedecreased, ardfieperceived
manlevel ofinflteleedeiaetratedbyfielmsbandirereased.
Alfinlghmtincmpletesupport, resultsoffilissbriyaresimilarto
the findings by Scott (1970) and Myers and mief (1978). More
specifically, fie wife's perceived man influence :11 four of fie eight
decisims was positively related wifil family ireme, drcppirr; only at
the higest incane bracket.

'nerelatiaehipbetwea‘ifamilyircaneandfieperceivedman
influence of fie dlildren m family decisim-mking was typically
curvilinear. Glildrmwereviaaedaseiertingfiegreatestamomtof
influereecnfievacatimdecisicnswhenfiefamilyilecmewasinfie
miaile levels. Goldberg and Gorn (1977) idmtified that lower-class
families typically result in the children having a greater level of

234

iniepafieueinpurdlashqprodxts. Asfietctalfamilyincane
increased, sodoesfielevelcfparaltalslpervisim. misirereased
supervisicn typically resulted in fie relative decisim-makim ability
offiedlildtodacreaseObsdlis,lbore&Stqmae, 1977).

Hypofimissetti
'nefilirdcbjectivecffiesmdywastoexamixedifferencesbetveen

fieperceivedinfluereefamilynaflersexert—edmfietypeofvacatim
decisimsanalyzedinfiesmdy.
Results of fie Chi-stare analysis revealed filat fie mdel

caeerningfiecveralldaninareecfvacatimdecisial-mking,bysex,_

andfiedanimmeoftaeticalandprogramdecisiaewasmt
significant. See Table ‘70. Apprmdnately 78 percent of fie mn were
perceived to dominate fie overall vacatim decisiae and tactical
decisims. Perceived male duiretim of overall vacatiah decision-
mldrgamlprogramdecisiaewasadlievedby70.9percent. This
rqzresmtedadifferaeeofLSpetca'ttbeueenfiecveralldaniname.

 

Table '70. amrycfPerca'ttof MaleVersus FennleOver-
allDaninantDecisim-QBkingarflmninatimby
'Iypeofnecisim

 

Tactical Program

 

Hale Overall Danimnt 78.14 70.9
Fanale Overall Danirerrt 21.6 29.1

 

235

Alargerpercartageofvmenwlewereperceivedtodmiretefie
cverallvacatimdecisioremealsoperceivedasbeingfiedaninant
decisicn—mker for fie program decisim over filat of tactical
decisims. menpercartoffiemmeweredanimntm
overall vacatial decisicn-makirg were also fie daninant decisim-maker
mtactical decisims. Wtely 29percentcffiewunenwere
perceivedashavingdanimtedfiecverallvacatimdecisiaeaswellas
fieprcgramdecisim.

Waltz-mud:

'nefalrthcbjectiveofthissfiflywastcdevelcpafieoreticel
mdelwhidleaamiresfieinfluermscffamilysocioecamicaspectsam
travel party cmposition, based mfie stages cffie family life cycle,
on family vacatim decisiar-making. As a result of statistiml
analysis, interactimbyfieDelMpamLandpastr-eseardlsfildies,
fie calceptual framework for family vacatim decision-mkirg, proposed
incepter3,hasbeenredesigled. 'nedisaissione-rtails
similarities, differences and cmfinnatim of fie various aspects of
fiecrigimlmdel. fierevisedfraneworkispresentedinf‘igm'ell.

'nefirstsectimoffiemdelcaeistsoffiefamilydacisim-
mkimstructme.1nordertodetemimfiefierormtallfamily
memmperceivedasexertingsaneinfluereemvacatimdecisim-
making, analysiswascariucted(q.esticns78-q.estia'186). 'mrcugha
frequeycoxmt,fieperceivedmanlevelofinfluereeoffielmsbarfl,
wife are children :11 each vacatim decisim was evaluated. Analysis of
fiemanvalmsaiggestfilatallfamilymdersdolevesanedegmeof
influence mvacatim decisim-mking. 'nehusbard or

236

 

 

 

11

FAMILY STRUCTURE

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

VARMBLES FAMILY VACATION DECISIONS
Funny Ll: won
and Soclo-cculoulc
thables
- Ago 0! spout" '
: 333332.133. spoon!) S‘BIIIB MCISIOIIS
- Famuylncomo (both spout”) t.“ .‘w... "a.
: mahsaxr::ildvon "....
“I d the motion

 

Length a mum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. “on budget
Vacation mun

Perceived null

Name at

....... "as.“ Assn-nucleus
.\\\‘ wle

m cflldnn

on vacation decision-

Mm.

 

 

 

 

 

Pique 4. Flandert of familyvacatim decision-mldng:
'ne inclusim of trarepoeed travel party capo-
sition, socioeoa'micvariables an! type of
decisiae.

237

wife was typically perceived as fie daninant decisial-mker. Alfilough
fieirperceivedmanlevelofinflueleedidmtmetcreameedfie
perceivedmaninfluereecffiespouses, dlildrmwereviededas
exertingsaneinfluaeemvacatim decisions. Asaldl,fie
examinatimoffieperceivedinfluaeecfallfamilymbersm
vacatimdecisim-maldrgrenairedinfiemdel.
'neseoariportimoffiemdeltobeeaamiredisfieinclusimcf
fieinpactfiestagescffiefamilylifecycleandsocioecotmic
variableshavemfamilydecisiax—mldng. Fcrplrposesofthissbddy,
travelpartycmpositimwasusedasabemtmarkforfiestagesoffie
family life cycle. Aspectsoffietravelpartycmpositim ireludefie
agescffiedxildrenrewcrdartsaretravelirgwifiyfieasamptimof
mritalstauls,sinyleormrried,andfieagecffiere$afient.
Results of aeway Analysis of Variance revealed filat family manners
perceivedmanlevelcfinflueeemsevmoffieeightvacatim
decisims under investigatim were significant wen fie iniependent
variable cneisted of travel party cmpositial. 'ne signifimnce of
each analysis, however, variedby familymnber andvacaticn decision.
'matis,fieinpactcffiedlildren'sinfluereemfiedecisimwas
significant forfiesevendecisims. Fcurcffiemdelswere
significantm fie husband's man perceived influence (:1 vacatim
decisiaewasenmiled.
Renfiedifferaeesinfieperceivedmanlevelofinfllereeof
familynelbersmvacztimdecisiaewasexamiredinrelatimtofamily
ireane,agearrieducatialalstamsoffierespadmt,severalmdels
were significant. For socioeca'nnic aspects of fie family, significant
resultsweredecisimspecific. Detofiefactfilatfilisisan

238

exploratorystlfly, andbasedmfieresultsdescribedabove, all
socioeomanic variablesranairedinfiemodel, dewitefielevel cf
significaree.
Becamefieacmalstageoffiefamilylifecycleforeadl
Medeldwasmtidentified,resultsrelatedtofievariablesaremt
”elusive. 'Bela'gfilcffiemritalstahlshasheenslmtcbea
significant factor in fie stages of fie family life cycle (Cox, 1975).
Wortmately, fielengfil offienarital status cfrespmdentsam
fieirdlildrenismlh‘mn. ‘neresearderbelieves,bcfilintuitively
arrifilruaghfiereseardlcitedabove,filatfiesevariablesarecmcial
tcfiefllrfierdevelmltcffilisfrm. tbspitefiefactfilat
fievariablesusedinfilissectimcffiemdelaremtallsignificant
inthisreseardl,fieresearder'deaneditremssarytoincludefie
lengfimoffiemaritalstafiecffieparertsardfieirdlildren, if
applicable,infiefieoreticalmdel.
describedindeptechmtairedafamilydacisim—mkirqcmpaent.
'mruighthiscmpaent,fietypeofdecisiarnakingfiefmnilyengaged
inwas categorized; majority, daninant, joint spousal arri joint family.
Unlike results of past vacatim decisim-making stuiies (Filiatrault &
Ritchie, 1980; Jenkins, 1978; Ritchie & Filiatrault, 1980), results of
fieanalysisrevealedfixatfietnebaniwasperceivedasexertima
majority influence m two of fie vacatim decisicns. Joint spousal
decisiai-mkingwasalsoperceived. Boomeermeardlwereysl’cllay,
1968: Jenkins, D7831b8dfi88m, 1979:}iosdlis,lbore&5tqiete,
1977) hasdanmstrated filat drildrenarebecanimincreasinglymre
influential in family decisim-making, curtailed wifil finding filat

239

dlildrenwereperceivedaseaertirgsaneinfluereemvacatim
decisine, fie category of joint family decisicn-maldng also renaired
infiemdel. Itismtfiecartentimcffilisresearderfilatjcint
familyvacatimdecisim—mldmwillbeidentifiedinfiemarfuture,
sayfienelctfiveyears. W,itslmldbemtedfilat,mote
vacatialdecisim,dlildrenwereperceivedashavirgexerted
appraximtelyllpercartcffieinfltenoemfiedecisim. Ajcint
family decisim-making cmcept reqrires mimtely 33 percent
influencebyeadlmer,lmsbard,wifeammildren. Assudnfie
possibility of joint family decisim-mking in fie future is based on
morefilanmremecllation. Basedupmfieseresultsarriassmptions,
fiefan'cetegoriesofdecisial-maldmrenainedinfiemdel.

'Bethirdpartcftlemdeltoberedesigrmisthefamily
vacatim decisicn-makim sectim. 'ne central-satellite model of
decisicn-mking is redesigmd to represent a decisim tree format.
One the cartral decisim ismde, ard satellite decisicns are being
caeidered,itismtmoessarytoreferbadctofiecaltraldecisim.
‘necentraldecisiminfilissfidywaswkefierormttotakea
vacatimthisyear. Ifaregativedecisimwasmade,fiefamilydid
mtvacatimthisyear,fierefcrefieyweremtapartcfthissfifiy.
If fie decisim was affirmative, satellite decisims cumming fie
vacationweregererated.

In fie original fieoretical framework, satellite decisiore were
grouped together, despite fie classificatim of each decisicn. Furfier
refinanentcfthiscmpmentoffiemdelresultedinfie
classificatim arr! reorganizatim of satellite decisims under
cmsideratim. 'ne four classificatims of satellite decisions include

240

tactial, program, policyardccntrcl. 'neorderingoffiedecisims
wifilinfiefrmaorkareseqentialinmfilre. Asidentifiedbyfie
Delfiliparel,tacticaldecisiorewereviaaedtobefirstorderin
nature. 'nerefore,tacticaldecisiaearelistedpriortofiecfier
types of satellite decisiae. Program decisims are listed next.
Programdecisiaearefilosedecisiaewhicharecaeerredwifil
regularlyrealrringevents. Policy decisimsariseincircumstances
reqriring an ”if and den" decisim, which typically requires repeated
attentim. antrcldecisiaeareplacedlastdnetcfiefactfilatfiey
actasamasureof performance of previous vacatim decisiae.

Alfinlghpolicyardcmtrcldecisiaeweremtusedinthissfifly,
fie classification for fiese decisiae are incluied in fie mdel, for
itsuseinfufilrereseardl. Becamecmtroldecisiaeactasamamre
of performance, fie acoqrtanoe or rejectim of fie.performance
influencefublrevamtim decisiar-maldrqbyfamily miners. A
feedbackloopisgaeratedfrunfiecattrcldecisiae,backtcfie
satellite decisims. Wm fie perfomnoe is positive, it is assumd
filat fie prdaability of repeat decisicn carton-me by family matters is
high. Fbrexanple,ifletelacoamdatials,ascpposedtouseofa
canpgmnrl,wereselected,fiedecisimtomehctelacommdatiaem
fienextvacatimmaybemade. weavise,iffiemamreofperformnce
wasnegativealaparticulardecisim,fiefeedbacklocptofilat
decisim may result in a differert decisim artcule m future family
vacatimdecisial-mkim.

 

...=~:-‘-7".='-‘;~i,-‘\ .‘3 15d gm . --

(ballot 1:51.:Ji‘7ul; I I.

    

e'z'umficci‘zz-‘z: h; 5,
my?! 03 sad-ti ferries? all?
gins! mil rs: saw-anc- ml aim-:51 flirt-663m 2. a1 33”

 

MW

 

www.mam

ClapterVIisorganizedintofivesectims. 'nefirstsection
cartaireaamnarycffiereseardlmfiedclogyarfidataarelysisused
infiesfildy. Aamnaryoffiefindirgsispresentedinfiesecond
section. ‘nefilirdsecticnaddressesfielimitatiaecffiesuldy.
Corelleionsgeneratedbyfieanalysesoffiedataareprmentedin
sectimfcur. ‘nefiftharrifinalsectimoffilisdlapterconsistscf

recmmendatims forfumrereseardlinfieareacf familyvaeation
decision-making.

