<%BANNER%>

Effects of Exposure Time to Travel Information Sources on Familiarity, Destination Image, and Intention to Visit

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024131/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Exposure Time to Travel Information Sources on Familiarity, Destination Image, and Intention to Visit
Physical Description: 1 online resource (117 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jeong, Chul
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: familiarity, image, information, intention, memory, perception, saturation
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Effects of exposure time to travel information on human perceptions and intentions were examined in this study. Specifically, the study investigated the specific relationships between the exposure time to travel information and three dependent variables (familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit). This study also examined the saturation effect on the relationship between exposure time and human perceptions. Additionally, effects of the types of information sources were analyzed. To examine the effects of exposure time to travel information, three main hypotheses were tested. The hypotheses stated that the amount of exposure to travel information will positively influence familiarity (H1), destination image (H2), and intention to visit (H3). In addition, based on the saturation effect, the fourth hypothesis stated that the increase in familiarity (H4-1), destination image (H4-2), and intention to visit (H4-3) will slow down as the exposure time increases. Posttest-only control group design was employed for testing the conceptual model, and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used for testing the three main hypotheses. Items for three core constructs were collected from existing scales, and these items were analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, quadratic regression analysis was used for testing hypothesis 4 and its three sub-hypotheses (H4-1, H4-2, and H4-3). Lastly, a factorial design MANOVA was used to verify the differences between two kinds of travel information sources and an interaction effect. Results of this study showed that for the measurement scales, both familiarity and intention-to-visit constructs were confirmed to be a single-factor construct, while the destination image construct was confirmed to have first and second order factors. In addition, all hypotheses were supported in this study, except for H4-1. Lastly, for type comparison, only two of eight constructs were significantly different between the two types of information. Study results provided empirical evidence for the mere exposure effect, the memory control process, and the destination image evolution concept. These effects and concepts account for a positive relationship between exposure to travel information and human perceptions and intentions related to a destination. In addition, except for the familiarity construct, the saturation effect was supported in this study. Therefore, an optimum level between information exposure and perceptions was also suggested. From a managerial standpoint, the study results suggested that destination marketers offer an abundance of travel information to potential tourists for improving their familiarity with a destination, destination image, and intention to visit a destination in the context of both pre-trip planning and hedonic needs. However, at the same time, this study also suggested that human perceptions and intentions may become saturated at some level. Thus, it is recommended to find the optimum level of tourist promotion materials to provide for prospective tourists.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Chul Jeong.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Holland, Stephen.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024131:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024131/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of Exposure Time to Travel Information Sources on Familiarity, Destination Image, and Intention to Visit
Physical Description: 1 online resource (117 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Jeong, Chul
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: familiarity, image, information, intention, memory, perception, saturation
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Health and Human Performance thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Effects of exposure time to travel information on human perceptions and intentions were examined in this study. Specifically, the study investigated the specific relationships between the exposure time to travel information and three dependent variables (familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit). This study also examined the saturation effect on the relationship between exposure time and human perceptions. Additionally, effects of the types of information sources were analyzed. To examine the effects of exposure time to travel information, three main hypotheses were tested. The hypotheses stated that the amount of exposure to travel information will positively influence familiarity (H1), destination image (H2), and intention to visit (H3). In addition, based on the saturation effect, the fourth hypothesis stated that the increase in familiarity (H4-1), destination image (H4-2), and intention to visit (H4-3) will slow down as the exposure time increases. Posttest-only control group design was employed for testing the conceptual model, and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used for testing the three main hypotheses. Items for three core constructs were collected from existing scales, and these items were analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, quadratic regression analysis was used for testing hypothesis 4 and its three sub-hypotheses (H4-1, H4-2, and H4-3). Lastly, a factorial design MANOVA was used to verify the differences between two kinds of travel information sources and an interaction effect. Results of this study showed that for the measurement scales, both familiarity and intention-to-visit constructs were confirmed to be a single-factor construct, while the destination image construct was confirmed to have first and second order factors. In addition, all hypotheses were supported in this study, except for H4-1. Lastly, for type comparison, only two of eight constructs were significantly different between the two types of information. Study results provided empirical evidence for the mere exposure effect, the memory control process, and the destination image evolution concept. These effects and concepts account for a positive relationship between exposure to travel information and human perceptions and intentions related to a destination. In addition, except for the familiarity construct, the saturation effect was supported in this study. Therefore, an optimum level between information exposure and perceptions was also suggested. From a managerial standpoint, the study results suggested that destination marketers offer an abundance of travel information to potential tourists for improving their familiarity with a destination, destination image, and intention to visit a destination in the context of both pre-trip planning and hedonic needs. However, at the same time, this study also suggested that human perceptions and intentions may become saturated at some level. Thus, it is recommended to find the optimum level of tourist promotion materials to provide for prospective tourists.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Chul Jeong.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Holland, Stephen.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024131:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TIME TO TRAVEL INFORMATION SOURCES ON FAMILIARITY, DESTINATION IMAGE, AND INTENTION TO VISIT By CHUL JEONG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Chul Jeong

PAGE 3

3 To my wife, Hyunmi, and my lovely kids, Dahae and Min

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My dissertation was completed with the assist ance of numerous people. I would like to express my gratitude to them for their support. My deepest gratitude is to my advisor, Dr. Stephen Holland, for his patience and encouragem ent throughout my doctoral work. I would also like to thank him for providing financial support for printing th e Web and guidebook content in color. I am also very grateful for having an exceptional committee and w ould like to thank Drs. Yong Jae Ko, Kyriaki Kaplanidou, and Alan Cooke for their continuous support and valuable comments which assisted in completing this disse rtation, and my academic progress. I am also appreciative of the University of Florida Gr aduate School for providing me with an Alumni Fellowship which made my attendance at the University of Florida possible. I would also like to thank Drs. Nam-jo Kim and Hoon Lee at the Hanyang University for helping me collect data in Korea. I extend my gr atitude to my senior friends, Dr. Keun-ho Cho at Korean Baptist Church, and Dr. Jung-jun Kim at North Central Baptist Church for their support of non-academic life in Gainesville. Finally, I am grateful to my wife, Hyunmi Shin, and my tw o children, Dahae and Min. My dissertation would not have been possible without the love and patience of my family. I would also like to express my gratit ude to my four parents. They have aided and encouraged me throughout this endeavor.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12Background..................................................................................................................... ........12Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .13Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... ....14Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....15Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... ..16Definitions.................................................................................................................... ..........162 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................18Exposure to Travel Information..............................................................................................18Types of Travel Information Sources..............................................................................19Antecedents and Consequences of Information Search Behavior...................................19Familiarity.................................................................................................................... ...........20Destination Image.............................................................................................................. .....22Image Formation.............................................................................................................22Information and Destination Image.................................................................................23Cognitive and Affective Images......................................................................................25Dimensions of Destination Image...................................................................................26Intention to Visit............................................................................................................. ........27Conceptual Framework...........................................................................................................28Research Hypotheses............................................................................................................ ..29Hypothesis 1................................................................................................................... .29Hypothesis 2................................................................................................................... .30Hypothesis 3................................................................................................................... .31Saturation Effect.............................................................................................................. .......31Hypothesis 4................................................................................................................... .32Implications of Hypotheses....................................................................................................32Summary........................................................................................................................ .........32

PAGE 6

6 3 METHOD......................................................................................................................... ......43Experimental Design............................................................................................................ ..43Procedures and Subjects........................................................................................................ .44Measurement.................................................................................................................... .......47Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........49Measurement Scales: CFA..............................................................................................49Testing of Hypotheses: MANOVA.................................................................................50Testing of H4: Quadrati c Regression Analysis...............................................................50Additional Analysis: Differe nces between Two Types of Information Sources.............504 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......63Demographics of Participants.................................................................................................63Measurement Scales............................................................................................................. ..63Familiarity Scale..............................................................................................................63Destination Image Scale..................................................................................................64Intention to Visit Scale....................................................................................................65Effects of Exposure Time to Travel Information...................................................................65Saturation Effect.............................................................................................................. .......67Comparison between Two Types of Information Sources.....................................................68Summary........................................................................................................................ .........695 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ....83Validation of the Measurement Scales...................................................................................83Exposure to Information and its Effects on Perceptions/Intentions.......................................84Familiarity.................................................................................................................... ...84Destination Image............................................................................................................85Intention to Visit............................................................................................................. .85Saturation Effect.............................................................................................................. .......85Comparison of Information Sources.......................................................................................86Implications................................................................................................................... .........87Theoretical Implications..................................................................................................87Methodological Implications...........................................................................................88Managerial Implications..................................................................................................89Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........91Delimitation................................................................................................................... .........92Future Studies................................................................................................................. ........92 APPENDIX A ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRE IN KOREAN.....................................................................96B QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH.......................................................................................101

PAGE 7

7 C COVER OF A BOUND BOOK (STIMULI).......................................................................104D COVER OF A BOUND BOOK (STIMULI) IN ENGLISH...............................................105LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................106BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................117

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Table of hypotheses........................................................................................................ ...343-1 Participant segmentation................................................................................................... .513-2 Features of two types of information sources....................................................................523-3 Experimental group segmentation.....................................................................................533-4 Familiarity items.......................................................................................................... ......543-5 Cognitive image items...................................................................................................... .553-6 Affective image items...................................................................................................... ..563-7 Intention to visit items................................................................................................... ....573-8 Specific data analysis..................................................................................................... ....584-1 Demographic profile........................................................................................................ ..704-2 Validity and reliability of familiarity scale........................................................................714-3 Validity and reliability of destination image scale............................................................724-4 Factor correlations amo ng six image sub-constructs.........................................................734-5 Validity and reliability of intention to visit scale...............................................................744-6 Results of a series of ANOVA on the effects of exposure time........................................754-7 Results of a series of quadratic regression analyses..........................................................764-8 Estimation of saturated points............................................................................................774-9 Results of a series of ANOVA on the e ffects of types of information sources.................784-10 Results summary........................................................................................................... .....79

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Variety of types of travel information sources..................................................................352-2 Continuum range of familiarity.........................................................................................362-3 Dimensions of destination image.......................................................................................372-4 Concepts related to behavioral intentions..........................................................................382-5 Conceptual framework.......................................................................................................392-6 Theoretical background.....................................................................................................402-7 Research hypotheses........................................................................................................ ..412-8 Saturation effect.......................................................................................................... .......423-1 Basic requirements of the pos ttest-only control group design...........................................593-2 Two types of travel inform ation sources about Florida.....................................................603-3 Bound books for the experimental treatment.....................................................................613-4 Example of two-page ar ticle about a destination...............................................................624-1 Second-order model of destination image construct..........................................................804-2 Estimated marginal means of natural-attractions image....................................................814-3 Estimated marginal m eans of exciting image....................................................................825-1 Relations between time interv al and perceptions/intentions..............................................945-2 Two patterns of the saturation effect.................................................................................95

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TIME TO TRAVEL INFORMATION SOURCES ON FAMILIARITY, DESTINATION IMAGE, AND INTENTION TO VISIT By Chul Jeong May 2009 Chair: Stephen M. Holland Major: Health and Human Performance Effects of exposure time to travel informa tion on human perceptions and intentions were examined in this study. Specifically, the study inve stigated the specific re lationships between the exposure time to travel information and three depe ndent variables (familiar ity, destination image, and intention to visit). This study also examined the saturation effect on the relationship between exposure time and potential tourists perceptio ns. Additionally, effects of the types of information sources were analyzed. To examine the effects of exposure time to travel information, three main hypotheses were tested. The hypotheses stated that the amount of exposure to travel information will positively influence familiarity (H1), destin ation image (H2), and intention to visit (H3). In addition, based on the saturation effect, the fourth hypothesis stat ed that the increase in familiarity (H4-1), destination image (H4-2), and intention to vi sit (H4-3) will slow down as the exposure time increases. Posttest-only control group design was used for testing the conceptual model, and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) wa s used for testing the three main hypotheses. Items for three core constructs (familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit) were collected from existing scales, and these items were analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis. In

PAGE 11

11 addition, quadratic regression analysis was used for testing hypothesi s 4 and its three subhypotheses (H4-1, H4-2, and H4-3). Lastly, a factorial design M ANOVA was used to verify the differences between two kinds of travel information source s and an interaction effect. Results of this study showed that for the measurement scales, both familiarity and intention-to-visit constructs were confirmed to be a single-factor construct, while the destination image construct was confirmed to have first a nd second order factors. In addition, all hypotheses were supported in this study, except for H4-1. La stly, for type comparison, only two of eight constructs were significantly different between the two types of information. Study results provided empirical evidence for the mere exposure effect, the memory control process, and the destina tion image evolution concept. Th ese effects and concepts account for a positive relationship between exposure to travel informati on and peoples perceptions and intentions related to a destina tion. In addition, except for the fam iliarity construct, the saturation effect was supported in this study. Therefore, an optimum level between information exposure and perceptions was also suggested. From a mana gerial standpoint, the study results suggested that destination marketers offer an abundance of travel information to potential tourists for improving their familiarity with a destination, destin ation image, and intention to visit a destination in the contex t of both pre-trip planning and he donic needs. However, at the same time, this study also suggested that peoples perc eptions and intentions may become saturated at some level. Thus, it is recommended to find the op timum level of tourist promotion materials to provide for prospective tourists.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Today most destination marketing organizations (DMOs) have provided a variety of travel information sources to potential tourists since they believe in a positive relationship between information exposure and tourists real choi ce (Molina & Esteban, 2006). In other words, information acquisition is necessary for selecting a destination and for on-site decisions such as selecting accommodations, transp ortation, and tours (Snepenger, et al., 1990, p. 13). In addition, a variety of sources helps to form the imag e of a destination in the mind of a potential holidaymaker (Santos, 1998, p. 282). That is, expos ure to travel information may cause changes in potential tourists psychologi cal behaviors (Echtn er & Ritchie, 2003; Um & Crompton, 1990); thus, a variety of information sources forms the basis for travel planning (MaIntosh & Goeldner, 1986; Perdue, 1993). During the travel information acquisition stage, travelers may recall information from memory or utilize different exte rnal sources such as guide books travel Web sites, or word-ofmouth (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004). Information ac quisition and processing has been largely regarded as a problem-solving task (Vogt & Fe senmaier, 1998), and therefore, investigating information search or information seeking beha viors is essential to both tourism scholars and practitioners (Andereck & Cald well, 1993; Fodness & Murray, 1997). In this way, understanding how tourists obtain travel informa tion and how tourists deal with such information, in particular, is significant for marketing management d ecisions and planning effective communication promotions (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004) because c onsumer awareness, selection, and choice of tourism products rely upon informati on (Fodness & Murray, 1997; Manfredo, 1988).

