Description
This study seeks to examine the effect of two types of social influence, normative and
informational, on travelers’ perceptions of a destination’s brand equity
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Interpersonal influence and destination brand equity perceptions
Felicitas Evangelista Leonardo A.N. Dioko
Article information:
To cite this document:
Felicitas Evangelista Leonardo A.N. Dioko, (2011),"Interpersonal influence and destination brand equity perceptions", International J ournal
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 316 - 328
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111157005
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2245 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Saila Saraniemi, (2011),"From destination image building to identity-based branding", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 247-254http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156943
Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 4-25http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726
Ana María Munar, (2011),"Tourist-created content: rethinking destination branding", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 291-305http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156989
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Interpersonal in?uence and destination
brand equity perceptions
Felicitas Evangelista and Leonardo A.N. Dioko
Abstract
Purpose – This study seeks to examine the effect of two types of social in?uence, normative and
informational, on travelers’ perceptions of a destination’s brand equity.
Design/methodology/approach – A brand equity measurement model, previously developed for a
tangible product brand, is applied and validated in the context of a destination brand. The structural
model is then estimated to test the effects of normative and informational in?uence on brand equity.
Findings – Normative but not informational in?uence has a signi?cant effect on brand equity
perceptions.
Originality/value – The empirical results help to strengthen the claim that branding principles can be
readily generalized to tourism destinations.
Keywords In?uence, Brand equity, Reference group, Structural model
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The preponderance of studies in recent years laying or supporting the claim that
destinations can be marketed and branded in the same genre as tangible products have yet
to establish the role social in?uence play in such a claim. At the very least, the effect of
considering signi?cant or referent others in a traveler’s choice of destination has not been
substantially considered. This suggests a gaping de?ciency in the nascent ?eld of
destination branding and marketing, considering that many studies in the ?eld regard
consumer evaluations of and meanings attributed to branded products to be embedded in
socially relevant cues and relationships. At the general level, this study examines whether
the effectiveness of destination branding outcomes is conditional on the level of travelers’
sensitivity to social in?uence. It seeks to investigate the relative strength of social in?uence
as an individual-level difference variable in in?uencing travelers’ destination brand equity
perception. It also attempts to identify whether speci?c types of social in?uence, normative
versus informational (Bearden et al., 1989), have any differential bearing on perceived
destination brand equity. The paper ?rst reviews the connection between social in?uence
and brand marketing. It then provides grounds for extending known social in?uence effects
on branded consumer products in the context of destinations as branded goods, and
postulates that social in?uence factors in?uence travelers’ perceptions of a destination’s
brand equity. The paper then proceeds to present the theoretical framework of the study
followed by the methodology, ?ndings and discussion.
Social in?uence and branding
Social in?uence – how signi?cant referent others affect individual decision making and
preferences – emerged from earlier research work on conformity. Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
?rst conceived social in?uence to be comprised of informational and normative types. They
PAGE 316
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011, pp. 316-328, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111157005
Felicitas Evangelista is an
Associate Professor at the
School of Marketing,
University of Western
Sydney, Penrith South Dc,
Australia. Leonardo (Don)
A.N. Dioko is a Professor at
the Institute for Tourism
Studies, Macau, China.
Received: April 2009
Revised: May 2010
Accepted: June 2010
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
considered informational social in?uence as ‘‘in?uence to accept information obtained from
another as evidence about reality’’ (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955, pp. 206-207) whereas
normative social in?uence as ‘‘in?uence to conform to the expectations of another person or
group’’ (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955, p. 207). Later, Witt (1969) examined the social in?uence of
others on consumer brand choice followed by Bon?eld’s (1974) work that expanded the scope
social in?uence plays in conjunction with other attitudinal variables on choice. Burnkrant and
Cousineau (1975) formalized the differential effects of informational and normative types of
social in?uence in the way consumers used others’ product evaluation to shape their own. In a
later study, Park and Lessig (1977) posited value-expression as another type of reference
group in?uence and demonstrated group differences (students versus housewives) in
susceptibility to various types of social in?uence. In a notable study, Bearden and Etzel (1982)
speci?ed conditions – whether the product is a luxury versus a necessity and whether it is
consumed in private versus in public – and combinations thereof under which the in?uence of
reference groups would be signi?cant. More importantly, Bearden et al. (1989) developed the
susceptibility to interpersonal in?uence (STI) scale as an individual difference variable and
af?rmed a two-factor structure of the construct designated as normative and informational
types of social in?uence. The scale has become widely accepted and validated in various
subsequent studies related to social in?uence on consumer decision-making (Bearden et al.,
1990; Netemeyer et al., 1992). Other studies (Miniard and Cohen, 1983) suggest that
normative social in?uences on consumer behavior are distinct frompersonal factors and imply
that these be considered as independently relevant variables.
Is social in?uence relevant in shaping travelers’ destination choice and destination brand
equity perceptions? With the exception of a couple of recent studies (Currie et al., 2008; Hsu
et al., 2006) there is little thus far in the tourism marketing and destination branding literature
that unequivocally suggest that the opinion and judgment of relevant social others matter in
the formation of destination brand equity perceptions and evaluation. Currie et al. (2008)
revealed how peers can in?uence evoked set formation and subsequent destination choice.
Hsu et al. (2006) identi?ed how interpersonal in?uences shaped the choice and behavior of
Chinese travelers to Hong Kong out of which four distinct segments were described. Beyond
these, however, other studies in tourismor hospitality consider the role of social in?uence in a
more secondary or peripheral context. Examples include Butcher (2005), whose study
examined social in?uence in the context of the hospitality service encounter, and that of
MacKay and Campbell (2004), who considered social in?uence as having an effect on
resident support for certain tourism products.
The limited attention given to social in?uence is understandable considering that the bulk of
research undertaken on tourism destination choice has focused more on speci?c and
mechanical aspects of individual decision making process, conceived as a logical
sequence of reasoning and information processing. These aspects include, among others,
perceived risk (Kozak et al., 2007; Sirakaya et al., 1997), destination image (Sirakaya et al.,
2001), individual and personal level variables, including psychographics (Decrop, 1999;
Lehto et al., 2002; Sirakaya et al., 1996), and the outcome of various stages of sequential
information processing and consideration (Nicolau and Ma´ s, 2008; Perdue and Fang, 2006;
Rewtrakunphaiboon and Oppewal, 2008; Sirakaya et al., 1996). Recent studies aiming to
integrate and evolve more inclusive choice models for destinations are promising as they
somehow intimate certain roles played by social in?uence factors (Woodside and King,
2001; Woodside and Dubelaar, 2002).
There are possibly two reasons why social and interpersonal factors have largely been
ignored in tourism destination choice. The ?rst is that until recently, destinations have not
been seen in the light of brand marketing, that is, tourism destinations are not normally
considered as branded products. This implies that branding principles such as those
reviewed above in which social in?uence is implicated in consumer products do not apply to
destinations. A second possibility is that destinations are seen as high risk, costly and, to
many, luxurious forms of consumption products (as opposed to a necessity) thereby making
destination choice more subject to very extensive and more highly involved information
processing and logically sequenced consideration on the part of consumers. While this
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 317
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
characterization of the destination choice process is general and does not necessarily
preclude the role of signi?cant interpersonal relations and socially relevant reference
groups, it serves to prioritize factors other than socially relevant ones in analyses.
Destinations as branded products
There has been an increase in academic and practical interest of late in tourism destination
branding (Gnoth, 1998; Gnoth, 2002; Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Branding has become
an important part of marketing tourism destinations and destination marketers now
recognize how they can anchor their marketing programs by capitalizing on the underlying
images and associative knowledge that visitors use to identify, distinguish and evaluate
destinations (Blain et al., 2005). Ritchie and Ritchie (1998) reinforced the utility of destination
branding by de?ning it and its core components as:
[. . .] the marketing activities that (1) support the creation of a name, symbol, logo, word mark or
other graphic that both identi?es and differentiates a destination; (2) that convey the promise of a
memorable travel experience that is uniquely associated with the destination; and (3) that serve to
consolidate and reinforce the recollection of pleasurable memories of the destination experience,
all with the intent purpose of creating an image that in?uences consumers’ decisions to visit the
destination in question as opposed to an alternative one.
Recently, Hosany et al. (2006) found that a destination’s image and personality are related
concepts, a ?nding that lends support and ef?cacy to the need for branding destinations.
Despite these developments, however, destination branding is a complex process and
many issues have yet to be studied in the relatively nascent efforts to apply branding
principles in the marketing of destinations (Morgan et al., 2003; Pike, 2005; Pritchard and
Morgan, 2001). If these recent studies indicate a developing consensus that destinations
can indeed be branded, then they also suggest that destinations possess the characteristic
of brand equity as conceptualized on the consumer marketing literature (Aaker, 1996; Keller,
1993; Schultz, 2000; Simon and Sullivan, 1993).
Theoretical framework
This study posits that the concept of brand equity does apply to destination brands and may
be measured in the same way as tangible product brands. The concept we propose is in line
with that developed by Lassar et al. (1995). This multidimensional concept views a
destination’s brand equity as having ?ve dimensions namely, performance, value, image, trust
and attachment. Adapting fromLassar et al.’s (1995) model, we de?ne these dimensions in the
context of a destination as follows: Performance refers to the visitor’s judgment about a
destination’s fault-free and long lasting attributes. Image is the visitor’s perceptions of the
social esteem in which a destination is held by the visitor’s social group. It includes the
attributions that a visitor makes and a visitor thinks that others make to the typical visitor of a
destination. Attachment is the relative strength of a visitor’s positive feelings towards a
destination while value is the perceived utility that one derives from visiting a destination
relative to the cost of doing so. Finally, trust refers to the con?dence visitors place on the
people, tourism bureaus and tourism service providers that market a destination.
