Destination Image Components and Word-Of-Mouth Intentions in Urban Tourism: A Multigroup Approach

584443
research-article2015
JHTXXX10.1177/1096348015584443Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchPapadimitriou et al. / Destination Image Perceptions in Urban Tourism
Destination Image Components

and Word-of-mouth Intentions
in Urban Tourism: A Multigroup
Approach
Dimitra Papadimitriou
University of Patras
Kyriaki (Kiki) Kaplanidou
University of Florida
Artemisia Apostolopoulou
Robert Morris University
The purpose of this study was to explore differences among three distinct groups,
namely local residents, past tourists, and prospective tourists, in their perceptions of
cognitive, affective, and overall image of a city destination and their future behavior.
Analysis of data generally confirmed previously established structural relationships
of cognitive and affective image, overall destination image, and word-of-mouth
intentions. However, differences were identified among the three groups in terms of
their destination image perceptions and their behavioral intentions to engage in word-
of-mouth communications. Specifically, residents who engaged in word-of-mouth were
primarily influenced by the cognitive and affective destination image components,
while tourists relied on overall image perceptions.
Keywords: urban tourism; destination image; cognitive; affective; word-of-

mouth, WOM intentions; residents; past tourists; prospective tourists
Introduction
There are a number of stakeholders that play a role in the formation process
of a destination’s image, including local residents, existing and future tourists
(Bornhorst, Ritchie, & Sheehan, 2010; Merrilees, Miller, & Herington, 2009),
who are usually influenced by the levels of familiarity with the destination
(Baloglu, 2001). Taken together, the perceptions of these stakeholders morph the
brand of a destination (Hankinson, 2004) and instigate a number of branding
initiatives for destinations to respond to intense competition in the tourism
industry (Ashworth & Kavaratzis, 2009). However, literature is lacking in direct
comparisons of local residents, who can speak to the details of the image of the
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2015, 1–25
DOI: 10.1177/1096348015584443
© 2015 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
Downloaded from jht.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 22, 2015
1
2 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH
destination, with those perceptions of tourists or potential tourists. The focus is

usually on either the residents’ destination perceptions (e.g., Merrilees et al.,
2009) or the potential and future tourists (Bonn, Joseph, & Dai, 2005) or a com-
bination of current and past residents (e.g., Novcic, Damnjanovic, & Popesku,
2012; Phillips & Schofield, 2007). This lack of research is more evident for
destinations with an urban feel because of the potential multiple attributes, iden-
tities, and personality an urban place (i.e., city) can have compared with a rural
place.
Destination image perceptions relate to destination branding, which can
prove to be a particularly complex task given that destinations such as cities are
multifaceted entities and inevitably mean different things to different consumers
(Ashworth & Kavaratzis, 2009; Ashworth & Page, 2011). As Freire (2009, p.
420) stresses, even in cases where they are not managed as brands, cities are
inherently “embedded with meaning” that leads to the creation of a city destina-
tion image. An equally important challenge is how the destination image of a
city and the images circulated by the tourism industry relate to the real brand
image and its potential to associate with a positive tourist experience offered by
the city (Anholt, 2004). The roots of these arguments are in the absence of an
adequately developed understanding of how people process perceptions and
images about the city as a tourism destination and a place to live. Although there
is consistent acknowledgment for the importance of destination image for tour-
ism development, what is lacking is a comprehensive understanding of its com-
ponents and interrelationships among various “consumers” such as local
residents, past tourists, and potential tourists. Such understanding would
empower destination experts to exploit the character of the city for tourism
development (Elliot, Papadopoulos, & Kim, 2011).
Two key issues, rather underresearched, can be underlined in this direction.
The first is that tourism image change depends on the accurate assessment of
extant perceived images (Cai, 2002) including images held by locals as they
constitute a significant stakeholder of a destination (Garrod, Fyall, Leask, &
Reid, 2012). The second relates to the supply-oriented approach of destination
image, meaning that branding is related to the development and promotion of a
projected destination image with competitive advantage, or brand identity (Cai,
2002), where locals play a critical role. By personally reflecting the core values
highlighted about a destination, local residents can directly influence the experi-
ence of tourists and, subsequently, tourists’ future consumption behavior
(O’Leary & Deegan, 2003). Soliciting input from local residents, along with
tourists, and engaging them equally in a destination’s tourism development
efforts and branding is critical (Bramwell & Rawding, 1996) as it can enable
building nodes to the real destination brand image characteristics compared with
perceived brand image characteristics (Simpson & Siguaw, 2008). In fact, a few
researchers (Ryan & Aicken 2010) have implicitly or explicitly suggested the
simultaneous examination of image perceptions of residents and tourists, linking
this approach to effective city branding.
Papadimitriou et al. / DESTINATION IMAGE PERCEPTIONS IN URBAN TOURISM 3
Thus, the present study proposes and tests how image perceptions of a city
destination (cognitive, affective, and overall image) influence word-of-mouth
(WOM) intentions for three distinct groups: local city residents, past tourists,
and prospective tourists of the destination. More specifically, the following
research questions are explored in this study: (1) Are there differences among
local city residents, past tourists, and prospective tourists in their destination
image perceptions (cognitive, affective, overall) and WOM behaviors? (2) How
do locals, past tourists and prospective tourists evaluate the structure of the rela-
tionship between the cognitive and affective destination image components and
WOM intentions? In other words, which destination image component has
higher predictive validity for each group? Following a holistic approach that
involves groups with varying destination knowledge and experiences not only
contributes to the development of place image theory (Elliot et al., 2011) but
also enables better informed decisions about how to develop and promote con-
sistent and realistic city images in order to advance a strong city brand for tour-
ism purposes (Cai, 2002).
Literature Review
Destination Image Definition, Components, and Their Relationships
Extensive research has been performed in the area of destination image

exploring topics such as the process through which destination image is formed
(e.g., Gallarza, Saura, & García, 2002; Gartner, 1993); the identification of des-
tination image components and their measurement (e.g., Baloglu & Mangaloglu,
2001; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a, 1999b; Qu, Kim, & Im, 2011; Tasci, Gartner,
& Cavusgil, 2007); the relationship between destination image and variables
such as tourists’ sociodemographic characteristics, their motivation, and psycho-
logical connection with the destination, destination attractiveness, and future
behavior (e.g., Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a; Beerli & Martín, 2004; Chi, 2011;
King, Chen, & Funk, 2015; Prayag, 2009); and branding aspects of destination
image management, including brand equity and brand personality (e.g., Ekinci
& Hosany, 2006; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Papadimitriou, Apostolopoulou, &
Kaplanidou, 2013).
Most frequently, the concept of destination image has been operationalized as
consisting of two components: a perceptual-cognitive component that captures
knowledge and beliefs about a destination’s attributes and an affective compo-
nent that describes feelings toward a destination (Beerli & Martín, 2004;
Konecnik & Gartner, 2007). Both the cognitive and affective components work
to influence the overall image of a particular destination in the mind of past or
prospective tourists (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a). Interestingly, research has
shown that, in addition to its direct effect, one’s knowledge about a destination
(cognitive component) influences their overall perception about that destination
indirectly through the affective component of destination image (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999a; Beerli & Martín, 2004).
Strong evidence on the relationship between the cognitive and affective com-
ponents of image has come from Baloglu and McCleary (1999a) who examined
four Mediterranean countries’ destinations (Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy)
and showed that the cognitive component of image has a direct and positive
influence on the affective component and that the latter serves as a mediating
variable between cognitive image and overall destination image. Baloglu (2000)
further tested these relationships in another study where some of the compo-
nents of cognitive destination image influenced affective destination image per-
ceptions and visitation intentions, whereas affective image had a direct influence
on visitation intentions as well. Beerli and Martín (2004) extended the above
studies by incorporating a comparison between first time and repeat visitors in
the relationship of cognitive and affective destination image perceptions. They
found a structural relationship between cognitive and affective image, with
some of the cognitive components influencing the affective and overall image
perceptions, suggesting that cognitive image components are not evaluated all
the same. They also found partial mediation of the affective image variable on
WOM. Lin, Morais, Kerstetter, and Hou (2007) further supported Baloglu and
McCleary’s results as they found that cognitive image influences affective image
perceptions much more heavily than overall image, suggesting a partial media-
tion effect of affective images on overall image and eventually tourist
behaviors.
Thus, the following hypotheses arise:
Hypothesis 1: The cognitive component of image of an urban destination has a direct