PAGE 13

13 Statement of the Problem Many studies have investigated the effects of exposure to a va riety of travel information sources. Most of those studies have focused on th e effects of commercial travel advertisements (Butterfield, Deal, & Kubursi, 1998; Kim, Hwang, & Fesenmaier, 2005; MacKay & Smith, 2006; McWilliams & Cromption, 1997; Mok, 1990; Silberman & Klock, 1986; Woodside, 1990; Wu, Wei, & Chen, 2008). However, among travel information sources, advertisements are evaluated as one of the lowest credible sources as well as the lowest usage sources (Andereck & Caldwell, 1993; Capella & Greco, 1987; Kerste tter & Cho, 2004; Nolan, 1976; Raitz & Dakhil, 1989). Therefore, it is necessary to examine more thoroughly the effects of exposure to other types of information sources (e.g., guidebooks, Internet, brochures, or word-of-mouth). Gunn (1972) and later scholars (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Chon, 1991; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gart ner, 1986; Kim & Morrison, 2005; Y ksel & Akgl, 2007) have maintained that destination image evolves through the use of various types of information (e.g., professional sources, adver tisements, friends, or guidebooks); however, few studies have systematically examined the causes and effects of destination image evolution. In other words, most studies have mentioned concep tually the evolution of image without empirical tests or have indirectly tested image evolution as part of a larger model. Importance of the amount and variety of trav el information sources has been stressed in many studies (Baloglu & McClea ry, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Santos, 1997). For example, Molina and Esteban (2006) mentioned because of the positive contribution of the quantity of information sources to perceptual evaluations, destinati ons should find ways to make tourists use multiple information sources (p. 1052). However, offering travel information sources to potential tourists cost an arm and a leg (Etzel & Wahlers, 1985) In addition, Fras, Rodrguez,

PAGE 14

14 and Castaeda (2008) pointed out the problem of the impact of information overload on destination image. That is, they stated that t he effects of information overload can range from lesser quality of the decision right to discomfo rt, confusion and stress (p. 167). Therefore, it would be useful to examine how much exposure to travel information sources would lead to an optimum result. Lastly, unlike the case in travel advertis ing studies (Kim, Hwang, & Fesenmaier, 2005; Mok, 1990; Woodside, 1990), previous studies re lated to information search behavior, familiarity, and destination image have been limited to cross-sectional design like survey methods; thus, there is a need to adopt a variet y of methodological tools to better understand the phenomena. For example, an experimental design will be a very helpful approach because it can control for other information sources (e.g., news magazines, or events ; Gartner, 1991; Snmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Such a design is more appropriate for examining the causal relationships proposed in this study. Purpose of the Study Based on the background and identified re search problems stated above, this study examined the effects of exposure time to travel information sources. More specifically, the study investigated the specific relationships between exposure time to travel information and human perceptions/intentions (i.e., familiarity, destinatio n image, and intention to visit). Second, this study examined a saturation effect in the relations hips between exposure time to information and human perceptions/intentions. In sum, the issues related to th e amount of exposure time to information were investigated in this study. Spec ifically, the first purpose is related to a linear trend, while the second one is rela ted to a quadratic trend in the conceptual relationship. Effects of the types of information sources additionally, were analyzed.

PAGE 15

15 Research Questions Based on previous research problems and purpos es, four main research questions have been formulated. This study was de signed to answer these questions. Research Question 1 : What are the relationships betw een the amount of exposure time to travel information and three dependent variables (i.e., familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit)? Information exposure may result in change in peoples perceptions and intentions. In order to investigate the effects of information exposur e, it is necessary to examine the relationships between the amount of exposure time to travel information and the dependent variables. The results may offer implications to destination ma rketers that desire to improve their image or correct current distorted image through managing travel information sources. Research Question 2 : Is there a saturation e ffect in the relationshi p between the amount of exposure time to travel information and th ree dependent variables (i.e., familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit)? Offering travel information sources to potenti al tourists is expensive (Molina & Esteban, 2006). Thus, investigating a ceiling point (i.e., a maximum level) on the effects of exposure to information sources may prevent destination manage rs or marketers from investing in excessive promotion costs. Research Question 3 : Will types of travel information influence potential tourists perceptions and intentions? There are a lot of types of information sources So far, most of the related studies have focused on the effects of travel advertis ements (MacKay & Smith, 2006; McWilliams & Cromption, 1997; Wu, Wei, & Chen, 2008) or co mmercial brochures (Goossens, 1994; Molina & Esteban, 2006; Santos, 1997; Seabra, Abrantes, & Lages, 2007). Effects of other sources on perceptions and intentions may be different from those sources. In addition, investigating which

PAGE 16

16 travel information sources have stronger effects on behavior can provide useful implications for travel industry. Significance of the Study Time dimension is one of the main dimensi ons of information s eeking (Fodness & Murray, 1997; Kiel & Layton, 1981). This study focused on the time issues that are related to exposure to travel information sources. Gursoy and McCleary (2004) mentioned that time spent (invested) in search is often considered to be the most important external cost, and is commonly accepted as affecting the extent of external search (pp. 355-356). Many related stud ies have supported the positive relationship between exposure to informa tion sources and potential tourists perceptions and intentions. However, information overload ma y lead to a lower perception rather than a higher one (Hunter, 2002). That is, this may occur as the consequence of the dysfunctions brought about by information overload (confusion, diso rientation or stress) wh ich in turn lead to discomfort due to the difficulty in understanding the situation (Fras, R odrguez, & Castaeda, 2008, p. 168). Therefore, this study used divided time frames (i.e., four di fferent exposure time groups), and examined the saturation points be tween exposure time and perceptions/intentions. In sum, destination marketers may better understa nd how much they should invest in promotion materials related to travel informati on sources to reach an optimum level. Definitions This study investigated the relationship be tween four concepts (exposure to travel information, familiarity, destination image, and inte ntion to visit). Definitions of those concepts are as follows: Exposure to Travel Information : It is defined as the beha vior to search for travel information from the environment (Seabra, Abrantes, & Lages, 2007). For example, travel information sources involve travel agents, broc hures, Internet content, advisements, and word-of-mouth from friends or family (Fodness & Murray, 1997; Gartner, 1993).

PAGE 17

17 Familiarity : It is defined as the cognitive stru ctures of knowledge concerning the product that are stored in memory (Marks & Olson, 1981, p. 145). In other words, it can be described as the extent of a perception th at is formed from di rect experiences (e.g., previous purchase) or indirect experiences (e.g., advertising exposure, word-of-mouth, or information search) with a product (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Johnson & Russo, 1984; Kerstetter & Cho, 2004). Destination Image : It is defined as a total impression th at tourists have about a destination (Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993). In other word s, image places a symbol of an area into potential tourists minds and gives them a pr econceived idea of the destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991). Intention to Visit : It can be defined as a potential plan to visit a destination (Chen & Tsai, 2007; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2006; Ng, Lee, & Soutar, 2007).

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW To examine the effects of exposure to trav el information, four main concepts were reviewed from previous studies and their relationships were constructed into a testable conceptual framework. Three major sections comp rise the literature re view. The first section provides a review of current lit erature about exposure to travel information, familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit. The second section presents a conceptual framework indicating the relationship between exposure to travel informa tion and three main concepts. Lastly, the third section suggests four research hypotheses that ar e deduced from the conceptual framework and its theoretical background. Exposure to Travel Information Potential tourists collect travel information sources when they select a destination and detail components such as accommodations, trans portation, restaurants, a nd travel activities (Fodness & Murray, 1997). Information search behavi or consists of two types of activities: internal and external searches (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004; Wicks & Schuett, 1991). Internal search behavior is defined as the driv e to search for information stor ed in memory, while external search behavior is defined as the acquisition of decision re levant information from the environment (Engel, Blackwell & Miniard, 1995). In other words, external information search behavior can be regarded as exposure to a vari ety of travel information sources. As shown in Figure 2-1, in the initial stage of travel decision making, internal information search may take place first. In the next stage, if the internal information is not sufficient for decision making, external information search behavi or happens (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004).

PAGE 19

19 Types of Travel Information Sources Tourists seek travel information from severa l sources prior to making a decision (Andereck & Caldwell, 1993). Thus, the travel industry has offered many kinds of travel information sources. These sources can be classified from a different standpoint. For example, Fodness & Murray (1997) classified four t ypes of external travel information sources in terms of whether the source is commercial or noncommercial and wh ether the source is received from personal or impersonal communication as follows: (1) impe rsonal and commercial (e.g., brochures, guide books, local tourist offices, and stat e travel guides), (2) personal and commercial (e.g., auto clubs and travel agents), (3) impersonal and noncommerc ial (e.g., magazines and newspapers), and (4) personal and noncommercial (e.g., friends or rela tives, highway welcome centers and personal experience) as shown in Figure 2-1. On the other hand, Gartner (1993) suggested eight kinds of in formation sources as related to destination image formation. Specifically, those sources include overt induced I (e.g., traditional forms of advertising), overt induced II (e.g., information received from wholesalers), covert induced I (e.g., the use of a recognizable spokesperso n), covert induced II (e.g., newspaper and travel section articles), aut onomous (e.g., movies and TV programs), unsolicited organic, solicited organic, and organic (e.g., act ual visitation). That is, tourists who have insufficient internal information seek a variety of external informati on sources. These sources may influence the formation of perceptions or co gnitive evaluation of destination image (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). Thus, destinatio n marketers need to provide various types of information sources (e.g., verbal or visual informati on) to attract more tourists (Waitt, 1996). Antecedents and Consequences of Information Search Behavior Understanding how tourists use travel inform ation sources is important for destination decision making, effective communi cation tools, and service de livery strategies (Gursoy &

PAGE 20

20 McCleary, 2004) because the choice of travel products depends on the travel information available to tourists (Fodness & Murray, 1997). So far, many studies have focused on the antece dents of travel information search behavior such as source credibility, e xpertise, interest, involvemen t, learning, motivations, prior knowledge, and types of sources (Fodness & Murray, 1997; 1999; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004; Kerstetter & Cho, 2004; Manfredo, 1988; Per due, 1993; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998). These studies have provided tourism marketers, mana gers, and researchers with a theoretical and empirical basis for tourist segmentation a nd promotional strategy improvement (Fodness & Murray, 1999; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004). Some studies (Fras, Rodr guez, & Castaeda, 2008; Mo lina & Esteban, 2006; Santos, 1998; Seabra, Abrantes, & Lages, 2007), on the other hand, have focused on the outcomes of external information search behaviors (i.e., th e effects of exposure to information sources) because information effect studies help mana gers make decisions on how they provide the quality and amount of information in promoti onal efforts (Mansfredo, 1988; Vogt & Stewart, 1998). For example, Fodness and Murray (1999) s uggested that outcome s are an area of particular importance given their multidimensionality and the complexity of their relationships to both information search activitie s and the tourist decision-maki ng process (p. 229). In sum, these studies imply a positive relationship between exposure to a variety of information sources (e.g., brochure, Internet, and travel agencies ) and some dependent variables (e.g., choice, destination image, and expectations). Familiarity Familiarity has been regarded as a significant concept for tourist destinations because of its vital role in tourist destin ation selection process (Balog lu, 2001, p. 127). For example, it is closely related to information acquisition, reactio ns to advertising, and the choice of decision

PAGE 21

21 rules by consumers (Johnson & Russo, 1984). Familiarity is defined as the cognitive structures of knowledge concerning the product that are st ored in memory (Marks & Olson, 1981, p. 145). In other words, it can be described as the extent of a perception that is formed from direct experiences (e.g., previous purchas e) or indirect experiences (e .g., advertising exposure, wordof-mouth, and information search) with a pr oduct (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Johnson & Russo, 1984; Kerstetter & Cho, 2004). More specifically, it can be conceptualized as a point on a continuum ranging from merely being conscious of the existence of a produc t to a state of being intimately familiar with it (Spotts & Stynes, 198 4, p. 3). That is, the low level of familiarity may be termed awareness of a product, and the high level of familiarity may be termed knowledge of the product (Spotts & Stynes, 1984) as shown in Figure 2-2. Familiarity with a destination, generally, is formed from an ongoing search process, such as reading guidebooks, other related books, adve rtising and write-ups in newspapers and magazines, watching advertisements on TV, liste ning to advertising on radio, and talking to friends and relatives (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004, p. 359). That is, a variety of travel information sources have an impact on familiarity (Ker stetter & Cho, 2004; Vogt & Fesenmaier, 1998). In terms of measurement, familiarity has b een measured in mainly two ways: self-rating scales (Fridgen, 1987; Laroche, Kim, & Z hou, 1996; Johnson & Russo, 1984; Kent & Allen, 1994; Spotts & Stynes, 1984) and objective sc ales (Kim & Pennington-Gray, 2004; Spotts & Stynes, 1984). Self-reported familiarity is to measure how much a person thinks s/he knows about the product, while objective familiarity is to measure how much a person knows about the product (Park & Lessig, 1981, p. 223). On th e other hand, some tourism and recreation studies have used the number of previous visits for measuring visitors familiarity (Baloglu,

PAGE 22

22 2001; Fridgen, 1987; Milman & Pizam, 1995). However, this approach needs to be carefully used because previous visits are just a cause of familiarity rather than familiarity itself. Destination Image Destination image is defined as a total impre ssion that tourists have about a destination (Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993). In other words, im age places a symbol of an area into potential tourists minds and gives them a preconceived idea of the destination (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991). Thus, many researchers have found that im age is a vital concep t in understanding the destination selection pro cess of tourists (Pike, 2002). Destina tion image, in particular, is dynamic rather than static. Accordingly, im age evolution has been one of the important topics in this area (Chon, 1991; Gallaza et al., 2002; Gartner & Hu nt, 1987; Kim & Morrsion, 2005). The success of many tourist destinations around the world la rgely depends on the image held by potential travelers and its effective management (Snmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Destination image has been recognized as one of the influential concepts in tourists destination ch oice process (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999) because image affects the individuals subjective perception, subsequent behavior, and destination c hoice (Gallarza et al., 2002). Image Formation Image is a mental conception held by member s of a group and is symbolic of a basic attitude (Crompton, 1979). It is formed by the co nsumers reasoned and emotional interpretation of a product or a destination as the consequence of two cl osely interrelated components: cognitive evaluations and affec tive appraisals (Beerli & Mart n, 2004). In addition, image is influenced by three major determinants existing in the absence of actual visitation or previous experience (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). Specificall y, Baloglu and McCleary suggested that the three factors consisted of psychological factors (e .g., values, motivations, and personality), social

PAGE 23

23 factors (e.g., age, education, mar ital status, and others), and stim ulus factors (e.g., amount or type of information sources, previous experience, and distribution). In relation to image formation, Gunn (1972) or iginally suggested a c oncept of destination image evolution that accounts for image change from organic image to induced image. The following researchers have further developed Gunns concept of image change: Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Mar tn, 2004; Chon, 1991; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gartner, 1986; Kim & Morrison, 2005; Y ksel & Akgl, 2007. These studies ha ve found that destination image is influenced by external stimuli such as advertising, news, and communication promotions. More specifically, rega rdless of travel decisions, an or ganic image is formed by general information such as newspapers, periodicals, childrens geography and history books, while an induced image is created by travel information such as advertising literature, magazine articles, guidebooks, TV promotions, and travel tour pack ages (Gunn, 1972). In other words, destination image that potential tourists have may be change d when they are exposed to travel information. Such a change is generally positive (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Chon, 1991; Stern & Krakover, 1993) based on the m ere exposure effect. Thus, the term evolution is appropriate to express it. Fakeye and Crom pton (1991) also used the same expression image evolution to explain the process of destination image change. In sum, the pr ocess of the evolution of destination image is defined as change, mainly positive, in an individuals destination image, brought about by exposure to a variety of information. Information and Destination Image Based on the significant role of informa tion on perceived images, researchers have investigated the relationship betw een travel information and destin ation image, especially related to image formation (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Choi, Lehto, &

PAGE 24

24 Morrison, 2007; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gart ner, 1993; Mansfeld, 1992; Prebensen, 2007). These studies have suggested that exposure to mo re travel information re sults in improvement of destination image. To complement limitations in existing con ceptual studies, some researchers (Baloglu, 1999; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004) have tried to use quantitative methods to demonstrate empirical evidence of the relations hip between travel information and destination image. Specifically, Balouglu and McCleary (1 999) found that the variety and type of information sources mainly influence cognitive images. To measure the relative influence power of different information sources on destination image, their study used four information source categories: professional advice (t our operators, travel agents and airlines); word-of-mouth (friends, relatives and social clubs); advertisements (pri nt or broadcast media); and books/movies/news. Among these information sources word-of-mouth and advertisements were found to have significant effects on overall image. Beerli and Martn (2004) also showed similar results, that the organic (i .e., friend and family members) and autonomous sources (i.e., guidebooks, news, articles, reports, documentaries) influenced some cognitive image factors. On the other hand, contrary to qua ntitative studies, Prebensen (2 007) supported the relationship between travel information and destination im age using a qualitative method approach. The author found that providing various types of in formation could be a foundation for creating a competitive destination image. More specifically, th ree qualitative tools such as word association, picture association, and a collag e technique were shown to be a good combination to recognize the similarities and diversity of perceived images that a potential tourist holds of a destination.

