Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 22272231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Achieving tourist loyalty through destination personality, satisfaction,

and identication
Magnus Hultman a, Dionysis Skarmeas b, Pejvak Oghazi c,,1, Hooshang M. Beheshti d
a

University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom

Athens University of Economics and Business 10434 Greece
Linnaeus University, 351 95 Vaxjo, Sweden
d
Radford University, VA 24 142, USA
b
c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 September 2014
Received in revised form 1 March 2015
Accepted 1 April 2015
Available online 13 June 2015
Keywords:
Destination personality
Satisfaction
Identication
Word-of-mouth
Revisit intentions
Tourism

a b s t r a c t
The general marketing literature suggests that brand personality, satisfaction, and customer identication with
the brand are important drivers of consumer behavior in several contexts. Yet, the literature lacks studies on
these constructs' role in tourist behavior. In an endeavor to overcome this research decit, this study explores
the interrelationships among destination personality, tourist satisfaction, and touristdestination identication,
and the extent to which they are important in inuencing positive word-of-mouth and revisit intentions. The
study employs structural equation modeling to analyze data from 490 Taiwanese consumers reporting on their
most recently visited tourism destinations. Findings indicate that (1) destination personality promotes tourist
satisfaction, touristdestination identication, positive word-of-mouth, and revisit intentions; (2) satisfaction
encourages identication and word-of-mouth; and (3) identication enhances word-of-mouth and revisit intentions. The paper provides theoretical and managerial implications.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Market globalization is affecting tourism businesses worldwide. Increasing competition, economic recession, and the dynamic evolution
of new technologies present both opportunities and threats (Buhalis &
Law, 2008). Scholars regard the tourism industry as a new technology
adoption pioneer. The industry innovates in everything from computerized reservation systems, to e-business and new marketing practices
(Tsiotsou & Ratten, 2010). As part of this, innovative tourism marketers
are quickly adopting branding strategies similar to those product marketers uses in an attempt to emphasize the uniqueness of the destinations they represent (CaiLiping, 2002; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011).
In the face of highly dynamic market conditions with steadily increasing competition, innovations in destination branding are gaining
increasing relevance for tourism marketers (Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal,
2006). Simply being among the options in the customer's set of potential destinations is not sufcient for touristic destinations anymore because of the growing similarity and substitutability in the market.
Thus, the concept of innovative destination branding is critical for

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.hultman@leeds.ac.uk (M. Hultman), dskarmeas@aueb.gr
(D. Skarmeas), pejvak.oghazi@lnu.se (P. Oghazi), hbehesht@radford.edu (H.M. Beheshti).
1
Tel.:+ 46 470 767549.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.002
0148-2963/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

differentiating touristic destinations from competitors (Qu, Hyunjung,

& Hyunjung, 2011).
Recent destination branding research (e.g., Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk, &
Preciado, 2013; Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007; Qu et al.,
2011; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011) builds on traditional branding literature
(e.g., Aaker, 1997; Aaker & Fournier, 1995), which suggests that people
tend to personalize and identify with brands. Brand personalization and
customer-brand identication are crucial in brand choice, purchase likelihood, and ultimately brand success (Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998). A
broad consensus exists in the management and marketing literature
on three statements: (1) retaining customers is good business; (2) positive word-of-mouth is the most effective means of promoting; and
(3) customer satisfaction is a prime driver for future consumer behavior,
especially in tourism, whose intangible offerings are difcult to evaluate
before consumption (Chi & Qu, 2008; Litvin, Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008; Qu
et al., 2011).
Notwithstanding the differences between tourism and other consumer offerings, the foregoing puts destination personality, identication, revisit behavior, word-of-mouth, and satisfaction high on the
agenda for tourism practitioners and scholars alike. Unfortunately, however, the literature still offers little insight into the underlying nature of
the relationship between these concepts (Qu et al., 2011). In response to
calls for more encompassing models in the study of destination branding in tourism (e.g., Chi & Qu, 2008; Ekinci et al., 2013; Tsiotsou &
Ratten, 2010), this study investigates the interrelationships among