and positive influence on the affective component of destination image.
and positive influence on overall destination image evaluations.
Hypothesis 3: The affective component of image of an urban destination has a direct
and positive effect on overall destination image evaluations.
Destination Image and Word-of-Mouth Behaviors
Ultimately, it is tourists’ future behavior that is of interest to destination mar-

keters. In existing literature, future behavior has mainly been operationalized as
intention to revisit a destination and/or a willingness to recommend the destina-
tion to others (WOM communication; e.g., Hosany, Ekinci, and Uysal, 2007;
Prayag, 2009). The intention to engage in positive WOM, which can be power-
ful in generating new tourists, stems from an overall positive evaluation of a
destination and reflects high levels of attitudinal loyalty (Konecnik & Gartner,
2007). Interestingly, the intention to recommend the destination to others, or
WOM communication, is thought to be a better indicator of favorable image and
a positive experience with a destination than one’s intention to revisit. This is
because variety-seeking tourists might not return to the same destination, even if
they are fully satisfied with their experience (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Kozak &
Rimmington, 2000) but they can spread positive WOM.
Prayag (2009) explored relationships among the destination’s cognitive

image (attributes), its overall image (holistic), tourists’ satisfaction, and future
behavior in a study of tourists to the island of Mauritius, and found a direct and
positive impact of both cognitive image and overall image on tourists’ intentions
to revisit the island and recommend it to others. Baloglu (2000) found a direct
and indirect relationship of cognitive image with visitation intentions, whereas
affective image perceptions had a direct influence on intentions to visit the des-
tination. On a different context examining the impact of mega sport events on
destination image and future tourism development, Kaplanidou (2007, 2009)
found that affective and cognitive destination image perceptions influence inten-
tions to revisit the destination, while Li and Kaplanidou (2013) discussed how
the cognitive and affective image components of China after the 2008 Olympic
Games were perceived differently among prospective American tourists. More
important, a study by del Bosque and Martín (2008) showed that affective
images influence WOM as an outcome of brand loyalty to a destination suggest-
ing a direct connection between affective image and WOM. Taken together, the
above studies suggest a differential influence of cognitive and affective destina-
tion image components on tourists’ behaviors, such as WOM. Thus, we hypoth-
esized the following:

and positive effect on intention to recommend the destination to others.
Hypothesis 5: Affective image evaluations of an urban destination have a direct and
positive effect on intention to recommend the destination to others.
Hypothesis 6: Overall image evaluations of an urban destination have a direct and
positive effect on intention to recommend the destination to others.
Exposure to and Experience With a Destination: Local Residents

Versus Past Tourists Versus Prospective Tourists
As would be expected, beliefs and feelings about a destination will differ

depending on consumers’ past experience with the destination and tourism in
general, their exposure to primary and secondary information sources, their
motives and purpose for traveling, and their sociopsychological characteristics
(e.g., Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a; Beerli & Martín, 2004; King et al., 2015).
Those who have not visited a destination are influenced by informative tourism
promotion efforts and often form more positive but unrealistic views about the
destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991). Actual visitation, on the other hand,
increases a visitor’s knowledge of a destination and provides a more realistic
understanding of the attributes and offerings of that location (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999b). Not surprisingly, those closer to the destination, specifically
the local residents, have a more intimate view of the destination and its attributes
(Walmsley & Young, 1998). It stands to reason that local residents will have a
different understanding of how the various destination image components work
since their experience with the destination encompasses many activities and
happens daily.
Prior research (e.g., Freire, 2009; Garrod et al., 2012; O’Leary & Deegan,
2003) has identified multiple benefits of engaging local residents in tourism
development efforts. Local residents can become ambassadors for their destina-
tion by highlighting the destination’s positive attributes and unique offerings
and by encouraging friends and family to visit (Simpson & Siguaw, 2008).
Furthermore, they can contribute to tourists’ positive experience during their trip
either through personal or professional interactions with them. Schroeder (1996)
argued toward making residents more aware of the positive attributes and offer-
ings of their area because they can directly influence nonresidents’ organic
image through interactions and communication. Agapito, Mendes and Valle
(2010) and Freire (2009) provided evidence for the critical importance of “local
people” as a distinctive image component, while Merrilees et al. (2009) found
that different destination elements carry more weight for local residents’ atti-
tudes toward their own city brand.
Although the importance of locals as a stakeholder in tourism development
has been identified (Garrod et al., 2012), studies that have compared various
types of destination image consumers (e.g., locals, prospective, and past tourists)
on their cognitive, affective, and overall image perceptions are lacking in the lit-
erature. Instead, fragmented approaches have been presented in terms of under-
standing one or two tourism “markets” at a time and one or two destination image
components at a time. For example, Simpson and Siguaw (2008) found distinct
differences in the perceptions of local people compared with tourists alluding but
not testing different destination images held by the groups examined, while
Phillips and Schofield (2007) along with Choo, Park, and Petrick (2011) focused
on residents only and found that positive destination image perceptions influence
WOM activity among residents. Similarly, Baloglu (2000) and Lin et al. (2007)
focused only on tourists’ perceptions of cognitive and affective destination image
perceptions and their influence on relevant behaviors. Fakeye and Crompton
(1991) compared first-time and repeat tourists and prospective tourists of a region
in southern Texas (USA) and found significant differences in their perceptions of
image of that destination, suggesting that prospective tourists’ evaluations could
have been a misconception. They also provided evidence for the more compre-
hensive (“complex, differentiated”) image a longer stay at a destination creates
(Fakeye & Crompton, 1991, p. 15). Bonn et al. (2005) reinforced the above find-
ings by illustrating how in-state, versus out-of-state versus international visitors
differ in their destination image perceptions.
The reviewed literature solidifies the need to examine different consumer
perceptions of tourist images to accurately understand how the components of a
destination’s image influence tourism-related behaviors such as WOM. However,
no study has looked at local residents, past tourists, and prospective tourists
simultaneously to assess how destination image components interrelate and
influence WOM intentions for each group. The previous discussion leads to the
final hypothesis:
Figure 1
Proposed Model Testing the Hypotheses of the Study for the Three Groups of
Destination Image “Consumers”: Residents, Past Visitors, Prospective Visitors
Experience with the Desnaon