PAGE 25

25 In sum, travel information appears to be one of the main factors influencing cognitive image and/or total image of a destination. Addi tionally, the impact of travel information on destination image can be positive. Cognitive and Affective Images A number of scholars have adapted a two-di mensional image approach suggesting that destination image consists of cognitive and aff ective images (Baloglu & Brinber, 1997; Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; Kim & Yoon, 2003; Martn & Bo sque, 2008). Specifically, cognitive image refers to the beliefs people have about destination attributes, while affective image refers to the feelings people have toward the destinati on (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Martn & Bosque, 2008). Cognitive image is mainly affected by knowledge or objective information, while affective image is largely influenced by individu als values or motivations (Gartner, 1993). In addition, researchers have examined the relations hip between the two kind s of images and found that affective image is developed based on c ognitive image (Baloglu, 1999; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004). In other words, a ffective image is form ed as a function of cognitive image of a destination. For exampl e, individuals holding a high positive cognitive image of a destination may report a more pos itive affective image of the destination. The two aspects of destination image cognitiv e and affective images are closely related to each other (Kim & Yoon, 2003; Martn & Bosque, 2008). That is, affective image depends on the cognitive image of a destina tion, and the affective image is formed as a function of the cognitive image (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997). Severa l empirical studies examined the conceptual relationship between these two dimensions (Bal oglu, 1999; Baloglu & Mc Cleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004). For example, Baloglu (1999) found that affective imag e of a destination was influenced by cognitive image factors (e.g., th e quality of the experience, attractions, and value/environment). Baloglu a nd McCleary (1999) also used the same three cognitive image

PAGE 26

26 dimensions and confirmed the results of Balogl us (1999). Their research findings showed that all three cognitive factors (quality of expe rience, attractions, and value/environment) significantly influenced affective image. In thei r studies, affective image featured one dimension consisting of any of four diffe rent characteristics (i.e., arous ing-sleepy, pleasant-unpleasant, exciting-gloomy, and rela xing-distressing). In addition, the au thors found that among predictors (e.g., socio-psychological motivations) accounting fo r affective images, a large portion of the variability was attribut ed to cognitive images. Baloglu and McCleary (1999) inve stigated the pre-visit imag e, while Beerli and Martn (2004) examined the relationship between cognitive and affective images derived from the postvisit image of a destination. Specifically, Beerli and Martn (2004) used five cognitive factors (natural and cultural reso urces, tourist and leisure infrastructu res, atmosphere, social setting, and sun, and the sum of these) and one affectiv e factor consisting of two characteristics (pleasant/unpleasant place and exciting/boring place) and the study results i ndicated that all five cognitive dimensions significantly influenced affective image. These outcomes supported the results of Baloglu and McCleary s (1999) image formation model. Dimensions of Destination Image As mentioned above, most studie s include two dimensions that consist of cognitive image and affective images. Some researchers (Bal oglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Stern & Krakover, 1993), however, have mentioned that this approach has a possibility of omitting the overall evaluation of a destination or a product as shown in Figure 2-3. In other words, they prefer a three-dimensional appro ach (cognitive, affective, and overall images); however, overall image depends on both cognitive and affective images (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004). This means that overa ll image may not be proper as a sub domain. On the other side, some studies (Cai, 2002; Gartner, 1993; Konecn ik & Gartner, 2007) have used

PAGE 27

27 conative image that indicates intention to beha ve or choose a destination. However, conative image is too similar to the concept of travel in tentions, and additionally, it has not been tested empirically. Therefore, conceptually the two-dime nsional approach that consists of cognitive and affective images may be more pr oper for image-related studies. Intention to Visit Behavioral intentions can be defined as a ki nd of inclination to behave (e.g., recommend, purchase, travel, visit, and return ). Intention and actual behavior are closely related (Ajzen, 2001; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007; Ko, Kim, Claussen, & Kim, 2008); thus, this concept has been mainly used as a tool for measuring effects of specifi c variables such as attitude (Lam & Hsu, 2006; Sparks, 2007), cultural distance (Ng, Lee, & Soutar, 2007), exposure to information (Baloglu, 1999; Gursoy & McCleary, 2004; Snmez & Sira kaya, 2002), perceived destination image (Baloglu, 1999; Bign, Snchez, & Snchez, 2001; Castro, Armario, & Ruiz, 2007; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Snmez & Sirakaya, 2002), perceived destina tion brand personality (Hosani, 2006), or satisfaction (Severt et al., 2007). Among behavioral intentions, in pa rticular, intent ion to (re)visit or travel is regarded as one of the most sign ificant dependent variable s, as it could directly explain the possibility that a potential visitor may vis it (Ng, Lee, & Sautar, 2007). Figure 2-4 shows a variety of behavioral intention concepts related to evaluation of preceding variables (e.g., service quality, image, and attitude) such as intention to revisit (return), intention to recommend, and in tention to visit (purchase). Am ong these concepts, intention to visit may be used in the pre-visi t/purchase context. In other words, in pre-visit situations, intent to visit can be used as an effective tool for measuring the effects of specific variables (e.g., exposure to information sources).

PAGE 28

28 Conceptual Framework Figure 2-5 shows a proposed conceptual fram ework accounting for the effects of exposure to travel information sources. When people sear ch external travel information sources (e.g., travel Web sites, guidebooks, or word-of-mouth) for their potential trips, their perceptions (i.e., familiarity with a destination and perceived des tination image) and intention (i.e., intention to visit) are influenced by exposure to travel inform ation. The influence may be an important key in the conceptual relationship between exposure to travel informati on and peoples perceptions and intentions. Figure 2-6 shows the theoretical background of the conceptual framework in this study. Relations between main concepts can be explai ned by the memory control process (Bettman, 1979). Specifically, Bettman (1979) mentioned that subjects in verbal learning studies use mnemonics, association, images, and many other st rategies of encoding th e inputs received to facilitate memory (p. 40). These strategies for memory may be conceptually expressed by familiarity (i.e., mnemonics) and perceived image (i.e., images or association). In other words, potential tourists perceive familiarity with a destination and destination image as a tool for memorizing external travel information. The mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968) also supports the specific re lationships (i.e., positive relations) between external information search behavior and two perceptions (i.e., familiarity and image). That is, the effect states that the amo unt of exposure to information sources (i.e., mere repeated exposure) positiv ely influences familiarity with a destination (Baloglu, 2001) and destination image (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Choi, Letho, & Morrison, 2007; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gartner, 1993; Mansfeld, 1992; Prebensen, 2007). In addition, the effect supports the relatio nship between external information search behavior and intention (i.e., inte ntion to visit). In other word s, more frequent exposure to

PAGE 29

29 information sources results in hi gher behavioral intentions (e.g., visit, purchase, and recommend) (Milman and Pizam, 1995; Sawyer, 1981; Zajonc, 1968). The center of Figure 2-6 shows the process of destination image evolution: an organic image (initial destination image) evolves toward an induced image (changed-destination image) through travel information exposure (Gunn, 1972). In sum, exposure to travel information sources is expected to have a direct impact on two perceptions (i.e., familiarity and image) and intention (i.e., intention to visit). Such a rela tionship can be explained by various theories or concepts such as the memory control process, the mere exposure effect, or the destination image evolution. Research Hypotheses Figure 2-7 shows three main hypotheses sugge sted in this study from the proposed conceptual model (Figure 2-5) and the theoreti cal background (Figure 2-6). Specifically, this study focused on the effects of exte rnal travel information search behavior (i.e., exposure time to travel information) on the dependent variables. Theoretically, these hypotheses are supported by a variety of theories and effects as shown in Figure 2-2. In more detail, H1, H2, and H3 are supported by the mere exposur e effect (Zajonc, 1968) and H1 and H2, at the same time, are supported by the memory control process (Be ttman, 1979). In addition, the destination image evolution concept (Gunn, 1972) supports H2 (Bign, Snchez, & Snchez, 2001; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Snmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Hypothesis 1 H1 : Amount of exposure time to travel information will positively influence familiarity with a destination. According to Bettman (1979), subjects in verbal learning studies use mnemonics, association, images, and many other strategies of encoding the inputs rece ived to facilitate

PAGE 30

30 memory (p. 40). Among those strategies for me mory, conceptually mnemonics is closely related to familiarity. In other words, people pe rceive familiarity with a product/destination as one of the strategies to memorize travel info rmation sources. In addition, the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968) states that the amount of information (i.e., mere repeated exposure) increases the level of familiarity. For example, some tourism studies (e.g., Baloglu, 2001) have used the amount of information tourist used to measure familiarity with a destination. These studies show clearly that the amount of information exposure causes familiarity. Hypothesis 2 H2 : Amount of exposure time to travel information will positively influence perceived destination image. People use image to store external travel info rmation as one of the strategies for memory (Bettman, 1979). In addition, according to the mere exposure effect, the amount of information exposure may positively increase perceived im age (Bornstein, 1989; Fang, Singh, & Ahluwalia, 2007; Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001; Janiszewski, 1993). In this way, many tourism researchers have verified a relationship be tween travel information search and destination image, in particular, in terms of the image formation pr ocess (Baloglu & McClear y, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Choi, Lehto, & Morriosn, 2007; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gartner, 1993; Mansfeld, 1992; Prebensen, 2007). Of these studies, Fake ye and Crompton (1991), Gartner (1993), and Mansfeld (1992) conceptually sugge sted the effect of travel in formation on destination image, while recent studies (Baloglu, 1999; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Prebensen, 2007) have empirically verified the relationship. These image studies have consistently supported positive image building of a destination through travel information exposure.

PAGE 31

31 Hypothesis 3 H3 : Amount of exposure time to travel informa tion will positively influence intention to visit. People exposed to travel information may cha nge their intentions to travel (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004; Snmez & Sirakaya, 2002). For exam ple, Baloglu (1999) developed a model to examine the organization of informational, motiva tional, and mental constructs on intention to visit in a path analysis framework. The results in dicated that intention to visit was determined by variety (amount) of information sources as well as other predictable variables (i.e., sociopsychological motivations). Snmez and Sira kaya (2002) also suppor ted Baloglus (1999) findings. More specifically, the results showed that responden ts highly valued information gained through personal and soci al communication channels in developing an interest in vacationing in Turkey. Based on thes e previous studies, the third hypothesis, as a consequence, is proposed. Saturation Effect According to the mere exposure effect, hum an perceptions reach a plateau when longer exposure durations are used (Hamid, 1973). Thus, the saturation effect can be shown in the relationship between exposure time to travel information and three variables (i.e., familiarity, image, and intention). In other words, these th ree dependent variables ma y be positively related to exposure time; however, at the same time, the increase in perceptions and intentions as a function of exposure time may slow down as exposure time increases (Figure 2-8). Saturation effect can be classified as two types of patterns. The first pattern is an inverted U-shaped curve, and the second pattern is a log transformation of exposure frequency (i.e., leveling off at higher exposure frequencies; Stang, 1974). Generally, human-perception studies have supported the results of an inverted Ushaped function (Bornstein, 1989; Hamid, 1974;

PAGE 32

32 Stang, 1974), while marketing-relate d studies (e.g., advertising, pr oduct life cycle, or discounts) have supported a tendency toward leveling off at higher exposure frequencies (Chakravarti, Mitchell, & Staelin, 1981; G upta & Cooper, 1992; Harrell & Ta ylor, 1981). Based on the saturation effect, hypothesis 4 can be classified by three sub-hypot heses on dependent variables. Hypothesis 4 H4-1 : Increase in familiarity with a destination as a function of exposure time will slow down as the exposure time increases. H4-2 : Increase in destination image as a function of exposure time will slow down as the exposure time increases. H4-3 : Increase in intention to visit as a f unction of exposure time will slow down as the exposure time increases. Implications of Hypotheses Table 2-1 shows the implica tions of hypotheses proposed in this study. In short, all hypotheses are expected to show the positive relationships. Specifically, the first three hypotheses (H1, H2, and H3) imply the importance of the amount of information exposure. The last hypothesis and its three sub-hypotheses (H4-1, H4-2, and H4-3) demonstrate the saturation effect that may show no in crease at a specific level. Summary This chapter reviewed four main concepts, th at is, exposure to travel information sources, familiarity, destination image, and intention to vi sit. Specifically, information search behavior consisted of internal and external searches, and external search be havior (i.e., exposure to travel information) included a variet y of types of sources (e.g., Fo dness & Murrays 4 types and Gartners 8 types). As one of the memory tools, familiarity can be conceptualized as a point on a continuum ranging from low level (i.e., awar eness) to high level (i.e., knowledge).

PAGE 33

33 Destination image, in most studies, adapte d a two-dimensional (c ognitive and affective images) approach. Some researchers, on the other hand, have mentioned that this approach has a possibility of omitting the overall evaluation of a de stination or a product. In other words, they prefer a three-dimensional appro ach (cognitive, affective, and overall images). However, overall perceived image may depend on both cognitive and a ffective images. This means that presenting the overall image may not be proper as a sub domain. Therefore, conceptually the twodimensional approach that consists of cognitive and affective images may be more suitable. Lastly, intention to visit has been mainly used among a variety of concepts related to behavioral intentions (e.g., revisit/return, recommend, and visit/purchase), es pecially in pre-visit/purchase context. In sum, these four concepts had a conceptual relationship as shown in Figure 2-5, and their theoretical background was shown in Figure 2-6. Three main hypotheses indicating the specific relationship between those constructs were sugg ested in Figure 2-7. In addition, hypothesis 4 including its three sub-hypotheses was tested for a saturation effect. In the next chapter, the method of empirically testing the conceptual model and four hypotheses are explained.

