advenuture tourism: the role of social comparison theory in successful advertising images
TRANSCRIPT
Adventure Tourism The role of social comparison theory in
successful adver6sing images
Ka6e Dudley Texas State University
Adventure Tourism
• Specialized and rapidly growing segment of tourism • Grew a yearly average of 65% from 2009-‐2012 • $263 billion industry in 2012
(The George Washington University & Adventure Travel Trade Associa6on, 2013)
Adventure Tourism Ac6vi6es
Hard Adventure • High risk | commitment |
advanced skill • Climbing • Caving • Kite surfing • Paragliding • Trekking
So. Adventure • Lower risk | basic skills | led
by experienced guides • Backpacking • Camping • Canoeing • Hiking • RaYing
Tradi6onal Adventure Tourist
• Sensa6on seekers • Willing to take physical, financial, and legal risk for the sake of adventure
• Main focus of marke6ng efforts for adventure tourism ou\i]ers
Tourism is Changing • Two-‐income couples choosing not to have children • Growing single adult popula6on • Ac6ve aging popula6on • Challenge: match the wide array of products to changing demographics
Literature Review
Adventure Tourism • Quest for knowledge and insight (Weber, 2001)
• Restoring a displaced equilibrium (Fluker & Turner, 2000) • The percep6on of risk (Dickson & Dolnicar, 2004; Cater, 2006) • Consumer research (Alexandrov, Lilly, & Babakus, 2013; Breazeale
& Ponder, 2011; Meyers, 2010; Walters, Sparks, & Herington, 2010)
Research Gap • Effec6vely appealing to an adventure tourism audience through adver6sing images
Social Comparison Theory
• People evaluate their opinions and abili6es by comparing them to others’ opinions and abili6es.
• Upward vs. Downward comparison • Three features of high SCO:
(a) High ac6va6on of self; men6on more first-‐person nouns (b) Strong interest in what others feel; interdependent (c) Uncertainty of self; low self-‐esteem or neuro6cism
Research Ques6ons
• R1: Does the level of intensity portrayed in an adventure tourism ac6vity image affect consumers’ ahtude toward the image?
• R2: Does the level of intensity portrayed in an adventure tourism ac6vity image affect consumers’ ahtude toward the ac6vity?
• R3: Does the level of intensity portrayed in an adventure tourism ac6vity image affect consumers’ purchase inten6ons?
• R4: Does social comparison theory explain the rela6onship between effec6ve adver6sing images and consumers?
• R5: Are consumers of adventure tourism ac6vi6es driven by upward or downward comparisons when shown adventure images?
Methodology
• 3 x 2 experimental design 3 (images: high vs. low vs. neutral=control) x 2 (social comparison orienta6on: high vs. low)
• Pre-‐test: High, neutral, low • 3 Surveys
• Stage 1: view images • Stage 2: ahtude toward image/ahtude
toward ac6vity • Stage 3: purchase inten6on • Stage 4: social comparison orienta6on scale
Sample
• Neighborhood email lists from Texas, Virginia, and Ohio, LinkedIn and Facebook (n=510)
• Random: 170 per survey (n=510) • 144 responses • 44 per intensity level (n=132)
Results: one-‐way ANOVA
• Ahtude toward image • Intensity proved insignificant (p = .09) • High intensity more favorable (M = 4.77) vs. (M = 4.30)
• Ahtude toward ac6vity • Intensity proved insignificant (p = .24) • High intensity more favorable (M = 5.72) vs. (M = 5.45)
• Purchase inten6on • Intensity proved insignificant (p = .29) • High intensity more favorable (M = 3.74) vs. (M = 3.40)
Results: two-‐way ANOVA
• No significant interac6on between SCO and intensity level: (p = .37) (p = .68) (p = .76)
• Ahtude toward the image • SCO effects significant (p = .05) • High SCO more favorable (M = 4.76) vs. (M = 3.98)
• Ahtude toward the ac6vity • SCO effects significant (p = .001) • High SCO more favorable (M = 5.98) vs. (M = 4.98)
• Purchase inten6on • SCO effects significant (p = .009) • High SCO more favorable (M = 4.09) vs. (M = 2.88)
Discussion
• R1: Does the level of intensity portrayed in an adventure tourism ac6vity image affect consumers’ ahtude toward the image?
• R2: Does the level of intensity portrayed in an adventure tourism ac6vity image affect consumers’ ahtude toward the ac6vity?
• R3: Does the level of intensity portrayed in an adventure tourism ac6vity image affect consumers’ purchase inten6ons?
• Image intensity level is not significant
Discussion con6nued…
• R4: Does social comparison theory explain the rela6onship between effec6ve adver6sing images and consumers?
• High SCO – Posi6ve ahtude toward the brand – Posi6ve ahtude toward the ac6vity – Posi6ve purchase inten6on
Discussion con6nued…
• R5: Are consumers of adventure tourism ac6vi6es driven by upward or downward comparisons when shown adventure images?
• Upward vs. Downward comparison – High intensity = less experienced – Low intensity = more experienced
• Target market aliena6on
Conclusion
• Lack of research focusing on images and adventure tourism • As the industry grows so does the need for sophis6cated marke6ng
efforts • Social comparison theory has explanatory power how/why people
use experiences to display a self image • Intensity level does not ma]er à appeal to those with less
experience for a feeling of inclusion in the target market • Taking part in an adventure ac6vity is enough to display the
characteris6cs of high SCO regardless of the intensity level of the images
• Heightened awareness of self image + low self-‐esteem • Create adver6sements that allow consumers to live vicariously
through them (Walters, Sparks, & Herington, 2010).
Limita6ons and Future Research
• One ac6vity (whitewater raYing) • Sample size • Current tourism habits • Images accompanied by text or brand name