 

'nepdrposeoffiesufiywastoinvestigateandanalyzefie
perceived man influence of family matters, fie husbard, wife and
children, m family vacaticn decision-mking. 'ne objectives of fie
researchweretoexamimfierelatiaehipbefiueentravelparty
carpositim, based (:1 fie family life cycle, arri socioeconanic
variablesardfieirinpactmfieperceivedlevelofinfllencefamily
malbershaveonvacatimdecisims. Baseduponthisanalysis,a
fieoreticalmdelmidlsynfimizesardexamiresfievariablesinpact
or family vacation decision-making was developed.

Aself-reportalrveyiretrtmentwasdistributedtovacatialing
talrists. Upmcxmpletimoffieinstnmrt,fierespadentsmiled
fieqestiamirebacktofieprireipalinvestigatcr. Inorderto

241

 

'V'V‘J
E-J

\ ,‘r‘ ,{HgM'fi’ -
.w {I

  
 
   
   
  
 
 

«wink *
, .r _ '.'.7~’.l 3' .-.,‘lufiv {Mini-"3.. I a
. I"‘ 2’
, “in! - ,3. . I" ' tin'iif’wKi-‘i a A"

‘.

.'.,_,.'.": =ex‘i;51,i471,1 :_2 -rj'e‘a'l Iztu’ieo‘ua; at:

g
i

e gramme all-L: (seq,- anew enlist-oat) mm d

Tommi ask-Laney at} am (:wa ire. .asxiaedjrm m ,

J l 7'.
1‘ ( ':

.kmlmm an! .

   

«mm W was .

 

242

gelifyasapotaztialrespariart,falrreanamtswereestablisted.
Allrespcrdattswererequiredtchavetraveledatleastzoolniles,

mndatrip,tzmthevaeatimdeetimtim. lbspmdentswerealso
requiredtobeatleastlayearsofage. Parsaeoftentravelin
gralpswlmvacatimim. Asslm,itwasdetermiredfilatonlyore
muberfrmeadlvacatialirqgrupwaseligibletccmpletefie
questiculaire. 'nelastreqriruentwasdesigredforfiedecisim-
mkimsectimcffieqestiamaire. allyfiloserespaflentstraveling
asafamilywerereqtestedtocmpletefiedecisim-mkingportionof
fieirstnmrt.
IJJert-typescalesweredevelcpedinordertoeamnimfie
attifildes,q>iniaeardinterestsoffietc.n:ists. Closedended
statmentsweredevelcpedmidladdressedfiepercartoftimspentm
vacaticn activities, reasms for fie vacaticn, frequency of visits and
danograplicinformtial. Wetatsmamtsmredevelqedinorder
todetemirefiedistanoetraveled,costcfacoumcdatiaeandlength
oftimspaltinfilisresortarea. Acmstant-sumratioscalewasmeed
todetemirefieperceivedlevelofinflweefamilymlbershavem
nirevacatimdecisiae.
'nesanpleca'lsisbedofrardmlyselectedtmristswhowere
vacationing in Marquette, Michigan or m Mackinac Island.
Qestianeiresweredistribrtedeverythirddaybetxeenmrialnay
weekend, 1985 andLabor my weekerd, 1985. Infcmatimmfietraffic
patterns of fiese locatims duringfie sunnercf 1982, suppliedbyfie

Michigan W of Transportatim (14.0.0.1), was used to determire
fie sanpling intensity.

   
    
      
   
  

em... 1th :.--,;:a_-... _._J 2.1:»... .;.::.'~§’r.=: 2c: Hansen 11““
Jamie: $0'i'felby. 1:: 533-4354, Viewed «.3 '
{SC We“! when: 251‘. bride 323.9 Jenni!” m
am»: st! .10 3.311190%; we: .brmm 116 w “I
“swimmer: .5691 hmmmimm.’

I'm a: been as .

 

243

Offie6,000qestiamairmdistributedoverfilistimperiod, 556
usableqestiamireswereretImed. Offie556cpestiamaires, 331
cneisted cf vacatiming families. 'ne overall return rate, adjusted
for hempleteorraheableqestiamireswasma percart.

Descriptiveardarpiricalanalysiswasalployedtoexamirefie
data. Descriptive analysis was aployed to examire fie damgrarhic
badmn’rlcffiee'rtiresanpleardfiesetmriststravelirqasa
family. Descriptiveamlysiswasalsocarhetedinordertoeomire
fieperceivedmanlevelcfinfluenoecffamilymmbersmfievacation
decisims. Statistical analysis was employed for fie testing of fie
filreesetscfhypofieses. 'netypesofanalysisatployedcmsistedof
Pedrscn correlatim coefficients, regressim analysis, my analysis
of variaree, amlysis of variance (ANNA) , analysis of covariance
(M), 'Iukey'spostrectestanicli-sqlare analysis.

W
'neplrposeoffilisstuiywastoaddinfomtimtofiealrrent

body of knowledge cumming family vacatim decision-making. Analyses
caeistedoffieexaminatimoffieperceivedinfluaeefiemsbard,
wife and children exerted m vacatim decisial-mking, fie emmination
cffieinpactoftravelpartycmpositim,basedmfiestagascffie
family life cycle and socioecumic aspects of fie family (:1 vacatim
decisicn-maldng. Basedupmfiefinlingsoffieanalyses,aframedork
validlsynfiesizestravelpartycmpositimardsocioeoamicaspectsof
fie family in relaticn to vacation decision-making is disclssed.
Resultsoffiedataanalysisrevealedfilatfieperceivedman
influence of familymaflaerswasdecisim specific. 'nehusbandwas
oftmperceivedasexertingadmimntormjoritylevelcfinflueree

  
      
    
  
 

.1 ’4‘ >' "am
‘.~-1‘_-

.: ,9. 3, ‘3 {y [:;'::1;tm 3m x
. r’_ f‘.

., .. -.« r.‘:,'n- maria-win.

‘
' (I
.‘r: 3072 *' “...“; . Imam .“~':’I.‘-3& m m
W37“?! _:. ...-urn .12: "v.15 ‘21‘ '.".1'L§M'.f.' 113:7 3ch.) If?“ '

..

:9 setups rummage; 1:"; ibu‘zarg‘n‘ marl! W

7

.Wm; a} _~('Lifit~m13£1m Mirna» as new
menu; MW sat: 3w mm: city!” afi .‘

 

 

244

mvacatimdecisial-making. Wanenwereperceivedbymnasexertima
danirentlevelcfinflueteemzoffieBdecisiae. Funenperceived
fiemasexertingfiedaninantormajcrityinfluereemGdecisiae.
‘neyperceivedfiedecisial-maldmtohavebealmmjointlymfie
reneiningZdecisiae. Frunfieseresults,fieresearderhas
caeluied filat perceived man influence of family matters is decision
specific. 'nleseresultsarewpportedbyreseardlcaaictedinfamily
decisicn-makirg (atom, 1961: Davis, 1970: Davis & Rigaux, 1974; 1977;
Ferber & lee, 1974; Geiken, 1964: Green & cmihglm, 197s; Hamel,
1974: mm, Weber 8 Hansen, 1975; milks-Wild, 1969;
WEW,1976).

Alfinxghdlildrmhavemtbeentypimllyperceivedasfie
daninantdecisiam-mker,fieirinfhereelescmtinedtoriseover
reca1tyear30bsdlis,}loore88tqiere, 1977). Analysisfrmfilis
suflyrevealedfietdlildrendohavesuneinfluaeeinfamilyvacatim-
making. 'neyweretypicallyperceivedasexertimmreinfluencem
decisims which directly affect filen, sud-l as vacatim activities to
participatein.

Analysis of Covariance and Regressicn Analysis were cmducted,
usingfieperceivedmanlevelofinfluenoecffamilymmbereasfie
Warmle. flefactcrsardimenmvariablesusedinfie
melysescaeistedcftmvelderacterisflcsMaslezgthcfdistaree
traveled, costcfaccannodatims, previousexperia'loewifilaresort
areaandtravelpartycwpositim. Insultscffieanalysisrevealed
filatfiesignificnmeoffiemdelwasdecisimspecificaswellas
familymalberspecific. P'orexanple,fiefactordistametraveledwas
significantvtmfiedepetdartvariablecueistedoffieperceivedman

. 1.. ..-:.‘_,-l-t 4‘- firm-11:30:13 h

...: . ~v.‘ .7 ._. -.~ ~-. ' .. r .1
..1mL.~~. . in... - 7... ....-. .. 1:9 . m '

”2...! I'- {fiat andsimw ,‘1':.‘:4:’.;7,-'-v.¢1: i119. 31.97957 m a.

    

31min!) 10 {11:15:31 an more airfare» 2.3721. 15W“: 3
4m s new mums semis-2am .25-3;...
heme: eta/glam arc} to new .zmxrtm 9‘ .

 

245

inflmofflaedlildrmmflmereeortareaeelected. 'misfactorwas
mtsignificnntvmenthefamilynalbermflerinvestigatimvaseither
spouse.

amyNIalysisofVariameardmkey'sPostHocTestvere
ouflacted,mingtravelpartyompositim,hasedmthestageaofthe
family life cycle as the factor. 'me W variable cneisted of
theperoeivedmeanlevelofinfluenoefamilymmbezeexertmvacatim
decisicn-making. Travelpartyompositim,basedmthestagesofthe
family life cycle, was shownto significantly inpact family mbers'
perceived mean level of influence (:1 vacatim decisim-mkixg. 'Ihe
peroeivedneaninfluenoeoffamilymmberswasinflwxoedbythe
preserneorabsaioeofdiildzm,fl1emritalstamsoftheadultsard
uneagezarqeofuuerespadmt. '

Analysis of Variance was omdmted, using respordent's age,
educatim and family inoane as factors. 'Ihe depa'dent variable
mistedoftheperoeivedmeaninfluenoeoffamilynaxbersmflie
vacatim decisim-mkirg. Socioeoa'mic aspects of the family, in
mlatimtothepereeivedmeaninfluenoeoffamilymenbersmvacztim
decisimkirq were analyzed. Results frun this analysis revealed
thattheinpactofflnexespa'dmt's age, educntim-ani familyinoane
are situatim specific. Each of the three variables were significant
invarianmdels,depesfli1yupmthedecisimardfamilymaxbermfler
hwestigatim. fingeresultsdonotprovideflnereeeamwiman
overallstatanentoanendmtheinpactofeocioeoamicaspectsofthe
family :31 family vamtim decisicn-maJdm. these results do, however,
prwideevidernethatsocioeoamicaspectsetmldbeeaamiredwitmna
frameworkfordecisimsuiidlareasubeetoftheovemalldecisim.

 

:crcsr; at?” ‘ .

- >1 . a.-
»7,‘ 3.3.“: ,J' ~“ 7: . "11",. f a.
53101; 33mm) 29%;. ‘ o . 1w ;
”TH". . .- in. 5', . . I. , _. . , ..:- , g, N' r ’.> 1., via
4. 1. 233-5 ~35»! ’34-. 3 -, v - .1.. .n .-v...- .
morn: m “Ag-Her. farm; ::~.;;<t':r-.L‘ «w:
1

rs 123': warn-SW1 at! -3-.;,§'.~‘azj :1»: or. £23 hue:

“imam 5W Imam-uni WM

.m .59 9942mm am‘fl

3.5;.» m 5:! W stages W‘ j
.m that. as! t; ma 5mm}

mm- cram ;

{aim . ...--

   
 
   
  
  
  
  

. : 11251 ~ ;

34*;

N'
warm-r

‘

.'-

 

246

Based m the Carnal-Satellite Pattern of Decisim-bhkim, two
typesofdecisicmsusedinthisshxlywereidentifiedbyanelphi
panel. the sole program decisim omsisted of the vacation
aooamodatims selected. The retaining decisions were classified as
tactiml decisials: decisim to vacatim this year, vacatim this
manner, when to vacatim, length of the vacatim, vamtim bufqet,
vacatimactivitiesarrlthetypeof aoomlmdatiasusedwhilem
vacatim. 'me classificatim of these decisicrs were incluied in the
franavork, as well as the classificatim of policy and control
decisions.

Aoartirgenzytableuasoadacted,usirqthedninantwerall
decisim-makerardthedaninantdecisiarmkerfortheprogmmam
tacticaldecisims. Basedupmtheresultsofthistable, Chi-square
analysis was wanted. Results of the analysis revealed that the
overall daninant decisia'l-maker was not significantly differa1t than
the daninant vamtim decisim-malcer for policy and tactical vacation
decisias. 'Ihe Insignificant results led the researcher to occlude
that decisicn-mkirg daninanoe was displayed for the overall vacatim
decisia's as well as for specific vacatim decisims.

