This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 10 October 2014, At: 12:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure Sciences: An InterdisciplinaryJournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20

An Examination of Whitewater Boaters'Expectations: Are Pre-Trip and Post-TripMeasures Consistent?Shannon Dickson a & Troy E. Hall ba USDI Bureau of Land Management , USAb University of Idaho , Moscow, Idaho, USAPublished online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Shannon Dickson & Troy E. Hall (2006) An Examination of Whitewater Boaters'Expectations: Are Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Measures Consistent?, Leisure Sciences: An InterdisciplinaryJournal, 28:1, 1-16, DOI: 10.1080/01490400590962452

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400590962452

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Leisure Sciences, 28: 1–16, 2006Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Inc.ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01490400590962452

An Examination of Whitewater Boaters’Expectations: Are Pre-Trip and Post-Trip

Measures Consistent?

SHANNON DICKSON

USDI Bureau of Land Management, USA

TROY E. HALL

University of IdahoMoscow, Idaho, USA

Expectations are studied to help explain experience quality but are often measuredafter the conclusion of an activity. Psychological researchers suggest that such recallmay be inaccurate. To assess accuracy of recall, 120 Owyhee River boaters indicatedtheir expectations concerning experience conditions (e.g., amount of people, litter) andinternal states (e.g., happiness, boredom) on a pre-trip questionnaire. At the conclusionof the trip, they were asked to recall their original expectations. Results showed thatindividuals recalled most of their original expectations accurately (9 of 13 conditions;12 of 12 internal states). Recall accuracy was equally high among commercial andprivate boaters, novices and repeat visitors, and boaters on different length trips. Thesefindings suggest that measuring expectations after a trip is as valid as measurementstaken prior to the trip.

Keywords river recreation; survey research; recall; memory

Introduction

Expectations are an important basis for deliberate behavior and have considerable impacton how individuals evaluate the outcomes of their behavioral choices (Olson, Roese, &Zanna, 1996). This statement is as true of recreation behaviors as of any other behavior.People make decisions based on expected outcomes and their reactions to outcomes are inpart influenced by what they initially expected (Fenton, Young, & Johnson, 1998; Shelby,Heberlein, Vaske, & Alfano, 1983). In this paper, we focus on the measurement of expec-tations and evaluate whether the most common approach—retrospective recall—is valid.We begin with a brief review of the function of expectations in decisions and evaluationof experience quality. Then we discuss potential limitations of memory that could affectretrospective recall measures of expectations. We report empirical findings about expecta-tions measured before and after boaters’ trips that can help determine whether the timingof expectation measures is important to the conclusions drawn.

Received 21 July 2003; accepted 18 January 2005.This research was supported by the Bureau of Land Management, Vale District, Oregon. It is based on Shannon

Dickson’s Masters Thesis at the University of Idaho. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of ErinSeekamp for data collection and Craig Parks with statistical analysis. The assistance of the Vale District BLM isalso appreciated.

Address correspondence to Troy Hall, Department of Conservation Social Sciences, PO Box 441139, Uni-versity of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1139. Email: troyh@uidaho.edu.

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

2 S. Dickson and T. E. Hall

Function of Expectations

Expectations are the subjective probability that a setting and/or activity will provide certainexperience attributes or benefits (Williams, 1989). According to expectancy-value theory(Feather, 1992), people consider the likelihood of outcomes along with the valence attachedto each outcome when choosing a course of action. This framework underlies much recre-ation research and is recognizable in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), whichis based on the assumption that people engage in specific activities in specific settingswith the expectation of achieving specific outcomes (Driver, Brown, Stankey, & Gregoire,1987). By understanding expectations, managers can provide opportunities to meet users’expectations and help achieve visitors’ goals.

Empirical studies provide some insight into just how important expectations are todecision making. For example, Neelamegham and Jain (1999) found that expectationsfor emotions were the strongest predictor of choice of a film to watch. Kozak (2001)demonstrated the importance of expectations in tourist destination choices.

Expectations also affect the psychological outcomes that follow from action. Theoriesof satisfaction propose that dissatisfaction is partly a function of the discrepancy be-tween an individual’s expectation and the actual outcome of the experience (Stewart &Carpenter, 1989; Van Raaij & Francken, 1984). For example, Neelamegham and Jain (1999),in their study of movie selection, found that disconfirmation of expectations, but not the ex-pectations themselves, predicted satisfaction with the selected film. The relative importanceof confirmation of expectations, in conjunction with other psychological outcomes such asaffective response and attribution, has been intensively examined in consumer behavior andservices marketing, with various refined models emerging by the mid 1990s (e.g., Oliver,1993). Although researchers who study satisfaction debate certain conceptual and opera-tional issues (e.g., Fournier & Mick, 1999), expectations play a prominent role (Boulding,Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993; Cronin & Taylor, 1994).

In recreation, various studies have affirmed the role of expectation confirmation inexperience quality. In an early study of whitewater boaters, Schreyer and Roggenbuck (1978)demonstrated that people who expected low density experiences but then encountered morepeople than expected felt more crowded than people who encountered the expected numberof people. These researchers as well as other studies of perceived crowding concluded thatindividuals report higher levels of crowding when encounter expectations are exceeded thanwhen expectations are fulfilled (Miller, 1994; Shelby et al., 1983).