Res i dents ,
Pa s t vi s i tors ,
Pros pecti ve vi s i tors
Tes t for di fferences : H7
Cognive
Image H4
H2
H6 WOM
H1 Overall image
Intenons
H3
Affecve H5
Image
Hypothesis 7: Different interrelationships are expected among locals, past tourists,

and prospective tourists in their destination image perceptions and word-of-mouth
behaviors.
All hypotheses are portrayed in Figure 1.
Method
The Setting
In the most recent National Tourism Strategy (2011-2021), Greece defined 2

international (i.e., Athens and Thessaloniki) and 12 domestic city tourism desti-
nations with strong potential in urban tourism. The city of Patras (with a popula-
tion of 250,000) was one of these urban destinations as the capital of the Western
Greece region and the main gateway to Italy. With its old and newly constructed
ports, its three universities and major hospitals, and the variety of cultural attrac-
tions and events (e.g., the Carnival of Patras, Patras’ International Cultural
Festival, 2006 European Capital for Culture), the city is particularly suited for
domestic urban tourism.
Sampling and Data Collection
This study used the city of Patras as the main destination. The targeted sam-
ple consisted of adults aged 18 years and older who had at least one urban tour-
ism experience in a Greek city over the past 2 years. To avoid mixing up the term
city destination with other types of destinations (i.e., islands, sites known for
religious attractions, etc.), only the Greek cities designated as urban tourism
destinations in the Greek National Tourism Strategy (2011-2021) were accepted
as valid answers. The sample population for this study was composed of adult
citizens of the cities of Athens and Patras with recent experience in city tourism.
Three distinctive groups made up the final sample of this research. The first
group included residents of the city of Patras who had been tourists of other
Greek cities at least once during the past 2 years and thus have knowledge of and
personal experience with urban tourism in Greece. The second group, past tour-
ists, consisted of people who had visited the city of Patras as tourists in the 2
years before their participation to the study. Because of their personal experi-
ence with Patras and its tourism product they would be able to reflect on their
primary images. This group of domestic city tourists was selected with the inten-
tion to capture images about the city of Patras without the presence of personal
experience. The third group, prospective tourists, consisted of individuals with
experience from other Greek city destinations but no prior visitation to Patras.
This group of domestic city tourists was selected with the intention to capture
images about the city without the presence of personal experience. All three
groups were asked to respond to the same set of questions in terms of evaluating
the cognitive and affective images of the city of Patras.
The second and third groups of respondents were recruited from Athens, the
city that is the largest pool for domestic tourists in Greece. The three samples
were selected via the use of a computer-generated random sample that drew
candidates from a voter registration list available for both cities (Athens and
Patras). The sampling frame for Athens was 650,000 residents and for Patras
276,000 residents. A telephone-administered survey was used to collect data for
this research across the three subsamples. A systematic sampling technique was
followed to select respondents from the list (every 100th entry of the above list).
At the beginning of each phone call respondents were screened by asking them
whether they had visited a Greek city for tourism purposes over the past 2 years
and had stayed overnight. If the respondents’ reply was positive, interviewers
invited them to respond to the survey questions. A total sample of 1,125 respon-
dents who had prior experience in urban domestic tourism in Greece was invited
to take part in this survey. The number of the respondents per group was based
on an initial number required for the project as determined by funding and
expected statistical analysis. Once this sample size was reached, there were no
further recruitment efforts from the company who solicited participants. From
the recruiting process, a total of 540 individuals met the requirements and were
willing to offer responses to the entire survey (48% response rate). This sample
consisted of 207 local residents (38.3%), 158 past tourists (29.3%) and 175 pro-
spective tourists (32.4%) of the city of Patras.
Measurement
This study adopts the definition of destination image as “mental portrayal or

prototype” that depicts a knowledge structure in a person’s mind that is formed
based on beliefs and emotional pieces of information (Govers, Go, & Kumar,
2007, p. 978). Reliable and valid measures from previously published empirical
works were used to operationalize each variable of the present study. The cogni-
tive image items were gathered from relevant literature and were modified to fit
the context of this study. Baloglu and McCleary (1999b) developed a 14-item
instrument to measure cognitive image perceptions of four country destinations,
which loaded on three factors: quality of experience, attractions, and value/envi-
ronment. From that scale, nine items were selected as fitting to the research
context of an urban destination (i.e., suitable accommodation, appealing local
food, friendly people, cleanness and hygiene, nightlife and entertainment, good
value for money, interesting cultural attractions, interesting historical attrac-
tions, beautiful scenery/natural attractions). The remaining measurement items
were generated from previous empirical works on cognitive images for state or
national destinations (Murphy, Pritchard, & Smith, 2000; O’Leary & Deegan,
2003; Uysal, Chen, & Williams, 2000). Study participants were asked to rate the
city as a short-break urban destination on each of the 20 items using a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = offers very little to 5 = offers very much.
The items for measuring the cognitive image construct were adopted from
different sources. This strategy is quite common for capturing the particular
variable since the literature is lacking a universally accepted scale for the cogni-
tive image of urban destinations (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999b; Song, Su, & Li,
2013). Given that the urban tourism product is multifaceted and quite unex-
plored, we also added items reflecting images for business activities, leisure, and
sports activities unique to an urban space, choices offered for family and kids,
accessibility, and so on that were not captured in the study of Baloglu and
McCleary as it was intended to measure images at a country level.
Affective images of the destination were measured with four items: unpleas-
ant/pleasant, distressing/relaxing, ugly/pretty, and gloomy/exciting based on
existing literature (e.g., Baloglu & McCleary, 1999b; Hosany et al., 2007).
These four items were measured on a 5-point bipolar scale. Perceived overall
image of the destination was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale with a
single item requiring respondents to share their perceptions of the overall image
of the city as a destination. Similar measures have also been used by Baloglu and
McCleary (1999b) and Bigne, Sanchez, and Sanchez (2001). The anchors of the
item were 1 = very negative and 5 = very positive. Future WOM behavior was
measured with three items reflecting WOM communication. The three selected
items were adopted from previous research (Bosnjak, Sirgy, Hellriegel, &
Maurer, 2011; Lee, Petrick, & Crompton, 2007). Respondents were asked to
report the likelihood of saying positive things about the city destination to other
people, recommending the place for visit, and encouraging friends or relatives to
visit the city. The anchors of the items were 1 = not at all likely and 5 = extremely
likely. Items measuring revisit intentions were not considered due to the sample
of residents included in this study.
The psychometric properties of the destination image variables and WOM
used in this study were tested for face validity and internal consistency. The
Table 1
Profile of Respondents (N = 540)
Demographic Variables Percentage
Gender
Male 38.2
Female 61.8
Age (years)
18-24 10.5
25-34 17.7
35-44 24.1
45-54 22.7
≥55 24.9
Marital status
Single 30.8
Married 63.4
Other (divorced, separated, etc.) 5.7
Education
Compulsory education 4.6
High school (Lykeio) 41.7
University level 53.7
initial version of the scales was piloted with a sample of 15 tourism experts who
lived in Patras and worked in the tourism industry of the city. Based on their
comments, the survey was enhanced in terms of clarity and content validity.
Internal consistency measures were estimated using Cronbach’s alpha and com-
pared with the widely accepted rule of thumb of .7 (Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994). Reliability scores were .89 for the cognitive scale, .70 for the affective
scale, and .94 for the WOM scale, supporting the scales’ good reliability.
Data Analysis and Results
Profile of Respondents
The demographic profile of study participants is presented in Table 1. The