2228

M. Hultman et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 22272231

destination personality, tourist satisfaction, touristdestination identication, positive word-of-mouth, and revisit intentions.
2. Conceptual background and hypotheses
Qu et al. (2011) establish that the core of all destination-branding efforts should be in building positive destination images that identify and
differentiate the focal destination from others. CaiLiping (2002, p. 723)
denes destination image as perceptions about the place as reected
by the associations held in tourist memory. Ekinci and Hosany (2006)
dene destination personality as the set of personality traits associated
with a destination (p. 127), thereby drawing on Aaker's (1997) original
brand personality terminology. The literature review reveals that although general brand image and personality research dates back several
decades, its application to touristic destinations is relatively new.
Among the rst empirical research is Ekinci and Hosany (2006), who
test Aaker's brand personality dimensions on UK travelers. Recent issues
of major tourism journals and mainstream business journals contain a
handful of studies using various applications of destination personality
(e.g., Chen & Phou, 2013; Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk, & Baloglu, 2007; Hosany
et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007; Pitt, Opoku, Hultman, Abratt, &
Spyropoulou, 2007; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011).
Although existing studies differ in terms of contexts, methodologies,
applications, and destination personality conceptualizations, all studies
reach seemingly similar conclusions. A well-established destination
personality (1) facilitates differentiation from competitors (Pitt et al.,
2007), (2) enhances that destination's perceived value and satisfaction
(Chen & Phou, 2013), (3) increases attitudinal loyalty and revisit intentions (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Ekinci et al., 2007), and (4) develops emotional ties between the tourist and the destinations, leading to higher
destination loyalty (Ekinci et al., 2013; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). These
seemingly all-encompassing positive effects of destination personality
constitute the basis for this study's conceptual model (Fig. 1).
2.1. Hypotheses
Anthropomorphism theory maintains that people view themselves
as models of the world and tend to humanize non-human things
(Boyer, 1996). In line with the anthropic principle, consumers tend to
attribute personalities to brands. Recent research suggests that this personication can apply to touristic destinations as people endow places
with human qualities too (Hosany et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007).
Specically, positive trait inferences are likely to result in favorable tourist attitudes toward the destination (cf., Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998).
Tourist satisfaction refers to an overall evaluation of his/her visit to a
given destination. Thus, a higher association of a destination with favorable personality correlates positively with tourist satisfaction.
H1. A positive relationship exists between destination personality and
tourist satisfaction.
Identity theory posits that the self is a structure of multiple identities
that reect roles in differentiated networks of interaction (Arnett,
German, & Hunt, 2003). Self-concept comprises (1) a personal identity,
which involves idiosyncratic characteristics (e.g., abilities and interests),
and (2) a social identity, which consists of salient group classications
that enable people to locate themselves and others within the social
environment (Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). Social identication refers to a sense of oneness or connectedness with a group, together with the emotional signicance of that belongingness (Mael &
Ashforth, 1992). Individuals tend to identify themselves with different
social groups, ranging from features such as gender and ethnicity to
brand communities and organizations (Fournier, 1998; Turner et al.,
1994). Interestingly, a place may become a part of self-concept by evoking strong cognitive and psychological attachments. Research shows
that touristic destinations can evoke strong symbolic values that usually

Fig. 1. Research model.

describe humans (e.g., outgoing, fun, friendly, or boring) (Ekinci et al.,

2013; Sirgy & Su, 2000). Tourist identication with a destination refers
to the extent to which a tourist perceives a sense of connectedness
to a destination and denes him- or herself in terms of that feeling
(cf., Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Thus, destinations with a strong personality
are likely to evoke touristdestination identication by effectively
reecting tourists' desired self-concepts.
H2. A positive relationship exists between destination personality and
touristdestination identication
On the basis of Arnett et al. (2003), promoting behavior refers to
providing positive information about a visited destination in social situations. Spreading positive word-of-mouth and revisit intentions are the
most important behavioral consequences in destination image studies
(Qu et al., 2011). Because of the intangible nature of the touristic product, a consumer's purchase decision usually involves higher levels of
perceived risk than manufactured products do. Promoting behavior
from past visitors is therefore an excellent source for risk reduction
among potential tourists (Litvin et al., 2008).
In general, brand personality can serve as a basis for differentiation
that often leads to favorable customer attitudes and behaviors toward
the brand (Aaker, 1997; Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009). Under
this premise, tourists are likely to single out, revisit, and speak highly
of destinations that possess a distinctive and favorable character (Chi
& Qu, 2008; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Thus, a visitor who holds a positive
overall image resulting from the destination's personality traits is more
likely to both revisit and promote the destination.
H3. A positive relationship exists between destination personality and
promoting
H4. A positive relationship exists between destination personality and
revisit intentions
Satisfaction may result in a reevaluation of the salience of identities
in that positive feelings and emotions are important for the formation,
maintenance, and development of identities (Arnett et al., 2003).