How Have Expectations Been Studied in Recreation?

Two approaches are available to measure expectations. The discrepancy model relies on thedifference between prior expectations and subsequent post-event evaluations, or cognitionsat two points in time. More often, however, studies have relied on a single set of measures ofexpectations taken after the experience was over, rather than at the time they were formulated(e.g., Boulding et al., 1993; Fenton et al., 1998; Greenleaf, Echelberger, & Leonard, 1984;Miller, 1994; Schreyer & Roggenbuck, 1978; Shelby et al., 1983; Stewart & Carpenter,1989). In this method, respondents are asked to recall or reconstruct their expectationsafter the fact. Often respondents are asked to make a mental comparison of their currentstate with their former state. An example is: “Did you see more or fewer people than youexpected to see?” Such questions assume that respondents can accurately recall and reporttheir expectations even if after a considerable time has passed (e.g., Noe & Uysal, 1997).Therefore, recall ability is critical to the validity of this measure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Expectations 3

Recall Abilities

Many research studies in psychology have focused on people’s ability to recall events,feelings, time periods, expectations, or preferences, and several studies have highlighteddeficiencies in these abilities (Koriat, Goldsmith, & Pansky, 2000; Levine & Safer, 2002).For instance, Conway and Ross (1984) demonstrated that people recall their past in waysthat exaggerate its consistency with present conditions or preferred psychological states.In a study skills improvement program, individuals who showed little or no improvementrecalled their past scores as being lower than they actually were, to claim positive im-provements. The stability of people’s memories for their own past emotions was examinedthrough a study measuring candidate support during a presidential election (Levine, 1997).Findings revealed that participants who supported the losing candidate partially revisedtheir memories of their own prior emotional reactions to the candidate, to align with theircurrent appraisals of events. Mitchell, Thompson, Peterson, and Cronk (1997) found thatvacationers expected to have positive experiences. Although for some, expectations neverbecame a reality, these individuals still claimed positive confirmation of expectations whenquestioned later. Levine and Safer (2002) concluded that when people’s emotions, goals,or beliefs have changed over time, “people appear to use their current feelings . . . to inferhow they must have felt” in the past (p. 170).

These examples suggest that measures of recreationists’ recall of their prior expecta-tions may not be accurate. Because individuals strive to maintain cognitive consistency,apparent inconsistencies are rationalized to regain or maintain a pleasant affect. By shiftingtheir expectations, often unconsciously, individuals reduce discrepancies between desiredand achieved outcomes (Altman, 1975). In recreation studies, this phenomenon has beenreferred to as product shift. Cognitive adaptations to unexpected or adverse conditionscause individuals to change their original definitions of the particular recreation experience(Shelby et al., 1983; Shindler & Shelby, 1995).

Another body of psychological research, however, concluded that people can actuallyrecall their expectations quite well. Instead, it is their perceptions of experience outcomesthat are distorted to become consistent with their prior expectations. For example, one studyexplored the extent to which affective expectations shaped the evaluation of a vacation ex-perience (Klaaren, Hodges, & Wilson, 1994). Findings revealed that people discounted orreweighed their memories for expectancy-inconsistent events so that outcomes would be-come expectancy-congruent. Hirt (1990) concluded that individuals are constantly searchingfor information that is consistent with expectations, which results in expectancy-consistentrecall.

Different types of users may differ in their ability to recall expectations. Researchhas demonstrated that expectations are important to the choice and evaluation of manyactivities. Nevertheless, in some recreation studies, questions have been raised about howconcretely recreationists actually form expectations for experiences. One widely cited study(Arnould & Price, 1993) found that boaters on multi-day commercial rafting trips had atbest “vague” pre-trip expectations. Similarly, Shelby et al. (1983) found that nearly 40% ofthe Grand Canyon boaters they studied said they “did not know what to expect” regardingthe level of crowding. These studies call into question just how important expectations are todecisions or experience quality. However, in both cases the majority of respondents (90% inthe Shelby et al. study) were first-time boaters. Thus, lack of experience may have factoredinto their responses.

Research on recreationists has shown that more experienced individuals accumulatelarger amounts of information about a resource (Hammitt, Knauf, & Noe, 1989), whichhelps generate more specific expectations (Schreyer & Lime, 1984). Therefore, individuals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

4 S. Dickson and T. E. Hall

who experienced similar situations in the past should form rather accurate expectations forthe present activity and should be better able to recall those expectations.

This hypothesis is supported by research on psychological involvement and cognitiveelaboration. Those individuals with higher levels of involvement with an issue or activitytend to think about it more deeply (Andrews & Shimp, 1990) and more often. Depth ofthought is related to persistence and availability of memory (Smith, 1998). Therefore, thosepeople who are more involved with boating should have spent more time and energy thinkingabout trip specifics, and they should be more readily able to recall their pre-trip expectations.

Time is another factor that affects memory, since memory decay increases with time.According to Koriat et al. (2000), verbatim memory often disappears within four days,although memory for “gist” (as opposed to detail) can remain much longer.