In addition to the proposed brand equity concept just described, we also propose that like
tangible products, the evaluation and choice of tourism destinations are signi?cantly
affected by social in?uence. More speci?cally, in the context of destination marketing, the
study hypothesizes that travelers’ susceptibility to interpersonal in?uence as de?ned by
Bearden et al. (1989) has an impact on the perceived brand equity of a destination. There
are supporting grounds for this claim. Keller (1993) referred to the symbolic bene?ts of
branding products, contending that brands serve as ‘‘badges’’ signaling to socially relevant
others a certain level of status, self-concept, or marker that an individual can use in order to
gain social approval or obtain self-esteem. Bearden and Etzel (1982) posited that perceived
risk and expertise of referent others serve to enhance social in?uence and it is conceivable
that in so far as traveling to destinations is high in risk and therefore in information
requirements, travelers would be highly prone to social in?uence. In addition, their study
PAGE 318
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
examined how public (versus private) and luxury (versus necessity) consumption is highly
predisposed to the in?uence of reference groups. Rosen and Olshavsky (1987) also found
that consumers’ reliance on ‘‘recommended information’’ increased as time cost increased
for products considered high in perceived risk, conditions highly apt in the context of
destination choice. On this basis, the following hypotheses are formed:
H1. Informational in?uence has a positive effect on destination brand equity.
H2. Normative in?uence has a positive effect on destination brand equity.
As previous studies have shown that the effect of social in?uence is conditional on individual
and personal factors (Hsu et al., 2006; Park and Lessig, 1977), this study also seeks to
determine whether the hypothesized relationship between Susceptibility to Interpersonal
In?uence (STI) and Destination Brand Equity (DBE) is moderated by type of visitors,
segmented by purpose of visit. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H3. The effects of informational and normative in?uence on a destination’s brand equity
are moderated by type of visitor.
The multidimensional concept of brand equity and how it is affected by informational and
normative in?uence is summarized in Figure 1.
Methodology
The main constructs of this study are brand equity (BE) and susceptibility to interpersonal
in?uence (STI). The BE scale was adapted from that developed by Lassar et al. (1995). This
scale incorporates the ?ve dimensions of brand equity and has a total of 17 items which are
rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ disagree completely to 7 ¼ very much agree. The
STI scale on the other hand, consists of statements designed to measure the normative and
informational dimensions of interpersonal in?uence. Based on the scale developed by
Bearden et al. (1989), the normative items measure an individual’s level of conformity to the
expectations of others whereas the informational items measure the extent to which an
individual obtains information fromothers. The STI statements are rated on a seven category
scale ranging from 1 ¼ does not describe travel behavior to 7 ¼ describes travel behavior
well. Data collection was undertaken through personal interviews using a structured
questionnaire. A total of 979 international visitors comprise the sample. The visitors were
interviewed in various attraction sites and the major ports of entry in Macao during the month
of March in 2009.
Figure 1 Theoretical framework
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 319
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
A two-step approach of ?rst validating the measurement model prior to the estimation of the
structural model recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) is adopted in this study.
This approach is essential because it ensures that the structural theory test is undertaken
with a valid measurement model and whatever the outcome, these would not be attributed to
poor measures. The measurement model for the STI constructs and brand equity were
subjected to a ?rst order and a second order con?rmatory factor analysis respectively.
Following an assessment of the measurement model results, the testing of the study’s
hypotheses was undertaken via structural equation modeling. The estimation of the
measurement and structural models was conducted using AMOS 17.0. Prior to model
estimation, data issues such as missing values and test for normality were addressed.
Missing data were not a problem as out of the total sample size, only two respondents had
missing values on a total of ?ve variables and these were remedied by mean substitution. A
re-estimation of the models with missing data which is possible in AMOS, showed no
noticeable change in the results. Data normality was screened through an inspection of the
univariate skewness and kurtosis indices which were found to be within acceptable limits
(Kline, 2005).
Results
Second order factor estimation: destination brand equity
Brand equity is viewed as a second order construct that causes ?ve ?rst order latent factors
namely, performance, image, value, trust and attachment which in turn determine the
measured variables. The brand equity scale adopted in this study was developed by Lassar
et al. (1995) and was originally applied and tested in the context of tangible products such
as television sets and wristwatches. Some of the items in this scale have since been used in
other studies (e.g. Buil et al., 2008) involving tangible product brands. In this study, the scale
is used in its entirety and in the context of a destination brand. One issue that had to be
addressed at the early stage of the validation process is that the question of whether Lassar
et al.’s brand equity scale is formative or re?ective. The answer to this question is important
because formative measurement models require a different validation process (Hair et al.,
2006). The manner by which this model is applied in practice which involves using paper
and pencil to rate a brand on the basis of each of the ?ve dimensions and summing them up
suggests that it is a formative scale. However, the results of the pilot studies conducted by
Lassar et al. (1995) indicated that ‘‘consumers demonstrate a halo across dimensions’’ and
that if consumers rate a brand as being high in one dimension, there is a tendency for them
to rate it high in the other dimensions as well. This rating pattern of indicators moving
together is consistent with that of re?ective scales (DeVellis, 1991). It also supports the
theory that it is the consumers’ latent perception that drives their assessment of a brand with
respect to any given dimension rather than the other way around. In effect, it is the latent
construct that drives the measured indicators. On this basis, it is argued that the brand
equity scale in question is a re?ective model and thus the appropriate validation process is
adopted.
Validation of the brand equity model was undertaken through con?rmatory factor analysis
(CFA) in AMOS. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was considered not necessary because
the factors determined by this construct are supported by theory and their respective
indicators have been veri?ed in previous studies (Lassar et al., 1995). In addition, it is not
appropriate to specify a CFA model on the basis of the results of EFA because EFA results
tend to be affected by chance variations in the data and there is evidence that factor
structures identi?ed through EFA may not be supported by CFA results (Kline, 2005).
The measurement model was ?rst constrained to be congeneric for construct validity
reasons and to be consistent with good measurement practice (Hair et al., 2006). The ?t for
this second-order model is good as indicated by the following indices (see Table I):
Chi-square ¼ 681:93, d:f: ¼ 114, p ¼ 0:00; CFI ¼ 0:94; GFI ¼ 0:92; RMSEA ¼ 0:07. In an
attempt to improve overall model ?t, the modi?cation indices supplied by AMOS (Arbuckle
and Wothke, 1999) were examined. On this basis, the measurement errors of three pairs of
indicators within a construct were allowed to co-vary. The results obtained are shown in
PAGE 320
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table I under the heading Model 2. A comparison of these results with those of Model 1
shows that while there is an improvement in the ?t indices, this was minimal. On this basis, we
decided to retain the suf?ciently constrained model (Model 1) as it represents better
measurement properties (Carmines and McIver, 1981). All references to the BE
measurement model in the remaining sections of this paper will thus refer to Model 1.
The results presented in Table I show that the measurement model for brand equity meets
the requirements for convergent and discriminant validity. The unstandardized factor
loadings are all found to be signi?cant at alpha , 0.001while the standardized values are in
the range of 0.49 to 0.91 for the ?rst order latent factors and from 0.65 to 0.91 for the
observed indicators. The requirements for discriminant validity are also met considering that
the correlation coef?cient between all pairs of ?rst order factors (Table II) are well below the
Table I Brand equity measurement model validation results
Model 1
a
Model 2
b
Model 1
Constructs and items Std loading t-value
c
VE Std loading t-value
c
VE CR AVE
Brand equity
Performance 0.82 –
d
0.74 0.86 – 0.71 0.90 0.66
Image 0.91 18.07 0.24 0.88 18.82 0.25
Value 0.90 17.17 0.80 0.90 17.70 0.81
Trust 0.49 12.23 0.82 0.50 12.49 0.78
Attachment 0.86 16.59 0.67 0.84 17.66 0.74
Performance
Perform 1 0.79 22.68 0.63 0.72 – 0.52 0.83 0.56
Perform 2 0.82 23.30 0.67 0.75 19.86 0.57
Perform 3 0.65 18.73 0.42 0.65 20.23 0.42
Perform 4 0.72 – 0.51 0.74 19.42 0.54
Image
Image 1 0.70 21.98 0.49 0.69 – 0.47 0.83 0.55
Image 2 0.69 21.76 0.48 0.73 25.50 0.53
Image 3 0.78 24.89 0.60 0.78 21.19 0.61
Image 4 0.79 – 0.62 0.81 22.11 0.66
Value
Value 1 0.79 23.34 0.63 0.80 – 0.63 0.82 0.60
Value 2 0.81 23.67 0.65 0.80 23.67 0.65
Value 3 0.73 – 0.54 0.73 23.41 0.54
Trust
Trust 1 0.81 27.64 0.66 0.81 – 0.66 0.88 0.71
Trust 2 0.91 29.92 0.83 0.91 29.94 0.83
Trust 3 0.80 – 0.64 0.80 27.65 0.65
Attachment
Attachment 1 0.72 – 0.52 0.77 – 0.59 0.84 0.63
Attachment 2 0.85 24.13 0.72 0.82 23.89 0.68
Attachment 3 0.81 23.20 0.65 0.85 22.69 0.72
Notes: Fit indices:
a
Chi-square ¼ 681.93, d.f. ¼ 114, GFI ¼ 0.92, CFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.07;
b
Chi-square ¼ 502.21, d.f. ¼ 110,
GFI ¼ 0.94, CFI ¼ 0.96, RMSEA ¼ 0.06;
c
All t values are signi?cant at p , 0:001;
d
Item?xed to set the scale; CR ¼ Composite reliability;
VE ¼ Variance extracted; AVE ¼ Average variance extracted
Table II Descriptive statistics and correlation
Construct Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Information 4.89 1.22
2 Norm 4.39 1.28 0.69
3 Performance 5.33 0.98 0.31 0.33
4 Image 5.05 1.06 0.28 0.45 0.64
5 Value 5.00 1.10 0.24 0.36 0.59 0.68
6 Trust 4.90 1.23 0.00 0.12 0.35 0.36 0.43
7 Attachment 5.14 1.16 0.24 0.34 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.41
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 321
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
0.85 limit (Kline, 2005) and that except for the image dimension, the variance extracted are
higher than the squared inter-construct correlation (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The
estimated composite reliability values are all above 0.70 which indicates that internal
consistency exists (Kline, 2005). In addition, all the AVE values are above the 0.50 limit
required to indicate convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Taken together, these
results provide adequate evidence that the measurement model meets the requirements for
validity and reliability. Considering that the measures of the various constructs are derived
from self-reported data and the analysis involves interpreting correlations among them, the
potential problemof common method variance (Fiske, 1982) had to be addressed. Following
one of the post hoc remedies suggested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986), Harman’s one
factor test was undertaken. A principal component analysis based on the 17 items
comprising the brand equity scale reveals three factors with an eigenvalue . 1, which
together account for 63 per cent of the total variance. The presence of three factors instead
of one indicates that common method bias does not pose a serious problem in this analysis.
