Journal of Vacation Marketing

Journal ofhttp://jvm.sagepub.com/ Vacation Marketing

'Cultural proximity' as a determinant of destination image Elisabeth Kastenholz Journal of Vacation Marketing 2010 16: 313 DOI: 10.1177/1356766710380883 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/16/4/313

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Vacation Marketing can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jvm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/16/4/313.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

Academic Paper

‘Cultural proximity’ as a determinant of destination image

Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(4) 313–322 ª The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1356766710380883 jvm.sagepub.com

Elisabeth Kastenholz University of Aveiro, Portugal

This article studies the effect of ‘cultural proximity’ on the way tourists perceive North Portugal as a rural holiday destination. Based on results of a one-year-long survey (N¼ 2280), the author questions if there is a relationship ‘the culturally closer the tourist, the better destination image’, as expected when following assumptions from product[destination]-self-congruity theory. Eventual moderating effects of Plog’s ‘psycho-graphic traveler type’ are also studied. Results confirm an impact of ‘cultural proximity’ on destination image, however not exactly in the direction indicated by product-self-congruity theory. Indeed, those visitors that are neither closest nor most distant in terms of ‘cultural proximity’ reveal the most positive destination image. The need most tourists feel for a balance between novelty and familiarity, as suggested by some researchers, appears as a reasonable explanation of these findings. Keywords cultural proximity, destination image, destination-self-congruity, novelty-familiarity seeking, rural tourism

Introduction Destination image or the ‘sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that people have of a place or destination’ (Crompton, 1979) has been studied as a relevant construct in consumer behavior and marketing research in tourism. Since tourists base their holiday choices frequently on destination images, it is most important to understand what determines destination image formation (Baloglu and McClearly, 1999; Castro et al., 2007). Most often experience with the destination has been stressed as a major factor influencing destination image formation. Also travel context has been studied as impacting on destination image, such as trip purpose, particular recreational pursuits, season or length of stay. Further socio-demographics, benefits sought and information sources have received attention in destination image research. However, only few approaches consider the cultural background of tourists and their relationship with the culture of the host community as a relevant determinant. In this study, the factor ‘cultural proximity’, i.e. the proximity of a tourist’s cultural background in

relation to the existing culture at the visited destination, is suggested as a relevant aspect shaping destination image. It should reflect a certain degree of identification with the destination culture and thereby relates to product-self-congruity theory. The eventual moderating effect of psycho-graphic traveler type on the relationship between ‘cultural proximity’ and destination image is further analyzed. The suggested variable has not received much attention in tourism research, but should be particularly useful in a consumption environment shaped by cross-cultural interaction. The presented exploratory approach may thus contribute to the understanding of the tourist’s destination experiences, perceptions and evaluations and be correspondingly most useful for tourist service and destination marketing.

Corresponding author: Elisabeth Kastenholz, Department of Economy, Management and Industrial Engineering, Research unit GOVCOPP (Governance, Competition and Public Politics), Campus Universita´rio de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro/ Portugal Email: [email protected]

314

Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(4)

The role of image in consumer behavior It is generally acknowledged that product and brand image play a determinant role for productrelevant decision-making (Durgee and Stuart, 1987; Gardner and Levy, 1955; Keller, 1993; Lilli, 1983; Park et al., 1986). In this context, image can be defined as a complex mental system of cognitive, affective and imagery associations linked to a product or brand. It can be understood as a holistic, multi-attribute and multi-dimensional construct. Some authors distinguish functional, sensory/ experiential and symbolic dimensions (Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990), while others stress the role of ‘product-self-congruity feelings’ (Sirgy, 1983; Sirgy et al., 2008). One may summarize image as individually constructed, strategically projected and socially shared, being a result of complex, selective perception and learning mechanisms and resulting itself in image-biased behavior (Kastenholz, 2002). According to Howard and Sheth (1969) especially more cognitively developed buyingdecisions should be image-dependent. Here, ego-involvement is typically higher and mental, more or less complex images may serve as surrogates for quality evaluations. This should be particularly relevant if the product implies a high level of risk, is of particular personal importance, and lacks inspection qualities (Kaas and Busch, 1996), as should be the case for the choice of tourist destinations. These images are both individually constructed and shared by groups, revealing publicly held and projected images, coming close to the concept of social representation (Moliner and Tafani, 1997). Publicly held images may be different due to culturally distinct ways of perceiving reality, as eventually reflected by nationality, a frequently used proxy variables for ‘belonging to a cultural group’. This assumption may be also stereotyped and debatable, as in an era of globalization an increasingly ‘globalized culture’ is often discussed as well as an increasing importance of regional and local cultural realities. Still, cultural differences due to the belonging to distinct geographically, socially and politically shaped nation-states seem to exist and persist (Hoefer, 1988).