Study Purpose

This study explored people’s ability to recall expectations by measuring expectations beforea whitewater rafting trip and recalled expectations after the activity. In addition, we comparedmanagerially relevant subgroups based on different experience levels (i.e., commercialversus non-commercial and novice versus repeat users). These groups might be expected toexhibit differences in expectations and in recall ability due to different levels of knowledge,interest, and experience. We hypothesized that private (non-commercial) boaters and thoseindividuals with prior Owyhee River trips would be more likely to have expectations beforethe trip and to recall expectations more accurately. We also compared boaters taking trips ofdifferent lengths. We hypothesized that boaters on longer trips might exhibit poorer recalldue to the passage of time.

Methods

Study Context

This study was conducted on the Owyhee River in southeastern Oregon. The stretch of riverinvolved, managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), was designated as Wildwithin the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1984. The rugged canyon terrain andlack of roads limit the number of boat access points to the Owyhee River, which createsthree discrete boating segments. We studied non-motorized boaters on the lower segmentof the Owyhee between the Rome and Leslie Gulch launch sites (67 miles). Most boaterstake four to six days to float this segment.

Sampling and Questionnaire Administration

Because of low (i.e., <2,000 boaters/year), variable, and unpredictable use levels on theOwyhee River, we employed an intensive sampling strategy. Forty-six dates betweenMarch 24 and May 31, 2002, were chosen to encompass nearly the entire boating sea-son from snowmelt until the river became unboatable below 600 cubic feet per second.Sampling sometimes occurred at more than one site on a given day when more than one re-searcher was present. Questionnaires were distributed during 9 weekends and 28 weekdaysthroughout that period. We used a combination of pre- and post-trip self-administered ques-tionnaires. Before launching and before departing for home, each visitor was approachedand asked to fill out a questionnaire. On-site rather than mail questionnaires were used,primarily because we presumed that data pertaining to expectations and recall would bemost accurate when immediately recorded.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Expectations 5

On 27 sample days, we surveyed all boaters launching from Rome, which was thestarting point for the lower river segment. Due to safety concerns and to maintain records ofuse, the BLM requires all groups to complete a trip registration card at this put-in. In 2002a BLM ranger was always present at Rome to greet river users to make sure each groupcompleted registration card. This information allowed us to know when and where to meetthe individuals for sampling after their trips. Thus, all initial contacts occurred at Rome,with the post-trip surveying occurring at the two primary take-outs for the lower segment:Birch Creek (17 sampling dates) and Leslie Gulch (12 sampling dates). If time allowed, wecontacted boaters at both take-outs during the same day.

To increase the response rate, an incentive was provided. At both the launch and take-out, each respondent was asked to write his/her name, address, and phone number ona separate card to participate in a raffle drawing for a new life jacket. This informationpermitted matching pre- and post-trip data for each boater.

A pre-test/post-test design runs the risk of sensitizing boaters to the issues under inves-tigation. Therefore, a small random sample of boaters received only the post-test at theirtake-out point to evaluate any potential effect of the pre-test on priming respondents.

The Survey Instrument

The put-in instrument included questions pertaining to trip characteristics, including length;visitor characteristics, including commercial versus private status, past experience boatingthe Owyhee River, and expectations; in addition to other variables not included in thisanalysis. Expectations were measured with 12 questions relating to internal states includingemotions and sensations using a percentage scale from 1% to 100% (e.g., “What percentof the time do you expect to be frustrated?”). In addition, 13 expectations questions wereincluded that related to environmental conditions, user conflicts, encounter levels, livestock,and wildlife sightings, using a different scale from 1 to > 20 times (e.g., “How often doyou expect to see litter?”). The take-out instrument included the same 25 questions, withthe tense reworded (e.g., “How often did you expect to see litter?”). Respondents wereinstructed to recall what they had expected before launching. In all cases (i.e., pre- andpost-trip), respondents could indicate having “no expectation.” This option was importantbecause we reasoned that some boaters (e.g., novices) might not have formulated specificexpectations.

Analysis

Priming. Because individuals were surveyed about their expectations before and aftertheir whitewater boating trip, the pre-test might possibly improve recall. To test whetheror not priming occurred, post-trip responses of boaters who received both the pre-test andpost-test were compared with responses of the control group that received only the post-tripquestionnaire. The two groups were compared in terms of the percentage who reportedhaving “no expectation” by using chi-square statistics as well as in the mean value of theirpost-trip expectations, analyzed with t tests.

Recall of pre-trip expectations. To investigate the ability to recall expectations, the firstquestion was whether people remembered having an expectation at all. Using chi-squaretests, we compared the percentage stating “no expectation” on the post-trip questionnaireto the percentage of “no expectation” responses on the pre-trip questionnaire for each ofthe 25 items.

We also investigated whether individuals who accurately recalled having had expec-tations also recalled accurately what those expectations were. For this analysis, we used a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

6 S. Dickson and T. E. Hall

multivariate t test (Hotellings T 2), followed by univariate paired t tests if the multivariatetest generated significant results (Bernstein, Garbin, & Teng, 1988; Tabachnick & Fidell,2001).

Differences in recall ability among different groups. To determine whether differentsubgroups of boaters had more or less accurate recall of prior expectations, we first com-puted the difference between pre-trip and post-trip scores, which we refer to as “changescores.”1 To determine whether different groups exhibited different recall abilities, we em-ployed a mixed model GLM with change (i.e., pre-trip minus post-trip) as the dependentvariable. User type (i.e., commercial or private), trip length (i.e., 3 categories), and priorOwyhee boating experience (i.e., yes, no) were fixed factors. The pre-trip expectation wasthe covariate.

