Destination image and destination personality

Description
To examine the contentious relationship between brand image and brand personality in
the context of tourism destinations

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Destination image and destination personality
Sameer Hosany Yuksel Ekinci Muzaffer Uysal
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sameer Hosany Yuksel Ekinci Muzaffer Uysal, (2007),"Destination image and destination personality",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 62 - 81
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180710729619
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 83 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7599 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Graham Hankinson, (2005),"Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective", J ournal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 24-32http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876040510579361
Kye-Sung Chon, (1990),"The role of destination image in tourism: A review and discussion", The Tourist
Review, Vol. 45 Iss 2 pp. 2-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb058040
Steven Pike, (2005),"Tourism destination branding complexity", J ournal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 14 Iss 4 pp. 258-259http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420510609267
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Destination image and destination
personality
Sameer Hosany
School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK
Yuksel Ekinci
School of Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK, and
Muzaffer Uysal
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Abstract
Purpose – To examine the contentious relationship between brand image and brand personality in
the context of tourism destinations.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews the literature on brand (destination) image,
brand (destination) personality and identi?es examples of de?nitional inconsistencies and instances
where the terms brand image and brand personality are used interchangeably. Two studies were
carried out to investigate the relationship between the two constructs. Data were analysed using
canonical correlation.
Findings – Results indicate that destination image and destination personality are related concepts.
Canonical correlation analyses reveal that the emotional component of destination image captures the
majority of variance on destination personality dimensions.
Research limitations/implications – Academics must pay particular attention at distinguishing
between brand image and brand personality, since, failure to do so, will hinder research progress and
result in poor conceptual developments.
Practical implications – Destination marketers can focus on the commonality between destination
image and destination personality in order to communicate unique destination features and to
in?uence tourist behavior.
Originality/value – This paper ?lls a gap in the generic branding literature by adopting an
empirical stance at delineating the relationship between brand image and brand personality in the
context of tourism destinations.
Keywords Tourism, Brand image
Paper type Research paper
Brand management scholars (Aaker, 1996; Kapferer, 1997) argue that brand image is an
essential part of powerful brands. A strong brand can differentiate a product/service
from its competitors (Lim and O’Cass, 2001). For the consumer, brands reduce search
costs (Biswas, 1992), minimize perceived risks (Berthonet al., 1999), indicate high quality
(Erdem, 1998), and satisfy consumers’ functional and emotional needs (Bhat and Reddy,
1998). In the literature, a number of theoretical frameworks exist to understand brands,
brand image, brand building and brand management (Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996;
Kapferer, 1997; de Chernatony, 2001). Despite the signi?cant importance of brand image
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6182.htm
The earlier version of this research was presented at the 4th Consumer Psychology of Tourism,
Hospitality, and Leisure Symposium in Montreal, Canada, in July 2005.
IJCTHR
1,1
62
Received July 2005
Revised November 2005
Accepted September 2006
International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 1 No. 1, 2007
pp. 62-81
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6182
DOI 10.1108/17506180710729619
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
in all of these frameworks, much ambiguity exists as to its relationship with brand
personality (Aaker and Fournier, 1995; Patterson, 1999). At the theoretical level, two
issues can be identi?ed, viz de?nitional problems and the interchangeable use of the
terms brand image and brand personality (Patterson, 1999). In some studies, brand
image is de?ned in terms of brand personality (Hendon and Williams, 1985; Upshaw,
1995). In other studies, the terms brand image and brand personality are used
interchangeably to gauge consumer perceptions of brands (Gardner and Levy, 1955;
Martineau, 1958). Efforts to provide an unequivocal explanation of the brand
image-brand personality relationship appear in the literature (Plummer, 1984; Karande
et al., 1997; Patterson, 1999) but progress in this area is slow due to a lack of empirical
investigations. To the best of our knowledge, to date, no empirical studies exist that
investigate the relationship between the two constructs.
Accordingly, this article examines the debatable relationship between brand image
and brand personality in the context of tourism destinations. While prior research
documents the branding of goods and services, application of classical branding
theories to places, in particular to tourism destinations, is a relatively new area of
academic investigation (Gnoth, 1998; Cai, 2002). More recently, drawing upon concepts
from classical branding theories, the relational exchange paradigm and the network
paradigms, Hankinson (2004) proposes a “relational network brand” model for tourist
destinations. This model conceptualizes the place brand as a core brand (personality,
positioning and reality) with four categories of brand relationships (consumer, primary
service, media and brand infrastructure relationships).
In this paper, we recognize that a tourist destination consists of a bundle of tangible
and intangible, and can be potentially be seen as product or perceived as a brand.
Referring to previous research on product/brand personality and adopting Aaker’s
(1997) terminology, we conceptualize destination personality as the set of personality
traits associated with a destination. The contribution of this paper primarily lies in its
empirical investigations of the brand image-brand personality relationship in the
context of tourist destinations. The outline of the paper is as follows; the ?rst part
provides a conceptual background on brand (destination) image, brand (destination)
personality and the relationship between the two constructs. Second, the research
design and study ?ndings are discussed; the ?nal part draws conclusions, outlines
managerial implications and highlights future research directions.
Literature review
Destination image
Brand image is an important concept in consumer behavior (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990).
The most common and widely accepted de?nition of brand image is “the perceptions
about a brand re?ected as associations existing in the memory of the consumer” (Keller,
1993). The associations are created in three potential ways: direct experience with the
product/service, frominformation sources or frominferences to pre-existing associations
(Martinez and Pina, 2003). Brand image is a multidimensional construct (Martinez and de
Chernatony, 2004) and consists of functional andsymbolic brandbene?ts (LowandLamb,
2000). Similar to the strong interests at studying brand image, for the past three decades,
destination image has been a dominating area of tourismresearch. Studies on destination
image trace backto the early1970s withHunt (1975) in?uential workexaminingthe role of
image in tourismdevelopment. In a reviewof the literature from1973 to 2000, Pike (2002)
Destination
image and
personality
63
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
identi?es 142 destination image studies exploring a variety of areas such as the role
and in?uence of destination image in consumer behavior, image formation, and
destination image scale development. Interestingly, research on destination image goes
beyond the academic community and is of equal relevance to destination marketers
(Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997). However, much attention to the study of destination image
primarily lies in the latter in?uence on tourists’ behaviors. For example, in a review of 23
frequently cited destinationimage studies, Chon(1990) ?nds that the most popular themes
emerging from these studies are the role and in?uence of destination image on traveler’s
behavior and satisfaction. The image of a destination in?uences tourists’ choice processes,
the evaluation of that destination and future intentions (Bigne´ et al., 2001).
Despite its academic importance and practical relevance for tourism marketing,
researchers often neglect to provide a precise de?nition of destination (Echtner and
Ritchie, 1991). As Pearce (1988, p. 162) comments “image is one of those terms that
won’t go away . . . a term with vague and shifting meanings.” Nevertheless, the most
commonly cited de?nition is “the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person
has of a destination” (Crompton, 1979, p. 18).
