Journal of Destination Marketing & Management xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research Paper

The effect of animosity on the intention to visit tourist destinations

⁎
Marta Sáncheza, Sara Campoa, , Maria D. Alvarezb
a
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Dpto. Financiación e Investigación Comercial, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Madrid, Spain
b
Bogaziçi University, Dpt. of Tourism Administration, Istanbul, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The concept of tourist destination image has been frequently studied, with numerous articles appearing in the
Animosity literature. In most of these studies, destination image is a defining variable for a tourist's intention to visit a
Intention to visit given destination. However, once the concept of hostility or animosity towards a country was introduced into
Tourist destination marketing, the idea arose to study how this hostility affects not only the consumption of goods from this
Country image
country, but also the intention to visit the place. This work delves into the construct of animosity to identify the
dimensions that comprise this concept, their role in tourism, and their influence on intention to visit a given
destination. The results of this study reveal that there are various types of animosity, depending on the country
analyzed, the influence of which on intention to visit does not always have a significant effect. The results
facilitate an improved understanding of what causes people to feel animosity towards a country while at the
same time offering destination managers guidelines to minimize its effects.

1. Introduction or part of the system (Glaesser, 2006). Okumus and Karamustafa

The 2008 and 2009 global economic crisis had a severe impact on
income from international tourism. After initial uncertainties and the
decrease of tourist income (Bronner & Hoog, 2010), the industry saw
significant improvements and by the beginning of 2012, recovery was
seen throughout the world. Given that tourism is, at the international
level, the most important force behind the world's economic recovery
and the sector with the highest growth rate throughout 2014 (World
Tourism Organization, 2014), any negative impact has far-reaching
consequences. Authors such as Gallarza, Gil, and Calderón (2002) or
Echtner and Ritchie (2003), consider tourism-related activities to be
the main drivers of economic growth and the per capita income of
developing countries. Likewise, tourism has been recognized as a key
sector in the growth of these countries, as well as being one of the most
effective instruments to decrease poverty and promote employment .
On the other hand, tourism has a transversal character and is
strongly dependent upon other aspects such as economy, security and
the environment (Rodríguez-Toubes & Fraiz, 2011), so that any
change in these areas has repercussions on tourist arrivals and receipts.
Within the scope of marketing research, there is a specific field about
how certain events, varying in nature, have a direct impact on tourism
(Clements & Georgiou, 1998). This area of study includes research on
crises and their impact on the perceptions of the destination and on the
decision to travel to the place. In the academic literature, a crisis is
defined as a critical change in an important variable that endangers all
(2005) define crisis as an unplanned event coming from within or
outside a country; one that interrupts the normal functioning of a given
area and threatens people, whether physically or psychologically, also
affecting the feasibility of tourism activities. Crises are categorized
according to their origin, with the most important being economic,
political, and military, as well as those resulting from natural phenom-
ena (Avraham, 2009).
The study of crisis in tourism is closely linked to that of animosity.
Çakmak and Isaac (2012) and Alvarez and Campo (2014) have
analyzed the image of destinations with continued crises: the conflicts
resulting in these crises can also lead to feelings of animosity towards a
given country if their consequences persist over time, and may thus
affect the image and the intention to visit, even when the critical event
has ceased. Guo, Zhou, and Tu (2016) have also confirmed that the
animosity the Chinese feel towards the Japanese as a result of the
events of World War II affects their intention to visit Japan as a
tourism destination. Indeed, animosity is defined as a remnant of
dislike derived from events past or still happening, which are generally
military or economic in nature (Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998).
Studies into international conflicts of a religious, diplomatic,
economic, or social nature, have received particular attention with
regards to the purchasing attitudes of consumers (Sutikno & Cheng,
2010). Nevertheless, few studies have researched the service sector:
more specifically, those investigating tourism are scarce, despite its
economic importance and transversal character. Tourism is also

