Self-congruity and destination choice

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 571–587, 2007 0160-7383/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.01.005

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE Asuncio´n Beerli Gonzalo Dı´az Meneses Sergio Moreno Gil Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain Abstract: The objective of this work is to clarify the role of self-congruity, understood as congruity between tourists’ self-concept and the image of a destination, in their choice of it. The empirical research finds that the greater the agreement between a destination’s image and one’s self-concept, the greater the tendency for the tourist to visit that place. Moreover, self-congruity loses this determining power when one has already visited a place. The findings further suggest that the greater the tourist’s involvement in leisure tourism, the greater its power to predict destination choice. Keywords: self-congruity, destination image, self-concept, marketing, behavior, consumer behavior.  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Re´sume´: Congruence avec soi-meˆme et choix de destination. Le but de ce travail est d’e´claircir le roˆle de la congruence avec soi-meˆme, ce qui se comprend comme la congruence de la conception de soi du touriste et l’image d’une destination en ce qui concerne le choix de celle-ci. La recherche empirique trouve que plus l’image de la destination s’accorde avec la conception de soi, plus le touriste tend a` visiter cet endroit. En outre, la congruence avec soi-meˆme perd ce pouvoir de´terminatif quand on a de´ja` visite´ un endroit. Les re´sultats sugge`rent aussi que plus le touriste s’engage dans le tourisme d’agre´ment, plus la congruence peut pre´dire le choix de destination. Mots-cle´s: congruence avec soi-meˆme, image de destination, conception de soi, commercialisation, comportement, comportement du consommateur.  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Many factors lead tourists to choose a destination, and understanding them is a fundamental issue, both from an academic point of view and for the management of tourism enterprises (Crouch 1994). Following Sirgy and Su (2000), previous research efforts into this consumer decisionmaking process have centered on finding answers to what, where, and how tourists buy, rather than why. Accordingly, there is a need for further analyses of the determinants or causes of these choices. Purchase behavior is particularly relevant in tourism (Woodside, Caldwell and Albers-Miller 2004), where a variety of push and pull factors affect that process (Dann 1977; Decrop 1999). However, some

Asuncio´n Beerli is Professor and Chair of Marketing at Las Palmas of Gran Canaria University (35017 Campus de Tafira, Canary Islands, Spain. Email ). Dı´az Meneses and Moreno Gil are Associate Professors in the same institution. They conduct research in the fields of tourism, marketing, and consumer behavior. 571

572

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE

topics, such as self-congruity, have been largely ignored in the literature ( Jenkins 1999; Kastenholz 2004). From a marketing perspective, and in line with Moore, Cushman and Simmons (1995) and Waitt (1996), self-image can be considered a variable that influences the process of choosing where to visit. However, it is necessary to go beyond the theoretical approaches, and examine empirically the role of self-congruity as an antecedent of this choice, since this construct has proved its importance in other sectors (Sirgy and Su 2000). Different studies have followed the seminal work by Chon (1992), who first applied the theory of self-congruity to tourism, finding that the higher the agreement between self-concept and destination image, the greater the satisfaction of the tourist. Since then, there have been advances in verifying the roles of self-concept and self-congruity in the choice of destination. However, there remains a lack of empirical validation for some aspects of this topic, such as the recognition of factors influencing conformity between self-perception and destination image (Sirgy and Su 2000), and the validity of scales such as that of Malhotra (Litvin and Goh 2002). This work also examines the tourists’ decision process regarding their destination, setting out two general objectives: to examine the function of self-concept/-congruity in destination choice, and to identify the moderator variables involved in this agreement mechanism.

IMAGE CONGRUITY While the notion of self-concept has its origins in classical Greek philosophy (Malhotra 1988), William James is recognized as having laid the foundations of the self-identity theory in 1890, defining it as the total sum of what a man thinks of himself, including his body and intellect, as well as his belongings, family, reputation, and work (Loudon and Della Bitta 1995). Although self-concept was originally conceived and developed rather one-dimensionally, it was later thought necessary to view self-identity from a multidimensional perspective since research had begun to recognize the importance of the social aspect (Newcombe 1950) and aspirations (Rosenberg 1981) in the individual’s description of him/herself. Later, Sirgy (1982) and Marcus and Nirius (1986) argue that one’s self-identity reflects a series of masks associated with a set of social circumstances. Along the same lines, Sirgy and Su (2000) suggest that self-image is varied and multifaceted, and that each field represents the fears and hopes that lie within the individual and indicate what the person may do in certain situations. Relevant research works that adopt a multidimensional notion of self-concept in the field of consumer behavior include those of Johar and Sirgy (1991), Malhotra (1988), Sirgy (1982), Sirgy and Samly (1985) and Sirgy and Su (2000). They have attempted to explain variables such as satisfaction, loyalty, involvement, and motivation on the basis of the various perspectives comprising self-image. In short, four dimensions of self-concept have traditionally been used to explain and predict consumer behavior (Grubb and Hupp 1968; Hamm and

BEERLI, MENESES AND GIL

573

Cundiff 1969; Sirgy 1980): real self-image or how people see themselves; social self-concept or how they think others see them; ideal self-identity or how they would like to see themselves; and ideal social self-concept or how they would like others to see them. Comparatively speaking, the evaluation and analysis of tourists’ destination image has received greater attention in the academic literature, and has contributed significantly to a better understanding of their behavior (Beerli and Martin, 2004; Echtner and Ritchie 1993) since image is a key factor in attracting more tourists to resorts (Baloglu and McCleary 1999; Bigne´, Sa´nchez and Sa´nchez 2001; Hunt 1975). Moreover, they perceive a destination in accord with its typical arrival and generate a mental stereotypic representation of tourists to a destination. That representation is referred to in this work as destination image, in line with the works of Crouch (1994) and Sirgy and Su (2000).