M. Hultman et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 22272231

Because of their positive affective state, satised tourists are likely to

feel a deep rapport and sense of belongingness toward a visited destination (Hou, Lin, & Morais Duarte, 2005) and create or reinforce their identity in relation to that destination.
H5. A positive relationship exists between tourist satisfaction and
touristdestination identication
Positive word-of-mouth originates from customer satisfaction, especially in cases when experience surpasses expectations. Therefore, satised tourists may speak favorably of a visited destination to their social
circle upon return (Weaver, Karin, & McCleary, 2007). Further, tourists
present risk-minimizing behaviors because of the considerable monetary sacrice that touristic activities often imply (Alegre & Juaneda,
2006). Thus, satised tourists are likely to revisit the destination in the
near future, too (Chi & Qu, 2008).
H6. A positive relationship exists between tourist satisfaction and
promoting.
H7. A positive relationship exists between tourist satisfaction and
revisit intentions.
Finally, individuals are likely to behave accordingly to a salient identity because identities require self-expression (Arnett et al., 2003). Thus,
tourists that foster strong relational bonds and identify with a destination present higher tendencies to return and promote the destination
to friends and acquaintances in the future (Ekinci et al., 2013).
H8. A positive relationship exists between touristdestination identication and promoting.
H9. A positive relationship exists between touristdestination identication and revisit intentions.

3. Method
Using street intercept method, 746 Taiwanese residents received
an invitation to participate in a survey on their most recent overseas
vacation; 529 respondents agreed to do so (70.9%). After eliminating
thirty-nine incomplete questionnaires, 490 eligible responses
remained to compose the sample. Descriptive statistics reveal that
women (48.8%) and men almost equally constitute the sample population. Most residents were younger than 30 years old (85.9%) and were
single (77.3%). The respondents further reported that they had visited
on average eight foreign countries, and most respondents (63.8%) visited the focal destination for the rst time.
Adaptation of study measures from prior research took place to suit
the current study objectives and research context. The current research
draws on an extensive literature review and a series of personal interviews. Three academic researchers with a background in consumer behavior and tourism evaluated the content validity of the measures by
judging the extent to which each item represents the construct in question. Finally, ve potential respondents answered a revised questionnaire to ensure effective semantic design and instrument format.
Drawing from Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006) and Lee, Yoon, and Lee
(2007), the measure for satisfaction comprises six items: (1) [Destination Name (D)] was a great destination to visit; (2) During my visit to
[D], I accomplished the purpose of my vacation; (3) All things considered (e.g., time, effort, money), I am satised with my visit to [D]; (4) I
have pleasant memories from my visit to [D]; (5) My visit to [D] met
my expectations; (6) On the whole, my choice to visit [D] has been a
wise one. Building on Homburg, Wieseke, and Hoyer (2009), three
items assess touristdestination identication: (1) [D] ts well to
me; (2) I strongly identify with [D]; and (3) I feel attached to [D].
Following Arnett et al. (2003), promotion comprises three items:
(1) I bring up [D] in a positive way in conversations I have with friends
and acquaintances; (2) I talk up [D] to people I know; and (3) in

2229

social situations, I often speak favorably about [D]. The response formats range from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. A
single-item (How likely is it that you would revisit [D] in the near
future?) from the study by Yoon and Uysal (2005) measures revisit intentions. Response formats range from ( 3) very unlikely to (+3)
very likely. The destination personality measure based on Aaker
(1997) and Hosany et al. (2006) uses a rating scale ranging from
(1) not at all descriptive to (7) extremely descriptive. Table 1
shows the specic destination personality items.