An increasing number of researchers direct their attention to identifying what
constitutes destination image (Lawson and Band-Bovy, 1977; Dichter, 1985). Much
empirical research support the premise that destination image consists primarily of two
components: cognitive and affective (Crompton, 1979). Yet, with some exceptions, the
majority of destination image studies focus on its cognitive component (Echtner and
Ritchie, 1991; Walmsley and Young, 1998; Chen and Uysal, 2002) and overlook the
affective component. Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) posits that the practice of focusing on
only the cognitive component is not appropriate for studying destination image and can
result in measurement issues since “the meaning of a place is not entirely determined by
its physical properties” (Ward and Russell, 1981, p. 123). Traditionally, researchers have
a tendency to borrow Russell’s (1980) scale to capture the affective component (Baloglu
and Brinberg, 1997) and there is a strong preference for ad hoc measures to assess the
cognitive attributes of destinations. Still, very fewstudies (Baloglu and McClearly, 1999;
Mackay and Fesenmaier, 2000; Uysal et al., 2000) employ both affective and cognitive
components in evaluating destination image. Table I reviews some selected destination
image studies in terms of dimensions studied and method adopted.
Table I indicates that the majority of studies con?ne to assess the cognitive
dimensions of destination image. Some notable exceptions exist that combine both
cognitive and affective components. In terms of method, researchers have a strong
preference for structured research designs. Five to seven point semantic differential
and/or Likert-type scales are most common among researchers (Echtner and Ritchie,
1993; Ong and Horbunluekit, 1997; Chen and Uysal, 2002). As for the number of
destination image attributes, it diverge largely: from 4 (Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997) to
48 (Uysal et al., 2000). On the other hand, in our review, Dann (1996) is the only study
adopting an unstructured research design. The author offers an alternative qualitative
method to the study of destination image and examines the linguistic content of
tourists’ mental images. Focusing on visitors’ own projected images and responses to
pictorial stimuli in both pre and on-trip situations, Dann (1996) develop a destination
image analysis framework consisting of cognitive, affective and conative components.
Dann’s (1996) study further demonstrates the complexity at investigating the linkages
between destination image and choice.
IJCTHR
1,1
64
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
References Dimension(s) studied Method
Gartner (1989) Cognitive Structured
15 attributes
Five-point Likert scale
Reilly (1990) Cognitive Unstructured
Open-ended questions
Echtner and Ritchie (1993) Cognitive Structured
34 attributes
Six-point Likert scale
Dann (1996) Cognitive, affective
and conative
Unstructured
Semi structured interviews, pictorial
stimuli, and tourists’ own projected images
Oppermann (1996) Cognitive Structured
15 attributes
Seven-point Likert scale
Schroeder (1996) Cognitive Structured
20 attributes
Seven-point Likert scale
Baloglu (1997) Cognitive Structured
27 attributes
Five-point Likert scale
Baloglu and Brinberg (1997) Affective Structured
Four attributes
Seven-point semantic differential scale
Ong and Horbunlnekit (1997) Cognitive Structured
20 attributes using seven-point semantic
differential scale
17 attributes using six-point Likert scale
Walmsley and Young (1998) Affective Structured
Six-bipolar attributes
Seven-point semantic differential scale
Baloglu and McClearly (1999) Cognitive and affective Structured
15 attributes using ?ve-point Likert scale
Four bipolar attributes using seven-point
semantic differential scale
Choi et al. (1999) Cognitive Structured and unstructured
25 attributes using seven-point
Likert scale
Open-ended questions
Mackay and Fesenmaier
(2000)
Cognitive and affective Structured
Eight attributes
Seven-point semantic differential scale
Uysal et al. (2000) Cognitive and affective Structured
48 attributes using a ?ve-point
Likert scale
Baloglu and Mangaloglu
(2001)
Cognitive and affective Structured
14 attributes using a ?ve-point
Likert scale
Four attributes using a seven-point
semantic differential scale
Chen and Uysal (2002) Cognitive Structured
26 attributes using a ?ve-point Likert scale
Table I.
Selected references,
dimension(s) studied and
method adopted
Destination
image and
personality
65
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Destination personality
Brand personality appeals to both academics (Aaker, 1997; Gardner and Levy, 1955)
and practitioners (Plummer, 1984) as its importance becomes more apparent. Brand
personality is described as the personality traits generally associated with humans that
consumers perceive brand to possess (Batra et al., 1993; Aaker, 1997). A distinctive
brand personality can create a set of unique and favorable associations in consumer
memory and thus enhance brand equity (Keller, 1993). Brand personality serves as an
enduring basis for differentiation (Crask and Henry, 1990). As a result, brand
personality is an important factor for the success of a brand in terms of preference and
choice (Batra et al., 1993). A well established brand personality can result in consumers
having stronger emotional ties to the brand, greater trust and loyalty (Fournier, 1998).
Brand personality research suffers due to a lack of common theory and consensual
taxonomy of personality traits to describe products and brands (Aaker and Fournier,
1995). On the basis of this premise, adopting a rigorous method, Aaker (1997) develops
a reliable and valid instrument: the brand personality scale (BPS). Aaker (1997) extends
on the dimensions of human personality and supports a ?ve dimensional brand
personality structure: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and
ruggedness. Attributes such as down-to-earth, real, sincere and honest represent the
sincerity dimension. Such traits as daring, exciting, imaginative and contemporary
illustrate excitement. Attributes such as intelligent, reliable, secure and con?dent
characterize competence. Attributes such as glamorous, upper class, good looking and
charming personify sophistication. The ruggedness dimension feature traits such as
tough, outdoorsy, masculine and western. Since, Aaker’s (1997) work, the literature
reports several applications of the BPS in different settings and across cultures (Aaker
et al., 2001; Siguaw et al., 1999; Supphellen and Gronhaug, 2003).
Similar to brand personality research, the tourism literature increasingly
acknowledges the importance of destination personality, in particular, at leveraging
the perceived image of a place and in in?uencing tourist choice behavior (Crockett and
Wood, 2002). At the conceptual level, many tourism academics embrace the face
validity of the destination personality construct (Henderson, 2000; Morgan et al., 2002;
Crockett and Wood, 2002). For example, through content analysis of travel and tourism
advertisements, Santos (2004) found that personality attributes such as
“contemporary,” “modern,” “sophisticated,” and “traditional” represents Portugal in
the US travel media. Henderson (2000) posits that the New Asia-Singapore brand
is comprised of six personality characteristics: cosmopolitan, youthful, vibrant,
modern, reliable and comfort. However, to date, limited empirical research exists that
identify salient destination personality dimensions (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006).
Relationship between brand image and brand personality
Brand image and brand personality are key at creating brand equity (Martineau, 1958;
Keller, 1993; Plummer, 1984). Although several models exist in the literature to explain
the two concepts, much ambiguity surrounds the relationship between brand image
and brand personality. Poor conceptualizations and a lack of empirical studies have
hampered progress in understanding this relationship. At the conceptual level, two
issues exist: de?nitional problems and interchangeable use of the terms brand image
and brand personality. Patterson’s (1999) review of the branding literature highlights
the de?nitional inconsistencies; the author identi?es 27 de?nitions of brand image and
IJCTHR
1,1
66
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
12 brand personality de?nitions. In some instances, brand image is de?ned in terms of
brand personality. Hendon and Williams (1985) and Upshaw (1995) de?nitions are
typical of these inconsistencies:
[Brand image] also known as “brand personality” or “brand character,” it involves nothing
more than describing a product as if it were a human being (Hendon and Williams, 1985,
p. 66).
[Brand image is] generally synonymous with either the brand’s strategic personality or its
reputation as a whole (Upshaw, 1995, p. 14).
The second issue relates to the interchangeable use of the terms brand image and
brand personality in the literature (Smothers, 1993; Doyle, 1989). An illustration is the
following extract from Graeff (1997, p. 49).
Marketers have become increasingly aware of the strategic importance of a brand’s image.