Self-concept Destination Image Congruity The congruity of self-concept with product or brand mental representation refers to the match between those two images and plays an important role in consumer behavior since it constitutes a basic mechanism on which individuals base their brand preferences. One of the first explanations of this method was offered by Grubb and Grathwohl (1967), who state that consumers assess the attributes of brands and products and that those are of unquestionable symbolic value. These attributes are reflected in the psychological development, which always requires security and improvement, as well as in their social interactions that stimulate the need for appreciation, and even ostentation. Sirgy (1982) stresses that the need for individual reassurance from others is one of the basic principles of self-concept that drive consumers. Through the self-concept/product image congruity mechanism, they symbolically relate their belongings in such a way that, on analysis, some significance can be read into their aspirations to success, social acceptance, ostentation, or prestige. This means that individuals have images of themselves and the agreement of these with their personal belongings satisfies their needs for psychological development and social interaction (Sirgy 1982). Many have conducted research on the congruity of self-concept and brand symbols. Seminal pioneering works include those of Martineau (1958), who recognizes congruity as a factor influencing the choice of establishment; Dolich (1969), who is acknowledged to be one of the first to test the psychological theory that relates brand symbols to self-perception by means of the congruity mechanism; and authors whose findings reach conclusions about the relationship between self-concept/product image congruity, and establishment and brand loyalty (Bellenger, Steinberg and Stanton 1976; Sparks and Tucker 1971). Analyzing these from a multi-faceted perspective of self-concept, Sirgy (1982) concludes that consumers tend to prefer or purchase products that are consistent with their real and ideal self-concepts,

574

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE

and in the case of conspicuous products, also consistent with their social and ideal social self-perception (Hong and Zinkhan 1995; Sirgy 1982). Rosenberg (1981) points out that the distorted and misleading nature of perception means that there are differences between objective reality and people’s opinions of themselves. This explains the different congruities of the various facets of self-image. Similarly, Markus and Nurius (1986) stress that the intentions and expectations of individual thinking are invisible to others, which means that there are differences between how one sees oneself and what one thinks others see. This work focuses on real and ideal self-concepts, which are the dimensions of self-perception that have most empirical support for their roles as factors influencing product, brand, or establishment preferences (Dittmar and Drury 2000; Hong and Zinkhan 1995; Sirgy 1982). However, a lack of empirical studies on this topic (Kastenholz 2004) in the tourism literature means that there is insufficient evidence of the effect of self-congruity on the intention or motivation to visit a destination (Chon 1992; Litvin and Goh 2002; Sirgy and Su 2000). The review of the literature shows the pioneering work of Chon (1992), which states the antecedent role of self-congruity in satisfaction with the destination. Then there is the outstanding follow-up by Sirgy and Su (2000), whose systemic doctrinal efforts lead to multiple lines of future research, albeit from a theoretical perspective. In turn, Goh and Litvin (2000) and Litvin and Goh (2002) demonstrate the predictive power of the mechanism of self-congruity in the choice of a determined destination. Lastly, Kastenholz (2004) shows evidence of its applicability in the context of a rural destination. However, there is still controversy about the applicability of self-concept/destination image, where past studies have failed in the use of Malhotra’s (1981) scale as a valid measurement, and a further validation of this theory for tourism marketing is needed (Kastenholz 2004; Litvin and Goh 2002). Hence, based on the conceptual and empirical perspectives in the literature, the first two hypotheses are established. H1: The greater the congruity between one’s real self-concept and his/her image of tourists to the destination, the greater the possibility (probability?) that he/she will be motivated to visit it. H2: The greater the congruity between one’s ideal self-concept and his/her image of tourists to the destination, the greater the possibility (probability?) that he/she will be motivated to visit it. Although consumers tend to prefer or purchase brands or products consistent with their self-perception, it is also true that self-concept-destination image congruity is not the only choice variable (Sirgy and Su 2000), and that its effect on one’s decision is influenced by various. These include innovativeness (Litvin, Goh and Goldsmith 2001), individualism/collectivism (Litvin and Goh 2003), previous experience of the object of choice, and involvement with the product or service.