sample consisted of 38.2% males and 61.8% females. The majority of respon-
dents were older than 35 years, with 50 years and older and 35 years to 44 years
comprising the two largest age groups (24.9% and 24.1%, respectively). More
than half of the respondents (63.4%) were married and reported having a univer-
sity degree (53.7%).
Factor Analysis and Variable Preparation
The initial analysis of the data included factor analysis by using principal
component extraction method with varimax rotation to explore the underlying
dimensions of the 20-item cognitive image scale, the 4-item affective image
scale, and the 3-item scale measuring intentions to engage in WOM communica-
tion. The appropriateness of the factor analysis was explored by two tests: the
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin of sampling adequacy that was .901, well above the rec-
ommended threshold of .6 (Kaiser, 1974), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which
produced statistical significance (p = .000) indicating that the correlations were
sufficiently large for factor analysis. To explore potential differences in the fac-
tor structure of the cognitive image scale based on the exposure of the sample to
the city destination, initially four different principal component analyses were
undertaken; for locals (N = 207), past tourists (N = 158), prospective tourists
(N = 175), and for the total sample (N = 540). In all four analyses the optimal
factor solution was based on a combination of criteria including Cattell’s scree
plot (Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977), Kaiser’s eigenvalue greater than 1 (Fabrigar,
MacCallum, Wegener, & Strahan, 1999), and the cumulative variance criterion
(Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). The results consistently pro-
duced a three-factor solution with very similar distribution of items per dimen-
sion, which accounted for 52% to 54% of the initial variance of the respective
samples. However, three cognitive items had to be deleted due to small loadings
on one of the three dimensions (i.e., local wine, good shopping, major develop-
ment projects). The analysis was conducted again on the retained 17 items of the
cognitive scale using the pooled data set (N = 540) and varimax rotation meth-
ods resulting to a solution that explained 53.40% of the total variance.
Testing the Measurement Model
The proposed model as depicted in Figure 1 was tested following a two-stage

procedure: measurement model and structural model estimation. First, CFA was
used to test the measurement model with the three latent constructs (i.e., cogni-
tive image, affective image, and WOM) allowed to be correlated in order to
estimate overall fit, validity, and reliability values for each construct. The statis-
tical software package SPSS Amos 21 was used to test the measures on a confir-
matory factor model with each scale item to be constrained to load on only one
factor. The measurement model fit was examined using fit indices such as the
chi-square statistic (χ2), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI),
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Hu & Bentler, 1998).
First, the conceptual measurement model was tested on each group separately
in an effort to explore model fit per group. These initial CFAs demonstrated
good fit with the majority of the standardized regression weights above .5 and
significant loadings on all items. Only one item (i.e., “cultural activities and
events”) produced lower than .5 standardized regression weight and it was
dropped from further analysis. The respective CFAs were reestimated for the
three groups and the fit indices were equally good for local residents (χ2 =
382.17, degrees of freedom [df] = 220; p < .001; CFI = .90; IFI = .91; and
RMSEA = .06), for past tourists (χ2 = 305.77, df = 220; p < .001; CFI = .94;
IFI = .94; and RMSEA = .05), and prospective tourists (χ2 = 398.78, df = 220; p
< .001; CFI = .92; IFI = .92; and RMSEA = .06). The next step was to test the
CFA model on the three groups simultaneously. These results demonstrated that
the fit of the model was applicable for the three groups (χ2 = 1086.72.01, df =
660; p < .001; CFI = .92; IFI = .92; and RMSEA = .06) implying that the mea-
surement properties of the model fits all three subgroups well. Table 2 presents
the standardized factor loadings for the five indicators, Cronbach’s alpha values,
average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR) measures for
each latent factor. All factor loadings were statistically significant and above .5
with the exception of one item (i.e., “cultural activities and events”), and
Cronbach’s alpha values were above the recommended value .70 (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994).
Two types of construct validity were examined: convergent and discriminant
validity. Convergent validity refers to the degree to which indicators of a con-
struct converge or share a good percentage of variance (Hair et al., 2006). The
construct AVEs ranged from .47 and .85 supporting convergent validity for all
scales (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), with the exception of the “services, experi-
ences and atmosphere” and “unique city attractions,” which were threshold
cases (.47 and .48, respectively). It was decided to maintain these two cognitive
factors in the study based on their estimates of composite reliability (.86 and .78)
and internal consistency values (.87 and .74), which were satisfactory. In addi-
tion, these two factors explained a large amount of variance in the factor analysis
procedure. Finally, discriminant validity was tested, following the guidelines by
Fornell and Larcker (1981), which indicate that the squared correlation between
two constructs should be less than the AVEs of each construct. As shown in
Table 2, evidence of discriminant validity was provided as all AVEs exceeded
respective squared factor correlations. Since all scales in this study were evalu-
ated and deemed as having adequate measurement properties, the testing of the
hypotheses was the next step in the analysis. The mean scores of each of the
three cognitive image factors were created as new input variables for the latent
factor of cognitive image for the next stages of the structural model analysis,
creating a more parsimonious model for further analysis.
Testing the Structural Model
To test the hypotheses that related to the structural relationship of the destina-
tion image components and WOM intentions the multigroup approach was
employed using structural equation modeling analysis with the AMOS 21 soft-
ware. Following Kline (1998), we tested the conceptualized model by estimat-
ing group differences on a model level and among the path coefficients. The
three subsamples of respondents were local residents, past tourists, and prospec-
tive tourists and represented different levels of experience with the city as the
destination.
Assumptions of multivariate normality were met across the three samples
through the evaluation of Mardia’s coefficient that was 0.96 (past tourists), 2.8
Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Cognitive and Affective Destination Image and
Behavioral Intentions (N = 540)
Scales/Items Standardized Factor Loadings
A. Cognitive Image
Factor 1: Services, Experience, and Atmosphere (αa = .87, CR = .86, AVE = .47)
Unique atmosphere and lifestyle .73
City as famous destination .63
Good value for money .64
Suitable accommodations .65
Offers good entertainment .68
Offers appealing local food .79
Clean and well maintained city .65
Friendly local people .64
Offers choices for family and kids .67
Accessible city to the tourists .69
Factor 2: Unique City Attractions (α = .74, CR = .78, AVE = .48)
Significant historical attractions .71
Significant religious attractions .65
Beautiful scenery/natural attractions .70
Interesting built architecture .69
Factor 3: Activities and Events (α = .74, CR = .84, AVE = .75)
Cultural activities and events deleted
Business activities and conferences .82
Leisure and sports activities .88
B. Affective Image (α = .70, CR = .78, AVE = .50)
Unpleasant/pleasant .72
Distressing/relaxing .54
Ugly/pretty .88
Gloomy/exciting .62
C. Word-of-Mouth Intentions (α = .94, CR = .94, AVE = .85)
Say positive things about the city to other .86
people
Recommend the city to others as place to .94
visit
Encourage friends or relatives to visit the city .95
a. Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.
(residents), and 4.24 (prospective tourists). Correlation matrices along with the
means and standard deviations of the model for each group are presented in
Table 3. The hypothesized model was assessed by examining the fit statistics,
along with the t values of the paths and their regression weights. Specifically, the
indices used to evaluate the fit of the model were IFI, CFI, and the RMSEA
(Bentler, 1990).
Table 3
Correlation Matrix of the Model Variables Tested in the Three Samples
Overall
Residents Image Cog 1 Cog 2 Cog 3 Affective WOM
Overall image 1
Cog 1 .57 1
Cog 2 .50 .47 1
Cog 3 .30 .46 .44 1
Affective .47 .44 .32 .10 1
WOM .55 .61 .45 .30 .34 1
Mean 3.51 3.00 3.32 2.90 3.53 3.52
SD .84 .67 .80 .81 .78 1.13
Overall
Past Tourists Image Cog 1 Cog 2 Cog 3 Affective WOM
Overall image 1
Cog 1 .69 1
Cog 2 .48 .54 1
Cog 3 .44 .56 .47 1
Affective .58 .59 .38 .34 1
WOM .69 .72 .72 .41 .49 1
Mean 3.86 3.37 3.09 3.31 3.64 3.40
SD .71 .60 .73 .80 .81 1.14
Overall
Prospective tourists image Cog 1 Cog 2 Cog 3 Affective WOM
Overall image 1
Cog 1 .78 1
Cog 2 .57 .63 1
Cog 3 .43 .48 .43 1
Affective .68 .67 .48 .32 1
WOM .75 .69 .56 .36 .55 1
Mean 3.69 3.29 2.95 3.34 3.51 3.11
SD .78 .70 .74 .84 .93 1.16
Overall
Aggregate Sample Image Cog 1 Cog 2 Cog 3 Affective WOM
Overall image 1
Cog 1 .54 1
Cog 2 .34 .47 1
Cog 3 .30 .53 .38 1
Affective .51 .55 .36 .24 1
WOM .52 .61 .50 .30 .59 1
Mean 3.67 3.29 3.13 3.16 3.56 3.36
SD .80 .68 .78 .84 .84 1.16
Note: WOM = word of mouth.
Table 4
Comparative Fit Measures for Assessment of Measurement and Structural Model
Invariance Tests
Comparative Fit Measures χ2 df Sig. CMIN/DF CFI IFI RMSEA
Model 1: Residents 382.17 220 .001 1.81 .90 .91 .06

