Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-hospitality-
and-tourism-management

Destination personality and destination image

Nizar Souiden, Ph.D. Full professor of Marketing a, *,
Riadh Ladhari, Ph.D. Full professor of Marketing a,
Nour Eddine Chiadmi, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Marketing b
a
Faculty of Business Administration, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada
b
ESC de La Rochelle, 102 rue de Coureilles - Les Minimes, 17024, La Rochelle Cedex 1, France

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

Article history: This study examines the impacts of destination personality and image on individuals' attitudes and
Received 16 September 2016 visiting intentions. Based on a sample of 173 Canadians, the study investigates the impact of the
Received in revised form perceived personality and image of the city of Dubai on respondents' attitudes and visiting intentions.
31 March 2017
The results show that destination image is an antecedent to destination personality, which in turn has a
Accepted 21 April 2017
direct impact on attitude toward a destination and an indirect effect on behavioural intentions. The
results have important theoretical implications for academics and offer intriguing managerial sugges-
tions for destination marketers and public policy-makers.
Keywords:
Destination branding
2017 The Authors.
Destination image
Destination personality
Tourist's attitude
Visiting intention

1. Introduction dollars) for Glasgow's economy and create up to 1000 full-time

The concept of destination marketing and branding has, over
several past decades, become a central factor in the strategy of
many localities seeking a competitive advantage in a particular
domain (e.g., production, tourism, art, sports). Many governments
and stakeholders have invested huge amounts of money in an
attempt to improve the image of specic places, reposition them,
and thus boost their economies. For example and according to Clark
(2006), four million dollars were invested to rebrand Toronto (a
major Canadian city). The main purpose of the Toronto Branding
Project was to create a unique Toronto city brand and develop a
fresh new way of communicating the city's strengths and dynamic
identity to the rest of the world. The rebranding led to a 26% in-
crease in the number of overseas tourists to Toronto. The same
study reported that a total of 3.3 million pounds (about 6 million US
dollars) were invested between 2004 and 2007 on Glasgow's image
makeover to position it as a cosmopolitan, modern, and dynamic
location for investment and tourism. This rebranding strategy was
expected to generate 42 million pounds (about 76 million US
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nizar.souiden@fsa.ulaval.ca (N. Souiden), riadh.ladhari@fsa.
ulaval.ca (R. Ladhari), chiadmine@esc-larochelle.fr (N.E. Chiadmi).
jobs.
Similarly and according to Bagaeen (2007), over the last 15
years, Dubai (the most famous city of the United Arab Emirates) has
been spending hundreds of billions of dollars to shape its image. As
of today, the city has radically changed its infrastructure and moved
from a barely known to a well-known place of attraction. According
to the Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report by the World
Economic Forum (2015), the UAE ranks 24th in the world, num-
ber one in the Arab world and 26th in terms of tourism service
infrastructure. Additionally, FutureBrand (2012), in its list of Future
Forward Country Brands, recognizes the United Arab Emirates as
the forerunner among tomorrow's leading fteen country brands. It
is also expected that the hosting of Expo 2020 in Dubai will boost
the city brand value by an estimated $8 billion (Brand Finance-
Nation Brands, 2014).
In addition to the increasing competition among countries/cities
across the world, there is a growing rivalry among cities of the same
country (e.g., Dubai/Abu Dhabi, New York/Los Angeles, Rome/
Venice, etc.) in terms of attracting new investments, more tourists,
and international events. A myriad of mega projects are launched in
different cities in the world and most, if not all, attempt to boost the
city image at the national and international levels. Conrming this
view, Smith (2006) emphasizes the contribution of agship

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.04.003
1447-6770/ 2017 The Authors.
 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
projects (e.g., a swimming complex, an athletics stadium) to city
image and their role in making the city a more attractive place to
visit.
Today, tourist destinations face intense competition (Bigne
study's conceptual model is compared to other alternative models
Alcan~ iz et al., 2009; Hildebrandt & Isaac, 2015) since tourists
often choose among destinations with similar attributes such as
beautiful scenery, wide beaches, friendly local communities, and
high-quality accommodations (Qu, Kim, & Im, 2011; Usakli &
Baloglu, 2011). According to Pike (2009), p. 70% of international
tourists visit only 10 countries. In other words, the remaining
countries compete for 30% of the total of international tourists. To
attract tourists, destinations must be unique (Hosany, Ekinci, &
Uysal, 2006; Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007; Qu et al.,
2011; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). Branding therefore becomes a way
to differentiate a destination from its competitors. Indeed, many
destinations around the world have applied branding strategies to
emphasize the characteristics and the uniqueness of their offer
(Aarstad et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2007; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011).
Brand destination provides potential tourists with pre-trip infor-
mation that lets them differentiate a place from the competition
and form expectations. Branding also assists tourists in reinforcing
their evaluation of that destination after their trip (Murphy et al.,
2007).
Destination branding seeks to develop a favourable global
impression about a destination. Prior studies emphasize the role of
image and provide empirical evidence that destination image is a
valuable concept in understanding tourist preferences, selection
processes, intentions to visit, and recommendations (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999; Kim & Lee, 2015; Kladou & Mavragani, 2015;
Nadeau, Heslop, OReilly, & Luk, 2008). Since the destination im-
age exerts a decisive inuence on tourist behavior, the develop-
ment of a suitable image is of utmost importance (Bigne
Alcan
~ iz
et al., 2009; Kladou & Mavragani, 2015).
Some cities, however, nd it difcult to create a clear unique
selling proposition that promotes their images. For instance and
according to Balakrishnan (2008), Dubai strives to position itself as
a city of luxury brands, yet it is associated with several images, not
all of them genuinely reect the image of Dubai. This may lead to
some confusion in Dubai's brand perception. The author adds that,
in contrast to some cities such as New York, there is no single logo
or symbol representing Dubai. Also, positioning the city on a single
but too vague concept (e.g., a dream city) would not help in creating
a longstanding and strong image. Images can be short-lived and
their impacts are likely to be effective in the short and medium
term (Souiden, Pons, & Mayrand, 2011). Like people and brands,
cities need to develop steady personality traits that better describe
them. This is in line with Berens' (1999) opinion which states that a
personality is a stable set of characteristics and tendencies that
have continuity in time. Thus, and based on this denition, desti-
nation or city personality seems to be an important asset to city
branding.
Recent studies stress the role of destination personality in
inuencing touristic choice behaviour (Baloglu, Henthorne, &
Sahin, 2014; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Hosany et al., 2006; Murphy

et al., 2007; Zeugner-Roth & Zabkar, 2015). These studies claim
that a strong positive brand personality leads to a favourable
destination evaluation. But despite the many studies on destination
image, understanding the relationships between destination image
and personality and their effects on attitudes and behavioural in-
tentions still requires more research (Murphy et al., 2007; Qu et al.,
2011). In particular, the casual relationships between destination
image and destination personality have not been fully investigated
(Kim & Lee, 2015). This study contributes to the literature by
developing and empirically testing a conceptual model that dis-
cusses these relationships. It attempts to rst examine the causal
55
relationships between destination personality and destination
image and second, to examine their mutual (direct and indirect)
impacts on tourists' attitudes and behavioural intentions. The
that emphasize different roles of destination personality and
destination image as antecedents and stimulators of tourists' atti-
tudes and behavioural intentions.
2. Literature review and conceptual model
2.1. Destination image
Brand image is dened as the set of all associations linked, in the
consumer's memory, to a brand (Aaker, 1991). Aaker (1994) argues
that brand image creates value for the brand for at least ve rea-
sons: it helps the consumer process information on the product, it
differentiates the product and its positioning, it provides reasons
for the purchase, it tends to develop a positive feeling towards the
brand, and it allows for brand extensions.
When applied to a country, image concept is dened as the
total of all descriptive, inferential and informational beliefs one has
about a particular country (Martin & Eroglu, 1993, p. 193).
Nagashima (1970, p. 68) adds that country image: is the picture,
the reputation, the stereotype that businessmen and consumers
have of a specic country. This image is created by such variables as
representative products, national characteristics, economic and
political background, history, and traditions.
According to Nadeau et al. (2008), although the literature on
product-country image and tourism destination image has
evolved separately (the former is commonly investigated in busi-
ness and marketing journals while the latter appears in tourism-
specic journals), these two concepts overlap. Both examine con-
sumer perceptions of places and how they may affect consumer
decisions. Destination image, an important element of the desti-
nation brand, is dened as an attitudinal construct consisting of an
individual's mental representation of knowledge (beliefs), feelings,
and global impression about an object or destination (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999, p. 870). Factors that may contribute to inuence
the image of a destination include media and international events
(e.g., cultural and sports events). For instance, Mercille (2005) ar-
gues that the media inuenced tourists' views of Tibet. Likewise,
Kladou and Mavragani (2015) report the role of social media in
inuencing the image of Istanbul. According to Nadeau et al. (2008)
and Smith (2005), a city image can be related to sporting events.
Destination image is thus considered a key factor in under-
standing tourists' post-purchase behaviour (Bigne
, Sa