BEERLI, MENESES AND GIL

575

Alba and Hutchinson (1987) recognize that previous consumers not only tend to process information differently from first-time purchasers, but also form their evaluations in a different way. Their prior experience facilitates the acquisition of new information focused on content of a practical nature rather than on more holistic or emotional features. Moreover, the preference for, and choice of, a destination is strongly affected by previous experience of that place (Chon 1990; Crompton 1992; Decrop 1999; Oppermann 2000; Ryan 1995). According to Mangleburg, Sirgy, Grewal, Hatzios, Axsom and Bogel (1998) and Wood and Kallgren (1988), experience plays a moderating role in the consumers’ attitudes toward the expressive characteristics and functional attributes of an object. This is because the greater the experience, the weaker the effect of symbolic features, and the greater the effect of utilitarian ones. Thus, Sirgy and Su (2000) recognize that, from a theoretical approach, self-congruity is less important in the choice of a destination when people are familiar with it. This is because the decision is based on more rational criteria, such as those set by the individual when comparing the objective characteristics of the destination with the ideal aspects that should be expected. On the other hand, if there is less experience, then the decision will be based on holistic criteria, such as self-congruity. In fact, in their empirical study of advertising efficiency, Johar and Sirgy (1991) conclude that this difference in selection mechanisms occurs between those who are familiar with the product or brand being advertised and those who are not. However, no work has been found that measures the moderating function of experience related to the mechanism of self-congruity as a decisive factor in destination choice. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are put forward: H3: Congruity between the one’s real self-concept and his/her image of tourists to the destination has a less determining effect on its choice if the tourist has previously experienced it. H4: Congruity between one’s ideal self-concept and his/her image of tourists to the destination has a less determining effect on the choice of destination if he/she has previously experienced it. Another of the factors identified in the literature as determining whether self-congruity has a greater or lesser role in one’s decision is involvement with the product or service. According to Petty et al. (1983), when there is a high involvement with the product, the information regarding quality has a greater effect on attitude, which identifies this variable. Similarly, Johar and Sirgy (1991) suggest that the effect of self-concept/product image congruity on purchase decision might vary depending on involvement. Moreover, Sirgy and Su (2000) stress its moderating effect on self-congruity and its relationship with destination choice. On that basis it seems logical to conclude that a high degree of motivation or involvement results in a detailed examination of the object of choice, and hence a preference for information

576

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE

focusing on characteristics of a practical nature. At the same time, a lower degree of involvement would favor more superficial information processing, based on symbolic expressions such as the mental representation of a destination. Based on those theoretical approaches, the following hypotheses are proposed: H5: The congruity between one’s real self-concept and his/her image of tourists to the destination has a less determining effect on choosing it if the tourist is highly involved in leisure tourism. H6: The congruity between one’s ideal self-concept and his/her image of tourists to the destination has a less determining effect on its choice if the tourist is highly involved in leisure tourism. Study Methods In order to test the hypotheses inferred from the literature review, empirical work was conducted in January and February 2002. The study was based on personal surveys of individuals over 18 years living on Gran Canaria (Spain), an island with a population of some 770,000. The sample of 552 individuals was selected following a stratified random sampling method, with proportional stratification according to the age of those surveyed, using the population census. The response rate was 84% and the survey was conducted in the respondents’ homes by means of a self-administered questionnaire. It was personally delivered by the authors, who explained the goals of the research and clarified any queries. The household member who makes the holiday decision was asked to complete it. In reference to the measuring scales, the respondent’s self-concept and his/her image of the tourists who visit Kenya, Paris, and the Dominican Republic were both measured on a semantic 7-point differential scale. The following six items were employed for each scale: young/old, conservative/liberal, modern/traditional, non-conformist/conformist, liking risks/liking security, liking strong emotions/ not liking strong emotions. This is an adapted version of Malhotra’s (1981) scale applied to a destination context by means of a pretest. For each of the items, the respondents evaluated their real self-concept by answering the question: ‘‘Using the following list of adjectives, how do you see yourself?’’, and their ideal self-identity by answering: ‘‘How would you like to see yourself?’’ Similarly, for the same six items mentioned above, respondents were asked to evaluate their mental representation of tourists who visited Kenya, Paris, and the Dominican Republic: ‘‘Using the following characteristics, what is the image you have of the tourists visiting (each destination)?’’ Respondent preferences for visiting one of the destinations as tourists were measured by means of three dichotomous questions (yes/no) to establish whether those surveyed would like to visit each of the them, and a 7-point rating scale with one item, ‘‘To what degree would you like to spend vacations in each of the following destinations?’’ Also three questions were used for the 7-point rating

BEERLI, MENESES AND GIL

577

scale question (one for each destination). These were chosen because they are three of the most popular international destinations among the surveyed population, according to the Canarian Travel Agency Association (2002); and due to their inherent differences and their familiarity to the surveyed population, according to Litvin and Goh (2002). Respondents’ experiences with the three places were measured by means of a dichotomous response question (yes/no) that established whether respondents had visited each. Their involvement with leisure travel was measured using Zaichkowsky’s (1985) 10-item semantic differential scale of personal involvement inventory (Celuch and Taylor 1999; McQuarrie and Munson 1987; Zaichkowsky 1994). The items on that scale are: of little importance/of great importance, of little interest/of great interest, means nothing to me/means a lot to me, of little relevance/of great relevance, does not concern me/concerns me, unattractive/very attractive, not entertaining/entertaining, dull/ lively, unexciting/exciting. That 7-point scale has been validated and displays a strong internal consistency (Goldsmith, Emmert and Hafacker 1991).