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: martradesan@gmail.com (M. Sánchez), sara.campo@uam.es (S. Campo), alvarezm@boun.edu.tr (M.D. Alvarez).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.11.003
Received 14 March 2016; Received in revised form 3 November 2016; Accepted 5 November 2016
Available online xxxx
2212-571X/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Sánchez, M., Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.11.003
M. Sánchez et al.
strongly dependent upon other characteristics of the destination, such
as the stability of the economy, the safety of the place, or the quality of
the environment (Rodríguez-Toubes & Fraiz, 2011). Although it is
known that certain economic and political events have had a direct
impact on tourist activities (Arnegger & Herz, 2016; Clements &
Georgiou, 1998; Knott, Fyall, & Jones, 2015) there are few studies that
have performed an in-depth analysis of the effects of animosity in
tourism; the notable exception being that of Guo et al. (2016). At the
same time, economic, historical or even environmental events that have
been proven to influence tourism have not been analyzed regarding
their role as the origin of a possible situation of tourist animosity.
This research seeks to help fill this gap and contribute knowledge
about the role of animosity in tourism, with a double objective. On the
one hand, the study attempts to research the concept of animosity in
various countries to understand what types of animosity exist, how they
take place and what kind of animosity affects which countries.
According to Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007), animosity is specific
to the context; we need greater knowledge about the reasons that
generate it. Knowing what causes animosity towards a given destina-
tion is a basic starting point before attempting to correct its effects on
tourism, and to minimize the influence of this variable on the decision
to visit that destination (Podoshen & Hunt, 2011). On the other hand,
the research aims to investigate the effect of the various types of
animosity on the intention to visit a given destination. With this in
mind, this work is structured as follows. First, the concept of animosity
is analyzed through the academic work from different disciplines
discussing this topic. Based on prior literature, a theoretical model
regarding the types of animosity and their effect on the intention to
visit is configured, which is then contrasted through a quantitative
study. The third section describes the main results of the study, to
finally provide a series of conclusions, implications and limitations, as
well as future lines of study.
2. Animosity and its effect on the intention to visit a place
The study of animosity has been confirmed as a stream of research
in its own right, within the study of country of origin in marketing
(Bahaee & Pisani, 2009; Russell & Russell, 2006). Klein et al. (1998)
were the first to relate consumer behavior with conflicts between
nations; their work provided the most commonly seen definition of
animosity in the literature. Animosity was defined in their study as a
remainder of dislike towards a country generated by past or current
military or economic events. Jung et al. (2002) conceptualize the
construct as an attitude of hostility (beliefs and emotions) toward
external groups. The term had already appeared in the work of Averill
(1982), who defined it as general feelings of enmity, based on beliefs
originating in political or economic problems, that individuals see as
unjustified and contrary to social norms.
Since the introduction of animosity to the marketing literature by
Klein et al. (1998), several studies have established its influence on
purchase intentions of products from the country towards which the
hostility is felt. For Klein et al. (1998), although animosity does not
affect the product assessment, it does weigh heavily on the decision of
whether or not to purchase the product. This study was a turning point
in the literature pertaining to country of origin; until then, it was
assumed that the term ‘made in' impacted on the purchasing decision
through product assessment (Clifton, 2014; Papadopoulos & Heslop,
2003; Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). Klein et al.'s (1998) premise has
been corroborated by later studies (Amine, Chao, & Arnold, 2005;
Ettenson & Klein, 2005; Klein & Ettenson, 1999; Shimp, Dunn, &
Klein, 2004; Shoham, Davidow, Klein, & Ruvio, 2006). Other studies
have found contradictory results,, such as those ofAng et al. (2004) and
Huang, Phau, and Lin (2010), that found that animosity does have an
influence on the evaluation of the attributes of the products and on the
subsequent purchase decision.
Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007) classified the animosity litera-
2
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
ture into three groups: those that constitute the foundational support
of the theoretical body of the construct (Klein & Ettenson, 1999; Klein
et al., 1998); those that replicate the Klein model to validate it in
different geographical-time contexts (Bahaee & Pisani, 2009; Maher
& Mady, 2010; Nijssen & Douglas, 2004; Shin, 2001); and those that
expand the study of animosity onto other variables in addition to the
intention to purchase (Ang et al., 2004; Jung et al., 2002; Shimp et al.,
2004). In addition, both animosity between countries (Amine et al.,
2005; Klein & Ettenson, 1999; Little, Cox, & Little, 2012) and within
a single country (Shimp et al., 2004; Shoham et al., 2006) have been
investigated. Other studies analyze the relationship between animosity
and other variables, such as ethnocentrism (Akdogan, Ozgener,
Kaplan, & Coskun, 2012; Jiménez & San Martin, 2010; Klein &
Ettenson, 1999), normative social influence (Huang et al., 2010), price
(Cui, Wajda, & Hu, 2012), and the level of individualism or collecti-
vism in society (Koh, 2014).
Based on this previous research, it can be stated that animosity is a
complex concept where diverse variables enter into play (Jiménez &
San Martin, 2010; Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009); depending on the
causes, diverse dimensions or types that are established. The work of
Klein et al. (1998) differentiated two types of animosity that give rise to
this feeling of ill will: military and economic. The first results from
aggressions or military actions taken by one nation against another.
Economic aspects, on the other hand, are understood as feelings of
dominance, exploitation, or aggression towards a given country, with
effects on its economy, industry, or commerce. Subsequent works
extend the classification to other types, such as political (Russell, 2004;
Witkowski, 2000), religious (Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2007) and
social, or animosity toward people (Larsen, 2014; Nes, Yelkur, &
Silkoset, 2012).
Accordingly, Jung et al. (2002) developed a typology of animosity to
facilitate the analysis and comparison of the construct between
different countries. The authors established the types of animosity
depending on the locus and source of the manifestation, thus deter-
mining two bipolar continua that define animosity as specific—situa-
tional, and national—personal. Jung et al. (2002) stated that animosity
could be due to a particular event - situational - or to the accumulation
of incidents over time - stable. Situational animosity may be assimi-
lated to the effects caused by crises and become stable, in which case
personally experiencing the events, circumstances or actions causing
that animosity is not necessary (Jung et al., 2002, p. 527).
Furthermore, people animosity refers to the subject rather than the
object, because as Leong et al. (2008) point out, when the cause of the
transgression is perceived as an individual, animosity is not generated
toward the country: only when it is interpreted that a country has
participated in the offense does this lead to a feeling of animosity. In
contrast, stable national animosity that is caused by historical circum-
stances at the national level may become commonplace among the
national population (Nadeau, Heslop, O’Reilly, & Luk, 2008).
When it comes to measuring and quantifying animosity, most of the
literature uses Klein et al.’s (1998) scale as a starting point, which is
then adapted to the specific context (Abraham & Reitman, 2014;
Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2007). Although studies have verified the
legitimacy and reliability of the Klein et al. (1998) model in eight
countries, other authors point out the inherent problems of adapting
that model to varied situations and scenarios. Hoffmann, Mai, and
Smirnova (2011) indicate the convenience of establishing measuring
methods that facilitate the comparison of results from various space-
time scenarios. These authors recognize the existence of universal
factors (drivers) that appear in all situations of animosity and that
allow these states of hostility to be arranged and compared based on
degrees (with regards to the perceived threat, unethical political