Due to the large number of statistical tests, a conservative alpha level of .01 wasconsistently applied throughout the analysis.

Results

Thirty-seven boaters completed only the take-out questionnaire and served as the controlgroup. An additional 134 individuals completed both the put-in and the take-out question-naire, and 56 individuals completed only the put-in instrument because they were missedat the take-out due to bad weather or other factors. In 2002, BLM records estimated that1,070 people floated the Owyhee River. Based on that figure, 21% of all boaters on theriver that year completed one or both of the primary instruments for this study, with aresponse rate of 77%. A total of 227 people completed one or both questionnaires, and67 people refused to participate. In the analysis below, guides have been removed, leaving120 boaters (i.e., 33 commercial and 87 private) who completed both the pre- and post-tripinstruments.

We classified boaters into three categories of trip lengths: 1–2 nights (18%), 3–4 nights(63%), and 5 or more nights (19%). Sixty-three percent of boaters (88% of commercial,53% of private) had never floated the Owyhee River.

We used several approaches to investigate recall of expectations. Below we first presentresults of our assessment of priming. We follow this by an analysis of whether boatersrecalled having any expectation at all. For boaters who stated expectations at both times,we explore whether those expectations differed. Finally, we examine differences related totype of boater and trip length.

1Analysis of change scores is debated in the psychological and statistical literatures(Maxwell & Howard, 1981; Williams, Zimmerman, & Cummings, 1996). One concern commonlyexpressed is that a high correlation between pre- and post-tests may reflect memory for the pre-testrather than a treatment effect. In our case, it is precisely this memory that we hoped to assess. Severalhave also pointed out that change scores have lower reliability than either the pre- or post-treatmentmeasures, particularly if all individuals exhibit approximately the same amount of change (Miller &Kane, 2001). Additionally, use of a change score masks the typical correlation between the pre-testscore and change (Gardner & Neufeld, 1987). To address these issues, some statisticians recommendanalysis of covariance (ANCOVA), comparing post-test scores while including the pre-test as a co-variate. ANCOVA thus corrects for the problem of regression to the mean (Twisk & Proper, 2004).ANCOVA of post-test scores is appropriate where researchers are interested in the actual values onthe post-test. In our case, we were interested in the change per se, and not the post-trip values. (Inother words, we cared whether people could accurately recall their prior expectations, which wouldgenerate small change scores, and not about what precisely people expected.) Miller and Kane pointout that in such cases, “the main goal is to assess how much each individual has changed in absoluteterms rather than in comparison to some population” (p. 308). Thus, we chose to use change scores asthe dependent variable rather than the post-test values, and we included pre-test values as covariates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Expectations 7

TABLE 1 Percentage of Boaters Reporting Having an Expectation or Not Having anExpectation for Environmental Conditions on the Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Questionnaires

Had pre-trip expectations Did not have pre-trip expectations

Recalled not Recalled having Recalled not Recalled havinghaving pre-trip pre-trip having pre-trip pre-trip

expectation expectation expectation expectationState (inaccurate) (accurate) (accurate) (inaccurate)

Wildlife 1 93 5 2Livestock 5 83 5 8

evidenceCows in the 4 84 6 6

distanceFences visible 1 80 10 10Cows in the 3 83 5 9

riverPrehistoric 1 89 5 6

evidenceStructures 2 85 4 10People seen 2 89 3 6Roads 2 82 6 10Litter 2 89 5 4Others camped 4 80 5 12

in sightProblems with 3 83 8 6

gearRude people 2 88 5 6

Tests for a Priming Effect

Comparing controls to the post-trip measures of the pre/post group, the percentage whorecalled having “no expectation” was not significantly different (alpha = .01) for any of the13 environmental/social conditions or 12 internal states. Depending on condition or internalstate, these percentages ranged from 3% to 11% for the experimental group and from 0%to 24% for the control group. Overall, the pretest did not substantially influence the percentreporting “no expectation.”

In a further evaluation of priming, t tests were used to compare the mean post-tripexpectations of individuals who completed both the pre- and post-trip questionnaires topeople completing only the post-trip questionnaire. The largest differences between meanswere 3.6 (on a scale of 0 to 20) for the 13 environmental/social conditions and 10% (on ascale of 0% to 100%) for the 12 internal states. None of these differences was statisticallysignificant. Overall, then, we concluded that priming was not a significant threat to validityin our study.