Atheometical franavorkof familyvaca‘timdecisimmkingms
develcpedamrefinedbasedmtheresultsoftmsstldy. Interesting
points of zefezaneounemingtheframamkartailfizeimlusimof
flieperoeivedneaninflualoe ofall familymalbers, spousesaswellas
daildren. finesynthesisofthetravelpartyocmpositim, basedmthe
stages of the family life cycle, and socioeoamic variables of the
family add an adiitiaxal explanatory aspect to the framework. Finally,
the inclusim of the Central-Satellite model of decisicn-mking enables

..' 1.4‘

’1
.A. J k
a "7" ~'1' ‘ r
aw IAJ. v. \ . )- ~.'
, 1 .....‘,.' - a. , ..J ‘u. H . . ,
1 ;" .;‘.,‘.‘V~J‘..*.. 3:“) . -..'..|L7 .‘|.. ‘7 ‘7, r-‘d.

in rac'i:~u_1.:;n< ed: .1 us: . .va-mswaz-g’z

:25 Li»: an away: 3am '11:»:

    

w a .933?me magmas ma .aicya an: M: 'V
, .m M we? m: m .
WW 3. mullwaam; I

 

247

thereseardxertoida'rtifythedmimntdecisiarmkerofeaditypeof
satellitedecisim.

W
Limitatimsaretypicnllyarparartbeforeardafteranyreseardl

project. Idmitatimsmayoomrchetolackofqtimlresamos,
missin; data, arr! sanplirg technicpe used. Five limitatims have been
identified with this study.

'mefirstlimitatimwastheabserneofbothspcusesasthesanple
populatim. Some researchers (Blood 5. Wolfe, 1960; mvis, 1970;
Douglas & Wind, 1978; Green & emirgham, 1975; Grarbois a. Willet,
1970) have oattended that usirg GB spouse is sufficient in decisim-
makingsuriieswtmtheanalysisisusedinanaggregateform.
However, when analysis of family decisicn-mkirg, other than in the
aggregate formisdesired, bothspousesslmldbeused. Wittnrtthe
percepticms of both spouses, it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy
of'the respmdmt's peroqrtims of family vacatim decisim-maJdng.
Rather, thereseardierislimitedtotheevaluatimofmleversus
female' s peroeptims of family vacatim decisia'n-mking.

'Ihe seocnd limitatim idertified relates to respaflent's ability
toremlltheeverrts, pnposesardattitlflesomoenfingthevacntim.
naetothefactthatrespadentswereabletofilltheqaestiamaire
outattheirleisure, thetimebetweentherespa'dent'svacntim

decisim-mldrgardtheompletimoftheqaestimireisrardm. As
such, W's aoan'aterecallabilitymaybehanpered.
'methirdlimitatimofthesunyomsistsoftheuseoftravel

partyompositimardageofrespaflartasabaumrkforthestages
ofthefamilylifecycle. nietotheomta'rtoftheqasticnnaire,the

     
 
 
  
 

' nil-4‘ 3°
1’“
I ' .

X

.ri 3'"! "'5‘

A" .

3 - if

.7, ’ 4«:‘ I,_, : L a» o_ 1‘ fiw ..‘5 my; 13”} .

:lnumyiiy‘? ‘3“- ' ‘. 2.7.3: '2»? «an m u «u
raft sensed mu: 94L? ’

. 9.9, Cir/35¢ a“ “ ”s’—-.,s.1:::2:r
tearirizxga 31.? 31:: mijeizpm a” h‘

3" um: a: ,3

“WW - ”mm..-“
“.menmww“ .

 

 

248

aculalfamilylifecyclestageoftherespaida'ltcamiotbedetemined.
Rather,travelpartyompositimarfiageoftherespafle1tareusedto
estinatethestageofthelifecycletheresparientisamrtlyin.
Inordertoenminetheinpactofthestagesofthefamilylifecycle,
theacmalstagesslmldbeusedinthesufly.

The fourth limitatim of the study is the lack of infomatim

ounerningthemritalstamsoftherespadent. mlypersons
travelirgasafamily,withorwitln1td1ildrm,wererecpestedto

ocupletethedecisim—mkingsectimoftheqaestiamire. Assucm
thereseardnerasamedthattheresparientwastravelirginafamily
unit. However, itismtlcrumiftherespaflentwerewrrently
married, widowed, divorced or separated. Manure, an inportant
aspectofthestagesofthefamilylifecycle,thelaigfliofthe
mritalstahn,ismtlu'mn.

'Ihe fifth limitatim was related to the W101 of caiscicus
decisim-mldxg. 'niereseard'iermtheassumtimthattl‘asatellite
decisimswereomsciwslynedebythetom'ist. mistsmy,rnwever,
havenadethevacatimdecisimssubomsciwsly. Ifthelatterwasthe
mse,theallocatimoftheperoeivedmeanlevelofinflwnoeead1
family nether nede m the vacation decisions would be speculative at
best.

'Ihe sixth limitatim was canerned with the examinatim of mly
thermlearfamilyardtheirinfluenoe. 'meairveyinstrument
adiressestheinfluamoeofmlythetraditiaialfamilyofarmsband,
wifeanichildram. Grard—parurtsardtheextafiedfamilywasnottaken
into omsideratim. With the increase in sirgle pared: families,

.71." . V II'- . l
Jug/Ga *‘
me? 3 fl
bit-45m ‘ ‘
‘ w E,"
u 142-.66
”v. I.

' l k 1....
.1 - 1 n ‘71: 1.-

   
  
 

‘gnm M caniemirrazr: t...‘;' :4be mix-Lari :1 FM .112... "M w .
. , 5131‘” '
mien: {912.35 :2”: .wmlim" and? m 2‘.“
.mm a 'iu Yifinfi-‘l Karmic" .3613 at, (we 30 M.
mix: 36:: as: “£1.31“? bdrm 2m mm mm

.mawa’ smug! sigh n1 mom-ll 81% mi”

 

 

249

exterded families are beaming more active in family decision-making
anistnfldbeeamined.
'Iheseva‘xthardfinallimitatimofthesuflymsrelatedtothe
possibility of nmrespaae error. Althcngh mil qaestia'naires enable
thereseardiertolimitfliebiasoftmexperiaiceddn'iminterviavs,
theretmnrateofmilqaestiamairesistctallydeperdentupmthe
respmdent'swillixgmstoreturnthecmpletedsurvey. Demitethe
factthatthepotartialresparientaccqatedtheqaestiamaire,past
suidieshaveshcwnthatmnywillmtreunnthecmpleted
(pestiamire (Weiers, 1984). Inacflitimtoreducingthesanple size
ofthedatabase,researd1hasdmatratedthatthedawgramicard

socioecamicaspectsofruirespafialtsdifferfrmrespadarts ('mll &
Hawldm, 1984). ‘

Mime
'miswasanexploratorystuiyanitherecamflatiaisbasedmthe

aralysisofthisreseardmarearplicabletothefutmedevelqnmtani
sumort of theory. (he gaml recamnaflatim, in cmjmctim with
severalwecificrecmmematiaishavebeenlistedwherebyitishcped
will assist in the cmtinied examinatim of family vacatim decisim-
mkirq.
Agereralrecmmendatimismdetoomtiruereseardiinthearea
of family vacatim decisim-making. Severaltra'rishavebeennoted
which make the cmtimed analysis of family vacatim decisim-mking
crucial. 'mefirsttra‘disthatofanincreasedprcportimofthe
populatim spending their leisure time m vacatim (Cranpon, 1966).
Secmdly, the metary benefits received by businesses ard aploynent,
as a remit of tourist: are significant (Bridget, 1987:1eiper, 1979).

' 'L “ {$1.
.
“'9.th 'r‘: 4;» * cast
. ‘ru ‘
~A-L" v;

mum {3:45:32 to; r

at! ‘10 :10: 41:15:11 5332:5133}

.5591: ‘Wa’a‘; mfim m 511:3 amiai new
.gt'tfit Junta! «on: .ma mam- ab.

3" w
" .rrx; St” at“.

     
  

- -L*‘Hii&f»8‘ '
U1 art:
f1 .15"? M

v. -"JA"":‘) .' '

 

 

250

Finally,theammtofinfltn1cefmilyubersezertmdecisimshas
diangedoverrecentyears. axildrmarehavirgagreaterinpactthan
inthepast,a1tlntghthisinpactismtamjorityordaninarrt
positim withinthefamily. Despitethepota'rtialinpactoftlme
diargirgtrems,falreseard1smdieshavebeencaflictedmfamily
vacatim decisicn-making. Mm, these changirg trends
irdirectlyimactflietamimirdstry,tamistdepaflaltmsinesses
ardvaoatim decision-*maldng withinthe family.

Inordertosuccessfullycmtixuethisreseardm,usingthe
central-satellite mdel of decisim-mldng as a canepmal frameaork,
vacatimchcisia'aotherthanatthefirstorderlevelshcnldbe
examined. Arecamendatimmadebythemarbersofthenelrhipamlwas
to have in-quth interviews, or men-elded (pectin whereby the
pnposewmldbetodetermimthevarietyofgeneralandspecific
decisims families make cumming vamticms. 'mat is, respa'dents
wmldbeaskedtolistalldecisicmswhidtweremdeinelatimtothe
centraldecisicntovacatimthisyear. mrthermore,theorderi1gof
inportameofthevacatimdecisim,asviaaedbytherespaflart,wmld
anblethereseardxertodeteminemattypeofdecisia'sareviaedas
crucialtotheancessofavacatim.

Using the ecological amroadi to family decisiar-mking, tine,
spacearflenergybamiariesexist. Inaccordanoewiththismilosomy,
athirdrecamaflatimwmldbetocmstructatimedinemiminmich
thasedecisimsaremade. Fbreanple,thedecisimcmoernirgthe
typeofaccamdatiusselectedfiybesimilarifmtidentimlfor
everyvacatim. 'nierefore,thedecisimwmldbemdepriortoother
decisimsforthisvacatim. Anothertimdimensimaspectwmldbe

. . 9:412, I

Emit} \{l¢*W:h§Ei-2.t 22.5 m.-.
.‘gix—mimq 83127 .433? wait-recur rd ._.'-?...XB mm]
M £1: mimtb and: s firmin- 0.: ad m
83 W m at?! W m at; “
ammumdwm
flab-amadbmmmw :. _'

  

 

251

relatedtothetypeofactivitiesorresortareadiosenforthis
vacatim. If the majority decisiaI-mker for these decisims always
duosesaresortareawithanemellentgolfcmrse,arritheprimary
activity participated in is golf, the time dinensim of this decision
islcngterm. Ifhoweveradecisimismade,forthefirsttine,to
vacatimatarescrtneartheoceanardtheactivitieswillrangefrun
sailirgtoewimingtoslqpiny,thetimedimensimmymtbelag-
tenninnamre.
'methindrecamematimistoredesignportionsofthe
cpestimnaire. Insteadofusirgtravelpartycmpositimanithe
respadertt'sageasaberdmrkforthestagesofthefamilylife
cycle, (pastime regardirgthe stages of the family life cycle should
beimludedintherevisedqaestimnaixe. aiemthodofascertainirg
thestagesofthefamilylifecyclewmldbetoimludeaseriesof
gtestiascanenmythemritalstamsofflierespariaats,thela‘gth
oftheirmrriage,thenmberofagesoftheirdiildren,arflvmemeror
mttheirdiildrmaremrriedardhavediildren. 'Iheageofeach
spatseshculdalsobeascertaimd. metothenmberofdualcareer
families,itmldalsobeinteresti1gtoidaatifythegrossixmneof
eachspane,asqposedtothetota1familyimrnec misinfomatim
mudaiablefliereseardiertoeaaminethesimilaritiesarddifferernes
bebremflxeixnmemtedbyeadispwse.
suflieshavedenmstratedtheircreasedinfluaicediildrenhavem
familydecisiaa-mking. mmmmmtueageotme
daildoftaiinpactstheirnegotiatingskillsardlevelofeffective
influencemdecisim—mldng. Asam,thefmrthrecamriatimisto
amlyzetheperceivedlevelofinfluenceofdifldreninrelatimtoflxe

waiwm: malaria was; 3.! ..