PAGE 34

34 Table 2-1. Table of hypotheses H# Relationships Theoreti cal background Implications H1 Amount of exposure time to travel information (+) Familiarity Mere exposure effect Memory control process The more information, the higher familiarity H2 Amount of exposure time to travel information (+) Destination image Mere exposure effect Memory control process Destination image evolution The more information, the more positive image H3 Amount of exposure time to travel information (+) Intention to visit Mere exposure effect The more information, the higher intention to visit H4 No increase at a specific level Saturation effect Need to reconsider excessive investment in promotion materials

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2-1. Variety of types of travel information sources Memory Environment Insufficient? Internal information search behavior External information search behavior Fodness & Murray (1997): 4 types A variety of types of travel information sources Gartner (1993): 8 types Baloglu & McCleary (1993): 4 types

PAGE 36

36 Figure 2-2. Continuum range of familiarity Familiarity High Level Low Level Knowledge Awareness

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2-3. Dimensions of destination image Destination Image Cognitive Image Conative Image Affective Image Overall Image Cai (2002); Gartner (1993); Konecnik & Gartner (2007) Baloglu & Mangaloglu (2001); Chon (1991); Kaplanidou & Vogt (2007); Kim & Yoon (2003); Mackay & Fesenmaier (1997); Martn & Bosgue (2007); Rittichainuwat, Qu, & Brown (2001); Snmez & Sirakaya (2002) Baloglu & McCleary (1999); Beerli & Martn (2004); Stern & Krakover (1993)

PAGE 38

38 Figure 2-4. Concepts related to behavioral intentions Behavioral Intentions Revisit/Return Visit/Purchase Recommendation Post Visit/Purchase Context Pre Visit/Purchase Context

PAGE 39

39 Figure 2-5. Conceptual framework Exposure to Travel Information Dest i nat i o n Image Intent i on to Visit Fam ili ar i ty MNEMONICS ASSOCIATION INTENTION INFORMATION

PAGE 40

40 Figure 2-6. Theoretical background Exposure to Travel Information Dest i nat i o n Image Intent i on to Visit Fam ili ar i ty Mere Exposure Effect Destination Image Evolution: Organic Induced Memory Control Process: Stimulus Rehearsal Coding

PAGE 41

41 Figure 2-7. Research hypotheses Exposure T i me to Travel Information Dest i nat i o n Image Intent i on to Visit Fam ili ar i ty H1 H2 H3

PAGE 42

42 Figure 2-8. Saturation effect Exposure Time Familiarity (H4-1), Image (H4-2), and Intention (H4-3) Saturated Point

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Chapter three presents th e specific experimental de sign, procedures, subjects, measurement scales, and data analysis. Posttest -only control group design was used for testing the conceptual model, and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used for testing of the three main hypotheses. Items for three core constructs (i.e., familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit) were collected from the existing scales, and these items were analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to specify the posited relationships between the observed and latent variables. In addition, quadratic regressi on analysis was used for testing hypothesis 4 and its three sub-hypotheses (H4-1, H4-2, and H4-3). Lastly, 2 (i.e., two types of information sources) 3 (i.e., three experimental groups ) factorial design M ANOVA was used to verify the differences between two kinds of travel informati on sources and an interaction effect. Experimental Design Posttest-only control group desi gn, including experimental and control groups, was used in this study. The design can be considered as the two last groups of the Solomon Four-Group Design, and it can be seen that it controls for tes ting as main effect and interaction (Campbell & Stanley, 1966, p. 25). Figure 3-1 shows the basi c requirements of the design. R, X, and O indicate random assignment (R), experimental treatment (X), and observation (O), respectively. Experimental design used in this study is rather different from the classical posttest-only control group design. That is, experimental groups in this study were divide d into three sub-experimental groups according to their exposure time to examine the effect of the amount of exposure time to travel information sources. Specifically, for random assignment, tossing a co in was used. For experimental treatments, two types of travel information sources about Florida (i.e., a travel guidebook and a printed Web

PAGE 44

44 site travel information materi al) were offered to the experi mental groups. For observations, a questionnaire was used to measure familiarity with Florida, Florida destination image, and intention to visit Florida. The questionnaire wa s initially written in English and then was translated into Korean. One Korean professor in the US compared the translated version with the English one resulting in a few e xpressions being modified for clar ity in the Korean language. In addition, the translated Korean questionnaire was reviewed by experts consisting of two professors and seven doctoral students in Korean academic institutes. Based on their comments, some additional expressions were also modified. Procedures and Subjects A total of 312 undergraduate students were recruited at six co lleges (i.e., Chungwoon University, Hanyang University, Kyounghee Un iversity, Shamyook University, Soonchunhyang University, and Osan College) in Korea. A ccording to the U.S. International Trade Administration, Korea is curren tly the fifth largest source fo r inbound travel to the United States, behind the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and France (Sung, 2008). All colleges are located in or near Seoul (i.e., Provinces of Kyounggi-do and Chungchungnam-do). Twelve classes in the schools were invited to par ticipate in this study. These classes were classified by tossing a coin. Sp ecifically, after tossing a coin twice, classes that had a series of two heads were designated as a control gr oup, while classes who had other cases (i.e., head + tail, tail + he ad, and tail + tail) participated in the first, second, or third experimental groups, respectively. The experiment al groups were segmented by lengths of time from 5 minutes to 15 minutes of access to travel information sources at re gular intervals. Using these procedures, 228 students were assigned to experimental groups, and 84 participants were assigned to a control gro up as shown in Table 3-1.

PAGE 45

45 Subjects who were assigned to the experiment al groups were classifi ed by another random assignment method using their school ID numbe r. Specifically, subjects who had an odd ID number were exposed to a travel guidebook (i.e., the book title: Confidence in World Travel: USA; Ko & Tera, 2008), while su bjects who had an even ID numb er were exposed to a printed travel Web site material (i.e., the Web site URL address: travel.kor eadaily.com). Figure 3-2 shows the two types of original travel inform ation sources used in the study. The upper-side of the figure illustrates the cover of the guidebook and an example of the content, and the lower side illustrates the main page of the Web site and an example of the content. These information sources were presented in a bound book for the e xperiment as can be seen in Figure 3-3. The reason why the two types of information sources (i.e., a guidebook and Internet) were used in this study was that they are the most popular sources for Korean travelers interested in traveling to the U.S. (Kim & Park, 2001). Guide books have been regarded as one of the most credible sources (Bhattacharyya, 1997; Nolan, 1976) In addition, the Internet has been one of the most usable sources (Fras, Rodrguez, & Castaeda, 2008; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2006; Kerstetter & Cho, 2004). That is, increasingly, cons umers use the Internet for their information needs (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004) because the Internet offers consumers access to many alternatives with rela tively low search costs (Cooke, Sujan, Sujan, & Weitz, 2002, p. 488). Table 3-2 shows the features of two types of information sources. The guidebook had 38 pages and 73 color pictures including outline, tr ansportation, prices, accommodations, attractions, restaurants, shopping, maps, festiv al and events, tours, and agen cy information. The printed Web material had 35 pages and 16 color pictures including transporta tion, prices, history, accommodations, attractions, shopping, maps, agen cy information, and description of the writers impressions. The guidebook is an ency clopedia style focusing on a list of commercial

PAGE 46

46 information, while the printed Web material is a travel-essay styl e stressing the written description of writers impressions. In total, 116 students (52.3%) read the guidebook, and 106 students (47.7%) used th e printed Web material as shown in Table 3-3. In a ddition, six students did not check which material they used; thus they were included as missing values. After being assigned, experimental participants were asked to read one of the two types of Florida travel information sources in order to search for travel information for various time periods from 5 minutes to 15 minutes, after which they were asked to close the sources and fill out a survey questionnaire. Partic ipants were not only asked to concentrate on reading the stimuli, but also not to talk with othe r people or read any other ma terials during the experiment. The reason why five minutes was the minimum exposure time was that that much time is enough for a standard undergraduate student to re ad approximately 1,000 words (i.e., two to four short pages of written content including pictures ). Specifically, an average undergraduate student generally reads around 200 words per minute with a typical comprehension of 90% (Kock, 2007). Many short articles introducing a destination consist of two or three pages (i.e., 400 words through 900 words) with some pictur es. Figure 3-4 is an example of a two-page travel article. It is Hawaii travel information, provided by AAA GoingPlaces: the Magazine of the Todays Traveller (Nov/Dec, 2008, pp. 26-27). The number of words used in this article is 950, so, a normal undergraduate student can read it in around five minutes with 90% understanding. Researchers asked the control group to fill out the same survey questionnaire without reading any travel information source. To control for participants prior knowledge (or familiarity), the study used a filter check. The f ilter-check questions included (1) whether the study participants have visited Florida, (2) whether they have previously re ad Florida official or private travel information sources, and (3) whethe r they have seen any types of advertisements

PAGE 47

47 about travel in Florida. Subj ects who affirmatively answered any of these questions were excluded from the study. Using this process, a total of eight students were deleted from the sample. Measurement The survey questionnaire consisted of items measuring familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit as well as filter checks (thr ee questions) and demographics (i.e., gender, age, school year, and school name). Vari ations in exposure time to the travel information were coded by the group variable based on exposure time to the information source. That is, for the experimental groups, as an inde pendent variable, the group variab le included the values of 5 through 15 at regular intervals (i .e., 5, 10, and 15 minutes) as an ordinal scale (i.e., 2 through 4). For the control group, was coded because the group was not exposed to the travel information sources. The other three measurement scales (i.e., fam iliarity, destination image, and intention to visit) were based on multiple-items that are f ound in existing scales. Specifically, familiarity items included subjective familiarity-measurement scales based on related literature (Fridgen, 1987; Johnson & Russo, 1984; Kent & Allen, 1994; Mitchell & Dacin, 1996; Spotts & Stynes, 1984). Furthermore, subjective familiarity include d three items about how much a person thinks s/he knows about the destina tion as shown in Table 3-4. For the destination image scale, two di mensions (cognitive and affective images) quantifying Floridas image were applied (Baloglu & Mangalogl u, 2001; Chon, 1991; Hsu, Wolfe, & Kang (2004); Kim & Yoon, 2003; Mackay & Fesenmaier, 1997; Martn & Bosgue, 2008; Rittichainuwat, Qu, & Brown, 2001; S nmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Specifically, for cognitive image, initially 38 items were coll ected from the previ ous studies (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Mar tn, 2004; Chen & Hsu, 2000; C hon, 1991; Fakeye & Crompton,

PAGE 48

48 1991; Grosspietsch, 2006; Kim & Morrsion, 2005; Kim & Richardson (2003); Snmez & Sirakaya, 2002), and 18 of them were extracted based on relatively highe r factor loadings. In addition, neutral-meaning items (e.g., Floridian lifesty le is quite similar to my countrys lifestyle; prices are low in Florida) were deleted from the initial item pool because they cannot be conceptually evaluated in a posit ive or negative direction. In the final version, 18 items were used, and these items were classified into the four sub domains (i.e., activities, facilities, natural attractions, and cultural attractions) based on their common m eanings. In addition, many related studies have used these domains and items as shown in Table 3-5. For affective image, nine items were collected from the previous scales (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Baloglu & Ma ngaloglu, 2001; Baloglu & McClear y, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Jeong, Kim, Ko, Lee, and Jeong, 2008; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007; Kim & Richardson, 2003; Lee, 1997; Mackay & Fesenmaier, 1997 ; Reilly, 1990; Russel, Ward, & Pratt, 1981; Snmez & Sirakaya, 2002; uksel & Akgl, 2007) Many destination imag e studies (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Baloglu & Ma ngaloglu, 2001; Baloglu & McCl eary, 1999; Kim & Richardson, 2003; uksel & Akgl, 2007) have mainly used f our bipolar scales (i.e ., pleasant-unpleasant, exciting-boring, arousing-sleepy, an d relaxing-distressing); however this study used more items from related studies in order to extensively eval uate participants feeli ngs of a destination as shown in Table 3-6. Among bipolar scales, conceptually, the rela xing-distressing item may be different from the other three items. In other wo rds, the item (i.e., rela xing-distressing) expresses tension alleviation (Babin, Darden, & Babin, 19 98), while the other thr ee items (i.e., pleasantunpleasant, exciting-boring, and arousing-sleepy) express pursuit of a stimulus (Dolcos & Cabeza, 2002; Russell, 1979). According to this con ceptual basis, the other five items were also classified into the two su b domains (Table 3-6).

PAGE 49

49 Lastly, intention-to-visit items were extracted from a va riety of studies (Baloglu, 1999; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2006; Lam & Hsu, 2006; Ng, Lee, & Soutar, 2007; Oppermann, 2000; Sparks, 2007) Many studies (Lam & Hsu, 2006; Ng, Lee, & Soutar, 2007; Sparks, 2007) have used a shortterm intention to visit a destin ation like in 12 months as an intention to visit item; however, such a period may be too short to perceive a visit intention especially in the context of hedonic needs. Thus, intention-to-v isit items were classified from a short-term intention (e.g., intenti on to visit within 3 years) to a mid-term intention (e.g., within 10 years) and a long-term inten tion (e.g., at some point in life time) as shown in Table 3-7. Variables of familiarity, cognitive image, and intention to visit were measured by a sevenpoint Likert-type sc ale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree and variables of affective image were measured by a semantic-differential scale. Data Analysis To establish reliability and validity of the m easurement scales, a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) was used. Next, this study used MANOVA to test the three main hypotheses. Third, a series of quadratic regression analyses was used for examining the saturation effect which is expr essed in hypothesis 4. Lastly, a 2 3 factorial design MANOVA was used for testing the differences between two types of information sources and their interactions. Table 3-8 shows specific data analyses used in this study. Measurement Scales: CFA CFA was used to test reliability and validity for three latent variables (i.e., familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit) us ing LISREL 8.8. In more detail, one-factor CFA was used for both familiarity and intention-to-visit constructs. Second-order CFA was used for destination image construct because it consis ts of cognitive and affective sub-domains.

PAGE 50

50 Testing of Hypotheses: MANOVA Three main hypotheses in this study were to compare four groups perceptions and intentions based on duration of information exposure. Thus, MANOVA was used for testing these hypotheses using SPSS 15. In addition, DMR test (Duncan multiple range test) was used as a post-hoc test. Testing of H4: Quadratic Regression Analysis The quadratic (second-order poly-nomi nal) model (i.e., basic model: Y = + 1X + 2X2 + ) was used to examine a satu ration effect between inform ation exposure and tourists perceptions/intentions. SPSS 15 was also used for this analysis. Additional Analysis: Differences between Two Types of Information Sources Two types of information sources (i.e., a guide book and a printed Web site material) were used in this study; thus, a 2 (two types) 3 (three experimental groups) factorial design MANOVA was used for examining the differences in effects of the sources on dependent variables (i.e., familiarity, destination image, a nd intention to visit), and their interactions.