Model 2: Past visitors 305.77 220 .001 1.39 .94 .94 .05
Model 3: Prospect visitors 398.78 220 .001 1.73 .92 .92 .06
Model 4: Combined measurement 1086.72 660 .001 1,64 .92 .92 .03
model (residents, past visitors, and
prospect visitors)—Baseline model
Model 5: Combined measurement 1149.05 716 .001 1.60 .92 .92 .03
model (residents, past visitors,
and prospect visitors)—
Constrained model
Model 6: Baseline structural 165.954 117 .001 1.41 .98 .98 .03
Model 7: Constrained structural 261.718 171 .001 1.53 .97 .97 .03
Note: CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation; df = degrees of freedom; Sig. = significance.
The results of the structural analysis for each of the groups are presented in
Table 4 along with the fit statistics (χ2 = 165.954, df = 117; p < .001; CFI = .98;
IFI = .98; and RMSEA = .03) which implied good model fit across all three
groups simultaneously. The majority of the paths were significant at p < .5 or
higher, and had small to strong standardized regression weights (.17-.76).
At first glance (see Figure 2), the results suggest that the same destination
image components are significant in predicting overall image perceptions for
past tourists, prospective tourists, and local residents. More specifically, for all
three groups the cognitive destination image positively influenced the affective
destination image perceptions (βresidents = .57, p < .05; βpast tourists = .76, p < .05;
βprospect tourists = .76, p < .05). The effect of cognitive image on overall image per-
ceptions was confirmed for residents (βresidents = .42, p < .05) but not for past or
prospective tourists (βpast tourists = .27, p > .05; βprospect tourists = .14, p > .05).
Significant effects were found for cognitive image to intentions for WOM com-
munication across all three groups (βresidents = .48, p < .05; βpast tourists = .44, p <
.05; βprospect tourists = .41, p < .05). Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 4 were supported
for all three samples, but Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported.
The path from affective destination image to overall image perceptions was
also significant across all three groups (βresidents = .25, p < .05; βpast tourists = .42,
p < .05; βprospect tourists = .57, p < .05), in support for Hypothseis 3. There was also
a significant effect from affective image to intentions for WOM communication
(βresidents = .37, p < .05; βpast tourists = .32, p < .05; βprospect tourists = .29, p < .05) and
thus Hypothesis 5 was supported. Moreover, for prospective visitors the overall
image component positively and significantly influenced the WOM
Figure 2
Estimated Structural Equation Modeling Model for the Hypotheses of the Study
.48*
.44*
Cognive
.41*
Image
.42*
.27
.14 .05
.57* .11 WOM
Overall image
.76*
.17* Intenons
.76* .25*
.42*
.57*
.37*
Affecve .32*
.29*
Image
Note: Plain numbers = residents; bold numbers = Past tourists; underlined numbers =
prospective tourists. Significant variation differences were identified between residents
and prospective tourists (βresidents = .57, βprospective tourists = .76) and residents and past
tourists (βresidents = .57, βpast tourists = .76) for the effect of cognitive image on affective
image, and between residents and prospective visitors (βresidents = .42, βprospective tourists =
.14) for the relationship between cognitive and overall image. WOM = word of mouth.
*p < .05.
communication intentions (βprospect tourists = .17, p < .05), but not in the case of
residents or past tourists (βresidents = .05, p > .05; βpast tourists = .11, p > .05) leading
to partial support for Hypothesis 6. The cognitive image construct explained
33% of the variance in affective image for residents, 58% for past tourists, and
58% prospective tourists, whereas substantial amount of variance in overall
image (37% for residents, 43% for past tourists, and 49% prospective tourists)
was explained by the cognitive and affective image variables. Finally, a large
amount of variance in intentions for WOM communication (63% for residents,
65% for past tourists, and 63% prospect tourists) was explained by cognitive and
affective factors and overall image. These results are summarized in Table 5.
On examination of the standardized loadings of the three cognitive image
components it could be observed that each of the three factors exerted different
influence on the latent variable of cognitive image across the three groups:
“Services, experience and atmosphere” contributes more to the formation of
cognitive image (β = .84 for residents, β = .91 for past tourists, and β = .93 for
prospective tourists) followed by “unique city attractions” (β = .61 for residents,
β = .62 for past tourists, and β = .67 for prospective tourists) and “activities and
events” (β = .52 for residents, β = .60 for past tourists, and β = .53 for prospec-
tive tourists).
To test Hypothesis 7 of the study, a multisample approach was used in which
the model is estimated simultaneously for the three groups that represent differ-
ent levels of experience with the city destination (i.e., residents, past tourists,
Table 5
Results From Structural Analysis
Past Prospective
Path Estimates Residents Tourists Tourists Hypothesis
Cognitive → Affective .57* .76* .76* Hypothesis 1 supported

Cognitive → Overall .42* .27 .14 Hypothesis 2 supported
image
Affective → Overall .25* .42* .57* Hypothesis 3 supported
image
Cognitive → WOM .48* .44* .41* Hypothesis 4 supported
Affective → WOM .37* .32* .29* Hypothesis 5 supported
Overall image → WOM .05 .11 .17* Hypothesis 6 partially
supported
R2 (on affective image) .33 .58 .58
R2 (on overall image) .37 .43 .49
R2 (on WOM) .63 .65 .63
Fit indices χ2 = 145.954, df = 117; IFI = .98,
CFI = .98, RMSEA = .03
Analysis sample size N = 207 N = 144 N = 164
Note: WOM = word of mouth.

