Halo effects of touristsGÇÖ destination image on domestic product perceptions

8/12/2019 Halo effects of touristsG destination image on domestic product perceptions

1/7

Halo effects of tourists destination image on domestic product perceptions

Richard Lee , Larry Lockshin 1

University of South Australia, School of Marketing, North Terrace, Adelaide 5000, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 March 2010Revised 10 November 2010Accepted 19 November 2010Available online 14 December 2010

Keywords:Country-of-originDestination imageHalo effectsTourist behaviourFamiliarity

a b s t r a c t

Country-of-origin (COO) image may imbue product beliefs, just as beliefs about a travel destination canformfrom destination image. As COO and destination image bothconcern belief formations fromimages,

we meld these research streams to investigate the inuence of destination image on beliefs of and pref-erence for the destinations local products. We posit that consumers may non-consciously form a COOimage from destination image, which in turn inuences product preference. Consumers in China(n = 226) and Chinese tourists in Australia ( n = 235) self-reported their perceptions of Australia as a tourdestination and of Australian wine. The results showthat destination image positively inuences productbeliefs with both samples, but the inuence is stronger with Chinese consumers who are unfamiliar withAustralia. Destination image inuences product preference indirectly via product beliefs. A key manage-rial implication is that exporters and tourism authorities should cooperate to harness a countrys desti-nation image for exports.

Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of the Australian and New ZealandMarketing Academy. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Country-of-origin research and travel destination research havedeveloped separately through different streams even though theyseem to be measuring similar constructs country images thatare reected by cognitive beliefs. Although these two researchstreams appear to share common ground in relating a countrysimage to products, as we elaborate below, no empirical studieshave attempted to meld them into a more coherent whole.

Country-of-origin (COO) effects concern how consumers useimages of a products origin country to form product perceptionsand preferences ( Demirbag et al., 2010; Roth and Diamantopoulos,2009 ). Especially when they are unfamiliar with the products, con-sumers may use this image as a halo to infer product attributessuch as quality ( Bilkey and Nes, 1982 ) or even social status ( Batraet al., 2000 ). Since Schoolers (1965) seminal work, COO studieshave traditionally focused on how consumers derive product be-liefs from mere made in country cues (e.g., Han, 1989 ), or fromtheir overall perceptions of a country, such as its state of develop-ment or the technology skills of its workforce (e.g., Demirbag et al.,2010; Pappu et al., 2010 ). None have attempted to relate productbeliefs to images specically from a tourism perspective. Also,COO research mostly concerns consumers perceptions of productsavailable in their own countries ( Srinivisan and Jain, 2003; Verlegh

andSteenkamp, 1999 ) with little regard to consumer visits to other

countries.In contrast to COO image, destination image researchcentres ontourism as the product category and countries as tourism brands(Beerli and Martin, 2004; Gallarza et al., 2002; Pike, 2002 ). Studiesin this area show that favourable destination images increaseintentions or behaviour to visit/revisit the destinations. Althoughsome destination image studies have investigated destinations asshopping havens ( Moscardo, 2004 ) or tourists propensity to buysouvenirs ( Tosun et al., 2007 ), little is known about the relation-ship between tourists image of a destination and their beliefsabout the destinations domestic products (e.g., see Pikes, 2002 , re-view of 142 destination image papers).

In this study, we meld COO image and destination image con-cepts, and seek answers to the following questions:

Rather a traditional COO image, would an image of a countryspecically as a tour destination (e.g., whether it has beautifuland interesting places to visit) inuence perceptions of thecountrys products?

If so, does the relationshipbetween destination image andprod-uctperceptions differ between those who are familiar and thosewho are unfamiliar with the country as a tour destination?

How does destination image inuence preference for the coun-trys products?

In order to be clear in our language, we use the word domesticto delineate products of a focal country, the one visited by thetourists. These products (e.g., Australian wine) may be sold in the

1441-3582/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.004

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 83027120; fax: +61 8 83020442.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Lee), [email protected]

(L. Lockshin).1 Tel.: +61 8 83020621; fax: +61 8 83020442.

Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

j ou r na l hom epage : www.e l s ev i e r. co m / loc a t e / amj
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.004mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.004http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14413582http://www.elsevier.com/locate/amjhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/amjhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14413582http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.004mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.004


2/7

country visited (Australia), but may also be exported to the tour-ists home country (e.g., China).

Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002, p. 295) lament that acceptanceof the country-image concept is still low, and that marketing acountry or place is often a little-understood panacea [used by gov-ernments out of] necessity rather than choice because their coun-ties or cities were on the economic sick list and in dire need of exports, tourismand foreigninvestment. This study provides a testof our contention that COO and travel destination research can beblended to better understand the effects of a nations image ontourismand consumer behaviourin a globalisingworld. As we elab-orate later, a successful validation of our researchmodel would alsohave applied implications, particularly the links between tourismand product exports.

2. Conceptual development

Before providing support for our arguments that product beliefsmay form from destination image, we briey review literature onthe two distinct research streams.

2.1. Country-of-origin Image

COO effects on product evaluations and preferences are wellknown (see reviews by Srinivisan and Jain, 2003; Verlegh andSteenkamp, 1999 ). Research concurs that when consumers donot know or are unable to detect a products true characteristics,they often use their perceptions of the products country-of-originto form stereotypical perceptions of the product. Consequently,consumers favour products from countries with positive imagesto those with negative images.

Researchers liken COO image to an extrinsic and intangible cuethat is distinct from the physical product ( Chattalas and Takada,2008; Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999 ). Like retailer reputation orprice, COO image can signal and be used to manipulate perceivedproduct quality without material changes to a product. For exam-

ple, an early study found that when they were told of the country-of-origin, Japanese consumers associated the US with complexindustrial products, such as cars, that were more expensive andless reliable than German or UK products ( Nagashima, 1970 ). Like-wise, US consumers associated made-in-Japan labels with mass-produced and technologically advanced electronic products, andpreferred Japanese cameras and radios to those from other coun-tries. Similarly, Liu and Johnson (2005) found that when experi-mental participants were exposed to a products country-of-origin, they automatically formed country-specic beliefs aboutthe product. The participants had sufcient information aboutthe products attributes to evaluate the product without bias andwere told that COO information was irrelevant, but they stillformed stereotypical beliefs that inuenced their evaluations.

While positive COOimagesmayleadto favourable product eval-uations, negative COOimages canbe formidable barriers to market-ers, even if the perceptions are misguided or erroneous ( Johanssonet al., 1994 ). Indeed, COO image may give rise to idiosyncraticprod-uct beliefs. For instance, Leclerc et al. (1994) demonstrated thatFrench-sounding brand names improved the evaluation of hedonicproducts such as perfume, but lowered the evaluation of utilitarianones such as computers. Moreover, the evaluations persisted afterconsumers had actually experienced the products. We also com-ment here that the COO literature has not used travel destinationimages as part of the measurement of the country of origin image.

2.2. Destination image

In contrast to COO image, destination image in tourismresearchis an overall representation of beliefs, ideas, and impressions of a

travel destination ( Pike, 2002; Stepchenkova and Morrison,2008 ). Similar to the relationship between COO image and productpreference, favourable destination images may result in visits orrevisits to the destinations ( Beerli and Martin, 2004; Gallarzaet al., 2002 ).

Many researchers credit Hunts (1975) seminal work on howinterstate US residents viewed other states as travel destinationshow they viewed the residents from those other states with spur-ring research interest in destination image (e.g., see Beerli andMartin, 2004; Gallarza et al., 2002 ). Hunt (1975) surveyed peoplefrom different US regions about their views of the Rocky Mountainstates of Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming and after ndingsimilar positive responses, suggested that states should capitaliseon their images as destinations through promotion.

In his review of 142 destination image studies conducted be-tween 1973 and 2000, Pike (2002) showed that tourists image per-ceptions of a destination may inuence a wide range of mattersincluding top of mind awareness, length of stay, frequency of visits,and even perceived value of the destination. Supporting Pikes nd-ings, Stepchenkova and Morrison (2008) found that when potentialUS travellers lacked objective information about Russian tourismattractions, those with more (less) negative image of Russia as atour destination were less (more) willing to tour Russia. Theauthors stressed the importance of marketing efforts to correctthe negative perceptions in order to help spur Russian tourism.In summary, there is substantial evidence to support the positiveinuence of favourable destination image on tourist behaviourand tourism business.

2.3. The non-conscious inuence of destination image on product beliefs

As the above review shows, a countrys image may stem fromcharacteristics such as its history, people, or even its military andpolitical involvement in the world stage. By contrast, destinationimage focuses narrowly on what interests temporary visitors to acountry, such as the standards of its hotels and its places of inter-ests. Some researchers postulate that the two concepts COO im-age and destination image overlap, but they are unsure to whatdegree or have not tested the relationship empirically ( Gnoth,2002; Stepchenkova and Morrison, 2008 ).