Recall of Expectations

Boaters’ ability to recall whether they had an expectation before their trip. One questionthat arises when studying recall of expectations is whether individuals who indicate havingno expectation before a trip later recall giving that response, or whether they inaccuratelyrecall having had a concrete expectation. Tables 1 and 2 display the percentage of individuals

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

8 S. Dickson and T. E. Hall

TABLE 2 Percentage of Boaters Reporting Having an Expectation or Not Having anExpectation for Internal States on the Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Questionnaires

Had pre-trip expectations Did not have pre-trip expectations

Recalled not Recalled having Recalled not Recalled havinghaving pre-trip pre-trip having pre-trip pre-trip

expectation expectation expectation expectationCondition (accurate) (inaccurate) (accurate) (inaccurate)

Happiness 0 96 4 0Relaxation 1 96 2 2Solitude 2 96 2 1Excitement 1 96 2 2Challenged 0 97 3 0Cold 2 95 3 1Nervousness 2 94 3 2Too hot 2 89 5 5Tiredness/ 0 93 3 5

fatigueScared 2 92 3 4Frustration 0 81 9 10

with groupBoredom 0 93 3 5

who reported having an expectation or not having an expectation at each time. Four possiblecombinations exist: no expectations on both the pre- and post-questionnaires (i.e., accuraterecall), having expectations on both the pre- and post-questionnaires (i.e., accurate recall),stating expectations on the pre-trip questionnaire but not recalling having done so (i.e.,inaccurate recall), and not having expectations on the pre-trip questionnaire but on the post-trip questionnaire erroneously recalling having done so (i.e., inaccurate recall). From 80%to 97% of individuals had pre-trip expectations and accurately recalled doing so (Tables 1and 2, column 2). An additional 2–10% accurately recalled having no pre-trip expectations(Tables 1 and 2, column 3). However, for some items a moderate percentage of individualsreported having no expectations on the pre-trip questionnaire, but later inaccurately recalledhaving had an expectation (Tables 1 and 2, column 4). These individuals, thus, changedtheir expectations. This phenomenon was more pronounced for environmental conditions(for up to 12% of respondents) than internal states (which were usually 0–5%). On the otherhand, the percentage who indicated having an expectation before the trip but later sayingthey had not (Tables 1 and 2, column 1) was much smaller.

How well do boaters recall the magnitude of their expectations? Pre- and post-tripexpectations for the 13 condition variables are shown in Figure 1. The mean values for nearlyall of these condition variables tended to be near the low end of the scale. As is obvious frominspection, the post-trip means were similar to their pre-trip counterparts. A multivariate ttest for the condition variables showed, however, that there was an overall difference forconditions (Hotelling’s Trace = .171, F = 2.82, p = .001). Subsequent univariate pairedt tests indicated that 3 of the 13 condition variables (i.e., observing cows in the distance,evidence of prehistoric people, and the number of people seen) were significantly different(at alpha = 0.01) between the pre- and post-trip measurement. In each case, the pre-tripmean expectation was greater. Consistency between pre- and post-trip expectations for theremaining conditions was high.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Expectations 9

FIGURE 1 Comparison of post-trip recalled expectations with pre-trip expectations forconditions.

Pre- and post-trip expectations for the 12 internal states are shown in Figure 2. Thesevariables were assessed on a percentage scale, and the mean “percent of time” is depicted.These variables showed a wide range of expectations, with positive emotions expected tooccur most of the time and negative emotions rarely expected. A multivariate t test for theinternal state variables found no significant difference between pre- and post-trip values(Hotelling’s Trace = .033; F = .716, p = .735).

Do Some Groups Differ in Recall Ability?

Mixed model ANCOVAs of change variables (i.e., pre-trip minus post-trip expectations)demonstrated that for the internal state variables (Table 3) after controlling for pre-tripexpectations, other factors such as experience level, user type, and trip length did not have asignificant influence on the accuracy of expectation recall. All users were equally proficient.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

10 S. Dickson and T. E. Hall

FIGURE 2 Comparison of post-trip recalled expectations with pre-trip expectations forinternal states.

For the condition variables (Table 4), trip length was related to change for only the variableof “litter,” and user type and prior experience were related to change only for “fences seen.”Overall, we could detect no important differences in recall ability among groups that wehad expected to display differences.

For all 13 conditions and 12 internal states, pre-trip expectations exerted a highlysignificant influence on the change score. In other words, individuals with higher pre-trip expectations demonstrated larger differences between pre- and post-trip values. Thisinfluence accounts for the significant F values that were observed in all but twoinstances.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Expectations 11

TABLE 3 F-Values from Mixed Model ANCOVAs Predicting Change inExpectation of Internal States as a Function of Pre-trip Expectation, Type ofTrip, Trip Length, and Prior Owyhee River Experience

Pre-trip Trip User PriorInternal State n Model F covariate length type trips

Frustration with group 99 2.38 5.62 3.53 0.78 3.67Tiredness/fatigue 111 3.42∗∗ 26.02∗∗∗ 1.44 0.11 0.31Happiness 116 2.99∗∗ 17.74∗∗∗ 0.60 0.05 0.84Boredom 111 5.43∗∗∗ 49.67∗∗∗ 0.10 0.19 0.10Relaxation 114 5.99∗∗∗ 48.21∗∗∗ 2.77 0.79 0.28Scared 111 1.57 6.14 3.28 0.41 0.14Cold 115 3.14∗∗ 19.02∗∗∗ 0.06 4.51 3.27Too hot 108 4.50∗∗∗ 18.82∗∗∗ 1.70 1.75 1.67Excitement 116 4.54∗∗∗ 34.53∗∗∗ 3.07 1.58 1.61Challenge 117 6.24∗∗∗ 36.05∗∗∗ 1.42 1.24 0.67Solitude 116 6.12∗∗∗ 33.91∗∗∗ 3.60 0.58 0.17Nervousness 114 3.41∗∗ 27.14∗∗∗ 0.30 0.01 1.57

∗p < .01.∗∗p < .005.∗∗∗p < .0005.

