Is perception of destination image stable or does it fluctuate? A measurement of three points in time

Abstract

This study aimed to identify variations of three types of perceived image including affective, cognitive, and overall image over three points in time and to test the efficacy of image in explaining satisfaction, knowledge, and attachment with a destination. Although previous studies used results collected through a crosssectional survey, this study surveyed the same samples at three different times, that is, before, during, and after travel, to enrich our understanding of how image develops through the three key stages of a trip. The findings indicate that there is significant variation in perceived image domains, extracted as a result of factor analysis, and overall image across time. To predict satisfaction, attachment, and knowledge, "vividness" of the affective image domains and "diverse tourism attraction" of the cognitive image domains showed significance on regression models. Interestingly, "developed tourism industry" was not reported being significant predictor in any model. The results suggest that future studies need to measure destination image over time in line with traveler's movement.

The dynamic nature of the city image

“…Diff erent authors have had diff erent approaches to the study of image (Lai & Li, 2015); however, they have considered it a dynamic process (Gallarza et al, 2002). As a dynamic process, it diff ers according to the stage of the travel experience (Gallarza et al, 2002;Jani & Nguni, 2016;Kim et al, 2019;Lee et al, 2014;Martín-Santana et al, 2017), and it is especially linked to time (Kim, McKercher, & Lee, 2009;Martín-Santana et al, 2017) and space (Gallarza et al, 2002;Stylidis & Cherifi , 2018).…”

“…Gunn (1988) argued that, once the tourist is at the destination, the image-as a personal construction-is aff ected and modifi ed by the individual's interaction with the place. Kim et al (2019) studied the variations in the perceived image over three periods-before, during, and after travel-using the same sample. Still, most studies on image focus on a certain moment in time, using one-off data collection.…”

“…Firstly, the image construct was addressed only in the cognitive dimension. However, scholars have broadened the construct by including the cognitive and aff ective dimensions (Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001;Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a, 1999bChen & Uysal, 2002;Crompton, 1979;Gartner, 1989Gartner, , 1993Kim & Richardson, 2003;Kim et al, 2019;Pike & Ryan, 2004;Stern & Krakover, 1993), which can also change over time (Lee et al, 2014). Other authors have added more specifi c characteristics of places, recognizing their role in global image formation (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991Qu, Kim, & Im, 2011).…”

“…Th e image of a tourist city corresponds to a mental map consisting of a set of attributes that defi ne it as a destination and infl uence tourist behaviour (Beerli & Martin, 2004a, b;Kim, Stylidis, & Oh, 2019). Th e image is recognized as a multiple, complex, and dynamic construct (Gallarza, Saura, & Garcia, 2002) which can play an important role in choosing a destination, aff ect tourist satisfaction, and infl uence revisit intention (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a, b;Chi & Qu, 2008;Echtner & Ritchie, 1991Elliot, Papadopoulod, & Kim, 2011;Gallarza et al, 2002;Pike, 2007;.…”

“…As recognized by Lai and Li (2015, p. 1), "the line of research on Tourism Destination Image remains challenged". Th e authors identifi ed the existence of few studies comparing diff erent destinations and on how visitors form their images of destinations or how these images evolve (Jani & Nguni, 2016;Kim et al, 2019;Martín-Santana, Beerli-Palacio, & Nazzareno, 2017;Ooi et al, 2014). Th omas and Richins (2003, p. 387) referred to the existence of an "occasional focus on cities" within the framework of image studies.…”