   
 

g, 7 “an mania and statues»: {five/5 .1 ‘
«avaiekrmtm 1193!: H

‘ IA
, ’43:. ’
, ‘__

an”: it. _ JI;

93539333 2:: m1 £1113 “Li/b

 

 

252

age of the children. maples of possible age groupings incltade
adolescents,tea\agersaniyamgadilts.
'mefinalrecamendatimmildbetocartintetoexaminethe
perceived man level of influence of the family, hasbard, wife, and
Children, using data fran both mosses. Altlngh this typically
requiresadditimaltimearrinaiey,thebenefitsareviaredbythe
researdierascumeighirgthelimitatims. Basedmtheresultsofthe
dataanalysisfruntherevisedqnstimire,thetheoreticalmdel
aimldberefined. 'misanalysiswmlderablethereseardierto
cmfirm or negate the theoretical node]. (:1 family vamtim decisian—
maldm. aneufismodelisrefined,anenpiricalmodelslmldbe
develwed, whid‘l wuild enable the synthesis of the stages of the family
life cycle and socioecamic variables at family vacatim decisim-

making.

 

 

2'; 19%! ”M
5.2515 m m
».2 Ltaoblll w
,:.-.3§u~3&n I w
«A mn‘. ally!“ “
,3731107. 0‘ u

«.w Lat! 19 “h

n e.. ‘I am .1“
._:‘"_-:u -m Jaw“

 

 

 

 

 

 

253

 

 

 

 

am A
( l ( l t l ( l ( )
l 2 3 4 5 Visitor Survey
Do not fill this in Only complete this survey ifyou
it is for coding purposes live 100 miles or more away.
only.

This is a study conducted by researchers at Michigan State University. We would appreciate your
assistance in completing this questionnaire.

In this section of the questionnaire, we would like to obtain your judgment concerning this tourist
area's features. Please circle the number which indicates your opinion.

Exceptionally Excepti onally
Poor Average Good
1. Facilities for water sports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (6)
(e.g., beaches, sailing, swimming. water
skiing, etc.)
2. Facilities for golfing. tennis. etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ('7)
3. Nature activities such as hiking, l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (8)

backpacking, birdwatching,
photography. etc.
4. Historical and cultural interest (e.g., l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (9'
museums, monuments, historical
buildings. the people, their traditions,
music, festivals. etc.)

5 Beautiful scenery (sight-seeing) l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (10)
6 Pleasant attitudes of the people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (l l)
7. Opportunity for rest and relaxation l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (12)
8. Shopping facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (13)
9 Eating establishments (e.g., restaurants) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 (14)
10 Entertainment (e.g., night life) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (15)
ll. Suitable accommodations l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (16)
(e.g., motels/hotels, cottages.
campgrounds, etc.)
How important are the following features in your decision to visit a tourist area?
Very Very
Unimportant Neutral Important
12. Facilities for water sports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (17)
(e.g., beaches. sailing. swimming, water
skiing, etc.)
13. Facilities for golfing. tennis. etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (18)
14. Nature activities such as hiking. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (19)

backpacking. birdwatching.
photography, etc.
15. Historical and cultural interest (e.g., l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (20)
museums. monuments. historical build-
ings. the people. their traditions. mUsic.
festix dls. etc.)

)6. Beautiful scenery (sight-seeing) l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (21)
17. Pleasant attitudes ofthe people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (22)
18. Opportunity for rest and relaxation l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (23)
19. Shopping facilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ('24.)
20. Eating establishments (e.g.. restaurants) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (25)
21. Entertainment (e.g., night life) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (26)
22. Suitable au-ommodations l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (27)

(e.g.. motels/hotels. cottages,

campgrounds. etc.)

Exceptionally Exceptionally
Poor A\ emge 600d

23. In comparison to your perception of the ——l__ 2 3 —4_- 5 6 —7——t2b)

ideal resort. how would you rate this
tourist area?

 

'I
w I ("H “(mm-A}
. (..iJiuz‘l-nom’m
.me-hwlnué
, L .. “...... (mod-rebut:
: ' \ )' I rm mu.

— -.1l’-11'hdl MG

. . r 31...an .‘r lm  ,
' viii MM ‘

r 1. l
'I... «7. 1
-—.,.,,., In). --
M“. ‘ . g "‘T' m.

., , 'i',~.-

)»mvuml'bo mu '
«yr-quirk» M ' '

M .t‘ us: #494an d .

 

*N'rr‘ If)" I ‘ u'
no“

' {n t“) am}: (u

.1. "I3 mom “.6
who“. ennui...

. sm- u.‘ «M10,
.3 . iv): ‘3A.“~..‘~

- II.- at} if! VON
' a, "Illa-.4 am
am .’ M10. l“
mama“

   
  
  
  
   
    
 
 
 
 
 
   

1.05.4 -

 

W l“ .r

“I

O

 

254

For each statement. please circle the number that best describes your feelings about that statement.
You may think many statements are similar. Actually no two are exactly alike. so be sure to circle one
number for each statement.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree

24. Having my friends over to see my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (29;
vacation photographs is the best part of
my vacation.

25. Camping sites are beginning to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (30)
overcrowd some of the popular vacation
areas.

26. Vacations should be for the children. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (31)

27. If! had a choice. 1 would prefer to 1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 (32.
camp on vacation.

28. On vacation. I often take food with me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ('33.:
to avoid paying the high prices of
restaurants.

29. When vacationing,l am willing to pay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (34'
whatever is required for first-class
service.

30. I often ask the advice of my friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (35'
regarding vacation spots to visit.

31. Hotels and motels are generally not as l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (36)
relaxing and enjoyable as a camping
vehicle in a camping site.

32. I often have difficulty in deciding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (37)
where to visit on vacation.

33. Because I enjoy getting away for the l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (36)
weekend. I plan several short vacations
each year.

34. I normally plan my vacations around 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (39)
watching my favorite sporting events.

35. Families that vacation together are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (40)
happier.

36. Given a windfall of money. I prefer to l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (41)
spend it on vacation travel than
something else.

37. 1 vacation in a tent because it is more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (42)
economical. .

38. Camping in a tent is the best way for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (43)
me to get close to nature.

39. Selecting a vacation site that will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (44)
impress my friends is always a
consideration in planning my vacation.

40. Vacation travel is becoming too 1 2 3 4 5 . 6 7 (45)
expensive.

41. I feel that I am generally regarded by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (46)

my friends as a good source of advice
about vacation travel.
42. On vacation,l rarely pass up an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (47)
opportunity to make a side trip to a
historical location.

43. Educational vacations are the most fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (46.I
and the most rewarding.

44. When 1 find a great vacation area, 1 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (49)
return there year after year.

45. I enjoy my nation knowing that there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (50)
is a competent guide to accompany our
FWD-

46. If 1 can't completely relax. I don't feel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (51)
that I've had a vacation.

47. 1 would never leave on a vacation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (52)
without reservations at my destination.

48. My vacation is normally planned so that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (53)
1 can participate in my favorite sport.

49. I will often vacation in a popular resort 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (54)
area because I enjoy mixing with other
people.

so. When given a choice. I normally prefer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (55)
to vacation close to nature rather than
in a city.

51. Whenever I travel I spend a lot of time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (56)
looking for bargain purchases.

52. When I have a choice. 1 vacation for l 2 3 4 5 6 7 (57)
excitement rather than relaxation.

53. 1 would not hesitate to borrow money 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (56)

for vacation travel.

. .. 'Wf‘
. . my“ “ "1.4.4”
, .

‘u‘ii

Inward i'
. . u H“
..va‘ .UJI 4' l ’ .

:r i - ... ra-d.
. ...l‘mv’.
Hr -.Ir ul (’1’
Y z 'Lu'l

nu- I‘M.
’ L I‘m-”ad

r

... ..v in».

..iarjgmrvm

rd! ”out“ 0'4 I;-
'-n!im.i,i'i d”

matures!” '
=~. murmur; m”

 

 

Please estimatediepercentofyourtime spent on the

following activities while visiting this tourist area:

__ Water sports

__ Golfing. tennis. etc.

__ Nature activities such as hiking. backpacking.
birdwatching. photography. etc.

_ Osltural or historic activities
(including festivals)

__ Sight-seeing

__ Rest and Relaxation

_. Shwping for gifts and souvenirs

__ Shopping for merchandise unique to the area

__ Shopping for clothes and other personal items

__ Shopping for food and other necessities

_ Eating at restaurants or other eating
establishments

__ Entertainment activities such as night clubs.
hinges. dancing. etc.

__ Talking with local residents

er __
(Please specify)

100%

. Although people go to this tourist area for more than one
reason what is the most important reason for you?
(Select one)

__ Visit relatives or friends (1)
_ Business (2)

_ Conference/Convention (3)
...... Outdoor recreation (4)
__ Entertainment (5)

_ Sight-seeing (6)

__ Seasonal resident (7)
Personal or famrly afiairs (8)
_. Shopping (9)

En route to other destination (10)
_ Stopon atour package (11)

__ Tours d’the area are available (12)

__ er _— (13)
(Please specify)

 

 

(SO-60)
(61-62)

(GS-64)

(65-66)
(67-68)
(6970)
(71-72)
(73-74)
(7576)
(77-78)
(79-80)

(”67)

(”B-9)
(2110-11)

(2)1243)

. m

255

56. Means of transportation to this area?
(Either rented. owned or public transportation)
0 Auto/truck without camping equipment (1)
__ Autotuuck with camping equipment (2)
_ Recreation vehicle (3)
Bus (4)
_. Train (5)
_ Airplane (6)
Boat (7)

(2’14)

 

 

_ Motorcycle (8)
_ e _—
(Please specify)

Round trip distance to this tourist area from your home?
miles

Length d'visit in this area? days

While in this tourist area. where did you usually stay?
(Greek one)
._ Motel/Hotel (l)
__ Campground (2)
_ Rented cottage (3)
Private cottage/Second heme/Condominium (4)
Rented condominium/Rented house (5)
_ Staying with friends or relatives (6)
__ Bed and breakfast establishment (7)
__ Boarding House (8)
(9)

(9)

(20518)

 

(9119-21)
(W22)

$8

 

 

._ Other

What is the total daily cost for your lodging? (2’23-25)
lsrs

 

61. How often do you visit this tourist area?

First visit ( 1)

Visit every other year or less (2)

_ Once a year (3)

Visit more frequently than once a year (4)

How often do you visit other tourist areas in Michigan?
_ 1 have never visited any other tourist area in
Michigan (1)

Visit every other year or less (2)

_ Once a year (3)

__ Visit more than once a year (4)

(9126)

 

 

 

(2/27)

 

 

63. Below is a list d popular tourist areas in upper Michigan. If you have visited any of these tourist areas within the putfior

 

pears. please indicate your satisfaction with that resort area.
Exceptionally
dissatisfied
“liaising/Grand Mauls (Picture Rocks) 1
Copper Harbor 1
Harbin Springs/Petoskey l
Hotnghton 1
Mose island 1
Manistiquell-‘ayette l
Metre/Prague Isle 1
’lhliquasnenm Falls 1
P“ _ ... , Mountains 1
Thverse City 1
Sault Ste. Marie 1
St. [pace 1
Other_______ 1
(Please wedfr)

lfthistouristuesisnotyourfinaldestinflimpleaselistthatloation.(Otherthanyourhome)

 

65. Howmypeqlemympayingforonthistrip?

Exceptionally

Neutral satisfied

 

(W)
(2129)
(W30)
(2131)
(2132)
(2’33)
(2134)
(2135)
(9136)
(W37)
(W38)
(W39)
(W40)

”NNNNMNthONNNIO
uuuouwouuwuuu
neeeeeeenauee
umutnorormuuoroioru
aoomaaoaaoomo
4444444444444

(941)

(942-43)

 

 

Jami".

) ‘1
a
.\

AA. wish I "ht ‘

. . 4 ‘. Ii.)nult/W
. w mum)“ vtfl ‘

x n. "no is"!- v‘

   

”FWWI'I”.
.. ' r);
H a, . . v.1 -magwihm. . 7
. ,. --.~ --c~’ ' l _

'Qei-audM‘ .

 

70.

72.