behavior and negative personal experience). Qualitative exploratory
studies suggest that animosity is a more complex construct than the
original two-dimensional nature (see review by Nes et al. (2012)) and
encourage researchers to follow this line of study.
M. Sánchez et al.
In the study of animosity, having the researcher select the target
country and the items is one of the most controversial aspects. Most of
the literature is limited to applying the Klein et al. (1998) model to
various geographical and temporal backdrops, with certain adapta-
tions. Then again, the fact that the researcher selects the animosity
target countries could be seen as possible manipulation (Abraham &
Reitman, 2014; Maher & Mady, 2010). In addition, Riefler and
Diamantopoulos (2007) point out that the tools to measure the
construct must be specifically created, responding to a given context,
while Shin (2001) proposes using measuring instruments that include
the specific characteristics of each case to allow comparisons. These
authors also indicate that measuring animosity as a general unidimen-
sional concept is not ideal, but rather it must be adapted to the type of
animosity of each specific case, which in turn responds to underlying
reasons.
Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007) adapt the measuring model
bearing in mind the limitations indicated above concerning the initial
model by Klein et al. (1998), and propose that animosity is measured in
a specific way according to the country, while also separating this
measurement of the underlying reasons from that of animosity per se.
For these authors, the construct of animosity is represented by a latent
variable, determined by a group of political, economic, personal, or
military-type reasons.
The present research is based on the Klein et al. (1998) model,
under the premise of there being a greater number of dimensions for
animosity depending on the type of country analyzed and the reason
why ill will was generated. The literature recognizes the existence of
economic (Ang et al., 2004; Klein et al., 1998; Shin, 2001), military
(Çakmak & Isaac, 2012; Klein et al., 1998; Nijssen & Douglas, 2004;
Shin, 2001), political (Russell, 2004; Witkowski, 2000), religious
(Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2007), and social animosity or animosity
towards people (Larsen, 2014; Nes et al., 2012). To differentiate the
existence of these dimensions and of others not mentioned in previous
research, the initial objective of this work is to identify them by means
of an exploratory study.
The second objective seeks to identify the effect of animosity on the
intention to visit a tourist destination. Based on the studies applied to
the goods market (Bahaee & Pisani, 2009; Maher & Mady, 2010;
Nijssen & Douglas, 2004; Shimp et al., 2004; Shin, 2001), it is
expected that animosity has a negative effect on the intention to visit
the country in question. Nevertheless, studies in the field of tourism
(Echtner & Prasad, 2002; Huang, Chen, & Lin, 2013¸ Nadeau et al.,
2008; Öztürkmen, 2005) have determined that there are known cases
in which countries with a negative image are seen as attractive tourist
destinations thanks to their cultural, natural or historical wealth
(World Heritage sites, virgin beaches, etc). It is therefore expected
that not all types of animosity will have the same effect on the intention
to visit. The present study seeks to determine empirically which
dimensions of animosity are those that influence the intention to visit
the country as a tourist destination.
3. Methodology
The study was carried out in Turkey and concerns the feelings of
animosity towards a given country of Turkish individuals, and the
influence that these have on their intention to visit the destination. The
first task consisted of an exploratory study to avoid the possible
manipulation that could arise when the researchers themselves select
the target countries of animosity (Maher & Mady, 2010). A pilot study
was carried out in April 2015 with a sample of 36 people selected for
convenience among individuals that were easily accessible to the
researchers and would also be both able and willing to travel abroad.
Care was taken to have a balanced sample in terms of gender and age.
This preliminary exploratory study used structured interviews to
learn the countries towards which the Turkish people feel animosity.
Thus, the participants were requested to mention the countries towards
3
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
which they felt the most dislike towards and to explain why. In order to
address the possible reluctance of the respondents to negatively label
specific countries, the researchers explained that the countries identi-
fied need not be hated, but could simply be associated with more
negative feelings as compared to others. The aim was to identify those
countries that are viewed with more hostility in a relative sense, as
compared to others, and to get some insights into the reasons why.
Israel, China, and Saudi Arabia were the countries most associated with
negative feelings. During this preliminary research, comments arose
about reasons for animosity not mentioned in the literature, which
allowed us to add new items to those already indicated in previous
studies (Ang et al., 2004; Cai, Fang, Yang, & Song, 2012; Ettenson &
Klein, 2005; Klein et al., 1998; Klein, 2002; Maher & Mady, 2010; Nes
et al., 2012; Nijssen & Douglas, 2004). Specifically, some reasons for
social animosity ('I dislike that the people of this country criticize the
policies of my country'), political animosity '(I dislike this country as it
doesn't respect women's/human right's), and religious animosity ('This
country doesn't respect other religions') were added.
Next, the researchers carried out an online survey aimed at Turkish
citizens. In the first part of the questionnaire, the items included reflect
the different dimensions for animosity identified: economic, four items
(Ang et al., 2004; Klein et al., 1998; Shin, 2001); social or towards
people, 4 items (Nes et al., 2012); political, five items (Russell, 2004;
religious, two items (Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2007); historical, two
items (Cai et al., 2012); and military, three items (Klein et al., 1998;
Nijssen & Douglas, 2004). A dimension was also included that reflects
the overall degree of animosity, following Riefler and Diamantopoulos
(2007) who stress the need to distinguish between the underlying
reasons for animosity and the feelings of animosity per se. The scale
used is presented in Table 1. Additionally, an intention to visit variable
is included (three items). The items are measured using a five-point
Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. In the
second part of the questionnaire, a series of socio-demographic
variables (age, gender, marital status, and income level) were re-
quested.
The survey was administered by posting invitations during the
months of April and May 2015, and soliciting participation through
social media networks and online forums that discussed topics related
to entertainment and leisure. Facebook pages and public discussion
groups reviewing cultural events and leisure activities were identified,
since it was believed that the sample obtained through those means
would be more representative of the segment of the Turkish population
that is both able and willing to travel abroad. However, this sampling
method also meant that the sample accessed corresponds to a younger,
more affluent, and less conservative population. This limits the
generalizability of the results obtained to the overall Turkish popula-
tion, as will be discussed in the limitations section. Thus, following this
sampling methodology, messages requesting participation in the
research and providing a link to the online questionnaire were posted
in those sites. The messages explained the academic nature of the
research clearly identifying the participating universities and stated
that the respondents would be required to rate several countries in
relation to various aspects.
Each respondent was requested to answer the questions in relation
to the three countries identified in the preliminary exploratory study as
being the target of higher general levels of animosity from the Turks,
namely Israel, China, and Saudi Arabia. These countries are also
important within the Turkish outbound tourism market, representing
all together around 6% of this market (World Tourism Organization,
2016). While the number of Turkish tourists traveling to Saudi Arabia
(556,890 in 2014, representing almost 5% of the total Turkish out-
bound market) is greatest compared to the other two countries
considered, the percentage growth is highest for Israel (World
Tourism Organization, 2016). Indeed, a 38% increase in the number
of Turkish citizens traveling to Israel was seen in 2014: well beyond the
already high 14% growth of the overall Turkish outbound market
M. Sánchez et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 1 Table 2
Questionnaire items. Results of ANOVA. Cronbach´s alpha.

