Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

A closer look at destination: Image, personality, relationship and

loyalty
Ching-Fu Chen a, *, Sambath Phou b
a
Department of Transportation & Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung University, 1 Ta-Hsueh Rd, Tainan 701, Taiwan, ROC
b
Institute of International Management, National Cheng Kung University, 1 Ta-Hsueh Rd, Tainan 701, Taiwan, ROC

h i g h l i g h t s

< We examine the effects of destination image, destination personality and touristedestination relationship on tourist behaviors.
< We use a survey to collect data and structural equation modeling for analysis.
< Data were from surveys of 428 foreign tourists visiting the Angkor temple area of Cambodia.
< We found tourists form emotional relationships with destinations.
< The results support the cognitive-affective-behavior sequence of attitude theory.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Drawing on brand relationship theory and attitude theory, this study investigates the relationships
Received 19 April 2012 among destination image, destination personality, touristedestination relationship and tourist behavior.
Accepted 22 November 2012 Using a sample of 428 foreign tourists visiting the Angkor temple area of Cambodia and the structural
equation modeling technique, the results reveal that destination image and destination personality have
Keywords: positive effects on the touristedestination relationship, which in turn affect tourist behavior. The study
Destination branding
lends support to brand relationship theory, indicating that tourists form emotional relationships with
Image
destinations, and further supports Bagozzis (1992) reformulation of attitude theory with regard to the
Personality
Relationship
cognitive, affective and behavior sequence.
Loyalty 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of an emotional relationship with the consumerdcan hold the key

As the tourism marketplace is becoming more highly com-
petitive, destination marketers are adopting branding techniques to
craft an identity which focuses on the uniqueness of their products,
namely destinations. Similar to those marketing consumer prod-
ucts, destination marketers have had to turn to branding to dis-
tinguish their destinations to convey a positive message that will
motivate tourists to visit them (Roodurmun & Juwaheer, 2010).
However, evidence to support the successful implementation of
destination branding is mixed (Ekinci, 2003). A combination of
destination image and destination personality has thus been used
as a strategy by destination marketers to differentiate their brands
from other competing ones (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Usakli &
Baloglu, 2011). The creation of brand saliencydthe development
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 886 6 2757575; fax: 886 6 2371773.
E-mail addresses: cfchen99@mail.ncku.edu.tw (C.-F. Chen), sambathphou@
yahoo.com (S. Phou).
to destination differentiation (Morgan & Pritchard, 2010). There-
fore, successful destination branding should involve establishing
a positive relationship between destinations and tourists by sat-
isfying their emotional needs (i.e., to visit places that are relaxing
and beautiful) and more basic ones (i.e. to be able to eat and drink)
(Ekinci, 2003).
Destination image plays an important role in creating tourist loy-
alty, and relationships with tourists must be handled proactively if
they are to become lasting ones (Bign, Snchez, & Snchez, 2001).
However, as places seek to become more distinctive in an increasingly
competitive market, destination personality is becoming a more via-
ble metaphor for building destination brands, understanding tourist
perceptions of places, and crafting a unique destination personality
(Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Guido, 2001; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Prior
research suggests that tourist destinations possess distinctive per-
sonality characteristics, just like individuals, brands and stores do, and
postulates that destination personality is a potential predictor of
tourists buying behaviors (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Hosany, Ekinci, &