Having validated the model and tested it for common method variance, results were
compared to those reported by Lassar et al. (1995), taking into account the fact that the
current study adapts the measurement scale to a destination brand. In 1995, Lassar et al.
reported the following model ?t indices: Chi-square ¼ 161:17, d:f: ¼ 109, p , 0:001,
CFI ¼ 0:87. In terms of reliability, the reported coef?cient alphas are 0.75 (Performance),
0.77 (Image), 0.77 (Value), 0.79 (Trust) and 0.83 (Attachment). Considering the difference in
sample sizes used in these two studies, CFI is considered to be the more appropriate
measure of model ?t (Hair et al., 2006). From this comparison it is evident that the current
estimates have yielded higher CFI and higher reliability coef?cients (see Table I), which
indicate that the measurement model has withstood the tests for validity and reliability even
when applied to a destination brand. The results in Table I show that overall brand equity as
expected, is positively related with all of its dimensions. Of the ?ve dimensions, Image has
the highest standardized loading followed closely by Value. The dimension with the lowest
loading is Trust.
First order factor estimation: STI
The informational and normative dimensions of STI are well supported by theory (Deutsch
and Gerard, 1955) and previous results of replicated con?rmatory factor analysis have
demonstrated a stable two-factor structure (Bearden et al., 1989). In this study, a ?rst order
model of STI is particularly necessary because one of study’s objectives is to determine the
impact of each factor (normative versus informational social in?uence) on destination brand
equity. At ?rst glance, the initial results of the CFA of the normative and informational
in?uence scales indicated relatively good ?t indices (Table III). These results were based on
all measured indicators loading on only one construct each and the measurement errors
Table III STI measurement model validation results
Constructs and
items
Standardised
loading t-value
Variance
extracted
Composite
reliability AVE
Information
Information 1 0.76 20.12 0.57 0.78 0.54
Information 2 0.73 –
a
0.54
Information 3 0.71 19.94 0.51
Normative
Normative 1 0.78 – 0.60 0.91 0.60
Normative 2 0.81 26.97 0.65
Normative 3 0.78 25.75 0.60
Normative 4 0.78 26.04 0.62
Normative 5 0.73 23.70 0.53
Normative 6 0.76 25.02 0.58
Normative 7 0.76 25.02 0.58
Notes: Fit indices: Chi-Square ¼ 381.45; d.f. ¼ 33; GFI ¼ 0.92; CFI ¼ 0.94; RMSEA ¼ 0.10
PAGE 322
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
being independent of each other. Although most of the ?t indices are within acceptable
limits, there are indications that some modi?cations were in order. For instance the RMSEA
value of 0.12 exceeded the maximum limit of 0.10 and the variance extracted for one of the
indicators was less than the 0.50 limit. On this basis, one indicator was deleted (due to low
variance extracted) and two measurement errors in the normative in?uence scale were
allowed to correlate with each other. The modi?ed measurement model as shown in Table III
meets the requirements of a model with adequate ?t. Convergent validity is indicated by the
signi?cant unstandardized factor loadings at alpha , 0:00, the high standardized factor
loading values which range from 0.71 to 0.81, and the greater than 0.50 AVE values.
Discriminant validity is indicated by the correlation of the two factors at 0.69 which is less
than the upper limit of 0.85 (Kline, 2005) while reliability is also indicated as the composite
reliability values are higher than the lower limit of 0.70 used for exploratory research (Kline,
2005). Harman’s one factor test results however show that it is possible that the data is
affected by the common method variance problem. The PCA of the 11 items comprising the
STI scale revealed two factors with eigenvalues . 1 explaining about 67 per cent of total
variance. One factor accounts for about 57 per cent and the other, 10 per cent. According to
Podsakoff and Organ (1986), a substantial common variance is present if one factor
accounts for majority of the variance, which appears to be the case with this model. At this
point, no solution is proposed except to keep this in mind when assessing the results
obtained from this study.
Structural model estimation
After validating the measurement model, the full structural model was estimated using path
analysis in AMOS 17.0. In this estimate, the structural model and the re?ned measurement
model were simultaneously tested. The results of the structural model shown in Table IV
indicate an adequate ?t between the model and the data.
As expected with tests involving a large sample, the Chi-square value is large and signi?cant
which is contrary to what it should be for a structural equation model. For this reason, the
other indices namely, RMSEA and CFI are adopted. The RMSEA not only corrects for the
effects of sample size but also indicates how well a model ?ts a population and not just the
sample. An RMSEA of 0.06 which is less than the acceptable upper limit of 0.10 indicates
that the model has a good ?t (Hair et al., 2006). The CFI takes into account model complexity
is estimated at 0.92 indicating also an acceptable model ?t.
The structural model test results show that only one of the two hypothesized relationships is
supported. As shown in Table IV, the relationship between informational in?uence and brand
equity is not supported by the data. In contrast, normative in?uence has a signi?cant and
positive effect on brand equity. The standardized regression weight of 0.55 indicates a
strong in?uence with variance extracted estimated at 0.24. In order to test the hypothesis
about the possible moderating effects of the type of visitor on the impact of the informational
and normative in?uence on brand equity, the full model was re-estimated using a two group
analysis. One group consists of tourists whose main purpose of visiting Macao is for
gambling and business purposes and the other is made up of those whose purpose is
recreation based such as shopping, sightseeing, etc. The purpose of this analysis is to
determine whether or not the pattern of structural relationships hypothesized in the structural
model is applicable to both groups.
Prior to the estimation of the full model, a two-group analysis of the measurement model was
undertaken to determine measurement invariance that is, if the set of indicators is measuring
Table IV Structural model estimation results
Hypothesized relationships Standardized regression weights p-value
Informational in?uence !Brand equity 20.087 0.26
Normative in?uence !Brand equity 0.55 0.001
Notes: Chi-Square ¼ 1553.37; df ¼ 315; p ¼ 0.00; GFI ¼ 0.89; CFI ¼ 0.92; RMSEA ¼ 0.06
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 323
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the same latent factors across groups (Kline, 2005). Two models, one that is totally free (i.e.
only the factor structure is constrained) and the other which constrains the factor loadings to
be equal in both groups were estimated. If the model ?t for the ?rst model is adequate, then
there is minimal evidence of cross validation and if the model ?t of the second model is not
signi?cantly different from that of the ?rst, then the evidence of cross-validation is stronger
(Hair et al., 2006). This procedure was adopted in testing the brand equity and STI
measurement models separately. A comparison of the ?t indices obtained for the BE model
showed that the change in Chi-square is not signi?cant and the other indices namely, GFI,
CFI and RMSEA are similar for both totally free and constrained models. Both models had a
GFI and CFI of 0.89 and 0.91 respectively while RMSEA ¼ 0:05. The results for the STI model
revealed similar indices for both groups (i.e. GFI ¼ 0:93, CFI ¼ 0:94 and RMSEA ¼ 0:07).
Likewise, the difference in the Chi-square values is not signi?cant for both the BE and STI
scales. These results provide adequate evidence that these measurement models are
invariant across the two groups.
Having tested for measurement invariance, the structural model was then estimated, also
using a two-group analysis. The procedure adopted is similar to that for the measurement
model in which a totally free, unconstrained model and a constrained model with equal
regression weights across the two groups, business and gaming group versus recreation
group, were estimated. A comparison of the ?t indices of these two models however showed
that the change in the Chi-square values is not signi?cant and likewise, the other ?t indices,
CFI and RMSEA, were equal or at worst, similar. Considering that the added constraint did
not harm the model ?t, the signi?cance of visitor type as a moderator variable, is not
supported. For purposes of rigor and taking leads from the literature that susceptibility to
social in?uence could be affected by personal characteristics (McGuire, 1968; Petty and
Cacioppo, 1981), the structural model was estimated using age, gender and education as
moderator variables. In all three cases, no signi?cant difference was found in the model ?t of
the totally free and the constrained models.
Discussion
The results of the con?rmatory factor analysis provide support to the validity and reliability of
the brand equity scale developed by Lassar et al. (1995) and to the proposition that brand
equity is the underlying construct of the ?ve branding dimensions namely performance,
image, trust, value and attachment. Each of the observed items loaded well on the
hypothesized dimension and each dimension yielded a high degree of internal consistency
among the measured items. The overall model ?t was found to be adequate even under the
strict conditions of a congeneric model where measurable indicators are constrained to
have no covariance between and within construct error terms. The fact that the sample is
large (i.e. 979 respondents) and that it is made up of visitors from 30 countries and of
different age, gender and educational backgrounds only serve to strengthen our con?dence
on the results obtained. These empirical results also show that the two layered
multidimensional concept of brand equity which was originally developed for tangible
product brands can also be applied to destination brands.