*Significant path coefficients at p < .05.
and prospective tourists). To examine variation in the measurement and the

structural models for the three groups, the invariance procedure recommended
by Byrne (2004) was followed. First, the baseline model was estimated for each
group separately to identify group differences in the operation of the model. The
goodness-of-fit indices suggested that the model had acceptable fit to the three
sets of data (see entries Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 in Table 4). Then, con-
figural and metric invariance was tested to ensure that the model and its factor
structure operate in the same way across the three groups under study. Initially
the baseline measurement model (i.e., configural) was built with five latent vari-
ables (i.e., service/experience, city attractions, activities/events, affective image,
and WOM) and 23 items without any invariance constraints, and was tested
simultaneously for the three groups. Goodness-of-fit indices related to the three
groups produced a good fit (χ2 = 1086.72, df = 660; p < .001; CFI = .92; IFI =
.92; and RMSEA = .03) indicating configural invariance, which implied that the
factor structure was identical across the three groups (see entry Model 4 in Table
4). Next, metric invariance was tested by fixing all factor loadings, factor vari-
ances, and factor covariances of the measurement model to be equal across the
three groups (constrained model). The testing of the three-group model pro-
duced good goodness-of-fit statistics (χ2 = 1149.05, df = 716; p < .001; CFI =
.92; IFI = .92; and RMSEA = .03) to the data (entry Model 5 in Table 4). For
invariance testing, the chi-square value of Model 4 was compared with that of
Model 5. This comparison yielded a chi-square difference (Δχ2) of 62.25 with 56

Δdf that was not statistically significant (p = .261) indicating that the three
groups of this study are not invariant in terms of the item factor relationships.
The final step of this analysis concerned the testing of differences in the
structural paths among the three groups. Both the unconstrained (Model 6) and
the constrained structural model, with maintaining the factor loadings fixed
across the three groups (Model 7), were tested and produced good fit to the data
set (entries Models 6 and 7 in Table 4). The comparison of the chi-square values
of these two models yielded a difference (Δχ2) of 96.764 with 54 Δdf, which was
statistically significant (p = .001). This finding implies significant differences in
the structural paths of the tested model among the three groups, leading to
acceptance of Hypothesis 7.
Further analysis was undertaken to explore the specific significant path dif-
ferences between pair of groups (e.g., residents vs. past tourists, residents vs.
prospective tourists, and past tourists vs. prospective tourists) by imposing con-
straints on regression paths, one at a time, and exploring differences in the chi-
square value of each model. These results revealed three regression paths that
differed significantly across the groups. More specifically, significant differ-
ences were identified between residents and prospective tourists (βresidents = .57,
βprospective tourists = .76) and residents and past tourists (βresidents = .57, βpast tourists =
.76) for the effect of cognitive image on affective image, and between residents
and prospective tourists (βresidents = .42, βprospective tourists = .14) for the relationship
between cognitive and overall image.
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
The purpose of the study was to examine how the components of destination
image about an urban destination interact and differ among three distinct groups
of tourism product consumers based on their different levels of experience with
the destination. More specifically, the study explored the influence of cognitive,
affective, and overall image perceptions on intentions for WOM communication
about the destination among local residents, past tourists, and prospective tour-
ists. The results contribute to the literature in three ways. First, at the model level
all groups differed in terms of how they processed some of the destination image
components to engage in positive WOM. Second, for the residents and past tour-
ists (i.e., people with direct experience of the destination) the cognitive and
affective image components influenced directly positive WOM, whereas for
prospective tourists, all destination image components proved significant in
influencing their WOM suggesting that they need more information to draw
their WOM recommendations from. Third, a stable measurement structure of the
concept of destination image components was unveiled among the three groups
based on the confirmatory factor analysis for the three groups. From a theoreti-
cal standpoint, the study shows that experience with a destination influences the
manner in which people arrive to a WOM communication. The presence of past