The specificity of destination image The product category discussed here may be designed as tourism products, namely the tourism

place products called tourist destinations. A tourism product may be defined as ‘anything a tourist consumes’, which may range over a wide variety of commercial offerings (accommodation, food and beverage, recreation, sports, animation, etc.) and ‘price-less goods’ (such as natural and cultural heritage, landscape, hospitality, etc.) to a ‘tourist destination’. One may actually distinguish diverse tourism products as corresponding to single commercial offerings and a global tourism product. The latter consists of a complex experience, integrating both single tourism products and the mentioned non-commercialized items, which are frequently the most motivating aspects or primary resources (Baptista, 1990) of the global tourism product. A tourist destination can be viewed as the main provider of such a rather complex global tourism product. It may be defined as ‘any geographical unit that can be viewed as having a common image’ (Lundberg, 1990: 141), being both ‘the product and the container of an assemblage of products’ (Ashworth and Voogdt, 1991). This place-product is difficult to clearly delineate, unique to each consumer, constituted by different, nesting spatial scales and multi-sold as distinct tourism products to diverse tourist segments and simultaneously to nontourists (Ashworth and Voogdt, 1994: 6–9). The tourism product, especially if leisurebased, assumes a high value for most people and involves relatively high expenditures. It is purchased with temporal and spatial distance, making it impossible to appreciate the site of production/consumption in advance (Seitz and Meyer, 1995). Moreover, it represents a global, idealized experience, with a prolonged temporal significance, being ‘consumable’ not only at the destination (Liebman Parrinello, 1993). It correspondingly implies a high degree of involvement, expectation and risk. It is due to these features of the destination that destination images or the totality of associations, with affective and cognitive, unique and common, functional and psychological, holistic and attribute-wise dimensions, are so important. The destination image permits the imagination of destination qualities, the development of expectations and the prolonging of the enjoyable tourism experience or ‘vicarious consumption’ (MacInnis and Price, 1987). That is why several authors discuss the role of destination image in consumer behavior and destination marketing, its formation, meaning and relation with other variables (e.g. Chon, 1990; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Baloglu and McClearly, 1999).

Kastenholz

The possible impact of ‘cultural proximity’ on destination image Culture may be defined as a ‘‘collective programming of the mind’, ‘collective soul’ or some type of ‘social glue’’, encompassing such factors as common values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviour norms, as well as the use of symbols, customs, rituals, ceremonies and perceptions (Warner and Joynt, 2002). Richardson and Crompton (1988) define culture as ‘patterns of behavior or organized system of knowledge and belief’, reflected by a specific ‘way of seeing things’, life styles, work and value orientations, leisure and consumer behavior. As stated before, images are both individual and socially shaped and shared mental constructs. The belonging to a specific culture or nationality group may correspondingly induce culturally distinct ways of perceiving reality (Berry, 1979). This should also and particularly be true for destination images, which are usually formed at a certain distance from the imageobject. Destination images should correspondingly be dependent on the frequently country-specific image-projection visible at the place of residence, both via direct destination-marketing efforts and through the respective commercialization channels (tour operators, travel agencies). Additionally, there may be other uncontrollable countryspecific information sources shaping destination images, such as the media, literature and personal communication (Gartner, 1993). Finally, distinct expectations may result from different motivations driving tourists from different nationality groups,1 and distinct perceptions from different sensitivities and ways of perceiving due to distinct forms of socialization and the dominant cultural discourse. International tourism products are very much shaped by cross-cultural interaction, are produced, consumed and experienced in a culturally distinct environment, in which the tourist must integrate and to which he/ she will react with different degrees of comfort and enthusiasm. Much of the satisfaction derived from the tourism experience and much of a positive destination image should therefore be contingent upon this crosscultural interaction, which may be facilitated by ‘cultural proximity’. There is, indeed, empirical evidence for culturally shaped differences in destination image formation. For example, Ahlemoud and Armstrong’s (1996) study about (organic) images of Kuwait as a tourist destination shows differences between Kuwaiti native students and English-speaking foreign residents, which

