Advenuture tourism: The role of social comparison theory in successful advertising images
1. Adventure
Tourism
The
role
of
social
comparison
theory
in
successful
adver6sing
images
Ka6e
Dudley
Texas
State
University
2. 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)
4. 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
oui]ers
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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?
9. 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
10. 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)
11. 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)
12. 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)
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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
16. 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).
17. Limita6ons
and
Future
Research
• One
ac6vity
(whitewater
raYing)
• Sample
size
• Current
tourism
habits
• Images
accompanied
by
text
or
brand
name
Hinweis der Redaktion
Timeframe begins 5 days before the first day of Gauley season and ends 1 week after the last day. The format of the survey attempted to reduce common method variance (CMV), and limiting false assumptions through keeping the survey short, varying the anchor labels, ensuring anonymity and reverse wording questions to break response patterns (MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012).