Dimensions of Animosity and Items Mean Standard Dev. Standard F p Alpha

intention to visit Error

Economic Animosity This country is out to exploit the economy of Economic Saudi 2.98 0.94 0.07
my country and other countries Animo- Arabia
This country is taking advantage of my sity Israel 3.48 0.92 0.07
country and other countries. China 3.89 0.86 0.07
This country has too much economic Total 3.45 0.98 0.04 40.41 0.00 0.67
influence on my country and other countries.
I dislike this country because it is a low cost/ Social Saudi 3.15 0.93 0.07
low quality producer Animo- Arabia
sity Israel 3.40 1.11 0.09
Social Animosity I dislike the mentality of the people of this China 2.35 0.86 0.07
(Towards People) country. Total 2.96 1.07 0.05 52.12 0.00 0.72
I feel that people in this country are hostile
towards my country. Political Saudi 4.22 0.87 0.07
I dislike that people from this country Animo- Arabia
criticize my country's policies. sity Israel 3.57 0.91 0.07
My experiences with people from this China 3.31 0.84 0.07
country are negative. Total 3.70 0.95 0.04 46.77 0.00 0.79

Political Animosity I dislike the policies of the government from Religious Saudi 4.17 1.10 0.09
this country. Animo- Arabia
I dislike the political system in this country. sity Israel 4.05 1.02 0.08
I dislike the corruption in this country. China 2.61 1.08 0.08
I dislike this country because it does not Total 3.61 1.28 0.06 108.48 0.00 0.82
respect human rights.
I dislike this country because it does not Historical Saudi 3.75 1.14 0.09
respect women's rights. Animo- Arabia
sity Israel 3.87 1.16 0.09
Religious Animosity This country does not respect other religions. China 3.02 1.12 0.09
I dislike the religious system in this country. Total 3.55 1.20 0.05 26.61 0.00 0.68

Historical Animosity I dislike this country because of past Military Saudi 2.63 1.03 0.08
historical events. ani- Arabia
I dislike this country because of its historic mosity Israel 4.36 0.79 0.06
oppressing other countries. China 3.10 1.03 0.08
Total 3.36 1.20 0.05 142.97 0.00 0.78
Military Animosity I believe that this country poses a huge
military threat. Overall Saudi 3.56 1.33 0.10
I dislike this county's involvement in wars Animo- Arabia
and conflicts. sity Israel 3.65 1.36 0.11
I dislike the military operations in this China 2.42 1.02 0.08
country. Total 3.21 1.36 0.06 49.65 0.00 0.86

Overall Animosity In general, I dislike this country.

In general, I feel annoyed by this country.
Intention to Visit I intend to visit this country in the future.
I would choose this country for my next
holiday.
I would prefer to visit this country rather
than other similar destinations.
(World Tourism Organization, 2016). Avivi (2014) explains the in-
creased interest of the Turks in traveling to Israel through the growing
business interaction between the two countries, Israel being Turkey's
tenth-largest export market. A similar explanation may be used to
explain the increase of the Turkish outbound market to Saudi Arabia,
as the trade relations between these two countries has intensified
significantly in the last five years, with Turkish companies winning
major construction contracts in Saudi Arabia (Khan, 2014). Meanwhile
the number of Turkish visitors to China has also increased by 8% in
2014, although this growth is below that of the overall Turkish
outbound market (World Tourism Organization, 2016). In this sense,
according to the World Trade Organization (2015) there is a major
imbalance in the trade relations between Turkey and China, in favor of
the latter.
Following the invitations posted in social media to fill in the online
survey, a total of 489 animosity evaluations from 163 valid question-
naires were obtained. Only those surveys that had been totally
completed and contained data on all three countries were included in
the analysis in order to ensure comparisons between the three
countries investigated.
4. Results
The data collected in this study corresponds to a sample that was
generally characterized by young people, with 59% being between 18
and 25 years, and 25% between 26 and 35 years. The gender
distribution was homogeneous, with 47% women and 53% men. In
addition, 83% of the respondents were single and their average
monthly net income was high (39% fell within the highest income
range of more than 5000 Turkish Lira (TL) and 22% within the second-
highest range falling between 3500 and 5000 TL).
To analyze whether there are differences between countries with
regard to the type of existing animosity, an ANOVA analysis was
performed among the countries using the averages obtained for each
dimension (see Table 2). The dependent variable was the type of
animosity and the independent variable the country analyzed. The
results showed that the country towards which the sample had greater
general animosity was Israel (3.64), and the one towards which they
had the least was China (2.41). Only in the economic dimension did
China significantly exceed the other countries with regards to animosity
(3.88 compared with the average of 3.45). For all of the other
dimensions, China was the one with the lowest scores as an object of
animosity when compared to the remaining countries.