In this study, we attempt to show that destination image mayinuence product beliefs, much like COO image does. A conrma-tion of our hypothesis would mean that tourists may form productbeliefs from their perceptions of a tour destination. It also providessupport to researchers postulation that country image and desti-nation image overlap. As we further elaborate, consumers mayunconsciously overlap COO image and destination image, resultingin them using destination image to colour beliefs about the coun-trys products.

COO images are likened to halos that extend their inuence toperceptions about the countrys products ( Boatwright et al.,2008; Han, 1989 ). Early research suggests that the effectivenessof halos stems from people having a fundamental inability to re-sist the affective inuence of global evaluation on evaluation of specic attributes, especially when they are unaware of the halosexistence ( Nisbett and Wilson, 1977, p. 255 ). Furthermore, whenconsumers are unconscious of the stimulus that biases their per-ceptions, the stimulus may be triggered by the mere presence of a related mental concept ( Bargh, 2002; Fitzsimons et al., 2002 ).

For example, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) provide evidence thatpeople unconsciously base their judgments of an object on theiroverall impression or halo about the object. In their experiment,participants rated a college teachers appearance, mannerism and

accent after being shown one of two videos of the teacher. One vi-deo showed the teacher as likeable and approachable, while the

8 R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713


3/7

other portrayed him as cold and aloof, although the rated attri-butes were identical in both videos. Not only did the two groupsof participants rate the identical attributes differently, they re-ported that their attribute ratings led to their overall evaluationof the teacher; they wrongly believed that their overall impressionof the teacher stemmed from their objective attribute ratings. Theauthors concluded that the participants were unaware of a halooperating on their judgments, and had they known the outcomemight be different. In other words, such altered judgments requirethe absence of awareness [of the global evaluation driving the judgments] (p. 256, italic original).

Bargh (2002) similarly cited a series of experiments to showthat behaviour may be unconsciously modied by passive activa-tion of mental stimuli related to the behaviour. The author gavean example, where presenting subjects with words related topoliteness resulted in them acting more politely than subjectswho were not shown the words. This phenomenon was already ob-served in early psychologyexperiments, which found that repeatedexposures to an object could inuence attitude towards the object(Zajonc, 1968 ), especially when conscious processing was minimalor even absent ( Bornstein and DAgostino, 1992 ). Likewise, Fitzsi-mons et al. (2002) surmise that salient visual cues play a key rolein non-conscious consumer decisions.

Collectively, the above studies suggest that consumers maynon-consciously form a COO image from the presence of a relatedmental concept, destination image. Although they may be unawareof the presence of this stimulus (i.e., COO image), they nonethelessrely on this stimulus as a halo to derive their perceptions about thedestinations products. We therefore hypothesise that:

H1. Destination image relates positively to beliefs about domesticproducts. That is, the more (less) positive the destination image,the more (less) favourable the beliefs about the destinationsproducts.

2.4. The moderating inuence of destination familiarity

As we contend earlier, the effectiveness of a halo decreases withits awareness ( Bargh, 2002; Nisbett and Wilson, 1977 ). This con-tention is similar to studies that show that familiarity with a coun-try or its products may interfere with the workings of COO effects(Chattalas and Takada, 2008; Johansson et al., 1985 ). People whoare more (less) familiar with a country or its products may rely less(more) on COO image to form product beliefs.

Some researchers draw on cognitive processing theory to ex-plain the moderating inuence of familiarity on COO effects. Liuand Johnson (2005; also see Knight and Calantone, 2000) suggestthat when consumers can easily assess their belief structure frommemory, they rely more on cognitive information than images to

judge products. Otherwise, consumers automatically activate ste-reotypical imagesfromtheir long-termmemory to formjudgments.This implies that when familiarity is high, COO effects tend to beweak as consumers rely on cognitions to form overall judgments.

That increasing familiarity through actual travel experiencemay change consumers overall country image as well as productperceptions is illustrated in an early study by Papadopoulos andHeslop (1986) . The authors found that compared with those whohad not been to a country, those who had might hold differentimages about the country and preferences for the countrys prod-ucts. For example, non-visitors to Sweden held high regards forthe country possibly from their knowledge of Swedish icons suchas Volvo and the rock-group ABBA. Those who had visited Sweden,however, reduced their images to more ordinary level presum-

ably by drawing on theiractual countryknowledge (p. 196). Hence,we hypothesise that:

H2. Destination familiarity negatively moderates the relationshipbetween destination image and product beliefs. That is, consumerswho are more (less) familiar with a destination rely less (more) ondestination image to form their beliefs about the destinationsdomestic products.