nchez, &
Sa
nchez, 2001). Buhalis (2000) says that the image a tourist has
of a particular destination before visiting is a determinant factor in
his decision-making process. Conrming this view, Ahmed (1991)
states that the establishment of a positive destination image de-
termines a place's ability to attract and retain tourists. Thus, the
previously held image inuences the choice of tourism destinations
(Mathieson & Wall, 1982) and destinations with stronger positive
images have a higher likelihood of being selected (Johnson &
Thomas, 1992) and revisited (Kim & Lee, 2015).
When examining destination image, most studies (e.g., Baloglu
& McCleary, 1999; Echtner & Ritchie, 1993) focus on functional
and psychological attributes such as landscape/surroundings, na-
ture, cultural attractions, nightlife and entertainment, shopping
facilities, residents' receptiveness, and safety (Gallarza, Saura, &
Garcia, 2002). Nadeau et al. (2008) report that natural environ-
ment beliefs (about scenery, wilderness, and activities) and built
environment beliefs (about nightlife, shopping, and sports) have
positive signicant effects on destination evaluation (memorability,
satisfaction, etc.). Bigne
Alcaniz et al. (2009) examine the
56 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
functional-psychological continuum of a cognitive image and
analyse its relationship with a destination's overall image and
behavioural intentions. Functional components include more
tangible or measurable characteristics such as shopping facilities,
local transport, sports facilities, and historic sites/museums. Psy-
chological components refer to more abstract and intangible
characteristics such as friendliness, hospitality, and tranquillity. The
authors report positive signicant effects of functional components
on overall image and intention to return, and positive effects of the
psychological dimension on overall image and intention to
recommend.
San Martin and Rodriguez del Bosque (2008) report that past
studies adopted one of two main approaches when investigating
the concept of tourist destination image: the cognitive or the af-
fective approach. Recent studies in the tourism eld propose that
positioning tourism destinations can be realized at two levels: the
cognitive image level, which refers to the rational benets (attri-
butes) of the destination; and the affective image level, which re-
fers to tourists' feelings toward (affective-emotional reactions
associated to) the destination (Hosany et al., 2006; San Martin &
Rodriguez del Bosque, 2008). Although affective and cognitive di-
mensions are recognized as key components of destination image
(e.g., Hosany et al., 2006), several studies on tourism image
consider only the cognitive aspect and overlook the affective one
(Echtner & Ritchie, 1993; Walmsley & Young, 1998). Recent studies,
however, argue that a better understanding of the destination im-
age ensues when simultaneously considering cognitive and affec-
tive aspects.
Both cognitive and affective aspects of destination image have
different roles and their impacts vary according to specic cir-
cumstances. Because the image concept is subjective (Bigne
et al.,
2001), individuals' perceptions of the tourist destination image
tend to vary greatly (Gartner, 1993). Kim, McKercher, and Lee
(2009), for example, measure Korean perceptions of Australia at
three points in timedbefore, during, and after visitsdand nd that
the affective image is more volatile than the cognitive image. They
contend that tourists' perceptions of affective images tend to vary
more easily since they relate to emotional conditions or situations
on a tour itinerary. On the other hand, cognitive images tend to last
longer because they are formed on the basis of pre-acquired
knowledge of a tourism destination. In addition, the cognitive im-
age has a signicant impact on the affective one (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999). In line with this view, Russell (1980) stipulates
that individuals rst rely on the information that they collect about
the destination environment and then develop a state of emotion
towards that destination. Thus, according to the author, the
cognitive image precedes the affective one.
2.2. Destination personality
While destination image has been the focus of tourism research
for several decades, destination personality has received less
attention from researchers (see Table 1) because the concept is
quite new in the tourism eld (Hosany et al., 2006). Positioning
destinations on the basis of their functional attributes makes them
less distinguishable and easily substitutable. Therefore, using
additional traits and selling propositions such as destination per-
sonality may contribute in differentiating tourism places and
encouraging tourists (Baloglu et al., 2014; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006;
Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). Destination marketers use destination
personality to differentiate and position their branded cities in a
highly competitive tourism marketplace (Chen & Phou, 2013). As a
matter of fact, destination personality is becoming a more viable
metaphor for destination branding and positioning (Chen & Phou,
2013).
One of the most known models for investigating personality
traits is the Big Five Model (Digman, 1990). Its ve factors are
openness to experience (e.g., people's appreciation of art, adven-
ture, curiosity, etc.), conscientiousness (e.g., people's consideration
of others when making decisions, their self-discipline, strive for
achievement), extraversion (e.g., people's interest in other people
and external events, etc.), agreeableness (e.g., people's compati-
bility with other people, their concern for social harmony, kindness
and generosity, etc.) and neuroticism (e.g., shows people's negative
emotions such as anger, anxiety, or depression, emotional reactivity
and vulnerability to stress, etc.). Building on the Big Five model of
human personality, Aaker (1997) has proposed the Brand Person-
ality Scale (BPS) that better describes the personality attributes of
products and brands. Since then, Aaker's (1997) scale has been
widely employed as a measure of product brand personality.
Aaker (1997, p. 347) denes brand personality as the set of
human characteristics associated with a brand. Brand personality
contributes to the development of positive brand evaluation, brand
preferences, brand trust, brand affect, and brand loyalty (Biel, 1983;
Sung & Kim, 2010). It is a central component of brand identity,
which is the brand meaning that a rm wants to covey to its target
consumers. Brand image, however, is the consumers' interpretation
of the brand's identity (Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009). Aca-
demics argue that brand personality is best comprehended form
the sender's viewpoint, whereas brand image is best understood
form the receiver's-view-point (Geuens et al., 2009). Also, brand
personality refers to symbolic function of a brand, whereas brand
image refers to both symbolic and functional benets (Keller, 1993).
Aaker (1997) reports ve dimensions and fteen facets of brand
personality: sincerity (down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, and
cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-
date), competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful), sophisti-
cation (upper class and charming), and ruggedness (outdoorsy and
tough). For Sung and Kim (2010), the excitement and sophistication
dimensions are more related to brand affect than to brand trust;
whereas ruggedness and sincerity are more linked to brand trust
than to brand affect. In turn, trust in brand reliability and brand
affect are drivers of both attitudinal and behavioural brand loyalty
(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
The role of brand personality has been emphasized in the
marketing and management literature (e.g., Aaker, 1997; Freling &
Forbes, 2005; Lin, 2010; Louis & Lombart, 2010). For instance,
Plummer (1985) claims that for many product categories, brand
personality is a key factor in understanding brand preferences. Lin
(2010) reports positive relationships between brand personality
dimensions and brand loyalty. Freling and Forbes (2005) nd that a
favourable brand personality is linked to more favourable brand
associations and product evaluations. They conclude that devel-
oping a distinctive brand personality improves brand equity. Louis
and Lombart (2010) demonstrate that brand personality is related
to trust in the brand, attachment, and commitment to the brand.
Based on Aaker's framework, Ekinci and Hosany (2006, p. 128)
dene destination personality as the set of human characteristics
associated with a destination as perceived from a tourist view-
point. Some destinations succeeded in developing clear person-
ality traits. For instance, Spain is known as friendly and family-
oriented, London as open-minded, unorthodox, vibrant, and crea-
tive, and Paris as romantic (Morgan & Pritchard, 2002; cited in;
Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Conrming this view, Ekinci and Hosany
(2006, p. 129) argue that tourism destinations are rich in terms
of symbolic values and personality traits, given that they consist of
a bundle of tangible and intangible components (e.g., visitor at-
tractions, hotels, and people) associated with particular values,
histories, events, and feelings.
Several studies consider the application of brand personality in
Table 1
A summary of selected studies that have investigated destination personality.
Study
Zeugner-Roth and