315 should be due to cultural differences. Image differences have also been studied for distinct tourists’ countries of origin, in distinct destinations (e.g. Correia and Crouch, 2004 for the Algarve/ Portugal; Kozak et al., 2003 for Valencia/Spain). MacKay and Fesenmaier (2000) report interpretation differences of promotional destination images due to different cultural origins of respondents. Although confirming culturally distinct destination images, none of these studies analyzed specifically the role of ‘cultural proximity’ in image formation. The effects of ‘cultural proximity’ on tourist destination image have been studied by Richardson and Crompton (1988), when analyzing the image French and English speaking Canadians held on the USA as a tourist destination, and were actually found to be stronger than income or education-related differences. In their study the tendency ‘the culturally closer, the better the destination image’ was identified, which may stand for a higher degree of familiarity, identification and involvement with the destination. This conclusion confirms Sirgy’s productself-congruity theory (1983), which suggests that consumers prefer products with which they identify. Sirgy and Su (2000) argue that this should be equally valid for tourist destinations, although they specifically refer to the degree of identification with the ‘typical destination visitor’ and not with the destination itself and its population. On the other hand, Cohen (1972) has initiated an interesting stream of research in tourism, suggesting that tourists seek a balance between familiarity and novelty in their holiday experience. This may be related to the motive of variety or novelty seeking discussed in consumer research and based on the general need for an optimal stimulation level (Hoyer and MacInnis, 1997; Kroeber-Riel, 1992). Plog (1974) developed Cohen’s idea identifying different types of tourists seeking different levels of familiarity versus novelty. Thus, the psychocentric tourist, at the one extreme, would be marked by territory boundedness (taking fewer trips, traveling shorter distances), reveal generalized anxieties (avoid the unknown, prefer the comfort of routine, due to a sense of powerlessness) and would be self-inhibited, non-adventurous persons (Plog, 1974: 63). Allocentrics are outgoing, selfconfident, venturesome, exploring and curious: They like to be the first to discover a location’s charms and the culture of its people, long before the destination becomes ‘spoiled’ from heavy

316

Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(4) tourism development. Psychocentrics are the last to visit. Heavy commercial development provides evidence that the destination must be a good place for a vacation. Allocentrics gladly put up with the lack of many comforts expected by most travelers . . . , if the destination seems authentic. They want to experience the novelty of the area before it loses its uniqueness. Psychocentrics, on the other hand, desire a place much like home, where they can order a familiar hamburger when desired, and enjoy considerable commercial activities . . . (Plog, 1974: 65–69)

The midcentric, as the largest group, are located in the middle of the two extremes. The suggested tendency ‘the culturally closer, the better destination image’ may therefore not always hold, as it may be moderated by Plog’ psychographic traveler-types. That is, ‘the closer, the better destination image’ may particularly hold for psycho-centric tourists and eventually for midcentrics, but not necessarily for allocentrics. One may actually expect that allocentrics reveal an opposite pattern of perceiving the destination the better, the larger the cultural distance towards it. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are advanced: H1: ‘Cultural proximity’ affects destination images, revealing culturally distinct ways of perceiving the destination area. H2: A general tendency ‘the culturally closer, the better destination image’ (correspondingly ‘the more distant, the worse destination image’) is suggested, revealing the role of identification with the destination or destination-self-congruity. H3: This tendency should be moderated by the psycho-graphic traveler type. H3a: Specifically, this tendency should be particularly strong for psychocentric tourists. H3b: For allocentric tourists an inverse tendency ‘the more distant the better destination image’ (correspondingly ‘the closer, the worse destination image’) should exist.

The study The data used for testing these hypotheses result from a research project, financed by the Regional Coordinating Commission of North Portugal (CCRN), aiming at analyzing the rural tourist market of North Portugal as well as its destination image. A survey with tourists staying in rural areas in North Portugal was undertaken from

summer 1998 to summer 1999, yielding a sample size of 2280 valid responses. In an attempt to approximate the pleasure-tourist population in rural areas of North Portugal (excluding ‘business-only tourists’) locations were selected as those most likely to attract tourists from predefined rural counties. These attraction sites were visited by a group of interviewers (including the author) on a regular basis during a one year period. The sampling procedure used is a kind of ‘cluster sampling approach’, defined by time and space. At pre-defined attraction sites, ideally all visitors were approached and screened for questioning (70% of total sample). This approach was complemented by another one at the Oporto airport, where tourists were questioned after their visiting rural Northern Portugal (18% of total sample). Finally, owners of accommodation units situated in rural areas were asked to co-operate by distributing questionnaires to tourists staying for a holiday. This was the only indirect approach undertaken, leading to 12% of the entire sample. The sample revealed an approximately balanced number of Portuguese and foreign tourists. The most important nationalities present in the foreign market were the German (20%), British (15%), French (14%), Dutch (10%) and Spanish (9%), followed by the Belgian, Brazilian, and US-American. Respondents tended slightly to the younger age ranges, with nearly half the sample being comprised between 15 and 34 years. The distribution by gender is approximately balanced. Most respondents reside in urban areas. About half the sample possesses a degree of higher education. Respondents revealed a high propensity of traveling and about 52% indicated to visit the countryside at least three to four times a year. Image was assessed through a ‘very goodvery bad impression’-scale revealing the holistic image, a series of semantic differential scales (adapted from Malhotra, 1981) assess affective image,2 with a ‘very similar-very different’ scale measuring destination-self-congruity3 and a ‘Likert-scale-type’ battery of items (potential holiday benefits) assessing cognitive image.4 The scale batteries were further subject to PCA in order to uncover image structure and facilitate further analysis. Correspondingly the following factors were extracted:

Affective image the more evaluative dimension ‘pleasant/ colorful/ warm’,

Kastenholz and the two more arousal-revealing dimensions

‘simple’ (integrating the adjective pairs: complex-simple, extravagant- modest and artificial- natural) and ‘calm’ (including the semantic differentials: juvenile-mature, tense-calm and moderntraditional);

Cognitive image

‘nature’ (including the items: closeness to nature, peace & quiet, walking paths, rural life, unpolluted environment, isolation, scenery); ‘basics’ or ‘welcoming atmosphere’ (accommodation, gastronomy, climate, sympathy, ease of communication, infrastructure, price); ‘culture’ (architecture & monuments, history/ culture); ‘information’ (sign-posting, tourist information, accessibility, professional service); and ‘action/ fun’ (sports & recreation, nightlife, opportunities for children, socializing, variety of activities & attractions).

The here studied independent variable ‘cultural proximity’ was assessed as a three-level ordinal variable. For the purpose, three large ‘nationality groups’ were distinguished in terms of their cultural and geographical closeness towards the destination country: 1.

2.

The Portuguese as those ‘closest’ to the destination (independently of living in Portugal or elsewhere as emigrants, which was the case of 2.2 % of the sample) and those foreign tourists living as emigrants in Portugal (only 1.3 %).5 This group corresponds to 50 % of the sample; As ‘quite close’ were classified those foreign tourists that might be considered relatively close to the Portuguese destination in terms of geographical proximity (Spain), cultural closeness due to common historical and cultural roots, with a common language (the Portuguese ex-colonies Brasil, Angola, Mozambique), as well as considering generally accepted cultural closeness of the so-called Latin countries (Italy, France, Latin America, see Duby, 1989). This group corresponds to approximately 16 % of the sample.

317 Table 1. Significant differences between groups of cultural proximity Distant

Quite close

þ calm simple similar nature

calm

Closest þ simple þ similar þ nature

þ þ þ þ þ

basics fun/ action information culture overall image

Note: The tendency of deviation is indicated by a plus or minus sign before the image component. If only one category was significantly different from the others, only this is indicated. This implies a contrary effect of the other two groups on this variable and no significant difference between the latter. Otherwise several more significant patterns are shown.

3. As ‘distant’ were defined all other foreign tourists, considered most distant to Portugal, in terms of culture, language and geography (This group includes 29% German, 22% British, 16% Dutch, 10% Belgian, 7% US American, 3% Swiss, 3% Canadian, and others). This group contains 34% of the sample. Although this may be considered a debatable division (especially the ‘most distant’ tourists may be a too encompassing group), it may approximately represent cultural proximity towards the Portuguese destination and be useful for roughly detecting largest differences. The moderating variable ‘psycho-graphic traveler type’ was operationalized based on indicators of travel behavior suggested by Plog (1974),6 leading to an approximate distinction between tourists of a more psycho-centric versus allocentric type.

Discussion of results For testing hypotheses, the non-parametric Kruskall-Wallis tests were used, as the assumptions of ANOVA (normality and homoscedasticity of distributions) were not always met, nor were the three groups of similar size (Bryman and Cramer, 1994: 117–118). Mann-Whitney U tests were further applied in order to confirm individual differences between groups (closestdistant, closest-quite close, quite close-distant) and thereby reveal exact tendencies (Pestana and Gageiro, 1998). Only differences with a significance level of at least 0.01 are considered.