2.5. Inuence of destination image on product preference

While destination image may inuence beliefs about domesticproducts, we further argue that these product beliefs mediate theinuence of destination image on preference for domestic prod-ucts. Support comes from Han (1989) , who demonstrates thatCOO image is a halo that directly inuences product beliefs, whichin turn inuence brand attitude, but COO image does not relate di-rectly to brand attitude.

Similarly, investigating the directional relationships amongCOO image, product beliefs and brand attitude, Erickson et al.(1984; also see Johansson et al., 1985) show that country imagedetermines the formation of inferential beliefs, which in turn havea forward effect on brand attitude. In contrast, COO image does notrelate to brand attitude directly, nor does attitude possesses a halothat ows back to beliefs. Besides, it makes sense that the image of a travel location, such as its places of interest and landscape,should not directly bring to mind preferences for domestic prod-ucts over those from other countries.

Furthermore, for the past few decades, research in COO effects(see meta-analyses by Srinivisan and Jain (2003), Verlegh andSteenkamp (1999) ) have well established the positive relationshipbetween beliefs and outcomes arising from the beliefs. In thisstudy, we similarly expect that positive beliefs about domesticproducts would lead to increased preference for the products.Hence, we hypothesise that:

H3. Product beliefs mediate the relationship between destinationimage and product preference. That is, destination image does not

inuence product preference directly, but via product beliefs.

H4. Product beliefs have a direct and positive impact on productpreference. That is, consumers with more (less) positive beliefsabout a destinations domestic products are more (less) likely toprefer the products.

Fig. 1 summarises the relationships in the four hypotheses.

moderatesDestinationFamiliarity

Beliefs aboutDomestic Product

(PB)

Preference forDomestic Product

(PDP)

DestinationImage (DI)

H3H4

H1

H2

Fig. 1. The research model.

R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713 9


4/7


5/7

Within-subject t -tests further conrmed that the PP1PP2 pair( p = 0.478) and PP3PP4 pair ( p = 0.726) did not differ signicantly.Collectively, the results suggested that ethnocentricism did notseem to be an issue. Conrmatory factor analysis indicated thatthe four preference items loaded well and possessed adequate reli-ability. Hence, we adopted all four items for the construct.

Finally, to control for possible inuence of familiarity withAustralian wine, respondents self-reported their level of familiaritywith Australian wine via a seven-point scale question Prior to thistrip, how familiar are you with Australian wine?.

3.2. Data analysis

We used structural equation modelling with maximum likeli-hood estimation ( www.spss.com/Amos ) to specify the conceptualmodel in Fig. 1 . Prior to running the model, we analysed the datafor reliability and validity. Correlation coefcients among all itemsranged from 0.101 to 0.816, well below the 0.9 collinearity thresh-old ( Hair et al., 2006 ). Following Fornell and Larckers (1981, p. 45)procedure, we further determined that construct reliability rangedfrom 0.875 to 0.95, above the recommended threshold of 0.7. As anexploratory study, construct reliability scores for the three factors destination image, product beliefs, and product preference were also acceptable with Cronbachs alphas ranging from 0.815to 0.929 ( Hair et al., 2006 ).

We further tested construct validity by comparing the variance-extracted estimates of a pair of constructs with the square of thecorrelation between the constructs, and repeating the test for allconstruct-pairs ( Fornell and Larcker, 1981, p. 46 ). Variance ex-tracted estimates for the three constructs ranged from 0.585 to0.826, and exceeded the squaredcorrelations for the correspondingconstruct-pairs ( r 2 ranged from0.018 to 0.415), thereby supportingconstruct validity. Finally, as an exploratory study, tting themeasurement model yielded satisfactory indices (CFI = 0.939,GFI = 0.9015, TLI = 0.925, RMR = 0.068, normed v 2 = 4.811) ( Hairet al., 2006 ). Explained variances ( R2) were 59% and 65% for the

China and Australia samples, respectively.

4. Results

Table2 shows the standardised structural path coefcients aftertting the two samples. As the results indicate, destination imagerelated strongly and positively to product beliefs with both sam-ples. Hence, H1 was supported.