Discussion

Within the field of recreation research, expectations have played a prominent role in helpingunderstand satisfaction, perceived crowding, and experience quality (Miller, 1994; Rollins& Bradley, 1986; Shelby et al., 1983). Nevertheless, researchers have disagreed about

TABLE 4 F-Values from Mixed Model ANCOVAs Predicting Change inExpectation of Conditions as a Function of Pre-trip Expectation, Type of Trip, TripLength, and Prior Owyhee River Experience

Pre-trip Trip User PriorCondition n Model F covariate length type trips

Groups camped 94 3.99∗∗∗ 29.58∗∗∗ 0.09 0.90 1.40Roads 97 6.21∗∗∗ 50.14∗∗∗ 0.22 0.07 0.39Structures 101 8.75∗∗∗ 81.47∗∗∗ 1.31 1.58 4.98Parties seen 106 8.12∗∗∗ 61.02∗∗∗ 1.30 0.01 0.51Wildlife 111 4.39∗∗∗ 25.73∗∗∗ 1.57 0.76 0.39Cows on the bank 98 7.46∗∗∗ 61.86∗∗∗ 1.68 1.11 2.40Loud/rude people 104 3.62∗∗∗ 32.69∗∗∗ 0.45 0.12 0.51Problems with gear 99 6.22∗∗∗ 54.10∗∗∗ 2.20 0.32 0.14Fences 99 5.73∗∗∗ 33.43∗∗∗ 3.01 8.06∗∗ 10.0∗∗

Litter 106 9.88∗∗∗ 57.19∗∗∗ 9.59∗∗∗ 1.81 4.66Stock 101 3.34∗∗ 17.17∗∗∗ 4.16 4.90 0.55Prehistoric sites 107 6.62∗∗∗ 56.40∗∗∗ 0.12 0.02 0.16Cows in the distance 101 4.04∗∗∗ 18.33∗∗∗ 2.87 4.26 3.88

∗p < .01.∗∗p < .005.∗∗∗p < .0005.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

12 S. Dickson and T. E. Hall

how likely people are to formulate expectations. Contrary to the findings of boater studiesreported by Arnould and Price (1993) and Shelby et al., we found that boaters by and largehad expectations for a wide range of social or environmental conditions and internal states.For 10 of the 13 social/environmental conditions, more than 85% of respondents stateda pre-trip expectation, despite being give the option of saying they did not know what toexpect. For 11 of the 12 internal states, more than 90% had expectations. The differencesbetween our findings and those of Arnould and Price or Shelby et al. may involve howquestions were asked and the specific populations studied. For instance Arnould and Priceused open-ended questions, and many of their respondents were teenagers. Future researchmight focus on when and why studies differ so dramatically in their conclusions about theexistence of expectations.

Our major question concerned the validity of the type of measures used to evaluate ex-pectations. As discussed earlier, most studies have measured expectations at the conclusionof the activity, which relies on an assumption that people can accurately recall what theyinitially thought. If expectations are not recalled accurately, measurement of an individual’sexpectation after an activity may not truly represent his/her original expectations, and va-lidity is at risk. Our results indicated that boaters displayed remarkable accuracy in recallof pre-trip expectations after the trip had been completed a few days later. Among boaterswho gave a numerical value for expectations, only 3 of the 25 expectation variables showedsignificant differences between pre- and post-trip expectation measures. In each of theseinstances, pre-trip expectation means were greater than post-trip expectations, but the dif-ferences were relatively small. It is unclear what led to the differences for these three factors.

Boaters’ recall of whether or not they had any expectation about condition and internalfactors was less accurate. When examining the sample as a whole, as much as 12% of therespondents inaccurately recalled having had an expectation when, before the trip, theyactually had indicated having no expectation. It has been hypothesized that people infermemories of the past from their present status (Ross & Conway, 1986). If this is the case,individuals having experienced something unexpected during their trip might reconstructtheir past to fit the present. This finding may explain why some individuals reported havinga prior expectation, when in reality they did not.

Although we did not detect a statistically significant priming effect of the pre-tripquestionnaire on post-trip responses, it is important to note that for 17 items the percentagereporting “no expectation” was higher for the post-test controls than the experimental group.Given larger samples (i.e., our rather small control sample reduced the power of our tests),some of these differences might have achieved statistical significance, and future researchersshould be alert to the possibility of a significant, albeit small, priming effect. In other words,the pre-test may cause some people who would not otherwise have had expectations to“develop” an expectation.

Reasons for Accurate Recall

Although results of psychological research on memory paint a generally pessimistic pictureof recall, most individuals in our study were able to recall their pre-trip expectations withaccuracy, including people within groups who might not be expected to do so. The differencebetween our findings and those of other studies may be due to the type of phenomena weinvestigated. Recall studies usually concern specific events or dates, or information subjectswere expected to learn. Expectations themselves have rarely been studied solely in termsof recall (Hirt, 1990).