318

Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(4) Kruskall-Wallis tests of differences between proximity groups on the ten image dimensions assessed revealed that the tendency ‘the closer, the better destination image’ was only observable for the perception of nature. Apart from that, only the less evaluative affective image dimensions simplicity and similarity revealed a positive correlation. This seems logical due to an increasing understanding of and identification with a culturally closer destination,7 whereas cultural distance should imply a more pronounced feeling of strangeness, difference and complexity, even in a rural environment. What seems intriguing is the fact that those identified as ‘quite close’ revealed a generally most positive image of the destination, as far as the evaluation of the cognitive image dimensions basics, action/ fun, information and culture is concerned, but also in respect to overall impression. The only image dimension in which the quite close tourists rate North Portugal below ratings of the other groups is a calm atmosphere. This is not necessarily negative, though, depending on the tourists’ main motivation, which could be shown to differ for rural tourist segments in North Portugal (Kastenholz, 2004a). Consequently, H1 is confirmed, as numerous significant differences are visible between groups of distinct cultural proximity towards the destination. Some of these differences seem most plausible, but the tendency suggested of ‘the closer, the better destination image’ could not be confirmed, nor the opposite tendency ‘the more distant, the worse’, except for the image dimension nature. This leads to the rejection of H2. The pattern of those classified as ‘quite close’ perceiving the destination as most favorable may be related to the relevance of novelty seeking in the context of the tourism experience, partly offsetting the suggested impact of destinationself-congruity seeking. The psychological phenomenon of a need for an optimal stimulation level (Hoyer and MacInnis, 1997) may be responsible for this. Concretely, those being relatively culturally close to the destination (classified as ‘quite close’) may find the tourist experience in North Portugal most gratifying, since it is sufficiently ‘different’ from their daily life, socio-cultural and geographical environment and simultaneously contains a certain amount of ‘exotism’. This may provoke curiosity, interest and the feeling of a ‘change from the everyday life’ or ‘escape’, being frequently referred to as one of the most relevant motives

Table 2. Significant differences between groups of cultural proximity among Psycho-Centrics Psycho-centrics Distant

Quite close

similar nature

Closest þ nature

Table 3. Significant differences between groups of cultural proximity among Allo-Centrics Allo-Centrics Distant

Quite close

Closest

þ culture

þ simple þ nature culture

nature

of tourism (Fridgen, 1991). On the other hand, this group is simultaneously able to move smoothly in this relatively new cultural environment, for once due to language proximity and consequent ease of communication, as well as due to a generally more common cultural background, implying a deeper understanding also of non-verbal communication and social interaction contexts. This group may correspondingly take more advantage of existing resources, contact more easily with residents, sympathize more with their way of life than foreign tourists that are culturally more distant. Apart from that, the relatively poor degree of development of this tourist destination may make things even more difficult for the culturally more distant. As a consequence of this distance they may not always get along in terms of communication (English is hardly spoken in these rural areas, but also ‘language adaptations’ are easier for visitors from Latin countries, plus non-verbal communication), they may get lost due to missing signposting and feel difficulties in getting informed about existing attractions. Finally, those classified as ‘closest’ may not be as enthusiastic about the destination due to an excess of familiarity, making the visit less interesting and involving. In order to test H3a and H3b, the differencetests were repeated separately for respondents classified as psychocentric and allocentric tourists respectively (Tables 2 and 3). H3a could not be confirmed, except for the image of nature (see Table 2). The finding that psycho-centric tourists did not reveal any strong trend ‘the more distant, the worse destination image’ may be related to the fact that most psychocentrics were

Kastenholz simultaneously repeat visitors (93%), with 76% having visited the destination at least three times before and 57% at least five times. This should decrease the feeling of strangeness of those psychocentric tourists classified as ‘most distant’, moderating the suggested relationship. For allocentrics a distinct pattern could be observed for the image dimension culture, partly confirming the suggestion ‘the closer, the worse destination image’, as visible in Table 3. Here, culture was perceived as worse by those classified as closest to the destination and as best by those being quite close. This may be related to the assumption that allocentric tourists look for the exotic and extraordinary, which may be particularly sought in cultural heritage at the rural destination visited. As those closest to the destination presumably know the country best, they may not perceive much interest in the destination’s culture. Still, culture was perceived as best by those classified as quite close, and not by the most distant, as may be expected. This may be due to the before mentioned difficulty of communication for the latter, setting obstacles to the tourists’ access to the destination’s cultural heritage.8 On the other hand, for those quite close and able to ‘discover’ the cultural particularities of the region, the destination seems to be sufficiently ‘exotic’ and intriguing to satisfy the curiosity of allocentrics. As a conclusion, H3b could be partly confirmed for allocentric tourists, as far as their perception of culture is concerned. Still, the trend of the perceiving nature the worst, the more culturally distant also holds for allocentrics, which contradicts the hypothesis. This tendency of perceiving nature as relatively worse, the more culturally distant the visitor was thus shown to be independent of psycho-graphic tourist type. It may reveal a particularly high sensitivity and degree of expectation towards the natural environment from the culturally more distant group (mainly North European, US and Canadian tourists). The more Latin tourist group may be relatively less critical and the mainly Portuguese tourist group idealize most the natural environment encountered.