Analysis of Results Five principle component factor analyses with varimax rotation were employed to identify the dimensions of the scale for self-concept and image of tourists to the destination, and to provide assurance that the resultant factors remained stable in the five measurements. Two factors with Eigenvalues greater than one were obtained for the real and the ideal self-concept as well as the mental image of tourists visiting Kenya, Paris, and the Dominican Republic. Then five confirmatory factor models were developed to assess the convergent validity (a high correlation between variables measuring the same construct) and the discriminatory validity (a low level of relationship between concepts that measure different phenomena). The results of the confirmatory factor analyses for real and ideal selfperception, as well as for the mental representation of the tourists visiting the destinations, are shown in Table 1. Those results show that the standardized estimators are above the minimum recommended levels of 0.4, except for the variable nonconformist/conformist (rebel) in the case of Kenya, with a value approaching that threshold. Similarly, all the critical ratios are above ±1.96, thus indicating the convergent validity of the scale. Moreover, most of the values related to the goodness of fit are adequate, except for that of chi-squared, whose significance is due to the size of the sample (N = 552). In addition, the RMSEA and AGFI values of one’s image of tourists to Kenya are below the recommended values although the latter value is very close to the threshold. Therefore, the overall results show an acceptable goodness of fit. The multifaceted nature of self-perception and destination image determines two factors for the real and ideal facets. The first factor defines people as risk-taking and rebels, versus preferring security,

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE

578

Table 1 Congruity

Real

Ideal

Kenya

Paris

Dominican Republic

Standard. Estimat. Critical ratio Standard. Estimat. Critical ratio Standard. Estimat. Critical ratio Standard. Estimat. Critical ratio Standard. Estimat. Critical ratio

.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Self-image and Destination Image

Risk ‹ F1

High emotions ‹ F1

Rebel ‹ F1

0.795

0.833

0.507

14.560

10.862

0.792

0.486

12.204

9.743

0.727

0.361

0.761

0.740 8.755 0.568

0.668

0.712

0.737

6.732 0.607

7.834 0.607

Modern ‹ F2

0.563

0.684

7.818 0.602

0.640

9.069

9.232

0.666

Youth ‹ F2

Liberal ‹ F2

0.616

0.558

9.405

9.018

0.489

0.572

7.876

8.450

0.602

0.470

8.240

7.576

0.541

0.427

7.260

6.574

0.609

0.525

9.036

8.431

Measures of fit

X2 = 24.035 p = 0.002 (g.l. = 8)

GFI = 0.986 AGFI = 0.963 RMSEA = 0.060

X2 = 32.807 p = 0.000 (g.l. = 8)

GFI = 0.981 AGFI = 0.949 RMSEA = 0.075

X2 = 91.873 p = 0.000 (g.l. = 8)

GFI = 0.949 AGFI = 0.867 RMSEA = 0.138

X2 = 32.807 p = 0.000 (g.l. = 8)

GFI = 0.981 AGFI = 0.949 RMSEA = 0.075

X2 = 26.928 p = 0.001 (g.l. = 8)

GFI = 0.983 AGFI = 0.956 RMSEA = 0.066

while the second defines people as modern, young, and liberal, versus traditional, older, and conservative. The construct regarding the variable ‘‘involvement’’ was also validated. After an exploratory factor analysis, which resulted in two, a confirmatory one was performed. The results indicated that the standardized estimators and critical ratio are above the recommended minimum levels of 0.4 and ±1.96, respectively, reflecting the convergent validity of the scale (Table 2). The two factors of involvement cor-

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Involvement Relationships Low important ‹ F1 Low relevant ‹ F1 It is not my business ‹ F1 I do not care ‹ F1 It is not interesting ‹ F1 It does not good for me ‹ F1 Boring ‹ F2 Dull ‹ F2 Low emotion ‹ F2 Low attractiveness ‹ F2 Indexes of Goodness of Fit X2 = 252.702 P = 0.000 (g.l. = 34)