Just as people can be described in terms of their personality as perceived by other people,
brands can be described in terms of their image as perceived by consumers.
Clearly, the above extract shows that the author makes no apparent effort to delineate
between brand image and brand personality. Patterson (1999) further concluded that
most studies fail to distinguish between the terms brand image, brand personality and
user image. Still, some scholars attempt to provide some theoretical explanations to the
brand image-brand personality relationship (Plummer, 1984; Karande et al., 1997;
Patterson, 1999). For these authors, brand image is a more encapsulating term and has
a number of inherent characteristics or dimensions, including, among others, brand
personality, user image, product attributes and consumer bene?ts. For example, in
Heylen et al.’s (1995) brand model, brand personality and brand identity are two
components of image. However, Heylen et al. (1995) conceptualization contrasts with
Kapferer (1997) identity prism, in which personality and self-image are components of
brand identity along with physical, relationship, re?ection, and culture dimensions.
Another school of thought (Biel, 1993, p. 71) views brand image as “a cluster of
attributes and associations that consumers connect to a brand.” In this elaboration,
evoked associations can be either hard (tangible/functional) or soft (emotional
attributes). Brand personality is seen as the soft emotional side of brand image
(Biel, 1993). Likewise, Fournier (1998) argues that when brand are successful at
satisfying consumer needs, consumers develop strong emotions towards them. In
summary, the lack of solid theory development results in confusion and impedes
managerial practices. The relationship between brand image and brand personality
necessitates substantive empirical testing and con?rmation.
Method
The measures for destination image, destination personality, an attitude towards the
destination, overall image and intention to recommend behavior were adapted from
previous research. The questionnaire also comprises socio-demographics
characteristics and aspects of travel behavior:
.
Destination image. Destination image has both cognitive and affective
components (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1996). Some previous studies investigate
either the affective (Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997) or cognitive dimensions
(Schroeder, 1996), but this study seeks to incorporate both dimensions in its
Destination
image and
personality
67
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
assessment of destination image. Affective image is measured using four bipolar
items adopted from Russell (1980). The four bipolar affective items are:
distressing/relaxing; gloomy/exciting; sleepy/arousing; and unpleasant/pleasant.
The cognitive image measure is adapted from Ong and Horbunluekit (1997)
study and consists of 17 bipolar adjectives: dirty/clean; easily accessible/isolated;
friendly/cold; harmonious/hostile; innocent/sinful; interesting/boring;
lively/stagnant; natural/arti?cial; overcrowded/sparse; pretty/ugly; quiet/noisy;
sophisticated/simple; old/new; underdeveloped/overdeveloped; upmarket/poor;
safe/unsafe; and very touristy/not at all touristy. Ratings for the 21-item
destination image scale are captured on a seven-point semantic differential scale.
.
Destination personality. Destination personality was measured using Aaker’s (1997)
?ve dimensional BPS. The BPS is the most comprehensive instrument for
measuring brand/product personality and numerous studies (Siguaw et al., 1999)
adopt this scale to capture consumers’ perception of brand personality. At a
preliminary stage, we tested the original BPS for content validity. Twenty native
British subjects (50 percent male and 50 percent female) were asked to state whether
each of the 42 personality traits are relevant to their description of tourism
destinations. The criterion set out to establish content validity was that traits are
chosen by at least 70 percent of the pre-test respondents. As a result of this process,
27 personality traits, across ?ve dimensions, were retained for the ?nal
questionnaire and are as follows: sincerity (down to earth, family oriented,
sincere, wholesome, original, cheerful and friendly); excitement (daring, exciting,
spirited, imaginative, up-to-date, independent); competence (reliable, secure,
intelligent, successful, con?dent, secure); sophistication (upper class, glamorous,
good looking); and ruggedness (outdoorsy, masculine, western, tough, rugged).
Ratings for the 27-items destinationpersonalityscale are capturedusinga ?ve-point
Likert-type scale with anchors 1 – “not descriptive at all” and 5 – “extremely
descriptive” consistent with Aaker’s (1997) study and recent research on brand
personality (Diamantopoulos et al., 2005).
.
Dependent variables. The studyalso includes multiple dependent measures toassess
the criterion validityof the scales. All items are measured using a seven-point single
item Likert-type scale. Overall, destination image evaluation is captured using the
statement “What is your impression of the overall image of the destination?” with
anchors extremely poor (23) and extremely good (þ3). An attitude toward the
destination is measured using the statement “Howwould you describe your overall
feelingabout the destination?” with anchors dislikedverymuch (23) and liked very
much (þ3). Finally, the measure for intention to recommend is adapted fromCronin
and Taylor (1992) using the statement “Howlikely is it that you would recommend
this destination to your friends/family/colleagues?” with extremely unlikely (23)
and extremely likely (þ3).
Data collection and sample
Data were collected in the United Kingdom (UK) in three different cities via a
personally administered questionnaire. To participate in the survey, respondents were
approached randomly on the high streets, around shopping complexes and at train
stations to participate. In general, respondents were responsive and willing to
participate, and refusal rates were predominantly low (around 15 percent). Using the
IJCTHR
1,1
68
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
retrieval hypothesis (Solomon et al., 1999), respondents were instructed to recall their
experiences about the most recent tourist destination visited outside the UK before
answering a series of questions. A total of 148 usable questionnaires were collected
from British nationals. Table II summarizes the pro?le of the respondents.
The sample is almost equallysplit between males (48 percent) and females (52 percent).
In terms of age group, 18 percent of the respondents were between 16 and 24 years of age,
24 percent in the 25-34 age group, 27 percent in the 35-44 group, and 31 percent were 45 or
above. Of the sample, 66 per cent earned an annual personal income of less than £20,000.
For their most recent vacation, 58 percent traveled to a European destination with Spain
(20 percent) and France (14 percent) as the two most popular destinations, and Belgiumas
the least popular Europeandestinationwith1.4 percent. The USaccounts for 6.1 percent of
respondents’ destination choice for holiday. Asian destinations (e.g. China, India and
Malaysia) accounted for 7.5 percent and African countries (e.g. Mauritius, South Africa
and Kenya) for only 4.8 percent. A large proportion of respondents (56 percent) were
?rst-time visitors and the remaining 44 percent had previous visits ranging from one to
Response category Frequency (n ¼ 148) Percentage of total
Gender
Male 71 48
Female 77 52
Age
16-24 27 18.2
25-34 35 23.6
35-44 40 27.0
45-54 34 23.0
55-64 12 8.2
Annual personal income (£)
Less than 10,000 18 12.0
10,000-14,999 37 25.0
15,000-19,999 43 29.0
20,000-24,999 21 14.0
25,000-29,999 13 9.0
30,000-35,000 10 7.0
More than 35,000 6 4.0
Number of previous visits
No previous visit 83 56.0
1-2 times 31 21.0
3-4 times 7 5.0
More than four times 27 18.0
Purpose of visit
Leisure/holidays 108 73.0
Visiting friends and relatives 27 18.0
Education 7 5.0
Others 6 4.0
Travel companion
Alone 17 11.6
Family 37 25.2
Partner 52 35.4
Friends 38 25.9
Others 4 3.0
Table II.
Study 1: sample
characteristics
Destination
image and
personality
69
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
more than four trips to the same destination. For the majority of respondents (73 percent),
the main purpose of visit was for leisure.
Results
Measure re?nements
The psychometric properties of the destination image and destination personality
scales were assessed for construct validity, criterion validity, convergent validity,
unidimensionality and reliability analyses (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson,
1988; Anderson and Gerbing, 1998).