experience allows a more attribute-based processing stemming from cognitive
and affective images, whereas for people who have not experienced the destina-
tion all pieces of destination image information can influence independently the
WOM communication or converge to a holistic image and create positive WOM
communications.
The first contribution of the study was about the significant differences
among local city residents, past tourists, and prospective tourists in some of their
destination image perceptions and their WOM intentions. The results revealed
differences among the three groups in the manner in which they perceived the
influence of cognitive image on affective image and overall image. More spe-
cifically, cognitive image was the pool of information for the influence of affec-
tive images for all groups, but played a more important role for past tourists and
prospective tourists. Thus, we can discuss that exposure to the destination cre-
ates a differential outcome in affective destination image perceptions (Baloglu
& McCleary, 1999b) across multiple groups with different destination experi-
ences. We believe that the cognitive dimensions are subject to the level of
knowledge a person has about a destination and thus are more likely to fluctuate
among groups with different levels of knowledge. Affective and overall images
have more enduring features, and their predictive ability was confirmed in our
study across the three groups. Overall images are holistic and, as discussed in
Baloglu and Brinberg (1997), can be lasting and stable.
The second contribution of the study, which builds on previous research (e.g.,
Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a; Beerli & Martín, 2004; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006;
Hosany et al., 2007; Qu et al., 2011), involves the differential role of cognitive
and affective image components on the overall image perceptions across the
three groups. In detail, for local residents overall image perceptions relied on
cognitive components, but the same did not apply for the other two groups. It
appears that the extent of past experience with a place (extensive when you are
a resident) underlines the role of cognitive information. Furthermore, direct
experience influences memory structures and schemas about the encountered
product or service (Braun, 1999) creating more complex image perceptions
(Fakeye & Crompton, 1991). Direct experiences with destination “products” can
also influence WOM activity (Westbrook, 1987) and decision-making processes
due to realistic and direct understanding of their components by the consumer
(Gartner, 1993).
Also, significant differences among the three groups were found in terms of
how the overall destination image perceptions influenced WOM. Interestingly,
prospective tourists were more prone to be influenced by holistic images.
Equally interestingly, the propensity of local residents and past tourists to rec-
ommend the destination for visitation relying on the various cognitive compo-
nents found in services, amenities, and attractions as well as affective components
suggests a saliency of elements that encourage WOM communications irrespec-
tive of the holistic images (Simpson & Siguaw, 2008).
In line with previous research (e.g., Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a; Beerli &
Martín, 2004; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Qu et al., 2011), the study found that
affective image had a significant direct effect on overall destination image for all
three groups. Thus, the critical role of emotions and overall perceptions toward
a destination is underlined by the results of this study. The empirical validation
of these associations across the three different path models provides a more
comprehensive understanding of the factors that lead to positive holistic destina-
tion image perceptions and favorable future behavior as it examines consumers
with varying degrees of personal experience with a destination. It also fills a
current gap in the literature dealing specifically with mid-/major-sized cities
competing in domestic tourism markets.
With regard to the third contribution of the study, results showed a stable fac-
tor structure of the destination image components across the three groups and
reinforced the importance of a new cognitive image component capturing the
city’s activities and events. In accordance with previous literature proposing
cognitive image as a multidimensional construct (Baloglu & McLeary, 1999a;
Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990), the principal component analysis performed in the
sample of short break domestic Greek tourists produced three factors, namely
services, experience and atmosphere, unique city attractions, and activities and
events.
The characteristics of the first two dimensions are to some extent consistent
with image measures of regions, countries, or islands identified in past studies
(e.g., Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; Beerli & Martín, 2004; Qu et al., 2011). The
present study supports the relevance and applicability of the image dimensions
in a city context. Furthermore, the emergence of the cognitive image dimension
of activities and events, which is almost nonexistent in available measures, sug-
gests that urban contexts may uniquely feature this component. The present case
showed that cities, due to the extensive availability of infrastructure and ameni-
ties, provide an attractive platform for featuring various types of tourism events.
As a result, a more comprehensive measure of cognitive image, particularly suit-
able for the study of city destinations, is proposed by this study.
Practical Implications
From a practical standpoint, the findings of this research could offer valuable
insight to destination marketers, especially those who promote urban centers
and are interested in developing urban tourism programs and attracting first-
time and repeat tourists. The strength of the services, experience and atmosphere
factor in predicting affective destination images and WOM communication pro-
vides clear direction to city officials in charge of branding and tourism efforts;
strengthening the tourism experience in the city and raising the level of quality
across all services can provide a competitive advantage to the city’s tourism
development efforts. Regarding the role of affective images in future behavior it
may be desirable to develop tourism campaigns intended to stimulate positive
feelings about a destination among past and prospective tourists.
The consistently significant and positive influence of the cognitive and affec-
tive destination image factor on WOM across all three groups suggests that the
elements that make urban destinations desirable and somewhat unique is emo-
tional attachment and evaluations about the feel and atmosphere of a city, the
quality of accommodations and dining in reasonable pricing, the variety in
entertainment options, the attitude of local people, and the accessibility of the
destination. These aspects could be effectively leveraged for positioning pur-
poses and for the creation of an emotional connection with the city. Given the
important role of affective destination image perceptions for all groups, city
officials and tourism managers should invest in developing and promoting a rich
portfolio of emotional products related perhaps to cultural and leisure events
that garner excitement.
This study provides evidence that local residents should not be overlooked.
So far the development of a destination’s image was seen as a process that
involved mainly target tourist markets. An equally beneficial and rather inex-
pensive strategy would be for a city destination to engage local residents in tour-
ism development efforts by exploring their evaluations of the city’s image.
Findings of this study highlight the potential of locals to become significant
image formation agents and ambassadors for their city, especially if their image
of the city is favorable. On that note, we have to acknowledge that, purely
descriptively, the results of this study with regard to mean scores of the items
used in the model are slightly above the midpoint of the scale. This finding sug-
gests that there is room for growth with regard to the destination image percep-
tions for all groups.
Given that locals are important not only as a visitor segment in their own
right but also as promoters of the city through WOM recommendations (Garrod
et al., 2012), their perceptions are of critical importance in the image formation
process of an urban destination and the branding of the city. In fact, Beerli and
Martín (2004) propose that WOM constitutes the most trustful and believable
communication channel, which usually projects images very close to destination
reality. For city tourism, a place-marketing framework needs to be implemented
taking into consideration views of all three destination image consumer groups
examined in this research effort as a basis for setting marketing and product
development objectives.
It is appropriate to note that past experience with urban tourism was the only
criterion used to screen study participants. No other variables were included in
the model, for example sociodemographic characteristics of respondents, their
motivations, sources through which they received their information, or satisfac-
tion levels, all of which have been examined in past literature (e.g., Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999a; Beerli & Martín, 2004; King et al., 2015; Prayag, 2009).
Future research could incorporate certain demographic or psychological factors
in the study of image evaluations and future visitor behavior.
The present research offers insights into the salient role of the cognitive and
affective components in forming residents’ overall image and, most important,
their intention to engage in WOM communication. This finding suggests several