256

Cmnposition 11’ travel party? (including yourself) (9144-45)
._ Male and female adult (1)

__ Male and female adult with children under ll years (2)

— Male and fanale adult with children 13 to 18 years (3)

_ Male and female adult with children-:19 to 21 years (4) w

__ Male and female adult with diildren under 12 and with ildren 13 to 18 years (5) -
_ Male and female adult with children under 18 years and with children 19 to 21 years (6)
__ Male and female adult travelling with one or more adult couples (7)

Travelling by self (8)

Single adult with children under 1.2 years (9)

Single adult with diildren 1.3 to 18 years (10)

Single adult with children 19 to 21 years (11)

Single adult travelling with children under 12 and with children 13 to 18 years (12)
__ Single adult unveiling with ($11er under 18 and with children 19 to 21 years (13)
__ Same sea adults travelling together (14)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iiow many senior citizens (persons over 65) do you .have in your (9146-47)
travel party? (including yourself)
__ 0(1) _. 5 (6)
__ 1 (2) _ 6 (7)
__ 2 (3) __ 7 (8)
_ 3(4) _ 8 (9)
_4(5) __.90rmore(10)
Are you a resident of: (9148-49)
— Michigan (1) _ Canada (9)
indiana (2) Mexico (10)
__ Ohio (3) _ Central or South America (11)
_ Wisconsin (4) Europe (12)
illinois (5) Japan (13)
Minnesota (6) Asia (14)
New Yorlr (7) __ Other countries (15)
__ Other states (8) (Please specify)
(Please specify)
Did you obtain information about this tourist area from:
(Please check all which apply)
__ Travel Bureau. State of Michigan (2150)
_ Chamber of Commerce (2’51)
—— AM (2152)
Travel agent (2’53)
__ Friends/Relatives (9154)
__ Travel information centers (2’55)
._ Hotel/Motel information (2’56)
'1th sedion of newspaper or magazine (2’57)
__ Radio and/or Television (2/58)
__ Did not seek information; already familiar with area (2159)
_ Not familiar with area but did not seel: information (2’60)
__0tiier (251)
(Please specify) ‘
Your occupation? (9162-63)
._ Prdessltmal or Technical (l) _. Service worker (8)
.._... Manager or Administrator. except farm (2) ._ Farm owner (9)
_. Sales (3) _ Farm worker (10)
_ Clerial (4) _ Student (1 l)
__ Crafisperson (5) __ Retired (12)
__ Machine operator (6) Unemployed (13)
__ Non-farm laborer (7) __ Other (14)
(Please specify)
Spouse's oompation? (if married or cohabitating) (2’64-65)
_. Professitmal or Technical (1) __ Service worker (8)
__ Manager a Administrator. except firm (2) _ Farm owner (9)
__ Sales (3) _ Farm worker (10)
__ Clerical (4) _ Student (11)
._ Craftsperson (5) __ Retired (12)
_ Machine operator (6) Unemployed (13)
_ Non-farm laborer (7) _ Other (14)
- (Please specify)
Family fncmne from all sauces? (9186-67)
._ Under 810$!” ( 1) —_ ”0.001 to 870.” (7)
_ 810,“)1 to 820.“)0 (2) _ 870,“)! to 980.000 (8)
__ ”0.001 to 8301!!) (3) ._ MINI to s90,ooo (9)
__ 830.“)1 to 8401!!) (4) __ 8N,(X)l to 81m.000 (10)
__ 8401111 to 8505!!) (5) — ”00.001 to 8110.0“) (11)
_ sso.oor to 8011!) (6) _ 8110.001 and over (12)
. Highest level deduction you adieved? (2168)
_ Some elementary school (1) __ Some graduate work (Master's or Professional degree) (7)
__ Completed elementary school (2) __ Completed graduate program (8)
__ 2 years ofhigh school (3)
_ Completed high school (4)
_ 2 years (1' college (5)

__ Completed college (4 year degree) (6)

 

:7“- lies:

m4

“‘7:in lanu.el:n‘i ”em its- me

  
   

A ~ , { (”J-ub-

-r- (
. .ie Ely: :2.‘
. ‘A . f?
' - ’ fli-
.> . —_i|,‘1‘£‘.
“unset
4,,
_ l" I
. ' ‘alvu‘ '1’
.. . .
l | a .
Hm. 3,- ii.
firm
'l"‘i*_
«9.
'i. '
"11M '0' E}
.l
' .!<' l
. J‘l‘n. — ,
l - ' . '55- 3‘7" 1‘" n"
y . ~ . . 'l, ‘ . . r " ”I l . .
. . A, . ..
. . . .
r
g. U'NJHLn 17m '
g: .
Ye; .s . . "slaw-u
r "v V‘

 

A4 '_ . T .

5*. lichen»?
. . ...,... -rm'h“
,. ~‘-,- as)?“

 

'9'?- info cam” -

a.
“Mafia ---

257

74. ifyou or someone in your family reads any ofthe magazines listed below. please indicate how often it is read. (If you do
not read the magazine. please leave the item blank.)

Three Every Every
Times Other Oncea Other
IYear Month Month Week \Veekl)

Three Every Every
Times Other Oncea Other
aYear Month Month Week Weekly

 

 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ad Week ............... 1 2 3 4 5 (2’69) MS Magazine ............ 1 2 3 4 5 (336)
Atlantic Monthly ........ 1 2 3 4 5 (2’70) National Geographic ..... 1 2 3 4 5 (3'37)
Ameriun Home ........ 1 2 3 4 5 (2171) National Review ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’38)
Bazaar ................. 1 2 3 4 5 (2172) National Wildlife ........ 1 2 3 4 5 (3’39)
Better Camping ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (2H 3) New Woman ............. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’40)
Better Homes and Garden 1 2 3 4 5 (2’74) Newsweek .............. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’41)
Black Enterprise ........ 1 2 3 4 5 (2’75) The New Yorker ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’42)
Boating ................ 1 2 3 4 5 (ans) Ornni ................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3:43»
Budget Travel .......... 1 2 3 4 5 (2f? 7) Outdoor Life ............ i 2 3 4 5 (3’44)
Business Week ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (2178) Parents .................. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’45)
Comping Guide ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (2’79) Penthouse ............... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’46)
Changing Times ........ 1 2 3 4 5 (2180) People .................. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’47)
Consumers Report ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (3)6) Playboy ................. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’48)
Cosmopolitan ........... 1 2 3 4 5 (3H) Playgirl ................. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’49)
Ebony ................. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’8) Popular Mechanics ....... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’50)
Essence ................ 1 2 3 4 5 (3’9) Reader's Digest .......... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’51)
Esquire ................ 1 2 3 4 5 (3’10) Rolling Stone ............ 1 2 3 4 5 (3’52)
Family Circle ........... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’11) Redbook ................ 1 2 3 4 5 (3’53)
Field and Stream ....... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’12) Rudder .................. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’54)
Forbes ................. 1 2 3 4 5 (3/13) Saturday Evening Post . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (3’55)
Fortune ................ l 2 3 4 5 (3’14) Saturday Review ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (3'56)
C.Q. ................... l 2 3 4 5 (3’15) ................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’57)
GEO ................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’16) Self ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 ' (3’58)
Glamour ............... i 2 3 4 5 (3’17) Smithsonian ............. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’59)
Golf Magazine .......... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’18) Southem Living ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’60)
Golf Digest ............. 1 2 3 4 s (3119) Sports Afield ............ r a a 4 5 (3'61)
Good Housekeeping . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 (3120) Sports illustrated ........ l 2 3 4 5 (3’62)
isine’Bon Time .................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’63)
Appetit ................ 1 a 3 4 s (3’21) Travel ................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’64)
Harpers Magazine ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’22) . Travel Horizons ......... l 2 3 4 5 (3’65)
Harvard Business Review 1 2 3 4 5 (3/23) True .................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’66)
House and Garden ...... l 2 3 4 5 (3)24) T.V. Guide .............. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’67)
1NC. ................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’25) US Magazine ............ 1 2 3 4 5 (3’68)
ladies Home Journal .. . . 1 2 3 4 5 (3’26) U.S. News a World Report 1 2 3 4 5 (3’69)
Leisure Time ........... 1 2 3 4 5 (3127) Vanit) Fair .............. 1 2 3 ' 4 5 (3'70)
e .................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3/28) Venture ................. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’71)
Mademoiselle .......... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’29) Vogue ................... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’72)
McCalls ................ 2 3 4 5 (3’30) Woman's Day ............ 1 2 3 4 5 (3’7 3)
Michigan Living (AAA World Press Review ...... 1 2 3 4 5 (3N4)
Magazine) . ............. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’31) Working Mother ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (M5)
Michigan Magazine ..... l 2 3 4 5 (3’32) Working Woman ......... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’76)
Michigan Natural Yachting ................ l 2 3 4 5 (3’7 7)
Resources .............. 1 2 3 4 5 (3’33) Other 1 2 3 4 5 (3’78)
mews-n Outdoors ...... 1 a a 4 s (3134) (Please specify)
Money Magazine ....... 1 2 3 4 5 (3’35)
75. Age(Atyourlastbirthday)_____ (MW)
76. Your Sex? (4’6)
_ Male (1)
__ Female (2)
77 Your Race? (4”)
_ Black (l) __ Asian or Pacific lslander (5)
__ White (2) __ Middle Eastern (6)
_. Hispanic (3) __ Other (7) ——
__ American 1ndian (4) (Please specify)

if you are travelling in a family unit. how much did each family member influence your decision:
(if you are not travelling in a family unit. please disregard and go to question 87.)

78. totakeavamtionthisyear?

79. to take a vamtion this summer?

U. concerning eaactly when you
take this vacation?

Husband
“Fife
Oiildren

Husband
Wife
Oiildren

Husband
Wife
Children

_;%

(4’8- 10)
(4’11-13)
(4/14-16)

(017-19)
(4’20-22)
(#2325)

(05-28)
(4’29-31)
(413234)

 

‘2 as

if ,".

"1: “)0
:(g 5.",1‘
‘15:}?!
N5!)
in

_a
l

 

l
.55."
r-.-
2.--
c,

.3:

4
1

was

t
i

i

 

 

     
 

. .../geniuses
..3wmiqaaa'q
.
1 .«.'S
.v N yon-l

.-..-.3. a

J” I 71'.-

‘\.‘.‘|,r. s

e-.]

.1» is

. ‘; 4("(4 Iii.“ 1:443“, “

i; JN'U dim“ a m

.1:
t

.- .... -.. ‘h—Influlh-W-"F

....

’-O-~><-—e— -..“

-.

~_.‘

. 1' fly '
‘rflie‘,’ . ' r‘

 
 
   
 

 

81.

87.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE 1N COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.

258

concurring the length of Husband
this vacation? Wife
Children
concerning the amount of Husband
money to be allocated to Wife
your vacation budget? Children
to take this vamtion as Husband
a family/couple? Wife
Children
concerning the type of Husband
vacation activity (swimming. Wife
playing golf. sight-seeing. relaxing. Children
etc.) you will be engaged in?
to visit this resort area? Husband
Wife
Children
regarding the type of accommodations Husband
you selected? Wife
Children

100%

(4’35-37)
(4’38-40)
(4141-43)

(4144-46)
(4147—49)
(4’50- 52)

(#5355)
(4/5658)
(4159-61)

(4162-64 )
(4165-67)
(4’68- 70)

(4’71-73)
(4’74-76)
(4N7-79)

(5’6-8)
(5/911)
(5112-14)

Every vacation destination has both positive and negative aspects. What was your most positive

experience at this tourist area?

 

 

 

 

 

What was your most negative experience at this tourist area?