Zabkar (2015)
Hultman et al. (2015)
Kim and Lee (2015)
Kumar and Nayak, 2014
Baloglu et al. (2014)
Xie and Lee (2013)
Objectives
To develop a holistic model of
country-of-origin image (COI)
and destination image (DI) and
test the relative importance of
cognitive, affective, and symbolic
country connotations in
predicting consumers' behavioral
intentions.
To examine the relationships
between destination personality,
tourist satisfaction, destination
identication, positive word-of-
mouth and revisit intentions.
To examine the relationship
between city image and city
personality
To develop a scale for measuring
destination personality of India.
To examines Jamaica's
destination image and
personality characteristics, and
their relationships with future
tourist behavior.
To examine the relationships
among cognitive destination
image, destination personality,
and behavioral intention.
Sample
Data was collected via a major
international research agency
maintaining global representative
probability-based online panels.
The nal sample used for the
analysis comprised 411.
Data was collected from 490
Taiwanese residents using street
intercept method
302 responses (random
sampling) were collected using a
web-based survey in South Korea.
A two-phase study was
conducted. In the rst phase, a
sample of 177 visitors was used
and in the second phase, a sample
of 152 visitors was used to rene
the scale.
312 responses were collected
(convenience sampling) from
tourists, most of them intercepted
around the cruise terminal in
Ocho Rios, Jamaica.
Data were collected from 497
foreign tourists who were visiting
Beijing (convenience sampling)
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics; Structural
equation modeling
Descriptive statistics; Exploratory
and conrmatory factor analysis;
Structural equation modeling
Exploratory and conrmatory
factor analysis; Structural
equation modeling
Exploratory (qualitative) and
descriptive (quantitative)
Content analysis and subgroup
analysis
Exploratory and conrmatory
factor analysis; Structural
equation modeling
Destination personality measure
Country personality was
originally measured with the 24-
item scale of d'Astous and Boujbel
(2007). One item mysterious
was discarded, leaving 23 items
for the subsequent analyses:
Agreeableness, Wickedness,
Snobbism, Assiduousness,
Conformity and Unobtrusiveness.
Destination personality was
measured by 26 items based on
Aaker (1997) and Hosany et al.
(2006)
City personality was measured by
14 items adopted form Aaker
(1997) and Ekinci and Hosany
(2006).
Items of destination personality
were derived from previous
studies on human personality and
from in-depth interviews
conducted with foreigners
visiting India.
29 personality items were mainly
adopted from Aaker (1997) and
Hosany et al. (2006) and
complemented by the ndings
from the content analysis of
brochures and Internet sites.
20 personality traits were
adopted from Aaker (1997).
Main ndings
Overall, affective, and symbolic
image dimensions complement
and outperform cognitive
dimensions. Not all six
personality dimensions have
signicant impact on behavioral
intentions. Depending on the
context, one to three dimensions
are relevant across the study's
models. Country personality
better predicts behavioral
intentions than country
cognitions.
N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
Six dimensions of destination
personality were identied:
excitement, sophistication,
activeness, ruggedness,
dependability, and philoxenia
(the opposite of xenophobia).
Destination personality positively
inuences destination
satisfaction, destination
identication, promoting, and
revisit intentions.
City personality is a
tridimensional construct,
including excitement,
sophistication, and sincerity.
Positive relationships are
reported between the dynamic
image of a city and the
personality dimensions of
excitement and sophistication. A
negative relationship is reported
between the sincerity dimension
and the dynamic image of a city.
City image has a positive impact
on revisit intentions.
Destination personality of India is
a multidimensional construct
composed of six key dimensions:
courteousness, vibrancy,
conformity, liveliness,
viciousness, and tranquility.
Brand image components
(cognitive and affective) and
destination personality have
varying impacts on global image
and behavioral intentions of rst-
time and repeat visitors.
Destination personality includes
four dimensions: excitement,
sophistication, competence, and
ruggedness. Destination
personality inuences word-of-
mouth intentions and willingness
57
to pay more.
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued )
Study Objectives
Kim and Lehto (2013) To examine the relationship
between the perceived and
projected destination brand
personalities of South Korea
through a combination of
qualitative and quantitative
assessment.
Lee and Kang (2013) To investigate the impact of
destination personality, cuisine
experience and psychological
well-being on tourists' revisit
intentions to a hot springs
destination in Taiwan.
Kili and Sop (2012) To investigate the perceived
destination personality of
Bodrum (in Turkey) and the
relationship among destination
personality, self-congruity, and
loyalty.
Usakli and Baloglu To investigate the relationships
(2011) among destination personality,
self-congruity, and tourist's
behavioral intentions.
Lee et al. (2010)
Sample
A survey was conducted in the
United States. 480 questionnaires
were collected through two
different methods: a web-based
(358 participants were selected
from a database provided by the
university's Alumni Association)
and an intercept survey (122
participants were intercepted at
shopping malls and campuses
located in a Midwestern city in
the United States).
The study was undertaken in one
of Taiwan's hot springs
destinations. The nal sample
comprised 315 domestic tourists
(i.e., Taiwanese).
226 domestic tourists (i.e.,
Turkish) staying at a hotel in
Bodrum (a Turkish city).
Approximately 80% of the
respondents are repeat visitors to
the destination.
368 questionnaires were
collected from visitors in front of
one of the largest casino hotels in
Las Vegas.
Data were collected over the
Internet by a large online panel
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics; Exploratory
factor analysis
Descriptive statistics, Exploratory
factor analysis, Conrmatory
factor analysis; Structural
equation modeling.
Exploratory factor analysis,
Regression analysis
Descriptive statistics; Exploratory
factor analysis; Regression
analysis
Descriptive statistics
Destination personality measure
100 personality traits selected; 39
destination personality traits
retained representing 7
dimensions: family orientation,
sincerity, competence,
uniqueness, excitement,
ruggedness, sophistication.
18 traits selected; 18 traits
retained covering four
dimensions: ingenious, healthy,
noble, and nostalgic.
38 personality traits selected, 17
traits retained representing 4
destination personality
dimensions.
29 personality traits were
selected; 24 traits retained
covering 5 dimensions: vibrancy,
sophistication, competence,
contemporary, and sincerity.
24 traits covering 8 dimensions of
destination personality: trendy,
58
Main ndings
Cognitive image (natural
environment, built environment,
socially responsible environment,
and local people) impacts some
dimensions of destination
personality. For instance, socially
responsible environment has
positive effects on sophistication
and competence.
Competence and family
orientation were identied as the
dominant personality traits that
the U.S. consumers associate with
South Korea.
N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
The study revealed differences
between projected
(communicated) and perceived
destination personality.
Destination personality, cuisine
experience and psychological
well-being were important
determinants of revisit intention.
Destination personality was
considered as an exogenous
latent variable while
psychological well-being and
cuisine experience were found to
be mediating variables between
destination personality and
revisit intention.
The perceived destination
personality dimensions of
Bodrum are dynamism,
competence, sophistication, and
sincerity. The latter is the most
distinct dimension of personality
that has a positive impact on
loyalty to destination.
The sincerity and dynamism
dimensions have positive effects
on intentions to recommend the
destination. Only the sincerity
dimension has a signicant and
positive effect on intention to
revisit.
The ve destination personality
dimensions identied in this
study have positive impacts on
travelers' intention to return and
intention to recommend.
Self-congruity was found to have
a partial mediator role between
destination personality and
tourist's behavioral intentions.
BWS is reported to be a useful and
a powerful alternative approach
 To use the Best Worst Scaling
(BWS) in order to measure
destination personality.
Hosany, Ekinci, and To examine the relationship
Uysal (2007) between brand image and brand
personality in the context of
tourism destinations.
Ekinci et al. (2007) To investigate the impact of host
image on destination personality
and the impact of the latter on
intent to return and word-of-
mouth. In other words, the role of
destination personality as a
mediating variable between host
image and intent to return and
word-of-mouth was assessed.
Murphy et al. (2007) To examine the relationships
between tourists' needs
(motivations), brand personality
perceptions, self-congruity and
behavioral intentions (intention
to revisit or repeat), and
satisfaction.
Murphy et al. (2007) To investigate whether tourists
could use brand personality
perceptions to differentiate
between destinations.
Hosany et al. (2006) To investigate the relationship
between destination image and
destination personality.
provider with members in
Australia, Germany, Brazil, and
South Korea. Respondents were
recruited by email and the nal
sample sizes ranged from 209 in
South Korea to 220 in Germany.
No further information was
provided on the number of
respondents from Brazil and
Australia.
Study 1e148 questionnaires were
collected in the United Kingdom
(UK) in three different cities.
British respondents were asked to
recall their recent tourist
destination visited outside the
UK.
Study 2e102 British tourists
waiting for their return ight
after visiting a European city.
365 German travelers to Turkey.
277 international and domestic
visitors to North Queensland
464 international and domestic
visitors to North Queensland.
A personally administered survey
was carried out in three different
cities in the United Kingdom. 148
usable questionnaires were
collected from British nationals.
Participants were asked to recall
their experiences about the most
Exploratory factor analysis;
Conrmatory factor analysis;
Canonical correlation analysis
Descriptive statistics; Exploratory
factor analysis; Multiple
regression analysis, Cluster
analysis
Descriptive statistics; Exploratory
factor analysis; Paired t-test and
independent t-test
Exploratory factor analysis; OLS
regression; Canonical correlation
analysis
likeable, sophisticated,
competent, ragged, lively,
genuine, and peaceful.
Study 1e27 personality traits; 13
traits retained representing three
destination personality
dimensions: sincerity,
excitement, and conviviality.
Study 2e13 personality traits; 11
traits retained, representing the
three dimensions identied in
study 1.
20 personality traits selected; 20
traits retained, representing four
dimensions: sophistication-
competence, sincerity,
excitement, and conviviality.
20 personality traits selected; 20
traits retained, for the rst
destination, representing four
dimensions: sophistication-
competence, sincerity,
excitement, and ruggedness.
20 traits retained, for the second
destination, representing three
dimensions: sincerity-
competence, sophistication, and
excitement-ruggedness.
27 items selected. No information
on the number of items retained;
three dimensions: sincerity,
excitement, and conviviality.
to measuring destination
personality.
Destination image and
destination personality were
found to be related concepts.
Canonical correlation analyses
reveal that the emotional
component of destination image
captures the majority of variances
N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
on destination personality
dimensions.
Three dimensions of destination
personality were identied:
conviviality, sincerity, and
excitement. Host image was
reported to have a positive
impact at a varying degree on
each of the destination
personality dimensions. The
latter were also found to have a
positive inuence on intent to
return and word of mouth.
Respondents were found to be
able to make an association
between destination and
destination brand personality.
The results offer only a partial
support to the hypothesized
relationships between the study
key variables (motivations, brand
personality, self-congruity,
behavioral intentions, and
satisfaction).
Respondents were found to be
able to use personality
descriptors to differentiate
between destinations.
By using a canonical correlation,
destination image and
destination personality were
found to be related concepts. The
emotional component of
destination image captures the
majority of variances on
59
(continued on next page)
 60 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70

the tourism eld (Baloglu et al., 2014; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006;

The effect of destination image on

have stronger personalities. Thus,

destination image on intention to

tourists' intention to recommend.
Hosany et al., 2006; Hultman, Skarmeas, Oghazi, & Beheshti,

particular, conviviality (the only

and intention to recommend. In
found to have a positive impact
on perceived destination image
The perception of destination

impact of cognitive image on

intention to recommend was

2015; Kim & Lee, 2015; Murphy et al., 2007; Usakli & Baloglu,

destinations are perceived to

excitement, and conviviality.
personality was found to be

Destination personality was

dimension) moderated the


2011; Xie & Lee, 2013; Zeugner-Roth & Zabkar, 2015) and Aaker's
tridimensional: sincerity,

found to be higher when

moderates the impact of

destination personality

destination personality

destination personality
scale has been extensively used as a proxy measure of destination
personality (e.g., Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Murphy et al., 2007).
However, because both the Big Five Model and Aaker's (1997) BPS
Main ndings

recommend.
dimensions.

were not originally developed to measure destination brand per-

sonality, some personality traits that apply to a person or a product
brand were found to be irrelevant for a country. Put differently, the
relevance and stability of the ve factors were not conclusive when
applied to cities, countries or destinations in general. Applying
Aaker's brand personality scale, Ekinci and Hosany (2006) nd that
Destination personality measure

tourists ascribe (people) personality traits to tourism destinations,

excitement, and conviviality.
retained, representing three
27 items selected; 11 traits

reporting three dimensions of destination personality: sincerity

(reliable, sincere, intelligent, successful, and wholesome), excite-
dimensions: sincerity,

ment (exciting, daring, original, and spirited), and conviviality

(friendly, family-oriented, charming). They also test the moderating
effect of the three dimensions on the effects of cognitive and af-
fective image on intention to recommend and report only a sig-
nicant moderating impact of conviviality on the effect of cognitive
image on intention to recommend. Murphy et al. (2007) stipulate
that tourists are able to rate destinations (two popular tourism
destinations in Queensland, Australia) and differentiate them on
Descriptive statistics, Exploratory

the basis of brand personality traits. However, they state that the
moderator regression analysis
factor analysis; Conrmatory
factor analysis; Hierarchical

brand personality dimensions are not stable across the two desti-
nations. In a more recent study, Usakli and Baloglu (2011) nd that
destination personality has a positive impact on tourists' intention
to recommend. Despite this emphasis on destination personality,
there are still few studies on understanding its role and importance
Data analysis

in destination branding. Murphy et al. write:

Despite this growing body of work on destination branding in
general, particularly at a country or nation level, there has been
little investigation of whether or not tourists do attribute brand
personality characteristics to tourism destinations and, if so, this
destination outside the UK within

different locations: three UK cities

Sample 2: n 102). There was no

respondents were used and the

inuences their travel behaviour (2007, p. 48).

collected (Sample 1: n 148;

samples, thus both data were

study was conducted at four

lounge of a major European

(Sample 1) and a departure

comparison between both

250 questionnaires were

2.3. The impact of destination image on destination personality

recently visited tourism

Two samples of British

the last three months.

airport (Sample 2).