Standardized Estimators

Critical Ratio

0.51 0.53 0.51 0.46 0.51

20.175 20.428 20.137 17.148 17.277

0.42 0.41 0.39

22.316 21.343 24.972 GFI = 0.925 AGFI = 0.878 RMSEA = 0.108

BEERLI, MENESES AND GIL

579

respond to the two possible dimensions identified in the work of Celsi and Olson (1988) to measure the effects of involvement on the processes of attention and comprehension. They refer to rational aspects (F1) and to emotional content (F2). To evaluate the discriminant validity, the analysis of compound reliability and extracted variation was conducted. Table 3 shows the results for the constructs real and social self-concept, the tourists’ mental representation of the three destinations under study, and involvement. In all cases the compound reliability of the two dimensions is above, or very close to, the recommended value of 0.6. However, the values obtained for extracted variance are below 0.5, although in some cases very close to that figure. Hence, the scales can be considered valid. It was not possible to carry out a second order confirmatory factor analysis on the variables of self-perception, the mental picture of the destinations and involvement, due to the impossibility of establishing the model and not having the basis to support the introduction of restrictions to the model. Therefore, in the analysis of results to test the hypotheses, the average of the variables defining the constructs of self-concept and destinations image was used. In the case of the involvement construct, the variables were averaged and recodified in three levels that determine whether involvement was high (values above 5), medium (values between 4 and 5) or low (values below 4). To check the first two hypotheses, two logistic regression analyses were employed using a dichotomous measure of the wish to visit the destinations as the dependent variable, and the congruity between the mental representation and real self-concept as co-variable, in the case of H1, and ideal self-perception in the case of H2 (Table 4). In line with Sirgy and Su (2000), congruity was calculated by the squared difference between self-concept and the mental representation of the places. The results suggest causality between one’s real and ideal

Table 3. Compound Reliability and Extracted Variation Congruity Real Ideal Destinations Kenya Paris Dominican Republic Involvement Involvement

Compound Reliability

Extracted Variation

Real 1 Real 2 Ideal 1 Ideal 2

0.763 0.645 0.727 0.620

0.528 0.379 0.481 0.358

IK1 IK2 IP1 IP2 IRD1 IRD2

0.636 0.651 0.570 0.603 0.629 0.363

0.375 0.402 0.314 0.336 0.648 0.380

Involvem1 Involvem2

0,902 0,893

0,607 0,676

580

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE

self-concepts and the tourists’ mental pictures. The coefficients are negative because the lower the values of the variables defining congruity, the less the distances between individuals’ self-concepts and the mental representations, and hence the greater the congruity. As such, on the basis of those results, hypotheses H1 and H2 are verified, and it can be stated that the greater the congruity existing between one’s real and ideal self-concepts and the tourists’ image of the destination, the greater the possibility that they will be motivated to visit it. Thus, the antecedent role of self-congruity in the choice of destination is shown. To check hypotheses H3 and H4, a correlational analysis was performed between the Likert scale measuring the degree of desire to vacation in each of the destinations and the congruity between the real and ideal self-concepts and the picture of tourists, both for those who had previously visited the places and those who had not. The results indicate that neither for the real (sig. Kenya: 0.28; Paris: 0.63; D.R.:0.08), nor for the ideal (sig. Kenya: 0.39; Paris: 0.77; D.R.:0.54), self-perception, was there a statistically significant relationship in the case of the tourists having previously visited these places. However, there was one when they had not previously visited them. To be more specific, this significance is for both the real (sig. Kenya: 0.00; Paris: 0.00; D.R.:0.08) and the ideal self-concept (sig. Kenya: 0.00; Paris: 0.05; D.R.:0.00). Therefore, hypotheses H3 and H4 are validated, showing that the congruity between one’s real and ideal self-concepts and Table 4. Logistic Regression of the Desire to Visit the Destinations Real Self-Concept Image of Tourists Visiting Kenya Var. Coef. (B) Exp (B) Wald Cong. 0.021 0.979 26.854 Const. 0.409 0.665 5.264

Ideal Self-Concept

Sign. 0.000 0.022

Var. Cong. Const.

Coef. (B) 0. 020 0.558

Exp (B) 0.980 0.573

Wald 20.407 10.340

Measures of fit -log likelihood goodness of fit: 546.356 Percent correct: 78.1 Image of Tourists Visiting Paris Var. Coef. (B) Exp (B) Wald Sign. Cong. 0.014 0.986 19.735 0.000 Const 0.595 1.813 16.152 0.000

Measures of fit -log likelihood goodness of fit: 555.097 Percent correct: 78.1

Measures of fit -log likelihood goodness of fit: 743.245 Percent correct: 60.3 Image of Tourists Visiting Dom. Rep. Var. Coef. (B) Exp (B) Wald Sign. Cong. 0.012 0.988 7.052 0.008 Const 0.632 0.531 14.893 0.000