4. Analysis and results

Initial assessment of the scales uses item-to-total correlations and
exploratory factor analysis. Results of the factor analysis reveal that
the items for satisfaction, identication, promoting, and revisit intentions load strongly on their corresponding factors. Regarding the destination personality measures, analysis reveals ve factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1. However, a scree test shows a signicant
dip between the sixth and seventh factors, indicating that a six-factor
solution explains the factor structure better. After elimination of items
with low factor loadings and signicant cross-loadings, a clean factor
structure emerges, explaining a satisfactory 70.1% of the total variance
in destination personality (Table 1). The emergent factors in the context
of tourist destinations yield meaning through discussions within the research team and industry experts. The nal labels are excitement,
sophistication, activeness, dependability, philoxenia (a Greek word
specic to the tourism industry meaning the opposite of xenophobia),
and ruggedness.
Conrmatory factor analysis of the remaining set of items checks for
convergent and discriminant validity. Estimation of two measurement
models is necessary because of sample size restrictions. The rst
model contains the four rst-order constructs (satisfaction, identication, promoting, and revisit intentions). The model results show good
t to the data. Although the chi-square value is signicant (2(60) =
141.52, p b .01), the other t indices reveal a well-tting model
(NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.05). Destination personality is a second-order factor, as per Brakus et al. (2009). Results
yield an acceptable model t (2(293) = 1029.12, p b .01, NFI = 0.95,
NNFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07). Overall, the factor loadings
of the items on their indicators exceed 0.58 and the t-values are greater
than 8.39 (p b .01), thus indicating convergent validity.
The study estimates discriminant validity by ensuring that the
variance which the latent constructs share (i.e., the square of their correlations) is lower than the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
individual construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 2 presents the correlations, descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates, and AVE
for the study constructs. A statistical common method bias (CMB) test,
estimating a single latent factor reected by all the study's manifest
items, shows poor t to the data suggesting that CMB is not a major
issue.
A structural equation modeling procedure assesses the hypothesized
relationships. Because of sample size restrictions, the study uses composite measures for the six destination personality dimensions. For estimation purposes, the study assumes the single-item revisit intentions
construct has a reliability of 0.90 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The
model t the data well (2(144) = 335.23, p b .001, NFI = 0.99,
NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.05). Table 3 shows the standardized parameter estimates, t-values, and signicance levels for the
hypotheses. Results suggest that, except for H7, where no signicant relationship exists between satisfaction and revisit intentions ( = .17,
t = 1.89, p N .05), the model links are all signicant (p b .01) and are
all in accordance with their respective hypotheses. Overall, the model
explains the majority of the variance in the endogenous constructs
satisfaction (60%), identication (57%), promoting (57%), and revisit intentions (52%).

2230

M. Hultman et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 22272231

Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis for destination personality.a
Destination personality traits

Factor 1
Excitement

Charming
0.71
Original
0.70
Imaginative
0.70
Exciting
0.69
Unique
0.61
Spirited
0.60
Upper-class
0.08
Glamorous
0.24
Elegant
0.32
Sophisticated
0.18
Trendy
0.08
Energetic
0.33
Active
0.28
Dynamic
0.33
Lively
0.41
Reliable
0.29
Responsible
0.01
Stable
0.02
Sincere
0.43
Honest
0.30
Funny
0.10
Warm
0.29
Cheerful
0.42
Tough
0.12
Rugged
0.17
Bold
0.16
Eigenvalues
10.43
% of Variance
40.11
KMO = 0.92, Bartlett's test: 2(325) = 7899.82, p b .01
a

Factor 2
Sophistication

Factor 3
Activeness

Factor 4
Dependability

Factor 5
Philoxenia

Factor 6
Ruggedness

0.18
0.13
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.18
0.85
0.84
0.78
0.70
0.67
0.14
0.12
0.23
0.18
0.16
0.21
0.32
0.03
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.18
0.09
0.02
0.30
2.34
9.00

0.11
0.21
0.16
0.36
0.28
0.30
0.06
0.12
0.01
0.18
0.42
0.78
0.78
0.66
0.60
0.15
0.33
0.25
0.01
0.07
0.25
0.10
0.26
0.10
0.10
0.31
1.74
6.71