 

 

 

 

 

2

04-1

.\s’,'. K .
3"”r“

 

“w

.un-i infl" .u' t
...:fi 1
Pin?“ sodlbfl'

. «a mafia." ‘1‘
. 0'] 1e" :m“

.. -! "Anni.“ r.“ H
1' is «new

A-“ ....—

3
l)
l).
l.

i
i
i
ii.

i
i
.3
...i‘
1;.
4-

 

 

259

 

Table 1. Sunnaxy Table: Pex'ceived Mean Influence of Family
Merrbers' Influence on Vacation Decisim-Maldng by
Rsporfient’s Age Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family Mather 18-34 35-64 65 and Older
Acocmnodations

Husbard 48.54 46.00 45.60

Wife 44.24 48.22 42.40

Children 3.12 4.57 0.00

Vacation 'Ihis Summer

Husbard 49.35 43.00 44.17

Wife 42.64 43.95 45.00

Children 7.99 11.25 6.67

Activities

Husbarxi 43.88 45.31 50.00

Wife 44.63 43.99 38.00

Children 10.43 9.92 0.00
Vacation This Year

Husbaml 49.11 42.90 47.00

Wife 44 . 01 45 . 56 48 . 20

Children 6.86 9.89 4.80
When to Vacation

i-Itmbarfl 51.79 48.52 51.20

Wife 42.84 41.48 43.20

Children 5.36 9.39 4.80
Length of Vacation

Husbard 55.10 52.69 52.08

Wife 38.64 41.69 39.58

Children 5.25 5.61 0.00
Visit Resort Area

I-iusbard 48.20 46.29 50.06

Wife 42 . 72 43 . 15 38 . 00

Children 6.99 8.50 0.00

 

 

 

..
...;
> 1
she _.‘.
,‘ s
_ I _ . i I _. I
.»‘,-: 7‘: ’ ’37)

 

. , a
. _ -..... v.__ . _. 1-.(__ _.
slag-V

 

02.84
HHS)
.8

 

'1
'3.
P5
tuc-
3

 

......_.. _‘_..._ -..—...—

 

 

 

260

MC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Simmary Table: Perceived Mean Influence of
Family Members’ Influence on Vacation Decisiai
Making by W's national Status
Edimtion N msbard Wife mildren
Acccmnodations
Elanerrtaxy 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Rig) School 68 41.29 50.85 3.43
College 129 50.05 42.27 5.33
Graduate Sdlool 92 46.98 49.32 1.61
Length of Vacation
Elarerrtary O 0.00 0.00 0.00
High School 68 49.84 44.97 3.72
College 132 56.05 36.98 6.19
Graduate Sd'lool 94 52.98 42.61 4.41
Resort Area Chosen
mammary 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Sd‘iool 66 41.92 44.80 10.24
College 130 50.41 38.62 7.53
Graduate School 92 47.10 46.99 4.82
Vacation Bidget
Elanantary 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
High School 68 52.26 42.46 2.32
College 132 57 . 65 41 . 31 1 . 77
Graduate Sdlool 94 60.95 42.02 0.64
Vacation Activities
mammary 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Sdlool 68 46.35 40.72 8.50
College 133 44.26 42.80 11.37
mute Sdlool 94 46.26 45.77 6.90

 

 

 

1

 

260

MC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Sunnary Table: Perceived Mean Influence of
Family Barbary Influence :31 Vacation Decision
Making by W’s micational Stams
Education N Husband Wife Children
Accommodations
Elanentary 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
High Sd'iool 68 41.29 50.85 3.43
College 129 50.05 42.27 5.33
Graduate School 92 46.98 49.32 1.61
Length of Vacation
Elanentary 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
High School 68 49.84 44.97 3.72
College 132 56 . 05 36 . 98 6 . 19
Graduate School 94 52.98 42.61 4.41
Resort Area Chosen
Elanerrtary 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
High School 66 41.92 44.80 10.24
College 130 50 . 41 38 . 62 7 . 53
Graduate School 92 47.10 46.99 4.82
Vacaticn Bxiget
Elanentary 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
High School 68 52.26 42.46 2.32
(bllege 132 57.65 41.31 1.77
Gradtnte School 94 60.95 42.02 0.64
Vacation Activities
Elanantary 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
High School 68 46.35 40.72 8.50
Cbllege 133 44 . 26 42 . 80 11 . 37
Graduate Sd'iool 94 46.26 45.77 6.90

 

 

   

.' .1 ~ cur 11.-um .1
’ um I“
\ ..-3’{ 4‘1 91b“

"‘~’a“’“‘“m

 

' e
i '; _ '7
.
—- i - . I |
f; KI If 1
_ .5 .g
r‘ 1" ‘ ‘x .I E"
rm. ' _ 3' . M'r. . 7

’ '1‘- 5 '4‘
“8.21 05.4: a; a5
3 ,

32 .ab

 

 

 

261

 

Table 1 (amt’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nitration N Husband Wife Children
Vacation 'Ihis Summer
Elamntary 1 10 . 00 30 . 00 60. 00
High School 66 38.95 46.20 10.30
College 131 48.77 40.40 10.04
Graduate School 94 45.06 46.38 8.52
Vacatim This Year
Elanentary 1 50.00 30.00 20.00
High School 67 39.76 47.36 10.27
College 133 47.25 41.75 10.22
Graduate School 94 46.61 48.89 4.48
When to Vacation
Elanentary 1 20.00 20.00 60.00
High School 67 41.70 49.45 7.36
College 132 53.21 37.73 9.02
Graduate School 94 51.15 43.06 5.78

 

 

 

262

mu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1. amary Table: Perceived Mean Influence of
Family Menbers' Influence (:1 Vacation Decision
Making by Family Inoane
Incane N msbarxi Wife Children
Acocmnodaticns
$20,000 arfi Urder 33 44.39 45.91 3.64
$20,001 40,000 145 45.37 46.79 4.37
$40,001 60,000 75 48.56 46.59 2.19
$60,001 80,000 16 49.69 48.56 1.75
$80,001 ard Over 21 52.29 41.81 5.89
Lergth of Vacation
$20,000 and Urfler 32 47.50 41.09 8.28
$20,001 40,000 149 52.62 40.70 6.00
$40,001 60,000 76 58.99 37.38 2.32
$60,001 80,000 17 52.06 47.94 0.00
$80,001 ani Over 21 49.52 43.33 7.14
Resort Area Chosen
$20,000 ard Urfler 33 40.39 38.73 7.44
$20,001 40,000 145 46.83 43.19 8.57
$40,001 60,000 74 49.49 42.39 5.42
$60,001 80,000 17 52.94 46.47 0.59
$80,001 ard Over 25 48.40 41.65 9.90
Vacation anger:

$20,000 am Urfler 33 54.55 38.79 3.64
$20,001 40,000 148 55.05 42.64 0.95
$40,001 60,000 76 51.18 43.29 0.79
$60,001 80,000 17 57.65 42.35 0.00
$80,001 ard Over 23 60.95 32.86 6.19

 

 

 

_ _ -..-.‘a—-

Mum baa M.“

':- : {on ,0. ImQa
£100.06 500.

000,08 IM|
7,“; {415 £00.

 

\ l

:31} 4
«V 5
‘3‘? . {I

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 (Cont'd).
Inoane N Husband Wife Children
Vacation Activities
$20,000 and Under 34 44.65 42.00 7.44
$20,001 40,000 148 43.81 43.68 11.11
$40,001 60,000 76 47.61 43.00 6.75
$60,001 80,000 17 44.59 48.71 6.71
$80,001 ard Over 21 48.05 36.86 10.24
Vacatim This Sumner
$20,000 and Under 31 45.42 36.71 17.87
$20,001 40,000 148 45.63 45.16 7.84
$40,001 60,000 76 46.21 44.42 9.33
$60,001 80,000 17 44.71 45.88 3.53
$80,001 and Over 20 38.65 37.65 18.65
Vacation 'Ihis Year
$20,000 ard Under 33 46.76 37.85 16.15
$20,001 40,000 150 43.71 47.03 8.57
$40,001 60,000 75 48.08 46.08 5.81
$60,001 80,000 17 48.82 41.76 3.53
$80,001 3111 Over 20 42.15 44.15 8.65
When to Vacatim
$20,000 arr! Urder 32 40.78 40.63 19.22
$20,001 40,000 149 50.34 43.01 6.64
$40,001 60,000 76 51.95 41.78 6.25
$60,001 80,000 17 47.65 48.82 3.53
$80,001 and Over 20 54.65 34.90 7.40

 

..‘

‘~ g '4_ 3.4..“

._ .e . ‘ -‘

1 .~ 7‘ if
>.‘ ‘ ' ()7 M'

 

'04- '11
m
‘4
‘_
.
‘3.)

y (3'1”? 3! .1
a] (fi Q.

v

4
n
-o
4
71
. \Z '
l
r

o

0.0- ..

~

V1 a? «1 _

332.50
53.3%

353'
425*:

 

1031'
(f '.:n' ran:- .5.

 

 

1mm."

\/Abbey, (LR. (1979). Does life-style profiling work? W
m. E. (1). 8-14.

Aldersal, W. (1959. Perspectives (11 the plarming process. W
W 2. 181-196-

Vaartos. R. (1982). Warren and travel. W we» 2.0,
(4), 3—9.

\«Bean, N.M. (1968) . Decision class limcage, and sequence in one
central-satellite decision catplex: Students’ sunlner occupational
Choice. Unpublished Master of Arts thesis. Michigan State
University.

\Berey, L.A. and Pollay, R. W. (1968).'1he influencing role of the child
in family dooisim-makim W W 2. 70-72

Bettnan, SLR. and Park, CW. (1980) . Effects of prior knowledge and /

experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision? V
mass: A protocol analysis WW
234-248.

mattad'laryya, G.K. and Jd'mson, R.A. (1977). W Mild
W. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

\élood 11.0. and Wolfe. D M- (1960) W W
W. Illinois: ‘Ihe Free Press of Glencoe.

Burma, T.V. and Johrston, W.J. (1979). Decisim-maJdng under
micertairrty: A direct measurement approach. W
m. .6. 177-191-

Brown, G. H. (1961). ‘Ihe autcnflaile buying decision within the family.
InN. Foote (100.), . -_ 01-I1-:,._,1_, (pp. 193-199). New
York. New York University Press.

 

\I/éryan, W.R. (1981). Inprcved mileage, discretionary incane, and travel
for pleasure. WM. 29. 28-29-

264

 

'1

. 111-ex)a.c.w

. '-51\ .

.99.!) .I M
- s71 _ p.343.“

-. I ' . .'.' ‘ ."Ewfi'I‘ .R . ,
.9‘2 .0,

3 “not: Julw

v 1 (lune-1m
1:311! .M w
\dlMWi

. ., ,4 .-.‘ 1'1 {M JJ “01

Eli-‘17! 1;? T1313 Yr“ ‘4»‘5' .‘

 
 
 
  
   
  
  
  

- r 1 7" n:-
-74‘._r.. : ‘ ' in!) .NJJ ‘
- '(0-
”'77: 3:: . g - -7 . . ...:-1::‘; 2‘. r1 mien (am .03.!
5- '.".' 1” .7 ; I"; '. " S - :4‘ ‘1' -71.. 1“! . “ -
13-1.‘ 1" [Lian-2.3.341 . P .T-a' {GJTJHOC m .Vc’

15:11:. 51;; 7:47: ,Z..:.;:‘:3_:.y_., 1" ,1. r: .’4&:.A1;«1:s rue-1;!) A: w -
..Iez~n‘.: ‘1 . '

.‘gima'fl ’31.} .1110" .d Hive-i: poignii e ..‘tmma 31? “MI,
M584 .(wé‘i.v€9_t .13; W7 ;.§‘_,,1;;,_ “(#5133531 (.13)

1
Lyon: 3:15 ma): \fsmxnsrmzb $9.911): W (102:) . 4777,
9&4“? .0; .:.m 15.57013 W '

1

339

 

 

265

\xéyant, 8.15:. and Morrison, A.J. (1980). Travel market segmentation and

the inplalentation of market strategies. W,
18, 2-8.

W, L.G. and Battier, W.W. (1965). Dacisim-making and role

patterns among Iowa farm and nonfarm families. mm
mm. 21. 525-30-

, 7/
alrkart, A.J. and Medlik, S. (1974). m. Icndon, I-leinenann.

Vfistrillos, N.R. (1963) . Decision-makirq styles of selected Mexican
Wkers. UmJblished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State
University.

Centers, R., Raven, 8.11. and Rodrigues, A. (1971). Conjugal power
stmomrez A mutation- W. 3.6. 264-
278.

Chadwick, R.A. (1987). Concepts, definitims ard measures used in
travelarritcurisnreseardm.1nJ.R.B.Ritd1ieandC.R.Goeldner
(ms. )' - '. -- ‘ ' ' -
W No» York: John Wiley & Sons

V0111), S.N. (Fall 1977). Measuranent of tourism. m1 9f, navel
m. 16. (2). 22-25-

y Cosenza, R.M. and Davis, D.L. (1981). Family vacation decision-making
over the family life cycle: A decision and influence stnlcture
analysiS- W m. 29. (2). 17-23-

V Cox, E.P. III.(1975).Familyp1:d1asedecisim—nakinga1fltheprocess
of adjusmant WM. 12. 189-95- '

 

'/Cranpm, L.J. (1966). Agmquetoamlyzetamistmrkets.
WW. . - .

W, J. L. (1981). Dinensims of the social group role in pleasure
vacaticns. . , _ “‘-_1~9,§, (4), 550-568.

 

Crmptm, J.L. (1979). wtivaticns for pleasure vacation. W
W. .6. 408-424-

Muavis, 8.0. (1986). glantitative applications in tcnrism market
tion: Traverse City, Michigan. Unpublished dissertation,
Michigan State University, College of Human Ecology, Department of
_ Family and Child Ecology.
V/Davis, 11.1.. (1976). Decision-mking within the household. W
W. 2. 241-250-

\ mvis, H.L. (May 1970). Dimensions of marital roles. In Cmsumer
doois ion-mold!!! W.W. 1. 168-177. '

‘4’ jg d '19.; .. ~14 1‘ j ‘5: 12‘! '5713. ‘15!"1'7‘

3:31'1'37'V?‘:

'1.
\
I‘fir
.
, T ."I' _— ‘
t'?