Conclusions Results showed that ‘cultural proximity’ has an impact on the image of North Portugal as a rural tourist destination, with differences identified for three distinct levels of proximity. Interestingly, though, the suggested direction ‘the closer, the better destination image’, as derived from product-

319 self-congruity theory (Sirgy, 1983), and here also named ‘destination-self congruity’, could not be generally confirmed. It only holds (and that in a consistent manner, independent of the studied moderating effect) for the image dimension nature, which may reveal a particular direction of sensitivity and expectation towards the natural environment amongst tourists from different cultural backgrounds, as explained before. Actually a tendency of the quite close tourists perceiving the destination as most positively could be found. This result may be justified with the often-advanced assumption of a general motivation of novelty seeking driving, to different degrees, the tourist experience (Fridgen, 1991). The need for an optimal level of arousal, suggested by activation theory, may be responsible for this (Hoyer and MacInnis, 1997; Kroeber-Riel, 1992). In the tourism field, a need for a balance between exciting novelty and eventually boring familiarity has been postulated (e.g. Cohen, 1972; Mayo and Jarvis, 1981), with Plog’s (1974) model actually suggesting that the majority of people have a preference for a balance between novelty and familiarity. A certain degree of cultural proximity, particularly reflected in an increased ease of communication, especially in the context of a rural and not very much developed tourist destination, where not too many people speak foreign languages, may help those quite close to the destination appreciate its resources and human interaction. This group may contact more easily with residents and sympathize more with their way of life. For other nationalities, the destination may be perceived as eventually too strange, difficult to understand and even frightening, while for the closest group, mainly Portuguese and those visitors living in Portugal, the destination may be too common to evoke strong enthusiasm. The psycho-graphic traveler-type did not moderate this pattern in the suggested manner in the case of the psychocentrics, which may be related to the fact that most psychocentrics were simultaneously repeat visitors, who should perceive less strangeness, even if culturally more distant. In the case of allocentrics the suggestion ‘the closer, the worse destination image’ was only confirmed for the image dimension culture, eventually because allocentric tourists may look for the exotic and extraordinary particularly in the cultural dimension of the tourist experience. Still, culture was perceived as best by those classified as quite close who may be more able to ‘explore’ the cultural particularities of the region than the culturally more distant tourists.

320

Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(4) As the main conclusion, one may retain the relevance of a balance between novelty and familiarity for a positive image of a rural tourist destination, especially in the case of North Portugal. This would explain the enthusiasm shown by those with a medium level of cultural closeness, in this case observable for those foreign tourists with a more ‘Latin culture’. This phenomenon is apparently more decisive than the assumptions of self-congruity theory in the case of a tourist destination. These results help planners and managers of the destination area better understand their visitors. A focus on those tourists that are culturally relatively close may be worthwhile, as they may be easiest to satisfy, retain and transmit a positive destination image to. On the other hand, the destination should further understand the need to help those tourists classified as ‘most distant’ to overcome their feelings of strangeness, particularly by an effort in improving communication and information at the destination site, in this case by improving sign-posting, tourist information as well as residents’ foreign language skills (at least those in the tourism service field, which in some European rural areas is still not so common). Additionally, the need for novelty amongst those tourists identified as ‘closest to the destination’ may be satisfied by the development of new, different and exciting tourism products, making use of existing resources (e.g. organization of outdoors activities, circuits, events). That is, understanding the differences between different groups of tourists with different cultural backgrounds, associated to the need for a balance between novelty and familiarity, may contribute to identifying the most suitable target-market and to developing the destination in a way that may enhance each group’s satisfaction. This, in addition to a careful analysis of the consequences of opting for specific segments, in a holistic planning approach, could further help destinations to develop in a more successful and sustainable way by actively ‘managing demand’ (Kastenholz, 2004a). Some limitations of the study must be acknowledged. First, the operationalization of the suggested independent variable ‘cultural proximity’ is debatable, based on only nationality and/ or country of residence as a proxy, with the classification of the ‘culturally most distant’ tourists eventually bearing more variance. The operationalization of psycho-graphic traveller type was also only an approximation, in an attempt to identify the most ‘extreme’ traveller