directions for further research. Clearly, the long exposure of the locals to the city
contributes to a more differentiated image, which is enduring and less mislead-
ing. Future studies may explore this further to uncover not only the role of locals’
WOM communication in city tourists’ decision-making behavior and informa-
tion process but also the differentiated effect of each of the image components
as projected by locals on tourist’s behavior. Among others, this study has tested
the model on locals who themselves are tourists for other urban destinations at
the domestic level. A more rigorous comparative study is required to be con-
ducted into the relationships of the model between business and leisure tourism
segments of locals as these represent important markets in city tourism. Finally,
extending this comparative study to other cities and even other tourism contexts
could offer additional support on how destination image perceptions as well as
behavioral intentions are formed across distinct consumer groups.
References
Agapito, D., Mendes, J. D.-C., & Valle, P. O. D. (2010). Destination image: Perspectives
of tourists versus residents. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation,
1, 90-101.
Anholt, S. (2004). Nation-brands and the value of provenance. In N. Morgan, A.
Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the unique destination
proposition (2nd ed., pp. 26-39). Oxford, England: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ashworth, G., & Kavaratzis, M. (2009). Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities.
Brand Management, 16, 520-531.
Ashworth, G., & Page, S. J. M. (2011). Urban tourism research: Recent progress and cur-
rent paradoxes. Tourism Management, 32, 1-15.
Baloglu, S. (2000). A path analytic model of visitation intention involving information
sources, socio-psychological motivations, and destination image. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 8(3), 81-90.
Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: Informational and
experiential dimensions. Tourism Management, 22, 127-133.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destinations. Journal of
Travel Research, 35, 11-15.
Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu, M. (2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt,
Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism
Management, 22, 1-9.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999a). A model of destination image formation.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 868-897.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999b). U.S. international pleasure travelers’ images of
four Mediterranean destinations: A comparison of visitors and nonvisitors. Journal of
Beerli, A., & Martín, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31, 657-681.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bigne, E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables
and after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22, 607-616.
Bonn, M. A., Joseph, S. M., & Dai, M. (2005). International versus domestic visitors:
An examination of destination image perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 43,
294-301.
Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, B. J. R., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism success
for DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives.
Tourism Management, 31, 572-589.
Bosnjak, M., Sirgy, M. J., Hellriegel, S., & Maurer, O. (2011). Post-visit destination loy-
alty judgments: Developing and testing a comprehensive congruity model. Journal of
Bramwell, B., & Rawding, L. (1996). Tourism marketing images of industrial cities.
Braun, K. (1999). Postexperience advertising effects on consumer memory. Journal of
Consumer Research, 25, 319-334.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road
less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 272-300.
Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29, 720-742.
Cattell, R. B., & Vogelmann, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial of the scree and KG
criteria for determining the number of factors. Journal of Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 12, 289-325.
Chi, C. G. (2011). Destination loyalty formation and travelers’ demographic characteris-
tics: A multiple group analysis approach. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
35, 191-212.
Choo, H., Park, S.-Y., & Petrick, J. F. (2011). The influence of the resident’s identi-
fication with a tourism destination brand on their behavior. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management, 20, 198-216.
del Bosque, I. R., & Martín, H. S. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective
model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 551-573.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis.
Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 110-119.
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand per-
sonality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 127-139.
Elliot, S., Papadopoulos, N., & Kim, S. S. (2011). An integrative model of place images:
Exploring relationships between destination, product, and country image. Journal of
Fabrigar, L. R., MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., & Strahan, R. (1999). Evaluating the
use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods,
4, 272-299.
Fakeye, P., & Crompton, J. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time,
and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30,
10-16.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
served variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Freire, J. R. (2009). Local people as critical dimension for place brands. Brand
Management, 16, 420-438.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & García, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a
conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 56-78.
Garrod, B., Fyall, A., Leask, A., & Reid, E. (2012). Engaging residents as stakeholders
of the visitor attraction. Tourism Management, 33, 1159-1173.
Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
2, 191-215.
Govers, R., Go, F. M., & Kumar, K. (2007). Virtual destination image a new measure-
ment approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 977-997.
Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place
brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10, 109-121.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2007). Destination image and destination personal-
ity. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1, 62-81.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structural equation modeling.
Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods,
3, 424-453.
Kaplanidou, K. (2007). Affective event and destination image: Their influence on
Olympic travelers’ behavioral intentions. Event Management, 10, 159-173.
Kaplanidou, K. (2009). Relationships among behavioral intentions, cognitive event and
destination images among different geographic regions of Olympic Games spectators.
Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14, 249-272.
King, C., Chen, N., & Funk, D. C. (2015). Exploring destination image decay: A study
of sport tourists’ destination image change after event participation. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39, 3-31.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destination.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
off season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 260-269.
Lee, S. Y., Petrick, J. F., & Crompton, J. L. (2007). The roles of quality and intermediary
constructs in determining festival attendees’ behavioral intention. Journal of Travel
Research, 45, 402-412.
Li, X., & Kaplanidou, K. (2013). The impact of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games on
China’s destination brand: A U.S.-based examination. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 37, 237-261.
Lin, C.-H., Morais, D. B., Kerstetter, D. L., & Hou, J.-S. (2007). Examining the role
of cognitive and affective image in predicting choice across natural, developed, and
theme-park destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 183-194.
Merrilees, B., Miller, D., & Herington, C. (2009). Antecedents of residents’ city brand
attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 62, 362-367.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The distinction product and its impact
on traveler perceptions. Tourism Management, 21, 43-52.
Novcic, B., Damnjanovic, V., & Popesku, M. (2012). Serbia brand identity: Perspectives
of residents and diaspora. EuroMed Journal of Business, 7, 256-267.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
O’Leary, S., & Deegan, J. (2003). People, pace, place: Qualitative and quantitative
images of Ireland as a tourism destination in France. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
9, 213-226.
Papadimitriou, D., Apostolopoulou, A., & Kaplanidou, K. (2013). Destination personal-
ity, affective image, and behavioral intentions in domestic urban tourism. Journal of
Travel Research, 54, 302-315. doi:10.1177/ 0047287513516389
Phillips, L., & Schofield, P. (2007). Pottery, pride and prejudice: Assessing resident
images for city branding. Tourism Analysis, 11, 397-407.
Prayag, G. (2009). Tourists’ evaluations of destination image, satisfaction, and future
behavior intentions—The case of Mauritius. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
26, 836-853.
Qu, H., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating the
concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management, 32, 465-476.
Ryan, C., & Aicken, M. (2010). The destination image gap—Visitors’ and residents’
perceptions of place: Evidence from Waiheke Island, New Zealand. Current Issues in
Tourism, 13, 541-561.
Schroeder, T. (1996). The relationship of residents’ image of their state as a tourist desti-
nation and their support for tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 34, 71-73.
Simpson, P. M., & Siguaw, J. A. (2008). Destination word of mouth. Journal of Travel
Research, 47, 167-182.
Song, Z., Su, X., & Li, L. (2013). The indirect effects of destination image on destina-
tion loyalty intention through tourist satisfaction and perceived value: The bootstrap
approach. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30, 386-409.
Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Conceptualization and opera-
tionalization of destination image. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31,
194-223.
Uysal, M., Chen, J., & Williams, D. (2000). Increasing state market share through a
regional positioning. Tourism Management, 21, 89-96.
Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism: The use of per-
sonal constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel
Research, 36, 65-69.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpur-
chase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258-270.
Submitted November 28, 2014

Accepted March 17, 2015
Refereed Anonymously
Dimitra Papadimitriou, PhD (e-mail: dpapad@upatras.gr), is an assistant professor in

the Department of Business Administration at the University of Patras, Greece. Kyriaki
(Kiki) Kaplanidou, PhD (e-mail: kkaplanidou@hhp.ufl.edu), is an associate professor in
the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management at the University of
Florida, Gainesville, and an affiliate faculty member of the Eric Friedheim Tourism
Institute. Artemisia Apostolopoulou, PhD (e-mail: apostolopoulou@rmu.edu) is a pro-
fessor in the Department of Sport Management at Robert Morris University, Moon
Township, Pennsylvania.

Destination Image Components and Word-Of-Mouth Intentions in Urban Tourism: A Multigroup Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Destination Image Components and Word-Of-Mouth Intentions in Urban Tourism: A Multigroup Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Destination Image Components and Word-Of-Mouth Intentions in Urban Tourism: A Multigroup Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

584443

Destination Image Components

Keywords: urban tourism; destination image; cognitive; affective; word-of-

destination, with those perceptions of tourists or potential tourists. The focus is

Destination Image Definition, Components, and Their Relationships

Extensive research has been performed in the area of destination image

Hypothesis 1: The cognitive component of image of an urban destination has a direct

Destination Image and Word-of-Mouth Behaviors

Ultimately, it is tourists’ future behavior that is of interest to destination mar-

Prayag (2009) explored relationships among the destination’s cognitive

Hypothesis 4: The cognitive component of image of an urban destination has a direct

Exposure to and Experience With a Destination: Local Residents

As would be expected, beliefs and feelings about a destination will differ

Experience with the Desnaon

Hypothesis 7: Different interrelationships are expected among locals, past tourists,

All hypotheses are portrayed in Figure 1.

In the most recent National Tourism Strategy (2011-2021), Greece defined 2

Sampling and Data Collection

This study adopts the definition of destination image as “mental portrayal or

Demographic Variables Percentage

Data Analysis and Results

The demographic profile of study participants is presented in Table 1. The

Factor Analysis and Variable Preparation

Testing the Measurement Model

The proposed model as depicted in Figure 1 was tested following a two-stage

Testing the Structural Model

Scales/Items Standardized Factor Loadings

a. Cronbach’s alpha; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

Note: WOM = word of mouth.

Comparative Fit Measures χ2 df Sig. CMIN/DF CFI IFI RMSEA

Model 1: Residents 382.17 220 .001 1.81 .90 .91 .06

Cognitive → Affective .57* .76* .76* Hypothesis 1 supported

Note: WOM = word of mouth.

and prospective tourists). To examine variation in the measurement and the

Model 5. This comparison yielded a chi-square difference (Δχ2) of 62.25 with 56

manner in which people arrive to a WOM communication. The presence of past

their intention to engage in WOM communication. This finding suggests several

Submitted November 28, 2014

Dimitra Papadimitriou, PhD (e-mail: dpapad@upatras.gr), is an assistant professor in

You might also like

Experience with the Desnaon