0261-5177/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.015
270 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278
Uysal, 2006; Prayag, 2007; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). Building a powerful
destination brand is thus about developing a rich, relevant brand
personality (Morgan & Pritchard, 2010).
Destination loyalty has become a critical part of destination
marketing and management research, due to increasing competition
and the recognition of the importance of loyal visitors. While sat-
isfaction has been extensively examined in the literature to predict
tourist loyalty, there are few studies on the inuences on destination
loyalty of constructs other than satisfaction (Yuksel, Yuksel, & Bilim,
2010). Furthermore, ndings from recent research suggest that
simply satisfying consumers might not be sufcient for continuing
success in todays competitive marketplace (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006),
and satisfaction does not always lead to customer loyalty (Mittal &
Lasar, 1998). In this study, we draw on relationship theory and
contend that the touristedestination relationship (consisting of
satisfaction, trust and attachment) is a more suitable concept than
satisfaction alone to explain tourist loyalty.
Although destination image and destination personality are
essential parts of powerful brands (Aaker, 1996; Morgan &
Pritchard, 2010), the relationship between the two remains vague
(Hosany et al., 2006; Prayag, 2007). More importantly, more efforts
are needed to ll the research gaps in the literature on the links
between destination image and destination personality with regard
to the touristedestination relationship (i.e. satisfaction, trust and
attachment), which plays a pivotal role in destination branding and
the formation of the emotional relationships that can increase
customer loyalty (Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006). In
practice, destination marketers have long recognized the impor-
tance of promoting and building their destination brands in tour-
ists minds. For example, New Zealand has endeavored to combine
the use of an overall branding strategy, public relations, and the
Internet to create a strong, interactive destination brand relation-
ship with tourists (Piggott, Morgan & Pritchard, 2010). However,
the issue of touristedestination relationship has still received rel-
atively little research attention.
To clarify the association between destination image and des-
tination personality, address the research gap related to brand
relationship in tourism, and investigate the antecedents of desti-
nation loyalty, this study employs Bagozzis (1992) reformulation of
attitude theory (i.e., the cognitive / affective / behavioral
framework) to propose and investigate a new conceptual model.
This work has three main aims. First, it investigates the effects of
destination image on destination personality, and their roles in
collaborating with other key constructs in building destination
brand. Second, it examines the relative inuence of satisfaction,
trust and attachment in the formation of the relationships between
tourists and destinations. Third, it investigates the antecedents
(destination image and destination personality) and outcomes (i.e.
destination loyalty) of the brand relationship in the tourism
context.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development
Studies of brand image, brand personality, brand relationship
and brand loyalty can be found in the generic marketing literature
focusing on consumer products (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999).
However, the application of branding and relationship theory to
places, particularly tourist destinations, is still relatively novel. In
this work, we utilize Bagozzis (1992) reformulation of attitude
theory to build up our conceptual model. Grounded in a cognitive
appraisal theory of emotions (Lazarus, 1991), Bagozzis attitude
theory posits that appraisal precipitates emotions which then in-
uence an individuals behaviors, and it depicts cognitive, appraisal,
and emotional response and behavior as occurring in a sequential
process. Fig. 1 presents the conceptual model used in this work.
Destination Relationship
Destination H2
H8
Satisfaction
Image H3 H7 H9
H11 Destination
H1 H6 H8 Attachment
H4 H10 Loyalty
Destination H5 Trust
H9
Personality H10
Cognitive Knowledge Affective Outcomes Behavioral Outcomes
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
2.1. Destination image and destination personality
Destination image and destination personality are different but
related concepts (Hosany et al., 2006), with both being cognitive
constructs. Destination image involves subjective knowledge of
a destination (i.e., whether it is expensive, exotic, urban, cold, or
developed) (Ekinci, 2003), while destination personality refers to
brand personality in the tourism context, and uses human per-
sonality traits to describe a destination (e.g., whether it is original,
interesting, exciting, or friendly). In this study, we conceptualize
the cognitive stage by including both destination image and per-
sonality in our model.
Destination image is dened as the sum of beliefs, ideas, and
impressions that a tourist holds about a destination (Crompton,
1979), and it is viewed as a multidimensional construct composed
of three primary dimensions, i.e. cognitive, affective, and conative
(Beerli & Martin, 2004; Prayag, 2007). The cognitive component
involves beliefs and knowledge about the physical attributes of
a destination, while the affective one refers to the appraisal of the
affective quality of feelings toward the attributes and the surrounding
environment (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). The conative component is
considered analogous to behavior, and evolves from cognitive and
affective images (Beerli & Martin, 2004; Prayag, 2007).
This study focuses on cognitive destination image, because it is
directly observable, descriptive and measurable (Walmsley &
Young, 1998), and thus may provide more concrete and inter-
pretive information regarding the uniqueness of a destination.
Cognitive destination image has also received support from prior
research for its ability to characterize a destination (e.g., Baloglu &
Brinberg, 1997).
Brand personality is dened as the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand. Aaker (1997) conceptualizes it using the
ve trait dimensions of sincerity, excitement, competence, so-
phistication and ruggedness. These dimensions have been applied
to various settings across different cultures to gauge consumers
symbolic consumption and their effects on behavior (Ekinci &
Hosany, 2006). By adopting Aakers (1997) terminology of brand
personality, Ekinci and Hosany (2006) dene destination person-
ality as the set of human characteristics associated with a destina-
tion, and nd that tourists ascribe personality characteristics to
destinations based on three salient dimensions: sincerity, excite-
ment and conviviality. The concept of destination personality has
been applied to characterize tourism destinations (Hosany et al.,
2006; Murphy, Benchendorff, & Moscardo, 2007; Park & Jung,
2010; Prayag, 2007), and its effects on differentiating among
them (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007).
Regarding the causal relationship between destination image
and destination personality, previous studies suggest the former
has positive effects on the latter (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Hosany
et al., 2006; Prayag, 2007), and thus we propose the rst hypoth-
esis, as follows:
H1: Destination image is positively associated with destination
personality.
 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278
2.2. Links between destination image, destination personality and
touristedestination relationship
Previous studies have found signicant effects of cognitive im-
ages on affective responses (Balgoglu, 1999; Baloglu & McCleary,
1999; Martin & Bosque, 2008), and affective evaluations are
formed as a function of cognitive ones (Baloglu, 1999). The affect
theory also states that a persons prior knowledge structure, such as
goals, expectations and personality factors, determines their af-
fective responses (Besser & Shackelford, 2007). We draw on rela-
tionship theory to construct the affective stage by presenting the
concept of touristedestination relationship.
Like consumers who establish relationships with products, ob-
jects, services (DallOlmo Riley & de Chernatony, 2000) and brands
(Thomson, McInnis, & Park, 2005), tourists are believed to form
strong emotional relationships with certain places, given the hu-
man trait-like features of destination personality (Ekinci & Hosany,
2006; Hosany et al., 2006; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). Delgado-
Ballester (2004) argues that consumers not only perceive brands,
but can also have relationships with them, as they can be person-
alized. In addition, Fournier (1998) states that a well-established
brand personality can lead consumers to develop strong emo-
tional ties with it.
Brand relationship is viewed as a multidimensional construct
consisting of commitment, immediacy, satisfaction, and self-
commitment (Aaker, Susan, & Brasel, 2004). Esch, Langner, Schmitt,
and Geus (2006) measure brand relationship with three di-
mensions, namely satisfaction, trust and attachment. In this work,
we conceptualize satisfaction, trust and attachment as the three
dimensions of the touristedestination relationship.
Brand satisfaction is dened as a cognitive evaluation of whether
or not the exchange relationship with the brand is rewarding, and as
an affective condition resulting from an evaluation of all the aspects
that make up a relationship (Esch et al., 2006). Tourist satisfaction is
important to successful destination marketing, because it inuences
the choice of destination, the consumption of products and services,
and the decision to return (Kozak & Rimmington, 2000). Tourist
satisfaction is primarily referred to as a function of pre-travel
expectation and post-travel experience (Chen & Chen, 2010).
Accordingly, we dene destination satisfaction as the tourists
emotional reaction to the extent to which a specic destination is
able to meet their travel needs and expectations.
Brand trust is affect-based, referring to a feeling that is the
outcome of a communal relationship with a brand (Esch et al.,
2006), and is dened as the consumers willingness to rely upon
his or her expectations about a rms future behavior (Rousseau,
Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). The role of trust in marketing, par-
ticularly its importance in long-term relationships, has received
considerable attention in the literature. Trust is believed to be
a fundamental component of building successful relationships
(Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), and it exists
when one party believes and has condence in the exchange
partners reliability and integrity (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In more
practical terms, brand trust gives assurances to tourists who choose
to visit a particular destination that it will be, for example, hassle
free, risk free, reliable, and transparent. It can be argued that