PAGE 51

51 Table 3-1. Participant segmentation Groups Control group Experimental group Exposure time 0 5 10 15 Total Number of participants 84 78 80 70 312 Number of classes participated 4 3 3 2 12

PAGE 52

52 Table 3-2. Features of two types of information sources Features Guidebook Printed Web site material Number of pages 38 35 Number of pictures 73 16 Contents Outline, Transportation, Prices, Accommodations, Attractions, Restaurants, Shopping, Maps, Festival and events, Tours, Agency information Transportation, Prices, History, Accommodations, Attractions, Shopping, Maps, Agency information, Description of writers impressions Style Encyclopedia Essay

PAGE 53

53 Table 3-3. Experimental group segmentation Exposure time Types of information sources 5 10 15 Guidebook 36 39 41 Printed Web site material 41 36 29 Total 77 75 70

PAGE 54

54 Table 3-4. Familiarity items Construct Items (1) (2) (3)(4)(5) To what extent have you heard about Florida? To what extent do you know Florida as a vacation destination? Familiarity How familiar are you with Flor ida as a vacation destination? (1) Fridgen (1987). (2) Johnson & Russo (1984). (3) Ke nt & Allen (1994). (4) Mitchell & Dacin (1996). (5) Spotts & Stynes (1984).

PAGE 55

55 Table 3-5. Cognitive image items Sub domains Items (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) (7) (8) (9)(10) Florida has many interesting places to visit Shopping facilities are good in Florida Tours are readily available in Florida Florida offers a variety of outdoor activities Florida offers good nightlife options Activities Florida offers good quality tourist information Florida is a safe place to visit Florida has plenty of quality hotels Florida has plenty of good quality restaurants The local people in Florida are friendly Facilities Florida offers good local transportation Florida offers a lot of natural scenic beauty Florida is a relaxing place Florida has pleasant weather Natural attractions Florida has many natural attractions Florida has many interesting local festivals Florida has plentiful cultural and historical sites Cultural attractions Florida is a good place to increase knowledge (1) Baloglu & McCleary (1999). (2) Beerli & Martn (2004). (3) Hsu, Wolfe, & Kang (2004). (4) Chen & Hsu (2000). (5) Chon (1991). (6) Fakeye & Crompton (1991). (7) Grosspietsch (2006). (8) Kim & Morrsion (2005). (9) Kim & Richardson (2003). (10) Snmez & Sirakaya (2002).

PAGE 56

56 Table 3-6. Affective image items Sub domains Items (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) (10) (11) (12)(13) Pleasant Unpleasant Exciting Boring Arousing Sleepy Attractive Unattractive Exciting Diverse Plain Relaxing Distressing Safe Risky Comfortable Uncomfortable Relaxing Stable Chaotic (1) Baloglu & Brinberg (1997). (2) Baloglu & Mangaloglu (2001). (3) Baloglu & McCleary (1999). (4) Beerli & Martn (2004). (5) Jeong et al. (2008). (6 ) Kaplanidou & Vogt (2007). (7) Kim & Richardson (2003). (8) Lee (1997). (9) Mackay & Fesenmaier (1997). (10) Reilly (1990). (11) Russel, Ward, & Pratt (1981). (12) Snmez & Sirakaya (2002). (13) uksel & Akgl (2007).

PAGE 57

57 Table 3-7. Intention to visit items Construct Items (1)(2)(3) (4) (5)(6)(7) I intend to choose Florida as an international travel destination within 3 years I intend to choose Florida as an international travel destination within 10 years Intention to visit I intend to choose Florida as an international travel destination at some point in my lifetime (1) Baloglu (1999). (2) Chen & Tsai (2007). (3) Kaplanidou & Vogt (2006). (4) Lam & Hsu (2006). (5) Ng, Lee, & Soutar (2007). (6) Oppermann (2000) (7) Sparks (2007).

PAGE 58

58 Table 3-8. Specific data analysis Purposes Data analysis Statistics programs Familiarity/Intention to visit One-factor CFA Measurement Scales Destination image Second-order CFA LISREL 8.8 Testing of H1, H2, and H3 MANOVA Testing of H4 Quadratic regression analysis Type comparison 2 3 factorial design MANOVA SPSS 15

PAGE 59

59 Figure 3-1. Basic requirements of th e posttest-only control group design R X O1 R O2 R Random assignment X Experimental treatment O Observation

PAGE 60

60 Figure 3-2. Two types of travel in formation sources about Florida

PAGE 61

61 Figure 3-3. Bound books for the experimental treatment

PAGE 62

62 Figure 3-4. Example of two-page article about a destination

PAGE 63

63 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Five main sections form the results chapter. The first section presents demographics of participants to describe their characteristics. The second sect ion reports on the measurement scale results. Specifically, three constructs (familiari ty, destination image, and intention to visit) were examined to test their reliability and vali dity. The third section sh ows the results of four groups MANOVA for testing of hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. The fourth section reports the results of quadratic regression analyses for testing of hypothesis H4 and its three subhypotheses. Lastly, the fifth section presents the results of 2 factorial design MANOVA to examine the difference between the two types of information sources. Demographics of Participants Table 4-1 shows the demographi c characteristics of partic ipants. Of the respondents, 56.5% were male and 43.5% female. Because of stude nt samples, the majority of them were 2125 years old (49.0%), followed by 18-20 (41.6%). Gr eater proportions of student status were freshman (36.6%), followed by junior (28.2%). Measurement Scales Familiarity Scale One-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test validi ty and reliability of the familiarity scale. Table 4-2 shows convergent validity and construct reli ability of the scale. Specifically, t -values for all the standard ized factor loadings ( ) exceeded the critical value (2.58); thus, they were fo und to be significant at p < .01 level. Cronbachs alpha coefficient () for the construct was .836, and Average varian ce explained (AVE) value was .617, indicating familiarity scale has good construct reliability (i.e., > .7; AVE > .5; Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). In addition, the model fit ( 2/df = .0/0 = .00, RMSEA = .00) was perfect

PAGE 64

64 because the model was saturated. It was conclu ded that three items converged on the single familiarity factor; thus, the composite score was calculated from the mean score across three items. Destination Image Scale Second-order CFA was used to test validity and reliability of the destination image scale. Table 4-3 shows convergent vali dity and construct reliability of the scale. Specifically, t -values for all the standardized factor loadings ( ) exceeded the critical valu e (2.58); thus, they were found to be significant at p < .01 level. In the initial CFA, thre e items with factor loadings less than .4 (i.e., Florida is a safe place to visit, Florida has pleasant weather, and DiversePlain) were deleted. After refineme nt, Cronbachs alpha coefficient () for the each construct ranged from .649 to .842, indicating five of six factors were above good construct reliability value (i.e., > .7). Average variance explained (AVE ) value ranged from .342 to .576, indicating that two of six factors were above good construct reliability value (i.e., > .7) and two of them were close to a recommended crite rion. In addition, the model fit ( 2/df = 580.44/245 = .00, NFI = .76, NNFI = .82, CFI = .84, SRMR = .082) was close to a recommended value. RMSEA was .073 with 90% confidence in terval between .065 and .080. Figure 4-1 shows the relationship between firs t-order factors (six sub-dimensions) and second-order factors (cognitive and affective images ). Specifically, attractions first-order factor had the highest factor loading ( =.97) on cognitive image, while ex citing first-order factor had higher factor loading ( =.73) on affective image. All factor loadings ranged from .52 to .97. Based on these results, it was c oncluded that four cognitive sub-domains converged on the second-order cognitive image factor, and two af fective sub-domains converged on the secondorder affective image factor.

PAGE 65

65 Factor correlations among six image sub-constructs (four cognitive and two affective image constructs) were analyzed to examine di scriminant validity as shown in Table 4-4. The results showed that the correlations between six constructs ranged from 30 to .70, indicating that they are not excessively high (i.e., correlations < .85; Kline, 2005). Thus, it is concluded that six image constructs are distinctive. In sum, based on these results, the compos ite scores were computed by summing the responses and then dividing them by the number of items in each sub-domain. Intention to Visit Scale One-factor CFA was used to test validity and reliability of the scale of intention to visit. Table 4-5 shows convergent vali dity and construct reliability of the scale. Specifically, t -values for all the standardized factor loadings ( ) exceeded the critical valu e (2.58); thus, they were found to be significant at p < .01 level. Cronbachs alpha coefficient () for the construct was .813, and Average variance explained (AVE) value was .643, indicating the scale has good construct reliability. In addition, the model fit ( 2/df = .0/0 = .00, RMSEA = .00) was perfect because the model was saturated. Thus, it was concl uded that three items converged on the single factor of intention to visit; thus, the composite score was calculated from the mean score across three items. Effects of Exposure Time to Travel Information To examine the effects of exposure time to travel information, three main hypotheses were suggested. The hypotheses state that the amount of exposure time to travel information will positively influence familiarity (H1), destination image (H2), and intention to visit (H3). These hypotheses were tested by four groups MANOVA because this study included one control group and three experimental groups according to their exposure time.

PAGE 66

66 Table 4-6 shows the results of MANOVA expl aining significant di fferences among four groups on dependent variables (eight constructs). Wilks lamda was .526 ( F = 9.030, p < .001), indicating that the mean vectors of the four groups are not equal (Hair et al., 1998). Subsequently, DMR (Duncan multiple range test) were perfor med to assess mean differences among four groups. The mean differences were expresse d as A < B < C based on the DMR test. Specifically, results of a se ries of ANOVA (univariate F tests) showed that all control groups had A (the lowest score) and all fi rst experimental groups had B (t he middle score). In addition, the second and third experimental groups had B or C (the highest score). Th ese results implied that there were positive relationships between exposur e time and eight constructs, indicating support for hypotheses 1 through 3. In more detail, for the four constructs (familiarity, activities image, exciting image, and intention to visit), th e control group was significantly diffe rent from all three experimental groups as shown in the Table 4-6. In additi on, the third experimental group (15-minutesexposure group) was significantly higher than th e first experimental group (5-minutes-exposure group), but not the second expe rimental group (10-minutes-exposure group). That is, as the exposure time increased those constructs increa sed, but slowed down between 5 and 15 minutes. Next, for the three constructs (facilities im age, natural attractions image, and relaxing image), the control group was significantly di fferent from all three experimental groups. However, there was not any difference among thr ee experimental groups (Table 4-6). In other words, the effects of exposure time to inform ation sources may be assumed to be saturated between 5 and 15 minutes. Lastly, for the cultural attract ions image, as other constructs, the control group was significantly different from all three experiment al groups (Table 4-6). In addition, the second

PAGE 67

67 experimental group (10-minutes-exposure group) was significantly higher than the first experimental group (5-minutes-exposure group), but not the third experimental group (15minutes-exposure group). That is, the effects of exposure time to information sources may be assumed to be saturated between 10 and 15 minutes. In conclusion, the three main hypotheses were supported from the results of MANOVA. In addition, hypothesis 4 indicating a sa turation effect was also partia lly supported in the results. Saturation Effect Based on the saturation effect hypothesis 4 states that th e increase in familiarity (H4-1), destination image (H4-2), and intention to visit (H4-3) as a function of exposure time will slow down as the exposure time increases. To test thes e hypotheses, a series of quadratic regression analyses was used. In addition, using the vertex formula, specific saturated points (i.e., the maximum minutes) on each c onstruct were calculated. Table 4-7 shows the results of a series of both linear regression a nd quadratic regression analyses between exposure time (independent va riable) and each construct (eight dependent variables). First, results of linear regression analyses showed that all s are positive as well as significant. Thus, the results provide d support the three main hypotheses (H1, H2, and H3) that exposure time to travel information positively in fluences familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit. For quadratic regression analyses, except for fa miliarity, seven of ei ght constructs were significantly related to the square of exposure time (X2). In addition, the R2 of all quadratic regression models showed higher than linear regr ession models, which indicates that quadratic models account for the data better than linear mode ls (Table 4-7). In particular, all signs of 2 were negative, which means the regression lines may be cup-down or log transformation shapes. These imply that there are specifi c saturation points in the relati onships between exposure time

PAGE 68

68 to travel information and dependent variables. Therefore, this study calc ulated those saturation points (i.e., maximum minutes) usin g a basic estimation equation ( = a + b1X + b2X2) and a vertex formula (Y = a (X h)2 + b h (a vertex) = -b / 2a). Table 4-8 shows the results of estimated saturated points using a vertical formula. Except for the familiarity construct, wh ich was not significant in quadratic regression analysis, seven of eight constructs had their indivi dual saturation points reached w ithin the allotted experimental time (15 minutes). Those constructs were found to be saturated between 11 and 14 minutes. In conclusion, based on quadratic re gression analyses, two of three H4 sub-hypotheses (H42 and H4-3) were supported, but not H4-1. In addition, the results of linear regression analyses strongly supported hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. Comparison between Two Types of Information Sources A 2 (two types of information sources) 3 (three experiment al groups) MANOVA was used to test the main and interaction effects of exposure time to travel information sources on eight constructs. The multivariate tests of MANOVA stated that both main effects of types (Wilks lamda = .860, F = 4.257, p < .001) and groups (Wilks lamda = .876, F = 1.780, p = .032) were significant. However, the interaction effect (Wilks lamda = .970, F = .395, p = .984) between types and groups were not signifi cant. These results indicated that the mean vectors of both the two types and the three gr oups are not equal (Hair et al., 1998). In addition, there was not any intersection betwee n the two independent variables. Results of a series of ANOVA (univariate F tests) showed that tw o of eight constructs (cultural attractions image and ex citing image) were significantly different between the two types of information sources as shown in Table 4-9. In other words, the two types of sources did not have an impact on both familiarity and intentionto-visit constructs, while two of six image subconstructs were influenced by the two types. Sp ecifically, for the cultural-attractions image,

PAGE 69

69 students who read the printed Web site material ( M = 5.87) showed higher image scores than students who read the guidebook ( M = 5.38) at p < .01 level (Figure 4-2). In addition, for the exciting image, students who read the private guidebook ( M = 6.16) showed higher image scores than students who read the printed Web site material ( M = 5.92) at p < .05 level (Figure 4-3). Summary Table 4-10 briefly summarizes th e results reported in this chapter. Specifically, for measurement scales, both familiarity and intention-to-visit constructs were confirmed to be a single-factor construct, while the destination im age construct was confirmed to have first and second order factors. For testi ng of hypotheses, except for H4-1, all other hypotheses were supported in this study. Lastly, for type comparis on, two of eight constructs were significantly different between two types of information sour ces, but there was not an interaction effect.

PAGE 70

70 Table 4-1. Demographic profile Variables Category N% Male 17556.5 Gender Female 13543.5 18-20 12941.6 21-25 15249.0 26-29 258.1 Age 30 or older 41.3 Freshman 11336.6 Sophomore 6822.0 Junior 8728.2 Student status Senior 4113.3

PAGE 71

71 Table 4-2. Validity and reliability of familiarity scale Convergent validity Construct reliability Construct Items Factor loading ( )Standard error t -value AVE FM1 .70 .52 11.79 FM2 .83 .31 14.45 Familiarity FM3 .82 .33 14.20 .836 .617 FM1 = to what extent have you heard about Florida. FM2 = to what extent do you know Florida. FM3 = how familiar are you with Florida.