Psychological processes may also help explain why participants in this study were likelyto recall their expectations rather precisely. First, planning and implementing a whitewater

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Expectations 13

rafting trip of this magnitude can be an involved process. Usually, individuals float theriver for multiple days and spend weeks preparing for the trip. Once on the river, they aresegregated from most everyday conveniences and are forced to rely on themselves for anyemergency aid. Thus, the experience they take home with them is truly unique and memo-rable. Research has shown that individuals who are highly involved in particular activitiesor situations remember their thoughts more accurately compared with low-involvementindividuals (Andrews & Shimp, 1990; Park & Hastak, 1994). In our study, individuals mayhave recalled their expectations accurately due to the high involvement levels associated withall aspects of their trip. Participants may have been constantly comparing their expectationsto their actual experiences, which would make original expectations salient throughout thetrip. The high percentages stating pre-trip expectations suggested that visitors had thoughtabout conditions they would encounter. If individuals were asked to recall expectationsfor an insignificant event or activity, they may have recalled their prior expectations lessaccurately. According to Koriat et al. (2000), memories can “be accurate and long lastingif they are highly distinctive, personally significant . . . or repeatedly rehearsed” (p. 512).

Regardless of the degree of involvement in planning a trip and boating itself, anotherexplanation may lie in the nature of cognitive architecture. Boaters may share broad schemasfor boating experiences either because of their prior experience, information they havesought, or discussions with others. For instance, on a remote Wild and Scenic River, onewould not expect to be bored or frustrated, and one would expect often to feel relaxed andexcited. “Inferences from a relevant knowledge schema” tend to remain “highly stable overtime” (Koriat et al., 2000, p. 492). If expectations are part of a generalized schema forboating, we might expect their recall to be rather accurate.

Another explanation for accuracy in recall might simply be that expectations were theactual topic of recall. Expectations have been found to guide retrieval of prior information(Hirt, 1990). Intuitively, if people use their expectations to help recall other information orstructure their encoding of new information, then the recall of their original expectationsshould be rather accurate. Our data are consistent with this view. Salient expectancies mayhave guided the retrieval of original expectations.

One finding that warrants discussion concerns the differences between the recall ac-curacy for expectations for internal states versus for social/environmental conditions. Ex-pectations for conditions apparently were not as accurately recalled, compared to recallof internal state expectations. A recent review reported that people remember their emo-tions with reasonable accuracy, although the current emotional state and interpretation ofconditions can influence recall of past emotions (Levine & Safer, 2002). Even though thatstudy did not address measurement and recall of expectations per se, it does imply that pastemotions are accurately remembered, which may account for the more accurate recall ofexpectations for internal states.

When examining differences between each of the managerially relevant groups ofstudy, no substantive differences surfaced. For example, most first-time boaters could re-call their initial expectations as accurately as experienced boaters. This result is difficult tointerpret, since past studies have found experienced users to have more realistic, and pre-sumably stable and accessible, expectations as a group compared with experienced users(Schreyer & Lime, 1984). However, a recent study by Fenton et al. (1998) found no dif-ferences in ideals or expectations between first time and repeat scuba divers regarding reefenvironments. Similarly, Fluker and Turner (2000) found that only 17% of expectationsdiffered between those with and without prior experience, even though 55% of “needs”and 50% of “motives” differed between the two groups. Perhaps the differences predictedbetween different groups pertain more to other characteristics such as motivations than toexpectations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

14 S. Dickson and T. E. Hall

Future Research

Expectations were recalled well over the course of a whitewater rafting trip. These findingsprovide validation of studies where pre-trip expectations are measured after the activityhas been completed. However, given the lack of comparable studies in other domains,investigating expectation recall for other types of activities and settings where participantinvolvement levels may be both high and low would be wise. One limitation in this studydue to the nature of multi-day rafting trips was that most participants were probably highlyinvolved in the activity, which is likely to have increased recall ability.

Future studies should also measure recall ability for longer time durations. In thisstudy, four days was the average time frame for testing recall ability. A more long-termapproach where follow-up questions were asked weeks later to measure recall ability wouldbe interesting. Further studies are needed to determine whether inaccuracies occur in mailsurveys, which are often administered weeks after the conclusion of an activity. In addition,timeframes might be chosen to more closely match the intervals between activity engage-ments. For example, if boaters make one trip each year to the Owyhee, knowing whethertheir expectations had changed by the time they begin planning for their next trip would beinformative.

Finally, an important direction for future research would be to investigate how theconditions actually encountered during the course of an experience affect the recall ofexpectations. In psychological research, one set of findings suggests that people revisetheir expectations to match the conditions they experience or their current state of affairs(Levine, 1997). An opposing body of research argues that people revise their perceptionsof conditions so that they conform with expectations (Hirt, 1990; Klaaren et al., 1994). Ourfindings were most consistent with the latter interpretation, but to comment confidently,it would be important to include the perceptions of actual conditions in the analysis. Wewould need to explore recall among those whose original expectations were and were notconfirmed.

References

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Andrews, J. C. & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source char-

acteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology and Marketing, 7(3),195–214.

Arnould, E. & Price, L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended serviceencounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 24–45.

Bernstein, I. H., Garbin, C. P., & Teng, G. K. (1988). Applied multivariate analysis. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process model of servicequality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 7–27.

Conway, M. & Ross, M. (1984). Getting what you want by revising what you had. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 738–748.

Cronin, J. J. & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-basedand perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58,125–131.

Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., Stankey, G. H., & Gregoire, T. G. (1987). The ROS planning system:Evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences, 9, 201–212.

Feather, N. (1992). Values, valences, expectations, and actions. Journal of Social Issues, 48(2), 109–124.

Fenton, D. M., Young, M., & Johnson, V. Y. (1998). Re-presenting the Great Barrier Reef to tourists:Implications for tourist experience and evaluation of coral reef environments. Leisure Sciences,20, 177–192.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Pre-Trip and Post-Trip Expectations 15

Fluker, M. & Turner, L. (2000). Needs, motivations, and expectations of a commercial whitewaterrafting experience. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 380–389.

Fournier, S. & Mick, D. G. (1999). Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 5–23.Gardner, R. D. & Neufeld, W. J. (1987). Use of the simple change score in correlational analysis.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 849–864.Greenleaf, R. D., Echelberger, H. E., & Leonard, R. E. (1984). Backpacker satisfaction, expectations,

and use levels in an eastern forest setting. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2(3),29–56.

Hammitt, W. E., Knauf, L. R., & Noe, F. P. (1989). A comparison of user vs. researcher deter-mined levels of past experience on recreation preference. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 202–213.

Hirt, E. (1990). Do I see only what I expect? Evidence for an expectancy-guided retrieval model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 937–951.

Klaaren, K. J., Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1994). The role of affective expectations in subjectiveexperience and decision-making. Social Cognition, 12(2), 77–101.

Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a psychology of memory accuracy. AnnualReview of Psychology, 51, 481–537.

Kozak, M. (2001). A critical review of approaches to measure satisfaction with tourist destinations.In J. A. Mazanec, G. I. Crouch, J. R. B. Richie, & A. G. Woodside (eds.), Consumer psychologyof tourism, hospitality and leisure (Vol. 2, pp. 303–320). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.

Levine, L. (1997). Reconstructing memory for emotions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-eral, 126(2), 165–177.

Levine, L. J. & Safer, M. A. (2002). Sources of bias in memory for emotions. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 11(5), 169–173.

Maxwell, S. E. & Howard, G. S. (1981). Change scores—Necessarily anathema? Educational andPsychological Measurement, 41, 747–756.

Miller, C. A. (1994). Effect of experience, expectation and resource availability on perceptions ofcrowding among trout anglers in Pennsylvania. In Proceedings of the 1994 Northeastern Recre-ation Research Symposium, April 10–12, 1994 (General Technical Report NE-198). SaratogaSprings, NY: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Miller, T. B. & Kane, M. (2001). The precision of change scores under absolute and relative interpre-tations. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(4), 307–327.

Mitchell, T., Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Cronk, R. (1997). Temporal adjustments in the evaluationof events: The “rosy view.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 421–448.

Neelamegham, R. & Jain, D. (1999). Consumer choice processes for experience goods: An econo-metric model and analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 373–386.

Noe, F. P. & Uysal, M. (1997). Evaluation of outdoor recreational settings. Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services, 4(4), 223–230.

Oliver, R. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal ofConsumer Research, 20, 418–429.

Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Expectancies. New York: The Guilford Press.Park, J. & Hastak, M. (1994). Memory-based product judgments: Effects of involvement at encoding

and retrieval. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 534–547.Rollins, R. & Bradley, G. (1986). Measuring recreation satisfaction with leisure settings. Recreation

Research Review, 13(1), 23–27.Ross, M. & Conway, M. (1986). Remembering one’s own past: The construction of personal histories.

In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp. 122–144).New York: Guilford Press.

Schreyer, R. & Lime, D. W. (1984). A novice isn’t necessarily a novice—The influence of experienceuse history on subjective perceptions of recreation participation. Leisure Sciences, 6(2), 131–149.

Schreyer, R. & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1978). The influence of experience expectations on crowdingperceptions and social-psychological carrying capacities. Leisure Sciences, 1(4), 373–394.

Shelby, B., Heberlein, T. A., Vaske, J. J., & Alfano, G. (1983). Expectations, preferences, and feelingcrowded in recreation activities. Leisure Sciences, 6(1), 1–14.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

16 S. Dickson and T. E. Hall

Shindler, B. & Shelby, B. (1995). Product shift in recreation settings: Findings and implications frompanel research. Leisure Sciences, 17, 91–107.

Smith, E. R. (1998). Mental representation and memory. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey(eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1. (4th ed., pp. 391–445). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Stewart, W. P. & Carpenter, E. H. (1989). Solitude at Grand Canyon: An application of expectancytheory. Journal of Leisure Research, 21(1), 4–17.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: PlenumPress.

Twisk, J. & Proper, K. (2004). Evaluation of the results of a randomized controlled trial: How todefine changes between baseline and follow-up. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 223–228.

Van Raaij, W. F. & Francken, D. A. (1984). Vacation decisions, activities, and satisfactions. Annalsof Tourism Research, 11(1), 101–112.

Williams, D. R. (1989). Great expectations and the limits to satisfaction: A review of recreationand consumer satisfaction research. (General Technical Report SE-52). USDA Forest Service,Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Williams, R. H., Zimmerman, D. W., & Cummings, N. (1996). Note on reliability and validity ofchange scores. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 785–786.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 12:

19 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014