a destination that inculcates trust in tourists minds can be more
easily branded (Roodurmun & Juwaheer, 2010). Therefore, we
dene destination trust as the tourists willingness to rely on the
ability of the tourism destination to perform its stated functions.
Brand attachment is viewed as a longer-lasting, commitment-
including bond between the brand and consumer, or between
a person and a specic object (Esch et al., 2006). Similarly, place
attachment, which is an affective bond, an emotional linkage of an
individual to a particular environment (Hidalgo & Hernandez,
271
2001), is dened as a set of positive beliefs and emotions formed
by an individual about a physical site that has been given meaning
though interaction (Milligan, 1998). Attachment to objects or places
can result in a feeling of regret and sorrow when the object or the
place is no longer present or available (Esch et al., 2006). In-
dividuals form emotional bonds to places by developing relation-
ships over time with particular settings. Lee and Allen (1999) note
that individuals attachment to a particular place generally starts to
develop after one or more visits, although it may be possible to
develop strong feelings for a place one has never visited. Just as
a consumer is attached to a product or brand, so too are tourists to
destinations (Yuksel et al., 2010). Therefore, in this study we dene
destination attachment as an affective bond, the emotional linkage
of an individual tourist to a particular destination.
Tourists destination satisfaction is positively inuenced by the
image of the destination (Bign et al., 2001), and tourists depend on
their knowledge of a place to evaluate whether the destination
brand will be able satisfy their travel needs, and their purchase
decision must also include an assessment of the risks involved.
Such an assessment is intertwined with the degree of trust a tourist
has in a destination (Hsu & Liping, 2009). Indeed, the level of trust
a person has for a destination is a function of various points of
reference. Information obtained from friends, relatives, and media
sources also contribute to the overall image of place (Ekinci, 2003;
Roodurmun & Juwaheer, 2010), as well a persons previous travel
experiences (Roodurmun & Juwaheer, 2010). In a conceptual study,
Hsu and Liping (2009) propose that a destinations positive image
will increase tourist trust with regard to choosing it. Just as brand
image can positively inuence satisfaction and trust (Esch et al.,
2006; Ha, 2004), destination image can positively inuence trav-
elers satisfaction and trust toward a destination. Therefore, the
following two hypotheses are proposed:
H2: Destination image is positively associated with destination
satisfaction.
H3: Destination image is positively associated with destination
trust.
A well-established brand personality inuences consumer
preferences and patronage (Sirgy, 1982), and leads to stronger
emotional ties to the brand (Aaker et al., 2004), as well as greater
trust and loyalty (Fournier, 1998; Siguaw, Mattila, & Austin, 1999).
Just like a brand personality, a distinctive destination personality
can help differentiate among destinations, and inuence both
preferences and choice behavior (Murphy, et al., 2007), as well as
help consumers to develop an emotional relationship with a place
(Park & Jung, 2010). The three dimensions of the brand person-
ality scale (BPS) proposed by Ekinci and Hosany (2006) (i.e.,
sincerity, excitement, and conviviality) closely relate to the he-
donic characteristics of fun, satisfaction and enjoyment
in Holbrook and Hirschman (1982). The holiday experience
evokes emotions (Liljander & Strandvik, 1997) that are seen as
fundamental determinants of tourist satisfaction and post-
consumption behavior (Gnoth, 1997). A well-established desti-
nation personality inspires strong affection among tourists
(Caprara et al., 2001), and reduces emotional risk during the
purchasing process, which results in the development of greater
trust and satisfaction, especially when consumers believe that the
brand supports their needs (Blackston, 1993). Therefore, we
propose the following two hypotheses:
H4: Destination personality is positively associated with desti-
nation satisfaction.
H5: Destination personality is positively associated with desti-
nation trust.
272 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278
Consumers will trust a brand if they are satised with it (Lee &
Back, 2008), and overall satisfaction generates trust (e.g., Delgado-
Ballester & Munuera-Aleman, 2001). Walse, Henning-Thurau, Sas-
senberg and Bornenmann (2010) examine the relationship be-
tween satisfaction and trust in e-services, and nd that satisfaction
has a positive effect on trust, while both satisfaction and trust have
positive effects on loyalty.
An individual who is satised with a brand might have an
emotional attachment to it (Thomson et al., 2005). The positive
effects of brand satisfaction on brand attachment and satisfaction
with a setting could lead to a sense of place attachment (Esch et al.,
2006). For example, Lee and Allen (1999) nd that Myrtle Beach
visitors destination attachment was predicted by their satisfaction
with the sun, sand, and beach on offer at the destination. Similarly,
Hou, Lin, and Morais (2005) measure visitors opinions about var-
ious components of destination satisfaction, and nd that sat-
isfaction with the attractiveness of a place predicts destination
attachment. Hiscock (2001) claims that the ultimate goal of mar-
keting is to generate an intense bond between the consumer and
the brand, and the main ingredient of this bond is trust. Brand trust
has been conrmed to evoke consumers emotional attachment
toward a brand (Esch et al., 2006), which in turn can predict their
commitment or loyalty to it, and their willingness to make nancial
sacrices in order to obtain it (Thomson et al., 2005). We thus
propose the following three hypotheses:
H6: Destination satisfaction is positively associated with desti-
nation trust.
H7: Destination satisfaction is positively associated with desti-
nation attachment.
H8: Destination trust is positively associated with destination
attachment.
2.3. Links between touristedestination relationship and destination
loyalty
Based on the consumerebrand relationship literature, three
specic dimensions are particularly relevant to the touriste
destination relationship: destination satisfaction, destination trust
and destination attachment (Esch et al., 2006; Hsu & Liping, 2009;
Roodurmun & Juwaheer, 2010; Yuksel et al., 2010). Yoon and Uysal
(2005) examine the effects of motivation and satisfaction on des-
tination loyalty toward Northern Cyprus, which offers archeological
and historical sites. They nd that destination loyalty is positively
affected by tourists satisfaction with their experiences. Wang, Wu,
and Yuan (2010) explore visitors experiences and intentions to
revisit a heritage harbor destination in Taiwan, and the results
show that people who are satised with their travel experiences are
more willing to visit the same place again in the future. Poria,
Reichel, and Cohen (2011) investigate the designation of a World
Heritage Site in Israel, and nd that the cumulative effect of this is
positively related to the willingness to revisit that particular des-
tination. Other studies also reveal that tourist satisfaction is
a determinant of destination loyalty (Bign et al., 2001; Chen & Tsai,
2007; Yuksel et al., 2010).
Garbarino and Johnson (1999) and Chaudhuri and Holbrook
(2001) point out the importance of building trust as a determi-
nant of customer retention and loyalty. Berry (1995) proposes that
trust is the single most powerful relationship marketing tool that
can be used to enhance both loyalty and relationship quality.
Roodurmun and Juwaheer (2010) argue that destination loyalty is
affected by the trust formed toward the destination, and tourists
are more likely to visit destinations that they perceive as trust-
worthy and dependable (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Moreover, only
branded destinations are able to establish an instant emotional link
with their customers, which can lead to greater loyalty (Hsu &
Liping, 2009), Yuksel et al. (2010) nding that destination attach-
ment is an important antecedent of destination loyalty. Based upon
these earlier studies, we thus propose the following three
hypotheses:
H9: Destination satisfaction is positively associated with desti-
nation loyalty.
H10: Destination trust is positively associated with destination
loyalty.
H11: Destination attachment is positively associated with des-
tination loyalty.
3. Methods
3.1. Research site
International tourists visiting Angkor temple area in Cambodia,
known ofcially as Angkor, a UNESCOs World Heritage Site, are
targeted in this study. Angkor temple area is one of the most
important archaeological sites in South-East Asia. Stretching over
some 400 square kilometers and including a forested area, the
Angkor tourist destination contains the magnicent remains of the
capital of the Khmer Empire from the 9th to the 15th centuries.
They include the famous Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom, the Bayon
Temple, many other temples and other countless sculptural deco-
rations, in a beautiful natural setting.
3.2. Participants & procedure
Our study was carried out at Angkor Wat temple for three rea-
sons. First, Angkor Wat is a world-famous tourist destination with
many cultural, natural and other attractions. Second, it is the most
popular tourist destination in Cambodia, with thousands of foreign
tourists visiting each day. Third, Angkor Wat temple offers many
comfortable places such as outer walls and terraces, where visitors
can sit and relax after visiting the temple, and so have enough time
to ll out the questionnaire. The researchers approached the visi-
tors who were relaxing at the destination and informed them about
the study, stating that participation was voluntary and that their
identities would be kept condential. The visitors showed a high
level of interest and willingness to participate in the study.
Applying the convenience sampling technique, a total of 500
questionnaires were distributed and 428 usable responses were
obtained during the month of July 2011, yielding a response rate of
85.6%.
There were slightly more female respondents (230 respon
dents 53.7%) than male ones. Seventy percent of respondents
were aged less than 35 years old, and 66% were single. Among the
respondents, 90% held a college/university and higher degree, 60%
of the respondents were employed, and almost 30% were students.
With regard to monthly income, 33% of the respondents earned
a monthly income of US$1,001e3,000, followed by US$10,000 or
below (30.5%), US$3,001e5,000 (18.5%) and over US$5,000 (18%).
Ninety one percent of the respondents were rst time visitors to
Angkor temple area, and most visited the destination for pleasure.
The respondents were from 35 countries, of which 60% were from
the European Union, 13% from North America, and 11% from Asia.
3.3. Measures
A questionnaire was designed as the survey instrument to collect
data for all the constructs in the proposed model. An extensive re-
view of the related literature was carried out to develop a list of
 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278 273