The path coefcient between destinationimage and product be-liefs was higher for the China sample ( b = 0.736) than the Austra-lian sample ( b = 0.165). We tested whether the two pathcoefcients differed signicantly using a procedure suggested byHolmes-Smith et al. (2006) . First, we estimated a baseline struc-tural model by assigning each sample to a group, which yielded

v2

= 499; df = 148. Next, an invariant structural model made theparameter value for each corresponding structural path of bothgroups equal. Running the invariant model produced the corre-sponding v 2 = 507; df = 151. A chi-square test showed that the dif-ference between the baseline and invariant models was signicant( p = 0.046), meaning that all corresponding path coefcients in thetwo samples were statistically different. Hence, H2 was supported.That is, as destination familiarity increased, respondents were lesslikely to rely on destination image to form product beliefs.

Hypothesis H3 contended that destination image inuencesproduct preference indirectly via product beliefs, while H4 arguedthat product beliefs positively relate to product preference. AsTable 2 shows, the relationships between destination image andproduct preference were insignicant with both samples. By con-

trast, product beliefs related signicantly and positively to productpreference. Thus, both H3 and H4 were supported.

To test whether consumers familiarity with Australian winehad impacted the results, two tests were conducted. A between-

subjects t -test ( t = 0.347; df = 459; p = 0.728) showed that prod-uct familiarity did not differ between the two samples. Addingan interaction term (destination image product familiarity) tothe model in Fig. 1 yielded insignicant path coefcients for theChina ( p = 0.09) and Australian ( p = 0.083) samples. Combined,the results suggested that product familiarity was not an issue.

5. Discussions and conclusions

Research in country-of-origin (COO) effects suggests that espe-cially consumers often rely on an overall image or halo of a prod-ucts country-of-origin to form product beliefs. Tourism researchin destination image shows that tourists with positive images of a destination tend to favour visiting or revisiting the destination.Our study melds these two distinct but related research streamsinto one theoretical framework to investigate the relationshipsamong destination image, product beliefs, and preference fordomestic products. In addition, it investigates the moderatinginuence of destination familiarity on these relationships.

The results show that rather than using COO image, a tradi-tional construct used in COO studies, consumers may use destina-tion image to form product beliefs. With both samples, afavourable destination image leads to positive product beliefs.However, the relationship is stronger with the China sample(where destination familiarity is low) than with the Australiansample (where destinationfamiliarity is high). Also, product beliefsmediate the inuence of destination image on product preference.These results have several implications.

Firstly, it does appear that the perceived image of a country, beit a country in general or specically as a travel destination, hassignicant inuence on how people develop beliefs about thecountrys products. Thorndike (1920) rst noticed this halo effectwhen he noticed that army superiors were unable to analysedifferent aspects of ofcers under their command. Instead, thesuperiors were apparently affected by a marked tendency to thinkof the person in general as rather good or rather inferior and to col-or the judgments of his/her qualities by this general feeling [by]suffusing ratings of special features with a halo belonging to theindividual as a whole ( Thorndike, 1920, p. 25 ).

Secondly, our ndings suggest that there may an underpinningrelationship between destination image and COO image. What weare unsure of is whether the two images relate sequentially, where

destination image rst give rise to a COO image and then to prod-uct beliefs. If so, to what extent is the formation of a COO image

Table 2

Fitting the conceptual models using structural equation modelling.

Low familiarity (Chinasample; n = 226)

High familiarity(Australia sample;n = 235)

Structuralmodel ts

CFI = 0.898, GFI = 0.891,TLI = 0.874,RMR = 0.057,normed v 2 = 2.519

CFI = 0.924,GFI = 0.845,TLI= 0.906,

RMR = 0.069,normed v 2 = 4.227

Destinationimage ? productbeliefs

D 0.736 0.165 p


6/7

fromdestinationimage a non-conscious process?Alternatively, thetwo images may overlap in that there are common elements inconsumers memory structures of the two concepts, and it is thiscommon subset that inuences product beliefs. We defer theinvestigation of an underpinning relationship between the two im-age concepts to future research. Nonetheless, by crossing domainfrom travel to products, the halo effects may have a wider effectthan currently acknowledged or understood.

Thirdly, destination image in tourismmay be similar to the con-cept of national brand articulated by some researchers ( Fan, 2006;Gallarza et al., 2002 ). Unlike COO image, which becomes meaning-less when separated from a product, national brand encapsulates acountrys intangible assets without explicit links to specic prod-ucts. While product brands may come and go, national brandsare virtually perpetual. Hence, a national brand may serve as um-brella brand across a countrys products, although the nationalbrand should not be perceived as nebulously suited to help pro-mote all types of products; the product categories must be relatedto the overall country image.