0.20
0.34
0.15
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.01
0.17
0.25
0.01
0.19
0.21
0.17
0.10
0.73
0.70
0.67
0.64
0.64
0.09
0.22
0.21
0.14
0.11
0.14
1.59
6.13

0.28
0.03
0.20
0.17
0.14
0.16
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.11
0.15
0.26
0.19
0.09
0.37
0.11
0.10
0.03
0.23
0.33
0.80
0.72
0.66
0.01
0.15
0.02
1.19
4.57

0.02
0.10
0.17
0.20
0.15
0.21
0.70
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.15
0.24
0.14
0.06
0.26
0.14
0.17
0.19
0.04
0.07
0.02
0.86
0.76
0.68
.94
3.60

Varimax rotation converging in 7 iterations. The bold values indicate the signicant factor loadings.

5. Discussion
While recent advances in the general marketing eld point to the
importance of brand personality and customer brand identication in
explaining aspects of consumer behavior, research is scarce on the role
of these elements in tourism. To address this shortcoming, the current
study develops and tests a model linking destination personality and
touristdestination identication with tourist satisfaction, positive
word-of-mouth, and revisit intentions.
The results reveal that although tourists appear to ascribe distinct
personality characteristics to touristic destinations, Aaker's (1997)
penta-factorial brand personality structure is not fully applicable in
this case. Excitement, sophistication, and ruggedness, in addition to
the novel characteristics (i.e., activeness, dependability, and philoxenia)
can instead describe destination personality in a better way. The emergence of these tourism-specic personality dimensions is not surprising
considering the idiosyncrasies of the tourism offering, which delivers
mainly emotional experiences rather than tangible features. Interestingly, philoxenia resembles the conviviality dimension Hosany et al.
(2006) nd in their research. Further, the current study identies a
shift of individual adjectives between personality dimensions relative

Table 3
Structural equation model results.

Table 2
Correlations and measurement statistics.

Hypotheses

Measures

1. Destination personality
2. Satisfaction
3. Identication
4. Promoting
5. Revisit intentions
MEAN
SD

CR
AVE

1.00
0.67
0.60
0.58
0.52

1.00
0.63
0.59
0.53

4.78
0.93
0.85
0.80
0.50

5.51
1.46
0.94
0.90
0.76

p b .01.

to Aaker (1997). This situation is also the case in some prior research
(e.g., Hosany et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2007). The cause of this phenomenon may be brandadjective interaction. Individual words may
assume varying meanings depending on the type of product these
words describe (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Destination marketers therefore need to consider tourism-specic traits when developing destination personalities. Clearly, future research should rene and validate a
personality framework that is applicable across a wider range of touristic destinations.
The results further suggest that destination personality is a determinant not only of tourist satisfaction and promoting, but also of revisit
intentions. That destination personality encourages that touristdestination identication is an important nding in the eld. Marketers
should consider this phenomenon when designing destination personalities to attract target market segments. Overall, the ndings concur
with Ekinci and Hosany's (2006) conclusion that brand personality constitutes a viable metaphor for understanding tourists' perceptions of
destinations, building destination brands, and creating unique touristic
destination identities.

1.00
0.61
0.51
4.74
1.47
0.86
0.79
0.69

1.00
0.43
4.67
1.49
0.86
0.79
0.70

1.00
5.13
1.80

Standardized loadings

t-Values

Destination personality Satisfaction

0.78
10.44
Destination personality Identication
0.41
5.18
Destination personality Promoting
0.27
3.34
Destination personality Revisit intentions
0.31
3.15
Satisfaction Identication
0.39
5.38
Satisfaction Promoting
0.20
2.65
Satisfaction Revisit intentions
0.17
1.89
Identication Promoting
0.36
4.99
Identication Revisit intentions
0.31
3.58
Fit indices: 2(144) = 335.23, p b .001, NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA =
0.05
p b .01.