attributes generally used to measure cognitive destination image. dimensionality of destination image, destination personality and
Based on the specic characteristics of the research site, the cognitive destination trust. As recommended by Hair, Black, Babin and
attributes in the functionalepsychological continuum of destination Anderson (2010), eigenvalues greater than 1 and factor loadings
image were initially extracted from Baloglu and McCleary (1999), greater than .50 indicated signicance. Therefore, items with low
Beerli and Martin (2004), and Martin and Bosque (2008), those for factor loadings (<.50), high cross loading (>.40) or low commu-
cultural environment and atmosphere from Martin and Bosque nality (<.40) were eliminated until a clean and rigid factor structure
(2008), and those for natural environment, destination brand and was obtained. For the destination image scale, ve items (beautiful
entertainment from Chen and Tsai (2007). Accordingly, a set of 21 landscapes, a variety of ora and fauna, good name and reputation,
cognitive attributes was formed for use in this study. good value for money, and quality accommodations) did not meet
Destination personality was captured using Aakers (1997) ve- the criteria, and thus were eliminated from further analyses,
dimensional brand personality scale (BPS) consisting of 42 person- yielding a ve-factor model with 16 items (Table 1). The factor
ality straits. A pilot test was conducted to ensure the content validity solution accounted for approximately 60% of the total variance
of the personality traits were applicable to the research site. A group extracted, with communalities ranging from 0.417 to 0.747. All
of 40 international students studying in a postgraduate program at factors had relatively high reliability coefcients (i.e., Cronbachs a),
a university in southern Taiwan were invited to participate in this ranging from 0.647 to 0.733. Factors were labeled based on the
study. Subjects were asked to think of any tourist destination that characteristics of the items underlying each factor, including des-
came to mind and imagine that it was a person, and then to rate the tination brand (four items, a 0.660), atmosphere (three items,
degree to which they perceived each of the 42 personality items a 0.733), cultural environment (three items, a 0.647), natural
accurately described it on a ve-point Likert-type scale, ranging from environment (three items, a 0.649) and entertainment (three
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). A cutoff point with items, a 0.648).
a mean rating of 3.00 or above was used to select the most relevant In a similar manner, the results of exploratory factor analysis
traits. Five items (i.e. small-town, feminine, smooth, outdoorsy, and from the 37 items of destination personality scale yielded a ve-
western) with means of less 3.00 were removed, yielding the nal factor solution (Table 2), which accounted for 61% of the total var-
set of 37 personality items used in the formal questionnaire survey. iance. The ve factors are excitement (i.e., trendy, exciting, imagi-
Destination satisfaction was measured with four items. Two native, and unique; four items, a 0.861), sincerity (cheerful,
items My visit to Angkor temple area is worth my time and effort original, sentimental, family-oriented, and wholesome; ve items,
and Compared to other destinations, Angkor temple area is a much a 0.750), sophistication (good looking, glamorous, charming and
better one, were adopted from Yoon and Uysal (2005). One item upper class; four items, a 0.730), ruggedness (tough, rugged, and
My experiences with Angkor temple area are excellent, was masculine; three items, a 0.648) and contemporary (up-to-date
adopted from Lau and Lee (1999) and one item Overall, I am sat- and contemporary; two items, a 0.725).
ised with the travel experience in Angkor temple area, was Regarding destination brand trust, a two-factor solution, ac-
adopted from Bign et al. (2001). Since a destination trust scale is not counting for 56.68% of the total variance extracted, was obtained
available in previous studies, we used Delgado-Ballesters (2004) (Table 3), with the rst factor being reliability (four items,
brand trust scale, a reliable, valid and generalized scale to measure a 0.723) and the second one intentions (four items, a 0.706).
trust in a brand setting (Roodurmun & Juwaheer, 2010), to design the
items of destination trust. Destination attachment was measured 4.2. Measurement model
with three items from Yuksel et al. (2010): Angkor temple area
means a lot to me, I feel a strong sense of belonging to Angkor Following the two-step approach proposed by Anderson and
temple area, and I am very attached to Angkor temple area. Gerbing (1988), CFA with the maximum likelihood estimation
Destination loyalty was measured with two items adopted from
Chen and Tsai (2007) and Oppermann (2000): Its likely that I will
Table 1
to revisit Angkor temple area in the future and Its likely that I will
Exploratory factor analysis of destination image.
recommend Angkor temple area to my family and friends. These
items were measured with a ve-point Likert-type scale, ranging Factors/items Factor Variance Cronbachs a
loading explained (%)
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
IF1: Destination Brand 27.00 0.660
People are willing .752
3.4. Data analysis to help tourists
Honest and trustworthy .656
The data analysis was conducted in three stages. Firstly, people
exploratory factor analysis with SPSS 16.0 was performed to iden- Offer personal safety .638
Good value for money .614
tify the underlying dimensions of destination image, personality
IF2: Atmosphere 9.20 0.733
and trust. Secondly, conrmatory factor analysis was performed to Place to rest .809
test how well the measured variables represented the constructs, Relaxing place .760
and to ensure the goodness-of-t for the measurement model. Peaceful place .679
Finally, the relationships among destination image, destination IF3: Cultural Environment 8.18 0.647
Cultural attractions .806
personality, satisfaction, trust, attachment and loyalty were Cultural activities .739
empirically tested using the structural equation modeling (SEM) Unusual way .670
technique with AMOS 16. of life & customs
IF4: Natural Environment 6.91 0.649
Beautiful lakes .740
4. Empirical results
Natural parks .738
Beautiful mountains .689
4.1. Dimensionality of destination image, personality, and trust IF5: Entertainment 6.61 0.648
Good night life .712
Exploratory factor analysis was carried out using the principle Varied gastronomy .656
Good shopping .630
component method with VARIMAX rotation to examine the
274 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278