Hosany et al. (2006) argue that while several studies have

attempted to explain both concepts, there is much ambiguity sur-
rounding the relationship between brand image and brand per-
combined.

sonality. Both concepts were used interchangeably in the literature

Sample

(e.g., Graeff, 1997; Upshaw, 1995). For Hosany et al. (2006), brand
personality and the affective component of brand image are inter-
related. This opinion is further supported by Hosany et al.s (2006)
and Hosany, Ekinci and Uysal's (2007) studies stipulating that the
affective component of image can be associated with some di-
attribute personality traits to
To identify whether tourists

mensions of destination personality (i.e., sincerity, excitement, and

conviviality). However, they add that a fuzzy conceptualization and
tourism destinations.

a lack of empirical studies have hindered the understanding of the

relationship between brand image and brand personality. In fact,
there is no general agreement on their causal relationship (e.g.,
Objectives

Heylen, Dawson, & Sampson, 1995; Kapferer, 1997; Patterson, 1999;

Plummer, 1985).
Hosany et al. (2006) investigate the association between desti-
nation personality and destination image by using a canonical
correlation. Their ndings support previous studies (e.g., Patterson,
1999; Plummer, 1985) to merely indicate that both concepts are
Ekinci and Hosany
Table 1 (continued )

related. They report that two sub-scales of destination image (i.e.,

affective and accessibility) are found to be signicantly correlated
to three sub-scales of destination personality (i.e., sincerity,
(2006)

excitement, and conviviality). Their empirical study shows that

Study

destination personality is more related to the affective dimension of

destination image. The same result is reported in Hosany et al.s
 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
(2007) study where brand personality was found to be strongly
related to the affective component of brand image. More recently,
Chen and Phou (2013) nd that destination cognitive image in-
uences destination personality, a result that is also conrmed by
Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk, and Baloglu (2007) who report that desti-
nation image has an impact on destination personality dimensions
(sincerity, conviviality, and excitement). In the same vein, Xie and
Lee (2013) conrm that destination cognitive image (natural
environment, built environment, socially responsible environment,
and local people) inuences destination personality components
(excitement, sophistication, ruggedness, and competence). Kim and
Lee (2015), however, nd that city personality (excitement,
sincerity and sophistication) inuences three dimensions of city
image, namely dynamic image, specic image and stable image.
Also, Apostolopoulou and Papadimitriou (2015) nd that destina-
tion personality (i.e., excitement and sincerity) has a signicant
impact on the destination's overall image and tourists' visiting
intention.
Since prior studies report that the affective component is closely
related to the brand personality dimension and in order to avoid
overlapping concepts ((i.e., multicollinearity issue), the present
study only retains the cognitive dimension as a measure for
destination image. On the other hand, we believe that the affective
aspect can be captured by some dimensions of destination per-
sonality (e.g., authenticity, warming, charming, appealing, up-to-
date, fascinating, reliable, friendly, leader, and trustworthy). For
instance, and for Pallud and Straub (2007), authenticity in tourism
and museum studies can be considered as an affective state. In the
hospitality literature, Han and Jeong (2013) report sentimentality
(i.e., loving, romantic, sentimental) as one of the four dimensions of
patrons' affective reactions to upscale restaurant service quality.
Fig. 1. Conceptual and alternative models.
61
They nd that restaurant image has a signicant positive effect on
sentimentality. Also, trust is considered as an affective attitude
(Jones, 1996). Similarly, it is known that warm-hearted, appealing,
and sentimental are affectively-based attitudes (e.g., Richins, 1997).
In other words, we do acknowledge that the perceived destination's
personality traits, such as sentimental, charming, exciting,
romantic, and spirited may (partially) cover the perceived affective
image.
As for the conceptualization of the relationship between desti-
nation personality and destination image, we propose to use the
widely recognized cognitive-affective-conative attitude model of
Fishbein (1967) (see Fig. 1). This conceptualization, stipulating that
attitude is formed on the basis of cognitive, affective, and behav-
ioural components, has dominated the marketing and consumer
psychology literature. Additionally, Chen and Phou (2013) nd
support for the attitude theory in the tourism industry. Hence, the
present study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Destination image has a positive signicant impact on
destination personality.
2.4. The impact of destination personality on attitude
An attitude toward a destination is the opiniondfavourable,
unfavourable or neutraldthat a tourist has about the destination.
White (2004) states that attitude towards a destination is a key
factor in explaining the inuence a place may have on tourists'
decision-making. Merrilees, Miller, and Herington (2009) report
that city brand attitudes are mainly determined by social bonds,
brand personality, and business creativity. Other less important
determinants of city brand attitudes include safety, nature, cultural
62 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
activities, and shopping facilities. Chen and Phou (2013) nd that
destination personality inuences destination satisfaction. Murphy
et al. (2007) report that tourists' perceptions of self-congruity (i.e.
congruity between self-image and destination personality) inu-
ence their satisfaction. Bartikowski, Merunka, and Valette-Florence
(2008) employ destination personality as a segmentation criterion
of destination preferences to understand individuals' attitudes to-
wards a particular destination. They nd that within each segment,
and on the basis of the self-congruency concept, individuals' atti-
tudes vary greatly. While studies linking destination personality to
destination attitude are scarce, studies investigating brand per-
sonality and brand attitude are relatively abundant, and report the
existence of a signicant relationship between both concepts (e.g.,
Freling & Forbes, 2005; Kim, Magnini, Singal, 2011; Lee & Kang,
2013). For instance, Lee and Kang (2013) nd that brand person-
ality affects brand relationship and brand attitude. Freling and
Forbes (2005) report that brand personality is associated with
more favourable brand evaluations. Kim et al. (2011) conclude that
a restaurant's brand personality has a signicant impact on brand
preferences and attitudinal brand loyalty. More recently, Hultman
et al. (2015) report that destination personality has a positive ef-
fect on tourist satisfaction, tourist destination identication and
revisit intentions. Therefore, the present study proposes the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Destination personality has a positive and signicant
impact on attitude toward the destination.
2.5. The impact of attitudes on behavioural intentions
Behavioural intentions can be favourable or unfavourable.
Favourable behavioural intentions include saying positive things
about the brand or the company, purchasing or repurchasing in-
tentions, and paying premium price for the brand (or to the com-
pany). Unfavourable behavioural intentions include spreading
negative word-of-mouth, taking legal actions, and not purchasing
the brand (i.e., exit) (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996).
Visiting intentions (Chon, 1990), positive word-of-mouth (or
recommendation) (Chon, 1991; Jalilvand, Samiei, Dini, & Yaghoubi
Manzari, 2012), and destination loyalty (Chi & Qu, 2008; Kim,
Holland, & Han, 2013; Liu, Lin, & Wang, 2012) are among the
common tourist behavioural intentions researchers consider in the
tourism sector. The present study focuses on the rst two for the
following reasons. First, visiting intentions and recommendations
(WOM) are the two most important behavioural consequences
elicited by destination image (Bigne
Alcan
~ iz et al., 2005; Bigne