M. Hultman et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 22272231

Another intriguing result is what did not work: Results do not corroborate the direct effect of satisfaction on revisit intentions. While
most tourism research coincides with the general marketing literature
that satisfaction results in return intentions (e.g., Chi & Qu, 2008),
some studies suggest that this link does not always hold. The cause
may lie in the additional ramications of the touristic context: People
relatively seldom purchase vacations, and novelty seeking is a key component driving tourist behavior (Pearce & Kang, 2009). Nevertheless,
destination managers should never underestimate the importance of
tourist satisfaction given its role as chief predictor of touristdestination
identication and promoting and its indirect effects on revisit intentions
via identication.
Another interesting nding concerns the benecial outcomes of
identication. Tourists with strong psychological attachments to a destination not only intend to revisit it, but also serve as goodwill ambassadors through their promoting behavior. This role is of vital importance
for destination managers because positive word-of-mouth incurs no
expenses and is far more credible than traditional marketing promotions. Tourism scholars should take note that identication fulls a
self-denitional need and provides tourists with emotional returns.
Thus, understanding identication can lead to a better understanding
of tourist behavior.
This study has certain limitations (e.g., cross-sectional research
design and specic context) that can inspire future research. Future research should assess generalizability to other populations and contexts
through a series of comparisons over studies with wider and diverse
samples and settings. Future studies could also incorporate into the
present model additional components of consumer behavior in tourism
such as motivations, normative inuence, and self-construal. Potential
interactive effects might further shape the strength and direction of
the relationships in this study (e.g., the effect of identication on the
satisfactionrevisit intentions relationship). Finally, this study takes an
aggregated approach in conceptualizing destination personality; therefore, future studies can further examine the effect and relative strength
of individual personality dimensions.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347356.
Aaker, J. L., & Fournier, S. (1995). The brand as a character, a partner and a person: Three
perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in Consumer Research, 22,
391396.
Alegre, J., & Juaneda, C. (2006). Destination loyalty: Consumers' economic behavior.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 684706.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprot marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2),
89105.
Boyer, P. (1996). What makes anthropomorphism natural: Intuitive ontology and cultural
representations. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2(1), 8397.

2231

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is
it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 5268.
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the InternetThe state of eTourism research.
Tourism Management, 29(4), 609623.
CaiLiping, A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(3), 720742.
Chen, C., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship
and loyalty. Tourism Management, 36, 269278.
Chi, C. G., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image,
tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism
Management, 29(4), 624636.
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 127139.
Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Baloglu, S. (2007). Host image and destination personality.
Tourism Analysis, 12(56), 433446.
Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Preciado, S. (2013). Symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands. Journal of Business Research, 66(6), 711718.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumer and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343373.
Gallarza, M., & Gil Saura, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and
loyalty: An investigation of university students' travel behaviour. Tourism
Management, 27(3), 437452.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009). Social identity and the service-prot
chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 3854.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination personality:
An application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business Research,
59(5), 638642.
Hou, J., Lin, C., & Morais Duarte, B. (2005). Antecedents of attachment to a cultural tourism
destination: The case of hakka and non-hakka taiwanese visitors to pei-pu, Taiwan.
Journal of Travel Research, 44(2), 221233.
Lee, C., Yoon, Y., & Lee, S. (2007). Investigating the relationships among perceived value,
satisfaction, and recommendations: The case of the Korean DMZ. Tourism
Management, 28(1), 204214.
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality
and tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458468.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identication. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103123.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 514.
Pearce, P. L., & Kang, M. (2009). The effects of prior and recent experience on continuing
interest in tourist settings. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 172190.
Pitt, L. F., Opoku, R., Hultman, M., Abratt, R., & Spyropoulou, S. (2007). What I say about
myself: Communication of brand personality by African Countries. Tourism
Management, 28(3), 835844.
Qu, H., Hyunjung, K. M., & Hyunjung, H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management,
32(3), 465476.
Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, & travel behavior: Toward
an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340352.
Tsiotsou, R., & Ratten, V. (2010). Future research directions in tourism marketing.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(4), 533544.
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition
and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454463.
Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: An application of
self-congruity theory. Tourism Management, 32(1), 114127.
Weaver, P. A., Karin, Weber, & McCleary, K. W. (2007). Destination evaluation: The role of
previous travel experience and trip characteristics. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3),
333344.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction
on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26(1), 4556.