Measures of fit -log likelihood goodness of fit: 743.613 Percent correct: 58.9

Measures of fit -log likelihood goodness of fit: 633.879 Percent correct: 73.2

Measures of fit -log likelihood goodness of fit: 632.944 Percent correct: 73.2

Var. Cong. Const

Var. Cong. Const

Coef. (B) 0.013 0.630

Coef. (B) 0.913 0.620

Exp (B) 0.987 1.878

Exp (B) 0.987 0.538

Wald 19.240 16.327

Wald 7.915 14.845

Sign. 0.000 0.001

Sign. 0.000 0.000

Sign. 0.005 0.000

BEERLI, MENESES AND GIL

581

the image of tourists to the destinations is less important in the choice of place to vacation if they have previously visited it. These results are consistent with the works of Johar and Sirgy (1991) and Wood and Kallgren (1988), who consider that, when there is no experience of a product or service, self-congruity is less important in the choice of brand. Similarly, that result suggests that there should be a distinction between self-perception and self-image in the literature insofar as the former involves sensory experience while the latter only requires imagination and mental elaboration. Hypotheses H5 and H6 establish, respectively, that congruity between the real and the ideal self-concept and the mental picture of the destinations is a less important factor if the tourists are highly involved in traveling. These hypotheses were tested by means of a correlation analysis, differentiating between the tourists with low, medium, and high degrees of involvement in traveling for leisure. The results of that analysis make it clear that, for people who show a low level of involvement, there is a statistically significant relationship only between congruity and the degree of the desire to travel to Kenya (sig. real:0.02; ideal:0.00). When involvement is medium, there is no statistically significant relationship between congruity and the desire to travel, except in the case of the Dominican Republic and real self-identity (sig. 0.05). On the other hand, when involvement is high, a statistically significant relationship exists for all three destinations: for real self-identity (sig. Kenya: 0.00; Paris: 0.00; D.R.:0.00) and also for ideal (sig. Kenya: 0.00; Paris: 0.03; D.R.:0.00). On the basis of those results, hypotheses H5 and H6 are not validated, although, contrary to what was suggested, the relationships between both types of self-congruity and the degree of desire to take a holiday in the proposed destinations are statistically significant when involvement in leisure travel is high. One explanation for the significant correlation between the high degree of involvement and the high degree of self-congruity may be the importance of leisure travel to the self-concept of the consumer, given its symbolic meaning. In other words, leisure travel represents an emotional value and a significant investment that increases with a high level of involvement and also provokes a high level of self-congruity (Gensch and Javalgi 1987). Therefore, it seems logical to think that if people have a high involvement with leisure travel, this activity is considered to express their personality and their self-concept and so their self-congruity is greater. In contrast, when consumers show a low level of involvement with leisure travel, this activity is dissociated from the consumers’ self-concept and thus the correlation between involvement and self-congruity is lower. However, it must be recognized that the differences in the size of the three samples for the three levels of involvement with leisure travel represent a limitation of the research work.

CONCLUSION This empirical study aims to clarify the role of self-congruity, understood as the agreement between the self-concept of tourists and their

582

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE

mental representation of the proposed destinations. Self-congruity is considered an important variable in the decisionmaking process when choosing a vacation destination. Although it has been empirically tested that self-congruity influences the purchase decision in other industries, there is some controversy about its applicability in tourism, as reflected in the title of the paper of Litvin and Goh (2002), ‘‘Self-image congruity: a valid tourism theory?’’ Moreover, there has been a lack of empirical evidence about moderating factors that determine the greater or lesser influence of self-congruity on destination choice. Hence, it was deemed necessary to go beyond the theoretical approaches (Sirgy and Su 2000) with an empirical work that clarifies the role of self-congruity as an antecedent of the tourist’s choice of place to visit. To that end, an exhaustive review of the academic literature on selfconcept- destination image congruity was conducted and, on the basis of that review, a series of hypotheses were proposed. The study reveals that the greater the congruity between the destination’s image and one’s real and ideal self-concept, the greater the tendency for the tourist to visit that place; ideal and real self-congruity will lose its power in influencing the choice of the place to visit when one has previously visited the destination, and contrary to expectations, the greater the involvement with tourist leisure travel is, the greater the power of self-congruity to determine the vacation destination. These results have both theoretical and practical implications. From the theoretical point of view, this work contributes to the literature by empirically testing the validity of the self-congruity theory in tourism. This topic has been developed only theoretically in previous studies (Sirgy and Su 2000). From the area of empirical research, Kastenholz’s (2004) study shows evidence of its applicability, albeit only in the context of a rural destination. Moreover, Litvin and Goh (2002) do not find a conclusive response to the applicability of self-congruity in tourism and suggest that further research is required. In addition, this study proposes the use of a modified Malhotra’s scale to measure self-congruity, and demonstrates its reliability and validity. Previous studies have failed in the use of Malhotra’s scales in tourism to measure self congruity (Kastenholz 2004; Litvin and Goh 2002). This raises a salient question about the validity of Malhotra’s scale in tourism, which has been included in the research, in an attempt to shed more light on the subject. However, it might be necessary to adapt this scale according to the destination since the scale seems to be more suitable for the person domain (Kastenholz 2004). Therefore, further research that compares this instrument with that developed by Chon (1992), or uses a direct and global approach to congruity, is needed. This research has empirically tested the influence of some moderating factors. Previous experience of the place moderates the role played by self-congruity in the destination selection process. Thus, for tourists with previous experience this congruity mechanism loses its importance, as suggested by previous theoretical works. Therefore, it seems logical to propose a conceptual distinction between self-perception