types according to Plog (1974). Results are mainly of an exploratory nature and may contribute to the discussion of a relatively neglected aspect in tourism studies. The eventual interacting effect of other variables (e.g. gender, level of education) on the analyzed relationships may also be worth while studying. Another interesting avenue of research would be the question if results are transferable to other tourist destinations, both rural and other types of destinations. In any case, the role of cultural background in destination image formation must be acknowledged, and deserves further study, as already advocated by many researchers in the field of destination marketing (Correia and Crouch, 2004; Crompton, 1979; Kozak et al., 2003; MacKay and Fesenmaier, 2000; Richardson and Crompton, 1988). This paper adds to the current discussion the idea of distinguishing degrees of ‘cultural proximity’, in addition to the usual analysis of single nationality or country-of-origin effects or a global comparison between domestic versus international, for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon, considering further the need for a balance between novelty and familiarity (Cohen, 1972; Plog, 1974) as a relevant determinant in this context that seems to outweigh an eventually competing effect of a need for destination-self-congruity (Sirgy and Su, 2000). Notes 1. Actually, instead of looking at nationality groups, one might rather analyze groups of residents from specific geographical areas, as long as these reflect the enduring belonging to and integration into a specific socially and culturally shaped meaningful environment. Although nowadays the correspondence of these two categories is not obvious, in our study the nationality variable was generally preferred for grouping subjects according to ‘cultural proximity’, as it coincided with place of residence in 96 percent. 2. Malhotra’s scale was used in order to study product-self-congruity applied to a tourist destination not only through the single scale. However, the scale was adapted to the particular object under study, considering further results of pre-tests and a literature review on affective destination image assessment. 3. In the end the single scale was preferred to a composite average scale of differences between destination and self-evaluations, since separate PCAs revealed a distinct structure for the two semantic domains. This direct and global ‘tapping of the psychological experience of self-congruity’ has also

Kastenholz

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

been suggested as a more valid approach by Sirgy et al. (1997) and was further discussed by Kastenholz (2004b). These items resulted from a free elicitation exercise among a student sample, who had already undertaken a holiday in the countryside, a literature review, a discussion with agents of rural tourism supply and a pre-test of a more complex item-list in a rural tourism setting. This was the only case in which place of residence was considered determinant for ‘closeness to the destination’. Variables considered were, for example, frequency of holidays, type of destination visited before (more or less exotic), type of lodging (more or less standardized), number of repeat visits, period of prior reservation, distance traveled at destination. Values from 1 to 3 were attributed, according to a rule of increasing allocentrism. The distribution of averages of these values was analyzed and those with values below and above 0.5 from the mean were classified as psycho- or allocentrics (about 15% each). This approach must be understood as an approximation to a classification of psychographic traveler types, focusing on the extreme ends of the distribution. As the similarity scale was used for indicating destination-self-congruity, this result confirms the assumption of increasing cultural proximity over the three groups, thereby corroborating the classification method used. As an example, one may quote foreign tourists from Northern Europe who commented that ‘apparently there were interesting monuments, churches, castles and ruins, we sometimes came across accidentally, when driving or walking through the countryside, but churches closed, no information available, nor any people around who might have helped out and many curious sites we probably simply passed by’. It is true that some advances have been undertaken in these areas, since 1999, but still much remains to be done increasing the region’s accessibility and visibility of its cultural heritage, including the ethnographic and immaterial.

References Alhemoud AM and Armstrong EG (1996) Image of tourism attractions in Kuwait. Journal of Travel Research 34(4): 76–80. Ashworth G and Voogdt H (1991) Can places be sold for tourism? In: Ashworth G and Goodall B (eds) Marketing Tourism Places. London and New York: Routledge, 1–16. Ashworth G and Voogdt H (1994) Marketing of tourism places: what are we doing? In: Uysal M (ed.)