Table 2 Table 4
Exploratory factor analysis of destination personality. The results of conrmatory factor analysis.

Factors/items Factor loading Variance explained (%) Cronbachs a Constructs Standardized Error t-Value AVE Construct
PF1: Excitement 28.83 0.861 factor loading variance reliability
Trendy .841 Destination Image (DI)
Exciting .801 IF1 .607 .012 e 0.95 0.713
Imaginative .794 IF2 .553 .021 9.263
Unique .767 IF3 .602 .017 8.935
PF2: Sincerity 10.04 0.750 IF4 .564 .016 9.298
Cheerful .718 IF5 .524 .011 9.020
Original .707 Destination Personality (DP)
Sentimental .667 PF1 .649 .017 9.619 0.96 0.700
Family-oriented .631 PF2 .570 .025 8.555
Wholesome .611 PF3 .774 .022 e
PF3: Sophistication 8.38 0.730 PF4 .678 .012 9.758
Good looking .760 Destination Satisfaction (SAT)
Glamorous .729 Sat1 .705 .017 13.554 0.97 0.763
Charming .713 Sat3 .733 .013 e
Upper class .657 Sat4 .724 .014 14.019
PF4: Ruggedness 8.22 0.648 Destination Trust (DT)
Tough .770 DT1 .801 .011 13.554 0.98 0.700
Rugged .696 DT2 .673 .011 e
Masculine .615 Destination Attachment (ATT)
PF5: Contemporary 6.14 0.725 Att1 .745 .016 e 0.97 0.723
Contemporary .866 Att2 .759 .017 12.337
Up-to-date .863 Destination Loyalty (DL)
L1 .816 .015 14.576 0.98 0.704
L2 .678 .011 e

Model t statistics: c2 140.048, d.f. 117, p-value 0.072, GFI 0.965,

method was rst conducted to analyze the validity and reliability of AGFI 0.949, CFI 0.991, RMSEA 0.021, RMR 0.009.
the constructs in our conceptual model. The model adequacy was AVE (Sl2)/[Sl2 S(q)], where S summation over the indicators of the latent
assessed by the t indices, as suggested by Jroskog and Srborn variable, l indicator loadings, q indicator error variances.
(1996) and Hair et al. (2010), and a preliminary CFA was con-
ducted. As the standardized factor loadings (SFL) of three items did
not meet the minimum criterion of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010), all three factor loading of each item was greater than .50. The construct
were eliminated e including one item of destination personality, reliability estimates of all the constructs exceeded the critical value
one item of satisfaction, and one item of attachment e to of 0.7, and the values for the average variance extracted of the ve
increase reliability and decrease measurement error. Once these constructs were well above the suggested value of 0.5. These t
items were removed, CFA was then conducted again and the indices indicate the measurement model has good convergent
goodness-of-t was acceptable (Table 4). As shown in Table 4, the validity. In addition, discriminant validity was also examined by the
estimated correlation between constructs with the variance
extracted. An average variance extracted of greater than 0.50 in-
Table 3 dicates that the validity of both the construct and the individual
Exploratory factor analysis of destination trust. variables is high. All the constructs meet this conservative test of
Factors/items Factor Variance Cronbachs a discriminant validity, as the variance extracted estimates from each
loading explained (%) construct exceeded the squared correlation between each con-
DT1: Reliability 44.17 0.723 struct, meaning that each construct was statistically different from
I feel condent that .769 the others (See Table 5). Therefore, the measurement model is
Angkor temple area
reliable and meaningful to test the structural relationships among
is a good tourist
destination. the constructs.
Angkor temple area .756
is destination that
4.3. Structural model and hypotheses testing
meets my expectations.
Angkor temple area .712
guarantees tourist A maximum likelihood estimation method was used to test the
satisfaction. predicted relationships among the constructs in the proposed
Angkor temple area .637 conceptual model. The overall model t indices were c2
is a destination that
(120) 140.33 (p 0.099), c2/d.f. 1.169, less than the criteria
never disappoints me.
DT2: Intentions 12.51 0.706 value of 3 suggested by Hair et al. (2010). Furthermore, other
Angkor temple area .779
would compensate Table 5
me in some ways for Discriminant validity.
the problems with the trip.
Angkor temple area .730 Constructs Mean S.D. DI DP SAT DT ATT DL
would make any effort DI 4.00 0.36 0.95
to satisfy tourists. DP 3.89 0.41 .506** 0.96
I could rely on Angkor .699 SAT 4.20 0.49 .513** .537** 0.97
temple area to solve any DT 3.97 0.44 .575** .563** .618** 0.98
problems with the trip. ATT 4.07 0.51 .434** .429** .485** .558** 0.97
Angkor temple area would .699 DL 4.46 0.49 .570** .576** .692** .602** .576** 0.98
be honest and sincere in
addressing my concerns. Note: The bold numbers in the diagonal row are square roots of the average variance
extracted (AVE); inter-construct correlation is shown off the diagonal; **p < 0.01.
 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278 275