Fourthly, destination familiarity plays an important role indetermining how destination image may determine product be-liefs. We nd that destination image determines product beliefsand subsequently product preference more (less) under low (high)familiarity conditions. This result is consistent with the notion thatonce people are more aware of the presence of a halo, they are lesslikely to rely on the halo for judgments ( Bargh, 2002; Nisbett andWilson, 1977 ). The results also corroborates with researchers(Han, 1989; Liu and Johnson, 2005 ), who show that consumerswho are familiar with an object tend to rely more on cognitions,than on images, about the object for judgments.

Finally, our results show that destination image does not di-rectly relate to product preference,butviaproduct beliefs.This out-come contrasts with other studies that report direct links betweenCOO image and purchase intentions (e.g., Han, 1990 ). Althoughmore tests are needed, this result does provide hint of a possiblesequentialprocesswhereby consumersrstform a COOimagefromdestination image before using image to form product beliefs.

5.1. Applied implications

As trade globalisation increases business activities and makesbrands from multiple countries compete in common markets,this studys ndings should interest exporters and policy makers,particularly for the tourism and tourism-related (e.g., food andwine) businesses. These parties would benet from knowinghow destination images relate to perceptions of domestic prod-ucts, especially when compared with competing foreign productsavailable in the consumers home country. Furthermore, favour-able or unfavourable perceptions with a particular product maybias evaluations of the countrys other products or brands

( Johansson et al., 1985 ). In this instance, tourist perceptions of Australian wine experienced during their visit may inuencetheir views of other Australian products, such as cheese or meat.We would also expect that promoting domestic products to tour-ists in a subtle and enjoyable way would result in favourablepurchase intentions and even word-of-mouth when the touristsreturn home.

That destination image inuences product beliefs more underlow destination familiarity has important marketing implications.Tourism authorities need to ensure that their marketing effortsin foreigncountries result in portraying the destination favourably.Not only does the perceived destination image inuence visits tothe country, it also inuences perceptions of the countrys productsavailable in the foreign countries. This is particularly clear from the

strong relationship between destination image and product beliefsin the China sample, where respondents are unfamiliar with and

have not visited Australia. Similarly, tourism authorities and in-deed tourism businesses have to ensure that they deliver theexpectations created by the marketing efforts. Tourists also relyon destination image to imbue product beliefs.

The signicant inuence of destination image on product beliefsalso means that exporters can use their home country image tohelp differentiate their products from foreign competitors. This re-quires exporters to work closely with tourism bodies or other pol-icy makers, who are responsible for promoting a country (be it fortrade or for tourism). For example, government sponsored nationalbranding (tourism) campaigns in a foreigncountry may aid export-ers wishing to do business in the country. An example of this coop-eration is the Space for Minds initiative launched by Sweden,where tourism bodies and private industries come together to ona common country-brand platform ( Kleppe and Mossberg, 2006 ).

However, the synergies to be gained fromcountry branding andtourism campaigns within a specic product category would de-pend on the congruence between the overall country image andthe product category (e.g., see Chao et al., 2003 ). This congruencewould be easy to measure with simple surveys or interviews priorto developing the joint campaign. Inbound tourists could be tar-geted with both information and specic product experienceswhile on their visit. For example, many of Australias tourists visitSydney and the beaches of the central Australian coast to the north.Very few visit wine regions, which are located further south andinland nearer to Melbourne and Adelaide. Australian wine produc-ers could develop suitable wine tastings with trained translatorsdelivered in hotels or other scenic locations where the tourists vis-it, rather than expecting the tourists to visit their winery directly.These types of activities could also involve other export food cate-gories, such as seafood or meat quite easily.

Finally, our measures for product beliefs were based on intangi-ble benets, such as status, value for money, and product quality.These product beliefs were seen as more positive, when destina-tion image was more positive, even though the individual itemsin both scales were quite dissimilar. Therefore, marketing effortsto enhance tourists preference for domestic products should assisttourists cognitive processing of information by rst linking thedestination image to product beliefs, rather than directly to prefer-ence for domestic products. In some ways, this pathway relates tothe soft sell approach, where product benets are communicatedto potential buyers rather than a push to make the sale directly.

5.2. Limitations

This study has several limitations that future research shouldaddress. A key limitation is that while we draw on literature innon-conscious consumer behaviour to support our hypotheses,we did not directly test whether destination images inuence on

product beliefs was non-conscious. As an exploratory study usinga quantitative eld survey, this measurement was impractical, if not impossible. Future research could test this contention underexperimental conditions by using different positive and negativeprompts.