BEERLI, MENESES AND GIL

583

with and without experience. Finally, and contrary to suggestions in the literature (Sirgy and Su 2000), involvement also moderates the effect of congruity but in the opposite direction. Thus, the greater the involvement with traveling, the more important congruity is. This may be explained by emotional or symbolic perceptions possibly having a greater influence on those who are involved with traveling. This means that the more the tourists are involved, the more dominant the role played by symbolic features in self-congruity. However, further research should be developed to give greater insight into this point. The practical implications stemming from these empirical results concern destination image management to capture potential tourists. Moreover, tour operators, industry associations, and local authorities are concerned about reaching appropriate decisions. With regard to the positioning of the places to visit and a destination’s communication actions, the perceived attributes should resemble the potential tourists’ image as closely as possible. Moreover, segmenting strategies should consider moderating effects on congruity. In that respect, one’s experience prior to the visit, as well as actual involvement, must be considered moderating factors in the determinant role of self-congruity in such a way that the implementation of segmentation policies serves to maximize the marketing effort during communication. Hence, destinations should try to develop an image close to that of the self-perception of their tourists. Moreover, those targeting tourists with no experience of the resort, or those highly involved with traveling, should emphasize the use of symbolic pictures familiar to their customers’ self-concept. Further, self-image-destination image congruity is a topic that has been under-studied in the discipline of tourism marketing, which could suggest that it will be further developed in future streams of research. Apart from the topics already mentioned in the section on theoretical implications, it can be pointed out that it is necessary to analyze other facets of self-congruity in a way that identifies the most congruent facets for each type of place to visit. Those facets include the influence of the social and ideal-social self-identities in the image agreement mechanism, and the comparative measurement of the different self-congruities in several destinations. It is also necessary to identify those additional factors that could act as moderators in the mechanism of self-congruity and that have shown their importance in other sectors, such as time pressure and the consumers’ levels of travel experience. Finally, it would be interesting to investigate the effects of self-congruity on other marketing outcomes, such as destination loyalty and word of mouth. Further research work might provide deeper insight into the emotional component of involvement, which could lead the reader to new frontiers of knowledge not only in tourism but also in social sciences. In this research work, involvement has been assimilated more as a question of level than of valence. Thus, it has been pointed out that the greater the involvement with traveling, the more important congruity is. Nevertheless, if affective processes explain why involvement and congruity are associated positively, research should broaden

584

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE

its scope since the workings of emotions have been rather ignored. In fact, the predominant framework to conceive involvement refers to the cognitive nature of this variable, highlighting the informational process and putting the emotional part aside. Therefore, new lines of research might be proposed to answer the following chain of questions. What is wrong, the level or the valence of involvement? If the answer is the valence, does involvement work more as cognition if it is medium level and as affection if it is extreme in terms of either high or low? Then, being more an emotional process how does emotional involvement influence congruity? Is this influence explained as a mere association as the theory of classic conditioning indicates, or is it explained by anticipated emotions? It seems clear that such research offers many opportunities for enriching the understanding of human behavior in general and tourists’ in particular.

REFERENCES Alba, J., and W. Hutchinson 1987 Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 13:411–454. Baloglu, S., and K. McCleary 1999 A Model of Destination Image Formation. Annals of Tourism Research 26:868–897. Beerli, A., and J. Martı´n 2004 Factors Influencing Destination Image. Annals of Tourism Research 31:657–681. Bellenger, D., E. Steinberg, and W. Stanton 1976 The Congruity of Store Image and Self-image. As it Relates to Store Loyalty. Journal of Retailing 52(1):17–32. Bigne´, E., I. Sa´nchez, and J. Sa´nchez 2001 Tourism Image, Evaluation Variables and after Purchase Behavior: Interrelationship. Tourism Management 22:607–616. Canarian Travel Agency Association 2002 Informe de Coyuntura Ano 2001. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Celsi, R., and J. Olson 1988 The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes. Journal of Consumer Research 15:210–224. Celuch, K., and A. Taylor 1999 Involvement with Services: An Empirical Replication and Extension of Zaichkowsky’s Personal Involvement Inventory. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 12:109–122. Chon, K. 1990 The Role of Destination Image in Tourism: a Review and Discussion. The Tourist Review 45(2):2–9. 1992 Self-image/Destination Image Congruity. Annals of Tourism Research 19:360–366. Crompton, J. 1992 Structure of Vacation Destination Choice Sets. Annals of Tourism Research 19:420–434. Crouch, G. 1994 The Study of International Tourism Demand: A Survey of Practice. Journal of Travel Research 32(4):41–55. Dann, M. 1977 Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 4:184–194.