et al.,
2001; Qu et al., 2011). Yoon and Uysal (2005) stipulate that word-
of-mouth matters in tourism marketing because tourists consider
it the most reliable source of information. Also, Baloglu and
McCleary (1999) nd that word-of-mouth has a signicant effect
on the cognitive evaluation of the destination (quality of experi-
ence, attraction, and value/environment) and its overall image.
Second, while satised tourists are more willing to share their
positive journey experience with their friends and relatives (e.g.,
Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Kozak, 2001; Yau & Chan, 1990; Yoon
& Uysal, 2005), they are less inclined to revisit the same destination
(i.e., have low destination loyalty). According to Ekinci and Hosany
(2006) as well as Kozak and Rimmington (2000), intention to re-
turn behaviour is not important for tourism destinations because
many tourists seek variety. We argue that measuring visiting
intention rather than tourists' post-visit opinions is important to
marketers since it allows for proactive initiatives rather than
reactive ones.
Lee (2001) stipulates that referrals and positive word-of-mouth
(WOM) may increase the number of tourists who visit a particular
destination. Conrming this view, Petrick (2004) nds that affec-
tive loyalty and word-of-mouth have a positive and signicant
relationship. Simpson and Siguaw (2008) nd that satised tourists
tend to promote a destination because of their desire to help others
(altruism), to appear travel-wise (instrumentalism), or to reassure
themselves and others about destination selection (cognitive
dissonance reduction).
In the marketing literature, attitude has been shown to be
related to behavioural intentions. The theory of planned behaviour
stipulates that individual behavioural intentions are inuenced by
attitudes, perceived behavioural controls toward behaviour, and
subjective norms (Ajzen, 1985). While Lam and Hsu (2006) nd no
signicant link between attitude and behavioural intention of
choosing a travel destination, many other studies support the
relationship between attitudes and destination choice (e.g., Um &
Crompton, 1990), attitudes and overall satisfaction (overall
impression, overall performance), and attitudes and tourist
behavioural intentions (Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005; Yoon & Uysal, 2005).
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3. Attitude toward a destination has a positive and
signicant impact on behavioural intentions.
2.6. Conceptual model and competing models
The conceptual model (see Fig. 1) postulates that destination
image has an impact on destination personality, which in turn in-
uences destination attitude. The latter has an impact on behav-
ioural intentions. The literature review, however, reveals that there
exist different conceptualizations of the causal relationship be-
tween destination image and destination personality. For instance,
Ekinci et al. (2007), Chen and Phou (2013) and Xie and Lee (2013)
argue that destination image inuences destination personality. On
the other hand, authors such as Kim and Lee (2015) and
Apostolopoulou and Papadimitriou (2015) contend that destination
personality inuences destination image. Taking into consideration
these different approaches, the present study assesses four alter-
native models (see Fig. 1) and compares them to the conceptual
model. The rst alternative model proposes an additional path from
image to attitude. Accordingly, destination image has direct and
indirect effects, through destination personality, on attitude. The
second alternative model shows direct and independent paths from
image and destination personality to attitudes, stipulating that
destination personality and image are two independent constructs.
The third alternative model shows that destination personality has
an indirect effect, through destination image, on attitude. The last
alternative model considers that destination personality has both a
direct and indirect effect, through destination image, on attitude.
3. Methodology
3.1. The study context
In order to examine the interplay between destination image
and destination personality and their impacts on visitors' behav-
ioural intentions, the study opts to focus on the city of Dubai. Forty
years ago, Dubai was a small unknown city. However, since the
mid-90s, it has positioned itself as a commercial and tourist hub. It
is now recognized as a trendsetting city and one of the most classy
and futuristic destinations in the world that showcases an exclusive
exotic tourism experience (Lee & Jain, 2009). Coombe and Melki
(2012, p. 58) add that Dubai has built a globally resonant place
brand image out of an unknown location in the context of often
negative regional associations. The success of Dubai as a brand is
based on the total value that it offers to visitors, encompassing
 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
economic, functional and psychological benets (Lee & Jain, 2009).
Perhaps, the most striking characteristic of Dubai is its luxurious
image. In their study, Coombe and Melki (2012) contend that over
75 per cent of participants associate the image of Dubai to glam-
orous lifestyle, luxury and modernity. Conrming this view, Lee and
Jain (2009) argue that Dubai has succeeded in developing an image
of a total customer experience and promoted itself as a luxurious
tourist city that meets the demand of high-income visitors. For
them, Dubai has differentiated its positioning by not replicating
what other competitive destinations are offering. This strategy has
enabled it to develop a unique brand identity and offer a unique
value proposition. However, Bagaeen (2007) contends that Dubai
has spent billions of dollars to become a tourist destination that
combines in one package the offerings of New York, Las Vegas and
Miami. In other words, Dubai replicates what other destinations
already have. In line with this view, Balakrishnan (2008) stipulates
that Dubai is associated with several images which do not
authentically reect its image. Likewise, Govers and Go (2005, p.
86) conclude that Dubai's image as a destination does not coher-
ently reect its true cultural identity. This opinion is conrmed by
Govers, Go, and Kumar (2007) who report that travellers often held
inaccurate image of Dubai. They add that the majority of re-
spondents had difculty describing Dubai and most of them re-
ported common image descriptions (e.g., hot, Arab, Desert,
Muslim). Additionally, Coombe and Melki (2012) claim that along
with Dubai's achievements as a luxury city, its image is tarnished
with less desirable features related to labour disputes, sex scandals,
and terrorism concerns.
As mentioned earlier, multiple and short-lived images as well as
inconsistent images may lead to some confusion in the perception
of the city. However, we argue that, over time, all these different
images should blend together to create and reinforce a stable per-
sonality trait for the city of Dubai. In other words, Dubai's desti-
nation image contributes to build its personality. Hence, the case of
Dubai is deemed to be the most appropriate to test the study's
hypotheses.
3.2. The questionnaire
To collect data, a questionnaire that has four parts was devel-
oped. The rst part includes a set of statements about respondents'
general travelling experience, reasons for travelling, and sources of
information about trip destinations. The second part includes a set
of statements referring to Dubai as a specic destination and probes
respondent familiarity with that destination and their sources of
information on that city. In the third part, respondents were asked
for their opinions on a list of statements about (a) Dubai's perceived
image, (b) Dubai's perceived personality, (c) their attitude towards
Dubai, and (d) their behavioural intentions (i.e., Dubai visiting in-
tentions and recommendations). All these statements were
measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1: Strongly disagree to 5:
Strongly agree). In the last section of the questionnaire, re-
spondents were asked to provide socio-demographic characteris-
tics such as their age, gender, marital status, education, and annual
income.
According to the literature on branding, the brand personality
scale comprises ve dimensions: sincerity, excitement, compe-
tence, sophistication, and ruggedness (Aaker, 1997). The brand
marketing literature agrees with previous studies on the multidi-
mensionality of the destination personality construct, but there is
no real consensus on the number, nature, and content of its di-
mensions. The same disagreement appears in the tourism literature
(Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). Usakli and Baloglu
(2011) nd that destination personality has ve dimensions:
vibrancy, sophistication, competence, sincerity, and contemporary.
63
Ekinci and Hosany (2006), however, in applying Aaker's scale,
report only three salient dimensions to destination personality
(sincerity, excitement, and conviviality). Murphy et al. (2007)
conclude that Aaker's ve-dimensional personality model does
not apply to tourism destinations. Considering these mixed results
about the dimensionality of destination personality, the present
study retains the 14 items of Aaker's scale that are most likely to
capture the personality traits of a destination: authentic, conser-
vative, upper-class, modern, warming, charming, appealing, up-to-
date, fascinating, reliable, unique, friendly, leader, and trustworthy.
It should be noted that Murphy et al.s study (2007) and Kim and
Lee (2015) use a battery of 14 traits from Aaker (1997). Another
reason justifying the non-use of the entire list of 42 Aaker-scale
items, and in line with Murphy et al.s (2007) approach, is to
reduce the risk of respondents' fatigue.
For destination image, 13 items were mainly derived from
Passow, Fehlmann, and Grahlow (2005) and Martin and Eroglu
(1993). Examples are: Dubai has a good infrastructure (roads,
telecommunication services, etc.), Dubai has a well-developed in-
dustrial sector, and Dubai has a high standard of living. Items
measuring respondents' attitudes towards Dubai were mainly
adopted from Passow et al. (2005), while those measuring re-
spondents' visiting intentions and recommendations were derived
and adapted from Baker and Churchill's (1977) and Putrevu and
Lord's (1994) studies. Examples of items measuring respondents'
attitudes are: I have a favourable opinion about Dubai and I love
Dubai. Examples of items measuring visiting intentions and rec-
ommendations are: I look forward to visiting Dubai, I actively seek
information about Dubai in order to visit it, and I strongly recom-
mend people to visit Dubai.
3.3. The sample
Because respondents had to be tourists or potential tourists
looking for trip destinations and in order to reach an audience
interested in the research topic, the questionnaire was hosted by
some popular online forums of websites related to travel and
tourism (e.g., Routard.com and voyageforum.com). Generally,
people logging on to these forums are travellers or potential trav-
ellers looking for a destination or nalizing a trip program. This
would somehow guarantee that respondents are familiar with
travelling. In the questionnaire, it was specied that respondents
should be Canadian residents. No other restriction was made on the
participation in the survey. This convenience sampling technique
led to a pool of 173 Canadians, a sample that is quite comparable to
those of some previous studies on destination personality (e.g.,
Hosany et al., 2006, p. 148 respondents). In addition and contrary to
some previous research (e.g., Simpson & Siguaw, 2008), our study
does not use a student sample. Instead, tourists or potential tourists
were approached. Forty-three percent of the sample was between
26 and 35 years old, followed by those between 36 and 50 (38%), 51
and 60 (10%), under 26 (8%) and above 60 (1%). Respondents were
evenly split in gender and the majority was married (75%) and had
a university degree (87%). As for their annual income, 45% reported
that they earned less than Canadian $40,000; 25% between $40,000
and $59,999, and 29% above $60,000. Seventy-nine percent of re-
spondents agreed that media (e.g., Internet, TV advertising, TV
documentary programs) were a primary source of information,
followed by word-of-mouth (53%). But 80% of respondents dis-
agreed that travel agencies play an important role in providing
information about Dubai.
Descriptive statistics on respondents' travelling information,
experience, motivations and intentions (see Table 2) reveal that the
majority of them are frequent travellers (57.8%). They often decide
on their trip destinations (76.3%) while agreeing that their
64 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70

Table 2
Descriptive information on respondents' travelling information, experience, motivations and intentions.

Descriptive information % Descriptive information %

I often travel. 57.8 Which one among the following destinations you wish to visit in the
I usually choose my trip destinations. 76.3 future (you can select more than one destination):
My trips are often for:
Tourism purpose (sightseeing, cultural, etc.) 65.3 Istanbul (in Turkey) 68.2
Study purpose 28.9 Dubai (in the United Arab Emirate) 59.5
Business purpose (conferences, trade fairs, etc.) 26.6 Paris (in France) 55.5
The choices of my destinations are (were) usually inuenced by: New York (in US) 52.6
Freinds' and relatives' recommandations (word-of mouth). 64.7 Bangkok (in Thailand) 45.6
The media (e.g., Internet, publicity, TV documentaries, etc.). 43.9 Beijing (in China) 42.2
The reading of some books and magazines on those destinations. 39.9 New Delhi (in India) 35.3
Travel agencies' recommendations. 13.3 In the past, I never heard of Dubai. 53.2
Today, I know Dubai. 68.2
Today, I have a good knowledge of Dubai. 71.1
Generally, I am interested in destinations offering: I have heard of Dubai through
A rich nature (e.g., mountains, desert, oasis, beaches, etc.). 78.6
A rich culture (e.g., historical and archeological sites). 63.5 The media (Internet, publicity, TV documentaries, etc.). 79.1
Adventures and unique experiences. 39.3 Word-of-mouth (e.g., friends and relatives). 52.6
Different events (festivals, sports events, cultural events, etc.). 27.1 Travel agencies. 11.5

decisions are inuenced by friends and relatives (64.7%). Also, the
majority of them report that their trips are mainly for tourism
purpose (65.3%) and seek destinations rich in nature (78.6%) and
culture (63.5%). With respect to their visit intentions, Dubai came in
the second place (59.5%), following Istanbul (68.2%) and preceding
Paris (55.5%) and New York (52.6%). When asked about their past
and present knowledge of Dubai, 53.2 percent stated that they
never heard of it in the past. However, in the present days, they
have a good knowledge of Dubai (71.1%) and that their main sources
of information are the media (79.1%) and friends and relatives (i.e.,
word-of-mouth) (52.6%).
4. Results
The study uses EQS 6.1 to analyse the data and test the hy-
potheses. Before a structural equation analysis, an exploratory
factor analysis and then a conrmatory factor analysis were con-
ducted on all the latent variables to check the dimensional

Table 3
Psychometric properties of measurement scales and correlation matrix (only retained items are reported).

Construct Descriptive CFA results Cronbach's AVE Correlations

stats alphas (rho)

Mean SD Factor Loadings CR DP1 DP2 AT BI

Destination image (DI) 0.88 0.50 0.536a 0.552a 0.531a 0.374a

Dubai is a beautiful place. 3.76 1.238 0.545 6.211 (0.89)
Dubai has a good infrastructure (roads, communication 4.09 1.019 0.795 8.587
services, etc.).
Dubai is a good place for businesses. 4.23 1.008 0.737 8.137
Dubai has a well-developed industrial sector. 3.54 1.065 0.563 6.583
Dubai is a safe place in which to invest. 4.12 1.005 0.764 8.307
Dubai has a high standard of living. 3.95 1.072 0.766 8.011
Dubai offers enjoyable entertainment activities. 3.97 1.008 0.796 8.293
Dubai is socially and culturally diverse. 3.60 1.171 0.644 e
Destination personality (DP1: Sentimental) 0.91 0.58 0.644a 0.736a 0.616a
Upper-class 3.35 1.288 0.594 7.486 (0.91)
Warming 2.92 1.183 0.740 11.651
Charming 3.18 1.288 0.850 10.716
Appealing 3.40 1.368 0.840 9.713
Up-to-date 3.95 1.132 0.859 10.885
Unique 3.73 1.230 0.684 8.661
Friendly 2.91 1.112 0.734 e
Destination personality (DP2: Competence) 0.79 0.580a 0.446a
Leader 3.46 1.213 0.885 e 0.88
Trustworthy 3.40 1.204 0.888 9.980 (0.88)
Attitude (AT) 0.90 0.75 0.787a
I love Dubai. 0.811 e (0.90)
I have a favorable opinion of Dubai. 0.893 13.224
Visiting Dubai is a good decision. 0.888 13/175
Behavioral intention (BI) 0.94 0.71
I look forward to visiting Dubai. 0.887 11.587 (0.94)
I actively seek information about Dubai in order to visit it. 0.825 12.065
I would consider Dubai among my future destinations. 0.927 12.057
It is very likely that I will visit Dubai. 0.852 11.010
I will denitely visit Dubai. 0.831 10.837
I strongly recommend people to visit Dubai. 0.727 e
a
Correlations are signicant at .01.
 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70 65