Another limitation is the cross sectional methodology, whichmakesexploring causal links difcult. A future survey could be lon-gitudinal, where we rst tap tourists before they arrive in a desti-nation, followed by a survey during their tour, and nally a surveya period after their return. Surveying tourists before their arrivalwould ensure that theirperceptions of a destination and itsdomes-tic products are not based on actual experiences. Follow-up sur-veys could then determine whether actual experiences changeperceptions, and how these changes may impact the relationships

among destination image, product beliefs and product preferences,including post visit purchase behaviour.

12 R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713


7/7

Studies show that COO effects are stronger when country andproduct match, rather than mismatch ( Chao et al., 2003; InschandMcBride, 2004 ). In this study, we only used wine as the contex-tual product, and wine may be related to tourism in that sometourists to Australia visit or patronise vineyards and wineries. Fu-ture research should replicate the research model across multipleproducts, including those that tourists are unlikely to buy duringtheir tours (e.g., cars or computers). Better yet, research should in-volve tourists from different countries, including those from well-known wine markets such as France or the US. This may help shedlight on whether ethnocentrism or nationalistic pride would im-pact the relationships in our research model.

In conclusion, both country-of-origin and destination image re-search have long traditions, and have consistently shown howthose umbrella constructs lead to beliefs about specic productsor places. As with any exploratory research, there are many issuesto resolve as we note above. However, we are condent that thestudys ndings should provide some direction to the growing pop-ularity of tourism marketing, country branding and export promo-tion undertaken around the world.

References

ABS. 2010. Overseas Arrivals and Departures, Australia (August 2010). < http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3401.0 > (accessed 20.09.07).

AWBC, 2008. Wine export approval report (July 2008). Australian Wine and BrandyCorporation, Australia.

Bargh, J.A., 2002. Losing consciousness: automatic inuences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (2),280285.

Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Ramachander, S., 2000.Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developingcountries. Journal of Consumer Psychology 9 (2), 8395.

Beerli, A., Martin, J.D., 2004. Factors inuencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3), 657681.

Bilkey, W.J., Nes, E., 1982. Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journalof International Business Studies 13 (1), 8999.

Boatwright, P., Kalra, A., Wei, Z., 2008. Should consumers use the halo to formproduct evaluations? Management Science 54 (1), 217223.

Bornstein, R.F., DAgostino, P.R., 1992. Stimulus recognition and the mere exposureeffect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (4), 545552.Chao, P., Samiee, S., Yip, L.S.-C., 2003. International marketing and the Asia-Pacic

region: developments, opportunities, and research issues. InternationalMarketing Review 20 (5), 480492.

Chattalas, M., Takada, T.K.H., 2008. The impact of national stereotypes on thecountry of origin effect: a conceptual framework. International MarketingReview 25 (1), 5474.

Craig, C.S., Douglas, S.P., 2005. International Marketing Research, 3rd ed. John Wiley& Sons, Chichester, UK.

Demirbag, M., Sahadev, S., Mellahi, K., 2010. Country image and consumerpreference for emerging economy products: the moderating role of consumermaterialism. International Marketing Review 27 (2), 141163.

Erickson, G.M., Johansson, J.K., Chao, P., 1984. Image variables in multi-attributeproduct evaluations: country-of-origineffects. Journal of Consumer Research 11(2), 694699.

Fan, Y., 2006. Branding the nation: what is being branded? Journal of VacationMarketing 12 (1), 514.

Fitzsimons, G.J., Hutchinson, J.W., Williams, P., Alba, J.W., Chartrand, T.L., Huber, J.,

Kardes, F.R., Menon, G., Raghubir, P., Russo, J.E., Shiv, B., Tavassoli, N.T., 2002.Non-conscious inuences on consumer choice. Marketing Letters 13 (3), 269279.

Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of MarketingResearch 18 (1), 3950.

Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G., Garcia, H.C., 2002. Destination image: towards aconceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1), 5678.

Gnoth, J., 2002. Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand. Journal of Brand Management 9 (4/5), 262280.

Hair, J.F.J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. MultivariateData Analysis, 6th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Han, C.M., 1989. Country image: halo or summary construct? Journal of MarketingResearch 26 (2), 222229.

Han, C.M., 1990. Testing the role of country image in consumer choice behavior.European Journal of Marketing 26 (6), 2440.

Holmes-Smith, P., Coote, L., Cunningham, E., 2006. Structural Equation Modeling:From Fundamentals to Advanced Topics. SREAMS, Melbourne, Australia.