indicators of goodness-of-t supported the very good t of the Table 6

model (such as GFI 0.965, AGFI 0.950, RMR 0.009, Direct, indirect and total effects of relationships.

RMSEA 0.020, RFI 0.937, NFI 0.951, IFI 0.993, and Path Direct Indirect Total effect
CFI 0.992). This suggests that the hypothesized model ts the effect effect
empirical data well. Fig. 2 shows the estimated model with the H1: Destination image / Destination personality .625 e .625
standardized path coefcients. H2: Destination image / Destination satisfaction .370 .280 .650
H3: Destination image / Destination trust .317 .469 .786
As shown in Fig. 2, except for the path: satisfaction-
H4: Destination personality / Destination .449 e .449
attachment, all the hypotheses are supported. Destination image satisfaction
is signicantly and positively associated with destination per- H5: Destination personality / Destination trust .243 .220 .463
sonality (0.625, t 7.001), destination satisfaction (0.370, H6: Destination satisfaction / Destination trust .488 e .488
t 4.185), and destination trust (0.317, t 4.030), thus supporting H7: Destination satisfaction / Destination e .356 .381
attachment
H1, H2, and H3. Destination personality is signicantly and pos- H8: Destination trust / Destination attachment .729 e .729
itively associated with destination satisfaction (0.449, t 4.914), H9: Destination satisfaction / Destination loyalty .333 .318 .651
and destination trust (0.243, t 3.051), thus supporting H4 and H10: Destination trust / Destination loyalty .486 .155 .641
H5. Among the constructs within the touristedestination rela- H11: Destination attachment / Destination .212 e .212
loyalty
tionship, destination satisfaction is signicantly and positively
associated with destination trust (0.488, t 5.623), but sat-
isfaction does not have a signicant effect on destination attach-
ment (0.025, t 0.155). H6 is thus supported, while H7 is rejected. destination loyalty (0.676), in comparison with destination trust
In addition, destination trust is signicantly and positively asso- (0.591) and destination attachment (0.203).
ciated with destination attachment (0.729, t 4.361), providing
support for H8. 5. Discussion and conclusions
All three dimensions of the touristedestination relationship are
signicantly and positively associated with destination loyalty. Des- This study investigated the inter-relationships among destina-
tination satisfaction (0.333, t 2.322), destination trust (0.486, tion image and destination personality, touristedestination rela-
t 2.791) and destination attachment (0.212, t 2.528) are positively tionship and destination loyalty. More specically, this study drew
associated with destination loyalty, thus supporting H9, H10 and H11. on brand relationship theory and used Bagozzis (1992) reformu-
Accordingly, the path of cognitive knowledge (i.e. destination image, lation of attitude theory (i.e. cognitive / affective / behavior) to
destination personality) / affective outcomes (i.e. destination sat- investigate the antecedents and outcomes of the consumerebrand
isfaction, destination trust, destination attachment) / behavioral relationship in tourism research. The results of the structural
outcome (i.e. destination loyalty) is supported in this study. relationship analysis show that destination image plays a very
Table 6 reports the direct and indirect effects of all the variables. important role in building destination brand, and has a direct effect
Destination image has a direct effect on destination personality, on destination personality. Moreover, destination image has sig-
and both direct and indirect effects on destination satisfaction and nicantly positive effects on touristedestination relationship (i.e.,
destination trust. Destination personality has a direct effect on satisfaction and trust). Destination personality also has a direct
destination satisfaction, and both direct and indirect ones on des- positive effect on destination satisfaction, and both direct and in-
tination trust. Regarding the constructs of the touristedestination direct effects on destination trust. Furthermore, destination per-
relationship, destination satisfaction has both direct and indirect sonality strongly mediates the relationship between destination
effects on trust and loyalty, but only an indirect effect on attach- image and destination relationship. Consistent with the view
ment mediated by trust. In terms of direct effects, destination trust expressed in Aaker et al. (2004) that perceived brand personality
has a greater effect on loyalty (0.486) compared to destination can inuence the strength of the relationship consumers form with
satisfaction (0.333) and destination attachment (0.212). As for total brands over time, our ndings show that destination personality
effect, however, destination satisfaction has the greatest effect on has a signicantly positive inuence on the touristedestination

IF1 IF2 IF3 IF4 IF5 Sat1 Sat3 Sat4

.607 .553 .602 .564 .524 .705 .733 .724

Destination Destination
.370***
Image Satisfaction
.025
.317*** .333*
.488*** Destination Destination
.625*** Attachment .212* Loyalty
.449*** .486**
Destination Destination .729***
.243**
Personality Trust

.649 .570 .774 .678 .801 .673 .745 .759 .816 .678

PF1 PF2 PF3 PF4 DT1 DT2 Att1 Att2 DL1 DL2

Cognitive Knowledge Affective Outcomes Behavioral Outcomes

Fig. 2. Estimated model.