- 1.73" r: at} fr»; 1.3:,»-

.34 fi’ifise. i’ 'X'A'Yhiflm .:".'_'"

i... 1".MW73CI

t; v HEX“ «,7

W111

. {12013.01 17515.61

0.1.17.“ 3: I

 

7.1)

anthem": er'a‘ airfiiv gram—{19131311

.316: {whi-er is anjumia .(0m '1
W ..

Lu»..‘,.-.;+..11‘;..C:.a.i¢m . 1 -'
1:1 .1:\.1"1.(QTQI) 4.11

2‘ ,.L1L'.'> WM .
247.41

   
 

‘" "‘13ha W and .

I. .1, l [#01 ...m .3 V
. ‘- l P» . -‘ ‘ ' '
:55. | 1 4‘. w i ‘

77.53.41 .MM..1
m

. ,7 5:. ' Exm Icon:
. . “13-1491'2111 0‘0“”
. ' ...:7.-.:;;;;__ [mm

:11) .14.! “V
W

   
    
   
  

5‘

.r 5"‘~.""_"3" ‘g ,0 7g .

7.." ~q

. 7.1;.)
~. r 1131518) . (6m)

 
   
  

.r'. ,\3:187$VWM ....
.anlw ”mu ‘

(am)
coo-1.»; -1 ....

a

266

vmvis, ILL. and Rigaux, B.P. (1974). Perception of marital roles in
a _ '19:: ._.7 1"! , 1, 51.62.

 

Myeacm 12.6 and Firebaugh. FM- (1975) mm
m, Boston: mufflinmxpany.

Dauglas, S.P. and Wind, Y. (1978). Examining family role and authority
patterns: '1“: metlndological isms. W
m: 59: 35747-

\7//Ferber, R. and 1e, L.C. (1974). misband-wife influerms in family
India-tile behavior- W m. 1. 43-50-

‘F/iliatrault, P. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1980). Joint pirdiasing
decisicns: A comparison of influence stnactmre in family and couple

decisimkim \mitS- 193ml W. 1. 131-140-

/Frank RE. and Green. PoE- (1967)- W marketing-
Englanod Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-flan, Inc.

xvyl'ridgen, (LB. (1987) . Use of cognitive maps to determine perceived
tmrism regims. W, 2, 101-117.

Geiken, K.F. (1964). Dcpectatims cumming misbard-wife responsibil-
ities in the home- W W. E. 349-352.

Geistfeld, L.V. (1977). Cam decision-making: ‘Ihe technical
efficiency approadl. W m. A. 48-56.

Gilkism, P. (1973). ‘I’eenagers' perceptiaas of buying frames: of
reference: A decade in retrospect. M], W, 52, 25-37.

Gitelscn, RJ. and Crmptm, J.L. (1984). Insights into the repeat
mtim W. W m. 11. 199-217-

Gitelson, 12.3. and W, J.L. (1983). The plamim horizons and
sources of infomation used by pleasure vacationers. W

W. 21. (3). 2-7.

Goodrich, J.N. (1977a). Benefit hurdle analysis: An expirical study of
intemational travelers- Mmal W. 1.5. (2). 6-9-

Goodrid'x, J .N. (1977b). Diffm in perceived similarity of tourism

maids: A Spatial amlysiS- W W. lé. (1).
10-13.

Goodrich, J.N. (1978a). A new approach to image analysis thrmgh
mfltidinensimal walim- W W. 15. (3). 3-7.

Goodrich, J.N. (Fall 1978b). 'me relaticnship between preferences for
and perceptions of vacation dastinatims: Application of a choice
model- mm. 1.1. (2). 2-13.

   
 
  
  
 
  
 
      

'1 1‘ flaunts-d1”
.yjd‘gz‘rj'fl gm

Micky}: “ 7
.VL"‘a£ ‘ ,‘

. A .‘-. .m”
7 .in‘dw '

t. m! “as

45.2.5; .10.; ‘ _ 1 " -
u 717,; 432019.;

      
    
    
 
  
 
  
   

. 5 90m.) .‘p‘t‘
mad w d

t x 7 " "3’ ~qu 1 '- J‘
L - 7 7 - . 7 7 .txflm , i I I
7 7' t,, 37.7.7; _ trifli, U‘ i

-7 77.‘ 7 , t ,3 5' Amati? A '

t w

(”1;

.. _. .' 191515232} in nu‘ _ 5.
‘ ' " i1 -, ’ .-' " ~.‘.-! .r1 o“ 9, Mr} 52117. 3.7:.
s:_ Q

: , 'I'Wrflhv .u

 

"an i i raw». ,(m) 1
'35.:‘33371i; mama .

warm: Iv \- "r'eljaka M73433; r1; runs-9:113 «my: -
.11} ii: mg 5.2..5 57"" W? 22mm may:

~ , a),
$73313? 5432:“ ages: on tbs; 15);!» um 43 .W)

.34 «£1; ,5: was: WM -WZI=I 5'. ’

*I'gr.

. a

mQWMqA-nimwx (we: I“.
W t be :19!th :mL‘mm WI: '
UM .m 3:; ‘W

267

Golcberg, N.R. and Gorn, G. J. (1974). Children's reactions to

warn, G.J. am Goldberg, BLE. (1977). line impact of television
advertising on children frun low inoane families. W

W: 5: 86.88-

Granbois, D. H. and Willett, R. P. (1970). Equivalence of family role
measures based on husbard and wife data. W

W112, 68'73-

\/ Great, P.E. and Carroll, J.D. (1978). MW.
Hinsdale, Illinois: ‘lhe Dryden Press.

Vé'een, R.'r. and Qnmingham, I.C.M. (1975). Faninine Role perception

and family mash; decisions- 12ml 2W. 12.
325-32.

VGmen, RE and Tall. D-S- (1975)- W m.
Englanod Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

“Gross, 1.11., Crardall, E.W. and 101011, N.R. (1980). W
W. Englewood Cliffs, Nan Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

/}hbemn, P.W. and Elinson, J. (1967). Family irxxme reported in

W3 msbarflsverwswives. MW. .4.
191-94.

\/ Haganann, R.P. (1981) . ‘Ihe determinants of l'nusehold vacation travel:
Sale empirical evidence. MW, 13, (2), 225-234.

Haves, D.K. (Spring 1977). Psychografiiios are meaningful...nort merely
kite-testim- W. 1.5. (4). 1-7-

Hamel, DJ. (1974). Family buying decisions: A cross-annual
ve. MW. 11. 295-302-

Beer, 0.14. (1963). 'Ihe measurement arri bases of family power: An
overview. W. E. 133-9-

Hill, R. and Klein, D. (1972). Family decision-making and economic
Déhavior: A review Wm. In E.B. Sheldon (£31.), my
, - ._ , pm. Philadelphia: J.B.

 

Holland, D. (1970). Familizatim, socialization, and the universe of
meaning: Anextensimoftheinteractionalapproaditothesmdyof

the family. W W. .12. 415-427-

wénoway. J c. (1983)mme1§9 m, Plymouth:
Wald & Evanstd

' Jar .

:Airsz.» 2-

.: U137; hmi

“13.75 nrifiwfi’

v.8 . t : 2; "Ti-313175 KL???

it: mum 9d: 3.1:. manic: Liana .MW

22 m w 2.2:
.13-3:2 .3; ,

t‘ 1'; . 41391:)
Immune int
1 if"- 1""!
5__ "J _,._. ; ' 7.3!,
2 ’ 11’. 2 ”£361?
5 . - 121.310..“ 3mg!-

.1 . 55.141121. 1138153.;12'3
_.C 2&354811'1‘1 . ’ 5. 1.81:;
:4. I 4.313.521} m

, $.33;

Irmmm Gib" 374:

f

'V. a ‘K
“Yr"
‘ -'

   
 
   
 
 
  
     
      
  
 
 
 
 

‘ . .2!
Law! .9 1:.

.‘y ‘ “flung” ;Iil~"l; ..
‘3" \EIS

.A ' (trig) bye.
~15 1’ T a t mi 5‘:

‘L.’.1'.l"‘".3":' W i

 

 

 

 

 

<3 use}; :24?

 

 

 

 

'33; e323 9!. «a 2

fl

 

 

 

268

dzl, J. (1984). 'Iturien industry big an research. mm
m. 55. (24). 28-

Hudnen, L.E. (1980). W. Colmrtms, (hi0: Grid
mummy, Inc.

I-nmt, J.D. (1975). Inage as a factor in tearism developne'tt. m
W. 13. (2). 1-7-

Jan, D.L. (1971). Youth, nedia, ard advertising. Bireau of Business

Research, Graduate School of Risiness, M University of 'Decas at
Austin.

wetting R.L. (1978). Family vacatim decision-manly. W
W. lfi. (4). 2-7-

{Q I Jorgensa'n, D.P. (1976). Dengrarhic changes: Inplicntims for travel
emu ll. (2). 4-10.
Kenkel, N.R. (1961). Family interaction in deoisien-making an

spending. InN.N.1E-‘oate(m.) 1 .
mm: (pp. 140-164). Vol. 4. Nev York: Nev York University
Press.

 

 

Kenkel, W.F. and Hoffman, D.K. (1956). Real and ouneived roles in
family decisim-maldm- www.18. 311-315-

,Kciarovsky, M. (1961). Class differences in family decision-anaJdng on
Waxes In N N. Foate (Edd WW

Wig]: (pp. 255-265). Vol. 4. Nev York: Nev York
University Press.

leib, J. (April 10, 1988). Colorado sells state worldwide in pitch to
snare investment. W, p. 1-6, 7-G.

Ieiper, N. (1979). lbs framemrk of tourism: 'Ibwards a definitim of
tourien,

tourist, and the tourist industry. W
m. .6. 390-407.

‘2,»IArden, F. (1980). 'Be hasiness of vacatim traveling. M
m: .11! (4): 72.75'

\ Mntosh, R.W. andGoeldner, C.R. (1986).m;£d;§i21§.
We NewYorkz JohnWiley880rIS. Inc

Meal, J.U. (1969) . An exploratory study of tie oensuner behavior of

dfildrm- InJ-IL Meal (Edd W W-
(pp. 255-274) Nev York: Appleta'n-Cenmry-Cr'ofts.

\ Huey, T. A. (1961). Influences m laborforoe participation of
miedm InNN- mote (Ed ) mm
W (pp. 11-24) Vol. 4. Nev York: Nev York University
Press.

v'V
‘4 .
'J‘ . r
. ‘3';

' ,J ,{th
I l!’;,'v"
.“
‘ rs ..
"‘ .151".
,.
2 ”may,
. "‘.' ’ " ' — - 1"».r ..M' 222/1.
.«1 C _ 3;; _ 2 .7 2.0m {an a.“ 5,2,; ‘
E‘I‘W

   

'~ . ’ ~122 been ”:‘2. ".12; 2;,» cunzar." 98¢ .

:35} 12.1.32;- '2..('. " L z 2‘ J ‘ ' '
. was? . m

u?" ' ' 1:51 JK'YJ”: ”3'3" ' 32"‘3’W"
KAI .m. ’ .%-:'w' (WC. .vhxg'n' 4:9“. . . 1"”

hwmnusay in.» 1.3M“
5'Eytm{w we“!

.emm 4w:m~fi

- .t’iwr k/ .m' »

, WW£WW
wm‘m M all .: .lov (as-u .4»;

   

269

Wék J., W, J. and Ymamine, D. (1977). Determinants of visitor
experdimres ard visitor of stay: A cross-section analysis of U. S.

visitozstofiawaii MW 15. (3). 5-8

more, R.L. and Stephens, L.F. (1975). Sane cannmicatim and
denograpiic determinants of adolescent consumer learrfing. W

W. 2. 80-92.

Morgan, J. N. (1961). Hmsehold decisim-making. In N.N. Foorte (Ed.),
- 2 mm. (pp. 81—102. Vol. 4.

 

Nev York: Nev York University

Mosdu’s, G.P. (1978). 'Deenagers’ mspmses to Retailing Stimuli.
Wits. 24. 80-92.

mediis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1978). An analysis of the acquisition
of sane cmsumer cmpetencios alum; adolescents. W
W. 12. 277-112-

lbschis, G.P. and Moore, R.L. (1979). Decision-making among the young:

A socializatim perspective- W W. .6. 101-
112.