Having addressed the ?rst objective in the previous paragraph, the rest of the discussion
focuses on the structural model estimation results. Of the two hypotheses about the effects
of social in?uence on brand equity, results provide support only for normative but not
informational in?uence. Susceptibility to normative in?uence has been found to have a
signi?cant positive effect on the perceived brand equity of a country while susceptibility to
informational in?uence has been found to have no signi?cant effect. This result implies that
the perceived brand equity of a destination is affected by the propensity of a visitor to
conform to the expectation of referent others but not by the information that they obtain from
them. Considering that brand equity consists of ?ve dimensions which tend to be rated by
consumers in a consistent pattern, it is logical to expect that the higher the consumer’s
susceptibility to normative in?uence, the higher would be the perceived performance, value,
image, trust and attachment of a destination. If the analogy is extended to power exerted by
referent others, the results would indicate that these dimensions of a brand as well as the
PAGE 324
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
overall perceived brand equity are affected by referent but not expert power. This could
imply that referent others are not perceived to have expert knowledge about a destination
and as the survey data show, the respondents in this study had relied on various sources of
information regarding Macao. The top ?ve most in?uential sources of information are:
1. friends;
2. family;
3. internet;
4. work colleagues; and
5. travel books.
This ranking is based on the average ratings respondents gave to each of these sources on
a scale of 1 ¼ most in?uential, 2 ¼ second most in?uential, 3 ¼ third most in?uential, 0 ¼ not
top three. Although friends and family are still the top two sources of information, the internet
and travel books are also considered in?uential. The reliance on other sources of information
has the tendency to weaken the in?uence that referent others exert through expert
knowledge. The lack of signi?cance of the moderator variables simply shows that the
structural model proposed in this study can be generalized to all types of visitors,
irrespective of personal characteristics. In terms of purpose of travel, the results should be
taken with caution considering that business and gaming visitors had to be grouped
together due to the relatively small number of respondents belonging to the business group.
The signi?cance of normative in?uence on a destination’s brand equity has a number of
implications for marketers and governments. When promoting a country as a holiday
destination it is important to target not only the traveler but also the traveler’s referent others
especially family and peers who tend to be sources of utilitarian and value expressive
functions (Johar and Sirgy, 1991). The signi?cance of normative in?uence implies that
marketing campaigns should adopt an image strategy, one that involves building a
‘‘personality’’ for the product (i.e. destination or country) or creating an image of the product
user (i.e. traveler or tourist) (Ogilvy, 1963). The lack of signi?cance of informational in?uence
by referent others acknowledges the increasing role played by other sources of information
such as the internet and travel books. This implies that industry and governments should
continue to strengthen their role of providing up-to-date and accurate information directly to
prospective travelers through these sources.
Overall, this study has attempted to ?ll some of the gaps in the destination branding literature
in two ways. First, it focuses on the under-researched area of interpersonal in?uence on
destination brand perceptions and second, it provides new evidence that concepts and
measurements which have been previously applied to tangible product brands are also
applicable to tourism destinations. Through this study and its limitations, new avenues for
future research have become evident. The in?uence of reference groups on travel decisions
has not received as much attention as in tangible goods. Potential for further investigating
the role of social in?uence exists particularly along the lines of speci?c market segments
such as gaming (for Macao), ?rst time versus the repeat visitor segment, and high versus low
perceived risk destinations. The signi?cant role of normative in?uence in destination brand
perceptions found in this study highlights the importance of tourism research on country
image and destination personality. The role of non-social (versus interpersonal) sources of
information such as the internet in developing a nation’s brand equity is another area that
could yield interesting results. In addition, future studies on nation branding or destination
brand equity could include an assessment of relevant outcomes either in terms of tangible
consumer behavior or industry performance measures that could better inform marketing
strategy and public policy.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), ‘‘Measuring brand equity across products and markets’’, California Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-20.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 325
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), ‘‘Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach’’, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999), Amos 4.0 User’s Guide, Small Waters Corp., Chicago, IL.
Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), ‘‘Reference group in?uence on product and brand purchase
decisions’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 183.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), ‘‘Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal in?uence’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 473-81.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1990), ‘‘Further validation of the consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal in?uence scale’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 770-6.
Blain, C., Levy, S.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), ‘‘Destination branding: insights and practices from
destination management organizations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 328-38.
Bon?eld, E.H. (1974), ‘‘Attitude, social in?uence, personal norm, and intention interactions as related to
brand purchase behavior’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 379.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martinez, E. (2008), ‘‘A cross-national validation of the consumer-based
brand equity scale’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 384-92.
Burnkrant, R.E. and Cousineau, A. (1975), ‘‘Informational and normative social in?uence on buyer
behavior’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 206-15.
Butcher, K. (2005), ‘‘Differential impact of social in?uence in the hospitality encounter’’, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 125-35.
Carmines, E. and McIver, J. (1981), ‘‘Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of
covariance structures’’, in Bohrnstedt, G.W. and Borgatta, E.F. (Eds), Social Measurement: Current
Issues, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 65-115.
Currie, R.R., Wesley, F. and Sutherland, P. (2008), ‘‘Going where the Joneses go: understanding how
others in?uence travel decision making’’, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 12.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Decrop, A. (1999), ‘‘Personal aspects of vacationers’ decision-making processes: an interpretivist
approach’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 59-68.
Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. (1955), ‘‘A study of normative and informational in?uence upon individual
judgment’’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, November, pp. 629-36.
Fiske, D.W. (1982), ‘‘Convergent-discriminant validation in measurements and research strategies’’,
in Brinberg, D. and Kidder, L. (Eds), New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioural Science:
Forms of Validity in Research, No. 12, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 77-92.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), ‘‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gnoth, J. (1998), ‘‘Branding tourism destinations’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 758-60.
Gnoth, J. (2002), ‘‘Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand’’, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 262-80.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2006), ‘‘Destination image and destination personality: an application
of branding theories to tourism places’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 638-42.
Hsu, C.H.C., Kang, S.K. and Lam, T. (2006), ‘‘Reference group in?uences among Chinese travelers’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, p. 474.
Johar, J.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (1991), ‘‘Value expressive vs utilitarian advertising appeals: when and why
use which appeal?’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-33.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ‘‘Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, p. 1.
PAGE 326
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford, New York,
NY.
Kozak, M., Crotts, J.C. and Law, R. (2007), ‘‘The impact of the perception of risk on international
travelers’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 233-42.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), ‘‘Measuring customer-based brand equity’’, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 11.
Lehto, X.Y., O’Leary, J.T. and Morrison, A.M. (2002), ‘‘Do psychographics in?uence vacation destination
choices? A comparison of British travellers to North America, Asia and Oceania’’, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, p. 109.
McGuire, W.J. (1968), ‘‘Personality and susceptibility to social in?uence’’, in Borgatta, E.F. and
Lambert, W.W. (Eds), Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1130-87.
MacKay, K.J. and Campbell, J.M. (2004), ‘‘An examination of residents’ support for hunting as a tourism
product’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 443-52.
Miniard, P.W. and Cohen, J.B. (1983), ‘‘Modeling personal and normative in?uences on behavior’’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 169.
Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003), ‘‘Destination branding and the role of the
stakeholders: the case of New Zealand’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 285.
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1992), ‘‘Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
in?uence and attributional sensitivity’’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 379-94.
Nicolau, J.L. and Ma´ s, F.J. (2008), ‘‘Sequential choice behavior: going on vacation and type of
destination’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1023-34.
Ogilvy, D. (1963), Confessions of an Advertising Man, Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
Park, C.W. and Lessig, V.P. (1977), ‘‘Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to reference
group in?uence’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 102-10.
Perdue, R.R. and Fang, M. (2006), ‘‘Understanding choice and rejection in destination consideration
sets’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 337-48.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary
Approaches, William C. Brown, Dubuque, IA.
Pike, S. (2005), ‘‘Tourism destination branding complexity’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, p. 258.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), ‘‘Self-reports in organisational research: problems and
prospects’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N.J. (2001), ‘‘Culture, identity and tourismrepresentation: marketing Cymru or
Wales?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 167-79.
Rewtrakunphaiboon, W. and Oppewal, H. (2008), ‘‘Effects of package holiday information presentation
on destination choice’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 127-36.
Ritchie, B.J.R. and Ritchie, R.J.B. (1998), ‘‘The branding of tourismdestinations: past achievements and
future challenges’’, paper presented at the 1998 Annual Congress of the International Association of
Scienti?c Experts in Tourism, Destination Marketing: Scopes and Limitations.
Rosen, D.L. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1987), ‘‘The dual role of informational social in?uence: implications for
marketing management’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 123.
Schultz, D.E. (2000), ‘‘Understanding and measuring brand equity’’, Marketing Management, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 8-9.
Simon, C.J. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), ‘‘The measurement and determinants of brand equity: a ?nancial
approach’’, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 28.
Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R. and Uysal, M. (1996), ‘‘Modeling vacation destination decisions’’, Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5 Nos 1-2, pp. 57-75.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 327
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Sirakaya, E., Sheppard, A. and McLellan, R. (1997), ‘‘Assessment of the relationship between perceived
safety at a vacation site and destination choice decisions: extending the behavioral decision-making
model’’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Sirakaya, E., Sonmez, S.F. and Choi, H.-S. (2001), ‘‘Do destination images really matter? Predicting
destination choices of student travelers’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 125.
Witt, R.E. (1969), ‘‘Informal social group in?uence on consumer brand choice’’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, p. 473.
Woodside, A.G. and Dubelaar, C. (2002), ‘‘A general theory of tourism consumption systems:
a conceptual framework and an empirical exploration’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, p. 120.
Woodside, A. and King, R. (2001), ‘‘An updated model of travel and tourism purchase-consumption
systems’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-27.