Fig. 2. SEM Results of the Conceptual Model (standardized coefcients).

structure of the measurement instruments. Destination personality model. Fig. 3 reports the results of the competing models.
was found to be bi-dimensional (i.e., sentimental with seven items The regression results of the Structural Equation Modeling show
(Cronbach's a 0.91) and competence with two items (a 0.88)). that destination image has signicant and positive impacts on both
This is line with Guthrie et al.s (2008) study which reports that the destination personality dimensions: sentimental ( 0.469,
signicance of personality traits varies by product/brand. Indeed, t 6.747) and competence ( 0.629, t 8.295). Both dimensions
they nd that for some brands (e.g., CoverGirl and M.A.C), only two of destination personality, sentimental ( 0.603, t 8.084) and
brand personality dimensions (i.e., competence and sophistication) competence ( 0.353, t 4.940), have signicant and positive
were signicant predictors of brand attitude. For other brands (e.g., impacts on respondents' attitude. Attitude in turn has a positive
Clinique), however, three personality traits (i.e., sincerity, excite- and a signicant impact on behavioural intentions ( 0.819,
ment and competence) were found to have a signicant impact on t 13.090). Therefore, hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 are all supported.
brand attitude. Thus, the number and the nature of brand person-
ality dimensions vary according to the study context and the brand
5. Discussion and theoretical implications
under investigation. Except for brand personality, all the other
latent variables were found to be one-dimensional (i.e., destination
The study supports previous assertions that brand personality
image, with eight items (a 0.88), attitude with three items
and brand image apply to destination (Kim & Lee, 2015). The
(a 0.90), and behavioural intentions with six items (a 0.94)).
empirical results conrm the role of destination personality and
The reliability of the measurements was further assessed by using
destination image in explaining attitudinal and behavioural loyalty
the composite reliability index r (Joreskog's rho). All the co-
(Ekinci et al., 2007; Kili & Sop, 2012; Kim & Lee, 2015; Usakli &
efcients were greater than the acceptable value of 0.6 (Nunally, 
Baloglu, 2011; Xie & Lee, 2013; Zeugner-Roth & Zabkar, 2015).
1978) and therefore indicate good reliability. Additionally, the
Prior studies report that destination personality and image are
discriminant validity test shows that the average variances were
related constructs, but little interest has been devoted to their
higher than the squared correlation between any two constructs
causal relationships. This study proposes different alternatives and
(Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Hulland, 1999). The
compares several conceptualizations of the relationships between
discriminant validity is therefore veried. More details on the
destination image, destination personality, and attitudes. The re-
psychometric characteristics of the study's variables are reported in
sults support the theoretical model, based on the attitude theory,
Table 3.
and conclude that destination image is an antecedent to destina-
The analysis of the conceptual model (see Fig. 2) shows a
tion personality, which in turn has a direct impact on attitude to-
satisfactory result of the model t indices. The reported values are
ward a destination and indirect effects on behavioural intentions. In
563.23 for the Satorra-Bentler Scaled Chi-Square (S-bc) (degree of
other words, the effect of destination image on tourists' attitudes is
freedom (df) 289), 0.90 for the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI),
mediated by destination personality. This is perhaps one of the few
0.91 for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), 0.91 for the Incremental Fit
studies in tourism research (Apostolopoulou & Papadimitriou,
Index (IFI), and 0.074 for the Root Mean Square Error of Approxi-
2015; Chen & Phou, 2013; Ekinci et al., 2007; Kim & Lee, 2015;
mation (RMSEA). Regarding the four alternative models, the t
Xie & Lee, 2013) that explicitly sheds light on the causal relation-
indices for models 2 and 3 are below the acceptable levels. Thus,
ship between destination personality and destination image.
these two models are rejected. With respect to models 1 and 4, the
The ndings conrm the cognitive-affective-conative model of
results show that they have satisfactory t indices. However, the c2
attitude (Fishbein, 1967). They also support the results of Baloglu
difference tests (between the conceptual model on the one hand
and McCleary (1999) who propose a model suggesting that both
and models 1 and 4 on the other hand) favoured the conceptual
perceptual/cognitive image and affective evaluation have signi-
model. Hence, the subsequent analyses focus on the Structural
cant effects on the overall image. The cognitive dimension (i.e.,
Equation Modeling (SEM) regression output of the conceptual
perceptual component) is the knowledge about the destination
66 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70

Fig. 3. Fit indices for competing models.