4
M. Sánchez et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Israel, the country towards which the average overall animositywas
greatest (3.64), was also the country that accounted for the highest
average level of military animosity (4.36, close to the maximum mark
on the five-point scale), as well as historical and social animosity (3.88
and 3.39 respectively). Regarding political and religious animosity,
Saudi Arabia was the country towards which there was the greatest
animosity (4.22 and 4.17 respectively). It nevertheless accounted for
the lowest score for economic (2.98) and military (2.62) animosity.
When considering the mean score for all three countries on each
dimension, it is necessary to highlight that those components of
animosity with the highest values are political (3.70) and religious
(3.61). Within these, the scores for Saudi Arabia, followed by Israel,
exceeded the average. In contrast, the social animosity scores were
lower than those of the other dimensions (2.96), indicating a lower
level of animosity towards the people. Concerning this dimension, the
individuals towards whom there is least animosity in Turkey were the
Chinese.
To analyze the internal reliability of the various animosity dimen-
sions, namely economic, social, political, religious, historical, and
military, Cronbach's alpha was used. These values, shown in Table 2,
indicate that all animosity dimensions exceeded the recommended
value of 0.7 (Hair, Tatham, Anderson, & Black, 2006), except for
historical and economic animosity, whose results were close (0.68 and
0.67 respectively). Given that in some countries these dimensions are
more difficult to assess or do not exist (e.g. economic animosity), it is
reasonable that the value of the statistic be somewhat lower.
To cover the second objective of this research – to analyze the
influence of each type of animosity on the intention to visit – a step by
step linear regression analysis was carried out. The intention to visit
country i was considered to be a dependent variable, while each of the
dimensions for animosity towards country i were independent vari-
ables.
Y =c+a1 AEC + a2 AP+ a3 APO+ a4 AR+ a5 AH +a6 AM +e
Where:
Yi: intention to visit country i
c: constant
a1-6: parameter to be estimated
AECi: Economic Animosity towards i
APi Social Animosity towards i
APOi: Political Animosity towards i
ARi: Religious Animosity towards i
AHi: Historical Animosity towards i
AMi: Military Animosity towards i
e: error for prediction parameters
The results of the regression analysis indicated that of the six
dimensions for animosity, only political and social/people animosity
had a significantly negative effect on the tourists’ intention to visit
Saudi Arabia, with a standardized weight of −0.27 and −0.21 respec-
tively (see Table 3). Also, the political dimension had a significantly
negative influence on the intention to visit the other two countries
analyzed, with a standardized weight of −0.40 for Israel and −0.22 for
China.
5. Discussion
The results obtained in this study enable a better understanding of
the concept of animosity towards countries and its effect on the
demand for tourism. These findings support previous research that
maintains the complex and multidisciplinary nature of animosity, and
thus, the existence of various types of animosity. In this sense, the
current study expands the initial model by Klein et al. (1998), which
recognizes the existence of two types of animosity – military and
economic – to a total of six kinds of animosity that arise in a
differentiated way: economic, social, political, religious, historical,
and military. As this study confirms, animosity has a variety of origins:
these correspond to the established dimensions and are applicable to
numerous geographical scenarios that are sources of animosity.
Nevertheless, the type of animosity and its intensity depends on the
countries analyzed.
The results reveal that for the sample of Turkish people, the country
towards which there was the greatest degree of general animosity was
Israel. Moreover, this country scores highest on most dimensions of
animosity (historical, military, and social). The highest absolute score
in the study was for military animosity towards Israel, which may be
explained by the historical relationship between these two countries.
Although Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize the state of
Israel in 1949, since then a multitude of events have spoiled their
relationship. Diverse violent incidents related with Israel and a number
of Muslim states both outside and inside its borders, have led to mutual
animosity (Rubenstein, 2003).
On the other hand, the political relationship between Turkey and
Israel has also become tense in recent years. The growing critical
attitude of the former Prime Minister and the current President of
Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, regarding certain political decisions
carried out by Israel, has heated public opinion (Alvarez & Campo,
2014). Nevertheless, the data regarding commercial exchange between
Turkey and Israel provide a different perspective: in 2013, turnover
rose to $4858 million, with Turkey being one of Israel's ten most
important commercial partners, occupying the fifth position for
imports from Israel and sixth for exports among members of the
OECD (Shabot, 2014). This situation could explain the fact that despite
the existing tensions between both countries and their periodic political
conflicts, Israel is not the country with the highest level of economic
and political animosity as declared by the Turks. According to the
thesis proposed by Shabot (2014), the logic behind Erdogan's attitude
and his critical speech regarding Israel is based on the fact that this
rhetoric serves the Turkish president by providing him visibility among
Muslims.
In the case of China, the main animosity was found to be economic,

Table 3
Results of the step linear regression analysis.

Country assessed Nonstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t R2 Sig.

B Error type Beta

Saudi Arabia Constant 4.27 0.41 10.33 0.00

Political Animosity −0.36 0.11 −0.27 −3.15 0.02
Social Animosity −0.26 0.11 −0.21 −2.45 0.18 0.01