Corresponding author
Leonardo A.N. Dioko can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 328
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Yan Yang, Xiaoming Liu, Jun Li. 2015. How Customer Experience Affects the Customer-Based Brand Equity for Tourism
Destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32, S97-S113. [CrossRef]
2. Samuel Folorunso Adeyinka-Ojo, Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore, Vikneswaran Nair. 2014. A Framework for Rural Tourism
Destination Management and Marketing Organisations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144, 151-163. [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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_378131236.pdf
This study seeks to examine the effect of two types of social influence, normative and
informational, on travelers’ perceptions of a destination’s brand equity
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Interpersonal influence and destination brand equity perceptions
Felicitas Evangelista Leonardo A.N. Dioko
Article information:
To cite this document:
Felicitas Evangelista Leonardo A.N. Dioko, (2011),"Interpersonal influence and destination brand equity perceptions", International J ournal
of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 316 - 328
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111157005
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2245 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Saila Saraniemi, (2011),"From destination image building to identity-based branding", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 247-254http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156943
Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 4-25http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726
Ana María Munar, (2011),"Tourist-created content: rethinking destination branding", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 291-305http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156989
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Interpersonal in?uence and destination
brand equity perceptions
Felicitas Evangelista and Leonardo A.N. Dioko
Abstract
Purpose – This study seeks to examine the effect of two types of social in?uence, normative and
informational, on travelers’ perceptions of a destination’s brand equity.
Design/methodology/approach – A brand equity measurement model, previously developed for a
tangible product brand, is applied and validated in the context of a destination brand. The structural
model is then estimated to test the effects of normative and informational in?uence on brand equity.
Findings – Normative but not informational in?uence has a signi?cant effect on brand equity
perceptions.
Originality/value – The empirical results help to strengthen the claim that branding principles can be
readily generalized to tourism destinations.
Keywords In?uence, Brand equity, Reference group, Structural model
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The preponderance of studies in recent years laying or supporting the claim that
destinations can be marketed and branded in the same genre as tangible products have yet
to establish the role social in?uence play in such a claim. At the very least, the effect of
considering signi?cant or referent others in a traveler’s choice of destination has not been
substantially considered. This suggests a gaping de?ciency in the nascent ?eld of
destination branding and marketing, considering that many studies in the ?eld regard
consumer evaluations of and meanings attributed to branded products to be embedded in
socially relevant cues and relationships. At the general level, this study examines whether
the effectiveness of destination branding outcomes is conditional on the level of travelers’
sensitivity to social in?uence. It seeks to investigate the relative strength of social in?uence
as an individual-level difference variable in in?uencing travelers’ destination brand equity
perception. It also attempts to identify whether speci?c types of social in?uence, normative
versus informational (Bearden et al., 1989), have any differential bearing on perceived
destination brand equity. The paper ?rst reviews the connection between social in?uence
and brand marketing. It then provides grounds for extending known social in?uence effects
on branded consumer products in the context of destinations as branded goods, and
postulates that social in?uence factors in?uence travelers’ perceptions of a destination’s
brand equity. The paper then proceeds to present the theoretical framework of the study
followed by the methodology, ?ndings and discussion.
Social in?uence and branding
Social in?uence – how signi?cant referent others affect individual decision making and
preferences – emerged from earlier research work on conformity. Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
?rst conceived social in?uence to be comprised of informational and normative types. They
PAGE 316
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011, pp. 316-328, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506181111157005
Felicitas Evangelista is an
Associate Professor at the
School of Marketing,
University of Western
Sydney, Penrith South Dc,
Australia. Leonardo (Don)
A.N. Dioko is a Professor at
the Institute for Tourism
Studies, Macau, China.
Received: April 2009
Revised: May 2010
Accepted: June 2010
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
considered informational social in?uence as ‘‘in?uence to accept information obtained from
another as evidence about reality’’ (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955, pp. 206-207) whereas
normative social in?uence as ‘‘in?uence to conform to the expectations of another person or
group’’ (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955, p. 207). Later, Witt (1969) examined the social in?uence of
others on consumer brand choice followed by Bon?eld’s (1974) work that expanded the scope
social in?uence plays in conjunction with other attitudinal variables on choice. Burnkrant and
Cousineau (1975) formalized the differential effects of informational and normative types of
social in?uence in the way consumers used others’ product evaluation to shape their own. In a
later study, Park and Lessig (1977) posited value-expression as another type of reference
group in?uence and demonstrated group differences (students versus housewives) in
susceptibility to various types of social in?uence. In a notable study, Bearden and Etzel (1982)
speci?ed conditions – whether the product is a luxury versus a necessity and whether it is
consumed in private versus in public – and combinations thereof under which the in?uence of
reference groups would be signi?cant. More importantly, Bearden et al. (1989) developed the
susceptibility to interpersonal in?uence (STI) scale as an individual difference variable and
af?rmed a two-factor structure of the construct designated as normative and informational
types of social in?uence. The scale has become widely accepted and validated in various
subsequent studies related to social in?uence on consumer decision-making (Bearden et al.,
1990; Netemeyer et al., 1992). Other studies (Miniard and Cohen, 1983) suggest that
normative social in?uences on consumer behavior are distinct frompersonal factors and imply
that these be considered as independently relevant variables.
Is social in?uence relevant in shaping travelers’ destination choice and destination brand
equity perceptions? With the exception of a couple of recent studies (Currie et al., 2008; Hsu
et al., 2006) there is little thus far in the tourism marketing and destination branding literature
that unequivocally suggest that the opinion and judgment of relevant social others matter in
the formation of destination brand equity perceptions and evaluation. Currie et al. (2008)
revealed how peers can in?uence evoked set formation and subsequent destination choice.
Hsu et al. (2006) identi?ed how interpersonal in?uences shaped the choice and behavior of
Chinese travelers to Hong Kong out of which four distinct segments were described. Beyond
these, however, other studies in tourismor hospitality consider the role of social in?uence in a
more secondary or peripheral context. Examples include Butcher (2005), whose study
examined social in?uence in the context of the hospitality service encounter, and that of
MacKay and Campbell (2004), who considered social in?uence as having an effect on
resident support for certain tourism products.
The limited attention given to social in?uence is understandable considering that the bulk of
research undertaken on tourism destination choice has focused more on speci?c and
mechanical aspects of individual decision making process, conceived as a logical
sequence of reasoning and information processing. These aspects include, among others,
perceived risk (Kozak et al., 2007; Sirakaya et al., 1997), destination image (Sirakaya et al.,
2001), individual and personal level variables, including psychographics (Decrop, 1999;
Lehto et al., 2002; Sirakaya et al., 1996), and the outcome of various stages of sequential
information processing and consideration (Nicolau and Ma´ s, 2008; Perdue and Fang, 2006;
Rewtrakunphaiboon and Oppewal, 2008; Sirakaya et al., 1996). Recent studies aiming to
integrate and evolve more inclusive choice models for destinations are promising as they
somehow intimate certain roles played by social in?uence factors (Woodside and King,
2001; Woodside and Dubelaar, 2002).
There are possibly two reasons why social and interpersonal factors have largely been
ignored in tourism destination choice. The ?rst is that until recently, destinations have not
been seen in the light of brand marketing, that is, tourism destinations are not normally
considered as branded products. This implies that branding principles such as those
reviewed above in which social in?uence is implicated in consumer products do not apply to
destinations. A second possibility is that destinations are seen as high risk, costly and, to
many, luxurious forms of consumption products (as opposed to a necessity) thereby making
destination choice more subject to very extensive and more highly involved information
processing and logically sequenced consideration on the part of consumers. While this
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 317
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
characterization of the destination choice process is general and does not necessarily
preclude the role of signi?cant interpersonal relations and socially relevant reference
groups, it serves to prioritize factors other than socially relevant ones in analyses.
Destinations as branded products
There has been an increase in academic and practical interest of late in tourism destination
branding (Gnoth, 1998; Gnoth, 2002; Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Branding has become
an important part of marketing tourism destinations and destination marketers now
recognize how they can anchor their marketing programs by capitalizing on the underlying
images and associative knowledge that visitors use to identify, distinguish and evaluate
destinations (Blain et al., 2005). Ritchie and Ritchie (1998) reinforced the utility of destination
branding by de?ning it and its core components as:
[. . .] the marketing activities that (1) support the creation of a name, symbol, logo, word mark or
other graphic that both identi?es and differentiates a destination; (2) that convey the promise of a
memorable travel experience that is uniquely associated with the destination; and (3) that serve to
consolidate and reinforce the recollection of pleasurable memories of the destination experience,
all with the intent purpose of creating an image that in?uences consumers’ decisions to visit the
destination in question as opposed to an alternative one.
Recently, Hosany et al. (2006) found that a destination’s image and personality are related
concepts, a ?nding that lends support and ef?cacy to the need for branding destinations.
Despite these developments, however, destination branding is a complex process and
many issues have yet to be studied in the relatively nascent efforts to apply branding
principles in the marketing of destinations (Morgan et al., 2003; Pike, 2005; Pritchard and
Morgan, 2001). If these recent studies indicate a developing consensus that destinations
can indeed be branded, then they also suggest that destinations possess the characteristic
of brand equity as conceptualized on the consumer marketing literature (Aaker, 1996; Keller,
1993; Schultz, 2000; Simon and Sullivan, 1993).
Theoretical framework
This study posits that the concept of brand equity does apply to destination brands and may
be measured in the same way as tangible product brands. The concept we propose is in line
with that developed by Lassar et al. (1995). This multidimensional concept views a
destination’s brand equity as having ?ve dimensions namely, performance, value, image, trust
and attachment. Adapting fromLassar et al.’s (1995) model, we de?ne these dimensions in the
context of a destination as follows: Performance refers to the visitor’s judgment about a
destination’s fault-free and long lasting attributes. Image is the visitor’s perceptions of the
social esteem in which a destination is held by the visitor’s social group. It includes the
attributions that a visitor makes and a visitor thinks that others make to the typical visitor of a
destination. Attachment is the relative strength of a visitor’s positive feelings towards a
destination while value is the perceived utility that one derives from visiting a destination
relative to the cost of doing so. Finally, trust refers to the con?dence visitors place on the
people, tourism bureaus and tourism service providers that market a destination.