Exploratory factor analysis: destination image. The construct validity of the
destination image scale was examined against convergent and discriminant validity, both
of which were tested using exploratory factor analysis. Preliminary analyses using
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO ¼ 0.79) and Barlett’s test (signi?cant at the 0.00 level)
supported the appropriateness of factor analyses to the data (Hair et al., 1998). Principal
component extraction with Varimax rotation was applied to the 21-items destination
image scale. The criterion for the signi?cance of factor loadings was set at 0.45 following
the suggestion of Hair et al. (1998) for sample size of 150. Items exhibiting low factor
loadings (,0.40), high cross loadings (.0.40) or low communalities (,0.30) were
eliminated until a clean and rigid factor structure emerge. Initial ?ndings suggest that the
destination image scale consist of ?ve dimensions. Athree factor solution was retained for
two reasons: ?rst, the three factors explained most of the variance in the analyses; and
second, the last two factors displayed insuf?cient reliability (a coef?cient values were
,0.60). Table III presents the ?ndings of factor analysis for the destination image scale.
Factor loadings
a
Scale Mean
b
SD Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Communality
Affective
Unpleasant/pleasant 5.57 1.47 83 – – 69
Distressing/relaxing 5.37 1.63 70 – – 56
Pretty/ugly 5.51 1.51 66 – – 65
Gloomy/exciting 5.32 1.53 65 – – 68
Physical atmosphere
Quiet/noisy 3.92 1.83 – 80 – 70
Innocent/sinful 4.38 1.58 – 76 – 59
Sleepy/arousing 3.47 1.53 – 74 – 62
Overcrowded/sparse 3.53 1.70 – 59 – 63
Accessibility
Lively/stagnant 5.46 1.70 – – 73 66
Friendly/cold 5.74 1.55 – – 71 63
Easily accessible/isolated 4.82 1.92 – – 66 53
Interesting/boring 5.66 1.56 – – 66 55
Eigenvalue 3.54 2.63 1.31
Explained variance
by factors (percentage) 22.20 20.30 19.80
Cronbach’s a coef?cient 0.77 0.74 0.70
Notes:
a
Numbers are magnitudes of the factor multiplied by 100. Total variance extracted by the
three factors is 62.30 percent. Item loading less than 0.45 omitted;
b
items measured on a seven-point
semantic differential scale
Table III.
Destination image scale:
exploratory factor
analysis with varimax
rotation (n ¼ 148)
IJCTHR
1,1
70
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
In Table III, the three extracted factors explained 62 percent of the total variance.
All factors have relatively high reliability coef?cients ranging from 0.70 to 0.77 and
factor loadings are predominantly high ($0.59). Such ?ndings establish the construct
validity of the destination image scale (Churchill, 1979). In destination image studies,
the labeling of factors, as derived from factor analysis, is seen as being “a notoriously
subjective activity” (Walmsley and Young, 1998). As a result, the ?rst dimension was
labelled “affective” and explained 22 percent of the variance (eigenvalue ¼ 3.54) with
a reliability coef?cient of 0.77. The affective dimension groups four items:
unpleasant/pleasant, distressing/relaxing, pretty/ugly and gloomy/exciting. The
second dimension was labeled as “physical atmosphere” and accounts for 20 percent
of the variance (eigenvalue ¼ 2.63) with a reliability coef?cient of 0.74. The physical
atmosphere dimensions comprise of four bipolar items: quiet/noisy, innocent/sinful,
sleepy/arousing and overcrowded/sparse. The last dimension was named
“accessibility” and explain of 20 percent variation in the data (eigenvalue ¼ 1.31)
with reliability coef?cient of 0.70. The accessibility dimension consists of the following
four bipolar items: easily accessible/isolated, lively/stagnant, friendly/cold, and
interesting/boring.
The criterion validity of the destination image scale was assessed using two
ordinary least square (OLS) regressions analyses. The three destination image
dimensions were considered as independent variables and overall destination image
evaluation and intention to recommend as the dependent variables. The regression
models were checked for multicollinearity effect using variance in?ation factor (VIF).
VIF values were below the maximum threshold level of 10 (Hair et al., 1998) and
indicate no evidence of multicollinearity. Overall, from the regression models,
destination image was statistically signi?cant in estimating global evaluation of
destination image (R
2
¼ 0.40, F
(3,144)
¼ 30.33, p , 0.00) and intention to recommend
(R
2
¼ 0.46, F
(3,144)
¼ 41.54, p , 0.00).
Exploratory factor analysis: destination personality. Similarly, the 27-items
destination personality scale was subjected to exploratory factor analysis. The KMO
value was at 0.85 and Bartlett’s test was signi?cant at the 0.00 level. Both results
demonstrate the appropriateness of factor analyses to the data. Applying the same
empirical criteria to that of the destination image scale, a ?nal three-factor model
emerged from the analysis. Table IV presents the results of exploratory factor analysis
for the destination personality scale. Items with factor loadings lower than 0.45 are
omitted.
Table IV shows that a three factor solution was adequate according to:
.
the acceptable eigenvalues; and
.
the satisfactory amount of total variance explained.
The three factors had eigenvalues greater than 1 and accounted for 59 percent of the
total variation in the data. All factors have relatively high reliability coef?cients:
sincerity (a ¼ 0.81), excitement (a ¼ 0.72), with the exception of conviviality
(a ¼ 0.69) which was only marginally below the recommended 0.70 threshold level.
The factor loadings are reasonably robust (all $ 0.58) and establish the construct
validity of the scale (Churchill, 1979). The ?rst factor was labeled “sincerity” and
explained the highest proportion of the variance (26 percent) with eigenvalue of 4.70.
The sincerity dimension includes the items: sincere, intelligent, reliable, successful,
Destination
image and
personality
71
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
wholesome and down to earth. The second factor was labeled as “excitement” and
explained 18 per cent of variance with eigenvalue of 1.75. The excitement dimension
consists of the items: exciting, daring, spirited and original. The last factor
“conviviality” accounts for 16 percent of the variance (eigenvalue ¼ 1.22) and
comprises the items: friendly, family oriented and charming.
Two OLS regression analyses provide an assessment of the criterion validity of the
destination personality scale. These analyses examined the relationship between
destination personality and the independent variables an attitude toward
the destination and intention to recommend. The dimensions sincerity, excitement
and conviviality were considered as independent variables, and an attitude towards the
destination and intention to recommend as the dependent variables. The regression
models were inspected for multicollinearity effect and all VIF values were less than 10,
indicating no evidence of multicollinearity (Hair et al., 1998). From the regression
results, destination personality was statistically signi?cant at predicting an attitude
towards the destination (R
2
¼ 0.23, F
(3,144)
¼ 14.61, p ¼ 0.00) and intention to
recommend (R
2
¼ 0.23, F
(3,144)
¼ 14.34, p ¼ 0.00). As a result, these ?ndings provide
evidence for the criterion validity of the destination personality scale (Churchill, 1979).