Israel Constant 3.81 0.34 11.29 0.00

Political Animosity −0.51 0.09 −0.40 −5.61 0.16 0.00

China (Constant) 3.89 0.36 10.95 0.00

Political Animosity −0.30 0.10 −0.22 −2.87 0.05 0.00

5
M. Sánchez et al.
with this dimension being the only one where China surpassed Saudi
Arabia and Israel. According to World Trade Organization's data
(2015), China is the third most important source of imports to
Turkey; at the same time, Turkey is fourteenth when it comes to
exporting products to China. The major imbalance between Turkish
exports to China ($2.8 trillion in 2012) and its imports ($21.7 million
in the same period) could explain why the economic dimension is the
only one showing a high level of animosity towards China. It is
noteworthy that following economic animosity, the dimension in which
the highest level of animosity towards China appears was political. The
explanation for this could lie in the change of attitude experienced by
the Asian country regarding a number of subjects (Bolinaga, 2008).
Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, Israel had a clear political alignment
with the United States, which allowed China to establish political bonds
with Muslim countries. In 1992, there was a change in the relationships
between China and the Middle East (Oviedo, 2005, p. 156), as well as
with other Muslim countries, when China ceased to condemn Israel
and ended up recognizing it as a state. For Bolinaga (2008), the impact
of the Chinese-Israeli relationship is a determining factor behind
Middle Eastern geopolitics, and changed the traditional model regard-
ing ties between Turkey and China. In addition, Turkish people,
especially those included in this study's sample (younger and more
affluent) may disapprove of China's current political system. These and
other possible explanations need to be further investigated to obtain a
clearer picture of the reasons underlying the political animosity of the
Turks toward China.
Concerning the religious dimension, Saudi Arabia was the country
towards which most animosity was shown by the sample of Turks.
Although an overwhelming majority of the population is composed of
Sunni Muslims in both countries, there are remarkable differences.
When it comes to religious freedom, Saudi Arabia is the most
restrictive country in the world: despite half a million Christians living
in the country, it is the only state that had no relationship with The
Vatican until 2013. Saudi Arabia maintains a theocentric policy: the
law itself is responsible for ensuring that the religious norms are
complied with. This fact contrasts with the separation between politics
and religion, as seen in Turkey, which is a lay republic (laiklik) that was
constitutionally defined in 1924. It is, however, certain that, at the
moment, all the public schools, from elementary to the higher levels of
education, teach mandatory religion classes that focus exclusively on
the Sunni denomination. The current tendency of the Turkish govern-
ment to increase the role of religion in education and other social and
political environments in Turkey has caused a reaction among certain
elements of society. This, in turn, translates into an aversion against
Islam in its most traditional Sunni version. This fact could explain the
high level of both political and religious animosity on behalf of the
Turks in the sample towards Saudi Arabia. As seen in the results of this
study, the areas of politics and religion are intimately linked in the case
of Turkey: both dimensions for animosity are those in which Saudi
Arabia obtained the highest scores. Due to the reality of the country,
religion and politics go hand in hand.
6. Implications
The study advances the existing literature on animosity and
proposes a comprehensive scale to measure the construct that includes
six different dimensions that refer to the various reasons for the
negative feelings experienced. The research confirms that the same
scale may be used for diverse countries, although the level of each type
of animosity will vary depending on the country assessed. Accordingly,
the current research uses a measure of animosity that is not country-
specific, in contrast to earlier studies (such as those by Klein et al.,
1998, Klein, 2002, Nijssen & Douglas, 2004, and Shin, 2001). The
context-specific nature of existing scales to measure the construct is
also observed by Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007), who remark that
the majority of investigations center war-related animosity on specific
6
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
negative past events, such as Japanese invasion and German occupa-
tion during World War II, Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbour, etc.
Thus, the current investigation has the merit of providing a basis for
comparing three different countries, viewed from the perspective of
specific individuals.
In addition, the research expands the theoretical domain of the
animosity construct by including a comprehensive set of dimensions
and items that is derived both from the literature and from prior
exploratory work. Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007) also encourage
researchers to expand these causes for animosity, and confirm that
differences in mentality and religious motives may be crucial in
creating feelings of hostility towards a given country. In particular, in
the present research, political animosity and social animosity are
considered to be especially influential on the intention to visit the
country as a tourism destination.
In this study, in addition to the various types and dimensions of the
animosity construct, the influence of each on the intention to visit has
been analyzed. The results, contrary to what might be believed, indicate
that the effect of certain dimensions of the construct on the intention to
visit is not significant. Thus, despite there being reasons that could
indicate that the historical animosity of the Turkish people towards
Saudi Arabia and Israel could affect their intention to visit these
countries, the fact is that the only significant influence is exercised by
the political dimension, and in the case of Saudi Arabia by the social
one.
Similarly, the current study concludes that for the three countries
assessed economic animosity does not affect visitation intentions. In
this regard, the research, which extends the animosity literature to the
tourism context, supports Nijssen and Douglas' (2004) investigation,
which also failed to find an influence of economic animosity on the
reluctance of the Dutch to purchase German products. The study thus
confirms the importance of certain types of animosity as opposed to
others in terms of influencing purchase behavior in the context of
tourism. However, it is important to note that the influence of the
various dimensions of animosity may vary for different countries.
In addition to contributing to our knowledge, the results of the
study are practical, especially for countries where tourism constitutes
an important source of income. Previous studies suggest that there is a
relationship between tourism development and the economy (Halkier
& Lew, 2014). Alvarez and Campo (2011) and Campo and Alvarez
(2010) indicate that although history and politics determine a country's
image, these need not play the same role regarding the image of the
destination and therefore the intention to visiting that country.
As previous works have suggested, animosity plays an important
role on a destination's economic activity, since it influences tourists’
behavior and attitude (Campo & Alvarez, 2013) and the intention to
visit a destination (Podoshen & Hunt, 2011). The present study
contributes to the literature on the topic, by confirming the influence
of animosity on the intention to visit the country, albeit only for the
political and social animosity dimensions. Knowing the aspects of
animosity and their presence in the tourists’ minds (affecting their
intention to visit) is important to improve a country's tourist industry,
because it could enhance the effectiveness and the efficiency of the
strategies designed to improve this key economic sector.
In recent years, cities, regions, and countries have implemented
different re-imaging strategies to improve their perceptions to external
audiences. This re-imaging process affects different image components
and therefore places may benefit from mechanisms that allow them to
identify their images’ weak points and to adapt their strategies