In addition to the proposed brand equity concept just described, we also propose that like
tangible products, the evaluation and choice of tourism destinations are signi?cantly
affected by social in?uence. More speci?cally, in the context of destination marketing, the
study hypothesizes that travelers’ susceptibility to interpersonal in?uence as de?ned by
Bearden et al. (1989) has an impact on the perceived brand equity of a destination. There
are supporting grounds for this claim. Keller (1993) referred to the symbolic bene?ts of
branding products, contending that brands serve as ‘‘badges’’ signaling to socially relevant
others a certain level of status, self-concept, or marker that an individual can use in order to
gain social approval or obtain self-esteem. Bearden and Etzel (1982) posited that perceived
risk and expertise of referent others serve to enhance social in?uence and it is conceivable
that in so far as traveling to destinations is high in risk and therefore in information
requirements, travelers would be highly prone to social in?uence. In addition, their study
PAGE 318
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
examined how public (versus private) and luxury (versus necessity) consumption is highly
predisposed to the in?uence of reference groups. Rosen and Olshavsky (1987) also found
that consumers’ reliance on ‘‘recommended information’’ increased as time cost increased
for products considered high in perceived risk, conditions highly apt in the context of
destination choice. On this basis, the following hypotheses are formed:
H1. Informational in?uence has a positive effect on destination brand equity.
H2. Normative in?uence has a positive effect on destination brand equity.
As previous studies have shown that the effect of social in?uence is conditional on individual
and personal factors (Hsu et al., 2006; Park and Lessig, 1977), this study also seeks to
determine whether the hypothesized relationship between Susceptibility to Interpersonal
In?uence (STI) and Destination Brand Equity (DBE) is moderated by type of visitors,
segmented by purpose of visit. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H3. The effects of informational and normative in?uence on a destination’s brand equity
are moderated by type of visitor.
The multidimensional concept of brand equity and how it is affected by informational and
normative in?uence is summarized in Figure 1.
Methodology
The main constructs of this study are brand equity (BE) and susceptibility to interpersonal
in?uence (STI). The BE scale was adapted from that developed by Lassar et al. (1995). This
scale incorporates the ?ve dimensions of brand equity and has a total of 17 items which are
rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ¼ disagree completely to 7 ¼ very much agree. The
STI scale on the other hand, consists of statements designed to measure the normative and
informational dimensions of interpersonal in?uence. Based on the scale developed by
Bearden et al. (1989), the normative items measure an individual’s level of conformity to the
expectations of others whereas the informational items measure the extent to which an
individual obtains information fromothers. The STI statements are rated on a seven category
scale ranging from 1 ¼ does not describe travel behavior to 7 ¼ describes travel behavior
well. Data collection was undertaken through personal interviews using a structured
questionnaire. A total of 979 international visitors comprise the sample. The visitors were
interviewed in various attraction sites and the major ports of entry in Macao during the month
of March in 2009.
Figure 1 Theoretical framework
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 319
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
A two-step approach of ?rst validating the measurement model prior to the estimation of the
structural model recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) is adopted in this study.
This approach is essential because it ensures that the structural theory test is undertaken
with a valid measurement model and whatever the outcome, these would not be attributed to
poor measures. The measurement model for the STI constructs and brand equity were
subjected to a ?rst order and a second order con?rmatory factor analysis respectively.
Following an assessment of the measurement model results, the testing of the study’s
hypotheses was undertaken via structural equation modeling. The estimation of the
measurement and structural models was conducted using AMOS 17.0. Prior to model
estimation, data issues such as missing values and test for normality were addressed.
Missing data were not a problem as out of the total sample size, only two respondents had
missing values on a total of ?ve variables and these were remedied by mean substitution. A
re-estimation of the models with missing data which is possible in AMOS, showed no
noticeable change in the results. Data normality was screened through an inspection of the
univariate skewness and kurtosis indices which were found to be within acceptable limits
(Kline, 2005).
Results
Second order factor estimation: destination brand equity
Brand equity is viewed as a second order construct that causes ?ve ?rst order latent factors
namely, performance, image, value, trust and attachment which in turn determine the
measured variables. The brand equity scale adopted in this study was developed by Lassar
et al. (1995) and was originally applied and tested in the context of tangible products such
as television sets and wristwatches. Some of the items in this scale have since been used in
other studies (e.g. Buil et al., 2008) involving tangible product brands. In this study, the scale
is used in its entirety and in the context of a destination brand. One issue that had to be
addressed at the early stage of the validation process is that the question of whether Lassar
et al.’s brand equity scale is formative or re?ective. The answer to this question is important
because formative measurement models require a different validation process (Hair et al.,
2006). The manner by which this model is applied in practice which involves using paper
and pencil to rate a brand on the basis of each of the ?ve dimensions and summing them up
suggests that it is a formative scale. However, the results of the pilot studies conducted by
Lassar et al. (1995) indicated that ‘‘consumers demonstrate a halo across dimensions’’ and
that if consumers rate a brand as being high in one dimension, there is a tendency for them
to rate it high in the other dimensions as well. This rating pattern of indicators moving
together is consistent with that of re?ective scales (DeVellis, 1991). It also supports the
theory that it is the consumers’ latent perception that drives their assessment of a brand with
respect to any given dimension rather than the other way around. In effect, it is the latent
construct that drives the measured indicators. On this basis, it is argued that the brand
equity scale in question is a re?ective model and thus the appropriate validation process is
adopted.
Validation of the brand equity model was undertaken through con?rmatory factor analysis
(CFA) in AMOS. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was considered not necessary because
the factors determined by this construct are supported by theory and their respective
indicators have been veri?ed in previous studies (Lassar et al., 1995). In addition, it is not
appropriate to specify a CFA model on the basis of the results of EFA because EFA results
tend to be affected by chance variations in the data and there is evidence that factor
structures identi?ed through EFA may not be supported by CFA results (Kline, 2005).
The measurement model was ?rst constrained to be congeneric for construct validity
reasons and to be consistent with good measurement practice (Hair et al., 2006). The ?t for
this second-order model is good as indicated by the following indices (see Table I):
Chi-square ¼ 681:93, d:f: ¼ 114, p ¼ 0:00; CFI ¼ 0:94; GFI ¼ 0:92; RMSEA ¼ 0:07. In an
attempt to improve overall model ?t, the modi?cation indices supplied by AMOS (Arbuckle
and Wothke, 1999) were examined. On this basis, the measurement errors of three pairs of
indicators within a construct were allowed to co-vary. The results obtained are shown in
PAGE 320
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Table I under the heading Model 2. A comparison of these results with those of Model 1
shows that while there is an improvement in the ?t indices, this was minimal. On this basis, we
decided to retain the suf?ciently constrained model (Model 1) as it represents better
measurement properties (Carmines and McIver, 1981). All references to the BE
measurement model in the remaining sections of this paper will thus refer to Model 1.
The results presented in Table I show that the measurement model for brand equity meets
the requirements for convergent and discriminant validity. The unstandardized factor
loadings are all found to be signi?cant at alpha , 0.001while the standardized values are in
the range of 0.49 to 0.91 for the ?rst order latent factors and from 0.65 to 0.91 for the
observed indicators. The requirements for discriminant validity are also met considering that
the correlation coef?cient between all pairs of ?rst order factors (Table II) are well below the
Table I Brand equity measurement model validation results
Model 1
a
Model 2
b
Model 1
Constructs and items Std loading t-value
c
VE Std loading t-value
c
VE CR AVE
Brand equity
Performance 0.82 –
d
0.74 0.86 – 0.71 0.90 0.66
Image 0.91 18.07 0.24 0.88 18.82 0.25
Value 0.90 17.17 0.80 0.90 17.70 0.81
Trust 0.49 12.23 0.82 0.50 12.49 0.78
Attachment 0.86 16.59 0.67 0.84 17.66 0.74
Performance
Perform 1 0.79 22.68 0.63 0.72 – 0.52 0.83 0.56
Perform 2 0.82 23.30 0.67 0.75 19.86 0.57
Perform 3 0.65 18.73 0.42 0.65 20.23 0.42
Perform 4 0.72 – 0.51 0.74 19.42 0.54
Image
Image 1 0.70 21.98 0.49 0.69 – 0.47 0.83 0.55
Image 2 0.69 21.76 0.48 0.73 25.50 0.53
Image 3 0.78 24.89 0.60 0.78 21.19 0.61
Image 4 0.79 – 0.62 0.81 22.11 0.66
Value
Value 1 0.79 23.34 0.63 0.80 – 0.63 0.82 0.60
Value 2 0.81 23.67 0.65 0.80 23.67 0.65
Value 3 0.73 – 0.54 0.73 23.41 0.54
Trust
Trust 1 0.81 27.64 0.66 0.81 – 0.66 0.88 0.71
Trust 2 0.91 29.92 0.83 0.91 29.94 0.83
Trust 3 0.80 – 0.64 0.80 27.65 0.65
Attachment
Attachment 1 0.72 – 0.52 0.77 – 0.59 0.84 0.63
Attachment 2 0.85 24.13 0.72 0.82 23.89 0.68
Attachment 3 0.81 23.20 0.65 0.85 22.69 0.72
Notes: Fit indices:
a
Chi-square ¼ 681.93, d.f. ¼ 114, GFI ¼ 0.92, CFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.07;
b
Chi-square ¼ 502.21, d.f. ¼ 110,
GFI ¼ 0.94, CFI ¼ 0.96, RMSEA ¼ 0.06;
c
All t values are signi?cant at p , 0:001;
d
Item?xed to set the scale; CR ¼ Composite reliability;
VE ¼ Variance extracted; AVE ¼ Average variance extracted
Table II Descriptive statistics and correlation
Construct Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Information 4.89 1.22
2 Norm 4.39 1.28 0.69
3 Performance 5.33 0.98 0.31 0.33
4 Image 5.05 1.06 0.28 0.45 0.64
5 Value 5.00 1.10 0.24 0.36 0.59 0.68
6 Trust 4.90 1.23 0.00 0.12 0.35 0.36 0.43
7 Attachment 5.14 1.16 0.24 0.34 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.41
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 321
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
0.85 limit (Kline, 2005) and that except for the image dimension, the variance extracted are
higher than the squared inter-construct correlation (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The
estimated composite reliability values are all above 0.70 which indicates that internal
consistency exists (Kline, 2005). In addition, all the AVE values are above the 0.50 limit
required to indicate convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Taken together, these
results provide adequate evidence that the measurement model meets the requirements for
validity and reliability. Considering that the measures of the various constructs are derived
from self-reported data and the analysis involves interpreting correlations among them, the
potential problemof common method variance (Fiske, 1982) had to be addressed. Following
one of the post hoc remedies suggested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986), Harman’s one
factor test was undertaken. A principal component analysis based on the 17 items
comprising the brand equity scale reveals three factors with an eigenvalue . 1, which
together account for 63 per cent of the total variance. The presence of three factors instead
of one indicates that common method bias does not pose a serious problem in this analysis.