PAGE 72

72 Table 4-3. Validity and reliability of destination image scale Convergent validity Construct reliability Construct Items Factor loading ( )Standard error t -value AVE COG1 .64 .59 9.83 COG2 .64 .59 9.81 COG3 .44 .81 10.88 COG4 .63 .60 9.88 COG5 .59 .66 10.23 Activities ( =.97) COG6 .54 .71 10.49 .753 .342 COG7 .85 .29 5.85 COG8 .81 .34 6.90 COG9 .45 .80 10.89 Facilities ( =.73) COG10 .46 .79 10.85 .728 .448 COG11 .84 .29 4.84 COG12 .52 .73 10.49 Natural attractions ( =.57) COG13 .80 .37 6.21 .751 .539 COG14 .68 .54 7.61 COG15 .57 .67 9.26 Cognitive Image Cultural attractions ( =.75) COG16 .59 .65 9.04 .649 .379 AFF1 .67 .55 9.99 AFF2 .86 .26 6.39 AFF3 .79 .37 8.32 Exciting ( =.73) AFF4 .70 .52 9.75 .842 .576 AFF5 .64 .59 9.42 AFF6 .56 .69 10.16 AFF7 .82 .32 5.65 Affective Image Relaxing ( =.52) AFF8 .69 .53 8.82 .772 .468 COG1 = interesting places. COG2 = tourist information. COG3 = shopping. COG4 = tours. COG 5 = outdoor activities. COG6 = night life. COG7 = quality hotels. COG8 = quality restaurant. COG9 = friendly local. COG10 = local transportation. COG 11 = scenic beauty. COG12 = relaxing places. COG13 = natural attractions. COG14 = local festivals. COG15 = cultural and historical sites. COG16 = knowledge. AFF1 = pleasant. AFF2 = exciting. AFF3 = arousing. AFF4 = attractive. AFF5 = relaxing. AFF6 = safe. AFF7 = comfortable. AFF8 = stable.

PAGE 73

73 Table 4-4. Factor correlations among six image sub-constructs Activities Facilities Natural attractions Cultural attractions Exciting Relaxing Activities Facilities .70 Natural attractions .63 .60 Cultural Attractions .64 .59 .47 Exciting .66 .42 .52 .40 Relaxing .43 .47 .55 .30 .52

PAGE 74

74 Table 4-5. Validity and reliability of intention to visit scale Convergent validity Construct reliability Construct Items Factor loading ( )Standard error t -value AVE IT1 .66 .57 11.10 IT2 .98 .04 17.55 Intention to Visit IT3 .73 .47 12.44 .813 .643 IT1 = intention to visit within 3 years. IT2 = intention to visit within 10 years. IT3 = intention to visit at some point in my lifetime.

PAGE 75

75 Table 4-6. Results of a series of ANOVA on the effects of exposure time Constructs Sub-domains Control group Experimental group (5) Experimental group (10) Experimental group (15) F value Familiarity 2.59 ( A ) 3.33 ( B ) 3.43 ( BC ) 3.73 ( C ) 13.35** Activities 3.89 ( A ) 4.99 ( B ) 5.11 ( BC ) 5.29 ( C ) 56.13** Facilities 3.84 ( A ) 4.49 ( B ) 4.45 ( B ) 4.70 ( B ) 16.77** Cultural attractions 4.46 ( A ) 5.39 ( B ) 5.74 ( C ) 5.67 ( BC ) 27.38** Cognitive image Natural attractions 3.85 ( A ) 4.42 ( B ) 4.55 ( B ) 4.70 ( B ) 12.03** Exciting 4.70 ( A ) 5.83 ( B ) 6.03 ( BC ) 6.27 ( C ) 55.48** Destination image Affective image Relaxing 4.43 ( A ) 5.24 ( B ) 5.20 ( B ) 5.30 ( B ) 16.38** Intention to visit 4.24 ( A ) 5.09 ( B ) 5.41 ( BC ) 5.55 ( C ) 22.36** Note: Mean differences were expressed as A < B < C based on DMR test (Duncan multiple range test); All items were assessed on 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree); p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 76

76 Table 4-7. Results of a series of quadratic regression analyses Linear Quadratic Constructs (Dependent variables) Sub-domains R2 2 R2 Familiarity .318** .101 -.308 .109 Activities .525** .276 -.847** .337 Facilities .332** .110 -.405* .124 Cultural attractions .403** .163 -.747** .210 Cognitive Image Natural attractions .302** .091 -.359* .102 Exciting .541** .293 -.742** .340 Destination Image Affective image Relaxing .302** .091 -.623** .124 Intention to visit .396** .157 -.497** .178 Independent variable: exposure time (i .e., 0, 5, 10, and 15 minutes); p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-8. Estimation of saturated points Constructs Sub-domains Estimations ( = a + b1X + b2X2) Vertex formula (h = -b1 / 2b2) Saturated points (minutes) Familiarity None None None Activities = 3.93 + .227X -.0094X2-.227 / 2-.0094 12.07 Facilities = 3.88 + .113X -.0041X2-.113 / 2-.0041 13.78 Cultural attractions = 4.47 + .229X -.0099X2 -.229 / 2-.0099 11.57 Cognitive Image Natural attractions = 3.87 + .117X -.0042X2 -.117 / 2-.0042 13.93 Exciting = 4.75 + .232X -.0089X2-.232 / 2-.0089 12.92 Destination Image Affective image Relaxing = 4.48 + .158X -.0071X2-.158 / 2-.0071 11.17 Intention to visit = 4.25 + .191X -.0071X2-.191 / 2-.0071 13.45 Independent variable: exposure time (i.e., 0, 5, 10, and 15 minutes)

PAGE 78

78 Table 4-9. Results of a series of ANOVA on the effects of types of information sources Constructs Sub-domains Guidebook Printed Web material F Value Familiarity 3.52 3.43 .187 Activities 5.15 5.10 .054 Facilities 4.47 4.61 2.734 Cultural attractions5.38 5.87 18.962** Cognitive image Natural attractions 4.55 4.58 .157 Exciting 6.16 5.92 4.174* Destination image Affective image Relaxing 5.19 5.25 .985 Intention to visit 5.36 5.32 .003 Note: All items were assessed on 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree); p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 79

79 Table 4-10. Results summary Purposes Data analysis Results Familiarity, Intention to visit One-factor CFA Confirmed Measurement Scales Destination image Second-order CFA Confirmed Testing of H1, H2, and H3 MANOVA Supported Testing of H4 Quadratic regression analyses Supported (H4-2 and H4-3) Rejected (H4-1) Type comparison 2 3 factorial design MANOVA Difference found (two image constructs) No difference (other six constructs) No interaction

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4-1. Second-order model of destination image construct .86 .52 .73 .75 .57 .73 .97 C ogn i t i ve Image Activities Aff ect i ve Image Natural Attractions Cultural Attractions Facilities Excitin g Relaxin g

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4-2. Estimated marginal mean s of natural-attractions image

PAGE 82

82 Figure 4-3. Estimated marginal means of exciting image

PAGE 83

83 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Specific results of this study are discussed in this chapter. Eight se ctions comprise the discussion. The first section presen ts validation of the measuremen t scales. The second and third sections provide the discussion re lated to testing of hypotheses. Th e fourth section discusses the type comparison as an additional analysis. The fifth section presents the implications as three parts: theoretical, methodological, and managerial perspect ives. The last three sections consist of the limitations, the delimita tion, and future research. Validation of the Measurement Scales Three constructs were measured using CFA in this study. Familiarity and intention-to-visit constructs were single factors, and the destination image constr uct was classified as two subconstructs (cognitive and affective images). These scales were found to have convergent validity and construct reliability. Specifically, the single-f actor familiarity scale showed that three selfreported familiarity items could measure potential tourists familiarity with a destination. In addition, the intention-to-visit scale showed that three items indicating time periods could appropriately measure potentia l tourists visit intention. Destination image scale was classified as two sub-dimensions. Results of second-order CFA supported a two-dimensional approach to destination image (Baloglu & Brinber, 1997; Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990; Kim & Yoon, 2003; Martn & Bosque, 2008). Specifically, cognitive image included four sub-domains (activities, fa cilities, natural attractions, and cultural attractions), while affective image included two sub-domains (exciting and relaxing). For affective image, in particular, previous studies (Baloglu & Br inberg, 1997; Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Kim & Richardson, 2003; uksel & Akgl, 2007) have mainly used a one-factor scale consisting of four bipol ar items (pleas ant-unpleasant,

PAGE 84

84 exciting-boring, arousing-sleepy, an d relaxing-distressing). Howeve r, affective image could be divided as two sub-domains (exciting and relaxing im ages). In other words, the excitement factor can be explained as the pursuit of a stimulus (Dolcos & Cabeza, 2002; Russell, 1979), while the relaxation factor can be explai ned as tension alleviation (Bab in, Darden, & Babin, 1998). Thus, this classification was measured by second-order CFA in this study. These results showed that a two-dimensional approach to affective image was found to have validity and reliability. Exposure to Information and its Effects on Perceptions/Intentions Three main hypotheses (H1, H2, and H3), indicating relationships between exposure time and perceptions/intentions, were supported by the results of a four-groups MANOVA and DMR (Duncan multiple range) test. In other words, expos ure time to travel information had a positive impact on familiarity, destination image, and intention to visit. However, at the same time, as exposure time increased, the three dependent variab les increased, but slowed down at some point (i.e., between 5 and 15 minutes). These results also partially s upported hypothesis 4, representing evidence of a saturation effect between info rmation exposure and pe rceptions/intentions. Familiarity Familiarity with Florida increased as exposur e time to Florida travel information sources increased in this study. These results provided empirical evidence for Bettmans (1979) concept that people perceive familiarity with a destina tion as a strategy to memorize travel information sources. The mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 196 8) was also supported in the study. In other words, the amount of exposure time to Florid a information as mere repeated exposure influenced the level of familiarity with Florida. In addition, Baloglu (20 01) used the amount of information that tourists used before the trip to measure familiarity with a destination. Study results reported here suppor t his methodological approach.

PAGE 85

85 Destination Image Both cognitive and affective Florida images incr eased as exposure time to Florida travel information increased in the experiment. Specifi cally, all image constructs (four cognitive and two affective sub-constructs) in creased in proportion to exposure time although at some level (i.e., between 5 and 15 minutes) they appeared to become saturated. As with the familiarity construct, these results provided empirical ev idence to support Bettmans (1979) conceptual model and Zajoncs (1968) mere e xposure effect. That is, it is c oncluded that exposure time to travel information positively infl uences cognitive and affective im ages. In addition, these results supported the idea of destination image evolution, indicating that an organic image (initial destination image) evolves toward an induced im age (changed destinatio n image) through travel information exposure (Gunn, 1972). In other words, it seems reasonable to conclude that the three experimental groups formed an induced image, while the control group had an organic image. Intention to Visit Intention to visit Florida incr eased as exposure time to Florid a travel information increased. As with the familiarity and destination image constructs, these results provided empirical evidence for the mere exposure effect. That is, it is concluded that long er duration exposure to Florida information resulted in higher intentions to visit Florida. Thus these results supported the studies suggesting a positive relationship be tween exposure to information and intention (Milman and Pizam, 1995; Sawyer, 1981). Saturation Effect Hypothesis 4, testing for a satu ration effect on the relations hips between exposure time and perceptions/intentions, was partia lly supported by the results of qua dratic regression analyses. In other words, except for the familiarity construct (H4-1), both destination image and intention to

PAGE 86

86 visit (H4-2 and H4-3) were saturated at some levels, that is, specifically between 11 and 14 minutes, as exposure time to Florida travel informati on increased. These results provided empirical evidence for Hamids (1973) concept, stating th at human perceptions reach a plateau when longer exposure durations are used. Study results also, to some extent, suppor ted the information overload concept, indicating that too much information exposure may l ead to lower perceptions or intentions rather than higher as a consequence of the side effect of information surplus (Fras, Rodrguez, & Castaeda, 2008; Hunter, 2002; Mitchell & Pa pavassiliou, 1999). Hamid (1973) also assumed that liking ratings reached a saturation level, a nd then began to decline at high exposure when longer exposure durations were used (p. 273). Fo r example, for the cultural-attractions image, the DMR test showed that the control group wa s 4.46 (A); the first experimental group was 5.39 (B); the second experimental group was 5.74 (C ); and the third expe rimental group was 5.67 (BC). That is, the third group (BC) was not sign ificant different from the first group (B) although the second group (C) was significant different from the first group (B). These results indicated that the cultural-attractions im age started to decrease slightly between the second (10-minute exposure) and the third (15-minut e exposure) groups. These results imply that there could be dysfunctional consequences resu lting from providing consumers with too much information (Jacoby, 1984, p. 432). Comparison of Information Sources Among eight constructs (i.e., one familiarity, si x destination image, and one intention to visit constructs), only two constr ucts (cultural attractions and ex citing images) were significantly different between the two types of information so urces. Specifically, for the cultural-attractions image, students who read the printed Web site content showed a higher image score than students who read the travel guidebook, while, fo r the exciting image, students who read the

PAGE 87

87 travel guidebook showed a higher image score th an students who read the printed Web site material. These results can be interpreted as a relationship between image and content of information sources (Gartner, 1993). Destination image is likely influenced by the specific content of information sources that potential touris ts use (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Selby & Morgan, 19 96). In other words, the content of the printed Web site material appeared to form a st ronger cultural-attractions image, while the content of the travel guidebook appeared to form a stronger excitement im age. In this context, Vogt and Fesenmaier (1998) suggested touristic inform ation should appeal to salient needs in order to capture the attention of potential tourists (p. 574). That is, these results imply that travel information sources are needed to reflect th e needs of targeted tourists. Implications Based on the study results and in terpretations, theore tical, methodological, and managerial implications are now discussed in this section. Theoretical Implications From a theoretical standpoint, the results of this study provided empirical evidence for the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968), the memor y control process (Bettman, 1979), and the destination image evolution concept (Gunn, 1972) These effects and concepts account for a positive relationship between exposur e to travel information and tourists perceptions/intentions related to a destination. Specifically, in terms of the mere exposure e ffect, previous studies have used simple information sources as stimuli (e.g., paralogs, ideographs, music, por traits, or paintings; Bornstein, 1989; Stang, 1974), while this study used somewhat complex information (i.e., travel information sources including long words and many pi ctures). That is, the results of this study imply that complex information sources also can be applied to the mere exposure effect as

PAGE 88

88 stimuli. Next, in terms of the memory control process suggested by Bettman (1979), this study implies that people perceive their familiarity with a destination and destination image as a strategy for memorizing external travel information. In other wo rds, those perceptions (i.e., familiarity and image) function as a mechanism fo r helping tourists store their memory that is formed from travel information. Lastly, in terms of the des tination image evolution conc ept suggested by Gunn (1972) and following scholars (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Chon, 1991; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Gartner, 1986; Kim & Morri son, 2005; Yksel & Akgl, 2007), this study strongly supported the process of image evolution that destinat ion image evolves from organic image to induced image through exposure to trav el information. Image evolution, in particular, happened to both cognitive and affective images In other words, all kinds of image subdimensions may be evolved through information exposure. Except for the familiarity construct, the sat uration effect was supported in this study. Thus, an optimum level should be carefully cons idered in investigating a relationship between information exposure and image/intention. Exposu re durations well within processing capacity, through providing greater opportunity for stimulus processing, would also increase the likelihood of responses such as boredom or inattenti on, which in turn would provide a negative reinforcement condition and decrease the pref erence for stimuli of long exposure (Hamid, 1973, pp. 573-574). In other words, an optimum level between information exposure and human perceptions can be defined as the most favor able status without bor edom or inattention. Methodological Implications From a methodological standpoint, this research supported the usefulness of experimental design for these types of studies, in particular, re lating to information search behavior, familiarity, and destination image. That is, this study coul d control for extraneous variables such as non-