Con?rmatory factor analysis: Study 2
A second study was carried out with the main purpose to establish the external
validity of the ?ndings. Data were collected from a second sample in the departure
Factor Loadings
a
Scales Mean
b
SD Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Communality
Sincerity
Sincere 2.90 1.30 77 – – 67
Intelligent 2.80 1.20 76 – – 67
Reliable 3.00 1.24 75 – – 62
Successful 3.40 1.20 62 – – 50
Wholesome 2.95 1.15 62 – – 48
Down-to-earth 3.00 1.30 60 – – 38
Excitement
Exciting 3.80 1.15 – 82 – 81
Daring 2.90 1.35 – 74 – 60
Spirited 3.50 1.20 – 61 – 56
Original 3.20 1.25 – 58 – 49
Conviviality
Friendly 4.00 1.00 – – 84 77
Family oriented 3.50 1.25 – – 80 67
Charming 3.40 1.10 – – 64 46
Eigenvalue 4.70 1.75 1.22
Explained variance by factors (percentage) 25.75 17.55 15.82
Cronbach’s a coef?cient 0.81 0.72 0.69
Notes:
a
Numbers are magnitudes of the factor multiplied by 100. Total variance extracted by the
three factors is 59.12 percent. Item loading less than 0.45 omitted;
b
items measured on a ?ve-point
Likert-type scale
Table IV.
Destination personality
scale: exploratory factor
analysis with varimax
rotation (n ¼ 148)
IJCTHR
1,1
72
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
lounge of a major European airport. Participants were British tourists waiting for their
return ?ights to the UK after visiting a popular European city. Respondents were
approached randomly to participate in the survey. The questionnaire comprised of the
12-item destination image and 13-item destination personality scales as derived from
exploratory factor analysis in Study 1. A total of 120 questionnaires were collected and
a ?nal 102 retained for analysis. The second sample consists of 60 percent males and
40 percent females. In terms of age group, the pro?le was as follows: 16-24: 19 percent,
25-34: 43 percent, 35-44: 23 percent, above 44: 15 percent. The majority of respondents
(91 percent) were on their ?rst visit to this European city.
The factor structure of the destination image and destination personality scales items
were estimated using LISREL 8.1 (Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom, 1996). PRELIS was used to
generate the variance-covariance matrix as input. The overall ?t of the measurement
model was determined initially by examining the x
2
statistics. A signi?cant x
2
value
indicates an inadequate ?t but one should be cautious in interpreting the results because
x
2
statistics are dependent on sample size (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985; Bollen, 1989). As a
result, several other ?t indexes are available that are independent of sample size (Marsh
et al., 1988; Hu and Bentler, 1998). Among these, the goodness of ?t index (GFI), adjusted
goodness of ?t index (AGFI), normed ?t index (NFI), comparative ?t index (CFI) and root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are relatively unaffected by sample size.
A three-dimensional con?rmatory factor model was estimated on the 12-items
destination image scale. Initial inspection of the model revealed that ?t indices were
below recommended standards (Hu and Bentler, 1999) and indicates a poor ?t:
x
2
(51)
¼ 123.45, p , 0.001; GFI ¼ 0.83, AGFI ¼ 0.74, NFI ¼ 0.83, CFI ¼ 0.89,
RMSEA ¼ 0.11). In order to get a better ?t, the model was subjected to modi?cation
and the items distressing/relaxing, gloomy/exciting, sleepy/arousing were deleted. The
three items loaded simultaneously on more than one factor. A second con?rmatory
model was re-estimated using the remaining nine items. The model exhibited a better ?t:
x
2
(51)
¼ 26.94, was not signi?cant ( p . 0.001). The other ?t indices substantially
improved and met the recommended acceptable minimumthreshold level: GFI ¼ 0.94;
AGFI ¼ 0.90; NFI ¼ 0.92; CFI ¼ 0.98; RMSEA ¼ 0.03. All factor loadings were
$0.35 and signi?cant ( p , 0.05), satisfying the criteria for convergent validity.
The reliability coef?cients for the three sub-scales ranged from 0.70 to 0.75.
Similar to the destination image scale, a three-dimensional con?rmatory factor
model was estimated on the 13-item destination personality scale. The x
2
,
x
2
(41)
¼ 70.99, was signi?cant ( p , 0.001) and indicates a poor ?t to the
hypothesized solution. The other ?t indices were generally below acceptable
thresholds: GFI ¼ 0.89; AGFI ¼ 0.82; NFI ¼ 0.84; CFI ¼ 0.91; RMSEA ¼ 0.08).
An inspection of the modi?cation indices revealed that the items reliable and down to
earth were factorially complex and if deleted, will result in a better model ?t. The two
items were deleted and a second con?rmatory model was re-estimated on the
remaining 11 items. The overall model ?t improved: x
2
(41)
¼ 42.76, p . 0.001;
GFI ¼ 0.92; AGFI ¼ 0.87; NFI ¼ 0.90; CFI ¼ 0.96. The value of RMSEA equals
0.05 and is below the recommended cut-off value of 0.08. All factor loadings were
$0.35 and signi?cant ( p , 0.05) and, therefore, establishes convergent validity of the
scale. The reliabilities of the individual sub-scales, sincerity (a ¼ 0.70); excitement
(a ¼ 0.72); and conviviality (a ¼ 0.76) exceeded the minimum recommended level of
0.70 (Churchill, 1979).
Destination
image and
personality
73
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Relationship between destination image and destination personality
The relationship between brand image and brand personality lacks both theoretical
and empirical support in the literature. This paper seeks to address the nature of this
relationship based on tourists’ evaluation of destination image and destination
personality. The relationship between the two constructs was tested using canonical
correlation. Canonical correlation analysis is a multivariate statistical model that
estimates the simultaneous relationships between two sets of multiple variables. The
underlying logic involves the derivation of a linear combination of variables from each
of the two sets of variables (the destination personality and destination image
summated scales, each consisting of three sub-scales) called canonical variates. Such a
procedure attempts to maximize the correlation between two linear combinations of
variables (Hair et al., 1998). The maximum number of canonical variates (functions)
that can be extracted from a set of variables equals the number of variables in the
smallest set of variables, in our case three. The canonical correlation analyses were run
using the MANOVA procedure in SPSS. The analyses for the destination image and
destination personality sub-scales resulted in two meaningful canonical functions
signi?cant at the 0.05 or better probability level. Table V presents the results of
canonical correlation analysis for Study 1 and Study 2. For the signi?cant functions,
the canonical correlations ranged from 0.02 to 0.99 as can be seen in Table VI.
As a rule of thumb, only variables (summated scales) having canonical loading
greater than 0.40 are interpretable. For example, in the ?rst signi?cant variate for
Study 1, the sub-scale physical atmosphere (destination image) is not part of the
canonical variable. The same argument holds true for the ?rst signi?cant variate of
Study 2 in which the canonical loading for physical atmosphere is less than 0.40.
However, for the second signi?cant variates of both Study 1 and Study 2, the
sub-scales affective and accessibility (destination image) and the sub-scale conviviality
(destination personality), have canonical loading values less than 0.40. Nevertheless, if
we go with the very ?rst signi?cant and meaningful variate, the only sub-scale that
does not qualify is physical atmosphere (canonical loading of 0.06 in Study 1 and 0.39
in Study 2) and was, therefore, omitted from further interpretations.
Variate number
Study 1 (n ¼ 148) Study 2 (n ¼ 102)
Statistics 1 2 3 1 2 3
Canonical correlation 0.47 0.28 0.09 0.56 0.22 0.19
Wilki’s l signi?cance 0.00 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.05
Percentage of variance explained
Destination image 0.43 0.35 0.22 0.50 0.22 0.28
Cumulative percentage 0.44 0.78 1.00 0.50 0.80 1.00
Destination personality 0.48 0.35 0.17 0.53 0.24 0.23
Cumulative percentage 0.48 0.83 1.00 0.53 0.77 1.00
Redundancy
Destination image 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.01
Cumulative percentage 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.18
Destination personality 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.08
Cumulative percentage 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.19
Table V.