attributes (i.e., physical quality of the destination), whereas the
affective dimension reects the affective quality of the destination.
For Baloglu and McCleary (1999), these two dimensions are inde-
pendent but hierarchically related. They add that an affective
evaluation is more likely to serve as an intermediary between
cognitive image and overall image/impression about the destina-
tion. Our study conrms the intermediary role of affective evalua-
tion (destination personality) between cognitive image and
attitudes toward a destination. In accordance with Baloglu and
McCleary's (1999) ndings about the relationships between infor-
mation sources and brand image formation, future research should
examine the effects of information sources on destination person-
ality traits and destination perceptual components. It is also
interesting to consider different types of information sources such
as experiential and non-experiential sources.
The two destination personality dimensions, competence and
sentimental, explain 61.3% of the attitude toward destination
variance, which clearly indicates that destination personality and
cognitive destination image are key factors in the formation of
attitudes toward destination and the inuence of tourists' behav-
ioural intentions. We suggest that destination personality and the
affective component of destination image may be redundant in
explaining destination attitude. Future research should investigate
whether the inclusion of the affective component of image may
enhance the explanation of the variance of the attitude toward
destination and therefore the predictive power of the whole model.
Like prior research, this study considers destination personality
as a multidimensional construct, but with two main dimensions:
 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
competence and sentimentalism. Thus, it seems that the number
and the nature of the personality dimensions depend on the study
context (e.g., type of destination, name of destination, etc.) and the
personality traits based on Aaker's scale are likely to vary when
applied to the construct of destination personality (Guthrie, Kim, &
Jung, 2008). Conrming this view, several studies on personality
show that the factor structure changes across samples and conse-
quently its generalizability is limited (e.g., Austin, Siguaw, &
Mattila, 2003). This divergence should not only encourage re-
searchers to further investigate the personality concept, but also to
develop a proper scale for destination personality. Thus, more
research is needed on the destination personality construct and
testing whether its traits largely depend on the destination type
(e.g., historical/cultural destination, shopping destination, leisure
destination, etc.). That said, it seems that the competence dimen-
sion of personality is relevant to many studies on destination
marketing (Kili & Sop, 2012; Lee, Soutar, & Quintal, 2010; Murphy
et al., 2007; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011; Xie & Lee, 2013).
This study not only shows that destination personality di-
mensions positively affect attitudes toward destination, but also
reveals that the effect of sentimental is almost twice as important
as the effect of competence. Thus, a strong positioning on senti-
mental traits would highly contribute in boosting destination per-
sonality and developing a positive attitude toward the destination.
These ndings, along with those reported in the product person-
ality literature (e.g., Freling & Forbes, 2005); show that the role of
destination personality traits in forming attitude toward a desti-
nation is highly dependent on destination positioning. Future re-
searchers can apply this framework to multiple destinations
presenting different attractions/positioning.
Future studies can also investigate the congruence between
tourist's personality and destination personality. This congruence is
reported to favourably enhance attitudes toward destination and
likelihood of visit. The marketing and consumer behaviour litera-
ture show that the t between the consumer's self and the brand's
personality (i.e., self-congruence) can foster consumer favourable
attitudes and behaviours such as emotional brand attachment
(Mal ar, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011). In the tourism
domain, Stokburger-Sauer (2011) nds that country brand identi-
cation and the congruence between a traveller's personality and a
country brand personality strongly inuence visit intentions.
Likewise, Usakli and Baloglu (2011) contend that actual congruity
and ideal congruity partially mediate the effects of destination
personality on traveller's intention to return and intention to
recommend.
While most academics postulate that attitude includes the three
dimensions of cognition (thinking), affection (feeling), and cona-
tion (behaviour), there is some disagreement about the order of the
three components (Zajonc & Markus, 1982; Mittal, 1988). The pre-
sent study's ndings support the cognitive model (cognition-affect-
behaviour). The results show also that the affective model (affect-
cognition-behaviour) ts the data. The sequential relationship of
cognition, affect, and behaviour should be fully re-examined in
future research to understand the order of these relationships in
the destination choice process. Future studies may also consider
individuals' involvement. Indeed, previous studies report that
depending on their level of involvement, individuals greatly differ
in terms of their decision process, information-search, processing
of communication stimuli, and attitude formation toward a desti-
nation (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985). Highly-involved consumers
engage in an extensive choice process, make active information
processing, and use cognitive process (cognition-affect-conation).
The type of involvement (functional, hedonic) may inuence the
order of attitude components. Researchers are encouraged to use
the involvement prole (importance of risk, risk probability,
67
hedonic value, and sign value) developed by Laurent and Kapferer
(1985) as a moderating factor of the relationship between desti-
nation image and destination personality.
6. Managerial implications
Destination marketers need to strategically manage their
product (i.e., destination) to achieve a competitive position and a
unique offer for tourists. They need to understand the determinants
of potential tourist attitudes toward their destinations. This study
encourages tourism marketers to consider destination personality
as a key antecedent to tourists' attitudes. Because a tourism desti-
nation can be considered as a brand composed of tangible and
intangible characteristics, tourism marketers need to manage
destination branding by focusing more on measuring and
enhancing both the perceived personality and the perceived image
of the destination. For instance, to understand tourists' attitude
toward a destination, marketers can ask tourists about a particular
destination image and its personality. They can measure destina-
tion image using physical attributes of the destination (beautiful
scenery, beaches, theme parks, cultural events and festivals, shop-
ping facilities, friendly local people); whereas for destination per-
sonality, they can use trait descriptors such as warming, appealing,
charming, modern, trustworthy, exciting, up-to-date, friendly,
fascinating, imaginative, sincere, honest, competent, cheerful,
unique, authentic, and conservative.
In the case of Dubai, the rst signicant set of characteristics
that describe Dubai's image (see Table 3) is related to its business
environment (e.g., it is a good place for business, it is a safe place in
which to invest, and it has good infrastructure). The second sig-
nicant set of characteristics is related to Dubai's lifestyle (e.g., it
offers enjoyable entertainment activities, it has high standard of
living, and it is a beautiful place). The combination of favourable
business environment and pleasure and trendy lifestyle seem to
distinguish Dubai from other destinations such as Las Vegas for
instance. Indeed, one of the main issues of Las Vegas positioning
was the combination of two or more images which were not
necessarily compatible. LVCVA (Las Vegas Convention and Visitors
Authority) attempted to convey to visitors different images of Las
Vegas such as sin city, family city, luxurious city, affordable city, and
business city. However, the combination of two or more of these
images failed to better position Las Vegas. As a consequence, LVCVA
had to revisit its decision by further promoting the naughty city
image that visitors have about Las Vegas and emphasizing the
slogan what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. In contrast to Las
Vegas, Dubai succeeded to blend both business and entertaining
images, two features that greatly satisfy the needs of high-income
travellers (Lee & Jain, 2009).
With respect to Dubai's personality traits, two dimensions were
reported signicant: its sentimental aspect and competence aspect.
The former is mainly reected by features such as up-to-date,
unique, appealing, and upper-class. The latter is mainly reected
by features such as leader and trustworthy. It is noteworthy to
mention that features such as authentic and conservative were not
found to be relevant in describing Dubai's personality. This is in line
with Balakrishnan's (2008) and Govers and Go's (2005) opinions
arguing that authenticity may be the least feature that describes
Dubai.
Because the effect of the sentimental aspect of Dubai on tourists'
attitudes is almost twice as important as the effect of its compe-
tence aspect, it is wise for marketers to develop and emphasize
Dubai's sentimental features such as charming, warming, and
appealing. As stated by Gold and Ward (1994), a vital strategy for
city development is to construct positive and charming images to
attract tourists and investments. This is the case of Torino (in Italy)
68 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
which has made tremendous efforts to reshufe its image by
lessening the industrial city image and emphasizing the affective
aspect of it. Slogans such as Passion lives here and Torino is more
and more beautiful have contributed to the rebranding of the city
(Vanolo, 2008).
Likewise, New Orleans had been mainly known for its chemical
and petroleum industry as well as its military shipbuilding in-
dustry. Then and during decades, the city changed its image and
established itself as a charming city with beautiful and historical
architecture, appealing cuisine and excellent music (Gotham,
2002). Following the footprints of New York, Torino, New Orleans,
and other cities, it is perhaps time for Dubai to emphasize its af-
fective and sentimental aspects to further strengthen its brand
positioning strategy. It is also interesting that Dubai develops slo-
gans combining economic, functional and psychological values (Lee
& Jain, 2009).
Destination marketing involves different tourism stakeholders
such as marketing managers for hotels and attraction sites, tour
operators, tourism agencies, Destination Marketing Organizations
(DMO), tourism authorities, non-government organizations,
tourism-related associations and councils, conventions and visitors
bureau, etc. All of them should coordinate their efforts and blend
their communication strategies when promoting a destination.
They need insight into how tourists perceive their destinations and
how tourists differentiate and position these destinations when
compared to others. Thus, in order to convey a consistent and
coherent message/communication, tourism stakeholders should
collaborate to rst properly identify the destination image and
personality, and then to develop a sound marketing program that
can boost the right destination positioning (Kneesel, Baloglu, &
Millar, 2010). For instance, since cities within a country may
differ in personality and image, stakeholders should emphasize the
right attributes (both cognitive and affective) of the different pla-
ces. They also need to coordinate their efforts to avoid any
confusing message when positioning a particular destination. Thus,
they need to formulate the right communication strategies for each
destination, and convey the most positive picture of it. For instance,
some destinations can be positioned based on their cultural aspect
(e.g., museums, art galleries, historical monuments, etc.), others can
be positioned based on their attraction sites (e.g. aquatic theme
park, Disneyland, ski stations, etc.), while others can be positioned
based on their business and investment potentials (e.g., transport
infrastructure, tax benets, etc.). Stakeholders can portray different
personalities/images by region within the same country (e.g., the
north versus the south), by city/destination or by attraction spots/
themes (e.g., Liu, 2014). Thus, a segmentation approach based on
personality and image attributes may help in positioning and
marketing different places more effectively.
7. Conclusion and research limitations
Though the concept of destination personality is attributed
growing attention in the tourism and marketing literature, the
nature of its relationship (i.e., an antecedent or a consequence) with
destination image was not fully investigated. In the present
research, four alternative models were tested in addition to the
conceptual one. The latter, where the impact of destination image
on attitudes and behavioural intentions is mediated by destination
personality, outperformed all the others. Thus, this study considers
destination personality as a key antecedent to inuencing tourist
attitudes and then behaviour such as visit intentions and recom-
mendations. This is possibly one of the rst studies in tourism
research that explicitly argues that destination image is better to be
thought of as an antecedent to destination personality rather than
the opposite. Also, the study shows that destination personality is a
bi-dimensional construct that consists of competence and senti-
ment. The effect of the latter is almost twice as strong as the effect
of the former, but both of them have a strong explanatory power of
individuals' attitude toward destination. This result implies that
positioning a city on sentimental traits would considerably
contribute to form and enhance individuals' attitude toward the
destination.
Like most research, this study has its limitations, but two of
them should be noted specically. The rst limitation relates to the
reduced sample size. Though the data collection procedure was
meticulously done by hosting the questionnaire on online travel-
ling forums and websites, the sample size was relatively small.
However, since responses were collected from tourists or potential
tourists, the quality of the data could be satisfactory. The second
limitation is that the current study investigates a limited number of
variables. Considering only destination personality and image as
two antecedents of tourists' attitudes and behavioural intentions
gives a partial view of tourists' main reasons to visit and recom-
mend a particular destination. The main purpose of the present
study was to examine the roles of destination image and person-
ality and their causal relationship; future studies, however, can take
broader views of the antecedents of tourists' attitudes and behav-
ioural intentions. Psychological factors such as travellers' personal
values and motivations, and travellers' socio-demographic charac-
teristics may be considered in order to enhance the explanatory
power of the model. Also, destination identication may play an
important role in predicting attitudes toward a particular destina-
tion and behavioural intentions (Hultman et al., 2015; Stokburger-
Sauer, 2011). Future studies are needed to evaluate whether these
variables act as determinants or as moderators of the relationships
between the model constructs.
Acknowledgement
The authors are indebted to the editor and the reviewers for
their valuable suggestions and helpful comments.
References
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity. Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1994). Le Management du capital de Marque. Paris: Dalloz.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(3), 347e356.
Aarstad, J., Ness, H., & Haugland, S. A. (2015). Innovation, uncertainty, and inter-rm
shortcut ties in a tourism destination context. Tourism management, 48,
354e361 (June).
Ahmed, Z. U. (1991). The inuence of the components of a state's tourist image on
product positioning strategy. Tourism Management, 12(4), 331e340.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intensions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl,
& J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11e39).
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Apostolopoulou, A., & Papadimitriou, D. (2015). The role of destination personality
in predicting tourist behaviour: Implications for branding mid-sized urban
destinations. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(12), 1132e1151.
Austin, J. R., Siguaw, J. A., & Mattila, A. S. (2003). A re-examination of the general-
izability of the Aaker brand personality measurement framework. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 11(2), 77e92.
Bagaeen, S. (2007). Brand Dubai: The Instant City; or the Instantly Recognizable
City. International Planning Studies, 12(2), 173e197.
Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1977). The Impact of physically attractive models
on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 538e555.
Balakrishnan, M. S. (2008). Dubai e a star in the east: A case study in strategic
destination branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(1),
62e91.
Baloglu, S., Henthorne, T. L., & Sahin, S. (2014). Destination image and brand per-
sonality of Jamaica: A model of tourist behavior. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 31(8), 1057e1070.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(4), 868e897.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least square (PLS)
approach to causal modelling: Personal computer adoption and use as an
illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285e309.
 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
Bartikowski, B., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). Lattitude vis-a -vis des
destinations touristiques: Le ro ^le de la personnalite
des villes. Management &
Avenir, 18, 72e87.
Berens, L. V. (1999). Sixteen personality Types: Descriptions for self-discovery. Cali-
fornia: Telos Publications.
Biel, A. L. (1993). Converting image into equity. In D. A. Aaker, & A. L. Biel (Eds.),
Brand equity & advertising's role in building strong brands (pp. 67e82). Hilldale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bigne
Alcan ~ iz, E., S

anchez Garca, I., & Sanz Blas, S. (2005). Relationships among
residents' image, evaluation of the stay and post-purchase behavior. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 11(4), 291e302.
Bigne
Alcan ~ iz, E., Sa
nchez Garca, I., & Sanz Blas, S. (2009). The functional-
psychological continuum in the cognitive image of a destination: A conrma-
tory analysis. Tourism Management, 30(5), 715e723.
Bigne
, J. E., Sa
nchez, M. I., & S

anchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables
and after purchase behavior: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6),
607e616.
Brand Finance Nation Brands. (2014). The Annual report on Nation Brands. Available
at http://brandnance.com/images/upload/brand_nance_nation_brands_
report_2014_nal_edition.pdf.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 97e116.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and
Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Mar-
keting, 65(2), 81e93.
Chen, C. F., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality,
relationship and loyalty. Tourism Management, 36, 269e278.
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination
image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 29(4),
624e636.
Chon, K. S. (1990). The role of destination image in tourism: A review and discus-
sion. Tourist Review, 45(2), 2e9.
Chon, K. S. (1991). Tourism destination image modication process. Tourism Man-
agement, 12(1), 68e72.
Clark, G. (2006). In City marketing and economic development. Paper presented at the
international city marketing Summit, Madrid, Spain, November (pp. 1e81).
Coombe, W., & Melki, J. (2012). Global media and brand Dubai. Place Branding and
Public Diplomacy, 8(1), 58e71.
d'Astous, A., & Boujbel, L. (2007). Positioning countries on personality dimensions:
Scale development and implications for country marketing. Journal of Business
Research, 60(3), 231e239.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the ve-factor model.
Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417e440.
Echtner, C., & Ritchie, J. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An
empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3e13.
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand
personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 127e139.
Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Baloglu, S. (2007). Host image and destination per-
sonality. Tourism Analysis, 12(5/6), 433e446.
Fishbein, M. (1967). Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality
effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(7), 404e413.
FutureBrand. (2012). Country Brand Index. Available at http://www.tfsa.ca/storage/
reports/CBI_2012-13.pdf.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a
conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56e78.
Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-
keting, 2(2/3), 191e215.
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97e107.
Gold, J. R., & Ward, S. V. (1994). Introduction. In S. V. Ward, & J. R. Gold (Eds.), Place
promotion. The use of publicity and marketing to sell towns and regions (pp. 1e17).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Gotham, K. F. (2002). Marketing Mardi Gras: Commodication, spectacle and the
political economy of tourism in new Orleans. Urban Studies, 39(10), 1735e1756.
Govers, R., & Go, F. M. (2005). Projected destination image online: Website content
analysis of pictures and text. Information Technology and Tourism, 7, 73e89.
Govers, R., Go, F. M., & Kumar, K. (2007). Promoting tourism destination image.
Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 15e23.
Graeff, T. R. (1997). Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on
consumers brand evaluations. Psychology & Marketing, 14(1), 49e70.
Guthrie, M., Kim, H. S., & Jung, J. (2008). The effects of facial image and cosmetic
usage on perceptions of brand personality. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 12(2), 164e181.
Han, H., & Jeong, C. (2013). Multi-dimensions of patrons' emotional experiences in
upscale restaurants and their role in loyalty formation: Emotion scale
improvement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 59e70.
Heylen, J. P., Dawson, B., & Sampson, P. (1995). An implicit model of consumer
behavior. Journal of Market Research Society, 2(4), 65e75.
Hildebrandt, T., & Isaac, R. (2015). The tourism structures in central Vietnam: To-
wards a destination management organisation. Tourism Planning & Develop-
ment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2015.1038360. Published online: 27
Apr 2015.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination
69
personality: An application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of
Business Research, 59(5), 638e642.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2007). Destination image and destination per-
sonality. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1(1),
62e81.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least square (PLS) in strategic management
research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2),
195e204.
Hultman, M., Skarmeas, D., Oghazi, P., & Beheshti, H. M. (2015). Achieving tourist
loyalty through destination personality, satisfaction, and identication. Journal
of Business Research, 68(11), 2227e2231.
Jalilvand, M. R., Samiei, N., Dini, B., & Yaghoubi Manzari, P. (2012). Examining the
structural relationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist
attitude toward destination and travel intention: An integrated approach.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1e2), 134e143.
Johnson, P., & Thomas, B. (1992). The analysis of choice and demand in tourism. In
P. Johnson, & B. Thomas (Eds.), Choice and demand in tourism (pp. 1e12). Lon-
don: Mansell.
Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107(1), 4e25.
Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand
equity long term (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1e22.
Kili, B., & Sop, S. A. (2012). Destination personality, self-congruity and loyalty.
Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism, 3(5), 95e105.
Kim, S. H., Holland, S., & Han, H. S. (2013). A structural model for examining how
destination image, perceived value, and service quality affect destination loy-
alty: A case study of Orlando. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15(4),
313e328.
Kim, H. B., & Lee, S. (2015). Impacts of city personality and image on revisit
intention. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 1(1), 50e69.
Kim, S., & Lehto, X. Y. (2013). Projected and Perceived Destination Brand Person-
alities: The Case of South Korea. Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), 117e130.
Kim, D., Magnini, V. P., & Singal, M. (2011). The effects of customers' perceptions of
brand personality in casual theme restaurants. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management, 30(2), 448e458.
Kim, S. S., McKercher, B., & Lee, H. (2009). Tracking tourism destination image
perception. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(4), 715e718.
Kladou, S., & Mavragani, E. (2015). Assessing destination image: An online mar-
keting approach and the case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.04.003 (in press) (Available
online 3 June 2015).
Kneesel, E., Baloglu, S., & Millar, M. (2010). Gaming destination images: Implications
for branding. Journal of Travel Research, 49(1), 68e78.
Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters' behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(3), 784e807.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), 260e269.
Kumar, V., & Nayak, J. K. (2014). Destination personality scale development and
validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1096348014561027. Published online.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel
destination. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589e599.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement proles.
Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41e53 (February).
Lee, C. C. (2001). Predicting tourist attachment to destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(1), 229e331.
Lee, H. J., & Jain, D. (2009). Dubai's brand assessment success and failure in brand
management. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(3), 234e246.
Lee, H. J., & Kang, M. S. (2013). The effect of brand personality on brand relationship,
attitude, and purchase intention with a focus on brand community. Academy of
Marketing Studies Journal, 17(2), 85e97.
Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., & Lee, B. (2005). Korea's destination image formed by the 2002
World Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839e858.
Lee, J., Soutar, G., & Quintal, V. (2010). Destination personality: Cross-country
comparisons. In Proceedings of Australian and New Zealand. 2010-anzmac.org.
Lin, L. Y. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality
and brand loyalty: An empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 19(1), 4e17.
Liu, S. T. (2014). Selecting a destination image for a capital city rather than for a
nation: A segmentation study. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management,
3(1), 11e17.
Liu, C. R., Lin, W. R., & Wang, Y. C. (2012). Relationship between self-congruity and
destination loyalty: Differences between rst-time and repeat visitors. Journal
of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1e2), 118e123.
Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major rela-
tional consequences. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 114e130.
Mal ar, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand
attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and
the ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35e52.
Martin, I. M., & Eroglu, S. (1993). Measuring a multi-dimensional construct: Country
image. Journal of Business Research, 28(3), 191e210.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.
London: Longman.
Mercille, J. (2005). Media effects on image: The case of Tibet. Annals of Tourism
70 N. Souiden et al. / Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 32 (2017) 54e70
Research, 32(4), 1039e1055.
Merrilees, B., Miller, D., & Herington, C. (2009). Antecedents of residents' city brand
attitudes. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 362e367.
Mittal, B. (1988). The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of
expressive products. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(4), 499e524.
Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2002). Contextualising destination branding. In
N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination Branding: Creating the
unique destination proposition (pp. 11e41). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to
differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1),
5e14.
Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O'Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a country-image
context. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(1), 84e106.
Nagashima, A. (1970). A comparison of Japanese and US attitudes towards foreign
products. Journal of Marketing, 34(1), 68e74.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pallud, J., & Straub, D. (2007). Real vs. Virtual: A theoretical framework for assessing
the role of authenticity in visitor interactions with museum technologies. In
AMCIS 2007 proceedings, paper 182. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/182.
Passow, T., Fehlmann, R., & Grahlow, H. (2005). Country reputation - from mea-
surement to management: The case of Liechtenstein. Corporate Reputation Re-
view, 7(4), 309e326.
Patterson, M. (1999). Re-appraising the concept of brand image. Journal of Brand
Management, 6(6), 409e426.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tourism Management, 25(4),
463e470.
Pike, S. (2009). Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home
destinations. Tourism Management, 30(6), 857e866.
Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising
Research, 24(6), 27e31.
Putrevu, S., & Lord, K. R. (1994). Comparative and noncomparative advertising:
Attitudinal effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal
of Advertising, 23(2), 77e90.
Qu, H., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating
the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management,
32(3), 65e476.
Richins, M. L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of
Consumer Research, 24(2), 127e146.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1161e1178.
San Martin, H., & Rodriguez del Bosque, I. A. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-
affective nature of destination image and the role of psychological factors in
its formation. Tourism Management, 29(2), 263e277.
Simpson, P. M., & Siguaw, J. A. (2008). Destination word of mouth: The role of
traveler type, residents, and identity salience. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2),
167e182.
Smith, A. (2005). Reimaging the city: The value of sport initiatives. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32(1), 217e236.
Smith, A. (2006). Accessing the contribution of agship projects to city image
change: A quasi-experimental technique. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 8, 391e404.
Souiden, N., Pons, F., & Mayrand, M. E. (2011). Marketing High-Tech Products in
Emerging Markets: The Differential Impacts of Country Image and Country-of-
Origins Image. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(5), 356e367.
Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2011). The relevance of visitors' nation brand embedded-
ness and personality congruence for nation brand identication, visit intentions
and advocacy. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1282e1289.
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand
affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639e661.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination
choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432e448.
Upshaw, L. B. (1995). Building brand identity: A strategy for success in a hostile
marketplace. New York. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: An
application of self-congruity theory. Tourism Management, 32(1), 114e127.
Vanolo, A. (2008). The image of the creative city: Some reections on urban
branding in Turin. CITIES, 25, 370e382.
Walmsley, D., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism: The use of per-
sonal constructs to describe the structure of destination image. Journal of Travel
Research, 36(3), 65e69.
White, C. (2004). Destination image: To see or not to see. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(5), 309e314.
World Economic Forum. (2015). The travel & tourism competitiveness report 2015.
Available at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/TT15/WEF_Global_Travel&
Tourism_Report_2015.pdf.
Yau, O. H. M., & Chan, C. F. (1990). Hong Kong as a travel destination in southeast
Asia: A multidimensional approach. Tourism Management, 11(2), 123e132.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management,
26(1), 45e56.
Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1982). Affective and cognitive factors in preferences.
Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 123e131.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences
of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31e46.

Zeugner-Roth, K. P., & Zabkar, V. (2015). Bridging the gap between country and
destination image: Assessing common facets and their predictive validity.
Journal of Business Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.012.
Dr. Souiden is a Professor of Marketing at Laval University, Canada. His research in-
terests include global marketing strategies, international market segmentation, cross-
cultural consumer behavior, brand image, corporate branding, country branding, and
services marketing. His articles have appeared in well-known international journals
such as Psychology & Marketing, International Marketing Review, European Journal of
Marketing, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Journal of Brand Management, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Australasian Marketing Journal, and Journal of Financial Ser-
vices Marketing.
Dr. Ladhari is a Professor of Marketing at Laval University, Canada. His current research
is focused on service quality, globalization and cross-cultural studies, tourism and hos-
pitality marketing, and e-commerce. His work has been published in refereed journals
such as Journal of Business Research, Psychology & Marketing, Journal of Service Manage-
ment, Managing Service Quality, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Inter-
national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Australasian Marketing Journal and Journal of Financial Services
Marketing.
Dr. Nour Eddine Chiadmi is a Professor of Marketing at ESC de la Rochelle, France. He
obtained his doctoral degree in Hotel and Tourism Management from the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University. He has an experience of more than 25 years in the tourism and
air transport industry. His research interests include services marketing and tourism
marketing management.