PAGE 89

89 travel information sources (e.g., event, news, and magazines) using th e posttest-only control group design. This has been supported by se veral image related studies conducted using experimental designs (Gartner, 1991; Snmez & Si rakaya, 2002; Tasci, Gartner, & Cavusgil, 2007). They suggested that experi mental design is an effective tool to better understand tourist behavior along with other met hodological approaches as case st udies, content analysis, survey research, and qualitative approaches (Havitz & Sell, 1991). Therefore, experimental design deserves further attention in t ourism research as well as in fu ture image studies (Goossens, 1994). Managerial Implications From a managerial standpoint the study results suggest that managers in the tourism industry should offer an abundance of travel in formation sources to potential tourists for improving their familiarity with a destination, destin ation image, and intention to visit a destination, especially in the context of pre-trip planning. Molina and Esteban (2006) suggested that because of the positive contribution of the quantity of information sources to perceptual evaluations, destinations should find ways to make tourists use multiple information sources (p. 1052). Therefore, it is conclude d that the longer exposure to travel information, the higher familiarity with a destination; the longer e xposure to travel information, the higher the destination image; and the longer exposure to travel information, th e greater the inte ntion to visit a destination. For example, managers may consider using information centers (e.g., welcome center) as one of the main information distribution channels because a substantial percentage of welcome center visitors do stop for information a nd an even larger percentage pick up triprelated information while at the cen ters (Gitelson & Perdue, 1987, p. 18). Results of this study, furthermore, can be appl ied in the context of hedonic needs as well as a pre-trip planning (i.e., func tional needs). Hedonic needs mean that consumers are regarded as pleasure seekers engaged in activities which elicit enjoyment, amusement, arousal, fun, and

PAGE 90

90 sensory stimulation (Vogt & Fesenmaier 1998, p. 558). That is, some people derive satisfaction and pleasure from the process itse lf, enjoying reading and watching programs about destinations without a particul ar need to make a specific d ecision (Gursoy & McCleary, 2004, p. 356). Thus, destination marketers should also consider offering a variety of travel information sources to pleasure seekers in order to make an appeal to them. For example, a short article introducing a destination by a speci alized travel writer may attrac t readers although they may not be in a decision-making mode. On the other hand, this study implies that peoples perceptions and intentions may be saturated at some level. Therefore, given cons iderable time and money to create and enhance a favorable image (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999, p. 892) it is necessary to find an optimum level for investing in tourist promotional material. In a similar context, Beerli and Martn (2004) mentioned that the development of the im age must be based on reality, otherwise the destination will not succeed in satisfying the tourists which will in turn have a negative effect on the image that they will transmit by word of mo uth (p. 677). Kerstetter and Cho (2004) also pointed out if knowledgeable indi viduals depend more on their own internal sources, then destinations must respond by creating and providing the best experience possible, which theoretically lead s to satisfaction (p. 977). That is, they stress the importance of the quality of tourist products rather than image itself. In sum, destination managers should be in balance between image based on promotion and reality based on its quality. There is, however, room for reconsidering th e saturation effect. In terms of external validity, tourists can be saturated just in the laboratory (Jacoby, 1984). In other words, experimental participants might not think of th emselves as saturated in the real world. As a matter of fact, 10 minutes is not a short time to be exposed to travel information, in particular, in

PAGE 91

91 the context of hedonic needs. Thus, it should be recognized that cons umers may be highly selective in how much and just which informati on they access, and tend to stop and well short of overloading themselves (Jacoby, 1984, p. 435). Results of type-comparison analysis imply that specific information sources have an impact on forming specific destination images. In other words, different types of information sources have varying degrees of effect on perceptual/cognitive eval uations (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999, p. 892). Thus, it is necessary to ca refully prepare travel information sources based on a destinations target visitors. Gursoy and McCleary (2004) suggested that communication materials should clearly identi fy the unique selling propositions of the destination, to differentiate it from competitors and to make its positioning easier for unfamiliar tourists (p. 368). In sum, destination promoti on strategies should focus mainly on travel information that targeted tourists use most frequently (Fodness & Murray, 1997). Limitations The main limitation of this study was the me thod of measuring the amount of exposure time to travel information sources. In a survey design, measures of external search generally include a variety of self-report measures, such as the number of information sources used, the number of types of information sought, the number of alternatives consid ered, and the time spent on the purchase decision (Beat ty & Smith, 1987, p. 83). In this study, the amount of exposure time was measured by recording the reading time that participants used. However, their ability to concentrate may vary although st udy participants were asked to concentrate on reading the stimuli before the experiment. Therefore, future studies should consider an alternative method of measuring the amount of exposure time to control for individual differences in concentration. Second, the maximum exposure time for the experimental group was 15 minutes in this study. Maximum time may be extended although it is likely harder for some study participants to

PAGE 92

92 concentrate on the stimuli for longer than 15 minut es. For the familiarity construct, given its increase in R2 between a linear model and a quadratic re gression model, it also may be saturated with longer exposure times as with other depend ent variables. To extend the maximum time, offering an incentive to participan ts would be useful to facilit ate a longer duration experiment. Third, the Web site material was presented in a printed format, not on a computer screen in this study. It is unclear if this type of presenta tion of material affects the results compared to presentation on a computer monitor. Fourth, the questionnaire used in this study was translated in to Korean. Thus, translation problems may have arisen (Presser et al ., 2004) although steps to minimize this were implemented (see p. 44). It is recommended to cons ider quality control procedures and protocols for good questionnaire translation. Delimitation The delimitation of this study was that all of the study participants were undergraduate students in a limited geographic location. Thus, th e sample may not be representative of the tourist population. In previous dest ination image studies, the results were not consistent due to the influence of demographics of research pa rticipants (Beerli & Ma rtn, 2004). Thus, future studies need to investigate whether demographic variables such as age or income influence the specific relationships suggested by this study. Future Studies Time interval after exposure to travel information (e.g., an in itial time, after three months, after six months, after nine months, after one year, and after two years) may influence perceptions and intentions as il lustrated in Figure 5-1. For exam ple, immediately after exposure to information sources, perceptions and intentions may be higher than after a longer time period after exposure. In other words, as time passes, pe rceptions and intentions are likely to decrease

PAGE 93

93 because memories may be distorted by other ty pes of information (Braun-Latour, Grinley, & Loftus, 2006; Snmez & Sirakaya, 2002) or peopl e tend to forget various aspects of the destination. A longitudinal design would be needed to examine this aspect. Second, Figure 5-2 shows two patterns of a satura tion effect, that is, an inverted U-shaped function and a log transformation. However, this study did not find a specific pattern of the saturation effect although human-pe rception studies have supported the pattern of an inverted Ushaped function (Bornstein, 1989; Hamid, 1974; Stang, 1974). Within the maximum exposure time (15 minutes), the pattern in this study was closer to log transfor mation pattern except for two constructs (familiarity and cultural-attractio ns image). Thus, at least 30 minutes or more needs to be investigated to examine in greater detail saturation patterns in future studies.

PAGE 94

94 Figure 5-1. Relations between time in terval and perceptions/intentions Perceptions / Intentions Time interval after exposure to information Short term Medium term Long term Exposure to travel information

PAGE 95

95 Figure 5-2. Two patterns of the saturation effect Exposure Time Perceptions/Intentions Log transformation Inverted U-shaped function

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX A ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRE IN KOREAN

PAGE 97

97

PAGE 98

98

PAGE 99

99

PAGE 100

100 Exp / Cont 1 2 3 4 A B

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX B QUESIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH The section is about your past experience rela ted to Florida or international travel. Please answer the following questions. Q1 Have you ever traveled outside of Korea to any other country? Yes 1b. How many times have you taken trips to a ny other country in your lifetime? _____ No Q2 Have you ever traveled to the US? Yes 2b. How many times have you taken trips to th e US in your lifetime? _____________ No Q3 Have you ever traveled to Florida? Yes 3b. How many times have you taken trips to Florida in your lifetime? _____________ No Q4. Have you ever read Florida travel guidebooks before? Yes 4b. How many books have you read? __________ No Q5. Have you ever seen any types of adver tisements about Flor ida travel before? Yes 5b. How many advertisements have you seen? __________ No The section is about your familiarity of Flor ida. Please answer the following questions. Q6. To what extent have you heard about Florida? Not at all Somewhat A lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q7. To what extent do you know Florida as a vacation destination? Not at all Somewhat A lot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q8. How familiar are you with Florida as a vacation destination? Not familiar at all Somewhat Extremely familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 102

102 The section of the questionnaire asks for about Florida. Please answer the following questions. Please circle the number that bes t describes your thought s or feelings. You should circle one number from each and every line. Q9 Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statement on a 7 point scale from 1 to 7, where 1=Strongly disagree and 7=Strongly agree. (Please circle one response for each ) Please choose only one answer for each Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Florida has many interesting places to visit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Shopping facilities are good in Florida 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida is a safe place to visit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida offers a lot of natural scenic beauty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida has many interesting local festivals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida is a relaxing place to visit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida has pleasant weather 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida offers good quality tourist information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida has plenty of quality hotels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida has plenty of good quality restaurants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The local people in Florida are friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tours are readily available in Florida 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida offers good nightlife options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida offers a variety of outdoor activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida is a good place to increase knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida has many natural attractions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida offers good local transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Florida has plentiful cultural and historical sites 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q10 Please circle one number on each line to show your feelings of Florida as a travel destination. Extremely Quite SlightlyNeutralSlightlyQuiteExtremely Unpleasant -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Pleasant Boring -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Exciting Sleepy -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Arousing Distressing -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Relaxing Risky -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Safety Unattractive -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Attractive Uncomfortable -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Comfortable Chaotic -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Stale Plain -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Diverse

PAGE 103

103 Q11 Please circle one number on a 7 point sc ale from 1 to 7 for the followings where 1=Strongly disagree and 7= Strongly agree. (Please circle one response for each ) Please choose only one answer for each Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree I will choose Florida as an international travel destination within 3 years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will choose Florida as an international travel destination within 10 years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will choose Florida as an international travel destination at some point in my lifetime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The final section of the questionnaire as ks for descriptive information on you. This information will be kept in the strict est confidence and used for statistical purpose only. Q12 Are you? ( Please one response) Male Female Q13 In what year were you born? _____________________________ year Q14 Which school are you attending? ____________ School year? ________ Undergraduate ( ) / Graduate ( ) Q15 Which province do you live in? Q16 Do you speak English? Yes No Q17 Have your parents ever traveled to the US? Yes No Q18 Have your parents ever traveled to Florida? Yes No Q19 Have your brothers or sister s ever traveled to Florida? Yes No Thank you very much fo r your participation! Exp / Cont 1 2 3 4 A B

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX C COVER OF A BOUND BOOK (STIMULI) 1 1 1

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX D COVER OF A BOUND BOOK (STIMULI) IN ENGLISH Experiment Guide Purpose We are interested in better understanding peoples interest in traveling to Florida, USA. 1 1 1 Search You have one of two kinds of informati on sources about Florida attractions. Please use the materials freely. You will have fi ve through fifteen minutes for reading the travel information. The exact time you have will be announced when the process starts. Survey If an instructor announces you to finish the process, please cl ose the packet. The instructor will provide a survey ques tionnaire. Please fill out the survey questionnaire. The survey will take about 10 minutes. Thank you very much!

PAGE 106

106 LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitude. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 27-58. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987) Dimension of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Behavior 13 411-454. Andereck, K. L., & Caldwell, L. L. (1993). The infl uence of tourists characteristics on ratings of information sources for an attraction. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2 (2/3), 171-189. Andrew, C. (1987). Effect of brochure designs on touris t perceptions of holidays. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 11 359-368. Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research CA: Belmont. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Babin, L. A. ( 1998). Negative emotions in marketing research: affect or artifact? Journal of Business Research 42 271-285. Baloglu, S. (1999). A path analytic model of vi sitation intention involvi ng information sources, socio-psychological motivations, and destination image. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8 (3), 81-90. Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of Turk ey by familiarity index: Informational and experiential dimensions. Tourism Management 22 127-133. Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 35 (4), 11-15. Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu, M. (2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism Management 22 (1), 1-9. Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (4), 868-897. Beatty, S. E., & Smith, S. M. (1987). External search effort: An investigation across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (June), 83-95. Beerli, A., & Martn, J. D. (2004). F actors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3), 657-681. Bettman, J. R. (1979). Memory factor s in consumer choice: A review. Journal of Marketing 43 37-53. Bhattacharyya, D. P. (1997). Mediati ng India: An analysis of a guidebook. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (2), 371-389.

PAGE 107

107 Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2004). Information s ources for travel decisions: Toward a source process model. Journal of Travel Research 42 357-371. Bign, J. E., Snchez, M. I., & Snchez, J. ( 2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behavior: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management 22 607-616. Bonn, M. A., Furr, H. L., & Susskind, A. M. (1999) Predicting a behavioral profile for pleasure travelers on the basis of internet use segmentation. Journal of Travel Research 37 333340. Bonstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Ov erview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin 10 (2), 265-289. Braun-Latour, K. A., Grinley, M. J., & Loftus E. F. (2006). Tourist memory distortion. Journal of Travel Research 44 360-367. Butterfield, D. W., Deal, K. R ., & Kubursi, A. A. (1998). Meas uring the returns to tourism advertising. Journal of Travel Research 37 12-20. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Capella, L. M., & Greco, A. J. (1987). Informa tion sources of elderly for vacation decisions. Annals of Tourism Research 14 148-151. Castro, C. B., Armario, E. M., & Ruiz, D. M. (2007). The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destinations image and tourists future behavior. Tourism Management 28 175-187. Chakravarti, D., Mitchell, A., & Staelin, R. (1981). Judgment base d marketing decision models: problems and possible solutions. Journal of Marketing 45 13-23. Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination im age and evaluative fact ors affect behavioral intentions?. Tourism Management 28 1115-1122. Chen, J. S., & Hsu, C. (2000). Measurement of Ko rean tourists perceive d images of overseas destinations. Journal of Travel Research 38 411-416. Cho, M.-H. (2006). The role of factors to infl uence a foreign tourists information search behavior. Journal of Tourism Leisure Science 18 (2), 331-345. Choi, S., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007) Destination image representation on the web: contest analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tourism Management, 28 118-129. Chon, K.-S. (1991). Tourism destination image m odification process: Marketing implication. Tourism Management 12 (1), 68-72.