Overall results of
canonical correlation
analysis
IJCTHR
1,1
74
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
The results of the analysis also indicate that the two signi?cant variates for both
studies explained a high percentage of total variance: Study 1: 78 and 83 percent; Study
2: 80 and 77 percent, respectively. However, the destination personality variance
recovered from the destination image scale was 13 percent for Study 1 and 18 percent
for Study 2 (Table V). The two signi?cant pairs reveal that, with the exception of
physical atmosphere as part of destination image, the sub-scales affective and
accessibility are, in general, directly related to sincerity, excitement and conviviality.
Such an outcome establishes the duality of the relationship between the two constructs.
Discussions and conclusions
The current article makes an important contribution to the understanding of brand
image and brand personality in the context of tourism destinations. In the literature,
several models exist to understand brand image and brand personality, but empirical
investigations on the relationship between the two constructs are scarce. The terms
brand image and brand personality are used interchangeably (Gardner and Levy, 1955;
Martineau, 1958). In other cases, brand image and brand personality are theoretically
identi?ed as either separate concepts (Gordon, 1996) or relating concepts (Hendon and
Williams, 1985; Upshaw, 1995). Some authors attempt to delineate between the two
constructs (Patterson, 1999) but discussions remain only at the conceptual level.
Using canonical correlation, this study provides some empirical support to this
contentious debate. Results indicate that destination image and destination personality
are two different but related concepts. At least two of the destination image sub-scales
(affective and accessibility) were signi?cantly related to the destination personality
scales (sincerity, excitement and conviviality). In the ?rst study, almost 13 percent of
the variance in destination personality was recovered from the destination image scale
and 18 percent in the second study. As a result, these ?ndings support the proposition
that brand image is an encompassing term with brand personality as one of its
components (Plummer, 1984) and brand personality is more related to the affective
(softer) side of brand image. However, despite the statistical signi?cance of these
results, further investigations are required, given the limitation of this study to tourist
destinations. Future studies could adopt a similar approach but in a different context
(for, e.g. retailing) to further substantiate our results.
Our study also makes important theoretical contributions to both the generic
marketing and tourism literatures. Academics must pay particular attention at
Variate number
Study 1 (n ¼ 148) Study 2 (n ¼ 102)
Scales 1 2 3 1 2 3
Destination image
Affective 20.99 0.02 0.12 20.99 20.08 20.16
Physical atmosphere 20.06 20.99 20.03 20.39 20.23 20.89
Accessibility 20.55 0.21 20.80 20.61 0.78 20.15
Destination personality
Sincerity 20.54 0.53 20.65 20.91 20.38 20.16
Excitement 20.54 0.79 20.30 20.58 0.36 0.73
Conviviality 20.92 20.39 0.04 20.65 0.67 20.36
Table VI.
Canonical loadings for
destination personality
and destination image
sub-scales
Destination
image and
personality
75
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
distinguishing between brand image and brand personality, since, failure to do so, will
hinder research progress and result in poor conceptual developments. The terms brand
personality and brand image must not be used interchangeably. Our research is seen to
partially complement Patterson (1999) study in an attempt to delineate between the two
constructs. In contrast, to Patterson (1999) who adopted a conceptual approach, this
study builds upon an empirical stance at identifying the relationship between brand
image and brand personality.
The present ?ndings provide support for the application of Aaker’s (1997) BPS to
tourism places. Previous studies focus on the applicability and validity of the scale to
consumer goods andacross cultures, but verylittle researchattempts to test the relevance of
brand personality to tourist destinations. The study results, however, do not fully replicate
Aaker’s (1997) ?ve dimensional structure. Instead, in our study, destination personality
comprises of only three salient dimensions: sincerity, excitement and conviviality. The
evidence of a three versus a ?ve dimensional solution is in line with Caprara et al. (2001)
argument that brand personalities can comprise a small number of dimensions.
Froma practical standpoint, our ?ndings offer important implications for developing
destination marketing strategies. The tourismindustry is increasingly competitive with
destination marketing organisations competing to attract tourists. Creating and
managing an appropriate destination image (or brand image) and destination
personality (or brand personality) have become vital for effective positioning and
differentiation. Our study provides evidence that personality traits are ubiquitous in
tourists’ evaluations of tourist destinations. More speci?cally, destination marketers
should concentrate on developing promotional campaigns emphasizing the distinctive
personality of their places. In terms of antecedents, a multitude of marketing variables
such as user imagery and advertising can create brand personality (Batra et al., 1993;
Plummer, 1984). As such, the use of different promotional tools (public relations, media
advertising) can play a vital role in creating and maintaining a destination’s distinctive
personality.
Furthermore, the study found that tourists’ evaluation of destinations comprised of
cognitive, affective and personality dimensions. Destination marketers, in order to
create a favorable image, are required to devise branding strategies that encompasses
the three dimensions. Destination promoters can focus on the commonality between
destination image and destination personality in order to communicate unique
destination features and in?uence tourist behavior. As a result, the positioning of
a destination can translate into its rational bene?ts (cognitive images), such as
accessibility and liveliness of the place. At a deeper level, destinations should
communicate their emotional bene?ts (affective images and personality characteristics)
such as the friendliness of its people, pleasure, excitement and relaxation.
This article makes important theoretical contributions to our understanding of the
brand image-brand personality relationship. Nevertheless, it entails some limitations
and overcoming them can act as a catalyst for future research streams. First, this study
uses a battery of multi-attributes in the form of semantic differential scales to gauge
destination image. The list of attributes may be incomplete and does not incorporate all
relevant characteristics of destination image (Echtner and Ritchie, 1991; Gartner, 1989).
Future studies could adopt both structured and unstructured (e.g. free elicitation and
triad elicitation) methods to capture the complex assessment of destinations (Echtner
and Ritchie, 1993; Dann, 1996).
IJCTHR
1,1
76
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
In this study, destination personality was measured using Aaker’s (1997) BPS,
which was originally developed to measure brand personality in consumer good
settings. As a result, personality traits used in this study might not re?ect the full
gamut of personality traits associated with destinations. To provide a comprehensive
picture of the destination personality construct, future research could use qualitative
research in the forms of focus groups or projective techniques to elicit
destination-speci?c personality characteristics. Finally, the sample size is small and
speci?c to only one culture (British respondents). As a result, the ?ndings cannot be
generalized to the wider tourist population. Despite these limitations, it seems beyond
doubt that the two studies described in this paper make important theoretical and
empirical contributions to our understanding of the contentious relationship between
brand image and brand personality. Further, investigations along the same lines will
certainly contribute to the debate.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34,
pp. 347-56.
Aaker, J. and Fournier, S. (1995), “A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three
perspectives on the question of brand personality”, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 22, pp. 391-5.
Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001), “Consumption symbols as carriers of
culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 492-508.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1998), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Baloglu, S. (1997), “The relationship between destination images and trip characteristics of
international travellers”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 221-33.
Baloglu, S. and Brinberg, D. (1997), “Affective images of tourism destination”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 11-15.
Baloglu, S. and McClearly, K.W. (1999), “A model of destination image formation”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 868-97.
Baloglu, S. and Mangaloglu, M. (2001), “Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece
and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 22, pp. 1-9.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R. and Singh, D. (1993), “The brand personality component of brand
goodwill: some antecedents and consequences”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A. (Eds),
Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 83-96.
Berthon, P., Hulbert, J.M. and Pitt, L.F. (1999), “Brand management prognostications”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 53-65.