accordingly (Smith, 2005). In parallel, Avraham and Ketter (2008)
point out that national tourist organizations could carry out campaigns
aimed at improving the image of their destinations, thanks to the fact
that image is dynamic and continuous by nature. In their work, these
authors indicate the importance of detailed studies on the factors that
influence the image of a place. In the case of Israel, its history as a
center of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam transforms it into a highly
M. Sánchez et al.
attractive tourist destination; however, continuous religious and poli-
tical conflicts need to be addressed, thus making tourist marketing
management highly complicated for this destination (Avraham &
Ketter, 2008). In this regard, better knowledge concerning how the
country is perceived and which types of animosity are prevalent would
be useful to address these negative judgements.
The results of this study show that for the Turks, the political and
social dimensions (the latter only in the case of Saudi Arabia) exercise
negative effects on the individual's intention to visit. A better under-
standing of these issues may help address the level of animosity, while
also providing a useful tool for segmentation purposes.
7. Limitations
The first limitation of this work is the nature of the sample. Since
this sample was selected based on a procedure of convenience, it is
possible that the results could vary to a certain degree if a more
representative sampling of the society was used. The sample obtained
for this study through social media networks and leisure forums
corresponds to a younger population with higher income.
Nevertheless, it is true that in Turkey, the social classes that travel
abroad most are the more affluent and better educated. These are also
the individuals that are more protective of the secular republic and
more concerned about the increased islamization of the political arena
in Turkey. Therefore, although the findings in this study may not be
representative of the views of the Turkish population, the information
obtained does help understand the perceptions of a segment of the
population that is more likely to travel abroad.
A second problem – which has already come up in previous studies
about animosity (Klein, 2002) – is that the study of the construct and
its effects on the intention to visit is based on preferences rather than
on decisions and real consumer behavior. However, the use of items
from previous works as a base from which the questionnaire was
composed (Klein et al., 1998) has been questioned in the literature.
Some authors suggest the possibility that the use of certain indicators
could reinforce the sample's feeling of animosity, so that the actual
measurement instrument causes the answers to differ from the real
actions or feelings (Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2007). Even though the
current research was undertaken based on a previous qualitative study
used to identify the most disliked countries and the causes leading to
this animosity, the measurement instrument could cause the sample to
be subjected to stimuli that would not exist or would be indirect in a
real decision, thus reinforcing the possible animosity (Russell &
Russell, 2010).
Lastly, with regards to the limitations, animosity is not static.
Therefore, in the future it would be interesting to analyze its progress
by means of a longitudinal study that is structured to measure the
evolution of the feelings of animosity towards a particular country over
a specific stretch of time, as well as the development of tourist demand
throughout the same period. This would, in turn, confirm whether the
effects of a specific incident during the time surveyed respond to the
definition of crisis as a one-off situation or if they become the origin of
animosity as a more persistent feeling.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation (National Plan for Research, Development and
Innovation ECO2014-59356-P).
References
Abraham, V., & Reitman, A. (2014). Item-generation in consumer animosity research.
Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 21(3), 464–471.
Akdogan, M., Ozgener, S., Kaplan, M., & Coskun, A. (2012). The effects of consumer
ethnocentrism and consumer animosity on the re-purchase intent: The moderating
7
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
role of consumer loyalty. Emerging Markets Journal, 2(1), 1–7.
Alvarez, M. D., & Campo, S. (2011). Controllable versus uncontrollable information
sources: Effects on the image of Turkey. International Journal of Tourism Research,
13(4), 310–323.
Alvarez, M. D., & Campo, S. (2014). The influence of political conflicts on country image
and intention to visit: A study of Israel's image. Tourism Management, 40, 70–78.
Amine, L., Chao, M., & Arnold, M. (2005). Executive insights: exploring the practical
effects of country of origin, animosity, and price-quality issues: Two case studies of
Taiwan and Acer in China. Journal of International Marketing, 13(2), 114–150.
Ang, S., Jung, K., Kau, A., Leong, S., Pompitakpan, C., & Tan, S. (2004). Animosity
towards economics giants: What the little guys think. The Journal of International
Marketing, 13(2), 190–207.
Arnegger, J., & Herz, M. (2016). Economic and destination image impacts of mega-
events in emerging tourist destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 5(2), 76–85.
Averill, J. (1982). Anger and aggression:An essay on emotion New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Avivi, Y. (2014). Turks come to Israel in record numbers. Allmonitor, July 1, 2014.
Retrieved July 26, 2016, from 〈http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/
07/turkey-tourism-marmara-export.html〉
Avraham, E. (2009). Marketing and managing nation branding during prolonged crisis:
The case of Israel. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5, 202–212.
Avraham, E., & Ketter, E. (2008). Media strategies for marketing places in crisis:
Improving the image of cities, countries and tourist destinations Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Bahaee, M., & Pisani, M. J. (2009). Iranian consumer animosity and US products: A
witch's brew or elixir? International Business Review, 18(2), 199–210.
Bolinaga, L. (2008). La relación sino-israelí: Su proyección sobre la geopolítica de Medio
Oriente. Observatorio de política china, España. Retrieved September 16, 2015,
from 〈http://www.politica-china.org/imxd/noticias/doc/12235813Relacion_sino-
israeli.pdf〉
Bronner, A., & Hoog, R. (2010). Consumer-generated versus marketer-generated
websites in consumer decision making. International Journal of Market Research,
52, 231–248.
Cai, H., Fang, X., Yang, Z., & Song, H. (2012). Explicit consumer animosity: A primary
validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(7), 1651–1674.
Çakmak, E., & Isaac, R. K. (2012). What destination marketers can learn from their
visitors' blogs: An image analysis of Bethlehem, Palestine. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 1(1–2), 124–133.
Campo, S., & Alvarez, M. D. (2010). Country versus destination image in a developing
country. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(7), 749–765.
Campo, S., & Alvarez, M. D. (2013). Can tourism promotions influence a country's
negative image? An experimental study on Israel's image. Current Issues in Tourism,
17(3), 201–219.
Clements, M. A., & Georgiou, A. (1998). The impact of political instability on a fragile
tourism product. Tourism Management, 19(3), 283–288.
Clifton, N. (2014). Towards a holistic understanding of county of origin effects? Branding
of the region, branding from the region. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 3(2), 122–132.
Cui, A., Wajda, T., & Hu, M. (2012). Consumer animosity and product choice: Might
price make a difference? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(7), 494–506.
Echtner, C., & Ritchie, J. (2003). The Meaning and measurement of destination image.
Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37–46.
Echtner, C. M., & Prasad, P. (2002). The context of Third World marketing. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30(3), 60–682.
Ettenson, R., & Klein, J. (2005). The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South
Pacific: A longitudinal study of consumer boycotts. International Marketing Review,
22(2), 199–224.
Gallarza, M. G., Gil, I., & Calderón, H. (2002). Imagen de un destino: Hacia un marco
