8/12/2019 MAGE PERCEPTION Tourism Destination

1/4

RESEARCH NOTE

TRACKING TOURISM DESTINATIONIMAGE PERCEPTION

Samuel Seongseop KimSejong University, Korea

Bob McKercherHyerin Lee

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China

One of the most prolific research topics in tourism revolves around identifyingimages for a particular tourist destination. Previous image research has proved thepractical and theoretical significance of image studies. Different types of destina-

tion image studies seek to assess image changes or differences in image percep-tions between pre-visitors and post-visitors (Chon 1991); before and after trips(Grosspietsch 2006); before and after a mega-event (Kim and Morrison 2005),and between ideal and actual images (Botha, Crompton and Kim 1999).

Previous studies indicating change in perception of image over time are suscep-tible to measurement frequency deficiencies. Most studies measuring destinationimage are oneoff studies conducted at tourist sites (Kim and Morrison 2005;San Martin and Rodriguez del Bosque 2008), before arrival (Lin, Morais, Kerstetterand Hou 2008), or after the tourist has departed (Castro, Armario and Ruiz 2007).Thus, a survey approach is vulnerable to limitations of memory recall about a ques-tion asking expected or ideal image before the actual tour in order to compare it

to actual image.As explained above, memory decay is likely to pose a problem with inaccurate

answering and tourism experience varies according to passage of time (Li, Cheng,Kim and Petrick 2008). Thus, to overcome the problems associated with themeasurement time and frequency, this study measures the image of Australia asa tourism destination as perceived by Korean tourists over three time periods:before, during, and after their tour in Australia. This study is an initial empirical

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 715718, 20090160-7383/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

All rights reserved.Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS

This Department publishes research notes, conference reports, reports on thework of public agencies and associations, field (industry) reports, and other rele-vant topics and timely issues. Contributions to this department are submittedto its two Associate Editors: Research Notes to Juergen Gnoth and Conference Reports to Russell Smith. Unsolicited conference and agency reports will not beaccepted.

715

8/12/2019 MAGE PERCEPTION Tourism Destination

2/4

8/12/2019 MAGE PERCEPTION Tourism Destination

3/4

nient, high quality, clean, satisfying), relaxation image (safe, relax-ing, stable, comfortable), and negative image (expensive, trivial,out of order, crowded). The four dimensions explained 61.3% and the reliabil-ity alphas were higher than or close to the standard of .70.

Table 1 displays the results of the use of the GLM with repeated measures toexamine differences in perceived cognitive and affective image before, duringand after visits to Australia. Significant differences were found for two of the fivedimensions. The two dimensions which showed significant difference weredevelopment of tourism industry (p< .01) and environment (p< .01). Forexample, with regard to the development of tourism industry dimensions,respondents were more positive about the Australian tourist industry and consid-ered it more well-developed during and after their actual visit compared to beforetheir visit.

Significant differences (p< .001) were shown for three of the four imagedimensions regarding perception of affective image. Interestingly, the same pat-

tern was observed for the three image dimensions where the highest mean scorewas found after the visit, followed by before the visit and during the visit. Theresults indicate that respondents affective perception of Australia did not im-prove during their visit. However, after the overall tour experience, a more po-sitive affective image perception emerged compared to before and during thevisit.

When the magnitude of a change in image perception between the cognitive im-age and affective image measurements was compared, this study found that affec-tive image was more volatile than cognitive images. This finding indicates touristsperception of affective image may change more easily according to emotional con-ditions or situations on a tour itinerary. On the other hand, cognitive images may

last longer and be steadier than emotional images because cognitive formation islikely to be based on previous acquisition of knowledge or information related to atourism destination (Martin and des Bosque 2008).

Since there are few previous studies tracking image change over time using thesame sample, results of this study are useful in understanding tourists percep-tional flow according to their itinerary. Since this finding indicates fluctuationin image perceptions over time, future studies are likely to consider multiple surveytime points. In particular, consideration in timing of the survey is critical when

Table 1. Analysis of Images at Three Points in Time

Cognitive image domains Before visit During visit After visit F-value p-value

Domain 1: Development oftourism industry

4.76 4.60 4.75 5.26* .005

Domain 2: Environment 5.53 5.61 5.71 5.72* .003Domain 3: Social features 4.88 4.83 4.95 1.21 .299Domain 4: Traditional features 4.15 4.04 4.11 1.46 .232Domain 5: Shopping and nightlife 4.55 4.50 4.60 1.43 .240

Affective image domains Before visit During visit After visit F-value p-value

Domain 1: New and active image 4.63 4.52 4.72 8.90**

.000Domain 2: Clean and beneficialimage

4.99 4.89 5.16 13.37** .000

Domain 3: Relaxation image 5.07 5.03 5.25 9.04** .000Domain 4: Negative image 3.52 3.57 3.64 2.06 .128

Note: *p< .01. **p< .001.

Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 715734 717

8/12/2019 MAGE PERCEPTION Tourism Destination

4/4

measuring affective image of a tourism destination. Further, there is likely to be aneed of measuring more than once because tourists image perceptions vary overtime.

REFERENCES

Botha, C., J. Crompton, and S. Kim1999 Developing a Revised Competitive Position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa.

Journal of Travel Research 37 (May):341352.Castro, C., E. Armario, and D. Ruiz

2007 The Influence of Market Heterogeneity on the Relationship between aDestinations Image and Tourists Future Behavior. Tourism Management28:175187.

Chon, J.1991 Tourism Destination Image: Marketing Implications. Tourism Management 12

(1):6872.Grosspietsch, M.2006 Perceived and Projected Images of Rwanda: Visitor and International Tour

Operator Perspectives. Tourism Management 27:225234.Kim, S., and J. Agrusa

2005 The Positioning of Overseas Honeymoon Destinations. Annals of TourismResearch 32 (4):887904.

Kim, S., and A. Morrison2005 Change of the Image of Korea as Perceived by Foreign Tourists Before and

After the 2002 World Cup. Tourism Management 26 (2):233247.Li, X., C.-K. Cheng, H. Kim, and J. Petrick

2008 A Systematic Comparison of First-Time and Repeat Visitors via a Two-Phase

Online Survey. Tourism Management 29:278293.Lin, C., D. Morais, D. Kerstetter, and J. Hou2008 Examining the Role of Cognitive and Affective Image in Predicting Choice

Across Natural, Developed, and Theme-Park Destinations. Journal of TravelResearch 46 (November):183194.

Martin, H., and I. des Bosque2008 Exploring the CognitiveAffective Nature of Destination Image and The Role

of Psychological Factors in its Formation. Tourism Management 28:263277.Nunnally, J.

1978 Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hall.San Martin, H., and I. A. Rodriguez del Bosque

2008 Exploring the Cognitive-Affective Nature of Destination Image and the Role of

Psychological Factors in its Formation. Tourism Management 29:263277.Tabachnick, B., and L. Fidell1996 Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College

Publishers.

Samuel Seongseop Kim:Associate Professor, Department of Hospitality and Tour-ism Management, Sejong University Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, Korea.Email:

Received 25 April 2008. Revised 17 April 2009. Accepted for publication 28 April 2009.

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.04.007

718 Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 715734