Bhat, S. and Reddy, S. (1998), “Symbolic and functional positioning of brands”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32-44.
Biel, A. (1993), “Converting image into equity”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A. (Eds), Brand Equity
and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 67-82.
Bigne´, J.E., Sanchez, M.I. and Sanchez, J. (2001), “Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behavior: inter-relationship”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 607-16.
Destination
image and
personality
77
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Biswas, A. (1992), “The moderating role of brand familiarity in reference price perceptions”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25, pp. 251-62.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Cai, L.A. (2002), “Cooperative branding for rural destinations”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 29, pp. 720-42.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C. and Guido, G. (2001), “Brand personality: how to make the
metaphor ?t?”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 377-95.
Chen, J. and Uysal, M. (2002), “Market positioning analysis: a hybrid approach”, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 987-1003.
Choi, W.M., Chan, A. and Wu, J. (1999), “A qualitative and quantitative assessment of Hong
Kong’s image as a tourist destination”, Tourism Management, Vol. 20, pp. 361-5.
Chon, K. (1990), “The role of destination image in tourism: a review and discussion”, The Tourist
Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 2-9.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Crask, M.R. and Henry, A.L. (1990), “A positioning-based decision model for selecting
advertising messages”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 32-8.
Crockett, S.R. and Wood, L.J. (2002), “Brand Western Australia: holidays of an entirely different
nature”, in Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (Eds), Destination Branding: Creating
the Unique Destination Proposition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 124-47.
Crompton, J.L. (1979), “An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the
in?uence of geographical location upon that image”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 18-23.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 55-68.
Dann, G.M.S. (1996), “Tourists’ images of a destination – an alternative analysis”, Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 41-55.
de Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: Strategically Building and
Sustaining Brands, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G. and Grime, I. (2005), “The impact of brand extensions on brand
personality: experimental evidence”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 1/2,
pp. 129-49.
Dichter, E. (1985), “What is an image?”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 455-72.
Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), “In search of brand image: a foundation analysis”, Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 110-9.
Doyle, P. (1989), “Building successful brands: the strategic options”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 77-95.
Echtner, C. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1991), “The meaning and measurement of destination image”,
The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 2-12.
Echtner, C. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1993), “The measurement of destination image: an empirical
assessment”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 3-13.
Ekinci, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006), “Destination personality: an application of brand personality to
tourism destinations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, pp. 127-39.
Erdem, T. (1998), “An empirical analysis of umbrella branding”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 35, pp. 339-51.
IJCTHR
1,1
78
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 343-73.
Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), “The product and the brand”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 33, pp. 33-9.
Gartner, W.C. (1989), “Tourism image: attribute measurement of state tourism products using
multidimensional scaling techniques”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 15-19.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25, pp. 186-92.
Gnoth, J. (1998), “Conference reports: branding tourism places”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 25, pp. 758-60.
Gordon, W. (1996), “Assessing the brand through research”, in Cowley, D. (Ed.), Understanding
Brands, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London, pp. 33-56.
Graeff, T.R. (1997), “Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on consumers’ brand
evaluations”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 49-70.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hankinson, G. (2004), “Relational network brands: towards a conceptual model of place brands”,
Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 109-21.
Henderson, J.C. (2000), “Selling places: the new Asia-Singapore brand”, Journal of Tourism
Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Hendon, D.W. and Williams, E.L. (1985), “Winning the battle for your customers”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 65-75.
Heylen, J.P., Dawson, B. and Sampson, P. (1995), “An implicit model of consumer behavior”,
Journal of Market Research Society, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modelling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspeci?cation”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 424-53.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for ?t indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6,
pp. 1-55.
Hunt, J.D. (1975), “Image as a factor in tourism development”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 1-7.
Jo¨reskog, K.G. and So¨rbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide, Scienti?c Software
International, Chicago, IL.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long
Term, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London.
Karande, K., Zinkhan, G.M. and Lum, A.B. (1997), “Brand personality and self-concept: a
replication and extension”, paper presented at American Marketing Association Summer
Conference, pp. 65-171.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualising, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Lawson, F. and Band-Bovy, M. (1977), Tourism and Recreational Development, Architectural
Press, London.
Destination
image and
personality
79
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Lim, K. and O’Cass, A. (2001), “Consumer brand classi?cations: an assessment of
culture-of-origin versus country-of-origin”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 120-36.
Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. (2000), “The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-68.
Mackay, K.J. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2000), “An exploration of cross-cultural destination image
assessment”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, pp. 417-23.
Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, P. (1985), “Application of con?rmatory factor analysis to the study of
self-concept: ?rst and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 562-82.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.W. and McDonald, R.P. (1988), “Goodness-of-?t indices in con?rmatory
factor analysis: effects of sample size”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 391-411.
Martineau, P. (1958), “The personality of the retail store”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 47-55.
Martinez, E. and de Chernatony, L. (2004), “The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand
image”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Martinez, E. and Pina, J.M. (2003), “The negative impact of brand extensions on parent brand
image”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 432-48.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2002), “New Zealand, 100% pure: the creation of a
powerful niche destination brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos 4/5,
pp. 335-54.
Ong, B.S. and Horbunluekit, S. (1997), “The impact of a Thai cultural show on Thailand’s
destination image”, American Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 97-103.
Oppermann, M. (1996), “Convention destination images: analysis of association meeting
planners’ perceptions”, Tourism Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 175-82.
Patterson, M. (1999), “Re-appraising the concept of brand image”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 409-26.
Pearce, P.L. (1988), The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings, Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
Pike, S. (2002), “Destination image analysis – a review of 142 papers from1973 to 2000”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 541-9.
Plummer, J.T. (1984), “How personality makes a difference”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 27-31.
Reilly, M.D. (1990), “Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives for tourism image assessment”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 21-6.
Russell, J.A. (1980), “A circumplex model of affect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1161-78.
Santos, C.A. (2004), “Framing Portugal representational dynamics”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 122-38.
Schroeder, T. (1996), “The relationship of residents’ image of their state as a tourist destination
and their support for tourism”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 71-3.
Siguaw, J.A., Mattila, A. and Austin, J.R. (1999), “The brand personality scale – an application for
restaurants”, Cornell Hotel &Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 48-55.
Smothers, N. (1993), “Can products and brands have charisma?”, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A.
(Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising, Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 97-111.
IJCTHR
1,1
80
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
Solomon, M., Bamossy, G. and Askegaard, S. (1999), Consumer Behavior: A European
Perspective, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Supphellen, M. and Gronhaug, K. (2003), “Building foreign brand personalities in Russia: the
moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 203-26.
Upshaw, L. (1995), Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile Market Place,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Uysal, M., Chen, J. and Williams, D. (2000), “Increasing state market share through a regional
positioning”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 89-96.
Walmsley, D.Y. and Young, M. (1998), “Evaluative images and tourism: the use of personal
constructs to describe the structure of destination images”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 36, pp. 65-9.
Ward, L.M. and Russell, A. (1981), “The psychological representation of molar physical
environments”, Journal of Environmental Psychology: General, Vol. 110, pp. 121-52.