Hunt, J.D., 1975. Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of TravelResearch 13 (3), 17.

Insch, G.S., McBride, J.B., 2004. The impact of country-of-origin cues on consumerperceptions of product quality: a binational test of the decomposed country-of-origin construct. Journal of Business Research 57 (3), 256265.

Johansson, J.K., Douglas, S.P., Nonaka, I., 1985. Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research 22 (4), 388396.

Johansson, J.K., Ronkainen, I.A., Czinkota, M.R., 1994. Negative country-of-origineffects: the case of the new Russia. Journal of International Business Studies157, 176.

Kleppe, I.A., Mossberg, L.L., 2006. Company versus country branding: same, samebut different. In: Asche, F. (Ed.), Primary Industries Facing Global Markets: TheSupply Chains and Markets for Norwegian Food. Copenhagen Business SchoolPress, Herndon, VA, pp. 217246.

Knight, G.A., Calantone, R.J., 2000. A exible model of consumer country-of-originperceptions. International Marketing Review 17 (2/3), 127145.

Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B.H., Dub, L., 1994. Foreign branding and its effects on productperceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2), 263270.

Liu, S.S., Johnson, K.F., 2005. The automatic country-of-origin effects on brand judgments. Journal of Advertising 34 (1), 8797.

Moscardo, G., 2004. Shopping as a destination attraction: an empirical examinationof the role of shopping in tourists destination choice and experience. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10 (4), 294307.

Nagashima, A., 1970. A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward foreignproducts. Journal of Marketing 34 (1), 6874.

Nisbett, R.E., Wilson, T.D., 1977. The haloeffect: evidence for unconscious alterationof judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (4), 250256.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A., 1986. Travel as a correlate of product and countryimage. In: Muller, T. (Ed.), Administrative Sciences Association of CanadaConference, vol. May. Whistler, BC, pp. 191200.

Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A., 2002. Country equity and country branding:problems and prospects. Journal of Brand Management 9 (4/5), 294314.

Pappu, R., Quester, P.G., Cooksey, R.W., 2010. Consumer-based brand equity andcountry-of-origin relationships: some empirical evidence. European Journal of Marketing 40 (5/6), 696717.

Pike, S., 2002. Destination image analysis a review of 142 papers from 1973 to2000. Tourism Management 23 (5), 541549.

Roth, K.P., Diamantopoulos, A., 2009. Advancing the country image construct. Journal of Business Research 62 (7), 726740.

Schooler, R.D., 1965. Product bias in the central american common market. Journalof Marketing Research 2 (4), 394397.

Shimp, T.A., Sharma, S., 1987. Consumer ethnocentrism: constructionand validationof the cetscale. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (3), 280289.

Srinivisan, N., Jain, S.C., 2003. Country of origin effect: synthesis and futuredirection. In: Jain, S.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in International Marketing.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 458476.

Stepchenkova, S., Morrison, A.M., 2008. Russias destination image among Americanpleasure travelers: revisiting Echtner and Ritchie. Tourism Management 29 (3),

548560.Thorndike, E.L., 1920. A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied

Psychology 4 (1), 2529.Tosun, C., Temizkan, S.P., Timothy, D.J., Fyall, A., 2007. Tourist shopping experiences

and satisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research 9 (2), 87102.Verlegh, P.W.J., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., 1999. A review and meta-analysis of country-

of-origin research. Journal of Economic Psychology 20 (5), 521546.Zajonc, R.B., 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 9 (2/Part 2), 127.

Richard Lee teaches consumer behaviour and market-ing research courses with the University of South Aus-tralia. Prior to academia, Dr. Lee spent more than 10years managing the marketing functions of IT/telecom-munication companies in Asia. His research interestsare in the areas of consumer behaviour, particularlywith customer loyalty, social inuences, and word-of-mouth.

Larry Lockshin is Professor of Wine Marketing at theUniversity of South Australia. Dr. Lockshin has spentmore than 20 years working with the wine industry,rst as a viticulturist and now as a marketing academic.He has published over 80 academic articles on winemarketing. He is Associate Editor for the Journal of WineResearch and the International Journal of Wine BusinessResearch . His research interests are consumer choicebehaviour for wine and wine industry strategy.

R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713 13
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3401.0http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3401.0http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3401.0http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3401.0

Halo effects of touristsGÇÖ destination image on domestic product perceptions

Documents

Transcript of Halo effects of touristsGÇÖ destination image on domestic product perceptions