conceptual. Annals of Tourism Research en Español, 4(1), 37–62.
Glaesser, D. (2006). Crisis management in the tourism industry (2nd ed.) Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Guo, G., Zhou, X., & Tu, H. (2016). Consumer animosity, self-efficacy and willingness-to-
visit: An empirical study on young outbound tourism market. Tourism Tribune,
31(2), 44–52.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate data analysis
(6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halkier, H., & Lew, A. (2014). Evolutionary economic geography and the economies of
tourism destinations. Tourism Geographies, 16(4), 535–539.
Hoffmann, S., Mai, R., & Smirnova, M. (2011). Development and validation of a cross-
nationally stable scale of consumer animosity. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2), 235–252.
Huang, W., Chen, C., & Lin, Y. (2013). Cultural proximity and intention to visit:
Destination image of Taiwan as perceived by mainland Chinese visitors. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management, 2(3), 176–184.
Huang, Y., Phau, I., & Lin, C. (2010). Consumer animosity, economic hardship, and
normative influence: How do they affect consumers' purchase intention? European
Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 909–937.
Jiménez, N., & San Martín, M. (2010). Socio-psychological antecedents of the buying of
foreign products: Consumer ethnocentrism and animosity. Revista Española de
Investigación de Marketing ESIC, 14, 17–24.
Jung, K., Ang, S., Leong, S., Tan, S., Pompitakpan, C., & Kau, A. (2002). A typology of
animosity and its cross nation validation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,
33(6), 529–539.
Khan, G. A. (2014). Turkish entreprises keen to build on strong Saudi ties. Arab News,
29th October 2014. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from 〈http://www.arabnews.com/
M. Sánchez et al.
saudi-arabia/news/651581〉
Klein, J. G. (2002). Us versus them, or us versus everyone? Delineating consumer
aversion to foreign goods. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 345–363.
Klein, J. G., & Ettenson, R. (1999). Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism:
An analysis of unique antecedents. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
11(4), 5–24.
Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. (1998). The animosity model of foreign product
purchase: An empirical test in the People's Republic of China. Journal of Marketing,
62(1), 89–100.
Knott, B., Fyall, A., & Jones, I. (2015). The nation branding opportunities provided by a
sport mega-event: South Africa and the 2010 FIFA world cup. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 4(1), 46–56.
Koh, D. (2014). Consumer animosity following international crisis: A conceptual
framework to understand Indonesian consumers’ attitude towards Australian
products. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(10), 21–27.
Larsen, H. G. (2014). The emerging shanghai city brand: A netnographic study of image
perception among foreigners. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management,
3(1), 18–28.
Leong, S. M., Cote, J. A., Ang, S. H., Tan, S. J., Jung, K., Kau, A., & Pornpitakpan, C.
(2008). Understanding consumer animosity in an international crisis: Nature,
antecedents, and consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 39,
996–1009.
Little, J., Cox, K., & Little, E. (2012). A generational comparison of economic-based and
war-based consumer animosity: The cases of US consumer animosity towards China
and Vietnam. Marketing Management Journal, 22(2), 31–44.
Maher, A., & Mady, S. (2010). Animosity, subjective norms, and anticipated emotions
during an international crisis. International Marketing Review, 27(6), 630–651.
Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O’Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a country image
context. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 84–106.
Nes, E., Yelkur, R., & Silkoset, R. (2012). Exploring the animosity domain and the role of
affect in a cross-national context. International Business Review, 21(5), 751–765.
Nijssen, E., & Douglas, S. (2004). Examining the animosity model in a country with a
high level of foreign trade. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1),
23–38.
Okumus, F., & Karamustafa, K. (2005). Impact of an economic crisis: Evidence from
Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 942–961.
Oviedo, E. (2005). China en expansión. Colección Thesys. Córdoba (Argentina): Edit.
UCA
Öztürkmen, A. (2005). Turkish tourism at the door of Europe: Perceptions of image in
historical and contemporary perspectives. Middle Eastern Studies, 41(4), 605–621.
Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. (2003). Country equity and product-country images:
State-of-the-art in research and implications. Handbook of Research in
International Marketing, 402–433.
Podoshen, J. S., & Hunt, J. M. (2011). Equity restoration, the Holocaust and tourism of
sacred sites. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1332–1342.
Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2007). Consumer animosity: A literature review and a
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management xx (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
reconsideration of its measurement. International Marketing Review, 24(1),
87–119.
Rodríguez- Toubes, D., & Fraiz, J. (2011). Crisis management in tourism: The emergency
side of the sustainability. Tourism & Management Studies, 6, 49–58.
Roth, M. S., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Advancing the country image construct.
Journal of Business Research, 42(7), 726–740.
Rubenstein, R. E. (2003). Aristotle's children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews
rediscovered ancient wisdom and illuminated the dark ages Orlando: Harcourt, Inc.
Russell, C. A. (2004). Now Showing: Global motives crossing cultural lines. Is this
resistance futile? San Diego, CA: San Diego University
Russell, C. A., & Russell, D. W. (2010). Guilty by stereotypic association: country
animosity and brand prejudice and discrimination. Marketing Letters, 21(4),
413–425.
Russell, D. W., & Russell, C. A. (2006). Explicit and implicit catalysts of consumer
resistance: The effects of animosity, cultural salience and country-of-origin on
subsequent choice. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(3),
321–331.
Shabot, E. (2014). Relaciones Turquía-Israel: del dicho al hecho. Excelsior 17 August
2014. from Retrieved September 16, 2015, from 〈http://www.excelsior.com.mx/
opinion/esther-shabot/2014/08/17/976604〉
Shimp, T., Dunn, T., & Klein, J. (2004). Remnants of the US civil war and modern
consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21(2), 75–91.
Shin, M. (2001). The animosity model of foreign product purchase revisited: Does it work
in Korea? Journal of Empirical Generalizations in Marketing Science, 6, 6–14.
Shoham, A., Davidow, M., Klein, J., & Ruvio, A. (2006). Animosity on the home front:
The Intifada in Israel and its impact on consumer behavior. Journal of International
Marketing, 14(3), 92–114.
Smith, A. (2005). Conceptualizing city image change: The ‘re-imaging’ of Barcelona.
Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and
Environment, 7(4), 398–423.
Sutikno, B., & Cheng, J. (2010). Reexamination of consumer animosity construct toward
multi opposed countries. In Proceedings of the 10th global conference on economics
and business. Rome.
Verlegh, P., & Steenkamp, J. (1999). A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin
research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(5), 521–546.
Witkowski, T. (2000). Effect of animosity towards china on willingness to buy Chinese
products. In McClean. (470-407), in: Kaynak, E., & Aliaga, O. (Eds.). (2000).
Managing in a turbulent international business environment . Hummelstown, PA:
The International Management Development Association.
World Tourism Organization (2014). UNWTO annual report 2014. Madrid: UNWTO.
World Tourism Organization (2016). Turkey: Country-specific: Outbound tourism 2010–
2014 (01.2016), Tourism Statistics, (1). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from 〈http://www.
e-unwto.org/doi/abs/10.5555/unwtotfb0792250120102014201601〉
World Trade Organization (2015). International Trade Statistics 2015. Special focus:
World trade and the WTO: 1995−2014. Retrieved July 29, 2016, from 〈https://www.
wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2015_e/its2015_e.pdf〉