276 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278
relationship, particularly destination satisfaction and destination
trust. These ndings complement those of Balgoglu (1999), Baloglu
and McCleary (1999), and Weiner (1986), who argue that cognitive
images have signicant effects on affective responses.
Satisfaction has a signicantly positive direct effect on trust and
both direct and indirect effects loyalty, while satisfaction is found to
have only an indirect effect on attachment, mediated by trust. This
implies that unless tourists trust destinations, satisfaction is not
guaranteed to create an emotional attachment between them. Trust
directly inuences attachment, and both directly and indirectly
affects loyalty. Compared to satisfaction and attachment, trust has
the most direct effect on loyalty. Moreover, trust not only mediates
the relationship between satisfaction and attachment, but also
between satisfaction and loyalty. In line with the studies of
consumerebrand relationship by Garbarino and Johnson (1999)
and Morgan and Hunt (1994), these ndings suggest that trust is
the most important dimension of the relationship variables, and
plays a very important role in building an emotional bond between
tourists and destinations, as well as inuencing tourists behavioral
intentions. Accordingly, the results of this study reveal that the
emotional bonds tourists form with destinations have signicant
effects on their behavioral outcomes.
Positive touristedestination relationships, which have been
identied as important with regard to successful destination
branding (Ekinci, 2003), remains under-examined among destina-
tion marketers and tourism researchers. The results of this study
enhance understanding of the mechanism by which cognitive des-
tination image and destination personality have signicant effects on
the emotional bonds that can form between tourists and destina-
tions, which in turn can positively inuence tourist behavior. In
particular, the path of the cognitive knowledge / emotional
response / behavioral outcome framework in a tourism setting is
fully supported in this study. Accordingly, this study conrms
Bagozzis (1992) reformulation of attitude theory in corroborating
the cognitive appraisal / affective response / behavioral response.
In line with brand relationship theory, which acknowledges that
consumers have bonds or relationships with specic brands, ob-
jects, rms and places (Thomson et al., 2005), our ndings show
that tourists form emotional bonds or relationships with destina-
tions. These ndings thus contribute to the theoretical literature on
the touristedestination relationship, particularly with regard to
destination satisfaction, destination trust and destination attach-
ment. Previous studies of the consumerebrand relationship have
focused heavily on brand relationship, by examining factors such as
brand trust and satisfaction. However, very little research has
attempted to test the relationship links between tourists and des-
tinations. More specically, few studies have been done on trust
and attachment in tourism research settings. Our ndings reveal
that destination satisfaction, destination trust and destination
attachment are the three main components of touristedestination
relationship, while destination image and destination personality
are the critical antecedents of this relationship, and tourists
behavior is the outcome. Therefore, our ndings show that emo-
tional bonds or relationships do exist between tourists and
destinations.
6. Managerial implications
Understanding the antecedents, processes and outcomes of the
touristedestination relationship is an important starting point to
developing and implementing successful marketing campaigns to
attract tourists. The objective in understanding these processes is to
better enable destination marketers and managers to differentiate
their destination products, and build long-lasting emotional bonds
or relationships between tourists and destinations.
This study indicates that tourists attribute personality charac-
teristics to destinations, and that destination image is the main
antecedent of destination personality. Therefore, destination mar-
keters are advised to concentrate on developing promotional
campaigns that emphasize not only destination image, but also the
distinctive and attractive personality of each destination. Moreover,
destination personality mediates the relationship between desti-
nation image and the touristedestination relationship (i.e., desti-
nation satisfaction and destination trust), and thus making
a destination image more positive can not only help create strong
and attractive destination characteristics, but also increase the
strength of the relationship between tourists and destinations. As
functional attributes of tourist destinations alone no longer help
destinations to attract travelers, because of the high product sim-
ilarity and growing substitutability (Pike & Ryan, 2004; Usakli &
Baloglu, 2011), developing a stronger, more favorable and distinc-
tive destination personality is a good marketing strategy, and may
also offer a well-dened form of sustainable competitive advantage
(Freling & Forbes, 2005).
Furthermore, the ndings of this study imply the benets
obtained from the substantial competitive and economic advan-
tages provided by loyal tourists. Destination marketers or managers
are advised to focus on key variables of the touristedestination
relationship, such as satisfaction, trust and attachment, in addi-
tion to physical attributes, and strive to develop the distinctive
personality of a specic destination to better meet travelers actual
and symbolic needs. These attributes are related to travelers per-
ceptions of how their interests and welfare are considered by the
destination managers. For example, whether tourists travel ex-
pectations are met or exceeded, and whether the amount of related
uncertainties are minimized, as these can both increase the trust
felt toward a destination, and a trusted tourist site has a com-
petitive advantage over alternative locations. Individual tourists
who feel trust toward a destination will also feel more attached to
it, and thus a positive emotional relationship can be developed that
can increase tourist loyalty, particularly the intention to revisit and
willingness to recommend it. Therefore, in the development of
a long-term relationship with tourists, which can result in a loyal
group of customers, destination marketers should count on not
only satisfaction, but also destination trust and destination
attachment. Moreover, it is important to note that a combination of
destination images and distinctive destination personality traits is
the main driver of a positive touristedestination relationship.
7. Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations. First, we only focus on one
tourist destination, namely Angkor temple area, which may limit
the generalizability of the ndings. Second, this study employed
a convenience sampling method, so the sample may not reect the
entire population of visitors to the research site. Therefore, future
research replicating this study with random sampling methods and
other tourist destinations would increase our understanding of this
important research concept. Third, this study applied Aakers
(1997) brand personality scale to tourist destinations. Even
though the ndings support the use of this scale, it may not fully
represent the personality traits associated with certain destina-
tions. Therefore, future research could work to develop a more
valid, reliable and generalizable destination personality scale for
use in tourism research.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Prof. Stephen Page and two anonymous
reviewers for helpful comments on this paper.
 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
34, 347e356.
Aaker, J. L., Susan, F., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31, 1e16.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a re-
view and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411e423.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions and behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178e204.
Baloglu, S. (1999). A path analysis model of visitation intention involving infor-
mation sources, socio-psychological motivations, and destination image. Journal
of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8, 81e90.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destination. Journal of
Travel Research, 35, 11e15.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 868e897.
Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004). Factors inuencing destination images. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31, 657e681.
Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of servicesdgrowing interest, emerging
perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 236e245.
Besser, A., & Shackelford, T. K. (2007). Mediation of the effects of the big ve per-
sonality dimensions on negative mood and conrmed affective expectations by
perceived situational stress: a quasi-eld study of vacationers. Personality and
Individual Difference, 42, 1333e1346.
Bign, J. E., Snchez, M. I., & Snchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables, and
after purchase behavior: inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 26, 607e616.