PAGE 108

108 Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for devel oping better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 64-73. Cooke, A. D. J., Sujan, H., Sujan, M., & Weitz, B. A. (2002). Marketing th e unfamiliar: The role of context and item-specific informati on in electronic agent recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (Nov), 488-497. Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the imag e of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research 17( Spring), 18-23. Dichter, E. (1985). Whats in an image. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 2 (1), 75-81. Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. Advances in Consumer Research 17 110-119. Dolcos, F., & Cabeza, R. (2002). Event-relate d potentials of emotional memory: Encoding pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral pictures. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 2 (3), 252-263. Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research 22 (4), 3-13. Embacher, J., & Buttle, F. (1989). A repertory gr id analysis of Austrias image as a summer vacation destination. Journal of Travel Research 27 (3), 3-5. Etzel, M. J., & Wahlers, R. G. (1985). The use of requested promotional material by pleasure travelers. Journal of Travel Research 21 (4), 2-7. Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image di fference between prospective, first-time and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30 (2), 10-16. Fang, X., Singh, S., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An exam ination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research 34 97-103. Fesenmaier, D. R., Vogt, C. A., & Stewart, W. P. (1993). Investigating th e influence of welcome center information on travel behavior. Journal of Travel Research 32 (2), 47-52. Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1997) Tourist information search. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3), 503-523. Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist information search behavior. Journal of Travel Research 37 220-230. Fras, D. M., Rodrguez, M. A., & Castaeda, A. (2008). Internet vs. travel agencies on pre-visit destination image formation: An information processing view. Tourism Management 29 (1), 163-179.

PAGE 109

109 Fridgen, J. D. (1985). Use of cognitive maps to determine perceived tourism regions. Leisure Sciences 9 101-117. Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1), 56-78. Gartner, W. G. (1986). Temporal influences on image change. Annals of Tourism Research 13 (4), 635-643. Gartner, W. G. (1993). Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2 (2/3), 191-215. Gartner, W. G., & Hunt, J. D. (1987). An analys is of state image change over a twelve-year period (1971-1983). Journal of Travel Research 26 (2), 15-19. Gitelson, R. J., & Perdue, R. R. (1987). Evalua ting the role of state welcome centers in disseminating travel related information in North Carolina. Journal of Travel Research 25 (4), 15-20. Goossens, C. F. (1994). External information sear ch: Effects of tour broc hures with experiential information. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 3 (3), 89-107. Grosspietsch, M. (2006). Perceive d and projected images of Rwa nda: Visitor and international tour operator perspectives. Tourism Management 27 225-234. Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationscape Austin: Bureau of Business Re search, University of Texas. Gupta, S., & Cooper, L. G. (1992). The disc ounting of discounts and promotion thresholds. Journal of Consumer Research 19 401-411. Gursoy, D., & McCleary, K. W. (2004). An integr ative model of tourists information search behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (2), 353-373. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall. Hamid, P. N. (1973). Exposure freq uency and stimulus preference. British Journal of Psychology 64 (4), 569-577. Hankinson, G. (2004). The brand images of touris m destinations: A study of the saliency of organic images. Journal of Product and Brand Management 13 (1), 6-14. Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and i ndividual differences approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (7), 889-898. Harrell, S. G., & Taylor, E. D. (1981). Modeling the product life cycle for consumer durables. Journal of Marketing 45 68-75.

PAGE 110

110 Havitz, M. E., & Sell, J. A. (1991). The experi mental method and leisure/recreation research: Promoting a more active role. Society and Leisure 14 (1), 47-68. Hipp, J. R., & Bollen, K. A. (2003). Model fit in structural equation m odels with censored, ordinal, and dichotomous variable s: Testing vanishing tetrads. Sociological Methodology 33 267-305. Hoyer, W. D., & MacInnis, D. J. (2007). Consumer Behavior (4th ed.). MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Hsu, C. H. C., Wolfe, K., & Kang, S. K. (2004). Image assessment for a destination with limited comparative advantages. Tourism Management 25 121-126. Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Measuring de stination attractiv eness: A contextual approach. Journal of Travel Research 32 25-34. Hughes, H., & Allen, D. (2005). Cu ltural tourism in central and eastern Europe: The views of induced image formation agents. Journal of Travel Research 26 173-183. Hunter, G. L. (2002). A dual-proces s theory of information overload. Advances in Consumer Research 29 211-212. Janiszewski, C. (1993). Preatte ntive mere exposure effects. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (3), 376-392 Jacoby, J. (1984). Perspectives on information overload. Journal of Consumer Research 10 (March), 432-435. Jenkins, O. H. (2003). Photogra phy and travel brochures: The circle of representation. Tourism Geographies 5 (3), 305-328. Jeong, C., Kim, Y. K., Ko, Y. J., Lee, H., & Jeong, R. (2008). Horse racing image: Reexamination of relations between image and intention to visit. Unpublished manuscript. Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1984). Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal of Consumer Research 11 542-550. Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2006). A structural analysis of destin ation travel in tentions as a function of Web site features. Journal of Travel Research 45 204-216. Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2007). The interrela tionship between sport event and destination image and sport tourists behaviors. Journal of Sport & Tourism 12 (3/4), 183-206. Kent, R. J., & Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: The role of brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing 58 97-105. Keown, C., Jacobs, L, & Worthley, R. (1984). American tourists perc eptions of retail stores in 12 selected countries. Journal of Travel Research 22 (3), 26-30.

PAGE 111

111 Kerstetter, D., & Cho, M.-H. (2004). Prior kno wledge, credibility, and information search. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4), 961-985. Kiel, G. C., & Layton, R. A. (1981). Dimensions of consumer information seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (2), 233-239. Kim, D., Hwang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. (2006). Modeling tourism advertising effectiveness. Journal of Travel Research 44 42-49. Kim, H., & Richardson, S. L. (2003). Moti on picture impacts on destination images. Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1), 216-237. Kim, J. E., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2004). Florida residents familiarity with Korea: Do more familiarity residents have more positive images? Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium Kim, J. N., & Park, S. H. (2001). Influence of internet travel information on the pre-visit destination image. Journal of Tourism Science 25 (3), 131-148. Kim, S.-S., & Morrison, A. M. (2005). Change of images of South Korea among foreign tourists after the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management 26 233-247. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principle and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd). NY: Guilford. Ko, Y. J., Kim, K., Claussen, C. L., & Kim, T. H. (2008). The effects of sport involvement, sponsor, awareness and corporate image on in tention to purchase sponsors products. International Journal of Spor ts Marketing & Sponsorship 9 (2), 79-94. Ko, Y. K., & Tera. (2008). Confidence in World Travel: USA Seoul: Samsung Press. Kock, N. F. (2007). Encyclopedia of E-Collaboration NY: IGI Global. Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Cust omer-based brand equity for a destination. Annals of Tourism Research 34 (2), 400-421. Kotler, P., Haider, D. H., & Rein, I. (1993). Marketing Places: Attrac ting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations NY: The Free Press. Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Predicting behavior al intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management 27 589-599. Lefton, L. A. (1994). Psychology (5th ed.). MA: Allyn and Bacon. MaCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinte rpreting the Myers-Briggs Type indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality 57 17-40. MaIntosh, R. W., & Goeldner, C. R. (1990). Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies NY: Wiley.

PAGE 112

112 Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., & VanZandt, B. J. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experiment al Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 13 (4), 646-648. Manfredo, M. J. (1988). An investigation of th e basis for external information search in recreation and tourism. Leisure Sciences 11 29-45. Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From mo tivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research 28 175-187. Marks, L. J., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Toward a cognitive structure conceptualization of product familiarity. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 145-150). Ann Arbor, MI: Association fo r Consumer Research. Martn, H. S., & Bosque, I. A. R. (2008). Explor ing the cognitive-affective nature of destination image and the role of psychologi cal factors in its formation. Tourism Management 29 263-277. Mazursky, D., & Jacoby, J. (1986). Explor ing the development of store images. Journal of Retailing 62 (2), 145-165. MacKay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1997). Pictor ial element of destination in image formation. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3), 537-565. MacKay, K. J., & Smith, M. C. (2006). Destinat ion advertising: Age and format effects on memory. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1), 7-24. McWilliams, E. G., & Crompton, J. L. (1997). An expected framework for measuring the effectiveness of destination advertising. Tourism Management 18 (3), 127-137. Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awar eness and familiarity with a destination: The central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research 33 21-27. Mitchell, V.-W., & Papavassiliou, V. (1999). Marke ting causes and implications of consumer confusion. Journal of Product and Brand Management 8 (4), 319-339. Mloina, A., & Esteban, (2006). Tour ism brochures: Usefulness and image. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (4), 1036-1056. Mok, H. M. K. (1990). A quasi-experimental meas ure of the effectiven ess of destinational advertising: Some evidence from Hawaii. Journal of Travel Research 29 (1), 30-34. Money, R. B., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning, and purchases of inte rnational travel vacations. Tourism Management 24 191202 Ng, S. I., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Tour ists intention to visit a country: The impact of cultural distance, Tourism Management 28 (6), 1497-1506.

PAGE 113

113 Nolan, S. D. (1976). Tourists use and evaluatio n of travel information sources: Summary and conclusions. Journal of Travel Research 14 (6), 6-8. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill. Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research 39 78-84. Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity a nd its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research 8 223-230. Pearce, P. L. (1982). Perceived ch anges in holiday destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 9 145-164. Perdue, R. R. (1993). External informati on search in marine recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences 15 169-187. Phelps, A. (1986). Holiday destination image the problem of assessment: An example developed in Menorca. Tourism Management 7 168-180. Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analys is: A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism Management 23 541-549. Prebensen, N. K. (2007). Exploring touris ts images of a distant destination. Tourism Management 28 747-756. Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., & Couper, M. P., Le ssler, J.T., Martin, E., Ma rtin, J., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for Testing and Eval uating Survey Questionnaires NY: Wiley. Raitz, K., & Dakhil, M. (1989). A note about in formation sources for preferred recreational environments. Journal of Travel Research 27 45-49. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling NJ: LEA. Reilly, M. D. (1990). Free elicitation of descri ptive adjectives for t ourism image assessment. Journal of Travel Research 28 (4), 21-26. Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1999). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel: Application in tourism. Tourism Management 20 71-88. Rittichainuwat, B. N., Qu, H., & Brown, T. J. (2001). Thailands international travel image: Mostly favorable. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42 (2), 82-95. Russell, J. A. (1979). Affective space is bipolar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (3), 345-356. Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M., & Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A factor analytic study. Environment and Behavior 13 (3), 259-288.

PAGE 114

114 Santos, J. (1997). The role of tour operators promotional material in the formation of destination image and consumer expectations: The cas e of the peoples republic of China. Journal of Vacation Marketing 4 (3), 282-297. Sawyer, A. (1981). Repetition, cognitive responses and persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive Responses in Persuasion (pp. 237-261). NJ: Erlbaum. Seabra, C., Abrantes, J. L., & Lages, L. F. (2007). The impact of using non-media information sources on the future use of mass media in formation sources: The mediating role of expectations fulfillment. Tourism Management 28 1541-1554. Selby, M., & Morgan, N. J. ( 1996). Reconstructing place image: A case study of its role in destination market research. Tourism Management 17 (4), 287-294. Severt, D., Wang, Y., Chen, P.-J., & Breiter, D. (2007). Examining the motivation, perceived performance, and behavioral intentions of convention attendees: Evidence from a regional conference. Tourism Management 28 399-408. Silberman, J., & Klock, M. (1986). An alternative to conversion studies fo r measuring the impact of travel ads. Journal of Travel Research 24 (4), 12-16. Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Des tination image, self-congruity, a nd travel behavior: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research 38 340-352. Smith, R. E., & Vogt, C. A. (1995). The effects of integrating advertising and negative word-ofmouth communications on message processing and response. Journal of Consumer Psychology 4 (2), 133-151. Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M., & Worrall, K. (1990). Information search strategies by destination-nave tourists. Journal of Travel Research 29 13-16. So, S., & Morrison, A. M. (2003). Destination marketing organizations web site users and nonusers: A comparison of actual vi sits and revisit intentions. Information Technology & Tourism, 6 129-139. Snmez, S., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). A distorte d destination image?: The case of Turkey. Journal of Travel Research 41 185-196. Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation?: Factors that help to predict tourist behavioral intentions. Tourism Management 28 1180-1192. Spotts, D. M., & Stynes, D. J. (1984). Public awareness and knowledge of urban parks: A case study. Journal of Park & R ecreation Administration 2 (4), 1-12. Stang, D. J. (1974). Methodological f actors in mere exposure research. Psychological Bulletin 81 (12), 1014-1025.

PAGE 115

115 Stern, E., & Krakover, S. (1993). The fo rmation of a composite urban image. Geographical Analysis 25 (2), 130-146. Sung, G. (2008). Travel and Tourism Republic of Korea Retrieved November 28, 2008, from BUYUSA.GOV U.S. Commer cial Service Web site: http://www.buyusa.gov/asianow/r oktraveltourism.html Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Measurement of destination brand bias using a quasi-experimental design. Tourism Management 28 (6), 1529-1540. Um, S., & Crompton, J. Attitude determin ants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research 17 432-448. Yuan, J., & Jang, S. (2008). The effects of qualit y and satisfaction on awareness and behavioral intentions: Exploring the ro le of a wine festival. Journal of Travel Research 46 279-288. Yksel, A. & Akgl, O. (2007). Postcards as affective image makers : An idle agent in destination marketing. Tourism Management 28 714-725. Vogt, C. A., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998). Expa nding the functional inform ation search model. Annals of Tourism Research 25 (3), 551-57 Vogt, C. A., Fesenmaier, D. R., & MacKay, K. (1993). Functional and aesthetic information needs underlying the pleasure travel experience. Journal Travel and Tourism Marketing 2 (2/3), 133-146. Vogt, C. A., & Stewart, S. L. (1998). Affective and cognitive effects of information use over the course of a vacation. Journal of Leisure Research 30 (4), 498-520. Waitt, G. (1996). Marketing Korea as an international tourist destination. Tourism Management 17 (2), 113-121. Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2004). Towards understanding members general participation in and active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism Management 25 709722 Wicks, B., & Schuett, M. (1991). Examining the ro le of tourism promoti on through the use of brochures. Tourism Management 11 301-312. Woodside, A. G. (1990). Measuring advertising effectiveness in de stination marke ting strategies. Journal of Travel Research 17 432-448. Wu, S.-I., Wei, P.-L., & Chen, J.-H. (2008). Influen ce factors and relational structure of Internet banner advertising in the tourism industry. Tourism Management 29 221-236. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudina l effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs 9 (2), 1-27.

PAGE 116

116 Zhou, Z. (1997). Destination marketing: M easuring the effectiveness of brochures. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 6 (3/4), 143-158.

PAGE 117

117 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Chul Jeong was born and raised in South Kor ea. Chul earned his Bachelor of Arts and Sciences in 1996 and a Master of Arts and Sciences in 2001 in tourism science from Hanyang University in Seoul, Korea. His masters thesis was titled Ecotouirsts Motivation, Experience, and Satisfaction as Compared with Mass Tourists and was selected for the Best M.A. Thesis Award Chul began his doctoral work in the De partment of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management in the University of Florida in August 2004. He was awarded a full academic scholarship as a University of Florida Alumni Fellow His minor was marketing, and he earned the Social Science Methodol ogy Graduate Certificate specializing in the quantitative program, from the Social and Behavioral Sciences Council of the Universi ty of Florida. After graduation, he intends to pursue a career in an academic ins titute to focus on travel and tourism information marketing.