Mosdiis, (S.P., Moore, R.L. and Steghens, L.F. (1977). Purdiasing
patterns of adolescent cmsuners. m W, .5}, 17-26,
92.

Winger, G.M., Weber, J.E. and I-hnsen, R.W. (1975). Joint hate

pmzhasirq decisions by tnmbarrls and wives. W
m. l: 50-55-

mn'phy, P.E. (1983) . Parcqwtias arxi attitudes of decisia'a-maldng
grwps interim centers- Wm. 21. (3).
8.12.

My P.E. and Staples, W.A. (1979). A modernized family life cycle.

 

x,,'-’Myet~s, P.B. (1974). Decisiaa-making ard travel behavior: A midwestern
study. Urpzblished doctoral dissertatim fran Michigan State
/University, East Iansing, Midiigan.

fists, P.B. and Morcrief, L.W. (1978). Differential leisure travel

decisim-maldm hem spmseS- W W. 5.
157-167.

ufi/chols, C. N. am Snepenger, D.J. (1988). Family decision-making and
tourist: behavior and attitudes W W 2.6. 2-
6.

Nolan, S.D. (1975). Mists' use and evaluation of travel information

some: Stmry and occlusions. Jamaal W. 1.4..
6-8.

 

 

$9.261: sonata-f ..s ;!r 3. .‘1
J - — ‘ '--<.
d 3.: £322.39 :22. 3.11 3.2 .233;r1£-

but. gumv'wim 4.313.023} 43933;} Jun .
"- ”a... ,‘f' 3W? WW

1
.

dem M :0 :msaais'we L536 am -

V - .

 

270

Olshavsky, R.W. and Granbois, DJ-I. (1979). Gunner decision-making—
fact or fiction? mm m. .6. 93-100-

x/Paolucci, 8., Hall, O.A. aniAxinn, N. (1977).£mfly@1§1m:
.. Nev York: John Wiley 8 Sets.

 

Perdue, 12.12. (1985). Segmenting state travel informatim irmirers by
timin; of the destinatim decisim ard previous experience. M
W. 2:2. (3). 6-11-

Véizam, A., Nennann, v. and Reidiel, A. (1978). Dimensia's of tourist
satisfactim with a destinatim ama- W.
5, 314-321.

Pizam, A. and Reichel, A. (1979). Big spenders and little spenders in
U-S- tourism. W. 18. (1). 42-43-

‘v "”131“, M.A. (1968). mplorirg interrelatimships in a central-

satellite decision ample-c. W W. .69. (10).
789-792.

Plonk, M.A. (1964) . Decision class and linkage in axe central-
satellite decision caplet. Urpiblished doctoral dissertaticn fran
Michigan State University.

Pratt, R.W. (1970) . Urderstarding the decision prowss for cmsmer
durable goods: An example of the lmgitudiml approach. In D.T.

Kollat, R.D. Blackwell and J.F. Ergel (Eds.), W
m. (m. 543-556). Nev York: Holt, Rinehart am Winston, Inc.

Rice, A.S. and Tucker, S.N. (1986). W, Nev York:
Macmillan Publishing Cumany, 6th Ed.

Ritchie, J. 12.8. (1986). Measuring the effectiveness of tourism
hospitality/awareness canpaigm. In Techrnlogy ard Tourism
Proceedings frun: Travelarrimisnneseard‘lAssociatim.
Seventeenth Anmal (Inference, Harms, 'I‘exmessee, Jlme 15-18, 1986.
Riblishedbythemreauofncamicardmsinessneseardi. Graduate
School of Easiness, University of Utah, Salt lake City, Utah.

Ritchie, J.R.B. (1975) . Sane critical aspects of meaeirenent theory
and practice- W. 1.4.. (1). 1-10-

Vizitdaie, J.R.B. and Filiatrault, P. (1980). Family vacatim decision-

de-m - A raplicntim and Mien- Ml W. .
1.5. (4) . 3'14-

Safilios-Rothsdiild, C. (1970). 'Ihe study of family power structure: A
review 1960-1969- W W. 22.. $39-52-

Smmders, J.R., Samli, A.C. and 'Ibzier, E.F. (1973). Cmgruence and

cmflictinmyingdecisiuxsofmthersarfldaighters. W '
W. 12. 1973-

K'W-z‘am 1:13:13- 19mm: 40252110,"
.31: . .. I :

m .22. .m

a’nur". '

r5 ._ r
LL"!-

.»:‘.'{ anna‘; {3° ' 'R’uxf'i "1.. "bent! 5m “

‘-’:r"..r;.';;:_:~3:s :22 u'fi-z. 1:272; 7.3.: 2:22 .(ETS‘I)
.fi'; 2.1.12.3. 1-: ' (3.16am ~ -
"aK‘J-BL'JBb {Wi'éalé‘l $510251 112892-13 Y emu/i! has J
.szg‘ 2,:- «alibi .(mll'l‘if :3. mm mm

‘5», .w rain?
. V, .5‘1 ”1‘ ‘rJr

amt/23.: ms .4 .“
."* .997. .miw a W‘“ . |

1.6!“) .mm

3.14? ,r’,“.%.‘l,' ...‘M

. ., :~.--;- 21A :abocpm
. .;n; .3.::r';'xs1:l .3 3 m”;
:9! 3.",5 .11.} . ’

    
   
  
  
    
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 

, . ,. ..'I= {us-9411‘ ma .34 A
3» ~- ,'-"'.- “With-(1M
{‘ ' ;I:‘,‘« 'I' .5Jloto
-.1:220 WM‘”?

1 > 2 2. 123.311" V'wfl

3:34.31 ‘ 7.1:.) 'l 3117M”): (3.“

213.25.: ..L‘J‘} 3:... 2:9"..12‘3 fimuu ”2'

'A ' I
W, 2 1

.mm .21.: .12-em km .34 .tm‘di .1

.4

 

271

Scanzcni, J. (1965). A note cm the sufficiency of wife responses in
family research W m. 8. 109-15.

Véanzoni, J. (1977). manging sex roles and emerging directions in
family decisim-mkim- W W. A. 185-188.

VSCanzoni, L.D. andSmnzoni, J. (1981). WW
- - Nev York: Dmrawh-Hill Book

 

mad. J- ardSzimvasz. M- (1980) W
- - .- BeverlyHills, California: Sage

 

Biblicatiors, Inc.

Vscheve, C.D. and Calantme, R.J. (Winter 1978). Psydiograrhic

segmntatim of mists. W m. 1Q. (3). 14-
20.

\/ Schlesinger, B. (1962). A survey of methods used to study decision-
W in the family. W W. 11. 8'14-

‘\/"/Sdm1, P. and Crulpton, J.L. (1983). Search behavior of international
vacationers: Travel-specific life-style and sociodenographic
variables. W-W. 22. (3). 25-30-

\/Scott, R.A. (1970). Husband-wife interacticn in a household p.mdiase
decision. W. 5. 218-225.

Scott, D.R., Sdieve, C.D. arri nederick, D.G. (1978). A mlti-
brand/mlti-attrihxte model of tourist state choice. 372192142:
W. 11. (1). 23-29-

Sharp, H. and Mott, P. (1956). Castmsr decisiots in the metropolitan
family- .Wnansetim. 21. 149-156.

Slmptrine, F. K. and Samuelson, G. (1976). Dimensions of marital roles

in casumer decision-naking: Revisited. W
W. 12. 87'91-

Slama, H.E. and 'I‘ashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioecamic and
demgraphic characteristics associated with p.mchasing involvetsnt.

WW.12.72—82.

Smith, V.L. (1979). Wanen the taste-nakers in tourism M
W. .6. ‘19-'60-

Spiro, R.L. (1983). Mansion in family decisiaa—making. W
W: 2: 393.402.

Sternquist, 3., mvis, B., Pysardiik, D. and Chamelle, D. (1987,
February). Profiles of Marquette and Mackinac Islam Tourists:
Remlts ofaamlner1985 Survey. ReseardeeportfruntheMidxigan
State University Agricultural mperiment Station.

  
  
       

2. 3 - ~ . 2- 3 .23-.... .2.

...'_2-.w;f»':».-‘::. 2.31.913 -

2.3.4 ..-' v- - V 0.: {311238513
' ’32: ' '2 .7_73-_r.‘;'2§£_31, fit”.

11;»: .~ ‘2‘ .3 fwcsaszpa MI. “W

"" I « .‘z‘? _:.j.’,,_f__- "...,

1' .;x.'.“‘". 1.136 a A
‘_ (A... ‘ -' 1” "PH
.‘I‘J

. v

 

| ' I _l ‘ .
.. - ~5an bin; .04: 3*? - .
‘1'?-n:..7 ’10 MW

"N‘s/Tr] .3 ,
0.1:! mi

 
 
 
   

- - “3622A

   
  
 

 

. - 23.".

   

,‘ '.. t." Z'J.'1':;,jfi~u.‘
‘7' ("1.1. «332'
x , .
V‘ 5:375
' "v- r:---l . '21” t-g'» ‘

  
     
     
   
  

“if: '.:z‘:"rs:f;3n:-ai- 1:1: s-,-..;-R . {Cf-'34:”: .5 22mm In:
.7 wuovm :suregzzrnuq “at? 1“£2.“:-§.‘.£'.:-:.5;- «31:11.. W *
.2234? fig , . -..-...

ILW mat-3.2.4 ..t ezaime-anstr at? m .m
'm’ 9.. 9"

ma Winfifi when: n; mime!!! W‘
) ,.().’ir‘€& \g ‘ J W

my .9. Jim has .a .xzmfi.
‘ manna “mm W
3 .

272

\/Strrber, 11.11. and Weixberg, C.D. (1977). Working wives and major
family amid-isms- W mach. A. 141-147.

Szybillo, G.J., Sosanie, A.I<. and 'Denebein, A. (1979). Family umber
influence in household decisim-maldng. W '
m. .6. 312'316-

Turner, R.H. (1970). W. Nev York: Jam Wiley 8 Sons,
Inc.

U.S. alreau of the (Jesus, Statistical abstract of the United States:
1987 (107th ed.) Washingtm, D.C.

Van Raaij, W.F. (1986). Casumer research on tourism: Mental and
beluvioral castmcts- WW. 1:. 1-9-

zvén maj, W.F. and Frarsken, D.A. (1984). Vacatim decisiors,

activities. and satisfactiors. m W. 11. 101- "
112.

var, T., Beck, R.A.D. and Ioftus, P. (1977). Determination of
touristic attractiveness of the touristic areas in British Columbia.
_W. 15. (3). 23-29-

..4

Vv/Ialter, C.R. and Tong, H. (Spring 1977) . A local study of consumer
vacuum travel decisions- W m. 15. (4). 30-34-

V'Weiers, R.M. (1984). W. Englevood Cliffs, Nev Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

VWells, W.D. and Gabar, G. (1966). Life cycle concept in marketing
resendi- W. 2. 355-63-

Westoff, C.F. (1961). Sale aspects of decisim-making in the family
growthpmcesso InN-N. Facts (Edd. WW:
. (pp. 25-35). Vol. 4. Nev York: Nev York
University Press.

Wilkening, R.A. and mar-advaj, L.K. (1967). Dimensions of aspiratiows,
work roles, am decisim-mking of farm husbands and wives in
Wiscmsin- Wigs mm. 22. 703-711.

\,,W/i1kes, R.E. (1975). Husband-wife influence in pirchase decisions: A

ccnfimatim and Mien. W W. 12. 224-
7.

__'.l.
’ 41,."

'1...’

2
n
.
_ ..fi'fi.’
g 2 ..-
\. : J ..“_:. ; ‘
a . .
u. h I» .l
'4

stun". .7 5*; -‘

.9;

A :a'lnizzjmy. Hashim}, SE 22.329932":

.’33aes21£rf

'4 35E . .11.

v - (Iv-

’15“; ‘a “"2":-

.ux—mn 35.

C‘
A
5
It;
, r
u

(1.: - 71379211“? Ll “

,
«.1

.'...'r £1.27...

-. 2'... rrfigsfih’r

3&5: M ls.

21.2.31? Yr:

1:311:11; ~21

:3; 3' mm
4123313329 has

- .
3'4?"
'.
.
“f". '
t“
’I '
., 3s
: ;. 75.4.33,
20"
. 3

~12.)-

' .; 54.3! {If

   

.1803)
..wlnuut-

as '

5.11%”.

 

m
Wu -

   
  
  

. {M1

 

 

 

 

“viii. ‘ r:?fl..\l (Iv 1‘ r “

"ITVEWEWE‘EMJMMVJ‘MWEWEW