BEERLI, MENESES AND GIL

585

Decrop, A. 1999 Personal Aspects of Vacationers’ Decision Making Process: An Interpretivist Approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 8(4):59–68. Dittmar, H., and J. Drury 2000 Self-image: Is It in the Bag? A qualitative comparison between ordinary and excessive consumers. Journal of Economic Psychology 21:109–142. Dolich, I. 1969 Congruity Relationship between Self-images and Product Brands. Journal of Marketing Research 6:80–84. Echtner, M., and R. Ritchie 1993 The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Travel Research 31(4):3–13. Gensch, D., and J. Javalgi 1987 The Influence of Involvement on Disaggregates Attribute Choice Models. Journal of Consumer Research 14:71–82. Goh, H., and S. Litvin, eds. 2000 Destination Preference and Self-congruity. Travel and Tourism Research Association Annual Conference Proceedings. Goldsmith, R., Emmert, I. and Hafacker, T. 1991 A Causal Model of Consumer Involvement Replication Extension. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Summer Educators Conference. Grubb, E., and H. Grathwohl 1967 Consumer Self-concept, Symbolism and Market Behavior, a Theoretical Approach. Journal of Marketing 31:25–26. Grubb, E., and G. Hupp 1968 Perception of Self, Generalized Stereotypes and Brand Selection. Journal of Marketing 5:58–63. Hamm, C., and E. Cundiff 1969 Self Actualization and Product Perception. Journal of Marketing 6:470–472. Hong, J., and G. Zinkhan 1995 Self-concept and Advertising Effectiveness: the Influence of Congruency, Conspicuousness, and Response Mode. Psychology and Marketing 12(1):53–77. Hunt, D. 1975 Images as a Factor in Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research 13(3):3–7. Jenkins, O. 1999 Understanding and Measuring Tourist Destination Images. International Journal of Tourism Research 1:1–15. Johar, J., and J. Sirgy 1991a Value-Expressive Versus Utilitarian Advertising Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal. Journal of Advertising 20(3):23–33. 1991b Value-Expressive versus Utilitarian Advertising Appeals: When and Why to Use Which Appeal. Journal of Advertising 20(3):24–33. Kastenholz, E. 2004 Assessment and Role of Destination-Self-Congruity. Annals of Tourism Research 31:719–723. Litvin, S., and H. Goh 2002 Self-image Congruity: A Valid Tourism Theory? Tourism Management 23:81–83. 2003 Individualism/Collectivism as a Moderating Factor to the Self-Image Congruity Concept. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10(1):23–32. Litvin, S., H. Goh, and R. Goldsmith 2001 Travel Innovativeness and Self-image Congruity. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 10(4):33–45. Loudon, L., and J. Della Bitta 1995 Comportamiento del Consumidor: Conceptos y Aplicaciones. Me´xico: McGraw-Hill.

586

SELF-CONGRUITY AND DESTINATION CHOICE

Malhotra, H. 1981 A Scale to Measure Self-concepts Person Concepts, and Product Concepts. Journal of Marketing Research 18:456–464. 1988 Self-concept and Product Choice: an Integrated Perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology 9:1–28. Mangleburg, T., J. Sirgy, D. Grewal, M. Hatzios, D. Axsom, and T. Bogel 1998 The Moderating Effect of Prior Experience in Consumers: Use of User Image Based versus Utilitarian Cues in Brand Attitude. Journal of Business and Psychology 13(1):101–113. Markus, H., and P. Nurius 1986 Possible Selves. American Psychologist 41:954–969. Martineau, P. 1958 The Personality of the Retail Store. Harvard Business Review 36:47– 55. McQuarrie, F., and M. Munson 1987 The Zaichkowsky Personal Involvement Inventory: Modification and Extension. In , M. Wallendorf and P. Anderson eds. Advances in Consumer Research (14) pp. 36–40. Provo: Association for Consumer Research. Moore, K., G. Cushman, and D. Simmons 1995 Behavioral Conceptualization of Tourism and Leisure. Annals of Tourism Research 22:67–85. Newcombe, T. 1950 Social Psychology. New York: Holt. Oppermann, M. 2000 Tourism Destination Loyalty. Journal of Travel Research 39:78–84. Petty, R., J. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann 1983 Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10:135–146. Rosenberg, M. 1981 The Self-concept: Social Product and Social Force. In Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, M. Rosenberg and R. Turner, eds., pp. 591–624. New York: Basic Books. Ryan, C. 1995 Learning about Tourists from Conversations: The Over-55s in Majorca. Tourism Management 16:207–215. Sirgy, J. 1980 Self-concept in Relation to Product Preference and Purchase Intention. In Developments in Marketing Sciences, V. Bellur, ed., pp. 350–354. Marquette: Academy of Marketing Science. 1982 Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: a Critical Review. Journal of Consumer Research 9:287–300. Sirgy, J., and C. Samli 1985 A Path Analytic Model of Store Loyalty Involving Self-concept, Store Image, Geographic Loyalty, and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13(3):265–291. Sirgy, J., and C. Su 2000 Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel Behavior: Toward an Integrative Model. Journal of Travel Research 38:340–352. Sparks, D., and W. Tucker 1971 A Multivariate Analysis of Personality and Product Uses. Journal of Marketing Research 8:67–70. Waitt, G. 1996 Marketing Korea as an International Tourist Destination. Tourism Management 17(2):113–121. Wood, W., and C. Kallgren 1988 Communicator Attributes and Persuasion: Recipients, Access to Attitude Relevant Information in Memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 14:172–182.

BEERLI, MENESES AND GIL

587

Woodside, A., N. Caldwell, and D. Albers-Miller 2004 Broadening the Study of Tourism: Introduction to the Special Issue on the Consumer Psychology of Travel/Tourism Behavior. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 17(1):1–6. Zaichkowsky, J. 1985 Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12:341–352. 1994 The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising. Journal of Advertising 23(4):59–70.

Submitted 10 February 2004. Resubmitted 21 February 2005. Resubmitted 5 April 2006. Resubmitted 11 July 2006. Resubmitted 5 September 2006. Final version 29 October 2006. Accepted 15 December 2006. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Lars Olov Nyberg