Corresponding author
Sameer Hosany can be contacted at: [email protected]
Destination
image and
personality
81
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Artemisia Apostolopoulou, Dimitra Papadimitriou. 2015. The role of destination personality in predicting
tourist behaviour: implications for branding mid-sized urban destinations. Current Issues in Tourism 18,
1132-1151. [CrossRef]
2. Cevat Tosun, Bekir Bora Dedeo?lu, Alan Fyall. 2015. Destination service quality, affective image and
revisit intention: The moderating role of past experience. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management
4, 222-234. [CrossRef]
3. Ayantunji Gbadamosi. 2015. Brand personification and symbolic consumption among ethnic minority
teenage consumers: An empirical study. Journal of Brand Management 22, 737-754. [CrossRef]
4. Isabel Llodra-Riera, María Pilar Martínez-Ruiz, Ana Isabel Jiménez-Zarco, Alicia Izquierdo-Yusta. 2015.
Assessing the influence of social media on tourists’ motivations and image formation of a destination.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 7:4, 458-482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Ann Suwaree Ashton. 2015. Developing a Tourist Destination Brand Value: The Stakeholders'
Perspective. Tourism Planning & Development 12, 398-411. [CrossRef]
6. Jaemun Byun, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang. 2015. Effective destination advertising: Matching effect between
advertising language and destination type. Tourism Management 50, 31-40. [CrossRef]
7. Rocco Servidio. 2015. Images, affective evaluation and personality traits in tourist behaviour: An
exploratory study with Italian postcards. Tourism Management Perspectives 16, 237-246. [CrossRef]
8. Wei-Lun Chang, Osmud Rahman, Carol W. Hsu, Hui-Chi Chang. 2015. Service brand and customer
attire: a genetic algorithm approach. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education
8, 194-205. [CrossRef]
9. Hany Kim, Svetlana Stepchenkova. 2015. Effect of tourist photographs on attitudes towards destination:
Manifest and latent content. Tourism Management 49, 29-41. [CrossRef]
10. References 177-228. [Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
11. William FeigheryRight-Wing Visual Rhetoric and Switzerland’s Tourism Image 105-122. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
12. Carla Silva, Elisabeth Kastenholz, José Luís AbrantesResidents’ Perceptions of Mountain Destinations
19-31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
13. Isabel Llodrà-Riera, María Pilar Martínez-Ruiz, Ana Isabel Jiménez-Zarco, Alicia Izquierdo-Yusta. 2015.
A multidimensional analysis of the information sources construct and its relevance for destination image
formation. Tourism Management 48, 319-328. [CrossRef]
14. Mohamed A. Nassar, Mohamed M Mostafa, Yvette Reisinger. 2015. Factors influencing travel to Islamic
destinations: an empirical analysis of Kuwaiti nationals. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research 9:1, 36-53. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Hong-bumm Kim, Sanggun Lee. 2015. Impacts of city personality and image on revisit intention.
International Journal of Tourism Cities 1:1, 50-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Rojansak Chomvilailuk, Niorn Srisomyong. 2015. Three Dimensional Perceptions of Medical/Health
Travelers and Destination Brand Choices: Cases of Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
175, 376-383. [CrossRef]
17. Seyhmus Baloglu, Tony Leonard Henthorne, Safak Sahin. 2014. Destination Image and Brand Personality
of Jamaica: A Model of Tourist Behavior. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31, 1057-1070.
[CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
18. Vikas Kumar, J.K. Nayak. 2014. The measurement & conceptualization of destination personality.
Tourism Management Perspectives 12, 88-93. [CrossRef]
19. Johan Bruwer, Marlene A. Pratt, Anthony Saliba, Martin Hirche. 2014. Regional destination image
perception of tourists within a winescape context. Current Issues in Tourism 1-21. [CrossRef]
20. Stuart J. Barnes, Jan Mattsson, Flemming Sørensen. 2014. Destination brand experience and visitor
behavior: Testing a scale in the tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research 48, 121-139. [CrossRef]
21. References 335-388. [Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
22. Peter BjörkTourism Development in Finland 265-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
23. Sari Silvanto, Jason Ryan. 2014. Relocation branding: a strategic framework for attracting talent from
abroad. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research 2:1, 102-120. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
24. Marlies de Groot, Hilje van der Horst. 2014. Indian youth in Goa: scripted performances of ‘true selves’.
Tourism Geographies 16, 303-317. [CrossRef]
25. Hung-Bin Chen, Shih-Shuo Yeh, Tzung-Cheng Huan. 2014. Nostalgic emotion, experiential value,
brand image, and consumption intentions of customers of nostalgic-themed restaurants. Journal of Business
Research 67, 354-360. [CrossRef]
26. Karen L. Xie, Jin-Soo Lee. 2013. Toward The Perspective Of Cognitive Destination Image And
Destination Personality: The Case Of Beijing. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 30, 538-556.
[CrossRef]
27. Brendon Knott, Alan Fyall, Ian Jones. 2013. The Nation-Branding Legacy of the 2010 FIFA World Cup
for South Africa. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 22, 569-595. [CrossRef]
28. Maria De Moya, Rajul Jain. 2013. When tourists are your “friends”: Exploring the brand personality of
Mexico and Brazil on Facebook. Public Relations Review 39, 23-29. [CrossRef]
29. Kisang Ryu, Bridget M. Bordelon, David M. Pearlman. 2013. Destination-Image Recovery Process
and Visit Intentions: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management 22, 183-203. [CrossRef]
30. Kae-Sung Moon, Yong Jae Ko, Daniel P. Connaughton, Jeoung-Hak Lee. 2013. A mediating role of
destination image in the relationship between event quality, perceived value, and behavioral intention.
Journal of Sport & Tourism 18, 49-66. [CrossRef]
31. Patrícia Oom do Valle, Júlio Mendes, Manuela Guerreiro. 2012. Residents' Participation in Events, Events
Image, and Destination Image: A Correspondence Analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 29,
647-664. [CrossRef]
32. Mar Gómez, Arturo Molina. 2012. Wine Tourism in Spain: Denomination of Origin Effects on Brand
Equity. International Journal of Tourism Research 14:10.1002/jtr.v14.4, 353-368. [CrossRef]
33. Nicole Regan, Jamie Carlson, Philip J. Rosenberger. 2012. Factors Affecting Group-Oriented Travel
Intention to Major Events. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 29, 185-204. [CrossRef]
34. Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan. 2011. Protecting from brand burn during times of crisis. Management
Research Review 34:12, 1309-1334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Hailin Qu, Lisa Hyunjung Kim, Holly Hyunjung Im. 2011. A model of destination branding: Integrating
the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management 32, 465-476. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)
36. Kae Sung Moon, May Kim, Yong Jae Ko, Daniel P. Connaughton, Jeoung Hak Lee. 2011. The influence
of consumer's event quality perception on destination image. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal 21:3, 287-303. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Alfonso Siano, Mario Siglioccolo. 2011. Rubbish emergency impact on in?bound tourism demand and
on the number of visitors to museums. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
5:1, 69-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis. 2011. Destination brand components.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 5:1, 4-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Ahmet Usakli, Seyhmus Baloglu. 2011. Brand personality of tourist destinations: An application of self-
congruity theory. Tourism Management 32, 114-127. [CrossRef]
40. Girish Prayag. 2010. Brand image assessment: international visitors' perceptions of Cape Town. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 28:4, 462-485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Andreas H. Zins. 2010. Mapping Beneficial Destination Images. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management 17, 96-107. [CrossRef]
42. Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan. 2009. Strategic branding of destinations: a framework. European Journal
of Marketing 43:5/6, 611-629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, Susanne Durst. 2008. Developing inter?regional brands. EuroMed Journal of
Business 3:1, 38-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan. 2008. Dubai – a star in the east. Journal of Place Management and
Development 1:1, 62-91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

A
t

2
2
:
0
0

2
4

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
6

(
P
T
)

doc_865075635.pdf