Having validated the model and tested it for common method variance, results were
compared to those reported by Lassar et al. (1995), taking into account the fact that the
current study adapts the measurement scale to a destination brand. In 1995, Lassar et al.
reported the following model ?t indices: Chi-square ¼ 161:17, d:f: ¼ 109, p , 0:001,
CFI ¼ 0:87. In terms of reliability, the reported coef?cient alphas are 0.75 (Performance),
0.77 (Image), 0.77 (Value), 0.79 (Trust) and 0.83 (Attachment). Considering the difference in
sample sizes used in these two studies, CFI is considered to be the more appropriate
measure of model ?t (Hair et al., 2006). From this comparison it is evident that the current
estimates have yielded higher CFI and higher reliability coef?cients (see Table I), which
indicate that the measurement model has withstood the tests for validity and reliability even
when applied to a destination brand. The results in Table I show that overall brand equity as
expected, is positively related with all of its dimensions. Of the ?ve dimensions, Image has
the highest standardized loading followed closely by Value. The dimension with the lowest
loading is Trust.
First order factor estimation: STI
The informational and normative dimensions of STI are well supported by theory (Deutsch
and Gerard, 1955) and previous results of replicated con?rmatory factor analysis have
demonstrated a stable two-factor structure (Bearden et al., 1989). In this study, a ?rst order
model of STI is particularly necessary because one of study’s objectives is to determine the
impact of each factor (normative versus informational social in?uence) on destination brand
equity. At ?rst glance, the initial results of the CFA of the normative and informational
in?uence scales indicated relatively good ?t indices (Table III). These results were based on
all measured indicators loading on only one construct each and the measurement errors
Table III STI measurement model validation results
Constructs and
items
Standardised
loading t-value
Variance
extracted
Composite
reliability AVE
Information
Information 1 0.76 20.12 0.57 0.78 0.54
Information 2 0.73 –
a
0.54
Information 3 0.71 19.94 0.51
Normative
Normative 1 0.78 – 0.60 0.91 0.60
Normative 2 0.81 26.97 0.65
Normative 3 0.78 25.75 0.60
Normative 4 0.78 26.04 0.62
Normative 5 0.73 23.70 0.53
Normative 6 0.76 25.02 0.58
Normative 7 0.76 25.02 0.58
Notes: Fit indices: Chi-Square ¼ 381.45; d.f. ¼ 33; GFI ¼ 0.92; CFI ¼ 0.94; RMSEA ¼ 0.10
PAGE 322
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
being independent of each other. Although most of the ?t indices are within acceptable
limits, there are indications that some modi?cations were in order. For instance the RMSEA
value of 0.12 exceeded the maximum limit of 0.10 and the variance extracted for one of the
indicators was less than the 0.50 limit. On this basis, one indicator was deleted (due to low
variance extracted) and two measurement errors in the normative in?uence scale were
allowed to correlate with each other. The modi?ed measurement model as shown in Table III
meets the requirements of a model with adequate ?t. Convergent validity is indicated by the
signi?cant unstandardized factor loadings at alpha , 0:00, the high standardized factor
loading values which range from 0.71 to 0.81, and the greater than 0.50 AVE values.
Discriminant validity is indicated by the correlation of the two factors at 0.69 which is less
than the upper limit of 0.85 (Kline, 2005) while reliability is also indicated as the composite
reliability values are higher than the lower limit of 0.70 used for exploratory research (Kline,
2005). Harman’s one factor test results however show that it is possible that the data is
affected by the common method variance problem. The PCA of the 11 items comprising the
STI scale revealed two factors with eigenvalues . 1 explaining about 67 per cent of total
variance. One factor accounts for about 57 per cent and the other, 10 per cent. According to
Podsakoff and Organ (1986), a substantial common variance is present if one factor
accounts for majority of the variance, which appears to be the case with this model. At this
point, no solution is proposed except to keep this in mind when assessing the results
obtained from this study.
Structural model estimation
After validating the measurement model, the full structural model was estimated using path
analysis in AMOS 17.0. In this estimate, the structural model and the re?ned measurement
model were simultaneously tested. The results of the structural model shown in Table IV
indicate an adequate ?t between the model and the data.
As expected with tests involving a large sample, the Chi-square value is large and signi?cant
which is contrary to what it should be for a structural equation model. For this reason, the
other indices namely, RMSEA and CFI are adopted. The RMSEA not only corrects for the
effects of sample size but also indicates how well a model ?ts a population and not just the
sample. An RMSEA of 0.06 which is less than the acceptable upper limit of 0.10 indicates
that the model has a good ?t (Hair et al., 2006). The CFI takes into account model complexity
is estimated at 0.92 indicating also an acceptable model ?t.
The structural model test results show that only one of the two hypothesized relationships is
supported. As shown in Table IV, the relationship between informational in?uence and brand
equity is not supported by the data. In contrast, normative in?uence has a signi?cant and
positive effect on brand equity. The standardized regression weight of 0.55 indicates a
strong in?uence with variance extracted estimated at 0.24. In order to test the hypothesis
about the possible moderating effects of the type of visitor on the impact of the informational
and normative in?uence on brand equity, the full model was re-estimated using a two group
analysis. One group consists of tourists whose main purpose of visiting Macao is for
gambling and business purposes and the other is made up of those whose purpose is
recreation based such as shopping, sightseeing, etc. The purpose of this analysis is to
determine whether or not the pattern of structural relationships hypothesized in the structural
model is applicable to both groups.
Prior to the estimation of the full model, a two-group analysis of the measurement model was
undertaken to determine measurement invariance that is, if the set of indicators is measuring
Table IV Structural model estimation results
Hypothesized relationships Standardized regression weights p-value
Informational in?uence !Brand equity 20.087 0.26
Normative in?uence !Brand equity 0.55 0.001
Notes: Chi-Square ¼ 1553.37; df ¼ 315; p ¼ 0.00; GFI ¼ 0.89; CFI ¼ 0.92; RMSEA ¼ 0.06
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 323
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
the same latent factors across groups (Kline, 2005). Two models, one that is totally free (i.e.
only the factor structure is constrained) and the other which constrains the factor loadings to
be equal in both groups were estimated. If the model ?t for the ?rst model is adequate, then
there is minimal evidence of cross validation and if the model ?t of the second model is not
signi?cantly different from that of the ?rst, then the evidence of cross-validation is stronger
(Hair et al., 2006). This procedure was adopted in testing the brand equity and STI
measurement models separately. A comparison of the ?t indices obtained for the BE model
showed that the change in Chi-square is not signi?cant and the other indices namely, GFI,
CFI and RMSEA are similar for both totally free and constrained models. Both models had a
GFI and CFI of 0.89 and 0.91 respectively while RMSEA ¼ 0:05. The results for the STI model
revealed similar indices for both groups (i.e. GFI ¼ 0:93, CFI ¼ 0:94 and RMSEA ¼ 0:07).
Likewise, the difference in the Chi-square values is not signi?cant for both the BE and STI
scales. These results provide adequate evidence that these measurement models are
invariant across the two groups.
Having tested for measurement invariance, the structural model was then estimated, also
using a two-group analysis. The procedure adopted is similar to that for the measurement
model in which a totally free, unconstrained model and a constrained model with equal
regression weights across the two groups, business and gaming group versus recreation
group, were estimated. A comparison of the ?t indices of these two models however showed
that the change in the Chi-square values is not signi?cant and likewise, the other ?t indices,
CFI and RMSEA, were equal or at worst, similar. Considering that the added constraint did
not harm the model ?t, the signi?cance of visitor type as a moderator variable, is not
supported. For purposes of rigor and taking leads from the literature that susceptibility to
social in?uence could be affected by personal characteristics (McGuire, 1968; Petty and
Cacioppo, 1981), the structural model was estimated using age, gender and education as
moderator variables. In all three cases, no signi?cant difference was found in the model ?t of
the totally free and the constrained models.
Discussion
The results of the con?rmatory factor analysis provide support to the validity and reliability of
the brand equity scale developed by Lassar et al. (1995) and to the proposition that brand
equity is the underlying construct of the ?ve branding dimensions namely performance,
image, trust, value and attachment. Each of the observed items loaded well on the
hypothesized dimension and each dimension yielded a high degree of internal consistency
among the measured items. The overall model ?t was found to be adequate even under the
strict conditions of a congeneric model where measurable indicators are constrained to
have no covariance between and within construct error terms. The fact that the sample is
large (i.e. 979 respondents) and that it is made up of visitors from 30 countries and of
different age, gender and educational backgrounds only serve to strengthen our con?dence
on the results obtained. These empirical results also show that the two layered
multidimensional concept of brand equity which was originally developed for tangible
product brands can also be applied to destination brands.