Blackston, M. (1993). Beyond brand personality: building brand equity. In D. Aaker
(Ed.), Brand equity and advertising (pp. 113e124). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: how to make
the metaphor t? Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 377e395.
Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.
Market Letter, 17, 70e89.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Mar-
keting, 65, 81e93.
Chen, C.-F., & Chen, F.-S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction,
and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29e35.
Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. C. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115e1122.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation desti-
nation and the inuence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of
Travel Research, 17, 18e23.
DallOlmo Riley, F., & de Chernatony, L. (2000). The service brand as a relationship
builder. British Journal of Management, 11, 137e150.
Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004). Applicability of a brand trust scale across product
categoriesda multigroup invariance analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 38,
573e592.
Delgado-Ballester, E., & Munuera-Aleman, J. L. (2001). Brand trust in the context of
consumer loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 1238e1258.
Ekinci, Y. (2003). From destination image to destination branding: an emerging area
of research. e-Review of Tourism Research, 1, 21e24.
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: an application of brand
personality to tourism destination. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 127e139.
Esch, F.-R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How
brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 15, 98e105.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumer and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343e373.
Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality
effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14, 404e413.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different role of satisfaction, trust and
commitment in customer relationship. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70e87.
Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 24, 283e304.
Ha, H.-Y. (2004). Factors inuencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13, 329e342.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hidalgo, C. M., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: conceptual and empirical
questions. Journal of Environment Psychology, 21, 273e281.
Hiscock, J. (2001). Most trusted brands. Marketing, March 1, 32e33.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspect of consumption:
consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132e140.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination per-
sonality: an application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of
Business Research, 59, 638e642.
Hou, J. S., Lin, C. H., & Morais, D. B. (2005). Antecedents of attachment to a cultural
tourism destination: the case of Hakka and non-Hakka Taiwanese visitors to
Pei-Pu, Taiwan. Journal of Travel Research, 44, 221e233.
Hsu, C., & Liping, A. C. (2009). Brand knowledge, trust and loyaltyda conceptual
model of destination branding. In Hospital and Tourism Management, Inter-
national CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track-Year 2009.
277
Jroskog, K., & Srborn, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago, IL: Sci-
entic Software International.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 260e269.
Lasarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford Press.
Lau, G. T., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Consumers trust in a brand and the link to brand
loyalty. Journal of Market Focused Management, 4, 341e370.
Lee, C. C., & Allen, L. (1999). Understanding individuals attachment to selected
destination: an application of place attachment. Tourism Analysis, 4, 173e185.
Lee, J.-S., & Back, B.-J. (2008). Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Management,
29, 331e344.
Liljander, V., & Standvik, T. (1997). Emotions in service satisfaction. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 8, 148e169.
Martin, S. H., & Bosque, Rd. I. A. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of
destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism
Management, 29, 263e277.
Milligan, M. J. (1998). Interactional past and potential: the social construction of
place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 1e33.
Mittal, B., & Lasar, W. M. (1998). Why do customers switch? The dynamics of sat-
isfaction versus loyalty. The Journal of Services Marketing, 12, 177e194.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20e38.
Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2010). Meeting the destination branding challenge. In
N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the
unique destination proposition (pp. 59e77). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., & Moscardo, G. (2007). Destination brand person-
ality: visitor perceptions of a regional tourism destination. Tourism Analysis,
12, 419e432.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to
differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 5e14.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Where psychology and geography interface in tourism
research and theory. In A. G. Woodside, G. I. Crouch, J. A. Mazanec,
M. Opperman, & M. Y. Sakai (Eds.), Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality
and leisure. Cambridge, UK: CABI Publishing.
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors inuencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing,
70, 136e153.
Park, H. H., & Jung, G. O. (2010). A study on the impact of the congruence of store
personality and self-image toward relationship strength and store loyalty.
Journal of Marketing Studies, 16, 45e68.
Piggot, R., Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2010). New Zealand and the Lord of the
Rings: leveraging public and media relations. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, &
R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: creating the unique destination proposition
(pp. 207e225). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of
cognitive, affective and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42,
333e342.
Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Cohen, R. (2011). World heritage sitedis it an effective brand
name?: A case study of a religious heritage site. Journal of Travel Research, 50,
482e495.
Prayag, G. (2007). Exploring the relationship between destination image and brand
personality of a tourist destination: an application of projective techniques.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Research, Fall, 111e130.
Roodurmun, J., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2010). Inuence of trust on destination loy-
altydan empirical analysisdthe discussion of the research approach. Interna-
tional Research Symposium in Service Management, 1e23.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different
after all: a cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23,
393e404.
Siguaw, J. A., Mattila, A., & Austin, J. R. (1999). The brand-personality scale. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40, 48e55.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9, 287e300.
Thomson, M., McInnis, D., & Park, W. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring the
strength of consumers emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 15, 77e91.
Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: an appli-
cation of self-congruity theory. Tourism Management, 32, 114e137.
Walmsley, D. Y., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism: the use of
personal constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of
Travel Research, 36, 65e69.
Walse, G., Henning-Thurau, T., Sassenberg, K., & Bordenmann, D. (2010). Does
relationship quality matters in e-services? A comparison of online and ofine
retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 130e142.
Wang, Y.-J., Wu, C., & Yuan, J. (2010). Exploring visitors experiences and intention to
revisit a heritage destination: the case of Lukang, Taiwan. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 11, 162e178.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and sat-
isfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management, 26,
45e56.
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: effects on customer
satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management,
31, 274e284.
278 C.-F. Chen, S. Phou / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 269e278

Ching Fu Chen is a professor in Department of Trans- Sambath Phou is a PhD student of Institute of Interna-
portation and Communication Management Science, Na- tional Management, National Cheng Kung University,
tional Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. He has published Taiwan.
numerous scholarly articles in, among others, Tourism
Management, Journal of Travel Research, Tourism Eco-
nomics, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Transportation
Research Part A, Transportation Research Part F, Transport
Policy, and Journal of Air Transport Management.