321 Global Tourist Behavior. New York: International Business Press, 5–19. Baloglu S and McCleary KW (1999) A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research 26(4): 868–897. Baptista M (1990) O Turismo na Economia: uma arbordagem tećnica, econo´mica, social e cultural. Lisboa: Instituto Nacional de Formaçaõ Turı´stica. Berry JW (1979) A cultural ecology of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 12: 177–203. Bryman A and Cramer D (1994) Quantitative Data Analysis for Social Scientists (Revised Edition). London and New York: Routledge. Castro CB, Armario EM and Ruiz DM (2007) The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination’s image and tourists’ future behaviour. Tourism Management 28(1): 175–18. Chon K-S (1990) Consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction in tourism as related to destination image perception. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University. Cohen E (1972) Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research 39: 164–182. Correia A and Crouch GI (2004) Tourist perceptions of and motivations for visiting the Algarve, Portugal. Tourism Analysis 8: 165–169. Crompton JL (1979) An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research (Spring): 18–23. Dobni D and Zinkhan GM (1990) In search of brand image: a foundation analysis. Advances in Consumer Research 17: 110–119. Duby G (1989) A Civilizaçaõ Latina – Dos Tempos Antigos ao Mundo Moderno. Lisboa: Publicaço˜es Dom Quixote. Durgee JF and Stuart RW (1987) Advertising symbols and brand names that best represent key product meanings. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 4(3): 15–24. Echtner CM and Ritchie JRB (1993) The measurement of destination image: an empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research 31(4): 3–13. Fridgen JD (1991) Dimensions of Tourism. Michigan: American Hotel & Motel Association, Educational Institute Books. Gardner B and Levy S (1955) The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review 33(2): 33–39. Gartner WC (1993) Image formation process. Communication and Channel Systems in Tourism Marketing 2(2/3): 191–215. Hoefer M (1988) Nation. In: Hirschberg W (ed.) Neues Woerterbuch der Voelkerkunde. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 336.

322

Journal of Vacation Marketing 16(4) Howard JA and Sheth J (1969) The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: Wiley. Hoyer WD and MacInnis DJ (1997) Consumer Behavior. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Kaas KP and Busch A (1996) Inspektions-, erfahrungs- und vertrauenseigenschaften von produkten. Marketing ZFP 4(4): 243–252. Kastenholz E (2002) The role and marketing implications of destination images on tourist behaviour: the case of Northern Portugal. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidade de Aveiro/ Portugal, UMI dissertation service. Kastenholz E (2004a) Assessment and role of destination-self-congruity. Annals of Tourism Research 31(3): 719–723. Kastenholz E (2004b) ‘Management of demand’ as a tool in sustainable tourist destination development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12(5): 388–408. Keller KL (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(January): 1–22. Kozak M, Bigne´ E, Gonza´lez A and Andreu L (2003) Cross-cultural behavior research in tourism: a case study on destination image. Tourism Analysis 8(2): 253–257. Kroeber-Riel W (1992) Konsumentenverhalten. 5. Auflage. Muenchen: Verlag Vahlen. Liebman Parrinello G (1993) Motivation and anticipation in post-industrial tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 20: 233–249. Lilli W (1983) Perzeption, kognition: image. In: Irle M and Bassman W (eds) Handbuch der Psychology, Band 12 - Marktpsychologie als Sozialwissenschaft. Goettingen/Toronto/Zuerich: Verlag fuer Psychologie, 402–471. Lundberg DE (1990) The Tourist Business (6th Edition). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. MacInnis DJ and Price LL (1987) The role of imagery in information processing: a review and extension. Journal of Consumer Research 13: 473–491. MacKay K and Fesenmaier DR (2000) An exploration of cross-cultural destination image assessment. Journal of Travel Research 38(May): 417–423.

Malhotra N (1981) A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research 18(November): 456–464. Mayo EJ and Jarvis LP (1981) The Psychology of Leisure Travel. Boston, MA: CBI Publishing Company. Moliner P and Tafani E (1997) Attitudes and social representation: a theoretical and experimental approach. European Journal of Social Psychology 27: 687–702. Park CW, Jaworski BJ and MacInnis DJ (1986) Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing 50(October): 135–145. Pestana MH and Gageiro JN (1998) Ana´lise de Dados para Cieˆncias Sociais. Lisboa: Ediço˜es Sı´labo. Plog S (1974) Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Quarterly 14(4): 55–58. Richardson S and Crompton JL (1988) Cultural variations in perceptions of vacation attributes. Tourism Management (June): 128–136. Seitz E and Meyer W (1995) Tourismusmarktforschung. Muenchen: Verlag Vahlen. Sirgy MJ (1983) Social Cognition and Consumer Behavior. New York: Praeger Publishers. Sirgy MJ, Grewal D, Mangleburg TF, Park J, Chon K-S, Claiborne CB, Johar JS and Berkman H (1997) Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25(3): 229–241. Sirgy MJ, Lee D-J, Johar JS and Tidwell J (2008) Effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research 61(10): 1091–1097. Sirgy MJ and Su C (2000) Destination image, selfcongruity, and travel behavior: toward an integrated model. Journal of Travel Research 38(May): 340–352. Warner M and Joynt P (2002) Introduction: crosscultural perspectives. In: Warner M and Joynt P (eds) Managing across Cultures: Issues and Perspectives (2nd Edition). London: Thomson.