Having addressed the ?rst objective in the previous paragraph, the rest of the discussion
focuses on the structural model estimation results. Of the two hypotheses about the effects
of social in?uence on brand equity, results provide support only for normative but not
informational in?uence. Susceptibility to normative in?uence has been found to have a
signi?cant positive effect on the perceived brand equity of a country while susceptibility to
informational in?uence has been found to have no signi?cant effect. This result implies that
the perceived brand equity of a destination is affected by the propensity of a visitor to
conform to the expectation of referent others but not by the information that they obtain from
them. Considering that brand equity consists of ?ve dimensions which tend to be rated by
consumers in a consistent pattern, it is logical to expect that the higher the consumer’s
susceptibility to normative in?uence, the higher would be the perceived performance, value,
image, trust and attachment of a destination. If the analogy is extended to power exerted by
referent others, the results would indicate that these dimensions of a brand as well as the
PAGE 324
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
overall perceived brand equity are affected by referent but not expert power. This could
imply that referent others are not perceived to have expert knowledge about a destination
and as the survey data show, the respondents in this study had relied on various sources of
information regarding Macao. The top ?ve most in?uential sources of information are:
1. friends;
2. family;
3. internet;
4. work colleagues; and
5. travel books.
This ranking is based on the average ratings respondents gave to each of these sources on
a scale of 1 ¼ most in?uential, 2 ¼ second most in?uential, 3 ¼ third most in?uential, 0 ¼ not
top three. Although friends and family are still the top two sources of information, the internet
and travel books are also considered in?uential. The reliance on other sources of information
has the tendency to weaken the in?uence that referent others exert through expert
knowledge. The lack of signi?cance of the moderator variables simply shows that the
structural model proposed in this study can be generalized to all types of visitors,
irrespective of personal characteristics. In terms of purpose of travel, the results should be
taken with caution considering that business and gaming visitors had to be grouped
together due to the relatively small number of respondents belonging to the business group.
The signi?cance of normative in?uence on a destination’s brand equity has a number of
implications for marketers and governments. When promoting a country as a holiday
destination it is important to target not only the traveler but also the traveler’s referent others
especially family and peers who tend to be sources of utilitarian and value expressive
functions (Johar and Sirgy, 1991). The signi?cance of normative in?uence implies that
marketing campaigns should adopt an image strategy, one that involves building a
‘‘personality’’ for the product (i.e. destination or country) or creating an image of the product
user (i.e. traveler or tourist) (Ogilvy, 1963). The lack of signi?cance of informational in?uence
by referent others acknowledges the increasing role played by other sources of information
such as the internet and travel books. This implies that industry and governments should
continue to strengthen their role of providing up-to-date and accurate information directly to
prospective travelers through these sources.
Overall, this study has attempted to ?ll some of the gaps in the destination branding literature
in two ways. First, it focuses on the under-researched area of interpersonal in?uence on
destination brand perceptions and second, it provides new evidence that concepts and
measurements which have been previously applied to tangible product brands are also
applicable to tourism destinations. Through this study and its limitations, new avenues for
future research have become evident. The in?uence of reference groups on travel decisions
has not received as much attention as in tangible goods. Potential for further investigating
the role of social in?uence exists particularly along the lines of speci?c market segments
such as gaming (for Macao), ?rst time versus the repeat visitor segment, and high versus low
perceived risk destinations. The signi?cant role of normative in?uence in destination brand
perceptions found in this study highlights the importance of tourism research on country
image and destination personality. The role of non-social (versus interpersonal) sources of
information such as the internet in developing a nation’s brand equity is another area that
could yield interesting results. In addition, future studies on nation branding or destination
brand equity could include an assessment of relevant outcomes either in terms of tangible
consumer behavior or industry performance measures that could better inform marketing
strategy and public policy.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), ‘‘Measuring brand equity across products and markets’’, California Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-20.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 325
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), ‘‘Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach’’, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1999), Amos 4.0 User’s Guide, Small Waters Corp., Chicago, IL.
Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), ‘‘Reference group in?uence on product and brand purchase
decisions’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 183.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), ‘‘Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal in?uence’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 473-81.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1990), ‘‘Further validation of the consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal in?uence scale’’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 770-6.
Blain, C., Levy, S.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), ‘‘Destination branding: insights and practices from
destination management organizations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 328-38.
Bon?eld, E.H. (1974), ‘‘Attitude, social in?uence, personal norm, and intention interactions as related to
brand purchase behavior’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 379.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L. and Martinez, E. (2008), ‘‘A cross-national validation of the consumer-based
brand equity scale’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 384-92.
Burnkrant, R.E. and Cousineau, A. (1975), ‘‘Informational and normative social in?uence on buyer
behavior’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 206-15.
Butcher, K. (2005), ‘‘Differential impact of social in?uence in the hospitality encounter’’, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 125-35.
Carmines, E. and McIver, J. (1981), ‘‘Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of
covariance structures’’, in Bohrnstedt, G.W. and Borgatta, E.F. (Eds), Social Measurement: Current
Issues, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 65-115.
Currie, R.R., Wesley, F. and Sutherland, P. (2008), ‘‘Going where the Joneses go: understanding how
others in?uence travel decision making’’, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 12.
DeVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Decrop, A. (1999), ‘‘Personal aspects of vacationers’ decision-making processes: an interpretivist
approach’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 59-68.
Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. (1955), ‘‘A study of normative and informational in?uence upon individual
judgment’’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, November, pp. 629-36.
Fiske, D.W. (1982), ‘‘Convergent-discriminant validation in measurements and research strategies’’,
in Brinberg, D. and Kidder, L. (Eds), New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioural Science:
Forms of Validity in Research, No. 12, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 77-92.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), ‘‘Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gnoth, J. (1998), ‘‘Branding tourism destinations’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 758-60.
Gnoth, J. (2002), ‘‘Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand’’, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 262-80.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2006), ‘‘Destination image and destination personality: an application
of branding theories to tourism places’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 638-42.
Hsu, C.H.C., Kang, S.K. and Lam, T. (2006), ‘‘Reference group in?uences among Chinese travelers’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, p. 474.
Johar, J.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (1991), ‘‘Value expressive vs utilitarian advertising appeals: when and why
use which appeal?’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-33.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ‘‘Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, p. 1.
PAGE 326
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford, New York,
NY.
Kozak, M., Crotts, J.C. and Law, R. (2007), ‘‘The impact of the perception of risk on international
travelers’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 233-42.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), ‘‘Measuring customer-based brand equity’’, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 11.
Lehto, X.Y., O’Leary, J.T. and Morrison, A.M. (2002), ‘‘Do psychographics in?uence vacation destination
choices? A comparison of British travellers to North America, Asia and Oceania’’, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, p. 109.
McGuire, W.J. (1968), ‘‘Personality and susceptibility to social in?uence’’, in Borgatta, E.F. and
Lambert, W.W. (Eds), Handbook of Personality Theory and Research, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1130-87.
MacKay, K.J. and Campbell, J.M. (2004), ‘‘An examination of residents’ support for hunting as a tourism
product’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 443-52.
Miniard, P.W. and Cohen, J.B. (1983), ‘‘Modeling personal and normative in?uences on behavior’’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 169.
Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003), ‘‘Destination branding and the role of the
stakeholders: the case of New Zealand’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 285.
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. and Teel, J.E. (1992), ‘‘Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
in?uence and attributional sensitivity’’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 379-94.
Nicolau, J.L. and Ma´ s, F.J. (2008), ‘‘Sequential choice behavior: going on vacation and type of
destination’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 1023-34.
Ogilvy, D. (1963), Confessions of an Advertising Man, Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
Park, C.W. and Lessig, V.P. (1977), ‘‘Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to reference
group in?uence’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 102-10.
Perdue, R.R. and Fang, M. (2006), ‘‘Understanding choice and rejection in destination consideration
sets’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 337-48.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary
Approaches, William C. Brown, Dubuque, IA.
Pike, S. (2005), ‘‘Tourism destination branding complexity’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, p. 258.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), ‘‘Self-reports in organisational research: problems and
prospects’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N.J. (2001), ‘‘Culture, identity and tourismrepresentation: marketing Cymru or
Wales?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 167-79.
Rewtrakunphaiboon, W. and Oppewal, H. (2008), ‘‘Effects of package holiday information presentation
on destination choice’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 127-36.
Ritchie, B.J.R. and Ritchie, R.J.B. (1998), ‘‘The branding of tourismdestinations: past achievements and
future challenges’’, paper presented at the 1998 Annual Congress of the International Association of
Scienti?c Experts in Tourism, Destination Marketing: Scopes and Limitations.
Rosen, D.L. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1987), ‘‘The dual role of informational social in?uence: implications for
marketing management’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 123.
Schultz, D.E. (2000), ‘‘Understanding and measuring brand equity’’, Marketing Management, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 8-9.
Simon, C.J. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), ‘‘The measurement and determinants of brand equity: a ?nancial
approach’’, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 28.
Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R. and Uysal, M. (1996), ‘‘Modeling vacation destination decisions’’, Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5 Nos 1-2, pp. 57-75.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 327
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Sirakaya, E., Sheppard, A. and McLellan, R. (1997), ‘‘Assessment of the relationship between perceived
safety at a vacation site and destination choice decisions: extending the behavioral decision-making
model’’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Sirakaya, E., Sonmez, S.F. and Choi, H.-S. (2001), ‘‘Do destination images really matter? Predicting
destination choices of student travelers’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 125.
Witt, R.E. (1969), ‘‘Informal social group in?uence on consumer brand choice’’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, p. 473.
Woodside, A.G. and Dubelaar, C. (2002), ‘‘A general theory of tourism consumption systems:
a conceptual framework and an empirical exploration’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, p. 120.
Woodside, A. and King, R. (2001), ‘‘An updated model of travel and tourism purchase-consumption
systems’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-27.
Corresponding author
Leonardo A.N. Dioko can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 328
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Yan Yang, Xiaoming Liu, Jun Li. 2015. How Customer Experience Affects the Customer-Based Brand Equity for Tourism
Destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32, S97-S113. [CrossRef]
2. Samuel Folorunso Adeyinka-Ojo, Catheryn Khoo-Lattimore, Vikneswaran Nair. 2014. A Framework for Rural Tourism
Destination Management and Marketing Organisations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 144, 151-163. [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
:
1
7
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_378131236.pdf